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

[mystere]

No, of course it's not ideal, and there have been steps to try to improve the testing so this doesn't happen. However, as has been pointed out many times in the threads on this board, all the sloppy lab work here would've made it LESS likely to have a match to Simpson, Nicole, or Ron's blood. DNA degrades. It doesn't get clearer or easier to have a match to the reference sample with more time, degradation or dilution. Trace amounts of EGTA don't have a bearing on the accuracy of the DNA match at all, and they do not actually point to planted evidence. (The police would've had to have had access to a lot more of Simpson's blood to dilute out the preserved sample so that the EGTA sample would have been diluted with it.)

 

It remains amazing to me that most convictions for murder occur on about 1/1000th of the evidence collected in the Simpson trial. I understand (sort of) how the constellation of factors came together to yield the verdict. But this would've been a slam dunk in most cases without any DNA evidence at all.

[Kel Varnsen]

No, of course it's not ideal, and there have been steps to try to improve the testing so this doesn't happen. However, as has been pointed out many times in the threads on this board, all the sloppy lab work here would've made it LESS likely to have a match to Simpson, Nicole, or Ron's blood. DNA degrades.

I can think of a few scenarios where it would be more likely. I mean they took blood out of OJ's arm right. What if when doing the DNA test, that blood went in the test tube mistakenly labelled "crime scene". What if sample results were misfiled. Hell what if the sample results came back inconclusive, but someone wanted to cover there ass because of their poor collection work on a high profile case and just fabricated the results and said they implicated OJ. Not saying any of those things happen, but would any of them be considered unreasonable, especially based on the time period and what the defense was able to point out about the crimelab?

Edited April 11, 2016 by Kel Varnsen

[deerstalker]

No, of course it's not ideal, and there have been steps to try to improve the testing so this doesn't happen. However, as has been pointed out many times in the threads on this board, all the sloppy lab work here would've made it LESS likely to have a match to Simpson, Nicole, or Ron's blood. DNA degrades. It doesn't get clearer or easier to have a match to the reference sample with more time, degradation or dilution. Trace amounts of EGTA don't have a bearing on the accuracy of the DNA match at all, and they do not actually point to planted evidence. (The police would've had to have had access to a lot more of Simpson's blood to dilute out the preserved sample so that the EGTA sample would have been diluted with it.)

 

It remains amazing to me that most convictions for murder occur on about 1/1000th of the evidence collected in the Simpson trial. I understand (sort of) how the constellation of factors came together to yield the verdict. But this would've been a slam dunk in most cases without any DNA evidence at all.

 

 

I don't know.  Sloppy work and cross-contamination would have made it Simpson's sample appear in places, either by accident or design, where it shouldn't.  They found traces of OJ's blood in both the Nicole and Goldman's control blood vials.  At that point, how can you trust the accuracy of anything the lab is asserting? The lab technician admitted he spilled some of OJ's blood in the lab before he handled the bloody glove and Bundy swatches.  And correspondingly, the amount of Simpson DNA found on the swatches went down in the order in which he handled the swatches. The blood collector at the scene made the swatches, and put her initials on each swatch before sealing them and sending them to the lab.  The swatches that were later examined did not contain any initials.  I don't think it takes much to look askance at the DNA evidence. And if you buy, even for a second, that the police or lab "helped" some of the DNA evidence along, then the natural question becomes, what else did they "help" along in this case?

[txhorns79]

If I am the defense attorney, I would instruct my client to make certain indeed that the jury saw that the gloves did not fit.  Make sure there is no room for doubt about the issue.  Or "ham it up", as they would say. You exaggerate how hard it is to put on, you wave the too-small gloves around making sure they see it, etc.  Plus your client is probably relieved that the gloves do not, in fact, fit. Of course you make it very obvious. Why wouldn't you?

 

I can't imagine you would ever have your defendant treat anything less than seriously in front of a jury.  They generally can tell when a witness is "acting," and I would never suggest to a client that they do anything to exaggerate a situation or make a show of something in front of the jury.  First, you don't know if the Judge is going to call you out for what you are doing, and second, you would never take that type of risk with your client, because it could easily end up that your client is a bad actor.  

 

And if you buy, even for a second, that the police or lab "helped" some of the DNA evidence along, then the natural question becomes, what else did they "help" along in this case?

 

   I don't think you buy it to begin with, but even if you did, you'd have to believe in a conspiracy so vast as to be entirely implausible. 

[mystere]

I don't for a second believe the police outright fabricated the DNA evidence, and the defense didn't believe it either. You can tell this by the fact that they argued for the right to run their own independent tests...and then didn't do any. They didn't do any because they knew the results would most probably come back to Simpson. It's one thing to poke holes in the prosecution's testing; it's another when your own analysis confirms it. They (rightfully, I think) didn't want to take the risk.

[Finnegan]

I don't think you buy it to begin with, but even if you did, you'd have to believe in a conspiracy so vast as to be entirely implausible.

How vast would it have to be though? Wouldn't it just be the tech spilling blood in the lab, leading to cross contamination? Labs turn up sloppy misleading work all the time without it being the result of a vast criminal conspiracy. Sometimes someone just wants to go home early. I've had blood tests for medical things that wound up being erroneous -- supposedly statistically near-impossible, but it's happened to me more than once.

[jaync]

Why would OJ discard his bloody shoes and clothes but keep on his bloody socks to trek through his white-carpeted home and then leave the socks in the middle of his bedroom? Why were there no transfer stains from the socks to the carpet?

 Who's to say he kept the socks on? Maybe they were carried into his bedroom.

 

Wouldn't the bloody exposed hand leave a print on the steering wheel?

​Not necessarily, since the cut was on the outside of his finger.

 

Just because there was a lot of blood at the crime scene doesn't mean there would've/should've been lots transferred to the Bronco. If O.J. had gotten the victims' blood on him, it most likely would've been on the fronts of his shirt and pants, neither of which would have direct contact with the car's seat/interior.

 

Their hands were much smaller than OJ's, and it did not fit them. That's why they were relatively serene about Darden calling OJ up there to try on the gloves.

Carl Douglas said the defense team had no clue what would happen when O.J. tried on the gloves, i.e., they were plenty enough nervous at the time.

[deerstalker]

Shapiro, at the very least, definitely tried the gloves on: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perry_Mason_moment

"During a break, Robert Shapiro, one of Simpson's attorneys, picked them up and tried them on himself. They fit tightly, and he doubted that they would fit Simpson since his client's hands were much larger."

[CeeBeeGee]

As far as why OJ never confessed when Goldman offered or anytime since; he may not face legal consequences for the murder, but, had he done so at the civil trial offer I would think the Brown's would have filed for full custody of Sydney and Justin immediately. He is probably, justifiably afraid of "losing" them if he ever confesses. And, of course, OJ's ego/pride would not allow it.

 

 

But...does he really, deep down, give a shit about losing Sydney and Justin? He murdered their mother, and dumped the body there for them to find. Not exactly the act of a loving father. Also, someone posted a book where OJ's (?) agent talked about Sydney saying her father hardly spent any time with her, preferring to chase women, party, etc. (can't find the exact quote, I am paraphrasing). 

