Full Case Discussion: If It Doesn't Fit, You Must Acquit

[Umbelina]

No, the black power salute really did happen. 

 

That juror said that the 2 who initially voted for guilty, and the others, never discussed it.  They just voted again and the 2 votes changed.

[GHScorpiosRule]

No, the black power salute really did happen. 

 

That juror said that the 2 who initially voted for guilty, and the others, never discussed it.  They just voted again and the 2 votes changed.

 

Thanks Umbelina. Then that guy loses all credibility when he talks about how he really tried, blah, blah. Because that Power Salute tells me he was never going to listen to the evidence or study it during deliberation; that he was going to acquit him before the trial even started.

Edited March 13, 2016 by GHScorpiosRule

[Umbelina]

Whichever juror was interviewed, and I don't remember them all now, did say that they requested the transcript of the limo driver in there somewhere, so maybe between the first vote and the second?  They decided the Limo guy was lying or mistaken, and I think that's when they took the second vote.  The juror was surprised that the two that had initially voted guilty didn't try to discuss it or convince anyone.

 

Personally, I think it was so obviously broken along racial lines that they may have felt there was no point, and they'd have to stay a long, LONG time, if they kept to their votes. Hung juries are sent back in to deliberate over and over again.  I was on a hung jury once, it's awful.  And I wasn't even sequestered!

 

Also, several jurors had lines of credit set up and reservations in Vegas for the next day or that evening, according to DD, that is.

 

It took them just three minutes to choose a forewoman.

The next workday was the following Monday.

Clerk Deirdre Robertson wheeled in a cart heavy with bound trial exhibits. "This is going to take a long time," Cryer remembered thinking.

He was wrong.

At 10 a.m., Cryer told the Los Angeles Times, they took a straw vote. It was 10-2 in favor of acquittal. One of the two negative votes came from a 61-year-old white woman, Anise Aschenbach, who would later tearfully say that while Simpson may be guilty, the evidence didn't prove it.

The other dissenter has not been identified.

When deliberations began, everyone spoke at once, said Sheila Woods, a 39-year-old health inspector.

"I guess they were so full over the nine months with things to say, that everyone just started kind of talking at the same time," Woods said in an ABC "Nightline" interview broadcast Sept. 29, 1995.

After the straw vote, some questions were still unresolved. Forewoman Amanda Cooley, 51, sent a note asking for the testimony of limo driver Allan Park to be read back.

Among the questions that jurors said troubled them:

    Where, exactly, did Park see a shadowy figure at Simpson's estate?
    What was that unidentified person wearing?
    How many cars were in the driveway?

While waiting for the reading, they voted again. Now it was unanimous. As for the initial holdouts, Woods said, "I think what they did, they listened to the other 10 explain why they thought there was reasonable doubt, and then in the next vote, it was a 12 unanimous not guilty (decision)."

The volatile issues of racism and domestic violence did not sway them, Woods said.

After hearing Park's testimony read back in court, jurors returned to the deliberation room and spent only a few minutes concluding his answers were contradictory.

They sent a note asking for verdict slips. Forewoman Cooley filled them out.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/index/nns070.htm

Edited March 13, 2016 by Umbelina

[Simon Boccanegra]

That juror said that the 2 who initially voted for guilty, and the others, never discussed it.  They just voted again and the 2 votes changed.

 

Anise Aschenbach, the juror Johnnie Cochran referred to as "the white demon" in conversations with other defense lawyers, because they all assumed she was pro-conviction, was one of the first to speak up in deliberation. She said she had been "outraged" by Cochran's suggestion in his closing that the jury send a message to the LAPD with their verdict, when they were there to make a decision in this case based solely on the evidence. She hoped she wasn't the only one personally offended. She apparently was. Stony silence.

 

She later said that she would have stuck to her guns and fought harder if she had felt she had any support.  

 

Cochran, for some reason, believed that Aschenbach admired F. Lee Bailey's way in the courtroom, and he hoped Bailey would be able to deliver "the white demon" to their side while he himself "brought the brothers and sisters to the table." Aschenbach later told Toobin the defense was mistaken; she couldn't stand Bailey.

 

It just goes to show that even veteran attorneys can be so wrong in guessing what's in a juror's head. I don't know how many here have read Vincent Bugliosi's book And The Sea Will Tell, about his successful defense of a woman accused of murder. All through that trial, he was kicking himself for accepting a juror he and his co-counsel nicknamed "the Kansas Rock." This man seemed so obviously pro-prosecution in his expressions and reactions, for example, glaring hard at Bugliosi and the defense witnesses when they were speaking. It turned out that Bugliosi was completely wrong.  

 

Confirming my inability to read jurors, one of the strongest jurors for acquittal was the Kansas Rock. The Rock had actually helped to convince other jurors that not guilty was the only proper verdict. His demeanor during the trial made no sense to me at all.

[Umbelina]

“The bloody fingerprint on the side gate lock at Bundy [Nicole Brown’s residence]. Roberts first saw this, [and] I saw it, as did Detective [Tom] Nolan. All of us agree that it was a high-quality print, many points for reference. The fingerprint was clearly described in my initial crime-scene notes.”

