I was at the new Santa Monica mall, upstairs at the open-air patio. They have everything there…sunshine, smoke-free air, good food, reasonably priced coffee (thank you Nordstrom's Café), free public Wi-Fi and streaming music that fills the background without swallowing it whole. It's nice to look up and see the mountains off in the distance and the cool blue ocean blending into the sky.
The varied people sitting, talking and walking are like the many colors of the rainbow, so many different simultaneous conversations happening all at once.
Sitting behind me was a woman using an Amazon Kindle. I find the brand and product name slightly ironic. Amazon - as in ‘forest’ and Kindle as in ‘little twigs used to ignite something bigger’. The Amazon Kindle has ignited reading on digital devices. Printing less paper books saves the Amazonian trees for use as housing timber and toilet paper.
Jeni, as she called herself, was more than happy to share her experience on the Kindle with me. I was impressed by how well the page appeared in direct sunlight. The iPad doesn't do that.
She said she received the Kindle as a Christmas present from her husband.
“Someone must love you.” I said smiling.
“I told him that I didn't want it because I love my books. Then he got it for me anyway and I love it! I can't put it down. I have about 10 books in here right now.”
“Really? Wow, that would be a stack about 2 feet high and upwards of 25 pounds! I just came from the bookstore and purchased one blank book.” I picked up the bag containing the book and weighed it against her Kindle.
“This book weighs more and it doesn't yet have ink on the pages!” We both laughed at the difference and irony.
Jeni went on to tell me that she is a practicing career nurse in G.I. (gastroenterology). And that she is waiting for the cop shops fingerprinting division to open so she can get her mandated prints taken. To her benefit, they don't open until after 2 PM. Since she had some time to spare, I thought I would talk to her about a few things that she might know about, that I don't.
“Do you remember the O.J. case?” I asked.
“Yes. Who could forget that?”
“Let me run something by you…” she seemed interested in the topic, so I continued.
“The LA coroner's office publishes a book on the famous corpses that have lain on their slab- Bugsy Siegel, Marilyn Monroe, Nicole Brown Simpson. In the book they write that when OJ was taken into custody that about 8 or 10 mL of his blood was extracted. Then through the chain of police custody, 2 mL of his blood went missing. That leaves 6 to 8 mL remaining in the vials.
Then the detectives go to O.J.'s house and up in the bedroom they find a sock with a single drop of blood on it. They test the blood and it shows two things. One- the blood is O.J’s and, Two- the blood has a preservative in it.”
“EDTA” she chimes in. Then she adds by way of explanation “The only way for human blood to get that preservative is for the blood to be taken from the vein directly and placed into the vials, which have the preservative in them already.”
“You mean those vials they use when I get my blood drawn at the doctors office?”
“Yes, the very same.” She confirms.
“Then you have to wonder, how did OJ’s blood with EDTA get from his arm in the jailhouse to that sock later found in his house? And since the answer is so obvious, you have to ask, ‘why did the police plant that specific evidence at his house?”
“They may have done that, but he still did it.” She says convincingly.
I moved away from this blood topic and onto the famous DNA subject.
“During the trial, DNA evidence was introduced. The DNA evidence was a “near match” for OJ, but not 100%. My DNA will match my DNA 100%, right? It won’t be a “near match”-is that safe to say?”
“Well, yes, of course. Just like your blood will match your blood 100%, which his did!” she emphasized.
“Okay, then, let’s fast forward to today. Remember that old guy who was recently caught with the use of DNA evidence? He murdered all those people and got away with it for years? They caught his son for an unrelated crime and ran the son’s DNA in the DNA crime base. They found a hit that was a “near match” to the son’s DNA, but not 100%. From that, they located the father, ran his DNA against the crime scenes DNA and got a 100% match. They got their guy, 100%. Remember that?”
She nods her head affirmatively and continues to listen.
“Now, in the case of O.J. Simpson, the DNA was a “near match” to OJ’s DNA, not 100%. Which means, it is not his DNA. But, based on the above real world example, it is more likely than not the DNA of a close relative. So, this is my question: Did they DNA match OJ’s oldest son to the DNA found at the crime scene?”
Jeni listened carefully. Then, she said “Yes. They ran the DNA on the son, and it wasn't him.”
“Really? I never heard that.” I said.
“Well, I did,” she says bringing her hands to her chest.
