100 years from now the O.J. Verdict

[Markxxx]

I was wondering given the following senerio what do you think the history books will read the OJ Simpson Verdict.

Assumming that he dies, and everything remains exactly like it is today. No one comes forth, no new evidence what so ever is found what do you think the history books will say?

Will they say as Lizzie Borden he probably did it but it could never be proved. Or do you think time will reverse it and say he was truly innocent and the trial was a sham to cover up for police mishandling of the investigation, or what?

I'm not asking did he or didn't he or what you think of the outcome I am wondering how you think time specifically 100 years, will change the outcome.

As now Leopold an Loeb are view more sympathetically and Lizzie Borden is viewed as guilty.

[EnigmaOne]

Given the statements from the jury, after the trial, I'm pretty sure he'll still be considered guilty.

Personally, I'd rather the history books didn't bother mentioning the incident, letting Simpson fade into obscurity.

I doubt that will be the case though.

------------------


--Kalél
(The Original EnigmaOne)
Common ¢ for all ages.

[ThufferinThuccotash]

OJ who?

------------------
TT

"Believe those who seek the truth.
Doubt those who find it." --Andre Gide

[Joey P]

Have you seen the movie of Lizzie Borden. Unless she's handing them the ax, letting them kill themselves, and then cleaning up afterwords (because the don't show the actuall slaughter on TV for obvious reasons) they sure as hell portray her as being guilty. That is pretty much the accepted version of the story as far as I know. Although at the end they do say that this is not neccisarily what happend just what the authors' take on it.

------------------
Formerly known as Nec3f on the AOL SDMB

[manhattan]

OJ Simpson took a knife
And stabbed away at his ex-wife
When he saw what he had done
He killed the waiter, just for fun.

Nah.


------------------
Livin' on Tums, Vitamin E and Rogaine

[mr john]

Way to go, man. I was gonna say ,i doubt OJ will even be afoot note in history. The only reason any one remembers Lizzie is it made such a nice jump rope song. Then you had to come up with that. i saw on Tv the other day that the reason we won WW2 was that john wayne was the last one left alive when the minute men attacked San Juan Hill.

------------------
"............"-Marx

[curious george]

It was called the trial of the century, so it will probably be remembered for a long time.
Especially with all the tv footage and photos available. They will probably say as Lizzie Borden he probably did it but it could never be proved.

However, I doubt OJ, or the actual muderer, will take the truth to the grave with him. I'm rather amazed the truth (who is the killer?) has not surfaced in the five years since it happened. Hmmmmm...maybe it's a conspiracy involving the government?

[curious george]

This topic belongs in the Great Debate or MPSIMS forum.

[kellibelli]

{as a side bar, I want everyone to know...I love black people!}

History will look back on the trial as the first time a black man was allowed to kill a white woman, and not be hung from the nearest tree.

(I am now hiding under my desk to protect myself from the accusations of racism)

[TubaDiva]

David will probably kill me, but I'm moving this to Great Debates.

your humble TubaDiva/SDStaffDiv
for the Straight Dope

"Trial of the century?" Which one? Leopold and Loeb? Lindbergh? Fatty Arbuckle? Sacco and Vanzetti? Hall/Mills? Charlie Manson? The Rosenbergs? Harry K. Thaw?

As far as O.J., I asked a black friend, "do black people REALLY think he's innocent?" He laughed and said, "Of course not--do you think we're all stupid? We just say that to annoy you white people!"

[C K Dexter Haven]

<< It was called the trial of the century, so it will probably be remembered for a long time. >>

The Onion published a book called OUR DUMB CENTURY, with satiric newspaper front pages from each year. It's a riot, if you can find it.

Anyway, about every four or five years, there's a "Trial of the Century", beginning with the Scopes Monkey trial and going on from there...

[jrepka]

It was "The Trial of the Century of the Week!"

100 years from now, if you ask someone whether O.J. was guilty or not, the reply will be: O.J. who? Lizzie is remembered only from the rhyme.

This century has seen technological and economic revolutions, the mass murder of 10 million people, the impeachment of one president and the resignation of another, and the landing of men on the freakin' moon.

O.J. will be remembered by the same people that currently remember the Galveston hurricane of 1900...

[tracer]

CKDextHavn wrote, re Our Dumb Century:

Anyway, about every four or five years, there's a "Trial of the Century", beginning with the Scopes Monkey trial and going on from there...

Trials called "The Trial of the Century" by The Onion:

Fatty Arbuckle, 1922
Scopes "monkey" trial, 1925
Nuremberg proceedings, 1947
Patty Hearst, 1976

Oddly, they didn't add in the obvious Rodney King and OJ Simpson angles. Probably 'cause they were obvious. And stuff.

------------------
I'm not flying fast, just orbiting low.

[Hello Again]

to my knowledge, among historians, Lizzie Borden is considered innocent, with absolutely no motive to kill, and no evidence against her.

It is only in the popular consiousness that she is considered a killer.

Just gotta put in my 0.02 in behalf of Lizzie.

[Markxxx]

I don't really see why this was moved as posed the original question is hardly a debate. Remember I was not asking if OJ was guilty or innocent or even to comment on his trial as viewed today but as viewed in 100 years.

I cite Lizzie Borden who was viewed by the community as innocent and subsequently view every year after by more and more people as guilty.

