READ about Piers Morgan's long career in journalism here.
As much of the nation continues to debate the verdict in the recently concluded George Zimmerman trial, on Tuesday evening "Piers Morgan Live" welcomed a pair of gentleman able to offer a very specific blend of perspective and insight.
Having served as jurors on the infamous O.J. Simpson murder case nearly two decades ago, Lionel Cryer and David Aldana are all too familiar with the pressure and scrutiny faced by the six Florida women who acquitted George Zimmerman.
In the eyes of Aldana, in both instances the right conclusion was reached:
"You have no doubt to this day that you think O.J. Simpson was not guilty?" Morgan asked.
"I don't have any doubt whatsoever," he declared, before continuing with his assessment of the more recent case.
"I would have found him innocent on what they had," said the guest of Zimmerman. "It seemed like every time they would put on a witness ... they were on the ... defensive side. A lot of things were just not, some of the witnesses they put on, and a lot of things just didn't make sense to me on that."
While Cryner disagreed with his former colleague on the Zimmerman trial, noting that he would have voted to convict on second degree murder, he too sticks by his decision from 1995:
"Based on the evidence presented to me in that case at trial," he began, qualifying his ultimate decision. "I thought the prosecution in that case did put on a very weak case, I had no alternative but to rule for reasonable doubt, which is all I gave him in that instance, really."
Watch the clip for more of Morgan's interview with the former O.J. Simpson jurors, and for the next edition of "Piers Morgan Live," watch CNN every night at 9.
» Follow "Piers Morgan Live" on Twitter
» Follow "Piers Morgan Live" on Instagram
OJ verdict came as no surprise to those attending the trial--regardless of which side of the fence they were on. what appeared on TV each night- was vastly different from what actually occurred in court. Simply-there was no mountain of evidence–just the phrase.
You should read Vincent Bugliosi's book "Outrage: The Five Reasons OJ Simpson Got Away with Murder," and then come back here and revisit the mountain of evidence. The prosecution was too stupid and too intereseted in their own celebrity to spend the time doing the job right.
Also, in light of what a criminal, hotheaded moron Simpson turned out to be, it's utterly amazing to me that anyone could believe he was not guilty of those murders. You have to be brain dead or deeply biased to think he was innocdent. He kept breaking the law over and over till the justice system finally lost patience and put him away, in jail, where he belongs forever.
A great book to read is the book written by Daniel Petrocelli the lawyer for the Civil Trial against OJ Simpson.
After reading that and having him explain the DNA and evidence in detail you will know OJ committed that crime.
Danielle, in the Civil Trial the Judge was in the tank for the Goldberg's. Judge excluded from evidence any testimony about evidence tampering. When OJ gave his blood sample for testing, he gave 8cc, LAPD Det, took the vial to deliver to crime lab in same bldg, he instead went to the crime scene, and returned 3 hours later with only 6.5cc. The Det, first lied and said he delivered the blood directly, when confronted with the sign out and sign in sheets, and time stamped photo's of him at the crime scene, he admitted his lie. The CSI techs, log every swab they take. The number of swabs taken and logged by CSI was much less than the number of swabs received by the lab. Extra swabs not taken by CSI were in the lab and the extra swabs were containing OJ blood. each swab contain one tenth of a CC, so 1.5 CC = 150 swabs, which was close to the amount of extra swabs. The bloody sock's stain went all the way through the sock, proving no leg was in the sock when the blood went on. The bloody glove behind OJ's house was still wet with blood, proving the glove had been in a ziploc, otherwise the blood would have dried within 8 hours. Besides who commits murder wearing tight gloves, and drops one at the scene, and brings the other one home and tosses behind his garage.
Actually, in regards to the CC amount of blood the problem with the said amount was that it wasn't actually 8cc's; it was less than that....what he didn't know was that the nurse who took Simpson's blood used a different needle that draws less blood because his veins were much thicker/tougher than the average person....so a normal needle use takes UP TO (that was the magic world that was not used during testimony) 8 ccs. But in this case they acutally took under 8ccs.
