- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Did the prosecution and LAPD do a really bad job in the OJ Simpson case?
Posted on 2/9/17 at 9:54 am to GetCocky11
Posted on 2/9/17 at 9:54 am to GetCocky11
The prosecution lost this case the minute they agreed to move the trial to downtown Los Angeles. The evidence was so overwhelming in favor of conviction, that the DA miscalculated and thought that race wouldn't be enough of a factor to sway the jury.
0
Posted on 2/9/17 at 9:56 am to GetCocky11
It was a confluence of issues that sunk that State's case. Among them:
Pandering prosecution strategy
Incredibly difficult racial issues in the city
Wrong venue
Failure to adequately address Mark Fuhrman's issues
Horrible judge
Average prosecutors took on the finest criminal legal minds in the country
Failure to do a proper investigation like was done in the civil case where they found the Bruno Magli shoes
Failure to adequately explain the timeline and surrounding of Fuhrman's initial investigation that all but neuter the idea that he planted evidence
And of course finally, the amateur hour that was the glove situation. Darden got bullied into being stupid by the much more experienced Cochran.
Then, the gloves evidence like receipt and photos only being used in the rebuttal case after the glove debacle
Pandering prosecution strategy
Incredibly difficult racial issues in the city
Wrong venue
Failure to adequately address Mark Fuhrman's issues
Horrible judge
Average prosecutors took on the finest criminal legal minds in the country
Failure to do a proper investigation like was done in the civil case where they found the Bruno Magli shoes
Failure to adequately explain the timeline and surrounding of Fuhrman's initial investigation that all but neuter the idea that he planted evidence
And of course finally, the amateur hour that was the glove situation. Darden got bullied into being stupid by the much more experienced Cochran.
Then, the gloves evidence like receipt and photos only being used in the rebuttal case after the glove debacle
This post was edited on 2/9/17 at 10:06 am
Posted on 2/9/17 at 10:00 am to dltigers3
quote:
I believe evidence was planted, but Furman wasn't trying to hide anything by pleading the 5th.
In the OJ case? What evidence?
Posted on 2/9/17 at 10:18 am to GetCocky11
Police also screwed up his initial interview.
The interview transcript is an example how not to interview someone.
The interview transcript is an example how not to interview someone.
Posted on 2/9/17 at 10:45 am to GetCocky11
Yes
Also,Barry Sheck is a genius.
Also,Barry Sheck is a genius.
Posted on 2/9/17 at 10:55 am to GetCocky11
quote:
Yes, I just finished the ESPN OJ documentary.
Pretty despicable how that woman juror just blatantly admits she voted not guilty as payback for Rodney King.
Posted on 2/9/17 at 11:14 am to adamb2151
quote:
Yes, they put him on the stand to ask him about the tapes that were recorded of him for a book that was being written. He made several comments that confirmed him as a racist and an unethical officer. He plead the fifth to prevent incriminating himself, so the prosecution asked him if he practiced the same unethical behavior in this case. He had no choice but to plead the fifth and it looked really really bad.
If that was the end game of the defense then that was god damned brilliant.
Posted on 2/9/17 at 11:18 am to therick711
I think they planted blood to solidify their case against a guilty man. I can't imagine the amount of blood that was found at the scene, and at ojs house compared to the miniscule amount inside the bronco. I've gutted enough deer in my life to know how hard it is to clean up, and how it gets everywhere.
That's the only thing with the whole case that doesn't make sense to me.
That's the only thing with the whole case that doesn't make sense to me.
Posted on 2/9/17 at 11:19 am to StealthCalais11
quote:
If that was the end game of the defense then that was god damned brilliant.
Of course it was. The defense team calculated everything perfectly and the prosecution, judge, media and jury all played right into their hands. On top of that, the defense got very lucky as well. Like they needed it.
Posted on 2/9/17 at 11:23 am to dltigers3
quote:
I think they planted blood to solidify their case against a guilty man.
The problem with that theory is that Fuhrman would have had to have known that OJ didn't have an alibi. Because of the timeline and order of events, there is no way for Fuhrman to know that he wouldn't be exposing himself to a felony investigation if OJ was with someone else, in a restaurant, or in public somewhere.
Posted on 2/9/17 at 11:24 am to Zephyrius
quote:
It seemed like LAPD attempted to frame a guilty man...