 

I think your last sentence is the key. OJ doesn't give a flying fuck about his children who mother he murdered. But he hates to lose anything he considers his. Which is why he murdered Nicole in the first place.

[whiporee]

 

I think your last sentence is the key. OJ doesn't give a flying fuck about his children who mother he murdered. But he hates to lose anything he considers his. Which is why he murdered Nicole in the first place.

 

This moves onto an interesting point. 

 

Let's say that he did it -- I know, not a stretch. Do you think that makes him a monster? I'm not asking argumentatively; I'm just curious as to people's impressions of him. He committed a crime -- a terrible, terrible crime and he got away with it. Does the fact of not going to jail for that crime make him worse? Since the victim's families are convinced of his guilt (so there's no mystery about how R&N died), would it redeem him to a degree if he confessed? Does he rank up with Bundy or Rolling or Manson as a villan? How about Oscar Pistorius? 

 

Since I asked, I'll answer but I hope it doesn't derail others' thoughts. I think you can do an evil thing and still care about your kids, your parents, the human race. The fact that you care doesn't diminish the evil thing you did, but I don't think it's the only thing that defines a life. So I don't think it impossible that Simpson killed Nicole (and Goldman, too) and that he can still love and cherish his kids. 

 

I'm in no way defending him or saying hie's a good guy or anything of the sort, so please don't think I am. I don't know the man and I've met a lot of football players, 90 percent of whom were assholes. So that's not why I'm asking. I'm just wondering what level of bad you ascribe to him.  

Edited April 11, 2016 by whiporee

[biakbiak]

Your entire question leaves out the fact that this was not an isolated incident of criminal behavior for OJ.

But yes, the ability to brutally murder two people, leave it possible for your two young children to stumble upon two mutilated bodies covered in blood one being their mother, casually grab a flight to Chicago, after getting off insist that you were going to search for the real killers and do jack shit, move your two children across the country from their friends and family so that you would be more protected from the results of a civil suit, and numerous other examples makes you a vile monstrous piece of shit in my opinion.

Edited April 11, 2016 by biakbiak

[DangerousMinds]

But...does he really, deep down, give a shit about losing Sydney and Justin? He murdered their mother, and dumped the body there for them to find. Not exactly the act of a loving father. Also, someone posted a book where OJ's (?) agent talked about Sydney saying her father hardly spent any time with her, preferring to chase women, party, etc. (can't find the exact quote, I am paraphrasing). 

 

I think your last sentence is the key. OJ doesn't give a flying fuck about his children who mother he murdered. But he hates to lose anything he considers his. Which is why he murdered Nicole in the first place.

In no way do I believe that his kids don't know that OJ killed their mother. They know. I wonder if they have any contact with him now at all.

[vibeology]

I'm pretty sure the gloves truly did not fit, for whatever reason. Shapiro and Cochrane both tried on the gloves beforehand.  Their hands were much smaller than OJ's, and it did not fit them.  That's why they were relatively serene about Darden calling OJ up there to try on the gloves.  OJ may have been hamming up the fact that they didn't fit, as well he should if he hoped to get acquitted, but I think most agree that the gloves were indeed too small for OJ's hands.

 

I also think the gloves didn't fit that day in the courtroom. That doesn't mean I don't think those were OJs gloves, They were and he was wearing them when he went to murder Nicole. But for several reasons they didn't fit in the courtroom. First, OJ had arthritis. We don't know for sure if he was taking his medication at the time (some reports say no but we don't know for certain), but even if he was, there's always a chance that he could still swell as a result of his condition. Also, I assume OJ was less active in jail. People gain weight in jail all the time and some weight gain could make a difference. As for the gloves themselves, they'd been soaked with blood, dried, frozen, thawed, frozen and then thawed again (I believe that's the correct number of thawings but I could be wrong) for trial. No way does a leather glove retain its original size and flexibility after that. Even if OJ had really tried, its unlikely the glove would fit. The Prosecution should never have suggested they be tried on for all those reasons.

[Jel]

In no way do I believe that his kids don't know that OJ killed their mother. They know. I wonder if they have any contact with him now at all.

I can 100% believe that OJ's kids do not think he killed their mother.  

 

They were young kids at the time, surrounded by OJ's family telling them that he didn't do it. As small children, the idea that your dad killed your mom would be really hard to accept and if someone provided an alternate explanation, I think most children would take that.  

 

Left unexamined , what goes in as a kid, usually stays in. And, trauma like that is often pushed down and kept down.

Edited April 11, 2016 by Jel

[DangerousMinds]

The facts are out there and I assume his kids are reasonably intelligent. JMO.

[MamaMax]

For those interested in the early days of DNA fingerprinting, this is a great story, and tangentially related, as Judge Ito makes a cameo....http://themoth.org/posts/episodes/1201

 

The story is called "Why I Teach" and is told by a scientist who was instrumental in the way DNA fingerprinting has evolved.

[helenamonster]

This moves onto an interesting point. 

 

Let's say that he did it -- I know, not a stretch. Do you think that makes him a monster? I'm not asking argumentatively; I'm just curious as to people's impressions of him. He committed a crime -- a terrible, terrible crime and he got away with it. Does the fact of not going to jail for that crime make him worse? Since the victim's families are convinced of his guilt (so there's no mystery about how R&N died), would it redeem him to a degree if he confessed? Does he rank up with Bundy or Rolling or Manson as a villan? How about Oscar Pistorius? 

 

Since I asked, I'll answer but I hope it doesn't derail others' thoughts. I think you can do an evil thing and still care about your kids, your parents, the human race. The fact that you care doesn't diminish the evil thing you did, but I don't think it's the only thing that defines a life. So I don't think it impossible that Simpson killed Nicole (and Goldman, too) and that he can still love and cherish his kids. 

 

I'm in no way defending him or saying hie's a good guy or anything of the sort, so please don't think I am. I don't know the man and I've met a lot of football players, 90 percent of whom were assholes. So that's not why I'm asking. I'm just wondering what level of bad you ascribe to him.  

 

This question wasn't directed at me per se but I'd still like to answer it. I, personally, have a hard time categorizing anyone as a monster because I feel it almost absolves them of what they did. Let's use an extreme example: Hitler. Terrible person. Arguably the worst to ever live. People understandably want to call him a monster. But I feel like doing that dehumanizes him in a way that separates us from the unspeakable crimes he committed. By saying he's a monster, you're taking away his humanity and essentially saying that no human is capable of what he did, it takes something especially evil to systematically kill 11 million people. But the reality is that he was a person. He had interests and hobbies and dislikes and loved ones. He put his pants on one leg at a time just like the rest of us. By saying "he's a monster, he's not a human, he's not like me" it's almost selfish, like trying to absolve ourselves as fellow humans of what he did. It terrifies us to believe that an ordinary person could be so vile.

