Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

DonLever

O J SImpson's Glove Was Tampered With Says Prosecutor (17 Yrs Later)

20 posts in this topic

Christopher Darden, one of the prosecutors in the OJ Simpson trial 17 years ago, said the glove OJ tried on and failed to put on was tampered with. He claimed the lining was cut by the defense. Friends of defense lawyer, Johnny Cochrane, who is deceased now, say that is a load of crap. Allan Dershowitz, famous lawyer for the defense, say the claim is big lie since the defence never had possession of the glove.

As you recalled, the defense used the line, "if the glove did not fit, you must acquit". Catchy, wasn't it? Rhymes too!

http://www.thestar.c...-glove-evidence

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All I can think about is how the kids of today won't know who O.J Simpson even is. Time flies by quick.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All I can think about is how the kids of today won't know who O.J Simpson even is. Time flies by quick.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to worry, OJ's going to find the real killer, remember?

He's working hard at it I'm sure....

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to worry, OJ's going to find the real killer, remember?

He's working hard at it I'm sure....

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone knows he did it. He only got away with it because he was rich and famous.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the Prosecturs thought the glove may be tampered with but never even got to examine it, seems like someone droped the ball there.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the Prosecturs thought the glove may be tampered with but never even got to examine it, seems like someone droped the ball there.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wondering if they were worried about another Rodney King riot at the time. If so, talk about misread of the situation.

Anyway, OJ was found liable in civil court. That says enough.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The prosecutors and the arresting police officers really messed up that whole trial. If things were done by the book on the police's end and if the prosecutors had of went after OJ for two counts of 2nd degree murder, there would have been justice and OJ would have spent the rest of his life in prison. Instead they botched the investigation by cutting corners to try and make him look more guilty and they tried him for murder 1, which, if everything went their way had barely enough evidence to convict on.

A lot of people point to the glove not fitting as to why there was no conviction but really there can't be a shred of doubt when trying for murder 1. The defense had it easy all they had to show was there was a scenario where OJ didn't commit those murders. Without catching it on camera or witnessed by a few people or a straight up confession there will always be a scenario where one can imagine it was all just coincidence (even as unlikely as that is).

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, the defense said they did'nt get to examine it. the prosecutors say it was tampered with

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This case was lost by the prosecution because of the racism that was so prevalent in the LAPD, Mark Furhman comes to mind, and the defense used the "race card" to convince a predominantly black jury that OJ Simpson was being framed for the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman.

Mark Fuhrman was the police officer that found the bloody glove at Simpson's home and was the prosecution's key witness. The first time Furhman was on the stand he said, under oath, that he was not racist and never used the "N" word. Then later, a videotape arose and showed the officer lying on the stand about his racial bias.

I also remember reading this snippet....

"Having made the greatest legal blunder of the 20th century, he's trying to blame it on the dead man (Johnnie Cochrane tampering with the lining before OJ tried it on)," Mr Dershowitz said later of Mr Darden.

There have been various other theories offered about why the glove did not fit Simpson – apart from that he had indeed never worn it. One was that it may have shrunk because of the blood that soaked it; another was that Simpson had stopped taking arthritis tablets before the trial so that his hand had swollen.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This case was lost by the prosecution because of the racism that was so prevalent in the LAPD, Mark Furhman comes to mind, and the defense used the "race card" to convince a predominantly black jury that OJ Simpson was being framed for the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman.

Mark Fuhrman was the police officer that found the bloody glove at Simpson's home and was the prosecution's key witness. The first time Furhman was on the stand he said, under oath, that he was not racist and never used the "N" word. Then later, a videotape arose and showed the officer lying on the stand about his racial bias.

I also remember reading this snippet....

"Having made the greatest legal blunder of the 20th century, he's trying to blame it on the dead man (Johnnie Cochrane tampering with the lining before OJ tried it on)," Mr Dershowitz said later of Mr Darden.

There have been various other theories offered about why the glove did not fit Simpson – apart from that he had indeed never worn it. One was that it may have shrunk because of the blood that soaked it; another was that Simpson had stopped taking arthritis tablets before the trial so that his hand had swollen.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As many people have said, it was the prosecution and police who messed up the case. Both were pretty inept. The prosecution used questionable strategy and tactics, while the police mishandled the evidence.

Circumstantial alone should be enough to convict OJ. For example, in an other well known murder case, Scott Petersen was convicted on ONE singe piece of forensic evidence - a hair of his wife found in a plier on his boat. The rest of the case was based on testimony and circumstantial evidence. That guy is on death row now.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The major flaw in Darden's claim is that the glove was "cut". I fail to see how this would be effective, seeing as the glove was too small....

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Smart money is on OJ's son, Jason, being the killer and OJ helped cover it all up .. hence the "chase" scene enacted to buy time to destroy evidence etc .. even if OJ admitted the truth who would believe him?? ..

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If somebody can find a clip of comedian Norm Mcdonald talking about O. J. and the pecking order in jail it is worth a look.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.