OJ didnt do this either (riiiiiiight!)

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by buckymcnix

of course it did.
he was presented as someone who found a key piece of evidence.
he was also proven to be lying under oath.
why do you think that that shouldn't taint the other things he said or a juror's overall impression of his testimony?

Both prosecution and defense try to shake the credibility of the opposing side's witnesses. It is nothing new.

his use of racial slurs does not negate his finding of key evidence
nor does it explain away the blood in OJ's car, the blood in OJ's house, the missing clothes, the fact that he had a disguise, and was planning to leave via airplane for other destinations, his threat of suicide, the knife, or any other HARD evidence. Does it account for what one of the kids saw/heard? NO. Does it explain away the fact that Nicole's breasts were slashed and her implants removed? NO.

Mark Fuhrman's use of racial slur had no bearing on anything other than to prejudice the jury as I said. If a jury could ignore all the other HARD evidence, and focus instead on the fact that a detective used racial slurs, then they werent concentrating on justice for two murdered people, but rather allowing themselves to be manipulated. No wonder attorneys think juries are stupid.

[irishgrl]

found this on a blog

Reasons Why The OJ Trial Is The Most Absurd Event in the History of America


Jamie Lednik
[From Spy mag.]

101-200 of 1001

101. Police concluded it would have been all but impossible for Fuhrman
to have taken a glove from the crime scene and plant it at OJ's house.
102. According to testimony by Robert Riske, the first officer at the
crime scene, police had noticed all of the evidence before Fuhrman had
arrived.
103. All of the evidence samples had been collected and logged before OJ
ever gave police his blood sample.
104. Fourteen officers arrived at the crime scene long before Fuhrman
and saw no glove for him to abscond with.
105. Fuhrman was never out of sight of other officers.
106. Video footage showed that Fuhrman was not wearing his jacket during
the investigation, making it impossible to conceal a bloody glove.
107. Kato Kaelin reported hearing three loud thumps on his wall near
where the glove was found, thumps that he heard before police knew of
the murders.
108. Fuhrman had no way of knowing whether Simpson would have an alibi
for the time when the murders occurred.
109. Furhman did not even know whether eyewitnesses might emerge to say
they saw the crimes committed.
110. Fibers on the glove were later found to be consistent with those
from the inside of OJ's car, a fact that Fuhrman could not have
predicted when he reported finding the glove.
111. OJ's book has a photograph of his son Jason wearing OJ's LAPD
baseball cap, given to him by the force.
112. Ron Shipp, a former LAPD officer, often played tennis at OJ's
estate.
113. Against policy, he introduced 40 autograph-hungry cops to the star.
114. One of the security guards helping then-murder suspect OJ elude
photographers at Nicole's funeral was Sgt. Dennis Sebenik, an off-duty
LAPD officer.
115. Although OJ was the sole suspect at the time, LAPD officials agreed
to let him turn himself in after the murders.
116. The gun that OJ held to his head during the Bronco chase was
registerd to Earl C. Paysinger, a respected LAPD cop.
117. He had bought the gun for OJ for his own security prior to the
murders.
118. After the 1989 incident, Det. John Edwards allowed OJ to go back
inside his home, unaccompanied, to get dressed before being taken into
custody.
119. Instead, OJ jumped into his Bentley and fled the scene.
120. Prior to 1989, police responded to Nicole's calls at least seven
times, yet OJ was not arrested and no report was taken.
