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

[FozzyBear]

One of my biggest "what were they thinking?" moments was when Furhman testified he had never used the term nigger, or not in 10 years. I forget technically what the testimony, but it evened out to a flat denial of having said it ever, even once, in a very long period. I wasn't the biggest follower of the case, but I remember that moment and I remember thinking "Dipshit. They have something!" And for all that has been made of what the tapes actually were, they also had PD psychiatric reports where he tried to get disability by saying he wanted to kill minorities or something. That and the glove were such dumb mistakes over nothing. Both were minor issues (not the word itself, more Furhman's usage and how it might relate to the case) that became HUGE deals due to bungling. How on earth does a guy who asked for disability due to his desire to hurt minorities get on the stand and swear he never used a racial slur? Any slur? Honestly, I still can't get over how dumb it was.

[Epeolatrix]

I mean, they convicted Amanda Knox based on her blood being mixed with Meredith's and they lived in the same damn house.

This is not a good thing.

[CeeBeeGee]

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.

 

The Knox verdict was...well, crazy for lack of a better word. Read a little more about the prosecutor who is notorious and a complete nutjob. He is obsessed with Satanism and all kinds of nutty conspiracies, and he concocted this whole scenario of a sex game gone horribly wrong, to explain Meredith's murder, with ZERO physical evidence to support it. Whereas the actual perp left tons of DNA behind. The whole business was a mess and made Italy kind of a laughing stock--I honestly wonder if it impacted their tourism. I've loved visiting there but I would think twice about spending extended time there, if you can get falsely convicted of murder simply because the prosecutor is sex-obsessed.

 

Agree with your point about the Simpson jury. Thank God the civil trial had much better jurors.

[Umbelina]

I think the spoilers section is specifically spoilers about the SHOW itself, certainly not the trial and outcome and aftermath.

 

For example, in the next episode I just saw "leaked footage of OJ beating the crap out of Shapiro!" or "Darden and Marsha sex scene filmed, and it's HOT!"

Edited March 17, 2016 by Umbelina

[starri]

In all of this discussion about the Dream Team, does anybody know where Barry Scheck's head is these days? I mean, it's pretty clear that Robert Kardashian and Shapiro had some regrets about the way OJ's defense was handled, but he seems to be kind of a cypher.  He didn't write a book (as far as I know), he hasn't spoken out since the show has been on.

 

He co-founded the Innocence Project, so it's really hard for me to think badly of him, but I do wonder.

[biakbiak]

While a lot of people may know some elements of the crime and I am sure everyone watching knows that he was acquitted but that doesn't mean people know everything that happened in the case, either because they are too young, forgot, or didn't follow the case that closely and know only a few big things.

Edited March 17, 2016 by biakbiak

[psychoticstate]

In all of this discussion about the Dream Team, does anybody know where Barry Scheck's head is these days? I mean, it's pretty clear that Robert Kardashian and Shapiro had some regrets about the way OJ's defense was handled, but he seems to be kind of a cypher.  He didn't write a book (as far as I know), he hasn't spoken out since the show has been on.

 

He co-founded the Innocence Project, so it's really hard for me to think badly of him, but I do wonder.

 

I admire The Innocence Project so it hurts that Scheck was involved in the Simpson defense at all.  However, DNA was relatively new in 1994 and I suppose his participation in the trial/case was one good way to get the Project out there..

 

My computer/this site is being sketchy with quotes right now so I wasn't able to copy everything but I did want to add my two cents to the post above about Fuhrman.  He was indeed stupid to say he had not said the "n" word at all in the last ten years.  Even if you hadn't, don't box yourself in because the defense is clearly asking you that for a very specific purpose.  You can say it's not a word I would use; I don't recall specifically saying it in the last decade, or even that you have not addressed someone by that word but you may have spoken it in context of something else, etc.  He was decimated once he claimed he did not.  Kind of like the prosecution boxing themselves in with the absolute 10:15 time for the murders - - bad move.  

 

I also wanted to say to caughtontape that Ron's blood being found in the Bronco and on the socks, as well as fibers from his shirt sealed the deal for me because there is absolutely no excuse for it to be there.  He and Simpson weren't friends or even acquaintances.  When you further add that Ron's blood was mixed with Nicole's that's even more detrimental.  That would indicate the blood was shed at the same time.  What is the likelihood they would have both shed their blood together, at the same time, and that blood ended up in the vehicle and on the clothing of one victim's ex-husband, who she was afraid of, who she had stated was stalking her and would kill her and who was seen speeding away from the crime scene?  It's almost stupefying  that a guilty verdict was never seriously considered by all but two of the jurors.

[FozzyBear]

I admire The Innocence Project so it hurts that Scheck was involved in the Simpson defense at all. However, DNA was relatively new in 1994 and I suppose his participation in the trial/case was one good way to get the Project out there..

My computer/this site is being sketchy with quotes right now so I wasn't able to copy everything but I did want to add my two cents to the post above about Fuhrman. He was indeed stupid to say he had not said the "n" word at all in the last ten years. Even if you hadn't, don't box yourself in because the defense is clearly asking you that for a very specific purpose. You can say it's not a word I would use; I don't recall specifically saying it in the last decade, or even that you have not addressed someone by that word but you may have spoken it in context of something else, etc. He was decimated once he claimed he did not. Kind of like the prosecution boxing themselves in with the absolute 10:15 time for the murders - - bad move.

