one way to convict OJ of the two murders

We who were old enough to have paid attention in 1995, saw Marcia Clark perform incompletely as the head prosecutor of the OJ case. She did not tell the jury about O J's flight. I do not know about California's jury instructions in 1995, but in my state in 1990, we as a jury were instructed to see flight as a sign of guilt. Which was an issue in our case. The defendant after he realized he had killed his friend needed a cigarette and didn't have any. His brother who was there didn't have any either. The defendant said he did not have any money. The brother gave him $ 180.00 to buy cigarettes. The defendant got in his car and ended up 200 miles away hiding with family. Clark also did not tell the jury about OJ's suicide note. I think being suicidal is a sign of guilt. Particularly when you are accused of killing your children's mother. Clark did not tell the jury about the bronco chase and that OJ had a gun to his head. She did not tell the jury that when OJ was arrested he was found with his passport, a disguise and $ 8000. OJ had made a videotaped statement to the police on the day after the murders. In that statement, he admitted getting a serious cut on the day of the murders and bleeding in his house. He also couldn't remember how he got the cut. Clark did not show the tape to the jury. She was also standing there when Christopher Darden asked for the glove demonstration. She did not stop it.
There were two credible witness that Clark wanted to use but didn't. One who testified before the grand jury said that she stopped her car suddenly and avoided crashing into OJ as he ran a read light a few blocks from Nichole's house at the time of the murders. She talked to a tabloid tv show and Clark dropped her. There was also a Deputy Sheriff who supervised a visitor's room where OJ was talking to Rosey Grier. Grier is a minister, who was counseling OJ. That is a confidential conversation. The Deputy Sheriff told how Simpson and Grier were separated by a glass wall and were speaking by phones. He said he couldn't hear them when they were speaking in a normal voice. He said that OJ slammed down the phone and shouted "I didn't mean to do it." The law was clear. If you are having a private conversation and then you speak in a voice loud enough so that someone who is not eavesdropping can hear, you have given up your right of privacy. judge Ito ruled that although OJ had waved his right of privacy, he had an expectation of privacy. The Deputy Sheriff, therefore couldn't testify. His ruling not only defied the law, it defied logic. IF you are shouting ten feet from a Deputy Sheriff, you should have no expectation of privacy. If both these witnesses had testified and put OJ at the scene of the crime and offered a confession, I think it would strengthened the spine of the two jurors who in the fist ballot voted guilty.
There would have been a hung jury. I remember that prosecution and defense lawyer came back to talk to us after the trail. The prosecution could have asked the jurors if they would have voted guilty if they knew about the flight, disguise, $ 8000 ,the suicide note and seen the police tape. If they didn't the media would have. I read on AH.com that were three OJ jurors who committed to hold out for acquittal even if meant jury nullification. When they talked to them, the prosecution would have learned to use all their challenges. Something they did not do OTL. The best case scenario is that the lawsuit happens the before the second OJ trail. The prosecutions could have witnessed the excellent work of the plaintiffs attorneys and emulated them.
 
People kind of know that the police overmake a case. That at a surprisingly early stage, the focus shifts from finding the truth to making a case. And prosecutors and police edge-cheat and sometimes more than just edge-cheat. You have a lawyer who can put this in words without overselling it, does make a difference.

I'm a white guy. I kind of figured this out from just enough news stories about demonstrably innocent persons found guilty, basically because prosecutors fixated on them from a very early stage. Now, African-American persons may be ahead of the curve in figuring this out, just from more people they hear telling them just how sloppy and approximate the criminal justice system is.

This combined with the glove not fitting, you kind of have to find not guilty. Johnny Cochran is right.

Please understand, the members ofthe jury are not being asked to state what they think happened. They are being asked to make a judgement of what the evidence demonstrates beyond a reasonable doubt.

PS I had not heard of the woman who was a witness to OJ running a red light the night of the murders.
 
About the glove, don't ask a defendant to do a physical demonstration unless you're sure of the result. I think there's even a name for this from this case.

Was OJ able to increase the span of his knuckle area by pushing fingers outward?

did the glove dry and shrink over time, just storage time and/or the blood drying on it?

OJ wearing the latex glove underneath make that much of a difference?

For the record, yes, I think he did it. But that's a lot different than knowing for sure (or awfully close to sure) which I'd need to do as a jury member.

He was an abuser of his former spouse Nicole Brown Simpson. So, the question is, when an abused wife ends up dead, how likely is it the husband vs. a random stranger? And that gives you baseline odds. Which is well short of criminal conviction, but that kind of tells you where I'm coming from.

Plus, Ron Goldman who's sometimes the forgotten victim and who shouldn't be. He's certainly not forgotten by his family.
 
Last edited:
PS I had not heard of the woman who was a witness to OJ running a red light the night of the murders.[/QUOTE]

She only testified before the Grand Jury and then gave her interview and then disappeared from public view.
 
IMO. OJ could of committed the murders in broad daylight on the LA County Court House live on TV and Marsha and company would not of been able to convict him.

Can the police and prosecuters fixate on an early suspect? Yes of course they can. In this case I'm not sure they did. One good reaso was the blood on the drivers door of Simpsons Bronco.
 
Top