The defense theory was that Fuhrman found a pair of bloody gloves at the murder scene, bagged one, rolled it into his socks, and then planted one at OJ’s house. However that particular type of glove only had 240 pairs sold. Nicole Brown bought two pair for OJ.
He’s also the main dude in Mindhunters. (When is that show coming back, anyway? I really liked it.)
I don’t think the doubt was really reasonable, but that wasn’t sufficiently explained to the jury. As I said upthread, the “doubt” was “because the police were [arguably] sloppy in collecting evidence, you can’t trust it because it was tainted.”
But that doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. So the police get a blood sample from the scene. They don’t secure it properly, and other DNA gets mixed in before it gets to the lab. The lab tests it - what should happen? If it is truly contaminated, they should get an inconclusive result.
But that’s not what happened. Rather, they got positive results for OJ. How is that remotely possible unless they actually had OJ’s blood? You don’t get an accidental false positive with a contaminated sample.
No, there was another doubt- that one of the officers was a screaming racist, which tainted everything he did on the case.
However, the Jury ruled there was reasonable doubt, *so there was. *
Same difficulties as before.
[ul][li]Why were the police so eager to frame him when they didn’t frame him when he beat up Nicole?[/ul][/li][ul][li]How could the police be certain OJ didn’t have an unbreakable alibi?[/ul][/li][ul][li]The blood on the gloves was OJ’s. That is as certain as science can be. How did the police get OJ’s blood to put on the gloves?[/ul][/li]Regards,
Shodan
Well, that’s a little circular. Yes, the jury found reasonable doubt. But we can ask whether their doubt was, in fact, reasonable. It’s just an opinion, but I don’t think it was.
As I already argued, the presence of Furman the racist doesn’t reasonably call into question the evidence, since it is not reasonably plausible that he planted evidence at OJ’s house.
And, even if you discount everything he did on the case, you still have the irrefutable fact that there were 3 people’s blood at the scene, two of them were dead, the other remaining person had lots of circumstantial evidence to put him there (e.g. shoe prints, a lack of an alibi, a cut on his hand, a hair that matches his head at the scene, etc.)
I don’t personally think their doubts were reasonable. Now, I don’t fault them for that - I think the prosecution did a poor job, and the defense was successful at muddying the waters. But the verdict is not necessarily reasonable just because they think it was.
My theory is he purchased bad police work from his long time buddies on the force. All they had to do was send a guy about to be drummed off the force anyway, Furman, (who OJ pays off!), he mucks up the evidence/crime scene, and makes a lot of questionable/contradictory comments and calls. Until it’s all such a mess that a good enough lawyer could easy mock up sufficient reasonable doubt to get him off.
(Just one opinion!)
I’m just not seeing the reasonable doubt. I don’t care if Fuhrman was the grand cyclops of the KKK, he was around other cops and technicians the entire time. He could not have framed OJ even if he wanted to, and as Shodan points out, a frame job could have blown up in his face had OJ had an alibi.
Please explain to me what part of the evidence gives one reasonable doubt? His blood was all over the place! The victim’s blood was at his house! How does Ron Goldman’s blood get at OJ’s house and in OJ’s car if OJ is innocent?
[quote=“Shodan, post:45, topic:819313”]
Same difficulties as before.
[ul][li]Why were the police so eager to frame him when they didn’t frame him when he beat up Nicole?[/ul][/li][/QUOTE]
I’m not arguing for or against the framing argument but I will point out that “the police” are not a unified entity but rather a large group of disparate individuals. Some may be starstruck fans, while others may be raging racists. Unless one is positing that the decision on how to treat OJ, fair or foul, was somehow dictated directly from the top of the police hierarchy and followed to the letter, their treatment of a famous black suspect will vary depending on the individuals involved in any given incident.
FBI serial killer EXPERT John Douglas…
And yes, the cops would have had to agree to frame OJ before they even knew where he was. He could have been giving a speech in front of a thousand people.
And another thing: Who was Simpson before the murders? A washed up football player and a B-bit movie actor. Why risk jail to frame the likes of him?
An aside: The original Chicken Soup For The Soul book, printed in 1993, tells the story of the boy who idolized football player Jim Brown, but was so poor he couldn’t go to a game. He waited for Brown outside the stadium and talked to him one day, telling him he also played football and one day would break all of Brown’s records.
Brown said that was very nice, and asked the boy his name.
“Orenthal James. People call me OJ.”
I’m glad I wasn’t drinking anything when I read that, because I would have choked to death. One year later, I don’t think anyone believed OJ was a role model.
He was still a very well-known (and fairly popular) celebrity at that time. In addition to his acting career (which included significant roles in the Naked Gun movies), he’d been a commentator on NFL broadcasts for a number of years (up until the time of the murders, he worked on NBC’s NFL broadcasts), and was regularly making appearances on TV shows as himself.
So, when the Bronco chase was televised, it was definitely not a case of “Oh, O.J. Simpson, I remember him” – for most people, it was “Holy crap, it’s O.J. Simpson, wanted for murder!”
Which brings up another argument against the framing theory, and is a common flaw to many conspiracy theories - so many people had to be in on it, on a few minutes’ notice, and willing to risk their careers and prison time, to frame a popular sports and entertainment star just because he was black.
You are correct - it would have to be a unified entity, organized from the top in some way. Which didn’t happen when OJ put Nicole in the hospital.
Regards,
Shodan
Right. People liked OJ. Early in the case I heard people saying all the time that OJ couldn’t have done it because he was “such a nice guy.” Of course, they only saw his TV and movie persona, but that attitude was very common.
Further, and I want to make sure I say this right, OJ did not act black. Even racists liked OJ because he was “one of the good ones.”
Even if the police weren’t on such a short time frame and it did not require half the police force to be in on it, nobody wanted it to be him. Hell, it took them three days to arrest him when it was clear on day one that he was guilty. They were just hoping not to have to do it somehow.
Ok, I see your point. But;
Maybe, just maybe the LAPD can be blamed for hiring known racist scumbags?
That really turned the jury against the LAPD.
Also the DA’s office apparently didnt send in their A game, either.
All of that supposition only goes to why the jury may have acquitted. None of it goes to the question the OP asked which is “Is OJ innocent or guilty?”
The OP can read so we can assume he/she is aware that OJ was acquitted in a court of law. He wants to know if he actually did it, convicted or no.
And the evidence is overwhelming to the point of certainty and beyond - OJ killed them both.
Once again: How did the LAPD know where OJ was at the time of the murders? Would they have started framing him when, for all they knew, he could have been in another city, on a plane, shooting a movie in front of an entire movie cast and crew, or giving a speech to a thousand people?
IANAL, but my father was a Federal judge and we spoke about this case almost daily…not going to rehash the whole situation, but his thoughts tracked with yours - take away the celebrity status and the money involved, and it’s likely the case would have been plead down…he got cynical as he got older, he once said he was disgusted by these types of cases as it gave the impression that justice is only as good as the defense one can afford…
America - the country with the best justice system that money can buy?
Looking at the case 20 years on and from a distance - I think he was guilty, but incompetence by the cops and the prosecutor, plus a good defense lawyer, got him off. His celebrity status, his race and the recent Rodney King event made all the difference.
And now where is he 20 years on? A free man, but who really believes he is innocent?
You’re half right. Dumbass went to prison, but for another offense.