Martin Sheen Making Pro-O.J. Simpson Docu-Series
- Thread starter GrandePdre
- Start date
I followed the OJ case from start to finish. Most people don't realize AJ Cowlings also owned a white ford bronco and an eye witness at the scene testified to a white ford bronco leaving the scene... but AWAY from OJ's house.
I have always felt AJ was at the scene either as the killer or as an accomplice.
I have always felt AJ was at the scene either as the killer or as an accomplice.
Start to finish, huh? A real Paddock Vincent Bugliosi....If you paid any attention, AC Cowlings was OJs friend and even if AC were at crime scene, licking the murder knife, doesn't absolve the fact OJ's blood and motive was everywhere.
TA
Wow. he's gone off the deep end. Even O.J.'s friends think he did it now. There is FAR too much evidence pointing to him being guilty.
Detective Vannatter drew Simpson's blood at the LAPD on June 13, the day after the killings. But instead of booking it into evidence, Vannatter put the blood vial in his pocket and went to Simpson's home where criminalists were collecting evidence.
There was a transfer stain on the socks that proved blood was placed on them. There was a transfer from one side directly to the other meaning blood was poured on them. You don't get that type of transfer stain if a leg is in the sock and blood drips or splashes on them. That was, to me, one of the most damning moments that proved the cops were planting evidence.
What happened was the cops got caught adding to the evidence in the OJ case. They were afraid of a high profile acquittal and you can frame a guilty man.
I am very familiar with the case. I have always thought both OJ and AC were there. You know OJ would call his buddy for something like this. I bet AC grabbed Ron Goldman thinking OJ was going to beat him up or something then OJ flipped out and started stabbing Nichole. No way one person controlled that scene like that.
Experienced, respected homicide detectives with a clean records their entire careers, two of them nearing retirement with full pensions, were walking around the crime scene with a vial of OJ's blood in their pocket that they brought to the scene.
Your schilling for the LAPD is understandable. A guy that doesn't believe every scientific institution on earth regarding Climate Change yet cannot be swayed from the honesty and integrity of the LAPD. Hats off to your stupidity as it is consistent in a tragic sort of fumbling Clouseau way.
They planted the evidence on the 2nd day. By that time they knew they had him they just need to make sure they had the evidence to back it up. The socks clearly prove evidence tampering. You have an inexplicable transfer stain indicating blood was dripped on the socks while they were laying on the floor. Vannatter returned to the crime scene in a sublimely idiotic move for such a veteran cop with a vial of OJ's blood on the 2nd day to make sure they got their man and they got caught with their fingers in the kitty. He had probably been doing **** like that his whole career to get his convictions.
They planted the evidence on the 2nd day. By that time they knew they had him they just need to make sure they had the evidence to back it up. The socks clearly prove evidence tampering. You have an inexplicable transfer stain indicating blood was dripped on the socks while they were laying on the floor. Vannatter returned to the crime scene in a sublimely idiotic move for such a veteran cop with a vial of OJ's blood on the 2nd day to make sure they got their man and they got caught with their fingers in the kitty. He had probably been doing **** like that his whole career to get his convictions.
Last edited:
Hold the hell up MD55. Is it a stretch to say that this is a case of the perfect opportunity? What if one of Furman's fellow close friends was an officer in the LAPD, who had been secretly boning Nicole Brown Simpson and also knew of OJ's consistent domestic abuse against her and used this as an opportunity to kill her and tie this to OJ? While also throwing out silly leads such Glen Edwards Rogers as a potential suspect.
If the bloody sock doesn't fit, you must acquit.
I don't think OJ went over there with the intention to kill her. I think he was just mad and wanted to mess with her or scare her. After all, his own kids were upstairs. Who would go to kill his wife knowing that his own kids would be left alone at least all night or who knows how long? I think Ron Goldman was there talking to her when OJ arrived, or showed up when OJ was there, and OJ flipped out. I think one guy could have done it.
We are all in agreement that OJ killed them... what I am speculating on is that I have always felt that AC was there, too. Hence the white Bronco leaving the scene but heading away from OJ's house, not towards it.
The LAPD did not want riots on their hands. By the 2nd day they knew they had their man in OJ but they wanted to be certain as they had no evidence inside OJ's home... everything they could see was outside from the crime scene to the glove and to the Bronco. So they take a vial of his blood over to the crime scene and they added enough evidence to ensure a conviction.
OJ talked. They knew he had the window to kill. They even knew he was the killer because he had an obvious tell-tale cut on his finger which is the hallmark of a stabbing as your hand slides down the blade.
As for Mavrick's concerns, all they have to do is chalk it up to cross contamination if the DNA points to someone else and miraculously another killer emerged from the DNA testing that was not OJ. But by the 2nd day, not the 1st day, they knew they had their man and they went back and put that blood on OJ's socks. The blood was applied while the socks were laying on the floor. The transfer stains from one side to the other proved it. The LAPD was walking around the crime scene with a vial of OJ's blood. That is an insane thing to do especially for "veteran" detectives unless those veteran detectives are part of a wholly corrupt police department that is used to planting evidence, which is exactly what the LAPD turned out to be which is why it was gutted due to corruption as it was inundated with racists which led to the entire city exploding in violence.
The LAPD did not want riots on their hands. By the 2nd day they knew they had their man in OJ but they wanted to be certain as they had no evidence inside OJ's home... everything they could see was outside from the crime scene to the glove and to the Bronco. So they take a vial of his blood over to the crime scene and they added enough evidence to ensure a conviction.
OJ talked. They knew he had the window to kill. They even knew he was the killer because he had an obvious tell-tale cut on his finger which is the hallmark of a stabbing as your hand slides down the blade.
As for Mavrick's concerns, all they have to do is chalk it up to cross contamination if the DNA points to someone else and miraculously another killer emerged from the DNA testing that was not OJ. But by the 2nd day, not the 1st day, they knew they had their man and they went back and put that blood on OJ's socks. The blood was applied while the socks were laying on the floor. The transfer stains from one side to the other proved it. The LAPD was walking around the crime scene with a vial of OJ's blood. That is an insane thing to do especially for "veteran" detectives unless those veteran detectives are part of a wholly corrupt police department that is used to planting evidence, which is exactly what the LAPD turned out to be which is why it was gutted due to corruption as it was inundated with racists which led to the entire city exploding in violence.
Last edited:
Regarding the LAPD and Mavrick championing their integrity, here is an interesting take from Scott Turow, attorney and author of bestselling legal thrillers, including Burden of Proof and Presumed Innocent on the LAPD in the OJ case:
Los Angeles for many years had operated with a police department that was far smaller than other police departments had in areas of comparable or larger size, New York and Chicago being the most obvious examples. Now, when you have a police department that's only a portion of the size of other major cities, anybody in law enforcement will tell you that the reason they're able to quell crime is pretty simple, and that's because they break the rules all the time, and they really operate in areas where crime occurs frequently with disregard to the law. They break heads; they break rules. They break into houses. They rule by terror. And again, after the fact, we now know that all of the horrible events that were part of the Rampart scandal in Los Angeles were going on at this time.
So it's not very hard to understand that the suspicion of the L.A. police department in the minority community was enormous, and I think that the only way to have won that case once decisions were made that led to having an almost exclusively minority jury was to be able to stand in front of that jury and say: "I know what you've heard about the L.A. police; I've heard it, too. But I'm going to show you that's not the case here; that's not how we're prosecuting this case. Everything's on the up-and-up."
Instead they went in the complete opposite direction. They did it the way they've always done it. [Detectives Philip] Vannatter and [Mark] Fuhrman climbed over the wall of the Simpson home or compound in Brentwood and went in there. And again, it's obvious why they went in there: They wanted to question O.J. Simpson before he got a lawyer. Then they get on the witness stand when [defense attorney] Robert Shapiro moved to suppress the evidence they gained by entering the house and testified that they'd gone in there, because with Nicole Simpson dead several blocks away, they feared for the safety of somebody else inside the house. Now, there's no causal connection between those two things; that's rank speculation, not to mention the fact that it's obvious horse hockey.
