OJ might be innocent

[Skooby]

Sounds like Jr is a creep:

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/322688/20120402/oj-simpson-innocent-son-committed-murders-private.htm

[jamze132]

Just another nobody trying to make a buck.

[OpIv37]

yup, and Kurt Cobain was murdered and Tupac is still alive and Richard Gere puts gerbils up his ass.

[DraftBoy]

yup, and Kurt Cobain was murdered and Tupac is still alive and Richard Gere puts gerbils up his ass.

Woah, woah, woah....we don't **** around with Tupac.

[chernobylwraiths]

yup, and Kurt Cobain was murdered and Tupac is still alive and Richard Gere puts gerbils up his ass.

I have no idea why you felt the need to add a third choice. The fact you went THERE with it is interesting from a psychological standpoint.

[DraftBoy]

I have no idea why you felt the need to add a third choice. The fact you went THERE with it is interesting from a psychological standpoint.

You havent heard the Richard Gere Gerbil story?

[Jeff1220]

It's plausible enough though. Imagine if it were true. Wow.

[chernobylwraiths]

You havent heard the Richard Gere Gerbil story?

No, I thought he pulled that one out of his ass.

[Buckets]

If anyone knows who Dr Henry Lee is I attended a seminar put on by him around 2005 - 06. He testified at OJ's trial. I'm a retired crime lab analyst and Lee brought out some things that may lend creedence to this story. Lee claims that there were 2 sets of bloody foot prints at the scene and that it appears that OJ was not the only one at the scene. At the seminar he more or less came to the same conclusion without actually saying it that OJ was covering up for his son. He also said the the blood swabbings taken at the scene that matched OJ contained preservative, meaning that that prticular blood had been in a test tube prior to being swabbed at the scene. Interesting stuff

[TigerJ]

Yeah, it does sound plausible. I did not even know OJ had a son by his first marriage. As far as our Dear private investigator is concerned, he probably is in it for the money and the notoriety he can gain by publishing this book. That does not, however, necessarily have a bearing on whether or not his story is valid. Jose Canseco probably had some very selfish motives when he started flapping his jaws about steroid use in baseball, but it turns out most of what he said was true.

[Mr. Miyagi]

What difference does it make now? OJ was acquitted for the murder, and now in prison for some other douchebag things he did.

[acehole]

yup, and Kurt Cobain was murdered and Tupac is still alive and Richard Gere puts gerbils up his ass.

yea and sabs mom is a nun..

[Mike]

yup, and Kurt Cobain was murdered and Tupac is still alive and Richard Gere puts gerbils up his ass.


You should have watched the trail. There was proof of 'planted evidence' among other incobsistancies. In the, the OJ trail was a perfect example of the media painting a picture of guilt (well before the trail), getting one sided interviews & evidence during the trail (supported their initial premise), blaming the jury, great lawyers, the police once he was acquitted (stuck with original position & blamed others). The OJ coverage was very one sided, it's amazing that he got off.

PS: I thought he was guilty until I really deved into it

[Bill Cody]

yeah sounds reasonable- Jr. did it but OJ had his blood/Nicole's blood all over his Bronco/socks/gloves/fence/sidewalk and OJ drove the Bronco in a trance down the highway for 2 hours because he was innocent and covering for his son. Got it.

If AJ Cowlings decides to write a tell all on how he ditched OJ's clothes/wet suit/knife get back to me, that might be worth a read.

[Bill Cody]

You should have watched the trail. There was proof of 'planted evidence' among other incobsistancies. In the, the OJ trail was a perfect example of the media painting a picture of guilt (well before the trail), getting one sided interviews & evidence during the trail (supported their initial premise), blaming the jury, great lawyers, the police once he was acquitted (stuck with original position & blamed others). The OJ coverage was very one sided, it's amazing that he got off.

PS: I thought he was guilty until I really deved into it

Seriously? You are 1000% wrong. DNA was a new science then and not well understood. if that trial occured today it would take 2 weeks and the jury would convict in an hour. There were literally dozens of blood samples linking OJ to the killings and the odds that he wasn't the killer are larger than earth's population. If you've delved into it it sounds like your sources were the Star, the Enquirer and the Globe. NO.

[Mski]

yup, and Kurt Cobain was murdered and Tupac is still alive and Richard Gere puts gerbils up his ass.well two of those are true

[Mike]

Seriously? You are 1000% wrong. DNA was a new science then and not well understood. if that trial occured today it would take 2 weeks and the jury would convict in an hour. There were literally dozens of blood samples linking OJ to the killings and the odds that he wasn't the killer are larger than earth's population. If you've delved into it it sounds like your sources were the Star, the Enquirer and the Globe. NO.

Did you watch the trail?

Fact: no one knows what really happened or didn't happen. We can only go by the evidence.

