"O.J. Innocent" says BBC

Great Debates
1

According to this articlein the Washington Post, a BBC documentary has come to the same conclusion as the O.J. Simpson jury- that given the examples of trial tampering and fraud the LAPD has been involved with, and given that some of the evidence in the trial could not have been gathered without tampering (apparently, “one incriminating bloodstain found on the glove compartment could have been put there only if the glove compartment had been removed first”), that O.J.'s presumed guilt should be in doubt.

Any Brits see this documentary? What say those who feel that O.J. was set free by a bigoted, idiot jury?

2

More upcoming BBC documentaries:

“Janet Reno: America’s Sweetheart”

“A BBC Tribute to America’s Greatest Star, Paulie Shore”

“Joe Pesci:Sex Symbol for a New Millennium!”

“The Wit & Wisdom of Dan Quayle”

“Visit the Gay Mecca of Bird Center, Texas!”

3

I saw it. Very interesting. Very very interesting. The main points were:
[ul]
[li]Evidence at the scene was badly contaminated due to very poor procedure[/li][li]Tampering with evidence looks probable, particularly with regard to blood stains on clothing and in the Bronco[/li][li]Police did not follow up other lines of enquiry because the ‘knew’ who did it[/li][/ul]
If the program is to be believed then it seems likely that OJ was not the murderer but was probably somehow involved, perhaps after the fact. His eldest son was put forward as a possible suspect and the circumstantial evidence looks damming, but he was never questioned by police.

Overall I was impressed by the quality of the journalism in the making of the program and the calibre of the ‘experts’ called in to offer their opinion. I hope you get the opportunity to see it. It certainly raises questions.

4

I didn’t see it but I heard they pointed the finger more toward OJ’s son. The beeb tend to shy away from sensational reporting (unless they’re duped) so I’d guess it was pretty well researched with some credible talking heads thrown in.

A review I glanced at said the programme claimed America had made its mind up and then closed it - I don’t know if that’s what the programme actually said. Sorry, can’t help any more.

Eve, the next one is to be called:

Are the Bush Dynasty the new Kennedy’s ?

5

This confirms what I’d suspected for a long time re: the OJ Simpson case: The cops screwed up big time.

Yes, yes, I know there’s a good probability that Simpson really is guilty, but with the near certainty of tampering, it’s impossible to know for sure, so in the end the jury made the only decision they could have. It’s terrible that someone who, if not guilty of murder, very likely was still in on the crime somehow, is free, but that’s how the system works. Even worse, the prosecution was so dead-set on one man that they IGNORED another prime suspect!

BBC may be wrong in declaring OJ innocent, but frankly, that’s beside the point. The point is that when you’re trying to win a court case, you cannot break the rules. No matter how strong you think your case is, no matter how trivial you think the rules and procedures are. Anyone who thinks [s]he can flout procedures and get away with it is simply foolish.

6

OJ was declared not guilty. A declaration of innocence is impossible under American law, as innocence is always presumed. Hence, in criminal cases the burden of proof is always on the prosecution. All the defense has to do is introduce reasonable doubt. Just thought you Brits should know how things work over here.

7

Well Derleth, I don’t know where DKW comes from but the style is American. Oddly enough most Brits would probably have a grasp of how things work over there because it’s the same common law system. For reasons we all understand.

8

Not true. It is quite rare, but it is possible for a judge to render a verdict of legally innocent if the situation so merits. This is usually done in appeals where someone who was previously wrongly convicted needs something a little stronger than “you can go now” to clear his name. But it can be done.

9

While the show confused matters by showing 2 alternatives that are not related at all and showed plausible evidence for both it was still very interesting.

It showed how many mistakes the LAPD made when collecting and controlling evidence. It showed how cross contamination was almost inevitable because cops where literally walking through blood and then going to the other crime scene.

They also showed how the blood evidence in the Bronco is very suspect because of how it appeared after the initial check. It also was in a position that was physically impossible to have got there naturally. Also the blood on the socks contained a chemical that is used by forensics and does not occur naturally. The chemical was in the blood but not in the socks. The British experts said that this blood had to have been placed there after the fact.

Before this show I was 110% positive of OJ’s guilt. Now I have to say I have a reasonable doubt.

Hope you get to see it in America. Or hopefully 60min’s will do a show about it.

10

Mistakes were certaibnly made, but one thing I’ve never understood is this: WHY would the L.A. police suddenly decide to frame a (semi) famous person for a high-profile murder, when they’d been letting him get away with wife-beating for, like, ten years?