And yet the prosecutors put them on the stand to say that, and the municipal court judge who heard that testimony acted as if she believed it. And I am one who said at that point, "They've lost, they've lost." Now, did I know that Fuhrman was ultimately going to get convicted of perjury? No, I didn't expect that, but it was obvious to me that they were on the road to hell.
Los Angeles for many years had operated with a police department that was far smaller than other police departments had in areas of comparable or larger size, New York and Chicago being the most obvious examples. Now, when you have a police department that's only a portion of the size of other major cities, anybody in law enforcement will tell you that the reason they're able to quell crime is pretty simple, and that's because they break the rules all the time, and they really operate in areas where crime occurs frequently with disregard to the law. They break heads; they break rules. They break into houses. They rule by terror. And again, after the fact, we now know that all of the horrible events that were part of the Rampart scandal in Los Angeles were going on at this time.
So it's not very hard to understand that the suspicion of the L.A. police department in the minority community was enormous, and I think that the only way to have won that case once decisions were made that led to having an almost exclusively minority jury was to be able to stand in front of that jury and say: "I know what you've heard about the L.A. police; I've heard it, too. But I'm going to show you that's not the case here; that's not how we're prosecuting this case. Everything's on the up-and-up."
Instead they went in the complete opposite direction. They did it the way they've always done it. [Detectives Philip] Vannatter and [Mark] Fuhrman climbed over the wall of the Simpson home or compound in Brentwood and went in there. And again, it's obvious why they went in there: They wanted to question O.J. Simpson before he got a lawyer. Then they get on the witness stand when [defense attorney] Robert Shapiro moved to suppress the evidence they gained by entering the house and testified that they'd gone in there, because with Nicole Simpson dead several blocks away, they feared for the safety of somebody else inside the house. Now, there's no causal connection between those two things; that's rank speculation, not to mention the fact that it's obvious horse hockey.
And yet the prosecutors put them on the stand to say that, and the municipal court judge who heard that testimony acted as if she believed it. And I am one who said at that point, "They've lost, they've lost." Now, did I know that Fuhrman was ultimately going to get convicted of perjury? No, I didn't expect that, but it was obvious to me that they were on the road to hell.
Alan Dershowitz directly answering Mavrick's question on "why would the investigators have planted evidence? Didn't they have a strong case against Simpson without it?"
I think they did have a very strong, winnable case without planting evidence. First of all, they weren't sure that the glove would not be excluded, and if the glove were excluded, then they needed the sock. And they didn't know at the time they tampered with the sock that the glove would be admissible. They also wanted a slam-dunk case. They wanted the strongest possible case.
I think one reason why the prosecution decided to bring the case in Los Angeles County, where they knew they would get a [pre]dominantly black jury, was they thought they were going to win, and they would rather win and convict a prominent black man by black jurors than by white jurors. They did not want a repeat of Simi Valley and Rodney King and white/black, black/white. They wanted a black jury to convict a prominent black man. And they made a terrible blunder by allowing eight black women to serve on the jury.
I think [prosecuting attorney] Marcia Clark believed that gender would trump race with black women, and it turned out that wasn't the case; that many of these women identified much more with their brothers and fathers and uncles, who had seen police harassment. They were black first and women second.
I think they did have a very strong, winnable case without planting evidence. First of all, they weren't sure that the glove would not be excluded, and if the glove were excluded, then they needed the sock. And they didn't know at the time they tampered with the sock that the glove would be admissible. They also wanted a slam-dunk case. They wanted the strongest possible case.
I think one reason why the prosecution decided to bring the case in Los Angeles County, where they knew they would get a [pre]dominantly black jury, was they thought they were going to win, and they would rather win and convict a prominent black man by black jurors than by white jurors. They did not want a repeat of Simi Valley and Rodney King and white/black, black/white. They wanted a black jury to convict a prominent black man. And they made a terrible blunder by allowing eight black women to serve on the jury.
I think [prosecuting attorney] Marcia Clark believed that gender would trump race with black women, and it turned out that wasn't the case; that many of these women identified much more with their brothers and fathers and uncles, who had seen police harassment. They were black first and women second.