If we can reach a point to agree to disagree, I think this is it. I find it preposterous, for all the reasons I’ve listed before, that Fuhrman planted the glove, and instead find it perfectly reasonable that a guy who has already left a fair amount of incriminating evidence, will do so again at his house. You seem to assume, again based on supposition, that he KNEW he dropped the bloody glove at his place and just left it there. I, however, think it’s makes perfect sense for a guy who dropped one glove and left it AT THE MURDER SCENE, would do it again at his house. You seem to think otherwise. Fair enough. I just think my scenario is supported by facts and evidence and yours is based on speculation and guesswork. But, again, we can agree to disagree.
I gotta ask why you think that. Because it certainly isn’t because of the evidence. The first officer to arrive was Ofc. Riske at 12:17 a.m. Fuhrman (and Phillips) arrived at 2:10, 2 HOURS later and when there were at least a dozen officers already there, and who had identified all the evidence. Vannatter didn’t arrive until 4:10 a.m.
And, again, I have to ask, where do you get this, because it isn’t in the evidence. All the evidence had been located by other officers before Fuhrman arrived and the place was crawling with cops. And you think they found all the other evidence, but just happened to miss a glove, which just happened to be found by Fuhrman (was Vannatter with him yet, because they arrived at different times) who just so happens to hide it without anyone of the other dozen or so cops see him? Do you have ANY support for this?
You’re still ignoring the EVIDENCE. Fuhrman had no clue whose blood was at the crime scene, other than the murder victims. The crime scene itself had a footprint, the murderer’s blood, a cap, the other glove, and trace evidence all that would show who the murderer was. And you think that Fuhrman risked the death penalty knowing that placing that evidence could be so easily disproven by the crime scene evidence? And he still didn’t have OJ’s blood to place on the glove, so he sure lucked out there too, huh?
I completely disagree. You’ve offered a poor motive to throw your career and possibily your life away, you’ve created a means and opportunity that fly in the face of the evidence.
If I, for one moment, thought that the evidence in any way shape or form, supported the idea that Fuhrman planted the bloody glove, I’d agree with you. But it doesn’t. It’s complete and utter fantasy that flies in the face of the actual evidence and common sense.
Given OJ’s apparent ability to dispose of the rest of his clothing, as well as the murder weapon itself, it still strikes me as less than believable that he would arrive home with nothing but one bloody glove. And if he had dropped this glove anywhere on the expected path between his back gate and his house, I might be more inclined to agree. But since he would have had to drop it in a spot that was anything but commonly traversed, and that was nowhere near the path between the car/back gate and the house, I am less sanguine. Still, I cannot prove either sequence of events, so you are correct that it is speculation.
Give me a break. “All the evidence” certainly wasn’t identified before Fuhrman arrived on scene, less than 2 hours after the first responding officer. Most of it was located, logged, photographed, and collected, over the course of the next full day. Some (like the blood on the back gate) wasn’t seen until a day or days (memory isn’t reliable on this) later. “Cops” don’t identify evidence at major crime scenes in this day and age. That’s the job of specialized technicians. A dozen cops milling around the scene were not there to identify or collect evidence, but to gawk. Cops other than supervisory officers (like Fuhrman and Vannatter, the “lead detectives”) wouldn’t even be allowed to walk around the crime scene before the medical examiner removed the bodies and the techs photographed everything.
No, I don’t think they found all the other evidence and missed the second glove. In those wee hours of the morning they had not yet “found” more than a smattering of what eventually became the evidence. The actual evidence collection logs support this, showing evidence collection proceeding, as I stated above, for more than a day. What difference whether Fuhrman was alone or had been joined by Vannatter? As for being “seen” by the dozen gawkers, that’s a joke. The scene was a circus. People were blathering about, pointing and jesticulating, theorizing and gossiping, talking to this one, that one, the other one, and shouting at the news crews. Fuhrman could have easily seen something on the ground, pulled a plastic bag over his hand, bent down and grasped the object, straightened up, pulled the bag inside out, and stuck it in a pocket. Elapsed time about 1.5 seconds. And about as remarkable to a casual observer as bending over, peering, and straightening back up. Can I prove that this happened? Not at all. Is it therefore an absurd or impossible speculation? Not in the slightest.
I’m not ignoring anything. Fuhrman KNEW who did the crime. So do you, and all the other people who condemn the jury verdict as unjust. He just wanted to be sure that the guilty party wouldn’t somehow get off the hook, as he had done in the past when he abused Nicole. Given Fuhrman’s background as a liar, as well as the fact that he had lied about being a bigot who hated niggers, I don’t think it is such a great leap to speculate about him enhancing the case against OJ by, shall we say, associating him more closely with a specific piece of graphic evidence. A throw-down glove.
