# Anyone think OJ is not a killer? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [September 25, 2007, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-think-oj-is-not-a-killer/420453 "2007-09-25T18:17:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![ralph124c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@ralph124c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralph124c)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2007, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-think-oj-is-not-a-killer/420453/141 "2007-09-26T21:30:38Z")
Simpson killed ron Godman and Nicolle . That is clear. The only issue is: how can the American legal system justify toturing jurors for 6 plus months? Why couldn’t atime limit have been set 9day 3 weeks) for eacj side to present its case? Forcing people to sit on a jury for such a long time is inhumane. ---
**Author:** ![JSexton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/96bed5/32.png) [@JSexton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JSexton)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2007, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-think-oj-is-not-a-killer/420453/142 "2007-09-26T22:05:50Z")
[QUOTE=wheresgeorge04] WM, 34, guilty but framed. I think he did it, but the cops, just in case they couldn’t make the case, ALSO planted evidence. Joe [/QUOTE] This, in every respect. Except I’m not named Joe. ---
**Author:** ![Catamount](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/catamount/32/2840_2.png) [@Catamount](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Catamount)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2007, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-think-oj-is-not-a-killer/420453/143 "2007-09-26T23:03:39Z")
27 white female. Guilty, but rich enough to get away with it. ---
**Author:** ![interface2x](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c0e974/32.png) [@interface2x](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/interface2x)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2007, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-think-oj-is-not-a-killer/420453/144 "2007-09-26T23:16:43Z")
> [@](#): > > With the jury absent on September 6, 1995, the defense asked Fuhrman whether or not he had ever falsified police reports or if he had planted or manufactured evidence in the Simpson case. He invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. I have to admit, that’s a fantastic question if it was phrased like that. That’s like saying “Have you ever broken a speed limit or run over a group of orphans?” Entirely possible to have broken the law in part one without ever having done so in part two. But the question is phrased in that if he wanted to avoid self-incrimination in either of the questions, he has to forego denying his guilt in the other. This is not to say he was guilty of only one or both. I’m just talking about the semantics. ---
**Author:** ![Peter\_Morris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/peter_morris/32/359_2.png) [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2007, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-think-oj-is-not-a-killer/420453/145 "2007-09-26T23:40:01Z")
If it was phrased like that, wouldn’t the prosecution say “Objection, compound question,” though? I’m guessing that it was two separate questions. ---
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2007, 1:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-think-oj-is-not-a-killer/420453/146 "2007-09-27T01:26:05Z")
They were asked as [separate questions](http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/Simpson/Fuhrman-D.htm), not as one question. > [@](#): > > MR. UELMEN: Detective Fuhrman, was the testimony that you gave at the preliminary hearing in this case completely truthful? > DET. FUHRMAN: I wish to assert my 5th amendment privilege. > MR. UELMEN: Have you ever falsified a police report? > DET. FUHRMAN: I wish to assert my 5th amendment privilege. > MR. UELMEN: Is it your intention to assert your 5th amendment privilege with respect to all questions that I ask you? > DET. FUHRMAN: Yes. > . . . . . > MR. MOUNGER (Fuhrman’s Lawyer): Your Honor, further questions don’t serve any purpose since my client has already answered that he will not answer any question and will assert his 5th amendment privilege. Anything further can only be a show. > MR. UELMEN: I only have one other question, your Honor. > THE COURT: What was that, Mr. Uelmen? > MR. UELMEN: Detective Fuhrman, did you plant or manufacture any evidence in this case? > DET. FUHRMAN: I assert my 5th amendment privilege. What should be kept in mind is that Fuhrman was never alone at the murder scene until after other policemen had shown him evidence, including a glove and cap. There was plenty of forensic evidence collected at the murder scene that linked Simpson with the murder, even if the evidence Fuhrman found at Simpson’s home is excluded. ---