I also wanted to say to caughtontape that Ron's blood being found in the Bronco and on the socks, as well as fibers from his shirt sealed the deal for me because there is absolutely no excuse for it to be there. He and Simpson weren't friends or even acquaintances. When you further add that Ron's blood was mixed with Nicole's that's even more detrimental. That would indicate the blood was shed at the same time. What is the likelihood they would have both shed their blood together, at the same time, and that blood ended up in the vehicle and on the clothing of one victim's ex-husband, who she was afraid of, who she had stated was stalking her and would kill her and who was seen speeding away from the crime scene? It's almost stupefying that a guilty verdict was never seriously considered by all but two of the jurors.

Yeah, that was sort of my point. Just say " I didn't recall using it during that time." He's a cop. He knows how the rules of evidence work. Plus there were multiple sources proving he did, so it's not like he used it once retelling a story about something someone else said and the defense team found someone who overheard it and so on. He used the term in a psych exame for disability! I don't think Furhman did anything wrong during the investigation, but I can not wrap my head around how unbelievably stupid his testimony was. I think all the defense was really hoping for was to paint Furhman as a racist who migh have done...something. Then Furhman just hands them the 5th amendment on a silver platter making it look like his testimony about the case was dishonest too, instead of just his repulsive statements on race. I've always thought that if the prosecution really did make a truly over-the-top mistake it was not assuming there was something to the Furhman n-word stuff, forcing it out of him, and addressing it on the stand themselves.

[Umbelina]

That's why Bailey goaded him, with the hostile attitude and the aggressive, fast questions and the inflammatory word.  Very calculated to push Fuhrman into a man-fight rather than think.

[Ms Blue Jay]

I think I read up to page 6, 7 of this thread.  I was out of the country for a few weeks, so I am really really trying to catch up on the whole discussion.  Okay so I have to ask this question, I have to!  I'm sorry if it was addressed already.  There was a huge Kardashian discussion early on.

 

Now, seriously I'm not being facetious here I really want the answer!  If you commit a crime, and someone helps you, can you actually HIRE one of those accomplices to be your lawyer so that that person can't be called as a witness in the court case, and also is not compelled by law to tell any police officer about your crime because of attorney-client privilege?  It sounds so insane to me, yet I am (thinking?) that was what was being implied early on here, so I'd really like clarification, thank you!

[FozzyBear]

That's why Bailey goaded him, with the hostile attitude and the aggressive, fast questions and the inflammatory word. Very calculated to push Fuhrman into a man-fight rather than think.

Absolutely true...but Furhman fell for it. I'm not saying the defense didn't pull every trick out of every hat or that Ito shouldn't have reigned them in, but the prosecution kept falling for it. How could these seasoned professionals let themselves get manipulated so many times in such obvious ways? It still make me shake my head.

[whiporee]

 

Thank God the civil trial had much better jurors.

 

or at least they came up with a verdict you agreed with. 

 

I find it amazing that people are so quick to condemn the criminal jury for their assumed biases, and do not assign the civil jury the same level of malice. As if they walked into their courtroom completely barren of preconception, and the idea of paying back the murderer they assumed got off never entered their minds. 

 

If you want to blame juries in this thing, that's your right. But don't say the one you agreed with was awesome and the one you didn't agree with abandoned their oaths for the sake of a statement about race in America. 

 

I think both followed their oaths and their guidelines and came up with the verdicts they both thought appropriate, and the idea that one of them (that had a verdict many disagreed with) did their job haphazardly while the other followed only the evidence and the law is laughable. You either have trust in human nature or you don't. And the idea that the eight white people on the civil jury were less biased -- especially after two years of intense scrutiny -- than the nine black members of the criminal one ... well, that's an interesting take. 

[Isabella15]

psychoticstate, on 17 Mar 2016 - 1:58 PM, said:

                     BTW, Sterling K. Brown IS awesome and for those who wonder if the real Chris Darden had as much charisma as Brown is putting forth, I would say yes.  I mentioned in another thread that I met Darden at a book signing when his book was released.  While I thought he was nice looking on the tv, I found him much more attractive in person.  He has a very commanding, yet gentle, presence, if that makes sense.  He came across friendly, kind and very sexy, in my opinion.

 

Just adding a personal opinion for what it's worth (approx 2 one-cent coins):  I went to a couple of talks that Chris Darden did for local writer's groups.  (maybe 5+ years ago).  Outstanding presentations.   It was clear he still felt very strongly about the Simpson outcome and had been deeply affected by it.  He thought the defense threw ethics out the window because they wanted to win at any cost. He did have the strongest criticisms for Judge Ito, from his rulings to his courtroom behavior to his starry-eyed worship of Hollywood celebs.  (And I think he said it was Ito who told OJ to put on latex gloves for the demonstration. )

 

He was very patient with all of our questions, and spoke in detail, without notes, on the Simpson trial.  When asked about Fuhrman, Darden simply said he was a very good, meticulous detective, and he had no doubts at all about the quality of his work.  A couple of people mentioned that he seemed exactly the same in person as he appeared on TV.  Darden laughed and said, I don't know if that's good or bad!   Everyone was very taken with him.  It's not often when the first descriptors about a lawyer are integrity and sincerity, but that was my impression of Chris Darden.  (And I agree that Sterling Brown is doing a wonderful job.  Maybe there should be an Ensemble Acting Award. )

 

(Moved this to its correct location now...)

    Pallas, Ms Blue Jay, Eolivet and 4 others like this

Edited March 18, 2016 by Isabella15

[Pallas]

It seems to me that Ron Goldman's entering the scene of Nicole's murder -- his struggle with her killer, and his death -- produced most of the clearest evidence. OJ's cut finger and blood at Bundy: likely the result of his fight with Ron. OJ's losing the hat and first glove at Bundy: likely the result of his being caught in the act, fighting with the witness and killing him, then fleeing, now flooded with adrenaline and clumsy with haste. OJ's being seen by the limo driver as he returns to Rockingham, then stumbling outside and losing the second glove on his way into the house: likely the result of this delay and more agitation. And Ron's blood in the Bronco.

