re: The People v. O.J. Simpson: American Crime Story series long thread

Did OJ try to get Shapiro to represent him in 2007? If so, why not?

Johnny would have gotten him off had he not died.

It was so refreshing to hear that N Carolina judge dress Johnnie down for the alliteration. I just wish he would have done the same for Flee's flowery bullshite. :racist:

quote:

---

Now that may have afforded him a quick shower assuming his bags were already packed but they found no blood or blood residue (nor bleaching) in the tubs or plumbing, which would have been impossible to just rinse away. He did not have time to do some kind of professional clean up.

---

Yeah this is huge...I remember the trial and ultra-violated the pipes or whatever and the shower to pick up blood residue and old hidden blood stains even if he bleached everything...and it wasn't there - So apparently OJ washed all that blood away at the airport.

But what about all that blood... Or as the trial panned out, what blood...OJs house and car support almost nothing more than an investigator walking on the scene or careful vial deposits on socks. And some smears... Anything that could be from the scene or dabbed but not a someone covered in blood. The blood evidence just never seemed big enough or normally deposited after that much blood from the scene. The scene was ghastly, the evidence seemed like the killer was wearing a Hazmat suit.

What was going on? I still have no clue how someone could hide all that and no one not even the prosecution has come up with a theory how OJ was able to....given the timeline, how did he dispose of so much DNA evidence and supposedly get away with it, prosecution never had an answer for supposed miracle crime scene mop-up killer.

And no one on here has an answer, they just inflate tiny bits and forget about the Gore at the scene. OJ would leave about as much DNA if he had stomped a mouse with his shoe. That really flies in the face of the heroic battle Goldman and Nicole put up...I think that's what swayed the jurors, they saw more of the crime scene than we did.

From La times back then...

A defense expert told jurors that the bloodstain - later found to match Nicole Simpson's genetic type - was "consistent with someone dabbing the sock with blood when it was not being worn by Mr. Simpson," in the words of defense lawyer Peter Neufeld.

Blood-spatter expert Herbert MacDonell, a retired New York college professor, said he discovered microscopic "balls" of blood clinging to the inside of the sock, opposite the bloodstain, indicating that the staining occurred when the sock was "lying . . . on a flat surface," in Neufeld's words.

Prosecutor Marcia Clark offered a host of other scenarios.
She suggested that Simpson had removed the sock with a bloody hand, or that Nicole Simpson herself had "reached out a bloody hand to touch the ankle of (her) murderer.

Defense lawyers furthered their defense by showing that police had leaked the results of DNA tests on the sock stains even before sending the garments away for genetic testing.
"We have within the Los Angeles Police Department sources confidently predicting results of tests that (had) not yet even been performed," said defense lawyer Gerald Uelmen, citing TV news reports in September prematurely linking Nicole Simpson's blood type to the sock stains.

Uelmen suggested that story could have originated only from police who had ''participated in the tampering or planting of that evidence."

Judge Lance Ito permitted Uelmen to question Los Angeles TV reporter Tracie Savage about her sources for two stories in September that quoted ''knowledgeable sources" as saying that DNA tests had matched the sock stains with the victim's blood type.

But Savage, a reporter for KNBC-TV, refused to identify her sources.

Alan Dershowitz talked about the bloody sock. He said that the blood on the sock contained a chemical called EDTA which it could only have gotten from being kept in a medical vial and that there was a video taken of the room before the sock was found which showed no socks in the middle of the room.

quote:

---

From La times back then... A defense expert told jurors that the bloodstain - later found to match Nicole Simpson's genetic type - was "consistent with someone dabbing the sock with blood when it was not being worn by Mr. Simpson," in the words of defense lawyer Peter Neufeld. Blood-spatter expert Herbert MacDonell, a retired New York college professor, said he discovered microscopic "balls" of blood clinging to the inside of the sock, opposite the bloodstain, indicating that the staining occurred when the sock was "lying . . . on a flat surface," in Neufeld's words. Prosecutor Marcia Clark offered a host of other scenarios. She suggested that Simpson had removed the sock with a bloody hand, or that Nicole Simpson herself had "reached out a bloody hand to touch the ankle of (her) murderer. Defense lawyers furthered their defense by showing that police had leaked the results of DNA tests on the sock stains even before sending the garments away for genetic testing. "We have within the Los Angeles Police Department sources confidently predicting results of tests that (had) not yet even been performed," said defense lawyer Gerald Uelmen, citing TV news reports in September prematurely linking Nicole Simpson's blood type to the sock stains. Uelmen suggested that story could have originated only from police who had ''participated in the tampering or planting of that evidence." Judge Lance Ito permitted Uelmen to question Los Angeles TV reporter Tracie Savage about her sources for two stories in September that quoted ''knowledgeable sources" as saying that DNA tests had matched the sock stains with the victim's blood type. But Savage, a reporter for KNBC-TV, refused to identify her sources. Alan Dershowitz talked about the bloody sock. He said that the blood on the sock contained a chemical called EDTA which it could only have gotten from being kept in a medical vial and that there was a video taken of the room before the sock was found which showed no socks in the middle of the room.

---

But, but, conspiracy theory, you hate cops!!!!!

So, I'm curious how it's going to end. Will it end at the party at Stabbingham, with only OJ, Cochran, and Bailey celebrating, and everyone knowing they let a murderer walk free thinking "What have I done?" I'm sure Kardashian will end that way, but I'm curious how long into the episode it will take for the verdict, since they certainly aren't going to skip the most famous line of the trial.

Edit: The episode is an hour and a half long tonight.

quote:

---

So, I'm curious how it's going to end.

---

Me too. No spoilers please. Both sides have really strong cases, the jury will have a tough decision.

Has Marcia Clark grown on anyone else? I kinda think she is hot now for some reason.

if the gloves are too small, easy call

great speech by Johnnie