How did the bloody glove get to OJ's house?

Great Debates
141

Once you assert the fifth amendment right not to answer questions, you can’t answer any questions. If Fuhrman pleads the fifth regarding having said the word n*gger, he then can no longer answer any other questions, not questions about the glove, or about the weather that night.

The issue with the n-word was that Fuhrman swore under oath he had not used it in more than 10 years. In Fuhrman’s mind, this was true, because he had not used it as an epithet. However, the defense produced a tape recorded interview he gave to a writer, who wanted background on how police work, where Fuhrman used the n-word several times in the context to describing how other cops talk, and this was used to impeach his testimony. Rather than leave the jury with the impression that the entire LAPD went around saying n*gger all the time, the prosecution asked Fuhrman to take a fall for the sake of the case, and plea the fifth on all questions related to the recording and Fuhrman’s further personal use of the n-word, so the tape wouldn’t be played for the jury-- ie, used to impeach Fuhrman.

That meant that Fuhrman could give no further testimony, and anything previous had to be stricken from the record.

142

See Raffel v. US

143

I suppose not much, but Cochran did throw enough doubt into the prosecution’s case for a jury to have reasonable doubt

I don’t see why racists at the LAPD trying to frame a rich black guy for a crime is impossible to believe. It may not have been likely, but I wouldn’t trust Mark Fuhrman to provide security at a 6 year old’s birthday party let alone a high profile crime scene

144

And what evidence would that be? I can’t recall hearing of any.

145

I think most people are just saying the simplest explanation is that inexpert and rushed O.J. simply dropped the glove as he was disposing of the evidence. It is a simpler and more likely explanation than is the theory of Fuhrman planting it, it also lines up more with how you’d expect people to believe.

Since there is no real evidence that Fuhrman planted it, it’s just idle speculation. The simplest explanation is O.J. dropped it. That doesn’t mean it’s impossible something else happened, but I don’t know that anyone in this thread is saying it’s impossible that anything else happened. We’re just saying there isn’t actually any solid evidence Fuhrman did it other than general bad character, which isn’t evidence of a specific act.

146

When you put it this way, it’s fairly reasonable. The problem is that “this way” of putting it sheds all of the details that make this particular theory ridiculous.

Fuhrman is not simply framing someone. He is stealing evidence from a murder scene, a scene that has a dozen cops roaming around. He is tampering with the scene 2-3 hours after the discovery of the bodies, and planting evidence before any interested parties have even been interviewed. He is planting evidence to implicate someone who, by virtue of his celebrity and type of work, may have an unassailable alibi.

The details matter. The biggest detail here is that the planted evidence theory has no actual evidence to support it, and it is needed only to explain away the idea that OJ went around the back of his house after the murder, and dropped a glove along the way.

147

But we are not just talking about Fuhrman planting evidence. It would have to have been a conspiracy of at least five police officers. How did he get them to go along with it? Like John Douglas says in his book, they were risking losing their jobs and going to jail to frame one guy? Really?

One point Douglas makes: The bodies were found outside the house. Why would a killer risk stabbing two people outside, where anyone walking by could have seen and heard him? Because he didn’t want the children inside the house to see or hear him and/or see the bodies. HIS children.

And when the police told OJ his ex-wife was dead, the first words out of his mouth were “Oh, no. Not Nicole.” OJ, you have two ex-wives. He didn’t ask how it happened, or if the children were okay.

148

DataX was referring to the Mossad agent, not OJ.

149

The socks weren’t “bloody.”
When tested for blood, they had blood spots on them.
Huge difference.

Also considering that two people died from exsanguination (blood loss) from their throats being slashed (while one was stabbed 21-23 additional times) the amount of blood discovered was exceptionally paltry. Had Simpson called to have a maid come by his home and clean it (or had his driveway cleaned or his vehicle detailed) the tiny amounts of blood evidence found would have been gone and so would have been the case.

