My obligatory post on OJ Simpson's guilt in the murder of his wife: DNA evidence proved it.

[cali]

Because so many DUers seem to think there was reasonable doubt, I want to remind them that there was a shitload of DNA evidence linking him to the crime. Nicole's blood on one his socks, his blood at the scene.
I suppose you could argue that all this evidence was planted, but ignoring the mass of DNA evidence is just bizarre.

Here, check out the thousands of links to the DNA evidence

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=oj+simpson+dna+evidence&aq=2&oq=OJ+Simpson+DNA

[Dogmudgeon]

1. Google "proves" Creationism the same way

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=oj+simpson+dna+evidence&aq=2&oq=OJ+Simpson+DNA ..... 55,000 hits.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=scientific+creationism&btnG=Search ......... 300,000 hits.

Bad cases make bad law -- and worse public outrage.

--p!

[cali]

3. oh for pity's sake. No, google does not prove creationism in the same way

you're every bit as likely to see scientific articles debunking creationism when you google it, as to see articles (non-scientific) defending it.

Now just for laughs, pig, tell me how the masses of DNA evidence linking OJ to the murder, aren't real science.

[Dogmudgeon]

43. ... bad law and worse public outrage ...

You have no monopoly on pity, hand-wringing -- or outrage. But you do seem to be adept at snap judgments, especially incorrect ones. "You're either with me or you're against me" should sound pretty familiar to all of us by now.

Since I do not share your rage, I must be "on OJ's side" -- right?

Wrong.

The entire OJ case depended on the trail of physical evidence, which was contaminated and mishandled. Heavily contaminated and grossly mishandled. The compromising of so much of the evidence ("masses of DNA evidence") led directly to the acquittal. The loss-by-ineptitude of so much evidence in the body (the corpus) of a crime of extreme violence is an outrage. But it doesn't make for very good Internet outrage.

Since you need a laugh, you can start here -- FYI. I personally take this stuff seriously; do you?

http://www.fjc.gov/public/pdf.nsf/lookup/sciman09.pdf/$file/sciman09.pdf">Reference Guide on DNA Evidence
(This is a mal-formed link; you may need to query Goggle with the full title, or re-assemble "http://www.fjc.gov/public/pdf.nsf/lookup/sciman09.pdf/" plus a dollar sign, plus "file/sciman09.pdf" -- but the PDF is well worth working to get.)

http://www.geocities.com/cfpdlab/DNA.htm">DNA and Evidence Collection Principles (Primer for law enforcement.)

http://www.bioforensics.com/articles/champion1/champion1.html">Evaluating forensic DNA evidence: Essential elements of a competent defense review

http://www.google.com/search?q=evidence+handling+procedure&btnG=Search&hl=en&sa=2">Google search on "evidence handling procedure". Over 2 million hits; no Creationist links in at least the first 50-60 -- I checked.

http://www.bioforensics.com/conference07/Manipulation/index.html">Identifying the manipulation of DNA testing results. NOTE:There are several excellent papers this article links to, most of which are accessible to a layperson of even modest education.

http://www.law.northwestern.edu/faculty/fulltime/diamond/papers/JurorReactionsDNAEvidence.pdf">Juror Reactions to DNA Evidence: Errors and Expectancies. (Schklar and Diamond; Law and Human Behavior, Vol. 23, No. 2. (Apr., 1999), pp. 159-184.)

Proper evidence handling would have either put OJ securely behind bars, or removed all doubt about his innocence in the mind of an emotionally-manipulated public. Instead, we got a body of mishandled evidence that was dumped on Chris Darden and Marcia Clark to argue, and a criminal conviction in the court of public opinion, late-night TV, and the Internet.

So much for "the rule of law". Do you really want that media circus to come to town again?

I have no confidence in my ability to, entirely in my head, try a criminal court case. I must rely on the legal system to do so. If it says OJ in innocent and (e.g.) Mumia is guilty, that is all I have to go on. It is entirely proper to try to free the innocent who have been convicted (e.g. again, but only possibly, Mumia), but not to keep going after someone in the hope that eventually a verdict of "guilty" will be returned and the thirst of the Crowd for vengeance will be slaked.

--p!

[speedoo]

2. AND the murder of Ron Goldman...

I'm sure you meant to say that.

[mulsh]

4. and yet he was found not guilty

maybe it was the shoddy police work, you know homocide cops walking all over the murder scene before the tech team could get samples, perhaps it was the lead detective cruising around LA in mid June with the vial of O.J.'s blood in his pocket for 6 hours. Or maybe just maybe the verdict was pay back for all those guys the corrupt LA police force has railroaded over the years. just a guess on my part but what do I know my relative settled in LA back around 1900. oh the stories some of the could tell.

[JonLP24]

6. DNA evidence was relatively new at the time

I recall a juror saying "alot of people have the same blood" or something similar without realizing DNA is very unique.

If tried today he would definately be convicted but in perspective it was relatively new at the time and it wasn't until years later that cold cases were solved. The best example is the Green River killer from the Sea-Tac area when DNA linked him to murders that were 15 years old.

[JeanGrey]

11. The jurors weren't very bright. That statement is pretty

good proof.

[JonLP24]

17. I agree but with all things that are new

There is little to no understanding of it unless further looked into. It's been years since DNA has been used as evidence so we're all aware of how credible and damaging it is in cases today.

[slackmaster]

7. You left out one obvious possibility

The jury was collectively dumb.

BTW, the word is spelled "homicide".

[ecstatic]

112. The leading cop was a racist

Everybody in that jury probably had a bad experience with racist cops--whether it was being profiled, falsely accused, beaten, etc. I mean, LA was the home of Rodney King! That led the jury to doubt everything gathered by Furman, etc.

I didn't see the trial so I don't know everything that was presented and have no real input on OJ's guilt or lack thereof.

Just presenting the other side...

[gollygee]

21. I think it was shoddy police work

and that jurors didn't believe Mark Fuhrman.

But that doesn't mean he didn't actually do it. He was found "not guilty", which means the jury did not feel there was enough evidence to find him guilty. It does not mean he was found to be innocent.

