the glove didn't fit, law enforcement destroyed its credibility by framing him
crucially, noone saw him do it. Evidence all circumstantial
hard to believe even that long ago, rich people all didn't have cameras recording everything. then the jury could watch him do it, if it was him.
it was the right verdict. Criminal convictions are hard to win, and they should be
more generally, detectives get a confirmation bias when they find something matching a suspect. They find it because they start looking for it. I bet there were lots of other hairs on Goldman's t-shirt than some black dude's. You can get a hair on your t-shirt from riding a city bus or a train.
the glove didn't fit, law enforcement destroyed its credibility by framing him
crucially, noone saw him do it. Evidence all circumstantial
hard to believe even that long ago, rich people all didn't have cameras recording everything. then the jury could watch him do it, if it was him.
it was the right verdict. Criminal convictions are hard to win, and they should be
more generally, detectives get a confirmation bias when they find something matching a suspect. They find it because they start looking for it. I bet there were lots of other hairs on Goldman's t-shirt than some black dude's. You can get a hair on your t-shirt from riding a city bus or a train.
How often does a noone guy witness a murder? DNA evidence is not circumstantial and at the time, rich or not, didn't have video doorbells. If videos were required to obtain a conviction, there would be noone in death row.
It would have been impossible to frame Simpson. It was noticed by the first officers on the scene that there was only one glove and it was impossible for Fuhrman to have possessed the 2nd one. The glove had DNA from both victims, so it didn’t matter where it was found. The police didn’t know whether Simpson had an alibi so framing him would be risky. Simpson was popular among police so there was no motive to frame him.
Simpson was the only person on the planet that would have committed the murders so there was no reason to search for imaginary suspects. There was no DNA data bases then, so it would have been impossible to do anything with any hairs on Goldman’s t-shirt. A guy riding on a bus or train was not the murderer.
I think the courts bore out the truth. It is probable that he committed the crimes (civil case), but it is not 100% certain that he in fact committed the crimes (criminal case).
2. Why did Detective Van Atter carry around a vial of OJ's blood for an entire weekend?
3. How can EDTA be found in the blood samples that were collected both at Bundy Drive and Rockingham? (For those who do not know, EDTA is an anticoagulent additive in blood tubes.)
This post was edited 4 minutes after it was posted.
Reason provided:
clarification
The theory is not that he asked anyone to help with a murder. It is that Nicole Brown owed a lot of money for drugs and the drug dealers were leaning on OJ for help, so a dealer and OJ went to her condo with that agenda, then things went very wrong. The theory started from OJ's own book:
In a controversial 2006 book and television interview, titled If I Did It, O.J. Simpson himself described a "hypothetical" scenario in which he committed the murders with an unnamed accomplice he referred to as "Charlie".
This narrative generated further speculation: Some theories have linked this hypothetical "Charlie" to a real-life acquaintance of Simpson named Charles "Charlie" Ehrlich, a former drug trafficker who was later involved with Simpson in the 2007 Las Vegas armed robbery for which Simpson was convicted. Ehrlich was charged as an accomplice in the Las Vegas incident but did not serve jail time after accepting a plea deal to testify against Simpson. Ehrlich consistently denied any involvement in the 1994 murders, of course.
There was no evidence that Nicole used cocaine, there was none found in her system when she died and none in her condo.
If she did use cocaine, it would have been as a user and not a dealer. It would have been a few thousand and pocket change to O.J. There’s no way Simpson would have horsed around with a dealer to collect the money.
There was no “Charlie”.
I should have made it more clear.
This is not a theory that I "own" or necessarily believe.
It is "a" theory that is born out of OJ's own work and words, and questions (that seem fair) about whether one person could have killed two people, including a strong, young man without help.
Do I think OJ did it? Yes.
Do I think evidence was planted? Also, yes. The anticoagulant in the blood samples essentially proves that.
Do I think there was a conspirator after the fact that hid evidence? I think that is very possible.
Do I think that there was a conspirator at the scene, that participated in the murders? No, but I think it has not been completely ruled out. Of course, proving a negative is virutally impossible in this regard without video or eyewitnesses.
This post was edited 48 seconds after it was posted.
It was over thirty years ago, after the farce that was the racially-exploited criminal trial a civil court found him liable for their deaths on the balance of probabilities, and he's now dead. Case closed.
