Replies

No police department in the world has perfect procedures.

And no police department gets to creat and alter evidence, get caught, and have their misfesance or malfeasance ignored. Assume Simpson did it, tjhey got caught trying to frame a guilty defendant. But they got caught, and most of the mountain f evidence was reduced to nothing, just as the mountain of evidence against Trump seems to grow smaller every day.

No evidence in the world exists in which anomalies couldn’t be found if you didn’t look hard enough.

When the anomalies are egregious enough, the prosecution fails, even where the defendant is Harvey Weinstein.

The government expert witnesses begin with an assumption that they acted properly and testified truthfully. But when they are caught testifying falsely, proven so beyond any and all doubt with video tape, e.g. Dennis Fung where arry Scheck presented the video and proclaimed over and over, "How about that, Mr. Fung?" Mr. Fung admitted time after time that his prior testimony had been false. Mr. Fung lost any presumption in his favor. Mr. Fuhrman was so nailed in false testimony by F. Lee Bailey that he took the fifth on the stand. Andrea Mazzola admitted she was the primary collector of blood stains as the scene, but she did not even know a manual existed which she was supposed to follow. Thje forms were completed with no indication of who collected what evidence, breaking the chain of custody. They were unable to account for mssing blood from blood sameples taken, or how EDTA appeared in evidence collected after the blood samples were taken. Vanatter, one half of the team the DA.s office called Dumb & Dumber, took blood evidence home, then took it to the O.J. residence, and only then actually went and booked it in. The list goes on and on.

The jurors, black or white, could not ignore the misfeasance or malfeasance of the prosecution. They quickly reached a verdict of not guilty.

It’s the job of the intelligent, fair juror to weight the evidence as a reasonable person... not as a race pimp looking for any excuse in the book to acquit the man. A mostly white jury in L.A. would have looked at the same evidence and locked O.J. up for life and thrown away the key... or put him on death row.

The fair jurors, white and black, saw that the prosecution case was a mess. Only a racist could conclude that the verdict could only have resulted from racism. Such racist cannot confront the actual proceedings at the trial, and explain how the jury was wrong.

But with the best money could buy, the so-called “Dream Team” played the race card from the bottom of the deck, as Robert Shapiro latter admitted.

"Robert Shapiro, a Simpson co-counsel, later said the legal team played the race card "from the bottom of the deck." In his 1996 memoir, "Journey to Justice," Cochran replied: 'If some people insist in comparing a double-murder trial to a card game, then they ought to be honest enough to admit that we played the history and credibility cards.'"

Race had nothing to do with the sheer, utter demolition of the scientific evidence.

And it worked, giving the blacks on the jury the excuse to let a guilty-as-hell man walk free.

A jury of mixed races found unanimously that the prosecution had not proved Simpson was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and, accordingly, retured a v erdict of not guilty.

If Bruno Magli shoe fits, wear it.

You seem to have difficulty accepting that I produced a shoeprint evidence textbook showing that Bruno Magli does not make shoes — not any shoes by any name. The shoeprint at the scene only identfied the sole, not the shoe it was attached to. The book shows that the sole at the scene was manufactured by Silga Gomma, and it was distributed to at least 20 different manufacturers of shoes.

Footwear Impression Evidence, Detection, Recovery and Examination, Second Edition, 2000, CRC Press LLC, by William J. Bodziak

At page 445:

The efforts to connect O.J. Simpson with the actual purchase transaction of the Bruno Magli shoes was never successful.
[...]
It is common for manufacturers to create molds for shoe soles, which have interchangeable name or logo plates. This allows the manufacturer to use the same molds for more than one customer, by using more than one name in the mold. The interchangeable name plates can be any shape, but they are most commonly oval or rectangular. This was the case with the U2887 soles samples. When I received the samples from SILGA, I noticed there was an oval shape in the arch area of the sole where the brand name would appear.

At 445:

These names, located just in front of the raised heel, are held off the ground and do not record in an impression on a hard surface. None of the Bundy impressions revealed any impression from this area of the shoe.

