That’s almost certainly what happened, except it was O.J. dropping it by accident.
Correct, but according to Fuhrman, OJ is not a suspect. He didn’t go over there to get a face to face, he did it to make sure OJ could make arrangements for his kids. Now if you want to argue that he was lying about his justifications, that’s fine. But how much lying do you accept before you start to doubt someone’s credibility?
But again, he is not a suspect according to them. They state contend that the are worried about OJ’s safety, and that they need to enter the property because it was an emergency.
Which is illegal and dishonest.
Here is what is odd:
First, why was he wondering around unattended for 10-15 minutes, and how did he find that glove, but seemingly miss all the other blood evidence, etc.?
So he is lying, right? You recognize he is lying don’t you?
Why is lying about the exigent circumstances needed to conduct a search on a suspect that will yield what would have otherwise been inadmissible evidence any different? The motivation of both acts is to introduce evidence that would otherwise not be presented in a trial. I don’t know why you think one is much purer than the other. There is a reason these laws about searches exist.
More importantly, do you think Fuhrman had never planted evidence or kept his mouth shut when others did? If so, what are you basing that on given the recordings of him we heard?
Which is the same calculus that exists anytime someone plants evidence early on in an investigation.
Or course it did. This is a gruesome murder in an otherwise safe neighborhood. The person who did it will, the vast majority of the time, be the husband. The odds go up considerably when that ex husband was abusive on numerous occasions, and has the strength and motivation to do something like that.
Besides, his didn’t have to have a full plan at the murder scene when he took the glove. For investigative purposes, two bloody gloves is redundant. If he took it, all he needed to do was plant it wherever the evidence led him after the fact in order to strengthen the case. He didn’t necessarily have to think he was going to frame OJ at that point, he just figured he would leave it in a place that implicate whoever he thought was guilty. Just like when cops plant drugs on suspects. They “obtain” the drugs beforehand usually not with the intent of planting on a specific person, but rather as a tool to use against someone later on.
Why do you think cops plant evidence on anyone? It’s usually not some personal animus against the suspect. Hating Black people and having a misplaced sense of justice seems to be more than enough. Many cops just think the ends justify the means given that the suspect is likely guilty. Look at any case where a cop has coerced a false confession, or planted evidence to frame a person. Very few of them have some specific motivation beyond wanting to see a “guilty” person rot in jail.
As far as having an unassailable alibi, that is just usually not the case with anyone, especially late at night. Can you prove where you were around midnight every night? Anytime a cop plants evidence or lies, there is a small chance the person may be able to prove it. There was a thread on this board recently about how a van full of cops swore this guy they sideswiped had run a red light. It was only because he had a dashboard camera that he was able to prove they were lying. Why did they cops in that case lie? Because they didn’t figure that they were going to get caught; the same reason most people do things like that. It’s ironically the same reason Fuhrman later perjured himself.
But they already knew OJ abused Nicole, that there was blood in/on his car, and that he was seemingly trying to avoid them by not answering his door. Most of the stuff we know now that makes us think he is guilty was apparent then.
It doesn’t matter. The glove being at OJ’s house can be explained even if he has an alibi. Maybe he hired someone, or maybe someone else in his family did it. Once they see the blood on his car, the chances that the murderer was there at some point is basically 100%. If it turned out OJ had been in Moscow during the murder, then the glove would just implicate someone else in OJ’s circle. People keep acting as though this needed to be some long drawn out plot to personally frame OJ from the onset, then using the complexity of such a ruse to argue it was unlikely. That is not the case. This is (I suspect) like most times evidence is planted in that it is essentially a opportunity crime that is justified by those involved that the person was guilty anyway.
Look at this map of OJ’s house, and the locations of both his car and where the glove was found. Why would he have been back there with the glove on, or holding the glove in a position to lose it? Does the location the glove was found make any sense to you? Sure he could have dropped it, but why did he walk past several entrances to his main house only to unwittingly drop his glove?
