S01.E08: A Jury In Jail

[Kel Varnsen]

His blood at the scene.

 

That right there, was enough.

 

For motive?  The numerous photos of a beaten up Nicole, the number of police calls about him, and that audio of him raging at her, while she pleaded, "he's going to kill me."  There was a lot more in this category.

 

His hair on the cap.  His blood on the glove 17 offices saw at Bundy.  SO much more.

 

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/Simpson/Evidence.html

But as I said, if a jury ignores the forensic evidence because of LAPD incompetence or corruption or a combination of the two is there really enough to get beyond a reasonable doubt? If you look at the criminal trial evidence in the link you posted, I am not sure.

Edited March 31, 2016 by Kel Varnsen

[Umbelina]

The jury believed that over 35 employees colluded to put OJ's blood at the scene?  HOW?  They didn't even HAVE his blood until late the next day!

[Kel Varnsen]

The jury believed that over 35 employees colluded to put OJ's blood at the scene?  HOW?  They didn't even HAVE his blood until late the next day!

I do believe it was his blood and I do believe he did it but how bad does evidence collection have to be before a jury will ignore all of it? I mean if putting one of Nicole's own blankets on her body or taking home evidence is something that the police would do then is something like mislabelling test tubes reasonable or unreasonable?

[savannah1985]

Ito's wife was Mark Fuhrman's supervisor at one time. He should have recused himself, but he really wanted that trial. I still think he should have had a better hold on his courtroom.

[J-Man]

 

Weird. My first and only trip to LA I picked the intercontinental to stay in.  I can see why they picked it as it is very far away from things and isolated but very nice.

The hotel they stayed at is no longer an Intercontinental but is now the Omni Los Angeles, and was (and is) probably the only "nice" hotel reasonably close to the courthouse. (It's only a few blocks away.)

[Moose135]

The jury believed that over 35 employees colluded to put OJ's blood at the scene?  HOW?  They didn't even HAVE his blood until late the next day!

 

How do you know OJ's blood was at the scene? The police reported that lab tests showed that samples collected at the scene had his blood, however those tests were conducted at a later date, in a different location, by the LAPD crime lab.  If the defense can show that there were problems with how the samples were collected, how they were handled, and how they were tested, you can't say with certainty that the blood at the scene was OJ's.  What is to say that a lab technician didn't contaminate the samples with blood taken from OJ to "help" the prosecution make its case?

[vibeology]

How do you know OJ's blood was at the scene? The police reported that lab tests showed that samples collected at the scene had his blood, however those tests were conducted at a later date, in a different location, by the LAPD crime lab.  If the defense can show that there were problems with how the samples were collected, how they were handled, and how they were tested, you can't say with certainty that the blood at the scene was OJ's.  What is to say that a lab technician didn't contaminate the samples with blood taken from OJ to "help" the prosecution make its case?

 

Exactly this. I think OJ did it and I think there is enough other evidence to prove it but because of the errors made my the LAPD crime lab, their credibility comes into question. Can you trust the reports? Can you trust that the results presented in court are actually what was found at the scene or do you think something went wrong either by error or because OJ was being framed? That's what the jury had to look at. I think ultimately the screw ups were huge and gave the jury who wanted to acquit something tangible they could latch onto to justify that choice.

[ByTor]

If the defense can show that there were problems with how the samples were collected, how they were handled, and how they were tested, you can't say with certainty that the blood at the scene was OJ's.

Except, as others have pointed out, if the evidence was so poorly handled and corrupted, odds are the blood would not specifically be identified as a particular person's blood; the likelihood is that they would not be able to determine whose blood it was.

[Aethera]

OK guys, calm down please. This is becoming less of a discussion and more of an argument.

[88Keys]

I know I'm late to this party; I've been recording the episodes and watching them later.  But I had to comment on this:

 

 

Rob Morrow absolutely nailed Barry Schek's style of questioning. I strongly remember feeling like he was always yelling at Fung.

 

 

I was deeply disappointed that what I believe was the key to the defense's case - Barry Scheck's destruction of Dennis Fung and the DNA evidence - was run through so quickly.  If I remember this correctly, Fung was on the stand for eight days, not a few hours.  Scheck, along with Peter Neufeld, who apparently was written out of this drama, showed up every one of the numerous errors in evidence collection and control that Fung and the LAPD committed.  I can still remember his stinging, "Mr. Fung!" over and over again.

 

Rob Morrow is so great in this.  I'm having a hard time reconciling him with the cool, collected Don Eppes from Numb3rs.  Was Scheck's (I keep wanting to call him Shrek) hair always such a mess? 

