OJ: Made in America

[mr. logic]

As bad luck as having a genocidal racist who boasted about planting evidence and lied about knowing Nicole before the murder investigate your case? Bad luck to have people like Fuhrman and Vanadder walking around the crime scene with undocumented vials of your and the victim's blood?

Quite.  Indeed, as they were planting that blood, Simpson's whereabouts were unknown and, for all they knew, he had a cast-iron alibi. 

[gatchamandave]

Yeah,"Inspector Biggy" how about you address the possibility, which he raised himself in conversation with his agent, that he had an accomplice ?

[biggytitbo]

You doubt they planted evidence then? Fuhrman boasted in those McKinney tapes that he'd stop interracial couples and plant evidence on them and of course he carried a swastica around with him and painted one on the locker of a colleague who'd married a Jewish woman. The guy was off the scales racist nutso. And this is the LA Police, Rodney King, Rampets etc

The other thing is you know the whole story about Fuhrman and Vanatter planting evidence didn't come from the defence or media? It came from a 'deep throat' within the LA police who told author Steven Singular that the night of he murder fuhrman had made undocumented trips to both crime scenes and used a broken off a stick at the murder scene to put one of the two gloves (Fuhrmans original statement was I saw them) in a blue evidence bag and plant it at OJ Simpsons house. And that vanatter had OJs blood on his person in a vial with a purple cap whilst he had free reign of both crime scenes. The colour of cap determines what preservatives is used, the police use various colours, red, yellow etc but the purple one means edta was the preservative used. All of this is before any of thr allegations of corruption and evidence tampering, but it all turns out to be true - the stick and blue bag are both found at Simpsons house and blood at the crime scene had edta in it.

That whole thing with the gloves is so ludicrous too, Simpson drops one glove at the crime scene then conveniently drops the other one at his house? Bit too good to be true innit?

[biggytitbo]

Yeah,"Inspector Biggy" how about you address the possibility, which he raised himself in conversation with his agent, that he had an accomplice ?

It's just a media circus. If Simpson goes on telly and admits it then I'll take notice, 'friends' and various gold diggers saying OJ said this and that mean zilch. OJs also supposedly told people drug dealers killed Nicole, should we believe that too?

[gatchamandave]

It's just a media circus. If Simpson goes on telly and admits it then I'll take notice, 'friends' and various gold diggers saying OJ said this and that mean zilch. OJs also supposedly told people drug dealers killed Nicole, should we believe that too?

No, never mind what he said then. I'll accept that.

So, in return, address the possibility that he wasn't acting alone ?

[Steven]

You doubt they planted evidence then? Fuhrman boasted in those McKinney tapes that he'd stop interracial couples and plant evidence on them and of course he carried a swastica around with him and painted one on the locker of a colleague who'd married a Jewish woman. The guy was off the scales racist nutso. And this is the LA Police, Rodney King, Rampets etc

He also solved the murders of many black victims, one black family had an open-invite to him every Thankgiving for what he did solving the murder of their son. But as you said earlier, it doesn't matter what you think of someone it's the FACTS? Mark Fuhrman using racism and boasting doesn't change the evidence, and all this talk of 'deep throats' inside the LAPD is similarly passed along twaddle that doesn't change anything but to discount the facts with prejudice.

The other thing is you know the whole story about Fuhrman and Vanatter planting evidence didn't come from the defence or media? It came from a 'deep throat' within the LA police who told author Steven Singular that the night of he murder fuhrman had made undocumented trips to both crime scenes and used a broken off a stick at the murder scene to put one of the two gloves (Fuhrmans original statement was I saw them) in a blue evidence bag and plant it at OJ Simpsons house. And that vanatter had OJs blood on his person in a vial with a purple cap whilst he had free reign of both crime scenes. The colour of cap determines what preservatives is used, the police use various colours, red, yellow etc but the purple one means edta was the preservative used. All of this is before any of thr allegations of corruption and evidence tampering, but it all turns out to be true - the stick and blue bag are both found at Simpsons house and blood at the crime scene had edta in it.

This post on straightdope answers the above, you'll love it as it's full of illogical times and car journeys:

It really could not have been planted, but a full answer would bore you. I'll just focus briefly on the blood on the rear gate. It contained OJ Simpson's blood. As did drops of blood along the left side of the walkway leading to the gate. (It was not an amazing coincidence that Simpson had a cut left hand, on the same night as the killings. A cut that was consistent with the drops along the walkway.)

