PDA

View Full Version : Was the OJ trial really the travesty its painted as?


Anal Scurvy
01-08-2004, 09:11 PM
I didn't follow the trial at all. Everything I've picked up has been through secondary sources, mainly opinions expressed in the media and through the average shmoe on the street.

A brief info search reveals the same zealous, incongruent opinions as the JFK shooting, hence this strikes me as a great debate.

Was the OJ trial really a tragedy of justice? (If it becomes pertinent, let this statement include the civil trial where he was found responsible for the victim's deaths.)

ccwaterback
01-09-2004, 12:29 AM
My take on the OJ criminal trial.

The evidence against him was overwhelming, far worse than most people had imagined before the trial began. He would have fried if Johnny C wasn't brought in to play the race-card. The prosecution (mainly Marcia Clark and Chris Dardin) looked like bumbling idiots by the end of the trial. Johnny C did his dance and the prosecution watched, speechless, in awe.

TartPops
01-09-2004, 01:18 AM
Johnny Cochrane did a brilliant job at turning the entire focus of the trial so it was no longer about whether or not OJ had murdered 2 people, but if the LA police department had framed OJ and was a racist organization.

Do I agree with what Cochrane did?

Yes and no.

A defense lawyer is supposed to do whatever they can, within reasonable boundaries to get their client acquitted.

I recall reading one of the books about the whole case, it may have been Jeffrey Toobin's The Run of His Life: The People Vs OJ Simpson and there is a scene soon after OJ has been arrested where Cochrane gathers all of the lawyers for Simpson together and says, "OK, let's assume OJ did this. How can we get him out of it?"

Apos
01-09-2004, 01:25 AM
I don't think there is anything wrong with what the defense did, other than the fact that the concept of equal justice for all under the law is nonsense when some defendants get Cochrane, and some get a drunk sleeping off last nights binge in court.

David Simmons
01-09-2004, 01:56 AM
The prosecution witnesses lost a lot of credibility as the trial went along. A relatively inexperienced forensics guy was on the physical evidence and he was a poor witness. The DNA expert was caught making a silly arithmetic mistake in his presentation which had to be corrected while he was on the stand. A detective kept the blood sample swatches for DNA testing in his car overnight. And, of course, grandstanding Mark Furman almost vaulted over a wall so he could be first on the scene. The prosecution introduced some gloves without knowing whether or not Simpson could get them on. And so on.

The trial also had some farcical aspects. Quite a bit of time was spent on the testimony of a "glove expert" whatever the hell that is.

SPOOFE
01-09-2004, 02:01 AM
It was a perfect example of a Great Debate: Lots of noise and quibbling over insignificant details, the wrong conclusion was reached, and the wrong people made a lot of money over it.

Okay, so it's not EXACTLY like a GD.... :D

rjung
01-09-2004, 02:50 AM
I disagree that the prosecution's case was a slam-dunk. While there was suspicious behavior on OJ's part, there was also suspicious behavior on the LAPD's part, as well. Like, when a vial of Simpson's blood had to be transported across the street downtown, why did the officer carrying it head out to Nicole's house, then came back an hour later with several CC's missing?

My own suspicion is that, while OJ did commit the murder, there were folks on the LAPD who wanted to "make sure" he'd get convicted, and tampered with the crime scene and evidence to try and assure a win. That tampering got picked up and planted reasonable doubt in the jury, which led to the "not guilty" verdict.

An interesting book on the topic is The Simpson Trial In Black and White, where two Los Angeles newspaper reporters -- one white, one black -- covered the entire trial but came to different conclusions. They end up debating over each other's interpretations of the facts, and explain why they believed the way they did.

Hamlet
01-09-2004, 06:50 AM
I would consider the fact that a man who brutally killed two people and got away with it qualifies as a "travesty of justice."

BMalion
01-09-2004, 08:21 AM
I lived in L.A. while this was happenning. I have a friend who was a county prosecutor who worked in Marcia Clark's office. Her opinion was that the Kos Angeles Police was so incompetant that they couldn't even frame a guilty man.

Other than that I think ccwaterback and TarPops nailed it.

It's a wonder how OJ can sleep at night.

ElvisL1ves
01-09-2004, 09:09 AM
Cochran did what he was allowed to do by Judge Ito, in his duty to get his client off. Yes, it was a farce, but a judge is supposed to maintain control of his courtroom and his trial. Ito let his desire to become a TV star take precedence over his public duty, and the spectacle is his fault entirely.

TartPops
01-09-2004, 09:52 AM
Originally posted by Hamlet
I would consider the fact that a man who brutally killed two people and got away with it qualifies as a "travesty of justice."

Since OJ was found guilty in the civil trial I would hardly say that he got away with anything.

jeevmon
01-09-2004, 10:04 AM
It always amazes me how many people are all for the right to a fair trial as long as the accused is found guilty. If the accused is not found guilty, the trial is automatically assumed to be a travesty. It also amazes me how people assume that defense counsel is supposed to somehow ensure that his/her client is convicted. That's not how it is supposed to work.

Cochrane did exactly what defense lawyers are supposed to do in this situation - attack the credibility of the evidence. The burden of making the case is, as it should be, on the prosecution. The prosecution has to present the credible evidence to justify a conviction. Cochrane was able to attack that evidence. rjung identifies, without citation, some issues relating to the chain of custody of the evidence that could affect its credibility. I'm not really in a position to comment on that, since I'm not intimately familiar with the trial record. But two incidents stand out in my mind - Fuhrman and the glove.

The glove thing was a stupid, stupid move on the part of the prosecution. While there were many ways to explain why the glove didn't fit so many months after the fact, the prosecution gambled on a grandstanding stunt, and it backfired. Explanations after the fact had the odor of covering their ass.

Second, Fuhrman was a bad witness. He lied on the stand. The jury probably wouldn't have loved him if he admitted making racist statements in the past, but Cochran was able to paint Fuhrman as both a racist AND a liar. I don't think there's any realistic way his credibility could have survived both UNLESS there was iron-clad physical evidence. By introducing doubts about both the physical evidence and the credibility of the investigators, Cochran did what he is supposed to do in defending his client.

IzzyR
01-09-2004, 10:23 AM
My experience has been that very few things are done purely "by the book". Most people and agencies function with a certain amount of sloppiness and shortcuts. If you have a good enough lawyer there's almost definitely an opportunity to find things that weren't done "correctly", or assorted "inconsistencies".

The important question is to what extent the answer is compromised. And here's where ignorance and race come in. Suppose some expert testifies that the way the blood tests were done was not correct and gave the opportunity for an incorrect answer. OK, but does that mean that the certainty is merely reduced from 99.9999% to 99% or even 95%, or does it really mean that the test is completely worthless and tells absolutely nothing? ISTM that in cases like this, the defense is obviously trying to imply the latter, and even the prosecution can get hung up on defending the correctness of the procedure and not in defending the fact that the test still has meaning even if you grant the defense's points. And the jury, who understand little about technical matters, is incapable of deciding this on their own.

In the case of the OJ trial, the jury was motivated to find him innocent to begin with, for racial reasons. All they needed was something to hang their hats on, and the defense more than provided it to them, as above.

Originally posted by jeevmon
It always amazes me how many people are all for the right to a fair trial as long as the accused is found guilty. If the accused is not found guilty, the trial is automatically assumed to be a travesty.I don't think it is fair to say that people "automatically" assume anything. A lot of people followed the trial rather closely, and formed their own opinion, which is strongly at odds with the verdict.It also amazes me how people assume that defense counsel is supposed to somehow ensure that his/her client is convicted. That's not how it is supposed to work.What amazes me is that someone could make such ridiculous statements as this with a straight face. I don't believe that you really believe that "people assume that defense counsel is supposed to somehow ensure that his/her client is convicted". Obviously people are aware that the defense is supposed to work in the interests of their client. Nonetheless, a lot of people are deeply disturbed by the possibility that someone so obviously guilty can beat the rap by having a good lawyer. To the extent that people do criticize the legal defense team, it is because they are perceived as having "played the race card" - getting their preferred verdict by inflaming the racial passions of the jury (and much of the rest of the country along with it) in order to get a wrong verdict that they wanted. Maybe you think this is a good thing - I don't know - but in any event, it's not that people think the defense should help convict their client.

Early Out
01-09-2004, 10:23 AM
Originally posted by rjung
My own suspicion is that, while OJ did commit the murder, there were folks on the LAPD who wanted to "make sure" he'd get convicted, and tampered with the crime scene and evidence to try and assure a win. That tampering got picked up and planted reasonable doubt in the jury, which led to the "not guilty" verdict. You're not alone in that assessment. I've always thought that was the only scenario that explained all of the evidence. Someone on the LAPD just couldn't resist sweetening the pot, and screwed up.

ElvisL1ves
01-09-2004, 10:36 AM
Originally posted by TartPops
Since OJ was found guilty in the civil trial I would hardly say that he got away with anything. He was not found "guilty" (can't happen in a civil trial), he was found responsible for paying financial damages to the families of his victims.

He "got away with it" because he's out free, playing golf whenever he feels like it, and not sharing a bunk bed with a sweaty 300-pounder with bad teeth and Aryan Brotherhood tattoos.

smiling bandit
01-09-2004, 11:00 AM
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0440223822/qid=1073663878/sr=1-3/ref=sr_1_3/102-9769539-2920134?v=glance&s=books

A very good guide on it. Bugliosi was a top-flight lawyer and the whole trial sickened him. He is probably one of the more sane voices concerning Cochrane, as his opinion was that Cochrane made boneheaded mistakes, and that the whole Dream Team was all hype. But he reserves more venom for the mistakes of Marcia Clark. He also gives a good review of the evidence and some practical considerations that pretty much blow the whole "conspiracy" angle out of the water.

You're not alone in that assessment. I've always thought that was the only scenario that explained all of the evidence. Someone on the LAPD just couldn't resist sweetening the pot, and screwed up.

I really doubt it. Never explain by malice when incompetance is sufficient.

margin
01-09-2004, 11:07 AM
I always wonder about the idea that the LAPD wanted to frame OJ. Didn't they look the other way repeatedly when he beat up Nicole during the marriage? The idea that they planted evidence isn't explained by the evidence itself, and the timing. Fuhrman, for example, is supposed to have planted the glove, but he arrived after the uniforms, and they'd already observed the glove. They'd have to have gotten a blood sample from OJ at a point when he was either still in Chicago, or on his way. It doesn't make sense. All this, to frame a guy they'd always been buddies with before.

There was more than enough racism to go around on both sides. For some reason, the thing that always annoyed me most about the defense tactics was the way Cochran went through the house and removed all pictures of OJ's all-white circle of friends and replaced them with stuff that made OJ look like a member of a community he'd long since left behind. All this to en able him to get away with killing two people.

ralph124c
01-09-2004, 11:52 AM
The main travesty was judge Lance Ito. His conduct of the trial was inexcusable, as he allowed Cochrane and company to turn the trial into a trial of the LAPD (and its detectives). Ito allowed the most nonsensical accusations to be made, and could have stopped the whole thing cold. As for the case against OJ:
-OJ's blood was everywhere
-he had NO believable alibi for his whereabouts before and after the murders
-his abuse and mistreatment of his ex-wife were well known
-his attempt to flee was pretty good evidence of his guilt
The only question I had: it seems to me that OJ could not have committed the murders and cleaned up afterwards without some help-perhaps one of hismsons participated?
Oh, and now that Kardashian is dead..is there any evidence about the contents of the bag (that OJ gave to Kardashian at the airport, before his (OJ's) departure for chicago?
By the way, have the Goldman family ever collected a nickel from OJ (in the civil suit)?

BobLibDem
01-09-2004, 12:20 PM
It is always a shame when murder victims are denied justice. The LAPD and the prosecution blew this one six ways from Sunday. Why couldn't they have done some research and produced the photos of OJ wearing the extremely rare shoes of the killer? How in God's name do you not realize that putting a leather glove over a latex glove is not going to work, no matter if it fits or not? How do you not have the proper chain of possesion of evidence? The LAPD blew it. The prosecution blew it. Judge Ito blew it. But I will always believe that jury could have had a video tape of OJ doing the deed, and would still have found him not guilty. My only hope is that OJ marries one of the juror's daughters.

Dave_D
01-09-2004, 12:34 PM
Well I thought there was really one big travesty, at least from what I remember of the time period. Basically how so much affirmitive action stuff got ridiculed, blunted, or removed because of this case. I mean that it seemed that alot of conservatives (Btw I am conservative) used this as a spring board to paint pro-minority legislation as rediculous and just an attempt to shirk responsiblity. Of course seeing black college students cheer OJ getting off like they'd won something made alot of us think they were out of their minds. (Since OJ always seemed like he didn't want to be around black people) After the case it seemed like us conservatives had plenty of ammo against affirmative action. (Not that I'm for or against it, just I don't like the fact the OJ case seemed to be used to determine if we should have it, not it's own merits.) I only remember stuff like prop 187 getting real steam after this.

aahala
01-09-2004, 01:23 PM
IMO, it was a travesty but I'm talking more about the process than the result. The investigation had operated under Murphy's law -- anything that could have gone wrong did -- and the prosecution was truly incompetent.

The judge allowed literally thousands of sidebars, days of irrevelant, redundant or misleading testimony and often got into personal arguments with first one side and then another.

I compare this to another long murder trial(M. Peterson) that appeared on court TV this summer out of Durham, NC. The judge allowed each side to try their case, involving himself as little as possible, but when he ruled one way or the other, that was it. Straight forward easy going, without personal anger etc.

Magiver
01-09-2004, 01:35 PM
Originally posted by TartPops
Since OJ was found guilty in the civil trial I would hardly say that he got away with anything.

Huh? He literally bought his way out of a jail. He still golfs, sees his children and screws gullible women. The civil trial was more insult than justice.

And I hold the prosecution responsible for mucking up the first trial. If they had DNAíd the blood in the shower drain FIRST, then took his blood sample through a 3rd party service instead of walking around with it the trial would have been different.

rjung
01-09-2004, 04:06 PM
Not to make light of the deaths of two people, but the idea that a rich person commits a crime and buy his way out of conviction and prison is hardly something that first occurred with Mr. Simpson.

If there is a silver lining to the whole dark cloud of this mess, it's that OJ proves that black folks can get the same kind of treatment white folks get.

'possum stalker
01-09-2004, 05:24 PM
Isn't it uncommon for a person to be found innocent in a criminal trial for a willful crime, but to lose a civil case regarding the same act?

Maybe a member of the GD Legal Squad could enlighten us.

Spavined Gelding
01-09-2004, 06:00 PM
Just a few observations:

Juries, like electorates, are swayed by emotion, prejudice and pre-conception. You succeed with a jury by playing to those non-intellectual tendencies. What juries donít understand they distrust and are eager to reject and disregard. The defense in the Simpson trial played its jury and played on the human tendencies toward a decision based on visceral reaction to individual and group personalities of the witnesses. The defense would have been derelict if it had not done just that.

The presiding judge has no obligation to make sure that the trial has a correct outcome. What the judge does have an obligation to do is to make sure that all concerned have every opportunity to present their case within the rules. In other words, the judgeís job is to let the players play the game with only the amount of interference necessary to keep the game inside the field.

Just as soon as a witness climbs on the stand that witness's credibility is in issue. It is perfectly legitimate to present evidence and then argue from that evidence that the witness has a motive to lie, distort, edit and manipulate his testimony in order to achieve the witnessís desired out come. Again, the defense would have been derelict if it hadnít attacked the credibility of the Stateís witnesses.

When the witness is advanced as an expert on some arcane subject like blood analysis and identity by forensic evaluation it is legitimate to attack the witnessís competence and suggest that the expertís conclusions are not entitled to be accepted as reliable. Again, the defense would have been derelict if it hadnít attacked the competence and reliability of the Stateís expert witnesses.

It is the Stateís duty to present its case in the most persuasive manner and to rebut the defendantís attacks on the Stateís presentation. That the State failed to persuade the jury is not the defendantís fault.

When the defendant is fortunate enough to face a case that is presented with testimony of fact witnesses whose credibility can be attacked, with the opinions of experts whose reliability can be questioned and has a jury that is inclined to distrust the Stateís witnesses then the defendant is in a position to get lucky. When, on top of all that, the public relations machinery of collegiate and of professional sports, of commercial capitalism and of the film industry has spent decades and millions of dollars to persuade the public that the defendant is a good guy and an admirable person then the defendant is in a position to get very luck indeed. It all came together for O.J. Simpson.

Do not talk to me about the Simpson case being decided by money. No matter what resources and legal talent Simpson had, the funds and talent available to the State of California was vastly greater. The State had the whole police and prosecution apparatus of the State at its beck and call.

If you are prepared to decide questions like those presented in the criminal prosecution to a jury of randomly selected citizens in an adversary trial process then you are bound to get an occasional aberration. We got such and aberration in O.J.ís case. It should be no surprise that there was an acquittal. There was a jury that wanted to let the man off. He was an American hero; how could you be persuaded that he did those horrible things if, deep in your heart, you really wanted not to be persuaded and if there were no personal consequences to you for voting with your heart instead of with your head?

Loopydude
01-09-2004, 06:15 PM
Perhaps I'm oversimplifying, but I think there were three deciding factors in the trial: Race, race, and...um, oh yeah, race. It was Cochrane convicing the jury that the LAPD could have, and would have, tried to frame OJ. No evidence really mattered in the end, because it was all suspect. The Bloody Glove was just a symbol; they could have had c.c. video footage of OJ doing the deed, and Cochrane would have asserted it was faked. We're talking LA, post Rodney King, and a mostly-black jury. Throw that douchebag Fuhrman in the mix, and, hell, Cochran probably could have gotten half the jury to believe Fuhrman killed Nicole himself, just to frame him a famous colored boy.

I lived in Washington DC when: A) Hizzoner Marion Barry was caught on tape smoking crack with a whore; B) He served a six month sentance for a misdemeanor following presentation of exhibit A above, and; C) He was reelected Mayor of Washington DC by a majority. A juror, after the Barry trial, said point blank to reporters that he would charge Barry with no more, regardless of the crime, given the fact that the Man was after him. Later Barry's second term was, if possible, more troubled by scandal and ineptitude than his first term, yet he still maintains a loyal following to this day among some who like to hold him up as a giant middle finger in the face of the White Establishment.

Sad thing is, the White Establishment deserves such an insult, but the majority black community was not well-served by putting Barry back in office. To hurt the Man, they hurt themselves. It's tragic, really.

Likewise, I think OJ's aquittal was, above all else, a political statement, facilitated by Cochrane's brilliant shennanigans, and the LAPD' overtly racist posture. For their incompetance, but more for their bigotry, the LAPD and LA County DA were handed perhaps the most humiliating rebuke any force has ever suffered, and it was richly deserved.

But in the end, there was no justice for the victims, who the trial really should have been about. The man who brutally murdered Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson, the one we all KNOW did it, walks free. The Goldman and Brown families must live with that for the rest of their lives. Another tragedy, and truly a travesty of American Justice all around.

Palo Verde
01-09-2004, 06:26 PM
Originally posted by 'possum stalker
Isn't it uncommon for a person to be found innocent in a criminal trial for a willful crime, but to lose a civil case regarding the same act?

Maybe a member of the GD Legal Squad could enlighten us.

Different standards of proof apply.

To be found guilty in a criminal court, the jury must think the guy is 'guilty beyond a reasonable doubt' (think of this as 99% sure he's guilty).

To be found responsible in a civil court, the jury must think the guy is guilty by "the proponderance of the evidence" (think of this as 51% or more that he's guilty)

So if 2 juries both found themselves 75% sure he's guilty, then he should be found criminally not guitly and civilly responsible.

capacitor
01-09-2004, 07:02 PM
Sigh. Officer Fuhrman, the so-called star witness lied on the stand. The prime evidence--the gloves--did not fit the alleged murderer. It has blood of the same type that was was not tracked down for a few days. What does race have to do with it? You decriers, be a defendant in a murder case, and be convicted based on that type of testimony and evidence mentioned above, and then tell me that's justice.

In the civil case, the cop, the gloves and the blood was not introduced. OJ fries, as he should. Without the evidence in the criminal case, he fries as well.

I wish

ElvisL1ves
01-09-2004, 07:15 PM
What Fuhrman lied about wasn't his actions related to the case, but over his racist attitudes in previous years. Being unrelated to the case, the line of questioning shouldn't have been allowed. But Ito allowed it.

margin
01-09-2004, 07:17 PM
Capacitor, the gloves didn't fit because he had latex gloves on when he tried them on in court. The prosecution was sloppy, but that doesn't change the fact that the guy had no alibi, had been acting more and more violently toward his ex, had a cut on his hand, and so forth and so on. The gloves were incidental. By the time the civil trial rolled around, the opposition had located dozens of photos of him wearing the shoes he claimed he'd never owned, for instance.

Bryan Ekers
01-09-2004, 07:35 PM
Huge mistake to let Simpson try on the gloves in the presence of the jury. The man's a professional actor, fer crying out loud (not an especially good actor, mind you, but if I was facing a possible death sentence, I'd suddenly turn Oscar-worthy). Simpson was able to grunt and grimace in pain as he pulled on the supposedly too-tight gloves. To me, being able to address the jury even in this fashion constitutes testimony, but without the annoyance of being cross-examined.

Apos
01-09-2004, 08:41 PM
Since OJ was found guilty in the civil trial I would hardly say that he got away with anything.

Because he was not found guilty in a court of law, there were no legitimate grounds on which to contest the custody of his children. That means that his kids are being raised by a man who brutally gutted their mother. I'd say that that's getting away scott free. I don't cry tears for people just because they, thanks to a civil trial, now cannot live in quite the 100M mansion they fancied. Awwww....

Guinastasia
01-09-2004, 08:48 PM
Originally posted by BobLibDem
How in God's name do you not realize that putting a leather glove over a latex glove is not going to work, no matter if it fits or not?

