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.
My recall has detective Brad Roberts being Mark Furhman's partner. And you are claiming that on Nicole's back gate -- that did have at least one blood spot from which evidence was eventually collected and analyzed -- Brad Robert's also saw a bloody fingerprint. Of course, this would almost assuredly be the fingerprint of the murderer and the proverbial smoking gun. Moreover, you are claiming that not only did Brad Roberts see this bloody fingerprint on the back gate but that Mark Furhman saw the bloody fingerprint too.
Which must be true, because the allegation here is that Mark Furhman wrote this alleged smoking gun evidence up in his field notes and then simply passed his field notes along to detective Vannatter. And that neither Mark Furhman nor Brad Roberts did anything else to ensure this alleged smoking gun evidence was protected or photographed, nor did they in anyway try to make sure its existence was widely broadcast inside law enforcement, because "we gotcha" evidence is not something seasoned detectives are smart enough to know they have found and definitely do not want to make sure is widely known and properly protected.
But wait, your story gets even better if I correctly understand it. Allegedly, someone had the entire gate removed and sent to a locksmith. And this unnamed locksmith is alleged to have seen the bloody fingerprint too but made false assumptions and destroyed the gate (and the smoking gun evidence).
I have to tell you that I have no recall whatsoever of Brad Roberts testifying to any of what you are claiming to be "fact". Nor do I have a recall of a locksmith testifying that they made some dumb assumptions after which they destroyed a gate and the existence of evidence in the form of a bloody fingerprint.
I do recall testimony by a toxicologist in which they said that a blood preservative, EDTA, was found in the blood spot that was collected from the back gate twenty days after the murders, which could only mean that the back gate was not destroyed.
Moreoever, this alleged bloody fingerprint evidence could have been used by Furhman to hugely refute the claim that he planted the bloody glove at O.J.'s residence. Because he could not have bloodied O.J.'s finger up and pressed it onto the back gate so as to try and frame O.J.
Finally, it is not funny that we have Mark Furhman allegedly writing up this smoking gun evidence in his field notes and that it was detective Vannatter who allegedly received but never read Furhman's notes at all.
I have a few thoughts. First, the defense claimed that LAPD demonstrated incredible incompetence in the handling, protecting and processing of the evidence. Second, the defense put the spotlight on Furhman and Vannatter for allegedly trying to frame O.J.
Isn't it amazing that these two names just happen to join forces once again in your amazing story? Which I consider to be but case mythology, not fact.
This is what happens when clever conjecture is used to connect the dots, instead of research. You're thinking logically, but without the facts.
1. Fuhrman and Roberts (yes, his partner) could not have demanded the collection of the gate fingerprint, because at that time Fuhrman was no longer lead detective--Vanatter was. Robbery-Homicide had taken over, because the Brentwood police department (Fuhrman's and Roberts' department) was too small, not because of anything they had done or not done. Protocol demanded that Fuhrman hand over his field notes to Vanatter, who then was supposed to read them. He didn't. The detectives had a gag order during the trial, so the gate issue wasn't discussed among them, and Fuhrman expected the gate evidence to show up during the trial, bercause he had no idea (at that time) that Vanatter hadn't read the notes. Fuhrman expected Vanatter to be a pro. It would indeed have been the "smoking gun." The total irony is that Fuhrman's field notes were shown at the trial with an overhead projector, and Marcia Clark read from them, but the part with the fingerprint was never featured--I remember reading it on the screen ("partial fingerprint") as it was shown on TV, though. So incompetence got the most damning evidence lost.
2. The locksmith is not "unnamed"; the Brown family had the gate removed, it's all well documented. A third detective on the scene, Tom somebody, I think (not Lange) had also seen the print. But the locksmith was of course not among the witnesses.
3. And the worst blunder, for which Clark and Vanatter were responsible, but which Fuhrman had no influence on: Brad Roberts was never called to the stand. So of course you don't remember that happening. They could have had Roberts testify to everything from the crime scene, as well as at Rockingham, including the empty Swiss Army knife box on the edge of the bathtub and the dark sweats in the washer, and putting Roberts on the stand would have bypassed any baggage Fuhrman may or may not have had, but Vanatter didn't like him, because he could have testified to shoddy work by Vanatter himself.
