…they all sound nuts to me.
Hell, I would’ve done that. That would be my response (well, I’d presumably be in a Canadian court, so I’d go with our equivalent) to any question asking if I’d committed a crime. Even if the answer is “no”, giving such an answer invites attempts at rebuttal, so I’ll go with the equivalent of “I’m not answering that, fuck off.”
My wife walked past our computer on the way to bed last night, and asked me what I was typing. I told her I was arguing about the OJ Simpson case.
She pointed at me and started laughing.
She’s absolutely right. This horse isn’t just dead, it’s rotted away and is plant food.
Enjoy the thread.
Then your risk meter is broken. You keep saying planting a bag if weed or a gun like it’s one step. In one of those cases I linked to, police stole a gun from evidence that was used in a crime, carried the gun around with them, planted on a dead guy they shot, then went bag to try to erase evidence that the gun was ever in their possession. How many cops were likely involved in that setup? How crazy is it to carry a gun around with in the off chance you need to frame someone? What if someone requested the missing gun from evidence? Even carrying drugs with you in order to plant on some innocent person later on is complete madness. Suggesting that that is “no nuts” reflects more on you than the sanity of the act itself.
Please tell me why you think it is crazier to plant a glove on someone who murdered someone? The reality at that’s point was that they were facing a murder case with no witnesses. DNA was hardly a given at that time not only because it was a new technology, but also because the suspect seemed to have worn gloves. Stealing a glove is hardly a leap given the stakes in their mind. It’s even easier to plant a glove in my mind because you are at least attempting to frame a presumably guilty man.
So Furhman planted OJ’s glove at OJ’s house to implicate someone else? How on earth would they know the murderer had been at OJ’s house before they saw the blood?
By anybody. He didn’t want to be seen coming back into his house because he didn’t want anyone to know he had been out murdering people. In sneaking back into his house, he dropped one of the gloves he wore when he murdered Ron and Nicole.
The knots you people tie yourselves into to avoid the obvious.
Regards,
Shodan
By the time Fuhrman arrived at the scene of the murder, a dozen other police officers had been there for almost two hours. None saw a second glove. It’s simply not reasonable to assert that either a) Fuhrman snuck a glove out of the crime scene unnoticed, or b) a dozen other LAPD officers were in on a frame.
Also, recall that a pair of bloody socks were found at the foot of Simpson’s bed. Surely they must have been planted too, as there’s no possible way Simpson would have left them there, right?
God Almighty appears on the clouds of heaven before a group of JFK conspiracy theorists.
“You have been wasting your time”, says God. “Oswald killed Kennedy, and he was acting alone.”
“Wow!” says one of the theorists to another. “The conspiracy goes deeper than we thought!”
Regards,
Shodan
Well, nobody HAS to do anything. His attorney, being familiar with how the courts interpret the Fifth Amendment, told him to assert the 5th on all questions, so he did.
My understanding of the point of your question was basically this: Fuhrman had lied about falsifying info on police reports in his past, and he had lied about never using the word n*gger, so he had to plead the 5th on those questions, but he was asked specifically about whether he planted the glove in Simpson’s yard, and he plead the 5th on that question! Why would he take the 5th when asked specifically about the glove? Doesn’t that imply that his answer would criminally implicate him? Wouldn’t anyone who had actually found a piece of evidence like he said he did, just answer with an unequivocal “no”?
I didn’t know the answer to your question, so I dug it up, and he had a very good reason for taking the 5th on that question even given that he found the glove in the place he said he did.
Indeed.
Also, obviously the crime scene was photographed extensively, and shows a single glove. I have been unable to locate a timeline that indicates whether the photography was undertaken before or after Fuhrman arrived. If anyone can find a source with that information, and the photos were taken before Fuhrman arrived, it’d put the final nail in this theory.
Police officers own and carry guns. A police officer carrying a gun is not notable in the slightest, and will not cause anyone to ask questions. I will also note here that the gun theft is intended specifically to protect the officer’s career, there is real personal motivation for that risky act. WRT a bag of weed, unless the officer empties his pockets in front of another officer, it will not ever be detected, the risk is minimal.
At that point, they hadn’t even interviewed anybody related to the victims, or canvassed the neighborhood. So, he risks taking a piece of evidence that may have been seen by another officer, because the first 2 hours of investigation, from 12am to 2am didn’t point them to a definite suspect?
So, if I’m parsing this correctly, he stole the glove without the foggiest idea of who he is supposed to plant it on? And this strikes you as the saner explanation?
What happens if, while he’s at OJ’s place, the police get a tip from Nicole’s neighbors that lead them to a completely different suspect and another 12 cops descend on this subject’s place to investigate? Is he going to plant it at OJ’s anyway? Go to the new suspect’s house and hope the 12 cops there are as blind/willing to look the other way as the 14 cops at Nicole’s had to be? Return the glove to Nicole’s place and hope no one notices him unplanting it?
They saw the blood on his car before they entered the house. Given the history the victim had with OJ, it’s pretty clear he did it. In the off chance he didn’t, the presence of the blood would likely implicate someone else who at least visited thee.
