ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags murder cases , O.J. Simpson

Reply
Old 16th August 2012, 12:50 PM   #1
calebprime
moleman
 
calebprime's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 12,265
_O.J. Is innocent and i can prove it_/So You Think O.J. Simpson Is Guilty?

No, not me.

This is the title of a new book (about an old subject) I just saw at the library.

William C. Dear, private investigator, has amassed enough evidence to convince me that O.J.'s son Jason is a possible suspect.

He had a history of assault and suicide attempts -- which involved knives -- on at least four occasions. This book claims that he has "intermittent rage disorder" which may relate to his epilepsy. He takes Depakote (valproic acid) for this condition. One way our sleuth knows this is by the time-honored p.i. method of going through the trash.

Maybe Jason Simpson left his chef's job at 10 pm, carrying his set of chef's knives, and had just enough time to commit the murders?

I've not read enough of the book nor thought through the issues. No particular pony in this race. Just thought this might be a fun thread for JREF.

The book is written in a rather maddening style if you want a Bugliosi-style summary of pros and cons. It means to be entertaining, and it is. Sometimes it's unintentionally funny, in that true-crime sort of way.

I'd never heard Jason Simpson proposed as a suspect.

It's not his epilepsy or illegal drug use as such that makes me "like" him -- as they say on the cop shows -- it's the prior violent history.

Much depends on the alibi and timing.

Criticize William Dear's book. I don't really have an opinion, other than that O.J. probably was involved somehow, and that the LAPD did a sloppy job.
calebprime is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th October 2017, 07:29 AM   #2
bobtaftfan
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 381
So You Think O.J. Simpson Is Guilty?

I know most media pundits and outlets believe O.J. Simpson is not only guilty, but obviously and undeniably guilty, but a closer look at the supposed "mountain of evidence" against O.J. reveals contradictions, bogus claims, and absurd scenarios.

An Unlikely Scenario: Problems with the Case Against O.J. Simpson
http://miketgriffith.com/files/unlikelyscenario.htm

EXTRACT:

* Keeping in mind the above facts, at about 10:00 PM, O.J. tries to call his girlfriend, Paula Barbieri. Earlier in the day, she had left him a voicemail saying she wanted to end their relationship. So, according to the prosecution, partly as a result of the break-up message, O.J. starts on a journey toward mad rage—and then murders his ex-wife that evening. Wait a minute: His ex-wife? Why would he not have directed his alleged mad rage at Paula Barbieri? (By the way, Paula visited O.J. several times at the county jail during the trial and stated in interviews that O.J. was incapable of murdering anyone.)

Additionally, O.J. called two other girls on the day of the murders to get dates with them, which is not exactly the behavior one would expect from a man who was supposedly obsessed with his wife and building up to a murderous rage. At 7:35 PM, he left a voicemail with one of the girls and said the following:
Uh, hey, Gretchen, sweetheart. It’s Orenthal James who is finally at a place in his life where he is totally, totally unattached with everybody. Ha ha. In any event, I got a Sunday evening, uh, I’d love [pauses]. . . . I guess I guess I’m catching a red-eye [late-night airline flight] to Chicago but I’ll be back Monday night. (Gerald Uelman, Lessons from the Trial: The People v. O.J. Simpson, Kansas City, MO: Andrews and McMeel, 1996, p. 59)
As Gerald Uelman, a former dean at the Santa Clara University School of Law, noted, “It does not sound like a person distraught by jealousy who is on the verge of homicide” (Lessons from the Trial, p. 59).

* O.J., wishing to "disguise" himself, puts on a dark sweatsuit and a dark knit cap, and then drives to Nicole's house in his white Bronco, which everyone in Nicole’s neighborhood has seen him driving dozens of times before.

* Although O.J. puts on a sweatsuit, he wears fancy dress socks and super-expensive Bruno Magli dress shoes.

* Instead of wearing a ski mask or a stocking to cover his face, O.J. puts on a knit cap, which does nothing to hide his face and which can only look suspicious in the mid-summer temperatures of that night. A ski mask or stocking also would have looked suspicious, but at least they would have covered his face. Incidentally, the knit cap was quite small, too small to fit O.J.’s head in a normal manner.

Interestingly, an identical knit cap was found inside Nicole’s house. The cap that was supposedly found near the bodies might have belonged to one of O.J. and Nicole’s two young children, both of whom lived with Nicole at the time. This suggests that the cap might have been planted, either by one of the killers or by a police officer. Planting the cap would have been a simple matter of going inside the house (the door was left open), picking up the cap, and dropping it near the bodies.

