OJ Jury Knew the Score: 3000 LA cases may involve planted evidence, forced perjury

[Wojtek Sokolowski]

At 07:21 AM 12/15/99 -0500, Nathan Newman wrote:
>
>In the land of OJ, it turns out the jury probably had a better evaluation of
>the likelihood of planted evidence and defendant framing than the
>oh-so-smart establishment.  Combined with a similar case of widespead
>framing of suspects in Philadelphia, these cases should be raised high as
>examples of the racism and violations of rights endemic in police abuses
>across the country.

Nathan, it does not hold water.  Planting evidence may make sense in low
profile cases, because it rests on the assumption that the defendant cannot
afford competent defence.  But in a high profile case such as OJ?  Gimme a
break!  

I bet you a beer that the OJ jury was more concerned about convicting a
celebrity (it borders with impossiblity in the US!)  than with any factual
evidence.

Besides - planting evidence in drug related cases is extremely easy - all
you need to do is to "find" the offending substance in the suspect's trunk
or even near the suspect and say you "saw" him dropping it.  But it is not
so easy to do it in murder cases - especially high profile ones.  So before
starting to babble about "framing OJ" one needs to ask what would a large
law enforcement ORGANIZATION (as opposed to a racist cop) gain from a
costly massive effort to "frame" the guy?  You do not belive in unbiquitous
conspiracy, do you?

wojtek