Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yeah. It's just putting myself in the jurors shoes from watching the arguments, the impression I got it is that it doesn't matter if the guy took off his gloves at one point cause the blood still tested positive as Simpsons. So I thought with a positive test, who cares if there was a little sloppiness if it still yielded a positive ID.
Oh I see, that makes a lot more sense. However, the defense never raised this point, did they? They just said that the blood wasn't collected properly, cause at one point the guy took his gloves off or something like that.
The glove problem was with Simpson's glove not fitting at the trial. The prosecution failed to point out that a blood-soaked glove, drying out, does shrink. I still don't think Simpson did it.
I don't buy conspiracy theories either. I try cases, albeit civil. When trial time comes there is incredible pressure to win. I would not put it past some of my witnesses to fake evidence. I won't sponsor it, by the way, if I know it's fake, but I try not to participate in the assembly of evidence.
Oh I meant when Dennis Fung was cross-examined, I thought he was accused of taking his gloves off at one point when collecting blood. That is what I meant when I was talking about gloves .
However, as for the gloves not fitting Simpson's hands, I felt that you really can't tell just cause Simpson tried them on. Of course Simpson is going to say they don't fit, even if he is innocent or guilty. No person on trial for murder is going to try them on and say they fit, so I'm surprised the jury got sucked into that. There has to be third party confirmation as to if they are too small or not.
Plus I thought that the prosecution had to receipt to the gloves, and found the receipt in Simpson's house, thus proving he purchased those exact same gloves. Didn't the prosecution use the receipt they found in OJs house to counter the defenses argument?
Oh I meant when Dennis Fung was cross-examined, I thought he was accused of taking his gloves off at one point when collecting blood. That is what I meant when I was talking about gloves .
However, as for the gloves not fitting Simpson's hands, I felt that you really can't tell just cause Simpson tried them on. Of course Simpson is going to say they don't fit, even if he is innocent or guilty. No person on trial for murder is going to try them on and say they fit, so I'm surprised the jury got sucked into that. There has to be third party confirmation as to if they are too small or not.
Plus I thought that the prosecution had to receipt to the gloves, and found the receipt in Simpson's house, thus proving he purchased those exact same gloves. Didn't the prosecution use the receipt they found in OJs house to counter the defenses argument?
I don't remember. I'll google the Dennis Fung story.
Yeah. It's just putting myself in the jurors shoes from watching the arguments, the impression I got it is that it doesn't matter if the guy took off his gloves at one point cause the blood still tested positive as Simpsons. So I thought with a positive test, who cares if there was a little sloppiness if it still yielded a positive ID.
thats like a cab driver that burns every red lite and speeds along the sidewalk; doesnt matter how careless they are as long as they get you to the airport in one piece.
thats like a cab driver that burns every red lite and speeds along the sidewalk; doesnt matter how careless they are as long as they get you to the airport in one piece.
Well that is a very different analogy and I think it's apples and oranges. If the result is still the same, then the result is still the same. I can't have a reasonable doubt on sloppy collecting when the ID is the same result. The collection must have really not have been that bad if they blood still tested positive to Simpson's. And sure maybe the police and labeled a vile as Simpson's when, they really didn't yield a positive result.
However, after going over it all, I still feel that Simpson was the killer. He has a receipt for the same gloves, owns the exact same shoes as the shoe prints, and he lied three times about how he got his cut and kept changing the story, and his suicide note wreaked of guilt, and why would an innocent man write such a note with that kind of content in, if he was innocent... and he just so happened to have a disguise kit in his car, when he was arrested, after trying to resist and escape the police.
There are other things as well, but I feel that there are too many coincidences working against Simpson, and he was acting as guilty as possible, with his behavior afterwards.
Well that is a very different analogy and I think it's apples and oranges.
analogies will never be perfect (unless you are comparing the same thing which would be redundant).
apples and oranges are both round.
they are both fruit.
they both grow from trees.
they both have skin.
they both are edible.
they both have seeds
...
they are probably more similar than different.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ironpony
If the result is still the same, then the result is still the same. I can't have a reasonable doubt on sloppy collecting when the ID is the same result. The collection must have really not have been that bad if they blood still tested positive to Simpson's. And sure maybe the police and labeled a vile as Simpson's when, they really didn't yield a positive result.
if we know they were careless in handling the sample; then, it is not that big of a jump to think maybe they were also careless in collecting the samples; labeling the samples; reading the results of the samples; ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by ironpony
However, after going over it all, I still feel that Simpson was the killer. He has a receipt for the same gloves, owns the exact same shoes as the shoe prints, and he lied three times about how he got his cut and kept changing the story, and his suicide note wreaked of guilt, and why would an innocent man write such a note with that kind of content in, if he was innocent... and he just so happened to have a disguise kit in his car, when he was arrested, after trying to resist and escape the police.
There are other things as well, but I feel that there are too many coincidences working against Simpson, and he was acting as guilty as possible, with his behavior afterwards.
meetoo; i'm about 75% sure that he may have committed murder but you cant send someone to the electric chair because they probably committed a crime; their should be a higher threshold of certainty than that.
the reason for their carelessness is that the 1990's lapd and and district attorneys are used to crack-cocaine gangbangers with public defenders with a case load of 20 per day so they recommend their clients plead guilty and take a plea bargain to reduce sentencing to 10 years prison/10 years parole rather than pushing 25-to (eventhough evidence was commonly planted to make convictions more convincing).
the o.j. trial (though probably guilty) exposed the inadequacies of the l.a. criminal system.
The parallels with Shakespeare's classic tragedy "Othello" are striking, to say the least... In case no one's every thrown that observation out before, or even if someone has...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
.
