Post by mcnutt on Sept 1, 2016 17:06:00 GMT
What the police could have done:
1 Get rid of Mark Fuhrman. In 1983, he tried to get a disability pension. He admitted to making racist statements and torturing suspects but was denied the pension. The POD is he gets his pension and gets off the force in 1983, eleven years before the murders. There is another potential POD, a fellow police officer said that when he married a Jewish women, Fuhrman painted a swastika on his locker. Fuhrman denied it but if it were true and he got caught doing it, hopefully he would have gotten fired. Without Fuhrman, there would have been no White police officers who worked on the Simpson case who would have been exposed as a liar and or a racist. The case against OJ would have had more credibility. Particularly important is the fact that Fuhrman found the bloody glove at OJ’s house. If he was not there then he would not have cast doubt on this particularly damming evidence to the jury.
2 They should have gotten a warrant before going to OJ’s house. The POD is that when Nichole’s body is identified there is an officer on duty who remembers going to OJ and Nichole’s house after Nichole called 911 after being beaten by OJ. They look up the record of OJ’s conviction for beating Nicole. OJ is immediately the prime suspect. I assume they can get a search warrant in the middle of the night.
3 The defense made an issue of the sloppiness of the people who collected the blood evidence. This created a scandal. The crime lab got a budget increase and by 1997, two years after the trail, the Los Angeles Police Lab won accreditation. The POD is that the scandal happens in 1990, when the accused murderer of a beloved movie star gets off by pointing to mistakes in collection of blood samples. ITTL the LA Police Lab wins accreditation in 1992.
What the prosecution could have done
1 Marcia Clark, in her first act of incompetence, did not work with jury consultants. The consultants could have warned the prosecutors about the pro OJ constituency particularly among Black women. Clark thought that since Black women suffered such high rates of domestic violence, they would be sympathetic to the stories of OJ’s abuse of Nichole. The Jury consultant’s surveys found that they were the most forgiving demographic, when it came to domestic abuse. They also found that many Black women reacted negatively to Marcia Clark. She was seen as a bitch emasculating a prominent Black man. ITTL, Clark is removed from the case, after this information surfaces. She is replaced by someone who will prosecute the case competently. With the knowledge of the attitudes of potential jurors, the forewarned prosecution could have prepared and asked the right questions to determine bias toward OJ. OTL Clark asked potential jurors if they thought OJ’s acquittal was pay back for Rodney King and no one raised their hands. A juror did say that after the trail. That juror didn’t admit that attitude publicly during the jury selection process but more desecrate questions could have exposed pro OJ attitudes..
2. The prosecution did not use all of their challenges. ITTL they do. On AH. Com I read that there were three jurors that were determined to find OJ not guilty even if it meant jury nullification. ITTL they are not on the jury.There is a more open minded jury.
3 The prosecution was criticized for not providing enough evidence of the abuse OJ inflicted on Nichole. Judge Ito allowed 12 incidents of OJ abusing Nichole. OTL they used 6, ITTL they present a persuasive case of the abuse.
4 The prosecution DNA expert was criticized. ITTL the prosecution DNA expert does as good a job as the junior high science teacher who explained DNA to me. The jury understands the blood evidence.
5 ITTL the prosecution does not apologize as they did OTL. Marcia Clark said during jury selection: “You may not like me for bringing this case. Im not winning any popularity contests.” Christopher Darden said to the jury “ Nobody wants to do anything to this man. There is nothing personal about this but the law is the law.”
6 When the defense introduces race into trail. The prosecution introduces evidence of OJ’s lack of support for the Black community.
7 One other mistake the prosecution made was deciding to hold the trail in the Downtown Judicial District, which a had a majority minority population. The crime had occurred in the Santa Monica Judicial District which had a 78% White majority. The lawsuit was tried in Santa Monica. That jury had 9 Whites, 2 Blacks and 1 Hispanic. The criminal trail jury had 8 Blacks, 2 Whites, 1 Hispanic and 1 person of Asian African ancestry. This put the prosecution at a disadvantage but a disadvantage that could be overcome. If they had put on a competent prosecution they could have won, even Downtown.
ITTTL the prosecution uses the following evidence that the OTL prosecution left out:
1 Jill Shivley was a witness who testified before the grand jury. She said that she was driving a few blocks from Nichole’s house at the time of the murders. She saw OJ Simpson driving a White Bronco running a red light right in front of her. She slammed on her brakes and missed hitting him. She put OJ at the scene of the crime at the time of the murder. Shivley went on Hard Copy and collected $5000. Clark dropped her as a witnesses. ITTL the prosecution uses her, The defense will make an issue about her selling out for money, but after the jury hears the evidence they didn’t hear OTL they will believe her.
2 There was a witness who came forward saying the night of the murders, he saw O.J. at the airport throwing away a suitcase into a trash can. Clark did not want to use him because he couldn’t be backed up. There was testimony that did support this witness. Kato Kailn said that as he helped OJ load his luggage into the limo, he reached for a small bad, OJ grabbed it and said I will take it myself. Those who saw OJ’s luggage after he returned did not see the small bag. ITTL the prosecution uses the airport witness.
3 When OJ got back from Chicago he gave a statement to the police, that they videotaped. OTL Clark did not show the tape to the jury. ITTL the prosecutors do. In the statement OJ admits that the day before, the same day as the murders, he got a bad cut on his finger and bled in his house. He didn’t remember how he got the cut. That statement should destroy OJ’s credibility. I personally have remembered every time I have gotten hurt.
4 In that statement, OJ claimed that he didn’t know what had happened. That on the fight back he had made phone calls but no on could give him much information. That would make sense. When a police officer called him in Chicago to tell him his ex wife had been killed, OJ shocked the officer. He only said what do you mean killed? He did not ask any specific questions. The officer, a thirty year veteran, had performed that duty many times said that people always ask questions about how and when killed. According to Mark Partridge, the passenger who sat next to OJ on the flight home. OJ was well informed. He recalled that OJ told him that his ex wife and an another guy had been murdered in his ex wife’s garden. According to Partridge, that while OJ had only been told that his ex wife had been killed and killed usually means an accident and not been told about Goldman’s murder, Simpson not only knew that she and Ron Goldman had been murdered but where they had been murdered.
In great act of incompetence, Clark did not call Partridge to testify. Once again,she did not like witnesses who could not be backed up. True, there was nobody who could confirm Partridge’s story, but OJ practically confessed to Partridge. How would OJ know what had happened, unless he was there? Clark committed another act of incompetence after the defense called Partridge and asked him about OJ being upset on his flight home. Partridge had written eight pages of notes about his recollections of sitting next to OJ and gave them to the police. He, a copyright lawyer, copyrighted the notes. He did not publish them but wanted to make sure that no one used them without his permission. Clark in her cross examination, just asked Partridge about copyrighting his notes. In his testimony, he mentioned learning about the murders during the flight. Partridge’s brief comments came during a tedious discussion of copyright, it would have been hard for the jury to grasp the importance of what Partridge said. ITTL the jury will hear OJ say he was ignorant of the murder during his taped statement to the police. The police officer who told OJ about murder will testify and tell the jury that he never heard anyone not to ask how killed before talking to OJ. Then they will hear from Partridge that OJ knew all about the murders.
5 OTL the prosecution did not show the jury pictures and videos of OJ wearing the gloves. They did introduce Nichole's purchase of the gloves. The defense pointed out that the receipt did not mention the size and color of the gloves. ITTL the prosecution will show the pictures and videos. After introducing into evidence the sales receipt for Nichole’s 1990 purchase of two pairs of Aries Isotoner Light leather gloves, the prosecution can say that, while the receipt did not list the size and color, we have photos and a video of the defendant wearing them. This way they can stop a defense argument.
6 I don’t know about California jury instructions in 1995. When I did jury duty, one of our instructions was that flight was a sign of guilt. I have read on AH.Com that that is a standard instruction in many states. On June 17, 1994, the day OJ was charged with the murder. He was ordered to surrender at 11 AM. He did not do so. At noon that day, he and his friend AC Cowlings disappeared. The prosecution did not mention this.
7 When he left, OJ left behind a suicide note. When the police finally caught up to Simpson and Cowlings. Cowlings got on his cell phone and told the police that OJ had a gun pointed at his head. I think being suicidal is a sign of guilt, particularly when you are accused with killing your children’s mother. The prosecution did not tell the jury OJ was suicidal.
8 When he was caught, OJ was carrying some incriminating evidence. In addition to socks, underwear and shirts, he had his passport. That shows he was thinking about leaving the country. He also had a disguise, a fake goatee and glasses. The prosecution could argue that OJ was not one to wear a disguise. They could provide testimony on how OJ loved to be recognized. He also had the receipt for the disguise, which dated right after Nichole had returned his birthday gifts and told him their relationship was over. OTL the prosecution argued that OJ had premeditated the crime, without providing any evidence. The receipt could be used to show that OJ had planned to do something to Nichole. Another indication that they were thinking about escaping was that AC Cowlings had $8,750 in his pockets. The jury was not told about any of this.
Two Other Prosecution mistakes
1 In addition to using the evidence the OTL prosecutors did not use, ITTL the prosecutors will not allow the glove demonstration to happen. OTL after the damage was done and the jury saw OJ struggle to put on the gloves. Christopher Darden had a glove expert testify that gloves had shrunk. ITTL the expert is used to convince Judge Ito not allow the Simpson to put on the gloves.
2 The plaintiff’s lawyers in the OJ law suit did a much better job than the prosecutors. In addition to using all the damming evidence that the prosecutors left out, they were much more efficient. The OJ criminal trail began on January 24, 1995, and the prosecution rested their case on July 6, 1995. The civil trail began on October 23, 1996, and the plaintiffs rested their case on December 9, 1996. If the prosecutors had been as efficient as the civil trail lawyers were and the defense took their same as OLT time the case would have gone to the jury in the second week of June instead of the beginning of October. The jury would have endured less of a burden. Also the defense would have taken almost twice as long as the prosecution.
What Judge Ito could have done.
Ito was accused of favoring the defense. The biggest damage he did to the prosecution came in one ruling. A Deputy Sheriff came forward and said that he heard OJ say something incriminating. Ito held a hearing and the Deputy testified that he was supervising a visitors room when Rosey Greet, the football star who is an ordained minister. Greer was visiting O.J. to offer him counseling. The two of them were separated by glass wall and were talking through phones. This was a confidential conversation. The Deputy testified that as long as they were talking in a normal voice, he could not hear them. He further said that O.J. slammed down the phone and shouted something incriminating. In the hearing, he did not say what O. J. said. The law is clear. If your having a confidential conversation and then you speak in a voice loud enough so that someone not eavesdropping can hear, you have given up your right of privacy. Ito ruled that while O.J. had waived his right of privacy, he had an expectation of privacy. He did not allow O.J.'s then unknown statement to be heard in court. Ito's ruling defied the law and defied logic. Why would O.J. expect privacy if he was shouting ten feet away from a Deputy Sheriff, who could clearly hear him.
The Deputy Sheriff told a tabloid that O.J. said I didn't mean to do it. I am sorry. If the jury heard what was basically a confession, this would have helped the prosecution case.
1 Get rid of Mark Fuhrman. In 1983, he tried to get a disability pension. He admitted to making racist statements and torturing suspects but was denied the pension. The POD is he gets his pension and gets off the force in 1983, eleven years before the murders. There is another potential POD, a fellow police officer said that when he married a Jewish women, Fuhrman painted a swastika on his locker. Fuhrman denied it but if it were true and he got caught doing it, hopefully he would have gotten fired. Without Fuhrman, there would have been no White police officers who worked on the Simpson case who would have been exposed as a liar and or a racist. The case against OJ would have had more credibility. Particularly important is the fact that Fuhrman found the bloody glove at OJ’s house. If he was not there then he would not have cast doubt on this particularly damming evidence to the jury.
2 They should have gotten a warrant before going to OJ’s house. The POD is that when Nichole’s body is identified there is an officer on duty who remembers going to OJ and Nichole’s house after Nichole called 911 after being beaten by OJ. They look up the record of OJ’s conviction for beating Nicole. OJ is immediately the prime suspect. I assume they can get a search warrant in the middle of the night.
3 The defense made an issue of the sloppiness of the people who collected the blood evidence. This created a scandal. The crime lab got a budget increase and by 1997, two years after the trail, the Los Angeles Police Lab won accreditation. The POD is that the scandal happens in 1990, when the accused murderer of a beloved movie star gets off by pointing to mistakes in collection of blood samples. ITTL the LA Police Lab wins accreditation in 1992.
What the prosecution could have done
1 Marcia Clark, in her first act of incompetence, did not work with jury consultants. The consultants could have warned the prosecutors about the pro OJ constituency particularly among Black women. Clark thought that since Black women suffered such high rates of domestic violence, they would be sympathetic to the stories of OJ’s abuse of Nichole. The Jury consultant’s surveys found that they were the most forgiving demographic, when it came to domestic abuse. They also found that many Black women reacted negatively to Marcia Clark. She was seen as a bitch emasculating a prominent Black man. ITTL, Clark is removed from the case, after this information surfaces. She is replaced by someone who will prosecute the case competently. With the knowledge of the attitudes of potential jurors, the forewarned prosecution could have prepared and asked the right questions to determine bias toward OJ. OTL Clark asked potential jurors if they thought OJ’s acquittal was pay back for Rodney King and no one raised their hands. A juror did say that after the trail. That juror didn’t admit that attitude publicly during the jury selection process but more desecrate questions could have exposed pro OJ attitudes..
2. The prosecution did not use all of their challenges. ITTL they do. On AH. Com I read that there were three jurors that were determined to find OJ not guilty even if it meant jury nullification. ITTL they are not on the jury.There is a more open minded jury.
3 The prosecution was criticized for not providing enough evidence of the abuse OJ inflicted on Nichole. Judge Ito allowed 12 incidents of OJ abusing Nichole. OTL they used 6, ITTL they present a persuasive case of the abuse.
4 The prosecution DNA expert was criticized. ITTL the prosecution DNA expert does as good a job as the junior high science teacher who explained DNA to me. The jury understands the blood evidence.
5 ITTL the prosecution does not apologize as they did OTL. Marcia Clark said during jury selection: “You may not like me for bringing this case. Im not winning any popularity contests.” Christopher Darden said to the jury “ Nobody wants to do anything to this man. There is nothing personal about this but the law is the law.”
6 When the defense introduces race into trail. The prosecution introduces evidence of OJ’s lack of support for the Black community.
7 One other mistake the prosecution made was deciding to hold the trail in the Downtown Judicial District, which a had a majority minority population. The crime had occurred in the Santa Monica Judicial District which had a 78% White majority. The lawsuit was tried in Santa Monica. That jury had 9 Whites, 2 Blacks and 1 Hispanic. The criminal trail jury had 8 Blacks, 2 Whites, 1 Hispanic and 1 person of Asian African ancestry. This put the prosecution at a disadvantage but a disadvantage that could be overcome. If they had put on a competent prosecution they could have won, even Downtown.
ITTTL the prosecution uses the following evidence that the OTL prosecution left out:
1 Jill Shivley was a witness who testified before the grand jury. She said that she was driving a few blocks from Nichole’s house at the time of the murders. She saw OJ Simpson driving a White Bronco running a red light right in front of her. She slammed on her brakes and missed hitting him. She put OJ at the scene of the crime at the time of the murder. Shivley went on Hard Copy and collected $5000. Clark dropped her as a witnesses. ITTL the prosecution uses her, The defense will make an issue about her selling out for money, but after the jury hears the evidence they didn’t hear OTL they will believe her.
2 There was a witness who came forward saying the night of the murders, he saw O.J. at the airport throwing away a suitcase into a trash can. Clark did not want to use him because he couldn’t be backed up. There was testimony that did support this witness. Kato Kailn said that as he helped OJ load his luggage into the limo, he reached for a small bad, OJ grabbed it and said I will take it myself. Those who saw OJ’s luggage after he returned did not see the small bag. ITTL the prosecution uses the airport witness.
3 When OJ got back from Chicago he gave a statement to the police, that they videotaped. OTL Clark did not show the tape to the jury. ITTL the prosecutors do. In the statement OJ admits that the day before, the same day as the murders, he got a bad cut on his finger and bled in his house. He didn’t remember how he got the cut. That statement should destroy OJ’s credibility. I personally have remembered every time I have gotten hurt.
4 In that statement, OJ claimed that he didn’t know what had happened. That on the fight back he had made phone calls but no on could give him much information. That would make sense. When a police officer called him in Chicago to tell him his ex wife had been killed, OJ shocked the officer. He only said what do you mean killed? He did not ask any specific questions. The officer, a thirty year veteran, had performed that duty many times said that people always ask questions about how and when killed. According to Mark Partridge, the passenger who sat next to OJ on the flight home. OJ was well informed. He recalled that OJ told him that his ex wife and an another guy had been murdered in his ex wife’s garden. According to Partridge, that while OJ had only been told that his ex wife had been killed and killed usually means an accident and not been told about Goldman’s murder, Simpson not only knew that she and Ron Goldman had been murdered but where they had been murdered.
In great act of incompetence, Clark did not call Partridge to testify. Once again,she did not like witnesses who could not be backed up. True, there was nobody who could confirm Partridge’s story, but OJ practically confessed to Partridge. How would OJ know what had happened, unless he was there? Clark committed another act of incompetence after the defense called Partridge and asked him about OJ being upset on his flight home. Partridge had written eight pages of notes about his recollections of sitting next to OJ and gave them to the police. He, a copyright lawyer, copyrighted the notes. He did not publish them but wanted to make sure that no one used them without his permission. Clark in her cross examination, just asked Partridge about copyrighting his notes. In his testimony, he mentioned learning about the murders during the flight. Partridge’s brief comments came during a tedious discussion of copyright, it would have been hard for the jury to grasp the importance of what Partridge said. ITTL the jury will hear OJ say he was ignorant of the murder during his taped statement to the police. The police officer who told OJ about murder will testify and tell the jury that he never heard anyone not to ask how killed before talking to OJ. Then they will hear from Partridge that OJ knew all about the murders.
5 OTL the prosecution did not show the jury pictures and videos of OJ wearing the gloves. They did introduce Nichole's purchase of the gloves. The defense pointed out that the receipt did not mention the size and color of the gloves. ITTL the prosecution will show the pictures and videos. After introducing into evidence the sales receipt for Nichole’s 1990 purchase of two pairs of Aries Isotoner Light leather gloves, the prosecution can say that, while the receipt did not list the size and color, we have photos and a video of the defendant wearing them. This way they can stop a defense argument.
6 I don’t know about California jury instructions in 1995. When I did jury duty, one of our instructions was that flight was a sign of guilt. I have read on AH.Com that that is a standard instruction in many states. On June 17, 1994, the day OJ was charged with the murder. He was ordered to surrender at 11 AM. He did not do so. At noon that day, he and his friend AC Cowlings disappeared. The prosecution did not mention this.
7 When he left, OJ left behind a suicide note. When the police finally caught up to Simpson and Cowlings. Cowlings got on his cell phone and told the police that OJ had a gun pointed at his head. I think being suicidal is a sign of guilt, particularly when you are accused with killing your children’s mother. The prosecution did not tell the jury OJ was suicidal.
8 When he was caught, OJ was carrying some incriminating evidence. In addition to socks, underwear and shirts, he had his passport. That shows he was thinking about leaving the country. He also had a disguise, a fake goatee and glasses. The prosecution could argue that OJ was not one to wear a disguise. They could provide testimony on how OJ loved to be recognized. He also had the receipt for the disguise, which dated right after Nichole had returned his birthday gifts and told him their relationship was over. OTL the prosecution argued that OJ had premeditated the crime, without providing any evidence. The receipt could be used to show that OJ had planned to do something to Nichole. Another indication that they were thinking about escaping was that AC Cowlings had $8,750 in his pockets. The jury was not told about any of this.
Two Other Prosecution mistakes
1 In addition to using the evidence the OTL prosecutors did not use, ITTL the prosecutors will not allow the glove demonstration to happen. OTL after the damage was done and the jury saw OJ struggle to put on the gloves. Christopher Darden had a glove expert testify that gloves had shrunk. ITTL the expert is used to convince Judge Ito not allow the Simpson to put on the gloves.
2 The plaintiff’s lawyers in the OJ law suit did a much better job than the prosecutors. In addition to using all the damming evidence that the prosecutors left out, they were much more efficient. The OJ criminal trail began on January 24, 1995, and the prosecution rested their case on July 6, 1995. The civil trail began on October 23, 1996, and the plaintiffs rested their case on December 9, 1996. If the prosecutors had been as efficient as the civil trail lawyers were and the defense took their same as OLT time the case would have gone to the jury in the second week of June instead of the beginning of October. The jury would have endured less of a burden. Also the defense would have taken almost twice as long as the prosecution.
What Judge Ito could have done.
Ito was accused of favoring the defense. The biggest damage he did to the prosecution came in one ruling. A Deputy Sheriff came forward and said that he heard OJ say something incriminating. Ito held a hearing and the Deputy testified that he was supervising a visitors room when Rosey Greet, the football star who is an ordained minister. Greer was visiting O.J. to offer him counseling. The two of them were separated by glass wall and were talking through phones. This was a confidential conversation. The Deputy testified that as long as they were talking in a normal voice, he could not hear them. He further said that O.J. slammed down the phone and shouted something incriminating. In the hearing, he did not say what O. J. said. The law is clear. If your having a confidential conversation and then you speak in a voice loud enough so that someone not eavesdropping can hear, you have given up your right of privacy. Ito ruled that while O.J. had waived his right of privacy, he had an expectation of privacy. He did not allow O.J.'s then unknown statement to be heard in court. Ito's ruling defied the law and defied logic. Why would O.J. expect privacy if he was shouting ten feet away from a Deputy Sheriff, who could clearly hear him.
The Deputy Sheriff told a tabloid that O.J. said I didn't mean to do it. I am sorry. If the jury heard what was basically a confession, this would have helped the prosecution case.