* Still in this supposed "stealth" mode, O.J. drives his large, well-known, and very noisy white Bronco into the alleyway behind Nicole’s house on Bundy Drive, even though the alleyway is fairly well-lit, even though he surely knows there are homes with windows that have a good view of that alleyway, and even though the alleyway is visible by passing cars. Not to mention the fact that everybody in that area knows O.J.'s white Bronco. Throughout the trial, the prosecution swung back and forth between scenarios that required O.J. to be a supremely dumb criminal to scenarios that assumed he was extremely clever and cunning.
__________________
Mike Griffith. Real Issues Home Page.
bobtaftfan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th October 2017, 07:41 AM   #3
fagin
Philosopher
 
fagin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: As far away from casebro as possible.
Posts: 6,768
Who?
__________________
There is no secret ingredient - Kung Fu Panda
fagin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th October 2017, 08:16 AM   #4
calebprime
moleman
 
calebprime's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 12,265
This is the worst and most obvious kind of anomaly-seeking. "Does this sound like the words or actions of a man who..." blah blah.

Yeah, he wasn't a master criminal, there was tons of evidence, and for socio-political reasons, he was acquitted.

Then he was jailed for too long on trumped-up charges in another case, perhaps because he got away with murder.

Anyway, you'll have to actually find something strange before it becomes worth re-examining.
calebprime is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th October 2017, 09:25 AM   #5
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 18,353
Originally Posted by bobtaftfan View Post
. Throughout the trial, the prosecution swung back and forth between scenarios that required O.J. to be a supremely dumb criminal to scenarios that assumed he was extremely clever and cunning.
I didn't follow the trial closely, but I missed any portion where the prosecution painted O.J. as either clever or cunning.

As for the details of your post, I would echo calebprime. There are things that don't seem to fit, but if you examine any situation where there is incomplete information, you will find things that do not fit, because you don't have enough information to make them fit. Just because there is something that doesn't fit, it does not mean that you must acquit.

There was a mountain of evidence against OJ. The fact that there are unexplained pieces of evidence scattered around that mountain does nothing to diminish the existence of the mountain.


One thing I would be interested in is that I have heard people whom I respect insist that there is evidence police planted evidence. (Probably some bad grammar there....anyway). I haven't followed the trial enough that I can say I believe that, but I would be interested in any such evidence. My opinion on the subject is that, if they did plant evidence, they did so because they thought it would help them get a conviction of a guilty man, not because they were attempting to frame an innocent man.

I want to emphasize that I do not actually know of any planted evidence, or have reason to believe that any evidence was planted. I just know that I have heard allegations of such from sources that I would not dismiss out of hand, and would be interested if there is any substance to the accusations.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th October 2017, 09:32 AM   #6
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 21,059
Originally Posted by bobtaftfan View Post
Keeping in mind the above facts, at about 10:00 PM, O.J. tries to call his girlfriend, Paula Barbieri. Earlier in the day, she had left him a voicemail saying she wanted to end their relationship. So, according to the prosecution, partly as a result of the break-up message, O.J. starts on a journey toward mad rage—and then murders his ex-wife that evening. Wait a minute: His ex-wife? Why would he not have directed his alleged mad rage at Paula Barbieri?
He was going to kill her too. But he got arrested because he killed two other people first and couldn't complete his ultimate goal.
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th October 2017, 02:46 AM   #7
bobtaftfan
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 381
The "mountain of evidence" dissolves when you examine it logically and critically.

As for the police planting evidence in the case, this should come as no surprise. The LAPD was caught planting evidence multiple times back then, such as the Rampart case, where LAPD officers were caught planting drugs. As a result of the Rampart revelations, a bunch of convictions were overturned and the city of Los Angeles paid millions in damages to settle the resulting lawsuits. We also have LAPD Detective Mark Fuhrman's confessions on tape that he had planted evidence in previous cases to frame minorities and that he hated the very sight of mixed-race couples. Fuhrman "found" much of the key evidence in the O.J. case.

Two of the most damning items of the "mountain of evidence" were clearly planted: the back-gate blood and the blood on the sock. The back-gate blood was the blood stain with the highest concentration of O.J.'s DNA. Yet, that blood was not "found" until three weeks after the LAPD investigated and then washed down the crime scene. At trial, the defense presented a crime-scene photo of the back gate that proved there was no blood on the gate as of June 13, the day after the murders. This photo was the occasion of defense attorney Barry Scheck's famous question to LAPD criminalist Dennis Fung: "Where is it, Mr. Fung?" That is, "where in this June 13 crime-scene photo of the back gate is the blood that the LAPD claimed to 'find' three weeks later?" Fung conceded that he could not see any blood on the gate in the photo. The jury visibly reacted to the photo and the Scheck-Fung exchange.