    “The empty knife box sitting on the edge of the master-bedroom bathtub. This Swiss Army knife box contained a 4-inch lock-back blade. Simpson was a spokesperson for Victorinox Swiss Army knives and had within just days traveled back East to the factory and left with a dozen knives; at least one was this type ­4-inch lock-back. In the limo drive from the factory to the airport, Simpson displayed one of these knives to the driver and stated, “You could kill somebody with one of these.” The limo driver testified in the civil trial and also took a polygraph of which he was found to be truthful. When writing Murder in Brentwood, I ­revealed the wounds to [Ron] Goldman’s body all matched the 4-inch lock-back Swiss Army knife in depth, thickness and width.”

    “The black sweats in the washing machine were, almost without doubt, the clothes Simpson wore during the murders. Simpson was observed by [Kato] Kaelin wearing the sweats that night. Roberts found them, showed Marcia Clark, [and] Vannatter left them at the Rockingham scene.”

 

Fuhrman is still angry.  http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2016/03/mark-fuhrman-people-v-oj-simpson 

Above are three reasons why.  He also sounds furious that anyone left the crime scene at Bundy in an interview with the odious Geraldo here:

(He was junior and told to leave Bundy.)

 

I forgot that Fuhrman took and passed two polygraph tests about not planting evidence.  https://books.google.com/books?id=actFvI15o-4C&pg=PA345&lpg=PA345&dq=mark+fuhrman+passed+polygraph&source=bl&ots=0V_LAosR2h&sig=thbEcvXtEyEU9nr462UsuSsBmZ8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj4jeziyrzLAhVU-WMKHYVmBDgQ6AEIOjAF#v=onepage&q=mark%20fuhrman%20passed%20polygraph&f=false

Edited March 13, 2016 by Umbelina

[Umbelina]

OK, one more and I'm stopping this latest obsession with these murders.  One link just keeps leading to another.

 

This is part 3, and I didn't realize that Fuhrman's partner was the one who found most of the evidence, and that the prosecutors didn't want him on the stand for some reason, and that this many things were overlooked.  Lots of interviews with others involved, and Yeah, it's Geraldo...  This aired in 2004.

 

Might as well put parts one and two in as well.  If nothing else, some good clip, and you can see what a great job Sterling K Brown is doing portraying Darden.

 

[GHScorpiosRule]

Fuhrman is still angry.  http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2016/03/mark-fuhrman-people-v-oj-simpson 

Above are three reasons why.  He also sounds furious that anyone left the crime scene at Bundy in an interview with the odious Geraldo here:

(He was junior and told to leave Bundy.)

 

I forgot that Fuhrman took and passed two polygraph tests about not planting evidence.  https://books.google.com/books?id=actFvI15o-4C&pg=PA345&lpg=PA345&dq=mark+fuhrman+passed+polygraph&source=bl&ots=0V_LAosR2h&sig=thbEcvXtEyEU9nr462UsuSsBmZ8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj4jeziyrzLAhVU-WMKHYVmBDgQ6AEIOjAF#v=onepage&q=mark%20fuhrman%20passed%20polygraph&f=false

 

 

I REFUSE to fall down in this Rabbit Hole!

 

But just to note, that Fuhrman explained about it being his partner who found the evidence and how the prosecution didn't want to put him (the partner) on the stand, in his 2010 interview on Oprah, that you had posted, Umbelina. 

 

That said, I might check these videos out when I have time later. Maybe. Probably.

[Simon Boccanegra]

the book is full of contradictions - - Simpson will say he and Nicole were getting along and had no fights on this particular trip and in the next breath say they only had one argument, etc.

 

Simpson's a lousy liar. He never came close to explaining the cuts on his hands in a plausible way, and how many things, over the period of the investigation and trial, did we hear he was supposed to have been doing at the time of the murders? Oversleeping...in the shower...practicing his golf swing (which was never compromised by the severely limited mobility from his "arthritis")...

Edited March 13, 2016 by Simon Boccanegra

[Umbelina]

Yes he is.  Someone took Simpson, reading his own book, broke it into excerpts and added video.

 

I think that is the closest I'll come to reading it.

 

[FozzyBear]

It always sort of amazes me how much people think the State should be able to just lie, cheat, and steal, yet still put people in jail. I mean I always took the verdict as a hard not guilty, as opposed to even a soft innocent. As in I'm sure many (if not most) of the jury felt that OJ was likely guilty, but the case was handled so badly with so many members of PD just flat out lying that they could never really be confident in the evidence. And that's why PD shouldn't fucking cut corners or disregard the law! Eventually it catches up with them and you get something like this where the State's case explodes into such a ball of insanity that the jury doesn't know what to do, even when faced with a likely guilty man.

[Simon Boccanegra]

I'm with Bugliosi (from Outrage):  

 

Obviously, the LAPD did not frame Simpson, and as far as I can determine, they were no more incompetent or competent in this case than in the other major cases they investigate. It would be impossible to find any murder case having the amount of physical, scientific evidence that existed in this case in which there weren't some slip-ups and unexplained discrepancies here and there in the investigation of the case and the collection and preservation of the evidence. It's normal and to be expected, particularly when so many people are involved.  

