bloody glove

After watching Det. Mark Fuhrman plead the 5th when asked directly if he planted the bloody glove at the Simpson residence, it seemed a fatal blow to the prosecution’s star witness. It wasn’t. So we pose a simple question: what if Det. Mark Fuhrman confessed to framing O.J. Simpson at his murder trial? Would it matter? Would the prosecution drop or continue the case? After a careful psychological study of prosecuting attorneys Marcia Clarke and Chris Darden, the following outcome was predicted… […]

The O.J. Simpson trial revisited. Here’s some little known facts regarding this case: when the prosecution’s star witness, Det. Mark Fuhrman, was asked by F. Lee Bailey whether or not he planted the infamous bloody glove at the crime scene, Fuhrman plead the fifth so as not to incriminate himself. Despite this, Judge Lance Ito forbade the jury from hearing this critical testimony. Two detectives admitted taking blood samples from the lab to the crime scene, with blood missing when those samples were returned. The “evidence” against Simpson had EDTA, a chemical preservative that keeps blood from clotting which is also found in the sample containers. When asked if they planted this DNA evidence, they plead the 5th too. Despite this, many in the media continue to malign the competency of the Simpson jury because they did not, clearly, bother to see the trial. […]