It’s not about credibility, it’s about sanity. No sane police officer would attempt to frame someone for murder in the way folks thing Fuhrman did.
I’ll be honest, if a judge said the search was invalid and the glove inadmissible, I’d be able to accept that. It’s a reasonable reaction to Fuhrman skirting the edge of the law regarding searches.
The difference is that one act is fabricating evidence of wrongdoing. The other act is trying to get access to real, probative, genuine evidence of wrongdoing that is legally unavailable.
If you don’t see the difference between those two, just say that right off the bat, and I won’t bother discussing this topic with you anymore, because it ain’t worth it.
Pointing out two things. First, this was not a gruesome murder, this was two gruesome murders of two different individuals. At the initial crime scene, there was no evidence that the “primary” victim was Nicole, and that Ron was a bystander.
Second, Nicole didn’t have a husband, she had an ex husband. For all anyone knew, she had an ongoing relationship with a completely different abusive asshole.
I might put OJ on the top of my suspect list, but it’s not even close to guaranteed that he’s the guy.
Do you not see how convoluted an argument you need to counter the idea that “Guy who commits double murder drops a piece of evidence in his yard.” That is the impossible situation that you’re creating this ridiculous narrative to explain away.
Why would a cop, experienced at fabricating evidence, pick such a ridiculous place to plant the glove?
To avoid being seen going in the front door or any other observable entrance? Passing doors that may well have been locked? It’s a fairly straightforward path from the Bronco around to the back doors. Looking at this, it seems even more plausible that he went along the Salinger’s side of the fence and then climbed over at the carport - gosh, making three thumps against the wall and dropping the glove as he did so.
I’ve honestly forgotten the minutiae of this case but the conspiracy arguments are all as fragile and fantastic as those in the JFK assassination.
If we want to go based on what makes sense I’m not sure why we’re talking about this case. Nothing O.J. did made sense. Not his decision to speak with police voluntarily without counsel present (his attorneys shockingly signed off on it happening, then went out to lunch while leaving their legally untrained client alone to discuss matters with the police), not his strange almost-certain suicide note, not his 35mph flight from the police, not his obsession with an ex-wife that was no longer interested in him from a rich famous guy who could have lots of women, not his decision to bring a bunch of guys packing heat into a Las Vegas hotel room to retrieve purported stolen property at gunpoint.
Nothing O.J. does makes sense to me.
Why not? Are his alleged actions any dumber than stating the things he did on tape, or perjuring himself on the stand?
Yes, but both have the same outcome and both introduce evidence that would otherwise not be available. The issue isn’t that they are exactly the same, it’s that there is a clear legal and moral trespass that occurs in both circumstances.
Aside from the fact that it was her house. Why would anyone intent on killing Goldman stalk him, then decide to strike at someone else’s house?
Not really. I cannot even think of a time I have heard about the gruesome murder of an otherwise law-abiding woman in a good neighborhood who has an abusive person in her life that was killed by someone other than the abusive person. Sure, it could happen, but it’s extremely unlikely.
You don’t think it’s less likely than a guy committing murder conveniently dropping one glove at the crime scene, and the other at the end of a blood trail at his home? Especially given that the guy who found it happened to have seemingly admitted to having planted evidence before. I admit that it it not a given that the evidence was planted, but to rule out the possibility seems pretty dumb.
Because he could plant it without others seeing, and because it was near where Kato said he heard a bump.
It’s his house. He probably had keys. Besides, why would he avoid going into his own front door rather than entering closer to where he knew Kato’s room was? Or why not enter the garage on that side? He would have passed two entrances on the back side of the house, then went through another gate before passing the area where the glove, and only the glove, was found. Sure, it could happen, but is that the most likely scenario.
Maybe, but why? And where did the blood trail in the driveway come from then?
How many times in how many threads will this question have to be repeated: Where is the evidence that he planted the glove?
