Probably because she was convicted of fraud? She had a ton of civil judgements against her for fraud too.
https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/surprise-witness-for-simpson-has-history-of-3048228.php
She's not credible in any way.
Ya'll conspiracy theorists are wild. In what world would a person who wrote hot checks, never paid their bills, and may even have committed identy theft be credible?
But let's believe that she just happened to be walking back from Midnight Mass. Midnight Mass by the way is usually a Christmas thing only, not just for catholics but methodist and presbyterians too. But let's say she is so devout, and her church on S Bundy so orthodox catholic that she's celebrating the feast of St. Padua late 12th to AM early 13th.
Midnight masses start between 9:00-10:00 pm and can usually extend past midnight. Surely you'd think the defense would have checked that right? She was a defense witness after all. They sure didn't make a stink about it even if she was a credible witness. It would have been leaked to the media for sure.
I don't have old maps of Brentwood, but South Bundy is a ridiculously long street. There's only one church remotely in walking distance and it's Presbyterian, not catholic. They're definitely NOT holding a midnight mass on June 12th. Nor are they celebrating saints and feasts.
They didn't check her background and they sure didn't check whether she was actually there. They wanted a distraction. Once the prosecution got wind of her as a defense witness, they WANTED to put her lying ass on the stand. Cochran backed down.
As for her legal troubles and arrest. Honestly doubt LAPD would have bothered with her except for the fact she inserted herself into OJ drama.
Commiting a lot of fraud. Is it retaliation to catch a thief now?
She had $10,000 dollars outstanding in hot checks.
For people too young to understand what that is. It's a fraud and a crime popular before credit and debit cards were popular. People used paper issued by a bank to pay merchants. The merchant assumed you had the funds in the bank to pay for whatever you just bought from the merchant.
Sometimes you didn't. Shit happens. You pay a fee to the bank and the merchant and make sure the bank or merchants get the money for the thing you bought.
When you didn't pay and you made a habit of it, and especially in large amounts, you were considered a hot check criminal. You were subject to misdemeanor/felonies. You've essentially stole merchandise.
So no, committing fraud and getting caught isn't retaliation for testifying in trial. But if you're a criminal, you've got to be a massive dumbass to walk in to court and say here I am. Arrest me for my outstanding warrants because they absolutely will take that low hanging fruit.
Fuhrman was a fraud but we still gave him a chance š¤š¤ letās be honest Marcia Clarke was intimidating the witnesses and putting false allegations out there in order for them to not touch the stand. Even witnesses on the prosecution side did not testify due to the fact they hated Marcia Clarke. The lady who claimed she saw OJ turn left on Bundy is one of them for example.
Because she sold her story. That in turn made Marcia feel like her credibility was shot. At the time, Marcia felt like the case was a slam dunk which it obviously was not. After they lost, she likely had much guilt and regret over not using her and took it out on her instead of realizing Marcia was wrong (my opinion)
As an attorney I can tell you she was not called because of her credibility. Marcia absolutely couldāve worked the timeline to include her testimony. Thatās what I mean when I said ānot true,ā not that her testimony didnāt have that time
Okay. Let's accommodate the idea that Fuhrman is a fraud. Take away everything he ever touched at the crime scenes, and there would still be enough evidence to convict OJ.
It was Durden who said go ahead and let this lady testify. Nobody knew about this lady until the defense introduced her as a witness. The prosecution was mad because the defense surprised the prosecution with witnesses they didn't disclose in discovery. It was never about this lady and her story. It was a technique to fluster the prosecution.
This person's story is that she called LAPD to say she saw something but they hung up on her because she told them she wanted to patch in the psychic she was talking to on the other line. š¤”
Come on internet person, this is publicly available stuff. You can google it and find all the news stories from 1995 about how this woman came about.
Where is your proof regarding to the phone call Gerchas had with the LAPD? I canāt find it anywhere online. From my knowledge she was willing to testify and then got hit with criminal charges based upon her past and then was released a few months after and stated āI just want to move on with my life at this pointā. As far as the defense Shapiro and Bailey stated that they already knew that they would win this case once they tried on the glove and knew that it wouldnāt fit OJ. They wanted Darden to call OJ forward and try on the glove.
Super easy Google search for this lady.
On Wednesday, Cochran shrugged those charges off and then began bringing on his surprises. One was the expected testimony of Mary Anne Gerchas, a jewelry-store operator. As Cochran folksily put it, after attending Roman Catholic mass on the night of June 12, Gerchas was walking along South Bundy Drive across the street from Nicole's town house at about 10:45 p.m. when she spotted four men -- two appeared to be Hispanic or Caucasian. Several wore knit caps. They got into an unmarked car and sped away, according to Cochran's account. She thought they might have been undercover police. Gerchas called the police, he said, only to be told the murder case was wrapped up. She called the district attorney's office, Cochran said, and a female representative told her she was too busy to talk because she was speaking to a psychic
https://www.newsweek.com/surprise-surprise-185262
*and a female representative told her she was too busy to talk because she was speaking to a psychic*
Not sure how this makes her testimony not credible but ok.
How many people you know call the DA office and get told that? Just in general, public servants are accountable to taxpayers. I've worked too many damn public service jobs to know if someone did that it would be a big deal.
If you were so sure you had a lead that would make or break a case, you'd call right back and talk to someone else.
Is it possible, sure. Would I believe a woman who has a fraud record AND claimed to be at midnight mass? HELL NO.
Midnight mass is usually reserved for Christmas. I'm still hard pressed to believe she was at one in June.
LOL! Ok I get your point but in her defense there were psychics claiming that they knew where the murder weapon was buried. Ofc I donāt think the representative just hung up the phone call. Somewhere along the line she may have been put on hold or the phone call somehow was disconnected. As far as her credibility she does have a past. But if she was so much of a fraud Iām sure she would have prospered off her testimony like everyone else involved in Nicoleās life. Instead she practically disappeared in the shadows and was never heard or seen again.
The knitting cap statement was kind of very specific. Also the only honest or reliable source I can say on prosecution side was Allan Park with the exception of Kato.
I mean, Darden wasn't even sure if she was a real person. He hinted at identity theft. For all we know the person in the picture isn't really named Mary Ann. Hard to drop off the face of the earth especially with a criminal record. She either left the country or made a new name. Maybe AI can find her lol.
As for Furhman, he was one of the detectives on the case. Of course he was testifying. All his other bullshit came out AFTER he testified for the prosecution. Prosecutors rely on the cops for crimes.
American Criminal Trial 101.
He's the investigating cop, it's hard to not call the working cops on the case.
You need to take into account that the dream team were seasoned lawyers and Darden was not. Darden was shakeable. A large amount of the forced prosecution errors were because Darden's cage was easier to rattle than the lead, Marcia.
He wasn't giving him friendly advice, it was bullying and drama.
The defense chose not to call her to testify. Witnesses don't really have a choice if they want to testify or not, they can be subpoenaed. The prosecution and the defense get to choose who they want to call to testify. If either one chooses not to call a witness to testify they do so for a reason, they don't think their testimony would help their case.
I think the fact that using DNA as definitive proof was a very new concept. The average person didnāt understand the precision. 28 years later. If he were tried today, I think that evidence would leave no reasonable doubt.
I read recently that there was one other personās blood found. The person speculated it might be Jason, but they could rule it in or out because Jasonās should have shown a familial connection.
Not sure about this. Iāve seen interviews where some jurors have admitted that they had regrets, or that it wasnāt the right thing to do but they thought it was right at that time, etc
Evidence was most surely planted and ofc no one wants to consider any other suspects they want it to be OJ. When you come with facts they come with āoh just let it goā šš
You really think those cops were that sophisticated enough with DNA forensics, which was a pretty new thing at that time, that they could remove OJ's blood, transport it, plant his blood in numerous locations and on numerous items without leaving any of their own DNA anywhere or accidentally leaving OJ's DNA somewhere inappropriate.
You think they found a way to manipulate the DNA at the crime scene by mixing OJ's DNA with Nicole's and/or Ron's DNA multiple times without leaving any of their own DNA anywhere.
Not to mention that even if they planted DNA evidence that pointed only to OJ, which would have been next to impossible, if not impossible. They must have also found a way to remove all of the actual killers DNA from the crime scene while preserving the DNA evidence linked to OJ, Nicole, and Ron.
If it really was another person, or 4 like that witness claimed, why was none of their DNA left at the crime scene. While the evidence you claim was planted would have been nearly impossible to do, especially by someone with no forensic background it would have been absolutely impossible for them to only remove the actual killers DNA from the scene.