[wtmusic]

30. A finding of "not guilty" is exactly the same as being found "innocent"

There are only two possibilities on each charge.

[gollygee]

38. The two possibilities are "Guilty" and "Not Guilty"

"Innocent" isn't an option and isn't the same as "Not Guilty". The burden is on the prosecution to find the defendant guilty, and if they can't prove guilt the defendant is found not guilty. That means the evidence wasn't available, either because the person was innocent or simply because there wasn't enough evidence to prove guilt.

[wtmusic]

40. You are wrong.

A finding of "not-guilty" is logically and legally equivalent to a finding of innocence (though not used in court, the press will commonly refer to such a finding as the defendant being found innocent).

Innocent until proven guilty.

[gollygee]

42. Try googling "innocent vs. not guilty" and see what you find

http://www.massbar.org/about-the-mba/press-room/journalists%27-handbook/6-not-guilty-does-not-mean-innocent

All too often when I listen to the radio or read the newspapers, I hear or see "at arraignment, the defendant pled innocent" or "the defendant was found innocent by the jury." The word "innocent" is being misused. "Innocent" cannot and should not be substituted for "not guilty."

Technically, only three pleas can be entered by a defendant who is brought before the court to answer the charges against him. Under the Massachusetts Rules of Criminal Procedure, the defendant may plead not guilty, guilty or nolo contendere to any crime with which he is charged and over which the court has jurisdiction. The rules that are applicable to the criminal sessions of the trial court do not provide the defendant with the option of pleading innocent. There is no such plea available.

Similarly, the Massachusetts Rules of Criminal Procedure provide for only two possible verdicts that can be returned by a jury: guilty or not guilty. There is no verdict of innocent. And, not guilty does not mean innocent.

When a jury returns a verdict of not guilty, that means that the state has not convinced the jury beyond a reasonable doubt as to all the elements of the crime with which the defendant has been charged. For example, in a first degree murder case, the state must prove that the defendant deliberately and with malice unlawfully caused the death of another human being. If the defendant presents a valid defense that he killed the victim in self-defense, then the defendant is not innocent of homicide -- he did in fact kill another human being -- but he is "not guilty" of homicide because the state did not convince the jury that the defendant acted with premeditated malice aforethought.

[wtmusic]

49. Absurd.

Homicide is "the killing of one human being by another"

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/homicide

and has nothing to do with premeditation or malice. Your link is wrong.

Let me approach this another way: what is this mysterious limbo-state in between not guilty and innocent? What legal ramifications are there?

[gollygee]

51. You could read any of the 3,230,000 websites that come up on the google search

they mean two different things. One means "We know you didn't do it." and the other means "We can't prove you did it." There is no obligation to prove innocence. There is no plea of innocence. Juries are unable to find someone innocent. It is not a job of the court to prove that anyone is innocent.

And thank you for letting us all know that you know more about the law than the Massachusetts Bar Association. Or any of the other thousands of lawyers who have discussed this on the internet.

[wtmusic]

52. "We know you didn't do it" is legally the same as "we can't prove it".

Unless you can provide a distinction which isn't semantic. :shrug:

[gollygee]

56. Fine, you know more than any lawyer on the planet about this issue

It's very important to people in the legal world for a reason. Innocence is not relevant in courts because it can almost never be proven and is not a reasonable burden to place upon the defendant. The prosecution has the burden and if they do not meet that burden, the person is found not guilty. But someone can be found not guilty but still factually be innocent. Innocence is a factual state that exists regardless of the trial's outcome, but courts can't and don't prove it. For instance, OJ Simpson was found not guilty, however I don't personally believe he is innocent.

Here are a couple of other links from lawyers explaining why the terms are not interchangeable.

http://www.lawyers.com/hgduvall/innocent.jsp

http://www.oregoncriminalattorney.com/innocent.html

I sat through dozens of trials when I worked as a newspaper reporter and I've heard lawyers and judges explain the difference between the two terms over and over again. You do not know more about the law than every lawyer in the country. Maybe you should rethink this.

[wtmusic]

62. You are confusing connotations with legality

and the idea that truth can ever be known in a court of law with certainty.

You say, "someone can be found not guilty but still factually be innocent." I agree -- but in truth courts can never "factually" prove guilt. A finding does not offer definitive proof - ever. We are left to "beyond a reasonable doubt", and logically this corresponds precisely with innocence, also "beyond a reasonable doubt".

Judges and lawyers can explain the difference until it comes out their ears, but not one of your 3 million links can illustrate a substantive difference between the two findings.

[gollygee]

65. No

No one is found innocent beyond a reasonable doubt. There is no way to prove innocence, even "beyond a reasonable doubt". It's either found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt or not found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. That's it.

[Ms. Toad]

106. There is a major substantive difference between the two

Not guilty means one of two things - EITHER guilt wasn't proven or the individual is actually innocent. Generally, when the trial ends no one knows (and no one particularly cares except for the formerly accused) which category of "not guilty" the verdict falls into.

The substantive distinction comes into play for individuals who were originally found guilty, but are later released from custody after it is established that they were wrongfully convicted in the first place - i.e. their status is modified to "not guilty" sometime after the trial.

Which category of not guilty they fall into determines whether the state is obligated to compensate them for the time they lost while sitting in jail when they were "not guilty." If it is merely that guilt was not proven, they are not entitled to compensation from the state (One famous case in Ohio is the case of Dr. Sam Sheppard. Here is the petition of Dr. Sam Sheppard for a declaration that he was actually innocent of his wife's murder, a pre-requesite to seeking compensation for wrongful imprisonment: http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/FTrials/sheppard/sheppardpetition.html The petition was denied and his estate got no money - he was still merely "not guilty" which did not entitle his estate to compensation from Ohio for his wrongful imprisonment). If the wrongfully convicted person is actually innocent, on the other hand, then the state owes them big bucks - In a more recent Ohio case, Clarence Elkins settled with Ohio for around $1,000,000 based on the complaint here: http://www.cco.state.oh.us/scripts/ccoc.wsc/ws_civilcasesearch_2007.r?mode=5&CaseNo=200601599 in which Paragraph 7 notes the conviction was reversed based on actual innocence.

