I know. Surprised actually the man has never had those published.

They seem to be astounded by the volume of work he compiled

Pretty much. Agree with Roxanne.....surprised no one has published it. I don't even agree with the verdict and I think I'd buy it.

Lol. It's like how they KEEP calling it "the trial of the century". There are a few other trials designated "the trial of the century" too.

It's so annoying especially when Lon is the jury member who was a part of the Black panthers, he was also the jury member who done that salute to oj after the verdict was read out!! So he should be saying here's lons biased 600 pages of notes each time he says it tbh..

I agree that it was a media spectacle. But I think we still refuse to accept the role of the oh LAPD.

but there was justice, a man wrongfully accused was acquitted

I've been ruminating a great about something that I HAVE never understood for years! Why would OJ wanna nuder Nicole B Simpson? PJ loves har profusely & he stated it himself, Juice said that before he would permanently hurt NIC, he would rather take a bullet/ step in front of a Amtrak train ( I made that part up) before seeing harm come to Nicole!

@@daviddavis3389utter nonsense

@@jiogcyihsugyiocjfdoivhphvw6821he was found responsible in civil court

When he smiles that smug smirk , I shudder. 😗

nope, noone ever has

@@Juliet_Tobin *banana stab intensifies*

I know I would be if I were him!

I can’t imagine laughing knowing paying for his defense cost him financially exponentially!

Nice

That's wild! Thanks, I love fun facts lol

I always felt that actresses made a more Lucrudous living.

Oh wow! Crazy

@@TDKiller415 @The Dragon Killer Who are you directing this at Dragon ? I hope it isn't me because if so I must be doing a lousy job at articulating my thoughts. From what I can discern, I agree with most of what you're saying. -Juliet

@@TDKiller415 Oh I'm sorry - I get notifications saying that you're replying to me! Don't ask me why. Btw I can't stand those people either lol. - Juliet

@@TDKiller415 Edit - I'm sorry this became such a long rant but I had to vent to someone with a brain who is sympathetic! Nice to find someone who's IQ hasn't diminished ! I'm 18 but I think either these people are very young or not that bright. There is just so much overwhelming evidence of OJ's guilt. As Bugliosi said, "When your blood is at the crime scene, it's the end of the ballgame. I can't think of a case where a killer was so obviously guilty, other than when a killer is apprehended at a crime scene." And yes, the vile comments about Ron and Nicole being shady characters make me sick. Particularly the attacks on Nicole saying she took drugs and slept around and was a bad mother. The implication seems to be she deserved to die anyway which is outrageous. Besides, the person who did sleep around (all the time) and did do drugs was OJ but they give him a pass, because he's OJ. Not ONE witness ever testified that Nicole used drugs or was anything other than a devoted mother. Not even Faye Resnick, who revealed so much else about Nicole that nobody needed to know. Had she used drugs and had a drug dealer, OJ would have made 100% sure the whole world knew. He stalked her every move so she had no secrets. She had a pretty modest amount of relationships, all after breaking up with OJ who she'd been with since the age of only 18. And Ron was a sweet young man just doing the right thing. Quite possibly he tried to intervene to save Nicole when he could have run away. In the crime scene photos his eyes are open looking directly at Nicole. But no, the OJ fans have to bring up obscure theories about people his sister supposedly knew who were also murdered and they suggest he was the "intended target". It was pure bad luck that he went to Nicole's that night to return a pair of sunglasses. Why on earth would someone - not knowing who or how many people were at Nicole's home - follow Ron from his apartment onto the front of her property and decide to kill him there, only to kill her too in such a bestial way? It's just so ridiculous! Anyway, thanks - I do read and appreciate a lot of your comments.

