Web hosting Custom Email SiteBuilder

Reprint from Newsgroup: Alt.Fan-OJSimpson
Subject: Innocent Until Proven Guilty

Swordfish wrote:
In any criminal proceeding, the bottom line is that if you can effectively raise reasonable doubt, then a verdict of not guilty is correct. This policy is what makes the United States Justice System fair and un-biased for all.

In Mr. Simpsons' case, the doubt raised was over-whelming. Less than 14 hours after the murders, the police and the media had Mr. Simpson pegged as ytheir prime suspect, and spent no time whatsoever pursuing other avenues of possibility. Below are just some of the reasons why Mr. Simpson is free. And to this day, these points have never been countered or explained by the people who wished and hoped Mr. Simpson was convicted, and that is why the verdict was proper. When jurors acquitted O.J. Simpson of murder, they cited reasonable doubt about the evidence. The points of doubt raised most effectively by the defense are:

The time line:
The prosecution's minute by minute effort to reconstruct the killings of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman was designed to give Simpson enough time to commit the murders, return home, dispose of bloody clothes and a weapon, clean blood off his body and appear spotless and composed when a limousine driver met him. But the time line provided only six minutes, from 10:55 p.m. when a shadowy figure was seen entering the house to 11:01 p.m. when Simpson emerged perfectly groomed. Jurors thought that was impossible.

Of course it was impossible for Mr. Simpson to commit the murders in such a tight time frame. Even the most experienced hitman would have difficulties with this.

The vial of blood:
Simpson's blood sample was drawn at the Los Angeles Police Department on June 13, 1994, the morning after the killings, but was not immediately booked into evidence by Detective Philip Vannatter. Vannatter had put it in his pocket and took it to Simpson's estate where criminalists were collecting evidence. Jurors questioned why he would have carried it around for hours instead of booking it. The defense suggested evidence planting.

It suggests it rather strongly. Let's keep in mind careers were at stake here. Had Mr. Simpson been convicted, it's likely Lange and Vannatter would not have resigned, but rather be sitting today in plush offices at LAPD headquarters giving orders. Even both of them resigning after the verdict seems fishy. Were they ordered to resign because of what they might have done to falsely accuse Mr. Simpson?

The socks:

A pair of socks found on a rug next to Simpson's bed were collected by a criminalist who said he picked them up because they seemed "out of place." But no one noticed any blood on them until two months later when they were being examined at the crime lab. Defense experts said the blood may have been smeared on them when they were lying flat, not when a person was wearing them.

Grounds for an aquittal right before you folks!

The glove:
The most infamous piece of evidence in the Simpson trial was the glove found on a leafy pathway behind a guest house at Simpson's estate. Witnesses including Detective Mark Fuhrman said it was sticky with blood when they saw it some seven hours after the killings. Testimony suggested the blood would have been dry by then. Although the glove was analyzed as having large amounts of blood and trace evidence on its surface, the leafy area around it was pristine. Jurors asked why there were no blood drops on the pathway.

The glove, the glove. As well as the above, Mr. Simpson tried to put on the glove in front of a jury less than two feet away and in front of millions of viewers. IT did not fit, despite a barage of excuses from the haters of Mr. Simpson to the contrary. More grounds for aquittal.

The Bronco:
Although scientific analysis uncovered traces of blood in Simpson's vehicle, the amounts were small and most were not immediately detected. Some witnesses claimed they saw no blood at the outset, and photographs provided conflicting evidence of when blood was found on various parts of the vehicle.

Let's put this in a proper perspective.
The prosecution would have us believe that Mr. Simpson drove a blazing white Bronco all over the neighbourhood for all to see, and yet, the prosecution could not come up with one single witness to place Mr. Simpson near the crime scene, or enroute to or from the murder scene, which takes over 5 mintues by car. On top of that, they want us to believe Mr. Simpson wore an expensive pair of shoes fit for a king to comimit the murders.

The absence of blood in Simpson's house:

Although prosecutors claim he arrived home after walking through blood and dirt, there were no traces of blood or soil on the light colored carpet in Simpson's house.

Sure. Mr. Simpson must have performed some magical trick to do his killing, get back home un-noticed, wash all the bllod and soil from his clothes, changed, and answer the door for Parks all within an impossible time frame. This case should have never made it to the prelim.

Mark Fuhrman's testimony:
The since-retired police detective found much of the key evidence including the glove and the first Bronco stains. But his decimation by the defense as a racist and liar threw all of his testimony into doubt.

Testimony in doubt is a gross understatement! The minute Ito realized he committed perjury, the case should have been tossed. It's pretty reasonable to suspect that the prosection knew all about Fuhrman before they called him. Two good things happened as a result of his testimony. He can never again be a policeman, and his actions guaranteed an aquittal. Justice works in mysterious ways.

Simpson's appearance and demeanor:

Witnesses said that Simpson was fashionably attired and immaculate when he boarded a plane for Chicago, appearing as natty as an advertisement for men's clothing. His attitude was cheerful and he signed autographs for fans. When he returned the next day, after receiving news of his ex-wife's slaying, he was distressed.

A first-time killer would have never been as composed and well-mannered as Mr. Simpson was.

All in all, the No-J's complain that Mr. Simpson should have been convicted, but to this day, none of the above has been explained satisfactory to anyone except with speculative excuses that they are not qualified to make.

As well, the prosecution threw every bit of evidence into this trial, including the kitchen sink, and the jury didn't buy any of it. The jury all too well realizes what reasonable doubt means and implies in a capital case, and they governed themselves accordingly.

The General wrote:
Excellent post, Mr. Swordfish. But something is fishy here. For O.J. Simpson to be innocent, somebody else must be guilty. Specifically, the detectives who handled the case must be guilty. Not just one of the detectives. At least two of them must be guilty: Mark Fuhrman and Phillip Vannatter. The problem is that these two didn't know each other before they met that night. If Fuhrman planted the glove, he would have had to pick up the second glove and stash it in his sock before Vannatter arrived on the scene. How did he know before he met him that Vannatter would not only cover up for his planting, but would plant some evidence on his own? The defense provided Fuhrman with a motive, but what was Vannatter's motive.

We have since learned that Vannatter and Fuhrman don't get along and are at each other's throats. Are you saying that two detectives, who were both already planning to retire, decided independently to frame O.J. Simpson and one of them didn't even have a motive?

Has there ever been a case in the entire history of the world in which two police officers who didn't know eacher decided independently of each other, and worked entirely separately to frame the same man for murder? I know that there have been cases when the police have framed a suspect, but have you ever heard of a double framing of an innocent man before?

I could understand this if O.J. Simpson were some hated person, but who would frame a nice guy like O.J.?

© 1996, 1997  William Schreck   © 1996 Source Interactive Network, LLC. All rights reserved.