O.J. was pals with the L.A. cops—black and white—and they’d been laughing off Nicole’s 911 calls. What did they think? “Oh, well, the wife-beating was funny, but now that we’ve got a murder, let’s do a total about-face and set him up?”

Makes no sense.

11

I suppose one possibility is that he made friends with some of the LAPD (his local precinct ?) but with a murder case you bring in a whole different bunch of banana’s.

For example, a high profile murder often means politicians pressure the police for an arrest to appease the media fuelled interest of the taxpaying public. Whatever was going on changed dramatically once the deed was done. Just a thought.

I’m gone, have a good weekend everyone.

12

One of the theories is that OJ might have been there after his son actually committed the murders. This would account for some of the forensic evidence. Add this to innocently placed evidence due to contamination and then the possibility of a police force under pressure to get results simply “helping” their case along by making it better.

ALL WAG’s BTW .

13

The Simpson Defense: “This man was set-up. His blood was planted by crooked cops who carried the Simpson samples back to the scene of the crime.”

The Prosecution: “See here, the crime scene DNA matches OJ. The odds of another person matching are 7 billion to 1, and there aren’t that many people alive.”

The Simpson Defense: “It’s preposterous, ludicrous, outrageous. The samples are contaminated. They don’t match, they are really contaminated by a sloppy investigative team”.

The Prosecution: “I thought you said they are really Simpson’s planted blood? If you claim they are really planted samples, you should agree with the exact DNA match.”

The Simpson Defense: “The blood was planted. Don’t bring in confusing facts.”

The Prosecution: “The DNA matches Mr. Simpson.”

The Simpson Defense: “That blood is not OJ’s. We have DNA experts with even more annoying attorney attitudes that will demonstrate that it doesn’t match”

The Prosecution: “What the hell is your point?! You said it was OJ’s!”

The Defense: “The BBC is going to clear this up one day. They will have cleared, the blood was smeared. You must believe the BBC, and me, and set him free.”

The Prosecution: “Huh!??!”

The Defense: “Believe the BBC, set him free. The OJ blood was planted, and yet our claim is that it doesn’t match, but yet when it matches, it’s due to contamination, not planting, because if it was planted, it would match, but it doesn’t match, yet the blood was planted”.

The Jury: “Otay!!!”

The BBC: “Right-you-are-chaps!”

THE U.S. People: “Someone bitch slap Johnny!”

:slight_smile:

14

I have to perhaps agree after reading a couple of books on the case that the police did not protect the integrity of the crime scene. Then of course there was SO DAMNED MUCH BLOOD at that location that it was literally running down the sidewalk. It also must have been extremely difficult to collect and process such evidence. I personally think that the FBI should have been called in immediately to assist. You would think that a progressive state such as California would have the best of technology and top of the line professionals attached to their forensic unit, it doesn’t appear that was the case. This is often a problem even in large cities, Boulder and the Ramsey case is another example. It’s a shame that local authorities are either appointed or elected which often does not give them a vested interest in admitting when they are not equipped to handle the job. But the idea of a frame up seems completely ridiculous to me. I cannot see where it would benefit the police or the district attorney’s office to frame a man with such resources and visiblity. On the contrary, I would think that in a case such as this the police might be more inclined to look the other way. In hindsight they certainly would have been better off if they had.

What has always made me sick about this case more than anything is the way the defense, the jury and the media downplayed OJ’s history of domestic violence. That is why he was the prime suspect in these murders and why to this day many people believe he got away with it. Not only was he violent towards his wife but his documented behavior toward Nicole shows the classic case of man bent on manipulation, domination and control.

It is a sad fact that our criminal justice system has for many years disallowed evidence of prior violent behavior into trials for those accused of violent acts in an attempt not to unduly predjudice the jury. Thank goodness this has been changing.

I also find it disgusting that a jury of 12 people would not see this kind of behavior for what it is, a precursor to even more violent behavior. It shames me to think that our society has simply not yet completely moved beyond the notion that a woman is a man’s property and that violence toward your spouse or SO is in some way acceptable or forgivable.

Needs2know

15

Good point. I think the answer might be, because they genuinely believed he was guilty and decided to make “improvements” to the existing evidence in order to build a better case. One of the points made in the BBC documentary was that once they had identified O J as the prime suspect (within minutes of the bodies being discovered), they failed to pursue any other lines of inquiry seriously.