Amazingly, the back-gate blood had a vastly higher concentration of O.J.'s DNA than any other blood collected the day after the murders, after supposedly sitting exposed to the elements for three weeks on a metal gate in mid-June and early July Southern California weather. What's more, the back-gate blood was found to contain a large amount of EDTA, a chemical used in blood vials to keep blood from coagulating. The prosecution lamely argued that human blood naturally contains EDTA--well, it does, but only in tiny trace amounts, not in any amount even close to the amount of EDTA found in the back-gate blood. That blood clearly came from the 1.5 cc's of blood that was found to be "missing" from O.J.'s blood vial.

The sock blood was another case of magically appearing blood that nobody saw the first time around. No expert who examined the socks in the days following the murders saw any blood on them. Fung saw no blood on the socks when he examined them the day after the murders. Criminalist Collin Yamauchi saw no blood on them when he examined them soon after the murders. The first evidence report on the socks stated that no blood was seen on them. When Michele Kestler, the director of the LAPD's crime lab, examined the socks on June 22, she saw no blood on them, and when she testified at the preliminary hearing, she did not include the socks among the evidence items that she said had blood on them. The stain would have been very hard to “miss.” It was about the size of a half-dollar coin.

But, nearly two months after the murders, the LAPD claimed that they found that huge blood stain on one of the socks! Yeah, you bet.

Not surprisingly, the sock blood was likewise found to contain a large amount of EDTA, and forensic testing showed that no foot could have been in the sock when the blood got on the sock because of the wet transfers to other layers of the sock, which could not have happened if O.J. had been wearing the sock when the blood got on it.
__________________
Mike Griffith. Real Issues Home Page.

Last edited by bobtaftfan; 16th October 2017 at 03:03 AM.
bobtaftfan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th October 2017, 03:28 AM   #8
mikado
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,927
When a woman states that if something happens to me, it's my husband and then dies.....hmmmmm...
__________________
member formally known as Renmarkable.
mikado is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th October 2017, 03:36 AM   #9
applecorped
Rotten to the Core
 
applecorped's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 18,529
Lazy poe
__________________
All You Need Is Love.
applecorped is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th October 2017, 03:45 AM   #10
calebprime
moleman
 
calebprime's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 12,265
Originally Posted by mikado View Post
When a woman states that if something happens to me, it's my husband and then dies.....hmmmmm...
Yeah, actually. Big picture.

Oh, yeah, he did happen to break her car window with a baseball bat.

But no, the murder was committed by Panamanian cocaine dealers.
calebprime is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th October 2017, 04:01 AM   #11
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 18,353
Originally Posted by bobtaftfan View Post
Two of the most damning items of the "mountain of evidence" were clearly planted: the back-gate blood and the blood on the sock.
Thanks for the examples. I'll try to look into it.

In the past, when I've participated in threads where someone gave examples of clearly planted evidence, and laid out details which clearly demonstrate their case, I have found in almost every case the reason the presentation of evidence forgery was so clear is that the true story was so incredibly different than what was laid out in the post, or the book, describing it. Either the "facts" presented were cherry picked or, in some cases, just made up completely. Perhaps this time will be different.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th October 2017, 04:29 AM   #12
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 42,771
There's a piece of evidence in the Lockerbie case which looks so suspicous and has such questionable provenance that it has become almost common currency that it was planted. However, on very close examination I'm not so sure. It might be, but it might not be. I'm constantly having to pull people up for lazily asserting that it was.

So yeah, I agree with Meadmaker. Let's see the detail.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th October 2017, 05:06 AM   #13
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist.
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 25,932
Let's be clear: There is no way that one person's DNA can degrade into another person's DNA. And yet that's what the defense would have you believe.

Oh, and OJ wrote a book detailing how he killed his wife.
__________________
I have the honor to be
Your Obdt. St

L. Leader
Loss Leader is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th October 2017, 05:11 AM   #14
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 76,358
How he would have killed his wife. Totally different.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th October 2017, 06:30 AM   #15
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist.
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 25,932
I was actually in law school at the time of the OJ trial. We followed the whole thing very carefully. Spoiler: he killed his wife.
__________________
I have the honor to be
Your Obdt. St

L. Leader
Loss Leader is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th October 2017, 06:43 AM   #16
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 18,353
Originally Posted by Loss Leader View Post
I was actually in law school at the time of the OJ trial. We followed the whole thing very carefully. Spoiler: he killed his wife.
Say it ain't so.


So, a quick read on the preserved blood/EDTA controversy. This is based on several minutes of research, so take it for what it's worth.

It appears that at the time of the trial, there was no generally accepted test for the presence of EDTA in a blood sample, but someone had an experimental method he had been working on. The blood samples tested positive for EDTA using this method.

Here's the thing, though. The researcher's own blood, drawn straight from his arm, also tested positive for EDTA. At any rate, the test does not just provide a "yes or no" test for EDTA, it provides a concentration, and the concentration wasn't consistent with preserved blood.

