If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Daily Mail)   Fred Goldman says that OJ's lawyer Robert Kardashian had evidence that would have easily convicted OJ of the murders of Goldman's son and Nicole Brown   (dailymail.co.uk) divider line 136
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

12386 clicks; posted to Main » on 10 Jun 2014 at 9:09 AM (28 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



136 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-06-10 10:25:03 AM  
"I'm not sayin' that OJ should have killed Nichole, but I understand."
 
2014-06-10 10:29:24 AM  
OJ later wrote a book called something like "IF I did it". I'm pretty sure it was pulled out of circulation but I did find an internet copy of it and read it. If you can locate it, it's totally worth reading. In short, it seems to be nothing short of a confession.
 
2014-06-10 10:33:17 AM  

Repack Rider: The investigation was handled adequately.  The proof was there, he was guilty beyond any doubt.  Any of a dozen pieces of evidence alone should have convicted him.  Fuhrman did an exemplary job, and that was his mistake.  In order to free OJ, Fuhrman had to be destroyed, because the evidence he had found was irrefutable.  So a good officer had his career destroyed to save a murderer.


Being tape recorded saying the N-word and then lying about it on the stand is your definition of a good police officer?  As the current owner of the Clippers has also found out, being recorded on tape being a racist douche bag is never a good idea.

Now, admittedly, maybe such testimony shouldn't have been allowed in the first place, with the blame lying on the judge and prosecution here.

The defense did their job-getting their client off.  The prosecution didn't.
 
2014-06-10 10:35:11 AM  

JackieRabbit: "I'm not sayin' that OJ should have killed Nichole, but I understand."


You do? Because that would make you a really farked-up person.

/I know, it's a "joke."
//Worst joke ever. Fark you, Chris Rock.
 
2014-06-10 10:35:40 AM  

cig-mkr: Just me but, I always thought that O J was found innocent only because a few years earlier a jury in the Rodney King case let some white cop off the hook which resulted in the six day long LA riots ( 50+ dead, 2300+ injured and a billion dollars in property damages)
The jury was afraid of another riot, and personal safety, and decided finding OJ not guilty was the easy way out.
I do remember that the LAPD at the time had a really bad relationship with the black community.
/ just my feeling at the time.


And the people most hit by these riots? Poor blacks, Hispanics, and Korean shop owners. Congrats on sticking it to the man
 
2014-06-10 10:36:24 AM  

Hiro-ACiD: karmaceutical: I think the legal stand of "reasonable doubt" needs to be revisited.  People, on the whole, are much more stupid now than they were a hundred years ago.


Oh do tell us more Ron, your moustache is so angsty.

/mercury & lead childhood poisonings vs 100 years ago
//science biatches


jIt isn't that people are stupider today. It is more complex than that. People ARE smarter in anlot of ways, but often not as smart as they think they are because the "knowledge" came from the TV shows and movies they watched and took as gospel no matter how much Hollywood bullshiat was mixed in. Also many of them confuse the burden of proof requirements as "beyond a shadow of a doubt" instead of "beyond a REASONABLE doubt" which are two different things.
 
2014-06-10 10:36:26 AM  

cig-mkr: The jury was afraid of another riot, and personal safety, and decided finding OJ not guilty was the easy way out.


Nah, some members of the jury were just stupid.  There was evidence that the blood samples matched OJ's DNA.  One jury member post-verdict said "Lots of people have the same blood type", indicating a complete misunderstanding of DNA matching.
 
2014-06-10 10:38:20 AM  

cryinoutloud: JackieRabbit: "I'm not sayin' that OJ should have killed Nichole, but I understand."

You do? Because that would make you a really farked-up person.

/I know, it's a "joke."
//Worst joke ever. Fark you, Chris Rock.


I'm sure there are worse jokes out there, but it was pretty lame. I can understand the mental processes that might lead to such an act, but I certainly don't "get it".
 
