Replies

I watched that trial every day and I think there was plenty of evidence to convict OJ... certainly the civil jury thought so, too. The first screw up was sending the trial downtown, something that BTW, was orchestrated by Johnny Cochran before he was OJ's attorney of record. He claimed OJ could not get a fair trial in Santa Monica, though his peers (socially) were a lot more Santa Monica than downtown LA. Johnny has assured that he was not attorney and had no stake in the move, but was representing the rights of a black man to get a trial by peers only.... once the switch was made, Johnny became OJ's lawyer. The evidence in that trial was so complicated (and new at the time) and very over the heads of most of the jurors in that trial.

What many people don't know is the person who atually found most evidence, and still works for LAPD, was Fuhrman's partner who found and reported the evidence to the lead detectives; both of whom took credit for a lot of the finds. They were also the detectives who didn't make certain the area(s) were properly sealed..

and.... why didn't Fuhrman's partner get called to testify? more why was some of the evidence he found ignored? He even wrote a letter at one point to the DA in frustration with how the case was being presented and they returned it to him with orders to destroy (the letter)... maybe, when he finally retires and can speak out, we'll get the answers to some of the nagging questions.