I think that the Simpsons and Goldmans should have been as outraged at how badly the case was handled, but I do understand their vindictiveness, as I don't think they have even a shred of doubt as to what happened.

I followed the case with an open mind. The autopsies suggest that the ghastly throat wound to Nicole Simpson and the stab wound in Goldman's back, which cut his femoral artery, were both delivered after the two were dead and had bled out of their punctured jugular veins. Read them.

Additionally, the day after the murders the Goldmans told the coroner's investigator that they had talked to their daughter at 11 p.m. At 11 p.m. Simpson was loading his luggage into the limo that took him to the airport. They changed their story a few weeks later.

So when Ratcliffe called the parents, she wasn't just making conversation. Her primary reason was to find out when was the last time Nicole Simpson was known to be alive. So when she talked to the Browns, the very next morning, she wanted them to be accurate. And I am sure that they wanted to be accurate. So how come their first, best recollection of the last time they talked with their daughter was at 11 p.m., and their reconsideration a few weeks later was nine-forty? How do both people (they were both there when Ratcliffe called) confuse that huge gap in time in half a day? And how do you suddenly get the right recollection a couple weeks later? You are following the Duke case. Does this seem right to you?

By the way, the phone bill stipulated to was dated July 4. How many billing offices are open on July 4th?

So Mr. Brown made a mistake of almost an hour and a half estimating the last time he talked with his daughter before she died? Is that believable to you?

+++

Bull: "Even his defense team couldn't explain how both vitcims' blood found its way into his car, along with the killer's shoeprint, and one victim's blood found its way into his bedroom."

Actually, the defense did. Perhaps you weren't listening to the case, or you paid too much attention to the talking heads at night. Barry Scheck demolished the blood evidence in his final summation but the press instead spent all its time and space on Fred Goldman's blowup that day.

When OJ's socks were recovered there was no blood observed on them according to the criminologist's report. There were subsequent viewings of the socks with both defense and prosecution representatives without any blood being seen on them. Then sometime in August a bloodstain a little larger than a quarter appeared on the sock. The stain went through the outside of the sock, through the inside to stain the inside of the other side of the sock. Hard for that to happen if a foot was in there. That was the "blood evidence" in Simpson's bedroom.

You may have missed the week of testimony of people who looked inside the Bronco and did not see the large blood smears before someone from the LAPD showed up with a LIFE Magazine photographer in August.

And regarding the blood on the sidewalk, go back to the part of the trial where it was discussed how the blood on the swatches, that had dried throughout the afternoon of the 13th and overnight was suddenly wet again when put into their bindles on the morning of the 14th. Perhaps you just missed or forgot that testimony.

Jim: "Enough blood to make me immediately recall butchering hogs when I was a boy."

But go back to the autopsies. Read them and then ask yourself how someone could bleed out so totally from a throat wound that reached the back of her throat (to cut her epiglottis) and yet there was no blood in her mouth or sinuses, and no aspiration into her lungs. Ask yourself why Simpson would kill Goldman by puncturing his neck, then wait ten minutes and give him a meaningless stab in the back and pose him sitting leaning against the tree stump where Goldman was found.