I agree he likely sneaked back into his house. That said, the most obvious method for doing that is not parking you car haphazzardly in front of the gate, then going on to your neighbor’s property, then jumping a fence adjacent to a window where there is a good chance the person you just left is staying. Why not just go in the gate you parked right next to. That is clearly the easiest way to avoid being noticed.
How do you know that? This is part of the problem. You assume all these guys would rat him out even if they had noticed. I think there is pretty clear evidence that that doesn’t happen in most cases where suspects have been framed.
BECAUSE HE HAD BEEN CAUGHT LYING. No attorney tells a client to plead the 5th for the hell of it. It’s generally to avoid getting yourself into more trouble. It wasn’t that any question OJ’s team asked necessitated that response. It was him lying that did. Absent the lie, Furhman, and any other detective in their right mind when asked if they planted evidence would give an emphatic no.
By his limo driver. Simpson knew his limo driver would be waiting and watching at the Ashford gate, with a clear view of his driveway.
If the glove was planted, what do YOU think cause the loud thumps that Kato heard, which dislodged a picture in his apartment and caused him to walk out and inspect the path with a flashlight? Did a huge dog hurl itself at his wall at the exact moment that Simpson was returning from his killing spree?
No, they generally don’t carry non-service, hidden/unsecured weapons on duty.
Stealing drugs, then carrying them around all day on the off chance you need it is psychotic behavior. So is stealing a gun form evidence. Besides, how did they get the gun to the crime scene if they didn’t already have it? The motivation you suggest became real, but the acts and forethought necessary to obtain the gun were prior. That is the scary part.
That usually how planted evidence works. You can’t usually steal evidence after the fact to plant. Why you think that is insane is beyond me. I already linked to numerous known cases where cops stole drugs, guns, etc. BEFOREHAND to plant on people they hadn’t even met yet.
He throws the glove away, or enters it into evidence later on. Your incredulity is largely baseless given they had already found blood and other incriminating evidence at the scene. The glove was just more justification for entering the house and doing a thorough search.
Or, in the worst case scenario, he gets caught… just like the dozens of other cops I linked to above. I don’t know where this idea that Furhrman would never take a risk like that given he is known to have taken similar risks and admitted to doing similar things.
It doesn’t take all the people present at the scene, it takes one. Or, the physical evidence of the photos of the scene, depending on the precise timing involved.
And again, Simpson left bloody socks in his bedroom. Clearly, he wasn’t immune to missing details in his hurry to get into the limo and get to the airport. And Simpson taking the path behind the guest house fits with the other evidence, as Freddy the Pig has pointed out.
Given the choice of two scenarios, I’ll back the one that best fits the evidence and is most probable on its face. I won’t say that Fuhrman planting the glove is impossible, merely improbable.
If there is, you haven’t presented it. None of the examples of frames you presented (I couldn’t read two of them due to browser restrictions on this PC) were anything like the one you’re alleging (or at least allowing for) here.
The worst case scenario is pretty grim, in this case:
Carrying a “drop gun” to use in case you ever shoot someone in the line of duty who turns out to be unarmed makes logical sense: the alternative is facing probable criminal charges.
Carrying drugs to plant on suspects to meet arrest quotas or punish troublesome people you encounter makes sense: it’s easy, the drugs aren’t specific to any one crime and can be carried for as long as they might be needed, and the odds of being caught are low, since drugs, unlike bloody gloves, are fungible. And no one is going to be put to death over planting a baggie of weed.
Risking your life to try and tip the weight of evidence against a suspect, in the earliest hours of a homicide investigation, where you personally stand to lose nothing, doesn’t make sense.
- There is a ton of evidence pointing towards Simpson as being the killer.
- There is absolutely no evidence showing that Fuhrman planted the bloody glove.
- You have added absolutely nothing to this conversation that hasn’t been said repeatedly in the other threads on this subject. No new insight, no new theory, and no new evidence.
We have covered this several times. Fuhrman did not know if OJ had an alibi when he supposedly picked up the glove. And the idea that he would plant the glove at OJ’s house in order to implicate someone else makes even less sense. How did Fuhrman know that it wasn’t OJ’s blood in the car, and that OJ had been murdered by the same person who killed Ron and Nicole? Why would Fuhrman plant a glove belonging to OJ with Ron’s blood on it at OJ’s house to implicate someone he didn’t know existed?
If Fuhrman stole the glove in order to plant it on whoever he thought did it, Fuhrman would have waited until he knew that whoever he planted it on didn’t have an unbreakable alibi. And if Nicole and Ron were killed by someone other than OJ, why wouldn’t Fuhrman not have held onto the glove until he had a chance to plant it on whoever that someone was? Just dropping in OJ’s backyard does nothing to pin the crime on anyone but OJ, and Fuhrman had no way of knowing that pinning the crime on OJ wouldn’t blow up in his face.
Regards,
Shodan
But would the assumed dozen officers keep quiet about it for all these years? Shirley, you can’t be serious.