 

In the series, the defense and prosecution both speak of telling the most compelling narrative. In the trial, even as the killer's victim, Ron delivered that. It went unanswered, and it went unheard.  

[helenamonster]

Maybe there should be an Ensemble Acting Award.

 

There isn't an Emmy for Outstanding Ensemble, but there is a SAG Award for it. I wouldn't be surprised if this show nabbed it next year.

[biakbiak]

There isn't an Emmy for Outstanding Ensemble, but there is a SAG Award for it. I wouldn't be surprised if this show nabbed it next year.

Though it doesn't have an ensemble for mini-series (only Best Male, Best Female) so this show would be up against all eligible dramas.

[helenamonster]

True, but I still think it's a pretty strong contender.

[Frasier]

or at least they came up with a verdict you agreed with. 

 

I find it amazing that people are so quick to condemn the criminal jury for their assumed biases, and do not assign the civil jury the same level of malice. As if they walked into their courtroom completely barren of preconception, and the idea of paying back the murderer they assumed got off never entered their minds. 

 

If you want to blame juries in this thing, that's your right. But don't say the one you agreed with was awesome and the one you didn't agree with abandoned their oaths for the sake of a statement about race in America. 

 

I think both followed their oaths and their guidelines and came up with the verdicts they both thought appropriate, and the idea that one of them (that had a verdict many disagreed with) did their job haphazardly while the other followed only the evidence and the law is laughable. You either have trust in human nature or you don't. And the idea that the eight white people on the civil jury were less biased -- especially after two years of intense scrutiny -- than the nine black members of the criminal one ... well, that's an interesting take.

Maybe because the civil jury deliberated for days, reaching a unanimous verdict when one wasn't required, while the criminal jury deliberated for a few hours after 8-9 months of testimony. Not to mention the black power gesture at the verdict, rumors of juror shenanigans to remove pro-prosecution jurors, questionable comments by jurors (not seeing the relevancy of the domestic violence, for example), etc. I don't really understand the view that the two juries cannot be compared and that somehow doing so is not trusting in human nature because the juries' actions and own words are largely the basis for my opinions.

[CeeBeeGee]

It seems to me that Ron Goldman's entering the scene of Nicole's murder -- his struggle with her killer, and his death -- produced most of the clearest evidence. OJ's cut finger and blood at Bundy: likely the result of his fight with Ron. OJ's losing the hat and first glove at Bundy: likely the result of his being caught in the act, fighting with the witness and killing him, then fleeing, now flooded with adrenaline and clumsy with haste. OJ's being seen by the limo driver as he returns to Rockingham, then stumbling outside and losing the second glove on his way into the house: likely the result of this delay and more agitation. And Ron's blood in the Bronco.

 

In the series, the defense and prosecution both speak of telling the most compelling narrative. In the trial, even as the killer's victim, Ron delivered that. It went unanswered, and it went unheard.  

 

This is very astute analysis. I really like this, not least because this elevates Ron's murder from pathetic (wrong place/wrong time/too bad) to heroic---if Ron hadn't stumbled onto the murder, OJ wouldn't have had to deal with quite so much WTF evidence that couldn't be easily explained.

 

Again--not that it mattered with this shit jury. OJ could've confessed  and they would've found a way to rationalize it. "It's all faked!" F*** them.

[Marsupial]

 

The Knox verdict was...well, crazy for lack of a better word. Read a little more about the prosecutor who is notorious and a complete nutjob. He is obsessed with Satanism and all kinds of nutty conspiracies, and he concocted this whole scenario of a sex game gone horribly wrong, to explain Meredith's murder, with ZERO physical evidence to support it. Whereas the actual perp left tons of DNA behind. The whole business was a mess and made Italy kind of a laughing stock--I honestly wonder if it impacted their tourism. I've loved visiting there but I would think twice about spending extended time there, if you can get falsely convicted of murder simply because the prosecutor is sex-obsessed.

I'm sorry, I don't mean to go too far afield here, but you really need to read some better sources on the Knox case. In fact, it closely parallels the OJ case in many ways: A clearly guilty defendant (actually 3) with MOUNTAINS of physical evidence pointing to their guilt (yes, the actual perp left tons of DNA behind --that DNA was Amanda's, whose blood was found all over the knife and the blanket), who were let free and whose innocence is still blindly believed in by a small segment of the population. In this case, the American public that was fed a steady stream of misinformation by the U.S. news media, backed by Amanda's family who hired an expensive PR team to refurbish their daughter's image (successfully, as the lying murderess even has her own newspaper column now). Amanda is as guilty as O.J.,  the prosecutors had overwhelming eyewitness and physical testimony proving her and her boyfriend's guilt. Not that you would know that from reading any American coverage of the case.

 

As to your remarks about Italy being made a laughingstock by this case, you could not be more wrong. The ONLY people who believe Amanda and her killer boyfriend are innocent are Americans. The rest of the world knows that Italy--which by the way has a model judicial system, one of the best in the world and one that is also far more defendant-friendly than ours--did the right thing prosecuting these evil scumbags, and in the rest of the world regards Americans the way we regard the O.J. jury.

