Did O.J Simpson kill his wife and friend?

[gumboot]

Do you really think Fuhrman would risk a death penalty conviction by planting evidence? I don't. Fuhrman had an opportunity to pop OJ on a domestic battery against Nicole, but he didn't even write up a police report on the incidence. Again, proving someone is racist does not prove that he planted evidence, and Fuhrman being a racist is the onlyt hing the defense proved.


No one has to prove he planted anything. His behaviour on the stand undermined his credibility to the jury. Specifically, at least one of them decided he was lying under oath. As soon as they come to that conclusion his entire testimony becomes null and void.

Credibility of witnesses is by far and away the single most important element that a Jury considers during a trial. Almost everything they learn is through the mouth of a witness of one type or another. The credibility of that person is everything.

When it comes down to it, juries don't weigh evidence. They decide who is lying and who isn't.

And that's why I would always choose to be tried by a judge and not a jury were I charged with a crime I had not committed - because regular people are absolutely useless at determining if someone is lying or not. And I know this first hand because I'm an actor which happens to make me an excellent liar.

[TexasJack]

I like how you jump on the "he was a racist" bit (which I agreed was a dumb and irrelevant observation) and ignore the forewoman's observations about his behaviour on the stand which led her to believe he was lying.

Fuhrman being a racist is definitely not relevant. Fuhrman lying under oath certainly is.

Now before you get your panties in a twist, obviously we don't know if he actually lied under oath - he said himself he was quite nervous about testifying because of all the media attention before the trial and so forth. Anyone whose been cross examined can feel quite uncomfortable while telling the truth.

But that's not the point. At least one member of the Jury concluded (right or wrong) from his behaviour that he was lying under oath. Now, assume you're a juror. Assume you conclude a given witness is lying under oath. Your duty is to disregard that person's testimony in full. You have to. And if that witness happened to discover almost all of the key material evidence in the trial, that brings all of that material evidence into question.

A juror discharging their duty as required might just have to rule in favour of reasonable doubt in such a situation. They might not of course - it depends how that juror perceives the importance of that witness.

But if we take the specifics that the jury in this case has provided to the press, we have the following:

1. Some regarded Mark Fuhrman as the central pillar of the prosecution case:



2. Some felt Fuhrman lied under oath:



3. Some also questioned the credibility of the lead Detective:



4. Some also felt that race didn't play a part in their decision:



Okay, now assuming that the Associated Press haven't misquoted or misrepresented the Jurors and their book, can we accept that the above four points are true? That is to say, the Jurors really did think or believe these things?

I guess this is the distinction I'm trying to make here. What I'm interested is why the Jurors came to the decision they did - I want to get inside their heads.

Now either the Jurors just outright lied in their book (a possibility), or they genuinely felt there was reasonable doubt as expressed in the points above (also a possibility).

You're denying the second point. You are, essentially, accusing these jurors of lying. Are you willing to acknowledge that they might not be lying, and that they might have genuinely felt there was reasonable doubt?

(To be clear, I don't want to hear any arguments about whether there was reasonable doubt or not, we're talking about what the jury thought)

In case you're missing it, I'm trying to keep this thread on a topic that fits with this subforum. Discussing the specifics of the O J Simpson trial doesn't actually fit into the Conspiracy Theory topic. It's one for Politics or History.

But if we're talking about the Jury conspiring to return a verdict they know to be false (and that's what you're saying here) well that does fit into the Conspiracy Theory sub forum, so let's stick to that, yes?

And just pre-empting a likely response here... ConspiRaider? Shut up. I'm not talking to you.

How do you make the leap that Fuhrman lying under oath about never using the n-word equate to planting evidence with blood on it? How can you possibly dismiss an entire case because some someone was caught in a lie about using the the n-word? What rule book says you dismiss entire testimony because you think, and I emphasize think, he lied about one thing? It's illogical. This jury had to think that the police was involved in this insane conspiracy. You think Vannatter planted evidence as well because you think he lied about an inanity about OJ? You're making Grand Canyon leaps if you do.

I'm not saying the jury lied, I'm saying they were the most inept jury you could possibly conjure.

[gumboot]

How do you make the leap that Fuhrman lying under oath about never using the n-word equate to planting evidence with blood on it? How can you possibly dismiss an entire case because some someone was caught in a lie about using the the n-word? What rule book says you dismiss entire testimony because you think, and I emphasize think, he lied about one thing? It's illogical. This jury had to think that the police was involved in this insane conspiracy. You think Vannatter planted evidence as well because you think he lied about an inanity about OJ? You're making Grand Canyon leaps if you do.


