🚀 go-pugleaf

Recently, there was yet another talk show on CNN on this subject. 
Bailey was there claiming that police framed Simpson, while his
opponent Sliwa (means in Russian "prune") was asking a pretty valid
question: police in the past bent backward in all cases when they were
called due to domestic violence; so if in the past they were on
Simpson's side, why would they change and decide to frame him?  Bailey
did not really know how to answer this question.  So, where is the
truth here?

There is no doubt, that police framed Simpson, but they did not frame
him to have him convicted, they framed him to have him acquitted.  The
evidence against him was so overwhelming that there was only one way
to save him: to frame him, and to do it in the most evident and stupid
way.  This is what police does each time they want to have someone
acquitted.  Remember the case Mattick, who were caught with several
tons of hashish?  The only way to save them was to frame them, and
this is exactly what SQ did, and a corrupt judge got well paid for
dismissing the charges.  Then the taxpayer had to pay $35 million for
the Poitras Commission, which never tried to discover the truth.

In the Simpson's case, his lawyers immediately hired a retired
policeman as a "consultant".  The real role of the consultant was to
bribe the policemen involved in the case, so that they would "frame"
Simpson.  These policemen would be reluctant to take money from the
lawyers, but they would have no problem taking money from their old
friend, and they did.  Remember film, where policeman took the vial
with Simpson's blood and instead of sending it to the lab, went to the
scene of crime, creating impression that he could have dispersed part
of the blood there.  All this was filmed in zoom.  Do you believe that
the policeman was so stupid, that he did not understand the
impropriety of bringing the specimen with the suspect's blood to the
scene of crime?  If he wanted to really frame Simpson, he would
certainly not allow this to be filmed, especially in zoom.

If you think, that the prosecution wanted to convict Simpson, think
again.  They did everything to loose the case.  They quarreled with
the defence for every little thing, but this was just a spectacle for
public consumption.  Here are the major steps the made to have Simpson
acquitted.  First, they assigned LA to be the place of trial, while
strictly speaking, it had to be done in Brentwood, where the crime
took place.  They did it, because in LA majority of jurors would be
black, while in Brentwood the jurors would be white.

Second, it was the prosecution, who initiated the test, which showed
that the glove did not fit.  They knew that the glove was planted and
that it would not fit.  How stupid one should be to manage to lose one
glove at the scene of crime and then to lose the second one in his
backyard?  Simpson somehow managed to destroy all his clothes, but
"forgot" a bloody sock in his bedroom.  Would you believe that? 
Especially, with the blood stain passing through, as if the sock was
stained when there was no foot inside it.

Third, remember the closing argument by Darden.  I have never heard
anything more stupid than this.  Instead of discussing the evidence,
he resorted to rhetoric.  He said that he asked his secretary to go
out and to buy the US Constitution, and his secretary brought him the
Constitution, and he opened it and read there that Simpson's victims
had the right to be alive, etc.

In my case, police also has tampered with evidence.  If you are
interested in details, they are available on my web site.  The reason
for tampering was, that government did not want me in jail, they
wanted me in a mental institution.  They wanted the verdict of
insanity so desperately, that during the trial, on June 1, 1993, Dr.
Antippa, who was at that time a Professor in the Department of
Physics, Universite du Quebec at Trois-Rivieres, has met with me and
told me that he had a meeting with the prosecution and transmitted to
me their offer: $230,000, paid by Concordia University.  He explained
to me that this amount was computed as $200,000, which was offered to
me in 1992 as shut-up money, plus interest.  As he told me, all I had
to do, was to "sit back and let the lawyer do his job", which I
understood as letting lawyer plead insanity.  I did not accept the
offer.

It is interesting that government can always find someone, who you
might trust, as a provocateur.  Dr. Antippa was at that time in a
situation somewhat similar to mine: he was fighting in court another
false scientist, named Leblank.  It is also interesting that
government usually does not feel any gratitude to the people, who it
uses as provocateurs: Dr. Antippa lost his case in court, though the
truth was on his side.

Fabrikant