So - you can actually prove innocence, but it is rarely done except following a long enough wrongful imprisonment for the payout to be worth it, with solid evidence of innocence to have a reasonable chance of success.

[JuniperLea]

66. You need to do some reading on the subject...

You are incorrect. There is a huge and legal difference.

[wtmusic]

67. Finally - someone with a legal difference.

What is it? :shrug:

[JuniperLea]

71. You need to follow the links that have already been provided.

It's very clear.

[wtmusic]

73. None that I saw offered a legal distinction

although since it's very clear, I'm sure you've got one handy.

[jberryhill]

81. OJ was found to have wrongfully caused the deaths of others

in the civil trial.

So, how do you reconcile the difference between the criminal and civil trial outcomes in terms of "he killed her" or "he didn't"?

[jberryhill]

80. Fermat's last theorem - true, but not proven for a very long time

Whether something is "true" or "provable" are two different things.

So, you are telling me that if you are subject to an illegal search which finds marijuana on you, and you are charged with possession, and then the search is excluded on 4th amendment grounds and you are found not guilty - that you weren't actually carrying marijuana?

That's just dumb.

The burden is on the state to prove things within a set of rules. Not everything that is true can be proven within those rules.

[maui9002]

46. I think the poster was not making a legal point

but one of practicality; there are defendants that are found "not guilty" by a jury because they haven't concluded beyond a reasonable doubt, based on the instructions given by the court, that a defendant is guilty of the crime being prosecuted, yet those same jurors actually believe that the defendant committed the act that formed the basis of the crime. There is also the possibility of jury nullification, where the jury believes the defendant to be guilty but exonerates him or her anyway for some extraneous reason (for example, in the Simpson case, to teach the LAPD a lesson about how they treat African American suspects).

[MiniMe]

61. No, You are

The decisions are either guilty or not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt or not guilty by reason of insanity. Being found not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt is not the same as being innocent. Innocent means that you didn't do it. Not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt means that you may think that he did it, but didn't think the evidence proved it beyond a reasonable doubt. That could be due to an incompetant prosecutor or other reasons. I am one who thinks the prosecution totally blew the case, as did the police with the chain of evidence in this case. And I think the jury chose correctly with what was presented to them. But I totally think he did it.

The other possibility, not guilty by reason of insanity is a bad possibility. To me, it doesn't mean you didn't do it, it means that you did it but you were insane when you did it, so you don't get punished.

[Raskolnik]

74. No, it is not.

Our criminal justice system is not designed to find someone "innocent" of a crime. Under our system, you are presumed innocent until the state has met its burden of proof. If the state cannot meet that burden, a defendant is found "not guilty" and the presumption of innocence remains.

[pnwmom]

5. And there were the photos of the past beatings he'd given Nicole.

And the fact that, facing arrest, he tried to escape to Mexico.

And since then, his book -- entitled "If I did it."

Describing how he did it. Can anyone seriously imagine a wronged man ever even thinking of writing such a book? He was just rubbing his guilt in our faces.

[MountainLaurel]

8. Not to mention

The fact that he'd threatened to kill her on multiple occasions. It was a textbook domestic murder.

[RaleighNCDUer]

13. Have you read the book?

Just curious.

[pnwmom]

22. No, just the reviews. Here's a tiny sample, from Amazon.

From Publishers Weekly
With an audacity that vilifies O.J. Simpson more than any other author could, Simpson himself provides a fictional tell-all account of the murders of Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown. Simpson seems to be more concerned about how the press poorly portrayed the facts—not about his murderous acts but of his personal life and relationship with Nicole. When he's not lamenting about how he is misunderstood, he's playing arm-chair therapist for Nicole (claiming she was involved with drugs, constantly erratic and still hopelessly longing for him). Simpson insists it was Nicole's actions that ultimately forced him to murder her.

[MiniMe]

63. The interviews with Nicole's ex-boyfriends after the trial were very convincing

Apparently, OJ would stalk them. They would be sitting on the couch with Nicole and OJ would be outside the house looking in. It was interesting because they interviewed these guys after the fact, and showed the tapes to some of the jury members, and it totally changed their minds. The prosecution blew it by relying too much on DNA and not bringing up those very real stories imho. Those stories showed OJ's obsession with Nicole.

[pnwmom]

92. Interesting. I never heard about that. n/t

[JeanGrey]

9. No. You can't argue the evidence was "planted" because it

was impossible to do so. All of the crime scene evidence was collected before they got the sample from OJ, not to mention ALL OF THE BLOOD has EDTA in it, preservative, and none of that was found in any of the collected blood.

Your effort posting is noble but I've posted it about a zillion times along with a lot of facts and the doubters will never believe it because they don't want to.

[LiberalHeart]

10. Nah. As Henry Lee said re the blood evidence: "Something wrong."

[RaleighNCDUer]

12. When you can't prove the source of the DNA you MUST ignore the

DNA evidence.

If he slaughtered Nicole and Goldman, how come only Nicole's blood was found? There was plenty of time for Fuhrman to collect blood from the body and place it where he wanted it - just as there was time for him to plant OJ's blood after carrying it around all day.

This is a 20 year cop - and he doesn't understand procedure and chain of possession of evidence?

What about the weapon that was never found? The clothes OJ supposedly disposed of (while not disposing of that one sock)?

The jury did not go off on some wild tangent - the government did not prove its case, and the slipshod investigation, which started with a suspect and worked from there to prove him guilty, left so much room for doubt that no rational jury could have convicted him.

[wtmusic]

23. The government proved its case to one part in 5 billion

and that's just the blood. What about the gloves? OJ's footprint? The chain of evidence had far more integrity than most murder trials - but OJ had powerful attorneys doing their best to make the cracks look bigger than they were.

It worked.

[RaleighNCDUer]

25. If you don't know the origin of the blood the blood must be disregarded.

The gloves didn't fit. The footprint was his size, but no one ever found a shoe that matched.

BTW, if he DID do it, and he disposed of all the bloody clothing he was wearing (except that one sock that had one drop of blood) why didn't he dispose of the gloves, too? Isn't it just a little odd that the shoes, pants and shirt would completely vanish, but the gloves would be so conveniently found when they pretty much had to be the bloodiest single item of the bunch?

It doesn't add up.

[wtmusic]

28. You never "know" the origin of a blood sample.

DNA tests proved that blood found at the scene of the crime had a 5,000,000,000:1 chance of being OJs.

Case closed.

[RaleighNCDUer]

31. You mean it undoubtedly matched the blood that the lead investigator

was carrying around with him for half a day. The lead investigator who was a known racist, who despised the idea of a black man being married to a white woman. You mean THAT blood?

Gotta throw out any evidence that cannot be shown to have clear provenance. The question, since the crime scene was so compromised and the motives of the lead investigator so suspect, is not if the blood matched, but how did it get there.

[wtmusic]

34. Just where would Fuhrman get OJ's blood?

Did he fly to Chicago the same morning and cajole OJ for a sample surreptitiously, then fly back and plant it?

If only all death row inmates have the same opportunity to buy the "doubt" that OJ did.

Ridiculous.

:crazy:

[RaleighNCDUer]

39. One of the very first things he did upon locating OJ was get a sample

of his blood (which he had not right or authority to demand and which OJs lawyer should have refused). Upon getting the vial of drawn blood, he then carried it around with him for better than 6 hours, visiting the crime scene at least twice in that time. Only after all that time did he turn in the sample to the forensics lab for DNA typing.

You really need to know what you are talking about before spouting off.

[wtmusic]

45. Wrong. OJ's blood was collected the next day.

"Matheson showed jury members a chart of serology test results and explained how tests had been carried out on various items found at the crime scene. The results were compared to blood taken from Simpson by police the day after the June 12, 1994 murders and to blood samples taken from the bodies of the victims."

http://www.courttv.com/casefiles/simpson/criminal/summary/week15.html

The only thing keeping me interested in this absurd suspension of logic is the depth of your denial.

[RaleighNCDUer]

58. It is astonishing how you could read that but miss everything else

in the link.

The defense KNEW when the blood was taken from OJ, and also KNEW when the blood sample evidence was collected. There is no way they would have proposed the theory that the drawn blood was used to plant blood in his car etc if the blood was drawn AFTER the samples were taken. It would be easily disproved and a rank amateur mistake. Therefore, they KNEW that the samples found in his car were found AFTER the blood was taken from him the next day. As for his blood found at the scene, we have only the word of the racist lead investigator that the sample was taken when he says it was.

And what about the blood under the fingernails which the defense showed was not OJ's or Nicole's? Was it ever DNA typed? The lab said it was only typed by the old method, and when it was not shown to be OJ's they ignored it, because they wanted OJ to be guilty and they ignored any evidence that did not support that claim.

That's all right there, in your link.

[JeanGrey]

109. There was NO EDTA in any of the swatches taken.

Don't you understand that? No EDTA means no planted blood.

[RaleighNCDUer]

116. From Wiki -

EDTA played a role in the O.J. Simpson trial when one of the blood samples collected from Simpson's estate was found to contain traces of the compound. This was used by the defense to indicate that the sample had been planted from one of the vials collected during the investigation. Prosecution claimed EDTA might have appeared in the sample as a result of eating McDonald's foods (either through bloodstream or, more likely, via contamination of blood flowing over the hand used in grabbing the food)

[JeanGrey]

117. They are wrong. None did.

Because OJ's samples were collected AFTER the crime scene samples.

[JeanGrey]

118. Look. There was nothing planted.

And the judge at the civil trial would not allow the defense to make such a suggestion because it had been proven that it wasn't possible to plant anything.

Planting makes no logical sense at all! Simpson was a famous man and known to almost every police officer. Remember how they wouldn't do anything when Nicole called them? They'd laugh and joke with the "Juice".

Now keep in mind when they all got to the murder scene, They HAD NO IDEA where Simpson was. He could have been out of the country, or dining with Kissinger, and have an air tight alibi - what group of police are going to risk their careers on something that stupid? Especially when they had enough evidence in front of them. You don't "frame" someone you don't know the whereabouts of!

To suggest such a thing is plainly absurd.

You can't. Sorry. He did it.

[JeanGrey]

119. Planting was impossible.

And the judge at the civil trial would not allow the defense to make such a suggestion because it had been proven that it wasn't possible to plant anything.

Planting makes no logical sense at all! Simpson was a famous man and known to almost every police officer. Remember how they wouldn't do anything when Nicole called them? They'd laugh and joke with the "Juice".

Now keep in mind when they all got to the murder scene, They HAD NO IDEA where Simpson was. He could have been out of the country, or dining with Kissinger, and have an air tight alibi - what group of police are going to risk their careers on something that stupid? Especially when they had enough evidence in front of them. You don't "frame" someone you don't know the whereabouts of!

To suggest such a thing is plainly absurd.

You can't. Sorry. He did it.

[JeanGrey]

98. Only ONE PROBLEM. ALL of the crime scene blood had

already been collected BEFORE the sample was gotten from OJ. You need to read some of the transcripts.

[JeanGrey]

96. Yup! Not to mention he had cuts on his left hand, and the

blood was dripped by someone on the LEFT SIDE. He stipulated the blood was his and so did the defense because it WAS. It could not have been planted, because ALL of the blood samples were collected before OJ gave his sample. Case Closed.

[JeanGrey]

95. Oh please.

Someone helped OJ to dispose of the clothing. More than likely they ended up in the trash in the bag he carried to the airport.

He dropped one the gloves at the crime scene.

The bloody footprints were made by his rare shoes and were, by the way, pigeon-toed (as is Simpson).
They were Bruno Magli shoes, Simpson's shoes.

