Talk:DNA evidence in the O. J. Simpson murder case

Hello!

Hello! I drafted this article. If there is anything that needs to be revised please let me know. Please don't delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samsongebre (talk • contribs)

O.J.Simpson

Hi I’m very, very concerned about content in the article about O.J. Simpson and especially about the trial. Gross errors, in that article, are passed off as truth. Two examples: 1.) The article indicates that the defense team (Defense) changed its strategy and insinuates that the “change” signaled abandonment of a self defeating approach. However, Attorney Bailey, (Simpsons attorney) during cross examination, went after Ron Fuhrman. This attack occurred at the very beginning. Later when Fuhrman was exposed as a racist the Defense, because of Bailey’s early attack, scored a solid victory. Detective Van Atter <sp> was exposed as a liar and the Defense solidified it’s victory The important point is, the Defense achieved exactly what it set out to do.

2.) The impression was given that the prosecution presented extensive evidence, but the Defense cherry picked research and witnesses, thus confusing an ignorant jury..

For openers, the Defense corrected the literature when the Defense uncovered a major error by an expert.. Flown to Los Angelos from New Zealand this important correction constituted a major blunder by the prosecution.

When handling evidence, the prosecution lost key items, other objects were stolen, and key witnesses were forced to recant testimony. A specimen of blood was removed from the coroner’s lab and transported 20 miles or more. Thus critical blood evidence went unprotected from heat. Also evidence which was not present in June 1995 began to mysteriously appear in July. Blood on a fence, for example, not seen by criminalist, mysteriously turned up. A similar event occurred when a quantity of blood turned up on Simpson’s sock. …but O.J. had not worn that particular pair of socks.

The point is: the prosecution handled the case in a manner such that the Defense did not need to cherry pick. The blunders by the prosecution were so frequent and so glaring there was no need.

By the way, O.J.Simpson may be innocent. The blood type (B) under Nicole’s fingernails does not match O.J.s’sblood type.

This analysis verges on the preposterous. Sojourner57 (talk) 16:28, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia one sided review of Simpson case and critics of the verdict are manipulating the evidence in an effort to support their aboding racist beliefs.

Let’s start with the 2nd trial. Given the slanted media coverage, it is amazing that Simpson was exonerated during the initial trial. What can be said? What can be said is that the majority of whites considered Simpson guilty without hearing the totality of the evidence. Whatdoes this mean? It means that the jury in the 2nd trial may well have been bias before rendering its verdict. It means that the jurors in the first trial, having been sequestered and not exposed to prevailing media , we’re probably better jurors.

Interesting, also, is that none of the critics mention the prosecutions opening gambit. In an effort to portray Simpson as an abusive and jealous husband, the prosecution turned to Detective Fuhrman. What happened?In the end, Fuhrman proved a profound internationally recognized disgrace to himself, to LAPD, to California’s and the national juris prudence establishment. An embarrassment it truly is that any self respecting attorney or citizen can criticize the Simpson verdict following the Fuhrman racist laced debacle.

Insofar as blood evidence is concern.  I will deal, here, with two points.  Granted, VanAtter, one detective, carried blood evidence to the Brentwood address. …and while Brentwood was not the original crime scene, it cannot be  dismissed as unrelated since Brentwood was the 

residence of the person charged with the crime. and from where numerous blood samples were taken. Furthermore after the supposed Bronco chase, shown nationally, Brentwood would have been the refuge for the accused. Sophistry! Sophistry and the jury looked straigh Let’s start with the 2nd trial. Given the slanted media coverage, it is amazing that Simpson was exonerated during the initial trial. What can be said? What can be said is that the majority of whites considered Simpson guilty without hearing the totality of the evidence. Whatdoes this mean? It means that the jury in the 2nd trial may well have been bias before rendering its verdict. It means that the jurors in the first trial, having been sequestered and not exposed to the prevailing media , we’re probably better jurors.

Interesting, also, is that none of the critics mention the prosecutions opening gambit. In an effort to tar Simpson as an abusive and jealous husband, the prosecution turned to Detective Fuhrman. What happened? Inthe end, Fuhrman proved a profound internationally recognized disgrace to himself, to LAPD, to California’s and the nation’s juris prudence establishment. An embarrassment it truly is that any self respecting attorney or citizen can criticize the Simpson verdict following the Fuhrman racist laced debacle.

Insofar as blood evidence is concern.  I will deal, here, with two points.  Granted, VanAtter, one detective, carried blood evidence to the Brentwood address. …and while Brentwood was not the original crime scene, it cannot be  dismissed as unrelated since Brentwood was the residence of the person charged with the crime. and after the supposed chase, shown nationally, the refuge for the accused. Sophistry! Sophistry and the jury looked straight through it.  The second point is testimony from the nurse.  The nurse only claimed the vial was full during an interview held in his home.  On this point, he did not take the stand.  He was not subject to cross examination.  BTW, the prosecution provided access to the blood evidence only after several appeals to the presiding judge, judge Ito. Sophistry, evasions, possibly outright lies. Can’t believe those who criticize the verdict in the OJ trial.  Can’t believe them.  Why? Sophistry. Cover up.  Lies.

Sophistry. The second point is testimony from the nurse. The nurse only claimed the vial containing Simpson’s blood was completely full said this during an interview held in his home. On this point, he did not take the stand. He was not subject to cross examination. Sophistry. Racist sophistry.

BTW, the prosecution provided access to the blood evidence only after several appeals by the defense , more sophistry, to the presiding judge, judge Ito.

Sophistry, evasions, possibly outright lies. Can’t believe those who criticize the verdict in the OJ trial. Can’t believe them. Sophistry. Racism. Lies. 2601:282:1F15:61:6D63:278B:7BA3:E380 (talk) 07:33, 24 October 2022 (UTC)