OJ did it!

The BBQ Pit
81

Don’t apologize. There is nothing too terrible about being horribly and pathetically wrong. :stuck_out_tongue:

Never ascribe disabilities to what can easily be explained by laziness and ignorance.

Of course they discounted it. But, and here is a the big but, they did so with no valid reason. They did what davidw did, made the trial not about the evidence and the proof, but about how they disliked the police and prosecutors.

Evidence doesn’t change because of who presented it. The actual facts are that Simpson’s DNA was all over the crime scene and the victim’s DNA was all over his stuff. The actual facts were that Simpson’s shoes and gloves were at the crime scene. The actual facts were that he had no alibi whatsoever for the time period (unless he was taking a half hour long shower with the limo driver waiting and without his vehicle which magically appeared later and with a large man sneaking into his house who then disappears of course), that he, in fact, had the motive and the opportunity. And the actual fact is that there is no one else in the entire world who committed these murders.

Any decent defense attorney does what they did when the evidence itself is overwhelming. They turn it into a popularity contest and attack the police and prosecutors.

We agree more than you would think. I think the police certainly “helped” the evidence out a bit. Which is a chasm from that to the grand conspiracy that would have been necessary to fabricate ALL the evidence presented, as well as the violations of the laws of science that turn peoples DNA into something else.

No, I won’t. I’m not going to rehash the entire case or point out the faults in your allegations (it was 5 hours after finding the bodies that Fuhrman and Vannatter went to Simpson’s home). There were over a dozen cops at the crime scene before the Detectives arrived, and almost all of them saw the evidence the was eventually seized. It was simply impossible for two guys to frame OJ without everyone else there being in on it. And a conspiracy of that magnitude would have been done a fuck of a lot better.

82

He had the money to hire experts to follow the chain of evidence and to know when it was mishandled. He had the money to get people to look up Fuhrman"s history. You would not have been able to afford that. You would have been found guilty. OJ was able to chop up the prosecution pretty well. He was found not guilty.
It appears the police are willing to shade things to justify arrests and prosecutions. These nuances are undetectable for the poor. OJ had the cash to get justice we could never obtain. But ,I guess it was justice.

83

They fabricated / “helped” a bit. Even you must admit it. And were caught at it/shown to have done so by the defense. Which tainted ALL of it.

The obviously tainted parts of the evidence could not be separated from the evidence as a whole. Insist all you want-- but the jury had no objective basis to toss those tainted bits and still accept other, connected or associated bits, except an *a priori *belief in OJ’s guilt that you seem to demand they share with you. The bungling prosecutors could not overcome this hurdle.

Meh.

You don’t need to. You just pointed out the truth of my conclusions.

84

And, again, there is a world of difference between what I consider “helped” and “fabricated”. They didn’t “fabricate” the physical evidence, it was all there. Nobody planted his blood, hairs, fibers, shoes, and gloves at the crime scene. Nobody “fabricated” Nicole and Ron’s blood in his car, on his clothes or at his house. Nobody “fabricated” his lack of alibi, the lack of any other credible suspects, or his slow speed chase.

See, that’s the leap that I was mocking davidw about. This idea that the fact Vannatter had OJ’s blood, or that Fuhrman is a racist jagoff, DOES NOT taint all of it. To reach that conclusion, you have to believe the grand conspiracy that everyone involved in the case were framing OJ. And the idea that somehow the police lucked into finding someone to kill Nicole in order to frame OJ is catastropically silly.

You are, once again, overreaching. Simple mistakes regarding the chain of evidence, or collection, do not call ALL the evidence into question. It’s exactly that kind of lack of critical thinking about the evidence that the jury avoided like the plague.

I fear you misread my post. C’est la vie.

85

I misread nothing. I merely disagree.

OJ frequently visited the crime scene, and exchanged clothing and other chattels with the residents, his ex-wife and his children. The presence of his DNA, hairs, and fibers are thus not definitive of him as killer. The prosecutors in the criminal trial never proved he owned shoes of that size and style. (The civil trial did better.) The gloves also were never proved to be his-- and you surely are not forgetting the glove climax at the trial, are you?