[TahitiNut]

48. Haven't you heard? The police, ESPECIALLY the LA police, never plant evidence.

They're all totally honest and color-blind. They NEVER even noticed that OJ was black and Nicole was white - no matter the photographs in her condo. Besides ... everyone knew OJ detested his kids and didn't care if they lost their mother or even had to discover her body.

Mark Fuhrman was a paragon of virtue. :shrug:

[RaleighNCDUer]

60. Oh, hey, I'm sorry. I forgot.

Never mind. I'll get back in line now.

[JeanGrey]

97. Mark Fuhrman had nothing to do with it.

[JeanGrey]

94. What are you talking about? Fuhrman could NOT have

planted any blood, he was the 16th cop on the scene!! And ALL of the blood evidence was collected before OJ gave his samples. No planting was possible. What do you mean only Nicole's blood was found?

List of blood and fiber evidence:

On Bundy Glove:

One hair from Nicole Brown Simpson
Bloody fibers consistent with Ronald Lyle Goldman's shirt
Fibers from Ron Goldman's jeans

Rockingham Glove:
Hairs from Nicole Simpson
Three hairs from Ron Goldman
Fibers from Ron Goldman's shirt
Fiber from Simpson's Bronco

On Ron Goldman's shirt:
Simpson's hair
25 hairs from Nicole Simpson
Four torn fibers from Nicole Simpson's dress
Fibers from the knit cap
Fiber consistent with the cashmere lining of both gloves
Many blue-black fibers

Ronald Goldman's pants:
Hairs consistent with Nicole Simpson's
Hair from the Akita

On the blue knit cap at 875 South Bundy Drive
Hairs from the Akita
12 hairs of Simpson's.
Fibers from Ron Goldman's shirt
One fiber from the cashmere lining of the glove
One fiber from the Bronco carpet

Blood evidence at 875 South Bundy
Blood drops near the bodies, Simpson's blood
4 blood drops on walkway, all Simpson's
Blood on rear gate, Simpson's
2 footprints, size 12 Bruno Magli loafers with Nicole Simpson's blood
Blood stain from Ron's boot matched both his and Nicole Simpson's blood

From the Bronco
Red stained fibers from driver's floor
Red stained carpet fibers from driver-side floor
Red carpet stain resembling partial shoe print

Blood drop of Simpson's found on driver's door interior, and in two places on instrument panel
Blood on steering wheel, mixture of Simpson and Nicole Simpson
Simpson's blood on center console
More blood on center console matched both Simpson's and Ronald Goldman's
Blood on driver's side wall matched Simpson's
Blood on carpet matched Simpson
Several blood samples on center console matched Simpson's, Ronald Goldman and Nicole Simpson's.

Blood evidence at Rockingham
Blood on glove matched Ronald Goldman's
Four blood samples on a sock: Nicole and Simpson's
Blood drops in foyer - Simpson's
Blood trail on driveway - Simpson's


So you see, you are wrong. The case was MORE than proven. The jury wasn't going to convict no matter what they were presented with.

[yodoobo]

14. I'm just glad he didn't kill again during his timeoff

Fortunately, Karma caught up with him and he's back where he belongs...and it didn't require someones else death to put him there.

[earth mom]

15. No one wanted to see OJ guilty-most of America was shocked & sad. But the evidence was overwhelming.

However, the jury all thought it was racism at work and CHOSE-yes it was denial to the nth degree-to kept their :tinfoilhat:s on in spite of all the evidence.

And I say that as someone who wears a :tinfoilhat: in regards to * Co & the global powers that be that are behind him. So I know about wearing "the hat".

But to be in such denial about OJ when there is DNA evidence that proves that OJ is guilty is just flat out stupid IMO.

Hell, OJ even wrote a book telling how he did it!!!

So come on people, it's WAY past time to get honest with yourselves.

[mnmoderatedem]

16. unreasonable doubt

I always wondered how the jury could have come up with reasonable doubt when, not only did 17 different uniformed officers and investigators show up at various times and apparantly decide right there on the spot to frame OJ, but with the blood at the crime scene collected well before OJ's sample blood was taken, indicating the conspiracy also included those involved in the crime lab was well.

Jeebus, there was even blood residue evidence in OJ's shower drain, as he attempted to hose himself off before catching the place to Chicago.

I read Bugliosi's book regarding the case; he gives the lion's share of the blame to the prosecution, for not explaining the DNA evidence to the jury clearly enough, among other things...

[IDemo]

18. I read "Outrage" by Bugliosi as well

The prosecution team and judge Ito were almost criminally inept in their handling of the trial. But, that said, there is no reasonable doubt that he did it.

[JeanGrey]

111. I read his book too and I don't agree. I followed the trial

and it just wasn't that hard to grasp. The jury was NOT going to convict OJ from the beginning, and several of the members just weren't that bright. One woman said she forgot there even WAS blood evidence, and another juror talked about attending OJ's victory party once it was "all over".

It was a travesty of justice............

[opihimoimoi]

19. "If it don't FIT, ya must ACQUIT"...I am so glad the dude is in jail facing a 15 to life sentence on

Dec 4th

I hope the Judge gives him 25 plus....

[JeanGrey]

99. Actually he will get what amounts to life. There are TWO counts

of kidnapping and each carry 15 to life. That doesn't count the other charges. I doubt the judge will be lenient.

OJ is going to jail for life.

[CitizenPatriot]

20. read "evidence dismissed"

I met the officer who wrote it and the things he told me that couldn't even be put in the book were chilling.

the book alone is chilling.

sorry to be so gruesome, but to those of you who think that he is innocent because "only nicole's blood" showed up on his socks and shoes....um, how did that blood get there? is that a normal thing, to have your ex's blood all over your socks and shoes? Not so much.

I'm married and we even live together (unlike Nicole and OJ at the time) and I haven't yet had a day where my husband's blood was on my socks or shoes.

Just sayin'.

the guy was guilty as sin- classic, textbook domestic violence case. documented way before he killed her. TV footage of cops coming to the house, she was all beaten to a pulp and he would be kicking her out. Really ugly stuff.

