Friday
ESPN 30 for 30: O.J. Made In America Series [Discussion Thread]
- Thread starter Dave24
- Start date
THIS IS FROM THE CASE FILES IF U HAVEN'T KNOWN ALREADY HOW LAPD WAS TRYING TO FRAME c00n SIMPSON
Lead detective Philip Vannatter also had access to Simpson's blood. Blood was drawn from Simpson byThanoPeratis, a nurse employed by the LAPD, the day after the crime. Peratis placed the tube of Simpson's blood in an unsealed envelope and gave it to detectiveVannatter. The defense established that LAPD policy calls for evidence of this sort to be booked immediately, and that Vannatter could have booked it within minutes at either of two locations. But he did not do so. Instead, he kept Simpson's blood with him for at least several hours and, by his account, drove across the city with it to Simpson's residence, where he gave it to LAPDcriminalist Dennis Fung. Whether Vannatter's account is accepted or not, the defense argued, it is clear that he had sole possession of Simpson's blood tube long enough to have removed blood and made some swatches had he chosen to do so.
Furthermore, blood was missing from Simpson's reference tube. Nurse ThanoPeratis testified at a preliminary hearing that he had drawn eight milliliters (ml.) of blood from Simpson. Under close questioning, he expressed confidence that the amount was between 7.9 and 8.1 ml. n21 However, records in the LAPD Crime Laboratory indicated that the tube had contained only 6.5 ml. when it was received by the laboratory. The prosecution responded that Peratis must have been mistaken about how much blood was drawn.
Nicole Brown Simpson's Blood Was Planted On the Sock. The blood matching Nicole Brown Simpson that was found on the sock was a large, thick stain, slightly larger than the size of a quarter. It had a slightly crusty appearance and made the underlying material of the sock stiff and puckered. Surely this stain would have been noticed, the defense argued, had it been on the sock at the time the sock was collected. Yet on three separate occasions the sock was examined and the stain was not noticed. On June 13, 1994, criminalistDennis Fung collected the socks in O.J. Simpson's bedroom. At that time he was conducting a search for blood in Simpson's residence. He noted no blood on the socks. On June 22, 1994, the socks were examined at the LAPD laboratory by Michelle Kestler, a laboratory supervisor, and two experts for the defense, Michael Baden and Barbara Wolf. They noted no blood. On June 29, 1994, the socks were examined again as part of an inventory of evidence ordered by Judge Ito. The express purpose of the inventory was to determine what blood samples might be available to be split with the defense. No blood was observed on the sock. The laboratory notes say "blood search, none obvious." Then on August 4, 1994, the blood stain was discovered. The defense argued that this sequence of events makes it obvious that the blood was planted on the sock sometime after June 29, 1994.
Defense experts Dr. Henry Lee and Professor Herbert MacDonnell examined the sock and concluded that the blood stain had been pressed onto it while it was lying flat, and not while someone's leg was in the sock. The blood had soaked through one side of the sock and left a "wet transfer" on the opposite inner wall at a point that would have been directly under the stain had the sock been lying flat. The wet transfer is inconsistent with the prosecution theory, the defense argued, because Simpson's leg would have blocked such a transfer had he been wearing the sock when the blood was deposited on it during the murders. Based on Professor MacDonnell's estimates of the drying rate of blood on the sock, the defense argued that by the time Simpson got home and removed the socks, the blood would have dried, making a wet transfer impossible at that point.
The planting theory is also supported by evidence that the chemical preservative ethylenediaminetetraaceticacid ("EDTA") was found in the stain, the defense argued. The victims' blood samples were stored at the LAPD laboratory in tubes that contained EDTA. When the defense first raised the theory that the blood on the sock had been planted, the prosecution sent the sock to the FBI laboratory and asked that the stain be tested for EDTA. Absence of EDTA would presumably have been taken as proof that the stain did not come from the laboratory tubes. But the tests performed by FBI agent-examiner Roger Martz did show evidence of the presence of EDTA. When the prosecution declined to call Martz as a witness, he was called by the defense. Martz admitted that the stain showed traces of EDTA but opined that the quantity was too low to be consistent with blood from a reference tube. The defense then presented Dr. Fredrick Reiders, who reviewed Martz test results and expressed the opinion that the quantities of EDTA present in the stain were indeed consistent with the stain originating in blood from a reference tube, and are too high to be consistent with blood from a living human being. The defense argued that Dr. Reiders was a better qualified and more credible witness than Martz, who does not have an advanced degree, and thatReider's conclusion, if true, proves that the blood on the sock was planted.
O.J. Simpson's Blood Was Planted on the Back Gate. Most of the blood samples from the crime scene were collected on June 13, 1994, the day after the murders; but the three blood stains on the rear gate were not collected until July 3, 1994. According to the prosecution account, these stains were simply missed during the initial collection and were only noticed later. According to the defense account, these stains were not collected the day after the crime because they were not there at that time. The defense offered a powerful piece of evidence to support the planting theory. A photograph taken the day after the crime shows no blood in the area of the rear gate where the largest and most prominent stain was later found. Barry Scheck introduced this photo during his cross-examination of criminalist DennisFung. After displaying a photograph of the stains thatFung collected on July 3, Scheck then showed the photograph of the rear gate taken on June 13. In one of the more memorable moments of the trial, Scheck pointed to the area where the largest stain should have been and demanded, "Where is it, Mr. Fung?" Mr. Funghad no answer, nor was Scheck's question ever answered by the prosecution.
Lead detective Philip Vannatter also had access to Simpson's blood. Blood was drawn from Simpson byThanoPeratis, a nurse employed by the LAPD, the day after the crime. Peratis placed the tube of Simpson's blood in an unsealed envelope and gave it to detectiveVannatter. The defense established that LAPD policy calls for evidence of this sort to be booked immediately, and that Vannatter could have booked it within minutes at either of two locations. But he did not do so. Instead, he kept Simpson's blood with him for at least several hours and, by his account, drove across the city with it to Simpson's residence, where he gave it to LAPDcriminalist Dennis Fung. Whether Vannatter's account is accepted or not, the defense argued, it is clear that he had sole possession of Simpson's blood tube long enough to have removed blood and made some swatches had he chosen to do so.
Furthermore, blood was missing from Simpson's reference tube. Nurse ThanoPeratis testified at a preliminary hearing that he had drawn eight milliliters (ml.) of blood from Simpson. Under close questioning, he expressed confidence that the amount was between 7.9 and 8.1 ml. n21 However, records in the LAPD Crime Laboratory indicated that the tube had contained only 6.5 ml. when it was received by the laboratory. The prosecution responded that Peratis must have been mistaken about how much blood was drawn.
Nicole Brown Simpson's Blood Was Planted On the Sock. The blood matching Nicole Brown Simpson that was found on the sock was a large, thick stain, slightly larger than the size of a quarter. It had a slightly crusty appearance and made the underlying material of the sock stiff and puckered. Surely this stain would have been noticed, the defense argued, had it been on the sock at the time the sock was collected. Yet on three separate occasions the sock was examined and the stain was not noticed. On June 13, 1994, criminalistDennis Fung collected the socks in O.J. Simpson's bedroom. At that time he was conducting a search for blood in Simpson's residence. He noted no blood on the socks. On June 22, 1994, the socks were examined at the LAPD laboratory by Michelle Kestler, a laboratory supervisor, and two experts for the defense, Michael Baden and Barbara Wolf. They noted no blood. On June 29, 1994, the socks were examined again as part of an inventory of evidence ordered by Judge Ito. The express purpose of the inventory was to determine what blood samples might be available to be split with the defense. No blood was observed on the sock. The laboratory notes say "blood search, none obvious." Then on August 4, 1994, the blood stain was discovered. The defense argued that this sequence of events makes it obvious that the blood was planted on the sock sometime after June 29, 1994.
Defense experts Dr. Henry Lee and Professor Herbert MacDonnell examined the sock and concluded that the blood stain had been pressed onto it while it was lying flat, and not while someone's leg was in the sock. The blood had soaked through one side of the sock and left a "wet transfer" on the opposite inner wall at a point that would have been directly under the stain had the sock been lying flat. The wet transfer is inconsistent with the prosecution theory, the defense argued, because Simpson's leg would have blocked such a transfer had he been wearing the sock when the blood was deposited on it during the murders. Based on Professor MacDonnell's estimates of the drying rate of blood on the sock, the defense argued that by the time Simpson got home and removed the socks, the blood would have dried, making a wet transfer impossible at that point.
The planting theory is also supported by evidence that the chemical preservative ethylenediaminetetraaceticacid ("EDTA") was found in the stain, the defense argued. The victims' blood samples were stored at the LAPD laboratory in tubes that contained EDTA. When the defense first raised the theory that the blood on the sock had been planted, the prosecution sent the sock to the FBI laboratory and asked that the stain be tested for EDTA. Absence of EDTA would presumably have been taken as proof that the stain did not come from the laboratory tubes. But the tests performed by FBI agent-examiner Roger Martz did show evidence of the presence of EDTA. When the prosecution declined to call Martz as a witness, he was called by the defense. Martz admitted that the stain showed traces of EDTA but opined that the quantity was too low to be consistent with blood from a reference tube. The defense then presented Dr. Fredrick Reiders, who reviewed Martz test results and expressed the opinion that the quantities of EDTA present in the stain were indeed consistent with the stain originating in blood from a reference tube, and are too high to be consistent with blood from a living human being. The defense argued that Dr. Reiders was a better qualified and more credible witness than Martz, who does not have an advanced degree, and thatReider's conclusion, if true, proves that the blood on the sock was planted.