**Author:** ![interface2x](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c0e974/32.png) [@interface2x](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/interface2x)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2007, 2:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-think-oj-is-not-a-killer/420453/147 "2007-09-27T02:29:15Z")
Ah, okay, I was wondering about that. Thanks for the info. ---
**Author:** ![Purd\_Werfect](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/e47c2d/32.png) [@Purd\_Werfect](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Purd_Werfect)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2007, 3:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-think-oj-is-not-a-killer/420453/148 "2007-09-27T03:19:23Z")
1. White Male. Innocent. ---
**Author:** ![Cardinal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cardinal/32/4000_2.png) [@Cardinal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cardinal)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2007, 6:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-think-oj-is-not-a-killer/420453/149 "2007-09-27T06:59:18Z")
[QUOTE=Stuffy] Despite Mark Geragos I’m pretty sure that the defense is not required to produce a murderer but merely prove the prosecution didn’t prove their case. [/QUOTE] Not required, certainly, but if I had a good idea of who did it, and some evidence, you bet I’d put that into my defense strategy. ---
**Author:** ![Sleeps\_With\_Butterflies](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@Sleeps\_With\_Butterflies](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sleeps_With_Butterflies)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2007, 8:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-think-oj-is-not-a-killer/420453/150 "2007-09-27T08:07:32Z")
32, white female. So guilty is burns. ---
**Author:** ![Cazzle](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cazzle/32/75_2.png) [@Cazzle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cazzle)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2007, 8:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-think-oj-is-not-a-killer/420453/151 "2007-09-27T08:42:27Z")
31 year old white female, and I think he’s guilty. And to all those folks who, like **brickbacon** , think that white people only get annoyed by his acquittal because he was black and she was white, I did not actually know Nicole Simpson was white until long after the case was over. Somehow I never saw a photograph of her during the trial, and I never heard any discussion of the race issues in the case. Prior to his arrest I only knew OJ from the Naked Gun movies and, as I’d liked him in those, I had a positive opinion of him (I think “Oh no! Not Nordberg!” was the sentiment my brother and I both expressed when we heard he was accused of murder). I just haven’t heard anything since that points to his innocence. ---
**Author:** ![Sublight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/439d5e/32.png) [@Sublight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sublight)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2007, 10:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-think-oj-is-not-a-killer/420453/152 "2007-09-27T10:38:47Z")
[QUOTE=Walloon] The trial was in 1995; when did Japan get the Internet? [/QUOTE] Japan was behind the US by at least a year or two on the Internet. When I was living in a town of 500,000+ in 1996, there were only one or two providers to choose from. By 1998, there were closer to a hundred. I was out of the country when it happened, so I’m pretty out of the loop as far as the “all you whites were pissed off” thing goes. I’m just trying to get by in a country where **the man** is trying to keep me down. ---
**Author:** ![crowmanyclouds](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crowmanyclouds/32/19884_2.png) [@crowmanyclouds](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crowmanyclouds)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2007, 12:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-think-oj-is-not-a-killer/420453/153 "2007-09-27T12:20:10Z")
[QUOTE=erie774] … This is the trial that made CourtTV a household name. Every day they showed the proceedings and every night was a recap. … [/QUOTE] Because of that and a VCR, I saw +95% of the trial. I wish you had made what informs the opinions about OJ’s trial a part of this thread. To the question of a frame-up, I give you this, > [@](#): > > … In court, LAPD criminalist **Andrea Mazzola, 34, took the stand and described her role collecting evidence at the Rockingham crime scene and at O.J. Simpson’s house.** Prosecutor Hank Goldberg asked about her credentials in response to attacks from defense lawyers that she lacked the experience to collect sensitive DNA evidence. > > Though Mazzola is referred to as a trainee, she worked for 18 months at the Kern County District Attorney’s office as a criminalist in toxicology. She has additional experience working at a private lab and studied criminology in college, according to her testimony. > > **Goldberg attempted to prove that Dennis Fung, Mazzola’s supervisor, received a vial of Simpson’s blood on June 13 at Simpson’s house.