 

I notice you left out (or don't know) that Dear Amanda, in her initial and subsequent interviews with the police, placed the blame for the murder on her boss, a black man named Diya Lumumba who had never hurt a soul in his life or had so much as a traffic ticket. Yup, the lying murderous bitch fingered the scary African man, not once but repeatedly -- he was arrested and held in prison for weeks and lost his business, all because of a lying, evil shitheel named Amanda. He was not released until a man who happened to be in his bar on the night in question, and remembered talking to him, flew in from SWEDEN to testify on his behalf. Amanda would have happily let the poor man rot in jail forever. (Lumumba later won a suit for slander against Knox). Hmmm, wonder if Amanda is still looking for the real killer?

 

By the way, Knox's defense team tried the exact same tactics as OJ's did, claiming the DNA evidence was poorly handled and contaminated. It was not. There are some very good sources out there on the Knox case and I would strongly suggest you read them. Meredith Kircher was killed by three people, and only one of them is in prison -- oh and guess what, he also happens to be black, and unlike Amanda and her psychopath boyfriend, he did not have a wealthy family, or a credulous American public, to bail him out. It's utterly revolting, but most of all it's utterly heartbreaking for Meredith's family, who know full well who murdered their daughter but can't do anything about it.

[Simon Boccanegra]

Maybe because the civil jury deliberated for days, reaching a unanimous verdict when one wasn't required, while the criminal jury deliberated for a few hours after 8-9 months of testimony. Not to mention the black power gesture at the verdict, rumors of juror shenanigans to remove pro-prosecution jurors, questionable comments by jurors (not seeing the relevancy of the domestic violence, for example), etc. I don't really understand the view that the two juries cannot be compared and that somehow doing so is not trusting in human nature because the juries' actions and own words are largely the basis for my opinions.

 

The only thing you left out (although it could be covered within the "et cetera") was Carrie Bess's "We've got to protect our own" after the verdict was read. If any similarly jaw-dropping statement was made by a juror of the civil trial, I've never seen it reported.  

 

So, yeah. The jury in the civil trial may have been better in some measurable senses (they were, as a group, better educated and better informed, and thus not as easy to snow on the DNA issues), but I don't have any problem admitting that part of the reason I think so is that they arrived at a verdict I liked better. Because double murderers getting off to go play golf? I don't like that. 

 

That's why Bailey goaded him, with the hostile attitude and the aggressive, fast questions and the inflammatory word.  Very calculated to push Fuhrman into a man-fight rather than think.

 

Bailey cross-examined everyone that way. It was his style, relentlessly sarcastic and pugnacious, rather than a mode he slipped into for Fuhrman. Sometimes it worked for him and sometimes it wore thin. I personally didn't think his work in the courtroom in the Simpson trial, including the Fuhrman testimony, was anything special, and he seemed so at sea with a subsequent witness that Simpson himself said, "That man doesn't talk in this courtroom again," or words to that effect. But he was the most experienced member on either side in trying murder cases, so his behind-the-scenes strategizing probably added a lot.  

 

When asked about Fuhrman, Darden simply said he was a very good, meticulous detective, and he had no doubts at all about the quality of his work.

 

Thanks for that...interesting. Darden circa 2006, on Oprah, was very, very negative toward Fuhrman. He said something like, anyone who is Mark Fuhrman's friend can't be my friend. Not that that is inconsistent with thinking he's a good, meticulous detective and so on. He just seemed to hold Fuhrman responsible for a lot of the case's problems.  

Edited March 18, 2016 by Simon Boccanegra

[ArizonaGrown]

I admire The Innocence Project so it hurts that Scheck was involved in the Simpson defense at all.  However, DNA was relatively new in 1994 and I suppose his participation in the trial/case was one good way to get the Project out there..

 

My computer/this site is being sketchy with quotes right now so I wasn't able to copy everything but I did want to add my two cents to the post above about Fuhrman.  He was indeed stupid to say he had not said the "n" word at all in the last ten years.  Even if you hadn't, don't box yourself in because the defense is clearly asking you that for a very specific purpose.  You can say it's not a word I would use; I don't recall specifically saying it in the last decade, or even that you have not addressed someone by that word but you may have spoken it in context of something else, etc.  He was decimated once he claimed he did not.  Kind of like the prosecution boxing themselves in with the absolute 10:15 time for the murders - - bad move.  

 

I also wanted to say to caughtontape that Ron's blood being found in the Bronco and on the socks, as well as fibers from his shirt sealed the deal for me because there is absolutely no excuse for it to be there.  He and Simpson weren't friends or even acquaintances.  When you further add that Ron's blood was mixed with Nicole's that's even more detrimental.  That would indicate the blood was shed at the same time.  What is the likelihood they would have both shed their blood together, at the same time, and that blood ended up in the vehicle and on the clothing of one victim's ex-husband, who she was afraid of, who she had stated was stalking her and would kill her and who was seen speeding away from the crime scene?  It's almost stupefying  that a guilty verdict was never seriously considered by all but two of the jurors.

Probably the same likelihood that the blood evidence was tampered with that is why there was ETA in it and yes it could of been planted when you had several people walking around with blood samples for days. Also the sock took several months and several examinations before it magically came up with blood on it. Hmm odd that the first 6 to 8 detectives and officials did not notice the blood on sock until they had it for 3 plus months.

[CaughtOnTape]

If you want to blame juries in this thing, that's your right. But don't say the one you agreed with was awesome and the one you didn't agree with abandoned their oaths for the sake of a statement about race in America. 

 

Why not?  They did.

 

I mean...he raised his fist in the black power salute.  How you don't see that as a statement about race in America....ok.