 

I know they couldn't show us 8 days of DNA testimony, but it would have been more effective if the show pointed out how long the testimony went on.  They could have showed quick cuts with "Day 2," "Day 3," "Day 6," etc in them.  It would have been funny.  DAY 2:  "Mr. FUNG!"  DAY 3: "Mr. FUNG!"  DAY 5:  "LIAR!" 

[ganesh]

I remember Scheck practically bouncing off the walls and yelling all the time. 

[DangerousMinds]

I remember Scheck practically bouncing off the walls and yelling all the time. 

And yet the jury expressed favorable opinions toward him and thought Marcia was a bitch. Go figure.

[psychoticstate]

The jury believed that over 35 employees colluded to put OJ's blood at the scene?  HOW?  They didn't even HAVE his blood until late the next day!

 

 

I do believe it was his blood and I do believe he did it but how bad does evidence collection have to be before a jury will ignore all of it? I mean if putting one of Nicole's own blankets on her body or taking home evidence is something that the police would do then is something like mislabelling test tubes reasonable or unreasonable?

 

I find it hard to believe - - impossible actually - - that a number of people (35!) could have kept this type of conspiracy quiet.  For more than twenty years.  It just wouldn't be plausible, not in this age of social media and "anything for a buck."  Someone would have come forward to confess or say they knew it was happening.  

Covering a body with a sheet or blanket from the victim's own house is not uncommon (if not by the book.)  Nicole's body was horrifying and there were many people on the scene, including the media.  I'm sure the detectives/technicians wanted to spare her family seeing her like that, from an uncaring photographer or reporter.  I don't recall exactly when the children were taken from the house so it's also possible that they wanted to prevent the children from seeing anything.  In that situation, they would put the welfare of the children and consideration for the family ahead of thoughts on preserving the evidence.   

 

 

I remember Scheck practically bouncing off the walls and yelling all the time. 

 

Scheck was like a kid with ADHD who had just slammed a Red Bull.  And yes, his hair did look like Morrow's on the show. 

[ganesh]

Just look at the media sensation when someone found a knife on the property last month. The only way 35 people could conspire and keep everything quiet would be if 34 were dead. 

[deerstalker]

Just look at the media sensation when someone found a knife on the property last month. The only way 35 people could conspire and keep everything quiet would be if 34 were dead. 

 

I don't know if that is a good example.  The knife was found almost twenty years ago, given to a police officer, who rather than turn it in, took it home, and kept it for his memorabilia collection, openly bragging to people about it.  He wanted to get it mounted, and needed some information to go on the mount, and asked a colleague from the homicide department about it.  This colleague, having more than a bit of vested interest in trying to redeem the LAPD's tarnished reputation after the OJ trial, turned it in for testing.  But still, this police officer had this evidence laying around for almost twenty years, many people knew about it, yet nothing was done. Not farfetched that lots of people can keep knowledge away from the general public, when they wish to do so.

Edited April 9, 2016 by deerstalker

[Mittengirl]

Unfortunately, I have no trouble believing a large number of people could keep a secret this long. In my hometown a teen girl disappeared from school about 35 years ago. Investigators say there are about a dozen people still living in the area who know what happen to her, but won't talk. This despite news coverage of the case every couple of years. If that many people can hold on to that kind of secret all these years (even though they are not suspects in the actual crime, merely people with info), then I can believe actual wrongdoers can take secrets to their grave.

But, I don't believe there was a conspiracy to frame OJ.

If I had to be sequestered as long as this jury was, under the same conditions, I would have been chatting with the potted palms after a few months. I don't know how they all didn't run screaming from the room, like the one juror was shown attempting.

[Apprentice79]

Unfortunately, I have no trouble believing a large number of people could keep a secret this long. In my hometown a teen girl disappeared from school about 35 years ago. Investigators say there are about a dozen people still living in the area who know what happen to her, but won't talk. This despite news coverage of the case every couple of years. If that many people can hold on to that kind of secret all these years (even though they are not suspects in the actual crime, merely people with info), then I can believe actual wrongdoers can take secrets to their grave.

But, I don't believe there was a conspiracy to frame OJ.

If I had to be sequestered as long as this jury was, under the same conditions, I would have been chatting with the potted palms after a few months. I don't know how they all didn't run screaming from the room, like the one juror was shown attempting.

That never happened in real life..That was the producers taking creative license to give us the awful reality of sequestration. Tracy Hampton had a breakdown at her home, the next day after she got home from the jury..She had been begging to get off the jury for months..Finally both sides gave in her to repeated request and she was dismissed. She did have a hard time with sequestration, she had a hard time connecting with the older Black women on the jury...She also had a a hard time with the deputies and she was the one that got some of them dismissed...

