# O.J. Simpson, Beyond a Reasonable Doubt **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 26, 2012, 2:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/o-j-simpson-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt/645185 "2012-12-26T14:16:37Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2012, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/o-j-simpson-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt/645185/121 "2012-12-28T15:33:15Z")
> [@brickbacon](#): > > Cute, but we don’t convict people solely on direct physical evidence. I think given the unreliability of the LAPD, the cases were both comparable in terms of difficulty to prosecute. I don’t want to hijack the thread, so perhaps we should agree to disagree on this point. I hold that the Blake case was much weaker than the Simpson case, and that Blake’s acquittal was just. > [@brickbacon](#): > > Actually, it wouldn’t matter to a properly instructed jury as it is a strict liability offense. Yes, it is. That said, do you disagree that, all else being equal, sex crimes are much more difficult to get a conviction on than murder or other violent crimes? To the degree that the celebrity conviction rate and the non-celebrity conviction rate would both be quite low? > [@brickbacon](#): > > I disagree. At least in most cases. Well, here we are then. I don’t know how to get past that fundamental difference. > [@brickbacon](#): > > This has already been answered, but once you cast doubt on the chain of custody, and the reliability of those who processed and collected evidence, the whole thing collapses. Only if the idea of a massive LAPD conspiracy constitutes reasonable doubt. > [@brickbacon](#): > > First, anyone can claim whatever they want. The plausibility of those claims is based on the strength of the evidence for the claim. Not so. California Evidence Code, [section 352:](http://law.onecle.com/california/evidence/352.html) > [@](#): > > The court in its discretion may exclude evidence if its > probative value is substantially outweighed by the probability that > its admission will (a) necessitate undue consumption of time or (b) > create substantial danger of undue prejudice, of confusing the > issues, or of misleading the jury. Judge Ito could have prevented the defense from questioning Fuhrman on use of the n-word, for example. A pre-trial hearing was held on the matter, and he ruled that section 352 did not apply. > [@brickbacon](#): > > The fact that a police officer involved in the case has likely planted evidence before is more than enough reasonable doubt in a case that serious. I’d claim that Fuhrman had not likely planted evidence before, and that further, the case, in total, had it been presented competently, easily met the burden of reasonable doubt. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2012, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/o-j-simpson-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt/645185/122 "2012-12-28T15:35:44Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > Thirdly, even if there was an Illuminati-esque cabal at work, how to do you square that with Simpson’s own actions? The man left a suicide note, put together cash, a passport, and a disguise kit, and tried to flee! What innocent person would ever do that? You’re making too much of this. The answer to your question is: A man who was distraught about his ex-wife for whom he still had feelings being savagely murdered, and who also knew that that as a successful black man there was a very good chance that the police department would accuse and frame him for the murder. Note that I’m not saying this is actually plausible. But I think that jury would have found it plausible. Also, possibly, a [federal judge](http://www.nytimes.com/1996/01/25/nyregion/not-suspicious-to-flee-police-judge-declares.html). ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2012, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/o-j-simpson-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt/645185/123 "2012-12-28T15:36:03Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > The problem with that is that every time a team loses a big game people can - and do - trot out long lists of incorrect decisions by the losing coaching staff. And every losing political campaign has a post-mortem of criticism of assorted decisions by the losing campaign staff. > > That doesn’t mean that all these games and elections are actually being won and lost by the coaches and campaign staff. It just means that nobody is perfect and it’s easy to focus on mistakes by the losing side, and that sometimes even reasonable bets lose and then look foolish in retrospect. I see your point, but it doesn’t follow that the decisions being made don’t influence the outcome, and cannot be analyzed in that context. > [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > My recollection is that Marcia Clark believed that black females would empathize with the victim’s history as a victim of spousal abuse. That would not be my own expectation in that situation, but it had some rational basis. It does, but she persisted in this belief in the face of evidence to the contrary. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2012, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/o-j-simpson-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt/645185/124 "2012-12-28T15:39:46Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > I see your point, but it doesn’t follow that the decisions being made don’t influence the outcome, and cannot be analyzed in that context. That’s true, and it’s possible that you’re right. But my feeling is that this type of analysis is inevitably tainted by hindsight, so I tend to be skeptical and rely more on prior reputation. YMMV. > [@](#): > > It does, but she persisted in this belief in that face of evidence to the contrary. People are like that (especially WRT PC matters of this sort). ---
**Author:** ![brickbacon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/898d66/32.png) [@brickbacon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brickbacon)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2012, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/o-j-simpson-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt/645185/125 "2012-12-28T15:48:39Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > Yes, it is. Then what you stated makes no sense. > [@Human\_Action](#): > > That said, do you disagree that, all else being equal, sex crimes are much more difficult to get a conviction on than murder or other violent crimes? To the degree that the celebrity conviction rate and the non-celebrity conviction rate would both be quite low? Yes, I agree. That has been my point this whole time. Furthermore, you seem to be getting all bent out of shape because I would give the prosecution in OJ’s case a C- instead of an F. > [@Human\_Action](#): > > Not so. California Evidence Code, [section 352:](http://law.onecle.com/california/evidence/352.html) I should have been more clear. I am not talking about a court of law here. Particularly since those things were not specifically alleged in a court of law AFAIK. > [@Human\_Action](#): > > Judge Ito could have prevented the defense from questioning Fuhrman on use of the n-word, for example. A pre-trial hearing was held on the matter, and he ruled that section 352 did not apply. Why would he do that? It was clearly relevant. > [@Human\_Action](#): > > I’d claim that Fuhrman had not likely planted evidence before, and that further, the case, in total, had it been presented competently, easily met the burden of reasonable doubt. Then why didn’t he swear that under oath? What reason would he have to plead the 5th? Honestly, OJ clearly murdered those people, but it’s also pretty clear Fuhrman was a huge scumbag who planted evidence before. ---
**Author:** ![brickbacon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/898d66/32.png) [@brickbacon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brickbacon)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2012, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/o-j-simpson-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt/645185/126 "2012-12-28T16:03:17Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > The problem with that is that every time a team loses a big game people can - and do - trot out long lists of incorrect decisions by the losing coaching staff. And every losing political campaign has a post-mortem of criticism of assorted decisions by the losing campaign staff. > > That doesn’t mean that all these games and elections are actually being won and lost by the coaches and campaign staff. It just means that nobody is perfect and it’s easy to focus on mistakes by the losing side, and that sometimes even reasonable bets lose and then look foolish in retrospect.My recollection is that Marcia Clark believed that black females would empathize with the victim’s history as a victim of spousal abuse. That would not be my own expectation in that situation, but it had some rational basis. Exactly. It’s always easy to see all the errors and mistakes AFTER the fact. The fact is that nobody thought Clarke and Darden were such shitty lawyers in general that they shouldn’t be allowed to try the case. Just consider how many experts thought OJ would be acquitted right before the verdict was announced. If it was so blindingly obvious that they prosecution didn’t do their job, why were people so shocked OJ got off? Please answer that. Given that we saw exactly what happened in real time, why didn’t the expects foresee the outcome if the verdict was considered just? Were Clarke and company criticized throughout? Yes. But nobody thought they were doing the tragically poor job they are NOW accused of doing. Just like it seem obvious now that Obama would beat Hillary, McCain, and Romney. It’s one thing to look back to see WHY things happened as they did, but it’s completely unfair to act as though the outcome was obvious, and solely due to one factor. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2012, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/o-j-simpson-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt/645185/127 "2012-12-28T16:25:55Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > You’re making too much of this. > > The answer to your question is: A man who was distraught about his ex-wife for whom he still had feelings being savagely murdered, and who also knew that that as a successful black man there was a very good chance that the police department would accuse and frame him for the murder. > > Note that I’m not saying this is actually plausible. But I think that jury would have found it plausible. Also, possibly, a federal judge. It’s surely plausible to some percentage of the population, but I don’t think it’s plausible to a reasonable person. It still should have been introduced, how could it have hurt the prosectution? > [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > But my feeling is that this type of analysis is inevitably tainted by hindsight, so I tend to be skeptical and rely more on prior reputation. YMMV. Fair enough. Both views have merit, I’m sure. > [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > People are like that (especially WRT PC matters of this sort). Yes, but it’s another example of incompetence. > [@brickbacon](#): > > Then what you stated makes no sense. I was agreeing that it’s a strict-liability crime. > [@brickbacon](#): > > Yes, I agree. That has been my point this whole time. Furthermore, you seem to be getting all bent out of shape because I would give the prosecution in OJ’s case a C- instead of an F. That’s been your point? How does the Simpson case illustrate your point? I don’t know tht I’m bent out of shape, but yes, I believe strongly that they earned an F. > [@brickbacon](#): > > I should have been more clear. I am not talking about a court of law here. Particularly since those things were not specifically alleged in a court of law AFAIK. Oh, I see. Withdrawn. > [@brickbacon](#): > > Why would he do that? It was clearly relevant. It has to be revelant, AND the probative value must outweigh a “substantial danger of undue prejudice, of confusing the issues, or of misleading the jury.” The prosecution argued that the topic would inflame the jury’s emotions and blind them to facts. Here’s Darden during the hearing I spoke of: > [@](#): > > The word is the filthiest, dirtiest, nastiest word in the English language. It has no place in this case or in this courtroom. It will do nothing to further the court’s attempt at seeking the truth in this case. It will do one thing. It will upset the black jurors. It will give them a test, and the test will be, whose side are you on, the side of the white prosecutors and the white policeman, or are you on the side of the black defendent and his very prominent and capable black lawyer? That’s what it’s going to do. Either you are with the man or the brothers. So, that’s the essence of the arguement. > [@brickbacon](#): > > Then why didn’t he swear that under oath? What reason would he have to plead the 5th? Honestly, OJ clearly murdered those people, but it’s also pretty clear Fuhrman was a huge scumbag who planted evidence before. How should I know? At that point in the trial Fuhrman had been ruthlessly attacked by the defense, abandoned by the prosecution, and made a pariah in the media. Perhaps he was just bitter and wanted no part of proceedings (he took the 5th three times in the same examination). Without some evidence of the planting, I don’t find it credible, and even if I did, the case is still strong enough to convict. > [@brickbacon](#): > > Exactly. It’s always easy to see all the errors and mistakes AFTER the fact. The fact is that nobody thought Clarke and Darden were such shitty lawyers in general that they shouldn’t be allowed to try the case. Just consider how many experts thought OJ would be acquitted right before the verdict was announced. If it was so blindingly obvious that they prosecution didn’t do their job, why were people so shocked OJ got off? Please answer that. Given that we saw exactly what happened in real time, why didn’t the expects foresee the outcome if the verdict was considered just? > > Were Clarke and company criticized throughout? Yes. But nobody thought they were doing the tragically poor job they are NOW accused of doing. Just like it seem obvious now that Obama would beat Hillary, McCain, and Romney. It’s one thing to look back to see WHY things happened as they did, but it’s completely unfair to act as though the outcome was obvious, and solely due to one factor. Because the case was so open-and-shut, so obvious on its face, that it should have been able to overcome the prosecution’s bungling. Sadly, the jury was also deficient, though I don’t blame them as much as others do, like **ralph124c**. People were shocked that it was POSSIBLE to lose this case. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2012, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/o-j-simpson-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt/645185/128 "2012-12-28T18:23:45Z")
Also, the jury never heard Furman take the 5th, nor were they informed of it. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2012, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/o-j-simpson-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt/645185/129 "2012-12-28T18:24:59Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > It has to be revelant, AND the probative value must outweigh a “substantial danger of undue prejudice, of confusing the issues, or of misleading the jury.” Nitpick: that quote is from the Federal Rules of Evidence. In California, the rule is substantially similar but phrased differently and combined with the federal rule about cumulative evidence: > [@](#): > > The court in its discretion may exclude evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the probability that its admission will (a) necessitate undue consumption of time or (b) create substantial danger of undue prejudice, of confusing the issues, or of misleading the jury. [QUOTE=F-P] Also, possibly, a federal judge. [/QUOTE] It was a California state court judge. Again, minor nitpick. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2012, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/o-j-simpson-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt/645185/130 "2012-12-28T18:52:05Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > Also, the jury never heard Furman take the 5th, nor were they informed of it. Good point. I knew that Fuhrman’s invocation of the 5th was outside the presence of the jury, but I was relying on [this LA Times article](http://articles.latimes.com/1995-09-07/news/mn-43219_1_detective-mark-fuhrman), which notes: > [@LA Times](#): > > Jurors, who waited in an upstairs lounge during Fuhrman’s brief but electrifying appearance, did not get to hear the exchange. But Uelmen said he would ask Superior Court Judge Lance A. Ito to instruct the panel today that Fuhrman had taken the 5th Amendment. But, per [this CNN article,](http://www.cnn.com/US/OJ/daily/9-08/index_old.html): > [@CNN](#): > > In a victory for the O.J. Simpson prosecution, a higher court overruled Judge Lance Ito Friday. The 7th District Court of Appeals said Ito cannot inform the jury of former Los Angeles Police