How do you suggest Fuhrman was risking the death penalty? He certainly hadn’t killed anybody. And he’s a COP. You, Hamlet, won’t even entertain a nasty speculation about him. The blue line would protect him. Even if he was somehow discovered planting the glove, it would take a real stretch to actually convict him of anything. Just like Vannatter carrying a blood sample around in his pocket for a day or two. That misconduct was never punished. Fuhrman would simply have given some lame explanation (“Oh, I had the glove with me, I wanted to compare it to the other glove, I planned to log it in later, blah, blah…”) and the issue would have died. He was hardly even at risk of his career. EVEN THOUGH HE WAS A DEMONSTRATED LIAR AND A MISERABLE EXCUSE FOR A HUMAN BEING!!
What’s that nonsense about the killer’s blood? At that point NO-ONE knew that the killer’s blood was present at the crime scene. How does that prove or disprove my speculation?
I agree with you that I have offered a speculation, and that I have not a shred of proof for it. However, I vehemently disagree that there is anything fantastic about it. Fuhrman moving OJ the killer’s second glove from one place to another OR NOT cannot be either supported or contradicted by the evidence. But it is hardly outside the bounds of common sense.
And, to come back to my original point (and I believe Soup’s as well), it is the very fact that such speculations cannot be summarily dismissed, as well as the demonstrated blundering in other evidence, that allowed the jury to fairly and reasonably decide that the prosecution’s burden wasn’t met.
Again, you may want to check your facts. Riske and Phillips both testified to seeing blood on the gate that night. And, again, Fuhrman had none of OJ’s blood to plant at that time.
Again, you may want to check your facts. The officers at the scene, after securing it, did check and identify the evidence, including the blood on the gate, the glove, the cap, and the rest. It was COLLECTED later by techs, but identified earlier as possible evidence by numerous officers.
You might want to check your facts again. There is a difference between identification and collection.
I was merely pointing out, as I am now, that your confidence in your factual assertions may not be well earned.
I, of course, disagree. The idea that not only that ALL of the dozen of officers missed it, AND, that Fuhrman just happened to identify, recognize, grab, and seal for evidence, the glove in one of the little amount of time that he wasn’t with Phillips, and without being seen, is absurd. I think we can agree to disagree on this point.
C’mon Dan. We all know it based on the long method of identification of the evidence, including DNA testing, identification of the evidence as possibly belonging to Simpson, and all the rest. It is patently ridiculous to think that Fuhrman was able to conclude the exact same thing without the benefit of the time to analyze the evidence, including trace evidence. When Fuhrman allegedly planted the glove, he only knew what was found, the cap, the murderers blood, the trace evidence, the glove, the footprint, and the rest, and had no idea whose things those would end up being proven to be.
The law in California allowed for the punishment of police officers to be equal to the possible penalities faced by the framed individual. In Simpson’s case, it could have been capital murder. If it makes you feel better, make it life in prison. It’s still a helluva price to pay to frame a man who you don’t even know fits all the other evidence at the crime scene.
THIS is the kind of shit that just gets me pissy with you. When you have to make up stuff and misrepresent my position to try and make a stupid point. Sure, I know that it is a sign that you know you’re losing, but it still pisses me off to now end. I’m done.
Not because of implications of evidence tampering. You can stuff the supercilious tone.
Tape recordings of him using the “n” word contradicted his sworn testimony denying such. He was later charged with perjury, and pled no contest to the charges. He is therefore a convicted felon. The dirtbag lied under oath, and did it to cover up his disgusting feelings about people of color. Still, he collects his 20 year service pension from LAPD.
During the trial, outside the presence of the jury, the defense asked Fuhrman whether or not he had ever falsified police reports or if he had planted or manufactured evidence in the Simpson case. He invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. Judge Ito ruled that the question would not be heard by the jury. The issue was not formally pursued.
He has written several books, and he is a “conservative radio commentator”.
Bottom line is that the OJ trial, while it may have tarnished his reputation with some, has actually been a lucrative boost to Fuhrman’s bottom line.
Me, I still think he’s a disgrace of a human being. And not because of speculations about evidence. Others’ MMV.
Hamlet, no need to get pissy. Calm down, you’re gonna get spittle all over your shirt. Or keyboard.
I was not trying to actually PROVE that Fuhrman did anything in particular. It has nothing to do with me winning or losing. And I haven’t misrepresented your position at all. You really will not seriously entertain a speculation of misconduct by Fuhrman. Or we’re using different dictionaries.
So, after accusing me of making shit up, and with all the resources of ten years history at your disposal, you manage to make a fairly cogent argument against Fuhrman planting the glove. Not an air tight case, I still declaim (and will not debate further, since it was never the actual point), but a cogent argument. Bully, and Bob’s your uncle. Maybe you’ve done it better than those other prosecutors.
So you’ve possibly dispelled ONE of the doubts the jury might have held. Doubts that, I argue, were reasonable in the context of the time. Like the blood vial that Vannatter carried around with him, and the implications of its debated original contents. Like all the rest of the points I and others have offered up.
None of these, mind you, were intended by us to establish OJ’s innocence. (I suspect we are virtually unanimous in believing in his guilt. You know that, don’t you?) And none were offered to *prove *that Fuhrman or anyone else actually committed nefarious acts beyond being caught in lies. But the possibility can still be reasonably argued. Blunders and stupidity too were in evidence throughout the trial, yes, by the bushel. Enough that a reasonable jury, after hearing all of it, was unable to distinguish the chaff from the grain because of rampant doubts about credibility. Doubts that were reasonable, given the number and eggregious nature of the demonstrated lies and the demonstrated blunders. And the damn glove, arguably shrunken or not, still didn’t fit.