 

For instance, in the Manson case, the LAPD criminalists neglected to take blood samples from several pools of blood at the murder scene. Horn-rimmed glasses (whose owner was never identified) were seen by the first officer arriving at the murder scene near two trunks in the living room. Though the crime scene was supposed to be preserved for the criminalists, the glasses somehow ended up on top of a desk. Two pieces of a gun grip, first seen near the entryway, ended up under a chair in the living room. [...] An officer accidentally wiped off a bloody fingerprint on the gate of the Tate residence when he departed. The police sent out flyers all over the country and Canada looking for a gun they already had in their own Van Nuys division. A detective and his partner crossing a busy street near the courthouse dropped a vial of dog hairs I was going to introduce, losing all but one. (I did not introduce the hair, since it wasn't absolutely key evidence and presenting one hair would have looked too desperate and speculative.) And so it went.

 

[He goes on to write about discrepancies in the time logs of the officers who initially responded to the crime scene.]  

 

But you see, all of these things, when viewed in the context of the entire case, don't add up to a hill of beans.

 

And I'll express my own amazement that anyone is still defending that verdict in 2016. The prosecution didn't even present some strong evidence they could and perhaps should have, but the defense's intellectually dishonest talk of contamination (which would not change one person's blood into someone else's) and planting (which would have to be a massive conspiracy of a bunch of people who didn't even know each other, in some cases working blindly when Simpson could have had an ironclad alibi) never rebutted even the evidence that was presented. 

Edited March 13, 2016 by Simon Boccanegra

[jaync]

Anise Aschenbach, the juror Johnnie Cochran referred to as "the white demon" in conversations with other defense lawyers, because they all assumed she was pro-conviction, was one of the first to speak up in deliberation.

Wife beater, racist...Cochran might've been a great lawyer, but he was also a fucking scumbag.

[ketose]

I think it's fair to say that Marcia Clark and Chris Darden did a poor job of prosecuting the case. I disagree, but there were some mistakes and bad decisions. I'll never believe OJ was not guilty.

[Epeolatrix]

I wish we had Scotland's "not proven" option for a verdict. It doesn't pronounce guilt or innocence, only that there is doubt or insufficient evidence. There's a very good article by Alan Deshowitz about the OJ trial called "Is the Criminal Trial a Search for Truth?" that talks about this and other interesting ideas about our legal system.

[Simon Boccanegra]

From deep in the appendix of end notes to Outrage (p. 334): 

 

In one of the supreme ironies and coincidences in the Simpson case, civil rights leader Antonio H. Rodriguez sent a letter on December 5, 1978, to the district attorney's office demanding a prosecution of Fuhrman and his colleagues for the Boyle Heights incident. DA records show that the letter was eventually routed to the person who (along with the DA himself) was responsible for making the decision whether there should be a criminal prosecution. This person had oversight of the Special Investigations Division of the office, the division which handled prosecution of police misconduct cases. That person did not recommend a prosecution against Fuhrman and his colleagues. I could give you a hundred guesses and you still wouldn't guess who that was. It was Johnnie Cochran. As I mentioned earlier, District Attorney John Van De Kamp had appointed Cochran to be assistant district attorney, the number three man in the office. (He left the office in 1980, returning to private practice.) So the only case we know of for sure in which Mark Fuhrman engaged in serious police misconduct reached the desk of the man who was most responsible for making Mark Fuhrman and alleged police misconduct the very heart of the Simpson defense, and he passed. As a further irony, the person who routed the letter to Cochran was Gil Garcetti, who headed the Special Investigations Division at the time.

[SinInTheCamp]

Wife beater, racist...Cochran might've been a great lawyer, but he was also a fucking scumbag.

 

Just want to point out that Cochran's alleged words about the white juror would be properly defined as  personal prejudice, not racism. Racism entails feelings of supremacy and/or hatred of an entire race that perpetuates and upholds systemic abuses, inequalities, and the historical power of whites in the Western world.  

Edited March 15, 2016 by SinInTheCamp

[psychoticstate]

Whichever juror was interviewed, and I don't remember them all now, did say that they requested the transcript of the limo driver in there somewhere, so maybe between the first vote and the second?  They decided the Limo guy was lying or mistaken, and I think that's when they took the second vote.  The juror was surprised that the two that had initially voted guilty didn't try to discuss it or convince anyone.

 

Personally, I think it was so obviously broken along racial lines that they may have felt there was no point, and they'd have to stay a long, LONG time, if they kept to their votes. Hung juries are sent back in to deliberate over and over again.  I was on a hung jury once, it's awful.  And I wasn't even sequestered!

 

Also, several jurors had lines of credit set up and reservations in Vegas for the next day or that evening, according to DD, that is.

 

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/index/nns070.htm

 

According to Toobin's book, the jury discounted Alan Park's testimony because he was mistaken about the number of cars in the driveway.  Because, you know, if he thought there were 3 cars and there were 4, then he was obviously lying about seeing Simpson running down the driveway and the Bronco not being parked on the street when he arrived. 

 

Also per Toobin's book, the jury actually spent only TWO HOURS in actual "deliberation."  That's an affront to the state, to the legal system and most especially, to Ron and Nicole.

 

I am listening to "(If) I Did It' but I can only listen in small portions.  The lies, the contradictions, the blame game, Simpson claiming he was darn frail and broken down, It makes me too angry. 

[Hanahope]

I still can't believe they spent a week on the maid's testimony.  How could it have taken that long?  I've attended trials with 10 witnesses that last 5 days, its incredible to think that a witness with such limited testimony could take the same time.