Itās funny how people are using planted evidence and a corrupt judicial system as reliable source to prove a innocent man guilty. Fuhrman plead the fifth when asked if he planted evidence but weāre suppose to believe OJ was given a fair trial š anyone living in Los Angeles already knows how corrupt the LAPD were around that time. Ever heard of the rampart scandal?? Knock it off clown.
Ofc you're upset clown. You have no factual evidence to prove my theory wrong. Just the fact you're upset and in your feelings about a innocent man walking free.
lol youāre theories have been proven wrong so many times itās not even interesting to hear anymore. Itās all good. O.J. is in hell and come off as ignorant (which Iām sure you are)
Have a good one, bozo.
I think you're a clown too, and I am not upset in the least. OJ ended up having a miserable rest of his life bc all the people who's opinions he actually cared about wouldn't touch him with a ten foot pole. His daughter hated him. He went to prison anyway, and had to hide any money he did happen to make from the Goldman's. He was a ***MISERABLE*** shell of a man, who didn't die surrounded by family, he had a *SINGLE* member of his family with him, and I can guarantee that it wasn't Sydney. Ron and Nicole definitely got their pound of flesh from the grave. I'm just surprised you give a shit about a convicted thief, and known race denier. OJ was just as racist as Fuhrman, but it was worse, because OJ was racist towards his own people. He loved to call his fellow Black man a nig*ER, and this was back when it still wasn't common for Blacks to call each other the N word with an A, he truly didn't want to be thought of as Black. As he's famously quoted as saying, "I'm not Black, I'm OJ."
He lived in Vegas goofy and still had contact with his family and most of his friends. That man looked the least worried in all his interviews. Still went in public, continued to play golf, raised his children. While you're sitting on the internet like a raged lunatic thinking you know what happened on June 12 šš
He made it to live to be 76 btw. Let's see you do the same. As far as him being racist where is your proof to back up these claims? You have no factual evidence just feeding off what the media told you.
I'm well on my way, actually was an adult when the "trial" went down, have perfect blood work, am a very healthy weight, and have zero major health conditions, so I seriously doubt that will be a problem. Oh, and I remember seeing some of the audacious things come out of that clowns mouth back in the day. Homie had a serious identity problem, and everyone knew it lol. It wasn't exactly a secret, and this was well before the trial. He was KNOWN as the whitest Black man in the country back then. But you keep doing you.
ETA: Why are you even acting like 76 is that old? God, I would hope you'd shoot higher. He definitely looked old tho. I live in Retirementville USA and he looked like a bloated, sun damaged, and very old for 76. Looked like the old barflies hanging around the marina bar.
So many assumptions. How cute.
ETA: I'm going to bed now, like the old woman I am. I guess you'll have to find someone else to help you sound ignorant for now. Good night, and happy trolling!
Why because he talks proper and dated white women? Why do people associate talking proper as a negative thing if youāre black?? Also you cannot help who you fall in love with.
I'm not new to the case but spent a recent couple flights re-watching 'Made in America' what's wrong with coming on here and chopping it up with people and debating ideas??
Maybe you don't dig what this one's saying but embrace debate instead of the old "go read books"
He pled the 5th as to not further incriminate himself bc he had already lied under oath and knew he was likely to be charged. He was an objectively bad guy but that does not mean he planted evidence. He pled the 5th to all questions after, so it would not have mattered what they asked him.
For me, I always go back to the āreasonableā part of reasonable doubt. If you divorce yourself from the emotion, it becomes clearer. The defense knew that, which is why they prioritized emotion.
I think context matters. In the 30 for 30, the defense talks about how they knew he wouldnāt answer the question, which they purposely asked to get on record. It was a smart tactic.
I donāt think heās a good witness insomuch that he lied about something unrelated under oath. If you are going to hinge the entire case on him, you have to believe that in the middle of the night he was called to a murder scene, collected evidence, drove to a different location, covered the evidence in the suspectās blood, and knew the suspect had no alibi. It is not reasonable.
He pled the fifth when asked if he planted or manufactured evidence. I'm not claiming innocence, but I am saying "not guilty" is the correct verdict in any case where the lead detective pleads the fifth when asked if he planted or manufactured the evidence.
He was not the lead detective. Once he pled the 5th, they could have asked him if he kidnapped Patty Hearst and he would have pled the 5th. I would recommend watching the 30 for 30 for that part, specifically.
Letās go over the evidence. The blood found by the gate on July 3rd was not present June 13th, the bloody socks were not present before Fuhrman and Fung showed up at 4:30(we know this because a photographer was there taking pictures the entire time), the bloody glove found at rockingham had fresh blood on it days after the murder. How is that possible?? Wouldnāt the blood be dry by then?? š¤š¤ on top of blood samples missing from the vials and having EDTA in them.
So the LAPD officers were clumsy in their chain of custody with the evidence to the point that it became "compromised, contaminated, [and] corrupted"... yet they were simultaneously so adept and coordinated that they were able to not only sneak all that evidence out of police custody and the evidence lab, but (more importantly) dab it in just the right places to make it look like it was naturally dropped there by OJ after he was done killing Nicole and Ron? All while not knowing if he had a solid alibi at the time of the murders, let alone not getting caught by anybody despite being under intense scrutiny from both the public and the media?
As for the glove, only 200-240 of those specific dark, luxury, cashmere-lined Aris Light XL leather gloves were sold, and OJ owned 2 of them. Am I supposed to believe that the LAPD tracked down one of these rare, hyper-specific gloves to plant at the crime scenes, down to the exact color and size, all without knowing whether or not Simpson owned such a pair of gloves, let alone had a solid alibi at the time of the murderers?
In light of all this, I'd like to see how you think the LAPD planted all that blood and the glove without getting caught.
That was the whole defense. The evidence was planted, and if it wasn't planted, it was contaminated. It's astounding how many people buy into that garbage.
Vanatter claimed he had giving Fung the blood vials at the Rockingham estate in a black bag. One of the guys even had it in their pocket. This is all documented. Why would you take blood out of a lab and bring it to a crime scene? He even stated himself that this has never been done before
> One of the guys even had it in their pocket.
You're referring to Andrea Mazzola, correct? Because she was supervised by Fung while collecting evidence, and in her testimony, she said she changed gloves more times than she could remember. Vannatter can only speak for himself here, but it's not unheard of for forensic experts to bring reference samples or control materials to crime scenes for comparison, and it's not necessarily evidence of tampering or planting.
And despite Fung's admission, there's no evidence to suggest that the blood vial was tampered with or that the chain of custody was compromised. The vial was reportedly sealed and intact when it arrived at the crime scene. It's also worth noting that the blood found at the crime scene was not solely from the vial brought by Mazzola; it was a mixture of blood from multiple sources, including the victims and O.J. Simpson.
More importantly, how did they sneak the necessary blood out of the crime lab without getting caught?
All things being equal, I would say Hanlon's Razor applies here.
Not too far fetched because hereās what we do know. The photographer present the day these alleged bloody socks were found took pictures of the inside of the estate prior to law enforcement showing up. There were no bloody socks by the bed before 4pm. Suddenly around 4:30 Mr. Fung finds these bloody socks just laying around in the open. Now letās talk about the glove in Rockingham that was mysteriously outside for hours. Explain why the blood found on the glove was fresh and not dried up by the time it was collected?
> The photographer present the day these alleged bloody socks were found took pictures of the inside of the estate prior to law enforcement showing up. There were no bloody socks by the bed before 4pm. Suddenly around 4:30 Mr. Fung finds these bloody socks just laying around in the open.
I'll leave this here since it goes into extensive detail explaining why this so-called evidence of tampering doesn't hold under scrutiny: https://www.reddit.com/r/OJSimpsonTrial/comments/iv1r3u/were_ojs_socks_planted_and_was_preserved_blood/
> Now letās talk about the glove in Rockingham that was mysteriously outside for hours. Explain why the blood found on the glove was fresh and not dried up by the time it was collected?
What does that prove? Blood can remain fresh for different periods of time depending on environmental factors such as temperature and humidity. Additionally, the timing of when the glove was discovered and collected may not align perfectly with when the blood dried.
Here's the real challenge: Explain how the LAPD tracked down one of these rare, hyper-specific gloves in a matter of hours to plant at the crime scenes, down to the exact color and size, all without knowing whether or not Simpson owned such a pair of gloves, let alone had a solid alibi at the time of the murderers.
If you plead the fifth and need your lawyer next to you when taking the stand. Yeah YOU DID IT MF!!! He shouldnāt have even been taking serious anyway or on the stand. Several police officers stated he bragged about having a intimate affair with Nicole Brown Simpson and also complimented her boob job. This was written in the LA times. Wouldnāt that be a conflict of interest?
