FBI serial killer John Douglas points out that eleven police officers would have agreed to frame OJ, including one three months away from retirement with a spotless record.
Does that make sense to anyone?
OJ was found GUILTY in the Goldman’s civil trial. And in his second trial. He wasn’t smart enough not to break the law a second time. Indeed, asshole thought he could do it and get away with it a second time.
The defense theory is that they were planted. Which is problematic - when the gloves were found, no blood samples had been drawn from OJ, and the detectives would have to have planted the gloves before they knew if OJ had an iron-clad alibi. What if he produced a plane ticket showing he was in Chicago?
This.
They found twelve jurors who couldn’t spell DNA. He still did it.
Regards,
Shodan
No it doesn’t, and it can’t, but I think that’s because you have a serious typo somewhere. A correction would probably help.
There’s more than one typo there, unless the FBI employs serial killers.
My view is that he was framed, and he actually did it.
To elaborate: Certain corrupt elements of the LAPD wanted to pin it on him, regardless of whether he did it or not, likely because of pervasive racism. So they deliberately mishandled, misrepresented, and possibly fabricated evidence to point to him. Completely independently of the fact that they’d done that, though, he really was the murderer, and a fair and honest evaluation of the evidence probably would have come to that conclusion, so the framing was unnecessary. And counterproductive, of course, because Simpson’s defense team was able to show evidence of the framing, and that was enough to put a reasonable doubt in the minds of the jurors.
John Douglas is a former FBI profiler who researched serial killers and pioneered the somewhat debatable field of behavioral analysis. He was the basis for the Jack Crawford character in several of Thomas Harris’s novels.
I think inept police work and prosecution is far more likely than him being “rightly framed”. They authorities thought they had their man. So they were not as diligent as they should have been. Which meant that the gaps in evidence remained and gave the defence an opening.
The gloves were always difficult to reconcile with the rest of the evidence, as they suggested pre-meditation, while most case theories postulated that Simpson went over to “have words” and that escalated, probably when Goldman arrived at the wrong time. Might have been better just to leave it out entirely.
No he was found liable, not GUILTY. Civil trials don’t find guilt. And there is a difference.
Right, and no kind of trial finds a defendant to be innocent.
I don’t have strong feeling about this either way, but I am willing to explore the theory that his son Jason Simpson is the actual killer, and that OJ’s behavior is explained by his desire to shelter his son.
Yeah. The whole ‘glove doesn’t fit’ is total bullshit. Ever try to put on a pair of close fit dress (not work) leather gloves OVER a pair of rubber/latex surgical gloves? Not gonna happen. Especially if you want it to look like they don’t fit.
To believe that OJ was framed (I am assuming that you are referring to the presence of the glove at his home), you have to believe:
That whoever (presumably Furman) found the glove at the crime scene did so after something like 16 other people had already been there looking for evidence. They would have had to all miss its presence, since none of them saw it.
That the officers chose to plant evidence before they knew whether it was even plausible that OJ could have been involved (as referenced by Shodan). As a celebrity, it would have been easy for him to have an alibi if he was anywhere public, since people will remember seeing him. What then? If his flight had left a few hours earlier, it would have been nonsense to suggest that OJ was responsible because evidence was at his home.
The penalty for framing somebody for a murder is, itself, capital punishment. No matter how racist you may be, are you really going to risk your actual life to frame a black man who, quite frankly, was never a symbol of “black America”? It defies logic.
…
The defense succeeded at the time because they created a narrative that the police mishandled the evidence, and therefore it could not be relied upon. “Garbage in, garbage out”. But this was flawed - DNA evidence positively identified OJ as being at the scene. If the evidence was contaminated, it wouldn’t have identified anybody. A false positive wasn’t reasonable, but the science was new, and very complicated, and escaped everybody’s understanding.
The fundamental flaw, in my opinion, that the prosecution made was believing that the blood evidence was so dispositive (e.g. only three people’s blood was on scene; two were dead, and the other was OJ) that that’s all they really focused on. They should made the blood just one slab of a mountain of evidence.
For example, the woman who saw OJ frantically drive away from the scene wasn’t used because she had later accepted money from the TV show Inside Edition. While this would undoubtedly be hammered at by the defense, it doesn’t mean that she doesn’t have valuable information to provide. And, in my opinion, the fact that she was able to get money for her story only suggests that it was more believable, not less. Yet Marcia Clarke didn’t use her. Mistake, in my opinion.
The DNA matched OJ. It wouldn’t have matched his son. [Note: Before you jump on me, yes that’s a cite to Yahoo Answers, and that’s a shitty cite. But I stand by the argument that a father and son don’t have identical DNA, and you aren’t going to get a match to OJ from Jason’s blood.]