I read an excerpt for Clark's book that they had ordered a pair of the exact same gloves from the manufactorer, but that before they got there, Darden wanted him to try on the glove during a key point in the testimoney, even though he had to try it on over the latex glove. She warned him that it wouldn't work, but he wouldn't listen.

I just remember that I was in school when the verdict was read-right after the bell rang for seventh period. They actually allowed us to stay in our classes to see the results-EVERYONE had it on. I was in the library for study hall. I remember hearing Not Guilty, and feeling utterly shocked and disappointed. Then I saw Kim Goldman sobbing in her father's arms while people were cheering and I felt like I was going to vomit.

BTW, was I the only one who thought Simpson acted like an ass throughout the entire thing? Smiling, laughing, waving at people?

pizzabrat
01-09-2004, 09:34 PM
Everyone in the Thread

Baaaaah! Baaaaah!

I love how it's taken for granted that in racially charged situations like this, whites are cool-headed and rational while blacks are blinded by racial loyalty. I think it's interesting that none of you were in the courtroom but you've all made it a point to have a definitive opinion on the case, opposite of what the stupid black jurors, who sat through the entire proceedings, sequestered from the media, decided. Here's a fun experiement, the next time you find yourself thinking about the trial, just imagine that all the specifics of the case are the same except that O.J.'s murdered wife is black, and feel yourself suddenly not caring anymore.

TartPops
01-09-2004, 10:35 PM
Originally posted by Guinastasia
BTW, was I the only one who thought Simpson acted like an ass throughout the entire thing? Smiling, laughing, waving at people?

I have no recollection of Simpson exhibiting any such behavior during the trial. He would occasionally make notes on a legal pad, and I do recall him shaking his head in disagreement when hearing testimony from certain witnesses, but as for waving at people and laughing, I never saw it.

When the verdict was read he did smile, but he also looked to be on the verge of tears. Johhny Cochrane was the one who got overexcited.

NaSultainne
01-09-2004, 10:37 PM
Two things about this trial, which I watched daily (ah, the sole saving grace of 2nd shift) from start to finish, that have always stayed with me: first, per above, where did that extra bag OJ insisted on keeping in his hands during the limo ride to the airport for the flight to Chicago go to, and second, anyone else recall the absolute dead giveaway look on Kardashian's face as the "Not Guilty" verdict is read? OJ makes a face, one apparently meant to convey humility in the light of the bravery of the jury to arrive at an especially difficult exoneration (and a quick one too, remember?) while Kardashian, his best bud and lawyer stares blankly, looks around at everyone but OJ, and never makes it into the obligatory congratulatory hugs around the defense table. Stunning. That look tells it all.

ccwaterback
01-09-2004, 10:49 PM
If OJ's wife would have been black he would have fried, hands down. There wouldn't be any racial tension involved in the case. Even if Johnny C went after Furman, it woundn't have been a big deal, they would just say OK, toss Furman's testimony out, we still have 40 bazillion pieces of evidence against OJ. I think the black-biased jury would have seen things a bit differently too.

Typo Negative
01-10-2004, 02:57 AM
One police officer lied on the stand. And I think he planted the glove. Another officer mishandled blood evidence (took his sweet time actually booking it into evidence) and probably perjured himself. The forensics witnesses' version of what he did was contradicted repeatedly by videotape. Kato Cailin? Please.....

There was reasonable doubt. I would have aquitted. I am a white male.

As has been suggested, I think that OJ probably did kill them, then the LAPD conspired to frame him. Then the prosecution team screwed the pooch the rest of the way

Zoe
01-10-2004, 03:19 AM
What became of the Bruno Magli shoes? O.J. was photographed wearing those shoes in a newspaper that was published before Nichole was killed. But he said he wouldn't own "ugly-assed shoes" like that. The murderer wore them and O.J. lied about having owned them.

I guess it is possible that O.J. forgot that he had indeed owned and worn those ugly-assed expensive shoes and that they had somehow disappeared from his closet. Maybe he gave them to Goodwill.

How did Nicole's blood get inside the locked Bronco?

Why did O.J. have a disguise and $10,000 with him on his slow speed suicide chase?

Hypothetical: O.J. was guilty. How would the evidence have been different from what was presented?

Pizzabrat, you mistakenly assume a lot and that doesn't make your point at all.

Cervaise
01-10-2004, 03:20 AM
I read the thread title somewhat differently:Originally posted by Guinastasia
I just remember that I was in school when the verdict was read-right after the bell rang for seventh period. They actually allowed us to stay in our classes to see the results-EVERYONE had it on.I find it a travesty that a simple criminal trial, one of a hundred similar trials that are going on at any given moment, should have become a national circus for so many weeks just because the defendant happened to be a celebrity of some variety. I find it a travesty that the jury of twelve became a jury of fifty million. I find it a travesty that many of the cast of characters in the proceeding have established a wide range of individual cottage industries based solely on associative notoriety, and that the public sucked it up and continues to do so. I find it a travesty that this manufactured media event will be a source of controversy and passionate discussion until the day I fucking die even though none of us knows either the victims or the perpetrator or was in the courtroom for the trial.

So yeah, it was and is a travesty. Just not for the reasons people usually offer.

margin
01-10-2004, 07:15 AM
Jeffrey Toobin's book noted the presence of the glove on the site before Fuhrman arrived. It had the victim's blood on it, and this was before Simpson was even identified as a suspect. One thing that's always interested me is that the people who believe that the police planted that can't explain why the police would want to implicate Simpson and therefore let a vicious killer go free. And to implicate Simpson, they would have to suddenly reverse the comfy relationship they'd had with him for years. Voting to acquit wouid not have been the right choice.

beauregard
01-10-2004, 11:26 AM
As Zoe illustrates above, the evidence was there to convict. Nonetheless, doubt clouded the jurors' mind. And we're stuck with their verdict.

I do sympathize with (black) people who take issue with (white) people's disproportionate outrage at the verdict. The greater travesty by far is that it is no rare occurrance that U.S. courts produce unjust verdicts -- and the degree to which race and money can sway Lady Liberty.

In short, can you really blame a brother for ruefully furling his brow at Captain Renault's exhortation: "I'm shocked, SHOCKED, to find that gambling is going on in here!"

margin
01-10-2004, 12:23 PM
Well, you could argue that it was racist to acquit him because he was black----and the victims were white. What didn't remarked upon was the gender angle, either. There was an article in The Nation that revealed some startling attitudes toward Nicole Simpson's having 'asked for it'. But if letting a 'brother' go just because the victims were white isn't racist, I don't know what is. The books about the case have made it pretty clear that at least a few of the jurors were determined to acquit from the beginning. That's not confusion or doubt---that's bias, and it was long before Fuhrman took the stand.

margin
01-10-2004, 12:33 PM
Pizzabrat we're only discussing one racially-charged situation, and it's this one particular trial. For example, the jubilation at the verdict certainly indicates that there was more going on than a mere criminal proceeding. Furthermore, according to Jefffrey Toobin's book about the case, at least two female jurors and one male juror had made up their minds from the beginning, and were not prepared to be swayed by the evidence, of which there was a mountain.

I don't know that race is the determining factor here, either. Simpson just strikes me as being another Jeffery MacDonald, who murdered his wife and kids and to this day insists on his innocence. There's actually a long history of people trying this, but they always seem to forget a key thing when they commit the crime----the overkill. What burglar is going to want to take the trouble to stab a victim and get that close to them? If, as Simpson's defenders allege, there was more than one attacker---a theory now discredited---why was the crime scene so messy? So amateurish? If it was just some psycho, how come this was his only crime in the neighborhood? How come the evidence pointed so conclusively to Simpson? Oh, yes, that's right----the police planted it all. But that doesn't make sense----when the police first spotted the glove, Simpson himself could have been another victim. He was in Chicago---and he'd been buddy buddy with the cops forever.

Simpson wasn't unique, and neither were the people who acquitted him. There are lots of people who defend Jeffrey MacDonald, too. I guess being rich and nominally good-looking is enough to buy one at least some benefit of the doubt.

Stratocaster
01-10-2004, 12:44 PM
Originally posted by IzzyR
Suppose some expert testifies that the way the blood tests were done was not correct and gave the opportunity for an incorrect answer. OK, but does that mean that the certainty is merely reduced from 99.9999% to 99% or even 95%, or does it really mean that the test is completely worthless and tells absolutely nothing? I agree. I found it comical that the defense, in essence, was asserting that the "flaws" in how the tests were conducted produced a false positive--not deliberate fraud, mind you, just sloppiness that comprimised the results. Think about it. Out of the 6 billion people in the world that a false positive could have pointed to, it just randomly occurred that it came out to be the victim's ex-husband. Talk about your bad luck. Puh-leeze!

Anal Scurvy
01-10-2004, 01:24 PM
Almost everyone's remarked that the police were buddy-buddy with Simpson. Can someone elaborate for me? Thanks.

ralph124c
01-10-2004, 01:30 PM
Alan Dershowitz was a consulktant to the "Dream team" defense. He boasted during the trial of how he could demolish the prosecution..to him, the brutal murder of two innocent people meant nothing. Anyway. did anybody notice the very sophisticated use of clothes made by the defense? OJ would regularly appear in drab looking ties..while his lawyers wore extravagantly colored, wild ties. This strategy was a deliberate attempt to inlfluence the jurors..shows you how far from a "search for the truth" that a jury trial is..it's more like a broadway stage play. Every detail is calculated to influence the emotions of the twelve dummies of the jury.

margin
01-10-2004, 01:32 PM
I don't remember the exact details but I seem to remember he buddied up to police officers' groups, had cops as friends, and did some charity work for them. Of course they returned the favor by looking the other way when he beat up Nicole. There's one 911 tape where the operator can be told telling Nicole that it's a 'private matter' between Simpson and...whoever. In any event, they weren't eager to arrest him, and from what I've read, that's not an altogether unusual attitude in some police departments. He just happened to be a celebrity. It beggars belief that the police department that cozied up to him before he killed his wife and her friend would suddenly turn on him for....what reason, again? One crooked cop they didn't even know was going to be the detective on call that night? When they didn't yet know whether Simpson himself was another victim or the perpetrator?

I think the real reason the case so polarized along racial lines was because the guy was so blatantly guilty, and commited such a savage crime, and the message sent was that murder was okay, as long as it was white people. If it had been something where the crime was non-violent, and the crook was less priveleged, I just don't think people would have disagreed as much. But Simpson killed two people, did so viciously, and then he and his supporters laughed off the murders as being payback for injustices that Simpson himself hadn't suffered. He wasn't some poor kid from the wrong side of the tracks, trying to make good, and making a mistake. He was a rich guy who killed and got away with it. The message wasn't solely about race, in the end.

you with the face
01-10-2004, 02:26 PM
The trial was certainly racially charged, but it was a two-way street. If there was a disproportionate amount of relief on the part of black people in response to the verdict (which I agree there was), there was also a disproportionate amount of indignation on the part of whites. pizzabrat nailed it this time: If Nicole Simpson had been your average black woman, would the public ire towards OJ been a quarter of what it is today? Would the whole saga have been force fed down our gullets every damn day, with networks replacing truly newsworthy information with empty calorie OJ junk? On the day the verdict was given, would white people--most of them complete strangers of the victims--been crying and hugging each other in the streets and holding candle light vigils? Maybe I'm being overly cynical here, but I seriously doubt it. If the victims had been black, Johnny Cochrane would not be the household name he is today, Judge Ito would be Judge Who?, and Mark Furhman would more than likely still have a job with the LAPD. This thread would be nonexistent.