[CeeBeeGee]

I'm sorry, I don't mean to go too far afield here, but you really need to read some better sources on the Knox case. In fact, it closely parallels the OJ case in many ways: A clearly guilty defendant (actually 3) with MOUNTAINS of physical evidence pointing to their guilt (yes, the actual perp left tons of DNA behind --that DNA was Amanda's, whose blood was found all over the knife and the blanket), who were let free and whose innocence is still blindly believed in by a small segment of the population. In this case, the American public that was fed a steady stream of misinformation by the U.S. news media, backed by Amanda's family who hired an expensive PR team to refurbish their daughter's image (successfully, as the lying murderess even has her own newspaper column now). Amanda is as guilty as O.J.,  the prosecutors had overwhelming eyewitness and physical testimony proving her and her boyfriend's guilt. Not that you would know that from reading any American coverage of the case.

 

As to your remarks about Italy being made a laughingstock by this case, you could not be more wrong. The ONLY people who believe Amanda and her killer boyfriend are innocent are Americans. The rest of the world knows that Italy--which by the way has a model judicial system, one of the best in the world and one that is also far more defendant-friendly than ours--did the right thing prosecuting these evil scumbags, and in the rest of the world regards Americans the way we regard the O.J. jury.

 

I notice you left out (or don't know) that Dear Amanda, in her initial and subsequent interviews with the police, placed the blame for the murder on her boss, a black man named Diya Lumumba who had never hurt a soul in his life or had so much as a traffic ticket. Yup, the lying murderous bitch fingered the scary African man, not once but repeatedly -- he was arrested and held in prison for weeks and lost his business, all because of a lying, evil shitheel named Amanda. He was not released until a man who happened to be in his bar on the night in question, and remembered talking to him, flew in from SWEDEN to testify on his behalf. Amanda would have happily let the poor man rot in jail forever. (Lumumba later won a suit for slander against Knox). Hmmm, wonder if Amanda is still looking for the real killer?

 

By the way, Knox's defense team tried the exact same tactics as OJ's did, claiming the DNA evidence was poorly handled and contaminated. It was not. There are some very good sources out there on the Knox case and I would strongly suggest you read them. Meredith Kircher was killed by three people, and only one of them is in prison -- oh and guess what, he also happens to be black, and unlike Amanda and her psychopath boyfriend, he did not have a wealthy family, or a credulous American public, to bail him out. It's utterly revolting, but most of all it's utterly heartbreaking for Meredith's family, who know full well who murdered their daughter but can't do anything about it.

 

Okay, I'm not going to get into a back and forth on this since it's off topic, but I strongly disagree with most of what you've said and your characterizations of the facts. And I guess the Italian high court did as well since they rejected the verdict and exonerated Amanda and Raffaele. Maybe you need to check up on your sources (and reconsider the misogyny in your choice of language. I really don't think a forum where a battered woman was slaughtered by her ex husband is an appropriate place to call a woman a bitch--I personally find that language pretty offensive). Wow. That is all.

 

For those new to the Knox case, here's a good start.

[psychoticstate]

It seems to me that Ron Goldman's entering the scene of Nicole's murder -- his struggle with her killer, and his death -- produced most of the clearest evidence. OJ's cut finger and blood at Bundy: likely the result of his fight with Ron. OJ's losing the hat and first glove at Bundy: likely the result of his being caught in the act, fighting with the witness and killing him, then fleeing, now flooded with adrenaline and clumsy with haste. OJ's being seen by the limo driver as he returns to Rockingham, then stumbling outside and losing the second glove on his way into the house: likely the result of this delay and more agitation. And Ron's blood in the Bronco.

 

In the series, the defense and prosecution both speak of telling the most compelling narrative. In the trial, even as the killer's victim, Ron delivered that. It went unanswered, and it went unheard.  

 

Pallas, your post pains me in its simplicity and truth.  Had Nicole been the only victim, Simpson rightfully would have been a suspect regardless but I think there would have been less blood and DNA evidence as I don't think she fought back enough to warrant any.  He would not have been cut, he would not have lost the glove or the cap and he would have arrived back at Rockingham earlier.  It would have been easier to theorize Nicole's blood being in his vehicle than Ron's - - although that is still highly suspect (to anyone other than the criminal trial jury, anyhow.)  Ron's death left a very clear trail and footprint of who killed him and who killed Nicole and, as you stated, it went unanswered and unheard.

[psychoticstate]

Probably the same likelihood that the blood evidence was tampered with that is why there was ETA in it and yes it could of been planted when you had several people walking around with blood samples for days. Also the sock took several months and several examinations before it magically came up with blood on it. Hmm odd that the first 6 to 8 detectives and officials did not notice the blood on sock until they had it for 3 plus months

 

In order to believe the conspiracy theory of all the evidence being planted, you would either have to believe that at least three detectives, all relative veterans who didn't know each other and who would be willing to put their careers and reputations on the line, along with crime lab technicians set out to intentionally frame Simpson by planting blood not only at the crime scene on Bundy but also in his Bronco and in his residence - - and figure out how the detectives managed to get into Simpson's Bronco in order to do this.  And at a time when there were DOZENS of people around, including the media that showed up very shortly after the call.

 

If we are to assume that such planting/tampering of evidence intentionally occurred after this, why?  By three or so months in there were no other suspects but Simpson.  His history with Nicole had been uncovered.  His so-called "suicide" note read.  The Bronco "chase" happened.  The disastrous interview with Lange and Vannatter was recorded on tape.  The cut on his finger, for which he had no explanation, had happened and was photographed.  The limo driver had spoken about how the Bronco was not present when he arrived at Rockingham, he saw a dark figure come from the wall area and enter the home, Simpson come out late and noticed the Bronco was there upon leaving.  Jill Shively had already spoken to Marcia Clark about seeing Simpson speeding away from Bundy.   There was enough circumstantial evidence right there.  There was no need for anyone to do anything intentionally with the evidence, especially given the extreme public nature of the defendant and this trial.

