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.
Finally, when prosecutor Chris Darden asked O.J. if he would try on the glove, O.J. walked over and tried it on and it did not appear to fit. That incredibly dumb move by Chris Darden was a real case crusher.
An incredibly naive move on Darden's part. Maybe hindsight is 20-20 but it was obvious to everyone watching that OJ should have been asked to try on a pair of new gloves, same size as the evidence gloves, with no rubber gloves on underneath. That way, the possibility that the evidence gloves had been soaked with blood (and then shrunk when they dried out) would not have spoiled the demonstration.
And if you are unsure if OJ's arthritis medication (or the lack thereof) had made his hands swell up, you don't do this experiment in the first place.
Vincent Bugliosi wrote the best book on this case. Highly recommended. A few points from it:
-Prosecutors Darden and Clark fared very poorly in pre-trial focus group evaluations with panel participants of a similar makeup as the jury. Black women in particular hated Marcia Clark - they described her as a pushy, bitchy white woman. Darden was seen as wishy-washy and passive, and it came through throughout the trial. He always sounded like he was just going through the motions of being a prosecutor, like he wished he could be anywhere else but the courtroom. He made it sound as if he had given up long ago. If anyone was on the fence, Darden didn't do anything to get them over to his side.
-The prosecution made an enormous blunder when they told the jury, in their opening argument, that they would hear OJ's taped interview made after he returned from his overnight trip to Chicago. In it, OJ stumbles through a rambling, contradictory account of his whereabouts the night of the murder and he was completely unable to explain an extremely large cut on his hand, a cut that was clearly fresh and new. Remember, the murders had just happened the night before! But for reasons known only to them, the prosecution decided not to play the tape during the trial and the defense noticed - and took advantage of it. They made it sound like the prosecution had something to hide and thus were not going to play the tape. Johnnie Cochran mentioned it over and over again, planting the notion that the prosecution was covering up something. And the prosecution was too dumb to realize they were being blindsided by Cochran's bluff. No way Cochran wanted the tape to be played.
-Funny how when the defense called in the two DNA experts, those guys spent the whole time casting doubt on the validity of all the blood evidence in the case, which flies in the case of what those guys actually do for a living. Their occupation is to reliably link DNA evidence with crime scenes accurately and reliably and suddenly here was a case where they claimed DNA evidence was NOT accurate. These blood spots were contaminated, those blood samples are too old and have spoiled, those other blood spots are suspect too... Except for the blood spots which supposedly contained the blood preservative - they were OK with those it seems. Funny isn't it.
Another thing this case Proved is, "if you got money You can get away with murder in this country"
Casey Anderson, Baretta(aka Robert Blake), O.J. just to name a few.
An incredibly naive move on Darden's part. Maybe hindsight is 20-20 but it was obvious to everyone watching that OJ should have been asked to try on a pair of new gloves, same size as the evidence gloves, with no rubber gloves on underneath. That way, the possibility that the evidence gloves had been soaked with blood (and then shrunk when they dried out) would not have spoiled the demonstration.
And if you are unsure if OJ's arthritis medication (or the lack thereof) had made his hands swell up, you don't do this experiment in the first place.
Vincent Bugliosi wrote the best book on this case. Highly recommended. A few points from it:
-Prosecutors Darden and Clark fared very poorly in pre-trial focus group evaluations with panel participants of a similar makeup as the jury. Black women in particular hated Marcia Clark - they described her as a pushy, bitchy white woman. Darden was seen as wishy-washy and passive, and it came through throughout the trial. He always sounded like he was just going through the motions of being a prosecutor, like he wished he could be anywhere else but the courtroom. He made it sound as if he had given up long ago. If anyone was on the fence, Darden didn't do anything to get them over to his side.
-The prosecution made an enormous blunder when they told the jury, in their opening argument, that they would hear OJ's taped interview made after he returned from his overnight trip to Chicago. In it, OJ stumbles through a rambling, contradictory account of his whereabouts the night of the murder and he was completely unable to explain an extremely large cut on his hand, a cut that was clearly fresh and new. Remember, the murders had just happened the night before! But for reasons known only to them, the prosecution decided not to play the tape during the trial and the defense noticed - and took advantage of it. They made it sound like the prosecution had something to hide and thus were not going to play the tape. Johnnie Cochran mentioned it over and over again, planting the notion that the prosecution was covering up something. And the prosecution was too dumb to realize they were being blindsided by Cochran's bluff. No way Cochran wanted the tape to be played.
-Funny how when the defense called in the two DNA experts, those guys spent the whole time casting doubt on the validity of all the blood evidence in the case, which flies in the case of what those guys actually do for a living. Their occupation is to reliably link DNA evidence with crime scenes accurately and reliably and suddenly here was a case where they claimed DNA evidence was NOT accurate. These blood spots were contaminated, those blood samples are too old and have spoiled, those other blood spots are suspect too... Except for the blood spots which supposedly contained the blood preservative - they were OK with those it seems. Funny isn't it.
Excellent post. Thanks.
O.J.'s case and murder trial and Scott Peterson's case and murder trial top my list of memorable cases and trials -- followed Dr. Jeffrey MacDonald's case and murder trial and Dr. Sam Sheppard's case and murder trial. Interestingly, all four of these cases had the husband on trial for the allegedly murdering his wife.
I agree with your take on Chris Darden. And Marcia Clark didn't come across a great deal better. Both of them suffered terribly in the press, I think due to their having felt the pressure and their wimpy behavior. I recall Marsha Clark declared they were facing "trial by ambush". She really came across poorly to me. And Darden didn't fare any better when he said the defense witnesses were a bunch of "heroin addicts, felons, thieves and a court-certified pathological liar."
You might recall that another prosecutor, William Hodgman suffered chest pains early on in the trial -- after he argued mightily with the defense team early on in the trial and could not continue as a prosecutor.
Largely because of the prosecution's abysmal performance in O.J.'s trial, the D.A., Gil Garcetti, was voted out of his office in the next election. He said some dumb things too and should have fought a lot harder to keep the trial in Santa Monica.
Another thing this case Proved is, "if you got money You can get away with murder in this country"
Casey Anderson, Baretta(aka Robert Blake), O.J. just to name a few.
Few people appreciate the tremendous pressure law enforcement and prosecutors are under in high profile cases, whether they feature a celebrity or not.
Moreover, few people appreciate how much evidence is played around with, altered or hidden (if exculpatory) by law enforcement and/or the prosecutors in cases such as O.J.'s case. I recall in the Scott Peterson trial, the defense was able to get a key detective (Brocchini as I recall), to admit on the witness stand that he deliberately altered his notes in favor of the prosecution, which was a clear attempt to try and convict Scott Peterson by tampering with the evidence -- like my belief that LAPD attempted to frame O.J. that represented another framing attempt in my mind.
I was more surprised by the mistrial in Phil Spector's first trial that I was by Robert Blake's acquittal.
Michael Jackson is a prime example of a celebrity that benefited from his status as far as my mind goes.
Is there really a living soul on this planet who thinks OJ is innocent?
Now THAT person might be a great topic for discussion!
Karma is a ***** and OJ is her victim now.
He is sitting right where he needs to be...in jail.
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.