You speak my mind. You have to be so guillable and in denial to believe he didn't do it.

it's unbelievable how dumb you are

I felt that he was trying to craft an excuse for every improper instance in the case and tried to deflect blame onto the prosecution for the loss and away from the lapd and their crime lab. He felt untrustworthy and dishonest to me. Like a dirty cop from an old movie

@@bford5899 maybe, but I know he didn’t want Marcia Clark prosecuting from the offset as he’d had dealings with her before, and genuinely believes in OJ’S guilt. Mistakes were definitely made their part though

Eh not sure I buy it. He comes off as incredibly arrogant and bitter. He seems insulted that policemen are allowed to be cross examined like a trial witness should be and any explanation to opposing evidence or reasonable doubt is solely denial with no explanation other than “I just know.” This all feels like excuse making for the innumerable number of mistakes his department made. I get that he thinks the prosecution should’ve done things differently, and I agree with that to a degree, but by the same token, part of why it became so difficult for them was because of all the mistakes the LAPD made. For example, yes, the prosecution definitely should’ve avoided calling Fuhrman, they had enough evidence without him, but by the same token, the LAPD should’ve held him accountable for the stuff he’s admitted to doing on tape like making up reasons to arrest people, torturing and framing them, etc.

"no one in this case planted any evidence, and there is nothing to show in order to show that he did.. simple as that" Lang was either a liar, or catastrophically optuse.

@@tobak952Yeah all that EDTA just jumped in OJ’s blood all by itself.

nah you are fool

Quite possible, yes! It could have simply seeped through. There was no planting of evidence.

What about slavery? Where is the justice for those victims

No, because of how rapidly the blood would have dried. Recall, the claim is he had the sock on DURING the murder at a totally different location, kept those socks on and drove 10 minutes to his house, has the socks still on, jumped over a wall after running down a back alley, hit into the a/c, jumped back over the wall, and then came back to the Bronco, then jumped over the front gate [leaving blood on it] walked into the front entrance way, went upstairs took the socks off then showered. The blood would have been too dry to get a mirror image even after 10 minutes. Further as MacDonnel, the blood stain pattern expert explained, there is a difference between pouring blood on something vs spatter. When you pour it, it will only make contact with the upper most fibres of the material and then slip through. when it is spattered, they wrap around the fibres and go into the white layers [this can only be seen on microscope, which was the blown up image shown]. Even if the theory was well he got spatter, the blood stayed wet all the way back until he got home took it off and stepped on it. It still wouldn't work, because there is no blood spatter on the sock at all, the staining is only on upper fibres. If the scenario you suggested occurred, you'd expect to see both spatter and compression transfers, but it didn't appear on the sock as spatter anywhere, so it can be eliminated as a possibility. Also, you'd not get a near perfect mirror image as you got with this sock through all 4 sides afterwards if you adjust for the 10 minute time gap between getting blood on it and it coming off, most the blood would have dried out by then.

Lol you people are reaching… then why wasn’t there blood on the carpet lol

She grabbed his ankle while on floor. Clearly with thumb she left blood on right side of leg and with remainder fingers left blood on left side of leg.

hoooooo Child. LOL. THAT'S A 70s statement.

@@andrerobinson2923 lololol...well if you are black and American and southern, we still use it🤣🤣🤣

@@andrerobinson2923 White people being white people goes way beyond the 70s.

LOL. That's old school right there. "hoooo child." LOL

What about OJ Simpson stabbing two people to death? Does that bother you?

If you believe that, you know nothing about the case the defense presented. Jury had white and Spanish people too. People simply refuse to look at the info she instead want to accept that the jury was racist.

Did you not watch the clear evidence that blood was planted on the sock? How is that not reasonable doubt

no, they decided when they gave the verdict, drunkard

@@Meng776 Have you not watched OJ: Made in America? One of the jurors openly admitted that the not guilty verdict was in retaliation for the Rodney King verdict. Had nothing to do with evidence. They could have had a video showing OJ doing it, and they would still have let him walk.

@@jiogcyihsugyiocjfdoivhphvw6821 ooooooo……someone got touchy! Calling people drunkard. You do know that once you start calling people names, like children do on a playground, you have lost the argument? If your argument is sound, you don’t need to call anyone names.