[helenamonster]

I think what most convinces me that the LAPD didn't frame OJ (besides all of the logical discussions here in this thread) is that if they did, they would have been willingly letting a deranged murderer go free, potentially to brutally murder someone else the same way he had brutally murdered Ron and Nicole. So not only would the LAPD be involved in a PR shitstorm by framing a famous, well-liked black man, especially considering their history of racism, any other murders that had been committed by this imaginary third party would have been laid at their feet.

[FozzyBear]

I think what most convinces me that the LAPD didn't frame OJ (besides all of the logical discussions here in this thread) is that if they did, they would have been willingly letting a deranged murderer go free, potentially to brutally murder someone else the same way he had brutally murdered Ron and Nicole. So not only would the LAPD be involved in a PR shitstorm by framing a famous, well-liked black man, especially considering their history of racism, any other murders that had been committed by this imaginary third party would have been laid at their feet.

Eh. There have been plenty of cases that have more or less shown PD to have basically framed people they thought were either guilty, but couldn't be proven, or guilty of something even if it wasn't this. I agree with you that the fact a guilty person will be free is one of the biggest reasons for PD NOT to play fast and lose with evidence, but I don't know if I would use that possibility as evidence that LAPD didn't frame OJ. Now I don't think LAPD did frame OJ or even did anything remotely close to framing him, but nor do I think the basic idea was somehow beyond LAPD's moral compass at the time. The conspiracy theory the defense floated was blatantly absurd, but the prosecution made a big mistake in assuming a level of trust for LAPD that quite frankly did not exist. Distrust for PD in most large cities was really high at the time and LAPD had an especially bad reputation. Which they pretty much earned. The prosecution, IMO, should have addressed this instead of acting like a black man in LA being charged with a crime he didn't commit was a crazy idea. It was crazy in this case, but not as a general experience for many people.

Edited because I kept saying defense when I meant prosecution

Edited March 18, 2016 by FozzyBear

[CaughtOnTape]

Well not only that but why?  Why frame OJ for it?

He was a friend to police.  He had them over to his house for pool parties.  They routinely let him go free when they were called on her behalf before.  If they wanted to throw him in jail, why wouldn't they have done it when she was alive to corroborate that she indeed called them and he was indeed beating her?  

 

Just because he was black?  I mean, at the time...he wasn't exactly a poster boy for black America.  He was universally well liked and accepted.  He was hardly running around screaming about his issues with racism and being pulled over and harassed by police officers.  It's not like he was introducing Al Sharpton into his circle of friends.  

[Crs97]

I've always wondered this:  if the criminal jury had come back with a guilty verdict in four hours, would people still be outraged that they didn't completely review the evidence?  

 

If I blame anyone on the jury, I blame the two jurors who originally thought he was guilty and quickly caved instead of asking tough questions.  They are the ones who ignored their oaths, IMO.

[Pallas]

I think what most convinces me that the LAPD didn't frame OJ (besides all of the logical discussions here in this thread) is that if they did, they would have been willingly letting a deranged murderer go free, potentially to brutally murder someone else the same way he had brutally murdered Ron and Nicole.

 

Not just a deranged murderer. A deranged murderer in Brentwood: entirely affluent, virtually Caucasian, quintessentially sylvan, Brentwood. Where the contracted lawn and pool care staff outnumber the residents, with lunchtrucks parked at the curb every few blocks of each street, every weekday. Brentwood, where the 1% goes to sleep.

 

No, justice isn't blind, or even-handed. And no elected or appointed LA law enforcement official would overlook or wave off a conspiracy of underlings that opened season on the good people of Brentwood.

[FozzyBear]

Well not only that but why? Why frame OJ for it?

He was a friend to police. He had them over to his house for pool parties. They routinely let him go free when they were called on her behalf before. If they wanted to throw him in jail, why wouldn't they have done it when she was alive to corroborate that she indeed called them and he was indeed beating her?

Just because he was black? I mean, at the time...he wasn't exactly a poster boy for black America. He was universally well liked and accepted. He was hardly running around screaming about his issues with racism and being pulled over and harassed by police officers. It's not like he was introducing Al Sharpton into his circle of friends.

I think that was sort of the prosecutions stance, not only was the conspiracy theory outlandish in its mechanics, but PD had no motive. Which is all completely reasonable...except it assumes that most jurors thought LAPD needed a reason to frame a black man. I think many people didn't think they did. Enough minorities had experienced "why the fuck not" harassment for PD across the nation that they didn't need a motive from LAPD. I remember thinking this at the time when the prosecution keep saying that LAPD had no motive. True. Except your discounting the life experience of so many people who were harassed by PD for no reason other than not being white. Address it instead of pretending it doesn't happen. It drove me crazy with Furhman too. Address the many reasons why Furhman being an officer might legitimately give people pause. Don't act like a crazy, racist cop is such an out there idea.

[Umbelina]

Does anyone remember if the jury ever saw or heard about Johnnie Cochran's Nation of Islam bodyguards, a group led by Louis Farrakhan? 

 

I seem to remember something about possible jury nullification, but I can't really find something that says the jury saw them.  They were hard to miss, all dressed alike, 300 pounds, etc. 

 

I know many complained about them, Shapiro, the prosecution, certainly Fred Goldman, but do we know if the jury actually saw them?

[CeeBeeGee]

I've always wondered this:  if the criminal jury had come back with a guilty verdict in four hours, would people still be outraged that they didn't completely review the evidence?  

