Oh gee, I can’t think of one off the top of my head. Oh wait maybe a lying racist police officer planted it.
I don’t have to account for any of the evidence because as I said before I think the guy is guilty. My comments were directed towards those who assert that threre is no way any reasonable person could find reasonable doubt. I disagree with that. As to the blood, there is evidence that Van Atter was walking around with a vial of O.J.'s blood for 10 hours, a very unusual circumstance. If we are talking about police officers rigging evidence to convict O.J. because they think he is guilty then all evidence is suspect. I don’t think that is what happened but the fact that Fuhrman was an important witness and important part of the investigation, was the first person on the grounds at O.J.'s without a search warrant, lied on the stand, is a proven racist who took the 5th Amendment with regard to whether he ever tampered with evidence, well then anything is possible.
With respect to the illegal search and seizure there was no testimony that the police enterted because of any suicide note. That note as far as I know was discovered long after the police had already climbed the wall. It was LAPD policy to notify the next of kin in the case of a murder, that would have been the parents of the deceased, not the estranged spouse. It is not LAPD policy to send 4 detectives to notify someone that a relative has died. Van Attter testified that Simpson was not a suspect and they entered without a warrant because someone may have been in danger. Lance Ito found Van Atter’s testimony with regard to his application for a warrant to contain a "reckless disregard’ for the truth. There was zero evidence when Fuhrman jumped the wall of any danger to any inhabitant within the house. There was later testimony that Van Atter stated that when a woman dies the prime suspect is “always the spouse.” This was heard by an FBI agent who only reported it after the defense found out about it. It demonstrates that O.J. was immediately considered a suspect and casts doubt on everything the police said motivated them to enter without a warrant, which they did by the way almost 5 hours after the murders. Exigent circumstances 5 hours later?
As far as the 5th amendment any atttorney will tell you that the jury immediately draws a conclusion of guilt with respect to any one who asserts the privilege. That this jury did so should come as no surprise.
As for whether I have credible evidence of Fuhrman’s malfeasance, I am not an investigator but the fact that his career is over in L.A. and the reputation of police officers the world over for protecting their own would make it very surprising if I did wouldn’t it? Just out of curiosity what do you think the reason for his assertion of the privilege was?
I repeat:
(1) Kato testified that someone bumped up against the air conditioner outlet…
(2)… in an obscure, overgrown, unused area that was not a walkway…
(3)… at O.J. Simpson’s house, at night, within a locked and gated property…
(4) … shortly after Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman were brutally murdered…
(5) … right in the area the bloody glove was found…
(6) … with both Nicole Brown’s and Ron Goldman’s blood on it …
(7) … with particles of Goldman’s hair and carpet fibers from Simpson’s Bronco …
(8) … long before any cops arrived
Given these facts, it could not possibly be a “lying racist police officer [who] planted it”!
According to Kato’s testimony, Simpson had arrived back at home at the time Kato investigated the thumping, as evidenced by O.J.'s backpack being out front. If it was not Simpson who bumped the air conditioner, who was it? If it was a “lying racist police officer”, how did he get both Nicole Brown’s and Ron Goldman’s blood on it as well as particles of Goldman’s hair and carpet fibers from Simpson’s Bronco?
Your logic is deeply flawed.
False. Furhman and Vannatter don’t arrive until half an hour later. Other cops were the first police to appear at O.J.'s, where they go to inform him of the murders. When the first, regular cops arrive at 4:30, they find:
All this happened 30 minutes before Furhman and Vannatter even arrive at the scene!
I repeat: it does not matter! In the end, Fuhrman’s testimony was of no account whatsoever. It was tossed and repudiated by the prosecution! It was not something the jury could legally consider when evaluating reasonable doubt or for anything else for that matter.
Was it an illegal search? Do you have a cite that says that?
Anyway, the police had a clear, strong, and unambiguous reason to fear for O.J.'s safety: to wit, the blood on the Bronco, blood leading toward the house, and a bloody glove that seems to match one found at the murder scene. They had every reasonable ground to enter, considering that he might well have been a murder victim also.
I must make a technical correction: Kato did not testify that he heard someone bump up against the air conditioner. Instead, he testified he heard “three thumps” against the wall near where the air conditioner was located.
It is still the same area wherein the original, regular police (30 minutes before Fuhrman & Vannatter had even arrived) found the bloody glove.
when i say fuhrman was first on the grounds i am referring to that area inside the gate for which a search warrant would ordinarily be needed, not the street outside the house.
Thus your points are then completely worthless.
I’ve noticed that you haven’t tried to answer my questions.
According to the CNN timeline of events Fuhrman was first on the grounds of the estate when he climbed the wall at approximately 5:15a.m. He was also the first to find the bloddy glove somewhere around 6:00a.m. He then escorted the other detectives to the site of the glove. Please provide a cite to testimony that proves this is not the case.
I quote now directly from CNN:
You appear to posting falsehoods.
I notice you have still not answered my questions.
Oh, the link for the CNN detailed timeline I quoted is here
The evidence was overwhelming, but the prosecution still blew it big time. They should never have allowed the glove trying stunt. I don’t care how well a glove fits, if you try to slide it over a latex surgical glove it isn’t going to work. And how did thy miss the photos which later surfaced of OJ wearing those rare shoes? Maybe if those had been available earlier it would have made a difference.
You mean this one?
4:30
Police go to OJ Simpson’s estate, they say, to notify him of the murders. They find a blood stain on Simpson’s Ford Bronco, and more blood leading toward the house. They also find a bloody glove that seems to match one found at the murder scene.
5:00 am
Dets. Mark Fuhrman & Phillip Vannatter arrive at OJ’s residence There’s a light on upstairs; several vehicles in the driveway. (This suggests to them that people are inside).
5:15 - 5:30 am
Fuhrman & Vannatter examine apparent bloodstain on Simpson’s Bronco door & droplets of blood leading away from the location.
They try to get in touch with the people inside
They call Westec Security
Westec dispatches one if not 2 vehicles to the location
Westec gives police the Simpson telephone number
Police get an answering machine when they call
They felt there was an emergency; Fuhrman jumps the fence
Officers went in search of persons on the property
Went to guest quarters of Kaelin, woke him up
Look at Kaelin’s tennis shoes, (knowing there were footprints at the crime scene)
No blood on the shoes
Ask Kaelin if other people were around
Kaelin directs them to Arnelle’s guest quarters.
5:30 - 5:35 am
Arnelle Simpson awakened by police in OJ Simpson’s guesthouse.
5:40 am
Arnelle takes police to main house, opens front door with a key
Officers ask her about the live-in maid (Gigi)
[Westec told the officers there was a live-in maid]
[Westec had not been informed that anyone would be going on vacation]
Officers look in maid’s room once in house
They immediately make arrangements for the children
Cathy Randa is called.
6:00 am
OJ is located & contacted in Chicago
Cowlings is contacted
Nicole’s parents are contacted
[Arnelle leaves the company of police to get the kids]
[Officers are never asked to leave]
Kaelin tells officers he heard a loud jarring sound that he mentioned to several other persons
Det. Fuhrman walks down a path
He doesn’t go anywhere else on the property
The other officers don’t poke around into things in the house
In an area on path adjacent to the air conditioner, Fuhrman finds a glove apparently mated to that found at the crime scene
Fuhrman goes to the end of the path, to see where it leads
Fuhrman takes other detectives one at a time to the location & shows them the glove.
I admit the timeline is confusing. The 4:30 entry I am sure refers to the time the first officers got to the site and nothing more. If you notice between 5:15 and 5:30 the detectives are still trying to raise someone in the house and only after failing does fuhrmann jump the wall (he is thus the first one on the estate grounds. At 6:00, as you can plainly see, fuhrman walks downa path and finds a glove which appears to match one from the scene of the crime. Noone is with him. He then takes the others to that site and shows them the glove.
End of story, apology accepted.
If your interpretation of the evidence is correct why did the prosecution put a lying racist cop on the stand instead of the person who actually found the glove first?
“Was it an illegal search? Do you have a cite that says that?”
I assume these are the questions you are referring to. Since I stated in the post that Lance Ito allowed the police to get away with their explanation obviously there was never a finding that the search was illegal, but rather only my opinion that Ito made the wrong decision… However had O.J. been found guilty this is obviously one basis for an appeal, one which would not have been successful in my opinion, not because there would have been a finding that the search was ok, but rather because given the preponderance of the evidence not discovered through the illegal search it did not affect the outcome. On the other hand maybe the appellate court would decide Ito was wrong and it might have affected the outcome. We will never know.
By the way do you have a cite for your statement that the jury cannot convict based on the fact that one officer may have been a lying racist? No it is your opinion, but you express your opinions as facts, which they are not.
Yes, I clearly did blunder by not reading later into the timeline. I was looking for the time the glove was discovered, found the 4:30 and 5:00 entries, and posted them in good faith. Thank you for accepting my apology in advance, but which I now make explicit: I apologize.
But surely you realize that the correct facts still do not help you, right? It would have been impossible for Furhman to have contrived the evidence on the glove. It not only had Nicole’s and Ron’s blood on it and particles of Ron’shair, it had carpet fibers from Simpson’s Bronco. How could Furhman obtain such fibers from the Bronco, which I’m pretty sure had not been opened yet at the time of the glove’s discovery?
In any case, the problem I mentioned in my first post remains: Who else but O.J. could have produced the thumps Kato heard:
… in an obscure, overgrown, unused area that was not a walkway…
… at O.J. Simpson’s house, at night, within a locked and gated property…
… shortly after Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman were brutally murdered…
… right in the area the bloody glove was found…
… with both Nicole Brown’s and Ron Goldman’s blood on it …
… with particles of Goldman’s hair and carpet fibers from Simpson’s Bronco …
… long before any cops arrived.
Answer that and tell me why that person was behind there if not for trying to hide incriminating evidence, then we’ll have a basis for further discussion.
That was just two of them. I’ve asked you others, too, such as those given in my immediately previous post. Moving on…
Which “wrong decision” are you explicitly referring to? Please provide some independent information on this, such as a link or something. I agree wholeheartedly with this, posted earlier:
Assuming you’re actually referring to some decision by Ito to admit the evidence found during the emergency search, I cannot possibly agree less. There was an urgent, mandatory case for entering the premises without a warrant, which no judge would ever believe was specious in any way. The cops were right and had the law squarely on their side. There was nothing illegal about that search.
I reject your premise entirely: again, there was nothing even remotely illegal about that search.
First, I did not say that they couldn’t do it at all, I said they couldn’t do it legally.
All emphasis in the below is mine:
Upon further reflection, I must correct something in a recent post of mine. I had written: “It would have been impossible for Furhman to have contrived the evidence on the glove. It not only had Nicole’s and Ron’s blood on it and particles of Ron’shair, it had carpet fibers from Simpson’s Bronco. How could Furhman obtain such fibers from the Bronco, which I’m pretty sure had not been opened yet at the time of the glove’s discovery?”
It is only the last sentence I must retract, since it is technically possible for Fuhrman to have collected the glove earlier from the murder scene with all those elements already on it. But I repeat: It would have been impossible for Furhman to have contrived the evidence on the glove. Therefore, even in the extremely improbable case Fuhrman did “plant” it, he would have been planting genuine evidence.
Why do I contend that this would have been extremely, mind-bogglingly improbable even though Fuhrman was a racist and trivially perjurious cop? More than anything else, the bloody glove was found right near where Kato had reported the thumping that occurred after O.J. got home and many hours before the cops arrived. How could Furhman possibly have known to “plant” the glove there? It just had to be O.J. who dropped it there.
(1) Kato testified that someone bumped up against the air conditioner outlet…
(2)… in an obscure, overgrown, unused area that was not a walkway…
(3)… at O.J. Simpson’s house, at night, within a locked and gated property…
(4) … shortly after Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman were brutally murdered…
(5) … right in the area the bloody glove was found…
(6) … with both Nicole Brown’s and Ron Goldman’s blood on it …
(7) … with particles of Goldman’s hair and carpet fibers from Simpson’s Bronco …
(8) … long before any cops arrived
Given these facts, it could not possibly be a “lying racist police officer [who] planted it”!
According to Kato’s testimony, Simpson had arrived back at home at the time Kato investigated the thumping, as evidenced by O.J.'s backpack being out front. If it was not Simpson who bumped the air conditioner, who was it? If it was a “lying racist police officer”, how did he get both Nicole Brown’s and Ron Goldman’s blood on it as well as particles of Goldman’s hair and carpet fibers from Simpson’s Bronco?
Your logic is deeply flawed.
I take it post #37 is your way of also saying “I apologize.” You know the fact that you find something improbable does not in itself make that something impossible.
“I repeat: it does not matter! In the end, Fuhrman’s testimony was of no account whatsoever. It was tossed and repudiated by the prosecution! It was not something the jury could legally consider when evaluating reasonable doubt or for anything else for that matter”
You have been wrong about so much this is like shooting fish in a barrel. I would assume you are able to show that Lance Ito instructed the jury not to consider Detective Fuhrman’s veracity when considering O.J.'s guilt. Please tell me where he said that.
When you are unable to do so I will again accept your apology.
You make so much of the fact that the prosecution excoriated Fuhrman and thus made his testimony irrelevant. One of the problems with this fact is that Detective Fuhrman, the irrelevant witness, testified for several days on direct examination and it was not until being cross-examined by F. Lee Bailey that the jury heard about his less than sterling past. When you put a liar and a racist on the stand he is your representative and when you do not prepare the jury in advance by bringing out any flaws in his character it appears to the jury that you are trying to hide them. So you continue to say that the prosecution in abandoning the Fuhrman evidence can now simply point to all of the other evidence and ignore Fuhrman as if he never testified. Well that may be how you would look at it as a juror but logic dictates that all of the evidence must be considered as well as inferences that can be drawn, and the inference that could be drawn here is that the prosecution knowingly put Fuhrman up there even though he is a liar and a racist and possibly a criminal and only upon being caught “threw him under the bus.” I don’t know about you but after that I am going to take anything Clark and Darden propose with a grain of salt.
As to the wrong decision by Ito, it was clear from my post that i was referring to his decision to accept the detective’s testimony that it was exigent circumstances that caused them to enter O.J.'s grounds and not a search for the “suspect” or to find evidence. This decision was made despite Ito saying that VanAtter had a reckless disregard for the truth. The fact that Martin Hyde thinks I might have been referring to another decision because he has his facts wrong and has not seen fit to return and apologize should speak for itself. The fact that you think there was an urgent reason for the cops to enter does not mean that your urgent reason is what motivated them. It is only their motivation which is relevant, not the motivation of the reasonable person.
As to whether the jury can legally refuse to convict (I believe the mistake in the original quote is mine, but we both know I meant refuse to convict and not convict) based on a particular element of the case, you are wrong. There is a legitimate legal concept known as jury nullification, a concept about which a judge is usually not permitted to speak to the jury when giving his instructions and thus Ito did not so inform the jury in spite of the detailed instructions that he did give. Jury nullification allows the jury to vote its conscience regardless of facts, evidence or legal instructions. The concept dates to the 18th century and was first upheld in the “Zenger” case. This is the reason that the jury decision stands whether or not you find it logical and whether or not you approve of the concept.
If you would just stick to offering your opinion you might be ok, but it is your arguing about the facts that causes the problems. I agree, if kato was telling the truth (an issue for the jury - his credibility) that the likelihood of Fuhrman finding the glove in just the right place argues against his having planted it. This does not mean he did not plant it or that a reasonable jury could not have believed the defense’s arguments. Let’s leave it at that.
Wrong again. It is you who owe me an apology for evading so many of my questions. You also owe me an apology for either not reading the intervening posts or outright ignoring them.
Please try again.
The only thing that is merely “improbable”, and wildly improbable at that, is the notion that Fuhrman might have carried O.J.'s utterly and genuinely incriminating, evidence-splattered glove from the site where O.J. murdered Nicole and Ron to O.J.'s home.
But the following are completely impossible:
•It is completely impossible for Furhman to have manufactured or otherwise contrived the evidence on the bloody glove.
•It is absolutely impossible for Furhman to have known to “plant” the glove right where Kato heard the thumping many hours before any police arrived.
•It is completely impossible for O.J. to have been factually innocent of Nicole and Ron’s murder.