It is a total shame that anyone would continue to defend this garbage. It was a hate crime, and poor Ron Goldman got caught up in it by accident. OJ needs to be locked up, away from people.

Period.

[Mandate My Ass]

24. yes it was a classic rage killing - Nicole was stabbed many times in the face

The domestic abuse angle was never pursued at trial but this was textbook. She dissed him publicly that day and he was enraged. The manner in which she was killed demonstrated that this was deeply personal.

Most abusers kill their spouses after they get away and are starting a new life in which they aren't somebody's punching bag anymore. He did it. Period.

[wtmusic]

27. Domestic abuse was pursued vigorously at trial

Remember the police reports and photos of battered Nicole?

OJ bragging in a bar how his wife's genitals "belonged to him"?

There is no hell hot enough for that murderous pig.

[JeanGrey]

110. Yes. He knocked her unconscious first, that much we know,

and then Ron came in and most likely found OJ bending over her. Sworn testimony of the young white man voice and older black man's voice where Ron said "hey hey hey" and a black voice was heard arguing. It is painfully obvious what happened. He tried to go to Nicole's defense as she was unconscious and OJ killed him in a rage. He then put his foot on Nicole's back, pulled her head up and slit her throat with such savageness he almost cut her head off. Ron's artery was severed quickly and in a such a way that he would have been rendered ineffective almost immediately.......

I am only thankful that Nicole was not conscious when OJ butchered her to death...............

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

26. What couldn't be put in the book?

Toss a bone out there.

[CitizenPatriot]

54. honestly I can't

because I don't remember the specifics- it was ten years ago or more when I met that officer at a convention in Seattle, WA. Sorry- I just remember we sat down to get a coffee together, he was there with his book, and I had followed the trial closely, having worked at domestic violence shelters. He told me the politics going on and what he couldn't write about for those reasons-- I just remember being appalled and scared. He really felt they had had their hands tied at the trial and even after; remember all of the publicity?

To others, yes, domestic violence was brought up, and the defense suggested to the jurors that domestic violence (proven in this case) does not a killer make. We know better than that, of course, and statistics prove it. For some reason, the prosecutors never got their act together or the media dismissed it or the jurors didn't get it. Stats prove the most dangerous time for a woman is when she is leaving or has left and second, when gets pregnant with abuser's child while still with the abuser.

that should beg the question, what kind of monster beats up, batters, murders the woman he "loves" and their unborn child?

Strangely enough, in our society, too many people either can't conceive of this type of behavior and hence dismiss it, or they figure the woman deserves it. The second argument, she deserved it, falls short in many respects; not the least of which is did the baby deserve it? Did their children deserve it? Did the pets deserve it? (spousal batterers also terrorize and harm their children and pets at least 50% of the time)

What exactly does a person do to deserve someone torturing and abusing and terrifying them? What makes that OK?

Why do we blame the victim? Because then we don't have to consider the crime, the danger of it coming our way, or take responsibility for the damage being inflicted on our fellow human beings.

3 women die everyday in America at the hands of their intimate partners.

Why doesn't anyone care? Where's the outrage?

Joe Biden cares-- and I can't wait for him to get into office as VP and bring about some more positive change for women.

[Lithos]

105. Thank you...

Joe Biden cares-- and I can't wait for him to get into office as VP and bring about some more positive change for women.

Thank you for bringing this back to today. Yes, OJ likely did it, but, right or wrong, the legal decision was made years ago. At this time, the real legacy of Nicole and countless other women is that we should try our best to make sure to stop this from happening again. Joe gets it and has done his best to help. And bless him, he already left a great legacy. However, it will be a great thing to have someone like him in the White House where he can do even more for this and other important issues.

Real men fight this kind of crap. Obama and Biden care, McCain shows his ignorance with rape jokes and demeaning and hateful commentary about women. Palin is a Schlafly anti-feminist.

L-

[JeanGrey]

100. Except it isn't true. Nicole's blood, Ron's blood and OJ's

blood were everywhere.

[mudesi]

29. Let's not forget his book

Essentially, a confession.

[moondust]

32. Explain Furman.

Why did he move to (white supremist) Idaho if he did nothing wrong? And Vanatter carrying blood around in his pocket? What about the widespread corruption in the LAPD (Rampart, etc.) and the many murder convictions overturned by The Justice Project (Barry Scheck) and others, all uncovered since the OJ trial?

(I don't know if OJ did it and did not watch the trial but tend to think OJ was too big-boned, coarse, clumsy, and dumb to pull it off with all that blood splattered around.)

[MurrayDelph]

47. I sincerely hope you are kidding

Your proof that Fuhrman was a bad guy was that he moved to Idaho?!?

There are a lot of people who earn their living in California, and then move to another state with a lower cost of living (where they can buy a MUCH larger house than the one they sold in California and still have money left over).

I've spent the last 55 years in Los Angeles, and am looking forward to retiring to a lower-cost-of-living town.

It turns out there is a large Jewish population in Idaho. Most "white supremacists" don't care for them, either.

And personally, I think Barry Scheck tainted his Innocence Project by taking money to denounce DNA evidence. Like most of the attorneys on the defense, they were paid to put on a good show for an audience that was not properly MC-ed by the judge.

[moondust]

59. He didn't just move to Idaho.

He moved to far northern Idaho to Sandpoint, not far from Hayden Lake and Coeur d'Alene which were known white supremacist hangouts at that time. The Aryan Nations set up their headquarters at Hayden Lake. I seriously doubt that it was just a coincidence that Fuhrman ended up there as opposed to, say, anywhere else in the country.

What Barry Scheck and others have done in getting convictions overturned based on DNA evidence is cast a shadow on the infallibility of law enforcement and the judicial system that many if not most Americans, perhaps including you, took for granted at the time of the OJ trial.

[JuniperLea]

85. So, you are saying everyone who lives in...

Coeur d'Alene is a racist, a white supremacist, and/or a member of The Aryan Nations?

I'll be sure to let my two aunts and various cousins know about this... I'm sure they will be interested to know they are in one or more of these groups.