OJ is just guilty. It’s that simple. To think other wise, you must ignore evidence and logic.
And frankly at this point, he all but admits it.
95% of the arguments that he’s innocent rely on him being framed. But as others correctly point out, OJ, being a celebrity, is frequently surrounded by people, or extensively traveling. To frame OJ, you’d take one hell of a chance that he’s not filming a commercial with 100 other people in New York City and then what do you do?.
And when the allegedly racist LAPD arrested OJ for beating up Nicole, they treated him with kid gloves. He pleaded no contest.
So when he puts her in the hospital, they treat him fairly. When he kills her, they frame him out of racism. Seems a little inconsistent to me.
Read the note OJ left. If I were being framed for something I didn’t do, I think I would mention it in my suicide note and not say “don’t feel sorry for me. I’ve had a great life…”
Regards,
Shodan
In Jeffery Toobin’so book about the trial, he says basically that police screwed up by being overly favorable to OJ. A lot of the cops on the case, and he points out Fuhrman as one of them, we’re starstruck that they were dealing with an actual football star, and we’re therefore sloppy procedurally at first. He pointed out that was also why they didn’t take all the domestic abuse alligations seriously.
So it wasn’t that they were biased against him, they were biased in his favor.
He did it, and he got away with it because he was rich, had good lawyers,and a jury that didn’t want to see a famous man hero go down, especially in light of the recent Rodney King disaster. It also helped that the prosecution and cops dropped the ball multiple times.
If he had been a regular joe black dude, with normal representation, they would have locked him up and thrown away the key.
Doesn’t that point in the other direction? That the reason the other 16 people didn’t find it is that it wasn’t planted yet?
And the police wouldn’t have thought of what they were doing as framing him. I imagine the thought process being more like “Well, yeah, of course he did it, we all know that, so how can we get the evidence to put him away?”.
I’ll grant that I may well be overly simplistic in this idea. I haven’t really given the matter much thought-- It’s not like I was one of the jurors, or anything, and I deliberately didn’t pay much attention to the news.
You misunderstand me. The theory (or so I understand it) is that there were actually two bloody gloves at Nicole’s house, but some crooked cop picked up one of those gloves and brought it to OJ’s house so he could “find” it there and go, “Aha, this is the link the connects OJ to the crime!”
But, to do that, this dirty cop would have had to pick up and remove the glove from Nicole’s house. At the time racist Mark Furman showed up, something like 16 people had already cased Nicole’s house for evidence. If he had taken the glove away from the murder scene, somebody would have noticed.
(Is it your theory that the glove was planted at Nicole’s house, too?)
Cops arrive at the scene of a murder, where kids were sleeping upstairs. They decide to go to the house of the kids’ father (who lives elsewhere) to notify him. When they get to his house, they jump the gate (now, here’s where cops are typically “corrupt” - the excuse was because they were worried about his safety; more realistically, they always suspect people who know the victim, and were looking for clues). They then find a glove at the house, with blood on it, that matches one on scene.
At this point, though, they don’t know where OJ is. So they may strongly suspect that he is involved, but they simply don’t know - maybe he was killed along with Nicole. Planting evidence that didn’t arrive somewhere organically creates impossible problems that become insurmountable. What if, at the time, OJ was giving a speech to Hertz executives in some ballroom? What if, 12 hours later, an anonymous tip comes in that some gangbanger is boasting about killing some “white lady and her friend” up in “Brentwood”? What if the killer left his wallet, which gets discovered a day later in the bushes?
If the evidence doesn’t overwhelmingly point to OJ, the inexplicable glove has to be explained. Investigators won’t just ignore it. So you, the crooked cop, now have a huge problem on your hands - it is inconsistent with everything else we know about the case, and you are the reason it exists. The only way it doesn’t become a problem if it is already consistent with other evidence (e.g. there is a trail of blood from the scene to where a car would be parked, there is blood in OJ’s car, and that car was driven back the house, where more blood was found on OJ’s clothes). But if it is so consistent, there’s no reason to plant it.
He gives them an interview a few days later, and his lawyers go to lunch while he speaks! He doesn’t have a reliable account for the time of the killings (he was “driving around”) and he has a cut on his finger, which he waffles about (he explains that he opened it up while packing, and bled in his car. Then he explains that he got mad and cut his finger on a glass when he got the call that Nicole was dead, the next night in Chicago). They should have really hammered him on that.
Even tho I am 90% certain OJ did it, the Defense did raise reasonable doubt. Thus the jury’s verdict was correct.
However, the jury that ruled against OJ in the civil case was also correct, as the same standard doesnt apply there.
This is true and a failure by the prosecution. Also know that wet gloves shrink after drying.