There are numerous stories (unfortunately most are L.A. Times so they cannot be reprinted here) about widespread police corruption in the L.A.P.D that included evidence tampering to win convictions. Here is one such article:
http://www.streetgangs.com/topics/rampart/041800overt.html
These are not directly about O.J. Simpson but do you really believe that one division of the L.A.P.D. was dirty and everyone else was clean? I don't.
So it has been established that L.A. police DO tamper evidence to gain convictions. What seemed like a reach in 1995 by the O.J. defense team turned out to be true in other L.A.P.D.-handled cases just a short time later.
Again, "beyond a reasonable doubt" enters into the question. The prosecution had no answer to Dr. Lee's claims that O.J.'s blood at the Bundy gate had preservatives in it. If they had wanted to say that "all blood has preservatives", then why didn't they bring forth witnesses to present this argument into evidence?
The defense not only introduced the possibility that the blood evidence was tampered, they got Vanatter to admit he went back to the crime scene with O.J.'s blood sample before he took it to the lab. If Vanatter had a clear chain of evidence that went straight from Simpson's home to the lab, the defense has a big problem. This is what I mean by the cops were caught red-handed putting themselves in position to tamper evidence whether it is true or not, violating standard police procedures in the process.
It may be entirely true that the jury was a)racist b)bamboozled or c)starstruck and would not have convicted regardless of the evidence. In my opinion, the defense presented "reasonable doubt" and the prosecution did not counter it. The window was opened for acquittal wide enough that a rational person could say (and many have) that there was not evidence presented beyond a reasonable doubt.
We know for a fact that L.A. police have tampered evidence in the 1990s. How big a leap is it to guess whether it was also done in the O.J. case?
1. You make the mistake so many people do when reading or listening to media STORIES -- you accept the premise of the story without question or thought.
2. As regards corruption in the LAPD, there is no more nor less than in any other field of human endeavor. I live in the L.A. area, so am quite familiar with the case of a few corrupt cops in the Rampart division some years ago. However, to extrapolate that case into an assumption that the entire LAPD is corrupt indicates weak reasoning ability.
3. To extrapolate the Rampart case into an unqualified assertion that ipso facto, the blood evidence in the Simpson case was planted, indicates weak reasoning ability combined with ignorance of and perhaps a disinterest in truth.
4. So far, you have ignored the central fact of the Simpson case, which I have posted to you above and which you can independently verify in any authentic documentation about the case. The central fact is this: A mixture of Simpson's blood and Ron Goldman's blood was found in that Bronco. A mixture of the blood of Nicole, Ron and Simpson was also found in the Bronco. Simpson was not in Los Angeles at the time. He went from Nicole's home back to his place, cleaned up and took a pre-scheduled limo ride to the airport long before the bodies were even discovered. He returned the next morning, after having been notified of his wife's murder. He was not then a suspect in the crime, but became a suspect as evidence was collected and after he tried to flee.
5. It might be possible to explain away a mixture of Simpson's and Nicole's blood in the Bronco, but not a mixture of Simpson's and Ron's blood. Ron Goldman and OJ Simpson had never met prior to the murders. This blood was not planted. In fact, the entire evidentiary sequence of events regarding the blood in the Bronco is documented in police photographs and videos, backed up by independent news footage. This evidence was introduced at trial and was never refuted in any way by the defense. In all the BS surrounding the case, this the one fact that no OJ apologist can ever get past. This fact means not only wasn't there reasonable doubt, there was -- and remains -- no doubt. OJ Simpson killed Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman. Period. In willfully being sworn in as jurors knowing they would never convict, the jury did not do the right thing. They broke the law. Period.
6. I know reasoning and critical thinking are nearly lost capabilities these days, but you tell me how the cops could manufacture a mixture of Simpson's blood and the blood of both victims, and then get it inside a locked automobile sitting outside Simpson's home when OJ was around two thousand miles away at the time (in Chicago, if memory serves, although I'm not sure which city). Not only that, but to do it in full view of a then-building media feeding frenzy.
7. BTW, I emphasized the word "stories" above, because that is the media's stock in trade. A reporter's work product is a story -- a tale. They weave some fact, some some bits and pieces picked up in various places, some assumptions, and whatever personal flair they have for telling tales into a news report or feature story. Far too many people these days accept the premise of stories, columns, and other information sources uncritically. Then they blindly help spread false information, as you did, by connecting one piece of data with another unrelated piece of data.