You apparently cannot understand our use of the word “reasonable” for these alternate explanations for so very much of the evidence. And you cannot accept doubts about OJ’s guilt based upon these alternate explanations as “reasonable”. When there are demonstrated lies, and such a sorry mass of conflicted testimony and evidence (and I can say this about the prosecution’s case alone, even before the defense’s obfuscations), it strikes me that doubt is the only ***reasonable ***summation.
If you still refuse to accept the reasonableness of the jury’s position, I am forced to conclude that we are indeed using a different dictionary.
Bullshit. I have already admitted, numerous times, that Fuhrman fucked up, is a perjurer, and is a racist scumbag. When you look up “misconduct” in your magical dictionary, those things don’t count? That is one fucked up dictionary you have there. No wonder it also has the wrong definition of misrepresent.
And I have seriously entertained the idea that Fuhrman engaged in the further misconduct you posit, planting evidence. But the REAL evidence speaks volumes against it. As I’ve shown.
Hamlet, I’m pleased to know you share my high opinion of our friend Fuhrman. And as I said above, I’m also satisfied that a dozen years of hindsight allows you to demonstrate that it is highly unlikely (but not impossible) that he planted certain evidence. As you’ve shown. Yawn.
This whole exercise though was about the reasonableness or otherwise of the jury’s decision. So to try it just one more time—
Demonstrated perjury as well as the (to quote myself) “sorry mass of conflicted testimony and evidence (and I can say this about the prosecution’s case alone, even before the defense’s obfuscations)” created a whole host of doubts.
At least ***some ***of these doubts were “reasonable” by any normal definition of the word. Not WAGs, not crazy hair up somebody’s ass fantasy. “Examine the EVIDENCE!” all you want, the internal inconsistencies do not allow you to make a definitive determination about much of it. Realize, you are privy to information the jury never saw. And the fucking glove didn’t fit!
When alternate theories exist and both/all equally explain the facts as presented, or when alternate theories each explain a portion of the facts presented but are contradicted by other seeming facts, a jury should choose the theory or explanation most favorable to the defendant. The standard is “beyond and to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt”.
Note the operative word every. Not some. Not most. Every single one must be completely, totally and definitively ***excluded ***before a jury is justified in delivering a conviction. If there exists one single reasonable doubt, even after months of trial in which every other piece of evidence points to guilt, then a jury must acquit.
The jury did the right thing. American jurisprudence was protected. A killer walked.
I think we’ve about exhausted this. At least, I’m exhausted with it.
Personally, I still think OJ was guilty as hell the first time. And yet, he 'walked". This second time, he didn’t 'walk". As was already said, he could have kept a low profile, he could have kept quiet and thanked his lucky stars that he wasn’t rotting in a prison already, but no. He had to get stupid. Apparently he thought he could do anything he wants to. So, this time he got busted. He was stupid. He got caught. End of story.
Strange, nobody is arguing that OJ was innocent. Yet the debate is about the shoddy and prejudiced police. In a way they were really on trial and they lost. The mishandling of the evidence ,the deliberate covering up of poor police tactics and clearly unfair cops were what the trial morphed into. To blacks it was just police business as usual. To whites it was a revelation that police were that poor at their jobs and perfectly willing to taint a trial to obtain a conviction.
The jury was in a tough spot. It was obvious that these cops were willing to step over the line to get OJ. Did they go too far? How far can they go? I would have reluctantly had to vote for acquittal.
And that’s what they did, in accordance the the laws and the rules. They had to look at the evidence presented. They found the evidence to be ummmmmm questionable. They did their job, as they had been instructed to do. Whether they personally believed OJ to be guilty or innocent, they had to look at the evidence and testimony. That’s the law. Isn’t it?
Perjury on the part of one witness, does not, negate all the other evidence. But you and jury did precisely as the defense wanted, to dismiss actual evidence in favor of speculation. The facts remain that OJ Simpson’s blood was at the crime scene, as well as his shoes, his cap, and one of his gloves. The facts remain that he had the victim’s blood in his car, at his home, on his other glove found at his home, and he had no alibi when he should have had one. Those facts were proven, and the only obfuscations that the defense raised were, in fact, minor mistakes in the collection of evidence that would not, in any way shape or form, change someone else’s blood into OJ. To me, no reasonable person can look at the evidence in the case and decide decide it wasn’t proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
But the jury didn’t look at the facts or the evidence. They simply determined that Fuhrman’s a racist liar, that the prosecution was inept, and that DNA was too confusing to pay attention to and so doesn’t matter, so they voted to acquit. As I’ve said before, it was a verdict NOT on whether or not OJ committed murder (he did and it was proven beyond a reasonable doubt), but rather whether or not the police and prosecution did a perfect job.
But you’re right. This has been exhaused. Hell it was exhaused over a decade ago.