He killed 2 people and fled. Threatening suicide several times during the chase.

No way he did it. Those are standard reactions when a man finds out the mother of his 2 kids was brutally murdered by someone else.

Razr phone imo

That can't be OJ's finger. I think that is shopped. That is the hand of a giant, much larger than OJ. The fingernail appears to be the size of that prosecutor's head. I mean could you imagine such a thing?

If O.J. is innocent, which I highly doubt, he sure has a funny way of proclaiming his innocence.

Running from police in that White Bronco didn't exactly scream the actions of an innocent man.

And I don't ever remember hearing or seeing him say or do anything that would lead me to believe he was wrongfully accused. Quite the opposite actually.

Who knows? The defense was called The Dream Team, the best lawyers money could buy. But they didn't deserve any such praise. Shapiro was the team captain at the beginning, he had never tried a murder case before; Cochran had only worked one murder trial, and his client in that case was convicted; Bailey hadn't been part of a big case in the 20 years since the Patti Hearst kidnapping case, and he lost that one.

But because OJ had a lot of money, and he spent it lavishly on his defense, the media just presumed that all that money would buy the best.

And if the media got that one so terribly wrong, then I'm not even going to Google to see what they say were saying about Clark.

I *do* remember what they were saying about Darden: young, inexperienced, has no business in a case this important, but hey, they need a black guy for PR reasons.

As for the glove thing, I read Darden's book a long time ago. He insists it wasn't his idea, but Clark's, and that everyone in the DA's office agreed it was a good idea (their only worry was that the defense would ask for the glove demonstration, making it look like the prosecution was trying to hide exculpatory evidence). Yes, Darden responded to some bench-jockeying when he chose that moment to ask the defendant to try on the gloves.

Darden says in his book that when the thing blew up in their face, and everyone blamed him for the debacle, he bit his lip and took all that heat for the team.

This question makes me realize it's been almost 20 years now, and there's a whole generation of people who weren't around for it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O._J._S...d_Bronco_chase

hahah, this case is more and more interesting the more i read.

At 10 am on October 3, 1995, the jury returned a verdict of not guilty. It had arrived at the verdict by 3 pm the previous day, after only four hours of deliberation, but Judge Ito postponed the announcement.[30]
Before the verdict, President Bill Clinton was briefed on security measures if rioting occurred nationwide due to the verdict. An estimated 100 million people worldwide stopped what they were doing to watch or listen to the verdict announcement. Long-distance telephone call volume declined by 58% and trading volume on the New York Stock Exchange by 41%, water usage decreased as people avoided using bathrooms, and government officials postponed meetings. So much work stopped that the verdict cost an estimated $480 million in lost productivity.[30]
The United States Supreme Court received a message on the verdict during a trial, with the justices quietly passing the note to each other while listening to oral arguments. Congressmen canceled press conferences, with one telling reporters "Not only would you not be here, but I wouldn't be here, either."[31] Domino's Pizza reported a large rise in pizza sales in the 15 minutes before the verdict. When the announcement began, the orders stopped, however; "not a single pizza was ordered in the United States for five minutes between 1 o'clock and 1:05", according to the chain.[32]

There was another set of footprints which were not from Bruno Maglis. Where's the blood in the bronco? only a small amount was found there and only a few drops at Rockingham. Where are OJ's bloody clothes? Ron had bruised knuckles which should have caused cuts and bruises on the killer, but all OJ had was that small cut. Jason's official time card was destroyed and replaced with an unofficial time card even though the time clock was working. The hair on the seaman's watchcap had African American hair on it that did not match OJ's. When OJ was found not guilty, his entire family, with one exception, celebrated. Jason sat stone-faced, showing no emotion or movement.

Well, you convinced me.

If only there weren't 1000 ways to get rid of bloody clothes.

got kicked off SNL for all his sketches about the case Best snl news host ever

I recall they had him wear thin plastic gloves while trying on the gloves, the story I remember is to not contaminate the real gloves. Clearly a different demonstration than actually trying on the gloves themselves.

There is absolutely no possible reason to have OJ try on the gloves. They were XL gloves, which is size he wore. They could have used that and had a size chart recommendation for that brand and his hand size and left it alone at that.

Giving the defendant a crucial piece of evidence to manipulate to see if it "fits" him, is just stupid, even if gloves were brand new and OJ wasn't wearing plastic gloves. Add in those last facts, and it goes from stupid to criminally insane.

The defense team was probably in physical pain trying to hold back the laughter.

The Juice definitely threw in some of his Naked Gun acquired thespian prowess when he got his hands on those babies.

Look at him making all these funny faces, exaggerating pulling em down, keeping his fingers all spread wide the whole time, the little shrugs. Pretty slick, imo.

Nordberg's best role.

It seems to me like it is pretty obvious the prosecution was paid off. Too bad there can't be investigations into doing a bad job.

Please back up this statement. I've read an awful lot about this case, and never heard mention of this second set of footprints. I have heard thousands of words about one single set of footprints which, as I said earlier, went from the crime scene, through the gate, to the sidewalk, the street, then stopped.