Woah, hold on there. We're not talking about what I think. Like I've said too many times to count, I don't know if O J Simpson is guilty or not, but I think he probably is.

We're talking about the jury.

And the juror didn't say they felt he was specifically lying about using the n word. We don't know what part of the testimony they were referring to. Detective Fuhrman was cross examined for a very long time, and most of the questions he was asked were in relation to the case, not his use of racial slurs. The juror stated that during cross examination he became agitated and angry, and they became convinced he was lying.

The same juror also claims their decision was not based on race issues. Given these two facts - that a key decider for the juror was that they felt Fuhrman was lying under cross examination, and that the juror denies having their decision influenced by race, we must conclude from that either that the juror is lying, or the juror concluded Fuhrman was lying regarding some other part of the cross examination than the part relating to race. Correct?


So when you claim:

I'm not saying the jury lied, I'm saying they were the most inept jury you could possibly conjure.

You're claiming that the juror was inept to give any significance to the fact that the person who found the majority of the key evidence in the case appeared to be lying regarding matters other than his use of racial slurs, which would almost certainly mean lying in matters directly relating to the case?

ETA. Fix dumb spelling

[Brainache]

Is there any theory as to why Fuhrman would "plead the 5th" instead of answering the question about manipulating/manufacturing evidence?

[gumboot]

Is there any theory as to why Fuhrman would "plead the 5th" instead of answering the question about manipulating/manufacturing evidence?


Fuhrman pleaded the 5th to every single question he was asked in that particular questioning session, and expressed his intention to plead the 5th to every question put to him. He was only asked the question about manufacturing evidence after he had already said he would plead the 5th to every question.

I suppose it's kind of like someone being interrogated by police and responding "no comment" to every question. It's something a guilty person would do, but it's also something a lot of totally innocent people would normally do.

ETA. I believe the Jury were not present when he was asked these questions also so it wouldn't have had any bearing on their decision.

ETA2: Fuhrman's lawyer:

THE COURT: All right. We've been rejoined now by counsel Darryl Mounger who represents Mark Fuhrman. Good afternoon again, counsel.

MR. MOUNGER: Your Honor, over the break, I talked to Mr. Fuhrman, and it is our position that because I am walking into this trial after eight months, I am unfamiliar with all of the testimony. I have been handling my own cases and not followed this trial intimately. I have come into this court asking for the McKinny tapes and a copy of the transcripts so that I might review them with my client, although I have reviewed most of them. I have tried to correlate that information and interview my client, and I'm unable to put it in the context which it deserves. Based upon this court's July 31st--I'm sorry--August 31st ruling and the words specifically I believe on page 5, on the information I do know and the information especially I do not know, I have advised Mr. Fuhrman that he should not answer any questions before this court. Therefore, it is my understanding that he will assert his 5th amendment privilege if asked any questions.

Source (http://walraven.org/simpson/sep06.html)

[Brainache]

Fuhrman pleaded the 5th to every single question he was asked in that particular questioning session, and expressed his intention to plead the 5th to every question put to him. He was only asked the question about manufacturing evidence after he had already said he would plead the 5th to every question.

I suppose it's kind of like someone being interrogated by police and responding "no comment" to every question. It's something a guilty person would do, but it's also something a lot of totally innocent people would normally do.

ETA. I believe the Jury were not present when he was asked these questions also so it wouldn't have had any bearing on their decision.

OK, thanks for that. I thought it seemed a bit strange.

[TexasJack]

Woah, hold on there. We're not talking about what I think. Like I've said too many times to count, I don't know if O J Simpson is guilty or not, but I think he probably is.

We're talking about the jury.

And the juror didn't say they felt he was specifically lying about using the n word. We don't know what part of the testimony they were referring to. Detective Fuhrman was cross examined for a very long time, and most of the questions he was asked were in relation to the case, not his use of racial slurs. The juror stated that during cross examination he became agitated and angry, and they became convinced he was lying.

The same juror also claims their decision was not based on race issues. Given these two facts - that a key decider for the juror was that they felt Fuhrman was lying under cross examination, and that the juror denies having their decision influenced by race, we must conclude from that either that the juror is lying, or the juror concluded Fuhrman was lying regarding some other part of the cross examination than the part relating to race. Correct?


So when you claim:



You're claiming that the juror was inept to give any significance to the fact that the person who found the majority of the key evidence in the case appeared to be lying regarding matters other than his use of racial slurs, which would almost certainly mean lying in matters directly relating to the case?

ETA. Fix dumb spelling

You must corroborate the oral testimony with the physical evidence presented. So, you have two choices, either Fuhrman lied and planted the evidence, or he discovered the bloody glove like he testified. That also means that all of the detectives we in on it. If a juror believes in a vast police conspiracy, without any proof, then not only do I believe he/she is inept, they are also insane.

These are the only conclusions you can come to. Explaining away evidence like OJ's Bruno Magli shoe prints, makes it even more crazy. What did they do, break into his house and steal his shoes, put blood on them and make the imprints?

Reasonable and rational people will not likely believe a police conspiracy, it's just too complicated.

[TexasJack]

BTW, when I write "you", it means the juror.

[gumboot]

You must corroborate the oral testimony with the physical evidence presented. So, you have two choices, either Fuhrman lied and planted the evidence, or he discovered the bloody glove like he testified. That also means that all of the detectives we in on it.


Just out of curiosity, how did you come to this last conclusion?

Let me just say one thing, I don't think you're entirely wrong so it seems silly to further the debate. As ConspiRaider has been so kind to point out numerous times I'm not an American, and frankly don't care that much about the case. O J Simpson is currently facing some pretty hefty charges at the moment so we could end up with criminal court proof that the man's a scumbag.

I just have one question. I don't mean for this question to relate directly to the O J Simpson trial, because I don't think there was a vast police conspiracy against him, but...

Do you believe that there has ever been a case of a police department fabricating a case against a suspect to convict them of a crime?

I think personally the answer is yes. I think it has happened. I think it will happen again. I do not think that (speaking generally) entertaining the notion that police departments frame people for crimes automatically makes someone insane.

Indeed, I can prove (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CE5DF1530F93AA35750C0A9659582 60) that it does (http://www.crimemagazine.com/tainting_evidence.htm) happen.

Believing that the claim that the bloody glove found on O. J. Simpson's estate had been planted was far-fetched, the newspaper trawled legal and media databases for comparative cases. They found 85 instances since 1974 in which prosecutors had knowingly or unknowingly used tainted evidence that had convicted the innocent or freed the guilty. In the same period, 48 people sentenced to death were freed after convictions were found to be based on fabricated evidence or because exonerating or exculpatory evidence was withheld.

These were just the known cases, cases that for one reason or another had come to light or made the news. "In the United States we take science as gospel," said Ray Taylor, a San Antonio-based lawyer and forensic pathology expert, commenting on the survey. "The public perception is that faking science is rare. The truth is it happens all the time."

How bad can these be? Pretty bad. Read the articles... there's some pretty shocking cases.

...Fred Salem Zain was a police forensic expert in West Virginia and Texas for nearly 15 years. Hired as a chemist by West Virginia State police crime lab in 1979, he testified as an expert in dozens of rape and murder cases about tests he had never done and results he had never obtained.

...In one case, Zain had testified about blood evidence when no blood had been found; in other cases he reported performing tests his lab was incapable of doing...

...West Texas pathologist Ralph R. Erdmann, who worked as a contract medical examiner in 40 counties, faked more than 100 autopsies on unexamined bodies, and falsified dozens of toxicology and blood reports. Dozens of other autopsies were botched. In one case he lost a head...

...Then there was Louise Robbins, a college anthropology professor who claimed the ability to match a footprint on any surface to the person who made it. Robbins appeared as an expert witness for over a decade in more than 20 criminal cases throughout North America before her claims were thoroughly debunked...

...Michael West was a forensic dentist from Hattiesburg, Miss., who appeared as a scientific expert more than 60 times in 10 states until 1996. At least 20 of these were capital murder cases. West became famous for his controversial use of long-wave, ultraviolet light and yellow-lensed goggles to study wound patterns on a body. The equipment is standard: Ultraviolet light can enhance features on the skin. What West claimed he could see was not standard: No other forensic expert could pick up the lines and marks he claimed to see. Robert Kirschner, a former deputy-chief medical examiner who testified against West, says what West did was closer to voodoo or alchemy than science...

...In February 1975, an internal FBI investigation into the activities of Special Agent Thomas N. Curran, an examiner in the FBI lab’s serology unit, revealed a staggering record of perjury, incompetence and falsification. At the trial of Thomas Doepel for rape and murder in Washington, D.C. in 1974, Curran testified under oath that he had a bachelor and masters degree in science, that both Doepel and the victim were blood type O and that the defendant’s shorts bore a single bloodstain. In reality, Curran had no degree in anything; Doepel, on re-testing, turned out to be blood type B; and the shorts evidenced two, not one blood stain...

...Curran had issued reports of blood analyses when "no laboratory tests were done"; had relied on presumptive tests to draw up confirmatory results and written up inadequate and deceptive lab reports, ignoring or distorting tests results...