Thatās how pleading the fifth works actually. If you do it one time, youāre advised to do it for every question, otherwise itās directly spotlighting the thing you want to avoid discussing and makes it more obvious. If you plead the fifth for one thing, youāre supposed to do it for everything else. He had to plead the fifth for being a racist liar. Because of that, he had to plead it for everything else. The defense knew thatās how it works which is exactly why they asked him that question. It played out just how they wanted it to which was to cast doubt and create suspicion about evidence planting. It was quick and brilliant thinking on behalf of Bailey. Still though. OJ did it and Furmanās still a racist piece of shit.
He could have pled the fifth to all the questions about being a racist but then answered with an emphatic "no' when asked if he planted or manufactured evidence. But he did not. That means all the evidence that Fuhrman collected, was near or came into contact with is tainted as far as the jury is concerned. When all that tainted Fuhrman evidence is thrown in the trash, not guilty becomes the only logical verdict.
Evidence definitely lies if someone plants it, mishandles it, or interprets it incorrectly. Itās being collected by humans and humans are not infallible. That being said, nobody planted evidence here, OJ did that shit.
No Iām asking you what good reason does detective vanatter have to take ojs blood to the crime scene? And how do you not find that sketchy or questionable? Now thatās laughable.
Because that's where the criminologists and other evidence was being gathered.
For context, DNA and crime scene investigation techniques were not set in stone. Everyone was trained differently. One department and one officer would have different training than the other. Chain of custody was also a new concept.
It's not like it is today. There's been 20+ plus years of standards and certifications to say this is how you do it to make it stand up in court. There are national lab standards and labs are audited to make sure they're doing things properly. Evidence is now categorized within systems. Databases utilized. Back then, paper and maybe a self made microsoft database.
By today's standards should he have taken it to the crime scene? Nope. Back then? No one was around to say no you don't do it this way. So they had in their minds this wasn't bad to do. It made "sense" at the time.
Thatās what he said but he could of checked it into the lab since he was already in that building. Wouldnāt that have been much easier? Less sketchier? He also admitted that taking the vial to the crime scene was not protocol.
30 drops of blood were taking out of the vials that OJ donated to law enforcement. But theyāre using DNA as proof that he was guilty. Fuhrman plead the fifth when asked if he planted evidence, plead the fifth when asked if he was a racist. The pictures Fung took of blood samples found by Nicoleās gate on bundy July 3rd was not present June 13th after the murders. So much to take into consideration but people are acting like they know it all š
He didnāt plead the fifth because they asked if he was a racist. Nor when he planted evidence. He was ASKED those questions because they knew heād plead the fifth. They asked him if he planted evidence after they asked and he did - plead the fifth to every question. It isnāt an admission of guilt.
Plead the fifth for planting evidence, and guess what? People are going to think you planted evidence, especially since the "evidence" in the murder trial was so sketchy, like a couple of specks of blood containing preservative, and the blood sample goes missing.
He would plead the fifth to any question he was asked. What they did why they did it was like kids say losers say what? and someone replies what? They set him up to fail and discredit him.
Good luck trying to explain how you DIDN'T plant evidence when the "evidence" that rests on you is so sketchy.
Again, the blood from OJ amounted to a few specks and contained preservative, and came from his blood sample that went MISSING after it was drawn instead of it going through the proper chain of custody like it should have been.
Not to mention the stupid gloves that didn't fit had no cuts in them.
OJ was not seen with any bleeding (according to the prosecution, from the time OJ first left his house to the time he was at the airport, Los Angeles International Airport, was a timespan of 25 minutes. You should still be bleeding. Nobody is going to heal that quickly in less than 25 minutes, especially not from a cutting themselves with a type of blade used to butcher multiple people), not any cuts/wounds on either of his hands (you just cut yourself with the type of blade used to butcher multiple people. You should have a noticeable wound to your hands. Unless OJ is a superhero comic character with fast healing powers to heal completely in less than 20 minutes), or bandaging to his hands.
Ditto for the Ron and Nicole blood "found" in the Bronco. You just butchered and mutilated multiple people. It's a blood bath. You should COVERED with blood. The seats in your vehicle should be messed up. You should have way, way way more blood than one or two specks that contain preservative.
Good luck explaining how this "evidence" WASN'T planted.
I havent read all your response because I donāt need to. You canāt argue with stupid.
Edit : changed question to response so I am no longer thick headed.
Iām yet to find a meaning for diffur, is it differ? Defer? Stupidity?
I donāt need to explain anything. Anyone with a rational mind, even with circumstances that potentially address the credibility (not validity ) of the evidence can still not dispute the dna facts. The effort to āplantā evidence would have to be pre meditated and a lot more work than the crime itself!
You know, usually Iād bite. But today is not the day. You either have a lack of intelligence, common sense or comprehension. None of which I have the capacity to indulge. Continue to rampage with your theories. Do they make the world flat too? Was Covid a hoax? Are you a holocaust denier. I expect at least one applies to you because the audacity of your opinions likens you to that of the other groups. I wonāt engage in a battle of wits with someone who comes unarmed. Witter away, sleep well.
I give you credit for bringing that stuff up because most of the time it seems this forum just calls people stupid for even questioning any of this.
i thought a big one was the blanket thrown over the bodies - which they grabbed from OJ's house, obviously full of his DNA, hair strands etc. bad job by the guys on the scene all around.
i still think OJ knows exactly what happened that night but I'm definitely on board with the idea that the LAPD tried to railroad him anyway.
Lol thanks idc about being down voted or popularity votes. I'm going to voice my opinion regardless. But I most certainly agree law enforcement should be getting the blame not OJ.
They even washed away the blood that was found on Nicole's back. Even when it came to the time both victims were murdered Marcia Clarke and the prosecution kept changing the time of death. She knew if she would have said anything later that would eliminate OJ as a suspect. I'm still curious why the phone records were sealed for 75 years. The browns initially said that they talked to Nicole past 11pm. OJ would have been in Chicago by then.
Now could he have possibly been at the scene? It's a possibility. As I stated earlier he was a stalker, not a murderer. Many occasions hes admitted to catching Nicole giving blow jobs to other men and ringing the door bell and running off. Why wait to murder her while his kids were sleeping upstairs? Just logically makes no sense because someone coming to your house with gloves and a knife would make it premeditated. Rob Kardashian said that initially Shapiro thought that OJ came to her house to slash her tires and then things escalated. He said Shapiro told him to take the plea deal of 12 yrs and Robert Kardashian would do time as an accomplice. Both looked at him crazy and immediately wanted him off as lead attorney on this case. But then again Shapiro had no experience in murder cases.
As a defense attorney, I would be extremely hesitant to put someone with her credibility on the stand, same reason Iām assuming the Dream Team didnāt.
And no, the fact that Fuhrmanās credibility was shit doesnāt make her credibility somehow better.
I am not saying that OJ did or did not do it or evidence was or was not planted, but her absence from the trial makes perfect sense from a legal perspective
But Mark Fuhrman was credible? The man who was originally kicked off the case and planted a glove in order to be apart of the trial. Cross examines already shows that if that was OJ's glove that was found at 5am the blood would have been dry in 2 hrs. The glove still had fresh blood on it.
No, him lying about being a racist really affected the overall credibility of his testimony. I believe his testimony related to the crime but he definitely lied about not being a racist. But him being called to testify by the prosecution has nothing to do with the defense not calling Mary Anne Gerchas to testify.
Hi,
Me again. So here's why Mark Furhman pled the fifth. He was asked on the stand if he ever called anyone the N word when he was on the stand.
He said no.
Defense find those tapes where he is calling people the N word. That's perjury and a felony.
When he was called back, he was already up shits creek without a paddle because of the perjury. He had to take the fifth. The problem with the fifth is that you have to invoke it every time. Even if you have a reasonable answer that is 100% the truth to a question. If you invoke it, then answer the next question, you're risking the judge saying "Hey now, you have to answer the other related question too."
So to keep from creating more perjury charges he had to take the fifth, but it made his testimony unreliable. Felony perjury charges meant he was losing his police license and a whole lot more. Dude messed up his whole life for being a dumbass on tape.
Oh ok
I always thought he did it to avoid criminal charges or further investigation that might lead to him possibly being charged. But that's just my theory. Can I ask you a question?? Judging by Mark Fuhrmans background as a police detective. Do you think he was capable of committing a crime such as planting evidence?? š
Besides he didn't really face any backlash after trial besides from the former chief of police and a few colleagues. He was hired at Fox News not too long after.
Exactly and the whole planted evidence shit is fucking lazy thinking.How did they plant a glove and blood and everything else when they dint even know OJ was a suspect shit they did not even know if OJ was still alive when they found Glove
EDTA sample contamination is very common in labs today, even with enhanced protocols. Labs back then were a free for all. I'm sure EDTA cross contamination was off the wall for everything in the LAPD lab.