I see this all the time in conspiracy type books and web posts. There's a "scientific test" that "proves" the case, but only if you close one eye and squint at the results, i.e. if you only use the portion of the results that suits your purpose. From what I can tell, preserved blood, tested using this method, would have given a very large quantity of EDTA. The defense supporters would have us believe that any presence of EDTA at all would suggest the blood had been preserved before testing, but that simply isn't true.

Of course, the defense team's goal wasn't really establishing the source of the blood, it was to introduce "reasonable doubt", i.e. get a jury to think, "I don't know what these guys are talking about with all that lab stuff, but I don't like the cut of his jib...."

ETA: Looking at bobtaftfan's post, he addresses the concentration of EDTA issue, but what he says about it contradicts what I read about it. I'll try to add a little bit of substance to the discussion by finding real numbers associated with concentrations. That might be hard to find, though. People writing these sorts of post for some reason often omit details that might be useful for really understanding the test results.

Last edited by Meadmaker; 16th October 2017 at 06:48 AM.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th October 2017, 06:49 AM   #17
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 21,059
Originally Posted by Loss Leader View Post
Spoiler: he killed his wife.
And her friend Ron Goldman.
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th October 2017, 07:00 AM   #18
Lithrael
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,392
I would not be even slightly surprised if there was planted evidence and/or other nefarious activity by some of the investigators/police involved. "We have a strong case anyways but I'm gonna take some of his stuff and then plant it at the scene! Cause I hate that guy/am sure he did it! And no one will ever know!" There does seem to be at least room for reasonable suspicion of that kind of thing from some of the people involved. And I can see police in general getting illegally overzealous in trying to 'get their guy' if the culture where they're working clearly turns a blind eye to it.

No less disgusting when they are right about the suspect than when they are wrong imo.
Lithrael is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th October 2017, 07:45 AM   #19
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 12,131
Originally Posted by bobtaftfan View Post
The "mountain of evidence" dissolves when you examine it logically and critically.

As for the police planting evidence in the case, this should come as no surprise. The LAPD was caught planting evidence multiple times back then, such as the Rampart case, where LAPD officers were caught planting drugs. As a result of the Rampart revelations, a bunch of convictions were overturned and the city of Los Angeles paid millions in damages to settle the resulting lawsuits. We also have LAPD Detective Mark Fuhrman's confessions on tape that he had planted evidence in previous cases to frame minorities and that he hated the very sight of mixed-race couples. Fuhrman "found" much of the key evidence in the O.J. case.

Two of the most damning items of the "mountain of evidence" were clearly planted: the back-gate blood and the blood on the sock. The back-gate blood was the blood stain with the highest concentration of O.J.'s DNA. Yet, that blood was not "found" until three weeks after the LAPD investigated and then washed down the crime scene. At trial, the defense presented a crime-scene photo of the back gate that proved there was no blood on the gate as of June 13, the day after the murders. This photo was the occasion of defense attorney Barry Scheck's famous question to LAPD criminalist Dennis Fung: "Where is it, Mr. Fung?" That is, "where in this June 13 crime-scene photo of the back gate is the blood that the LAPD claimed to 'find' three weeks later?" Fung conceded that he could not see any blood on the gate in the photo. The jury visibly reacted to the photo and the Scheck-Fung exchange.

Amazingly, the back-gate blood had a vastly higher concentration of O.J.'s DNA than any other blood collected the day after the murders, after supposedly sitting exposed to the elements for three weeks on a metal gate in mid-June and early July Southern California weather. What's more, the back-gate blood was found to contain a large amount of EDTA, a chemical used in blood vials to keep blood from coagulating. The prosecution lamely argued that human blood naturally contains EDTA--well, it does, but only in tiny trace amounts, not in any amount even close to the amount of EDTA found in the back-gate blood. That blood clearly came from the 1.5 cc's of blood that was found to be "missing" from O.J.'s blood vial.

The sock blood was another case of magically appearing blood that nobody saw the first time around. No expert who examined the socks in the days following the murders saw any blood on them. Fung saw no blood on the socks when he examined them the day after the murders. Criminalist Collin Yamauchi saw no blood on them when he examined them soon after the murders. The first evidence report on the socks stated that no blood was seen on them. When Michele Kestler, the director of the LAPD's crime lab, examined the socks on June 22, she saw no blood on them, and when she testified at the preliminary hearing, she did not include the socks among the evidence items that she said had blood on them. The stain would have been very hard to “miss.” It was about the size of a half-dollar coin.

But, nearly two months after the murders, the LAPD claimed that they found that huge blood stain on one of the socks! Yeah, you bet.

Not surprisingly, the sock blood was likewise found to contain a large amount of EDTA, and forensic testing showed that no foot could have been in the sock when the blood got on the sock because of the wet transfers to other layers of the sock, which could not have happened if O.J. had been wearing the sock when the blood got on it.
That blood did not contain EDTA. I'm a chemist with 35 years experience in ion chromatography (which was presented as evidence of EDTA), and I have testified in legal cases several times. No EDTA. Full stop.
__________________
"Sufficiently advanced malice is indistinguishable from incompetence. = godless Dave
John Jones is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th October 2017, 07:52 AM   #20
Faydra
sinning sybarite
 
Faydra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 6,034
Yes, I do think OJ Simpson is guilty of murder.
Faydra is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th October 2017, 07:54 AM   #21
Dumb All Over
A Little Ugly on the Side
 
Dumb All Over's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: They call it the Earth (which is a dumb kinda name)
Posts: 5,521
Originally Posted by bobtaftfan View Post
We also have LAPD Detective Mark Fuhrman's confessions on tape that he had planted evidence in previous cases to frame minorities and that he hated the very sight of mixed-race couples.
I don't remember hearing or reading anything wherein Mark Fuhrman confesses to planting evidence in previous cases. bobtaftfan, can you offer any credible evidence that would substantiate your claim? Fuhrman may have told fictional accounts of evidence-planting to Laura Hart McKinny, but that is not evidence of actual crime scene tampering. Please link evidence of a tape where Furhman says he himself planted evidence.
__________________
The Three Word Story Pledge of Allegiance- "I Hereby swear upon Engelbert's grave that I will gallop, not stride run, not walk posting three words on Shemp's honor, honoring: bananas, dwarfs, clarinets, [the 7th naughty forum word], haggis, Batman, nuns, wombats until such time as I'm sober. Or dead."
"Some people have a way with words, other people...Um...Oh...Uh, not have way." -Steve Martin

Last edited by Dumb All Over; 16th October 2017 at 08:01 AM.
Dumb All Over is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th October 2017, 08:16 AM   #22
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 18,353
Originally Posted by John Jones View Post
That blood did not contain EDTA. I'm a chemist with 35 years experience in ion chromatography (which was presented as evidence of EDTA), and I have testified in legal cases several times. No EDTA. Full stop.
For the laymen in the audience, can you elaborate?

Is it really "no EDTA", or "no evidence of EDTA used as a blood preservative" or "the test used for EDTA was not a valid test, so there is no reason to believe that there was EDTA".

i.e. is there a specific, trusted, test that was performed to detect EDTA, and the results were negative, or was it that the claims of a positive EDTA test were based on tests which were experimental, and subsequently shown to be unreliable, and cannot be trusted.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th October 2017, 08:29 AM   #23
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 21,059
Originally Posted by Dumb All Over View Post
Fuhrman may have told fictional accounts of evidence-planting to Laura Hart McKinny, but that is not evidence of actual crime scene tampering.
There are people who think that the things he told her are truths. The fact is that she was writing a fiction book and he was romantically involved with her. One of the things he told her stands out in my mind. He said that when he and other cops would pull over black drivers they would "tear up their drivers licenses" and then begin writing tickets for driving without a license. The problem with that is that you cannot tear up a heavy plastic laminated license. You have to use scissors (or something like that) to destroy it because it cannot be torn.

It was clear to me that accurate and necessary details were missing because he was just making it all up.
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th October 2017, 08:31 AM   #24
CORed
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Central City, Colorado, USA
Posts: 8,392
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
Say it ain't so.


So, a quick read on the preserved blood/EDTA controversy. This is based on several minutes of research, so take it for what it's worth.

It appears that at the time of the trial, there was no generally accepted test for the presence of EDTA in a blood sample, but someone had an experimental method he had been working on. The blood samples tested positive for EDTA using this method.

Here's the thing, though. The researcher's own blood, drawn straight from his arm, also tested positive for EDTA. At any rate, the test does not just provide a "yes or no" test for EDTA, it provides a concentration, and the concentration wasn't consistent with preserved blood.

I see this all the time in conspiracy type books and web posts. There's a "scientific test" that "proves" the case, but only if you close one eye and squint at the results, i.e. if you only use the portion of the results that suits your purpose. From what I can tell, preserved blood, tested using this method, would have given a very large quantity of EDTA. The defense supporters would have us believe that any presence of EDTA at all would suggest the blood had been preserved before testing, but that simply isn't true.

Of course, the defense team's goal wasn't really establishing the source of the blood, it was to introduce "reasonable doubt", i.e. get a jury to think, "I don't know what these guys are talking about with all that lab stuff, but I don't like the cut of his jib...."

