Reddit reviews Blood Secrets: Chronicles of a Crime Scene Reconstructionist

> The witnesses inside the recital hall saying OJ was acting weird is to me, irrelevant

It's circumstantial evidence of Simpson's state of mind that night so I don't see how you can justifiably say that it's not relevant. There is also corroborating evidence that OJ and Nicole had argued earlier that day during a telephone call after Nicole had told Simpson that he was not welcome to join them at the restaurant that evening. I'll concede you a point that his breakup with Paula Barbieri that day (which btw he denied that he was aware of at that point) could have been a contributory factor in his odd behaviour at the recital, but I still maintain that his squabble with Nicole carries far more significance.

> I am pretty sure a sociopath is not going to care that his drug addicted, 2-year ex-wife, who he was in an open relationship with is going to snap and murder her over a petty breakup and Nicole sleeping with other people.

Following the divorce, as part of the settlement Nicole was awarded $500,000, custody of their two children and $10k in monthly child support. Simpson tried to reconcile with his ex-wife numerous times after the separation, and although they did reunite once or twice the relationship increasingly became more soured.

Simpson was known to be jealous and possessive of Nicole, and during their separation once spied on his ex-wife through her living room window while she made love to another man, afterwards confronting them. Nicole also had an affair after the divorce with OJ's best friend Marcus Allen, which created a minor tabloid scandal as Allen was engaged to be married at the time. This infuriated Simpson and he is alleged (not for the first time) to have threatened to kill Nicole if she continued the affair. Three weeks prior to her death, Nicole had told OJ that she no longer desired to reconcile their marriage, that their relationship was over and that she never wanted to see him again.

Less than two weeks before the murders, and by now the relationship utterly broken down, Simpson resorted to blackmailing Nicole by threatening to report her to the IRS for avoiding tax after purchasing her house on Bundy. In Nicole's diary, the entry for June 3, 1994 states that when Simpson came over to her residence at 8:30 p.m. to pick up the children for visitation, he commented to her, "You hung up on me last nite, you're gonna pay for this bitch, you're holding money from the IRS, you're going to jail you fucking cunt. You think you can do any fucking thing you want, you've got it coming. I've already talked to my lawyers about this bitch, they'll get you for tax evasion bitch I'll see to it. You're not gonna have a fucking dime left bitch."

This prompted Nicole to put the house up for lease the weekend that she was murdered and she was busy making plans to move out. I will make an assumption here by saying that I suspect Nicole might have blackmailed OJ in return, perhaps by threatening to sell stories to the tabloids of OJ's wife-beating, adultery and drug use, which would likely have destroyed his image and career.

BTW, Nicole was by no means a drug addict (she certainly did less coke than OJ at any rate). You might have her confused with he friend Faye Resnick, who was in drug rehab at the time.

> The Ron Goldman bruising testimony is to me, absurd. Forensic Expert Dr. Henry Lee testified at the trial that Ron had "put up a pretty big fight"

Here is a picture of one of one of Ron's hands. Notice the large abrasion on a middle knuckle and irregular marks on the top knuckles. That is consistent with flailing one's hands against bark or mettle, rather than punching soft human skin. Hardly absurd.

As for Dr Lee, he was a paid witness for the defence and rumoured to have earned $100,000 for his investigation and subsequent testimony. Furthermore, not only were some of his conclusions shown to be wildly inaccurate, but Lee has since been accused of gross malpractice in several other high profile cases, most notably during the murder trial of Phil Spector where it was shown that Lee took evidence from the crime scene that implicated his client in an effort to hide it from prosecutors. Dr Lee's word on this case counts for nothing in my book.

> It was determined that since both sides of the sock had an identical blood stain that it couldnt have been splattered onto the sock while a person's foot was inside, thus it was planted.

According to Rod Englert, a blood-spatter expert who worked for the prosecution, those blood stains were "hand transfer stains" that resulted from Simpson pulling his socks off with his bloodied hands. He also found 19 medium-velocity impact spatters of Nicole Brown’s blood around the ankle of the left sock and 39 spatters of what DNA testing showed was also Brown’s blood around the right sock, which are consistent with blood splatter from knife wounds and not at all with dripping from a vial.

> The EDTA evidence is overwhelming and applies to a number of pieces of physical evidence

To my knowledge, it only applies to the sock and the back gate at Bundy. As already stated, the FBI blood expert who performed the test later debunked the defences EDTA claims in court.

> The irrefutable facts regarding the blood evidence are that the trail of blood was tainted because of crime scene contamination

The five blood drops at Bundy that matched OJ were collected before the LAPD had taken a sample from Simpson, so it's impossible that those drops were contaminated at the crime scene. The defence's claim that the blood was contaminated at the lab was only speculation, not proven. The defence zeroed in on the fact that a lab technician had spilled some blood from a vial when opening it. However the prosecution argued that since the crime scene samples were stored in sealed envelopes on the other side of the room at the time, and that the tech had changed his gloves immediately afterwards, the probability of cross-contamination was practically zero. Just more desperate claims by a defence that had no choice but to claim a conspiracy when they had no other case to argue.

> We have a detective that found all the key evidence pleading the fifth

Fuhrman took the fifth on every question after the perjury incident (on the advice of his attorney), so pointing to the fact that he did so with regards to planting evidence only is slightly misleading. If they would have asked him if he killed Lincoln, he still would have replied with the fifth.

Besides that, the glove was found within hours of the bodies being discovered and before the investigators knew the full circumstances of the case, so it makes no sense that Fuhrman (or any of the other detectives for that matter) would be trying to frame Simpson at that point. They didn't know if he was in the state or even in the same country when the murders were committed, and they also had no idea whose blood was on the glove at that time. If the tests later showed that someone else's blood was on the glove or that Simpson had a cast-iron alibi, Fuhrman and any other cops involved in framing Simpson for murder could have been facing a possible life sentence themselves.

> you throw out the blood evidence which is unusable and Furman's testimony, which is non-existent, and you have no case.

Not by a long shot. Here's a list of the key evidence against Simpson which I've complied previously. It's a miracle that the guy was acquitted in all honesty, it couldn't be more clear that he did it.