Before some of you point your finger at the jury and fault them for being racially-biased, check yourself. It's stupid to pretend that only black people were reacting irrationally to the case, when white people were also taking irrationality to new heights.

you with the face
01-10-2004, 02:31 PM
margin
I think the real reason the case so polarized along racial lines was because the guy was so blatantly guilty, and commited such a savage crime, and the message sent was that murder was okay, as long as it was white people.

Um, no. I think it was polarized because black people identified with the defendant and white people identified with the victims.

Guinastasia
01-10-2004, 03:28 PM
If Nicole and Ron had been black?

I can't speak for everyone, but I still think I would've been absolutely disgusted by Simpson.

And I still don't think it was race exactly-but money. If he had been a poor black man, he wouldn't have gotten off. Cochran MADE it about race, and that to me is wrong.

margin
01-10-2004, 03:36 PM
White people hugging and crying in the streets, you with the face were certainly outnumbered by black people gloating. That wasn't relief; there was excitement and jubilation. Keep in mind that a battered woman and an innocent bystander were stabbed to death. I'm sorry, what was the justification there again? Simpson stopped being a victim once he started hitting women---and Nicole was not the first.

It's stupid to pretend that only black people were reacting irrationally to the case, when white people were also taking irrationality to new heights.

Cite?

I'm sorry, where's the equality here? One group rejoiced that a murderer went free; another wondered at that machinations that allowed them to believe that any message was worth that. Two people are dead, and a murderer is raising two children. I'm sure Simpson is totally fair when he talks about his former wife, too.

If Nicole Simpson had been your average black woman, would the public ire towards OJ been a quarter of what it is today?

The black community has long taken the side of black men over black women's side, so you're blaming white people for this? Anita Hill and Desiree Washington certainly weren't embraced by the black community; in fact, they were ostracized. It appears that only when the attacker is white does a black woman get any sympathy from her community. Why this is the fault of white people is beyond me.

If the Simpson case illustrated anything, it's that sexism is still seen as a weapon against racism in some quarters.

pizzabrat
01-10-2004, 03:54 PM
margin
The black community has long taken the side of black men over black women's side, so you're blaming white people for this? Anita Hill and Desiree Washington certainly weren't embraced by the black community; in fact, they were ostracized. It appears that only when the attacker is white does a black woman get any sympathy from her community. Why this is the fault of white people is beyond me.

Who in this thread has blamed white people for anything?

margin
01-10-2004, 04:12 PM
Pizzabrat, the choice to support black men over black women makes your and you with the face's[b] attitude about the importance of the victim's race disingenuous at best. White people can't win. If we support a black woman over a black woman, we're taking part in a 'high-tech lynching.' If we support a white woman, it's racism. The only option appears to be to support black men, no matter what the evidence of their crime. Otherwise, we're racist.

I love how it's taken for granted that in racially charged situations like this, whites are cool-headed and rational while blacks are blinded by racial loyalty. I think it's interesting that none of you were in the courtroom but you've all made it a point to have a definitive opinion on the case, opposite of what the stupid black jurors, who sat through the entire proceedings, sequestered from the media, decided. Here's a fun experiement, the next time you find yourself thinking about the trial,[b] just imagine that all the specifics of the case are the same except that O.J.'s murdered wife is black, and feel yourself suddenly not caring anymore.

That's presumption on your part.

The trial was certainly racially charged, but it was a two-way street. If there was a disproportionate amount of [b]relief on the part of black people in response to the verdict (which I agree there was), there was also a disproportionate amount of indignation on the part of whites

I saw news footage of black college students, beauty parlor patrons, and all sorts of people jumping around and cheering that a murderer would go free. That sure didn't look like relief to me. Indignation over the same seems like a fairly mild reaction when you consider that two people were murdered.

Hanging your indignation on your conclusion that white people don't give a damn about black women is presumptuous indeed. The fact is, that black men are men, and just as prone by percentage to the things that some men do. Saying that white people only cared because the victim was white is, in fact, an accusation of sorts, when the black community has before supported its men at the expense of its women. What is the white community supposed to do about this?

BobLibDem
01-10-2004, 04:26 PM
Originally posted by you with the face


1 there was also a disproportionate amount of indignation on the part of whites.

2 If Nicole Simpson had been your average black woman, would the public ire towards OJ been a quarter of what it is today?

3 On the day the verdict was given, would white people--most of them complete strangers of the victims--been crying and hugging each other in the streets and holding candle light vigils?

4 Maybe I'm being overly cynical here, but I seriously doubt it.

5 Before some of you point your finger at the jury and fault them for being racially-biased, check yourself.

6 It's stupid to pretend that only black people were reacting irrationally to the case, when white people were also taking irrationality to new heights.

1- How so? How is showing disapproval for a double murderer getting off disproportionate?

2- The very idea that OJ would ever consider marrying a black woman is preposterous. But if he had, and the victims were black, I would be just as upset over this miscarriage of justice.

3- Perhaps. If you think the outrage is based on the race of the victim, then you are not free of racism yourself.

4- I wouldn't characterize you as cynical. You seem to find it hard to believe that white people are interested in justice, which is racist.

5- Checked. Not a racist. Just hate to see a guilty man of any race go free for a crime that he so obviously committed.

6- Oh yeah. If a trial is decided solely on the basis of race, which this one was, then the other guys are being irrational.

pizzabrat
01-10-2004, 04:51 PM
margin
Pizzabrat, the choice to support black men over black women makes your and [b]you with the face's[b] attitude about the importance of the victim's race disingenuous at best.

I didn't choose to support anyone, and I didn't see any support in you with the face's posts either. I was in sixth grade when the case started and middle school when the verdict was released - too young to follow the trial, and arrogance never motivated me to form an opinion on the whole matter later on. But I can still detect the racist assumptions in the reactions to the trial. The country was split in two over the verdict by race, yet whites act like they all came to their strong, unwavering conclusion purely through calm, rational, unbiased study of all the facts while the entire black population blindly supported O.J. just because he's black. The idea that the black jurors saw and understood something that the general white population didn't is of couse ridiculous.

I saw news footage of black college students, beauty parlor patrons, and all sorts of people jumping around and cheering that a murderer would go free. That sure didn't look like relief to me. Indignation over the same seems like a fairly mild reaction when you consider that two people were murdered.

You act like you don't believe that they thought he was innocent. Why wouldn't they be happy to see an innocent man escape persecution? Assuming they were right (and they are, according to the State), whites' dissappointment that an innocent man wasn't going to fry was extremely voracious. That's my point, the assumption that the white side is of course right while the black side is just caught up in race is sickening. And the point of my "black woman" conclusion is that the racial aspect is why just about every white person in the country has made it a point to form a definitive opinion on it (while at the same time claim that it's blacks making it a racial thing).

margin
01-10-2004, 07:46 PM
You act like you don't believe that they thought he was innocent. Why wouldn't they be happy to see an innocent man escape persecution? Assuming they were right (and they are, according to the State),

That's the sort of technicality that irriatated people. Do you seriously believe the guy is innocent? He's just another wife-beater who killed the wife when she finally cut all ties, and as such, he's not unique. You're kind of missing the central fact here: He got away with killing two people.

whites' dissappointment that an innocent man wasn't going to fry was extremely voracious.

Except he wasn't innocent.

That's my point, the assumption that the white side is of course right while the black side is just caught up in race is sickening.

Sorry, but you're guilty of some racism here yourself. You're assuming that white people think they're right because they're white.

[quote]And the point of my "black woman" conclusion is that the racial aspect is why just about every white person in the country has made it a point to form a definitive opinion on it (while at the same time claim that it's blacks making it a racial thing. [quote]

Just about every white person? That's fairly definite. So...have you met 'just about every white person'? You're claiming that blacks didn't make it a racial thing but whites did. That's the racism you claim you resent.

Bryan Ekers
01-10-2004, 07:50 PM
As a side note, I should point out that not every black person was celebrating Simpson's acquittal. It's just that the celebrating ones got the media coverage.

pizzabrat
01-10-2004, 07:59 PM
margin
Just about every white person? That's fairly definite.

No it wasn't. It was clearly hyperbolic.

You're claiming that blacks didn't make it a racial thing but whites did. That's the racism you claim you resent.

No I'm not. I'm claiming that both sides were caught up in the racial hysteria, but too many people are acting as if only the other side is doing so.

you with the face
01-10-2004, 08:39 PM
margin
White people hugging and crying in the streets, you with the face were certainly outnumbered by black people gloating.

My turn to say "cite"?

Anyway, this is a hyperbolic statement I made, but the point remains the same: black people and white people let race influence their perception of things. I saw plenty of knee-jerkitude from both sides. White people were not bastions of calm, reasoned objectivity while blacks were mindless, irrational, blithering twits.

That wasn't relief; there was excitement and jubilation. Keep in mind that a battered woman and an innocent bystander were stabbed to death. I'm sorry, what was the justification there again? Simpson stopped being a victim once he started hitting women---and Nicole was not the first.

When have I said Simpson was a victim of anything?

I'm sorry, where's the equality here? One group rejoiced that a murderer went free; another wondered at that machinations that allowed them to believe that any message was worth that.

What I saw was one group being happy that someone (who they thought was innocent) was found not guilty and another group anguishing that someone (who they thought was guilty) was found not guilty. What I found most interesting (in a scientific, sociological way) was the magnitude of emotions on both sides. People are murdered everyday in horrifically brutal ways; we hear about this every time the news is aired. Justice, unfortunately, is not always served. But to look at how many white people reacted over the OJ trial, you would have thought that this was the first time that the judicial system didn't work as expected. Nicole and Ron were given such inordinate attention you would have thought they were the first people in the country to be murdered. It's sort of like the whole Jon Benet media infactuation. Blond hair, pretty face, and foul-play seem like the perfect recipe for overexposure and sensationalization in this country.

This country got swept up in this trial not just because of racially-biased black people. The whole thing was like a big stupid vacuum cleaner and white people got sucked up into it, too.

The black community has long taken the side of black men over black women's side, so you're blaming white people for this?

For what? This makes no sense.

Anita Hill and Desiree Washington certainly weren't embraced by the black community; in fact, they were ostracized.

Paula Jones and Gennifer Flowers weren't exactly loved by the "white community", either. Your point?

you with the face
01-10-2004, 09:28 PM
BobLidBedm
1- How so? How is showing disapproval for a double murderer getting off disproportionate?

The level of "disapproval" I've been witness to seems extraordinarily vehement; the amount of confidence some people have of the guilt of this man seems extraordinary strong; and the amount of passion that I've seen people express seems above and beyond that expressed in response to similar cases (e.g. Robert Blake). The sum total of these observations lead me to conclude that there was a good deal of race-based subjectivity going on, and it just wasn't from black folks.