The shoeprints at Bundy could have come from any one of more than 20 companies that used the Silga Gomma U2887 sole. There is no reason why the shoeprints made at Bundy had to be made by shoes sold in the United States. They could have been purchased anywhere and worn or carried into the United States by any feet that fit into them, and they did not have to be branded Bruno Magli. Proving O.J. owned a pair of Bruno Magli shoes, never accomplished at the criminal trial, would not have proved such shoes were at the crime scene. The prosecution could not prove the soles at the scene were ever on O.J. Simpson's feet, or that they were attached to Bruno Magli uppers.

If you would have acquitted a double-murdering monster because you fell for the distortions of the “Dream Team,” and are a guilty man’s dream juror: a sucker and a chump.

William Blackstone, 1769" “the law holds that it is better that 10 guilty persons escape, than that 1 innocent suffer (innocent person be convicted).”

John Adams, 1770: "We find, in the rules laid down by the greatest English Judges, who have been the brightest of mankind; We are to look upon it as more beneficial, that many guilty persons should escape unpunished, than one innocent person should suffer. The reason is, because it’s of more importance to community, that innocence should be protected, than it is, that guilt should be punished; for guilt and crimes are so frequent in the world, that all of them cannot be punished; and many times they happen in such a manner, that it is not of much consequence to the public, whether they are punished or not. But when innocence itself, is brought to the bar and condemned, especially to die, the subject will exclaim, it is immaterial to me, whether I behave well or ill; for virtue itself, is no security. And if such a sentiment as this, should take place in the mind of the subject, there would be an end to all security what so ever."

Benjamin Franklin, 1785: "it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer."

By your reckoning, William Blackstone, John Adams, and Benjamin Franklin Franklin were all chumps because of their beliefs.

As the prosecution argued in Simpson, you believe the jury should ignore the defense, and convict based on feelings.

Darden Closing, Simpson and Saving Burning Baby Justice

The end lf Darden's Closing Argument.

So imagine the smoke and imagine a burning house. Imagine that you are standing in front of a burning house, and from inside that burning house you can hear the wail of a baby, a baby's cry, a baby in fear, a baby about to lose its life. And you can hear that baby screaming. You can hear that wail.
Now, that baby, that baby is justice. This is baby justice. Usually justice is a strong woman, but in this case justice is just a baby. And you hear that baby and you hear that wail and you see the smoke, you see the defense.
There is all this smoke in front of you and you feel a sense -- you have a sense of justice and you have a sense of what the law requires and you have a strong commitment to justice and to the law and you want to do the right thing while justice is about to perish, justice is about to be lost, baby justice is about to be lost.
And so you start to wade through that smoke trying to get to that baby. You have got to save that baby, you have to save baby justice, and you happen to run into smoke, find your way through the smoke, and if you happen to run into a couple of defense attorneys along the way, just ask them to politely step aside and let you find your way through the smoke, because the smoke isn't over, okay? The smoke is going to get heavier because they are about to talk to you.
Let's use your common sense. Wade through the evidence. Get down to the bottom line.
And please do the right thing.
It has been a honor to appear before you and we will wait for your verdict.

And so, you wade through the smoke looking for baby justice and the mountain of evidence. But you do not find the mountain of evidence, and you do not find baby justice. You find the defense attorneys and you are instructed to ignore them and save baby justice from the burning house.

That is the very conclusion of Darden's Closing Argument. Ignore the defense and save baby justice from the burning building.

They should have had John Belushi stand up and the end and say, "Who's with me?" Who was not moved to ignore the defense and save baby justice?

Justice was about to perish because many months earlier, the showboating prosecution decided to charge Simpson before it had evidence. Simpson invoked his right to a speedy trial. The prosecution had to meet its obligation to proceed to trial. It was the early days of DNA evidence. The prosecution was still receiving DNA text results six months into the trial. They dragged the trial out almost long enough to make a baby. And while the prosecution was very obviously wasting months dithering, waiting for DNA evidence to arrive, the jury was sequestered. Witnesses for the prosecution took from January 31 to July 7, 1995. Defense witnesses took from July 10, to September 7, 1995.

The jury only needed 4 hours of deliberations to reach a unanimous decision that requisite evidence simply was not there.