:eyes:

[moondust]

88. No, I'm not saying that.

And you know I'm not saying that. Yet you are perfectly happy to try to smear me with your bullshit. And that is why I am sending you directly to IGNORE.

Buh-bye! :hi:

[JuniperLea]

89. Shocking!

Yes, you are too saying that. Obviously Fuhrman moved there for that reason... so everyone else who ever moved there MUST have moved there for that reason!

Your "threat" of putting me on ignore is laughable. Ouch. Waaa.


:rofl:

Whatever...

[JuniperLea]

70. Duh... Fuhrman's career in the LAPD was over

I suppose everyone in Idaho is a white supremest?

A lot of murder convictions are being revisited and DNA evidence tested all over the world.

Interesting you mention Barry Scheck... his face during the jury's ruling was classic. He didn't believe it. Obviously he thought OJ was guilty as hell and he himself was surprised as hell to see OJ get off the hook.

Surprise doesn't even describe it.

[moondust]

76. See post 59.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

33. Bizarre Is An Understatement. I Would Say Their Denial Would Make Them Look Downright Dumb.

[JonLP24]

35. The whole OJ Simpson saga has been very bizarre

A slow speed chase with a gun leading into a trial with more evidence against OJ then the Manson family and he gets acquitted. Then plans to release a book "If I did it" that the Goldman's sue to acquire rights to the book and then Nicole's sister sues to stop publication of that book but is denied. Then he gets involved in a robbery and is convicted 13 years to the day that he was acquitted. Though I have a feeling it isn't over, he'll probaly escape from prison, there is a manhunt looking for him and somewhere down the line he asks a cop for directions.

[lame54]

36. O.J. was guilty and I'm glad he went free...

Growing up I heard many times that it was better to let 10 guilty men go free than to convict one innocent man

The Los Angeles D.A. office handled this case so incompetently that they deserved to lose

O.J. walking around free doesn't scare me but, an D.A.'s office that can barely function putting people away does not sit well with me

[Beacool]

37. Simpson should still be sitting in jail for his double murder.

Justice delayed is still justice.

Karma is a bitch..............

[blues90]

41. OJ is a media DISTRACTION !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

How perfect to dig this worn out criminal back in the news at this point in time.

[cali]

44. actually, it's news. and it's not distracting the attention of this forum

or the country from the dire economic news or the election.

[blues90]

82. perhaps not this forum but the masses it is who don't look into

forums

[Taverner]

50. The reasonable doubt was there because of Furman and his salting the scene

Don't they know the first law of murder investigations?

Never try to frame a guilty man.

[JeanGrey]

101. He did no such thing and in fact it wasn't possible.

[kwassa]

53. Why does it matter?

How many murders are never solved?

Back when I lived in LA, during the trial, LAPD had only roughly a 66% closure rate on murders. As there were about 880 murders than year, recalling from distant memory, there were about 260 for which no one was arrested, brought to trial and convicted.

How much press did they get?

None.

Don't they deserve the same level of outrage?

[cali]

55. for obvious reasons, celebrity crimes will always get the attention

of course the murders of those who aren't famous or aren't committed by famous people, deserve every bit as much outrage as those that are, but it's simply not the way things work.

And seriously, this murder was solved. there's not mystery murderer out there. It takes a serious act of self-delusion not to recognize that.

[Brewman_Jax]

79. Then why no outrage for...

the Robert Blake trial or the Phil Spector mistrial? :shrug:

[kwassa]

91. This murder wasn't solved for the jury.

That's all that matters. Do you think that this is the first time that someone who was probably guilty went free, unpunished? Prosecutors fail to prove their cases all the time.

It isn't about the guilt, it is proving the guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, which the jury clearly had. You have no doubt, nor do others, but you were not on the jury. That is the roll of the dice. You also didn't have the evidence presented to you the way it was presented to them.

And where is the outrage over Robert Blake or Phil Spector, as Lurking Argyle pointed out? What other celebrity trial created this kind of emotion?

People act as if OJ is the first to get off. It is the televising of the trial that blew this whole significance completely out of any sane proportion. Horrible crimes happen every day, but the general public only stays incensed over this one. It is both a lot about television, and more than a little about race.

[AlCzervik]

57. i know someone who was murdered and a serial rapist in florida may have killed her

but the agent in charge is still unable to link him to her. Anyhow she went missing in 1989 and is presumed dead, some of her belongings were found near a swamp. Her case hasn't got any press in years.

[JuniperLea]

64. My sister was working with one of the other Brown sisters at the time...

And she called me at work from the sister's desk phone, freaking out a little because both "Nikki" and OJ's phone numbers had speed dial buttons on said phone.

The Brown sister got the news at work, and was understandably stunned. Her first words when she hung up the phone (the one my sister was then using to call me) was, "Apparently, OJ killed my sister." I felt certain at that moment he was guilty. "The Dream Team" created so much confusion over the DNA evidence, and there were clearly problems with the field investigation by the LAPD, that the DNA "seemed" invalid. The DNA evidence was in fact concrete, and it was conducted in a lab far from the crime scene. If DNA samples had been corrupted, there would have been signs in the results. There were not. The results were very clear.

It seemed very rough on the family because everyone loved those little kids. How sad and confusing their lives must be.

[Truth2Tell]

68. My first ever recommendation of a Cali post.

Just goes to show... something. :hi:

[cali]

84. take it back- please, please, please

or I may have to respond in kind.

:hi:

[Bluebear]

69. Blood taken from Simpson was taken TO the crime scene & to a detective's home.

That was bizarre police work and really crippled the prosecution imo.

[JuniperLea]

72. The most damning blood evidence was found...

At OJ's home and in his car. No police had access.

[Marnieworld]

75. Shoes. It's all about the shoes

I personally found the blood evidence to be credible. Some may have gotten contaminated perhaps but not all of it. Certainly not enough to disregard so much of it. He had a cut on his hand which is very typical for someone to get after their hands slip on the knife when it becomes covered in blood. To frame him would take an enormous conspiracy and would not be in line with all of the other times the police just ignored the domestic violence because they were awestruck from his celebrity. Sometimes police are corrupt and in LA unfair towards black people disproportionately but I don't believe this happened in OJs case. They didn't put that cut on his finger. They didn't make him unresponsive to the limo driver's arrival. They didn't give him a history of violence towards Nicole.