Their other name should have been the "Hole Punchers" LOL. They punched holes in everything the Prosecution had. I mean EVERYTHING. As one commentator said, "Mark Furham was the BEST witness for the defense."

@@andrerobinson2923 facts.

That term gets thrown about with wreckless abandon. It really wasn't as dreamy as everybody thinks. They had their moments as did the prosecution, but the truth is it became a pissing match, with both sides throwing tantrums like petulant children. There is a reason they lost 14 jurors. Everybody was tired of their shit on both sides. Cochran had extensive experience with the inner workings of the LAPD. Him himself being a victim of profiling. That helped him tremendously in punching holes into the investigation. Then you have Chris Darden who was about as useful as a horse dick in a nun house. He didn't do the prosecution any favors, and performed the biggest blunder of the trial.

@@LynxStarAuto prosecution seemed like the children here.

No, its simpler than that. Nothing Johnny Cochran and the defense said made any sense. They never proved who planted the blood. The only reason why OJ got off was because the jury was black.

Roger Cossack

@@chocolatetownforever7537 Coger Rossack

Just another racist dummy

For the 18th time ever!

Totally insensitive language.

Smoke and Mirrors by the prosecution. A world renowned forensic toxicologist, Dr Fredric Rieders, said that the amount of EDTA in the blood would kill a person. They would bleed out. But the prosecution's witness, FBI agent Roger Martz, information about EDTA mysteriously got destroyed. But just believe what he said. REALLY!!!

@@theinquisitiveprince7095 Martz was called by Cochron.His report worked against Clarks' story.

@@philipwilliams1754 thanks for the correction.

That’s one of Darrell Brook’s favorite lines 😂

Depends on how saturated the sock was when he took it off. If it was very saturated, there could have been blood that soaked through afterwards.

@@lisaa8795 Test were done that proved the sock would've been dry before OJ got home. Blood doesn't flow like water. In fact, it dries very quickly and hard. By the time OJ got home, that stain would've been dry. Other issues with the sock is that it wasn't there at first. The police recorded the house before completing the search warrant and the socks weren't there. You can even see in court photos that they were repositioned a few times. OJ blood on sock was found a month later after two other forensic techs analyzed them and stated there was no other blood on it. Also, the blood found later on sock had edta in it. Edta was only found in this blood, not in the actual sock.

It worked. His tactics were to tire and exhaust. He did that marvelously.

only one whining is you troll

@@LynxStarAuto get lost troll

and he will be found not guilty

Not guilty

@@samuelguest1384 Maybe OJ is white too right?

And that day has come. I bet he didn’t confess a thing on his death bed either. Everyone around him basically convinced him he didn’t do it.

remember her from Friday the 13th part 3? first she dealt with Jason and then OJ.

@@markmac2206 She was a news reporter in my hometown about 5 yrs prior to the OJ case.

Brown eyed Girl....how much hair spray she got in hair.... love the 90s 👀

She was rocking it wasn't she?

Cochran said a lot of things in this case that was hilarious to me. It was probably unintended, but hilarious nonetheless.

Prosecution spent more money than the defense did

but he didnt pay lmao

He was the first person that could mount a defense against the la court.

That Brother Johnny who was brilliant, articulate, charming, charismatic & funny was the greatest defense lawyer that money could buy. Rest in peace & bless the soul eternally of Johnny we love you & we miss you.

And the most underhand

They wouldn’t if they couldn’t prove it somehow.

How are they outrageous? There’s plenty of testimony from witnesses in both sides to back up the LAPD’s egregious mishandling and mistakes in the crime scenes. Also you’d know damn well in a case like this, you’d need way more than that to have any successful dismissal motion. Finally they figured this out during the case, I’m pretty sure. Do I believe the evidence was planted, gun to my head? No. But the sheer level of mishandling evidence and incompetence in the case is enough to create reasonable doubt. And the socks most certainly could have been planted given all the evidence presented towards that. And I haven’t even mentioned Fuhrman.

@@BushidoVXX Well, in a legal setting, if you can’t prove it, it didn’t happen.

@@pommiebears What an absolute nonsensical comment. Another Facebook lawyer 🤡

Your comment is gold...well said

Nicoletta The EDTA in our foods is parts per billion.In the blood parts per million.2,000 parts per million in the blood they tested.

If we had that much EDTA in our blood, we'd die. The truth is that the concentration was lost than we'd expect in a purple top but also significantly more than you could have in your blood.

@@Meng776 and your proof is ??????

@@Nicoletta13 Testimony from the world renowned DNA expert during the trial. He testified that 1 parts per billion would be expected in laundry detergent or food. It was 1 parts per million which would kill you. Oddly enough, the amount in a tube would be in the parts per thousand. It's off by three zeros in each direction.

@@Nicoletta13 That said, all the DNA with EDTA was somehow found a month later. The quarter sized blood on the socks was somehow missed by the first two forensics experts. The blood on that sock and the back gate (which had EDTA in it) somehow had higher quality DNA than the blood gathered the day after the murders. That's simply impossible. Also there defense brought up photos from the murder scene and proved that there were no blood stains on the back gate the next day.

Your little opinion doesn't matter. We look at the evidence presented and the evidence didn't fit. Unfortunately the killers are walking free. 😢😢

​@@pharoah-ahmose6075oj is free, you are correct

The killer is now dead, end of story.

Why bother watching this, then? There are plenty of documentaries that lean towards OJ's innocence that you could watch instead.

get lost troll

I dont think "adopting" is the accurate word.

The lady writing the play said there no racial over tone are subject matter Furhman is just a racist he couldn’t help his self

oh like the prosecution wasn't manipulative troll? And even if it was for a "Screenplay" Furhman still spouted his own actual bigoted viewpoints, including one where he whined about "n-words in Ethiopia" and he also lamented how the chokehold was banned and how the corrupt 33rd police station was torn down, his "Character" excuse only explains so much. Don't even get me started on the blatantly misogynist shit he said about Ito's own wife.

It was a documentary about women in policing. When trying to explain why women shouldn't be allowed, he showed his racism. Go check out the tapes, they're disturbing and they're not him playing a character.

Furhman lied often.

Yes. One thing you will see about this trial was that neither side was able to definitively prove anything. All speculation and allegations. The blood splatter expert was shot down by Clark. He had no choice but to acquiesce and say he didn't know and it was his opinion. A lot of that falls on Ito who did a horrendous job of managing his court

That’s crazy you say that! You can take anything, splatter any substance on it. Unless that piece of clothing is laying absolute still for a period of time, one side will not match the other. It is literally IMPOSSIBLE to wear a sock, pour tomato juice on it, take the sock off, and have it soak through the other side at exactly the same shape and exactly the same spot. It’s impossible..

No, it can't, and the expert addressed it. While it might look the same to the naked eye, it looks different under microscope.

Then be strong enough to concede that at the very least they tried to frame him because they genuinely thought he was guilty.

There was more than enough blood evidence is all participants at both scenes to provide beyond all reasonable doubt

@@MrDuds1984 You mean the blood evidence that was contaminated or the one that planted?

@@imadbasayev8541 I’m sure if you believe blood was planted by the LAPD to frame OJ I’m sure you believe Oswald didn’t act alone as well

@@MrDuds1984 When you can explain the 1.5ml of missing blood, and the EDTA in the sock and gate stain and the fact that they were found almost a month later then I'll reconsider.

do you have an OnlyFans?

@@royharper2003 whats that?

What evidence ?

@@KingBoxingandFitness hahaaaa. You’re funny

@@MissesCakes all the supposed evidence looks planted .. the sock , the glove ..

1. He was wearing pants and the stain is high up. 2. The prosecutor claimed she was unconscious when she got hit in the head with a blunt instrument before she was even bleeding, so how does she go from unconscious to grabbing his ankles? 3. That theory doesn't explain the mirror imaging on the sock, how can she leave the exact same mirror image on all 4 sides of a sock by touching it with her hands.

The stain wasn't on the outside of both faces of the sock as you would see if her hand touched the outside on both sides. It was on the outside of one side and the inside of the other. But the mental gymnastics required to make this work proves why people think beyond reason that oj is guilty. There were NUMEROUS other proofs that show the glove was planted. The jury actually pointed to it as what proved to them that evidence was planted.

This documentary doesn't cover it, but have you looked at the other issues the defense presented with those socks?

Where was the blood all over the carpet ???? Hahahah you guys never give up … mark furhman planted the evidence… vannatter helped him

He's definitely a smart classy man..I wish him luck with the Dancing Itos

How so?

Ridiculous.

Ask you boy Furman SMH🤦‍♂️

it was a screen play.....you mor0n

Agree

Yes sir

Mark Fuhrman took fifth now he should just shut his gob.

@Sofia Lavish he said he had to plead the 5th b/c Marcia had abandoned him & joined the defense in villifying him so he Said he did this to survive as Marcia was never gonna object & let the defense have at him. He says if he answers one question he has to answer all u can't pick & choose pleading the 5th just like oj plead the 5th & didn't take the stand under that ammendment. Yes it looked horrible pleading the 5th to esp " did u plant evidence " Marcia taking the defense side about furhman was a bad descsion bc she needed to save the case. They should have rebutt the tapes by bringing up a case where Mark worked hard on his own time to free a black man put away for killing a white man. That def would have helped furhmans credibility about racism. His racist comments of course were despicable but the most important objective was saving the case. Furhman can be a racist & still not have planted evidence. In fact he responded 10 years b4 to a call when oj bashed in Nicole's car. Furhman didn't even make a police report. The defense knew about marks racism in the past from his disability claim years b4 that was ignored. He said having to deal w/ viscious gangs as a young cop were making him feel he couldn't be objective anymore. So the da. Needed to discuss the race issues w/ mark on the stand to make it a dead issue & put it behind them. Or leave the gloves out than furhman is out. Esp seeing the debacle Darden made of the gloves. Furhman was the only one charged & convicted of perjury & lost is job & pension. As writer Dominick Dunn said " it became that saying the n word was a worse crime than a double murder " that is pretty scary. I'd rather someone make a slur at Mr than kill me. Thats how insane thos case was thanks to the fame drunk ito. The Civil case the judhe refused to allow the race card played. That trial was successful. It was also in Santa Monica where ojs criminal case was legally supposed to be tried. The biggest mistake of the trial was the d.a. deciding to hsve it in down town LA exactly where the riots were from Rodney king & where the population moat hated lapd. If this was in Santa Monica as the crimes were committed the jury pool would hsve been much different & it never should hsve had cameras cause that's how games are allowed cause people are posturing for the camera including the judge & oj himself who his own defense said he knew when the cameras were on him & played to that & anything the jury didn't hear got back to them anyway by weekly conjugal visits by loved ones. Of course they were told everything going on outside & what the public was hearing.

He is guilty.

@@uram9440 You do realize that none of the evidence they introduced at the trial was found the day of the murders.??

@@uram9440 The most incriminating blood was fouund on the Bundy back gate 3wk's after the murders.

No kidding. I believe that he is the one who called the cops on OJ in Las Vegas.

The guy is a joke. I loved his claims about the blood on the socks as if he is some expert on the matter.

Preach! People don’t understand if it can happen to him , it can happen them .

Or how about it’s not possible to obtain,transport, and plant blood that smoothly where no one sees it or notes malfeasance. The contractions is ridiculous. The defense says the lapd is so incompetent in how they conducted the investigation BUT they’re simultaneously so competent as to pull off a mass conspiracy to plant evidence and cover it up without anyone noticing

@@darbyohara Its not hard to fabricate evidence. They had the largest scandal after OJ , Rampart how they were planting evidence, falsifying reports, beating suspects and committing perjury on the stand to get convictions and convictions were overturned. This case with OJ, they were caught at multiple angles. The socks and back gate is where the case started to backfire more . Blood not seen on the backgate until July 3, 1994 and the socks September 1994 ( they knew the results before the test were done) Not only was their a wet transfer, EDTA was in the blood , and they no trace evidence from soil as footprints of Ron Goldman and the assailant(s) were present. Goldmans boots were soiled with dirt yet the socks werent.