ETA: Looking at bobtaftfan's post, he addresses the concentration of EDTA issue, but what he says about it contradicts what I read about it. I'll try to add a little bit of substance to the discussion by finding real numbers associated with concentrations. That might be hard to find, though. People writing these sorts of post for some reason often omit details that might be useful for really understanding the test results.
EDTA is a pretty widely used food additive, so traces of it in a blood sample would not be remarkable. Clearly, the concentration is critical, though I can't claim to have enough knowledge to know what concentration would be sufficient to establish a sample was planted.
CORed is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th October 2017, 08:46 AM   #25
trustbutverify
Philosopher
 
trustbutverify's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 7,221
Originally Posted by Lithrael View Post
I would not be even slightly surprised if there was planted evidence and/or other nefarious activity by some of the investigators/police involved. "We have a strong case anyways but I'm gonna take some of his stuff and then plant it at the scene! Cause I hate that guy/am sure he did it! And no one will ever know!" There does seem to be at least room for reasonable suspicion of that kind of thing from some of the people involved. And I can see police in general getting illegally overzealous in trying to 'get their guy' if the culture where they're working clearly turns a blind eye to it.

No less disgusting when they are right about the suspect than when they are wrong imo.
The police loved the guy, and there is not one scintilla of credible evidence anything was planted.
__________________
"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated." -- Mahatma Gandhi

Wollen owns the stage
trustbutverify is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th October 2017, 09:01 AM   #26
trustbutverify
Philosopher
 
trustbutverify's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 7,221
Originally Posted by bobtaftfan View Post
I know most media pundits and outlets believe O.J. Simpson is not only guilty, but obviously and undeniably guilty, but a closer look at the supposed "mountain of evidence" against O.J. reveals contradictions, bogus claims, and absurd scenarios.

An Unlikely Scenario: Problems with the Case Against O.J. Simpson
http://miketgriffith.com/files/unlikelyscenario.htm
Michael T Griffith also concludes the Book of Mormon is literally true and the confederacy were heroic freedom fighters.
__________________
"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated." -- Mahatma Gandhi

Wollen owns the stage
trustbutverify is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th October 2017, 09:24 AM   #27
Monza
Alta Viro
 
Monza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,052
Originally Posted by trustbutverify View Post
The police loved the guy, and there is not one scintilla of credible evidence anything was planted.
True. They treated OJ with kid gloves. Hardly like someone they wanted to risk their careers to frame.

For the evidence to have been planted, you have to believe that two pairs of detectives (who didn't know each other prior to that night) decided to all go along and frame an innocent man simply because he was black. And not a known drug dealer or some scum, but a well-liked celebrity that was friendly to the LAPD.

If Fuhrman planted the glove, you have to explain when he was something like the 18th officer to arrive on sight, and all of the plain clothes cops would know that the second glove was there before he was, why wouldn't one of them question when it turned up at another location?

Also, to frame Simpson they were all taking a great risk. They had no idea if he had an airtight alibi. He could have been vacationing in Europe for the past month for all they knew. Or what if the real killer was caught elsewhere by other means with undeniable proof? Say someone was pulled over for speeding on the other side of town and was covered in blood that would later be traced to the victims? This is not unheard of, the Son of Sam killer was caught because of a parking ticket. As it happened, they lucked out and the only time that day OJ didn't have an alibi was during the murders. Then he lied about where he was and what he was doing (his story changed a couple times). And he had a large cut on his left hand, just like the killer, but he couldn't remember how it happened. What luck for the evidence-planting cops!
Monza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th October 2017, 09:39 AM   #28
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 21,059
I recall reading (around the time of the trial) that in California the penalty for a cop planting evidence in a murder case would be a sentence of life imprisonment.
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th October 2017, 09:46 AM   #29
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 42,771
This is a major reason I'm very sceptical about tales of planted evidence. This evidence would have to be consistent with all the rest of the evidence and if you plant it early you don't know what the rest of the evidence is going to show. On the other hand if you suddenly discover something amazing months into the investigation it's going to look rather suspicious. (You could of course try to backdate the provenance but that has its own problems.)

The consequences of an apparently vital piece of evidence being shown to have been fabricated/planted are extreme. I don't think it's going to be seen as worth it, 99.99% of the time.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th October 2017, 09:56 AM   #30
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 14,724
Yes because the alternative conspiracy theories, as always, just don't work or make sense.

- There's no reason for the LAPD, the City of Los Angeles, or any similar organization to be "out to get' O.J. We can invoke good old fashioned racism but that's not a reason for them to target O.J. specifically. I think people forget that O.J. had been out of the mainstream for a minute when the murders happened. He retired from football in 1979 and O.J's supporting role in the Naked Gun movies really only became anything more than a minor pop culture note after the murder trial. If we're going with some variation of "The racist system wanted to punish a black man for being successful / dating a white woman" there would have been more "In the public eyes" examples to be made other than O.J.

