Someone had to ask sooner or later: Did OJ really do it?

[Fergasun]

I recently had a conversation with a co-worker about this. He's convinced the glove and the sock evidence was planted by Fuhrman, When asked if he had ever planted evidence, Fuhrman pleaded the fifth. I had always believed that the gloves were worn by OJ during the murder; but my co-worker explained to me how somehow Fuhrman magically was able to peak over Simpson's Brentwood home, and magically see a glove on the ground which enabled him to conduct a 5th amendment "exigent circumstances" warrant-less search! I never had thought this was plausible, my co-worker was convinced. Yet he still thinks OJ did it. He's convinced the gloves were too small for OJ and Furhman used plant gloves; no one thought that OJ would try them on.

After having some time to sit here on Google and read about how those gloves were traced to Bloomingdales, I think my co-worker is wrong... but I can't remember the prosecution doing a good job of refuting the conspiracy theory. It was too bad some of the evidence regarding Simpon's behavior couldn't be introduced, because it clearly shows that he's guilty... but still... where's the knife and where's the bloody clothes?

[Chump Bailey]

but still... where's the knife and where's the bloody clothes?

2 theories IIRC from some of the books i've read:

1. Kardashian got rid of them - a case was given to him and never seen again

2. Reports from witnesses stating they saw OJ reaching/leaning inside a waste bin at the airport.

---------- Post added May-25th-2011 at 06:19 AM ----------

I recently had a conversation with a co-worker about this. He's convinced the glove and the sock evidence was planted by Fuhrman, When asked if he had ever planted evidence, Fuhrman pleaded the fifth. I had always believed that the gloves were worn by OJ during the murder; but my co-worker explained to me how somehow Fuhrman magically was able to peak over Simpson's Brentwood home, and magically see a glove on the ground which enabled him to conduct a 5th amendment "exigent circumstances" warrant-less search! I never had thought this was plausible, my co-worker was convinced. Yet he still thinks OJ did it. He's convinced the gloves were too small for OJ and Furhman used plant gloves; no one thought that OJ would try them on.

After having some time to sit here on Google and read about how those gloves were traced to Bloomingdales, I think my co-worker is wrong... but I can't remember the prosecution doing a good job of refuting the conspiracy theory. It was too bad some of the evidence regarding Simpon's behavior couldn't be introduced, because it clearly shows that he's guilty... but still... where's the knife and where's the bloody clothes?

It's been proven that Fuhrman could not have planted the evidence in the timeline given by the defense. Something like that. I don't recall the specifics offhand.

[DieselPwr44]

Hang down your head now OJ

Hang down your head and cry

Hang down your head now OJ

Poor boy you're gonna die

Met her on the gridiron

Took her for my wife

Caught with Ron Goldman

Stabbed her with my knife

[NavyDave]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1s5sLY4hVo

[scruffylookin]

I initially thought there was no way OJ Simpson could do that. I was unaware of his history and pretty much only knew him through his television, commercial and Naked Gun stuff. So I just couldn't believe that guy could do it something like that.

The thing about the trial that I remember is that if you listen to the defense destroy each piece of evidence, one could be swayed to lean not guilty. The problem is when you look at the evidence in it's entirety and the defense to it, it's just so all over the place.

The defense used several theories, a racist cop to plant evidence, incompetent lab techs who contaminated evidence and then other police officers who covered it all up. It was just too much.

To me the damning thing was the limo driver. He drove around the property and did not see a white bronco outside on the street. He did remember seeing the address painted on the curb, this address would have been blocked if the bronco were there when he drove around.

OJ was in a dark place psychologically for a while and something snapped and Ron Goldman is the unfortunate textbook example of wrong place wrong time.

[Fergasun]

We're talking about LAPD 1994. Fuhrman couldn't plant evidence, but I'm pretty sure any of the other officer's could've. Go read about the Rampart Scandal in LA. I wasn't fully aware how bad of a reputation the LAPD had until I moved into the area. So even if Fuhrman couldn't have planted the evidence, its hard to say that the LAPD didn't have an evidence planting problem at the time... and really did the prosecutors have the other officers testify (where they would've also had to answer question regarding the planting of evidence?). Do you want 10 LAPD officers invoking the 5th on cross-examination on whether they have ever planted evidence?

It's pretty daming when the officer who found the glove pleads the 5th on "Have you ever planted evidence before?"

[PeterMP]

It's pretty daming when the officer who found the glove pleads the 5th on "Have you ever planted evidence before?"

I think he did it, but if I was on the jury, I've have absolutely voted not guilty. When the guy that found the evidence positively linking him to the crime scene, pleads the fifth to having planted evidence, how can that not be reasonable doubt?

[Arasmus]

So, a question for any legal eagles here.

If a man is acquitted of a murder, do the cops close the case, or do they go back out and look for suspects since it would appear a jury has told them they got the wrong man?