121. Black Police chief Willie Williams: "The idea that you could get
detective from several different units, police officers, civilian
technicians . . . and who knows what else together and contrive a plot
and keep it secret is unbelievable . . . . It's too fanciful to
imagine. It's something that belongs in Disneyland."
122. OJ had pressured Nicole to get breast implants, then worried that other men would look at her breasts. Her body was found with her breasts slashed.
123. Six days before the murders, Nicole discovered that a spare set of
keys to her condo -- including the security gate from the street -- was
missing.
124. On the flight to Chicago, OJ got up to use the bathroom every 15
minutes.
125. Forensic expert Henry Lee, who disputed many of the prosecutions's
blood evidence, was at Kardashian's house with OJ and AC the night
before they made their escape.
126. The two women lawyers brought in to coach OJ during mock trial
sessions told the Dream Team that OJ would be no match for Clark on the
stand.
127. On the day of the murders, OJ phoned Playmate Traci Adell, whom he
had never met, and told her about the end of his rlationship with
Nicole: "I've had enough. I've lived my life."
128. Adell said, "I think he knew that he would lose it if he didn't
stop soon."
129. The night of the murders, OJ left a message for Gretchen Stockdale,
a former LA Raiders cheerleader: "Hey, Gretchen, sweetheart, it's
Orenthal James, who is finally at a place in his life where he is, like,
totally, totally unattached with everybody. Hah! Hah!"
130. Four days before the murders, OJ rented a pay-per-view porn film
called _The Genesis Chamber,_ in which a blond woman is raped at
knifepoint.
131. Less than two weeks before the murders, Navy SEALs taught OJ the
"Silent Kill" knife attack technique for his TV pilot _Frogman._
132. In the weeks before the murders, OJ still referred to Nicole as "my
wife."
133. An LA drug dealer came forward and testified under polygraph that
he had sold OJ and Kato $100 worth of crystal meth -- a drug with
notoriously violent side effects -- shortly before the murders occurred,
which they snorted in OJ's Bentley in a Burger King parking lot.
134. At first, Kato refused to tell his friends what he knew, saying,
"It's too big."
135. When OJ visited the crime scene to identify Nicole's body, officers
reported he was cool and calm.
136. OJ never asked the police how, where, or when Nicole had been
killed when they called him.
137. At the funeral, Nicole's mother asked if OJ had anything to do with
the murders. He responded: "Oh! Oh! Oh! Judi, I loved her. I loved
her too much."
138. As she lay in the casket, OJ pulled up Nicole's dress and pulled
down her collar to look at the wounds.
139. As the casket was lowered into the ground, a woman next to OJ
moaned. OJ whispered to her, "**** happens."
140. Another woman alleges that OJ was trying to hit on her at the
funeral.
141. The defense contends there was a massive struggle, but Nicole's
children slept through the murders.
142. OJ on giving the police a fake name when arrested as a youth: "I
was really putting one over, a teenage black kid fooling the
Establishment."
143. Kardashian picked OJ up at the airport and drove him home the day
after the murders.
144. Several pieces of OJ's luggage ended up at Kardashian's home.
145. Later they re-emerged, empty, inside OJ's closet.
146. Kardashian was not an active-status lawyer at the time of the
murders, but he paid the fees to reinstate his active status.
147. By activating his status and becoming a member of the the Dream
Team, Kardashian sought to dodge testifying on the grounds of
attorney-client privilege.
148. OJ took his golf clubs to Chicago, left them in the trunk of a
Hertz employee's car, then requested the clubs be flown to LA
