What we would all like to know is "What did Simpson say to Rosie Greer (during Greer's visit with him in jail) that was overheard by an employee at the jail (who was willing to testify to it) but was excluded from the trial by Judge Ito!

Rumor (and speculation) has it that Simpson, in a fit of anger, exclaimed to Greer that...yes...he did it!

Has anyone ever asked Rosie Greer what was said?

Justice isn't always clean. It is what it is. Let it go. There will be a higher power to determine what was right or wrong. We all need to move on. We have many more pressing issues that face us daily.

Well, DUH. They are just figuring this out now?????

Anyone that believes that the state would allow the defense enough time with the evidence privately to tamper with it ... believes in the tooth fairy!

Chris Darden is trying trying to blame a dead man for his mistakes ... Johnny Cochran realized that the glove had gotten wet & shrank .... Darden didn,t .. and fell into the trap ..

I have always been amazed by this. I watched this charade. I watched it calmly and objectively, not caring about the outcome because IMO both the victim and the accused are/were trailer trash scum. I felt bad for the truly innocent victim--the young man--of course.

What I saw was that the glove, given the fact that it was stiff and slightly shrunken from having been soaking wet and crusted with dried blood, fit perfectly. It was a style of glove that goes only to the wrist, and it fit perfectly. But OJ grins and dances around, his attorney starts crowing, and everyone sees what they are told to see.

The glove fit, and the jury were a bunch of bigots who knowingly let their hero go free after murdering two people in cold blood. And the prosecutor was a total idiot.

But it was fascinating to watch.

The OJ case was DELIBERATELY BLOWN to prevent a riot. I agree with that because convicting OJ isn't worth the damage it would have caused. Beside, the wheel went around and he's in jail for something else.

Jail is jail no matter what the conviction is for!

The gloves were decent quality calf's skin, so the blood and fluid would make them less pliable and stiff, but they wouldn't shrink. The fatal flaw for Darden was allowing Simpson to try on the glove WHILE wearing a polyvinyl chloride exam glove. In all the years of analysis, this salient point has never been addressed. Those plastic exam gloves fit poorly, the vinyl bunches up, and without lubricant, nothing will slide across its surface. And on top of all that, its presence on Simpson's hand added at least 1/2 to one full size to his hand size. OF COURSE IT DIDN'T FIT, over the plastic glove. No tampering was necessary.

So many back then as now rush to conclusions about these public cases. The O.J. trail in fact set the stage for many other public trials that never went to trial. The latest is Lance Armstrong being stripped of his legendary 7 wins with no evidence that proves he doped inllegaly to get those wins and of course Joe Paterno's reputation and most wins record in college football being taken not for his own actions but for the actions of someone else.

I O.J guilty ? I don't know but I do know that a jury said he wasn't but yet that wasn't good enough and wrongful death was somehow brought against him and cleaned him out finacially. How do you get off on killing someone then be charged with wrongful death ? the federal government dropped any possible doping charges against Lance but then he was accused by the NDA and even with out trial claim he is guilty because he wouldn't fight them any longer.One day hopefully we can have true justice not the one driven by greed.

either way the douchebag is in jail and the other ones dead!!!!!!!

F.Lee Bailey is still alive. Stop having 12-yea-olds write articles for you NBC.

i never understood how he was aquited on the murder charges but liabal in the civil case? if he was found not guilty then why would he be resonsible for their deaths in the civil trial and ordered to pay 33 milion to the families? dont get me wrong i do believe he did murder nichole and ron, but i just never understood the civil trial verdict. not trying to be funny or prove any point i truly would like to hear some reasons as to why he was found not guilty of their murder but still responsible for their deaths and ordered to pay? does anyone on here have any good answer that mite help me to understand?

And to back up your point that the press is not to be trusted with the facts, just look at what this article says about F. Lee Bailey - it says that he is dead when, in fact, he is NOT dead. Apparently, even NBC cannot use Google properly.

dscott15, The burden of proof in civil matters is not near as high as in criminal cases. Words like reasonably and probably take the place of beyond a reasonable doubt.

@dscott15: the burden of proof in a civil liability trial is much, much lower than a criminal murder trial. They didn't even have to come to a unanimous decision for him to lose the civil trial. Just a majority of the jurors were required to agree that he was responsible for their wrongful deaths.

Different people, different outcome. It's entirely possible that had there been a set of different people on either jury, the outcomes might have been completely different. But the rule, at the end of the day, is that as a juror, you get to decide which side has the better lawyer.

@canemah

@mike

thank you . that does help me to understand. and that has always puzzled me. again, thank you.

Avenger---Lance Armstrong is a doper, even his teammates admit to having done it with him. Professional bicycle racers are notorious for using PEDs and if you look at the history of the Tour de France you can intuitively understand how he was cheating. Just like the dopers who suddenly broke every home run record in baseball. Joe Paterno put money, reputation and success in college football way beyond the importance of protecting male children from the child rapist he had on his staff. He was an enabler, liar and pathetic human being and is just starting his journey across the river Styxx. If you wait for, or depend on a legal verdict to understand things that are obvious and right before your eyes you might as well be living a corner of your basement.

As far as OJ is concerned, putting on a tight leather glove while wearing a plastic glove was just ridiculous and even at the time I realized this was a fool's errand for the prosecution. But don't worry as soon as the Juice gets out of prison he can resume his search for the real killers. Then we'll know the truth, eh Avenger?

It is sensational journalism to publish this news in first place since the dead man can't defend himself.

However - here is what i see - in US. I am not black but I see - a black person when becomes successful - becomes an easy target to be shot down by media. Examples - Michael Jackson, Cobe Bryant, Tiger Woods. I am sure there are many more. I am also sure that this is also true upto some extent for white (rare but there are examples like Tom Cruise).

I am not knowledgeable enough to say one way or other about OJ. But the sensationalism of media makes it hard to understand truth or false especially when star power is involved and especially when black people are at the receiving end.

Hello Dscott15:

The bar of proof of guilt is much lower in a civil (tort) action. A tort or tortious act is an intentional and wrongful CIVIL act. In the criminal case, the jury acquitted O.J. because of what is known as "jury nullification" (many of the jurors admitted they believed the prosecution's case against O.J.), but decided to make a social statement due to the extreme racism involved in the selection of venues the trial was moved from O.J.'s 'real' neighborhood venue in 'white' Santa Monica to downtown LA at the behest of John Mack of the Urban League..a quasi-civil rights group that works for the benefit of people based on their skin color...which is black. The one white woman juror said she felt threatened with intense pressure and fear of retribution to change her verdict from 'guilty' to 'not guilty'. Our law provides for two remedies for victims of crime: one is the state prosecuting the defendant in the criminal trial-- and regardless of outcome, if there is sufficient evidence to obtain a victory in the second remedy-- a civil wrongful death suit (and even if there isn't, anyone can sue anyone for anything anytime under our law)-- then the evidence is presented, and instead of having to decide if there is " beyond reasonable doubt" to acquit, as with the criminal trial, the focus in the civil trial is instead based on the entire body of evidence in which the jurors can award civil damages (money) to the victims' families--and it does not have to be beyond reasonable doubt. In a civil trial, it is the preponderance of the evidence-- meaning the evidence mostly convinces the jurors that the defendant (O.J.) was more likely than not to have been the responsible party in the wrongful deaths of Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman. And so you know, O.J. has an untouchable football pension even now that he is in jail. The Goldman and Brown families have collected very little from O.J. They collected a small sum on O.J. memorabilia that was seized and sold to pay down the 33 million...sadly, very little has gone to the families of the two victims. I hope this helps you to understand.

Rustyboy-FL........there is no 'higher power'....just the fact OJ is wasting is life in jail is as good as it will get....we all know when he gets out all the wanna-be lackys will flock around him and he will write yet another book.

I remember thinking how could they even use those gloves. They were soaked in blood which when dried would make them shrink and then he put latex gloves on first. That makes a huge difference trying to put them on too. Then he was spreading his fingers while putting them on. What a joke and then they made a huge deal that they didn't fit him. He also said he never wore Bruno Maele? shoes and they had a picture with him wearing him. That trial was a travesty and that jury was going to aquit him no matter what the evidence.

Clark and Darden....the tweedledee and tweedledum prosecution team and to think these two incompetents make money on the lecture circuits!

What manipulate? Cochran didn't have to manipulate the evidence! To start with, that was the flimsiest bit of showboating on Cochran's part, topped only by the totally inept prosecution!

have you ever seen what happens to a leather glove when it gets soaking wet and is left out in the sun to dry? IT SHRINKS! All the prosecution team had to do was get another pair of gloves just like the one in evidence, soak on of them overnight and set it out to dry. When presented to the jury, this would clearly show that the fact that the glove did not fit Simpson was totally irrelevant to the case at that point.

Geez! Some people are idiots ... and it seems like too many of them work for their city, county, state!

It was OJ and he had help from a close relative who he would never give up. That's why the glove didn't fit.

"Having made the greatest legal blunder of the 20th Century," Dershowitz said of Darden, "he's trying to blame it on the dead man."

The 'blunder' was not by Darden, but by the District Attorney in moving the trial to Central Los Angeles where Cochran was able to 'stack the jury' with virtually all African Americans, knowing that there would be at least some that would not convict Simpson for racial reasons. I still remember one of the Black jurors saying about the indisputable blood evidence after the trial "I don't know nothin bout no blood".

If the trial had taken place in the judicial district where the crime was committed, Simpson would not have been acquitted.

Conservative Rebellion "It was OJ and he had help from a close relative who he would never give up. That's why the glove didn't fit."

I think the glove didn't fit for 2 reasons;

1 - Simpson took some medication that swelled his hands - that was previously reported.

2 - If you take any leather glove and put blood on it and let it dry, it will shrink. Try soaking a leather glove in water and let it dry - it will shrink.

@patter.....Totally agree. I work in construction, and I wear leather gloves, (most times,) and I have had to replace gloves when they got wet and dried, because they shrunk so much I couldn't get them back on. I made the connection when I was watching the trial...What I can't figure out is why NO ONE ELSE ON THE JURY DIDN'T?!?

At any rate, it seems like karma did come back to bite this loser....

However - here is what i see - in US. I am not black but I see - a black person when becomes successful - becomes an easy target to be shot down by media. Examples - Michael Jackson, Cobe Bryant, Tiger Woods.

PJ, if you think that's crazy, look at what happens to the black people who don't become famous. They're 6 times as likely to be convicted of a crime as a white person, and 20 times as likely to be convicted of murdering a white person than a white person is to be convicted of murdering a black person. In fact, though many blacks are killed every year, whites are hardly ever charged with their murders. Somehow, the media makes it so mostly black gang members are charged with the murders of other blacks! Even without getting involved, the media somehow forces the justice system to charge blacks with lots of drug-related crime as well. Truly strange, eh?

Considering how evil and racist the media is, and how much it sensationalizes crimes (like murder and pedophilia), but ONLY if the criminal is black and famous, I suppose the black entertainment stars are at least happy that they don't tend to get convicted when the media is involved. For whites like Casey Anthony, the media must only sensationalize their murder sprees when they weren't famous to begin with, huh? Who knows how many people Tom Cruise has secretly murdered.

i think people are running out of things in the news to talk about . so we have to bring it up now . its funny how drew peterson . is now guilty . well justice finally is served on that . i think the ojs whole case was messed up .

angelsfcity33 - Agreed! Darden's speculation is too little, and much too late. To blame Johnny Cochran 20 years later is abominable; way over the line of good taste in light of the fact the Cochran is deceased!

Darden should have reported prosecutorial misconduct and dealt with Cochran face-to-face.

bluelake .. Our own fderal government investigated Lance and found no evidence he had doped with PED's and droped the investigation. The reason was Lance had passed EVERY drug test. I you look further you will see an explanation of the use of needles and that was to inject anti-eflamitories into joints to releive pain and swelling. Nothing that made him stronger or more physical.The man beat cancer. He may be superhuman and capable of more that just the average joe. All that took place was some pin heads wanted to knock Lance off the legend list simply because they didn't think h could havepossible one what he did in fact do. Sure I can't run a 4 minute mile but that doesn't mean no one else can. Just a controling agency taking their power to their heads at all costs. As for Joe Paterno. One day he will be exonerated and will be restored to his rigtfull place a winigest college couch of all time. His statue will also be put back right where it belongs. He did all he needed to do and he did in fact follow up but was told everything was ok. It was college officials who covered this up and but not for he sake of football but rather to save their own hides for letting Sandusky on the campus.When civil cases bring out the real truth in this matter perhaps you will be willig to say you were wrong to mis-judge JoPa so quickly.

That was when whites rioted in the streets for days after a killer's acquittal.

What a crock. But his punk kid may have helped him. Find a full screen shot of the not guilt announcement and watch the look and expression on the white lawyer wearing glasses face. He looks like i don't believe this. These idiots actually turned him loose.

the prosecutor, judge all were to concerned about playing up to the media; they forgot to try their case to the jury, it was reported, that during breaks, the state team, actually had makeup applied to look good for the cameras.

@Do the math - I grant you that you are extremely intelligent. But intelligence and fairness has no correlation whatsoever. Your post proves it.

Media is just a part of wider society. Justice system is part of wider society. They both reflect societal values. They have their own virtues as well as vices. But Justice systems calling out Black Gangs for killing other blacks doesn't rule out nor justify lynchings - real or metaphorical.

As long as we're re-litigating here, there was a lot of exculpatory evidence that was never explained away. A cell phone... Nichol's guest.... Music that should have ended... Lite candles... Lets just say the prosecution did a lousy job. They tried to twist evidence to fit a preconceived theory, and it started with the LA police department possibly planting evidence. A lot of things didn't fit in that trial, the glove being the most glaring.

Hmmm... There was another comment about wet gloves that have dried.

I was a firefighter in Northern California for 13 years, and I know what happens when gloves get wet and dry out; and what happens when you try to put them on again.

Like almost everyone else, I watched the trial. When I saw the "gloves incident" on TV, I immediately called the Los Angeles County Prosecutor's office to inform them about my experiences with dried gloves. I asked them to contact any firefighter and ask about wet to dry gloves. I believed that I had a duty to inform the prosecutor. The person I spoke with listened attentively, and thanked me for my call. It was rather condescending treatment, as if I were a nut case.

The prosecution team had the opportunity to question the contrived gloves demonstration, but chose not to do that. I have always wondered why. The fear of another race riot was probably very real. More likely than not, that had a very strong bearing on what happened during that trial.

However, like Forest Gump said back in 1993, "Stupid is as stupid does." There's another old timey saying from the South - "You cain't fix stupid." O.J. Simpson lived up to those. He believed that he was above the law. Now he realizes that he made a very BIG mistake in believing that he was almost invincible. Fortunately for the rest of society, O.J. will have plenty of time to think about his mistakes.

About the "bloody glove." If you have ever leather gloves the have gotten wet, with water,or blood, they become tight and shrink, after they dry. O.J got lucky on so many fronts. The incident with Rodney King had just happened, judge Ito was incompetent, the prosecution was too concerned with the cameras and DNA was not 'best evidence" at the time. OJ was guily of murder. The other characters in the farce were guilty of egotism and showmanship. No one thought about the victims.

If I remember, didn't OJ attempt to put the glove on, over another glove? Of course it wouldn't appear to fit.

Joe Paterno's reputation and most wins record in college football being taken not for his own actions but for the actions of someone else.

His reputation and records were not taken. He forfeited them when he failed to report a child being raped for his own profit and to protect the athletic program. He actively covered up a crime. He failed to eport a crime and that is a crime in itself.

The prosecution made so many mistakes during the OJ trial that one has to wonder if they were actually lawyers. But in reality once the majority black jury heard that a cop used the word Ni**** it was all over.

Prosecution could have demonstrated the "wet leather" properties of the gloves by doing what native americans used to do.

They got strips of leather wet, stretched them out; then used them to tie an individual to stakes in a spread eagle position. As they dried the strips would shrink....somewhat painful after a while.

They would also do the same then wrap a person' chest with the stretched leather. Sucked to be the person.

Either way, they could have used O.J. to demonstrate. :)

I don't think O.J. has lead a very happy life. No physical punishment...but mentally and spiritually.........

And why didn't Darden bring this up BEFORE Cohran died? That's very chicken-s**t.

To all those who are slamming NBC for incorrectly stating that F. Lee Bailey is deceased: if you look at the top of the story, you will see that it's from Reuters, so they are the ones who messed up, not NBC. If you visit reuters.com now, you will also see that they have since corrected their story, but unfortunately that correction doesn't automatically propagate here.

I agree with MENOSEENO, LAX would have gone up in flames if he was convicted.

Just like the riots after the Rodney King affair.

The blacks wouldv'e burned the city to the ground if he was charged and locked up. They hadn't finished rebuilding from the Rodney King verdict riots.

Avenger--You are either a troll or the most dense and naive person on the planet. I'm done with you.

Chris Darden messeed up royally letting OJ put on the gloves; but today he is an angry bitter man He had been a Deputy DA for well over 20 years was planning to retire ,but when he got his book advance, 4 mil he took vacation time , stayed out beyond his accrued time County dais he quit he lost county pension which probably was around six figures annually. He did get his contributions back which may have totalled six figures; he is very angry about that, I see him around courthouses often,he does criminal defense work. What he says is patently absurd.If he had not consented there would have been no glove demo, but there was plenty of other defense evidence which was not used which would have proved OJ's innocence.You haters forget Van Natters walking around with the blood in his pocket for a couple of days,the fact that their was missing blood from the tube ,the fact that the video of the search did not show the evidence allegedly discovered in the bedroom ,bloody sock I think. And of course the prosecution's unwillingness to use the ME who did the autopsy and put the time of death at the time OJ was by all admission's on both sides at the airport.There is a mountain of evidence that he was innocent and to set the record straight how long was the trial 6 months ,one year I don't remember but the DA's office searched high and low for someone who saw OJ in Bruno Magcli's the had bulletins all over the World ,they said he does football games ,surely someone has seen him in Bruno's they get no response. Magically at the civil trial they produce a photo, they did not disclose it in discovery should not have been asmitted ,judge let it in OJ's lawyers asked for 1 wek adjournment so they could have experts determine if photo was genuine ,not altered ,created court denied that motion . A personal injury trail how often is evidence fabricated,twisted in PI cases are PI plaintiff lawyers the most respected?

Following up on the civil case:

A civil case involves disputes between private parties, whereas a criminal case involves the state (representing the people) prosecuting someone for engaging in an action that disturbed the public order. As such, a defending does not have the protections in a civil case that he does in a criminal trial.

For example, a defendant can be called to testify in a civil trial, whereas he cannot be compelled to testify in a criminal trial. Evidence that might be excluded in a criminal trial could be admitted in a civil trial. If memory serves, evidence of OJ's previous accusations of spousal abuse were dismissed from the criminal trial as heresay, but were admitted in the civil trial.

Furthermore, the burden of proof is different. To convict a defendant the jury must find him/her guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and it has to be a unanimous decision. In a civil trial, the jury must rule based on the preponderance of evidence, and it doesn't have to be unanimous (either 9 or 10 jurors I believe).

As for this case, it was screwed up beyond all belief by just about everyone involved except OJ's legal team. The judge let the case go on way too long, especially for a sequestered jury. And the prosecution just out and out blew it.

I'm also very offended by the jury, who only took four hours for a case that lasted almost a year. At least pretend to give the evidence serious thought by taking a day or two. But this was the (largely African American) jury's revenge for the acquittal of the four LAPD officers who beat Rodney King in the early 90's. The verdict in that case was just as ridiculous as the one in the OJ case. Hell, OJ himself pretty much admitted how he did it in the "fictional" book "If I Did It." Anyone who thinks OJ did not commit the crime is either too blinded by race to see the truth, or too stupid to ever sit on a jury (or indeed breathe).

I'm just wondering who has written a new book and is using this as free advertising.

While it is a know fact that OJ beat his wife in the past, I don't think he killed her. I believe that someone else killed her and OJ knows who did it. What convinced me of his innocence was a few things that you need to ask yourself. One, the chemical preservative in the blood that was on the socks, which was planted (unless OJ has chemicals in his blood) and if he had killed them wouldn't his socks be soaked in blood, even if you had the socks underneath your pants, and two the autospies were @!$%#ed up so that the person who performed them did not testify. Add to that the fact that there were witnesses who heard something and saw things but were never allowed to testify, and also read the Henry Lee Book about it (it has a lot of other cases he worked on). Yes, the defense did rely on race, which I thought was a stupid defense but it worked. And this is my biggest problem, the prosecutor stated that he killed her because he didn't want another man with her and he was jealous. Why the prosecution pulled out the pictures of her being beaten was a bad move. As I stated before I've known that she was a beaten women (as in past tense), that was common knowlege to anyone who came across those stories of them. But when was the last time he beat her? Was she found beaten at the seen of the crime? No. She had not been beaten by him in a long time. So why would he want to kill her if he has gone on with his life.

Joe Paterno's reputation and most wins record in college football being taken not for his own actions but for the actions of someone else.

You are 100% INcorrect. Paterno's wins weren't taken away because of what Jerry Sandusky did- they were taken away because Paterno participated, directly or otherwise, in the cover-up of those actions, and made the mistake of not properly looking into what happened. I was always an admirer of JoePat, and still have respect for his abilities as a football coach - but he wasn't innocent of any wrongdoing in this case.

The evidence included a blood-soaked glove found on Simpson's estate and a matching one found at the scene of the murder.

unless simpson was smart enough to know they would suspect him immediatly and to throw investigators off, (why on earth would anyone leave a glove at the scene, and take the other home to hide?) by making it look like he was being framed... with his own gloves.....

as far as the glove NOT fitting, i have to laugh. i can wear a size medium glove, its what for some consider a little bit of room work glove. i also can fit into a small. this i do prefer, because they fit snug, and i can keep a better grip on tools, or heavy parts. it doesnt look much different when i put on a small, compaired to OJ's attempt, only i dont have any reason to hide for them not to fit. (fairly exspensive work gloves, all sheepskin leather, and thin)they do fit snug, but comfortable after an hour of breaking in. so i never did buy the "glove doesnt fit" bit.

then also when they talk about the mound of evidence, i found most of it to be circumstantial... family arguments happen with a good majority of couples... however the physical abuse imo was uncalled for. i dont think it was a big secret OJ liked the co-co juice, nor that he had finacial issues. so for him to kill her personally i find odd... (if he is smart enough to leave what could be a setup from the start with the glove bit he shouldnt be dumb enough to do it personally. it to me would be a strong possiblity he owed a good sum of cash to someone, or the investigating officers, felt it could be no other than him, and did it themselves. obviously right?

i do hope even tho OJ, (who as a kid used to be one of my hero's as a kid till i found out he was a asshle, before this event) who i have lost all respect for is the actual killer, not the real one is out there still.

My Aunt Bernice is going to visit Bob Hope's grave tomorrow! Whooopppeeeeee!!

Considered Roy.

Have a smaller you help you can also explain the smaller glove.

This is quite a serious accusation that Darden is making, and reporting this to the court or to the bar association wouldn't have been a "whiny little snitch approach to life." It would have been the legally appropriate thing to do.

My personnel opinion on this is that the police, detectives, investigators, and prosecutors (including Darden) who handled this case, bungled it so badly that they would like to blame anyone, or anything for their mistakes.

It's highly improbable that any piece of evidence like this would ever come into the defenses possessionwithout supervision, and long enough for them for tamper with it in the fashion Darden describes.

Methinks Mr Darden is making excuses for his own faux pas, and that in and of itself is the "whiny little snitch approach to life."

Robert Kardashian was a member of OJ's defense team.

OMG, are the Kardashians involved in everything ?

Are they, truthfully, members of

.

.

.

THE LAMINATE ?

Thats.... LUMINATE......

damn spell check...

Roy Wilson,

Lies by Police and or Prosecution and Fabricated Evidence;

1. Bloody Socks - Two tech's had already looked at the socks and did not find any blood evidence on them, then a third tech comes along and finds splatter on them.

2. Bloody Thumb Print on Back Gate Latch - Several persons had already been in and out gate this had been established in testimony, then they say they found a bloody print on thumb latch of gate. I ride a motor cycle and was a mechanic, I know you can get your gloves back on after being wet and letting them dry.

3. Blood Soaked Glove - Testimony by officers that area where glove was found had been searched several times, then glove all of a sudden appears.

4. Police Arrive At OJ's Compund - Testimony is that they had to make a "Emergency Entrance", Went over the Front gate to get in. To check on "Welfare" of Mr. Simpson since his estranged wife had just been murdered. Testimony was they arrived, and waited I believe around 17 mins to go over the gate, and it was supposed to be an "EMERGENCY"!!! Bull!

5. Det Mark Furman - One the Witness Stand, he was I believe a 23 + year veteran of the Dept. of South Central LA, and when questioned by Cochran, Furman testified he had never used the word "NI&&ER", that man is a LIAR.

I am a Ret. Metro Police Capt. and could not of convicted him based on the evidence and the incompetence of the prosecution... The Jury made the Correct decision...

What I'd like to know is: Why is it being brought up again?!? 17 years ago he was aqutted! He can go on National T.V. and say I done it! Guess what? He can't be charged again. If you are found not guilty, you cannot be charged a second time for the same crime!!! So, conclusion? "Erelavent"!!!!!

PLEASE CAN WE STOP RELIVING THIS NIGHTMARE! Darden blew it when he had Simpson try to put on the glove over a latex glove. Patricia Clark tried to dissuade this from happening, and felt the case went out the window with this incident.

Put it to rest, Cristopher!! Move on!!

Joe125 you are quite right, F Lee Bailey is not dead.....he just looks dead..

Daniel

What a nasty statement

I am sure you are a beauty pageant winner and a lovely sight to behold right now (sarcasm) and will never age.

All of us get older, and time marches all across or face...this will happen sooner than you think...and I hope people don't take cheap hots at you like you took at Mr Bailey.

OJ was / is guilty as hell, and anyone with half a brain knows her murdered those two people. I still feel terrible for the Goldman family and the Brown family. They didn't deserve to die like that. No one does.

Hell, my wife tells me I have NO brains and I know that!!

I cannot believe that Chris Darden is still suffering from sour grapes because he royally screwed up in that trial and he has never been able to accept that so now he is blaming a dead man who cant fight back. After the trial Darden had nothing but praise for Johnnie Cochrane and now he is deceased and he chooses to make this accusation now. How tacky.

I live in Canada and when this trial began I didnt have a clue who O.J. Simpson was so I decided to watch the trial as a juror would and see where it leads me. I was pretty sure he was guilty but I wanted to listen to the evidence. From the very beginning the Prosecution was really inept. Marsha Clarke and Chris Darden thought this would be the *trial of the century* for them and they were too eager in trying to win this case. There was mistake after mistake by the prosecution - so much so that at times I was sitting there with my mouth open shocked at what they were saying and doing. Of course O.J. had the dream team who were all more experienced than the prosecution - but the case was handled in a really shoddy fashion from the git-go. And suffice to say at the end of the trial even though I thought he did it - if I followed the evidence like the jury did and I had to decide on that I would have voted for aquittal too. And as I said - this is just sour grapes for Chris Darden because 20 years later he still cant accept that he screwed up royally and it wasnt just the gloves not fitting. It is kind of sad when a person cant let go of something 20 years later. And O.J. is now in jail and his life has been messed up since the trial so in the end he ended up where everyone wanted him to end up.

To throw these accusations out after all these years is 'whiny'. Seeking the glory he failed to get for 'convicting' OJ.

I listened to that trail every day and I am not convinced that OJ was guilty. Why would Darden want to revisit the trail. I will at least give Marcia Clark credit for moving on.

There were a lot of things the prosecution did that I though were not professional.

Maybe he got away with it but he has to live with it and is in jail now giving him lots of time to think about it......we'll more than likely never know just as we'll never know the truth about Casey Anothony's daughter, Calee.

Dude take a chill pill already.

Bob fu:

It's JD in SD; that was on a chill pill! But his comments are 95% relevent.

The prosecution team did totally get outplayed by the best defense team money could buy. Even if the glove incident wouldn't have occurred, Simpson would have still been found not guilty. That jury wasn't about to convict him. They returned their verdict in only four hours of deliberations after a ninth month trial with mountains of evidence presented.

JS in SD

I was not a big fan of Cochran, but for Darden to be throwing out these accusations now is reprehensible.

________________________________________________________________________

He is practicing to become a politician and needs the practice of throwing accusations at his opponent.

I have no doubt about OJ's guilt, but for Darden to bring this up, and to bring it up at this time, just confirms that OJ got off largely because the prosecuters were idiots.

As much as all you whiners like to point to OJ and say he deserves to be in jail for this, I have two words for you:

.

.

NOT GUILTY.

Plus, as I recall he was wearing latex gloves while trying to slip the other gloves over them. All but guaranteed not to work.

The fit of the glove was the last thing I was concerned about.

The fact that an investigator walked around with OJ's blood sample in his jacket pocket for over 24 hrs before submitting it as evidence was the "get out of jail card" for OJ as far as I was concerned...not to mention the other contaminated evidence and completely suspect evidence and procedures throughout the investigation. The entire prosecution was a circus of ineptitude.

georgiagirl, I totally agree!

There was a lot more evidence besides the glove pointing to O.J. Forensic and circumstantial. It was all pretty much ignored when they turned the murder case around and instead put the police detective(forget his name) on trial, accusing his testimony of being racially motivated, because of something he'd said years ago..the "N" word, discounting any other valuable information he had to give.

i believe it was something furhman? maybe mark furhman? and i agree , ialways thought he did exactly what he set out to do ,destroy the prosecutions case. it was awfully conveniet that a recording of him throwing the "N" word around surfaced at just the perfect time. i think he was paid off by someone to throw the case or just ordered to do so to prevent the riots.

the prosecution was soooo stupid on that one. First thing i did was get out my own leather gloves, put on latex gloves, as Simpson did, and tried to put them on.. Can't do it. They should have had all the jurors try it with leather gloves over latex. You can't get them on, even if they fix you perfectly without the latex. Stupid mistake by the state...

. . and you forgot to soak them in some blood and let them dry out and shrink as they sit in storage for a year. I remember that look of surprise and relief on OJ's face when he couldn't fit his hand into that shrunken glove. The prosecuting lawyer who came up with that idea was very inept.Anybody whoever played any sports where you wear a glove to get a grip on something knows that after getting soaked with sweat and drying you have to stretch it out to get it back on.

Aggie and dscott

I believe the defense is supposed to blow holes in the prosecution's theory. If I were on trial I would certainly want my attorney to discredit the prosecution. Aside from pointing out the "real" killer, how else is the defense supposed to defend?

Culheath:

Yes, ineptitude extraordinarily so. And DNA evidence was an emerging science, poorly presented by the prosecution and not even closely understood by the jury IMO. Today; it would have been a different outcome.

If a leather glove gets wet, it shrinks and of course, it wouldn't fit! Why was this not taken into consideration?

I work in leather gloves myself, in all kinds of weather. I was amazed at the stupidity of the prosecutor in this regard. What a shame, but like other posters have pointed out, the blaze of LA would have been seen in outer space. THAT'S why OJ wasn't convicted, what a shame we're so scared of doing the right thing in this country.

Not only that, but any idiot can figure out that the gloves (material) will shrink after absorbimg blood and then drying to a crusty consistency.

The glove didn't NEED to be tampered with- of course they were smaller than they were originally.

I agree. I think the gloves had been wet and when they dried, shrunk enough that he couldn't get it on his hand. I also heard he had stopped taking some type of inflammatory medication prior to the fiasco which caused swelling in his hands.

@ roundtown: I absolutely agree with your thoughts. Note the article states,"The evidence included a blood-soaked glove found on Simpson's estate and a matching one found at the scene of the murder." A blood soaked glove sealed in an evidence locker for over a year would have dried out and shriveled up - as wet leather tends to do. There was no need to "tamper" with the evidence, Mother Nature took care of that. Cochrane knew that simple fact but obviously, Darden didn't - he blew it from the git-go.

Yes, unfortunately, the Prosecution and Police Investigators blew the entire case!

Not to mention the Judge- Ito....a terrible judge in that trial

But who is out looking for the "real killers" on the nations golf courses while O.J. is locked up ?

I'm just wondering when Kris Jenner- formerly known as Mrs. Robert Kardashian- is going to put in her "opinion". I'm sure she's hopping mad that his name is only mentioned once in this particular story.

She is forever keeping her mouth shut on that issue. He ex is dead, she went on with her life, capitalizing on the K. name and those girls who will do anything for money and exposure. They are making a ton of it, as they never would have without Kim. Her sex video hit the jackpot and took off the money road. Kardashian was a typical criminal defense attorney therefore he sold his soul for money and fame. His family is following his footsteps. No accountability, no class , morals or ethics.

I'm still surprised nobody's tried to take a shank to OJ to get celebrity cred in prison.

Or have I been watching too much of the early 2000's prison show OZ?

i would imagine the families of the 2 innocent people who were viciously mudered probaly still care. are they supposed to move on? if this happened to your loved ones i imagine you would still want to know that the police are doing everything they can to bring the real "murderer" to justice no matter how many years it has been. ive heard of people that just dont give up on finding the pos that killed someone they love actually finding the evidence 20 years later that leads to arrest of the guilty person. so yeah ,someone cares no matter how long it has been.

These families have moved on. They know what happened and are comforted by the fact Simpson is in jail. He lost in the civl suit and even though they are unlikely to ever see any money from Simpson's estate, they can accept it . I feel sorry for SImpson's kids. They have to live with that reality and it must be a difficult burden. Nothing the Law does will ever bring the dead back.

Apparently hundreds of people who have posted here care....including you.

I am with you dsb. I taped most of that trial and Vanatter carrying O J's blood all day was a problem for me.

Do you remember them finding blood on Nicole's gate, some days later and of course it was O J's blood.

Very poor prosecution.

I have served on juries and I am astonished at the average citizen's LACK of responsibility and REASON. It is 'guilty beyond a REASONABLE doubt'. The means that you have to use some REASONING skills. You are allowed to fill in the blanks WITHIN REASON. Most people are so ignorant I am surprised that any criminal gets convicted in a trial by jury.

Dsb,

My sentiments exactly. Having watched the trial (though not all of it) I was not convinced either. Plus, I actually saw photographs of the murder scene. It was a horrifically bloody mess. With that much blood, there's just no way that a lay person would be able to walk away relatively clean and not leave some kind of evidence somewhere when they don't know what they're doing. As I recall, they had even checked his drains for blood evidence and found nothing. If you don't know what you're doing, it's almost impossible to destroy all evidence. I never thought he was innocent, but I believed he either hired someone else to do the dirty work or at least had a lot of help.

I also recall after the case hearing an interview of OJ's defense people. Don't remember who. Apparently they had the gloves in their possession long before the big courtroom scene and the attorney himself had tried the glove on and it didn't fit him. So he already knew without a doubt that if it didn't fit him, it was not going to fit OJ.

I believe it contributed toward the acquittal, but without it, I think he still would have been acquitted, because the jury would have never found him guilty, no matter how much evidence there was. They didn't want to convict a celebrity, and the prosecution didn't have enormous talent, when it came to presenting the evidence, which unfortunately made it easy for the careless jury to decide as they did.

I think the Defense pushed for OJ to try the glove on. Not fitting a glove is way easier when you don't want to put it on. OJ clearly had his hand as open as one could make it.

Why are we still talking about this..

Yeh, famous black man kills white wife..I forgot. Of course he didn't do it! Not to mention it happens in liberal California, double didnt do it.

Well you know these are the same prosecutors that will send someone to death row on mistaken eyewitness testimony then stand by their conviction in the face of DNA evidence to the contrary. Not the smartest or fairest bunch.

OJ can never be tried for this crime again. He was acquitted of it and the law only allows the prosecution

1 shot. I believe the term is called double jeopardy.

Though what you state is probably true the fact remains he can not be tried again for those crimes since he was found NOT GUILTY. He could even write a book on how he did it and have a film of it and nothing could be done because of the Law. I don't agree with it but it is what it is. Laws are not made because of of what Joe Public sees what is right or wrong. In the long run they are made for the Lawyers and what is called MONEY. You have like 700 inmates in California given the Death Penalty and they just sit even though Judge and Jury gave them that sentence. Why do you think that is? More appeals, more money out of YOUR folks pockets. Plus the Lawyers get to pick the Jury on who might acquit or find a person guilty. Makes sense right? The longer the process, longer the trial, the more appeals and the MORE money that is being made. A quick trial now is like two years later after the crime. Hmmmmm.

Double-jeopardy is a crucial element of criminal law, which ensures that citizens have protections from their government. It makes certain that prosecutors don't keep putting someone on trial until they get a conviction. The only exception might be if there was deliberate jury tampering or other misconduct on behalf of the defense, but otherwise a person cannot be tried by the same court twice for the same crime.

However, this doesn't preclude someone being prosecuted by a different court for the same crime. After the LA riots, the federal government prosecuted the 4 LAPD officers for violating Rodney King's civil rights. This may violate the spirit of double-jeopardy, if not the letter, as it is unlikely the federal government would have proceeded without the acquittal of the officers or the subsequent riots.

Isn't it odd that there are three that defended him who are now deceased? Karma

Sophia, F. Lee Bailey isn't deceased. MSNBC did their usual job of reporting something that wasn't true. As for Karma what is wrong with a defence attorney doing everything within their power to present the best possible defense as long as they don't break the law? That is what they are required to do and that is one of the pillars of our justice system. Would you want to be defended by an attorney who thought that you didn't deserve their best?

And murderers do walk.

Yes indeed, money does talk and reverse discrimination is rampant..............

It was like watching Perry Mason and Hamilton Burger.

Actually you are not found guilty in civil court. You are found 'liable'. The level of proof in a civil trial is lower than in a criminal trial.

Of course I am absolutely certain he did it. And I think he has no remorse. He rots where he belongs

Preponderance isn't used in criminal cases, it's a much harder burden of proof, it must be beyond a reasonable doubt. But even then he should have been convicted, everyone knew it including OJ himself. He was the most surprised guy in the world when that verdict was announced. I have always believed it was directly because of the Rodney King incident and subsequent acquittal of the police officers involved there, just plain retribution from that jury.

having been involved in this case I can tell you that neither Darden or Cochran were worth

2 bits. the only reason they were even there was due to a law passed by L.B.J. and if you cant imagine what it was look it up. Marcia Clark had her head shove up her girlfriends you know what as they took their strolls through Griffith Park in L.A. holding hands and kissing.

Then judge Ito didnt have any control over the case at all, as he just sat there not knowing what to do next. l loved it as I was working on the defense.

Wrong when the lapd planted items that blew what little case they had. Ask planter Mark Furman

you went for that lie ?

What lie?

Do you remember Furman's partner in the case Philip Vannatter, well he wrote a book just before he died in which he, Vannatter claimed that he planted evidence in the case, in particular the bloody glove at OJ's mansion.

The lie that everyone believes that I find laughable is one about OJ's shoes, as the photos of OJ wearing those shoes that was claimed to have made the bloody footprints at the crime scene came from the National Enquirer a scandal rag that has been know for fabricating parts of their stories and sometimes printed out right lies. Not to mention that there was numerous police and crime scene photos that showed the blood still being red several hours after the crime took place and after that long and in the high heat of the previous day and night it would have turned black as blood is know to do after it releases its oxygen and dries. There is also the fact that Mark Furman is a white supremacist and is now the radio voice of one of the largest groups in the pacific northwest.

There is also the laughable lie about how the police had to get the keys of the Bronco because they couldn't get into it without them when in the trunk of every police car marked or otherwise there is a thing called a Jimmie that the police use to pop the door locks to help people get into their cars when they lock themselves out and in emergency situations and of course how the blood droplets in the Bronco and on the gate looked amazingly fresh after having sit there for nearly a week after the Bronco chase.

Sorry but the "mountain of evidence" that was purported to exist was made up of planted evidence that one of the investigative officers in which lead investigator in the case in fact admitted to planting in his tell all and deathbed confession book or was far too circumstantial to convict OJ of jaywalking let alone murder.

Exactly! Wait until seven years after Mr. Cochran cannot defend himself...and 17 years after it would have made a difference... to make your claim. Mr. Cochran was ten times the man you will ever dream to be Mr. Darden!!

sure...he would say or do anything to defend his client, including covering up evidence. That goes above the Law....we all know what it is.

Alumette, try logic (for a change) why ever would Darden wait until seven years AFTER Johnnie Cochran was DEAD to make this claim...not to mention 17 years AFTER Darden could have affected the outcome of the case by making it? CLEARLY, Darden is just trying to make money on a long ago decided (rightly or wrongly) case!

Some people will take a stab on spoiled media meat, even if it is still hanging from a hook when the is mere morsel mangling . so sad but too true. shall i retort. this same individual i have observed cavorting with a staff member in the courts who happen to be someone i was dating at the time while i worked at the Court's won't name which level. but it is a sad debacle when you have others who want to expound and magnify someones misdealing but hate to have their very own paraded with the paparazzi . OJ simply = Out of Jurisdiction and that HAS BEEN the creed and craft of those to teach American their own envision of what justice is. California is emotional as the erupting earth, and confused as swing voter taking a swig of Good grown up juice in the eleventh hour of election. as a former law enforcement officer i this past era i can guarantee and conclude that OJ was a victim of circumstantial coincidence and pawn at the pedestal coupled with the root of racism. From J Cochran's estranged wife to the Goldman's, so many have seem to leech off of justice with spiteful shameless resolve.