Which shows how good a job the defense did. Exactly the opposite was true. To the LAPD, OJ was somewhat of an idol. A local football legend. The defense made people they had it in for him.
Edit: re-read your post. Sorry I misunderstood your point.
This post was edited on 2/9/17 at 11:26 am
Posted on 2/9/17 at 11:28 am to StealthCalais11
quote:
defense then that was god damned brilliant.
The defense even talked the judge into allowing the Jury to tour OJ's home. Which in itself is asinine. Then the defense team went in the house prior and removed all of the pictures in the house of OJ hanging out with white people. This painted the picture to the jury that OJ was a normal successful black man. Not a black man who had no interest in the black community. Would be interesting to see how this would have played out with a different judge who knew what he was doing. Ito was absolutely awful for allowing what he allowed.
Posted on 2/9/17 at 11:30 am to Fat and Happy
Of course. If that is not clear from the show, its bogus.
Posted on 2/9/17 at 11:40 am to therick711
I'm not necessarily saying Furman was the one to plant the evidence. But let's not look at him as some bastion of logic and moral fortitude. Alot of his actions the night of the murder don't really make sense, like why he even broke into ojs compound in the first place.
At the very least, the LAPDs evidence collection and chain of custody procedures were astoundingly awful. I would venture to guess that any similar methods in a case these days would likewise be torn apart and cause reasonable doubt.
At the very least, the LAPDs evidence collection and chain of custody procedures were astoundingly awful. I would venture to guess that any similar methods in a case these days would likewise be torn apart and cause reasonable doubt.
Posted on 2/9/17 at 11:45 am to dltigers3
quote:
I'm not necessarily saying Furman was the one to plant the evidence. But let's not look at him as some bastion of logic and moral fortitude. Alot of his actions the night of the murder don't really make sense, like why he even broke into ojs compound in the first place.
With respect to the glove at Rockingham, it has to be Fuhrman if you believe it was planted because of the timeline. With respect to entering Rockingham, I can understand that. Fuhrman says they were concerned that whatever befell Nicole befell him. That is logically consistent, but I wouldn't blame any one for not believing it. The planting of evidence at Rockingham is unlikely given that if OJ had a public alibi, police officers were going to jail. Credit the defense for doing a great job casting doubt on the investigation and fault the prosecution for not easily explaining why their planting insinuations were bullshite.
This post was edited on 2/9/17 at 11:46 am
Posted on 2/9/17 at 1:24 pm to ILikeLSUToo
quote:
Fuhrman was asked outright if he planted or manufactured evidence for this case specifically, and he pleaded the fifth
Yeah if I had been on the jury I would have been like what the frick when that happened. That said he obviously did it.
Posted on 2/9/17 at 1:35 pm to GetCocky11
OJ did it?
Posted on 2/9/17 at 1:50 pm to therick711
Fuhrman even to this day just seems like a sleezy dude. I fully believe oj did it, but the socks left in the bedroom, and the lack of blood in the bronco just seem weird to me.
But to the ops original question, I would place the majority of the blame on the LAPDs evidence collection, and Ito's incompetence. The prosecution didn't do a terrible job overall, they were just too overconfident at the time.
I believe the juror stating that this was retaliation for Rodney king is a conventient excuse after the fact. I truly feel that the jury was looking for a reason to acquit, and the prosecution/LAPD gave it to them. I also feel like all jury's should operate this way, they should go in looking for reasons to acquit
But to the ops original question, I would place the majority of the blame on the LAPDs evidence collection, and Ito's incompetence. The prosecution didn't do a terrible job overall, they were just too overconfident at the time.
I believe the juror stating that this was retaliation for Rodney king is a conventient excuse after the fact. I truly feel that the jury was looking for a reason to acquit, and the prosecution/LAPD gave it to them. I also feel like all jury's should operate this way, they should go in looking for reasons to acquit
Posted on 2/9/17 at 2:37 pm to fatboydave
quote:
OJ did it?
A fair assessment
This post was edited on 2/9/17 at 2:38 pm
Posted on 2/9/17 at 3:16 pm to GetCocky11
How old are you ?
Some of us lived through this shite show, the defense wore the DA's out with stupid information.
Some of us lived through this shite show, the defense wore the DA's out with stupid information.
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News