But let's disregard all of the blood evidence. No talk about Furman. No talk about when OJs blood was taken by who and where and when etc. Let's only talk about the shoes. The footprint evidence was conclusive that it was a size 13 pair of Bruno Maglis. There were only 3 pairs made of this shoe in this size and OJ owned one pair and knew the victim. What are the chances of the two other owners being his ex-wife's killer? It's absurd. It's a 1 in 3 chance that he is the killer. Logically you can't discount all of the other evidence, the Akita not attacking a stranger because he knew who killed her, her telling people that he was going to kill her. How much do you have to twist your brain to find him innocent? The original jury did not have the picture of him in the shoes that the civil jury did. We'll never know what they would have found if they did.

[JeanGrey]

113. AND they would have had to be pigeon toed, which OJ was!

Impossible. Case Closed.

[Raskolnik]

77. Of course he did it. But the criminal verdict was correct.

The LAPD tried to frame a guilty man and the prosecution did an abysmal job. Under those circumstances and with the burden of proof in a criminal trial, the verdict was correct. Just as the verdict in the civil trial was correct under the civil burden of proof.

[JeanGrey]

103. Horsehockey. They didn't HAVE to frame anyone and in

fact it was impossible to do so!

[Raskolnik]

124. I believe you misunderstand my point.

Police can, and sometimes do, attempt to fabricate evidence against guilty parties. If that occurs, and if the prosecution does a lousy job of proving its case, such a situation often should result in acquittal.

[deaniac21]

78. Who is this Simpson fellow and what kind of name is OJ?

Is that Norwegian?

[JeanGrey]

128. It stands for "orange jumpsuit"

[arthritisR_US]

83. I bought every book about the case and I have no doubt about his guilt, if

others want to believe otherwise so be it, I don't give a damn. I am just damn fucking happy about his guilt now and hope he rotts in jail. Karma's a bitch!

[madinmaryland]

86. I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express in California, so I must be qualified to comment on the OJ case.

What a stupid thread.

[rug]

87. If you're relying on the DNA evidence, he's not guilty.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/Simpson/fungtest.html

[1monster]

90. Well, he's been found guilty now of lesser crimes, but will spend a great deal of , if not the rest

of his life in prison.

So, in a way, justice is done.

Why rehash it. America wasted far too much of its time during the actual circus that was his trial already.

[SidneyCarton]

93. Mr. Simpson learned the universal truth...

Hit the button long enough and your ticket will get punched.

He could have faded away, he could have let it all go, but he didn't.

Karma can be a beast.

[itsrobert]

102. Great post. OJ is a cold blooded killer and coward

thanks

[eridani]

104. In analytical chemistry, there's this thing called "chain of custody"

Forensic chemists can only say what is in a sample and how much of it there is. We can't tell how it got there. The LAPD fucked up the chain of custody so badly that they invalidated their evidence, which otherwise would have been solid.

[JeanGrey]

114. They didn't "invalidate" a thing. That is nonsense. The evidence

WAS solid to any thinking person.

[eridani]

120. Not to any professional analytical chemist

Years ago I quantitated levels of a common detergent in a factory waste stream. My data was questioned (correctly) by a representative from the factory who pointed out that someone who was trying to sabotage the place could have dumped it in. I told them that all I could tell him was what the detergent was and how much of it was in the waste water--the test doesn't tell you how it got there.

Of course the DNA analysis is just as valid as my analysis for polyaromatic hydrocarbons. However, if the chain of custody is broken before I get the samples in my own hands, a correctly done analysis can never prove that someone didn't tamper with the samples.

[JeanGrey]

122. It wasn't.

[eridani]

123. Apparently you weren't listening to the cross examination on chain of custody--

--in a working lab with other chemists. It was appalling, and enough to get our staff fired several times over had we pulled crap like that.

[JeanGrey]

125. It is nonsense. OJ is guilty and there is TONS of evidence

proving it. Period.

[eridani]

126. The evidence would be good if it were not for chain of custody problems

That is the fault of the LAPD.

[JeanGrey]

127. There are no chain of custody problems.

[eridani]

130. Yes, there are. Enough of them to make a whole lab full of analytical chemists groan n/t

[JeanGrey]

131. No. The blood was collected before OJ was even available

to give his sample. That is simply wishful thinking. He's guilty - there was a ton of evidence against him.

[eridani]

132. And then they let all kinds of unauthorized people have access to the blood

The evidence would have been fine without this chain of custody problem.

[McCamy Taylor]

107. Circumstantial evidence was compromised by police misconduct.

Since we have strong reason to believe that police planted evidence on Simpson's property, a bloody glove, that means that all circumstantial evidence gathered by the same police force becomes tainted in the eyes of the court and other evidence of guilt must be presented, i.e. eyewitness or confession.

The LAPD lost the case against the CIA in the Contra-Cocaine matter for the same reason.

It is criminal negligence when the PD can not be bothered to do its job right and this makes it impossible for prosecutors to do their jobs right. This is not the fault of defendants or their attorneys. It is the fault of the LAPD and their half assed way of doing things.

OJ Simpson was innocent. Period. The LAPD made him that way.

[JeanGrey]

115. We have no strong reason to believe any such thing. In fact,

there is NO reason to believe it. The cops liked OJ, look what he got away with for years. There was no chance for the blood to be planted, and you would have to prove a conspiracy that 17 or 30 or so guys just decided RIGHT THEN to do, when they didn't even know where OJ was! ROTFLMAO

[OakCliffDem]

108. Kick

[Imagevision]

121. Can't undue the past- as long as Simpson gets wharever to life or Life in of all places, Vegas

He can see the city lite glamour.

[Political Heretic]

129. He's admitted to doing it.... wrote a book about why and how in fact.

So this all seems to be moot. Any DUers who are still in some sort of denial about it are just being silly.