re: How Can You Explain OJ’s Blood Found at the Crime Scene?

quote:

---

For me, the DNA evidence was irrefutable.

---

Irrefutably planted.

quote:

---

OJ’s blood was found at the crime scene.

---

But not the night of the crime. OJ was compelled by the court to give a blood sample. That blood sample was then treated with a preservative called EDTA. OJ's blood was then handed over to Det. Phillip Vanatter who was supposed to deliver it straight to the crime lab but instead kept it in his possession overnight during which time he visited the crime scene. And what do you know? The very next morning they found OJ's blood all over the crime scene. And not only did that blood contain EDTA but the crime lab could not account for the quantity of blood that was drawn from OJ. The night they impounded the Bronco they didn't find any blood in the back seat. Three days later they find large quantities of the victims' blood.. The bloody sock had stains of near identical size and shape on either side. How likely is blood to actually land that way if there was an actual foot in the sock? That blood was clearly applied to an empty sock and soaked through. People want to remember the two assclowns Cochrane and Bailey but it was Barry Scheck who crushed the prosecution's case. But don't take any of that as me believing OJ was innocent. He murdered those people and the LAPD let him get away with it through a foul mix of incompetence and corruption.

Some people say that it might have been the son but I don't buy it mostly because the kind of monster who could do that to his own mother would almost certainly have more incidents down the line and to my knowledge he's never been in trouble.

ETA: Wrong son.