Now, if you were a reasonable person, I have already said enough to make you skeptical about blood planting. But in this case, the defense had an agenda other than reason. So I'll say more.

To plant the blood, Simpson's blood would be needed. Yet, the police--the alleged planters--did not have any of Simpson's blood until 3:30 pm, on the day after the killings. That blood was extracted from Simpson and given to Detective Vannatter at Parker Center police headquarters in downtown L.A..

Multiple detectives saw the blood drops and the blood on the gate during the preceding night. Could they all have lied about seeing the blood? Not in this universe, but it IS something the defense might allege. Even if they did lie, the walkway crime scene was closed at 3:45 pm. By which time the criminalists had gathered all specimens of blood evidence.

Detective Vannatter did not leave the Parker Center until 4:30 pm. He had the purple-capped vial of Simpson's blood with him. He delivered it to criminalist Dennis Fung at Simpson's Rockingham estate, at 5:20 pm.

Even if Detective Vannatter had left the Parker Center immediately after getting the blood, he could not have driven to the walkway crime scene and planted the blood for the criminalists to collect before 3:45 pm. Not even if the approx 15 miles of intervening freeways and streets had been vacant. Even if he were transporter-beamed up to a starship and then transported down to the crime scene, it's doubtful if he could have meticulously deposited blood drops in the exact spots necessary to be consistent with Simpson's cut left hand. Besides, the criminalists would have seen him.

And let's not forget about specimens of Simpson's blood found on and in the white Bronco and at various spots at Simpson's estate.

Even if invisible men and starships managed to plant Simpson's blood, that still does not explain the EDTA. When the two evidence specimens were tested, the EDTA that was detected was inconsistent with the amount of EDTA in stored blood. By an order of magnitude, the amount detected with the evidence was MUCH less than any amount found in stored blood. That is what led FBI toxicologist Roger Martz and City of Hope bio-molecular expert Dr. Terry Lee to say the EDTA was residue left over from a preceding test.

Further musings on that:

I now have a reasonably confident answer to the question that started this thread. I arrived at it yesterday after pasting my above excerpts from Dr. Terry Lee's testimony in the civil trial (see my above reply). FBI toxicologist Roger Martz and bio-molecular expert Dr. Lee were correct. Logic indicates that THERE WAS NO EDTA IN EITHER NICOLE'S BLOOD ON THE SOCKS OR SIMPSON'S BLOOD ON THE GATE. The EDTA came from the testing equipment.

Here is my information and rationale:

1. During the criminal trial, Dr. Frederic Rieders was an expert witness for the defense. He explained that EDTA was not present in human blood. But lab tests done by the FBI, primarily those done by FBI toxicologist Roger Martz, indicated the presence of EDTA in two specimens of blood evidence. One was of Simpson's blood, taken from the gate at the rear end of the walkway at Nicole's condo (the crime scene). The other was of Nicole's blood, taken from socks found in Simpson's bedroom. (I presume those were Simpson's socks.)

2. Because it prevents blood from coagulating, EDTA is normally used as a blood preservative. When human blood is extracted, it is stored in purple-capped test tubes coated with EDTA. Therefore, as Dr. Rieders explained, since EDTA was found in the two specimens of evidence, there was a possibility the blood did not come from the bodies of Nicole and Simpson. Possibly it came from purple-capped test tubes. Which suggests that the blood had been planted.

3. Roger Martz also took the stand. He firmly disbelieved that the blood had been planted. He presented a bar graph showing that the percent volume of EDTA in the two evidence samples was extremely less than the percent volume of EDTA in the blood a from purple-capped test tube. Therefore the blood evidence did not come from any purple-capped test tubes.

4. For the criminal trial, the trouble was that the prosecution's rebuttal of the EDTA/planting theory was complicated and obscure. In fact--someone please correct me if I'm wrong--Roger Martz never came right out and admitted that his tests detected EDTA, per se. He said his tests had found only molecules resembling the structure of EDTA. Dr. Rieders said that Martz's tests did detect EDTA. Anyway, the jury was confused., and regarding the blood evidence, their minds had become doubtful.