This is what always blows my mind. Let’s take a moment to remember who OJ Simpson is. He’s a retired football player, with a couple of minor acting roles in stuff like Naked Gun 2-1/2: The Smell of Fear. We’re not talking about Jesse Jackson here. I can’t fathom how someone can conclude that it’s reasonable that not one but several police officers would risk their careers and prison time to frame OJ Simpson, washed-up football player and bit-part actor.
In fairness, I think the position they’re trying to advocate here is that Fuhrman was pretty damn sure that OJ had committed the crime (violently murdered ex-wife of a known abusive husband), and he planted the glove in order to make sure the sumbitch didn’t get away with it.
I think that explanation is still a big stretch to accept, but it’s not as bad as you make it sound, where Fuhrman just wanted to frame OJ out of malice and didn’t already have a really solid idea about who may have done it.
I don’t think that it is clear that it was illegal. In fact, since the glove was admitted into evidence, it seems to be clear that it was not illegal.
Was it dishonest? Meh. If a police officer is investigating a murder, and sees evidence where the most likely person to have done it at that person’s house, and has a perfectly plausible reason to jump the fence, then it doesn’t really ping my dishonesty meter if he gives the plausible reason later. I suppose you could say it was a gray area, but not IMO a very dark shade of gray. It’s sort of like the “plain sight” exception to search warrants - maybe you went into a scene to try to find e-mails on the perp’s computer, but if you see a bloody knife in the kitchen sink, it is not dishonest to pretend you don’t.
It doesn’t seem to me to be that big a deal. And it certainly doesn’t address the issue that Fuhrman could not have known before he went to the house and saw the blood that he had better bring along a piece of evidence to plant, especially since he could not have known that OJ did not have an iron-clad alibi.
I don’t think anyone is ruling out the possibility. But there is no evidence that it was planted, and some evidence that it would not have been.
Because he was in a hurry to get into the house, and didn’t want anyone to see from the street that he had been outside the house.
Regards,
Shodan
Furhman admitted on tape that he wasn’t above manufacturing probable cause to arrest black people he didn’t like. If he was willing to risk his career doing this for random nobodies, why would he suddenly buck up and fly straight with a potential murderer?
I can’t remember whether the jury saw this part of the tape, but it was made accessible to the public. So I’m not understanding why people are still acting as though its preposterous that the detective played fast and loose with the evidence. I mean, I could understand being agnostic on the subject, but to refuse to accept the idea at all is a whole 'nother thing when he bragged about his own shadiness on tape.
(I have no idea why I’ve decided to wade into this thread.)
There is about as much evidence as can exist in a situation like this. The finding of the glove was fairly suspicious, and the guy who found it, was alone, in a position to find it based on dubious claims, and had unfortunately admitted on tape to doing what he was accused of (among other things) in the past. Then the OJ lawyers get the break of their lives by getting him to lie on the stand about the case and his character. The guy was asked under oath whether he planted evidence in this case, and he pled the fifth. Does that mean he planted the glove? No, but aside from secret camera footage from OJ’s house being found, or Fuhrman admitting his guilt, I don’t think there could be “proof”. There is more evidence of impropriety in this case then in many of the Rampart cases where suspects were framed. That said, nobody is saying that OJ is innocent, or that Fuhrman HAD to have planted the glove. Just that it is a fairly reasonable conclusion that he did given the discrepancies and his character.
Is it worth perjuring yourself to increase the chances OJ would go to jail? Because that is exactly what Fuhrman did despite having to have known there were several people who could contradict what he said. Why would he take that risk, but not the other?
What it comes down to is that I’m taking the idea of planting evidence, and applying the specific circumstances of this case to come to the conclusion that this particular claim is preposterous.
The guy who committed double murder and is trying to avoid being seen doing anything suspicious is more likely to make a bad decision than the guy investigating the crime. He’s trying to get in his house unseen, at night, while there’s a limo driver waiting for him. So, he goes around the back, bumps into something because it’s dark, drops something and doesn’t notice right away. This isn’t exactly off the wall stuff.
The alternative is a highly risky evidence tampering job by a detective who has no particular beef against OJ, and is going to risk a firing and jail time to plant the evidence.
You don’t seem to understand the range of activities this covers, from rearranging crime scene evidence to make a stronger pattern to claiming they heard a cry for help or smelled smoke to planting drugs or guns on a perp… those are low levels, done when there can be no possibility of being caught and when the cop has near total control of the situation.
Taking a piece of evidence from what was sure to be a high-profile crime scene and rushing to plant it miles away on a possible suspect, without knowing anything about the circumstances or eyewitnesses or what physical evidence might show or even whether Simpson was in the state at the time… complete insanity even by bad-cop standards.
It was only admitted because they accepted him at his word, which was a lie by most fair accounts.
But that is not what he said. He said he feared for OJ’s safety. I agree it makes perfect sense if he suspects OJ is guilty, but that was not part of his justification.
This happened the same morning. It’s not like he would have had time or reason to hide the glove he stole, if he stole it.
Doesn’t matter if OJ has an iron-clad alibi.
Actually, pretty much everyone in this thread has ruled it out. That is the argument. I cannot say for certain OJ was framed, but I don’t rule out the possibility. Other clearly have, which is why we are arguing. Alleging the glove was planted is not some sort of JFK level delusion.
What evidence aside from what I listed before would you expect to find? In cases where we now know evidence was planted, do you think there was any more evidence of tampering before the principle actors confessed than there is in OJ’s case?
Look at the map. He could have just gone into his own driveway instead of up his neighbor’s driveway, then leaping over a fence and landing right next to Kato’s room. If he was worried about people in his own house seeing him, then why did he jump over the fence next to Kato’s room, AND risk being seen by his neighbor who almost assuredly would have called the cops if he had seen a bloody Black guy walking up his driveway? Plus, he did all that, AND dropped his other glove without noticing?
Why do you keep saying he has no beef against OJ like that means anything? What “beef” does any cop have against the person they are framing? You also keep implying Fuhrman would never take such a risk when he did take nearly as big a risk by lying on the stand about something he could obviously be caught on, then pleading the 5th when asked about specifically planting evidence in this case. Perjury is a BIG FUCKING DEAL as a police detective. He essentially threw away his career, and called into question every case he ever participated in. That’s to say nothing of his decision to make those tapes in the first place. I just don’t get why you think this guy has this weird moral code where he is like, I will admit to a bunch of crimes on tape, lie about something I know can be disproved in court, but I won’t plant evidence on a guilty man. Why do you think this genius would draw the line where he did? Especially when he essentially admitted to doign similae things before. What makes you think he would be more likely to get caught planting evidence against OJ than he would lying about using a word he had used in front of multiple people and on tape?
It’s only insanity because you are assuming the goal was to frame OJ from the start.
You know, for someone who can go on at such length, for so long, in so many iterations, it’s astounding how little sense you make in the end.
I can’t even begin to figure out what you might mean by the above comment, and after consideration, I can’t make myself care, either.
People commit crimes for two reasons. They really really really want to do it, and don’t care if they get caught. Or they dont’ think they’ll get caught.
Drum up some evidence on a random mope, you won’t get caught, because his Public Defender will just plead him out before trial.
Claim that you never said the word “n*gger”, you don’t think the lawyers will dig up some guy to prove you wrong. He was wrong on that, but he had all of what, 10 seconds, to decide how to answer? Shit, the President, a smart, skilled lawyer and politician, lied about stuff under oath figuring he wouldn’t get caught.
Plant evidence on a rich, well known person during the murder investigation of his ex wife? Man that’s nuts, you’re going to get caught a high percentage of the time, and get fucked 10 ways to Sunday.