Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman Were Murdered 20 Years Ago. Did The L.A.P.D. Try To Frame O.J. Simpson? What Say You?? (interviews, accuse)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Tried to help the case along and accidentally wound up hurting the case? Maybe.
Sad commentary 20 years later that OJ's innocent verdict and the street parties afterwards have given way to vastly different opinions basically saying...yeah, he was probably guilty but we got caught up in the moment.
Shouldn't be a shocker though, the railroading and mistreatment of blacks in the criminal justice system is also ignored by other races. It would racist to think that others can't also have a bias based upon race etc.
OJ basically got lucky as fudge to have the money to hire top notch defense and the ineptitude of the LAPD to exploit.
OJ is a great example of criminal law in the 90's and racism in general. Just in an unsettling way to many observers.
Yeah, he did it but he had money coupled with ethnicity to milk for acquittal....but at the same time we see how some construction worker named OJ would have been found guilty even if he had not done it....being framed up by the LAPD.
Can't believe it's been 20 years! I remember that day more than 9-11....the LAPD may have tried to seal the deal, but they definitely didn't frame him! I think it's eerie that most of his lawyers are dead.
I wouldn't put it past the LAPD. The LAPD is one of the most violent, corrupt, gangs in Los Angeles. Just look at how they conducted themselves during the Dorner fiasco. Firing hundreds of rounds into innocent people's cars. Then they lied about "setting the cabin on fire". The LAPD is no better than any third world despots personal army.
The above post is a good example of why O.J. was acquitted. If enough people share that irrational demonization of the LAPD, well then juries will be contaminated by deep-seated bias and actually no accused person in the LAPD's jurisdiction can ever be found guilty.
Of course some people are indeed found guilty, as (fortunately) not all jurors are as contaminated by hatred as the above poster.
And yes, I AM aware of the crimes committed by officer Rafael Perez and a few like him in the Rampart Division (may they rot in hell). But it is an appalling lapse of logic to point to a few abuses which occurred among thousands and thousands of sworn officers over decades of time and pretend that those few cases represent the norm rather than the exceptions.
Justice will always remain an elusive goal because we human beings (or at least far too many of us) lack objectivity and rationality.
It's quite possible the L.A.P.D. attempted to frame a guilty man.
...
A blood spot that testing identified as O.J’s blood and that had never before been seen was found on the back gate of Nicole’s home 20 days after the murders were committed. And this blood spot allegedly contained the blood preservative, EDTA, per testimony by a toxicologist for the defense.
It did not. This whole issue has been beaten to death, and the amount of ignorance/confabulation here is staggering. The blood spot in question, with a visible finger print, was never tested. It was observed by Brad Roberts on the night of the murders, days before Simpson's blood was collected, and written up in Mark Fuhrman's notes, which were passed to Vanatter, who never read them, and as a result nobody tested the blood or copied the print. The gate was removed a few days later, and sent to a lock smith, who later remarked that, sure enough, he saw a blood spot with a fingerprint, but he thought everything had been collected and tested already, so he destroyed it. Interestingly, it is pure speculation that it was Simpson's blood and print. Of course it was, but it can never be proved.
There was no tampering, and no attempts to frame anybody.But apparently the legend will outlive the facts...
This may have been commented on already--and in that case I apologize for going over familiar stuff. I just haven't had the patience to read the entire thread...
Last edited by Oldhag1; 06-25-2014 at 06:32 AM..
Reason: No insulting icons
When F. Lee Bailey cross-examined Furhman on the witness stand, he repeatedly denied ever using the N word. Eventually, a tape recording was played to the jury that contained Furhman using the N word. When Furhman was called back to the witness stand, he stood on the fifth amendment. After the trial was over, he was convicted of felony perjury, which forced him to retire from the L.A.P.D..
Fuhrman had retired from the LAPD the year before his perjury conviction (which has been expunged, by the way.). He was not forced to retire. As for the rest, I've commented on that story elsewhere. Honestly, I don't have the energy to repeat myself.
It did not. This whole issue has been beaten to death, and the amount of ignorance/confabulation here is staggering. The blood spot in question, with a visible finger print, was never tested. It was observed by Brad Roberts on the night of the murders, days before Simpson's blood was collected, and written up in Mark Fuhrman's notes, which were passed to Vanatter, who never read them, and as a result nobody tested the blood or copied the print. The gate was removed a few days later, and sent to a lock smith, who later remarked that, sure enough, he saw a blood spot with a fingerprint, but he thought everything had been collected and tested already, so he destroyed it. Interestingly, it is pure speculation that it was Simpson's blood and print. Of course it was, but it can never be proved.
There was no tampering, and no attempts to frame anybody.But apparently the legend will outlive the facts...
This may have been commented on already--and in that case I apologize for going over familiar stuff. I just haven't had the patience to read the entire thread...
Let me see if I have this right.
My recall has detective Brad Roberts being Mark Furhman's partner. And you are claiming that on Nicole's back gate -- that did have at least one blood spot from which evidence was eventually collected and analyzed -- Brad Robert's also saw a bloody fingerprint. Of course, this would almost assuredly be the fingerprint of the murderer and the proverbial smoking gun. Moreover, you are claiming that not only did Brad Roberts see this bloody fingerprint on the back gate but that Mark Furhman saw the bloody fingerprint too.
Which must be true, because the allegation here is that Mark Furhman wrote this alleged smoking gun evidence up in his field notes and then simply passed his field notes along to detective Vannatter. And that neither Mark Furhman nor Brad Roberts did anything else to ensure this alleged smoking gun evidence was protected or photographed, nor did they in anyway try to make sure its existence was widely broadcast inside law enforcement, because "we gotcha" evidence is not something seasoned detectives are smart enough to know they have found and definitely do not want to make sure is widely known and properly protected.