5. EDTA is found in many substances. On one webpage, I read a post where someone had seen EDTA listed as an ingredient on the side of a beverage container. I have also read that EDTA can be found in detergent and some foods. So, did the EDTA for the sock's blood come from a detergent that had been used to wash the socks? Did the EDTA for the smear of Simpson's blood on the gate come from something he had eaten or drank? My answer is no to both questions. The percentage of EDTA in the blood from socks and the gate was equal. That would not be the case if the EDTA had come from different sources.

6. Puzzled by his findings, Roger Martz conducted two other tests for EDTA. He used a specimen of blood evidence from Nicole's dress (it was Nicole's blood), and a specimen of his own blood. He found EDTA in both, and the percent volume was again very small compared to that found in purple-capped test tubes.

7. When Dr. Rieders was asked about the EDTA that Martz found in his own blood, he was very skeptical. Perhaps Martz's lab technique was incompetent. Whatever the reason for Martz's supposed finding, EDTA was not normally found in human blood, and Martz should not have found it in his own blood. So Dr. Rieders left room for the jurors to wonder if Roger Martz was part of a blood-planting conspiracy. Was Martz lying when he said he tested his own blood and found EDTA? Was he merely fabricating results from an imaginary test? More doubt was raised because digital records of Martz's tests were deleted. (Deletions were normal procedure--computer memory was limited in those days--but the deletions caused more doubt.)

8. Dr. Rieders was also asked why the percentage of EDTA was so small in the evidence specimens. He theorized that the EDTA had degraded after it was planted. He suggested that by the time Martz tested the evidence specimens, the amounts of EDTA in that blood had fallen greatly from the amounts each specimen had when it was in sealed purple-capped test tubes.

9. Dr. Rieders theory of degradation made me doubtful regarding the blood from the gate. I could not believe that the multitude of blood specimens in the Simpson case could have been planted. That was ridiculous. But I did some reading on the Internet, and I discovered that EDTA could indeed be degraded by light. That troubled me. I knew that the blood evidence from the gate was collected under dubious circumstances. Though it had been observed by a number of persons and documented, Criminalist Dennis Fung forgot to collect it on the day after the killings. On July 3 prosecutor Bill Hodman saw the blood on the gate and asked about it. Only then was it processed. So twenty-one days passed before that blood evidence was collected. If there had been EDTA in it, plenty of time had passed for it to have been degraded by light, and maybe other environmental factors.

10. But I was not lending enough weight to Dr. Lee's testimony. Maybe I can be excused for that because Dr. Lee's testimony was shallow and vague. On the stand he said, “And these evidence samples were -- came from different places and were treated differently; yet they all show the same levels. And so it's difficult to imagine the degradation that would be common to all the samples."

11. Today I understand that piece of testimony more fully. I understand why it solidly refutes the theories that the blood was planted and that the detected levels of EDTA were low because the EDTA degraded. Maybe I can be clearer than Dr. Lee was on the stand:

Four samples of tested blood are at issue here: blood from the gate, blood from the socks, blood from Nicole's dress, and blood from Roger Martz's own body. In each of them, Martz detected EDTA at low levels. Extremely lower than should have been detected if the blood was planted from purple-topped test tubes. Of course Martz's own blood came from him, not from test tubes, but Dr. Rieders cast doubt on Martz's unorthodox testing of his own blood. And maybe degradation could explain the low level of EDTA in the blood from the gate. Right?

Wrong. Here's why: Not only did the four tests show low levels of EDTA, they showed equivalently low levels. Not precisely equivalent, but reasonably so. But if the EDTA in the gate's blood came from food or drink, it would not be equal to the amount present in the sock from detergent. Nor would it be equal to the amount of EDTA in Martz's own blood, however that EDTA got there (surely he did not swallow detergent). Maybe, if Simpson's housemaid used the same brand of detergent to wash Simpson's socks as Nicole used to wash her dress, the percentage of EDTA in the blood from the socks and from Nicole's dress would be roughly equal. But they would not be equal to the amount of EDTA in the blood from Martz's body or from the gate.

And Dr. Rieders must have been wrong regarding the degradation. After twenty-one days of exposure, it would be incredibly unlikely that the degraded EDTA from the gate would be at a level equal to that in the other three test samples.

So, neither degradation nor EDTA from environmental sources like detergents and foods can, with reasonable assurance, explain where that detected EDTA came from. Why were the levels detected during tests of those four samples equally low? At this moment, I see only one reasonable answer. The EDTA came from a common source, shared by all four samples. And that common source was the testing equipment.