O.J. Simpson's Blood Was Planted on the Back Gate. Most of the blood samples from the crime scene were collected on June 13, 1994, the day after the murders; but the three blood stains on the rear gate were not collected until July 3, 1994. According to the prosecution account, these stains were simply missed during the initial collection and were only noticed later. According to the defense account, these stains were not collected the day after the crime because they were not there at that time. The defense offered a powerful piece of evidence to support the planting theory. A photograph taken the day after the crime shows no blood in the area of the rear gate where the largest and most prominent stain was later found. Barry Scheck introduced this photo during his cross-examination of criminalist DennisFung. After displaying a photograph of the stains thatFung collected on July 3, Scheck then showed the photograph of the rear gate taken on June 13. In one of the more memorable moments of the trial, Scheck pointed to the area where the largest stain should have been and demanded, "Where is it, Mr. Fung?" Mr. Funghad no answer, nor was Scheck's question ever answered by the prosecution.
Last edited:
They found Ron's blood in the car too, bruh did it
I think most can agree that the cops didn't plant the blood, but there was like one little spec outside and the white boys and blue started jumping walls and such thinking it had to do with the murder
Furhman planted the blood, they found specs of blood, lmao if he killed them he would have been covered in blood, he would've had blood in his finger nails, blood on his shoes, he wouldn't have had enough time to clean all that up, and dispose of the bloody clothes, and clean all the DNA off his body.
Use common sense.
those samples were planted, there would have been blood everywhere if he committed the murders, it would have been all over his clothes, on his shoes, he would have had bloody shoe prints his car, his house, where he changed, he would not have had enough time to clean all that up, get rid of the weapon bloody clothes, and clean his body, then get in the limo.
Cochran proved this in court, I see you're not familiar with the case at all lmao.
LMAO at slaughtering two people and only finding specs of blood lmao/
MustafaSTL
Achievement In Every Field of Human Endeavor
My nikka Joe on LeBatard right now. 
it's a tough call. On one hand, it's like they talk about a "mountian of evidence", but the blood they found in OJs house/car was only enough to fit under a fingernail. Hardly a mountain.
On the other hand, he allegedly told AC he was over there the night it happened and allegedly told his agent(in the doc) the same thing and said that if Nicole hadn't opened the door with a knife she'd still be alive. And also added that if he did it he couldnt have done it alone.
It's tough man. We'll never know. The two ppl who know are dead, and OJ will likely never tell. If he didn't do it, he's probably sworn to secrecy or death. And if he did it on a whim, he certainly covered his tracks pretty well, which is hard to imagine.
I kinda think he did it or at least was behind it. And his mind is so warped from years of cocaine, alcohol, CTE, narcissism, messed up childhood that he blocked it out.
I don't know about this. Dude was old as fukk. Nicole died in her 30s so her father must have been in his 60s-70s. I can't even imagine having all that media attention. He probably had medical problems too.
Don't get twisted, OJ payed for everything regarding Nicole's family, but she was also a coke whore, how would she support her habit if it were not for OJ?
She probably had wife beaters syndrome too.
seemorecizzy
Superstar
Oj need to come out one day on his death bed or something and tell the truth of what happened cause shyt is mind boggling. There's no way as a first time killer, that he killed 2 human beings so violently, drove home, washed off all the blood, got rid of the murder weapon, and just got on a flight lol
shyt just doesn't happen like that
Something missing in this story
Only thing that makes sense is that he's covering for his son
They had a full fukkin blanket over Nicole's body ...from inside the house...that's just inexcusable
Also them pics of her neck where her head damn near severed is wild. Whoever did that shyt went OD. And if OJ did I don't think it'd be able to handle it the way he did, even though his reaction was also sketchy. This was a vicious murder brehs.
I wouldn't put anything past him being framed or set up.
Also them pics of her neck where her head damn near severed is wild. Whoever did that shyt went OD. And if OJ did I don't think it'd be able to handle it the way he did, even though his reaction was also sketchy. This was a vicious murder brehs.
I wouldn't put anything past him being framed or set up.
TrilldogDev
Rookie
Over the last twenty years I've maintained my support for the verdict. For a large part of that time it was because I really believed he was innocent. After watching this movie however, I can't say I believe he's an innocent dude anymore. Again, my support for the verdict and what Cochran did to expose police corruption on a grand scale, remain. But my belief now is that he is the reason that Brown-Simpson & Goldman are dead. A part of me believes that he might be too arrogant to actually execute the killings and that maybe he had killers to handle the work while he looks the victims in the eyes and delivers some grand evil villain monologue as his ex wife and lover friend bled out.
