• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

O.J. Simpson confessed murder to Oprah

You mean the "blood evidence" with the preservative in it, that LAPD smeared on evidence without realizing that the preservative in the blood would show that OJ was not the person who put it there?

Don't get me wrong....OJ was guilty....but the Simpson case is a classic example of police action at its worst and what can happen as a result. OJ wasn't acquitted because of fears of a riot....he was acquitted because the LAPD created reasonable doubt.

What makes you think he was guilty? He had people's blood in areas it shouldn't have been, and who said all the blood was tainted? Maybe some of the policework was shoddy, but some of it was probably fine. I don't know if preservative will change the results of the testing. I read where some of the blood had been kept out for over 4 hrs in some detective's car or something.

O'Reilly said the jurors told him they did not want to convict a black man. What would be the reason? I still think that there was a fear of violence as the country was very torn along racial lines over this particular case.
 
The glove bit was turned into a circus, and the glove didn't fit because of what it had been through, and because OJ hadn't taken his arthritis meds. Tell us what was inconclusive about the DNA. Goldman's blood and DNA were all over everything.

I think the blood shrunk the glove. They were probably leather, and I agree they degraded. If the gloves had his blood on them along with Nicole and Ron's, well it would still seem like he did it, pretty strongly.

I have one foot that is a half size larger than the other one. Shoes don't ordinarily fit me right because of this. One side of the body is usually different from the other.
 
Um it says you lean Independent, so no I'm not talking about you. I was referring to some comments that were said about black people in this thread by southern conservatives.
LOL. Truth is such a hard thing for some.
 
So did you feel the same about the Rodney King trial? Or he clearly deserve it because he is black.
Did her murder two people and have a jury decide he need not pay a price because he is black as they are?
 
You mean the "blood evidence" with the preservative in it, that LAPD smeared on evidence without realizing that the preservative in the blood would show that OJ was not the person who put it there?

Don't get me wrong....OJ was guilty....but the Simpson case is a classic example of police action at its worst and what can happen as a result. OJ wasn't acquitted because of fears of a riot....he was acquitted because the LAPD created reasonable doubt.

EDTA (food preservative) is a chemical found naturally in human blood and chemicals such as paint. At the time, tests were not readily available to differentiate between natural and contaminant EDTA or the differences in the levels of EDTA in blood between EDTA from a tube and naturally occurring EDTA.

There was a lot of evidence, not just blood.
 
Look, blacks are generally MUCH more racist towards anyone OTHER than blacks. Its no surprise on the reaction that took place. Anyhow, there in ZERO question OJ murdered. None.
 
I think the blood shrunk the glove. They were probably leather, and I agree they degraded. If the gloves had his blood on them along with Nicole and Ron's, well it would still seem like he did it, pretty strongly.

I have one foot that is a half size larger than the other one. Shoes don't ordinarily fit me right because of this. One side of the body is usually different from the other.

Tell that to OV, he thinks he's a big ****ing genius about everything.
 
It was LA. They would have destroyed the city, again. The judge knew it, the jury knew it. He was very guilty, and the blood evidence cynched it. Didn't need the too small glove, or the incompetent handling of the blood. His blood was in all the places, and theirs in his. Ron Goldman's blood was in his car for crissake.

Do you really think a jury let him for free for fear of riots? Give me a break. lol
 
Ah... so who went to jail from the LAPD for this obvious framing?

LOL.....you actually think that cops are going to prosecuted for this kind of stuff? That's a good one. Cops are caught lying all the time and judges/prosecutors simply turn their heads....ask anyone who actually works in the criminal justice system.

BTW OK.....how do you explain the preservative that was found in the blood on the sock that Mark Fuhrman supposedly found?
 
Last edited:
LOL.....you actually think that cops are going to prosecuted for this kind of stuff? That's a good one. Cops are caught lying all the time and judges/prosecutors simply turn their heads....ask anyone who actually works in the criminal justice system.

BTW OK.....how do you explain the preservative that was found in the blood on the sock that Mark Fuhrman supposedly found?

So no one was prosecuted, not even some damning articles in the newspaper about the obvious "framing". :lamo

The conspiracy room is down the hall, 3rd door on the left.
 
So no one was prosecuted, not even some damning articles in the newspaper about the obvious "framing". :lamo

The conspiracy room is down the hall, 3rd door on the left.

So...Ock.....how do you explain the preservative found in the blood on the sock that Mark Fuhrman allegedly "found" over the wall?
 
Do you really think a jury let him for free for fear of riots? Give me a break. lol

I don't think that jury had a lot of geniuses on it. I think that Judge Ito had some political motivations. To me, at times, he seemed biased towards the defense.

All it would have taken is for one juror to plant the seed of possible rioting. Then everybody might think they are saving the city. People at times are easily manipulated.
 
So...Ock.....how do you explain the preservative found in the blood on the sock that Mark Fuhrman allegedly "found" over the wall?

I thought the sock was in his bedroom. The reason he didn't put it with the rest of the bloody clothes and shoes is because he didn't think there was any blood on them. There was, however, a blood stain the size of a quarter on I think, the left sock. The defense claimed the sock had been tampered with because the blood was old and crusty.

MO is judge Ito should have never let the defense make some of their crazy claims. The too small glove made me cringe. It was his effing glove.

The judge in the Casey Anthony trial is being pretty tough on the defense. I don't believe any case could ever be won if the defense can make all sorts of ridiculous claims and be allowed to enter them in in front of the jury.
 
So...Ock.....how do you explain the preservative found in the blood on the sock that Mark Fuhrman allegedly "found" over the wall?

No idea... 3rd door on the left.
 
The trial served as the official "jump the shark" moment for the U.S. judicial system.

A case that should have been filed under the cateogory of "duh, he did it" ended up in an acquittal.

Cases like this are why doctors spend $180 PER HOUR on malpractice insurance. The system has been exploited and twisted to the point of uselessness.
 
It was the LAPD and the incompetent prosecutor's that blew the OJ case.


One of the most basic lessons in law school is " In cross-examination -Never ask a question that you don't know the answer to...and never ask an open ended question"

Chris Darden asking OJ to try on the glove was the turning point of the trial...and he violated both of these basics. He was so certain that he was going to have a "gotcha" moment that he didn't even account for the fact that shrinkage would occur because of the condition of the glove. The DA should have been prepared for that, they could have consulted with experts, but their incompetency overwhelmed them.
 
It was the LAPD and the incompetent prosecutor's that blew the OJ case.


One of the most basic lessons in law school is " In cross-examination -Never ask a question that you don't know the answer to...and never ask an open ended question"

Chris Darden asking OJ to try on the glove was the turning point of the trial...and he violated both of these basics. He was so certain that he was going to have a "gotcha" moment that he didn't even account for the fact that shrinkage would occur because of the condition of the glove. The DA should have been prepared for that, they could have consulted with experts, but their incompetency overwhelmed them.

please, stop it... even if it would have fit, fact was it probably fit a million people, the whole idea was bad, and wouldnt have proved anything..

the case should have been open shut guilty anyway.

the jury has to live with that
 
Back
Top Bottom