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.
I was watching The People VS. O.J. Simpson: American Crime Story, and after watching it, I began to read and refresh myself with the case, since it was before my time, and I did not research a lot of the facts before.
There are a lot of people online who talk about how they believe that Simpson was framed. Even when you watch the court case the lawyers go over this, and I watched Simpson attorney Barry Scheck in an interview, go over the same things he did in the courtroom. But here is what I do not understand about the some of the theories.
There is all this talk about how Van Atter carried a vile of blood around, took 1 and a half CCs of blood out, and planted it to frame system. Or how the sock was tampered with, or how a glove was planted, etc.
But here is the thing. Nobody talks about how the cops would have had to murder the two victims, and plant O.J.s blood on the bodies.
Simpson's blood was on the bodies, and there is no way the cops could have planted it all on there, and the blood at Simpsons's home. There is more than 1 CCs of Simpson's blood in both crime scenes, so if the cops' framed Simpson, they would have to have gotten a hell of a lot more of his blood without Simpson knowing that his blood was taken.
Then they would have had to kill the two victims and plant all that blood at both scenes.
So why does everyone talk about how the police framed Simpson by taking 1 CCs of blood out of a vile, but no one talks about how they would have had to murder both victims, and plant a lot more of Simpson's blood on the bodies, as well as the other crime scene, without also ever talking about where they would have to have gotten this other blood?
And the lawyers talk about how the blood on the gate and the blood on the sock was infected with EDTA, but they never talk about if the blood on the bodies was, as well as other blood in both crime scenes. Why is the sock and the gate blood covered only, in the frame up?
Also a lot of people make a big deal of how Van Atter could have 1 CCs from the vile of blood to plant it, but the remaining 6 and a half CCs of blood in the vile were still Simpson's. So what does this theory of Van Atter keeping the blood for three hours without cataloging it matter, when the remaining 6 CCs of blood still turns out to be Simpson's blood either way?
So since it was Simpsons blood anyway, trying to prove it was taken out to be use as a frame up, is a lost cause, when it's already his blood. And the only way the cops could frame him was by planting Simpson's blood at the scene to begin with.
And if the cop's would to have already killed those two people, and planted his blood at the scene to begin, than why bother to tamper with the glove, the sock, and the vile of blood?
Everyone knows Simpson is guilty. He got off bc of this city's history of racial tension. There's no way a cop frames Simpson bc he was just too rich and famous at the time. You can't plant evidence against a famous man unless you know his alibi isn't rock solid. There's no way for them to know what his alibi could've been at the time they "planted the evidence"
The cops didnt have to commit the murders, it could have been someone else and they could have decided, according to people who buy into the frame theory, that their careers, reputations and way of life were worth risking just to make it look like oj was the killer, seems like a little bit of a stretch lol.
another factor is that as policemen and investigators, they know how hard it would be to make all the pieces fit together...lets say they go thru all this trouble to frame oj and everything they do falls into place and then something comes out afterward that they didnt expect.....like, for example, a home movie from an innocent bystander who was filming the crime happen.
anyone can say the word 'frame' but its a lot harder to pull this off than meets the eye. also, motive is a pretty big word here, if someone says frame, you need to come up with a reason the detectives would risk everything to frame oj, there's really no motive to do so, motive is pretty big if someone is going to convince me this was a frame job.
Well if they were to frame Simpson how could they have taken all that blood from Simpson without Simpson noticing, since there was a lot more than 1 and a half CCs of his blood at both scenes?
Well if they were to frame Simpson how could they have taken all that blood from Simpson without Simpson noticing, since there was a lot more than 1 and a half CCs of his blood at both scenes?
For debate purposes, does anyone know if OJ ever donated blood? That alone would answer that question.
Beyond that, I like to let debates go when people "play by the rules" so this isn't going to be closed if it stays on topic, but personally I wouldn't expect much in the way of responses. The question of "Is it realistic for OJ to have been framed?" is a valid question, I personally just think the answer is no.
However I've never been one to stop a debate due to disagreement, so if someone has a counter argument as to how framing OJ was possible and/or likely, feel free.
Mod note: I will say that this thread isn't about race though, so let's stick to the topic as it pertains to the plausibility of framing someone like OJ. If the topic brances in the direction of framing famous people fine, but let's try to avoid a race argument here. There are plenty of other threads for that.
For debate purposes, does anyone know if OJ ever donated blood? That alone would answer that question.
Beyond that, I like to let debates go when people "play by the rules" so this isn't going to be closed if it stays on topic, but personally I wouldn't expect much in the way of responses. The question of "Is it realistic for OJ to have been framed?" is a valid question, I personally just think the answer is no.
However I've never been one to stop a debate due to disagreement, so if someone has a counter argument as to how framing OJ was possible and/or likely, feel free.
Mod note: I will say that this thread isn't about race though, so let's stick to the topic as it pertains to the plausibility of framing someone like OJ. If the topic brances in the direction of framing famous people fine, but let's try to avoid a race argument here. There are plenty of other threads for that.
What do you mean "ever donated blood"? Do you mean to the police department for this case only? Or ever, as in to the Red Cross?
Remember: DNA was in its infancy back then. OJ's fingerprints were at the scene, in the blood he left. His Bruno Magli shoe prints were in the blood. No cop or lawyer could possibly have planted that.
What do you mean "ever donated blood"? Do you mean to the police department for this case only? Or ever, as in to the Red Cross?
Remember: DNA was in its infancy back then. OJ's fingerprints were at the scene, in the blood he left. His Bruno Magli shoe prints were in the blood. No cop or lawyer could possibly have planted that.
Was simply a counter to the "how could they get his blood without his knowing." I personally doubt that it was planted, but if a framing were going on, OJ being a regular blood donor could have explained how they could get his blood without his knowing.
Again, I don't think he was framed, I think he was guilty, but if someone were to ask how could they get his blood, well a blood drive would be a valid answer.
My question was conjecture. If someone knows the answer and can say "He never donated blood because he was afraid of needles" or something similar, I will gladly take that answer(and personally would love a source because that will further prove this in the discussion comes up again).
I have no personal doubt Simpson was on the scene and took part in the murders. I don't think he acted alone, however, and I theorize his accomplice took away the weapons and the bloody clothes at or near the scene of the crime.
The police story is that Simpson acted alone, and I believe they did act to "bolster" the case of him as a lone assassin. The police tried to frame a guilty man.
Okay thanks. But if the police framed him by using blood that he donated previously, than why didn't the defense or the prosecution, bother to check to see if any of the blood he donated was still there, or if it has been stolen, and the place possibly broken into?
As for the bloody fingerprints, I read that you can lift a print from an object and plant it at another scene, and the police would not notice it was a plant, unless they were actually checking for certain signs.
However, planting a bloody print, I am not sure. I think you would need Simpson's actual fingers for that.
And even though DNA was in it's infancy back then, they still used it, and it still lead back to Simpson, so I don't think that infancy was a problem, was it?
I don't believe the police committed the murders. I believe they did try to frame OJ.
I don't believe the prosecutions' version of what happened that night.
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.