 

And I think the same applies to OJ. What he (probably) did was awful. It was disgusting and wrong and and incomprehensible. But he's still a human. And that's the scary part that I think most of us have trouble reconciling. You see it all the time, especially with mass shooters. People coming forward saying so-and-so was a quiet guy, he kept to himself, they never believed he would be capable of committing such a crime. So the same goes for OJ. He's a person who did something terrible and unspeakable. He's not a monster, he's human.

[Apprentice79]

The facts are out there and I assume his kids are reasonably intelligent. JMO.

You are looking at the situation as an outsider..Intelligence has nothing to do with love..Love sometimes blinds reasonably smart people...If I was in their shoes, I would choose to believe that my father is innocent of killing my own mother. 

[GHScorpiosRule]

This question wasn't directed at me per se but I'd still like to answer it. I, personally, have a hard time categorizing anyone as a monster because I feel it almost absolves them of what they did. Let's use an extreme example: Hitler. Terrible person. Arguably the worst to ever live. People understandably want to call him a monster. But I feel like doing that dehumanizes him in a way that separates us from the unspeakable crimes he committed. By saying he's a monster, you're taking away his humanity and essentially saying that no human is capable of what he did, it takes something especially evil to systematically kill 11 million people. But the reality is that he was a person. He had interests and hobbies and dislikes and loved ones. He put his pants on one leg at a time just like the rest of us. By saying "he's a monster, he's not a human, he's not like me" it's almost selfish, like trying to absolve ourselves as fellow humans of what he did. It terrifies us to believe that an ordinary person could be so vile.

 

And I think the same applies to OJ. What he (probably) did was awful. It was disgusting and wrong and and incomprehensible. But he's still a human. And that's the scary part that I think most of us have trouble reconciling. You see it all the time, especially with mass shooters. People coming forward saying so-and-so was a quiet guy, he kept to himself, they never believed he would be capable of committing such a crime. So the same goes for OJ. He's a person who did something terrible and unspeakable. He's not a monster, he's human.

 

 

And I feel just the opposite. I think someone is human, when he or she, feels they've failed to be perfect in any way, or feel guilty/bad/whatever for feeling a certain way, and say, no, you're just human. What I believe OJ did, was monstrous and makes him a monster in my eyes. Just like Bundy was a monster, Capano, Dahmer, that guy who killed his family (movie Fatal Vision), and yes, Hitler too.

[Apprentice79]

I think what the poster is trying to say is that all of us given the circumstances, anybody can commit a monstrous act. I have a good friend of mine who's sister was murdered by her boyfriend in a murder/suicide a few years ago..He left his two sons orphan. The young men still struggle with the awful death of their parents. They still love their father, despite the fact that he killed their mother. We have never said anything untoward about their father..He was a part of our lives for years and we loved him as well...A parent/child bond is very strong and I don't think anybody has the right to tell somebody how they should feel about their parents, even if they are monsters in our eyes...

[Jel]

The facts are out there and I assume his kids are reasonably intelligent. JMO.

There are people out there who have no emotional investment in OJ being innocent who still think he's innocent.  

 

I don't know what the kids believe, but knowing what I know about human psychology, I would not have a hard time at all believing that they think their father was framed.  If they took a hard look at the evidence, perhaps that would override their belief system, (again, an assumption on my part because I don't know what they think about it) but I would not be surprised if they have chosen not too look to closely.  Some things, for some people, are simply too much.

 

There are people who are absolutely convinced that OJ did it -- and no amount of "new evidence" would ever change their minds, so that conviction of belief can go ways. It just seems less "extreme" when it's on the "OJ did it" side.

[psychoticstate]

I think IF I DID IT was a money grab. He knew there was no money in NO, I REALLY REALLY DIDN"T DO IT. I think you could make the case that since the world had convicted him anyway, why not make some money off their assumptions?

 

I think he probably did it, but i'm not and never have been certain. It was a weird premeditation, and it the lack of blood in the Bronco makes it hard to think of it as a crime of passion. So I think it possible someone else did it, but I doubt it. Also, I've never heard who Nicole was meeting at the house with all the candles lit -- was there a boyfriend that has never been mentioned? I don't know, but it seemed the house was being set up for romance, and I've never heard anything about that. Or maybe she liked candlelit baths -- I know a lot of people do. 

 

I think LAPD planted the drop of blood on the sock, the blood on the gate and probably the drops of blood at Rockingham. I think they went to Rockingham thinking he was a suspect, so they violated the Fourth Amendment by searching a suspect's house without a warrant. I'm more afraid of the State abusing its power than I am of any particular criminal, so I've always been okay with the acquittal, and I think had he been convicted, it would have been reversed. 

 

I think the size of the Goldman reward was payback for the acquittal. I think his Nevada conviction and the length of his sentence was payback for the acquittal. I think he'll be denied parol because of the acquittal. 

 

The CTE is an interesting idea. There have been plenty of circumstances of football players going crazy and doing crazy-ass things, and those are linked to CTE in the minds of some people (I'm not sure where I come down on it). And he was also in an era of rampant steroid use, and both the long term and (supposing he was still using) short term effects of those could have been a factor. Also, cocaine never helps. So there could have been a lot of factors that went into his derangement. 

 

I'm looking forward to the ESPN thing, which is supposed to be amazing. One of my favorite commentators has seen large parts of it, and he said FX was luck PvOJS went first, because if it came after the ESPN one, it would have been laughed off the air. 

 

So yeah, he probably did it, though I'm a lot more open to other possibilities than most. 

 

I think it's possible that Nicole wasn't meeting anyone at all.  I've had evenings where I go home alone, light a few candles, turn on soothing music and take a bath.

 

If she was meeting someone, my money is on Marcus Allen.  Faye Resnick, who certainly didn't hesitate to spill tea on her best friend, claimed Nicole was having an affair with him at the time.  She also said that Ron was just a friend who was interested in Nicole but Nicole wasn't interested in him.  

 

As far as the civil case judgment, I think Simpson's overall demeanor - - like he was inconvenienced by the entire thing - - affected the judgment.  I don't think he showed up every day and he was very insulting toward Ron Goldman.  So the jury certainly went after him with the damages.

 

 

It's absolutely possible that it was never missing, definitely within the realm of possibilities. But, I think there is a tendency to explain away or dismiss the crime scene mysteries/questions by people who think he's guilty.  I have a few questions that have never been answered; I don't think there was an LAPD-wide conspiracy to frame Simpson, maybe it was more along the lines of "cover our asses" conspiracy amongst a small number of people. Who knows, but I would like to know about a couple of things. 

 

I think OJ may have compartmentalized it so thoroughly that he doesn't think he did it now.  Or he's just too narcissistic to ever admit to it, after denying it. Or he he afraid that he'll lose everyone in his life if he admits to it.  Or he simply won't ever give Fred Goldman the satisfaction.  I don't think an admission will ever be forthcoming.