...Tom Curran turned out to have lied repeatedly under oath about his credentials and his reports were persistently deceptive, yet no one, FBI lab management, defense lawyers, judges, had noticed. When they did, there was no prosecution for perjury...



Hypothetically speaking, for the prosecution to fabricate a case all you need is one or two people to know of it - either the person that found the evidence, or the forensic expert testifying regarding its authenticity, or both. I don't know why you think either evidence must be genuine, or there must be a vast conspiracy. That sounds like a false choice fallacy to me.

[timhau]

Since we're on the subject... what was the prosecution's rationale for not seeking the death penalty? Consider an alternative reality where OJ blows out his knee early in his final college year, and instead of OJ the celebrity we have OJ the PE teacher. He marries a white woman, divorces her, and is then accused of a double murder that is exactly like the one in our reality, except that it takes place in a less glamorous neighborhood. What are the chances of that the DP isn't on the table here?

[Ian Osborne]

Since we're on the subject... what was the prosecution's rationale for not seeking the death penalty?

IIRC, it was because they thought it would make a conviction harder, as a jury might be reluctant to send a celebrity to the chair. You're right though, it's totally unfair.

Reminds me of a joke. If you remember, Superman actor Christopher Reeve broke his neck in a horse-riding accident around the time of the OJ trial, leaving him a paraplegic...

Q: What's the difference between Christopher Reeve and OJ Simpson?
A: Reeve got the electric chair, and OJ walked.

[timhau]

IIRC, it was because they thought it would make a conviction harder, as a jury might be reluctant to send a celebrity to the chair.

I know that's the real reason, but did they say it out aloud?

In a way, I think this is actually a more serious problem than the fact that the jury let OJ walk. That's a problem with this jury, but this is the prosecutorial system -- the state -- saying "OK, since you're rich and famous, we're not even trying to penalize you to the full extent of the law".

[Belz...]

If you are actually - I mean actually really - suggesting that OJ Simpson did NOT kill his ex-wife (by nearly sawing her head off with a knife) and her friend Ron Goldman (who was stabbed to death in a struggle with Simpson) - then the label of Twoofer is stuck on you.

So, basically it's one agrees with you or he's wrong ? Might want to zip that up, Raider. Your bias is showing.

[fezzic]

I probably should not ask this.

I have seen references, with respect to the planting of evidence, that Detective Fuhrman risked [or would not have risked] the Death Penalty if he did so. Anybody have any cite that substantiates that he or anybody would face the death penalty?

I ask mostly because the implied notion is that no police officer, in his right mind, would do anything like plant evidence because he could end up being sentenced to death if convicted of doing so [assuming a Capital Murder case]. Excuse me but I find that hard to believe where the officer did not actually perpetrate the underlying murders.

A short cite or explanation would be helpful.

Thanks.

[Kestrel]

I probably should not ask this.

I have seen references, with respect to the planting of evidence, that Detective Fuhrman risked [or would not have risked] the Death Penalty if he did so. Anybody have any cite that substantiates that he or anybody would face the death penalty?

I ask mostly because the implied notion is that no police officer, in his right mind, would do anything like plant evidence because he could end up being sentenced to death if convicted of doing so [assuming a Capital Murder case]. Excuse me but I find that hard to believe where the officer did not actually perpetrate the underlying murders.

A short cite or explanation would be helpful.

Thanks.

California allows the death penalty for perjury resulting in execution. In effect it would be charging the perjurer with murdering the person who was executed. I don't know if anyone has ever been charged under this law, much less sentenced to death.

We do know Fuhrman was willing to commit perjury, because he did perjure himself in this case. We don't know how many other things he lied about on the stand. We know that Fuhrman had told stories of police officers lying in court and planting evidence before this case ever started. The jury didn't get to hear about this, but as residents of downtown LA they were well aware that LAPD officers do such things.

The jury felt that Fuhrman was precisely the kind of officer that might have planted evidence. And since the key evidence in this case was all found by Fuhrman, they found reasonable doubt that Simpson was guilty.

[fezzic]

Ok, I understand the reference.

Thanks.

[applecorped]

There was no need to plant evidence. OJ left so much behind that he was bound to be found.........innocent?

[ConspiRaider]

So, basically it's one agrees with you or he's wrong ? Might want to zip that up, Raider. Your bias is showing.
However, it has something to do with you, because you have just identified yourself as an OJ Twoofer. You don't think he did it. And after 14 years, if you still feel that way, there's no sense in toying with you. You have an agenda. You NEED to have OJ innocent, for reasons known only to you. Or possibly - maybe even you don't know why you ignore the obvious.