That whole thing with the gloves is so ludicrous too, Simpson drops one glove at the crime scene then conveniently drops the other one at his house? Bit too good to be true innit?

That he didn't commit the perfect murder? Rushing to catch a car and a plane after committing a murder I image you'd make some mistakes.

[biggytitbo]

No, never mind what he said then. I'll accept that.

So, in return, address the possibility that he wasn't acting alone ?

I've addressed at great length the idea it was his son and OJ was there and covered for him. Possible yeah, lots of things are possible, I just think the timeline makes it next to impossible for OJ to have been there. Even the official timeline has OJ making a miraculously quick escape, an incredible cleanup and a totally invisible disposal of the murder weapon.

I do think 2 people did the murders, 2 knives were used, that was very clear from he autopsy - 1 knife had 2 edges, like a dagger and the other was a normal 1 sided knife. There's still unidentified DNA and fingerprints too.

I'm just less sure now than ever OJ was one of the. I think it was drug related, Ron Goldman had 2 friends both brutally killed in unsolved murders and he had a fat, still classified criminal file because he was a confidential informant. He was also accused of dealing drugs by the residents nearby the tennis club Ron frequented. Rons dad Fred Goldman was married to Patti Goldman, he actually married her and took on her kids whilst their real dad, a pyscopathic mafia drug smuggler called Marvin Glass was in prison. He would get apoplectic when he heard how Fred was beating his sons up. Oh and Marvin was dying of AIDS. Ohh and he was in LA the night Ron was murdered.

Maybe nothing in all of this, but isn't it amazing that in all the endless shit aabout OJ nobody ever mentions any of it?

[clingfilm portent]

He did it you fucking target

[biggytitbo]

OJ Simpson is magic then, not only is he impervious to the viscous blows of a man fighting for his life, he can travel in time and levitate.


He didn't do it, you fucking plum.

[Steven]

Btw Jill Shively reported OJ's license plate to the police 7am the next morning as she thought he was a drunk driver, before the media reported about the murders and long before the famous Bronco chase.

[biggytitbo]

Btw Jill Shively reported OJ's license plate to the police 7am the next morning as she thought he was a drunk driver, before the media reported about the murders and long before the famous Bronco chase.

Where's it say that?


If Shively is to be believed you're saying OJ drove the remaining distance home, disposed of the murder weapon somewhere it would never be found, showered, changed clothes, completely disposed of all the bloody clothes, towels and shoes where they would never be found, invisibly bandaged his wounds and did it all without leaving a single spot on the white carpeting in his house within 10 minutes? Shiveley's encounter was at 10:50, OJ left his house completly composed and unsctahed at 11pm.


Pull the other one.

[biggytitbo]

Btw Jill Shively reported OJ's license plate to the police 7am the next morning as she thought he was a drunk driver, before the media reported about the murders and long before the famous Bronco chase.

Just reading the testimony and its bollocks. Shively says she already knew OJ, had seen him around Brentwood loads of times, and immedietly recognised him by face. Why would she even need the number plate?


As an aside, one interesting fact about the bronco is it was a rental car, OJ had some kind of deal with hertz and his little group of hangers on like Al Cowlings all had the same model white bronco aswell.

[Steven]

If Shively is to be believed you're saying OJ drove the remaining distance home, disposed of the murder weapon somewhere it would never be found, showered, changed clothes, completely disposed of all the bloody clothes, towels and shoes where they would never be found, invisibly bandaged his wounds and did it all without leaving a single spot on the white carpeting in his house within 10 minutes? Shiveley's encounter was at 10:50, OJ left his house completly composed and unsctahed at 11pm.

Why would he have to do all that if as we all have agreed he had an accomplice? Besides he was obviously in a rush, why was the Bronco parked skewiff outside of the gates of his house and not inside the gates like his other cars considering he was leaving town by plane? Can someone shower and get changed in 10 minutes? Well, yeah. I don't know why you're so obsessed with where blood wasn't, you have no idea how much blood was involved so it's irrelevant. It matters where the blood was and you've not addressed the above EDTA results which spoils the 'racist police planted it all' theory the defence threw out. He also loaded some extra bags into the limo that he wouldn't let anyone else touch and kept checking, nobody saw these bags again.

Just reading the testimony and its bollocks. Shively says she already knew OJ, had seen him around Brentwood loads of times, and immedietly recognised him by face. Why would she even need the number plate?

