And to think you were doing fine so far.
Well, you left out, “Fuhrman finds the glove, despite being a latecomer to a crowded investigation that had already bagged the evidence.” Also, “Fuhrman puts OJ’s blood on the glove before OJ gives the police a blood sample.” Also, “Fuhrman is able to sneak a piece of evidence out of a busy crime scene with no one noticing.” Also, “Fuhrman decides to risk his career by framing a popular celebrity for no reason at all except a general dislike of black people, despite having no way of knowing if the frame is a) possible to pull off and b) necessary in the first place.”
But yeah, other than that, your theory is entirely air tight. It sure blows that whole, “Emotionally unstable man who just committed a violent double homicide accidentally drops glove while returning from scene of the crime,” idea right out of the water!
All of this presupposes that the first responders did a complete and thorough job, and that any of those officers would have ratted out if they saw him doing something shady. I don’t think either of those things are safe assumptions. The thing about the blood isn’t an issue at all. Even if they blood didn’t match OJ, it doesn’t mean he had nothing to do with the crime, so the glove being found out his house w/o his blood on it doesn’t necessarily cause a problem for Fuhrman.
So he would risk his career by admitting to possible felonies when talking to an interviewer, and he would risk his career by perjuring himself on the stand, but he would risk his career by planting evidence, an act he claimed to have done multiple times before? Why do you assume this man is acting rationally when he lied about using a word that he had to have known several people heard him use, and that he had been recorded using? What’s the logic behind lying when you know there is substantial evidence that contradicts what you allege? Of course that doesn’t mean he planted evidence in this case, but it certainly makes him a person capable and willing to carry out such an act.
Just out of curiosity, do you believe Fuhrman has planted evidence before? Also, why did he plead the fifth to a direct question about whether he tampered with evidence in this trial?
Yep, even if one assumes that OJ was guilty and that the Police attempted to frame a guilty man the reality is that a lot more than just Fuhrman would had been involved in that framing. Very unlikely as it was not clear yet where OJ was and any possible alibis.
Even Dana Carvey (when he was still funny) did notice how silly that idea of that spontaneous framing of OJ was.
(Some NSFW words)“All the way to Japan! [Japanese officer]“You going to F-r-r-rame OJ?!! But I rearry r-r-rike OJ!!!”… “But you are right… it is just too good… we have to frame him!””
How likely is it that 90s LAPD officers are going to rat out Fuhrman?
You do realize that those evidence sheets are the kind of paperwork that gets filled out after the fact.
There’s a huge difference between a straight up conspiracy (Fuhrman says “here’s the plan. We’re gonna squeeze the Juice on this one”) and a couple cops forgetting to mention they saw Fuhrman take a glove from the crime scene.
Did you miss the entire discussion about “The Glove” being far from the only evidence for the conviction of Simpson, media focus to the contrary? Or do you just want to focus on hour own pet theory in absence of any other information to the contrary?
Stranger
Stranger, I’m sorry but I’m losing respect for you. You use $50 word after word, but thread after thread, your reasoning is lacking.
In this case, I fully acknowledge that O.J. is (almost certainly) a guilty man. I mention that explicitly in the original post that you did not read.
In fact, most of the respondents seem to be missing this point.
I’m saying that a known corrupt cop, one who broke into O.J.'s house under false pretences, conveniently to “find” the second bloody glove of a pair outside the house lying in the open probably planted the glove.
On your side of the argument, you mention that technically ~12 cops, according to paper logs written by those cops, were at the scene before him. This does not in any way mean that Fuhrman could not have quietly stolen a glove to plant it later.
In fact, human memory is notoriously unreliable, and if you would like, I can produce various studies that show that even if all 12 cops were in the same room, none of them might have actually seen Fuhrman’s crime.
How was he a “known corrupt cop”? He was supposedly spinning cop stories
to a writer who admitted the stories were embellished. By all accounts he was
a pretty good cop. You’re making it sound like nothing he did could be trusted.
I’m going to back up a bit to this idea.
I completely disagree, because his statement is absolutely consistent with normal human decision making.
Step 1, go over to OJ’s house. Makes perfect sense for 2 reasons, first you need to inform next of kin, take care of the children, etc. Second, OJ is a suspect, if he did it, the earlier you can get face to face with him, the more likely it is that you will find evidence of that.