immediately.
149. Rather than send someone to get the clubs, he and Kardashian went
to the airport to retrieve them.
150. If the knife had been in the golf bag, it wouldn't have set off the
airport metal detector.
151. When police tried to get documents regarding OJ's wife-beating from
his office, he was blocked by one of the defense and a court-appointed
master who was supervising the search of the office.
152. When the officer returned three weeks later, OJ's personal
assistant, Cathy Randa, had shredded them.
153. Robert Shapiro claimed they were merely "pamphlets" and
"brochures."
154. 6/13/94 Police notice cuts on OJ's hands. Shapiro later described
them as "paper cuts."
155. 6/17/94 DA Gil Garcetti refuses to blame the LAPD for OJ's escape:
"How many members of the media have been surrounding Mr. Simpson's house and he was able to get away somehow?"
156. 6/18/94 Defense attorney Johnnie Cochran on whether he will take
the case: "I just think the way I feel about him would preclude me from
giving him the best representation possible."
157. As AC Cowlings is released on $250,000 bail, he pushed past
reporters, cursing and snarling "Don't you have no respect?"
158. 6/19/94 Shapiro on OJ's state: "[He] started to cry, and said, 'I
wish I could spend Father's Day with my children.'"
159. 6/19/94 Shapiro added that he had delivered a "special message"
from the Rev. Billy Graham to OJ.
160. 6/23/94 The US Senate begins its day with a prayer for OJ from
Rev. Richard Halverson.
161. "We pray for OJ . . . . Whether he is innocent or guilty rests with
our system of justice. But our hearts go out to him in his profound
loss."
162. Halverson never prays for or even mentions either victim.
163. 6/24/94 The grand jury is dismissed because members may have been
tainted by broadcasts of Nicole's 911 calls, freeing OJ from indictment.
164. 6/27/94 A courthouse camera mike inadvertently picks up OJ's
comment to a baliff: "I'll do anything to stay out of that cell."
165. 6/29/94 OJ is moved to a new cell, so that he and cellblock
neighbor Erik Menendez will not be able to overhear each other's
conversations.
166. 6/30/94 Shapiro resists the prosecution request for 40-100 of OJ's
haris from comparison to those found on the knit hat at the crime scene,
and offers only one hair.
167. A man walks into court wearing one of the special badges that
identifies him as a member of the defense team, claiming to be "a good
friend of OJ's and Shapiro's"
168. Shapiro told deputies, "I've never seen him in my life," and they
hustled the man out.
l69. Kardashian and Leroy "Skip" Taft, OJ's business attorney, are so
mobbed by reporters that they run for a bus to go to a restaurant for
lunch.
170. The two lawyers hitched a ride in a squad car to return.
171. 7/1/94 Steven Schwab, who found Kato the Akita with bloody paws,
testified that he knew exactly when he had gone for the walk because he
timed it to be between _The Dick Van Dyke Show_ and _Mary Tyler Moore._
172. 7/5/94 Defense atty. Uelmen questions Det. Mark Fuhrman's ability
to recognize the blood on OJ's Bronco, asking whether dried blood
"look[s] different that dried taco sauce?"
173. Fuhrman retorts: "I don't take too much note of dried taco sauce,
so I couldn't really say."
174. 7/6/94 Shapiro contests Det. Vannatter's claim that police became
concerned when nobody answered the door at OJ's house, because they had
been told he had a live-in maid: "Does a full-time, live-in maid to you
mean 7 days a week, 24 hours a day?"
175. Vannatter snorts at the wealthy attorney: "I don't know, sir. I've
never had a maid."
176. 7/7/94 When Marcia Clark objects to Shapiro's questionaing of
Vannatter about his alleged mishandling of OJ's Bronco, he retorts, "I
haven't even finished. It gets better."
177. 7/8/94 Shapiro
...