Anyone who has looked at the entire case - from the commission of the murders to today - and does not conclude that OJ Simpson was the perp:

Is an OJ Twoofer. Nothing less. You have a lot in common with 9/11 Twoofers. You ignore the vast, vast obvious, to focus in on that which is trivial or fantastical, to exonerate him from guilt. Twooferism at its finest.

[Polaris]

I think OJ killed those people, and brutally I might add.

That's an odd OP for this thread, being that it's in the CT forum and all. Last time I checked the conspiracy theory regarding OJ is that the LAPD had nothing better to do than to frame a retired football player and Z-list actor for the murder of his ex-wife and her friend (which he was perfectly cabable of committing - which makes sense because he actually did murder them).

ETA: Yeah I'm sure that my point has already been made, but I'm not masochistic enough to wade through a seven-page OJ thread (while drinking scotch, mind you). My eyes would be bleeding right now if I was to have done that, and I'd be tempted to walk over to the corner and impale myself on a billiard bridge.

[gumboot]

There was no need to plant evidence. OJ left so much behind that he was bound to be found.........innocent?


That's kind of circular logic isn't it? If the evidence was planted then the offender didn't leave it behind, did they?

(Okay, I see what you're getting at, if there's lots of evidence and someone claims only some of it was planted, that doesn't explain the rest of the evidence)

[gumboot]

However, it has something to do with you, because you have just identified yourself as an OJ Twoofer. You don't think he did it. And after 14 years, if you still feel that way, there's no sense in toying with you. You have an agenda. You NEED to have OJ innocent, for reasons known only to you. Or possibly - maybe even you don't know why you ignore the obvious.

Anyone who has looked at the entire case - from the commission of the murders to today - and does not conclude that OJ Simpson was the perp:

Is an OJ Twoofer. Nothing less. You have a lot in common with 9/11 Twoofers. You ignore the vast, vast obvious, to focus in on that which is trivial or fantastical, to exonerate him from guilt. Twooferism at its finest.


Just out of curiosity what do you think of William Dear's theory?

[Texas]

Yes - but this non-interrogative by Simpson does NOT prove guilt in and of itself. It is a factor, something awry, a hint. It fits into the mosaic of many other factors and evidence, all of which, when taken together, point unswervingly at Simpson as the perp.

The jury - which didn't do this, by the way - is supposed to go through the evidence and collectively determine that which is, and is not, relevant. This handpicked, stacked jury did exactly what the defense team planned. They forgot about the case, the evidence, and let themselves be emotionally seduced into believing that racist police officers framed OJ Simpson for these 2 killings. They forgot what being a jury was all about. They blew it - big time. But they are not entirely to blame.

There is 100% of blame to parcel out in this grand failure of the American justice system. Let's say we have 5 entities involved:

1. Judge - 20%
2. Jury - 30%
3. Prosecution - 15%
4. Defense - 20%
5. Media - 15%

My wild guesstimate.

Interesting thread. I might have missed it but I didn't see a mention of Robert Blake as a corollary to OJ's case. I believe Blake killed his wife too but like OJ he walked. It appears that celebrity more than race or money could be the primary motivator for acquittal. If either of these men had been Joe Sixpack they both would be sitting in jail today given the evidence presented against them.

[Belz...]

However, it has something to do with you, because you have just identified yourself as an OJ Twoofer. You don't think he did it.

And by what marvelous feat of brain activity did you reach that ridiculous conclusion ?

And after 14 years, if you still feel that way, there's no sense in toying with you. You have an agenda. You NEED to have OJ innocent, for reasons known only to you. Or possibly - maybe even you don't know why you ignore the obvious.

This is what I meant by "your bias is showing", Raider. Normally you seem to be a rational, well-mannered person. But in this thread it seems you have an axe to grind. Anyone who dares disagree with you is an idiot, presumably because you live close to where the crimes occured. Your opinion doesn't change reality, and the reality is that the case may not be as air-tight as you think it is.

Anyone who has looked at the entire case - from the commission of the murders to today - and does not conclude that OJ Simpson was the perp:

[...]

Is an OJ Twoofer. Nothing less.

And there you have it. Nobody can disagree with you. It must be fun to mold reality according to your will.

For your information, I think OJ is almost certainly the killer. However, since I wasn't on the jury and didn't review all of the evidence, I have to defer to their decision.

You have a lot in common with 9/11 Twoofers. You ignore the vast, vast obvious, to focus in on that which is trivial or fantastical, to exonerate him from guilt. Twooferism at its finest.

You'd do well to check the beam in your eye, Raider.

[skepticalcriticalguy]

Want some good reading about a conspiracy theory of the OJ trial? Google "Skolnick Simpson trial". Have fun.