Michael Jackson has died.

Mark Fehrman, Simpsons attorneys and the make up of the jury led to the dismissal of the mountain of evidence.

If it doesn’t fit, you must acquit.

The jurors did not hint at the riots were on their minds as they deliberated. May have been asked by a reporter, but unless they revised comments years later, that was not the case.

However, one of the most influential jury instructions given to this jury was something along the lines of “when presented with two conflicting arguments, but both seem equally plausible, you must go with the argument that supports innocence”. That is a very rough paraphrasing of the instruction, but you get the idea.

Nevertheless, the perception floated out there is that “a black jury ignored the evidence and let a killer go free based on race to send a message and/or to right some injustice delivered to black people in the past”. This is the biggest pile of dog poopie I have ever heard, but I hear it all the time.

One example is that there was an elderly white woman on the Simpson jury who once served on another jury. When that jury went into deliberations, they took the initial vote on guilt/innocence and it was 11 not guilty and 1 guilty. Well, that woman was the guilty vote, and from that point during deliberations, she made her case and swayed all of the other jurors to vote guilty. She fought for what she believed and convinced the other 11 to change their votes to guilty. Yes, this woman was on the Simpson jury and also voted not guilty.

Not to rehash the entire case, but anybody who truly watched that entire trial would have had to vote not guilty. The prosecutors may have messed up, and the defense attorneys may have played their best game, but the reasons he was acquitted were numerous, and race certainly wasn’t it. If Fuhrman would have admitted to using the N-word when asked, believe it or not, they would have still voted not guilty. The prosecutions case did not make sense, would change, and that was not entirely their fault. Some actions by the investigators and criminalists just made it too hard to believe that you could convict Simpson based on what they provided. The reasons he was acquitted:

- The timeline NEVER made sense. (Too many details to go into)

- Simpson’s blood on back gate was not collected until at least 3 weeks after the murders (after crime scene had been washed down) At time of collection, picture was taken of blood stain on gate. Defense showed a police photograph of the same spot on the gate on the day of the murders, and there was no blood stain there. Criminalist admitted he couldn’t find it on the photo and it was clear to anybody that it was not there.

- The blood on the socks in Simpson’s bedroom. These dark socks were collected on the day of the murders. They were inspected 3 separate times by the criminalists/crime lab and all 3 times noted as “no blood” and “no blood apparent”. Almost 3 months after the murder, one of the Criminalists was asked to inspect the socks again, and surprise, they find blood on the socks. Amazing, huh?

- Both the blood on the gate and the socks, even after weeks and weeks of exposure before collecting the blood, had more DNA available (not degraded) than any blood collected immediately the day of the murders. Low and behold, there was a blood preservative in the blood from those stains, which is used in test tubes holding blood samples.

- Suprisingly, out of 8 cc’s of blood collected from Simpson, 1.5 cc’s were missing. Also, a Criminalist for LAPD admitted spilling Simpson’s blood sample in the lab while processing blood swatches for the Bundy crime scene. Oops! Possible contamination. And just for good measure, the blood spilled WAS accounted for and after adding that amount in, there was still 1.5 cc’s missing.

- One of the detectives admitted that after collecting Simpson’s blood sample, he did not book it into evidence IN THE SAME BUILDING, but rather put it in his pocket, unsealed, and took it out to the criminalists at the crime scene, except only about 3 hours after arriving there.

- One detective lied in his submission for a search warrant, and it was blatant, to the point of the judge stated on the record that the information he provided in the search warrant was wreckless disregard for the truth. Another detective took Simpson’s shoes as evidence, but did he book it with the evidence? No, he took the shoes home with him, which was about 2 hours away.

- Not one of the detectives mentioned above was Fuhrman. But did Fuhrman lie about anything except using the N-word? You bet. (Personally, I believe he lied about other things, but they were not proven) When questioned about the glove(s) and the suggestion that he planted the glove at Simpson’s estate, he had stated that he had not had access to the glove(s) prior to going to Simpson’s estate, and that a picture of him pointing to a glove at the murder scene was after he returned from Simpson’s home. Well, in comes the LAPD photographer with photo sheets which shows the order/timing of the photographs, and low and behold he states that the picture was taken about 0420 and was demonstrated by the contact sheet. But that wasn’t good enough, he goes on to say that he runs into to Fuhrman, who is alone at the crime scene, and Fuhrman asks him to take the picture of Fuhrman pointing to the glove, all before Fuhrman leaves for Simpson’s home.

- Don’t even get me started on the gloves.

- But what was the most important part of the Fuhrman tapes? Was it they prove he used the N-word, despite denying it? Nope. Was it they have his voice talking about planting evidence in other cases? Nope. The most important part of the Fuhrman tapes was his comment on the Simpson case itself, which was something to the effect of “I’m the star witness in the Trial of the Century. If I go down, the glove goes bye bye.”
Was this accurate? Not exactly, in terms of evidence. Fuhrman never had to be called to introduce the glove into evidence. What does it mean then???

Enough of that shit, but I guess I got my feathers ruffled seeing some of the comments regarding the case. Not because of anything but lack of knowledge regarding the case, and I don’t blame anyone but the media for purpetuating some myths about the case. A person will never understand unless they take the time to study the case. Until that time, they will be stuck with the sound bytes and comments that “a black jury was mad at a racist cop and ignored the rest of the evidence, thus letting a murderer go free.”