White guy 55. Guilty as sin.
John DiFool you might want to pick up a copy of MurderOutrage: The Five Reasons Why O.J. Simpson Got Away With Murder for a good look inside the case.
OJ Framed? You bet we did, Framin’ OJ :rolleyes:
“All these people”? Ten posts of 81 total.
Well there is a different standard of proof in a civil trial, more likely than not vs. beyond a reasonable doubt. That makes it way easier to prove guilt or responsibility than in a criminal trial. In addition the later trial was in a different venue. If the first trial had taken place where the crime took place instead of dowtown L.A., to make it more convenient for the D.A.'s to get to court, he never would have had a chance.
I am not saying you are wrong, but those twelve people on the jury missed out on a lot of evidence that the public knew about, of course they also missed out on Fuhrman taking the 5th Amendment so maybe that evens out, but there was a lot they did not know.
The idea that O.J. would have been risking everything for no tangible benefit is one of the reasons why there are lesser penalties prescribed for murders committed in the heat of passion, because the perpetrator is not thinking clearly. I am not saying O.J. falls into this category, I am just saying that such events occur on a daily basis.
White
Male
45
Don’t know because I MISSED* the trial by living in Japan in the pre-internet days. I got a three minute summary from my bother after it was all finished. I managed to memorize another 300 kanji during the time I would have spent watching it, though.
*Sorry, just had to rub in it. I also missed the Clinton and what’s her name thing as well. Ignorance is bliss, I reckon.
The trial was in 1995; when did Japan get the Internet?
Most people, black and white, “know” that Simpson did it because the evidence is pretty overwhelming. The jury chose to acquit him despite this evidence. The jurors get handed the stupid sign because they apparently believed that acquitting one guilty black man would somehow be a partial payback for all of the innocent black men and women who were convicted by white jurors.
The case should have been decided on its own merits. But if the need to make a broader social statement was irresistable, the jury would have been smarter to have convicted Simpson. That would have shown white people an example of black people looking beyond race. Instead, the jurors gave the impression that black people will side with other black people in a dispute with white people, regardless of what the facts are. Obviously there are numerous examples of white jurors (and other white people) doing the exact same thing. But the bottom line is that black people can’t afford to foster an “us vs them” racial divide. There are many more white people than black people in this country and black people are going to lose any cross-racial conflict.
Summer of 94’. I was in Hawaii, Australia, and Japan all at the same time (okay, kidding). And I remember vividly how they had trial coverage in Australia. It’s vivid because it was a real “wtf” sort of thing. I thought I’d be getting away from it. I don’t remember about Japan though, I was in Australia well over a month, and Japan only a little over a week.
Hispanic male, age 29, guilty.
My dad is a retired LAPD detective, and he was ashamed to be associated with the LAPD during the trial. There’s no excuse for the way the evidence was handled, and such an obvious racist like Fuhrman should never have been an officer, much less in charge of O.J.'s case. It was a fiasco, and while my family was disappointed that he got off, it was hardly much of a surprise.
I am British and I have no idea what this comment is supposed to mean. Could you elucidats, DataZak? It sounds to me dangerously close to a racial slur. For the record, I followed the case avidly and so did a great many friends and colleagues of mine, including many British people. I think we’re well aware on these Boards of the dangers of unsafe extrapolation. To leap from one moment, on one tube station in London to what seems to be a generalised slur about ‘indifference’ concerning the population of the British Isles seems to me to be at least unhelpful and at worst rather disparaging and racist. But I am open to correction.
Two additional points. Your tag says you are Malay. I’ve been to Malaysia and I loved the place. Can’t wait to get back there. Second of all, in terms of British people caring or not caring about this case, I’m British and I followed the OJ case to the extent of visiting LA and getting a friend of mine to drive me round to the scenes of OJ’s home and where the crime was committed. Is that taking a sufficient level of interest for you?
Answering the OP…
Do I think OJ did it? My answer is: I don’t know.
I have to go where the evidence leads me. I don’t have any first-hand knowledge or experience to indicate ‘guilty’. No-one saw OJ do it. There was a very lengthy and detailed criminal trial, and a jury who sat through all of the testimony and evidence came back with a not guilty verdict. So I don’t have any reason to believe otherwise.
OJ did some things that might be considered suspicious, or the actions of a guilty man. But innocent people often do. There was a civil trial, yes, but the required degree of proof or evidence is lesser than it is for a criminal trial. There are many accounts in the popular media advancing the view that OJ was guilty, but I know better than to trust accounts in the popular media, because I know how ill-informed and biased they can be. And I know that popular opinion supports the ‘guilty’ view, but then again ‘popular opinion’ supports the notion that astrology works and that there is a God - and I disagree on both counts, again because I go where the evidence leads me.
So: don’t know, and no reason to believe he’s guilty.
Male, white, 46.
White male 50. Guilty. The dictionary should have his picture next to the word “guilty”. I don’t know if the verdict was based on race or if the jurors were actually halfwits. The evidence was overwhelming but the prosecution goofed big time by allowing him to try that glove on over a latex glove. The friction between the two gloves would be enough to make that very difficult and when you combine that with even his meager acting skills it was enough to set up the famous “if it don’t fit, you must acquit” line. Not sure it would have made a difference with that jury, but the photos of him wearing those rare and expensive shoes that made the bloody footprints didn’t emerge until after the trial.
White Male, 43. I think he is guilty and I think he enjoyed doing it.
White, female, 46. 95% sure he’s guilty; 100% positive that he was (A) there when it happened and (B) masterminded it if it was someone else that did it. Does that make sense? Probably not.
VCNJ~
Female, white, 29.
I agree with Chris Rock:
Sums it up for me.
It may have gotten there about that time, but I was on a local usenet. I read a few articles in the newspaper and Newsweek, but it wasn’t big news here (OJ Who?) so the local papers didn’t cover it.
I got my first internet account in about '96 or '97, back when we had to walk to school through the snow, uphill both ways.
Female, 30. Black American.
I think he’s guilty, but I agree that the prosecution failed and that the verdict was just. For a while, I was firmly in the “Don’t Know” camp, but based on his recent behavior, I’d have to say that he’s acting quite guilty.
I read the book written by the lawyer who won the civil verdict. He staged a fake trial before the real one, and lost. He found that the demographic “older black women” would not convict, regardless of the evidence.
White male, 51. Come on.
Regards,
Shodan
I don’t think there are many true innocents behind bars for life. Maybe they didn’t do the thing they are serving time for, but chances are, they deserve to be there.
White, 56, male, guilty.
Whaddaya mean? He found the real killers’ suit! It was in Vegas!
(Thanks to Craig Ferguson for that one!)
That’s a pretty broad brush you’re using there, brickbacon. I am a white person who hopes that Phil Spector is found guilty.