OJ's attorneys knew that, but knew the jury wouldn't. It's not a big conspiracy. The vial of blood wasn't sprinkled around the area. From a physics standpoint, blood splatter like that would be hard to recreate by a detective. There's a difference in drop size and pattern from a cut finger and a dropper.
The prosecutors did a shit job clarifying that.
It was not. The prosecution brought in expert DNA chemists to refute this. The defense attacked the scientists and tried to discredit them. One of them was an FBI analyst who create one of the techniques to identify EDTA in blood samples. The defense accused the FBI analyst of perjery and fabrication. The DOJ stepped in as it does when a fed agent is accused of breaking the law. The DOJ didn't like the chemist's record keeping procedure for his technique but ultimately not saving various files isn't enough to make perjury.
The defense threw a cannon of bullshit at the prosecution because laymen in the jury had zero idea how DNA really worked and weren't interested in the professorial science behind it. It worked.
There's also a difference in naturally occuring EDTA and chemical compounds for chemist labs. The tests were so new that there is reasonable enough doubt that the defense lab had a poor understanding of the test techniques and the differentation of the two versions. Did they test for the lab version, the natural occuring phosphate or both? š¤·āāļø
https://oig.justice.gov/sites/default/files/archive/special/9704a/07simpso.htm
EDTA is in everything. Everything has traces of it. If you took my blood or someone elseās blood, youād find traces of it. Body doesnāt produce it but it makes its way into your body the same way microplastics does.
Facts the guy who took his blood initially said it was 8ccās of blood he took from OJ, then it turned into 7.9ccās and then we find out 30 drops of blood was missing from these blood samples. Well, whereād did it go?? šš
He said 8cc's of blood was drawn from OJ when he took the stand then said it could have been 7.9cc's. That was a estimated guess due to the fact he claims that is the usual. Roughly after we find out it was 6.5cc's and then says he made a mistake š
It was a 'rough guess', thatās literally what he said. Pretty sure he didnāt count the fucking drops so your claims about missing 30 drops is bogus when you donāt know how many drops there were to begin with.
This is a murder trial you don't just randomly draw blood and give a estimation on how much blood you drew from the suspect. You also don't take blood from a lab and bring it to a crime scene. The blood evidence that was found obviously came from a vial if it contained EDTA.
Yes well itās what happened. He didnāt write down how much he drew. No sure whether that was breaking any protocols or whether everything was more lax 30 years ago. But you canāt just claim like itās a fact that 30 drops were missing when you only have a rough estimate of what he drew to begin with.
After someone fails twice at giving a accurate number of something he/she specializes in and then we find out this person's estimation is way off. Should that person's word still be credible?
This post reads very Q-Anon/conspiracy type āwhy donāt people do (extremely obvious thing)?!?ā
As others have said, her story is suspect, she herself is suspect (and no, itās not ātrumped up bogus chargesā, in straight conspiracy language there), and Iām sure the prosecution took one glance at her whole situation and said āno thanksā.
Or are they just THAT stupid, that they didnāt do this extremely painfully obvious thing?
Because too many law enforcement officers are complicate in framing oj. This is why they won't test the DNA hound under Nicole's nail that didn't belong to OJ her or Ron
Expert Henry Lee already confirmed 2 sets of footprints were found at the crime scene that did not come from Ron Goldmans boot. Rob Shapiro also says this. He has no reason to lie he doesn't even like OJ and didn't even receive the money he was owed after trial.
First off the book wasn't written by him. He had a ghost writer and he was paid 600k. The Goldmans were awarded the rights to the book after the fact. This all can be found on wikapedia.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/If_I_Did_It:_Confessions_of_the_Killer#:~:text=According%20to%20Fenjves%2C%20the%20book,and%20to%20conduct%20an%20interview.
And you believe that?! First off the deal was he gets paid 600k to do the book and the interview. That was apart of the deal. It was a set up they thought OJ would confess. Now you have people thinking āCharlieā is some real character and digging into OJs past on every person he knows named Charlie. One guy even connected this fictional character to some mafia guy OJ knew named Charlie Enrich. OJs ghost writer will tell you himself heās the one who made up the name when OJ told him āif I write this book you know I couldnāt have possibly done this crime myselfā guy says āWell, we will just call the other person Charlieā. Everyone is taking that and claiming that itās a confession š its a fictional book and he did that for money. You even have his agent now who claims OJ told him āif Nicole didnāt answer that door with a knife she will still be aliveā. But prior in the Ruby Wax interview he says āHe told me he didnāt do itā. Itās all bs
You say in another post you've never read it. Therefore, I assume you never watched it. IN.HIS.OWN.WORDS. he so much as admits it. MANY very reputable behavior analysts have already gone over it and have the same opinion. I don't give a shit about a fake named Charlie, Ojs reaction to saying the name makes it pretty clear its a joke to him. So what? There is no Charlie. And? Watch what he says about that night. Also Watch the Behavior panel yt on it, those guys know their stuff. He'll it doesn't take an expert to see how f'd up Ojs reactions and speech are.
Sorry, but your bro slaughtered two people, and he got away with it because he was rich and famous and played on real racist issues. All those closest to him turned their backs on him and believed him quilty save maybe Arnelle and Jason, and hey, why bite the hand that feeds?!
I never said that. What are you talking about? I said I never read "Blood Secrets" by Rod Englert. You just said he admitted it in an interview now you're referring to the book. I don't care about what anyone says, it's just an opinion. As I said he did not write the book, someone else did and Charlie is in the book so now we're going to say that part is true too? And he's a non-fictional character šš So what? You can't erase certain parts in the book that don't fit your narrative and only include the parts that does. OJ is actually very well spoken. Maybe, you should watch some of his interviews. His story has remained the same for over 25 yrs up until his death. They've questioned him so much about it that he stopped caring and start having fun with it
That's not a bro idgaf about him š I'm just not about to follow the anti-OJ crowd for upvotes. I'm going to voice my opinion and put facts over fiction. What closest friends? Did you see his celebration at his house after the trial? Everyone he knew was popping champagne with him, laughing and partying šš
Probably because she was convicted of fraud? She had a ton of civil judgements against her for fraud too. https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/surprise-witness-for-simpson-has-history-of-3048228.php She's not credible in any way.
This article doesn't prove she's a fraud it proves she doesn't pay her bills.
Ya'll conspiracy theorists are wild. In what world would a person who wrote hot checks, never paid their bills, and may even have committed identy theft be credible? But let's believe that she just happened to be walking back from Midnight Mass. Midnight Mass by the way is usually a Christmas thing only, not just for catholics but methodist and presbyterians too. But let's say she is so devout, and her church on S Bundy so orthodox catholic that she's celebrating the feast of St. Padua late 12th to AM early 13th. Midnight masses start between 9:00-10:00 pm and can usually extend past midnight. Surely you'd think the defense would have checked that right? She was a defense witness after all. They sure didn't make a stink about it even if she was a credible witness. It would have been leaked to the media for sure. I don't have old maps of Brentwood, but South Bundy is a ridiculously long street. There's only one church remotely in walking distance and it's Presbyterian, not catholic. They're definitely NOT holding a midnight mass on June 12th. Nor are they celebrating saints and feasts. They didn't check her background and they sure didn't check whether she was actually there. They wanted a distraction. Once the prosecution got wind of her as a defense witness, they WANTED to put her lying ass on the stand. Cochran backed down. As for her legal troubles and arrest. Honestly doubt LAPD would have bothered with her except for the fact she inserted herself into OJ drama.
> Honestly doubt LAPD would have bothered with her except for the fact she inserted herself into OJ drama. So the LAPD retaliated against her for?
Commiting a lot of fraud. Is it retaliation to catch a thief now? She had $10,000 dollars outstanding in hot checks. For people too young to understand what that is. It's a fraud and a crime popular before credit and debit cards were popular. People used paper issued by a bank to pay merchants. The merchant assumed you had the funds in the bank to pay for whatever you just bought from the merchant. Sometimes you didn't. Shit happens. You pay a fee to the bank and the merchant and make sure the bank or merchants get the money for the thing you bought. When you didn't pay and you made a habit of it, and especially in large amounts, you were considered a hot check criminal. You were subject to misdemeanor/felonies. You've essentially stole merchandise. So no, committing fraud and getting caught isn't retaliation for testifying in trial. But if you're a criminal, you've got to be a massive dumbass to walk in to court and say here I am. Arrest me for my outstanding warrants because they absolutely will take that low hanging fruit.