** During cross-examination of Fung, defense lawyer Barry Scheck had shown a videotape in which **Fung’s hands were empty as he was leaving the house that day. Fung then said the blood was in a garbage bag that Mazzola was carrying.** > > To rehabilitate Fung’s testimony, Goldberg showed Mazzola the videotape of her walking with Fung and carrying a trash bag. Although she could not definitively say she remembered carrying the blood vial in the bag, she ruled out any other explanation. > > In cross-examination, defense lawyer Peter Neufeld accused Mazzola of altering crime scene reports to make it look as though Fung had collected key evidence. Neufeld attempted to belittle Mazzola’s education and experience. He pointed out that she was still on employment probation June 13, when she reported to the crime scene. … > > … Mazzola spent the day under cross-examination, testifying about her role in the collection of blood samples from the Bundy and Rockingham crime scenes. Neufeld also questioned her about Dennis Fung’s role in collecting the crucial physical evidence. > > **Mazzola said she collected most of the blood from both crime scenes** , some of the time without Fung supervising her – **a much different story than the one Fung told the grand jury in July. At the time, he said that he collected most of the blood stains.** Mazzola supported Fung’s testimony that the two worked as a team. > > Neufeld tried to portray Mazzola as incompetent, using a videotape produced by prosecutors. The tape showed that while demonstrating the collection of evidence, Mazzola rested her hand on dirty pavement; wiped a tweezers with the dirty hand; rested her knees on the dirty pavement; brushed her gloved hand on the dirty knee; and dropped several swabs. > > In another effort to portray her as inept, Neufeld questioned Mazzola on several points including her use of one cotton swab to test for blood on three different areas of Simpson’s Ford Bronco. Mazzola admitted she had been trained to use separate swabs for different areas but that Fung told her to use one swab on all three areas. > > Mazzola conceded that mistakes could happen when collecting vital evidence from the scene of a crime. She also admitted that inadvertent mistakes could be made by crime investigators at the scene which might not be noticed at the time they were made. > > “So you really can’t say … that you have never made any mistake at the few crime scenes that you have participated in, can you?” Neufeld asked. > > “That’s true,” Mazzola replied. > > The defense is trying to show that vital blood evidence could have been contaminated by the collection procedures employed by Mazzola and Fung. > > But Mazzola denied that anyone in the police crime lab would alter evidence. The defense has suggested that police tried to frame Simpson in the murders of his former wife and Ronald Goldman. … > > …The defense continued to try and portray Mazzola as an inexperienced and incompetent investigator and focused on the vial of blood taken from Simpson on the day after the murders. > > \*\*Mazzola acknowledged she never saw the vial of blood at Simpson’s home. Nor, she said, did she even know that she was carrying it out of Simpson’s house in a plastic bag, as criminalist Dennis Fung previously testified she had done. > > Neufeld implied it was too convenient for Mazzola to claim she rested her eyes about the time a detective supposedly handed the vial of blood to Fung. > \*\* > “Miss Mazzola,” Neufeld asked, “did you invent this notion that your eyes were closed so that Mr. Fung could testify that he received the vial without you seeing it?” > > Ito sustained an objection and Mazzola didn’t have to answer. > > \*\*Neufeld also elicited testimony from Mazzola that she didn’t have an “independent recollection” of picking up a glove and ski cap at the murder scene, actions that were captured on videotape and played in court. > > “Yet, you have an independent recollection that while you were sitting on a couch you closed your eyes? You had that recollection ten months later?” Neufeld asked. > > “Yes,” Mazzola replied. > > Fung and Detective Philip Vannatter have testified that Vannatter delivered the vial to Fung on June 13.\*\* Simpson willingly provided a sample of his blood at police headquarters, and Vannatter said he drove it across town to Simpson’s estate, where Fung and Mazzola were collecting evidence. … > > … Fung testified that Detective Philip Vannatter gave him a blood sample taken from Simpson at police headquarters earlier on June 13. Fung said he received the blood from Vannatter in the foyer of Simpson’s home. The vial was in a grey envelope, and he opened it in the foyer to examine it. > > When Scheck asked whether this was normal procedure for booking evidence, Fung said, “I can’t remember one instance where that (evidence was transported to him instead of being booked at the Evidence Control Unit) happened.” … > > … The defense contends the blood wasn’t handed over to Fung that day and the delay gave police an opportunity to plant it. > > Prosecutor Hank Goldberg then began his re-direct by directing asking Mazzola whether she was involved in a conspiracy to frame Simpson for murder. > > Not only was she not part of a police conspiracy, Mazzola testified, she didn’t even know who Simpson was when she and Fung arrived at his home to start collecting evidence. > > "Mr. Fung kept saying, 'O.J.