[buckymcnix]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

his use of racial slurs does not negate his finding of key evidence
nor does it explain away the blood in OJ's car, the blood in OJ's house, the missing clothes, the fact that he had a disguise, and was planning to leave via airplane for other destinations, his threat of suicide, the knife, or any other HARD evidence. Does it account for what one of the kids saw/heard? NO. Does it explain away the fact that Nicole's breasts were slashed and her implants removed? NO.

Mark Fuhrman's use of racial slur had no bearing on anything other than to prejudice the jury as I said. If a jury could ignore all the other HARD evidence, and focus instead on the fact that a detective used racial slurs, then they werent concentrating on justice for two murdered people, but rather allowing themselves to be manipulated. No wonder attorneys think juries are stupid.

It has to do with him LYING about his using racial slurs.
Under oath.
The rationale being that if he would lie about one thing, then he could be lying about another.

and it also came out that he also was telling an author how you can set people up in law enforcement. I am not saying that he actually did those things, but he certainly seemed to know alot about how to do it, and it was enough to push an already suspicious jury to the other side.

I didn't say it explained away anything other than that it triggered "reasonable doubt" for some of the jury who were already inherently suspicious of the police. The prosecution did a terrible job of explaining the point you are now making to the jury. which was my original point right? that the prosecution was justifiably criticized for it's case presentation.

[buckymcnix]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

found this on a blog

none of the things you highlighted deal with him lying under oath.

I never said that I believed that he set up OJ or planted evidence, just that the prosecution did a piss poor job of rehabilitating him (i think marcia called him evil) once it was proven that he lied under oath, so i am not sure what point you are arguing with this post.

[irishgrl]

this bears repeating:

Mark Fuhrman's use of racial slur had no bearing on anything other than to prejudice the jury as I said. If a jury could ignore all the other HARD evidence, and focus instead on the fact that a detective used racial slurs, then they werent concentrating on justice for two murdered people, but rather allowing themselves to be manipulated. No wonder attorneys think juries are stupid.

the blog highlights referred to just a fraction of the hard evidence, as well as the fact that Fuhrman was not the guilty party, OJ was. Pretty clever of the defense to put Fuhrman on trial eh? To cast doubt on HIS character or his actions as if he was somehow responsible??

AGAIN: that Jury was more than willing to be sit there and focus on something entirely OFF TOPIC so as not to have to face the sorry fact that one of "their own" had actually murdered two innocent people.

[JWS]

Thanks for all the details. It doesn't matter. OJ confessed confidentailly to Al Cowlings that he killed Nicole and Goldman. This has been broadcast on ESPN radio years ago. ESPN couldn't put this on national TV but could discuss on local radio talk shows....talk radio vs, hard news. Note: ESPN radio is not in all markets, mostly the big cities like NY, LA Atlanta, etc.

The book "If I did it" is a confession of just how Simpson did it. Who is worse..Simpson or this dog killer Michael Vick. Well Simpson of course, but he was already out of football. It seems like many NFL players are just plain thugs and criminals. I'll give the new NFL commissioner Roger Goodell a lot of credit..he is cracking down on thug behavior and suspending these guys from the league.

I'm hoping OJ goes to prison for this latest bizzare behavior.

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by JWS

Thanks for all the details. It doesn't matter. OJ confessed confidentailly to Al Cowlings that he killed Nicole and Goldman. This has been broadcast on ESPN radio years ago. ESPN couldn't put this on national TV but could discuss on local radio talk shows....talk radio vs, hard news. Note: ESPN radio is not in all markets, mostly the big cities like NY, LA Atlanta, etc.

The book "If I did it" is a confession of just how Simpson did it. Who is worse..Simpson or this dog killer Michael Vick. Well Simpson of course, but he was already out of football. It seems like many NFL players are just plain thugs and criminals. I'll give the new NFL commissioner Roger Goodell a lot of credit..he is cracking down on thug behavior and suspending these guys from the league.

I'm hoping OJ goes to prison for this latest bizzare behavior.

I dont know that I'd say it doesnt matter, but I do believe (tho I didnt hear it on ESPN) that OJ confessed to Al, and that his book is another confession. I dont think he'll get any peace from it tho, because while he "confesses" with one side of his mouth, he denies with the other.

If he had a conscience, I'd expect it to be torturing him every waking moment of his life.

Who knows? perhaps he's just on a self destructive kick because he subconsciously believes he deserves it?

[buckymcnix]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

this bears repeating:



the blog highlights referred to just a fraction of the hard evidence, as well as the fact that Fuhrman was not the guilty party, OJ was. Pretty clever of the defense to put Fuhrman on trial eh? To cast doubt on HIS character or his actions as if he was somehow responsible??

