Did Dershowitz tamper with the lining in OJ's gloves?

Discussion in 'What's On Your Mind?' started by Mike, Sep 8, 2012.

  1. Mike

    Mike Founding Member Coach

    Reuters: Ex-prosecutor claims O.J. Simpson attorney tampered with glove

    Former Los Angeles deputy district attorney Christopher Darden on Thursday accused Simpson's defense lawyer, the late Johnnie Cochran, of "manipulating" one of the infamous gloves that the prosecution said linked Simpson to the grisly double murder of his former wife Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend Ronald Goldman.

    After Simpson struggled to fit the gloves on his hands - in one of the defining moments of the racially charged trial that captivated the nation - Cochran famously admonished the jury, "If it doesn't fit, you must acquit."

    On Thursday, during a panel discussion about the trial at Pace Law School in New York City, Darden, a member of the prosecution team, declared: "I think Johnnie tore the lining. There were some additional tears in the lining so that O.J.'s fingers couldn't go all the way up into the glove."
  2. Sunny Goth

    Sunny Goth Original Member Coach


    Dershowitz is correct when he says this:

    Dershowitz said that if Darden had evidence that there had been tampering, he would have had an ethical obligation to report the alleged misconduct. He also questioned why Darden had not filed a grievance with the state bar association. Darden responded by saying that this would have been a "whiny-little-snitch approach to life" and that was not what he believed in because it did not change anything.

    Darden's response is pretty lame -- he may be right in his assessment, but it's still a lame response (imo).

    We'll probably never know whether Simpson was innocent or guilty.....
  3. Mike

    Mike Founding Member Coach

    After reading Mark Furman's book a number of years ago, there's little doubt in mind that committed the crime.

    And remember, our legal system doesn't determine guilt or innocence -- the question presented to jury was whether or not the prosecution had proven the case beyond a reasonable doubt. He also got creamed in the civil suit where there is no 5th amendment protection.

    As much I'd love to see OJ breaking rocks in the yard at San Quentin, in a way he's getting his just deserts, living in a glass cage where everybody wants a piece of him. In the meantime, he needs to get his act together so he can resume his search for the "real killer". His last scheduled parole hearing was almost two years ago & he's still in the clink:

  4. Sunny Goth

    Sunny Goth Original Member Coach

    You mean the racist cop? ;)

    I think the level of doubt depends on who you are. If you ask blacks if O.J. is guilty, most will say no. Ask the same question of a white person, and you get a different response. I know there have been several studies showing this. I did a very quick search and found this article. Look under the heading titled 'implications'. It's mostly about the Zimmerman/Martin case, but references the Simpson case. It was just too late last night for me to do a more extensive search.

    Right on both counts. Also, in a civil suit, the standard is lower - it's not beyond a reasonable doubt, it's the preponderance of evidence.

    I think he's where he should be.
  5. Mike

    Mike Founding Member Coach

    Many cops are racist to some degree. That doesn't mean that they can't provide useful information. The book was an excellent presentation of evidence that was there -- and ignored. He also wrote another book that help put Kennedy (expletive deleted) Michael Skakel in prison where he should have landed 30 years earlier.

    The racism charges are also disputable, but I'm not inclined to buy into either side of the story.

    The OJ Simpson case was bungled because two stumblebums (Clark and Darden) invited themselves into the high-profile case and pushed aside more experienced prosecutors. They were outclassed from the start by Dershowitz & Co.
  6. Sunny Goth

    Sunny Goth Original Member Coach

    Some evidence that is too tainted is highly likely to be ignored. And this is one of the big problems with racist cops (or sexist cops, or thuggish cops, etc.). If you put someone like that on the stand, the jury will see all of that, and may discount otherwise excellent evidence. The racism, sexism, etc., is seen as bias, and it creates doubt in the jury's mind about the character of the witness.

    They are disputable -- and fall along racial lines -- as one would expect.

    That's for sure! So many mistakes, so many mistakes.
  7. Rugape

    Rugape Original Member

    You know, I watched quite a bit of video on this case and the prosecution was horrible. They failed to convince me that he was guilty in any way shape or form. The stunt with the glove was sheer genius - whether there was tampering or not, allowing the stunt to come off on a national stage without some previous interaction, not so much. The only thing they had was circumstantial evidence, and they didn't tie it all together well. IANAL, but it seemed like the prosecutors were completely out of their depth, and did not have a solid case (based on what was presented) from the word go.
  8. Caradoc

    Caradoc Original Member

    Funny how much of the OJ defense playbook could have been written by the TSA, what with the volume of misdirection in play.

Share This Page