Regarding Observable Events & their meaning:
1) what does it mean if you see a person jumping up & down on the sidewalk as you drive by?
A. Person can be jumping for joy
B. Person can have stepped on a tic
C. Other explanations.

When a suspect is running from the police the police is not allowed to shoot. Ever wonder why? Because the suspect could be innocent. Just because he/she is running from the police does not mean the person is guilty. The opposite is also true.

OJ Fleeing in a Bronco can have many reasons/explanations
1. He's guilty
2. He panicked & went nuts when he found out about murders. Maybe he was afraid for his life.
3. He might have gone off the deep end & considered suicide

Facts about chase: he was going only 35mi/hr. Doest sound like he's trying to get away

[Mike]

At 5*pm Robert Kardashian, a Simpson friend and one of his defense lawyers, read a rambling letter by Simpson to the media.[18]:22 In the letter Simpson sent greetings to 24 friends and wrote, "First everyone understand I had nothing to do with Nicole's murder ... Don't feel sorry for me. I've had a great life."[18]:22[16]:87[19] To many, this sounded like a suicide note, and the reporters joined the search for Simpson. According to Simpson lawyer Robert Shapiro, also present at Kardashian's press conference, Simpson's psychiatrists agreed with the suicide note interpretation; on television the attorney appealed to Simpson to surrender

At 6pm his vehicle was spotted which lead to a nationally televised car chase which included 20cop cars.

[Mike]

1. No witnesses
2. No murder weapon
3. Only DNA evidence to go on:

Despite that safeguard, it emerged during the cross-examination of Fung and the other laboratory scientists that the police scientist Andrea Mazzola (who collected blood samples from Simpson to compare with evidence from the crime scene) was a trainee who carried the vial of Simpson's blood around in her lab coat pocket for nearly a day before handing it over as an exhibit. While two errors had been found in the history of DNA testing at Cellmark, one of the testing laboratories, in 1988 and 1989, the errors were found during quality control tests and had not occurred since.[15] In the 1988 test, one of the companies hired for DNA consulting by Simpson's defense also made the same error.[9] What should have been the prosecution's strong point became their weak link amid accusations that bungling police technicians handled the blood samples with such a degree of incompetence as to render the delivery of accurate and reliable DNA results almost impossible. The prosecution argued that they had made the DNA evidence available to the defense for its own testing, and if the defense attorneys disagreed with the prosecution's tests they could have conducted their own testing on the same samples.[15] The defense had chosen not to accept the prosecution's offer.[15]
On May 16, Gary Sims, a California Department of Justice criminalist who helped establish the Department of Justice's DNA laboratory, testified that a glove found at Simpson's house tested positive for a match of Goldman's blood.[15]

[Mike]

Discovery of DNA evidence:

In 1983, LAPD detective Mark Fuhrman was interviewed by Dr. Ira Brent in relation to a disability claim for work-related stress. Mark Fuhrman confided to Brent that he beat up suspects, and that he blacked out and became a wild man. In 1984, Fuhrman stopped a young black man named Jarvis Bowers for jaywalking, put him in a choke hold and threatened his life. This happened in front of a movie theater in a predominately white area with several witnesses. This incident cost Fuhrman a day's pay.[citation needed]
In March 1995, Fuhrman testified to driving over to Simpson's house to question him on the night of the two murders and, after getting no response after buzzing the intercom of the house which was empty, scaled one of the walls and found blood marks on the driveway of Simpson's home, as well as a black leather glove on the premises near the location of Kailen's bungalow, which had blood of both murder victims on it as well as Simpson's.[10] Despite an aggressive cross-examination by F. Lee Bailey,[29] Fuhrman denied on the stand that he was racist or had used the word "******" to describe black people in the 10 years prior to his testimony.[29] But a few months later, the defense played audio tapes of Fuhrman repeatedly using the word – 41 times, in total. The tape had been made in 1986 by a young North Carolina screenwriter named Laura McKinny. She had interviewed Fuhrman for a screenplay she was developing on police officers. The Fuhrman tapes became one of the cornerstones of the defense's case that Fuhrman's testimony lacked credibility.
In September, Fuhrman was called back to the witness stand by the defense to answer more questions about the discovery of the blood marks and leather glove that he supposedly found on Simpson's property hours after the murders took place. When questioned by attorney Gerald Uelmen, Fuhrman, with his lawyer standing by his side, pleaded the Fifth Amendment against self-incrimination to avoid further questioning after his integrity was challenged at this point.
The prosecution told the jury in closing arguments that Fuhrman was indeed a racist, but that this should not detract from the evidence showing Simpson's guilt.[5] Fuhrman's testimony resulted in his indictment on one count of perjury, to which he later pled no contest.

[Mike]

How did the DNA evidence get there? what about the glove?