 

 

I think Simpson knows darn well what he did and he just doesn't care.  He's O.J. -- the rules are different for him.  Besides, as I've posted before, the friend of a friend heard a direct confession from him and Simpson said it as casually as someone saying they went to the dentist that day. He got away with killing two people - -you know, another day in the office.  And "the bitch deserved it" - - so it's really not his fault.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it was blood samples from the back gate and the sock that had EDTA in them, right? Also, these samples were collected later than the others?

I think he did it, but I do think it's possible that some of the forensic evidence was either unintentionally botched or intentionally planted. It didn't have to be an LAPD-wide conspiracy, just a matter of a few people speeding up evidence analysis for someone they had already decided was guilty. It sounds outlandish, but this kind of evidence falsifying happens a surprising amount in police departments across the country.

I really do wonder about that lack of blood. Why would OJ discard his bloody shoes and clothes but keep on his bloody socks to trek through his white-carpeted home and then leave the socks in the middle of his bedroom? Why were there no transfer stains from the socks to the carpet? If he lost his murdering glove at Bundy, why was there no more than a few drops of blood in the Bronco? Wouldn't the bloody exposed hand leave a print on the steering wheel? I haven't heard a satisfying explaination for the murder timeline that accounts for the blood.

Now the domestic abuse evidence...now that I believe in, 100%. Motive galore.

 

Maybe it's possible that Simpson pulled off or kicked off his socks on the way to the shower and forgot about them.  Dark clothing was found in the washer, maybe he forgot to add the socks.  And in his rush to get his things and get to the limo as quickly as possible, it would be easy to overlook.  I mean, he just killed two people so I'm sure his mind was a bit scattered.  (just a touch of humor)  

 

 

No, of course it's not ideal, and there have been steps to try to improve the testing so this doesn't happen. However, as has been pointed out many times in the threads on this board, all the sloppy lab work here would've made it LESS likely to have a match to Simpson, Nicole, or Ron's blood. DNA degrades. It doesn't get clearer or easier to have a match to the reference sample with more time, degradation or dilution. Trace amounts of EGTA don't have a bearing on the accuracy of the DNA match at all, and they do not actually point to planted evidence. (The police would've had to have had access to a lot more of Simpson's blood to dilute out the preserved sample so that the EGTA sample would have been diluted with it.)

 

It remains amazing to me that most convictions for murder occur on about 1/1000th of the evidence collected in the Simpson trial. I understand (sort of) how the constellation of factors came together to yield the verdict. But this would've been a slam dunk in most cases without any DNA evidence at all.

 

Amen.

 

 

This moves onto an interesting point. 

 

Let's say that he did it -- I know, not a stretch. Do you think that makes him a monster? I'm not asking argumentatively; I'm just curious as to people's impressions of him. He committed a crime -- a terrible, terrible crime and he got away with it. Does the fact of not going to jail for that crime make him worse? Since the victim's families are convinced of his guilt (so there's no mystery about how R&N died), would it redeem him to a degree if he confessed? Does he rank up with Bundy or Rolling or Manson as a villan? How about Oscar Pistorius? 

 

Since I asked, I'll answer but I hope it doesn't derail others' thoughts. I think you can do an evil thing and still care about your kids, your parents, the human race. The fact that you care doesn't diminish the evil thing you did, but I don't think it's the only thing that defines a life. So I don't think it impossible that Simpson killed Nicole (and Goldman, too) and that he can still love and cherish his kids. 

 

I'm in no way defending him or saying hie's a good guy or anything of the sort, so please don't think I am. I don't know the man and I've met a lot of football players, 90 percent of whom were assholes. So that's not why I'm asking. I'm just wondering what level of bad you ascribe to him.  

 

I wouldn't put Simpson at the same level I put Bundy or Gacy, etc.  All of them are killers, just different degrees.  Bundy, Gacy and people like them hunted others.  They were definitely monsters.  I don't think Simpson posed or poses a threat to general society, they way they did.

 

However, I consider him a narcissistic piece of shit who believes the rules don't apply to him.  If he loved his children, truly loved his children, he would NEVER take their mother away from them and leave her brutalized body where they could find her.  Never.   And Simpson killed an entirely innocent person in order to save his own sorry ass.  Ron Goldman had nothing to do with Simpson or his issues with Nicole. He was barely more than a kid and Simpson felt his own life was more important than Ron's.  Just the thought of that makes me ill.

 

I think I rank Simpson with Jeffrey MacDonald, who slaughtered his pregnant wife and two little girls in order to save his own skin and then blamed it on a Manson like band of murderous hippies. MacDonald (IMO) isn't a threat to general society either - - but I still consider him a POS for what he did.   If MacDonald should ever confess, it would be the right thing to do but I'd still consider him a POS.  Same goes for Simpson.

[Jel]

Gah, now I am thinking about the socks.  Can anyone help me out on this -- didn't the defense, at some point, (maybe it was in an interview after?) say that those socks had been placed there, in that position on the floor, by the crime scene photographer or evidence collector or some such?

 

I recall that OJ was said to be a very fastidious person and would not, out of habit, ever have left socks on his floor.  Anyone recall anything like that? Umbelina? Psychoticstate?

[Umbelina]

There is a huge conversation about the socks earlier in this thread.  Also, links about them.

[Jel]

Lol, well maybe my recollection is from a few weeks ago, reading this thread!

 

(Unfortunately, we aren't all blessed with great memories)

Edited April 11, 2016 by Jel

[Finnegan]

Gah, now I am thinking about the socks. Can anyone help me out on this -- didn't the defense, at some point, (maybe it was in an interview after?) say that those socks had been placed there, in that position on the floor, by the crime scene photographer or evidence collector or some such?

I recall that OJ was said to be a very fastidious person and would not, out of habit, ever have left socks on his floor. Anyone recall anything like that? Umbelina? Psychoticstate?

Hi Jel, the testimony about OJ being fastidious is from AC in the civil deposition...there might have been other testimony to that effect but I recall him discussing his borderline OCD tidiness. It's also in Nicole's lockbox letter to him -- one thing he berated her for was leaving clothes on the ground.

The socks not only had cross contamination (EDTA), but seemed to appear out of nowhere in the bedroom. The blood stain was such that it could not have gotten into the sock if someone was wearing it:

http://documents.routledge-interactive.s3.amazonaws.com/9781455731381/student/Resources/O.J._Simpson_Sock_Evidence.pdf

[Jel]

Hi Jel, the testimony about OJ being fastidious is from AC in the civil deposition...there might have been other testimony to that effect but I recall him discussing his borderline OCD tidiness. It's also in Nicole's lockbox letter to him -- one thing he berated her for was leaving clothes on the ground.

The socks not only had cross contamination (EDTA), but seemed to appear out of nowhere in the bedroom. The blood stain was such that it could not have gotten into the sock if someone was wearing it:

http://documents.routledge-interactive.s3.amazonaws.com/9781455731381/student/Resources/O.J._Simpson_Sock_Evidence.pdf

Thank you very much, Finnegan!  

 

ETA: The position of the blood on the socks, the EDTA in the sock blood and the missing blood from OJ's sample; there are some things about this case that are mysterious.  I believe it was 1.5 ccs of blood that was missing. 