Because if they do close the case, that would seem rather F'd up to the victim,, and if they don't,, well, not one other suspect has ever been mentioned as far as I know.

The perfect crime,, or the obvious?

OJ did it. A "perfect crime" would not be so messy.

~Bang

After something like the OJ trial it's pretty much case closed. You could go back through the evidence, re-interview witnesses and see if something points to a different suspect, but short of finding a video of the crime nothing will really come of it. Any new case you do present would take a beating from the defense because of the scope of the previous trial. All those experts would be recalled to testify about how certain they were it was OJ, oh but they were wrong then and correct now. You can see where this leads.

The case would technically remain open, but other than at best an annual review, it's not being worked on.

[Chump Bailey]

It's pretty daming when the officer who found the glove pleads the 5th on "Have you ever planted evidence before?"

It's also pretty damning when the lead defense attorney claims that they "dealt the race card from the bottom of the deck." I seriously question the intelligence of someone who would vote 'not guilty.' It requires too much suspension of reality to feel that the LAPD conspired against OJ to frame him of murder.

[Tweedr01]

Ladies and Gentlemen of this supposed jury, if Chewbacca does not make sense you must acquit.

dude you are butchering a classic

[Predicto]

I think he did it, but if I was on the jury, I've have absolutely voted not guilty. When the guy that found the evidence positively linking him to the crime scene, pleads the fifth to having planted evidence, how can that not be reasonable doubt?

It may not be reasonable doubt standing alone, but it is a huge factor in it.

It's also pretty damning when the lead defense attorney claims that they "dealt the race card from the bottom of the deck." I seriously question the intelligence of someone who would vote 'not guilty.' It requires too much suspension of reality to feel that the LAPD conspired against OJ to frame him of murder.

Why? The LAPD homicide unit framed people all the time back then.

In fact, I have no problem believing both that OJ did commit the murders AND that Mark Fuhrman and his cronies planted evidence to try to build their case.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

In fact, I have no problem believing both that OJ did commit the murders AND that Mark Fuhrman and his cronies planted evidence to try to build their case.

That's a position that never got enough discussion.

['Skins_&_'Stons]

dude you are butchering a classic

Why would a Wookiee, an 8-foot-tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of 2-foot-tall Ewoks? That does not make sense! But more important, you have to ask yourself: What does this have to do with this case? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does not make sense! Look at me. I'm a lawyer defending a major record company, and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca! Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense! None of this makes sense! And so you have to remember, when you're in that jury room deliberatin' and conjugatin' the Emancipation Proclamation, does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does not make sense! If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit! The defense rests.

[Chump Bailey]

Why? The LAPD homicide unit framed people all the time back then.

In fact, I have no problem believing both that OJ did commit the murders AND that Mark Fuhrman and his cronies planted evidence to try to build their case.

Those cases are mostly corrupt cops shaking down dealers for drugs and money. Again, it suspends all reality to think the LAPD framed OJ. I don't really care to revisit what was presented and the facts in the case, but I do think this conspiracy theory of somehow OJ was framed by the LAPD was debunked thoroughly by Vincent Bugliosi in his book Outrage: The Five Reasons Why OJ Simpson Got Away With Murder. It's completely and utterly insane to reach a conclusion of 'not guilty.' There may not be a single case in legal history where more convincing evidence was presented proving motive and guilt only to be completey dismissed outright. The original verdict was a travesty of justice and nothing more. I'm glad a more sensible jury realized the undeniable: OJ Simpson is guilty of murder.

[Tweedr01]

Why would a Wookiee' date=' an 8-foot-tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of 2-foot-tall Ewoks? That does not make sense! But more important, you have to ask yourself: What does this have to do with this case? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does not make sense! Look at me. I'm a lawyer defending a major record company, and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca! Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense! None of this makes sense! And so you have to remember, when you're in that jury room deliberatin' and conjugatin' the Emancipation Proclamation, does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does not make sense! If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit! The defense rests.[/quote']

:applause:

Thank you, gotta get the context correct, good find sir!

[Dan T.]

Biggest question for me always was when the LAPD was "planting" blood and other evidence on the night of the crime scene how did they know that OJ wasn't off somewhere with an ironclad alibi?

Very good question. It's absurd to think that the morning after the crime, a grand conspiracy to frame OJ could coalesce among a whole bunch of cops and evidence technicians before they even knew where OJ was the night before.

['Skins_&_'Stons]

:applause:

Thank you, gotta get the context correct, good find sir!

[Predicto]

Those cases are mostly corrupt cops shaking down dealers for drugs and money.