It identifies the vehicle? The vehicle that was meant to be parked strangely skewiff outside his house while he was asleep/playing golf and not driving it across town from a murder scene. It's evidence, isnt it?

[biggytitbo]

Here's the guy sat next to Simpson on the plane, an hour after he almost hacked his wife's head off and brutally stabbed Ron Goldman to death -

MR. COCHRAN: And when Mr. Simpson first entered, can you describe--and as he was interacting with the other passengers--can you describe for the jury his mood, how he appeared to you?
MR. DARDEN: Objection, your Honor, no foundation.
MR. COCHRAN: How he appeared?
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. VALERIE: He was very pleasant, smiling. I noticed his clothing was very well-pressed. Looked very sharp. In fact, I was looking--particularly just because of his celebrity from his Hertz commercials and the fact that he was so late on board, I was looking to see if he was sweating and he looked absolutely normal. His flight--his clothing was very well pressed and he sat down, and umm, looked over actually a couple times at the beginning and then later on in the flight and smiled and seemed very approachable.

MR. COCHRAN: All right, certainly. Mr. Valerie, as you watched Mr. Simpson from this vantage point, did you have occasion to look at his face?
MR. VALERIE: I sure did.
MR. COCHRAN: Did you see any bruises or cuts or abrasions on his face at that point?
MR. VALERIE: None whatsoever.
MR. COCHRAN: Did you have occasion from this vantage point you have described for us to look at Mr. Simpson's hands?
MR. VALERIE: I did.
MR. COCHRAN: And what, if anything, did you see with regard to his hands?
MR. VALERIE: Umm, I viewed Mr. Simpson's hands at that time looking for championship ring. Given he is a famous professional player, that was the motivation for my looking at his hands. I didn't see anything unusual, no Band-Aids, no large abrasions or anything to that effect.
MR. COCHRAN: Did you see any cuts at all?
MR. VALERIE: I didn't see any.
MR. COCHRAN: Did you see any blood on his hands?
MR. VALERIE: No blood.

And various other people who talked to OJ on the flight, shook his hand, got his autograph. Composed, chatty, no injuries, no cuts, no bandages - http://simpson.walraven.org/jul12.html

How can you even have a cut on your hand with no bandage or plaster and it not be bleeding everywhere?

[Steven]

How can you even have a cut on your hand with no bandage or plaster and it not be bleeding everywhere?

Blood clots, it's what stops us bleeding to death.

[biggytitbo]

^^ Steven there's not much point debating what a forensic expert paid by the defense says, I'm not a forensic expert and just s many forensic experts paid for by the prosecution say the opposite so it's going to get us nowhere. The only forensic expert that really counts in this case is the pathologist one who did the autopsy and wasn't paid to say anything either way. He said 2 knives were used, so we're talking 2 assailants, which i think we both agree on.


I just can't understand how the timelines can make OJ one of them.

[DrGreggles]

Jill shivery turned out to be a fantasist

Imagine being crazy enough to spout ridiculous theories!

[biggytitbo]

Blood clots, it's what stops us bleeding to death.

So within an hour a n unbandaged cut heals and disappears then a day later magically reappears again? Interesting theory.


The EDTA stuff, singular was told about furhman and vanatter planting evidence and the purple vial of blood just a few weeks after the murders. This is months before the trial and months before the crime scene blood is actually tested and the EDTA is found. If it was just some sort of mistake in testing how could he possibly have known months in advance it would happen? The other thing is when vanatter took that sample and spent hours with free reign of the crime scenes with it in his pocket, it had 8ml of blood in it. When it was returned to the lab it had 6.5ml in.

[mr. logic]

The cut was something else OJ was never clear about.  In fact Cochran got frustrated at being unable to pin him down on it, confronted him, and the pair had a long shouting match.  Afterwards, Cochran told the other lawyers that he was just relived that he didn't have blonde hair.

[biggytitbo]

There were no cuts on the plane though, despite several witnesses getting a good look at his hands, or corresponding cut in the bloody glove. It's reasonable enough that he simply didn't recall how he got it and as a total screwball came up with various stories he thought would make himself look innocent.

[Shit Good Nose]

Going back to the OP, which I believe was just about the film itself and whether it was any good - if, like me, you're fascinated with both the case and the character of OJ, but couldn't be doing with the ridiculous media circus coverage at the time, so all you know about it you learnt from South Park, it's an essential watch. 