Detective Mark Fuhrman’s unavailability for further testimony. > > On Wednesday, Fuhrman had asserted his Fifth Amendment privilege and refused to answer questions about inflammatory comments he made in taped conversations with a screenwriter. The jury was absent when Fuhrman took the stand. > > The ruling helps the prosecution, which did not want Ito to address Fuhrman’s absence before the jury. > > Ito had planned to tell the jury, “(Fuhrman) is not available for further testimony, a factor you may consider in his credibility as a witness.” > [@Really Not All That Bright](#): > > Nitpick: that quote is from the Federal Rules of Evidence. In California, the rule is substantially similar but phrased differently and combined with the federal rule about cumulative evidence: I linked to and quoted the California statute in post 121, but I truncated it when re-quoting it in post 127. Good catch, I should have re-quoted it in full. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2012, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/o-j-simpson-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt/645185/131 "2012-12-28T18:55:06Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > It was a California state court judge. Again, minor nitpick. Also, an incorrect nitpick. Did you read the link? The first three words were “A federal judge …” ---
**Author:** ![handsomeharry](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e9c0ed/32.png) [@handsomeharry](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/handsomeharry)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2012, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/o-j-simpson-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt/645185/132 "2012-12-28T19:04:59Z")
> [@MLS](#): > > When I served on a jury, someone asked the judge what “reasonable doubt” meant. He said it meant a doubt that you had a specific reason for. No percentage was given. Well, I’m sure the judge meant 95%. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2012, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/o-j-simpson-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt/645185/133 "2012-12-28T20:59:09Z")
> [@brickbacon](#): > > If it was so blindingly obvious that they prosecution didn’t do their job, why were people so shocked OJ got off? Please answer that. Because despite the poor job the prosecution did, there was still a great deal more than enough evidence presented to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that OJ Simpson murdered two people. The amount of evidence against him was overwhelming, but made much, much worse by their presentation (or non-presentation in some cases) of that evidence. > [@brickbacon](#): > > Were Clarke and company criticized throughout? Yes. But nobody thought they were doing the tragically poor job they are NOW accused of doing. Again, they were heavily criticized during the trial for the bad job they were doing. But many people, myself included, figured that the evidence was sufficient, despite the poor prosecution job, to prove the case. That’s why I continue to blame not just the prosecution, but also the judge and jury for acquitting OJ Simpson. ---
**Author:** ![ralph124c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@ralph124c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralph124c)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2012, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/o-j-simpson-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt/645185/134 "2012-12-28T21:25:01Z")
Are there any laws about not torturing jurors? If you were stuck in a jury like OJ Simpson’s, you were confined for long periods of time, and subjected to long boring arguments, most of which were calculated to confuse you. Making a decision based on the facts would be very difficult (IMO), after such an ordeal. Are there limits on how long jurors can legally be imprisoned for? ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2012, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/o-j-simpson-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt/645185/135 "2012-12-28T21:31:04Z")
Interesting - I wonder if the right to a speedy trial could be extended to jurors. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2012, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/o-j-simpson-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt/645185/136 "2012-12-28T21:31:57Z")
> [@ralph124c](#): > > Are there limits on how long jurors can legally be imprisoned for? Since they’re not actually being imprisoned or tortured, no, there probably aren’t. > [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Interesting - I wonder if the right to a speedy trial could be extended to jurors. It couldn’t. The Sixth Amendment begins “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial.” Nothing about the rights of jurors there. And there’s nothing about the speed of the trial. It’s about how quickly they are brought to trial so they are not imprisoned indefinitely. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2012, 1:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/o-j-simpson-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt/645185/137 "2012-12-29T01:01:04Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > Because despite the poor job the prosecution did, there was still a great deal more than enough evidence presented to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that OJ Simpson murdered two people. The amount of evidence against him was overwhelming, but made much, much worse by their presentation (or non-presentation in some cases) of that evidence. I agree. How many times in your life have you accidentally cut yourself so bad that you dripped blood from your car to your house and up the stairs? Did it happen on the same night and close to the same time that your ex-wife, or anyone else you are connected with was murdered? Was there blood all over the interior of your car that same night? To me, those three things right there start to approach reasonable doubt or else you are one unlucky bastard. When you throw in the DNA, the glove, the shoe print, etc., its a slam dunk. The prosecution let themselves get bogged down in the question of Fuhrman’s racism which was totally irrelevant for the reasons mentioned in this thread. Ito shouldn’t have even allowed it, but when he did, they should have shrugged it off. Fuhrman couldn’t have frame OJ even if he wanted to. More than ten other cops were there before him. They would have had to have been in on it. Plus, who’s to say that OJ and Leslie Neilsen weren’t promoting Naked Gun 44 1/4 at that time in front of 2,000 people? The whole domestic violence angle was overkill as well. Mention it and move on. Tens of thousands of guys are arrested for DV who don’t subsequently murder their wives/girlfriends. Just keep hitting on the obvious points of a guy with blood all over his house and car the same night his ex-wife is brutally murdered. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2012, 1:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/o-j-simpson-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt/645185/138 "2012-12-29T01:43:51Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > I agree. How many times in your life have you accidentally cut yourself so bad that you dripped blood from your car to your house and up the stairs? > > Did it happen on the same night and close to the same time that your ex-wife, or anyone else you are connected with was murdered? > > Was there blood all over the interior of your car that same night? > > To me, those three things right there start to approach reasonable doubt or else you are one unlucky bastard. > > When you throw in the DNA, the glove, the shoe print, etc., its a slam dunk. The prosecution let themselves get bogged down in the question of Fuhrman’s racism which was totally irrelevant for the reasons mentioned in this thread. Ito shouldn’t have even allowed it, but when he did, they should have shrugged it off. > > Fuhrman couldn’t have frame OJ even if he wanted to. More than ten other cops were there before him. They would have had to have been in on it. Plus, who’s to say that OJ and Leslie Neilsen weren’t promoting Naked Gun 44 1/4 at that time in front of 2,000 people? > > The whole domestic violence angle was overkill as well. Mention it and move on. Tens of thousands of guys are arrested for DV who don’t subsequently murder their wives/girlfriends. Just keep hitting on the obvious points of a guy with blood all over his house and car the same night his ex-wife is brutally murdered. Not to mention that when OJ Simpson was initially interviewed he said he’d cut his finger, but he couldn’t remember how declaring “I bleed all the time”. Moreover, it was pointed out that the particular brand of the gloves in that particular size were really rare and extremely expensive. Very few of them had been sold. Something like only a few hundred IIRC. Of course the prosecution produced a credit card receipt showing that either OJ or Nicole(I can’t remember who) had purchased a set of that brand and that size gloves. In short for OJ to be innocent we’d have to believe that he somehow cut himself so badly he bled all over his car, his clothes and his room but completely forgot how he was cut the same night his wife was killed by either someone who A)was by the most amazing of coincidences one of he few hundred other people on the planet to own a pair of those gloves or B) was the victim of some massive conspiracy which involved people stealing one of his gloves to frame him. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2012, 1:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/o-j-simpson-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt/645185/139 "2012-12-29T01:52:14Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > B) was the victim of some massive conspiracy which involved people stealing one of his gloves to frame him. Why is that a “massive conspiracy”? Once the detective on the case tells you that he fears being prosecuted if he truthfully answers whether he has ever planted evidence, why does it need any sort of conspiracy beyond that one detective, who has admitted that he has something to hide regarding planting evidence to obtain convictions? ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2012, 1:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/o-j-simpson-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt/645185/140 "2012-12-29T01:57:56Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > Why is that a “massive conspiracy”? > > Once the detective on the case tells you that he fears being prosecuted if he truthfully answers whether he has ever planted evidence, why does it need any sort of conspiracy beyond that one detective, who has admitted that he has something to hide regarding planting evidence to obtain convictions? Because that one detective had nothing to do with the mountain of other evidence that proved Simpson guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. You and the jury decided because you thought one witness out of 150 was a bad guy, why then you didn’t have to consider any other evidence whatsoever and you could ignore the mountain of other evidence that proved him guilty. That’s not how it is supposed to work. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/o-j-simpson-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt/645185.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/o-j-simpson-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt/645185.md?page=8)