 

So, in an unscientific experiment, I just went into my medicine cabinet, found a dropper, and measured out 1.5 mls of water onto a paper towel. That came out to 20 drops that measured (eyeballing, but *Canadian* (we know metric!)) about 3-4 mms across, so decent sized drops. That is not a lot, don't know if it would be enough to drop on socks and also smear on the Bronco/Bundy gate/wherever else it's suggested to have been planted, but 20 decent sized drops, seems like that would be plenty for socks. Just speaking hypothetically, of course.

Edited April 11, 2016 by Jel

[Finnegan]

Thank you very much, Finnegan!

ETA: The position of the blood on the socks, the EDTA in the sock blood and the missing blood from OJ's sample; there are some things about this case that are mysterious. I believe it was 1.5 ccs of blood that was missing.

So, in an unscientific experiment, I just went into my medicine cabinet, found a dropper, and measured out 1.5 mls of water onto a paper towel. That came out to 20 drops that measured (eyeballing, but *Canadian* (we know metric!)) about 3-4 mms across, so decent sized drops. That is not a lot, don't know if it would be enough to drop on socks and also smear on the Bronco/Bundy gate/wherever else it's suggested to have been planted, but 20 decent sized drops, seems like that would be plenty for socks. Just speaking hypothetically, of course.

I think it was 15 drops at Rockingham, but I'm not certain. It was a small amount and less than the 1.5 missing ml from the Simpson control vial. Now, that info comes from Cochran, so I'm not sure what the prosecution fact check is on that.

More blood questions I've always had...I also read (can't remember where) that the laundry in the washing machine was Arnelle's clothes. Does anyone know anything about that? Also, is it true that there was blood in the shower? I read that the LAPD took apart the pipes and found nothing, but I've *also* heard that there was blood in the shower that wasn't admitted into trial. Does anyone know about the laundry or shower blood?

[psychoticstate]

Gah, now I am thinking about the socks.  Can anyone help me out on this -- didn't the defense, at some point, (maybe it was in an interview after?) say that those socks had been placed there, in that position on the floor, by the crime scene photographer or evidence collector or some such?

 

I recall that OJ was said to be a very fastidious person and would not, out of habit, ever have left socks on his floor.  Anyone recall anything like that? Umbelina? Psychoticstate?

 

Looks like your question was answered, Jel, but I want to say that even if Simpson was generally fastidious, he had just slaughtered two people.  While I think he may have been victorious over teaching Nicole a lesson, he didn't expect to encounter Ron Goldman.  He was also seen by Jill Shively and he didn't know who else.  He may have realized he was missing a glove or both gloves (since one was dropped at Rockingham) and seeing the limo in the drive would have probably scared him.  So I don't find it completely unbelievable that he would have thrown or kicked the socks on the floor, despite his previous habits. 

 

Look at the Bundy crime scene.  The knit cap was left behind.  A glove was left behind.  Someone who was thinking clearly (and a professional hit man, to go with one defense theory) would never have done such a thing. 

I think it was 15 drops at Rockingham, but I'm not certain. It was a small amount and less than the 1.5 missing ml from the Simpson control vial. Now, that info comes from Cochran, so I'm not sure what the prosecution fact check is on that.

More blood questions I've always had...I also read (can't remember where) that the laundry in the washing machine was Arnelle's clothes. Does anyone know anything about that? Also, is it true that there was blood in the shower? I read that the LAPD took apart the pipes and found nothing, but I've *also* heard that there was blood in the shower that wasn't admitted into trial. Does anyone know about the laundry or shower blood?

 

Finnegan, I don't know if the dark clothing was ever identified.  It was referenced during the initial check and search of Rockingham but was never gathered (kind of like the blood on the Bundy gate.)  I guess there was so much evidence and things going on, it was missed.  In any event, it likely can never be said.  It could have been Arnelle's clothing or it may have been Simpson's bloody clothing.

 

It seems that I recall hearing blood being found in the shower as well but you would think the prosecution would mention that.  Although, again . . . maybe it was overlooked.  Or maybe they didn't find it significant enough to mention with all the other evidence.  (I would have introduced it, especially if the blood could have been matched to Ron or NIcole.  Even if not, I would have introduced it to show that Simpson was bleeding when he got in the shower)

[Jel]

I think it was 15 drops at Rockingham, but I'm not certain. It was a small amount and less than the 1.5 missing ml from the Simpson control vial. Now, that info comes from Cochran, so I'm not sure what the prosecution fact check is on that.

More blood questions I've always had...I also read (can't remember where) that the laundry in the washing machine was Arnelle's clothes. Does anyone know anything about that? Also, is it true that there was blood in the shower? I read that the LAPD took apart the pipes and found nothing, but I've *also* heard that there was blood in the shower that wasn't admitted into trial. Does anyone know about the laundry or shower blood?

Did you happen to watch the OJ interview by any chance? I saw some of it, and I think OJ himself may have said in that interview that the clothes were Arnelle's.  That subject is one of those things that's tossed out there frequently with a "they turned out to be Arnelle's clothes", so I assume Arnelle must have confirmed they were. 

 

I do know MF was pissed that the clothes in the washer were not tested.

 

I have a vague recollection of the pipes being tested, but don't remember anymore about that.  I googled and found this somewhat puzzling link about that:

 

http://articles.philly.com/1995-04-13/news/25687218_1_jeanette-harris-ito-simpson-jurors

[Jel]

Looks like your question was answered, Jel, but I want to say that even if Simpson was generally fastidious, he had just slaughtered two people.  While I think he may have been victorious over teaching Nicole a lesson, he didn't expect to encounter Ron Goldman.  He was also seen by Jill Shively and he didn't know who else.  He may have realized he was missing a glove or both gloves (since one was dropped at Rockingham) and seeing the limo in the drive would have probably scared him.  So I don't find it completely unbelievable that he would have thrown or kicked the socks on the floor, despite his previous habits. 

 

Look at the Bundy crime scene.  The knit cap was left behind.  A glove was left behind.  Someone who was thinking clearly (and a professional hit man, to go with one defense theory) would never have done such a thing. 

That is true, psychoticstate; I can see how he would have been thrown and acted out of character after a double murder. But then, that raises another issue for me and that was his regular guy demeanor at the airport. If he as so thrown that he broke his ordinary routine, that he is the type of person who is susceptible to that, then why the jovial OJ, chit chatting with the limo driver on the way and tipping sky caps, smiling and chatting at the airport and on the plane? Can we really have both one and the other? (I think he did it, btw -- but there are some mysteries for me still).

 

Maybe because he thought he just got away with something and felt relief at that? Maybe he was able to close it down psychologically (some people can do that). It puzzles me.

[psychoticstate]

That is true, psychoticstate; I can see how he would have been thrown and acted out of character after a double murder. But then, that raises another issue for me and that was his regular guy demeanor at the airport. If he as so thrown that he broke his ordinary routine, that he is the type of person who is susceptible to that, then why the jovial OJ, chit chatting with the limo driver on the way and tipping sky caps, smiling and chatting at the airport and on the plane? Can we really have both one and the other? (I think he did it, btw -- but there are some mysteries for me still).