“That must be that medical field circulation. Which is why I am asking you.” I say. She has been a nurse for her entire career. She hears things. Nurses hear things.
“They did DNA test the son and he didn't match. They ran his blood, too.” She says emphatically.
She then continued, “I think he did it–O.J. killed that woman. That much blood. The brutality of the blows. That was a crime of intense passion. It had to be a husband, lover or boyfriend. I'd never heard of that woman before that. If it was the Mafia, they are cleaner than that. They kill someone and the message is clear: this is who we killed. You better pay attention. They don't do throat slicing and gut stabbing like that. This was a massive jealous rage. He did it.” She is firm and factual in her statement.
“Okay. Then my question is answered. Thank you. Though, his son could also be a suspect. His alibi was proven junk. He had the right kind of military close combat training. He was slightly smaller than his father. The gloves didn’t fit OJ because they were probably his sons. The DNA didn’t match OJ 100%, it was a “near match”-and who would fit that “near match” as 100% if not his son? I mean, they could just run the son's DNA and be done with it, right?”
“He did it.” She affirms again.
It was interesting to listen to this woman, a professional nurse, with her very short close cropped bottle blonde hair, speak with such certainty and conviction. She was unable to even ponder the possibility that OJ didn’t do it.
I couldn’t remember anything about the oldest son being DNA tested or blood tested or fingerprinted simply to “rule out and exclude”. I do remember that this son was kept silent and in the background. They brought to the foreground the small children instead. They brought out Cato Kaelin, the limo driver, and of course, the Juice. Razzle, dazzle. And in all of the noisy media chaos, the oldest son disappeared into the shadow. Not in a headline, not mentioned in sound bites–barely any ink spelling out his name.
And it made me wonder, where was he really? That night. That fateful, awful night? What was his story in all of this?
I wondered how his presence, or absence thereof, escaped the law and media spotlight? Did O.J. know that his firstborn son, Jason Lamar Simpson, committed this crime? Did OJ take the heat for that horrific crime committed by his son? When you look at the totality and context of the son’s personal profile, actions and whereabouts at that time, including those of OJ, and string it together with the evidence and lack thereof, the answers seem to be saying “yes”.
Was Jason ever questioned by the police or DNA tested?
No. He wasn’t.
*******
DEPOSITION OF JASON LAMAR SIMPSON
Los Angeles, California May 8, 1996
as questioned by DANIEL M. PETROCELLI, ESQ attorney for Plaintiffs
Q: Petrocelli: Were you ever interviewed by any lawyers or investigators retained by O.J. Simpson's criminal defense team?
A: Jason Simpson: Never interviewed, no.
Q: Petrocelli: They never asked you where were you on the night of June 12 or anything like that?
A: Jason Simpson: I think maybe once. No, I don't think so. Well, yeah, I guess so.
Q: Petrocelli: Who asked you?
A: Jason Simpson: Mr. Cochran. I think.
Q: Petrocelli: Were you interviewed by anybody else?
A: Jason Simpson: No.
Q: Petrocelli: Any members of the prosecution team, the District Attorney's Office --
A: Jason Simpson: No.
Q: Petrocelli: -- or the Los Angeles Police Department?
A: Jason Simpson: No, sir.
*******
Why not?
Jason Simpson should, in fact, have been considered a suspect. He was a 24 year old troubled man with a history of physical violence. He had motive, means, opportunity, skill and a personal set of chef knives that would make you blush. According to James Cron, former commander of the Dallas County Sheriff's crime scene unit "I'd...question why Jason Simpson was not eliminated as a suspect," he says. "That's just standard procedure."
Several psychologists concluded that Jason Simpson should have been considered a suspect. Wrote one, "After reviewing all of the history of suicide attempts, failed relationships in which isolation and moods of violence and dependency were interwoven, it seems more and more likely that Jason psychologically could have been a very reasonable suspect in the murders."
OJ Simpson fiercely protected his son from the very beginning. The day after the murders, OJ Simpson hired criminal defense attorney Carl E. Jones, a high profile death penalty lawyer. OJ hired Carl not for himself, rather for his son, Jason. Why did Jason need a lawyer like that? Attorney Carl Jones did his job. He kept Jason from the police, the media and the public, while OJ set in motion the very public actions needed to point the finger directly at himself.
OJ knew he would get off with “reasonable doubt”-and he did.
Until he went to Vegas...