[GHScorpiosRule]

And how is it that she could speak English when making her statement to the police, or whoever it was on the tape, but when she got on the stand, she's all like " No hablo Ingles" and needed a translator?

[ByTor]

Wife beater, racist...Cochran might've been a great lawyer, but he was also a fucking scumbag.

I couldn't agree more.

And I'll express my own amazement that anyone is still defending that verdict in 2016. The prosecution didn't even present some strong evidence they could and perhaps should have, but the defense's intellectually dishonest talk of contamination (which would not change one person's blood into someone else's) and planting (which would have to be a massive conspiracy of a bunch of people who didn't even know each other, in some cases working blindly when Simpson could have had an ironclad alibi) never rebutted even the evidence that was presented.

I love this. The defense labeled the police as basically a bunch of bungling idiots who had no idea how to handle evidence, yet these same bungling idiots were smart enough to pull off a MASSIVE conspiracy.

[Ina123]

 

Don't discount his name -- OJ -- which is immediately recognizable and unforgettable, "Simpson" is entirely superfluous. When you don't need to use a last name -- Madonna, Beyonce, Kanye, Lebron, Shaq, Adele, Whitney, OPRAH!!, Magic, OJ -- you are pretty f-ing famous, respected, and admired by a large majority of the population. Until they think you've killed two people, of course.

Couldn't agree more. It isn't out of the question to say OJ was beloved by black and white America (before he killed Nicole). Now if you want to say, "not everybody." That's fine. But that's a small minority, including people who just didn't care.

[jaync]

...he was also a fucking scumbag.

​And to add, while Cochran was beating with his first wife, he had another family on the side. So, he was basically a bigamist, too.

 

[psychoticstate]

I still can't believe they spent a week on the maid's testimony.  How could it have taken that long?  I've attended trials with 10 witnesses that last 5 days, its incredible to think that a witness with such limited testimony could take the same time.

It's utterly mindblowing that Ito allowed the defense to INTERRUPT the prosecution's case in order to deal with Rosa Lopez and put her on the stand.  Lopez wasn't going to clear Simpson of the murders or give him an alibi.  She was simply going to say when she thought she saw the Bronco (or did not see the Bronco) parked on Ashford.  She was a sketchy witness at best, as last week's episode proved. 

 

This was nothing more than another form of hijinks by the defense to slow down the prosecution's momentum in my book and Ito, as always the famewhoring, wishy-washy pacifist, let the defense run right over him with it.

 

 

I couldn't agree more.

I love this. The defense labeled the police as basically a bunch of bungling idiots who had no idea how to handle evidence, yet these same bungling idiots were smart enough to pull off a MASSIVE conspiracy.

 

AMEN.  Even the most competent police force would need quite a few people willing to participate in this conspiracy - - and against someone that had not only protected previous to this but also a person whose whereabouts they had no clue.

[ByTor]

AMEN.  Even the most competent police force would need quite a few people willing to participate in this conspiracy - - and against someone that had not only protected previous to this but also a person whose whereabouts they had no clue.

Yep. For all they knew, OJ could have been at a club where 100 people could have given him an alibi. Actually, psychoticstate, I may be plagiarizing you with this observation, but it's worth repeating :)

[FozzyBear]

It's utterly mindblowing that Ito allowed the defense to INTERRUPT the prosecution's case in order to deal with Rosa Lopez and put her on the stand. Lopez wasn't going to clear Simpson of the murders or give him an alibi. She was simply going to say when she thought she saw the Bronco (or did not see the Bronco) parked on Ashford. She was a sketchy witness at best, as last week's episode proved.

This was nothing more than another form of hijinks by the defense to slow down the prosecution's momentum in my book and Ito, as always the famewhoring, wishy-washy pacifist, let the defense run right over him with it.

.

Ito really was something special, wasn't he? The irony is that if the defense had to endure what Ito put the prosecution through there would have been enough reversible error to render any possible guilty verdict a moot point. I'm not even blaming the defense since it's their job to use whatever they can to mount a defense. But the judge is supposed to keep everyone on track and on the up and up. Ito was just crazy with his celebrity hard-on for the defense team.

[psychoticstate]

It definitely bears repeating, ByTor - - especially since no on thought to bring up it up during the criminal trial to show how ridiculous a police conspiracy was in this case.

Ito really was something special, wasn't he? The irony is that if the defense had to endure what Ito put the prosecution through there would have been enough reversible error to render any possible guilty verdict a moot point. I'm not even blaming the defense since it's their job to use whatever they can to mount a defense. But the judge is supposed to keep everyone on track and on the up and up. Ito was just crazy with his celebrity hard-on for the defense team.

 

Yup.  The defense was scummy in a lot of ways but they did their job.  Ito failed miserably at reining them in and keeping the focus on the murders of Ron and Nicole.  Did the jury even remember by the end that it was a murder case for the two victims or did they think it was a case on LAPD corruption? 

 

Ito should have recused himself as soon as his wife's connection with Fuhrman was brought up.   And he never should have allowed the Fuhrman tapes to be entered into evidence without sufficient cause that Fuhrman had planted evidence/participated in a conspiracy.  What a clusterf*ck.