- That whole trial was a slow moving disorganized train wreck of a media circus where everyone involved from the Judge to the Lawyers to the Witnesses to OJ's second cousin's roomate's former hairdresser's dogwalker were on trial more than OJ was. Basically it was the closest we've ever had to a real life version of the Amanda Knox thread.
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en

"Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th October 2017, 10:05 AM   #31
Sherkeu
Muse
 
Sherkeu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Disneyland
Posts: 971
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
There are people who think that the things he told her are truths. The fact is that she was writing a fiction book and he was romantically involved with her. One of the things he told her stands out in my mind. He said that when he and other cops would pull over black drivers they would "tear up their drivers licenses" and then begin writing tickets for driving without a license. The problem with that is that you cannot tear up a heavy plastic laminated license. You have to use scissors (or something like that) to destroy it because it cannot be torn.

It was clear to me that accurate and necessary details were missing because he was just making it all up.
He may have made it up, but is was actually possible. My first license in 1987 was on thick photo paper. They often tore in places on their own. By 1992 they moved to the mag stripe credit card style ones with the hologram.

To address the main topic:
He 100% did it. There was almost TOO much evidence and that enabled his defense team to focus in on any mistake and contest every method and every result. The message was that police were corrupt and incompetent. They were very good at it.
Sherkeu is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th October 2017, 10:40 AM   #32
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist.
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 25,932
I really don't understand the point of arguing that OJ was not guilty. He was found not guilty. There's no chance at a new trial, nor is there any reason to clear his name. From a legal standpoint, his name is clear.

He was, however, found liable by a preponderance of the evidence. So even if you find a mountain of inconsistencies, if the mountain of consistencies is higher then he's liable.

All of the strange things in the OP could be true and there's still more than enough evidence to support the civil verdict.


Also, he killed two people.
__________________
I have the honor to be
Your Obdt. St

L. Leader
Loss Leader is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th October 2017, 11:29 AM   #33
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,007
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
This is a major reason I'm very sceptical about tales of planted evidence. This evidence would have to be consistent with all the rest of the evidence and if you plant it early you don't know what the rest of the evidence is going to show. On the other hand if you suddenly discover something amazing months into the investigation it's going to look rather suspicious. (You could of course try to backdate the provenance but that has its own problems.)

The consequences of an apparently vital piece of evidence being shown to have been fabricated/planted are extreme. I don't think it's going to be seen as worth it, 99.99% of the time.
I don't know about the OJ case, but I would list the following that come to mind to challenge your numerical estimate, in a variety of circumstances.
1. The cartridge case in Arthur Thomas.
2. The glass lens in David Bain.
3. The serrated edge knife in West Memphis 3.
4. The blood and key in the Rav4 in Steven Avery, and the car itself.
5. The dna on the bra clasp with Raffaele Sollecito.
6. The scratch on the mantle piece in Jeremy Bamber
7. The whole field of secret witness testimony, WM3, David Tamihere where I just watched a 4 day trial 22 years after the murders proving John Hughes fed witness C the testimony that convicted. Witness C was correctly convicted of perjury and waits sentencing. The way that trial unfolded made it look very high risk for Hughes, but he is dead by now.
Obviously a new thread would be preferable for planted evidence, but it seems to me there is plenty of this high risk behaviour in these famous cases before getting to ones we don't know about.

There are certainly interesting points in the OP, but I assume he is guilty nevertheless. But noble cause corruption is rife. I think they usually believe they have the man, but not always. Maybe evidence was planted in OJ...
Samson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th October 2017, 12:28 PM   #34
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 12,131
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
For the laymen in the audience, can you elaborate?

Is it really "no EDTA", or "no evidence of EDTA used as a blood preservative" or "the test used for EDTA was not a valid test, so there is no reason to believe that there was EDTA".

i.e. is there a specific, trusted, test that was performed to detect EDTA, and the results were negative, or was it that the claims of a positive EDTA test were based on tests which were experimental, and subsequently shown to be unreliable, and cannot be trusted.
Without being too tedious, EDTA is added to blood as an anticoagulant. The presence and concentration of the EDTA can be determined with something called an ion chromatograph, which produces a chromatogram. These chromatograms used to be a piece of graph paper with tracings on it (it's all on computers now). The horizontal axis indicates retention time (a way of identifying EDTA). and the vertical axis signal represents concentration of the EDTA.

In a perfect world, the chromatogram would only show EDTA. However, in the real world, there is always some background noise. For an analyst to be able to say that EDTA is present in a measurable quantity, the vertical axis signal must be 10 times the background noise. For the analyst to say that there are traces of EDTA, the vertical axis signal must be 2 times the background noise.

The signal at the retention time of EDTA was less than 2 times the background noise, and certainly less than 10. Analytical chemists would not report this as zero, because there could be a single molecule that wouldn't show up. The analyst would report this as a level less than the limit of detection (LOD) or less than the limit of quantitation (LOQ). Or in layman's terms, there's no EDTA present - and certainly not enough to act as an anticoagulant.

