I have long thought that Bill Dear's book implicating Simpson's son Jason, as the murderer who called his father after allegedly committing the crime, was completely absurd. One of the key features of Dear's argument is that Jason Simpson's timecard indicates that Jason lied about his whereabouts during his civil deposition and that his timecard proves that he had left work earlier than he had stated. But this theory is preposterous on its face for numerous reasons.
First, I would recommend two sources on this issue:
1) Tony Ortega's article Bill Dear is Full of It and I Can Prove It. The article explains in particular why the timeline is nearly impossible. It also gets into some of the logical problems of having Simpson's DNA at the crime scene (I have my own issues with Dear's repeating of discredited defense DNA theories...but I will cover this later).
2) Another source is the Investigation Discovery special in which Dear was involved. It specifically shows why the timecard theory has major problems, some of which I will summarize and expand upon here.
So here goes:
1. The fact that the written part of the timecard goes from a Sunday to Sunday (just according to Dear) is very odd. The date written in would more likely be a Monday and not a Sunday. Of course we know the murder happened on the Sunday. In Dear's book, he claims that Simpson did not work that Monday, though.
2. Jason almost certainly would not have been working two days after the murder of his step-mother. And then again the day after that. According to his deposition, he had taken time off from work right after the murder and moved into Rockingham. This of course makes total sense. It seems like this would be something very easy to corroborate (and through video footage we actually know that Jason was already at Rockingham on 6/18/94).
3. The Side B of the timecard was not included in Dear's book. We know that the period ending of the timecard is 6-19-94, so it stands to reason that the date written in the timecard could very well be 6-6-94 and not 6-12-94. Dear never presented both sides of the timecard, and the timecard itself does not show the dates. It looks like Dear is assuming the dates he wants the days of the week to follow.
4. The timecard, according to the person who provided it to Dear, was brought one or two days after the murder. Yet the next Saturday and Sunday after the murder are typed up, meaning Jason showed up to work those days! Obviously this is an impossibility if the card were already brought to the person who provided it to Dear. Did this not raise giant red flags to Dear?
But let's take this a step further, shall we? If Dear's timecard date is correct, and Jason worked on 6/12, then that means he worked Saturday 6/18. So the day after the Bronco chase, when the SWAT showed up to OJ's house, and Jason came up to the Bronco with guns pointed on him as he tried to talk down his father, he then showed up at work at 2:37 pm the next day?!!?
Dear's whole theory basically operates on astonishingly improbable situations like this. If he wants to ignore or not trust Jason Simpson's civil deposition, fine. But he is basically making up situations and then presenting them as fact.
No comments:
Post a Comment