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 (27 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 12:45:40 PM  

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.


**eyeroll**
 
2014-06-10 12:49:09 PM  

Mugato: 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.



This.
 
2014-06-10 12:50:49 PM  
This will be an embarassing stain on the fine, honorable name of Kardashian.
 
2014-06-10 01:08:56 PM  

gfid: 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.

not sure if serious, but you have it backwards.  It's the prosecution that has to turn over any evidence to the defense


Yes, but deliberately hindering prosecution is a bit different:

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
 
2014-06-10 01:28:38 PM  

pueblonative: Hope living as a bitter old man fascinating about prison rape is worth it, Freddie. Ain't gonna bring back your son.


Yeah, I mean, we are all angry that the Kardashian girls are famous, but, give it a rest Fred.
 
2014-06-10 01:35:46 PM  
So Goldman waited 20 years to reveal this? Does he have a 20th Anniversary book coming out about the murders or something?
 
2014-06-10 01:39:07 PM  
ts2.mm.bing.net
Mr. Goldman
 
2014-06-10 01:39:33 PM  
Whole reason for the "article" is about 6 paragraphs up from the bottom:

"His daughter Kim, 42, is doing well. She just published a book, 'My 20-year battle with O.J. Simpson... Can't Forgive' "
 
2014-06-10 01:52:59 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've watched peremptory challenges used to dump college grads and well-spoken professionals. I've seen an obvious meth-head and various other dingbats empaneled. Suffice it to say, I share your doubts.
 
2014-06-10 01:56:44 PM  

Already Disturbed: Stretching a minor?


Funny thing, if they had given Jackson a long prison term he would still be alive.

Goldman said he KNEW OJ was raped in prison not he thought OJ was raped. To me that sounds more like he paid someone to fark him not that he was fantasizing about it.

Kardashian hid or destroyed the clothes and shoes OJ had been wearing the night of the murder, the socks had already been found by police. The news stations at the time pretty much said that's what had happened it's not like any of this is a secret at all.

They went to the airport with 3 bags and came back with 2, does not take a genius to figure out what happened.
 
2014-06-10 02:02:40 PM  
Go back over the newsreel clips and you will clearly see Kardashian striding down OJ's driveway right past the cops, a briefcase in one hand, a clothing bag slung over his shoulder.
 
2014-06-10 02:05:54 PM  

fireclown: dryknife: Kardashian was a big ass?

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


Look, I know she's a horrible human being, but GOT DAMN I want to do dirty nasty things to dat ass.

weknowmemes.com
 
2014-06-10 02:08:32 PM  

KIA: 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.


Then it might as well not have been there.

It's like science:  If you didn't write it down, it didn't happen.  You arrest someone and you don't document their injuries?  That's pretty farkin' stupid.

CSB:  I got arrested once*.  The guy they were processing next to me had a cut on his thumb with a couple of stitches in it.  The cop documented it, and pointedly asked him if it was caused by the police (it wasn't).  And that was for some piddly misdemeanor-type arrest.


*Long story short:  I was supposed to go to court for a speeding ticket, but the company command in my unit didn't notify me of the date and time.  So I didn't go.  Which the court took a dim view on.  It got straightened out, but not before I got the shiat scared out of me.
 
2014-06-10 02:08:47 PM  
Wasn't the judge in the case absolutely horrible too?  I recall him being the focus of a lot of hate for his rulings and antics.
 
2014-06-10 02:12:29 PM  

oryx: I don't see what difference more evidence would have made. The verdict was a result of jury nullification and incompetent prosecution. The jury wanted to find OJ not guilty and the blunders the prosecution made gave them an out.


Other than not having a clear, well-produced film of OJ actually performing the deed, they shouldn't have had too many problems with evidence.  Many people have been (rightly) convicted with much less.  The defense questioning absolutely everything sowed enough seeds of doubt in the jury.  I don't know whether the jury wanted to find them guilty, but the prosecution allowed those seeds of doubt to grow.  It may just be that the prosecution being seen as really arrogant and presenting to their egos and not to the jury knocked them out.  I remember being on a jury where the prosecutor was just such a dick that at least half the people were saying "well, yeah, this guy clearly is guilty, but man, I wish there was a way to say what a prick that prosecutor is...."
 
2014-06-10 02:13:37 PM  

thefatbasturd: 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.


That was my point.  The standard for "reasonable" has changed a lot of the years, towards the absurd.  I didn't want to interupt Hiro-ACiD's petulant and non-sensical tantrum, though.
 
2014-06-10 02:18:19 PM  

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.


Irrefutable?  Really?  Okay, then explain the following to me:

1)  The killer removes a blood-soaked glove and drops it at the scene.
2)  The killer then opens a vehicle door, drives across town, gets out and closes the door, all with that one, ungloved hand (which he hopes doesn't have blood on it).
3)  The killer then decides to remove the other glove and drop it behind OJ's house.

Why not drop BOTH gloves at the scene?  Did he wear the other one all the way home, or have it stuffed in a pocket (without leaving trace evidence in the vehicle)?  Why drop it behind the house?  Why not take it inside and run it down the garbage disposal, or cut it up and flush it away?  Why not give it to Kardashian with the other bloody clothes he allegedly got rid of that night?

The incongruity of the gloves raises reasonable doubt in my mind.  I'm not saying OJ didn't do it, but I'm not buying the "he dropped one at the scene and one at home" story.  We know police have planted evidence to get a quick conviction, so why not in such a high-profile case as this?  Plant the glove, plant blood evidence in the car and on the fence behind OJ's house.  It would take just one cop to do that.
 
2014-06-10 03:05:30 PM  
FTFA: 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.

Where does Goldman get this information from?  And the whole "OJ was raped" thing.  He has CI's in prison?  How did he know to just call up the DA and say "was OJ raped?"  And the DA just sort of "winks" at him through the phone?  The whole thing sounds idiotic.  Fred Goldman is a douche who needs to just shut the fark up and go away.
 
2014-06-10 03:16:25 PM  
When the Simpson team brought in Gerald Uleman (sp?) from the Santa Clara University law school I knew that they were sure OJ would be convicted.  Uleman made a career of being an anti death penalty "expert witness" and had a pretty good record arguing against the death penalty in trials. Being a strict Roman Catholic in regards to anything even remotely connected to "anti life."  Including the sale of contraceptives at drug stores near the school didn't hurt his stature with the team either.

/Sister-in-law was a student there at the time of the trial
//Uleman staged a mock debate every year with someone who was pro death penalty or pro abortion or pro contraception and made it so he would always win.
///Three slashies today
 
KIA
2014-06-10 03:38:41 PM  

indy_kid: 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.

Irrefutable?  Really?  Okay, then explain the following to me:

1)  The killer removes a blood-soaked glove and drops it at the scene.
2)  The killer then opens a vehicle door, drives across town, gets out and closes the door, all with that one, ungloved hand (which he hopes doesn't have blood on it).
3)  The killer then decides to remove the other glove and drop it behind OJ's house.

Why not drop BOTH gloves at the scene?  Did he wear the other one all the way home, or have it stuffed in a pocket (without leaving trace evidence in the vehicle)?  Why drop it behind the house?  Why not take it inside and run it down the garbage disposal, or cut it up and flush it away?  Why not give it to Kardashian with the other bloody clothes he allegedly got rid of that night?

The incongruity of the gloves raises reasonable doubt in my mind.  I'm not saying OJ didn't do it, but I'm not buying the "he dropped one at the scene and one at home" story.  We know police have planted evidence to get a quick conviction, so why not in such a high-profile case as this?  Plant the glove, plant blood evidence in the car and on the fence behind OJ's house.  It would take just one cop to do that.


Because he sliced his own hand when he slashed Nichole's throat. He pulled off the glove to look at the damage and it probably hurt too much to put back on. Plus, it probably enraged him further and he probably did a bit more stabbing after that.

Completely consistent with the other facts and scene.
 
2014-06-10 03:48:41 PM  

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


I've watched peremptory challenges used to dump college grads and well-spoken professionals. I've seen an obvious meth-head and various other dingbats empaneled. Suffice it to say, I share your doubts.


Sure, it makes sense. No matter which side of the aisle you're on it's all about manipulating the jury, often hitting on their emotions. No one wants to deal with people with intellect to do that.
 
2014-06-10 03:53:17 PM  

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.


NOT
 
2014-06-10 03:55:31 PM  

KIA: Because he sliced his own hand when he slashed Nichole's throat. He pulled off the glove to look at the damage and it probably hurt too much to put back on. Plus, it probably enraged him further and he probably did a bit more stabbing after that.

Completely consistent with the other facts and scene.


So did the glove in question have a matching cut through it?

No, it did not.
 
2014-06-10 04:23:44 PM  

Mugato: 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.


Never mind that the only criminal conviction during the entire affair was against a police officer that committed felony perjury...  Hard to trust a lot of the physical evidence when the investigating police officers are shown to be liars.
 
2014-06-10 08:48:07 PM  
Woo, got to block a bunch of dudes for telling the father of a murdered man to "get over it"! Let's see you try, schmucks.

Basically the Simpson trial is a giant wreck at the intersection of Long-Standing Racial Issues Boiling Over and Tiered Justice System That Favors The Rich And Famous, Especially In L.A.. At that time, in that place, you could not have found him guilty of murder even if you caught it on camera. The racial issues are still there, the Blue Code of Silence is still there. They're still widespread, and you catch the public in the right mood with the right cops getting off for the right thing, and it'll be riots again.

And the rest of it is completely unchanged and nobody in this country is smart enough or mad enough to want to change it, because they've been trained since birth to keep their lips glued firmly to the asses of "celebrities." How many times did Lohan slither out of drug charges that would've ruined your life or mine? How often do spoiled little shiats get away with pretty much anything short of murder? What infuriates me is that time after time people fail to be upset about that- either everyone else should get the cushy sentences or rich assholes should do hard time. Recently a judge actually used the term "affluenza" in his opinion when letting some rich kid skate. And nobody cares. There should be guillotines and torches and Frankenstein rakes over shiat like that. And nobody cares.
 
2014-06-10 09:02:32 PM  

Anonymous Bosch: What infuriates me is that time after time people fail to be upset about that- either everyone else should get the cushy sentences or rich assholes should do hard time. Recently a judge actually used the term "affluenza" in his opinion when letting some rich kid skate. And nobody cares. There should be guillotines and torches and Frankenstein rakes over shiat like that. And nobody cares.


What would you suggest? And what are you doing about it?
 
2014-06-10 10:43:32 PM  

stonicus: FTFA: 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.

Where does Goldman get this information from?



I remember seeing this on tv -- at the time, there was video on CNN of Kardashian walking past reporters with a large suitcase, coming from OJ's house. I think they even shouted "what's in the suitcase?" to him and he just smiled and walked past.

This wasn't some big secret and isn't a big reveal today, so I don't know what Goldman is talking about. At the time, people did ask questions about it -- but without the internet being in full swing there wasnt an outcry or a petition to sign, and the inane media never got on board with questions about the suitcase. I guess there was too much going on with the case to focus on any one thing.

About a month (week? year?) later, Kardashian answered the questions by bringing the suitcase to court, or somewhere, I can't recall, where he opened it, showed that it was empty, and said "see, there wasn't anything in here at all" basically.

I've always thought that OJs bloody clothes and maybe even the murder weapon(s) were in the suitcase, stashed in his house until Kardashian could abscond with them. To me, it was the most egregious thing that this lawyers did, and that's a long, long list.
 
2014-06-10 11:09:51 PM  

Christian Bale: there was video on CNN of Kardashian walking past reporters with a large suitcase, coming from OJ's house. I think they even shouted "what's in the suitcase?" to him and he just smiled and walked past


It's Marsellus Wallace's soul.
 
2014-06-10 11:15:05 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.


I was leaning in your direction until recently. Got a jury questionnaire from my county and after checking with my HR dep't learned that they'll cover the difference between jury duty pay and my normal pay. So, hell yes, I'll serve if called. It's my civic duty!
 
2014-06-10 11:20:07 PM  

Anonymous Bosch: Woo, got to block a bunch of dudes for telling the father of a murdered man to "get over it"! Let's see you try, schmucks.


Bragging about the size of your ignore list again? That's lame as fu*k.
 
2014-06-11 01:29:31 PM  

Christian Bale: stonicus: FTFA: 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.

Where does Goldman get this information from?


I remember seeing this on tv -- at the time, there was video on CNN of Kardashian walking past reporters with a large suitcase, coming from OJ's house. I think they even shouted "what's in the suitcase?" to him and he just smiled and walked past.

This wasn't some big secret and isn't a big reveal today, so I don't know what Goldman is talking about. At the time, people did ask questions about it -- but without the internet being in full swing there wasnt an outcry or a petition to sign, and the inane media never got on board with questions about the suitcase. I guess there was too much going on with the case to focus on any one thing.

About a month (week? year?) later, Kardashian answered the questions by bringing the suitcase to court, or somewhere, I can't recall, where he opened it, showed that it was empty, and said "see, there wasn't anything in here at all" basically.

I've always thought that OJs bloody clothes and maybe even the murder weapon(s) were in the suitcase, stashed in his house until Kardashian could abscond with them. To me, it was the most egregious thing that this lawyers did, and that's a long, long list.


He could have just been bringing some clothes to his client.
 
2014-06-11 01:30:43 PM  

John Buck 41: Anonymous Bosch: Woo, got to block a bunch of dudes for telling the father of a murdered man to "get over it"! Let's see you try, schmucks.

Bragging about the size of your ignore list again? That's lame as fu*k.


People who use "ignore" are weak minded.  They can't stand a dissenting opinion.  Eventually it will just be him and his ditto-heads that he can read, and then he'll think he's won when he sees no dissent.
 
2014-06-11 02:36:07 PM  

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


I've watched peremptory challenges used to dump college grads and well-spoken professionals. I've seen an obvious meth-head and various other dingbats empaneled. Suffice it to say, I share your doubts.

Sure, it makes sense. No matter which side of the aisle you're on it's all about manipulating the jury, often hitting on their emotions. No one wants to deal with people with intellect to do that.


I never used preemptory challenges on voire dire panel members on the basis of what I thought their IQ was and don't know that any of the scores of other attorneys in the defense bar have either.  Being less intelligent isn't necessarily a good thing for the defense- it could just as easily lead to a juror who is too swayed by emotion, one who doesn't understand the presumption of innocence, or is skeptical and dismiss your expert witnesses' testimony as "eggheaded theory."  Attorneys are more concerned with what prejudices and preconceived notions panelists might bring to the jury than trying to get the stupidest jury possible.
 
2014-06-11 03:34:24 PM  

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.


They bent over backwards to be "fair" and the defense saw to it the jury was stacked with ghetto bunnies who hated whites.  After it was over, several jurors complained the jurors had made a decision in advance to acquit, no matter what evidence (this alone is sufficient for a mistrial) and they made no secret, they would let him off out of racial hate, even if he was guilty---or ESPECIALLY if he was guilty.
 
2014-06-11 05:54:20 PM  

stonicus: John Buck 41: Anonymous Bosch: Woo, got to block a bunch of dudes for telling the father of a murdered man to "get over it"! Let's see you try, schmucks.

Bragging about the size of your ignore list again? That's lame as fu*k.

People who use "ignore" are weak minded.  They can't stand a dissenting opinion.  Eventually it will just be him and his ditto-heads that he can read, and then he'll think he's won when he sees no dissent.


Alternately, I will not have a heart attack at 40 trying to be "strong-minded" and wasting my lifespan trying to out-argue morons.

I am not here to make the debate team. I am not under any obligation to let you waste my time, and there is no "challenge" to be met in dealing with assholes. It's not a competition or a test of character. It's a question of using the resources you have and what you get out of letting others share them. You don't get to share my time if you're trying to argue supply-side economics, antivax, climate science denial or anything else that's been readily and conclusively disproven. You're wasting your own time believing shiat, but don't waste mine.

If you're willing to burn your lifespan by donating your time and patience to the irredeemable and unteachable, have fun. I'm not saying people telling Goldman to get over it are either of those, but there's a definite cruelty to it that tells me that I probably don't want to know you. Sure, I overuse the thing, but it's Fark. It's not like any of this matters.

Meanwhile I've also got a favorites list of people that I don't always agree with, but who always have something intelligent and interesting to say. People who have taught me things and who have even successfully changed my mind on things I was not sufficiently informed on. That is an excellent use of my time and I look forward to seeing those people post.
 
2014-06-11 07:31:21 PM  
Why not drop BOTH gloves at the scene? Did he wear the other one all the way home, or have it stuffed in a pocket (without leaving trace evidence in the vehicle)? Why drop it behind the house? Why not take it inside and run it down the garbage disposal, or cut it up and flush it away? Why not give it to Kardashian with the other bloody clothes he allegedly got rid of that night?The incongruity of the gloves raises reasonable doubt in my mind. I'm not saying OJ didn't do it, but I'm not buying the "he dropped one at the scene and one at home" story. We know police have planted evidence to get a quick conviction, so why not in such a high-profile case as this? Plant the glove, plant blood evidence in the car and on the fence behind OJ's house. It would take just one cop to do that.


Probably because a first time criminal, realizing even briefly the severity of what they just did, is likely to panic and not do things a rational person would do in retrospect?
 
Displayed 36 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


Report