OJ Simpson died. Good.

[tommie]

The police didn't really mishandle the evidence

This is exactly the problem - the "police mishandled evidence" thing has been repeated over and over again that people believe it, yet they never question "how did the police mishandle evidence" or "where's the proof of police mishandling evidence". But it's what they've heard years and for years that it'd be too uncomfortable to face the fact that they might've been spreading a misgiving.

Then you have the issue of when a "misgiving" turns into an active "lie".

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

This is exactly the problem - the "police mishandled evidence" thing has been repeated over and over again that people believe it, yet they never question "how did the police mishandle evidence" or "where's the proof of police mishandling evidence". But it's what they've heard years and for years that it'd be too uncomfortable to face the fact that they might've been spreading a misgiving.

Then you have the issue of when a "misgiving" turns into an active "lie".

There's been talk of the blood-on-the-sock being planted, with an anticoagulant chemical, one that shouldn't have been there, detected. Which pointed to contrivance of evidence, the police striving to frame a guilty man -- which happens all the time.

Who knows whether it's true or not. But @Frank Underwood is right: the jury wasn't going to convict regardless of the evidence, and some of the jurors tauntingly wanted us to know that.

 

[Angela Channing]

Your grounds for "completely disagreeing with me" don't have anything to do with this particular case.

The judge in the Simpson case didn't throw it out, and a juror said that the majority of the jury saw the verdict as payback for Rodney King.

It seems no matter the topic or the facts I bring forward, I'm somehow always wrong in your eyes.

Police lying on oath, fabricating evidence and mishandling evidence was the main reason why OJ was found not guilty. In those circumstances it was never realistic for any jury to reach a guilty verdict. The prosecution screwed up their case, it was as simple as that.

The police didn't really mishandle the evidence

This is exactly the problem - the "police mishandled evidence" thing has been repeated over and over again that people believe it, yet they never question "how did the police mishandle evidence" or "where's the proof of police mishandling evidence". But it's what they've heard years and for years that it'd be too uncomfortable to face the fact that they might've been spreading a misgiving.

I think they did mishandle the evidence. The continuity of items taken from the crime scene could not be verified because of delays in logging them and unauthorised personnel being shown to have had access to the materials. Also, a quantity of blood taken from OJ Simpson could not be accounted for.

To me, the prosecution dropped the ball. They spent so much time on the documented domestic violence, but never drew a clear line as to how that escalated to a double homicide.

Absolutely. The prosecution made the case way to complicated and should have focussed on the key points and not allowed the court case to go on for 9 months.

 

[Frank Underwood]

Police lying on oath, fabricating evidence and mishandling evidence was the main reason why OJ was found not guilty.

According to Simpson juror Carrie Bess, that was not the main reason OJ was found not guilty. Do you think she also lied?

In those circumstances it was never realistic for any jury to reach a guilty verdict. The prosecution screwed up their case, it was as simple as that.

But it's not as simple as that. Yes, both the police and the prosecution botched the case. That said, if this particular Simpson juror is to be believed, it wouldn't have mattered if the police acted above board and the prosecution had made their case flawlessly. Again, according to juror Carries Bess, the verdict was payback for the Rodney King incident.

 

[Angela Channing]

According to Simpson juror Carrie Bess, that was not the main reason OJ was found not guilty. Do you think she also lied?


But it's not as simple as that. Yes, both the police and the prosecution botched the case. That said, if this particular Simpson juror is to be believed, it wouldn't have mattered if the police acted above board and the prosecution had made their case flawlessly. Again, according to juror Carries Bess, the verdict was payback for the Rodney King incident.

I don't know who Carrie Bess is and I'm not aware of what she based that opinion on, and she may well have told her own truth but she speaks for herself, not the whole jury.

I base my opinion on the evidence that came out in the court case which I followed closely at the time and you can't convict if the prosecution case contains fabricated evidence, potentially contaminated forensics and a police investigation lead by an officer who lied under oath. I blame the police and the prosecutors for the failure to get a guilty verdict, not the jury.

 

[Luke_Krebbs_Ewing]

I wonder did OJ kill his wife or did someone else did?

I guess we'll never know now.

 

[tommie]

I think they did mishandle the evidence. The continuity of items taken from the crime scene could not be verified because of delays in logging them and unauthorised personnel being shown to have had access to the materials. Also, a quantity of blood taken from OJ Simpson could not be accounted for.

But where these reasonable objections or just ones that were exploited at the time because OJ had high-priced lawyers?

OJ got off because he could afford it. It's not justice.

 

[Angela Channing]

But where these reasonable objections or just ones that were exploited at the time because OJ had high-priced lawyers?

They weren't reasonable objections, they were demonstrable facts. Had the police carried out a better investigation, OJ's lawyers wouldn't have been able to use this to their advantage.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

Yeah, let's just ignore what the jurors admit to. Especially when you base your opinion on demonstrable facts and the evidence that came out in the court case which you followed closely at the time.

Nefarious naivete. It's a thing.

 

[tommie]

They weren't reasonable objections, they were demonstrable facts. Had the police carried out a better investigation, OJ's lawyers wouldn't have been able to use this to their advantage.

lmao

This would usually not be demonstrable facts when you've decided they weren't. Sorry do you hear yourself and how biased you sound?