Where do I get this Roberts-Vanatter stuff from? The 10th anniversary TV special by Geraldo Rivera in 2004. Incredibly revealing interviews, including Vanatter who can't even look straight into the camera.
And now I think I've run out of steam about this 20th anniversary. Some people's lives were ruined, and some of us who were not involved at all had our eyes opened to some hugely disappointing flaws in our legal system, deep racial rifts in the population, and the enormous power of the media to affect public opinion without a shred of critical thinking. Nobody came out of that trial untainted--maybe with the exception of Kato Kaelin...
Last edited by Clark Fork Fantast; 06-25-2014 at 11:08 AM..
Reason: Clarification.
Let me guess, you're a junior LAPD badge holder and think that the LAPD actually protects and serves. Speaking of lacking objectivity and rationality, keep the blinders on!
See, this is what happens when guys like Escort Rider are brain washed that "officers are there to protect and serve" when in reality, the statistics show that the LAPD's abusive and criminal image is well supported by actual stats, no the LAPD pr campaign that Escort Rider has so willingly swallowed up.
Agree^^^^
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clark Fork Fantast
.
And now I think I've run out of steam about this 20th anniversary. Some people's lives were ruined, and some of us who were not involved at all had our eyes opened to some hugely disappointing flaws in our legal system, deep racial rifts in the population, and the enormous power of the media to affect public opinion without a shred of critical thinking. Nobody came out of that trial untainted--maybe with the exception of Kato Kaelin...
Quote of the thread
Yea Kato got his own Reality show I think.
Last edited by hitman619; 06-25-2014 at 11:31 AM..
This is what happens when clever conjecture is used to connect the dots, instead of research. You're thinking logically, but without the facts.
1. Fuhrman and Roberts (yes, his partner) could not have demanded the collection of the gate fingerprint, because at that time Fuhrman was no longer lead detective--Vanatter was. Protocol demanded that Fuhrman hand over his field notes to Vanatter, who then was supposed to read them. He didn't. The detectives had a gag order during the trial, so the gate issue wasn't discussed among them, and Fuhrman expected the gate evidence to show up during the trial, bercause he had no idea (at that time) that Vanatter hadn't read the notes. Fuhrman expected Vanatter to be a pro. It would indeed have been the "smoking gun." The total irony is that Fuhrman's field notes were shown at the trial with an overhead projector, and Marcia Clark read from them, but the part with the fingerprint was never featured--I remember reading it on the screen ("partial fingerprint") as it was shown on TV, though. So incompetence got the most damning evidence lost.
2. The locksmith is not "unnamed"; the Brown family had the gate removed, it's all well documented. A third detective on the scene, Tom somebody, I think (not Lange) had also seen the print. But the locksmith was of course not among the witnesses.
3. And the worst blunder, for which Clark and Vanatter were responsible, but which Fuhrman had no influence on: Brad Roberts was never called to the stand. So of course you don't remember that happening. They could have had Roberts testify to everything from the crime scene, as well as at Rockingham, including the empty Swiss Army kmnife box on the edge of the bathtub and the dark sweats in the washer, and putting Roberts on the stand would have bypassed any baggage Fuhrman may or may not have had, but Vanatter didn't like him, because he could have testified to shoddy work by Vanatter himself.
Where do I get this Roberts-Vanatter stuff from? The 10th anniversary TV special by Geraldo Rivera in 2004. Incredibly revealing interviews, including Vanatter who can't even look straight into the camera.
And now I think I've run out of steam about this 20th anniversary. Some people's lives were ruined, and some of us who were not involved at all had our eyes opened to some hugely disappointing flaws in our legal system, deep racial rifts in the population, and the enormous power of the media to affect public opinion without a shred of critical thinking. Nobody came out of that trial untainted--maybe with the exception of Kato Kaelin...
The LAPD had been accused of gross incompetence, and these alleged notes would only have further supported the defense's claim.
So Marcia Clark allegedly read field notes to the jury that were allegedly made by Furhman immediately after the murder, for which he was too stupid to understand that he had the proverbial smoking gun evidence. And pray tell, what did she claim was the reason it had to be done this way?