The glove looks “odd” as besides the socks which were INSIDE the house, nothing else was found outside. Even the socks wouldn’t have been an issue had Simpson thrown them in the washing machine and turned it on (or for that matter worn them to Chicago and disposed of them there.)

Also, the presence or absence of numerous officers is meaningless. A doctor who was missing in NW Indiana for four months was recently found deceased in a lake roughly 300 yards from where her vehicle was discovered abandoned. This was after several ground searches (including the use of canines) and a search of the lake three weeks before a civilian fisherman found her remains.

A body is far larger than a pair of IsoToner gloves.

And, with the recent droughts in areas of the Great Plains and Texas, vehicles containing bodies are being found relatively close to shore in areas which have been previously dragged or dived. They were in vehicles and with only a few exceptions, the police chalked up the disappearances to runaways or the work of unknown serial killers, when almost all were the result of careless or drunken accidents.

The police miss clues ALL THE TIME. They often have to execute multiple search warrants on premises as they have been unable to find things during their initial search. And we aren’t talking mansions or even large ranch-style homes; we are talking drug den shotgun shacks with three or four rooms to them.

The case largely hinged on the blood evidence found in Simpson’s car and home. Had the provenance of the glove been called into question it’s not conceivable that any DA in the country would have tried to take a case to trial as they would know that it would have tainted the other evidence.

Did Simpson commit the crimes in question?
Almost certainly.
His lack of affect at the end of the trial and his failure to continue searching for the "real killers are good signs of this.

Could Mark Fuhrman have planted the glove?
Certainly.
It’s not beyond a “reasonable doubt” for a variety of reasons, including the fact that Fuhrman was willing to discuss planting evidence on the record without considering how that might have sounded if he were ever questioned in the future.

150

Evidence leads one to believe so.

Would you mind not moving those goalposts, please? “Did” and “could” are not synonyms.

151

Goal posts in the same place as they always have been.
I think that Mark Fuhrman had the opportunity and the motive to plant the glove.
I have stated that repeatedly.
Cherry-picking my statements does nothing to strengthen your argument,which if I’m not mistaken is that he didn’t because he was policeman and they don’t do things like that.

At this juncture since the house has now been demolished, the search wasn’t videoed by the LAPD and almost 20 years have passed we only have his word that he did not. And frankly that’s,IMHO, next to worthless.

152

That is nice, of course so are the accusations that he did plant the globe.

This makes it sound like if the socks were not a big deal, the real reason why they were important was that:

153

Bloody means “stained or covered with blood”. The socks were stained with blood.

So, Simpson could have easily dealt with the socks, but failed to do so. And this is evidence for the contention that he wouldn’t have dropped a glove?

These musings alter the probability still further, for they require Fuhrman in particular to have been the only officer to have noticed the second glove. What are the odds that he was the only competent officer there that night, despite the others’ two-hour head start? The scenario becomes less and less plausible the more you write about it…the choice is now between the other officers failing to see the glove, and the other officers allowing Fuhrman to steal it with their full support.

Also, note the difference in searching for something that’s been hidden (such as a stash of drugs) or is concealed by water, and something in plain sight, on the ground.

I can’t speak to the standards of the D.A. at the time for bringing charges.

Hell, Fuhrman could have committed the murders himself. The victims could have been the target of a thrill-killing cult. Simpson could have secretly tracked down and murdered the real killers years ago. Could is an extremely low bar to clear.

154

The very suggestion that the glove was planted is absurd. I am a former public defender and prosecutor, so I know a little bit about procedure.

By the time Fuhrman arrived at the crime scene, it has already been secured by at least 20 officers for over two hours. Some of those officers prepared reports of their findings and observations. Not one officer observed more than one glove.

If there were two gloves at the scene before Fuhrman allegedly pocketed one to plant elsewhere, how come none of the other officers saw two.
Security at murder crime scenes is very tight. It is very unlikely that Fuhrman could have pocketed a glove without someone else seeing him.