‘s house’ … and I said, ‘O.J. who?’ " Mazzola said. “He said, 'movies, sports … ’ It just did not ring a bell.” … > > … Some of the most interesting testimony came when defense attorney Peter Neufeld tried to show that Mazzola could have been involved in a cover-up for Fung. > > **Neufeld began the line of questioning by reminding Mazzola that she testified during a pretrial hearing on August 23, 1994 that she had initialed all the coin envelopes and bindles used to preserve blood samples taken from the crime scenes. Neufeld then asked Mazzola to sift through all the bindles and envelopes taken from Simpson’s Rockingham estate. He asked her to indicate which ones had her initials. She had to admit that none of them did.** > > \*\*Neufeld then asked when Mazzola found out that her initials were not on the envelopes and bindles. She responded that she noticed it when she just happened to walk past the serology lab and saw the evidence lying on a table. Neufeld questioned whether this was possible since the serology room is quite large, with a long table and criminalists working on several cases at a time. Besides, he pointed out, how could Mazzola just happen to see the envelope and bindles with particular writing on them. And he suggested that Mazzola found out some other way, adding that Mazzola had told the truth at the August pretrial hearing but that Fung - as part of the conspiracy - could have changed the originals and that the envelopes and bindles unsealed in court were not the originals. > \*\* > “Did you realize that if the prosecutors could not produce the original bindles, that that would be devastating,” Neufeld asked. But Mazzola did not have to answer the question because Judge Lance Ito sustained a prosecution objection that the question was improper. …[RIGHT][CITE](http://www.courttv.com/trials/ojsimpson/weekly/12.html)[/RIGHT] Det. Vannatter was walking around with a vial of OJ’s blood for an indeterminate amount of time. There was testimony that he had access to the evidence collected at both crime scenes and in the LAPD Evidence Control Unit. Thano Peratis, the police nurse who drew blood from Simpson, said in deposition that he drew 8 milliliters of blood, but only 6.5 milliliters of blood could be accounted for. For me the only nail needed to close the coffin of the prosecution’s case was the testimony of Mazzola. If her initials are not on the evidence envelopes (as she claims they were) when the evidence was unsealed at trial, without explanation, you can no longer show a uninterrupted chain of evidence. Either Mazzola lied about how the evidence was collected or the evidence was tampered with. There’s a fairly standard rule about the credibility of witnesses, if you (a juror) find that a witness has lied about a material fact during their testimony, you may disregard ALL of their testimony. There’s another that basically says if you find two (or more) explanations for a given piece of evidence to both be credible, you must adopt the explanation that favors the defendant (that’s one of the cornerstones of reasonable doubt). [QUOTE=Peter Morris] Presumption of innocence until proof of guilt. Prosecution badly tainted. Evidence of guilt not 100% reliable. More likely guilty than innocent. Failure to prove it beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, not guilty. … [/QUOTE] Exactly, but I prefer not proven to not guilty. White, male, 43. CMC fnord! > [@](#): > > Originally Posted by **John DiFool** > Anyone have a really good, reasonably unbiased site which runs through all the major purported evidence against him? … [CourtTV!](http://www.courttv.com/trials/ojsimpson/index.html) Bottom half of the page. ---
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2007, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-think-oj-is-not-a-killer/420453/154 "2007-09-27T16:09:59Z")
All of the above pertains to evidence from Simpson’s home. Even if all of that evidence were thrown out, the evidence collected at the murder scene alone connected Simpson to the crime. ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2007, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-think-oj-is-not-a-killer/420453/155 "2007-09-27T16:32:50Z")
[QUOTE=Walloon] All of the above pertains to evidence from Simpson’s home. Even if all of that evidence were thrown out, the evidence collected at the murder scene alone connected Simpson to the crime. [/QUOTE] Why should you trust this evidence when all the other evidence reeks of shenanigans? At what point can you concede that the prosecution’s side was riddled with too many lies, doubts, incompetencies, and tomfooleries for them to have adequately proven their case? ---