2- The very idea that OJ would ever consider marrying a black woman is preposterous. But if he had, and the victims were black, I would be just as upset over this miscarriage of justice.

Um, you do know OJ's first wife was a black woman (http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/Simpson/Oj.htm), do you not? So now I'm interested in knowing why you find the idea that he would even consider marring a black woman so very preposterous. That's a strong word to use about someone you obviously know very little about. But thanks for helping me make my point. You've just displayed the kind of extraordinary confidence I'm talking about.

And if you would have been just as upset if the victims had been black, well then good for you! I just find it difficult to believe that the rest of the country would have been as egalitarian as you.

3- Perhaps. If you think the outrage is based on the race of the victim, then you are not free of racism yourself.

Please explain why I'm a racist for suggesting that color was a factor in both blacks and whites perception of the trial. I hungrily await your response.

4- I wouldn't characterize you as cynical. You seem to find it hard to believe that white people are interested in justice, which is racist.

Wrong again. I just find it hard to believe that this whole thing was polarized just because black folks were thinking irrationally and over-subjectively. If that makes me racist, I honestly don't care. God knows I've been called that enough on the SDMB that by now it doesn't even bother me.

5- Checked. Not a racist. Just hate to see a guilty man of any race go free for a crime that he so obviously committed.

Okay.

6- Oh yeah. If a trial is decided solely on the basis of race, which this one was, then the other guys are being irrational.

Who are the "other guys"? (Again, thanks for helping me make my point!) And unless you can say with a straight face that the prosecution proved their case beyond a reasonable shadow of doubt, then you can't say this trial was decided solely on race.

margin
01-10-2004, 11:07 PM
My turn to say "cite"?

Sweetie, you make an assertion, you have to provide yours. Then it's rebutted.


Anyway, this is a hyperbolic statement I made, but the point remains the same: black people and white people let race influence their perception of things.

Another cite-worthy comment. There was a mountain of evidence that Simpson was guilty. Therefore, people who believed in his guilt were not acting irrationally. People who believed that he was innocent were not operating on logic.

I saw plenty of knee-jerkitude from both sides. White people were not bastions of calm, reasoned objectivity while blacks were mindless, irrational, blithering twits.

No one's said that black people were 'mindless, irrational, blithering' twits. That's make-believe on your part. Instead, the charge has been that they decided that the facts didn't matter so much as race. By responding to a straw man of your own creation, you deny logic. There was no other logical suspect than Simpson. He was not framed. He killed two people. Nevertheless, there was an enormous wave of gloating that swept certain segments of society upon his acquittal. He killed two people, but that didn't matter to some people. He'd stalked and terrorized his wife for years, while the police department looked away. These aren't theories; they're facts, yet you proclaim that people who note them are somehow biased, while people who willfully ignore them are somehow superior.

ccwaterback
01-11-2004, 12:56 AM
I don't believe the black people I know were cheering that a black man got away with killing a white woman. What they were cheering is that a rich black man could "buy" the same verdict as rich white man.

Rilchiam
01-11-2004, 06:08 AM
As far as black man/white woman, I recall a fair amount of people, both black and white, expressing an attitude of "Well, that's what she [Nicole] gets, for crossing the color line."

In fact, there was a fair amount of blaming Nicole in general. "Why didn't she leave him earlier?" Because she hit her saturation point when she hit it, that's all. "Why was she fooling around with a waiter?" She wasn't fooling around with him at all! "Boy, she sure liked to party, didn't she?" Yeah, and? OJ was/is no Baptist minister either, but he's a man, so that's okay, right?

And some jackass wrote to Newsweek, saying that Nicole "played a high-stakes game and had to pay the price". IOW, accusing her of being a bimbo who landed a rich husband and then bailed when he turned out not to be Prince Charming. GMAFB. She was 19 when they met; a lot of people make decisions at that age that they later regret. And as we now know, OJ can present a very convincing facade. And anyway, even if I were inclined to agree with this person's assessment, no one should have to pay with their life.

BobLibDem
01-11-2004, 09:50 AM
youwiththeface, mea culpa regarding Simpson's first marriage. OK, so at one time he associated with blacks.

The outrage of the verdict really stems in my case over the jury ignoring mountains of evidence. The prosecution blew a lot of its case, but even if they blew half of it, the other half was still 10 times more than enough to convince anybody of his guilt. With the extraordinary coverage this case had, most everybody felt just as qualified as the jury to render a verdict. When the vast majority of the planet sure he was guilty, we struggle to find a reason for such an outrageous action. Unfortunately, a lot of us have a hard time thinking that anything but race was a factor. I would love to think it wasn't, but really don't see any evidence that rational thought went into it.

Hypothetically speaking, if the races were reversed and a white OJ killed a black Nicole, and a white jury found him not guilty, and whites took to the streets dancing in celebration, would not the black population be justifiably outraged?

enipla
01-11-2004, 09:57 AM
Thanks BobLibDem. From your post.

How in God's name do you not realize that putting a leather glove over a latex glove is not going to work, no matter if it fits or not? This was a total stunner to me too.

margin
01-11-2004, 10:11 AM
Rilchiam I remembered that attitude myself, in reading an article in The Nation in wihch a high school teacher quizzed his mostly-black class and found they blamed Nicole, not OJ, for her fate.

you with the face This statement is being deliberately obtuse:

Paula Jones and Gennifer Flowers weren't exactly loved by the "white community", either. Your point?

My point, wihch you appear determined to miss, is that the black community turns on black women who dare to turn in men of their community. Jones and Flowers weren't subject to threats, ostracism, or the pressure that Hill and Washington experienced. Women who bring any kind of sexual assault forward often have to deal with something like that. In part, this is because the stakes weren't so high. In cases like this, the aim appears to be to prove racism at work, wihch demands that the guy be innocent, and turns the woman into collateral damage. The concept of innocence turns the guy into a victim and turns his actual victim into either either a collaborator or somebody deluded. In both the Jones and the Flowers cases, the 'white community' was willing to concede that there was a possiblity that where there was smoke there was fire.

Please explain why I'm a racist for suggesting that color was a factor in both blacks and whites perception of the trial. I hungrily await your response.

4- I wouldn't characterize you as cynical. You seem to find it hard to believe that white people are interested in justice, which is racist. [quote]

You say this is wrong, but in fact you really do give the appearance that you believe that white people are incapable of justice because the victims were white.


And this exchange is extraordinary:

From BobLibDem[quote]The very idea that OJ would ever consider marrying a black woman is preposterous. But if he had, and the victims were black, I would be just as upset over this miscarriage of justice.



Um, you do know OJ's first wife was a black woman, do you not? So now I'm interested in knowing why you find the idea that he would even consider marring a black woman so very preposterous.

Uh, you do know that OJ hasn't dated black women in twenty years, right? Doesn't have black friends, doesn't date black women, and had no pictures of black people in his house? That's why it's preposterous.


That's a strong word to use about someone you obviously know very little about.

Wow. You are aware that Simpson divorced his first wife and now dates twentysomething blondes, right?

But thanks for helping me make my point. You've just displayed the kind of extraordinary confidence I'm talking about.

What point would that be? Boblibdem is displaying extraordinary confidence because he appears to be aware of more facts than you do. You, for example, don't appear of aware of Simpson's dating history at all, and yet you lecture someone else who has.

lekatt
01-11-2004, 11:42 AM
Originally posted by Anal Scurvy
I didn't follow the trial at all. Everything I've picked up has been through secondary sources, mainly opinions expressed in the media and through the average shmoe on the street.

A brief info search reveals the same zealous, incongruent opinions as the JFK shooting, hence this strikes me as a great debate.

Was the OJ trial really a tragedy of justice? (If it becomes pertinent, let this statement include the civil trial where he was found responsible for the victim's deaths.)

I watched the whole trial, including the part the jury didn't see. I believe it was an accurate outcome. There was no real physical evidence against OJ offered. The rest was circumstantial.

The bloody gloves were obviously not his, he couldn't even get his hand in them. State said they shrunk, they cost $75 and there were 26 affidavits from other owners saying they don't shrink when wet.

The blood on the socks was totally out of place and seemed planted.

But, the main thing for me was the idea that he could have attacked two strong atheletic people with a knife, killed them, then walked across a pristine white carpet, indicating he got no blood on himself in the process. Pretty far fetched.

The main detective witnessing against him was shown to have a history of hating blacks and beating them up and planting evidence against them.

In my opinion, justice was done.

Oh, yes, I am white. I have noticed that generally speaking the whites think he's guilty and the blacks don't.

margin
01-11-2004, 11:52 AM
I watched the whole trial, including the part the jury didn't see. I believe it was an accurate outcome. There was no real physical evidence against OJ offered. The rest was circumstantial.

What's wrong with circumstantial evidence? You do realize that a great many criminal trials depend on physical evidence left behind.

[qlove]The bloody gloves were obviously not his, he couldn't even get his hand in them. State said they shrunk, they cost $75 and there were 26 affidavits from other owners saying they don't shrink when wet. [/quote]

Cite for the 26 affadavits? Because it's a fact that leather shrinks when wet. It's also a fact that putting latex gloves in leather makes it just about impossible to get one's hand inside.

The blood on the socks was totally out of place and seemed planted.

'Seemed' planted? In what way? How was the blood totally out of place?

But, the main thing for me was the idea that he could have attacked two strong atheletic people with a knife, killed them, then walked across a pristine white carpet, indicating he got no blood on himself in the process. Pretty far fetched.

Nicole Simpson was knocked unconscious while Simpson dealt with Ron Goodman, who had many defensiveness woudnds. Once he was dead, the killer pulled Nicole's head back by the hair and slit her throat. The fact that Simpson didn't get blood on his shoes alone only indicates that he didn't get blood on his shoes. Walking carefully would have avoided blood puddles or whatever. Who knows what he put on his shoes?

The main detective witnessing against him was shown to have a history of hating blacks and beating them up and planting evidence against them.

The defendant had a history of beating his wife. Apply this style of reasoning to Simpson---as you've done to Fuhrman, and his past acts are enough to convict him.

In my opinion, justice was done.

Well, I'm curious as to how blood can 'seem' planted.

you with the face
01-11-2004, 03:38 PM
margin
Sweetie, you make an assertion, you have to provide yours. Then it's rebutted.

Hello? You're the one postulating that there were more blacks celebrating than whites gnashing their teeth and beating their chests. How are you coming up with that claim? Unless you walk in my shoes and see the things I've seen, you can not rebut my personal observation, which was that whites were also letting subjectivity steer their reactions to the trial.

And please drop the "sweetie". Patronizing language causes me to tune you out.

ywtf said:
Anyway, this is a hyperbolic statement I made, but the point remains the same: black people and white people let race influence their perception of things.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


margin said
Another cite-worthy comment.

You really need to lay off the "cite please" cliche. (FYI, not every statement you see in the GD is supposed to be backed by a cite. How can you cite something like this anyway? Put some thought into it.)
If you believe blacks were racially-biased, what makes you believe whites were completely immune from the same pitfall?

There was a mountain of evidence that Simpson was guilty. Therefore, people who believed in his guilt were not acting irrationally. People who believed that he was innocent were not operating on logic.

I'm not even talking about beliefs about the man's guilt or innocence. I'm talking about how much people got personally invested in this trial, how melodramatic and emotional everyone became, how the media sucked everyone up into it and played us like so many violins, and how race played a role in how we (me, you, blacks, whites, etc.) interpreted the situation and everything leading up to the situation.

We were not in the courtroom. We did not see everything the jury saw. And yet we have so many armchair jurors talking about things as if they were there. It all strikes me as rather smug.

No one's said that black people were 'mindless, irrational, blithering' twits.

You've implied as much in your posts when you say:
There was a mountain of evidence that Simpson was guilty. Therefore, people who believed in his guilt were not acting irrationally. People who believed that he was innocent were not operating on logic.

There was no other logical suspect than Simpson. He was not framed. He killed two people.

This is what you believe. Bravo for you! Obviously, other people didn't believe this "fact" was as obvious as you do, and some of these people acquited him. Acquitals are quite common, you know.

Nevertheless, there was an enormous wave of gloating that swept certain segments of society upon his acquittal. He killed two people, but that didn't matter to some people.

Because, perhaps, they didn't think he did it? You seem to gloss over that possibility in favor of your own specious speculations.

He'd stalked and terrorized his wife for years, while the police department looked away. These aren't theories; they're facts, yet you proclaim that people who note them are somehow biased, while people who willfully ignore them are somehow superior.

You're creating strawmen now. Please show where I said that those who believe in OJ's guilt are biased.

Bandanaman
01-11-2004, 03:50 PM
We should have picked our own cotton.

margin
01-11-2004, 04:10 PM
No one's said that black people were 'mindless, irrational, blithering' twits.

You've implied as much in your posts when you say:


There was a mountain of evidence that Simpson was guilty. Therefore, people who believed in his guilt were not acting irrationally. People who believed that he was innocent were not operating on logic.

I'm sorry, did I miss something? We're not talking a teensy bit of circumstantial evidence, we're talking about a vast mountain of evidence. That's not an opinion; it's a fact. They had blood evidence, shoe prints, Simpson's history, his lack of alibi, the cut on his hand, and more things that I can mention. The defense had.....stories. They had 'If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit." Saying that people who didn't accept physical evidence as proof acted irrationally is not saying that they're 'mindless, blithering idiots'----it's saying that they did approach the case factually or logically. Logic sure as hell didn't acquit the guy.

Because, perhaps, they didn't think he did it.

Opinions that are not based on facts are essentialy worthless. My neice thinks that Santa Claus is real----and that's about as valid a belief as Simpson's innocence. He's just another Jeffrey MacDonald, except black. And there's a perfect companion case for you, which I notice you haven't referred to, though I've compared Simpson to him at least once. MacDonald was a nice white boy with what seemed an impeccable background who was eventually convicted of killing his wife and kids. There was a mountain of evidence against him but emotion spurred his defenders. Like Simpson's defenders, they preferred to focus on theories of conspiracies and outside evil-doers, not the simple fact that it wasn't ultimately necessary to know why the guy did it, but how. Llike Simspon's defenders, they focused on minutiae rather than the total picture----the glove, so to speak, that supposedly did away with the pictures of Simpson wearing shoes he claimed he didn't have, the blood evidence, the cut on his hand, his steadily-increasing rage against his ex, all the things that contributed to the whole picture of his guilt. More importantly, there was no positive evidence that knocked either Simpson or MacDonald out of the running. There was no one who had the motive to kill their wives/ex-wives. There was no proof that anyone else had even been on the site, even though both men claimed that someone else did it.

Sorry, but after a certain point, when you present enough evidence and people still insist that the world is flat, 'irrational' is all they can expect to be called.




quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no other logical suspect than Simpson. He was not framed. He killed two people.

you with the face
01-11-2004, 04:46 PM
margin
My point, wihch you appear determined to miss, is that the black community turns on black women who dare to turn in men of their community.

Are you trying to tell me that sexism does not exist among whites? Are you trying to tell me that charges of sexual harrassment and battery are always treated seriously by white people, that they never turn a blind eye to what white men do as long as it stays behind close doors? That smells like some rather convenient bullshit to me. Especially in light of the fact that in another thread you spent a lot of time talking about your own experiences with not being taken seriously because of your gender.

Jones and Flowers weren't subject to threats, ostracism, or the pressure that Hill and Washington experienced.

Do you know this for a fact or are you speaking out of your...oh, I don't know...you fill in the blank.

Uh, you do know that OJ hasn't dated black women in twenty years, right? Doesn't have black friends, doesn't date black women, and had no pictures of black people in his house? That's why it's preposterous.

margin, if OJ doesn't have any black friends, then what race is best friend Al Cowlings (http://www.cnn.com/US/OJ/daily/9510/10-04/movies/)? You know, the guy that was driving the Bronco in the infamous slow-speed chase? All this time I was thinking Cowlings was a black man, but here I found out he can't be black because OJ doesn't have any black friends. Thanks for shaking that preposterous idea out of my head.

Can I ask how you know he doesn't have any pictures of black people in his house? He had kids in his first marriage and I find it hard to believe he doesn't have any pictures of them up. Since it's obvious that you've been to his house, can you also tell me why it's so inconceivable that he wouldn't have pictures of his mom, siblings, or former teammates?

Boblibdem is displaying extraordinary confidence because he appears to be aware of more facts than you do. You, for example, don't appear of aware of Simpson's dating history at all, and yet you lecture someone else who has.

And I'm about to lecture you, old wise one. Stop speaking as if you are some kind of OJ expert when you are not. At least go peruse Google before you start spouting off things you know not of. At least BobLibDem was gracious enough to admit that he got his facts wrong. I'd appreciate if you could do the same and stop acting as if you've got some inside knowledge of a man who for all intents and purposes is a complete stranger to you.

margin
01-11-2004, 05:17 PM
Uh, you with the face it's been noted repeatedly that Johnny Cochran went through Simpson's house before the jury saw it and removed all the photos of Simpson's white girlfriends, white golfing buddies, and so on. He has one black friend? Two? Still doesn't change the fact that Cochran did it, still doesn't change the fact that Simpson has not dated a black woman in years.

Are you trying to tell me that sexism does not exist among whites? Are you trying to tell me that charges of sexual harrassment and battery are always treated seriously by white people, that they never turn a blind eye to what white men do as long as it stays behind close doors? That smells like some rather convenient bullshit to me.

Wow. You're determined to jump to that conclusion aren't you? I'd reccomend you read Strange Justice about the Clarence Thomas/Anita Hill incident, and Anita Hill's own book, which details some of what she went through. The prosecutor in the Tyson case detailed exactly what Desiree Washington went through from members of her own community during the trial in his book on the case. You or Pizzabrat brought the matter up for discussion by implying that white people wouldn't care about Simpson if his victims had been black. At the very least, this implies that this would not be the viewpoint of black people. The experiences of Washington and Hill prove otherwise. The issue is not whether sexism exists in the white community, but whether, as has been implied here, whether it's deployed only in a racist fashion. It would appear that this happens in both communities. The difference is, you're not acknowledging it at all.

Can I ask how you know he doesn't have any pictures of black people in his house? He had kids in his first marriage and I find it hard to believe he doesn't have any pictures of them up. Since it's obvious that you've been to his house, can you also tell me why it's so inconceivable that he wouldn't have pictures of his mom, siblings, or former teammates?

Lawrence Schilling and Jeffrey Toobin both pointed out the picture-removing incident in their books, and pointed out that pictures of Simpson's white friends, girlfriends, and so on were replaced with some of Cochran's own pictures. Simpson essentially lived in a white world. You're just determined to avoid that, aren't you? The guy had a mostly-white circle of friends, dated only white women, and you refuse to acknowledge that.

What puzzles a lot of people about the Simpson case is because it's about this guy. I mean, we're not talking about some guy who's innocent, stuck on Death Row, and needs the attention and assistance. We're talking about a wife-beater who finally killed the wife. And he got away with it. We got told by the newspapers and magazines that the black community acquitted him because they were tired of police abuses and so on, but why this scumbag? We were told that it wasabout race. Gender was completely ignored. Nicole Simpson was, if I remember correctly, one of seven battered women killed just on that day, and only because her ex was a semi-famous guy did she get any attention at all. It didn't seem possible to talk about race and sex simaltaneously, and that doesn't seem to have changed today much.

Is race the big issue of this case, or is gender? The defense made it about race, and gender just kind of got buried. But it was a real simple case down at the bottom: guy beats wife for years, she leaves him, and he killed her. I think if it had been dealt with from a perspective of a woman's issue rather than a racial issue, it would have made too many people uncomfortable---I mean, here's a guy who undoubtedly experienced racism in his life, turning around and dishing out sexism in its purest form to his wife. All different kinds of men are wife-beaters. That would have given a perspective that would have made everybody uncomfortable. I mean, you can't really make a victim out of a guy who beats his wife. Therefore, he had to be framed by somebody and avoid all the unpleasant thoughts about wife-beating and so on.

you with the face
01-11-2004, 07:12 PM
Uh, you with the face it's been noted repeatedly that Johnny Cochran went through Simpson's house before the jury saw it and removed all the photos of Simpson's white girlfriends, white golfing buddies, and so on. He has one black friend? Two? Still doesn't change the fact that Cochran did it, still doesn't change the fact that Simpson has not dated a black woman in years.

Well, all of this stuff about Simpson's circle of friends is immaterial to me. The only reason I even responded to you and BobLibDem comments about his dating history etc., is to show that you are making assertions that are not based on fact, but rather your own biased ideas about who the man is. They are conclusions that have been jumped to because that is what you feel and believe. Not because that is what you know. And so when I point out that OJ married a black woman and actually has at least one black friend, you try to backpedal and act as if all that is not important now.

Well, I agree; it's not important. But it does show that you're not operating from a "just the facts, maam" perspective like you insist that you are. The more you post, the more obvious that becomes to me.

Wow. You're determined to jump to that conclusion aren't you? I'd reccomend you read Strange Justice about the Clarence Thomas/Anita Hill incident, and Anita Hill's own book, which details some of what she went through. The prosecutor in the Tyson case detailed exactly what Desiree Washington went through from members of her own community during the trial in his book on the case.

What the *&^% do Anita And Desiree have to do with OJ? You haven't explained why these women have any bearing on the OP.

You or Pizzabrat brought the matter up for discussion by implying that white people wouldn't care about Simpson if his victims had been black. At the very least, this implies that this would not be the viewpoint of black people.

No, it means that had Nicole and Ron been black, the OJ Simpson trial would not have become the media orgy that it turned out to be. I also believe white people wouldn't have become as emotionally invested in the trial's outcome as they ended up being. Black people, as well, would have probably not been so quick to defend OJ. There would have been less racial polarization, with more whites seeing OJ as innocent and more blacks seeing OJ as guilty. Why you think Anita Hill has anything to do with my opinion on this baffles me.

The experiences of Washington and Hill prove otherwise. The issue is not whether sexism exists in the white community, but whether, as has been implied here, whether it's deployed only in a racist fashion. It would appear that this happens in both communities. The difference is, you're not acknowledging it at all.