[Umbelina]

It's utterly mindblowing that Ito allowed the defense to INTERRUPT the prosecution's case in order to deal with Rosa Lopez and put her on the stand.  Lopez wasn't going to clear Simpson of the murders or give him an alibi.  She was simply going to say when she thought she saw the Bronco (or did not see the Bronco) parked on Ashford.  She was a sketchy witness at best, as last week's episode proved. 

 

This was nothing more than another form of hijinks by the defense to slow down the prosecution's momentum in my book and Ito, as always the famewhoring, wishy-washy pacifist, let the defense run right over him with it.

 

 

 

AMEN.  Even the most competent police force would need quite a few people willing to participate in this conspiracy - - and against someone that had not only protected previous to this but also a person whose whereabouts they had no clue.

Yeah, there is a reason Darden accused Ito of letting the prosecution run that court, not him.  Darden's book lays Ito's incompetence out quite clearly, as do several other books.

 

Yep. For all they knew, OJ could have been at a club where 100 people could have given him an alibi. Actually, psychoticstate, I may be plagiarizing you with this observation, but it's worth repeating :)

Exactly.  Also, more people than the LA cops and labs would have had to be involved, including other labs.

 

ALL risking their livelihoods, and jail time, most of whom never even met each other, a cast of hundreds, all intent on framing a guy the let off time and time again, without even a citation for beating the crap out of his wife.  The same cops that played tennis at his house, that OJ threw parties for. 

 

ugh

[ByTor]

Also, more people than the LA cops and labs would have had to be involved, including other labs.

 

Good point, I hadn't considered that!

[Shannon L.]

 

The same cops that played tennis at his house, that OJ threw parties for.

I was wondering about this.  Forgive me if this has been covered--this thread moves fast and has so much information that I have a hard time keeping up with it--but, did the defense even try to talk about how they were friends with OJ and about the parties? 

[psychoticstate]

I was wondering about this.  Forgive me if this has been covered--this thread moves fast and has so much information that I have a hard time keeping up with it--but, did the defense even try to talk about how they were friends with OJ and about the parties? 

 

I don't believe so.  I think they were too busy talking about how corrupt the LAPD is and how inept/borderling corrupt Dennis Fung of the crime lab was.  I would think they would want to stay as far away from the special snowflake treatment Simpson got as possible.  And I'm sure Johnnie was very busy coordinating his ties and suits.

[psychoticstate]

Also, more people than the LA cops and labs would have had to be involved, including other labs.

 

ALL risking their livelihoods, and jail time, most of whom never even met each other, a cast of hundreds, all intent on framing a guy the let off time and time again, without even a citation for beating the crap out of his wife.  The same cops that played tennis at his house, that OJ threw parties for.

 

 

The prosecution should have attacked this head on to show how ridiculous a theory it was.

 

It would involve Furhman, Vannatter and Lange, who had not worked together before, to arrive at the crime scene on Bundy - - independently of each other - - and at least one say "Listen, guys.  I know we just met and we have no idea who the second victim is but hey, I have a great idea!  Let's frame O.J. Simpson because I'm sure you're racist.  Now we don't know the motive for this crime yet - - could be drug related, could be a serial killer, who knows?  - - and we have no idea where O.J. Simpson is right now but if we plan this right, we can frame him.  Never mind that he could be speaking in front of 100 Hertz executives as we speak.  Never mind that we've gven him a pass before.  Bygones.  Here's the plan.  Grab some blood. Grab a glove.  Fuhrman, put that glove in a baggie that you just happen to have on you and put it in your sock.  Then we'll sneak away to Rockingham and plant it, along with some blood.  That'll get it going.  Then I'm sure one of us can convince some people at the crime lab to come in on this and they can screw up the tests or plant blood/DNA evidence too.  Why?  For shits and giggles!  If we play this right, we can convict an innocent man, while the real guilty party or parties go free, because, again . . . shits and giggles.  If not, we'll have our names, reputations and careers dragged through the mud in a prolonged trial.  Who's in?"

Edited March 15, 2016 by psychoticstate

[ByTor]

I was wondering about this.  Forgive me if this has been covered--this thread moves fast and has so much information that I have a hard time keeping up with it--but, did the defense even try to talk about how they were friends with OJ and about the parties?

I'm guessing neither side would particularly want to open this can of worms.

[Simon Boccanegra]

Psychoticstate, there was also Cochran's amusing about-face in his summation, where he tried to make the framing plausible by saying the police thought OJ was guilty and "they didn't want to lose" yet another big case. Bugliosi is good on that too in Outrage. First of all, he points out that the whole thrust of the defense's case up until that point was that the the cops had knowingly framed an innocent man. Second, he says he would have flat out asked Johnnie Cochran, right there in the courtroom, which "big cases" the LAPD and the DA's office had "lost" recently, which they were so upset about? Damian Williams, who was indeed given a ten-year prison sentence for mayhem and assault, and was acquitted only of the arguably excessive attempted-murder charge? The Menendez brothers, who at that time were scheduled for retrial? The police officers who beat Rodney King? That's the big case the LAPD would be upset about having "lost," so they'd falsify evidence against OJ? 

Edited March 15, 2016 by Simon Boccanegra

[Shannon L.]

Thanks for the response, Psychoticstate.  After you wrote all of that out, I'm embarrassed to admit that I didn't review what I wrote before I hit enter and just now saw that I wrote "defense" instead of "prosecution". 