AGAIN: that Jury was more than willing to be sit there and focus on something entirely OFF TOPIC so as not to have to face the sorry fact that one of "their own" had actually murdered two innocent people.

Ok then - well this bears repeating:
He lied. He lied under oath in front of the jury. Hard Evidence. It wasn't clever of the defense to point this out because, as i stated, both defense and prosecution try to get at the opposing witnesses's credibility. Standard operating procedure. The prosecution should have expected it.

fuhrman was guilty of lying under oath.
the defense pointed it out.
the prosecution couldn't rehabilitate their own witness.
AGAIN- that was what we disagreed on, whether the prosecution did a good job or not. You said they were unjustifiably criticized. I didn't agree with you and feel that they are in many ways responsible for the innocent verdict.


Now you seem to want to shift the argument to the jury being clueless, easily manipulated and worried about the fate of "one of their own" over justice. I think the prosecution didn't reach them and when it did, it wasn't in a good way (the glove demo).

Maybe when the prosecution took a lying racist and put him under oath and then were surprised when it blew up in their faces proves as a good example of my original point - they blew it.

It is not "OFF TOPIC" to consider the consequences of a lying witness.
Can you really not see that?

[irishgrl]

again: it doesnt negate the REST of the prosecution's case. the knife, the blood, the trip down the freeway, the DV 911 calls, the threats, the disguise, etc.

Mark Fuhrman's credibility is only a SMALL piece of the whole pie. *edited out comment*

FYI: The prosecution didnt lose that case because of one compromised witness--there was no way in HELL the prosecution was going to reach THAT PARTICULAR JURY. The verdict was a done deal once the change of venue was granted. *edited out the "FACT" comment, because actually its my OPINION.*

[buckymcnix]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

again: it doesnt negate the REST of the prosecution's case. the knife, the blood, the trip down the freeway, the DV 911 calls, the threats, the disguise, etc.

Mark Fuhrman's credibility is only a SMALL piece of the whole pie. You are no better than that jury if you cant see that.

FYI: The prosecution didnt lose that case because of one compromised witness--there was no way in HELL the prosecution was going to reach THAT PARTICULAR JURY. The verdict was a done deal once the change of venue was granted. FACT.

I didn't claim to be better than anyone at all, but for the record, agreeing or not with you will NEVER be a rating scale in my life.

on topic:
i do not agree with the jury's conclusions, i am only saying that i can see how they got there. and my contention was the prosecution did a poor job presenting it's case and that played a hand in it. i believe that the change of venue changed the dynamics of the case but i do not hold the cynical view that the jury was only out to save "one of their own" and couldn't be reached.

You remove all blame from the prosecution and want to pin it solely on the jury as some form of racism. I disagree whole-heartedly. I believe there are plenty of reasons why the verdict came down as it did and not solely because of the change of venue.

I have really tried to have a reasoned discussion with you, but I really don't think you read or understand what i write, because i find myself repeating basic things.
That's all for me on this.

[irishgrl]

Im not asking you to agree with me, Im merely pointing out that that case was more than just Mark Fuhrman's gaffe. The jury couldnt get past it? I submit that it never mattered anyway, that with that jury, OJ was never in jeopardy. A ROOM full of evidence wouldnt have swayed that jury. IMO.

In the end, whether I stated it as such originally or not, I am only stating an OPINION. I edited my previous post to reflect that.

I found some interesting facts on OJ's jury From the UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI-KANSAS CITY (UMKC) SCHOOL OF LAW: here

The racial composition of the initial jury pool differed considerably from the racial compostion of the final jury. The pool was 40% white, 28% black, 17% Hispanic, and 15% Asian. (the final jury makeup was 9 blacks, 2 whites and 1 hispanic)