As I suggested before, that second glove from the crime scene could have been dabbed around the car before it was planted-- er, “discovered”. What else could have drawn Vannatter and Fuhrman to OJ’s house, sufficient for them to perjure themselves about the reason for the trip? Or do you actually find it “credible” that they went to all that trouble to determine that OJ was not an additional victim?

Lack of an alibi could happen to anybody-- ever been alone for several hours? It surely is not enough to convict someone. “Lack of credible suspects” is cop jargon for “we don’t have anything on anybody yet.” A reasonable defense is to ask “How hard did you look?”. The slow speed chase was never introduced at trial. So neither of these were evidence.

Not only did Vannatter have OJ’s blood, but the blood on the back gate at Nicole’s was tainted with the preservative EDTA. Just like the blood in the vial drawn from OJ. The tech who actually drew OJ’s blood first testified that he drew 10cc. Later, when re-interviewed by the prosecutor’s representatives in his hospital bed and outside of the presence of the defense, he stated that it was his “usual practice” in all of his years of experience to draw a full 10cc vial, and he had every reason to believe that he had done so in this instance as well, and absolutely no reason to think that he had not, but his memory had faded and he could not specifically recall if he had drawn exactly 10cc in OJ’s case, and so it might possibly have been a bit less. Or it might not.

Your belief in OJ’s guilt clouds your analysis. Pretend it was somebody else on trial. The fact that Vannatter played fast and loose with chain of custody issues, or that Fuhrman hated niggers, especially this nigger, and had a history of evidentiary tampering most certainly DOES taint everything they came in contact with. Recall that these were the lead detectives on the case, and had control of and/or access to literally every shred of evidence. Ray Charles could see the problems a jury – any jury – would have with such a mess.

No one has suggested a conspiracy to kill Nicole and frame OJ. That’s ridiculous. The police – at least some of the police – just took it upon themselves to enhance the actual evidence, probably not trusting their own prosecutors to make the case (prescient perhaps) or because of a belief that OJ’s notoriety and money would make him difficult to convict. They just never figured on OJ’s money buying defenders savy enough to first reveal (the possibility of) their tampering, and then smear it around onto everything else offered as evidence.

You are simply and demonstrably wrong. Not that I misread your post – I did not. You are wrong about evidentiary issues. Ask any trial lawyer or any judge about “simple” mistakes in chain of evidence and evidence collection. The standard of evidence in criminal trials is “beyond and to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt”. Each such mistake, and in this trial there were many, creates by definition its own reasonable doubt. Pile up a few of these, add in the usual charge from the bench, and even OJ walks. Despite your belief in his guilt, however fervent. Or mine, for that matter.

C’est la vie indeed.

86

Your summation of what O.J.'s acquittal adds up to – or not – is quite savvy. And touché on the bolded part.

87

Hamlet is (or was) a prosecutor. Therein lies his inability to accept that incompetence on the parts of the prosecution and police could ever lead a jury to reasonable doubt.

88

Damn! Push me over with a feather!

I wish to cast no aspersions upon him personally. But with that background, I am astounded. Far be it from me to try to teach granny to suck eggs. It’s his profession, not mine.

Not that he would unreasonably or untruthfully defend the side of the prosecutors and police, even subconsciously. I never thought that.

But I remain astounded that he refuses to see how a charge to resolve every conflict of evidence with the most favorable interpretation for the defendant results in acquittal, given the case (OJ) at hand.

Or that he somehow subconsciously conflates the two.

89

The blood drops of the murderer, on the left side of the shoe prints at the murder scene, were also found and recorded before anyone knew where Simpson was, as well. Had I been prosecuting, I would have made sure to emphasize this fact, over and over and over, in my closing. How could a rogue cop, intent on framing OJ, mysteriously know that OJ had any injuries at all, let alone the only injury he did have was on his let hand, before ever laying eyes on the man, since he was out of state when the evidence was recorded? How would Vannatter know to plant blood evidence only on the left side of the murderer’s footprints, hmmm? That is, without being clairvoyant.

Feel free to throw out and/or dismiss every single solitary piece of evidence collected at Simpson’s home as potentially tainted. Ignore it. Pretend that you believe Vannater really and truly did plant blood evidence at OJ’s home. Pretend you believe they planted the bloody socks there. Dismiss every thread of evidence that came from OJ’s home and car. You don’t need it at all to draw a “without reasonable doubt” conclusion based on the crime scene evidence alone. In particular, the evidence I discussed in the paragraph just preceding this one.

