I’m pretty sure it was ninjas…racist ninjas.
No, because all of the evidence pointed toward Simpson. He was identified as the obvious suspect within hours of the discovery of the bodies, based on the trail of blood at his house when officers drove there to ask him to pick up his children.
Yes, of course; Johnnie Cochran offered ridiculous speculation that the murders may have been drug-related based on Nicole’s one-time roommate Faye Resnick. He offered no evidence for this proposition because there wasn’t any. Nobody took this seriously except for maybe the jurors, who were so stupefied by nine months of testimony in a badly prosecuted, badly run trial that they might have believed anything.
Yes - apparently the logic was
Faye Resnick used Cocaine
Cocaine is from Columbia
There is a slang term “Colombian Necktie” that refers to having ones tongue cut out thru throat or something
Therefore Faye Resnick ticked off some cocaine dealer (who would almost certainly not be Columbian)
And then they sent a message to Faye Resnick by killing her friend
And I guess on the way back to Columbia - the real killers went to OJ’s house, impersonated a black man in the driveway, cut OJ’s phone lines while he was asleep (as limo driver was constantly calling cause he was there to pick up OJ for the airport). Took the glove pored blood over his socks, bronco, both properties, cut his hand, drove a similar looking bronco away from the scene of the crime, the gut OJ to buy a disguise, get his passport, money, and a gun, and hide out in the back of Al’s vehicle while driving around - threatening to kill himself, which virtually everyone at the time including his friends took as an admission of guilt.
So I guess Faye got the message - start doing drugs again and buy reasonable amounts of cocaine or next time we will kill one of your friends and frame someone.
The fact that OJs flight was RIGHT before the murders is just a coincidence of course - not the result of some angry ex trying to establish an Alibi.
Oh and don’t forget the claim that OJ was to weak from arthritis to commit the attacks, until the prosecution found video that OJ had recorded four months prior showing a clearly fit OJ having no problem recording a fitness video to sell.
They also argued that assassin(s) were trying to kill Ron Goldman. Apparently that neighborhood was very dangerous.
And of course the fact that Nicole had told friends (and if memory serves even put it in writing in a safe deposit box) - that she thought OJ was going to kill her.
Now that isn’t enough (the fact that she thought OJ was going to kill her) to convict someone - as obviously one problem is it make it easy to frame someone if that all you need, but the people that seem to believe OJ is innocent remind me of the people that think Oswald didn’t do it.
Oswald tried renouncing his citizenship - he wasn’t some random innocent guy.
OJ clearly had anger management issues and the police were called numerous times - and I believe he only got written up once (if that - sorry been a while). If they were so out to get him - they could have arrested him at any time for domestic violence.
And of course since he’s been set free he has kept his nose clean and dedicated his life to the search for the real killers. Oh wait - he has been involved in kidnapping, armed robbery, assault, cable theft - investigated for drug dealing - and even got in trouble for speeding through a manatee protection zone. In fairness no drugs were found at his place, but he obviously was guilty of the other stuff.
This isn’t the life of a normal guy mourning the loss of his ex wife trying to find the killers.
I’ve read a few books on the murder. O.J. has always advanced the Faye Resnick drug killing theory. There’s even speculation that Ron Goldman was the intended victim, and Nicole got in the way.
In his book “Journey into Darkness” FBI serial killer expect John Douglas has an absolutely definitive chapter on the killings. Four cops, two who didn’t know the other two, decided to frame O.J. before they even knew if he had an air tight alibi! And one of them was two months ways from retiring with a spotless record. They were willing to lose their jobs, their pensions, and risk prison just to frame O.J. for a double murder? How dumb do these cops have to be.
How did the killer manage to kill two people at once with little blood on his clothes. Nicole’s throat was sliced, nearly decapitating her while the killer held her from behind, and the blood went forward. After she was dead, other cuts were issued. Douglas thinks that O.J. was going to try to make it look like a robbery and/or sex crime gone wrong, but then Goldman came on the scene, and he had to kill him and get the hell out of there, in time to make his limo and establish an alibi.
When the cops told O.J. “Your ex-wife is dead,” his first reply was “Oh, no. Not Nicole.” Uh, O.J., you have two ex-wives. Why didn’t you ask “Which one?”
You seem to be asking two questions here. In your title you seem to be asking whether the investigators, the prosecution, or maybe even the media & public ever had other suspects in mind.
In the body of your post you’re asking if the *defense *posited any other suspects at trial.
Those are different questions with possibly very different answers.
As well, in a trial the defense has no obligation to provide a different suspect. Their job is not to solve the case for the prosecution. The prosecution doesn’t win just because the defense can’t finger somebody else.