@@garrickgregory6403 it’s hard to fabricate evidence like blood spatter in a car that contains all 3 ppl dna when one of the 3 ppl ain’t even had their blood drawn and tested! Use your fucking brain. The police can’t mix all 3 types of blood together when they don’t have all 3 types, and then go splatter it all over the bronco with no one seeing WHEN PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE BLOOD SPATTER WAS TAKEN BEFORE THEY EVER HAD OJS BLOOD.

@@garrickgregory6403 how would the cops have even gotten OJs blood if OJ left town the night of the murder? Did they cut him and secretly steal his blood? Did they have backup syringes filled with OJs blood in their pockets? Think before you post, please.

thats absolutely not true

A bunch of ego maniacs.

FORD Fix It Again Tony.

Huh

I sweeeaaarrr !!! I always think the same thing when they show him !

Right, this happened when I was very young. I didn't know there were two victims till I was older.

So he messed up because OJ murdered 2 people, got the victims blood all over him including his socks.....but the detectives messed up because they found the evidence OJ left behind that absolutely proves his own guilt.....you people need to do a brain scan

Oj committed the murders obviously. Duh

O.J. committed the murders. You appear to be swinging the pendulum too far. If you want to cheer for an innocent person, who was able to afford hiring a competent defense, and having justice served by finding them “not guilty”, fine. But this OJ animal slaughtered two people, and because of his wealth, hired defense attorneys that got him off. It’s a travesty to say “regardless of what happened in this crime”…two innocent people were slaughtered by OJ!

​@@sangertx9077 While I don't necessarily disagree with you, if you believe in the American system of justice, you have to say that OJ was found not guilty by a jury of his peers and leave it at that. I understand that you, like most of us, have an opinion about OJ particularly. I am just commenting on the inequity that exists in our legal system. It is rigged in favor of the prosecution unless the defendant has enough money to fight back. Poor people who might be innocent are regularly convicted under this system of justice.

Nothing you said made any sense. OJ killed two people. There was no time or motive by anyone in the police departments to gather OJs blood and plant it. OJ had both time and motive. The gloves were the same gloves Nicole bought for him. The only reason OJ got off was because the jury was majority black

@@starter47990 A criminal trial requires a unanimous decision from a jury. Even if they were "majority black," everyone on the jury had to agree to the verdict. What does that tell you about the effectiveness of OJ's attorneys versus the effectiveness of the prosecution? BTW, I don't necessarily disagree with you about who committed the crime. I'm just commenting on how the prosecution conducted itself as opposed to how the defense conducted itself. OJ got million-dollar attorneys and got a million-dollar defense. What does that tell you about justice in America? How many innocent people are convicted only because they can't afford million-dollar attorneys. That's the only point I'm making.

No they weren't. Literally nothing Johnny Cochran and the defense said made any sense. Virtually all of the evidence pointed toward OJ. The defense claimed that the evidence was planted but never proved it was planted or stated who specifically planted evidence. For example, how did cops plant OJs blood at the site? Where would they even get OJs blood from? You think they magically walk around with syringes of OJs blood? The only reason OJ won was the jury was mostly black. Period.

😂🤦🏻‍♂️

Daffey Dunce

@@ExileOnMainStream Your mother.

🤡😂

Would ya believe he actually did not do it, but has an indirect involvement to the murders?

I agree with mostly everything you said but “good for them”?? For what??! For freeing a guilty man ? Nicole and Ronald lost their lives for god’s sake! This goes beyond any system or defense team. They should get some justice. Damn it.

@@samantarizzi248 Samantha, I totally agree. Simpson was convicted in a civil trial --for what that is worth -- and he has pretty much been a social pariah ever since. No amount of money could compensate when everyone hates you. Like I said, his lawyers were putting the criminal justice system on trial. The pain the victim's family undergo on a daily basis would not be lessened if the guy was sitting in jail (which, of course, is where he should be), but I hope they can take some sort of relief knowing the LAPD took measures to change their (mis)conduct after the case.

They didnt convince anyone to look the other way. In fact the opposite. They had us looking at everything in the minutest of detail to back up their case. Under intense scrutiny, the emotional urge to find OJ guilty simply did not hold up when presented with photos, videos, and expert analysis of the planted "evidence". What is interesting is how those who think he is guilty talk about everything BUT the evidence. You talk about your feelings, how people seemed, and observe what others might be thinking and feeling. All that to distract you from the relentless offer of real world evidence, including photos and videos that directly contradict the prosecution's assertions. No one is looking the other way but you...

@@matttilley8620 He is a social pariah for internet people. In the real world, he is living his life and signing autographs, all while paying NOTHING to the Golddigging Goldman's, since he moved his assets to Florida where they cannot lay a finger on them. At least you acknowledge the lapd misconduct ( which I guess you had to since it was shoved in your face so indisputably for half these episodes). Interesting that you stop just short of acknowledging how that misconduct lead to the pursuit of yet another innocent man.

@@QuatMan Love it.

nope

i thought the same thing.... when i was10 (planted glove).

Jake- I like that comment. I agree. Oj guilty. Socks shady. Shady socks. The disappearing shady giant black bloody socks In the middle of a white / pastel bedroom.

You would know that wouldn’t you, with all your legal experience

Ellen Lyons Wrong,Tracy Savage published the results of the DNA testing before,they were done. The info was precise,when the testing was completed.

It's almost as if they mounted a excellent defense...or something...This is about truth and accuracy, rather than what they could afford.

The socks worked against Clark and Co.The blood had EDTA in it.

@@philipwilliams1754 That can be found in every day products ie washing powder.

@@ellenlyons4090 The EDTA was not on the sock it was in the blood.The FDA approves parts per billion in our foods,pars per million in the blood,enough to kill you.

Wow... ARE You even watching the videos on this channel or what?

@@Jeromemayle HaHahahaHaHaHa!!!!!!! The Simpson Juror I quoted said EXACTLY what I said she said. Dennis Fung is an idiot. Mark Fuhrman is a disgrace. But what does that have to do with Simpson's guilt or innocence?

There were also white women on the jury, they wanted revenge for Rodney King too I bet.

Glad I’m not the only one who notices hair. I’ve just been admiring Tracey Savages barnet

Bc the press gave her a hard time about her hair during this trial.

She didn’t keep changing. The footage of her curly hair in this video is from the preliminary hearing

Pig guts smell like roses compared to Mark Fuhrman.

He's not that bad. How dramatic

It’s not contaminated. It’s a theory that the blood evidence was contaminated, that the defence came up with. Contaminated DNA evidence doesn’t change it into someone else’s DNA. All it does is make it unusable. The DNA analysis would show two different profiles, OJ’s, and the killer. In this case, it only showed OJ’s DNA. There was not one bit of DNA evidence that showed anyone else there, other than OJ, Nicole, and Ron. EDTA is in everything. It’s in paint, in laundry detergent, in foods. We absolutely do have a level of EDTA in our systems. The FBI made a test to check for EDTA in these blood stains, but the way it’s tested can often give false negatives, and false positive results. It’s an unreliable test.

I’m so sorry. I misunderstood your comment. I thought you wrote “why is it contaminated” as a separate question. 🤦🏼‍♀️

@@pommiebears you forgot to add that FBI agent Roger Martz still testified the EDTA data got destroyed. And the statements he made were frivolous. Even the Justice Department said FBI toxicologist Roger Martz poorly represented the agency during the OJ Simpson trial. That was just a bunch of baloney that Marcia Clark was talking about when it pertained to EDTA is in everything.

The LAPD likely did this a lot. Google rampart scandal Prosecution only cared about winning cases.