Prosecutors contended that the presence of O. J. Simpson's blood at the crime scene was the result of blood dripping from cuts on the middle finger of his left hand.[10] Police noted his wounds on June 13, 1994, and asserted that these were suffered during the fatal attack on Ronald Goldman. However, the defense noted that none of the gloves found had any cuts. Plus, both prosecution and defense witnesses testified to not seeing any cuts or wounds of any kind on Simpson's hands in the hours after the murders took place. The defense also alleged that Fuhrman may have planted the glove at Simpson's house after taking it from the crime scene, and that the analysis finding that the hair could be Brown's could not be reliable.[10] The prosecution contended that this was not the case, pointing out that by the time Fuhrman had arrived at the Simpson home after leaving the Nicole Brown's home, the crime scene had already been combed over by several officers for almost two hours, and none had noticed a second glove at the scene. In his first round of testimony, Fuhrman answered "no" when asked by F. Lee Bailey if he had planted any evidence at Simpson's house. In his second round of testimony, Fuhrman took the Fifth Amendment when asked the same question by Gerald Uelmen.

[Mike]

Evidence presented at trail:


The prosecution used several tactics to show Simpson's culpability.[33]
DNA analysis of blood found on a pair of Simpson's socks found in his bedroom identified it as Nicole Brown's. The blood had DNA characteristics matched by approximately only one in 9.7*billion, with odds rising to one out of 21*billion when compiling results of testing done at the two separate DNA laboratories.[15][33] Both socks had about 20 stains of blood.[15]
DNA analysis of the blood found in, on, and near Simpson's Bronco revealed traces of Simpson's, Brown's, and Goldman's blood.[34]
DNA analysis of bloody socks found in Simpson's bedroom proved this was Brown's blood. The blood made a similar pattern on both sides of the socks. Defense medical expert Dr. Henry Lee of the Connecticut State Police Forensic Science Laboratory testified that the only way such a pattern could appear was if Simpson had a "hole" in his ankle, or a drop of blood was placed on the sock while it was not being worn. Lee testified the collection procedure of the socks could have caused contamination.[35]
A few strands of African-American hair were found on Goldman's shirt.[34]
Several coins were found along with fresh blood drops behind Nicole's condo, in the area where the cars were parked.
DNA analysis of blood on the left-hand glove, found outside Brown's home, was proven to be a mixture of Simpson's, Brown's, and Goldman's. Although the glove was soaked in blood, there were no blood drops leading up to, or away from the glove. No other blood was found in the area of the glove except on the glove.[34]
The gloves contained particles of hair consistent with Goldman's hair and a cap contained carpet fibers consistent with fibers from Simpson's Bronco.[10] A black knit cap at the crime scene contained strands of African-American hair.[10] Several strands of dark blue cotton fibers were found on Goldman, and the prosecution presented a witness who said Simpson wore a similarly-colored sweat suit that night.[10]
The left-hand glove found at Nicole Brown's home and the right-hand glove found at Simpson's home proved to be a match.[36]
The LA County District Attorney's Office and the Medical Examiner's Office could not explain why 1.5*cm³ of blood were missing from the original 8*cm³ taken from Simpson and placed into evidence.[37]
Officers found arrest records indicating that Simpson was charged with the beating of his wife Nicole Brown. Photos of Brown's bruised and battered face from that attack were shown.
Much of the incriminating evidence: bloody glove, bloody socks, blood in and on the Bronco, was discovered by Los Angeles Police Detective Mark Fuhrman. He was later charged with perjury for falsely claiming during the trial that he had not used the word "******" within ten years of the trial. During the trial he pleaded the Fifth Amendment against self-incrimination to avoid further questioning after his integrity was challenged on this point.[37]
The bloody footprints at the crime scene were identified by FBI shoe expert William Bodziak as having been made by a pair of extremely rare and expensive Bruno Magli shoes, of which it has been reported that only 299 pairs were sold in the US.[10] The large size 12 (305*mm) prints matched Simpson's shoe size.[10] In the criminal trial, Simpson defense attorneys had said the prosecution had no proof Simpson had ever bought such shoes,[10] however then free-lance photographer E.J. Flammer claimed to have found a photograph he had taken of Simpson in 1993 that appeared to show him wearing a pair of the shoes at a public event, which was later published in the National Enquirer. Simpson's defense team claimed that the photograph was doctored, although other pre-1994 photos appearing to show Simpson wearing Bruno Magli shoes were since discovered and published.[38]
Evidence collected by LAPD criminalist Dennis Fung came under criticism. He admitted to "having missed a few drops of blood on a fence near the bodies," but on the stand he said that he "returned several weeks afterwards to collect them."[37]
Fung admitted that he had not used rubber gloves when collecting some of the evidence.[37] Although, the blood that was tested ruled out Fung within published guidelines.
LA Police Detective Phillip Vannatter testified that he saw photographs of press personnel leaning on Simpson's Bronco before evidence was collected.[37]