The defense’s goal is simply to ensure the prosecution’s evidence doesn’t add up to being complete AND convincing enough to convict. Certainly coming up with alternative theories is one way to plant doubt in the jury’s minds. But that’s not really the crux of defense tactics.
Here’s what I don’t get: OJ flips out, kills his exwife, spends fifteeen months in jail because they wont give him bail as the trial proceeds, why didn’t he just admit he did it and claim it was a crime of passion? he saw his exwife making out or banging or whatever the goldman dude, snapped, killed both…he’d have a good chance of getting off scott free or at most a short jail term, less than the fifteen mos he ended up serving…why didn’t he claim crime of passion?
Why would he get off Scott free? Admitting to killing someone, even as a crime of passion, doesn’t absolve you of the culpability. Unless you’re claiming temporary insanity, but that’s quite the risk.
I’ve always maintained that OJ was acquitted by a jury of 12 people who couldn’t spell DNA.:smack:
But of course, for that ending to work, you would have to ignore all the Simpson DNA evidence. And that would be downright nutty.
Sure the jury might have been dumb. They also might have been hesitant to convict a man on prosecution that centered its case around the testimony of a racist felon(Mark Furmahn). Personally, I think they were smart enough to spell DNA.
A la Wikipedia
I spent my vacation* watching the trial on TV; or at least part of it (how long did it last?). I was never satisfied that OJ was guilty because the prosecution never found the clothes, weapon nor explained sufficiently how he was to have disposed all of this and still gotten back to his house in 20 minutes and wasn’t even out of breathe. The videos of the murder scene showed that the police were so careless with the evidence that anything could have been placed there or removed and no one would have noticed.
As to the OP, I don’t think the police made any effort to examine any other possibilities; they had decided that OJ was the perp and case closed.
Bob
*Wow that was a long vacation - from January 24th through October 3rd.
As dumb as any other cops who frame people. Obviously, OJ was involved and it’s certainly likely that he did it himself, but the idea that they COULD NOT possibly have tried to frame him is naive given that at least one of those cops very likely framed other suspects in the past.
But didn’t Goldman supposedly fight back?
They called him because his kids were there at Nicole’s house. There wouldn’t really be a reason to call OJ because his ex-wife of 16 years was killed when she has grown kids in the area and had been married two more times after OJ. She also didn’t live in Brentwood.
Here’s a cute aside:
Towards the end of the trial, when the media and pundits were talking more and more about what a circus the trial had become, and the phrase “the trial itself is on trial” had become a meme, there arose also a lot of talk about changing the laws so that such trials might be able to convict with less than a unanimous jury. This was clearly a case of trying to move the goalposts: If we can’t get a unanimous verdict, we’ll just change laws to the reduce the number of jurors required until we can get a (presumably guilty) verdict. (Of course, it would be too late to apply to the OJ case.)
So finally, the jury meditates for two hours and returns a unanimous not-guilty verdict. It was mentioned that in an early straw vote, two jurors had voted for guilty.
One wag wrote a letter to the L. A. Times, which I’ll quote from memory as best I can remember:
That reminds me - not about the spelling per se, but…
There was a 60 minutes piece shortly after the trial. According to that piece only one person on the jury on their jury questionnaire knew what DNA stood for (I’m not sure whether it was fill in the blank - or multiple choice).
The interesting thing about the piece - (and I followed the case very closely during the trial and the immediate aftermath - and this didn’t seem to be widely reported except for on 60 minutes) was that someone was framed in the OJ Simpson case - and it wasn’t OJ.
Turn out that the only juror that knew what DNA stood for was kicked off the jury during the trial. Why? Because an anonymous letter was sent to the judge claiming that the Juror was in the process of trying to negotiate a book detail. It contained information that clearly made it seem that that juror had violated their oath/instructions - and therefore needed to be removed.
I can’t remember all the details, but I believe it was written from the standpoint of someone that had visited one of the other jurors & overheard conversations that made it clear this person was writing a book - or attempting to negotiate a book deal.
The person was kicked off the jury, and the case was investigated. The prosecution became convinced that the Juror on question had in fact NOT been writing a book and was not doing what was claimed in the letter.
The details in the letter were such that it had to have been written by someone with inside knowledge of the Jury and procedures relating to the Jury. No member of the public could have written such a thing - so it had to have come from someone who knew and was talking to a juror, someone on the defense team, someone on the prosecution team, or a court employee.
To juror was interviewed by 60 minutes and came across as very credible. She thought OJ was guilty and if memory serves indicated she would have voted to convict. I had no doubt in my mind after that report that she was telling the truth and had not been trying to sell a book. To the best of my knowledge - the case of who framed this Juror was never solved.