Perhaps because all of that is irrelevant to my argument.

Lawrence Schilling and Jeffrey Toobin both pointed out the picture-removing incident in their books, and pointed out that pictures of Simpson's white friends, girlfriends, and so on were replaced with some of Cochran's own pictures.

Again, you are seeing things from a perspective that is not rooted in objectivity. So what if OJ had pictures of white girlfriends? Does that mean he had no pictures of black people? No it doesn't, and believing so is to fall prey to fallacy. Since I've never seen his house or talked to anyone who has been in his house, I'm not in the position to say what kind of pictures OJ has on the walls. You, on the other hand, feel as if all you have to do is read a couple of blerbs to know that OJ has nothing but white folks on the walls. Sorry, but I can't call that logical.

Simpson essentially lived in a white world. You're just determined to avoid that, aren't you? The guy had a mostly-white circle of friends, dated only white women, and you refuse to acknowledge that.

Maybe because I don't care? OJ Simpson could be living in a Lilliputian world and it wouldn't change the opinions I've expressed in this thread.

DKW
01-11-2004, 07:52 PM
This was just one of those big overhyped events that stirred up all kinds of bad blood for a number of reasons. Lance Ito's continuous grandstanding certainly didn't help, and racial tensions came into play at nearly every turn (including a clearly racist Mark Furman).

An interesting counterpoint one of my college teachers pointed out (he's also a lawyer, BTW) was that, despite an extensive search, nobody ever found the murder weapon or bloodstained clothes. How could Simpson have completely disposed of the knife and clothes and changed into a fresh set of clothes in between the time of the killings and the next time he was seen?

So while it's possible, and in fact likely, that Simpson contracted someone to do the murders (Michael Moore makes this exact argument in Stupid White Men, strangely enough), there was never enough evidence to convict him of first degree murder.

In other words, OJ Simpson was charged with the wrong crime from the very beginning. Were the charge conspiracy to commit murder, it would have been a slam dunk, and Simpson would be faced with a lengthy prison sentence at minimum. But the prosecution got greedy...it's the chair or nothing!...and when it became clear they couldn't win clean, they cheated. Johnny Cochran called them on it, and the rest was just a formality.

I don't give a damn about who he associates with or how many athletes in the past have gone bad or how many black suspects have been unfairly executed. He committed a crime, and because the prosecution got complacent and greedy, he got off scot free. There's the travesty.

ccwaterback
01-11-2004, 08:34 PM
Didn't Robert Shapiro want to do a plea bargain before the case was tried? I don't have a cite handy, but I remember hearing that somewhere. Isn't that another vote for guilty?

dropzone
01-11-2004, 11:40 PM
You people who think that the gloves didn't fit because they

1. shrank
2. were going on over rubber gloves
3. didn't fit

have not tried to dress a child who didn't want to get dressed. If you watch how he scrunched up is hand into a near fist while he "tried" to put the glove on you would know that he was making sure it didn't go on.

ElvisL1ves
01-12-2004, 12:17 AM
DKW: "...despite an extensive search, nobody ever found the murder weapon or bloodstained clothes. How could Simpson have completely disposed of the knife and clothes and changed into a fresh set of clothes in between the time of the killings and the next time he was seen?"

That's why a lot of people would like to know about the black duffel bag he gave to Kardashian.

margin, my understanding FWIW of the main reason for the celebrations in the black community wasn't really support for OJ the person, or a real belief in his innocence, but that a PD with a reputation for racism and abusiveness had been humbled and would have to be far more careful and respectful of them in the future. I think I can understand a judgment that that result was worth letting a murderer go free; after all, that happens fairly often anyway. There were even a number of stories later on about political correctness in the black community, in which it was understood that one should not express belief in his guilt lest this victory against police racism and abuse be somehow undermined.

ccwaterback
01-12-2004, 12:43 AM
They should have had someone "assist" OJ with the gloves.

margin
01-12-2004, 08:13 AM
Well, all of this stuff about Simpson's circle of friends is immaterial to me. The only reason I even responded to you and BobLibDem comments about his dating history etc., is to show that you are making assertions that are not based on fact, but rather your own biased ideas about who the man is. They are conclusions that have been jumped to because that is what you feel and believe. Not because that is what you know. And so when I point out that OJ married a black woman and actually has at least one black friend, you try to backpedal and act as if all that is not important now.


This is funny, and kind of sad. Boblibdem made an assertion, you corrected one part of it, but you're evidently unaware of the facts about the rest of it. And now you're whining about backpeddling, when my assertion remains more or less true.

and this?
Well, I agree; it's not important. But it does show that you're not operating from a "just the facts, maam" perspective like you insist that you are. The more you post, the more obvious that becomes to me.

Huh, let's see. You corrected on poster with one fact that didn't address the fact that the vast majority of what he said was true: OJ does not date black women. He did at one point, what was it? Twenty, thirty years ago? You're the one backpeddling like crazy, trying to get away from that.

Again, you are seeing things from a perspective that is not rooted in objectivity. So what if OJ had pictures of white girlfriends? Does that mean he had no pictures of black people? No it doesn't, and believing so is to fall prey to fallacy. Since I've never seen his house or talked to anyone who has been in his house, I'm not in the position to say what kind of pictures OJ has on the walls. You, on the other hand, feel as if all you have to do is read a couple of blerbs to know that OJ has nothing but white folks on the walls. Sorry, but I can't call that logical.

Gee, all I read is a couple of 'blerbs'. You know what, you with the face? Just ignore me. I'm getting sick of pointing out shit that you're just determined to ignore, and you're not going to be open-minded about this at all.


ElivisLives I've actually read something similar, but I haven't read anything that definative. Do you remember where you read it? I'm tempted to dig out the Toobin book---too bad that you with the face never encountered it----because it really is a good overview of the case. The sorry fact is that without the defense playing the only card they really had---the racial issues one----it would have been a fairly run-of-the-mill case. It didn't have to wind up this way at all, and we can thank the defense for it.

you with the face
01-12-2004, 09:16 PM
margin
This is funny, and kind of sad. Boblibdem made an assertion, you corrected one part of it, but you're evidently unaware of the facts about the rest of it.

Rest of what? This is what he posted:

The very idea that OJ would ever consider marrying a black woman is preposterous. But if he had, and the victims were black, I would be just as upset over this miscarriage of justice.

What is this "rest of it" that you keep harping upon? BobLibDem asserts that OJ wouldn't even think of marrying a woman, I rebut his error with fact that shows he is wrong, and yet you persist in saying I'm the one who is clueless. And you're supposed to the logical-thinking one here?

And Jesus wept.

You corrected on poster with one fact that didn't address the fact that the vast majority of what he said was true: OJ does not date black women. He did at one point, what was it? Twenty, thirty years ago? You're the one backpeddling like crazy, trying to get away from that.

So fucking what? What does that have to do with anything? This may come as a big surprise to your all-so-very logical sensibilities, but just because a black man dates white women (even to the exclusion of other races) it does not make him a killer. Read this again until it sinks in.

Am I in the twilight zone or are you purposely trying to help me prove my point, which is that many white people let racial bias color how they viewed the case. If you are not consciously helping me out in this debate, I have no choice but to conclude that either you don't really understand your position after all. You are making this all too simple for me, margin.

Gee, all I read is a couple of 'blerbs'. You know what, you with the face? Just ignore me. I'm getting sick of pointing out shit that you're just determined to ignore, and you're not going to be open-minded about this at all.

I really don't know what you want me to be open-minded about. That OJ likes white women? Okay. I never opined otherwise. That the idea that OJ would even consider marrying/dating black women is preposterous? Um, facts suggest otherwise. And besides, I don't care enough about him to form an opinion about his preferences based on silly hearsay. He's a stranger to me. More on topic: Do you want me to agree with you that black people were the only ones influenced by race in this case? Sorry, no can do. You have done nothing except inadvertantly help me prove my position, which is that there was no black monopoly on race-tainted subjectivity. You can create all the weak strawmen that you want, but until you address that point then I will take you up on your advice; I will ignore you.

smiling bandit
01-13-2004, 02:15 PM
Um, no. I think it was polarized because black people identified with the defendant and white people identified with the victims.

I thought she *was* black? Still, to me the what was so terrible about this case is that it was so blatantly obvi-flippin-ous that he did it and yet he was never convicted. I never particularly felt any identification with the victims. Heck, I rather liked the old, Pre-murder OJ in movies.

~ Smiling "White-Bread" Bandit

lekatt
01-13-2004, 02:44 PM
What's wrong with circumstantial evidence? You do realize that a great many criminal trials depend on physical evidence left behind.

[qlove]The bloody gloves were obviously not his, he couldn't even get his hand in them. State said they shrunk, they cost $75 and there were 26 affidavits from other owners saying they don't shrink when wet.

Cite for the 26 affadavits? Because it's a fact that leather shrinks when wet. It's also a fact that putting latex gloves in leather makes it just about impossible to get one's hand inside.



'Seemed' planted? In what way? How was the blood totally out of place?



Nicole Simpson was knocked unconscious while Simpson dealt with Ron Goodman, who had many defensiveness woudnds. Once he was dead, the killer pulled Nicole's head back by the hair and slit her throat. The fact that Simpson didn't get blood on his shoes alone only indicates that he didn't get blood on his shoes. Walking carefully would have avoided blood puddles or whatever. Who knows what he put on his shoes?



The defendant had a history of beating his wife. Apply this style of reasoning to Simpson---as you've done to Fuhrman, and his past acts are enough to convict him.



Well, I'm curious as to how blood can 'seem' planted.[/QUOTE]


I know it is a mistake trying to answer this, but what the hell?

Where did you get the idea latex groves were used? Close-ups of the bloody gloves were shown, the prosecution was right there while he was trying them on and even tugged at them some. Where did you get the idea gloves of any kind shrink? I have never seen a pair of gloves shrink in my life. That's what they're made for, to muck around in the snow and clean ice off the windows. Oh, yes, there also was current research statistics from the glove manufacturer, done by an independent research firm, showing the gloves do not shrink when wet.

Some of the blood they took from OJ for testing turned up missing and unaccounted for. The blood on the socks was in a place covered by his pants under normal conditions when standing up.

If he had knocked his wife out as you say, what with? His knuckles were not brused, in fact, he had no bruses, scrapes, scratches or cuts anywhere on his body, save for a small cut on one finger. He said he got that cut when a glass used for rinsing the mouth fell into the sink and broke while he was brushing his teeth. The procecution never proved any different.

The testimony against Fuhrman, brought out a possible homicide he committed, along with several other accounts of his extreme racism.
He was indicted after the trial on some of these accusations, but I didn't hear about the outcome.

There was a lot of talk about a bag that was supposed to contain bloody clothes and many other things of that nature, but no hard proof of anything.

I say again, it was a correct verdict.

Shodan
01-13-2004, 04:57 PM
Cite for the 26 affadavits?
Where did you get the idea latex groves were used?
I assume you just threw this in at random. Do you really need a cite that Simpson was wearing latex gloves when he "tried" to put on the gloves?
Where did you get the idea gloves of any kind shrink? I have never seen a pair of gloves shrink in my life.
Again, I can't believe this is meant seriously. Leather shrinks. It happens.