About the socks...it was said in court that it was possible that there could be blood on both sides if say a hand (perhaps Nicole's) reached up and touched his ankle...that was one of scenarios given and approved by even the Defense's expert.
And considering they found a foot print on the front of her dress (by her lower chest/rib area) it does make for a possibility.
Also, whenever they take a blood sample the qtip is moistened; so let's say you take a sample of some blood that has dried for some time when the wet qtip hits it, it would cause the same wet pattern to soak through to the opposite side...so there were some other reasons why the blood on the sock came to be.
Another interesting read regarding DNA evidence involved with the O. J. Simpson trial is "Blood Evidence" written by Dr. Henry C. Lee & Frank Tirnady (published in 2003). The failures and mistakes made with the handling of evidence, strict adherence to recommended lab practices, etc, are covered by the authors in exquisite detail. But, as was pointed out in the book, the defense made it clear from ther start that instead of trying to challenge admission of the blood/DNA evidence, they were going to make their case by attacking the competence and credibility of *everyone* involved in the chain of collecting/handling/interpreting the evidence.
So, the defense's 2-pronged attack amounted to this: Yes, the blood evidence found in all of these different locations could (as DNA testing very conclusively showed) ONLY have come from O.J., Nicole Simpson, and/or Ron Goldman, but these results could not "be trusted" because either the evidence samples were contaminated, or the blood was deliberately introduced by law enforcement in an attempt to frame the defendant. The contamination attacks were mostly targeted at the PCR (DNA) testing, since it is highly sensitive and has a greater chance of amplifying any DNA introduced as a result of contamination. But, the more significant attack (because of the greater reliability of the results) was their claim that the DNA type-matching from the RFLP testing was the result of O. J.'s blood being added by one of the detectives or lab technicians to deliberately frame O. J. The RFLP matches essentially make moot the claims of PCR contamination, and with the absence of EDTA that was later shown (an anti-coagulant routinely mixed with blood evidence), the jury should not have had any hesitation in accepting the core scientific findings of the 3 independent laboratories.
Contaminated blood samples don't point to innocent suspects. They merely erode. Read those two sentences 5 times till you finally understand them.
Henry Lee, despite his credentials, is and remains incompetent. There is no 'OJ Simpson Murder Mystery.' Simpson did it. Period. Get your head out of the murky microscope and look at the big picture.
For Robert: Perhaps it is you who needs to re-read my posting all the way through before attacking. My comments were in support of the laboratory findings incriminating O. J. in the murders. As for your attack on Dr. Lee, I don't know what evidence you have to support your opinion that he is "incompetent:".
As JM stated above, the reporting on the evidence, and the actual evidence presented in the courtroom were vastly different. I was a law student, studying evidence that year, and I watched the entire trial gavel to gavel. I was stunned to see the six o'clock news present a vastly different story of what the days events were. Inside the courtroom it was proved that the police tampered with evidence. It was proved that at least 3 LAPD committed perjury. The evidence against OJ was weak, and the Frame, the LAPD hung on OJ was strong. For the record I'm middle class white guy, conservative. Similar to Zimmerman, if you watched the Trial, no way to convict. If you watched NBC you would hang the guy. I was not surprised the OJ jury acquitted in 45 minutes. For the record, just because someone has been framed, or the evidence is too weak to convict, does not mean he did not commit the crime. The jury was right to acquit both Zimm & OJ.
I hope your law student days remained where you left them, in the past. Your talents, if any, lie elsewhere.
It was proved that only one LAPD officer committed perjury, on the complete irrelevancy of his having used the N word in the last ten years. For that his entire career was ruined and his reputation destroyed so the defense could derail the case and get their murdering client off the hook and the mountain of evidence against him overlooked. It didn't hurt that the judge had the IQ of a turnip and the prosecutors were too busy defining a new category of incompetence to stop the defense's transparent ploys.