I could never figure out the gloves not fitting. They had video of OJ wearing gloves while holding a microphone and commenting on the sidelines of a football game pre murder. Then in court the gloves do not fit, (so ya gotta acquit). Same make and model gloves but different sizes? I remember that this is when doubt entered my little blunted cranium. Was the size difference ever explained away? How could the DA submit supposedly crucial evidence that didn’t fit the defendant’s hand :smack:
I thought it had to do with trying them on over latex gloves.
Pinehurts?
That is part of it - first of all - I disagree with the contention that the “gloves didn’t fit” or that that is particularly important if it were the case.
Gloves aren’t some tailor made garment. They are sold usually in sizes like large, extra large, or sometimes one size fits all.
The gloves in the case were “extra large”. Perhaps theey also came in XXL, but the whole video of Simpson trying on the gloves isn’t really that convincing to me. OJ grimaced as in pain while tryin on the gloves. You can see him out stretching his fingers and curling them back the same way a cat out stretching its limbs to prevent being put in a box.
We know that OJ got a pair of those gloves from Nicole. So what if they were tight? Does that mean all I have to do to be acquitted of murder is wear gloves that wouldn’t be the best fitting size for me? You think someone going to commit a murder goes out shopping for the best fitting gloves they can find? No - they are concerned about leaving fingerprints. I don’t even know if I have gloves on hand that if I was going to murder someone - I could use. I’d be lucky if I could find one or two pair laying around. I’d take what I had on hand if I didn’t think they could be traced back to me.
Of course this is ignoring the fact that those gloves were traced back to him. Only like 300 pairs were sold - and there was testimony that both Nicole bought them - and there were pictures of him wearing them.
While despite what I think - almost everyone seems in agreement almost that the gloves “didn’t fit”. Assuming you believe this - here are possible reasons:
- The latex gloves - as pointed out - that adds a layer and a possible source of friction to the mix (I don’t know if they were powdered or not)
- The glove had a lining - so there are two layers of fabric in this glove. It is possible that the lining had dislodged - and Shapiro himself admitted in court that he saw a defense expert dislodge the lining. He also claimed he tried on the gloves with no problem. Christopher Darden later claimed that he believes a defense team member - I think he singled out Cochrane - I believe the phrase he used was “cut/tore the lining”.
- There was testimony that a glove that had been coated in blood - and stored the way the prosecution had and had been basically soaked and went through freeze thaw cycles like that glove had - would have shrunk up to 15%. A prosecution expert claimed the glove had shrunk to the point where it was in between a new size “large” and “extra large”
To me the gloves were not obviously tight - other people thought they were. I don’t see why that matters. While it would be nice to have comfortable gloves when murdering someone - I do not think it is a requirement. Why the prosecution did this in the first place is a mystery to me.
Anyway - moral of the strory is if you are going to kill someone - it’s ok to use gloves that you’d have a one in a million chance of being phitographed with - make sure they are snug and people will disregard all the other evidence that says you we guilty cause it looks like the gloves would have been uncomfortable.
Maybe we can next have criminals hold the suspected gun in their hand in shooting cases - and then if they can show that their pinky finger goes past the end of the grip for a handgun - that well obviously he’s innocent - even if you have Facebook pictures of him with that gun - and proof that it was given to him.
Went back to recall some of the glove stuff. I was relieved to find that the jury (well at least two members) was NOT persuaded by OJs glove shenanigans
http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/famous/simpson/hairs_14.html
Lots of info on gloves on that page - oh and I was wrong about 300 - there were 300 made - only 240 sold - in New York - the opposite side of country as California - with a very distinctive pattern, pics of OJ wearing them, testimony Nicole bought them, and had Nicole’s, Ron’s, and Simpsons blood on the glove founds about where Kato had heard the three loud bangs a short time after the murder.
It’s pretty impressive framing work that Furman was able to figure out what goves Simpson would have pics of that would later implicate him (and that Nicole would have purchased) (this was before Google image search) - get a pair out of the 239 that remained in the whole country that were sold on the other side of the country from a store no longer selling them. Then to obtain those gloves and plant it is pretty impressive. Of course he could have taken them from Simpsons house (assuming he was innocent and had a pair of gloves untouched there) - but Furman wasn’t on the scene until after the first glove had already been found.
There is simply no explanation for the gloves that makes any sense other than they were OJs gloves.
OJ is man with money, connections, fame; therefore a lot to loose. Spending half his wealth, even more, to maintain his life style is not that far fetched. Obviously, his reputation suffered, but, he’s a free man enjoying life.