Only a small amount??? How much of the victims' blood do you NEED? One drop would be enough for me.



They found blood on the door, console, steering wheel, carpet--all on the driver's side, btw, which REALLY makes the "OJ was just helping his kid get away with it" story deflate.

OJ: Oh hell, what have you done? Get in the car.

KID: Yes, Dad. Hey, can I drive?

OJ: Yeah, sure. I'll sit on the passenger side and chill. Or maybe I'll lie down in the back for a nap....

It's the most ludicrous thing I've ever heard. I'm willing to bet that in the history of America, no teenager who was ever in trouble and picked up by his father at the police station, or school, or wherever, has turned to the father as they got to the father's car and said, "Hey, can I drive?"

This ALONE should get even the most die-hard "Kid Did It" fan to reconsider.

Ooooh, you got me there! None of the 8000 tons of evidence is relevant any more, because Kardashian walked right past us with a small bag that was never seen again. Case dismissed!

(You realize I could just parrot you and ask, "Where are the kid's bloody clothes?", if that's the standard we're using to clear defendants now.)

I don't have an answer for this one. But since nobody saw any bruises on the kid at the time, either, I don't think it helps you at all.

You need to remember, EVERY case has loose ends that sometimes cannot be explained. In this case, we don't have the murder weapon; we don't have all of Simpson's bloody clothes (just socks); etc. These things are like a few missing pieces in a jigsaw puzzle--if the image of the other 998, perfectly fitting pieces is unmistakable, then it's REASONABLE to accept it, and it's UNREASONABLE to DOUBT it.

People tend to think of evidence like a chain, and that one weak link could undo the whole case. But evidence isn't like a chain, it's more like a rope. Each piece of evidence is a strand, and each strand that you add makes your rope stronger. If one of your many strands is weak, that rope is still just as strong as it was before you added it. If ALL your strands are weak, then you've got a weak rope, but in this case, most of our strands are steel-belted!


Since there is absolutely no reason to suspect anyone other than OJ Simpson in this case, this is most irrelevant. I cannot account for my whereabouts that night either, does that make ME a suspect?

From http://www.usatoday.com/news/index/nns25.htm which is a brief summary of the evidence, and how it was viewed by prosecution and defense:

Crime scene hairs and fibers:

Hairs found in a dark knit cap were similar to Simpson's hairs; fibers on a cap were similar to those in the carpeting of Simpson's Ford Bronco; dark blue cotton fibers were found on Goldman.

Prosecution: Evidence places Simpson at the crime scene; noted that a witness said Simpson wore a dark sweat suit the night of the murders.

Defense: Hairs mean nothing more than assailant may have been black, as is roughly 10 percent of Los Angeles' population; also pointed to hairs that appeared to contain no dandruff, while Simpson's hair sample had some dandruff; no dark blue sweat suit was ever found; evidence could have been cast about the scene when a detective unfurled a blanket from Ms. Simpson's home to cover her body.

Doesn't sound to me, at all, like the defense presented any evidence that any of those hairs positively could not have been OJ Simpson's, as you suggest. I don't know enough about dandruff, so unless you can cite an expert who says every single hair on a dandruff sufferer's head will show traces of dandruff, then I doubt such is the case.

Either way, since the defense "pointed to hairs that appeared to contain no dandruff", that tells me that there were plenty of hairs that DID, which only further implicates their client if he, indeed, suffers from dandruff AS THEY SAY HE DOES!!!


Really? The kid you say was wracked with psychological and emotional issues didn't react like the normal people did? Shocking. Noteworthy. Not.

Anyone who think OJ is innocent is stupid.

ytf, while I appreciate your posts itt as they are interesting - you really don't need to respond to this guy. You're getting bent out of shape about something nobody believes.

I know where you got this analogy.

I really don't get bent out of shape over this case any more. I've found that people who doubt Simpson's guilt aren't aware of the mountain of evidence that points to him and him alone (I used to be one of those people, and you know what they say: no zealot like a convert).

What gets me bent is where they DO know the evidence, yet try to contort around it. You want to see "bent out of shape", read my 100+ posts in the Casey Anthony trial thread! Imagine this exchange:

DISSENTER: There was a second set of bloody footprints.

ME: Do you have evidence of that?

DISSENTER: Burden of proof is on the prosecution, not the defense (IE, "I don't have to prove anything, not even my ridiculous, fantastical alternate scenarios, yet you still have to give them weight.")

That was my life in the Casey Anthony thread. And it was when I just moved to a new town, was out of work, broke, and was sitting home every day with nothing to do but drive myself bananas on 2+2.

Wait you assume Casey Anthony was guilty?? lol @ you sir

Nice try. I'm not taking the bait.

(wow, there's an upset!)

You can't lump a guy's son in with the overall universe of people not him when discussing his range of emotional responses.

It is hard to believe they really thought a guy who's incentive is to invoke doubt would just slip on the gloves easliy and say 'Yep, they fit!'.

The other major thing I recall from this trial was the way DNA science was put on trial. It seemed to be the first major trial where the science was used and the big picture was lost in arguing over minutia over what sigma the DNA was likely OJ's.