Did OJ Do It?

1. 67

   PhoenixVposted 9 years ago

   Did OJ Do It?
   
   What makes you think so, one way or another?

   replyreport
2. 94

   lions44posted 9 years ago

   The evidence is clear and convincing:
   1. His blood at the crime scene (with his shoeprint in the blood). A trail led to the back of the condo.  Dr. Henry Lee testified falsely (not on purpose) about the blood on the shoes.
   
   2. OJ's blood in his driveway. He cut himself and then went out to the driveway?  Come on.
   
   3. Blood in the Bronco
   
   4. Alan Park's testimony - He did not see the Bronco when he arrived at Simpson's estate.
   
   5.  OJ's changing stories
   
   6. He never asked the detective who called him in Chicago (Ron Phillips), how Nicole was killed.
   
   I can go on... sorry.  I'm in the middle of Toobin's book, Run of his Life.   Did you watch the OJ movie? You know who I thought came out looking really bad - Barry Scheck. His work on the Innocence Project is tremendous but he lied to the jury and compromised himself during the OJ trial. Was it for a good cause?

   replyreport
   1. 51

      bradmasterOCcalposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      When you have the detective running around town with OJs blood sample you have put the evidence at risk. The amount of blood at the scene was far more than they found. More like what was from OJs sample.

      replyreport
3. 51

   bradmasterOCcalposted 9 years ago

   Even if OJ did it, the police broke the chain of evidence, they violated the 4th amendment breaking into his property. They didn't find a whole lot of evidence for a double murder that was done by a blade with lots of blood.
   
   Why was OJs blood sample carted around by the detective for 2 hours and then that detective is back at OJs house where they found a few drops of blood. He didn't have time to clean up large amounts of blood, and yet they couldn't find but a few drops.
   
   The detectives did a bad job or preserving the chain of evidence, and the whole department looked like amateur with the crime scene evidence.
   
   The detectives didn't have a real compelling reason not to wait for a search warrant, or at least to call for backup. There was no indication that any emergency situation was present. Probable cause not present. Hunches are not probable cause, and without an emergency situation a warrant was called for especially because it was night time.
   
   And just like the Orlando shooting, it could have been Goldman's gay lover that did it. Simpson would not have known that Goldman would be there and what timing would be needed. but someone that followed Goldman to the house would not have that timing problem.
   How would OJ know the timing of when his ex wife and Goldman would be there, and he had been to McDonald with the slug and then he had to get to the ex wife house, and get back to take his flight.
   
   That is precision timing, and a lot of luck to get it accomplished, And because of that timing there wasn't a lot of time to ditch any evidence.
   It was a sloppy police job, and incompetent prosecution in this case. It would be more likely that the detectives wanted it to be OJ and they did everything to get that result. But they were sloppy and the jury didn't believe them.
   
   When you sum up all the evidence that the prosecution had, how could that convict him. Even Seal Team 6 almost failed. and they had intel. What intel did OJ have, as the coincidence of him being there at the precise moment that Goldman arrived is incredible. Even if Goldman made the pretense of returning her sun glasses, how would OJ have known?
   And why would OJ jump his own fence right by the slug's room? That would be really dumb&that doesn't coincide with people that think he did it. Because, it was flawless otherwise.
   If the police had followed procedure&kept the chain of evidence, and tried so hard that night to make OJ the killer, we might have had a different kind of trial?

   replyreport
   1. 51

      bradmasterOCcalposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      What do you base your assertion that Barry lied?
      Do you think that the police detectives lied?
      There was virtually NO evidence pointing to OJ, and there were no real explanations how the crime was committed. Certainly none showing how he did it.

      replyreport
   2. 94

      lions44posted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Scheck had no facts to back up his claims. Just speculation. You talk about no evidence for the Pros., but the defense presented no facts. Nothing. They don't have to, but if you're an "expert" on DNA, maybe you should.

      replyreport
   3. 51

      bradmasterOCcalposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Barry   
      "We did not challenge the underlying reliability of DNA testing methods," he said. "We attacked the way that evidence was gathered and processed. We had a 21st century technology and 19th century evidence collection methods."

      replyreport