Quite possibly. A lot of men would be prepared to turn a blind eye to wife-beating, but would draw the line at murder.

I’m not sure what probative value the history of domestic violence has. It might demonstrate that he is a loathsome individual but it does not prove he is a murderer. It could even be taken as evidence of his innocence: he often lost his temper and attacked her, but never used a knife. The killer used a knife, therefore it is less, not more, likely that he was the killer.

By the way, everyone is entitled to defend himself, whether he is guilty or innocent; and he is entitled to instruct lawyers to act on his behalf. They, in turn, are entitled to use whatever arguments and evidence the court will admit in defence of their client. I can’t see why this would make you “sick”.

This proposition, if specific, is only true if you assume his guilt. Any argument from domestic violence to murder in that case is circular. If general, it requires some justification.

16

Oh puh-leese! This wa just 2 people killed in a driveway, hardly FBI worthy!! If She hadnt been OJ’s wife, it wouldnt have even made the friggin news.

Philster, that was the best post I have seen in a long time - I will watch for more from you!

17

Guess what Kelli…local jurisdictions often call in the FBI when a “regular” person is murdered if they are willing to admit that they are not equipped to handle the situation. This was a horrific murder, a double homicide. Nicole’s head was practically severed. Another reason why her estranged husband was the prime suspect, it was an “up close and personal attack”. The perpetrator of this attack was acting out a terrible degree of anger on the victims. Besides you would think that the damned LAPD would have enough sense not to allow a bunch of cops to run all over the crime scene. I personally believe that this crime was so brutal, so fresh, and so distrubing that the police were unnerved and made mistakes. After reading about how professionally handled, successful investigations are run it’s obvious to me that this crime scene needed someone with the proper training to take charge from the beginning. Going back to the Ramsey case, the detective in charge of that investigation was a dumb ass and made similar mistakes. But she was unnerved, she even lead the officers and the family in prayer! Don’t tell me either one of these investigations would not have benefitted from some professionalism and objectivity.

Without the socks, bloody glove, etc. OJ still would have been the prime suspect in this homicide. His questionable whereabouts, the brutal and personal nature of the attack, his past history of violence and manipulation toward his wife was enough to get a conviction on this guy. Other men with shallower pockets have been easily convicted on much less.

Needs2know

18

The program also said the Ron Goldman was a blackbelt in Karate. There was evidence of a major fight. This man really fought for his life. He has 20+ stab wounds some defensive. His knuckles were shown in the program and they were cut and bruised. He was not a small man ~6ft+ and fit.

Does anybody who has any experience in martial arts have a opinion on this? Is it possible for OJ to have come out of this altercation with only a small cut to his finger and not one bruise anywhere on his body.

19

FBI Help: Moot Point ALERT!!! MOOT POINT - ALERT LEVEL 3!!! :eek:

God’s testimony and a video tape of the incident would not have resulted in a conviction. :slight_smile:

Vincent Bugliosi, prosecutor extraordinaire, pointed out many areas of improvement for the prosecuting team, many which are very easy to agree with, especially when Marcia Clark grates your nerves.

But, all that aside, it is the total ignorance of the jury that makes people want to scream, especially Bugliosi. OJ is guilty, and the evidence bears that out.

The FBI? Okay, this was a major city, not Bumblefuck, Alabama! The FBI is not needed!!! :eek:

AND READ THIS POINT, BECAUSE IT DEMONSTRATES THE CONFUSION CREATED BY THE DEFENSE>>>>>>>>

THIS WAS A STRAIGHT-FORWARD CASE - ALMOST AS STRAIGHT-FORWARD AS THEY GET!!! THERE WAS HARDLY ANY REASON TO DOUBT THAT A CONVICTION WAS SOLID, AND THE EVIDENCE WAS FRIGHTINGLY ACCURATE AND DAMN INCRIMINATING BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.

The Defense created an illusion that still has an effect on reasonable people, even those who visit SD message boards! :eek:

REASONABLE PEOPLE WERE ‘STUNNED’ BY THE JURY !!!

In hindsight, we want the FBI because he wasn’t convicted, but also in hindsight, nothing, including confessions and a video tape, would get OJ convicted!

20

After the reaction to the verdict, I asked a black friend of mine, “do black people really think O.J. is innocent?”

He laughed and said, “of course not, do you think we’re idiots? We just say that to piss off you white people!”