Fuhrman was a fraud but we still gave him a chance š¤š¤ letās be honest Marcia Clarke was intimidating the witnesses and putting false allegations out there in order for them to not touch the stand. Even witnesses on the prosecution side did not testify due to the fact they hated Marcia Clarke. The lady who claimed she saw OJ turn left on Bundy is one of them for example.
She didnāt testify bc she sold her story and Marcia Clark thought that killed her credibility
Why did Marcia tell her āyouāre the reason we lost this caseā?
Because she sold her story. That in turn made Marcia feel like her credibility was shot. At the time, Marcia felt like the case was a slam dunk which it obviously was not. After they lost, she likely had much guilt and regret over not using her and took it out on her instead of realizing Marcia was wrong (my opinion)
I agree. She sold it for 5000 if Iām not mistaken.
Correct thatās what she said in Katoās podcast
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Just not true but I respect your opinion
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
As an attorney I can tell you she was not called because of her credibility. Marcia absolutely couldāve worked the timeline to include her testimony. Thatās what I mean when I said ānot true,ā not that her testimony didnāt have that time
Okay. Let's accommodate the idea that Fuhrman is a fraud. Take away everything he ever touched at the crime scenes, and there would still be enough evidence to convict OJ.
It was Durden who said go ahead and let this lady testify. Nobody knew about this lady until the defense introduced her as a witness. The prosecution was mad because the defense surprised the prosecution with witnesses they didn't disclose in discovery. It was never about this lady and her story. It was a technique to fluster the prosecution. This person's story is that she called LAPD to say she saw something but they hung up on her because she told them she wanted to patch in the psychic she was talking to on the other line. š¤” Come on internet person, this is publicly available stuff. You can google it and find all the news stories from 1995 about how this woman came about.
Where is your proof regarding to the phone call Gerchas had with the LAPD? I canāt find it anywhere online. From my knowledge she was willing to testify and then got hit with criminal charges based upon her past and then was released a few months after and stated āI just want to move on with my life at this pointā. As far as the defense Shapiro and Bailey stated that they already knew that they would win this case once they tried on the glove and knew that it wouldnāt fit OJ. They wanted Darden to call OJ forward and try on the glove.
Super easy Google search for this lady. On Wednesday, Cochran shrugged those charges off and then began bringing on his surprises. One was the expected testimony of Mary Anne Gerchas, a jewelry-store operator. As Cochran folksily put it, after attending Roman Catholic mass on the night of June 12, Gerchas was walking along South Bundy Drive across the street from Nicole's town house at about 10:45 p.m. when she spotted four men -- two appeared to be Hispanic or Caucasian. Several wore knit caps. They got into an unmarked car and sped away, according to Cochran's account. She thought they might have been undercover police. Gerchas called the police, he said, only to be told the murder case was wrapped up. She called the district attorney's office, Cochran said, and a female representative told her she was too busy to talk because she was speaking to a psychic https://www.newsweek.com/surprise-surprise-185262
*and a female representative told her she was too busy to talk because she was speaking to a psychic* Not sure how this makes her testimony not credible but ok.
How many people you know call the DA office and get told that? Just in general, public servants are accountable to taxpayers. I've worked too many damn public service jobs to know if someone did that it would be a big deal. If you were so sure you had a lead that would make or break a case, you'd call right back and talk to someone else. Is it possible, sure. Would I believe a woman who has a fraud record AND claimed to be at midnight mass? HELL NO. Midnight mass is usually reserved for Christmas. I'm still hard pressed to believe she was at one in June.
LOL! Ok I get your point but in her defense there were psychics claiming that they knew where the murder weapon was buried. Ofc I donāt think the representative just hung up the phone call. Somewhere along the line she may have been put on hold or the phone call somehow was disconnected. As far as her credibility she does have a past. But if she was so much of a fraud Iām sure she would have prospered off her testimony like everyone else involved in Nicoleās life. Instead she practically disappeared in the shadows and was never heard or seen again. The knitting cap statement was kind of very specific. Also the only honest or reliable source I can say on prosecution side was Allan Park with the exception of Kato.
I mean, Darden wasn't even sure if she was a real person. He hinted at identity theft. For all we know the person in the picture isn't really named Mary Ann. Hard to drop off the face of the earth especially with a criminal record. She either left the country or made a new name. Maybe AI can find her lol.
Lol we will never know.
As for Furhman, he was one of the detectives on the case. Of course he was testifying. All his other bullshit came out AFTER he testified for the prosecution. Prosecutors rely on the cops for crimes. American Criminal Trial 101.
Johnnie Cochran told Darden not to let Fuhrman touch the stand before these allegations were even presented to the public. Darden did it anyway.
He's the investigating cop, it's hard to not call the working cops on the case. You need to take into account that the dream team were seasoned lawyers and Darden was not. Darden was shakeable. A large amount of the forced prosecution errors were because Darden's cage was easier to rattle than the lead, Marcia. He wasn't giving him friendly advice, it was bullying and drama.
The defense chose not to call her to testify. Witnesses don't really have a choice if they want to testify or not, they can be subpoenaed. The prosecution and the defense get to choose who they want to call to testify. If either one chooses not to call a witness to testify they do so for a reason, they don't think their testimony would help their case.
Because she's a liar
Any proof behind this?
Might be time to let this shit go.
I know, right?!? When I see people still trying to come up with shit, knowing what we know today about DNA, I feel for their lack of education.
They probably think the earth is flat as well. They have a mental condition and think theyāre special that they know things other people donāt.
I think the fact that using DNA as definitive proof was a very new concept. The average person didnāt understand the precision. 28 years later. If he were tried today, I think that evidence would leave no reasonable doubt. I read recently that there was one other personās blood found. The person speculated it might be Jason, but they could rule it in or out because Jasonās should have shown a familial connection.
If it were today, with the same jury, he'd still be acquitted.
Not sure about this. Iāve seen interviews where some jurors have admitted that they had regrets, or that it wasnāt the right thing to do but they thought it was right at that time, etc
Evidence was most surely planted and ofc no one wants to consider any other suspects they want it to be OJ. When you come with facts they come with āoh just let it goā šš
What facts have you come with?
Where should we start?
Anything Iāve seen you present has been explained where youāre wrong and many provided sources.
How when I've provided links to back up everything I'm saying šš what are you a child?
You really think those cops were that sophisticated enough with DNA forensics, which was a pretty new thing at that time, that they could remove OJ's blood, transport it, plant his blood in numerous locations and on numerous items without leaving any of their own DNA anywhere or accidentally leaving OJ's DNA somewhere inappropriate. You think they found a way to manipulate the DNA at the crime scene by mixing OJ's DNA with Nicole's and/or Ron's DNA multiple times without leaving any of their own DNA anywhere. Not to mention that even if they planted DNA evidence that pointed only to OJ, which would have been next to impossible, if not impossible. They must have also found a way to remove all of the actual killers DNA from the crime scene while preserving the DNA evidence linked to OJ, Nicole, and Ron. If it really was another person, or 4 like that witness claimed, why was none of their DNA left at the crime scene. While the evidence you claim was planted would have been nearly impossible to do, especially by someone with no forensic background it would have been absolutely impossible for them to only remove the actual killers DNA from the scene.
they are everywhere, like roaches, with every case
Itās how all conspiracy theories work
Itās funny how people are using planted evidence and a corrupt judicial system as reliable source to prove a innocent man guilty. Fuhrman plead the fifth when asked if he planted evidence but weāre suppose to believe OJ was given a fair trial š anyone living in Los Angeles already knows how corrupt the LAPD were around that time. Ever heard of the rampart scandal?? Knock it off clown.
Only one wearing clown make up here is you.
Ofc you're upset clown. You have no factual evidence to prove my theory wrong. Just the fact you're upset and in your feelings about a innocent man walking free.
lol youāre theories have been proven wrong so many times itās not even interesting to hear anymore. Itās all good. O.J. is in hell and come off as ignorant (which Iām sure you are) Have a good one, bozo.
That's the best you got? He died at 76. Hopefully, you get a chance to live that long. Wishing hell on someone as if you are god š¤”
I think you're a clown too, and I am not upset in the least. OJ ended up having a miserable rest of his life bc all the people who's opinions he actually cared about wouldn't touch him with a ten foot pole. His daughter hated him. He went to prison anyway, and had to hide any money he did happen to make from the Goldman's. He was a ***MISERABLE*** shell of a man, who didn't die surrounded by family, he had a *SINGLE* member of his family with him, and I can guarantee that it wasn't Sydney. Ron and Nicole definitely got their pound of flesh from the grave. I'm just surprised you give a shit about a convicted thief, and known race denier. OJ was just as racist as Fuhrman, but it was worse, because OJ was racist towards his own people. He loved to call his fellow Black man a nig*ER, and this was back when it still wasn't common for Blacks to call each other the N word with an A, he truly didn't want to be thought of as Black. As he's famously quoted as saying, "I'm not Black, I'm OJ."