ETA: Yes, there are approved compendium methods for determining chemical compounds in certain types of samples. These methods are developed and approved by professional associations. The ones I use are usually AOAC methods, which stands for the Association of Official Analytical Chemists International. Other compendiums include those by the EPA, the European Union and the FDA.

Having worked with the official California labs, I know they have and use among the finest analytical chemistry techniques.
__________________
"Sufficiently advanced malice is indistinguishable from incompetence. = godless Dave

Last edited by John Jones; 16th October 2017 at 02:00 PM. Reason: clarity
John Jones is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th October 2017, 12:36 PM   #35
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 18,353
Originally Posted by John Jones View Post
Without being too tedious, EDTA is added to blood as an anticoagulant. The presence and concentration of the EDTA can be determined with something called an ion chromatograph, which produces a chromatogram. These chromatograms used to be a piece of paper with tracings on it. The horizontal axis indicates retention time (a way form of identifying EDTA). and the vertical axis signal represents concentration of the EDTA.

In a perfect world, the chromatogram would only show EDTA. However, in the real world, there is always some background noise. For an analyst to be able to say that EDTA is present in a measurable quantity, the vertical axis signal must be 10 times the background noise. For the analyst to say that there are traces of EDTA, the vertical axis signal must be 2 times the background noise.

The signal at the retention time of EDTA was less than 2 times the background noise, and certainly less than 10, Analytical chemists would not report this as zero, bucasue there could be a single atom that wouldn't show up. The analyst would report this as a level less than the limit of detection (LOD) or less than the limit of quantitation (LOQ). Or in layman's terms, there's no EDTA present.
Ok. Thanks. Well, bobtaftfan, John Jones is saying that your sources are, what's the word I'm looking for, wrong. Or maybe lying.

And he's seeming to agree with what I read. You said that the concentrations of EDTA measured were very high, but I read that they were very low, and John says so low that the results would actually be considered negative for EDTA. Is it worth pursuing further? Do your sources have anything to refute John's assertions?
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th October 2017, 12:40 PM   #36
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 12,131
Originally Posted by CORed View Post
EDTA is a pretty widely used food additive, so traces of it in a blood sample would not be remarkable. Clearly, the concentration is critical, though I can't claim to have enough knowledge to know what concentration would be sufficient to establish a sample was planted.
Typically, the EDTA is already in the vial when blood is collected, unless they used a different anticoagulant. And as you say, EDTA is ubiquitous.
__________________
"Sufficiently advanced malice is indistinguishable from incompetence. = godless Dave
John Jones is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th October 2017, 12:45 PM   #37
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 21,059
Story from July...

Originally Posted by ABC News

What OJ Simpson juror thinks of Simpson now, two decades after criminal trial

A juror who served on the 1995 O.J. Simpson criminal trial says his perception of Simpson’s innocence has changed over the years, but he ultimately stands by the not guilty verdict.

“Based off the evidence as presented in the trial … the only conclusion I can come to is not guilty,” Lon Cryer told ABC News' "Nightline" co-anchor Dan Harris. “It wasn't based on whether or not I really thought he did it or didn't do it… The only thing that trial did was raise reasonable doubt in my mind about whether or not he was the perpetrator or not.”...

Cryer is perhaps best known as the juror who gave Simpson a black power salute -- a raised fist -- as he left the courtroom after the verdict was announced.

“It was only to say to Mr. Simpson ... ‘Hey man, enjoy your life, go back and be a real person again, because really, truthfully this was a blessing to you that we gave you here,’” Cryer said. “I wanted to try to let him know how I felt about it, really, about him and about the fact that he had been acquitted.”...

http://abcnews.go.com/US/oj-simpson-...ry?id=48730188
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th October 2017, 12:53 PM   #38
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 12,131
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
It's been said that a fool never changes his mind.
__________________
"Sufficiently advanced malice is indistinguishable from incompetence. = godless Dave
John Jones is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th October 2017, 12:54 PM   #39
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 21,059
Public poll from 2015. The article also compares it to public polls from the era of the trial...

Originally Posted by Washington Post
Now to be clear, 20 years after the jury announced its June 1995 not-guilty verdict in Simpson's criminal trial, white and black opinion on this matter remains pretty divided. A full 83 percent of white Americans said that they are "definitely" or "probably" sure of Simpson's guilt. By contrast, 57 percent of black Americans agreed...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...o-j-was-guilty
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th October 2017, 01:08 PM   #40
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist.
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 25,932
Originally Posted by John Jones View Post
It's been said that a fool never changes his mind.

Especially one whose ego and sense of self are wrapped up in that opinion.
__________________
I have the honor to be
Your Obdt. St

L. Leader
Loss Leader is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:49 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.