Originally Posted by DunesRunner08
Did the cops go a little overboard? Maybe....but he was hopped up on PCP and attacking them, they had to fight back, but you don't see when he got out of the car and attacked the cops, you don't see the one get layed out, you don't see him get knocked down and back up 3 times before the cops went to town on him, you just see the cops taking their swings because the press wanted to have their fun.....
as for OJ, he is guilty and everyone knows it, he was found innocent because of a good lawyer....that and a racists cop would messed everything up by tainting evidence so even the good evidence was thrown out of court
This isn't a racist forum, its a forum based on facts....if it was a white guy beat by black cops you would have seen the whole story, if it was a poor guy who killed his wife he would have been convicted....thats the truth
What about those infamous gloves? Given Mark Fuhrman's racism, his arrival at the crime scene (a place he had been before), his leading of the other detectives to OJ's Rockingham estate, his discovery alone in the dark of the bloody glove behind Kato's room (after talking to Kato, mind you), his discovery alone of blood on the Bronco, and his subsequent pleading of the fifth, it's beyond my imagination how anyone in their right mind would not have a lot of suspicion about this man's actions that night. He told Laura McKinney on the screenplay tapes (among his "N-word" references) that he was the case. That without him, the state didn't even have a case. How true, the glove he "found" at Rockingham, alone, in the dark, was a match for the other one found at the Bundy crime scene, true. The fact is, he had been alone there also, with plenty of time to take one of the gloves back to Rockingham and implicate OJ. The glove was "found" sitting alone without any disturbance around it, without any blood around it, without anything near it that would point to it being accidentally lost there during a violent collision with the wall. There were even intricate spider webs nearby, which were undisturbed. Later it was discovered that laying near the glove was a small blue plastic bag, the kind Mark Fuhrman and other LAPD detectives carried around to store (plant) evidence. Scientific tests on the glove done later, taking into account the precise weather on the night of June 12th, clearly show that at the time Fuhrman supposedly found the glove, a glove which was still wet with blood, it actually should've already dried. How was it possibly still wet unless it was "kept" inside some preserving container. A blue baggie?
In that same vein, it was Mark Fuhrman that "found" blood on the bronco driver's side door, leading the other detectives over to it. It was Mark Fuhrman who told the detectives about seeing blood smears inside the bronco before even entering it, yet those inside locations would later be
proven to be impossible to see from outside the vehicle. It was Mark Fuhrman who was tracking through the blood-soaked Bundy crime scene (along with Vanatter and Lang) just minutes before arriving at OJ's home and Bronco, a home and Bronco which would later show evidence of Ron and Nicole's blood. It wasn't possible for the Rockingham area to be suddenly corrupted as a clean evidence location? Especially if it is intentionally corrupted. Duh, Mark Fuhrman is not the sole problem with the blood evidence however, wherever it was found.
It is essential to note that all blood evidence in this case, I repeat ALL OF IT, was found in just three locations; at Bundy, at Rockingham, and in the Bronco. The LAPD and FBI painstakingly searched the route between Bundy and Rockingham, the areas surrounding both places for miles, the sewers of L.A., the limo, LAX airport, inside the plane, at the Chicago airport, for miles surrounding the hotel OJ was staying at in Chicago, miles of area around that hotel, inside the hotel room, etcetera. NOTHING! There is blood evidence found in only three locations. It doesn't take much of a brain to figure out how untrustful and suspicious any evidence is going to be in a case where a bloody crime scene is first visited by the investigators, who proceed directly to their prime suspect's place of residence. Jesus, it would be suspicious if there weren't any crime scene related blood evidence at OJ's estate.
What of the validity of the blood evidence itself? One of the biggest misconceptions about "OJ's blood" being found at Bundy is that in truth, his "blood" was not found there at all. His "DNA" was found there. It was found in a place where he had visited dozens, if not hundreds of times, where his kids (who had matching DNA profiles) played, and some of it contained EDTA, the preservative put in LAPD blood sample test tubes. Some of this "blood" was found weeks later, weeks after the whole area had been washed down. Some of this "blood" didn't even show up on police photographs of the crime scene taken that night. Finally, every single supposed drop of "OJ's blood" found at Bundy had almost no DNA in it. Hmmmmmmm, add to all of this the fact that lead detective Phillip Vanatter broke all police procedures by actually taking OJ's blood sample to Bundy and to Rockingham (and perhaps the Bronco also, which was in police custody). Later, it was discovered that he also visited the morgue itself where he gathered "samples" of Nicole and Ron's blood, again taking same to Bundy and Rockingham. Add to this the numerous unexplained anomalies of each and every evidence sample, mysterious appearing and disappearing blood, highly suspect and contaminated lab procedures, plus a host of other issues, and little by little, the trail leads away from OJ, not to him. This is a "mountain of evidence?" No. It is garbage in, and garbage out.
Though I don't have the space or time here, not all of the physical evidence in fact, cannot be trusted. In fact, every single piece of it is not beyond at least a reasonable doubt, if not something much more sinister. Both in the hearts and souls of those who investigated and prosecuted this case, as well as us, the general public, who have reacted to it in the ways we have.