Started watching this in Netflix and have been reading up on the trial and I thought this might be the place to ask this... OJ's Bronco has blood on it and in it. There's blood from the front of the property seemingly heading into his home. My question is was there an explanation for why Kato heard bumps on his wall and the body glove is then found towards the back of the property? I can't make that make sense
Are you asking if the defense explained this? Are you asking why the jury disregarded this? Are you asking did the DA bring this up? 1. the cops planted the evidence 2. They were okay with letting a brother off for killing a couple of CACs. 3. They did but see 1 and 2
The prosecution's explanation is what I'm looking for. I know the defense asserted it was planted. Didn't know if there was a counter argument
Yeah that OJ killed them got blood in and on the Bronco jumped the fence and dropped his glove there. That what Kato heard was OJ jumping the fence (and IIRC) bumping into the AC so the limo driver wouldn't see him running into the house.
How did they make that jibe with the evidence in the bronco is really what I'm getting at? I think oj did it but the glove or the bronco blood has to be planted. Most likely the glove I guess
I don't think either was planted. Unless you think they found both gloves at the murder scene. Then for whatever reason decided to frame OJ by picking them up and dropping one off at his house. Here they would have also have to get a small amount of his blood to leave on and in the Bronco. In order for this to work they would have had to know OJ didn't have an alibi.
Glove is at the back of the premises or towards the back. If he is in the bronco, coming in the front leaving blood drops along the way and then bypasses his home to go beat on the wall at the edge of his property and drop a glove in the process.
The diagram at the bottom is what trips me up. Notice the path from the bronco and the blood supposedly leading into the house in relation to where the glove and Kato are.
He pulled up and saw the limo waiting for him in the front so he had to go around back to get in so the limo driver didn't see him go into the house.
He had a cut in his had which he told the cops he got in Chicago. You "up to the house" could it be "coming from the house"?
He is not in both places at once. He is not a criminal mastermind. He can't walk right in front of the limo driver. He jumped the gate/fence near Kato's room. He drops the glove. He goes around and goes into the house. Maybe he can't go in the back for some reason and/ or he simply thinks the driver can't see him.
I didn't say you said at once. I just don't know why (other than them claiming he was in both places at once) he can't jump the fence on the side and go into the front door. You said "I don't get why he is in both places". I don't understand why he can't be in both places. The limo driver claimed to see someone go in and not knowing the angle and view from where he sat maybe OJ thought he wouldn't be seen by the driver.
I posted in here because I had a question. I tried to state my question as clearly as possible, over and over. My question was answered, not in the way I anticipated but answered nonetheless, so I'm done. Thanks
No problem and my bad if is am coming off as an ass. I think the limo was parked in the driveway so for OJ to go in through the front gate he'd have walked right in front of the driver. So he jumped the fence/gate by Kato's room. When he did that he dropped a glove. Then (I have no idea where the other doors are in the house) he went in the front door. Maybe he thought the view from the driveway was obstructed enough that he wouldn't be seen. Jumping the gate doesn't have anything to do with him going in the front door. But, saying that they planted the glove assumes that the cops knew that OJ wasn't a victim and that he didn't have an alibi. I don't understand why they would have done that. Like I said I don't think anything was planted.
Keep watching the documentary, its arguably the best I've ever seen and won the oscar the other night
I was stumped on connecting the two for whatever reason. I knew it was asserted that it wa planted and furman took the 5th under questioning about planting evidence so it was my first assumption
I'm confused. You: "My question was answered, not in the way I anticipated" Me: "how did you anticipate it being answered?"
You'll see that they could have had a Polaroid of OJ dropping the bloody glove with a knife in his hand and the defense would have gotten him off. The state took a beating I haven't seen since the dolphins/jags playoff game in 2000
I wasn't trying to argue with you. I was simply trying to give you my position and opinion. I wasn't attempting to change your opinion or tell you that you are wrong.
They've already kind of set the stage as it being some kind of payback for Rodney King/other racial stuff going on in la at the time. Wasnt sure if that's where they were going or not
Look at my first reply to you. I was joking in how I said it but not on what I said they were 100% paying back what they saw as racial injustice.
I just binged watched this and it was fucking awesome. I was only 1 when the trial happened and never really knew much about it. What a shit show.
The water was very muddy. Once you muddy up the water, everything becomes suspicious. You have to take away the blood and the glove then you decide the verdict. That's what the jury did,
http://variety.com/2017/tv/news/american-crime-story-season-2-versace-1202465046/ season 2 starts in 2018, and they are doing the Versace murder. Season 3 will be Katrina
Maybe it's because I was in south Florida but I remember that being on the news nonstop for a long time after he was murdered.
Édgar Ramírez as Gianni Versace Darren Criss as Andrew Cunanan Ricky Martin as Antonio D'Amico Penélope Cruz as Donatella Versace