 

 

The prosecution should have attacked this head on to show how ridiculous a theory it was.

 

 

I'm guessing neither side would particularly want to open this can of worms.

 

I think it would have been worth a shot.

[Bama]

 

So the only case we know of for sure in which Mark Fuhrman engaged in serious police misconduct reached the desk of the man who was most responsible for making Mark Fuhrman and alleged police misconduct the very heart of the Simpson defense, and he passed. As a further irony, the person who routed the letter to Cochran was Gil Garcetti, who headed the Special Investigations Division at the time.

 

 

Just........damn.

 

Can you imagine Marcia Clark on re-direct bringing that little nugget up with Fuhrman?

 

MC - "Detective Fuhrman, have you have been accused of police misconduct?"

 

MF - "Yes.  Once.  In 1978."

 

MC - "What was the outcome of that complaint?"

 

MF - "The SID DA at the time decided not to pursue the complaint to do insufficient evidence."

 

MC - "Do you happen to know the name of the SID DA who decided the one complaint made against you was without merit?"

 

MF - "Yes ma'am.  He's sitting right over there in an ugly ass purple suit.  Johnnie Cochran."

 

COURTROOM - rabble rabble rabble

[FuriousStyles]

Someone explain how none of these things ever came up in court?

Even the picture of OJ in the shoes. Why did it take the National Enquirer to find that picture? Wouldnt the DA's office in Los Angeles pull every freaking resource they have to turn over every rock and hunt down every single piece of evidence.

The more and more of these types of tidbits come it, it really making the prosecution look inept and overmatched.

[smiley13]

Wouldnt the DA's office in Los Angeles pull every freaking resource they have to turn over every rock and hunt down every single piece of evidence.

 

Based on this show, Clark was too busy drinking tequila and eyeing Darden.

 

With all of the pictures of OJ out there, I am not surprised that the picture of him in the shoes did not turn up until later.

[Moose135]

The more and more of these types of tidbits come it, it really making the prosecution look inept and overmatched.

 

That was pretty much my opinion at the time of the trial.  Yes, I thought OJ likely committed the murders, but from what I saw (and I followed it a good bit at the time) the prosecution didn't come close to proving that in court.

[chlban]

Fuhrman is still angry.  http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2016/03/mark-fuhrman-people-v-oj-simpson 

Above are three reasons why.  He also sounds furious that anyone left the crime scene at Bundy in an interview with the odious Geraldo here:

(He was junior and told to leave Bundy.)

 

I forgot that Fuhrman took and passed two polygraph tests about not planting evidence. 

I don't care one bit that the arrogant bigot is still furious.  It amazes me that he has managed to have a writing career after being shown to be the piece of human garbage that he is. I have never, and will never, buy anything he has written.

 

That said, no, I do not believe he planted evidence. The reasons were pretty well spelled out by the Marcia Clark actress last night. Perhaps he should watch the show, before making more uninformed proclamations, because I am definitely not getting any idea that OJ is a hero. He is a murderer, and my take on the show is that is exactly what anyone with half a brain would determine after viewing the evidence.  

 

I just think it is important to remember that Furhman being a racist and Furhman not planting evidence in this case, are not mutually exclusive.  I also think racism is rampant in the LAPD and has been forever. I also do not think any member of the LAPD planted evidence in this case. Again, not mutually exclusive.  

 

It disturbs  me to this day, that people feel you have to make hero's out of the cops to enforce the OJ is guilty argument.

IMO these things are true:

1. OJ is guilty.

2. The jury was never, ever going to convict him, regardless of the evidence.

3. The cops did make a couple of bonehead moves that could have hurt in a real trial, but there was enough other evidence that it       shouldn't have mattered.

4.  Furhman was proven to be a racist POS.

5.  Neither Furhman nor any other member of the LAPD planted or altered any evidence in this case. 

[laurakaye]

Forgive me if this has been covered, but I just read the Vanity Fair fact-check article.  It states that not only did Shapiro try on the gloves in court, so did Cochran.

 

I simply cannot understand how they were allowed to tamper with those gloves.  And unless I am mistaken, these were the actual gloves found at the scene, yes?  These were not clean duplicate gloves purchased only so OJ could try them on in court...these were the bloodied, shrunken, actual gloves.

 

I am dumbfounded..???

[chlban]

He was wearing some kind of dark track suit type thing, I think it was a gift from a commercial shoot he'd done for a company.  He normally didn't wear things like that.  As for the shoes?  Who knows?  Dark shoes, maybe quiet, and if he really did think they were "ugly ass shoes" why not use them, since he was going to toss them anyway? 

 

Yeah, I definitely think Nicole's murder was premeditated, he spent a lot of time setting up that alibi with Kato, who fucked up his timeline by deciding to go with OJ for a burger, prompted by how uncommonly friendly OJ was being earlier.  The tension in that car ride to McDonalds is something Kato conveyed very very well during civil testimony, also taking the Bentley was really unusual for OJ, makes me wonder what might have been in the Bronco. 

 

ETA, about the velour track suit thing, he actually TOOK it from a commercial shoot, never returned it, even though he said he did, the prop mistress there testified she never got it back.  OJ said he never owned anything like that.