[edit]Evidence not presented at trial:

At the 1994 grand jury hearing, Ross Cutlery provided store receipts indicating that Simpson had purchased a 12-inch (305*mm) stiletto knife six weeks before the murders. The knife was determined to be similar to the one the coroner said caused the stab wounds.[5] The prosecution did not present this evidence at trial after discovering that store employees had sold their story to The National Enquirer for $12,500.[5] The knife was later collected from Simpson's residence by a court-appointed special master, who took control of the knife. It turned out not to be the murder weapon because prosecution tests on the knife determined that an oil used on new cutlery was still present on the knife indicating the knife had never been used.
Jill Shively testified to the 1994 grand jury that she saw a white Ford Bronco speeding away from Bundy Drive, in such a hurry that it almost collided with another car at an intersection.[5] She talked to the television show Hard Copy for $5,000, after which prosecutors declined to use her testimony at trial.[5]
A women's shelter, Sojourn, received a call from Nicole Brown four days prior to the murders saying that she was scared of her ex-husband, who she felt was stalking her.[5] The prosecution did not present this in court because they thought that Judge Ito would rule the evidence to be hearsay.[5] In addition, friends and family indicated that Nicole Brown had consistently said that Simpson had been stalking her.[5] She claimed that everywhere she went, she noticed Simpson would be there, watching her. Her friends Faye Resnick and Cynthia Shahian said she was afraid because Simpson had told her he would kill her if he ever found her with another man.[5]
Former NFL player and pastor Rosey Grier visited Simpson at the Los Angeles County Jail in the days following the murders. A jailhouse guard, Jeff Stuart, testified to Judge Ito that at one point Simpson yelled to Grier that he "didn't mean to do it", after which Grier had urged Simpson to come clean.[5] Ito ruled that the evidence was hearsay and could not be allowed in court.[5]

[Mike]

My position:

In 1996, defense attorney Robert Shapiro wrote a book, The Search for Justice, in which he criticizes F. Lee Bailey as a "loose cannon" and Johnnie Cochran for bringing race into the trial.[29] He didn't believe Simpson was framed by the LAPD for racial reasons, but believed the verdict was correct due to reasonable doubt.[29]

[Skooby]

My position:

In 1996, defense attorney Robert Shapiro wrote a book, The Search for Justice, in which he criticizes F. Lee Bailey as a "loose cannon" and Johnnie Cochran for bringing race into the trial.[29] He didn't believe Simpson was framed by the LAPD for racial reasons, but believed the verdict was correct due to reasonable doubt.[29]

The Romans knew how to handle lawyers.

[Coach Sal]

If anyone knows who Dr Henry Lee is I attended a seminar put on by him around 2005 - 06. He testified at OJ's trial. I'm a retired crime lab analyst and Lee brought out some things that may lend creedence to this story. Lee claims that there were 2 sets of bloody foot prints at the scene and that it appears that OJ was not the only one at the scene. At the seminar he more or less came to the same conclusion without actually saying it that OJ was covering up for his son. He also said the the blood swabbings taken at the scene that matched OJ contained preservative, meaning that that prticular blood had been in a test tube prior to being swabbed at the scene. Interesting stuff

After the trial I remember watching SportsCenter and Keith Olberman was relaying a story that a news reporter asked Henry Lee if there was anyone else the police should have looked at.

According to Olberman, Lee said, "Yes, Jason."

Always remembered that which makes all of this even more interesting to me.

[Coach Sal]

You should have watched the trail. There was proof of 'planted evidence' among other incobsistancies. In the, the OJ trail was a perfect example of the media painting a picture of guilt (well before the trail), getting one sided interviews & evidence during the trail (supported their initial premise), blaming the jury, great lawyers, the police once he was acquitted (stuck with original position & blamed others). The OJ coverage was very one sided, it's amazing that he got off.

PS: I thought he was guilty until I really deved into it

I watched almost the entire trial and I'm pretty sure that any reasonable person who did came to the same conclusion:

The LAPD framed a guilty man.

All of what you say is true. But it's very reasonable to believe, after watching it unfold, they planted evidence and did other things to "tighten up" the case and be sure they got their man.

That's enough to understand the "not guilty" verdict. But it doesn't mean he didn't do it.

[Mike]

I watched almost the entire trial and I'm pretty sure that any reasonable person who did came to the same conclusion:

The LAPD framed a guilty man.

All of what you say is true. But it's very reasonable to believe, after watching it unfold, they planted evidence and did other things to "tighten up" the case and be sure they got their man.

That's enough to understand the "not guilty" verdict. But it doesn't mean he didn't do it.

It seems that way. The doubt really comes aa a result of the 'planted evidence'. It begs the question, "how do you know they didn't plant some of the other evidence"? That alone leads to reasonable doubt.

The LAPD & Crime Lab did a very poor job on this case.