It would be physically impossible for anyone on the police force to have planted blood droplets that came from neither victim, along the left side of the bloody footprints of the murderer, with the intent of framing OJ Simpson, having no earthly idea OJ would have an injury on his left hand (or other left-side body part that might drip blood), since OJ was sitting at a hotel in Chicago when that evidence was discovered.

Impossible.

Not just highly unlikely, but impossible.

As for the verdict in this case, I’m satisfied that it was just, based on this crime and this crime alone. The man committed armed robbery and kidnapping. And although it wasn’t made part of the case, he apparently did so with the intent to defraud the Goldman’s out of their rightful claim to that property per their civil judgment against him. He got away with two murders – of course he thought he’d get away with this, too. This time, I’m damn glad he didn’t.

90

I don’t recall you ever being a lying douchebag in any of my dealings with you before. Why the change now?

91

I don’t see where anybody in this thread who is arguing that the poor way the prosecution presented its case, the shoddy police work in the investigation, or the taint of historical prejudice, invented police work and testimony in O.J.'s murder trial means that the entirety of the evidence was planted (or enhanced) to frame O.J. or that O.J. was innocent.

The end result though was that the defense presented a case that left enough dents, dings, counter-arguments and seeds suggesting that there could be other possible explanations for certain aspects of the evidence so that the totality of that presentation fell short of being beyond a reasonable doubt.

That’s how juries work and that’s how they’re supposed to work.

92

Not so. Even if there was doubt about every piece of evidence, but one, and that one was absolute, then it doesn’t (or shouldn’t) matter that bumbling police screwed up the scene at OJ’s house (for whatever reason, motive to frame or not).

If there is physically no way for anyone to have planted those blood drops on the left side of the murderer’s shoes at the scene of the crime, and those blood drops match not only OJ Simpson’s DNA, but a fresh, physical injury he had the day after the murders, then it’s unreasonable not to recognize that there’s no doubt about his guilt. It’s as if he were standing there with a smoking gun in his left hand, and the jury chose to ignore the gun because they Keystone Cops worked a different scene altogether from the murder scene.

93

No, you misread my statement that the police “helped” the evidence and took it to mean that they fabricated and lied.

Are you serious? We’re talking about his bloody footprint with the blood of the victims nearby, his bloody glove, his hair and fibers on the victims and a cap, all taken on that very day at the crime scene with the blood of the fucking victims. Fuck man, what color is the sky in your world?

Laughable. What in your little world, happened? OJ just happened to drop his cap, be bleeding earlier in the day at the exact same spot as Nicole and Ron were murdered, and some fibers he had stuck around long enough to end up on the victims? I seriously had no idea you were this far gone.

Wha? Huh? I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you meant that the prosecution didn’t prove that OJ owned the shoes worn by the murderer. But there was testimony that they were size 12, and OJ wore size 12. And, yes, the civil trial did a better job of tying that up.

And again, the gloves were his size (measured by the expert), there were only 240 pairs sold in the entire US, and two pair were bought by Nicole and given to OJ. He was photographed wearing the same model of gloves on television. I admit the trying on of the gloves was a dramatic courtroom show, complete with OJ’s typical overacting.

Again with the could. None, and I mean none, of the 15 officers who were at the crime scene before Fuhrman, ever said, noted, or testified that there were ever, ever, ever two gloves at the crime scene for Fuhrman to take one. None. Ever. In fact, there was sworn testimony by two police officers (one of them black) that there was ONLY ONE GLOVE at the scene the entire time before Fuhrman arrived.

This is a great example of the (generously called) “thinking” that defense counsels love. Ignore the fact that he SHOULD have had an alibi, ignore that the limo driver rang for him, didn’t see his Bronco, and saw a man meeting his general description arrive a half hour after the limo driver was supposed to pick up Simpson and almost immediately Simpson wakes up from his nap, or gets out of his shower, or finishes chipping golf balls or any of the other lies Simpson told the cops. Ignore it all, and try and pretend these kinds of things can happen to anyone. Why just the other day, I was bleeding next to my ex-wife’s house and dropped by cap and a few fibers, then I went home with some blood that just happened to be lying around that was hers and another guy who I never met, and THAT VERY NIGHT, they were mysteriously slaughtered. And all that just so happened to occur while I should have been in a limo, but I had slept/showered/golfed, so I didn’t have an alibi. Damn the luck!