 

If I blame anyone on the jury, I blame the two jurors who originally thought he was guilty and quickly caved instead of asking tough questions.  They are the ones who ignored their oaths, IMO.

 

I wouldn't be outraged, no, because at least a murderer had been convicted and would be put behind bars. But I would be very disturbed at the rush to justice--4 hours is simply not enough time to go through the evidence and testimony of a six-month trial, even if I did agree with the verdict, and such a quick verdict shows a complete lack of respect for due process and really undermines the jury system. And you'd better believe if such a jury had given some sort of white power salute during the announcement of the verdict, I would be calling for a retrial.

 

I think I've posted this before but I served on a jury that last a week and we took a full day to go over the evidence and discuss our verdict. A full day, for five days of testimony. Everyone in that room had respect for each other and the system and we were very cognizant of the civic responsibility with which we had been charged. It's one reason I'm so bullish on the jury system, and why I judge the Simpson criminal jury so harshly. Sure, the two who caved are craven cowards, but the others are just as bad.

[CaughtOnTape]

I've always wondered this:  if the criminal jury had come back with a guilty verdict in four hours, would people still be outraged that they didn't completely review the evidence?  

 

If I blame anyone on the jury, I blame the two jurors who originally thought he was guilty and quickly caved instead of asking tough questions.  They are the ones who ignored their oaths, IMO.

As opposed to blaming the other 10 who disregarded the evidence completely and voted based on their preconceived notions and whether or not they thought he was a nice guy?

 

Hell, at least two of them tried.

[FormerMod-a1]

...except it assumes that most jurors thought LAPD needed a reason to frame a black man.

 

Even if you don't think they needed a reason to frame a black man (and I don't), what reason do they have to frame a big time celebrity?  An A-lister, like OJ?  That defies credulity to me.

[ByTor]

As opposed to blaming the other 10 who disregarded the evidence completely and voted based on their preconceived notions and whether or not they thought he was a nice guy?

 

Hell, at least two of them tried.

Exactly. They all ignored their oaths.

 

Except your discounting the life experience of so many people who were harassed by PD for no reason other than not being white. .

But their life experience wasn't introduced as evidence. To be able to do their jobs as jurors, they needed to put it aside. Was it difficult for them to do that? Of course it was, humans cannot turn off emotions like a switch. I would think bias like this would have been addressed during voir dire. Edited March 18, 2016 by ByTor

[FozzyBear]

Exactly. They all ignored their oaths.

But their life experience wasn't introduced as evidence. To be able to do their jobs as jurors, they needed to put it aside. Was it difficult for them to do that? Of course it was, humans cannot turn off emotions like a switch. I would think bias like this would have been addressed during voir dire.

I wasn't actually talking about if that experience should have played in. I was saying that I thought it was a foolish move of the prosecution's not to address it. And turned out it was.

BTW and not addressing anyone in particular. I don't think anyone framed OJ and I find the conspiracy theories absurd. But I am no more willing to believe the conspiracy theories about the jury either. I could believe that 12 people independent of each other all conspired to get onto a jury that was sequestered for a year just do that they could acquit a celebrity they never met and stick it to LAPD, or I could look at the case and try to figure out how and what happened. That's all I was doing.

[ByTor]

I wasn't actually talking about if that experience should have played in. I was saying that I thought it was a foolish move of the prosecution's not to address it. And turned out it was.

Gotcha....sorry, I took that out of context.

[CeeBeeGee]

BTW and not addressing anyone in particular. I don't think anyone framed OJ and I find the conspiracy theories absurd. But I am no more willing to believe the conspiracy theories about the jury either. I could believe that 12 people independent of each other all conspired to get onto a jury that was sequestered for a year just do that they could acquit a celebrity they never met and stick it to LAPD, or I could look at the case and try to figure out how and what happened. That's all I was doing.

 

Does anyone actually say/believe that though? I've never heard that theory (not disputing you, just that I haven't run across that).

[FozzyBear]

Does anyone actually say/believe that though? I've never heard that theory (not disputing you, just that I haven't run across that).

i was actually being hyperbolic, my point being that's what you'd almost have to believe to believe that nothing at trial mattered and the jury had already made up their minds.

[Kel Varnsen]

Forgetting about any kind of conspiracy theory, i am curious about something. How bad does evidence collection have to be before a jury has to ignore it? Especially if they didn't really understand DNA to begin with? And without the dna how much of a case did the da have?

[Umbelina]

I think the fact that several members of the jury packed their bags the night before they began to deliberate says it all. 

[GHScorpiosRule]

I wonder...if the previews for next week actually happened or if it's another creative license thing? I'm speaking of the jury revolting.  How one woman was saying that "they" were told the trial was going to be "two months" and it was past that and she wanted to go home. She sounded very belligerent.  She sounded very irate and demanding. And for some reason, I can't imagine anyone on the jury making demands of anyone on the prosecution.

 

But I guess we'll find out on Tuesday, eh?

[Crs97]

But all it took was one of the two jurors who thought he was guilty being brave enough to demand a full discussion. That's why I give them the biggest side-eye.

[whiporee]

Okay, let's remember two things:

The jury watched the gloves not fit. There are all sorts of circumstances for that, but when the guy being charged with the crime put on the gloves, they did not fit. We all have the benefit of 20 years of people explaining why they didn't fit and all our various anecdotes about leather shrinking and such, but to a juror what you saw was the gloves with all the blood did not fit the defendant. And that's what they saw.

Secondly, the guy who found the glove was shown to be a liar. Someone who perjured himself in this very courtroom.