**Author:** ![Sunrazor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/2acd7d/32.png) [@Sunrazor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sunrazor)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2007, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-think-oj-is-not-a-killer/420453/156 "2007-09-27T16:59:15Z")
White male, 56, checking in. Guilty. Problem is, as \*\*crowmanyclouds \*\* pointed out in great detail, the LAPD and DA’s office blew the case through their complete lack of professionalism. How Mark Fuhrman was even allowed to touch the case is utterly beyond comprehension. ---
**Author:** ![Hippy\_Hollow](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hippy_hollow/32/4841_2.png) [@Hippy\_Hollow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hippy_Hollow)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2007, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-think-oj-is-not-a-killer/420453/157 "2007-09-27T20:29:33Z")
I don’t know for certain if he did it or not. Though it certainly seems as if he did. Given the LAPD’s atrocious record in their treatment of African Americans and other persons of color, and the incompetence of the prosecutorial team, from what I know of the case (not very much, admittedly) I don’t know if I would trust anything that Fuhrman and his pals said or did. I agree that OJ is a jerk and a cretin, and certainly hasn’t done much to persuade folks that he isn’t a jerk and a cretin, or a murderer, for that matter. And that whole “at least one Black guy in American history got away with murder, there is some justice in this country” meme? I bought it for a little while, but OJ sure didn’t worry about race much until this went down. Black male, 35. ---
**Author:** ![crowmanyclouds](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crowmanyclouds/32/19884_2.png) [@crowmanyclouds](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crowmanyclouds)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2007, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-think-oj-is-not-a-killer/420453/158 "2007-09-29T17:28:51Z")
[QUOTE=Walloon] All of the above pertains to evidence from Simpson’s home. … [/QUOTE] Nope, read my cite again, > [@](#): > > … Mazzola spent the day under cross-examination, testifying about her role in the collection of blood samples from the **Bundy and Rockingham** crime scenes. … > … **Mazzola said she collected most of the blood from both crime scenes** … CMC fnord! > [@](#): > > Originally Posted by **John DiFool** > Anyone have a really good, reasonably unbiased site which runs through all the major purported evidence against him? … Forgot I had this, CNN’s[O.J. Simpson Trial Transcripts](http://edition.cnn.com/US/OJ/trial/index.html) and found [this](http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/Simpson/transcript.html). ---
**Author:** ![The\_Understander](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/3da27b/32.png) [@The\_Understander](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Understander)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2007, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-think-oj-is-not-a-killer/420453/159 "2007-09-29T20:32:02Z")
[QUOTE=Hippy Hollow] I don’t know for certain if he did it or not. Though it certainly seems as if he did. Given the LAPD’s atrocious record in their treatment of African Americans and other persons of color, and the incompetence of the prosecutorial team, from what I know of the case (not very much, admittedly) I don’t know if I would trust anything that Fuhrman and his pals said or did. I agree that OJ is a jerk and a cretin, and certainly hasn’t done much to persuade folks that he isn’t a jerk and a cretin, or a murderer, for that matter. And that whole “at least one Black guy in American history got away with murder, there is some justice in this country” meme? I bought it for a little while, but OJ sure didn’t worry about race much until this went down. Black male, 35. [/QUOTE] …or during, or after AFAICT. I remember discussing the case in (of all things) calculus class, because the teacher just had to bring it up. Only black person in the class to say that he was guilty. I sure got a lot of strange looks from my black classmates at the time, though I think that this may simply have been the fact that I would be impolitic enough to say so when all the white students were saying ‘guilty’. But it’s not as if OJ was some great crusader for civil rights, or even had so much as given a dollar (of which I am aware) to the NAACP, UNCF, or any organization to better the lot of black people in this country. Black male, 30. He did it, and wrote a book about it to boot. ---
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2007, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-think-oj-is-not-a-killer/420453/160 "2007-09-29T23:13:17Z")
The implication being that if he had donated to the NAACP etc., he should be given a pass to commit double murder? To me, how much a person gives to charity or crusades for this cause or that should play no part in the question of whether he is guilty of murder. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-think-oj-is-not-a-killer/420453.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-think-oj-is-not-a-killer/420453.md?page=9)