2014-06-10 10:42:52 AM  

fireclown: dryknife: Kardashian was a big ass?

[www.chinola.net image 850x740]
/what a Kardashian ass might look like.


That's a balcony you could recite Shakespeare off of. - Porgy Tirebiter Rand Paul
 
2014-06-10 10:44:22 AM  

Brick-House: 20 years later... and OJ is doing a very long stretch for some minor thing... why do we care again?


Stretching a minor?
fl1.findlaw.com
 
2014-06-10 10:47:12 AM  
Robert Kardashian, OJ Simpson's trusted confidant and member of his "Dream Team" of lawyers, carried away evidence in a suitcase from the former footballer's home the night his ex-wife Nicole Brown-Simpson and her friend Ron Goldman were viciously stabbed to death - and took the secret of where it is to his grave.

 Well, that's awfully convenient.

cig-mkr: Just me but, I always thought that O J was found innocent only because a few years earlier a jury in the Rodney King case let some white cop off the hook which resulted in the six day long LA riots ( 50+ dead, 2300+ injured and a billion dollars in property damages)
The jury was afraid of another riot, and personal safety, and decided finding OJ not guilty was the easy way out.
I do remember that the LAPD at the time had a really bad relationship with the black community.
/ just my feeling at the time.


Regardless of what the jury felt, the LAPD dropped the ball by turning the crime scene and the Bronco into sideshows. DNA evidence is worthless when you don't control the scene and anyone could have planted it there, regardless of if they ACTUALLY planted it there. I would say that if there was any doubt, the jury would err on the side of caution...
 
2014-06-10 10:47:57 AM  

dragyne: He seems to be descending into madness before our very eyes.

 ArkAngel: Defense attorneys are required to turn over any evidence in their possession to the prosecution for testing. Not doing so is a charge of obstruction.

Negative. Burden of proof is always on the prosecution.  If they miss something in their investigation that is on them.


Correct, but the defense can't hide, move, tamper with, or in any other way assist with the concealment of the evidence.
 
2014-06-10 10:48:17 AM  

syrynxx: Nah, some members of the jury were just stupid.  There was evidence that the blood samples matched OJ's DNA.  One jury member post-verdict said "Lots of people have the same blood type", indicating a complete misunderstanding of DNA matching.


Then the prosecution should have explained it better.
 
KIA
2014-06-10 10:48:40 AM  
A lot of evidence was excluded from the criminal trial that came in during the civil trial. Examples: OJ had a long straight cut on the back if his left hand when police caught him. They didn't document it but later said it looked like a knife cut. OJ said he knocked over a glass in the bathroom and cut himself cleaning it up. How does one cut oneself on the back if knees hand picking up broken glass?

The Bruno Malia shoes which OJ denied ever wearing were finally found in a photo which showed OJ wearing the exact pair that matched all of the footprints.

Blood on the Explorer in several places, blood in the shower drain, there was a ton of stuff. Read "Triumph of Justice" bu Daniel Petrocelli, one if the civil case attorneys. It's fascinating.
 
KIA
2014-06-10 10:51:56 AM  
Ugh. Stupid auto correct, sorry.
 
2014-06-10 10:52:04 AM  

Jiro Dreams Of McRibs: The BBC had a documentary about OJ's son being the murderer. They also blamed the killings on a very prolific serial killer active at the time.

The son almost makes sense as he would have been covered for by his father. Maybe a deal was worked out during the slow chase.

Nah....OJ killed them.


Of COURSE he didn't do it. He was innocent, the jury said so. And he vowed he would find the real killer. He worked very hard doing that, searching many of the most prestigious golf courses in the world. And when THAT failed he intentionally got himself arrested so he could look in prison where there are LOTS of killers. In short, Ron... LEAVE O. J. ALONE!!!!! :'(
 
2014-06-10 10:52:09 AM  

vudukungfu: fireclown: dryknife: Kardashian was a big ass?

[www.chinola.net image 850x740]
/what a Kardashian ass might look like.

I bet she rips farts like a long haul trucker.


img.fark.net

You don't say....
 
2014-06-10 10:53:56 AM  

Nabb1: The prosecutors had enough evidence to easily convict OJ, but they botched it all to Hell and back.

, but none of that mattered and neither would have any other evidence presented, no matter how incriminating, because this verdict was revenge for the Rodney King verdict.

FTFY
 
2014-06-10 10:55:43 AM  
Did the OBVIOUS tag not fit?
 
2014-06-10 10:55:53 AM  
Alright, CSB, but I heard this story during a break in a deposition I was in with an attorney who worked with Cochran, but apparently the whole trying-on-the-glove disaster was because F. Lee Bailey goaded Christopher Darden into it. The defense team had discussed the issue of the gloves and Cochran said there was no way Darden was dumb enough to have OJ put the gloves on because there was too much risk that they might not fit after months in the evidence room. Bailey actually bet Cochran he could make Darden do it. On their way to court that morning, outside the elevator, Bailey asks Darden (knowing the gloves will be introduced in evidence that day) if he is going to get OJ to try them on, and Darden says most likely not, and F. Lee Bailey said to him, "Yeah, Johnny thought you would, but I told him you didn't have the balls God gave a titmouse to pull something like that." And we all know what happened that day.
 
2014-06-10 10:56:33 AM  
And we have OJ to thank for the fact that we now have the KardASSSSSSSSSSians splattered across our TV's...
 
2014-06-10 10:57:00 AM  

drivingsouth: [i.dailymail.co.uk image 468x306]

I don't think anyone was as surprised at the verdict more than Kardashian.


Everytime I see a Kardashian I wonder how a father THAT ugly could have a hand in producing non-ugly children.  I also think its because of O.J. that we had the Kardashians heaped upon us.
 
2014-06-10 10:57:26 AM  

Mugato: Mateorocks: drivingsouth: [i.dailymail.co.uk image 468x306]

I don't think anyone was as surprised at the verdict more than Kardashian.

That's exactly how I remember it, too. Dude looked completely aghast when the verdict was read that morning.

He looks more shocked than this but it's the best still I could find. Only the video does it justice (no pun intended).

[www.cnn.com image 258x240]

So if OJ hadn't killed those people, would we not have the Kardashians foisted upon us or was it inevitable?


Not sure, but I lean toward the former. Vanity Fair had an interesting article about how OJ begat the Kardashians, Real Housewives and the Hills. For that reason alone, he should have been executed.
 
2014-06-10 11:01:14 AM  

ArkAngel: Defense attorneys are required to turn over any evidence in their possession to the prosecution for testing. Not doing so is a charge of obstruction.


goldman isn't claiming some evidence just fell in kardashian's lap unknowingly or accidentally.

goldman is claiming kardashian intentionally tampered.
 
2014-06-10 11:16:37 AM  
OJ is responsible for at least one of the Kardashians, i'm pretty sure the one with the enormous chin is actually his kid.
 
2014-06-10 11:16:40 AM  

WhyKnot: dragyne: He seems to be descending into madness before our very eyes.

 ArkAngel: Defense attorneys are required to turn over any evidence in their possession to the prosecution for testing. Not doing so is a charge of obstruction.

Negative. Burden of proof is always on the prosecution.  If they miss something in their investigation that is on them.

Correct, but the defense can't hide, move, tamper with, or in any other way assist with the concealment of the evidence.


Exactly- if a defense attorney comes into possession of physical evidence they have to turn it over and almost always will have to withdraw as counsel because of a conflict of interest and the attorney witness rule.  If they know of the whereabouts of evidence, they have to maintain attorney client privilege if they learned about it through their client and keep silent.  If they learn about it through a third party they have to keep silent as well but can not advise anyone to destroy, alter or otherwise tamper with it.
 
2014-06-10 11:16:50 AM  

bluorangefyre: Everytime I see a Kardashian I wonder how a father THAT ugly could have a hand in producing non-ugly children


Hmmmm, maybe you need better glasses? I mean, I think those girls are just as ugly as the dad (and fat, too).
 
2014-06-10 11:17:42 AM  

Nabb1: Alright, CSB, but I heard this story during a break in a deposition I was in with an attorney who worked with Cochran, but apparently the whole trying-on-the-glove disaster was because F. Lee Bailey goaded Christopher Darden into it. The defense team had discussed the issue of the gloves and Cochran said there was no way Darden was dumb enough to have OJ put the gloves on because there was too much risk that they might not fit after months in the evidence room. Bailey actually bet Cochran he could make Darden do it. On their way to court that morning, outside the elevator, Bailey asks Darden (knowing the gloves will be introduced in evidence that day) if he is going to get OJ to try them on, and Darden says most likely not, and F. Lee Bailey said to him, "Yeah, Johnny thought you would, but I told him you didn't have the balls God gave a titmouse to pull something like that." And we all know what happened that day.



"Alright now, just leave me the hell out of this!"

birds.audubon.org
 
2014-06-10 11:20:55 AM  

This text is now purple: Shame the LAPD had to try to frame a guilty man.


In the LAPD's defense, they frame everyone.
 
2014-06-10 11:24:20 AM  

SlothB77: ArkAngel: Defense attorneys are required to turn over any evidence in their possession to the prosecution for testing. Not doing so is a charge of obstruction.

goldman isn't claiming some evidence just fell in kardashian's lap unknowingly or accidentally.

goldman is claiming kardashian intentionally tampered.


I'm curious how Mr. Goldman comes to the conclusion that Kardashian concealed evidence of a crime that had not been committed yet.  Unless he had OJ's to do list for the next day with "kill ex and Ron Goldman" on it, I think that a justifiably angry and bitter father of a murdered son is just striking out in anger and nothing more.  I think that anger and understandable irrationality comes through the rest of his claims about the prosecution, the LAPD and most definitely through his complaints about the change of venue and Judge Ito.
 
2014-06-10 11:29:32 AM  

Nabb1: Alright, CSB, but I heard this story during a break in a deposition I was in with an attorney who worked with Cochran, but apparently the whole trying-on-the-glove disaster was because F. Lee Bailey goaded Christopher Darden into it. The defense team had discussed the issue of the gloves and Cochran said there was no way Darden was dumb enough to have OJ put the gloves on because there was too much risk that they might not fit after months in the evidence room. Bailey actually bet Cochran he could make Darden do it. On their way to court that morning, outside the elevator, Bailey asks Darden (knowing the gloves will be introduced in evidence that day) if he is going to get OJ to try them on, and Darden says most likely not, and F. Lee Bailey said to him, "Yeah, Johnny thought you would, but I told him you didn't have the balls God gave a titmouse to pull something like that." And we all know what happened that day.


That's just like the Seinfeld episode.
 
2014-06-10 11:32:02 AM  

NotoriousW.O.P: Not sure, but I lean toward the former. Vanity Fair had an interesting article about how OJ begat the Kardashians, Real Housewives and the Hills. For that reason alone, he should have been executed.


Yeah, now I'm really pissed he killed those people.
 
2014-06-10 11:35:45 AM  
I really couldn't beleive the way they went after Mark Fuhrman, just for slipping up and using A Word That Must Not Be Said.
 
2014-06-10 11:36:22 AM  

ArkAngel: cig-mkr: Just me but, I always thought that O J was found innocent only because a few years earlier a jury in the Rodney King case let some white cop off the hook which resulted in the six day long LA riots ( 50+ dead, 2300+ injured and a billion dollars in property damages)
The jury was afraid of another riot, and personal safety, and decided finding OJ not guilty was the easy way out.
I do remember that the LAPD at the time had a really bad relationship with the black community.
/ just my feeling at the time.

And the people most hit by these riots? Poor blacks, Hispanics, and

Korean shop owners. Congrats on sticking it to the man

Actually the Korean shop owners took up arms, shotguns and rifles, and went to the rooftops to protect their stores when the police pulled out of Koreatown.
 
2014-06-10 11:40:57 AM  
I still have a lurking suspicion that it was the limo driver, and OJ was just an angry idiot who did all the wrong things when he found the bodies.

I know this seems irrational, but I remember watching the trial and getting a killer vibe from the limo driver.

Either way, I'd still trade OJ for the entire Kardashian clan. I think he has done less evil than they have, even if he is a murderer.
 
2014-06-10 11:41:30 AM  
i111.photobucket.com
 
2014-06-10 11:44:37 AM  

fireclown: dryknife: Kardashian was a big ass?

[www.chinola.net image 850x740]
/what a Kardashian ass might look like with a ton of plastic surgery.

youthleaderstash.com
 
905
2014-06-10 11:53:28 AM  
cig-mkr: The jury was afraid of another riot, and personal safety, and decided finding OJ not guilty was the easy way out.

Nah, some members of the jury were just stupid.  There was evidence that the blood samples matched OJ's DNA.  One jury member post-verdict said "Lots of people have the same blood type", indicating a complete misunderstanding of DNA matching.


Twenty years ago, DNA matching was still considered "medical sorcery" in the eyes of the general public.  They could grasp the idea of blood type matching and fingerprint matching, but as a forensic science, I think DNA "fingerprinting" had only been around since the mid '80's and not very much in the public eye as it is today.
 
2014-06-10 11:56:08 AM  

drivingsouth: I just clicked on the link.F Lee Bailey is still alive? I thought he died about 10 years ago.


Shhh. Nobody told him. A zombie F Lee Bailey is a better lawyer than most entire law firms.
 
2014-06-10 11:56:11 AM  

syrynxx: cig-mkr: The jury was afraid of another riot, and personal safety, and decided finding OJ not guilty was the easy way out.

Nah, some members of the jury were just stupid.  There was evidence that the blood samples matched OJ's DNA.  One jury member post-verdict said "Lots of people have the same blood type", indicating a complete misunderstanding of DNA matching.


Or an inability of the prosecution to explain DNA matching to someone with an education track that may have stopped in the 6th grade.
 
2014-06-10 12:04:59 PM  

Geotpf: Repack Rider: The investigation was handled adequately.  The proof was there, he was guilty beyond any doubt.  Any of a dozen pieces of evidence alone should have convicted him.  Fuhrman did an exemplary job, and that was his mistake.  In order to free OJ, Fuhrman had to be destroyed, because the evidence he had found was irrefutable.  So a good officer had his career destroyed to save a murderer.

Being tape recorded saying the N-word and then lying about it on the stand is your definition of a good police officer?  As the current owner of the Clippers has also found out, being recorded on tape being a racist douche bag is never a good idea.

Now, admittedly, maybe such testimony shouldn't have been allowed in the first place, with the blame lying on the judge and prosecution here.

The defense did their job-getting their client off.  The prosecution didn't.


It was an interview he had almost 10 years prior. Do you remember everything you said 10 years ago?
 
2014-06-10 12:11:06 PM  

MyRandomName: Geotpf: Repack Rider: The investigation was handled adequately.  The proof was there, he was guilty beyond any doubt.  Any of a dozen pieces of evidence alone should have convicted him.  Fuhrman did an exemplary job, and that was his mistake.  In order to free OJ, Fuhrman had to be destroyed, because the evidence he had found was irrefutable.  So a good officer had his career destroyed to save a murderer.

Being tape recorded saying the N-word and then lying about it on the stand is your definition of a good police officer?  As the current owner of the Clippers has also found out, being recorded on tape being a racist douche bag is never a good idea.

Now, admittedly, maybe such testimony shouldn't have been allowed in the first place, with the blame lying on the judge and prosecution here.

The defense did their job-getting their client off.  The prosecution didn't.

It was an interview he had almost 10 years prior. Do you remember everything you said 10 years ago?


Considering the content of the interview, I'd think I would remember.

Of course, I also wouldn't have had made the statements in the interview that Fuhrman had.

As a legal matter, however, I think the judge should have excluded the tape and that whole line of questioning as not relevant to the trial at hand.
 
2014-06-10 12:13:12 PM  

JDJoeE: syrynxx: cig-mkr: The jury was afraid of another riot, and personal safety, and decided finding OJ not guilty was the easy way out.

Nah, some members of the jury were just stupid.  There was evidence that the blood samples matched OJ's DNA.  One jury member post-verdict said "Lots of people have the same blood type", indicating a complete misunderstanding of DNA matching.

Or an inability of the prosecution to explain DNA matching to someone with an education track that may have stopped in the 6th grade.


But being a juror is an honored duty in our society.  Professionals of all stripes anxiously await their notices to serve each and every year, and everybody makes sure that they clear off their schedule to serve on a jury. Businesses give full pay and benefits to those chosen for this duty. How could they have not found 12 intelligent men and women willing to serve on this most sacred trust?
 
2014-06-10 12:19:44 PM  

dpzum1: And we have OJ to thank for the fact that we now have the KardASSSSSSSSSSians splattered across our TV's...


I think that's the greater crime.
 
2014-06-10 12:22:56 PM  

pueblonative: But being a juror is an honored duty in our society.  Professionals of all stripes anxiously await their notices to serve each and every year, and everybody makes sure that they clear off their schedule to serve on a jury. Businesses give full pay and benefits to those chosen for this duty. How could they have not found 12 intelligent men and women willing to serve on this most sacred trust?


The only people who serve on juries are the ones too stupid to get out of it.
 
2014-06-10 12:27:51 PM  

Mugato: pueblonative: But being a juror is an honored duty in our society.  Professionals of all stripes anxiously await their notices to serve each and every year, and everybody makes sure that they clear off their schedule to serve on a jury. Businesses give full pay and benefits to those chosen for this duty. How could they have not found 12 intelligent men and women willing to serve on this most sacred trust?

The only people who serve on juries are the ones too stupid to get out of it.


So rewrite the sixth Amendment and be done with it.
 
2014-06-10 12:31:44 PM  

pueblonative: The only people who serve on juries are the ones too stupid to get out of it.


So rewrite the sixth Amendment and be done with it.


Nah, I doubt lawyers on either side want smart jurors.
 
2014-06-10 12:34:36 PM  

pueblonative: But being a juror is an honored duty in our society. Professionals of all stripes anxiously await their notices to serve each and every year, and everybody makes sure that they clear off their schedule to serve on a jury. Businesses give full pay and benefits to those chosen for this duty. How could they have not found 12 intelligent men and women willing to serve on this most sacred trust?


It amazes me that the only two groups of people absolutely essential to a criminal trial are the only two groups not paid to be there.
 
2014-06-10 12:35:50 PM  

Mugato: pueblonative: The only people who serve on juries are the ones too stupid to get out of it.


So rewrite the sixth Amendment and be done with it.

Nah, I doubt lawyers on either side want smart jurors.


I believe our society consists of more than just lawyers. Reform jury service to make it more worthwhile and stiffen penalties for non service or replace juries with a three judge system with one judge having at least ten years defending criminal clients.
 
2014-06-10 12:36:00 PM  
Was the Bronco ride a distraction for the police for OJ's friends and family to remove evidence from the house?  Does an innocent man go on the Bronco ride and hold a gun to his own head for hours?  I remember when the verdict came out and how my office was so split... the African-Americans were cheering and high-fiving and the rest of us stood there in shock, like Kardashian.    Yes, the black community and the LA Riots influenced the verdict.  The whole thing is one big cluser fark.
 
Displayed 50 of 136 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report