Step 2, gate is locked, look at the things you can see from outside the gate, the car the grounds, etc. Makes perfect sense, OJ is a suspect in a bloody knife murder, you look around where you can.
Step 3, see blood on the car, jump the gate. Makes perfect sense. Jumping the gate without probable cause is illegal, since OJ is a suspect you WANT to jump the gate and have a look around. The blood on the car gives you legal cover to make that jump, so you make that jump after “justifying” it.
Step 4, find a glove. There’s nothing odd at all about finding a glove when you’re walking the grounds looking for stuff.
Steps 1-3 don’t jibe completely with his verbal statement because he’s maintaining the legal justification that allowed him to make the search, and not adding voice to his personal suspicions that have no bearing on the legality of the search. This is also completely consistent with the way I would expect a detective, even a somewhat shady detective, to act.
Planting the glove is an act of totally different proportion. It means he has to decide, at the crime scene, to plant evidence on someone who may have absolutely nothing to do with the murder. The murder scene did not directly point to OJ, or anyone else, as the murderer, not at the time the glove had to have been stolen. He had to decide to plant evidence on a rich and powerful person who might have a completely unassailable alibi, with no motivation other than he doesn’t like black people. They have not interviewed a single person about the happenings of that night, maybe Goldman got in a fight at a bar, or Nicole had a knock-down drag out with her new BF, maybe there’s a bloody fingerprint that points right to the murderer.
So you plant the evidence in a way that is going to totally fuck you over if OJ has a rock solid alibi, or if someone else comes to light as the likely murderer, with what motivation? I can’t come up with one, none that make sense for a vaguely rational human being.
Notwithstanding your opinion, there is exactly zero evidence that Fuhrman, however contemptuble a human being he may be, planted the glove or otherwise tampered with evidence in this case, while there is significant corroborating evidence that the glove was identical to one owned by Simpson and that Simpson was present at the scene of the murders. The glove got to Simpson’s house the same way Simpson did, and if your only argument is that a murderer didn’t act in a logical clockwork fashion, therefore CONSPIRACY!, that’s not a very persuasuve argument, unless, of course, you are on a jury under constant reminder of the race riots less than three years previous and not wanting to be noted as having caused another destructive riot and therefore looking for any excuse for reasonable doubt. That the LAPD had significant corruption at the time is not at issue; that the trail of evidence was as clear and consistent as any murder trial can be without eyewitnesses and no amount of corruption short of a vast conspiracy of dozens of people premeditating to frame Simpson is.
As for your opinion that “thread after thread, your reasoning is lacking”, I give fuck-all for it or you.
Stranger
FBI Serial Killer specialist John Douglas has a chapter on OJ in his book Journey into Darkness. It makes everything clear in one chapter.
If Furhman wanted to “get” OJ, why did he let him off so easy on the earlier domestic abuse charge?
Where is OJ now? I guess the police framed him for robbing a trophy store owner at gunpoint.
I think there is a contingent that feels like any doubt as to whether the LAPD might plant evidence or behave improperly are race blind fools. The reality is that just because an organization is corrupt, incompetent, and racist doesn’t mean they behave against all norms of logic or reason. If you dig into most cases of police corruption it almost always makes sense from at least some perspective. There is, for example, significant tangible gain from the corruption.
With planting evidence, it’s often done because a corrupt police officer genuinely believes someone to be guilty, but doesn’t believe they have evidence sufficient to convict.
It would just be shocking for me that Fuhrman could form both intent to frame O.J. and a plan to frame O.J. so quickly after being on the case and then execute it immediately. At that point he knew almost nothing, comparatively speaking. Even if he was just this monster racist, most racist cops probably like being police officers. If you’re going to use your authority to mess with darkie, any cop that expected to keep his job would need to do it in a way that wasn’t almost guaranteed to get your actions publicized. Something like the Rodney King beating is a perfect example. Most of the time those cops would have drug him in after the beating and said he was injured while “resisting arrest.” No one would believe King’s story, the officers would not have been punished. But that day there was a camera pointed at them. So in that context beating a black man because of racial animus makes sense–there’s excellent chance you get away with it. This was in the early 90s before recording devices were ubiquitous.