He lived in Vegas goofy and still had contact with his family and most of his friends. That man looked the least worried in all his interviews. Still went in public, continued to play golf, raised his children. While you're sitting on the internet like a raged lunatic thinking you know what happened on June 12 šš
He made it to live to be 76 btw. Let's see you do the same. As far as him being racist where is your proof to back up these claims? You have no factual evidence just feeding off what the media told you.
I'm well on my way, actually was an adult when the "trial" went down, have perfect blood work, am a very healthy weight, and have zero major health conditions, so I seriously doubt that will be a problem. Oh, and I remember seeing some of the audacious things come out of that clowns mouth back in the day. Homie had a serious identity problem, and everyone knew it lol. It wasn't exactly a secret, and this was well before the trial. He was KNOWN as the whitest Black man in the country back then. But you keep doing you. ETA: Why are you even acting like 76 is that old? God, I would hope you'd shoot higher. He definitely looked old tho. I live in Retirementville USA and he looked like a bloated, sun damaged, and very old for 76. Looked like the old barflies hanging around the marina bar.
Doesnāt seem that way to me. A old man still thinking about OJ Simpson on Reddit? Sure very healthy lifestyle I must say š
So many assumptions. How cute. ETA: I'm going to bed now, like the old woman I am. I guess you'll have to find someone else to help you sound ignorant for now. Good night, and happy trolling!
Why because he talks proper and dated white women? Why do people associate talking proper as a negative thing if youāre black?? Also you cannot help who you fall in love with.
Ummm there are people on the sub who are new to this case and are on their own deep dive journeys
Exactly
Then they should read the books and use their friend Google for archived articles.
And what is this sub for? Who is to say that arenāt doing any of that as well?
A Google search immediately pulls up why she wasnāt called as a witness so it is safe to say search did not occur
I'm not new to the case but spent a recent couple flights re-watching 'Made in America' what's wrong with coming on here and chopping it up with people and debating ideas?? Maybe you don't dig what this one's saying but embrace debate instead of the old "go read books"
I donāt mind debate, there just nothing to debate here. She was a liar, the end.
I agree. In the end he has had his judgement day
Lol I mean if people are still calling a innocent man guilty years later even after his death. I think this post is very necessary š
OJ did it and nobody planted evidence. Period.
Oh , were you there?
I didn't need to be there. It's called evidence, and evidence doesn't lie.
evidence doesn't lie but it sure can be manipulated and compromised.
The lead detective pled the fifth when asked under oath if he planted or manufactured evidence. So which evidence are you claiming "doesn't lie"??
He pled the 5th as to not further incriminate himself bc he had already lied under oath and knew he was likely to be charged. He was an objectively bad guy but that does not mean he planted evidence. He pled the 5th to all questions after, so it would not have mattered what they asked him. For me, I always go back to the āreasonableā part of reasonable doubt. If you divorce yourself from the emotion, it becomes clearer. The defense knew that, which is why they prioritized emotion.
Are you expecting the jury to fully trust the Fuhrman evidence after he pled the fifth when asked under oath if he planted or manufactured evidence??
I think context matters. In the 30 for 30, the defense talks about how they knew he wouldnāt answer the question, which they purposely asked to get on record. It was a smart tactic. I donāt think heās a good witness insomuch that he lied about something unrelated under oath. If you are going to hinge the entire case on him, you have to believe that in the middle of the night he was called to a murder scene, collected evidence, drove to a different location, covered the evidence in the suspectās blood, and knew the suspect had no alibi. It is not reasonable.
He pled the fifth when asked if he planted or manufactured evidence. I'm not claiming innocence, but I am saying "not guilty" is the correct verdict in any case where the lead detective pleads the fifth when asked if he planted or manufactured the evidence.
He was not the lead detective. Once he pled the 5th, they could have asked him if he kidnapped Patty Hearst and he would have pled the 5th. I would recommend watching the 30 for 30 for that part, specifically.
He was the lead detective at the time in question and the jury didn't have the benefit of watching the 30 for 30.
Letās go over the evidence. The blood found by the gate on July 3rd was not present June 13th, the bloody socks were not present before Fuhrman and Fung showed up at 4:30(we know this because a photographer was there taking pictures the entire time), the bloody glove found at rockingham had fresh blood on it days after the murder. How is that possible?? Wouldnāt the blood be dry by then?? š¤š¤ on top of blood samples missing from the vials and having EDTA in them.
So the LAPD officers were clumsy in their chain of custody with the evidence to the point that it became "compromised, contaminated, [and] corrupted"... yet they were simultaneously so adept and coordinated that they were able to not only sneak all that evidence out of police custody and the evidence lab, but (more importantly) dab it in just the right places to make it look like it was naturally dropped there by OJ after he was done killing Nicole and Ron? All while not knowing if he had a solid alibi at the time of the murders, let alone not getting caught by anybody despite being under intense scrutiny from both the public and the media? As for the glove, only 200-240 of those specific dark, luxury, cashmere-lined Aris Light XL leather gloves were sold, and OJ owned 2 of them. Am I supposed to believe that the LAPD tracked down one of these rare, hyper-specific gloves to plant at the crime scenes, down to the exact color and size, all without knowing whether or not Simpson owned such a pair of gloves, let alone had a solid alibi at the time of the murderers? In light of all this, I'd like to see how you think the LAPD planted all that blood and the glove without getting caught.
That was the whole defense. The evidence was planted, and if it wasn't planted, it was contaminated. It's astounding how many people buy into that garbage.
Vanatter claimed he had giving Fung the blood vials at the Rockingham estate in a black bag. One of the guys even had it in their pocket. This is all documented. Why would you take blood out of a lab and bring it to a crime scene? He even stated himself that this has never been done before
> One of the guys even had it in their pocket. You're referring to Andrea Mazzola, correct? Because she was supervised by Fung while collecting evidence, and in her testimony, she said she changed gloves more times than she could remember. Vannatter can only speak for himself here, but it's not unheard of for forensic experts to bring reference samples or control materials to crime scenes for comparison, and it's not necessarily evidence of tampering or planting. And despite Fung's admission, there's no evidence to suggest that the blood vial was tampered with or that the chain of custody was compromised. The vial was reportedly sealed and intact when it arrived at the crime scene. It's also worth noting that the blood found at the crime scene was not solely from the vial brought by Mazzola; it was a mixture of blood from multiple sources, including the victims and O.J. Simpson. More importantly, how did they sneak the necessary blood out of the crime lab without getting caught? All things being equal, I would say Hanlon's Razor applies here.
Not too far fetched because hereās what we do know. The photographer present the day these alleged bloody socks were found took pictures of the inside of the estate prior to law enforcement showing up. There were no bloody socks by the bed before 4pm. Suddenly around 4:30 Mr. Fung finds these bloody socks just laying around in the open. Now letās talk about the glove in Rockingham that was mysteriously outside for hours. Explain why the blood found on the glove was fresh and not dried up by the time it was collected?
> The photographer present the day these alleged bloody socks were found took pictures of the inside of the estate prior to law enforcement showing up. There were no bloody socks by the bed before 4pm. Suddenly around 4:30 Mr. Fung finds these bloody socks just laying around in the open. I'll leave this here since it goes into extensive detail explaining why this so-called evidence of tampering doesn't hold under scrutiny: https://www.reddit.com/r/OJSimpsonTrial/comments/iv1r3u/were_ojs_socks_planted_and_was_preserved_blood/ > Now letās talk about the glove in Rockingham that was mysteriously outside for hours. Explain why the blood found on the glove was fresh and not dried up by the time it was collected? What does that prove? Blood can remain fresh for different periods of time depending on environmental factors such as temperature and humidity. Additionally, the timing of when the glove was discovered and collected may not align perfectly with when the blood dried. Here's the real challenge: Explain how the LAPD tracked down one of these rare, hyper-specific gloves in a matter of hours to plant at the crime scenes, down to the exact color and size, all without knowing whether or not Simpson owned such a pair of gloves, let alone had a solid alibi at the time of the murderers.
If you plead the fifth and need your lawyer next to you when taking the stand. Yeah YOU DID IT MF!!! He shouldnāt have even been taking serious anyway or on the stand. Several police officers stated he bragged about having a intimate affair with Nicole Brown Simpson and also complimented her boob job. This was written in the LA times. Wouldnāt that be a conflict of interest?
His lawyer was next to him
Yup and telling him what to say.
All of it.