 

Maybe because he thought he just got away with something and felt relief at that? Maybe he was able to close it down psychologically (some people can do that). It puzzles me.

 

I think he could be both.  Bundy was both - - he could be manic at some points, throwing evidence out the window of his car and then collecting himself a few hours later and going back to pick it up.  He was known to have abducted and killed two women on a Sunday afternoon and then shown up at his girlfriend's apartment that night for dinner.  So it's possible.

 

Allan Park said that Simpson was sweating and I believe asked that the a/c be turned on despite it being cool enough to not need it.  I think as he rode to the airport, he was able to calm down.  He thought he was invincible - - he believed he had an alibi via Kato and then getting on the flight to Chicago.  He didn't know there were ear-witnesses to his exchange with Ron or when Kato the dog was barking.    He may also have had presence of mind to "turn on O.J." as he was seen at the airport.

 

In "If I Did It", I don't recall exactly what he said about the ride in the limo but I do recall him saying that he threw a bag or bags away in one of the many trash cans at LAX and sleeping on the flight to Chicago.

[psychoticstate]

Did you happen to watch the OJ interview by any chance? I saw some of it, and I think OJ himself may have said in that interview that the clothes were Arnelle's.  That subject is one of those things that's tossed out there frequently with a "they turned out to be Arnelle's clothes", so I assume Arnelle must have confirmed they were. 

 

I do know MF was pissed that the clothes in the washer were not tested.

 

I have a vague recollection of the pipes being tested, but don't remember anymore about that.  I googled and found this somewhat puzzling link about that:

 

http://articles.philly.com/1995-04-13/news/25687218_1_jeanette-harris-ito-simpson-jurors

 

Which O.J. interview was this?   I've seen so much on this case sometimes my head is swimming.

 

The problem I have with Arnelle saying it's her clothing or Simpson saying it was her clothing is they both have every reason to lie.  Especially Simpson.  So I think the clothing will have to be a gray area indefinitely unless Simpson confesses (outside of the book and not likely) or Arnelle confesses the clothing wasn't hers.

 

I don't recall that blood in the shower was ever mentioned during the trial but so much was . . . it's possible that it was mentioned and nothing was made of it.

[MJ Frog]

Long time listener, first time caller.

 

I swore I would stay out of the fray, but I have a question about the sock evidence that just occurred to me and was wondering if anyone would be willing to answer. Feel free to tell me to go away if this has already been addressed, but am I to understand that if the evidence was faked, as some claim, then someone withdrew blood from Nicole's body and placed it on the socks at a later time? Would this have been done the night of the crime? Was there even time to do it then? Or would it have been later, perhaps after the socks had been taken to the lab?

 

Blood from the crime scene could not have been planted on the socks, though there was a lot of it. I realize this may be kind of a dumb question.

 

[psychoticstate]

Long time listener, first time caller.

 

I swore I would stay out of the fray, but I have a question about the sock evidence that just occurred to me and was wondering if anyone would be willing to answer. Feel free to tell me to go away if this has already been addressed, but am I to understand that if the evidence was faked, as some claim, then someone withdrew blood from Nicole's body and placed it on the socks at a later time? Would this have been done the night of the crime? Was there even time to do it then? Or would it have been later, perhaps after the socks had been taken to the lab?

 

Blood from the crime scene could not have been planted on the socks, though there was a lot of it. I realize this may be kind of a dumb question.

 

MJ Frog, I think the planting theory is that one or more detectives got blood from the crime scene, not necessarily directly from Nicole, or even from the lab to plant on the socks.  If there was a plant, I don't think it could have been done the night of June 12-13.  Too much personnel around (unless every single person there was in on it.) 

 

FWIW, I don't believe they could have gotten blood from Nicole as she had little blood left in her body, as I recall hearing.  The wound to her neck was so severe that she almost completely bled out.  I recall one of the civil trial jurors saying that her skin was the white color of paper, she had lost so much of her blood.

[MJ Frog]

psychoticstate:

MJ Frog, I think the planting theory is that one or more detectives got blood from the crime scene, not necessarily directly from Nicole, or even from the lab to plant on the socks.  If there was a plant, I don't think it could have been done the night of June 12-13.  Too much personnel around (unless every single person there was in on it.)

FWIW, I don't believe they could have gotten blood from Nicole as she had little blood left in her body, as I recall hearing.  The wound to her neck was so severe that she almost completely bled out.  I recall one of the civil trial jurors saying that her skin was the white color of paper, she had lost so much of her blood.

 Thank you for your reply!

 

If that's the theory, it's a pretty odd one, and seems to directly contradict the link upthread that calls the sock evidence into question. According to that, the blood would have had to have still been quite liquid for it to have soaked through to the other side of the sock in the particular manner that it did. It goes on to state that the blood would have had plenty of time to dry during Simpson's trip from the murder scene back to the house, the conclusion being that it is likely that the blood was applied, fully liquid, when the sock was not being worn. There is no way I know of that they could have taken blood from the scene and kept it liquid long enough to apply it at the house, let alone in the lab, or on its way to the lab. It had to have come from Nicole's body, or somebody has their data wrong about how long it takes blood to dry. 

Edited April 12, 2016 by MJ Frog

[Jel]

Which O.J. interview was this?   I've seen so much on this case sometimes my head is swimming.

 

The problem I have with Arnelle saying it's her clothing or Simpson saying it was her clothing is they both have every reason to lie.  Especially Simpson.  So I think the clothing will have to be a gray area indefinitely unless Simpson confesses (outside of the book and not likely) or Arnelle confesses the clothing wasn't hers.

 

I don't recall that blood in the shower was ever mentioned during the trial but so much was . . . it's possible that it was mentioned and nothing was made of it.

It was called OJ Simpson: The Interview and he was interviewed by a feller named Ross Becker. It's available on YouTube.

 

I agree with you about the clothes in the washer -- both would have a reason to lie, but I guess if it was after the fact, and Arnelle said they were her clothes in the machine then there wasn't much more that the police/prosecution could say about it. Opportunity lost perhaps.

 

Re: your other post -- I remember from many a psychology class that Ted Bundy was the quintessential psychopath (some people use the term sociopath, but they really are interchangeable). He met every check on the checklist and ticked every box in a DSM diagnosis -- a literal textbook case. (I think the new version of the DSM calls it Antisocial personality disorder and dissocial personality disorder, but the gold standard for diagnosing psychopathy in North America is really the Psychopathy Checklist developed by Rober Hare -- anyhoo).  