Most murder investigations the police have awhile to build their case, and if there is a bad apple involved, to “massage” evidence. But in the O.J. case every police officer had to know that wasn’t true, because he was a wealthy and famous man. They should/would have known high priced lawyers were going to be involve very quickly.
It may seem like this is a push, one possibility (Fuhrman planned a frame and executed it in very little time with very little knowledge of the case) and the alternative (O.J. making mistakes due to being in a rush and under lots of stress) both rely on irrational behavior by their actors. But whatever Fuhrman’s failings, I would argue he was under considerable less stress than O.J. and this wasn’t his first rodeo. If Fuhrman was in the business of planting evidence he’d had a long career to develop that skill and had never been previously caught, so I think he’d be less likely to be acting irrationally and stupidly in this matter than Simpson.
In O.J.'s case, whatever his failings we can be fairly certain this is the only time he’d murdered someone. That he was anything but an expert in planning or executing violent crimes in a manner that would avoid punishment. His later behavior in Las Vegas shows that he is not prone to thinking clearly or worrying about consequences or properly making sure he won’t be caught when he commits crimes. It just seems far more plausible someone under the emotional stress of committing murder for the first time and trying to get away with it is a lot more prone to doing something irrational than a police officer who has a lot of experience with crimes and if corrupt would presumably have experience in being corrupt.
The thing about the perjury I’ve already noted; the question put to him was had he used the word nigger in the prior ten years. I would imagine Fuhrman (incorrectly) assumed no one could prove otherwise. That’s not entirely an unreasonable assumption. But he would have had to have made multiple unreasonable assumptions in a short window of time to have concluded planting the glove was a smart thing to do and not likely to actually be super obvious. For example if they had found out O.J. wasn’t even in Los Angeles but on the other side of the country how would Fuhrman have explained finding the glove at O.J.'s house?
I have forgotten the exact timeline, but wasn’t Simpson in Vegas by the time the cops started investigating? It was pretty easy to establish his timeline and thus proximity to the murder in the next 24 hours, but hardly anyone could have known that morning that he hadn’t left hours or even days earlier. He was not such a big celebrity that there was 24/7 reporting on his movements. If anything, what Fuhrman might have been able to learn quickly was that Simpson was in Vegas, making him an unlikely suspect until further details were known.
Being acquitted doesn’t prove he wasn’t framed. As for the facts of the case, I’ve forgotten most of them over the years, but I see no reason how somebody couldn’t just drop a bloody glove at his house
Is there any evidence that it happened?
Of course someone could the question is why someone would.
Could someone have snuck into OJ’s house while he slept, taken his gloves and car, then murdered Nicole and Ron, then gone back to OJ’s house to plant the evidence before he woke up? There’s nothing physically impossible about the actions, but without motivation behind it, it’s meaningless speculation. You can speculate anything if you don’t actually have to prove it happened or even provide a logical reason for it to have happened.
Without physical proof one way or the other, you must provide a logical theory.
Chicago. Simpson left for Chicago immediately after the murders. Martin Hyde’s reference to Las Vegas was a reference to the later crime.
And no, at the time they were investigating the murder scene, or driving to Simpson’s house, the cops had no idea where he was. He might have been at home; he might have been out of the country; they had no clue.
It’s not a question of it being possible, the question is why? He couldn’t know that OJ committed the crime so why would he decide to taint the evidence of whoever did it and frame OJ? If there was evidence that Fuhrman wanted to frame OJ, or somehow believed OJ was going to get away with commiting murder it might make sense, but the evidence doesn’t bear that out.
For all the police knew at the time, OJ could have been given a speech or shooting a movie in front of hundreds of people. He had no alibi, he changed his story several times, and his gloves and DNA were at the crime scene.
This is the most irrefutable, lock solid reason that OJ was not framed.
If the police have a nobody suspect in custody for a day for some drug crime and they are convinced he has done it after an investigation, with no alibi, is it possible for the police to plant evidence? Yes, I’m afraid so.
But Furman had no idea where OJ was. What would have happened if he was in New York city that night on the David Letterman show? Just how is Furman going to explain that?? I can’t image the shit storm that would have come to the LAPD and Furman if that had happened.
It’s like all conspiracy theorists. They’ve believed in their bullshit for years, and to admit now that they’re wrong makes them confront how stupid they’ve been for all that time. Better to continue to believe that they’re the only smart people in the room than to admit that.