Nicole's murders had to be premeditated, because I can tell you, as a So. CA native, that no one here would ever be wearing gloves in June. Nor would we be carrying them around with us. That, in itself is weird. It would make more sense if he went over to confront her about having snubbed him at the recital and fight broke out, or he saw her with Ron and lost it.

 

But to deliberately go over there with the intent to murder. That is just weird in itself. Usually killings like that between spouses or ex spouses are over custody or money, neither of which appeared to be big issues between these two.   

[DangerousMinds]

The prosecution should have attacked this head on to show how ridiculous a theory it was.

 

It would involve Furhman, Vannatter and Lange, who had not worked together before, to arrive at the crime scene on Bundy - - independently of each other - - and at least one say "Listen, guys.  I know we just met and we have no idea who the second victim is but hey, I have a great idea!  Let's frame O.J. Simpson because I'm sure you're racist.  Now we don't know the motive for this crime yet - - could be drug related, could be a serial killer, who knows?  - - and we have no idea where O.J. Simpson is right now but if we plan this right, we can frame him.  Never mind that he could be speaking in front of 100 Hertz executives as we speak.  Never mind that we've gven him a pass before.  Bygones.  Here's the plan.  Grab some blood. Grab a glove.  Fuhrman, put that glove in a baggie that you just happen to have on you and put it in your sock.  Then we'll sneak away to Rockingham and plant it, along with some blood.  That'll get it going.  Then I'm sure one of us can convince some people at the crime lab to come in on this and they can screw up the tests or plant blood/DNA evidence too.  Why?  For shits and giggles!  If we play this right, we can convict an innocent man, while the real guilty party or parties go free, because, again . . . shits and giggles.  If not, we'll have our names, reputations and careers dragged through the mud in a prolonged trial.  Who's in?"

Perfect!

[Simon Boccanegra]

Well...on Furhman, I don't approve of everything he has said in the distant past, but if he has managed to rehabilitate his image to a degree over the last 20 years, to the point that he could go on Oprah's show and give an interesting interview in 2010, good for him. It doesn't mean everyone has to forgive him or like him, but at least I can say I'm not aware of him having ever killed anyone. I agree that his detective work in the Simpson case was above reproach. I believe he was skilled and competent in his job in general, and he's a smart guy who may have insights to share about criminal cases, which is the reason I would listen to him or read something by him. Many African-American and Latino men and women who either worked with Fuhrman or were victims of crimes in cases he worked, did vigorously defend him, or at least offer a different point of view on him. And there was at least one case, that of a 30-year-old African-American named Arrick Harris who had been identified as a white man's murderer in a drug-related crime, in which Furhman personally gathered information to exonerate someone he believed had been falsely accused. The case was dismissed, and Mr. Harris owed his freedom in large part to Fuhrman.  

 

In short, I believe Fuhrman is a figure of some complexity, and calling him either admirable or despicable leaves out part of the picture. In fairness, the same argument could be made about OJ Simpson, but Simpson's crimes so eclipse those of Fuhrman in magnitude that there just is not enough on the good side of the scale.  

Edited March 16, 2016 by Simon Boccanegra

[psychoticstate]

Well...on Furhman, I don't approve of everything he has said in the distant past, but if he has managed to rehabilitate his image to a degree over the last 20 years, to the point that he could go on Oprah's show and give an interesting interview in 2010, good for him. It doesn't mean everyone has to forgive him or like him, but at least I can say I'm not aware of him having ever killed anyone. I agree that his detective work in the Simpson case was above reproach. I believe he was skilled and competent in his job in general, and he's a smart guy who may have insights to share about criminal cases, which is the reason I would listen to him or read something by him. Many African-American and Latino men and women who either worked with Fuhrman or were victims of crimes in cases he worked, did vigorously defend him, or at least offer a different point of view on him. And there was at least one case, that of a 30-year-old African-American named Arrick Harris who had been identified as a white man's murderer in a drug-related crime, in which Furhman personally gathered information to exonerate someone he believed had been falsely accused. The case was dismissed, and Mr. Harris owed his freedom in large part to Fuhrman.  

 

In short, I believe Fuhrman is a figure of some complexity, and calling him either admirable or despicable leaves out part of the picture. In fairness, the same argument could be made about OJ Simpson, but Simpson's crimes so eclipse those of Fuhrman in magnitude that there just is not enough on the good side of the scale.  

 

Very well said.  Fuhrman can be a racist POS but still a good detective.  The same way that Simpson can be a murdering POS but was still a good football player.  One doesn't exclude the other. 

[GHScorpiosRule]

Thanks Simon Boccanegra and psychoticstate.  I was trying to figure out how to ask that just because Fuhrman was/is(still?) a racist piece of shit, does that negate that he was a good cop and didn't plant evidence?  But I'm a wuss and didn't want anyone to think that I was racist. You know?  And like Simon stated, I'd like to think that maybe he's learned, if his interview with Oprah in 2010 is any indication. Plus, I don't think Oprah would have called him back on her show.

 

But y'all said/stated what I wanted to say, so thanks.

