It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

WHAT IF: The Cops Were On O.J. Simpson's Payroll

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 23 2016 @ 08:51 AM
link   
Now I'm no expert on the whole case, although I do remember it quite vividly all the media circus of the affair from the get go.

I watched this new "American Crime Story" series 1: OJ Simpson recently. From the witness accounts it looked to me a slam dunk (after the fact).

Of course from the start the DNA stuff looked like the double slam dunk, or should I say touchdown?

But then as you get all the way thru it it became blazingly obvious the cops "were total hacks". The more I contemplated all of the gross mishandling of the evidence the more absurd it became. It got to being why would they blow the case the way they did?? It looked deliberate when all was said and done.

In hindsight, what I took from the series, and a little follow up reading was it was like they were trying to blow the case.

Even the knife that was found later the cops effectively "covered it up".

There being the precedent of them already for years having delt with the Simpson household, all those battered wife incidents and how much jail time did he do again? My point is they could have already been on his payroll before the murder. And looking at how the whole thing, arresting him, seizing his vehicle as evidence, and so on, before the actual arrest that is (as depicted in the show), doesn't look like any protocol I've ever seen on any type of cop show or movie.

Think back on it all with this new lens... what do you think?
edit on 23-6-2016 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 23 2016 @ 09:04 AM
link   
The cops could have shown a video of the murder and had a confession.
That jury was not going to convict Simpson.



posted on Jun, 23 2016 @ 09:11 AM
link   
a reply to: Bluntone22
Less to do with the jury than OJs dream team who turned a murder trial into a race issue (Mark Furman became the focus) in their minds and being black in LA at the time (post Rodney King) meant noooone was going to convict a black man for anything.



posted on Jun, 23 2016 @ 09:11 AM
link   
The thing is, the evidence was so drippingly mishandled I kind of dont blame them (the Jury). Two of the detectives (not Fuhrman even) I guess took a couple boxes of evidence home with them or something crazy like that. From what I could tell, from the series, the DNA evidence was effectively unfit for trial. That didn't mean the witness accounts, the timeline should have been chucked out.

But that racist card did fit nicely into there. A little too nicely. So nicely in fact has it ever been openly considered they blew the case because they were paid to do so (rather than trying to FRAME him for MURDER just because he's Black)?

Consider: If they were DIRTY RACIST COPS why didn't they nail him to the wall every time there was a domestic violence case?

Keyword: DIRTY. That's what got him off, no? Well dirty cop usually means being on the take.

Remember: Before the murder "everybody loved "The Juice"".
edit on 23-6-2016 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2016 @ 09:16 AM
link   
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

"The cops" meaning the justice system had it easy, never was there so much evidence linking OJ directly to the crime.

Thing was it became a race issue when the defense planted reasonable doubt in the juries minds that the PD in fact framed him for the crime by planting evidence… because the LA PD is racist and Mark Furman said ni____ once.

Hella switch, once the jury had doubts, the verdict was in the bag.



posted on Jun, 23 2016 @ 09:20 AM
link   
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss


The thing is, the evidence was so drippingly mishandled I kind of dont blame them (the Jury). Two of the detectives (not Fuhrman even) I guess took a couple boxes of evidence home with them or something crazy like that. From what I could tell, from the series, the DNA evidence was effectively unfit for trial. That didn't mean the witness accounts, the timeline should have been chucked out.

Thats not what happened and we could go into all that, watch the new series that just came out and aired last week on ESPN. Its long and in five parts (1o friggin hours) but the best review they generated yet.

The issue abut messing with evidence had to do with PD 'planting' blood evidence at the scene, OJs bronco and home. Oh and one glove, too.



posted on Jun, 23 2016 @ 09:22 AM
link   
The actual murder happened in Brentwood. Like Hollywood. This wasn't Compton thug world. This was pretty people land. I doubt those cops delt with the ugly everyday to have the same kind of learned prejudices from swirling around in the lowlife villany that comes with crack head junky gangbanger-ville.



posted on Jun, 23 2016 @ 09:28 AM
link   
I downloaded part one of that but haven't watched it yet. The FX series was 10 hours.

There was mishandling of the bloody evidence inside and out. Lab techs even showing gross incompetence.

My point here though is:
We've always all had these 2 dichotomies:
1. OJ did it.
2. Cops framed him.

Where I'm offering this third dichotomy:
*OJ did it, and the detectives on the take deliberately mishandled the crime scene, the arrest procedure, the evidence, the chain of custody, and so on (so he could walk).

How could these pro's screw it up that bad if not deliberate?
edit on 23-6-2016 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2016 @ 09:38 AM
link   
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss


There was mishandling of the bloody evidence inside and out. Lab techs even showing gross incompetence.


You did say you were unfamiliar somewhat. The defense implied that since the blood vial taken from OJ was'nt "full to the brim" that blood was therefore missing and must have been sprinkled around the crime scene to implicate OJ.

Thing is a nurse that took the blood testified there is no requirement required to fill the vials to the brim and that she wrapped the tube with an evidence seal and placed it in a sealed envelope. The defense implied the "missing 1.8 ml" was used to frame OJ, when there was no "missing blood" in the first place and no direct evidence anyone did so.

Let that one go, it was a defense fabricated lie to throw off the jury.



posted on Jun, 23 2016 @ 10:44 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

I agree. Reasonable doubt. The verdict did not proclaim him innocent, just not guilty by reasonable doubt. The prosecution slipped up. In the follow up civil case this did not happen and he was convicted in the civil court.



posted on Jun, 23 2016 @ 10:58 AM
link   
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

I don't think there was any $$$ left over after paying the defense team. With a case of that magnitude the scene would be sullied from the get-go. The last time I checked the number was close to 95% of those incarcerated are there under a plea bargain.

The law in Ca. changed about 94-95 and ANY domestic violence call w/sign of injury was a MUST arrest/book w/a minimum bail of $10,000.00 (273.5 Ca. Penal Code) The misdemeanor (243(1) P.C. if memory serves) even includes a Temporary Restraining Order which was good for 3 business days. These were given to keep the suspect away from the victim and give the victim enough time to get a full Restraining Order.

I remember one of My work weeks went like this: First call of the week. A drunk turd beat up his wife. I arrest Him and got Her a TRO. I take Him to jail. Bail: $10,000.00
Sunday, last day of the week: First call of the day, same address. The Lady answers the door with a new black eye and swollen lip. I arrest him and then had to drive 45 min. to get a Judge to sign a No Bail enhancement out of fear that She would go bail him out again... Many of the way too many victims I've interviewed, the most feel "trapped" and their Self value has been tramped on and pissed on by their Mates, usually male and usually a user of alcohol..



posted on Jun, 23 2016 @ 11:11 AM
link   
a reply to: JimNasium

What if he paid each of the detectives, the police captain, $50,000 right out the gates? Not so hard under a premise that they were already his minions in advance. He could have had half of them over for BBQ's before this for all we know, they could have been his personal drug dealers, etc, whereas if this all was never considered much before now those kinds of questions might not have ever been asked at the time.

Once they were already on is pyroll, they would never come out about it, while any doubts within the department would never see the light as Police are well known for blindly protecting each other etc. Since "all" the cops were proclaimed in those days as unjust dirty cops this kind of norm already in place, do the math.
edit on 23-6-2016 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2016 @ 11:48 AM
link   
OJ did it, please someone explain to me how is it that Ron Goldman who was a martial arts dude that was found with cuts and bruised knuckles didn't mess up OJ face ??



posted on Jun, 23 2016 @ 03:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: intrptr

I agree. Reasonable doubt. The verdict did not proclaim him innocent, just not guilty by reasonable doubt. The prosecution slipped up. In the follow up civil case this did not happen and he was convicted in the civil court.


They didn't slip up, the prosecution never had it so good. OJs blood was at the scene, from the cut on his finger he got while killing them. Nicole's, Ron's and his blood were in the Bronco, and in OJ's house. Also on the bloody gloves, the one at the scene and the one found behind OJ's house.

All that was established forensically. The doubt in the Juries mind was planted there by the defense team. They didn't have any evidence of planting anything, just their suggestion it could have happened. It was their only defense, without it their man was guilty as sin.

Judge Ito should have never allowed it. Its up to the judge to keep false claims from coming before the jury. Like racism, Furhman's use of the word Ni____, none of this had anything to do with the case.

Once that was allowed in, all the evidence becomes suspect.

Game, set, match.

Edit: Like you said the verdict didn't proclaim his innocence, just not guilty. The cicvil trial was handled differently. The judge there didn't allow any but the actual evidence and the verdict was unanimous… guilty.
edit on 23-6-2016 by intrptr because: Edit:



posted on Jun, 23 2016 @ 04:14 PM
link   
Or...were the cops on the Kardashian's payroll.



posted on Jun, 23 2016 @ 06:07 PM
link   
a reply to: amazing

Ah yes, Robert Kardashian:
en.wikipedia.org...

Kardashian and Simpson first met in the early 1970s and became close friends.[20]

Following the June 12, 1994 murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman, Simpson stayed in Kardashian's house to avoid the media. Kardashian was the man seen carrying Simpson's garment bag the day that Simpson flew back from Chicago. Prosecutors speculated that the bag may have contained Simpson's bloody clothes or the murder weapon.[21] When Simpson failed to turn himself in at 11 a.m. on June 17, 1994, Kardashian read a letter by Simpson to the assembled media. This letter was interpreted by many as a suicide note.[22]

Simpson was charged with the murders; he was subsequently acquitted of all criminal charges in a controversial criminal trial. Kardashian had let his license to practice law become inactive before the Simpson case. He reactivated his license to aid in Simpson's defense as a volunteer assistant on his legal team, alongside his main defense attorney, Johnnie Cochran. As a member of the defense, he could not be compelled to testify as to the contents of Simpson's garment bag.[23] He sat by Simpson throughout the trial.[20]

The New York Times reported that, "Mr. Kardashian said in a 1996 ABC interview that he questioned Mr. Simpson's innocence: 'I have doubts. The blood evidence is the biggest thorn in my side; that causes me the greatest problems. So I struggle with the blood evidence.'"[23]

edit on 23-6-2016 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2016 @ 07:09 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

Yes, however I hold that the prosecution should have objected more vehemently to that defense as well as not let the glove charade go unchallenged. His weight and other things I do not think were taken into consideration. Were those gloves tried on by others of his hand size or were other gloves sampled on how they fit him, or even another pair of his gloves.? I have always thought that that line of questioning was missing. I could be wrong though and agree that Ito allowed far to much leeway to the defense team.



posted on Jun, 23 2016 @ 07:13 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryMcGuire


Yes, however I hold that the prosecution should have objected more vehemently to that defense as well as not let the glove charade go unchallenged.

Thats up to the judge. They fought it, but were continually stymied by Ito's calls.

See the ESPN special. The gloves and the shoe prints, the cut on the finger, his whereabouts… all underplayed.

Goes to show what fifty million of defense will buy.



posted on Jun, 26 2016 @ 12:54 PM
link   
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

This is just my opinion.
I think OJ's son did it. OJ took the fall to protect his son.
Just check out the relationships.
That is all.



posted on Jun, 26 2016 @ 12:58 PM
link   
a reply to: xizd1

I saw a peep about him when when reading Wikipedia, but didn't follow thru further. I guess some author brought him up as suspect?



new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join