Although Fuhrman was initially named the lead detective, that title was short lived, as Fuhrman was only in charge of the Simpson case for about a half hour. Then, to his chagrin, he was replaced by Lange and Vannatter of the LAPD’s elite Robbery/Homicide Division, who, together and individually, had investigated over 500 homicides. After being taken off the case, Fuhrman did little more than stand and pout in the street outside the perimeter of the crime scene, waiting for the detectives from Robbery/Homicide to arrive.
Since he was no longer in charge, Fuhrman had no clue as to how Lange and Vannatter would use him. In other words, he had no idea whether Lange and Vannatter would request Fuhrman to accompany them to OJ’s residence, or assign him another task.
Why would Fuhrman pocket a piece of evidence when he had no assurances that he would be given the opportunity to “plant” it at the Simpson residence,

The crime scene had quite a bit of physical evidence. To suggest that Fuhrman pocketed a glove that didn’t exist to ensure a conviction when there was no reason to believe the case was not solvable, and when Fuhrman had no assurances he would be asked to accompany the other detectives to the Simpson residence defies logic.
The only evidence that Fuhrman planted evidence is his admission to the writer that he had done so in the paste. And that hardly qualifies as evidence. It is naked and rank speculation.

155

. We can look at tons of cases where evidence was later suspected/proved to have been planted. I would bet almost none of them involve a direct personal interest

What an absurd comment. So where are all these cases we can look at? The archives of NBC Television?

156

Now this is a curious zombie thread, I could swear that I had replied to this several years ago when the last post I made was actually from April of last year.

In any case, the evidence shown in the civil trial and his sorry book pointed more to the conclusion that OJ did it.

157

People keep acting like there’s some kind of exclusion effect wherein if evidence was planted OJ must be innocent, or that the corollary is true, that if he’s guilty no evidence was planted. There’s no reason to assume that that is the case. It’s very easy to plant evidence to frame the guilty. I submit it’s even easier to frame the guilty than the innocent, and there’s more motive to do it.

158

[QUOTE=nevadaexile]
Eyewitnesses or video evidence - No one walking a dog or jogging and saw OJ in the area. No one saw him at Nicole’s home or leaving. None of the homes along the route between the two homes had a video security system which recorded a vehicle matching Simpson’s driving past at/around the time of the murders.
[/QUOTE]

(My emphasis) I know I am responding to a zombie quote (a strangely recent one at that), but this is an incorrect statement. Jill Shively testified to the Grand Jury that she encountered OJ Simpson when he was driving away from the crime scene.

[QUOTE=The Testimony]
AND THEN I WAS DRIVING EASTBOUND, AND AS I GET TO THE INTERSECTION I HAVE THE GREEN. A WHITE BRONCO RUNS THE RED LIGHT AND GOES THROUGH THE INTERSECTION AND ALMOST HITS ME. I ENDED UP SWERVING THIS WAY TOWARDS THE SCHOOL AND THE BRONCO, WHICH WAS COMING AT ME, SWERVED AROUND AND WENT THAT WAY.
…
AS I PROCEEDED TO THE INTERSECTION, OUT OF THE CORNER OF MY EYE I SAW SOMETHING, A WHITE CAR OR TRUCK, BRONCO, COME RIGHT INTO MY – IN FRONT OF ME AND IT DIDN’T HAVE ANY LIGHTS ON. SO I COULDN’T SEE IT. HE STOPPED – HE STOPPED IN THE MIDDLE OF THE GRASSY MEDIAN RIGHT HERE AND HE TURNED AROUND AND LOOKED AT ME.
…
. IS THAT THE POINT WHEN YOU FIRST NOTICED HIM AS HE WAS TRAVELING NORTHBOUND ON BUNDY?

A. WHEN HE WAS – THE FIRST TIME I NOTICED HIM WAS WHEN HE WAS RIGHT THERE IN FRONT OF ME AND I THOUGHT I WAS GOING TO HIT HIM.
…
Q. WAS THE DRIVER’S SIDE WINDOW OF THE BRONCO OPENED OR CLOSED?