Well, here we are over 10 years after, any credible suspect? Were there EVER any other credible suspect? Some other poor schlub who happed to own the same shoes, gloves and propensity to bleeding that OJ did?

Ahh, the old EDTA dodge. Here, read this

I’ve done enough of this. I don’t know why I let you drag me into the details of the case. If you haven’t figured it out by now, I fear there is no hope. Maybe there is a part of me that thinks that maybe, just maybe, when I point out the baloney about the EDTA, the crap about the shoes, gloves, and fiber, the drawing of the blood, the impossibility of the necessary conspiracy, your misunderstanding of the facts, you’ll come around. I ain’t holding my breath though.

MY belief in OJ’s guilt is a result of the evidence, not despite it like the jury’s.

I liked OJ. I liked Naked Gun, his overacting, and Hertz. Like pretty much the entire world, I had nothing against OJ. It could have been you, me, or Gandhi on trial with that evidence and I would have determined he was guilty.

Then the police, especially Fuhrman, was just incredibly lucky that Nicole was murdered so they had something to pin on OJ? Talk about ridiculous.

94

I owe you an abject apology. It appears that for lo, these many years, I have had you confused with someone else.

I was talking out of my hat; I was wrong; and I apologize.

CannyDan, please revise your opinion accordingly. And a sorry to you too for misleading you.

95

While I do love apologies, I am afraid that you might have misunderstood me. You’re not lying for concluding that “Hamlet is (or was) a prosecutor.” That is perfectly true. I concluded that you were being a lying douchebag for the completely false part of your statement: “Therein lies his inability to accept that incompetence on the parts of the prosecution and police could ever lead a jury to reasonable doubt.” I hope that clears up any confusion.

96

Ah. Well, I had assumed it was the first sentence, as how can I lie about an opinion? Apology accordingly retracted.

97

Word.

Shayna, had the prosecution presented only a fraction of the “mountain of evidence” and been more careful that the evidence chosen was irrefutable, I think they would have gotten a conviction. But instead they tried to bring in everything including the kitchen sink (literally, as I seem to recall). Hamlet, your lengthy recounting of the evidence doesn’t change or even address my point (including your link).

See, the problem with “questionable” evidence is like the proverbial “little bit pregnant”. If you are caught in even a little lie, or a bit of “a stretcher” as Huck Finn called them, then it is within reason to doubt ALL of your statements.

Fuhrman and Vannatter didn’t go to OJ’s house to look for another victim, and didn’t hop the wall thinking they would find his mangled body inside. That was an artful dodge, designed to prevent any evidence they might discover from being rejected as “poisoned fruit” of an illegal (warrantless) search. Testifying that they had done so made everything else they said, and everything else they touched, suspect. Not automatically rejected, mind you, but suspect. In hindsight, they should have gotten a search warrant. But they were so sure, so cocky, and probably so gleeful to be (in their minds) now able to ‘get’ OJ that they skipped that step. And, in a less high profile case, their artful dodge probably wouldn’t have raised any eyebrows.

Then the prosecution proceeded to drag in every little tiny thing, clearly believing that they were piling up an airtight case. But at every step the defense was able to raise questions about some part of the evidence presented. Not questions about all of it, certainly. But again, every questionable item called into question every other item.

Demonstrable crime scene bungling made the entire body of evidence suspect. Not rejected outright, mind, but suspect. For instance, crime scene video shows two different shots of OJ’s bedroom-- one with the famous bloody socks, one without. But the internal time counter on the videos has the scene “without” chronologically before the scene “with”. Tampering, or planting of evidence? Or, as the video tech explained, just his mistake in setting the camera date and time stamp? Either way, yet another question.

Much of the best “scientific” evidence was discountable to a lay jury as a “battle of the experts” including your link on EDTA. In many cases where experts disagree, juries often see them all as hired guns and discount both sides.