I'm sure I can carry out a better investigation by the definition of it being me alone.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

lmao

This would usually not be demonstrable facts when you've decided they weren't. Sorry do you hear yourself and how biased you sound?

That's just her.

 

[tommie]

I love @Angela Channing tho. He's a bad bitch and always a boss on these forums. I just dislike him in this question.

 

[DallasFanForever]

I think it’s important to remember that he did lose the civil suit not long after. Yes, I know it’s not the same as a criminal trial as in a civil suit he couldn’t be put away but he was officially found liable for the murders by a different jury. He was ordered to pay $33,000,000 in damages to the victims’ families but from what I understand paid hardly anything all these years. It will be interesting to see how this plays out now with his estate. Nothing and no amount of money can ever make up for the loss of a loved one of course but I’m sure this is not over yet even with his passing.

 

[Frank Underwood]

I don't know who Carrie Bess is and I'm not aware of what she based that opinion on, and she may well have told her own truth but she speaks for herself, not the whole jury.

I provided a link explaining exactly who Carrie Bess is, and a simple YouTube and Google search will also yield results. It might help to know before being so dismissive.

Bess deliberated with eleven other jurors. If anybody knows their thought process going into the verdict, it's her. What incentive does she have to lie at this point?

I base my opinion on the evidence that came out in the court case which I followed closely at the time and you can't convict if the prosecution case contains fabricated evidence, potentially contaminated forensics and a police investigation lead by an officer who lied under oath. I blame the police and the prosecutors for the failure to get a guilty verdict, not the jury.

Funny how you recognize the flaws of the police and the prosecution, yet fail to see the flaw in a biased jury.

 

[Angela Channing]

This would usually not be demonstrable facts when you've decided they weren't. Sorry do you hear yourself and how biased you sound?

How am I biased? I've already said I thought OJ was guilty. However, courts are about proving guilt and the prosecution case fell short.

Here are a few of the demonstrable facts that I believe was the reason why the jury thought there was reasonable doubt for a guilty verdict.

1. The lead police investigator lied under oath while giving evidence.
2. The continuity and integrity of physical evidence was compromised.
3. Blood taken from OJ Simpson couldn't be accounted for.
4. OJ's blood found at the crime scene contained relatively high levels of EDTA which is a anti-coagulant added to blood vials when samples are taken.

These are not opinions, these are facts which created reasonable doubt which would lead to a not guilty verdict in any criminal case.

 

[Angela Channing]

I provided a link explaining exactly who Carrie Bess is, and a simple YouTube and Google search will also yield results. It might help to know before being so dismissive.

Bess deliberated with eleven other jurors. If anybody knows their thought process going into the verdict, it's her. What incentive does she have to lie at this point?

OK, I followed your advice and did a Google search and it did indeed yield interesting results. Juror Yolanda Crawford said the verdict had nothing to do with the Rodney King case. She also said "The fact that I might release a person that was guilty, it bothered me but the doubt was so plain, you couldn't deny it. There was no other verdict that we could deliver." (Source: The Jury Speaks, 2017)

Jurors David Aldana, and Jeanette Harris also are on the record saying that maintain that based on the evidence they were presented, there was enough reasonable doubt that they could not convict Simpson

 

[tommie]

How am I biased? I've already said I thought OJ was guilty. However, courts are about proving guilt and the prosecution case fell short.

Saying that they fell short (fair) isn't the same thing as saying that they fabricated evidence. And that's what you're saying.

Either way - yes, OJ did it. Far less people have been convicted on less then him. No, that does not mean that the rage against the Rodney King case - or more particular Emmett Till - isn't justified. But taking it out on Ron and Nicole isn't fair. Two wrongs don't make a right and that Emmett didn't get his right, doesn't mean Ron and Nicole doesn't deserve theirs.

 

[Angela Channing]

Saying that they fell short (fair) isn't the same thing as saying that they fabricated evidence. And that's what you're saying.

Either way - yes, OJ did it. Far less people have been convicted on less then him. No, that does not mean that the rage against the Rodney King case - or more particular Emmett Till - isn't justified. But taking it out on Ron and Nicole isn't fair. Two wrongs don't make a right and that Emmett didn't get his right, doesn't mean Ron and Nicole doesn't deserve theirs.

What I think happened is the police wanted to strengthen the evidence they had and took blood from OJ's sample and deposited it at the crime scene. That would explain the levels of EDTA that were found in the crime scene samples. That's just my opinion and that have never been proven but it is the most reasonable explanation for the facts.

 

[tommie]

What I think happened is the police wanted to strengthen the evidence they had and took blood from OJ's sample and deposited it at the crime scene. That would explain the levels of EDTA that were found in the crime scene samples. That's just my opinion and that have never been proven but it is the most reasonable explanation for the facts.

God I wish I didn't have a shit memory but from my absolute horrible recollection, it wasn't as much as evidence of planting as much as clumsy detectives who contaminated things. Then add the racist factor and bingo. You have a planting scenario.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

I love @Angela Channing tho. He's a bad bitch and always a boss on these forums. I just dislike him in this question.

Well, we all respect different things. The "he" part I've never quite bought.

But I'm afraid the "race" part creates a bias -- and a bias about others' biases -- for some people.