 

I have not heard Simpson described as a psychopath (pretty sure); a narcissist, many times, but not a psychopath.  And while those two personality disorders share some similarities, they do not share all.  Ted Bundy's ability to be cool after a murder and enraged when something pissed him off and then back to cool again would fit with that diagnosis, no question.  But for a non psychopath I don't know; his hale and hearty demeanor seems pretty unusual after killing the mother of your children, so maybe he is one.  (I remember Park saying he was sweating in the limo -- I didn't put a ton of thought into that because he was "rushing around"  so much,  so I felt that was pretty easy to explain away)

 

I should say that I don't know what, if any, diagnosis Simpson has received. And even Ted Bundy as a classic psychopath would fall into a very small group of psychopaths -- he really was among the worst of the worst.

[BBDi]

Ron's presence must have really fucked him up. OJ must have thought he had a great plan that would allow him to quickly kill Nicole in a way that allowed him to stay in control the whole time - slashing her neck from behind and quickly GTFO of there, knowing that he'd be getting on a plane shortly and be recognized by hundreds of people.

Having to fight off Ron must have taken a lot more time and put him off balance a bit - not having the same degree of control over the situation. And everything depended on him getting in that limo and showing up for that flight. Of course he was freaked out when he left the scene. Then by the time he got to the airport he was back on plan, which involved being the OJ that everyone thought they knew and loved.

[Finnegan]

Long time listener, first time caller.

I swore I would stay out of the fray, but I have a question about the sock evidence that just occurred to me and was wondering if anyone would be willing to answer. Feel free to tell me to go away if this has already been addressed, but am I to understand that if the evidence was faked, as some claim, then someone withdrew blood from Nicole's body and placed it on the socks at a later time? Would this have been done the night of the crime? Was there even time to do it then? Or would it have been later, perhaps after the socks had been taken to the lab?

Blood from the crime scene could not have been planted on the socks, though there was a lot of it. I realize this may be kind of a dumb question.

The blood was found on the sock weeks after the sock was collected from Rockingham. Experts conducted an initial examination of the sock after it was collected and didn't spot the blood, but re-examined a couple weeks later and found it.

Re: Nicole's blood...wasn't there a test vial of her blood, to use as evidence control?

I think Furhman noted the dark clothing in the washing machine but it wasn't followed up on so we don't know for certain whose clothes it was. If it was the murder sweatsuit, though, what happened to it?

The blood in the shower drain and sink was minute amounts, not enough to test.

[MJ Frog]

 

The blood was found on the sock weeks after the sock was collected from Rockingham. Experts conducted an initial examination of the sock after it was collected and didn't spot the blood, but re-examined a couple weeks later and found it.

 

Huh. That doesn't sound great. Well, I was trying to shoot down the likelihood of this particular blood evidence having been planted, but I have to admit the timeline leaves that an open possibility.

 

 

Re: Nicole's blood...wasn't there a test vial of her blood, to use as evidence control?

 

Yes, there would have to be. Regardless of the severity of her injuries I am sure there would be enough left for testing and comparison.

[psychoticstate]

Going with the planting evidence theory for a moment . . .

 

It was lucky they chose the Bronco.  I mean, Simpson had driven his Bentley earlier that day.  It was in the driveway, clearly his car.  Why didn't that choose that vehicle?  At that point they didn't know that Jill Shively had seen Simpson rushing away from Bundy in the Bronco.  And they didn't know if the Bronco was there for Arnelle to drive or Kato or Gigi the housekeeper.

 

So they chose the Bronco.  Why not put a larger smear of blood on the door?  Why go with something fairly minute?  And why not put more blood in the vehicle if you're going to plant it?  Why not take that size 12 Bruno Magli, smear it in the blood from Bundy and leave a better print in the Bronco?  (As I recall, a partial print was found on the driver's side floorboard.) 

 

And the glove.  Why not leave it in the Bronco?  Wouldn't that be a hell of a lot more damning?  Just drop it between the seats; don't we all lose things that way?  Or even on the floorboard.   I mean, finding it at Rockingham is pretty bad but to leave it in the Bronco would be far worse, especially once Shively comes forward and with the planted blood mixtures of Simpson, Ron and Nicole.   Wouldn't that make more sense that choosing to toss it on the Rockingham property?  And how did they get so lucky as to toss the glove where Kato said he heard thumps?  And the area where Allan Park would say he saw the man running into the house?  They didn't know that then.

[Umbelina]

Well, the last part is, that the whole reason Fuhrman went on that narrow walkway behind Kato's room is that Kato told him about the thumps. 

[Finnegan]

All good points, thanks for the food for thought, Umbelina and Psychoticstate.

I wanted to point out who the true hero of this story is...Nicole's Akita. She actually led the neighbour to the crime scene. Now that's a friend.

[deerstalker]

The blood was found on the sock weeks after the sock was collected from Rockingham. Experts conducted an initial examination of the sock after it was collected and didn't spot the blood, but re-examined a couple weeks later and found it.

Re: Nicole's blood...wasn't there a test vial of her blood, to use as evidence control?

I think Furhman noted the dark clothing in the washing machine but it wasn't followed up on so we don't know for certain whose clothes it was. If it was the murder sweatsuit, though, what happened to it?

The blood in the shower drain and sink was minute amounts, not enough to test.

 

 

The socks were examined three times, by both the defense and prosecutor's teams, and neither one of them found any blood.  Somehow, on the fourth attempt, there was a rather large (comparatively speaking) amount of blood on the sock, in a weird drip pattern indicating that it was flat when blood was applied to the sock.  The theory at the time was that it was not looking very good for the Rockingham bloody glove to be admitted as evidence, as it might have been ruled that there was no probable cause to jump the fence.  So the sock was someone's idea of "backup insurance" just in case that scenario played out.

 

It was lucky they chose the Bronco.  I mean, Simpson had driven his Bentley earlier that day.  It was in the driveway, clearly his car.  Why didn't that choose that vehicle?  At that point they didn't know that Jill Shively had seen Simpson rushing away from Bundy in the Bronco.  And they didn't know if the Bronco was there for Arnelle to drive or Kato or Gigi the housekeeper.

 

So they chose the Bronco.  Why not put a larger smear of blood on the door?  Why go with something fairly minute?  And why not put more blood in the vehicle if you're going to plant it?  Why not take that size 12 Bruno Magli, smear it in the blood from Bundy and leave a better print in the Bronco?  (As I recall, a partial print was found on the driver's side floorboard.)

 

And the glove.  Why not leave it in the Bronco?  Wouldn't that be a hell of a lot more damning?  Just drop it between the seats; don't we all lose things that way?  Or even on the floorboard.   I mean, finding it at Rockingham is pretty bad but to leave it in the Bronco would be far worse, especially once Shively comes forward and with the planted blood mixtures of Simpson, Ron and Nicole.   Wouldn't that make more sense that choosing to toss it on the Rockingham property?  And how did they get so lucky as to toss the glove where Kato said he heard thumps?  And the area where Allan Park would say he saw the man running into the house?  They didn't know that then.

 

 

These are very minute amounts of blood.  If you are planting evidence, you want enough to be testable and make him guilty.  Buuut...just in case someone unexpected pops out of the woodwork in the meantime and confesses to the crime, you don't want a slaughterhouse scene in there that would make prosecuting this other person difficult either.

