Posted on 12/05/2001 7:22:24 AM PST by codebreaker
The Cross Country Killer, the Glen Rodgers story provides an insighful look into the mind and making of an American predator.
Glen Rodgers, twice on America's most 10 Wanted List, is currently on Death Row in Florida.
He brags about having killed 70 people, one of which may have been Nicole Brown Simpson.
Could it be a coincedence she was murdered just after meeting Glen?
There are witnesses who saw them partying together and there's even a photo of them together.
A sad but fascinating story that will keep you mesmorized till the end.
The most nototrious case involved the Christmas slaughter of a family in Dryden NY. It was a heart breaker. From one of my previous posts :
Unfortunately, when things such as this happens, it makes it difficult for the rest of us, who only want to see the guilty punished.
Once a cop makes an accusation, it's the duty of all other cops to make it come true: in LA especially.
If Mark Furman worked narcotics, his first statement would have been "The drug people must have done it."
According to internet rumors, Ronnie worked at a restaurant that delivered "designer drugs" to favored customers. Ronnie had a roommate that also worked at Metzaluna (sp?) and also had his throat slit. Past due drug debts were paid in astonishing speed immediately after the killings. The method of killing was used before by drug dealers; it was called necklacing, I believe.
So, if Furman jumped to the logical conclusion, based on Ronnie being #1, some poor druggie would have had his blood dripped all over town while he's sitting in jail.(Don't forget the sample of blood from the back fence was collected June 22, 10 days after the crime.I'm sure DNA doesn't degrade if kept properly).
A couple of weeks prior to the murders OJ buys this and I can't find where it was ever found. But OJ does know how to use a knife, and even banana's too.
OJ didn't do it about like the moon landing was faked.
And I agree about the despicable OJ behavior of Wife Beating. However without the stats to back me up I would take a gander that there are many more wife beaters who don't go to the extreme of murder. This is the reason I think they targeted OJ and convienced them selves that he did it. In the zeal to convict him they may have planted evidence thinking they were doing the right thing. Looking at the trends of the LAPD (Rampart and King) it's not hard to make that streach.
If this guy actually was Nicoles house painter just before she was murdered and he has been convicted of killing several others, with knifes, and admits to killing her. I think we can safely point to a likely suspect other then OJ... Adding in the point about him being a police drug informant, then you get the police overlooking the obvious, cause they think he is on the side of the law.
You would be both correct and incorrect. The stats I picked up during the trial (from OJ defense and from Vince Bugliosi who was unabashed in his criticism of both sets of lawyers) is that very few (around 1%) of all abused women are killed. The OJ team drove this home many times. What the prosecution didn't mention and should have is that of those that are killed 90% of the time the killer is the abuser. So yes, it's rare for the abuser to take it to the next level. But Nicole was murdered so she is clearly in that 1%, now the question becomes who did it, and the stats say it was probably the person that beat her.
This is the reason I think they targeted OJ and convienced themselves that he did it. In the zeal to convict him they may have planted evidence thinking they were doing the right thing. Looking at the trends of the LAPD (Rampart and King) it's not hard to make that streach.
Never one to defend the LAPD (anyone that reads true crime knows that the LAPD is, has been and probably always will be one of the least professional and compitent police forces this nation has ever seen, apologies to any FReeper associated with LAPD but that force has a history of gross incompitence rivaled only by LA County Sherriff's Department) I have to throw in some help here. Policing is all about the prime suspect, one of the reasons the FBI spends so much money publishing books about who does what crime and why is to make it easier on cops. LA has a couple of murders every day, their cops are seriously over worked, the push is to figure out who the prime suspect is then find enough evidence to convict him and move on to one of the other 2 dozen murders that happened while you were doing this. As I've said, do to the percentages and the type of wounds OJ was the prime suspect. Every FBI manual in the world points to it in many different ways most of which I've already beaten to death on this thread. Unfortunately what happened after that was very typical LAPD botching of handling the evidence, these guys are the worlds worst at keeping their evidence clean, whether it was deliberate or not I can't say and I'm not sure it matters.
What I can say is that the biggest mistake of the whole thing was how the prosecution handled it. They botched this case in so many ways it's obsene. They actually make LAPD's handling of the evidence look compitent and professional. In Bugliosi's book (and I put a lot of strength in was Mr. Bugliosi said, read Helter Skelter, this guy had NOTHING on Manson and managed to put him behind bars, he is a very good lawyer) he outlines mistakes. One of which is the 5 pieces of evidence that he feels would have garaunteed a conviction had even one been presented. Unfortunately I can't remember all 5; I remember 1 is the percentage I outlined above, the defense made a lot of noise about the first percentage he feels the presecution should have countered with the later; another is the contents of the Bronco during the infamous low speed chase; I think another was the FBI profiling of how the victims were killed and what that usually mean; I'm sorry I can't remember the rest. His other big criticism was the heavy reliance on the DNA evidence. He says that DNA evidence is awful because it takes a long time to present, the jury is bored out of their minds while all this stuff is being explained to them, and usually they don't really get it so they feel dumb which then spins to feeling insulted and then resenting the attorney that made them feel dumb.