That's what they're made for, to muck around in the snow and clean ice off the windows.
In Southern California?

Oh, yes, there also was current research statistics from the glove manufacturer, done by an independent research firm, showing the gloves do not shrink when wet.
Once you come up with the 26 affidavits you claimed earlier, I will need a cite for this too.

Some of the blood they took from OJ for testing turned up missing and unaccounted for.
No, the technician who drew the blood mis-estimated the amount.

While you are at it, perhaps you could explain how they planted Simpson's blood at the crime scene before he was in custody and before they had a sample from him.

The blood on the socks was in a place covered by his pants under normal conditions when standing up.
So committing a double murder is "normal conditions"?

If he had knocked his wife out as you say, what with?
Um, did you happen to remember that this is a Hall of Fame former football player here, against a woman who weighed roughly half what he did.

His knuckles were not brused, in fact, he had no bruses, scrapes, scratches or cuts anywhere on his body, save for a small cut on one finger. He said he got that cut when a glass used for rinsing the mouth fell into the sink and broke while he was brushing his teeth. The procecution never proved any different. Actually, Simpson told several different versions of how he got the cut. His story changed in other details significantly as well.

Bugliosi made an interesting point in his analysis of the case.

In the Simpson "suicide" letter, Simpson thanks the police for the way they treated him. Assuming that Simpson was really innocent, the police must have been framing him at that point. If Simpson were really innocent, he would have known this. Would you thank the police for framing you, if you were innocent?
I say again, it was a correct verdict.No, it was an incorrect verdict. I would even go so far as to say that it was a verdict that no reasonably intelligent, fair-minded person could agree with.

Regards,
Shodan

Titan2
01-14-2004, 12:45 AM
<No, it was an incorrect verdict. I would even go so far as to say that it was a verdict that no reasonably intelligent, fair-minded person could agree with. >

Agree completely.Tho all circumstantial,the evidence overwhelmingly pointed to the fact that OJ was up to somethingbetween 10 and 11,which every body seemed to agree was the murder timeframe.
His stories changed before and during the trail on key points (taking a nap-putting golf balls,cutting a hand in Chi,declining chauffer's help in loading a bag).
Between the chaufeur and Kato I would have thought a hung jury may be the best he could hope for,based on circumstantial evidence/no eyewitness.But after-what-2 hours they come in with an innocent verdict?

This after the impassioned "If it doesn't fit-you must acquit"or some rubbish like that.This is a million dollar attorney we're talking about here.

I guess he knows more about the general populace than I do.Government by soundbite seems to be the vogue nowadays after all.

My initial thought after that summation,which I was chuckling over was "If they acquit,they're full of shit"

I among other posters I never saw a racial slant to the participants until the whole Furman thing got rolling.Didn't realize most of the jurors where black or African American or Negroid,or whatever is the currrent flavor of the month when describing that racial minority with the dark skin color.

I thought the prosecution did a terrible job trying to sidestep the Furman racehate thing and lost stature in the public (and obviously jurors) minds,and likely-as it turns out-lost it right there.

I still can't believe the OJ believers aren't wondering how that "search for the real killers"is going.

Urban Ranger
01-15-2004, 12:43 AM
My own suspicion is that, while OJ did commit the murder, there were folks on the LAPD who wanted to "make sure" he'd get convicted, and tampered with the crime scene and evidence to try and assure a win. That tampering got picked up and planted reasonable doubt in the jury, which led to the "not guilty" verdict.

:rolleyes:

Like which ones?

Urban Ranger
01-15-2004, 12:49 AM
I say again, it was a correct verdict.

If that is the case, why would Simpson be found guilty in the civil wrongful death suite?

tomndebb
01-15-2004, 01:56 AM
I say again, it was a correct verdict.
If that is the case, why would Simpson be found guilty in the civil wrongful death suite?While not defending lekatt's overall approach (or odd claims regarding material facts, the technical answer is that the criminal trial jury was required to reach a decision based on a standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt." If the testimony of (for example) the forensic pathologist suggested tampering with the evidence or other information suggested that the testimony for the prosecution was flawed, the correct verdict was "not guilty."

The civil trial required only a "preponderance of evidence" and that jury had the liberty to say to themselves, "somebody in the police force or prosecutor's office screwed up, but boy does this evidence basically point directly to OJ."

- - -
(On re-reading the thread: I'm also always amused by the number of people who huff that the "black" jury had already decided to let OJ go and that they simply used the prosecution's mistakes (or Cochran's rhetoric) as an "excuse" to do so. Most of the jurors (several of whom were white) were interviewed after the verdict. Every one whom I saw inteviewed pointed to the testimony of corrupted evidence, particularly from the Connecticut pathologist, as having played a key role in their decision. In one respect, it is unfortunate that Cochran played the race card, because now people who wish to cast the whole issue in terms of "blacks setting free one of their own" can point to Cochran's antics as "evidence." (I am not denying that race played a significant part in Cochran's games or in the outside perception; I am only noting that the standard claim that the "black jury had already made up their minds to free OJ" (so beloved of the late and unlamented John John) is not supported by any evidence that has been presented to me.)

Mr. Miskatonic
01-15-2004, 02:16 AM
I should be packing the computer...but I will comment on this:

Here is what creeped me out about Simpson during the trial. When he was asked to try on the gloves, never mind that they "didn't fit" (plenty of reasons for that, driving gloves are designed to be tight, and they aren't for clearing snow & ice. They're for being stylish. A paid of latex gloves will make them damn near impossible to put on).

What creeped me out was what OJ was doing while trying them on: Smiling and laughing.

Now say what you want about who owns the gloves, but they were the gloves of the killer.

OJ pleaded that he would 'take a bullet' for Nicole. He claimed to love her. (Never mind the beatings).

If I loved someone, and then was asked to put on the gloves of the killer. I sure as FUCK would not be smiling and laughing.

That said volumes to me.

rjung
01-15-2004, 03:12 AM
Like which ones?
"[Forensics expert Herbert] MacDonell's testimony was damaging to the prosecution. He testified that Nicole's blood found on the socks which were in Simpson's bedroom had been applied directly 'by compression' rather than being splattered on by someone walking through the blood puddles found at Bundy. That took the heart right out of their case and, worse, diverted attention away from the DNA evidence. Someone planted blood on the socks, so it's entirely possible that someone could have planted Simpson's blood at the scene of the crime. After all, didn't Detective Philip Vannatter drive around all day with the defendant's blood in his car instead of turning it right in? And didn't the people over at Piper Tech leave the door to the evidence room unlocked on occassion, possibly allowing someone to sneak in and take Simpson's blood and plant it? The answer to both questions is 'yes.'"

"Further, there's the question of why there are no Bruno Magli-tracked bloody footprints around the area where the glove was found. Nor was there evidence that the spiderwebs that Fuhrman broke to find the glove were broken by a killer who dropped the glove and then re-woven by a lightning-fast eight-legged creature."

--The Simpson Trial in Black and White, Tom Elias and Dennis Schatzman

EasyPhil
01-15-2004, 05:04 PM
Even with a pair of latex gloves on, a pair of gloves that fit you will still fit even if harder to get on. Those gloves clearly didn't fit OJ, the result would have been the same without the latex gloves. They just didn't fit. It's amazing to me that the prosecution didn't know that before hand. How hard is it to find out what size gloves OJ wears? How hard would it be to find someone with the same size hands? I think the prosecution knew the gloves wouldn't fit, but since they were in evidence they had to make the move before the defense made theirs, assumming of course that the defense would have made same move.

Blacks and whites were divided on this case because the life reality of black people are different than those of white people. All you have to do is look at the racial breakdown of the prison population to figure out that there are two types of justice based on what the color of your skin is. I will admit that even though most of the disparity has to do with class, it kind of still works out the same way. Police and prosecutors do lie and withhold evidence and are rarely held accountable for it. Look at all of the people that were on death row that had to be released(over 100, the marjority of them black) because they were innocent and in some cases tortured until the confessed to crimes they didn't commit.

I think justice was served and I think the system worked the way it's supposed to when the prosecution and the defense are on equal ground with access to specialist, experts, etc. OJ didn't get away with murder, he got found not guilty.

ccwaterback
01-15-2004, 10:03 PM
OJ didn't get away with murder, he got found not guilty.

... beyond a reasonable doubt.

And that was the bottom line, a reasonable doubt was created by the bumbling (and racist?) LA police, along with the ineptitude of the prosecution team.

Futile Gesture
01-16-2004, 01:58 PM
:smack: :smack: Is there no legal case in America that can't be turned into a racial hand-wringer?

I'm white. I'm not American. I couldn't give two hoots for the racial profile of either victim or accused. or the supposed or actual racial bias of the police force. The facts and evidence are clear cut. He did it. Everything points to him doing it. Not one iota of evidence suggests someone else did it. There is nothing to support why anyone would wish to frame him. If the police had it in for him they had plenty of opportunity prior to the murders.

All the rest of the racial, blank/white divide nonsense is totally irrelevant, yet for some reason seems to loom large in American thoughts on this case.

And the whole glove thing.. They were tight leather gloves that hadn't been used in months. Leather left to it's own devices dries and shrinks, particularly if it is old and worn. And to try wearing them over another pair of gloves :smack: Why did the prosecution try this? What possible evidence could it have supplied? If the gloves did fit, then so what? It's evidence of nothing. It's evidence only of how the trial and those in it had totally lost the plot and sight of what they were supposed to be doing. The entire thing was a farce.

EasyPhil
01-16-2004, 02:49 PM
:smack: :smack: Is there no legal case in America that can't be turned into a racial hand-wringer?

I'm white. I'm not American. I couldn't give two hoots for the racial profile of either victim or accused. or the supposed or actual racial bias of the police force. The facts and evidence are clear cut. He did it. Everything points to him doing it. Not one iota of evidence suggests someone else did it. There is nothing to support why anyone would wish to frame him. If the police had it in for him they had plenty of opportunity prior to the murders.

If the facts and the evidence are so clear cut, why did twelve people that had first hand access to the facts and evidence find him not guilty? How does the word of someone that at best as second knowledge of case, stack up against that? What is your assertion based on? Where you a juror? One of the prosecutors? Have you seen or touched any of the evidence? Have you read the court transcript? Yeah, I didn't think so.


All the rest of the racial, blank/white divide nonsense is totally irrelevant, yet for some reason seems to loom large in American thoughts on this case.

Race is an issue in America. Study the history, and if you have the opportunity, live the life of a black person in America. Then and only then will you understand the relevance.

Futile Gesture
01-17-2004, 11:22 AM
If the facts and the evidence are so clear cut, why did twelve people that had first hand access to the facts and evidence find him not guilty?And why do so many others find their verdict incomprehensible? The reason to doubt their verdict is the same as the reason to doubt the sanity of all the performers in this circus.

Race is an issue in America.Indeed. And totally irrelevant in this case. This was not a black man killing a white woman. This was not a famous and wealthy black man accused of murder. It was a straight-forward case of a man accused of murdering his wife. Race is only an issue if you want to make it one.