The Inside Assyria Discussion Forum #5

=> OJ's Glove

OJ's Glove
Posted by pancho (Moderator) - Sunday, July 31 2016, 18:50:13 (UTC)
from *** - *** Mexico - Windows NT - Mozilla
Website:
Website title:

People forget that for the first half of the trial, lasting almost a year, all we heard was the prosecutions "theories" and interpretations of what THEY called the evidence...only after the entire country was filled with every "proof" of OJ's guilt that the defense began dismantling the evidence presented...and for most people it didn't matter anyway...just another case of lawyer tricks etc.

The glove was bought by his wife, not by OJ....everyone blames Chris Darden, a Black man and prosecutor, who knew he was being used for "balance" for asking OJ to try the glove on...and of course it didn't fit because it wasn't OJ's.

But, that's not fair to Darden...once the prosecution entered the gloves into evidence SOMEONE was going to ask OJ to try them on...if the prosecution hadn't done it OJ's lawyers would have...they had to...they couldn't just allow the jury to ASSUME, on the prosecutions say-so, that they were OJ's gloves....so, is that a little more rascism aimed at a Black prosecutor? Like he was the one who blew the case and not the whites who outnumbered him on that case?

Watching the documentary I'm struck by how many times the whites say "just look at the evidence"...but that was the problem...it isn't that the drop of blood found on the gate at Nicole's house WASN'T Oj's...no one was disputing that...what was the more important point was that in a photo taken three weeks before the photo of the same gate WITH the drop of blood, the earlier photos shows NO drop of blood.

When you add that to the other detective, Vanatter's, inability to explain why, out of all the cases or such crimes where he or other cops have gathered blood evidence, he drove around for a week with a vial of OJ's blood IN HIS CAR...you can wonder.... When asked if he'd ever done that before, he said "never"...when asked if OJ's was the only time he had done that, he said "yes"...when asked why in OJ's case he did such a thing...he shrugged his shoulders and made no reply.

But none of that mattered to white people who were convinced that when a Black man is accused, or born, he is guilty.

And then a prosecutor said how could Furhman planted the glove if he didn't know at the time what OJ's alibis might be. How did he know that OJ hadn't been in church or a bar with hundreds of witnesses....okay, then why would Fuhrman ever have lied to the court when he said he NEVER used the word "Nigger"...ever! Why would he take such a risk when he knew he had used that word several times in a TAPED interview? Why would he be so blatant, so obvious...and such a liar? Why indeed.



---------------------


The full topic:



***



Powered by RedKernel V.S. Forum 1.2.b9