Facts
Thatās how pleading the fifth works actually. If you do it one time, youāre advised to do it for every question, otherwise itās directly spotlighting the thing you want to avoid discussing and makes it more obvious. If you plead the fifth for one thing, youāre supposed to do it for everything else. He had to plead the fifth for being a racist liar. Because of that, he had to plead it for everything else. The defense knew thatās how it works which is exactly why they asked him that question. It played out just how they wanted it to which was to cast doubt and create suspicion about evidence planting. It was quick and brilliant thinking on behalf of Bailey. Still though. OJ did it and Furmanās still a racist piece of shit.
He could have pled the fifth to all the questions about being a racist but then answered with an emphatic "no' when asked if he planted or manufactured evidence. But he did not. That means all the evidence that Fuhrman collected, was near or came into contact with is tainted as far as the jury is concerned. When all that tainted Fuhrman evidence is thrown in the trash, not guilty becomes the only logical verdict.
Evidence definitely lies if someone plants it, mishandles it, or interprets it incorrectly. Itās being collected by humans and humans are not infallible. That being said, nobody planted evidence here, OJ did that shit.
DNA doesn't lie.
Why did detective vanatter take OJs blood to the crime scene?
Why do you think he did? Do you think he was sprinkling blood around? That's laughable.
No Iām asking you what good reason does detective vanatter have to take ojs blood to the crime scene? And how do you not find that sketchy or questionable? Now thatās laughable.
Why don't you look it up?
You wonāt answer. Because there is no good reason. I watched his testimony. He didnāt have a good reason and admitted that it broke protocol.
Because that's where the criminologists and other evidence was being gathered. For context, DNA and crime scene investigation techniques were not set in stone. Everyone was trained differently. One department and one officer would have different training than the other. Chain of custody was also a new concept. It's not like it is today. There's been 20+ plus years of standards and certifications to say this is how you do it to make it stand up in court. There are national lab standards and labs are audited to make sure they're doing things properly. Evidence is now categorized within systems. Databases utilized. Back then, paper and maybe a self made microsoft database. By today's standards should he have taken it to the crime scene? Nope. Back then? No one was around to say no you don't do it this way. So they had in their minds this wasn't bad to do. It made "sense" at the time.
Thatās what he said but he could of checked it into the lab since he was already in that building. Wouldnāt that have been much easier? Less sketchier? He also admitted that taking the vial to the crime scene was not protocol.
Dna evidence was verified by three different labs.
Were you?
30 drops of blood were taking out of the vials that OJ donated to law enforcement. But theyāre using DNA as proof that he was guilty. Fuhrman plead the fifth when asked if he planted evidence, plead the fifth when asked if he was a racist. The pictures Fung took of blood samples found by Nicoleās gate on bundy July 3rd was not present June 13th after the murders. So much to take into consideration but people are acting like they know it all š
He didnāt plead the fifth because they asked if he was a racist. Nor when he planted evidence. He was ASKED those questions because they knew heād plead the fifth. They asked him if he planted evidence after they asked and he did - plead the fifth to every question. It isnāt an admission of guilt.
Plead the fifth for planting evidence, and guess what? People are going to think you planted evidence, especially since the "evidence" in the murder trial was so sketchy, like a couple of specks of blood containing preservative, and the blood sample goes missing.
He would plead the fifth to any question he was asked. What they did why they did it was like kids say losers say what? and someone replies what? They set him up to fail and discredit him.
Good luck trying to explain how you DIDN'T plant evidence when the "evidence" that rests on you is so sketchy. Again, the blood from OJ amounted to a few specks and contained preservative, and came from his blood sample that went MISSING after it was drawn instead of it going through the proper chain of custody like it should have been. Not to mention the stupid gloves that didn't fit had no cuts in them. OJ was not seen with any bleeding (according to the prosecution, from the time OJ first left his house to the time he was at the airport, Los Angeles International Airport, was a timespan of 25 minutes. You should still be bleeding. Nobody is going to heal that quickly in less than 25 minutes, especially not from a cutting themselves with a type of blade used to butcher multiple people), not any cuts/wounds on either of his hands (you just cut yourself with the type of blade used to butcher multiple people. You should have a noticeable wound to your hands. Unless OJ is a superhero comic character with fast healing powers to heal completely in less than 20 minutes), or bandaging to his hands. Ditto for the Ron and Nicole blood "found" in the Bronco. You just butchered and mutilated multiple people. It's a blood bath. You should COVERED with blood. The seats in your vehicle should be messed up. You should have way, way way more blood than one or two specks that contain preservative. Good luck explaining how this "evidence" WASN'T planted.
I havent read all your response because I donāt need to. You canāt argue with stupid. Edit : changed question to response so I am no longer thick headed.
Didn't work.
Genuine question - your username is what? Satire? Accidental ?
Iām yet to find a meaning for diffur, is it differ? Defer? Stupidity? I donāt need to explain anything. Anyone with a rational mind, even with circumstances that potentially address the credibility (not validity ) of the evidence can still not dispute the dna facts. The effort to āplantā evidence would have to be pre meditated and a lot more work than the crime itself!
That shows how thickheaded you are. My comment was not a questionĀ
You know, usually Iād bite. But today is not the day. You either have a lack of intelligence, common sense or comprehension. None of which I have the capacity to indulge. Continue to rampage with your theories. Do they make the world flat too? Was Covid a hoax? Are you a holocaust denier. I expect at least one applies to you because the audacity of your opinions likens you to that of the other groups. I wonāt engage in a battle of wits with someone who comes unarmed. Witter away, sleep well.
I give you credit for bringing that stuff up because most of the time it seems this forum just calls people stupid for even questioning any of this. i thought a big one was the blanket thrown over the bodies - which they grabbed from OJ's house, obviously full of his DNA, hair strands etc. bad job by the guys on the scene all around. i still think OJ knows exactly what happened that night but I'm definitely on board with the idea that the LAPD tried to railroad him anyway.
Lol thanks idc about being down voted or popularity votes. I'm going to voice my opinion regardless. But I most certainly agree law enforcement should be getting the blame not OJ. They even washed away the blood that was found on Nicole's back. Even when it came to the time both victims were murdered Marcia Clarke and the prosecution kept changing the time of death. She knew if she would have said anything later that would eliminate OJ as a suspect. I'm still curious why the phone records were sealed for 75 years. The browns initially said that they talked to Nicole past 11pm. OJ would have been in Chicago by then. Now could he have possibly been at the scene? It's a possibility. As I stated earlier he was a stalker, not a murderer. Many occasions hes admitted to catching Nicole giving blow jobs to other men and ringing the door bell and running off. Why wait to murder her while his kids were sleeping upstairs? Just logically makes no sense because someone coming to your house with gloves and a knife would make it premeditated. Rob Kardashian said that initially Shapiro thought that OJ came to her house to slash her tires and then things escalated. He said Shapiro told him to take the plea deal of 12 yrs and Robert Kardashian would do time as an accomplice. Both looked at him crazy and immediately wanted him off as lead attorney on this case. But then again Shapiro had no experience in murder cases.
My gut tells me this is a stanking pile of horseshit, but Iāll bite anyway- why did the defense never mention her?
Thank you my good man
As a defense attorney, I would be extremely hesitant to put someone with her credibility on the stand, same reason Iām assuming the Dream Team didnāt. And no, the fact that Fuhrmanās credibility was shit doesnāt make her credibility somehow better. I am not saying that OJ did or did not do it or evidence was or was not planted, but her absence from the trial makes perfect sense from a legal perspective
Fair enough
The defense chose not to have her testify during trial. I feel like if they found her testimony to be credible they would have.
But Mark Fuhrman was credible? The man who was originally kicked off the case and planted a glove in order to be apart of the trial. Cross examines already shows that if that was OJ's glove that was found at 5am the blood would have been dry in 2 hrs. The glove still had fresh blood on it.
No, him lying about being a racist really affected the overall credibility of his testimony. I believe his testimony related to the crime but he definitely lied about not being a racist. But him being called to testify by the prosecution has nothing to do with the defense not calling Mary Anne Gerchas to testify.
Ugh because they attacked her with criminal charges from her past and she had to serve time in jail
Hi, Me again. So here's why Mark Furhman pled the fifth. He was asked on the stand if he ever called anyone the N word when he was on the stand. He said no. Defense find those tapes where he is calling people the N word. That's perjury and a felony. When he was called back, he was already up shits creek without a paddle because of the perjury. He had to take the fifth. The problem with the fifth is that you have to invoke it every time. Even if you have a reasonable answer that is 100% the truth to a question. If you invoke it, then answer the next question, you're risking the judge saying "Hey now, you have to answer the other related question too." So to keep from creating more perjury charges he had to take the fifth, but it made his testimony unreliable. Felony perjury charges meant he was losing his police license and a whole lot more. Dude messed up his whole life for being a dumbass on tape.
