Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Excuse_My_Bellicosity
So how does Flea Bailey resolve OJ crying in the background of the infamous 911 call, “My god, how can I live with myself?!?!” I don’t think he was talking about forgetting the Monday special at Denny’s.

Do a little more than ponder what you think you remember from 15 years ago. Being in graduate school at the time I was able to watch nearly the entire trial. I felt sort of sorry for Clark and Darden having to make do with the tainted evidence provided them by the LAPD, deal with one of their main witnesses being charged with perjury during the trial, and attempt to come up with a plausible explanation for motivation for murder (they never succeeded on that one). With a circumstantial case like that they were pretty much doomed from the start.
20 posted on 01/11/2011 7:10:50 PM PST by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]


To: aruanan; OrangeHoof
You aruanan, and orangehoof would make good jurors. I too was home, awaiting the beginning of a job to design chemical analysis systems incorporating FDA qualified audit trails (LIMS System, Lab Inst Mgmnt Sys). When the defense DNA expert pointed out that during discovery the two “Criminalists” testified that each had collected about half the samples constituting all the physical evidence, but when the case began the evidence presented was all signed by just one of the Criminalists, the physical evidence - blood, DNA, fiber, paint - was all inadmissible. No juror could make a life and death decision based upon such obviously corrupted evidence. The case then rested on the believability of the circumstantial evidence. That is likely why the jury asked to review the timeline evidence, which was very suspicious.

I haven’t read the book pointing at the likelihood of the son's involvement. Like mysterious birth certificates, there is much else suspicious, such as the wife's coke-addicted roommate, just out of treatment and with some big debts. The wife too, and perhaps O.J., were cocaine users, as is much of Hollywood, and a remarkable number in the chi chi restaurant industry. All the salacious information is good for tabloids, but the evidence was so badly tainted that the judge should have thrown the case out.

It is amazing that none of the oh-so-self-righteous liberals sneering “jury nullification” regarding the “ignorant and ill-educated jurors,” clearly implying that O.J.’s race was the reason for the decision, were competent or rational enough to note the devastating corruption of all the physical data. The jury foreman was a system analyst; and yes, she was black. Perhaps someday someone will explain how those data, all of which were tagged, as the criminalists testified, by the two criminalists with his and her name, location, time, and other relevant information. My guess is that someone wouldn't subject herself to prosecution by lying to the court.

44 posted on 01/11/2011 9:43:25 PM PST by Spaulding
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies ]

To: aruanan

I too watch every minute of the telvised circus. Remember the socks that magically appeared on the bed, after the initial crime scene photos were made, just right for the appearance of the ‘bloody socks’, which had blood on both sides of the sock from seeping through? Remember the blood sample that was carried around all day by the detective? Remember the presence of blood preservative in the blood evidence on the socks and gloves? ... And remember how the gloves ... oh, never mind. Those cans of worms aren’t worht the argument which follows the truth of the frame.


45 posted on 01/11/2011 9:49:19 PM PST by MHGinTN (Some, believing they can't be deceived, it's nigh impossible to convince them when they're deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson