Nope, once that trial is done, it’s done. Someone could find a video tape of OJ doing it, turn in the knife and bloody clothes, or have Nicole come back as a ghost and testify and still no new trial.
Maybe he wore a plastic bag as a poncho?
Also the glove had shunken due to the blood.
I have heard this a couple of times and I have to ask…where are you getting this from???
If the trial is in court near Brentwood, you think the jurors hail from near Brentwood? I can assure you, as someone who has done jury duty in Los Angeles 5 times, this is NOT the case.
Jurors are assigned to courthouses at random, not based on where the juror lives.
I lived in the San Fernando Valley. Never once was I called to a a courthouse in Valley. I was sent Downtown LA, I was sent to Santa Monica, etc…
Seriously, check it out on youtube. OJ trying on the gloves was like one of those ridiculously incompetent people in an infomercial.
Not only would he not get a new trial, but that very thing happened in the case of Emmett Till. After they were acquitted, his killers confessed in an interview with Look magazine. They became pariahs of a sort in their town, but suffered no legal consequences whatsoever.
Till’s killers could have been tried by the federal government for infringing on his civil rights, but the Justice Department hadn’t figured out that strategy yet. OJ can’t, because he didn’t (allegedly) commit any federal crimes.
The one person who has told me that they thought he didn’t do it was a white guy who thought his son did it. I respectfully disagreed.
During the trial, which for those of you who aren’t old enough to remember was televised live on ALL THREE MAJOR NETWORKS :mad: , Newsweek magazine mentioned that the sequestered jurors had all media censored to remove OJ references, and someone wrote them a letter asking where he could subscribe to this service. 
Also, when the Oklahoma City bombing happened, my first thought was, “So, how long will this dislodge OJ from the top of the news?” The answer? Two days. :rolleyes: I also read about someone whose young child recognized OJ on TV before she recognized Bill Clinton. To me, that was one of the saddest things I ever saw about it.
p.s. I believe that the verdict went the way it did because the L.A. riots were a little too fresh in the jurors’ minds.
I’d recommend boycotting any station that sees fit to televise his funeral live. I wouldn’t be surprised if at least ESPN would try to pull that off.
When was somebody’s funeral ever broadcast live on TV? Aside from 30 second news reports?
We can still hold out for that happening to Martin Shkreli.
Presidents, the Pope, Beau Biden, Billy Graham (on TBN), even Muhammed Ali. I think Sonny Bono’s aired live too. I’m sure people here can come up with others.
And I remember Marilyn Manson saying that the most obscene “entertainment” he ever saw were all the televised funerals of Columbine victims.
That isn’t true. The police would merely have needed to mislabel the sample bags. A sample of Nicole’s blood from the murder scene becomes a sample from OJ’s house.
I’m not saying this happened, I’m simply pointing out that law enforcement has ample power to doctor evidence so that an innocent (or guilty) person looks guiltier.
This was the reason the jury acquitted him. The evidence as presented was beyond a reasonable doubt, however, the LAPD were (and arguably still are to an extent) racist thugs.
You don’t remember Princess Di’s funeral on TV?
(My emphasis)
I understand that you are not proposing that this actually happened, but I think that your use of “merely” overstates the case. For one, the officer who is mislabeling the sample bag (I presume that you are referring to on scene?) doesn’t know what the sample will reveal until later, when it is tested. If you are saying that the scientist at the lab is going to mislabel the sample, well then you have a chain of custody problem. Like you, I’m not saying that this is impossible, just that it is not a simple thing, done on a whim, to plant blood evidence.
The LAPD had (has) a bad reputation. But their racist thuggery was along the lines of beating people up, not planting evidence for false convictions. As noted upthread, we are also talking about the ridiculous notion of trying to frame a celebrity, who could very well have been in front of a large gathering of people - with an airtight alibi - at the time of the murders. Celebrities are noticed wherever they go, so it’s quite easy for them to establish their innocence, if indeed they are innocent. The “racist cops framed OJ” angle is not credible, especially when you consider that they would have faced the death penalty if they were caught.
And my recollection of the challenge to the DNA evidence wasn’t that it was switched to create false evidence. Instead, the mantra was “garbage in, garbage out” - that is, the defense argued vociferously that the police were sloppy in their handling of the blood, so you couldn’t take their scientific evidence that the blood was OJ’s as true.
Now, this was at a time when DNA evidence was very new (I think it may have been the first time many people had heard of it being used in a criminal trial), so I don’t necessarily fault the jury for their misunderstanding, but the idea that tainted blood (due to mishandling by scientists) could have produced a false-positive match to OJ is incorrect. If the blood was tainted, the results would have produced no match, not an incorrect match.
They found the murder weapon? :dubious: