This next case is a little different. There was a suspect who was nearly proved guilty thanks to DNA evidence, but in the end, he still got away with the murder and he is living like a free man today. The reason I am discussing this case is because, despite the evidence nearly proving that he committed the murder, other evidence or tampering or mishandling of evidence brought to the trial was enough to create a reasonable doubt that he was guilty.
Orenthal James Simpson was a star NFL player who played for the 49ers until 1979. He was accused for the murder of his ex-wife, Nicole Simpson, and her friend, Ronald Goldman, during the summer of 1994.
In June 1994, O.J arrives home shortly after dinner. He leaves for a flight at 11pm to Los Angeles. Simpson's ex-wife and her friend are found dead outside of his house. He evades the scene and has 20 police cars chasing him down the freeway for hours because he refused to pull over. Why would he do this if he "has nothing to hide"? Doesn't make any sense to me.
Since there are many dates involved in this process I took the liberty of arranging it into a time line to simplify your understanding of it all. O.J pleads "absolutely, 100% not guilty" during his trial.
August 1994
In court, it is revealed that O.J's DNA is found around the scene of the crime.
January 1995
911 dispatch operator testifying in court, claims to have heard a woman screaming and someone being hit in the background during the emergency call.
February 1995
Nicole Simpson's sister admits that her husband has been physically abusive in the past. A former friend of Orenthal's testifies that O.J told him he fanaticized about killing his wife.
July 1995
Toxicologist assigned to the case says that he found that the evidence on scene had ben tampered with. He believes that the police may have manipulated some evidence.
Because of this, the case is pretty much destroyed. Who knows what evidence is actual evidence. It could all be fake for what we know and he might in fact be innocent!
September 1995
It turns out that the detective responsible for the case, Mark Fuhrman, has a history of racism. He believes all black people are inferior and identifies them as n****s. "if [Fuhrman] had his way, n****s would be gathered together and burned".
After Fuhrman's racism toward O.J was exposed, the evidence was no longer trust-worthy. Because like the toxicologist had predicted, it may have been tampered with. O.J Simpson was a free man as of October 1995. I believe if Fuhrman had not been judgemental to the color of Simpson's skin, then he might have succeeded in putting O.J behind bars. By being racist, he created a reasonable doubt for the case.
A part of me wants to believe that he is the innocent man that he claims to be, but I can't because of his history. The fact that he got in an argument with his ex-wife before her death, and that he used to beat her and also admitted to a friend that he had thoughts of killing her is too big to overlook. He was let free because someone wanted him to go to prison not only for the murder, but because of his skin colour; And because of the unprofessional judgement made by that detective, he is free. He wanted it too badly. Not to forget the fact that O.J refused to pull over after hours of being chased through Los Angeles, while he claimed to have done nothing.
Source(s)
-http://articles.latimes.com/1995-09-06/news/mn-42720_1_mark-Fuhrman
-http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/index/nns053.htm
-http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/17/o-j-simpsons-white-bronco-police-chase-happened-19-years-ago-today/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0
I find this case really odd as well. Why would he run from the police for hours if he had nothing to hide, but why couldn't the police have stopped him with a simple pit maneuver or spikes on the road- they just had to make a scene. I thought I heard he admitted to the killing after he was tried. After all once you are tried for one event. It is an intriguing case, can't wait to read more.
ReplyDeleteMuch like we saw in "Twelve Angry Men", to wish to kill someone can't always be interpreted literally. Perhaps OJ had reached his wits end and was simply just frustrated with his wife, and no longer wanted to deal with her, not necessarily kill her. What I also find very feeble as an argument is that OJ's evidence was found at the scene of the crime. Of course it was, IT WAS HIS HOUSE! His DNA was bound to be all over the place! With issues of racism still being so prominent in society, in my opinion, there is no valid way of settling this case without the "race card" being played. All in all, I found this entry very compelling and interesting, thank you for sharing my dearest Aaron! :)
ReplyDeleteAaron, your blog is very interesting. I like the part where you discuss people who have gotten away with murder. I'd really like it, Aaron, if you continued to do so so I may continue to find your blog interesting. Anyway, that's enough constructive criticism from me. I hope you enjoy your morning.
ReplyDeleteNice Aaron, I remember reading about this case somewhere, and you were right on about the facts, I even heard that Kim Kardashians father was the lawyer of O.J, and that's how he became famous, because he protected O.J, anyways good job it was really nicely done.
ReplyDeleteVery controversial verdict on this one!! Him evading police is already a red flag and shows that he was trying to escape from something really bad. In this case murder, to this day I still don't understand how he was not found guilty of murder. But who knows what really happened, the police did a really bad job at investigating and I think they even contaminated the crime scene. But nowadays he is serving 33 years for armed robbery so maybe karma!!
ReplyDeleteFascinating blog about murderers, but your tag line frightens me. Um...so if you don't get a good mark on this, does that mean....*gulp* Joking aside, this blog is an interesting look into the darkest side of humanity.
ReplyDeleteNitpicks:Colour shift of your text with the O.J. post…why? Very hard to read black text on grey background. (Normally this is an indication of plagiarism and a google search of your 4th paragraph reveals strikingly similar ones online. Please fix this immediately and never copy paste.)
- First entry a touch vague
- Proof sometimes missing….how are you so sure? How did they get away with it if the proof is there?
- Source for Tylenol killer? (another case of quasi-plagiarism. Please fix ASAP)
When thinking of my comment, I was thinking along the exact same lines as Gen! She talks about the "Twelve Angry Men: that we read in class and that is exactly what this post reminds me of. I agree with you, I would like to think he is an innocent man but it is so hard when presented with all those "facts" about the murders. Although we can always be convinced, like a jury, that anyone is innocent.
ReplyDeleteGood stuff, Aaron.
This is very interesting because we really don`t know if he`s innocent or not. I believe he is guilty because there were that many cop cars chasing him, and he wouldn`t stop, so he was obviously running from something.
ReplyDelete