And Furhman and Brad Roberts were also too stupid to ensure the alleged bloody fingerprint was protected from the elements or even have it photographed. The reason he could not take any action whatsoever -- and I do mean whatsoever -- is because he was not the lead detective and would only follow protocol. This would have almost assuredly been the smoking gun. Give me a break.
Moreover, the reason Marcia Clark did not call Brad Roberts to the witness stand was what? Let me guess: because she did not want to have this ridiculous assertion undergo cross examination?
Further, what was the date that the gate was allegedly removed by the unnamed locksmith?
Are you trying to tell me that immediately after the murders the Brown family sent a locksmith into a murder crime scene and had him remove the gate? For what alleged reason was this done, exactly? Oh, and that he allegedly accomplished this task without LE or anyone seeing what he was doing?
Was the press or LE all over the Brown family or this unnamed locksmith for evidence tampering and/or obstruction of justice?
And why did this unnamed locksmith say that he had the gate destroyed?
And for what purpose did the Brown family allegedly use to explain why they had the gate removed?
Look this is not irony. This storyline that Geraldo -- he is one of the worst of all the reporters who typically handle high-profile cases and trials -- apparently allowed to be broadcast is just plain and utter nonsense as you are telling it here.
Moreover, Furhman and Vannatter were crucified throughout the trial, and properly so. These alleged field notes could have been written at any time.
You take a ridiculous sounding tale that Geraldo puts on the air during a 10th anniversary case review and call it fact? Come on.
Oh, and Marcia Clark allegedly did not put Brad Roberts on the witness stand, because Vannatter did not like him? Do you want to explain why that makes any sense at all to you?
Please. File this under pure nonsense or mythology or urban legend. It's your choice. But it is not fact.
Let me guess, you're a junior LAPD badge holder and think that the LAPD actually protects and serves. Speaking of lacking objectivity and rationality, keep the blinders on!
See, this is what happens when guys like Escort Rider are brain washed that "officers are there to protect and serve" when in reality, the statistics show that the LAPD's abusive and criminal image is well supported by actual stats, no the LAPD pr campaign that Escort Rider has so willingly swallowed up.
Nope, not a "junior LAPD badge holder" and no blinders. I am 70 and first lived under LAPD jurisdiction when I was 14 years old in 1958. I had occasion to call for service in the early 1970's and the LAPD was indeed there to protect and to serve.
There are nearly 10,000 sworn officers in the LAPD. Misconduct and excessive force claims....
1. ....are bound to come up. Compare the numbers to the THOUSANDS of individual interactions which the LAPD has with the public every single day.
2. ....are just that - CLAIMS. Some are true and some are not. If you believe every complaint everybody makes is true, you do not live in the real world.
I am not the one who is brain washed, as I am not the one attempting to take incidences of misconduct (and yes, there is misconduct) and turn them into the "normal" pattern. What you are doing is akin to calling all school teachers child molesters. We all know there are real, documented, proven incidences of teachers molesting children, and these incidences do indeed turn our stomachs.
I read the Los Angeles Times every day and I am well informed about a wide variety of matters. The Times has openly reported on police misconduct issues, including the Rampart scandal in great detail. No punches were pulled in the reporting. I also have eyes and ears with which to make observations, and I am not the type who hangs around the house and never goes anywhere. My observations include a lot of time spent in high crime areas in what used to be called South-Central L.A., a term which has been superseded. (That area is now referred to simply as "South L.A.").
You have an axe to grind for some reason, and indeed "reason" is one casualty.
Nope, not a "junior LAPD badge holder" and no blinders. I am 70 and first lived under LAPD jurisdiction when I was 14 years old in 1958. I had occasion to call for service in the early 1970's and the LAPD was indeed there to protect and to serve.
There are nearly 10,000 sworn officers in the LAPD. Misconduct and excessive force claims....
1. ....are bound to come up. Compare the numbers to the THOUSANDS of individual interactions which the LAPD has with the public every single day.
2. ....are just that - CLAIMS. Some are true and some are not. If you believe every complaint everybody makes is true, you do not live in the real world.
I am not the one who is brain washed, as I am not the one attempting to take incidences of misconduct (and yes, there is misconduct) and turn them into the "normal" pattern. What you are doing is akin to calling all school teachers child molesters. We all know there are real, documented, proven incidences of teachers molesting children, and these incidences do indeed turn our stomachs.
I read the Los Angeles Times every day and I am well informed about a wide variety of matters. The Times has openly reported on police misconduct issues, including the Rampart scandal in great detail. No punches were pulled in the reporting. I also have eyes and ears with which to make observations, and I am not the type who hangs around the house and never goes anywhere. My observations include a lot of time spent in high crime areas in what used to be called South-Central L.A., a term which has been superseded. (That area is now referred to simply as "South L.A.").
You have an axe to grind for some reason, and indeed "reason" is one casualty.
Excellent response but the LE haters will ignore this. Unfortunately the bad ones overshadow the many thousands of good ones. COPS are human beings and are a microcosm of society in general. Until we figure out how to create a robot that can drive that patrol car and handle ALL types of calls we'll continue to hire men and women to wear the uniform. And once in a while a bad one will make his way through the sysytem.
Nope, not a "junior LAPD badge holder" and no blinders. I am 70 and first lived under LAPD jurisdiction when I was 14 years old in 1958. I had occasion to call for service in the early 1970's and the LAPD was indeed there to protect and to serve.
There are nearly 10,000 sworn officers in the LAPD. Misconduct and excessive force claims....
1. ....are bound to come up. Compare the numbers to the THOUSANDS of individual interactions which the LAPD has with the public every single day.
2. ....are just that - CLAIMS. Some are true and some are not. If you believe every complaint everybody makes is true, you do not live in the real world.
I am not the one who is brain washed, as I am not the one attempting to take incidences of misconduct (and yes, there is misconduct) and turn them into the "normal" pattern. What you are doing is akin to calling all school teachers child molesters. We all know there are real, documented, proven incidences of teachers molesting children, and these incidences do indeed turn our stomachs.
I read the Los Angeles Times every day and I am well informed about a wide variety of matters. The Times has openly reported on police misconduct issues, including the Rampart scandal in great detail. No punches were pulled in the reporting. I also have eyes and ears with which to make observations, and I am not the type who hangs around the house and never goes anywhere. My observations include a lot of time spent in high crime areas in what used to be called South-Central L.A., a term which has been superseded. (That area is now referred to simply as "South L.A.").
You have an axe to grind for some reason, and indeed "reason" is one casualty.
First off, you're 70. That means that as an adult your "prime time" was back in the 70s. The Los Angeles of the 70s and the Los Angeles of today are completely different places. Since then we've had Rodney King, the LA Riots, the Rampart Scandal, and most importantly the Hollywood Bank Robbery/Shoot Out. These events have changed forever the way the LAPD now approach dangerous situations, and how the public perceives the LAPD, and not for the better IMO.
I'm not claiming ALL the LAPD are corrupt, but the organization as a whole has a bad reputation for a reason, and it's not made up stories, or people "just hating police" for no reason like you're claiming. That's ridiculous and ignorant. You should know better than that as an old-timer.
When Dorner was on the loose, there were two incidents where LAPD unleashed hundreds of rounds on innocent people for simply driving a pickup truck (in one case not even the same color as Dorner's truck). Now, one incident, you can MAYBE pass that off as cops with high nerves, and mistaken identity. But twice? Both victims weren't even BLACK. That to me shows an LAPD that has slowly adapted its mindset to become more militarized and adopt the "shoot first, ask questions later" motto. Then you throw in the fact that they purposefully murdered Dorner in a wooden cabin rather than try to take him captive. The LAPD in that case turned themselves into judge, jury, and most definitely, executioner.
All of that only happened last year. Christopher Dorner may have been a lunatic with anger problems, but the LAPD's actions in their zeal to kill him proved the exact point he was trying to make!
So you can keep the blinders on, shine that Junior LAPD officer plastic badge that you treasure, but your denial doesn't exempt the fact that the LAPD as an organization have a lot of work to do to improve their image in SoCal, at least enough to put them beyond suspicion of corruption in cases like these.
