Also listen to what Judge Joe Brown has to say about the trial below.
@truthcontroversy #truthcontroversy ♬ original sound – TruthControversy
I personally don’t know what to believe anymore. Was he totally framed or did he really do it?
Famed attorney Alan Dershowitz is also saying something similar. Read Below.
By ALAN DERSHOWITZ FOR DAILYMAIL.COM
PUBLISHED: 13:19 EDT, 12 April 2024 | UPDATED: 14:30 EDT, 12 April 2024
If OJ Simpson is standing before the Angel Gabriel today – he may have a challenging case to make if this heavenly judge is as skeptical as most Americans.
But decades ago, in earthly court, he was rightly acquitted.
To the ‘armchair lawyers’ who say the verdict in the so-called ‘Trial of the Century’ was a miscarriage of justice, I simply say: you don’t understand the law.
In the American justice system, guilt is not determined by the subjective morality of the public, but by the objective presentation of evidence and the establishment of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
As a member of OJ’s defense team, I was able to persausively make the case that some of the evidence against him had been fabricated by Los Angeles Police Department officers.
Now, that doesn’t prove that OJ was innocent. But it does illuminate the reasoning behind the jury’s legitimate decision.
Of course, as OJ’s former lawyer, it would be unethical for me to reveal my personal views of his guilt or innocence.
To the armchair lawyers who say the verdict in the so-called Trial of the Century was a miscarriage of justice, I simply say: you don’t understand the law.
Now, that doesn’t prove that OJ was innocent. But it does illuminate the reasoning behind the jury’s legitimate decision.
TRENDING
What I can say is that there was evidence of guilt, especially DNA evidence.
At trial, the police claimed they found a blood-soaked sock near the bed in his murdered ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson’s home. DNA analysis indicated that some of that blood came from OJ – purportedly placing the former football star at the scene of the crime.
However, defense experts found that the blood was contaminated by the chemical Ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA).
EDTA is not present in the human body. It is an additive used in labs to prevent coagulation of blood samples. Its presence suggested the blood has been applied to the sock after it was collected by police.
Furthermore, professional ‘splatter analysis’ showed the blood could have been poured on the sock while it was lying flat, rather than having been sprayed on while it was being worn.
It was arguable then that the bloody sock had been planted by police in a potential attempt to ‘frame’ OJ – and that revelation shattered the prosecution.
If OJ had been an ordinary black defendant, who couldn’t afford a high-priced defense team, perhaps he would have been sent to prison. That’s why I take pro-bono legal cases – to make sure that my legal talents are spread evenly between the poor and the wealthy.
It is also why our defense team accepted a predominately black jury – including nine black women – who were likely to be more willing than white people to believe that police would be so unscrupulous.
LAPD racism was a fact of life for people living in Los Angeles at the time. Several years earlier, the acquittal of police officers involved in the beating of African-American Rodney King shocked that community and incited deadly and destructive riots. Of course, police misconduct was on the jurors’ minds.
The second most significant piece of evidence in the trial was the blood-stained glove – allegedly found by LAPD detective Mark Fuhrman at OJ’s estate – which matched a glove found at Nicole Brown Simpson’s home.
That ‘proof’ was compromised both by the emergence of recordings of Fuhrman using racist slurs and, most crucially, by the prosecution’s own blundering.
Under California law, state prosecutor Marcia Clark could have required OJ to first try on the glove outside of the presence of the jury. Then, she could have decided if she wanted to present the evidence in open court. But in her arrogance, she skipped this crucial step.
1995: Moment OJ Simpson is found ‘not guilty’ in double murder trial
DNA analysis indicated that some of the blood on the sock came from OJ. However, defense experts found that the blood was contaminated by the chemical Ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA).
Under California law, state prosecutor Marcia Clark could have required OJ to first try on the glove outside of the presence of the jury. Then, she could have decided if she wanted to present the evidence in open court. But in her arrogance, she skipped this crucial step.
I was sitting near the defense team table when OJ walked up to the juror box and struggled to fit the glove over his hand, remarking ‘it’s too small.’
Not only did that pivotal moment give the jury another reason to question to veracity of the evidence, but it eliminated the need for OJ to take the stand in his own defense.
He had addressed the jurors without being sworn in and free of any cross-examination. Why would the defense then subject him to an interrogation?
In fact, whether OJ should take the witness stand was a subject of deep division within our so-called ‘Dream Team,’ which was more of a nightmare roiled by internal conflict.
Legendary lawyer, F. Lee Bailey was adamant that OJ should testify, but I was just as steadfast against it. After OJ wrestled with the gloves the matter was settled.
That decision was validated later when OJ testified in his civil trial. He was quickly found liable for the murders based on largely the same evidence – though, obviously, on a lower standard of proof.
But back in 1995, the jurors heard the case as I have described. So, I’d ask all those who say the verdict was a miscarriage of justice: would they have convicted a man based on faked evidence?
In the law, the end does not justify the means.
Corrupted evidence doesn’t prove that OJ was innocent, but it does help explain how the jurors reached their decision.
This paradox is difficult for some to accept, but it is an entirely proper one under a legal system that requires a proper process to determine guilt to be found beyond