The Simpson trial was actually the beginnings of Woke/BLM in America. Simpson OBVIOUSLY stabbed his ex-wife Nicole Brown, who he had beaten up many times before, and her friend Ron Goldman to death outside Brown's condo. But then his million dollar lawyers started pretending that a gang of racist white cops decided, in the middle of the night before they even knew who killed Brown and Goldman, to frame Simpson for a murder he didn't commit. Normal people looked at this bullsh!t bag of lies and shook their heads. Liberals, on the other hand, desperate for something racial to be outraged about, bought this bullsh!t hook, line and sinker and proclaimed Simpson innocent. A racial movement was born.
The Simpson trial was actually the beginnings of Woke/BLM in America. Simpson OBVIOUSLY stabbed his ex-wife Nicole Brown, who he had beaten up many times before, and her friend Ron Goldman to death outside Brown's condo. But then his million dollar lawyers started pretending that a gang of racist white cops decided, in the middle of the night before they even knew who killed Brown and Goldman, to frame Simpson for a murder he didn't commit. Normal people looked at this bullsh!t bag of lies and shook their heads. Liberals, on the other hand, desperate for something racial to be outraged about, bought this bullsh!t hook, line and sinker and proclaimed Simpson innocent. A racial movement was born.
That's a very strong opinion.
Again, let me reiterate that I think he was 100% guilty. He was guilty as sin.
However, I have some room to accept the verdict... (that he was not proven guilty BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT).
Why?
The jury heard evidence that the blood collected at the scene and in his home contained anticoagulant (something that absolutely is not in our blood naturally), meaning that the police tampered with evidence and spread his blood samples into the crime scene and onto his socks.
The jury heard a cop say that he did not ever use the "N word" and then heard audio evidence of him uisng that word over and over and over.
The jury saw an absolute, blindingly dumb failure by the prosecution to try to show the gloves fit OJ. The glove was crumpled from dried blood, he was wearing a surgical glove, and his hands were swollen from going off his blood pressure meds. A better prosecution never would have let that all play out in front of a jury.
The jury couldn't control the fact that Judge Ito bent over backward to placate the defense, over and over, on decision after decision.
While the decision disappointed me, I don't blame the jury as much as I blame cops that planted evidence, prosecutors that blew it, and a judge that favored the defense.
How often does a noone guy witness a murder? DNA evidence is not circumstantial
Of course it is. Finding someone's DNA somewhere doesn't mean it got there by them committing a murder. The world is a messy place, your DNA goes everywhere. It's also detected by PCR, the same method that can find covid 19 in a turnip
And as I think I already pointed out, the prosecution's whole case rested on the integrity of the cops, which was successfully called into question by the defense. If you really believe cops don't plant evidence to frame people, you're incredibly naive. Yes they do.
If OJ did it, he was lucky enough that there were no witnesses, and sensible enough not to confess. No witnesses means noone can really know. And even witnesses can lie. In the real world, there are lot of things you can never know for sure. Doesn't matter if you don't want that to be true, it still is.
How often does a noone guy witness a murder? DNA evidence is not circumstantial
Of course it is. Finding someone's DNA somewhere doesn't mean it got there by them committing a murder. The world is a messy place, your DNA goes everywhere. It's also detected by PCR, the same method that can find covid 19 in a turnip
And as I think I already pointed out, the prosecution's whole case rested on the integrity of the cops, which was successfully called into question by the defense. If you really believe cops don't plant evidence to frame people, you're incredibly naive. Yes they do.
If OJ did it, he was lucky enough that there were no witnesses, and sensible enough not to confess. No witnesses means noone can really know. And even witnesses can lie. In the real world, there are lot of things you can never know for sure. Doesn't matter if you don't want that to be true, it still is.
How did Kohberger’s DNA end up at the crime scene? Couldn’t his defense have pointed out that DNA goes everywhere and his probably flew in through the window?
It was over thirty years ago, after the farce that was the racially-exploited criminal trial a civil court found him liable for their deaths on the balance of probabilities, and he's now dead. Case closed.
That he has to banned for intentional killing. Then you will come in and correct all those incompetent losers again, and explain that he was railroaded. For years and years and years.
How did Kohberger’s DNA end up at the crime scene? Couldn’t his defense have pointed out that DNA goes everywhere and his probably flew in through the window?
Well, it helps to be in contact with someone on a non-murderous basis.
Nicole was O.J.'s ex-wife. They saw each other often because they had kids to raise.
That he has to banned for intentional killing. Then you will come in and correct all those incompetent losers again, and explain that he was railroaded. For years and years and years.
The main question then would be, "on what basis?" Would it be based on established facts or codified presumptions?
It was a long time ago, and I didn't follow the cases too closely, but I recall Simpson was held civilly liable.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.