First off, you're 70. That means that as an adult your "prime time" was back in the 70s. The Los Angeles of the 70s and the Los Angeles of today are completely different places. Since then we've had Rodney King, the LA Riots, the Rampart Scandal, and most importantly the Hollywood Bank Robbery/Shoot Out. These events have changed forever the way the LAPD now approach dangerous situations, and how the public perceives the LAPD, and not for the better IMO.
I'm not claiming ALL the LAPD are corrupt, but the organization as a whole has a bad reputation for a reason, and it's not made up stories, or people "just hating police" for no reason like you're claiming. That's ridiculous and ignorant. You should know better than that as an old-timer.
When Dorner was on the loose, there were two incidents where LAPD unleashed hundreds of rounds on innocent people for simply driving a pickup truck (in one case not even the same color as Dorner's truck). Now, one incident, you can MAYBE pass that off as cops with high nerves, and mistaken identity. But twice? Both victims weren't even BLACK. That to me shows an LAPD that has slowly adapted its mindset to become more militarized and adopt the "shoot first, ask questions later" motto. Then you throw in the fact that they purposefully murdered Dorner in a wooden cabin rather than try to take him captive. The LAPD in that case turned themselves into judge, jury, and most definitely, executioner.
All of that only happened last year. Christopher Dorner may have been a lunatic with anger problems, but the LAPD's actions in their zeal to kill him proved the exact point he was trying to make!
So you can keep the blinders on, shine that Junior LAPD officer plastic badge that you treasure, but your denial doesn't exempt the fact that the LAPD as an organization have a lot of work to do to improve their image in SoCal, at least enough to put them beyond suspicion of corruption in cases like these.
If the police won't police themselves, they should never be allowed to police others.
Moreover, this applies to being willfully silent about crimes that other police commit -- reference: the blue wall of silence.
Many people have had 20 years to reflect on this incredible case and trial. What say you?
He was guilty, and the overwhelming evidence, such as his blood at the crime scene, and in his Bronco, along with numerous other pieces of evidence clearly proved it. He was only found not guilty because of some stupid pair gloves that did not "Fit" Simpson's hands, and they did not fit because of an arthritic condition that swelled his hands and he had not taken the medication for it on the day he tried on the gloves. Keep in mind also that the trial happened in 1995, only 3 years after the awful riots that occurred in Los Angeles in 1992 because of the acquittal of the police officers that were involved in the Rodney King beating and the subsequent trial. They probably did not want another uprising in Los Angeles because of a guilty verdict in the O.J. Simpson trial.
I also remember the infamous Bronco chase on Los Angeles' freeways, and crowds standing on the side of the freeways cheering for him, which was pathetic.
But, OJ could not stay out of trouble, looks like he'll be serving possibly the rest of his life in prison in Nevada for robbery and kidnapping.
If the police won't police themselves, they should never be allowed to police others.
Moreover, this applies to being willfully silent about crimes that other police commit -- reference: the blue wall of silence.
Christopher Dorner actually talked about that in his manifesto. He witnessed his superior officer kicking a mentally disabled boy in the face. Because he dared report a fellow officer they maligned him and got him kicked out of the LAPD. Corruption as its worst.
Twenty years ago, this case was stupendous theatre all across the nation. Simply put, the case had everything: a beautiful and murdered wife, a former star NFL player and huge TV celebrity who was indicted for two murders, an unbelievable car chase that was broadcast live across the nation, a "Dream Team" for the defense, claims that blood evidence was planted by the L.A.P.D., a key detective and prosecution witness who took the 5th on the witness stand, and seemingly never ending claims of racial prejudice that were forever spouted by the media from the beginning of the case to long after the end of the trial.
Larry King (CNN) once said: "If we had God booked and O.J. was available, we'd move God."
As far as crimetainment goes, this was the ultimate dream case and trial.
In regards to whether or not someone in the L.A.P.D tried to frame O.J. Simpson, the fact that a blood preservative (EDTA) was found in some of the collected blood droppings from crime scene sites and that also matched O.J.'s DNA causes my position on a potential framing attempt to be: yes.
Many people have had 20 years to reflect on this incredible case and trial. What say you?
Back then I thought he was innocent but, as the years have gone by, he has incriminated himself with blurbs here and there. Also, if somebody else did it, why haven't they been found? Why did he run? He said it himself, if he "only had a brain" he wouldn't be where he is today.
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.