Edited April 9, 2016 by Apprentice79

[SinInTheCamp]

Unfortunately, I have no trouble believing a large number of people could keep a secret this long. In my hometown a teen girl disappeared from school about 35 years ago. Investigators say there are about a dozen people still living in the area who know what happen to her, but won't talk. This despite news coverage of the case every couple of years. If that many people can hold on to that kind of secret all these years (even though they are not suspects in the actual crime, merely people with info), then I can believe actual wrongdoers can take secrets to their grave.

But, I don't believe there was a conspiracy to frame OJ.

Yes, all of this.

Especially within a police department, where there's even more of an impetus to keep your mouths shut. There's lots of secrets inside PDs. I worked in law enforcement for near a decade, so I have a great deal of firsthand knowledge about this. People tend to be the best at keeping secrets when they know that leaked info could harm them or their careers (or the careers/reputations of their fellow officers, which ALWAYS reflects badly upon the entire department). One incident that particularly bothered me was a cop who brutalized an elderly man, causing him physical injury. It was kept hush-hush within the department until the citizen actually took it straight to the DAs office and made a complaint. Forced to acknowledge the incident, the DA "investigated" it and cleared the cop of any criminal wrongdoing. Even within our department, news of the incident didn't get around much. Only a handful of people knew, those who had been directly involved with the paperwork from the DA. But it burned me up inside whenever I saw that cop, who I would previously never have suspected of being capable of such violence. I think I quit shortly thereafter, acknowledging that I wanted no part of such a system that so blithely covered for its own. That wall of silence really does exist in police departments.

[Crs97]

 

That wall of silence really does exist in police departments.

 

One of the craziest ones I heard about was a man who was delivering a summons to a police officer for brutality.  He met him on the courthouse steps, handed him the paper, and walked away.  Twenty minutes later he was arrested for assaulting a police officer, and a whole group of police officers as well as some ADAs signed out witness statements detailing the assault.  The man was getting ready to go to jail for a long time because he had been convicted of a prior drug charge and this would have been a repeat felony offense.

 

He finally was able to show the video his family had made of the summons delivery to prove the cop had received the summons.  It showed that he handed the paper and walked away, and one witness with the most damning evidence wasn't even facing the two.  The state AG had to get involved to get the case dismissed.  If not for video, this man would have lost his freedom due to that blue wall of silence.  By the way, they met on the courthouse steps because the cop was being sued in another battery case.

[Kel Varnsen]

Just look at the media sensation when someone found a knife on the property last month. The only way 35 people could conspire and keep everything quiet would be if 34 were dead.

Why does it have to be all 35 people at the scene in on the conspiracy? It doesn't seem unreasonable to me that some cops would plant some evidence, so the guy they know is guilty goes to prison, and others might not realize or choose to ignore/look the other way. It is also not hard to believe a poorly run crime lab could botch some evidence collection then present bad results, or fabricate good results to keep from looking bad. If either or both of those happened to a good hunk of the evidence isn't that reasonable doubt. Especially since the defense doesn't have to prove someone else did it,just that the da didn't meet the standard.

[ganesh]

I was commenting on a post who used the 35 number. I didn't come up with it. 

[ElectricBoogaloo]

I can't imagine having to live under the constraints that the jury dealt with - being away from your family for eight months, not being allowed to talk to anyone but the deputies and fellow jurors, not being allowed to leave the floor of your hotel, being yelled at for being FIVE MINUTES LATE to what looked like a very shitty dinner, not being allowed to watch any tv or movies in your room, having to vote on watch tv shows to watch (and I agree it seems stupid that they didn't just set up two tv rooms so that people could watch different shows) - and that's after sitting in a courtroom all day. It's like The Real World: Jury Edition - twenty four strangers picked to live in a hotel and see what happens when people stop being polite and start getting real. It was essentially taking adults and treating them like children. You're not allowed to do anything unless I give you permission and even then, your freedom is very limited.

Bailey can STFU. Regardless of the legality in 1988, that woman experienced domestic violence. My years of watching various shows about lawyers has taught me that what lawyers do is find loopholes for their clients and that's exactly why people don't like defense lawyers - they say things like, "Well, technically it wasn't rape when it happened!" Oh, okay, I'm sure that made the experience THAT much more pleasant for the juror.

I was shaking my head over the whole "DNA is so new fangled and hard to understand!" business. I was definitely taught about DNA before 1995. I remember going to the Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago around that time (it was either 1995 or 1996) and they had a huge DNA thing with the double helix and everything. My sister turned to me and said, "I remember when we learned about this in school!"! Keep in mind that this museum is geared towards kids in elementary school and middle school, so learning about DNA is not something that was/is reserved for teaching to biology grad students.

Fung shaking hands with the defense after the basically told him he was a shitty criminologist though? Mind boggling.

[Spartan Girl]

On January 28, 2018 at 9:50 AM, ElectricBoogaloo said:

 

Fung shaking hands with the defense after the basically told him he was a shitty criminologist though? Mind boggling.

What an idiot.