[DrGreggles]

There were no cuts on the plane though, despite several witnesses getting a good look at his hands

I always stare at everyone's hands on planes too - just in case they've just stabbed 2 people.

[biggytitbo]

I always stare at everyone's hands on planes too - just in case they've just stabbed 2 people.

Hardly unreasonable if you actually read the testimony, he was signing autographs, shaking hands and one guy said he stared at OJ's hands trying to see his superbowl ring. This was a cut that was meant to be so deep it caused OJ to bleed all over the crime scene remember, and OJ tops had 10 minutes to drive home and clean himself up.

[machotrouts]

I, like you, don't know what she would of wouldn't do, or what she does and doesn't know, so it's a moot point.

I think you'll find it's "what she would have wouldn't do".

[DrGreggles]

one guy said he stared at OJ's hands trying to see his superbowl ring.

Would that be the Superbowl ring that OJ famously never won?
He'd have to stare bloody hard!

[biggytitbo]

Would that be the Superbowl ring that OJ famously never won?
He'd have to stare bloody hard!

Yeah read the testimony at the trial, he had something like a superbowl ring, I linked to it earlier. It makes sense.

[MojoJojo]

Lots was made at the trial of the line, 'Just because somebody abuses a person'- as they were forced to admit OJ abused Nicole- 'doesn't mean they then murder the person.' 

They had lots of statistics backing up this point and I suppose on the surface it's a fair one.  I do wonder how the stats are altered in the cases of abused people being, em, murdered though.

Yes, I remember this being mentioned in an issue of New Scientist I think, on an article about the difficulty with statistics and probability in court cases. The defence stated only a small percentage of domestic abusers murder their victims. But then most victims aren't murdered, and Nicole had been murdered. And of victims of DV who are murdered, a very large percentage (90% ? I can't remember) were murdered by their abusers.

Edit: it's called Defence attorney's fallacy and the wiki page specifically mentions the OJ case - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosecutor%27s_fallacy#Defense_attorney.27s_fallacy

NS claimed the fact the prosecution didn't pick up on this because they were shit at probability, but I suspect in reality a judge would be very wary of an expert witness stating that there was a 90% chance OJ did it based solely on a history of domestic violence.

[DrGreggles]

Yeah read the testimony at the trial, he had something like a superbowl ring, I linked to it earlier. It makes sense.

Maybe he stole it because he thought it was his own memorabilia.

[biggytitbo]

There was only evidence that OJ hit Nicole once, everything else is hearsay. One too many times obviously, but the likes of Johnny Depp, Sean Penn, Eminem, Jimmy Page, Sean Connery, Mel Gibson, Steven Seagal, Ozzy Osborne, Mickey Rourke, James Brown, Slash, CHristian Slater, James Caan, Floyd Mayweather, Glen Campbell, Edward Furlong, Mark E Smith, Gary Busey, Dudley Moore, Paul Simon, Nicholas Cage, Michael Fassbender, Josh Brolin, Wesley Snipes etc etc etc were all arrested or charged with domestic violence on at least one occasion and may were serial offenders, so OJ is in no way remotely unusual and his previous behaviour in no way indicates that he could be perfectly normal and charming a few hours before, then suddenly psychotically try to hack off his ex-wifes head and brutally stab to death Ron Goldman whislt his kids are upstairs in the house, then be perfectly normal and charming an hour later as if nothing happened.

[touchingcloth]

Going back to the OP, which I believe was just about the film itself and whether it was any good - if, like me, you're fascinated with both the case and the character of OJ, but couldn't be doing with the ridiculous media circus coverage at the time, so all you know about it you learnt from South Park, it's an essential watch.

Seconded. One of the most astonishing things to me was when Carl E. Douglas was talking about how the defence team took the jury for an outing round the Rockingham house, and prior to the trip set dressed the place to add some black faces and civil rights prints to the collection of photos on walls which mainly featured his white chums. How's that allowed, then? Could the prosecution have arranged the same trip and stacked the coffee tables with books like "Doing Double Murders" and "How To Kill Your Ex" before opening the doors to the jury?

The other thing that got me were the two jurors who basically said that they deliberated and reached a verdict so quickly mainly because they wanted to be done with the trial and get back home. I know it can't be expected that jurors base their decisions solely upon objective facts, but I was still surprised that you can openly admit to an "arsed mate, delibbed" mentality after the fact and either not face some kind of penalty or risk sparking a retrial.

USA! USA! USA!