You are a moron with a microscope for eyes and a complete absence of common sense or the ability to see the bigger picture. The evidence against Simpson was staggering beyond belief. The only way it could have been improved upon was if someone had been there and video taped the whole thing. And then nitwits like you would be arguing that it was an LAPD double.
Again, I hope you didn't pass the bar, other than the obvious ones you have clearly made it a habit of visiting.
You are confused, the DA only charged one officer. If more were charged, more would have been convicted. You must have watched NBC. Back then most people didn't realize how biased the media is. Like I said, I had the rare luxury of watching gavel to gavel. I suspect that like most people you were busy working, and had no time to see what the jury saw. If I only got my news from the media, in this case, I too would have wanted conviction. Almost all working folks thought he was guilty. I am a very conservative mainstream guy.
you are spot on Robert,never a doubt a doubt in my mind that simpson committed these murders .Having been to the murder scene and reading all the books on this case I can't understand how people still think he is innocent,may God continue to bless his two children..........
You are so right AND very funny. The JURY was a sad commentary on life between blacks and whites in America.
One more thing to wrap up my comments...I've always felt that the wounds that Nicole suffered at her last moments in life were very similiar to what she experienced during the New Years beating in '89....
New Years Beating:
She was stuck so hard on her front forehead that it left a HUGE WELT (And AC Cowlings even said himself under oath that he took to the hospital to be treated for a possible concussion.And during the Civil Trial Kato said that Nicole once told him that OJ hit her so hard on her head they both thought her skull was fractured.)
She was stuck on/near her mouth that it split her lip and left swelling/brusing.
She had his hand print on her neck. How much force does one person use to actually leave a hand print one's neck?
She had brusing/swelling near her mouth (medical expert in civil trial said it was a possible punch to the face...and during the New Years's Beating she said he slapped and punched her.)
She had a bruise to the top of her scalp that actually bruised her top layer of brain tissue...Dr. during criminal trial said it could have been "a knockout punch" (Boxing terminology)
And the obvious neck wound...such force was inflicted that is severed her windpipe, all arteries and veins and nicked her spinal cord...again....a hand going to her throat to leave a mark/inflict violence....this time far more worse than New Years Eve because that hand now held a knife.)
Maybe as a woman I see this case differently from a man's point of view....but I always thought that her murder injuries were just like her NYE's injuries just more magnified because now this person wanted to kill her and not just hurt her like he had done in the past.
From a former domestic violence victim... O.J. was a coward...( as all men who abuse women.) during Nicole's marriage and relationship with O.J... If he was any kind of man...( who claims that he was innocent of the double murders,) why didn't he attempt to find out the person responsible for her murder.. O.J. Simpson is STILL a coward...as he pleads to get out of jail...( yes the penalty for what he did at the hotel was too stiff.. God hung his ass...here on earth.. for what he did to 2 human beings.. I believe regardless..of what " his version " of model prisoner is.. Sit in there for the next..28 yrs..>>O.J. Your punishment..is due... You have not repented..and you're not sorry that you murdered Ron & Nicole.. Otherwise... you would have been man enough to admit..that you...lost your temper because
" No One Will Have Nicole...Other Than You. " Great observation.... Danielle... O.J. Did It... and he's paying his due judgment here on earth...and may just answer for it...on Judgment Day..
Definitely imagine that which you said. Your favourite justification seemed to be at the net the easiest factor to understand of. I say to you, I definitely get irked whilst other folks think about concerns that they just don't realize about. You controlled to hit the nail upon the top as smartly as outlined out the entire thing without having side-effects , folks could take a signal. Will likely be back to get more. Thanks
Admiring the persistence you put into your blog and detailed information you offer. It's awesome to come across a blog every once in a while that isn't the same unwanted rehashed information. Great read! I've bookmarked your site and I'm adding your RSS feeds to my Google account.| cpanel vps http://www.bacfrancais.com/userinfo.php?uid=663526
david aldana is a child predator
Notify me of new comments via email.