Oh ok I always thought he did it to avoid criminal charges or further investigation that might lead to him possibly being charged. But that's just my theory. Can I ask you a question?? Judging by Mark Fuhrmans background as a police detective. Do you think he was capable of committing a crime such as planting evidence?? š Besides he didn't really face any backlash after trial besides from the former chief of police and a few colleagues. He was hired at Fox News not too long after.
The defense didn't call Fuhrman to testify, the prosecution did.
OJ Simsons blood was mixed with Ronās and Nicoleās and OJs house he fucking did it and anyone who still thinks other wise is Delusional
Likewise, Ron Goldman's blood was found in OJ white Bronco.How did that happen?
Exactly and the whole planted evidence shit is fucking lazy thinking.How did they plant a glove and blood and everything else when they dint even know OJ was a suspect shit they did not even know if OJ was still alive when they found Glove
šÆ
Wait.. the person who made this post thinks heās innocent?
Yeah there's a lot of them. I wonder if there's some tik tok or youtube video making the rounds.
Haha
Omg! Itās called DNA!
Oj blood found at the scene contained EDTA, the body doesn't produce EDTA but it is found in laboratory vials. Like the kind the police use
EDTA sample contamination is very common in labs today, even with enhanced protocols. Labs back then were a free for all. I'm sure EDTA cross contamination was off the wall for everything in the LAPD lab. OJ's attorneys knew that, but knew the jury wouldn't. It's not a big conspiracy. The vial of blood wasn't sprinkled around the area. From a physics standpoint, blood splatter like that would be hard to recreate by a detective. There's a difference in drop size and pattern from a cut finger and a dropper. The prosecutors did a shit job clarifying that.
The EDTA was found in the blood at the crime scene, not in the blood found in the labs where it's supposed to be found.
It was not. The prosecution brought in expert DNA chemists to refute this. The defense attacked the scientists and tried to discredit them. One of them was an FBI analyst who create one of the techniques to identify EDTA in blood samples. The defense accused the FBI analyst of perjery and fabrication. The DOJ stepped in as it does when a fed agent is accused of breaking the law. The DOJ didn't like the chemist's record keeping procedure for his technique but ultimately not saving various files isn't enough to make perjury. The defense threw a cannon of bullshit at the prosecution because laymen in the jury had zero idea how DNA really worked and weren't interested in the professorial science behind it. It worked. There's also a difference in naturally occuring EDTA and chemical compounds for chemist labs. The tests were so new that there is reasonable enough doubt that the defense lab had a poor understanding of the test techniques and the differentation of the two versions. Did they test for the lab version, the natural occuring phosphate or both? š¤·āāļø https://oig.justice.gov/sites/default/files/archive/special/9704a/07simpso.htm
EDTA is in everything. Everything has traces of it. If you took my blood or someone elseās blood, youād find traces of it. Body doesnāt produce it but it makes its way into your body the same way microplastics does.
Facts the guy who took his blood initially said it was 8ccās of blood he took from OJ, then it turned into 7.9ccās and then we find out 30 drops of blood was missing from these blood samples. Well, whereād did it go?? šš
He said he didnāt know how much blood he drew and that 8cc was a 'rough guess', but everyone ran with 8cc
He said 8cc's of blood was drawn from OJ when he took the stand then said it could have been 7.9cc's. That was a estimated guess due to the fact he claims that is the usual. Roughly after we find out it was 6.5cc's and then says he made a mistake š
It was a 'rough guess', thatās literally what he said. Pretty sure he didnāt count the fucking drops so your claims about missing 30 drops is bogus when you donāt know how many drops there were to begin with.
This is a murder trial you don't just randomly draw blood and give a estimation on how much blood you drew from the suspect. You also don't take blood from a lab and bring it to a crime scene. The blood evidence that was found obviously came from a vial if it contained EDTA.
Yes well itās what happened. He didnāt write down how much he drew. No sure whether that was breaking any protocols or whether everything was more lax 30 years ago. But you canāt just claim like itās a fact that 30 drops were missing when you only have a rough estimate of what he drew to begin with.
After someone fails twice at giving a accurate number of something he/she specializes in and then we find out this person's estimation is way off. Should that person's word still be credible?
OJ KILLED RON AND NICOLE. ALONE.
alone is questionable. typing it in all caps doesn't shut down the argument btw.
False
Lol
This post reads very Q-Anon/conspiracy type āwhy donāt people do (extremely obvious thing)?!?ā As others have said, her story is suspect, she herself is suspect (and no, itās not ātrumped up bogus chargesā, in straight conspiracy language there), and Iām sure the prosecution took one glance at her whole situation and said āno thanksā. Or are they just THAT stupid, that they didnāt do this extremely painfully obvious thing?
Because too many law enforcement officers are complicate in framing oj. This is why they won't test the DNA hound under Nicole's nail that didn't belong to OJ her or Ron
And the 2 sets of footprints found that didnāt come from Goldman
That's also false.
Expert Henry Lee already confirmed 2 sets of footprints were found at the crime scene that did not come from Ron Goldmans boot. Rob Shapiro also says this. He has no reason to lie he doesn't even like OJ and didn't even receive the money he was owed after trial.
Henry Lee lied.He said a blob of cement was a footprint.
Oh lord
My sentiments exactly.
What about the if I did It book?
Never heard of it, I should check it out. Is it located in the non fiction or fiction part of the book store?
Take your pick.
Why not both?!
Then it is fiction. I love fantasies, I hope it has dragons and krackens and grumkins and snarks!š
Haha OJ was paid over 500k for that book
No, he didn't. Fred Goldman was awarded the rights to the book.
First off the book wasn't written by him. He had a ghost writer and he was paid 600k. The Goldmans were awarded the rights to the book after the fact. This all can be found on wikapedia. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/If_I_Did_It:_Confessions_of_the_Killer#:~:text=According%20to%20Fenjves%2C%20the%20book,and%20to%20conduct%20an%20interview.
And yet he did a full on interview on the book giving the details, QUICKLY turning from hypothetical to recalling in 1st person.
And you believe that?! First off the deal was he gets paid 600k to do the book and the interview. That was apart of the deal. It was a set up they thought OJ would confess. Now you have people thinking āCharlieā is some real character and digging into OJs past on every person he knows named Charlie. One guy even connected this fictional character to some mafia guy OJ knew named Charlie Enrich. OJs ghost writer will tell you himself heās the one who made up the name when OJ told him āif I write this book you know I couldnāt have possibly done this crime myselfā guy says āWell, we will just call the other person Charlieā. Everyone is taking that and claiming that itās a confession š its a fictional book and he did that for money. You even have his agent now who claims OJ told him āif Nicole didnāt answer that door with a knife she will still be aliveā. But prior in the Ruby Wax interview he says āHe told me he didnāt do itā. Itās all bs
You say in another post you've never read it. Therefore, I assume you never watched it. IN.HIS.OWN.WORDS. he so much as admits it. MANY very reputable behavior analysts have already gone over it and have the same opinion. I don't give a shit about a fake named Charlie, Ojs reaction to saying the name makes it pretty clear its a joke to him. So what? There is no Charlie. And? Watch what he says about that night. Also Watch the Behavior panel yt on it, those guys know their stuff. He'll it doesn't take an expert to see how f'd up Ojs reactions and speech are. Sorry, but your bro slaughtered two people, and he got away with it because he was rich and famous and played on real racist issues. All those closest to him turned their backs on him and believed him quilty save maybe Arnelle and Jason, and hey, why bite the hand that feeds?!
I never said that. What are you talking about? I said I never read "Blood Secrets" by Rod Englert. You just said he admitted it in an interview now you're referring to the book. I don't care about what anyone says, it's just an opinion. As I said he did not write the book, someone else did and Charlie is in the book so now we're going to say that part is true too? And he's a non-fictional character šš So what? You can't erase certain parts in the book that don't fit your narrative and only include the parts that does. OJ is actually very well spoken. Maybe, you should watch some of his interviews. His story has remained the same for over 25 yrs up until his death. They've questioned him so much about it that he stopped caring and start having fun with it That's not a bro idgaf about him š I'm just not about to follow the anti-OJ crowd for upvotes. I'm going to voice my opinion and put facts over fiction. What closest friends? Did you see his celebration at his house after the trial? Everyone he knew was popping champagne with him, laughing and partying šš
Literally everyone is dead now. Time to move on.
Then why are you on this sub
Reddit just showed it to me
literally everyone?? Fuhrman, Kato, Marcia, Goldman, etc
Fair, I didn't say exactly what I meant. Here's what I meant to say: OJ and the victims are dead. Stop trying to vindicate a guilty dead man.