You mean, shaking down the friends and relatives of the people who sat on the jury? Hard to imagine that could influence their views on the honesty of the police, especially when the chief investigator takes the Fifth as to whether he personally ever plants evidence at a crime scene. :whoknows:

Again, it suspends all reality to think the LAPD framed OJ. I don't really care to revisit what was presented and the facts in the case, but I do think this conspiracy theory of somehow OJ was framed by the LAPD was debunked thoroughly by Vincent Bugliosi in his book Outrage: The Five Reasons Why OJ Simpson Got Away With Murder. It's completely and utterly insane to reach a conclusion of 'not guilty.' There may not be a single case in legal history where more convincing evidence was presented proving motive and guilt only to be completey dismissed outright. The original verdict was a travesty of justice and nothing more. I'm glad a more sensible jury realized the undeniable: OJ Simpson is guilty of murder.

I disagree with Mr. Bugliosi, but I'm not an ex-prosecutor selling a well-written but sensationalistic book.

I suspect that if Mr. Bugliosi had been the prosecutor, there would have been a conviction, but he wasn't, and the evidence was not presented to the sequestered jury in the way that a competent prosecutor would have done it and in the way a competent judge would have allowed. As I understand it, Bugliosi's book is extremely critial of the way that the case was presented so incoherently to the jury. He even says that the prosecution never refuted most of the defense's main arguments at all.

I'm not sure how you can reconcile that with the idea that a sequestered jury should have known to convict anyway. :whoknows:

---------- Post added May-25th-2011 at 10:52 AM ----------

Very good question. It's absurd to think that the morning after the crime, a grand conspiracy to frame OJ could coalesce among a whole bunch of cops and evidence technicians before they even knew where OJ was the night before.

I agree. That is how the prosecution should utterly have destroyed that argument at trial and made it the lynchpin of their closing argument.

But did they? I don't recall that being the case.

[Chump Bailey]

I'm not sure how you can reconcile that with the idea that a sequestered jury should have known to convict anyway. :whoknows:

Because I'm an objective person with an inkling of common sense and IQ greater than an orange juice can who would have weighed the totality of evidence that was presented and come to the only logical conclusion that he is 100% guilty of murder. I understand the prosecution screwed the pooch, but I still absolutely believe enough was done to convict the man. They did their job ; albeit very sloppily. All this boils down to is a handful of racist jurors foolishly believing that their verdict be used as some lame platform against racial injustice. This was indicated as such by none other than Darden hmiself as he described one black male juror giving the black power salute when the verdict was read.

[Predicto]

Because I'm an objective person with an inkling of common sense and IQ greater than an orange juice can who would have weighed the totality of evidence that was presented and come to the only logical conclusion that he is 100% guilty of murder. I understand the prosecution screwed the pooch, but I still absolutely believe enough was done to convict the man. They did their job ; albeit very sloppily. All this boils down to is a handful of racist jurors foolishly believing that their verdict be used as some lame platform against racial injustice. This was indicated as such by none other than Darden hmiself as he described one black male juror giving the black power salute when the verdict was read.

I think you are making an enormous assumption that the jury was racist because they distrusted the police, got lost in the months of confusing garbage put out by the prosecution, and blew the verdict.

That's a Sean Hannity level of analysis, and holds no truck with me.

[deejaydana]

This case was about so much more then its facts. There was a black juror who asked to be excused from duty, and then was let go. After that he spoke to the press and said he could never go back to his home (in South Central) and be allowed to live peacefully if he voted that OJ was guilty. I'm not sure the prosecution ever could have won this case when I hear things like that.

What still fascinates me about this trial was the near complete division along black and white lines in reaction about the verdict.

[Sticksboi05]

This case was about so much more then its facts. There was a black juror who asked to be excused from duty, and then was let go. After that he spoke to the press and said he could never go back to his home (in South Central) and be allowed to live peacefully if he voted that OJ was guilty. I'm not sure the prosecution ever could have won this case when I hear things like that.

What still fascinates me about this trial was the near complete division along black and white lines in reaction about the verdict.

Family Guy parodies this perfectly.

[grhqofb5]

Well, since the original question here was whether OJ did it (not whether the jury made the right call, or whether the detectives planted evidence, or whether chewbacca should have played a role in the defense), it seems we're a bit off track.

Of course, the answer is yes, he did it. Interesting discussion though.

[Predicto]

What still fascinates me about this trial was the near complete division along black and white lines in reaction about the verdict.

Yep. In many ways, that reflects the near complete division in the white and black experience of dealing with the police. Juries full of black people convict black people every day in courtrooms across the nation.

But when you add in the factor of a high profile case involving a racist police investigator who takes the Fifth Amendment on whether he plants evidence on suspects... suddenly you have crossed the line. That is where blacks and whites fall on different sides of the line on who's story we are inclined to believe, on the gut level.

[sly]

Why? The LAPD homicide unit framed people all the time back then.

No one has posted this yet?

Framin' OJ... you in??!!