A. IT WAS OPENED.

Q. WERE YOU ABLE TO SEE THE PERSON SEATED IN THE BRONCO?

A. YES, I WAS.

Q. AND HOW WERE YOU ABLE TO SEE HIM?

A. HE TURNED AROUND AND GLARED AT ME AFTER HE HAD ALMOST HIT ME, AND THEN I – THEN HE STARTED YELLING AT THE GUY IN THE NISSAN TO MOVE HIS CAR.

Q. SO WHEN YOU SAY HE TURNED AROUND AND GLARED AT YOU, DID YOU ACTUALLY MAKE EYE CONTACT WITH HIM?

A. YES, I DID.

Q. DID HE SAY ANYTHING?

A. NO. HE JUST GAVE ME A REAL QUICK LOOK, LIKE WHAT WAS I – YOU KNOW, IT LOOKED LIKE HE WAS MAD OR ANGRY AND LIKE WHAT WAS I DOING TO HIM OR SOMETHING. I FELT LIKE HE WAS LOOKING AT ME LIKE I HAD ALMOST HIT HIM OR SOMETHING.

Q. DID HE SAY ANYTHING TO THE DRIVER OF THE NISSAN?

A. HE KEPT TELLING HIM, “GET OUT OF THE WAY; GET OUT OF THE WAY. MOVE THE CAR; MOVE. GET OUT OF THE WAY.” AND THEN THE MORE HE YELLED, THE DRIVER OF THE NISSAN, THE GUY IN THE NISSAN GOT UPSET AND HE WAS TRYING, TO GET HIS CAR OUT OF THE WAY. BUT THEY WERE BOTH RUNNING INTO EACH OTHER EACH WAY THEY WENT.

Q. DID THE DRIVER OF THE BRONCO EVER PUT HIS HEAD OUT THE WINDOW OR ANY PART OF HIS BODY OUT THE DRIVER’S SIDE WINDOW?

A. HE STUCK HIS HAND AND LEANED OUT TO YELL AT THE GUY.
…
Q. SO FIRST HE LOOKED AT YOU –

A. HE GLANCED BACK AT ME AND I COULD SEE HIM FULL-FACE DIAGONALLY. THEN HE WAS YELLING AT THE DRIVER LIKE HE WAS IN A HURRY TO GET OUT OF THE SITUATION HE WAS NOW IN.
…
Q. SO WERE YOU ABLE TO SEE THE DRIVER VERY CLEARLY?

A. I RECOGNIZED HIM RIGHT AWAY.

Q. AND WHO IS HE?

A. I SAW O.J. SIMPSON.

Q. HAVE YOU EVER SEEN HIM AROUND THE NEIGHBORHOOD?

A. AT THE PARK, DIFFERENT SHOPS, THE POST OFFICE. HE WAS OUT A LOT WHEN HE WAS AROUND. HE WAS OUT ALL THE TIME. HE WAS A COMMON FIGURE THERE IN THE VILLAGE.

Q. WHEN YOU HEARD HIM YELLING AT THE NISSAN DRIVER, WAS THE VOICE FAMILIAR TO YOU?

A. YES. THEN I CONFIRMED THAT IT WAS HIM. I KNEW RIGHT AWAY IT WAS 100 PERCENT HIM.
[/QUOTE]

Marcia Clarke later withdrew her testimony when she learned that the witness had sold her story and gave an interview to a tabloid show (Inside Edition?) for $5,000.00, whereas she had told the lawyers that she hadn’t told anybody but her mother. Personally, I don’t think that invalidates the credibility of her statements.

Alas, the Nissan owner that she mentioned has never come forward.

159

I’m missing somethig: Does Mossad go around using One Rubber Glove as a calling card or something?

I think you’ve been tricked, as OJ/thepublisher meant for you to be.

160

It stuck out its thumb and hitchhiked.