Been decades to deny otherwise. Motive, means, opportunity. Guilty as fuck. Next case?
Because the Oscars were recent, it seems an apt time to mention the miniseries documentary OJ: Made in America, which won its award. It was produced by ESPN, and is a rather lengthy examination of the arrest and trial in the context of the state of American racial relations at the time.
If you stand behind someone and cut their throat, the blood goes forward and they bleed out very quickly.
And again, I ask “HOW DID THE POLICE KNOW O.J. DID NOT HAVE AN ALIBI?”
Someone I discussed this with said “A woman in Florida was killed just like Nicole. That proves OJ didn’t do it.”
Fascinating case.
Like most people I strongly suspect OJ did it. However if I was on the jury and a key detective swore the 5th regarding evidence tampering then it’d be all over for the prosecution. Wouldn’t matter how damning the other evidence.
The ESPN documentary was fascinating. They interviewed two women who were on the jury. One virtually said, and the other all but said “We knew he was guilty, but as a black woman, I was sick of getting screwed by the system so we let him go.” So over time, I truly have come to believe that folks that think he’s innocent actually know he’s guilty but don’t want to come out and say it.
As you point out Annie-Xmas, the biggest evidence against a fame up is that the police had no way to know 1) if the juice was taping a commercial that night in front of 100 people, and 2) had no way to know if someone threatened Ron in the middle of a crowed restaurant and was found in his home covered in Ron’s blood and was in the process of a confession. Either or both of these would put the police in an unbelievable bind.
Why couldn’t you just discount the evidence with which that officer had contact, and allow the rest? I don’t know if that would have been enough in this case, but your position seems a little extreme to me.
Sounds like a get-out-of-jail free card. Defense lawyer asks a detective witness “Have you ever tampered with evidence?”
- If witness says “yes,” I assume you’d immediately go for “Not Guilty”.
- If witness declines to answer, you’d go for “Not Guilty”.
- If witness says “no”, the defense can start asking questions about every aspect, no matter how trivial, about the detective’s handling of evidence. Sooner or later, there’s bound to be some detail the detective didn’t take note of or will misrember (i.e. did he use a blue pen or a black pen to sign evidence receipts?), and would that be enough to suggest tampering? If the judge puts a stop to this fishing expedition, is the judge covering up for possible tampering?
I read the book Killing Time, which claimed that the real target was Ron Goldman, as one of his co-workers Michael Nigg would later be the victim of an unsolved murder.