But wait, your story gets even better if I correctly understand it. Allegedly, someone had the entire gate removed and sent to a locksmith. And this unnamed locksmith is alleged to have seen the bloody fingerprint too but made false assumptions and destroyed the gate (and the smoking gun evidence).
I have to tell you that I have no recall whatsoever of Brad Roberts testifying to any of what you are claiming to be "fact". Nor do I have a recall of a locksmith testifying that they made some dumb assumptions after which they destroyed a gate and the existence of evidence in the form of a bloody fingerprint.
I do recall testimony by a toxicologist in which they said that a blood preservative, EDTA, was found in the blood spot that was collected from the back gate twenty days after the murders, which could only mean that the back gate was not destroyed.
Moreoever, this alleged bloody fingerprint evidence could have been used by Furhman to hugely refute the claim that he planted the bloody glove at O.J.'s residence. Because he could not have bloodied O.J.'s finger up and pressed it onto the back gate so as to try and frame O.J.
Finally, it is not funny that we have Mark Furhman allegedly writing up this smoking gun evidence in his field notes and that it was detective Vannatter who allegedly received but never read Furhman's notes at all.
I have a few thoughts. First, the defense claimed that LAPD demonstrated incredible incompetence in the handling, protecting and processing of the evidence. Second, the defense put the spotlight on Furhman and Vannatter for allegedly trying to frame O.J.
Isn't it amazing that these two names just happen to join forces once again in your amazing story? Which I consider to be but case mythology, not fact.
Fuhrman had retired from the LAPD the year before his perjury conviction (which has been expunged, by the way.). He was not forced to retire. As for the rest, I've commented on that story elsewhere. Honestly, I don't have the energy to repeat myself.
Right. Furhman did not think that he was proven to have perjured himself and he did not know that a felony conviction (perury) would be the end of his career, because he did not know L.A.P.D.'s employment rules.
The above post is a good example of why O.J. was acquitted. If enough people share that irrational demonization of the LAPD, well then juries will be contaminated by deep-seated bias and actually no accused person in the LAPD's jurisdiction can ever be found guilty.
Let me guess, you're a junior LAPD badge holder and think that the LAPD actually protects and serves. Speaking of lacking objectivity and rationality, keep the blinders on!
Quote:
But it is an appalling lapse of logic to point to a few abuses which occurred among thousands and thousands of sworn officers over decades of time and pretend that those few cases represent the norm rather than the exceptions.
See, this is what happens when guys like Escort Rider are brain washed that "officers are there to protect and serve" when in reality, the statistics show that the LAPD's abusive and criminal image is well supported by actual stats, no the LAPD pr campaign that Escort Rider has so willingly swallowed up.
Tried to help the case along and accidentally wound up hurting the case? Maybe.
Sad commentary 20 years later that OJ's innocent verdict and the street parties afterwards have given way to vastly different opinions basically saying...yeah, he was probably guilty but we got caught up in the moment.
Shouldn't be a shocker though, the railroading and mistreatment of blacks in the criminal justice system is also ignored by other races. It would racist to think that others can't also have a bias based upon race etc.
OJ basically got lucky as fudge to have the money to hire top notch defense and the ineptitude of the LAPD to exploit.
OJ is a great example of criminal law in the 90's and racism in general. Just in an unsettling way to many observers.
Yeah, he did it but he had money coupled with ethnicity to milk for acquittal....but at the same time we see how some construction worker named OJ would have been found guilty even if he had not done it....being framed up by the LAPD.
Just an ugly incident.
How was the OJ case anything as you describe? Did a mob break into the jail, drag OJ out and lynch him in the town square?
What about the entire ordeal was racist? Really
A truly racist demonstration would have been the universal mob reaction had he been found guilty. The aftermath of the Rodney King trial would have been a picnic in comparison.
Right. The cops managed to plant all of that evidence--the glove, then they ran to his Bundy residence to plant drops of blood all over, then they got into his car to do the same thing.....If the image of a young man coming upon that scene and fighting for his life, and Nicole being practically decapitated weren't so tragic, it would be funny.
BTW, the "plaintive wails" of the Akita, a friggin' Japanese guard dog, for cryin' out loud, along with the bloody prints on the walkway, going back and forth......between two owners, should have been more than enough for the lame prosecution to have subpoenaed a dog behavior expert.
Then, again, as I've said before, with this jury of dunces, the prosecution could have presented a video of O.J. doing the deed, and they'd have thought it was Mark Fuhrman wearing an O.J. mask.
O.J. wasn't framed, and he's no victim. The only ones who didn't get justice were his ex-wife and Goldman, and their families.
I don't believe the jury were dunces. I believe that the prosecution did not execute their case well, I believe the police got caught in lies about unrelated matters, and I believe that having him put on the glove, over the top of a surgical glove was asinine.
The jury had reasonable doubt due to the fact that so many of the prosecution witnesses, including police, lied on the stand about other things, which immediately calls into question everything they are saying.
OJ was probably guilty. Justice isn't always fair. Our judicial system sucks, but its the best we've come up with so far.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It did not. This whole issue has been beaten to death, and the amount of ignorance/confabulation here is staggering. The blood spot in question, with a visible finger print, was never tested. It was observed by Brad Roberts on the night of the murders, days before Simpson's blood was collected, and written up in Mark Fuhrman's notes, which were passed to Vanatter, who never read them, and as a result nobody tested the blood or copied the print. The gate was removed a few days later, and sent to a lock smith, who later remarked that, sure enough, he saw a blood spot with a fingerprint, but he thought everything had been collected and tested already, so he destroyed it. Interestingly, it is pure speculation that it was Simpson's blood and print. Of course it was, but it can never be proved.