 

The bloody glove at Rockingham is interesting.  In the beginning, prosecutors insisted that it had a cut along the ring finger, in the exact spot that OJ's hand was cut. And the photograph taken at the time certainly looks that way to me. Which would have been pretty damning evidence.  Yet the gloves presented in the case had no cuts/tears, and the prosecution insisted that the tear seen in the pictures was just debris in the picture.  But the lab tech, who saw the gloves live, noted the tear when he logged it in, but on the stand reversed himself, and admitted that he was mistaken, that it was debris.  Which I can see, perhaps, on a photograph, but I do think it is hard to mix up debris and a tear in real life.  I wonder what was going on there?

[VanillaBeanne]

Other posters have noted cases where people are convicted on less evidence or only circumstantial evidence, and okay that's true, but I ask has there ever been a case where the jury convicted where one officer committed perjury on the stand, the lead examiner was caught in several obvious lies (about being the actual person to collect evidence when his trainee did, about not roughing evidence with his bare hands,etc) by showing video from the crime scene that contradicted his testimony, and the lead detective committed a huge chain of custody gaffe on a key piece of evidence and seemed to be lying about his reasons for doing so? None of these things were ordinary mistakes that are par for the course in a criminal investigation and trial. Yet they all happened in the Simpson trial, gutting the prosecutions case.

Edited April 12, 2016 by VanillaBeanne

[FuriousStyles]

Other posters have noted cases where people are convicted on less evidence or only circumstantial evidence, and okay that's true, but I ask has there ever been a case where the jury convicted where one officer committed perjury on the stand, the lead examiner was caught in several obvious lies (about being the actual person to collect evidence when his trainee did, about not roughing evidence with his bare hands,etc) by showing video from the crime scene that contradicted his testimony, and the lead detective committed a huge chain of custody gaffe on a key piece of evidence and seemed to be lying about his reasons for doing so? None of these things were ordinary mistakes that are par for the course in a criminal investigation and trial. Yet they all happened in the Simpson trial, gutting the prosecutions case.

Exactly. I dont understand how these facts are being ignored. Not to mention the LAPD *has* planted evidence, and framed people. Did it happen in THIS case? I personally dont think so, at least not initially. But the circumstances around the bloody sock is very troubling to say the least. But the fact that the LAPD didnt have a problem doing it before or since the trial destroys their credibility, IMO.

Watching documentaries like the Central Park 5 and Making A Murderer among many others, Im happy for defense attorneys like Johnnie Cochran who will do anything (within the law) to defend their client. Prosecutors and cops are so wrapped up in scoring convictions, especially in high profile cases they WILL skirt the law and cut corners if and when they can, and there are hardly any consequences when they get caught. It happens all over the country. Me personally, I'd rather have a guilty person go free than an innocent person go to prison.

I guess one good thing to come out of the OJ trial was the overhaul in how evidence was collected, maintained, transferred, etc.

[DangerousMinds]

All good points, thanks for the food for thought, Umbelina and Psychoticstate.

I wanted to point out who the true hero of this story is...Nicole's Akita. She actually led the neighbour to the crime scene. Now that's a friend.

Thank god she did before the kids woke up and had the chance to see the bodies.

[psychoticstate]

The socks were examined three times, by both the defense and prosecutor's teams, and neither one of them found any blood.  Somehow, on the fourth attempt, there was a rather large (comparatively speaking) amount of blood on the sock, in a weird drip pattern indicating that it was flat when blood was applied to the sock.  The theory at the time was that it was not looking very good for the Rockingham bloody glove to be admitted as evidence, as it might have been ruled that there was no probable cause to jump the fence.  So the sock was someone's idea of "backup insurance" just in case that scenario played out.

 

 

 

These are very minute amounts of blood.  If you are planting evidence, you want enough to be testable and make him guilty.  Buuut...just in case someone unexpected pops out of the woodwork in the meantime and confesses to the crime, you don't want a slaughterhouse scene in there that would make prosecuting this other person difficult either.

 

The bloody glove at Rockingham is interesting.  In the beginning, prosecutors insisted that it had a cut along the ring finger, in the exact spot that OJ's hand was cut. And the photograph taken at the time certainly looks that way to me. Which would have been pretty damning evidence.  Yet the gloves presented in the case had no cuts/tears, and the prosecution insisted that the tear seen in the pictures was just debris in the picture.  But the lab tech, who saw the gloves live, noted the tear when he logged it in, but on the stand reversed himself, and admitted that he was mistaken, that it was debris.  Which I can see, perhaps, on a photograph, but I do think it is hard to mix up debris and a tear in real life.  I wonder what was going on there?

 

 

Would corrupt detectives really be thinking this way though?  If they are so determined to frame Simpson 15 minutes into the investigation, wouldn't they make darn sure there was plenty of evidence that would frame him and only him?  Wouldn't they destroy any physical evidence indicating otherwise and dismiss any potential confessions or whatever from other people?  

 

It just doesn't make rational sense to me that a detective or detectives and/or a crime lab that were so set on showing Simpson as the only perpetrator of these murders would not lock the scene up (by planting just enough blood; putting the glove in the Bronco or in Simpson's bedroom; perhaps putting more blood in Simpson's house).  And furthermore would even be thinking about the possibility of someone else coming forward.  All this in a relative small window of time, to make that decision to frame Simpson, without knowing where he was, who he was with, who Ron Goldman was, and to get all other personnel on the scene to agree to this conspiracy.

[vibeology]

And I think its important to note that framing someone and planting evidence aren't exactly the same thing. And I say that to indicate that there's a difference between setting out to pin a crime on someone and adding evidence to a scene when you're already sure they committed the crime. So I think all the evidence that points to OJ points to him because he killed Nicole and Ron, cutting himself in the process. He transferred blood from her home to his Bronco to his home, dropping a glove along the way. But I also think in an effort to secure a conviction, at least one person within the LAPD also added evidence to the legit stuff.

 

The one sock with blood found after it had been examined several times, I have a problem with that. I think the worry was that some of the evidence would be thrown out from Rockingham because they didn't have a warrant when they hopped the gate so "new" evidence was found that would be admissible. That doesn't require a huge conspiracy and it doesn't mean that the tests and photos from the night of the murder aren't accurate but it does make me question the integrity of the LAPD and the Crime Lab. And once you can't trust once piece of evidence, it becomes a huge problem. I don't know if I could convict someone knowing that I truly believed one piece of evidence presented at trial was planted. Because if one piece was planted, what else? (For me, the sock is the only thing I am convinced was planted but I do wonder about a few other things too.)

[Crs97]

 

I don't know if I could convict someone knowing that I truly believed one piece of evidence presented at trial was planted.

 

I feel the same way, vibeology.  In my living room, I can appreciate and discuss the distinction between pinning the crime on someone versus adding evidence to goose the chances your prime suspect is convicted.  In the juror box, if that was the explanation I was given for some strange evidence, I would err on the side of tossing all of it.  And, frankly, I would hope all jurors would do the same.