That could be enough. The standard isn't probably, which is what the civil jury standard is. It's reasonable doubt. Those two things could be enough. You add into that the missing blood, the bleed through on the sock and even something like credit card records miraculously showing up and the verdict isn't incredulous.

There's no way he'd have been proven innocent, but the assumptions made about the jury's character are people trying to assign a common sense standard to a reasonable doubt case.

[GHScorpiosRule]

Okay, let's remember two things:

The jury watched the gloves not fit. There are all sorts of circumstances for that, but when the guy being charged with the crime put on the gloves, they did not fit. We all have the benefit of 20 years of people explaining why they didn't fit and all our various anecdotes about leather shrinking and such, but to a juror what you saw was the gloves with all the blood did not fit the defendant. And that's what they saw.

Secondly, the guy who found the glove was shown to be a liar. Someone who perjured himself in this very courtroom.

That could be enough. The standard isn't probably, which is what the civil jury standard is. It's reasonable doubt. Those two things could be enough. You add into that the missing blood, the bleed through on the sock and even something like credit card records miraculously showing up and the verdict isn't incredulous.

There's no way he'd have been proven innocent, but the assumptions made about the jury's character are people trying to assign a common sense standard to a reasonable doubt case.

 

 

Except that, according to Juror No. 6, they didn't even consider the blood trail/DNA evidence. None of it.  And I was there; I Lived through it. I saw, just as the jury did, OJ trying to put the gloves on and thinking even back then, how ridiculous and stupid it was. Because even I knew that leather shrinks when wet, and then those fucking latex gloves underneath?  He even said that he thought OJ probably was guilty, but the State didn't prove it "enough" for him. or Them. Or whatever it was he said in the Dateline special a couple weeks back.

 

Yes, in criminal, the standard is reasonable doubt. Not beyond ALL doubt, and that's what this jury was saying in the press.

 

So of course it only took them less than four hours. They disregarded a TON of the evidence.

 

And others have already stated upthread why when Fuhrman pleaded to the Fifth, he couldn't refute the allegation that he planted evidence. Once you assert it for one question, you have to assert it for any and all questions that follow.  And just because Fuhrman turned out to be a racist son of a bitch, doesn't mean that he wasn't a good investigator.

[Umbelina]

I wonder...if the previews for next week actually happened or if it's another creative license thing? I'm speaking of the jury revolting.  How one woman was saying that "they" were told the trial was going to be "two months" and it was past that and she wanted to go home. She sounded very belligerent.  She sounded very irate and demanding. And for some reason, I can't imagine anyone on the jury making demands of anyone on the prosecution.

 

But I guess we'll find out on Tuesday, eh?

It happened.  They all wore black, some completely, but all had on black.  Ito had to order them to court.  He could not afford to lose more jurors.

 

Also, yeah, back to Marcia's drunken barroom explanation.  The cops and techs had to risk jail, loss of their jobs, collude with people they didn't even know, to frame a man when they didn't even know if he had an iron clad alibi, BEFORE they even took his blood, a man who's ass they had kissed numerous times in domestic violence reports, a man who threw them parties, and let them use his tennis courts, for what reason? 

 

I was listening to something the other day, African Americans talking on one of the endless videos I've watched, maybe jurors, maybe others.  Anyway, they said something that is sticking with me.  The support was for Johnnie Cochran to win, not OJ.  Johnnie fought for equal treatment for years, was "one of us" and they wanted to see him beat the corrupt LA police and justice department, even if this particular client was guilty as sin.  They were proud of him, justifiably, for going up against the man, and winning, and not just in this case.

 

I do wonder if that played a bigger role than I'd ever thought before.

[whiporee]

 

So of course it only took them less than four hours. They disregarded a TON of the evidence.

 

They're allowed to. The gloves covered in blood did not fit. Someone who lied to their faces found the gloves. 

 

If they find a piece of evidence exculpates the accused, that's all they need for reasonable doubt. Innocence doesn't have to be proven; guilt does. It's not a matter of balancing and maybe, or even considering the prosecution's argument. They aren't required to give both sides equal weight. If they find something they feel exonerates the accused, that's all they need. They don't even have to say "yeah, but .." to a defense position if they believe it to be true. They watched Simpson try on the gloves, and they did not fit him. 

 

A jury could have taken this case and found him guilty. But a jury could also have taken this case and reasonably found him not guilty. And to be honest, it's what almost every pundit watching the case expected after closing arguments. That it came fast was a surprise, but not the verdict. They sat down, took a poll, found that they were almost all in favor of acquittal. Talked the other two, found agreement.  I know people find it distasteful, but in truth, what they feel distasteful about is that they thought he was guilty and the jury didn't. They wanted him in jail for the life, but the people with that responsibility in their hands didn't think there was enough. 

 

But instead of taking them at their word and their oath, they accuse them of malfeasance. 

Edited March 18, 2016 by whiporee

[toodywoody]

But Cochran wasn't on trial with a mountain of evidence. The jury's logics for their not guilty verdict is numerous. This wasn't a game of football, it was the lives of two people that were murdered by someone who left his blood, hair, fibers, glove, hat, shoe prints and a fingerprint. Then sped off and was seen by an eye witness, and carried back the blood of both victims in his bronco and dripped a trail of blood back to his house and did not remember how he received a cut that bad. A cut that bad that bleed all over the first crime scene back to his house, that's a fucking serious cut.

So sorry but this trial wasn't about a popularity contest, it should have been about the evidence that clearly pointed to one person and no other person. JC while entertaining with his preacher like sermons, was not the person on trial. And voting not guilty to give him the win and to say that is disgusting.

Two people were brutally murdered and they did not receive justice of having their murderer put behind bars because some of the jury had agendas