[ByTor]

With all the notoriety of the "Dream Team," I was reminded of something pretty sad in the system. During the trial, one of the news channels (I have no recollection of which one) did an interview with a public defender from a large city (I think it may have been Chicago). She was talking about the kind of defense OJ was able to build, and about how, while they do their best with the resources they have, the budget they have to work within wouldn't be nearly enough to provide for such a defense. I remember her saying that they actually did have a decent acquittal record, but it makes me sad for countless people in prison who may not be stuck there all because they couldn't afford to get a defense that had the ability to go the extra mile.

ETA: I know this isn't exactly a newsflash, it's something that everybody is aware of, but it's just so awful when you think about it.

Edited March 17, 2016 by ByTor

[dubbel zout]

OJ being able to afford such a high-priced defense was one of the important larger points of the trial. Not everyone has the resources he did. There's always been a different justice for the rich.

[bblancobrnx]

I came here to ask about Spoilers as a joke, and sure enough there is a spoiler thread! Lol. I guess I figured that everybody on the planet already knows every detail of this case, but I forgot how old I am. At 40 yrs old, I can probably remember it a lot better than people who were born in 1990 and after...well not probably...DEFINITELY. Anyway, I am loving this show. Carry on...

Edited March 17, 2016 by bblancobrnx

[CaughtOnTape]

I came here to ask about Spoilers as a joke, and sure enough there is a spoiler thread! Lol. I guess I figured that everybody on the planet already knows every detail of this case, but I forgot how old I am. At 40 yrs old, I can probably remember it a lot better than people who were born in 1990 and after...well not probably...DEFINITELY. Anyway, I am loving this show. Carry on...

 

I thought the same.  Who doesn't know what happened in this case that spoilers are an issue?  LOL

 

I can see how it can be argued that the prosecution didn't do their jobs and hence it's why they lost.  But listening to evidence presented, I just don't see how the jury heard that Ron's blood was ANYWHERE on OJ's possessions and didn't convict based on that piece of information alone.  He didn't know Ron.  He'd never met him.  What other reason would there be for Ron's blood to have been on OJ's possessions?  I mean, they convicted Amanda Knox based on her blood being mixed with Meredith's and they lived in the same damn house.

 

I suppose if that was one of the things that the defense pointed out as specifically having been planted evidence.  But then as all of you pointed out, that is a shitload of people to have been in on the conspiracy.  

 

I just don't understand this jury and I never will.  How they sleep at night is beyond me.

Edited March 17, 2016 by CaughtOnTape

[psychoticstate]

With all the notoriety of the "Dream Team," I was reminded of something pretty sad in the system. During the trial, one of the news channels (I have no recollection of which one) did an interview with a public defender from a large city (I think it may have been Chicago). She was talking about the kind of defense OJ was able to build, and about how, while they do their best with the resources they have, the budget they have to work within wouldn't be nearly enough to provide for such a defense. I remember her saying that they actually did have a decent acquittal record, but it makes me sad for countless people in prison who may not be stuck there all because they couldn't afford to get a defense that had the ability to go the extra mile.

ETA: I know this isn't exactly a newsflash, it's something that everybody is aware of, but it's just so awful when you think about it.

 

I posted this in the Conspiracy Theory thread but I find the coined "Dream Team" laughable.  They weren't all that great.  Other than globbing on to the racism angle, nearly any newbie defense attorney could have done the same for Simpson.   That said, everyone assumed they were the best LA had to offer because Simpson could clearly pay for that. 

 

The economic division is a sad fact of our legal system.  A good case in point, and one that saddens and infuriates me to this day, is the West Memphis Three.  The prosecution's case against the three defendants was painfully weak (and yet those defendants were convicted while the blindingly strong case against Simpson garnered him an acquittal.)  One of the young men convicted (since released) in the WM3 case even said they were targeted in part because they were poor white trash.  While I think different counsel with perhaps money for testing, etc. may have gotten a different verdict (and rightfully so), I think this was a case that also suffered because of the judge.  (The judge in this case allowed two of the defendants to be tried together, which NEVER should have happened, as the state had nothing against one defendant, who was convicted solely on guilt by association; he also allowed Satanism and satanic panic to be brought in the courtroom, when there was no evidence of the case having anything to do with that.  Interestingly enough, in this case the police did act inappropriately and had immediate tunnel vision for one defendant, letting them turn a blind eye to one stepparent who was a drug informant and another stepparent who was a violent drug user.)

I thought the same.  Who doesn't know what happened in this case that spoilers are an issue?  LOL

 

I can see how it can be argued that the prosecution didn't do their jobs and hence it's why they lost.  But listening to evidence presented, I just don't see how the jury heard that Ron's blood was ANYWHERE on OJ's possessions and didn't convict based on that piece of information alone.  He didn't know Ron.  He'd never met him.  What other reason would there be for Ron's blood to have been on OJ's possessions?  I mean, they convicted Amanda Knox based on her blood being mixed with Meredith's and they lived in the same damn house.

 

I suppose if that was one of the things that the defense pointed out as specifically having been planted evidence.  But then as all of you pointed out, that is a shitload of people to have been in on the conspiracy.  

 

I just don't understand this jury and I never will.  How they sleep at night is beyond me.

 

Agreed.  I also wonder how Ito sleeps at night.  He made so many mistakes, in my opinion, from his fanwanking of the defense to allowing the Fuhrman tapes into evidence to having Simpson try on "the" gloves with latex underneath versus a duplicate pair to televising the trial in the first place.