A couple of people higher us say they watched every minute of the trial and they feel that with the evidence that was presented they jury had no choice but to acquit. While I feel that OJ did it and that there can be no doubt in the mind of any reasonable person to his guilt I agree with these people. With the way the case was presented I couldn't possibly vote guilty, it was botched completely.
If this guy actually was Nicoles house painter just before she was murdered and he has been convicted of killing several others, with knifes, and admits to killing her.
Well all leads must be followed, even had OJ been convicted this guy should be followed up on. And the killings need to be compared to his MO to check the likelyhood. But one must also keep in mind that he is a serial killer so there's two things we know about him right off: he's a BSer, and he's an egomaniac. Serial killers lie, that's how they gain access to most of their victims. Serial killers also enjoy proving that they are superior to the people around them, especially the cops, this means they like to keep secrets, but they also like to send people on wild goose chases. My suspicion is that this guy is another Henry Lee Lucas, don't know if you're familiar with him, he was another far traveling serial killer that finally got busted and they figured he'd done about 20 women; next thing you know Henry spends almost a month in the interrogation chamber "confessing" to nearly 200 murders. As it turned out the vast majority of his claims were bogus, a great many never happened, other were missing person reports he picked up in his travels that turned out to be "normal" things (car crashes into rivers, successful runaway, somebody else was the murderer). The end figure on Henry was about 50, still a lot but only about 1/4 of what he claimed.
I think we can safely point to a likely suspect other then OJ... Adding in the point about him being a police drug informant, then you get the police overlooking the obvious, cause they think he is on the side of the law.
If it turns out this guy, or somebody else, did it then OJ is the unluckiest person ever. To do all that stuff before the killing that makes him the prime suspect. To have the killing go off in such a way that he would be the prime suspect even if his pre-offense behavior was unquestionable. Then he's also stupid because every thing he's done after the killings acted like he was guilty.
But since you rely on them so much.... I ask you: If (again, I am not sure if it's true) this guy painted Nicoles house just prior to her death. What do you think the percentages are that he is the killer?
I agree with you on the egomanic nature of these type killers, he could be looking for fame, I have taken that into account.
All in All, I can't pretend to know who really did it, let alone bring myself to "know that OJ did it" when he was aquitted in the criminal trial. BTW if he was really that unlucky, he'd be in Jail.
The case against the painter guy would revolve around his MO which I'm not very familiar with. From what I've seen he digs knives and is generally not a stranger killer. That's two heavy marks in his favor (ie he's the killer). But that still pales in comparison to the marks for OJ, and it's also a small angle of comparison. We need the whole gruesome low down on his style: is he into torture, would he have likely left when stumbled upon, would he have done the deed at the house or kidnapped her instead, what's his usual level of mutilation, is he into fast blitz and frenzied attack, is sexual assault in his repetoire? There's probably a dozen other questions though what it really boils down to is: does he normally commit murder in such a way that it could be easily confused for an abusive, obsessed ex-husband killing his ex-wife? He's a serial killer, they develop tendencies and perfect their form over time, that's one of the things that helps them get caught and helps suss out false confessions when they guy is confessing to a bunch of murders, and that will be the key here. Unfortunately I'm at best noddingly familiar with this guy so I can't give any good answers.
Interesting point on the last minute luckiness. Kind of another nail in his coffin to me, how can anybody be so unlucky as to be the clear and obvious number 1 suspect for the crime on such a multitude of levels, and then stumble on the worst prosecuting team ever assembled. Really the prosecution phase of his trial should have lasted all of two weeks and they should have waltzed to victory. That was another one of Bugliosi's criticisms, because the prosecution spent so long presenting so much silly evidence (and nearly 3 months explaining how DNA works) it made it look like THEY weren't sure and were trying to hide stuff from the jury. I really recommend Bugliosi's book on it, he lays things out very well. Might also pick up OJs book, helps show just what a twisted guy OJ really is and how bizaarly obsessed with Nicole he still is.
132 posted on 12/5/01 10:57 AM Pacific by commish
Do you think psychopaths and terrorist respect civility?
Opinions?? Do we entertain the opinions of liars--crazy people???
Give it a rest. If he is a confessed serial killer who admits to having met Nichole AND there is a picture of them together I think they better open up an investigation.
238 posted on 12/7/01 8:38 AM Pacific by Smogger
I think they better open up an investigation....pretty funny(sick-psicko)!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