Hamlet, neither the size of my world (“little”?) nor the color of its sky is at issue here. The shoes (thus the shoe prints) were not proved to be OJ’s, the hair and fibers could be explained by his previous visits, the blood and DNA were (1) scientifically debatable by hired guns on both sides and (2) imputed to be possibly planted (legitimately or not, thus my choice of imputation) and finally the blasted glove DID NOT FIT. Too late then to explain that it “didn’t fit any more” because it shrank, no really, I swear, it must have fit before… And how indeed can you suggest that anybody “should have” had an alibi? Do we all need to document our every step lest some coincidental event be blamed on us for not having the foresight to maintain a running alibi? And how can you suggest that an investigation so blatantly focused exclusively on OJ from the very first moments proves that no other suspects could or should have been at least entertained?

Acquittal did not require a belief in a conspiracy, nor can it be simply dismissed by blaming the jury. Plenty of people in the good old US of A, and not just people of color, have ample personal experience with police officers “stretching” evidence and with prosecutors willing to strain at gnats and swallow camels to gain a conviction. The defense was able to use this background suspicion, inflame it with Fuhrman’s own tape recorded bigotry, and expertly (using their experts) turn a “mountain of evidence” into a trash pile.

I haven’t “dragged” you into anything. Your keyboard, like your opinion, remains your own to do with as you will. Your outrage is certainly shared by the majority of people who remember the trial. I merely think that the target of blame is misplaced. And, to repeat, I agree with you that OJ must have been guilty. You – or they – just couldn’t prove it the way they played it.

The take-away lesson for prosecutors perhaps is “less is more”.

98

You had a point? Who knew?

I understand the HOW of dismissing evidence happens. The jury, like yourself, didn’t like or trust Fuhrman, so they simply dismissed, without even really considering, ALL the evidence. And, in doing so, they threw rationality, common sense, and reasoned debate away in favor of “sending a message”.

Well, they left out the slow speed car chase and OJ’s disguise, cash and stuff, so they didn’t throw everything in. That was yet another one of their mistakes.

Bullshit. There was never any REASONABLE question that OJ’s blood was found at the crime scene. There was never any REASONABLE question that the bloody footprint was left by a pair of shoes that was his size. There was never any REASONABLE question that the blood stained glove had OJ’s, Ron Goldman’s and Nicole’s blood on it, and it was the same type owned and used by OJ.

In sum, there was never any REASONABLE doubt. Any jury can find any doubt. But, rather than go through the evidence presented, the Simpson jury simply did what you have described, dismissed it all because Fuhrman was a racist and other investigators and the prosecution made mistakes.

And, again, the “battle of the experts” was not REASONABLE. For the 6 days Spence spent on the DNA evidence, he made no real dent in the evidence, except to people who can’t take the time to pay attention to the evidence. So, rather than listen, and look at the evidence, they do what you just did, wave their hands and say “well it’s just a battle of the experts”. The only questions raised by the defense were all answered in rebuttal. The fact is the defense did all they could with the DNA evidence, bore the fuck out of the jury, raise unreasonable doubts about it, and hope the jury doesn’t look too closely at their smoke and mirrors. And the jury complied.

I’m snipping some of your post, because it’s just the same old baloney.

Again, you misunderstand. OJ was supposed to have an alibi when the murders occurred. He was supposed to be in a limo on the way to the airport. Had he not been busy slaughtering Ron and Nicole, he would have had an alibi. I’m not saying everybody at everytime needs an alibi, but if you are supposed to have one, and you don’t, and then you lie through your teeth about it, that should tell people of normal intelligence, something about your guilt.

Because he fucking did it?

That’s just silly. The lesson for all prosecutors from the OJ case are numerous, but the number one is don’t be grossly incompetent like Garcetti, Clark and Darden.

99

Once the cops have shown that they will massage the evidence to get a conviction, it makes all evidence suspect. It is hard not to wonder about the rest. The jury was in a tough spot.

100

Gee, thanks for the civil discourse!

I know it’s the Pit, but I didn’t think rudeness was a requirement.

You say. Your opinion. Apparently others differ.

Meh.

I’m still going with ‘less is more’. You can call it gross incompetence if you like. At least it puts the blame where it belongs – off of the jury.