I cite Leopold & Loeb who every newspaper and all of Chicago were calling for them to swing from the gallows but later on they were viewed as much as victims as was the poor boy they murderd.

I think OJ's case was important was it was the first trial with a "Star" name to be carried out...The trial itself is only important as to teach law students how NOT to conduct themselves in court, being either a defender, prosecutor or judge yet to be.

It will be remembered in my opinion as a way devious people manipulated people a horrible situation by taking advantage of incompetent people.

Mark, who have you heard being sympathetic toward Leopold and Loeb? I've never heard them called anything but two sadistic monsters who tortured a little boy to death just for the fun of it!

As for Lizzie, I used to think she was innocent, and always suspected that Bridget Sullivan, the maid, did it. But I've done more reading of late, and I'm coming to the conclusion that Miss Lizzie did indeed take that ax.

Any opinions on Fatty Arbuckle? I could pontificate on THAT for hours . . .

[voltaire]

It was "The Trial of the Century of the Week!"

100 years from now, if you ask someone whether O.J. was guilty or not, the reply will be: O.J. who?

I do think the OJ trial will be remembered for quite some time. Remember that this was one of the first widely publicized trials that everyone got to watch unfold on TV. People got to ride along as the "dream team" unraveled the case against OJ through the use of innumerable loop-holes and innuendo of conspiracy.

This trial not only had an impact on society, but on the legal system itself. I had a friend who acted as his own lawyer, defending himself successfully using techniques he learned watching the OJ trial. All he had to do was call into question the expertise of the witnesses against him and their methods of handling evidence. He said there was little doubt amongst everyone in the courtroom that he was guilty, but his tactics are what assured his victory regardless of his guilt or innocence.

If anything, the OJ trial will be remembered as an example of how the justice system can be so easily made a mockery of. Not only was the case bungled by the police from the beginning, but the trial was presided upon by a judge and lawyers that were more interested in being in the spotlight and getting material to fatten their book deals.

I remember hearing some estimate about how national productivity had gone down as a result of people watching the OJ trial. When that many people focus on a trial for that long, it can't help but be indelibly ingrained in our collective memory.

[kellibelli]

I dont mean to look stupid, but who are fatty arbuckle and loepold & loeb?
I am in canada remember...might not have heard about it, may have forgotten.
refresh me please?

Ooooh, Kelli, pull up a chair, sweetie:

Leopold and Loeb were two well-educated young men who, in the early 1920s, decided to kill someone just to see what it felt like. So they gave a ride to a young neighbor, Bobby Franks, and beat him to death in the back of their car, writing a kidnap note to his dad. It didn't take long to catch them, as they weren't particularly clever criminals. They turned on each other (and turned each other on, by most accounts) and barely escaped the death penalty. One died in a prison knife-fight; the other was eventually paroled and did good deeds the rest of his life.

Roscoe "Fatty" Arbuckle was one of the top film comics of the 1910s, right up there with Chaplin and Keaton. In 1921, he attended a party in San Francisco, where a starlet named Virginia Rappe got ill and, several days later, died of a ruptured bladder. Arbuckle was tried three times for her death and was eventually acquitted--but not till his career was ruined and Hollywood was tainted as a den of sex and drugs. In all the fuss, poor Virginia--the real victim--is still pretty much forgotton, or written off as a tart who "got what she deserved." The blame-the-victim game started early . . .

[kellibelli]

thanks...
the first case does sound familiar...victims name is familiar...
the second one is news to me.

I now know more than I did this morning...ThankYou...I hope I remember how to drive (a la homer simpson)

[curious george]

Markxxx, your main question was "No one comes forth, no new evidence what so ever is found what do you think the history books will say?"

This is not a question with a definite, factual answer, nor does it involve scientific theory, so it did not seem well-suited for the GQ forum. Rather, it is a philosophical question which can be debated on and on. So, I suggested that it be moved to this Great Debate forum.

[LongHrn99]

Wow, others know of the awesome powers of the Onion!! I hardly believe it. Why do we have to have a trial of the century? Who cares? And everyone left out the impeachment, which was called MANY times the trial of the century by CNN and others. Is it just hype to get better ratings, or what?

[CFQWEST]

Regarding Curious George's statement: "I'm rather amazed the truth (who is the killer?) has not surfaced in the five years since it happened."

The truth did surface, almost immediately after the murder happened: O.J. did it. No ifs, ands, or buts about it.

Also, the notion that "he did it but it can't be proved" is not really sound. Having been aquitted, he cannot be tried again for murder, but a civil jury did find him culpable for wrongful deaths. In other words, the case against him was proved, just not in a way that could send him to jail.

The failure of the Los Angeles District Attorney's office to secure a conviction against Simpson is just that: a failure. They had all the evidence they needed; they just didn't use it properly.

One more thing: the bungling of the LAPD has been greatly exaggerated in this matter. It was just put to great rhetorical use by the defense, who convinced the jury that all the good, solid evidence somehow had a shadow of "reasonable doubt" cast over it because of one or two questionable items. Had the prosecution been smart, they would have made the point: "Police mistakes didn't hurt the defense; they hurt the proseuction by tainting some evidence. But look, even with the screwups, we still have a mountain of facts that prove O.J. did it. Now imagine, without the screwups, how much, much better our case would have been that it is now."