The racial composition of the jury was strongly influenced by the decision of the prosecution to file the Simpson case in downtown Los Angeles rather than--as is usually the case-- in the judicial district where the crime occurred-- in this case, Santa Monica. Had the case be filed in Santa Monica, the Simpson jury would have been mostly white instead of, as was the case, mostly African-American. With poll data showing that most whites believed Simpson to be guilty and most blacks believing him to be not guilty, the decision to file the case in Santa Monica may have been the biggest mistake the prosecution made. Vincent Bugliosi, the celebrated prosecutor in the Charles Manson case, said the mistake "dwarfed anything the defense did."

here is a nicely laid out page on the timeline/trial/etc:
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/proj.../Evidence.html

1. The 9-1-1 call and the history of Simpson's violence directed at Nicole Brown.

2. Hair evidence: (1) hairs consistent with that of Simpson found on cap at Bundy residence, (2) hairs consistent with that of Simpson found on Ron Goldman's shirt.

3. Fiber evidence: (1) cotton fibers consistent with the carpet in the Bronco found on glove at Rockingham, (2) fibers consistent with the carpet from the Bronco found on cap at Bundy residence.

4. Blood evidence: (1) killer dropped blood near shoe prints at Bundy, (2) blood dropped at Bundy was of same type as Simpson's (about 0.5% of population would match), (3) Simpson had fresh cuts on left hand on day after murder, (4) blood found in Bronco, (5) blood found in foyer and master bedroom of Simpson home, (5) blood found on Simpson's driveway.

5. Glove evidence: (1) left glove found at Bundy and right glove found at Simpson residence are Aris Light gloves, size XL, (2) Nicole Brown bought pair of Aris Light XL gloves in 1990 at Bloomingdale's, (3) Simpson wore Aris Light gloves from 1990 to June, 1994.

6. Shoe evidence: (1) shoe prints found at Bundy were from a size 12 Bruno Magli shoe, (2) bloody shoe impression on Bronco carpet is consistent with a Magli shoe, (3) Simpson wore a size 12 shoe.

7. Other evidence: (1) flight in Bronco, (2) strange reaction to phone call informing him of Nicole Brown's death, etc.

October 2, 1995 After less than four hours, jury announces that it has reached a verdict. (after 6 months of evidence????)

an acquittal in spite of all this evidence proves my point that the prosecution would NEVER have "reached" that particular jury.
Back to the ORIGINAL topic, I wonder if OJ isnt operating under some sort of psychological impetus to atone for past wrongs???

[DavidMn]

Funny, but the last time I checked, O.J still owes the Goldman's/Brown's 33 million dollars. And if I'm correct whatever money or **** he owns save his home and NFL pension goes to those 2 families until that money is paid in full. So the way I see it, none of that memorabilia actually belongs to him!

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by DavidMn

Funny, but the last time I checked, O.J still owes the Goldman's/Brown's 33 million dollars. And if I'm correct whatever money or **** he owns save his home and NFL pension goes to those 2 families until that money is paid in full. So the way I see it, none of that memorabilia actually belongs to him!

Ron Goldman actually petitioned the court for possession, I believe....

[Wildheart82]

Originally Posted by buckymcnix

I didn't claim to be better than anyone at all, but for the record, agreeing or not with you will NEVER be a rating scale in my life.

on topic:
i do not agree with the jury's conclusions, i am only saying that i can see how they got there. and my contention was the prosecution did a poor job presenting it's case and that played a hand in it. i believe that the change of venue changed the dynamics of the case but i do not hold the cynical view that the jury was only out to save "one of their own" and couldn't be reached.

You remove all blame from the prosecution and want to pin it solely on the jury as some form of racism. I disagree whole-heartedly. I believe there are plenty of reasons why the verdict came down as it did and not solely because of the change of venue.

I have really tried to have a reasoned discussion with you, but I really don't think you read or understand what i write, because i find myself repeating basic things.
That's all for me on this.

You have the patience of Job!!!!!!!!!!

[buckymcnix]

Originally Posted by Wildheart82

You have the patience of Job!!!!!!!!!!

and poor eyesight too i guess - lol