Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: discostu
I think the trap you are falling into is the belief that statitics tell the truth. Statistics can not deem someone 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.

235 posted on 12/06/2001 8:54:29 AM PST by CJ Wolf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 232 | View Replies ]


To: CJ Wolf
Criminology worships statistics, without the stats they got nothing to go on. And remember my case against OJ is layers statistics, there's 3 or 4 points within the whole crime that each one has around a 90% (or better) rating by the FBI where in that circumstance the killer is the person filling OJ role in the personal drama (ie, abuser, ex-husband, stalker, person known to the victims well enough to be around the house in the middle of the night). I'm no good at statistical math but I think that gives an amazingly high percentage chance that OJ did it.

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.

236 posted on 12/06/2001 9:25:31 AM PST by discostu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 235 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson