I just wish he hadn’t done it. That and the whole Monica Lewinsky thing really stank up the 90’s
That and the retro 70’s fashions, and the Jerry Springer Show, and the Don Simpson explosion movies, and the middle-class excess (big houses, big SUV’s, big BBQ grills). Aw, to hell with it. It was a stinky decade anyway.
[QUOTE=Larry Borgia]
Of course he’s guilty. What does my age gender or ethnicity have to do with it?
[/QUOTE]
I mentioned in a previous post that I was just trying to make a pseudo-scientific poll and just wanted to see how the views broke along different demographics. My friend feels it is a foregone conclusion that everyone believes OJ is guilty.
[QUOTE=brickbacon]
I’m sorry, I don’t mean to hi-jack this thread, but for years white people have been saying that this particular case really pissed the off because it was a miscarriage of justice. Yet we have all the people admitting that the prosecution did not prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt and that the cops may have planted evidence. Where was all this when the verdict came out? I don’t see how anyone who believes this can be mad that he was found not guilty. That’s the way it is supposed to work. Finding somebody guilty because you “think” they “probably” did it is a miscarriage of justice.
This case pissed many white people off because a black guy murdered a white women. I don’t see white people pissed about Phil Spector (who will probably get off). Instead of insinuating “non-whites” are stupid for thinking OJ didn’t do it, we should probably examine why so many people know for sure that he did do it.
*Black male, 25, thinks he’s guilty.
[/QUOTE]
I’m sorry but I have to disagree with you. I’m pissed that he got away with murder. Like I also said, I think Robert Blake did it as well as Spector. Race has nothing to do with it.
There was evidence and information distributed on the evening news that was not presented to the jury. The prosecution fucked up, repeatedly. The defense manipulated the proceedings like someone from Boston Legal. LAPD looked like a cross between the Gestapo and the Keystone Kops. Some jurors, only two of whom had college degrees, later admitted that they confused DNA with blood type. What should have been a slam-dunk became an air ball.
The miscarriage of justice here is the fact that the defense twisted events (notably the gloves, but also the DNA evidence, the “race card”, the timeline and so on) while the prosecution let them get a way with it. The jury selection process should have been a big clue to Clark and Darden about how Cochran was going to play things.
At no point (and you can look through my posts) do I insinuate that “non-whites” are stupid for thinking he didn’t do it no more than I think that whites who think he is innocent are idiots. People based their opinions on their interpretation of the evidence they are presented with, both at the time of the trial and afterwards. I was sure that there would be whites that believed he was not guilty just as I was sure there would be people of other races who believed that was guilty.
[QUOTE=ianzin]
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.
[/QUOTE]
I read that comment more as “they might have cared, but were trained to not let that show externally” rather than “they truly were apathetic about the outcome of the case”. If it were meant as the former, yeah it’s stereotypical but not all stereotypes imply negative characteristics: if it were the latter, i’d say it was bordering a racial slur like you said.
Male, Black, 38
Guilty, and thought so at the time too. I also admit to being amused that white people still lose it over this case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DataZak
The platform was crowded with people waiting to go home but other than me, no one else gave a shit. Or maybe they were just being British.
Ianzin says: 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. "
I should not speak for datazak, but I did not interpret his comment to mean that the British are indifferent to murder. He offered two options for the seeming lack of interest:
I think the possibility that “they were being British” refers to the traditional reputation of the British for being reserved. As a non-British person I can’t say for sure that this reputation is deserved, but it is one that is quite prevalent and I certainly would not take offense if that characteristic were applied (incorrectly I would think) to Americans. I am not even offended when we are referred to as loud-mouths.
I have to say I watched every minute of the trial but I never went to the scene of the crime or anything even tough I lived less than 100 miles away. Why the fascination?
[QUOTE=ITR champion]
Not guilty.
White male.
My reasons for this belief are twofold. Firstly, twelve people who know a great deal more about the case than I ever will all agreed that he was not guilty, and all seemed quite sure about their opinions. Secondly, it makes no sense that a man with money, popularity, celebrity, and generally everything he could want would chance throwing it all away on an extremely risky murder that brought no tangible benefit to himself.
[/QUOTE]
IIRC at least of couple of the 12 didn’t understand the difference between same blood type (1 in 10 or so chance) and same DNA (1 in a billion).
This same man also just allegedly risked his freedom for some footballs and jerseys, so we clearly aren’t dealing with a sane person. Also many many other rich people have ruined their lives doing stupid things- Rae Carruth had his pregnant girlfriend killed to keep from paying child support, for example.
He’s absolutely guilty, there is not one shred of evidence pointing to his innocence! A cut hand, not where he said he was, he tried to flee, blood- where is the reasonable doubt? Oh yes, one of the 50 detectives there has used the word nigger before, and OJ stretched his hands to make it look like the glove didn’t fit- gotcha.
I hate to say it, but my only problem with the murder is the killing of Ron Goldman. I unfortunately look at the killing of his wife as you lie with dogs, you get fleas.
And many of the black people I know who says he’s innocent don’t really mean he didn’t do it, they mean, for whatever reason, he shouldn’t be jailed for doing it- she had it coming, or whites have gotten away with killing blacks for a long time, etc, or Rodney King, Robert Blake, etc..
[QUOTE=denquixote]
I think the possibility that “they were being British” refers to the traditional reputation of the British for being reserved.
[/QUOTE]
Never heard it used as an expression before, but I’d say that’s it. The same way theatre actors and comedians are sometimes confused while performing in the UK, getting what they think is a ‘cold’ reception during their performance and then glowing reviews afterwards. Anyway… OJ, huh?
[QUOTE=Stuffy]
I also admit to being amused that white people still lose it over this case.
[/QUOTE]
Wish I could say I was amused by it. The OJ obsession makes me want to holler and throw up my hands.
Wee Bairn says
So, if you marry a man and he starts beating up on you, then, um, you chose him, so never mind? You deserve it? And if later, after you leave him, he comes and kills you, oh well you chose him?
[QUOTE=kayT]
Wee Bairn says
So, if you marry a man and he starts beating up on you, then, um, you chose him, so never mind? You deserve it? And if later, after you leave him, he comes and kills you, oh well you chose him?
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I just noticed this, too. Because he beat her she should have… divorced him? Oh wait, she did. In 1992. Left the country illegally with her kids? Never slept with another man? One of the (many) tragedies of this case is that the racial aspect overwhelmed everything else, including the very real problem of domestic violence in the United States, where women are more likel to be killed by their boyfriend, husband or ex than a stranger, and the way it still endangers women who’ve managed to leave their abusers.
[QUOTE=Wee Bairn]
I unfortunately look at the killing of his wife as you lie with dogs, you get fleas.
[/QUOTE]
Actually, with products containing fipronil (Frontline) and imidacloprid (Advantage) on the market, it is no longer a given that lying with a dog implies exposure to external parasites.
[QUOTE=vetbridge]
Actually, with products containing fipronil (Frontline) and imidacloprid (Advantage) on the market, it is no longer a given that lying with a dog implies exposure to external parasites.
[/QUOTE]
And with the help of selamectin (Revolution), you can leave your worries behind about catching internal parasites, too!
[QUOTE=BobLibDem]
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
[/QUOTE]
It didn’t. Several jurors said that the jury realized that wearing one glove over another affected the fit, and that a person can fake an a tight fit by how he puts the glove on.
[QUOTE=you with the face]
And with the help of selamectin (Revolution), you can leave your worries behind about catching internal parasites, too!
[/QUOTE]
Hey, you with the face! hehe. I’ll avoid internal parasite exposure by limiting fecal/oral exposure, thanyouverymuch! 
[QUOTE=Little Nemo]
Most people, black and white, “know” that Simpson did it because the evidence is pretty overwhelming.
[/QUOTE]
The evidence is tainted because to rely on it, we must trust a guy is a proven racist who has, in all likelihood, planted evidence before.
We should trust this guy that OJ is guilty? Sorry, but while I think OJ is in fact guilty, you can’t trust the evidence when the lead detective is a a piece of garbage like Fuhrman. The evidence, at least that which a rational person can trust, was not overwhelming.
[QUOTE=Little Nemo]
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.
[/QUOTE]
These people are not stupid at all. In fact, they did exactly what any fair person would have done in their shoes. You cannot trust the reality a known liar tries to present to you, regardless of have convenient or appealing it may be.
[QUOTE=Little Nemo]
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.
[/QUOTE]
What a bunch of horseshit this is. Who do you think convicts all these Black people in urban areas? Do you think they ship in a group of White people in order to get a “fair”, “impartial” jury? It is incredible insulting and mind-numbingly stupid to assume Black people are incapable of issuing a fair verdict.
[QUOTE=Mark Ryle]
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.
[/QUOTE]
Cite? I am sure the 207 freed by the innocence project would disagree. You are talking out of your ass based on some misguided impression you have that no regular people find themselves in those situations. However, that is demonstrably false.
[QUOTE=Cat Fight]
Yeah, I just noticed this, too. Because he beat her she should have… divorced him? Oh wait, she did. In 1992. Left the country illegally with her kids? Never slept with another man? One of the (many) tragedies of this case is that the racial aspect overwhelmed everything else, including the very real problem of domestic violence in the United States, where women are more likel to be killed by their boyfriend, husband or ex than a stranger, and the way it still endangers women who’ve managed to leave their abusers.
[/QUOTE]
I have more sympathy for Goldman who was an innocent bystander than someone who chose to align themselves with an evil bastard. I am assuming that he would have shown himself to be an evil bastard before the marraige and kids, based on his activites since the murder- probably on the first or second date. Now, if until about 1991 or so OJ was the perfect person and husband, then I’m wrong, but somehow I think he’s been vile since birth.
In retrospect, though, I should have said “my main problem…”, not “only problem”- no one deserves death for ending a relationship.
[QUOTE=monstro]
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.
[/QUOTE]
I’ll echo this post in its entirety.
I mean, except that I’m 32 and male. But everything else. 
[QUOTE=erie774]
I’m sorry but I have to disagree with you. I’m pissed that he got away with murder. Like I also said, I think Robert Blake did it as well as Spector. Race has nothing to do with it.
[/QUOTE]
Perhaps it does not in your case, but the fascination and publicity surrounding the OJ far exceeded threat of Robert Blake’s or Phil Spector’s. How many op-eds do you see talking about either of these cases? How many people do you see decry those cases as miscarriages of justice, and insinuating that the juries were stupid. To say the disparity can be completely explained by non-racial factors is a little naive in my opinion.
[QUOTE=erie774]
There was evidence and information distributed on the evening news that was not presented to the jury. The prosecution fucked up, repeatedly. The defense manipulated the proceedings like someone from Boston Legal. LAPD looked like a cross between the Gestapo and the Keystone Kops.
[/QUOTE]
So why was it wrong for the jury to acquit him? Do you think the LAPD deserved some of the scorn heaped upon them? Don’t you think beating up gang members until they “twitched”, planting evidence and calling Black people niggers are Gestapo-like things to do? You also have cops like this whose presence was felt by citizens living in the area too. I don’t see why you think the cops in this isolated area don’t deserve the unflattering comparisons they were subjected to. Of course there are differences, but calling a spade a spade should not be discouraged because it makes people feel uncomfortable. The defense team didn’t have to manipulate anything. They had the guy on tape!
[QUOTE=erie774]
Some jurors, only two of whom had college degrees, later admitted that they confused DNA with blood type. What should have been a slam-dunk became an air ball.
[/QUOTE]
And remember that this was the mid 90’s. I’m not so sure the majority of people in that day would have as clear an understanding of DNA as people would now. Even now, I don’t think most people know all about DNA, they just know they should trust it.
[QUOTE=erie774]
The miscarriage of justice here is the fact that the defense twisted events (notably the gloves, but also the DNA evidence, the “race card”, the timeline and so on) while the prosecution let them get a way with it. The jury selection process should have been a big clue to Clark and Darden about how Cochran was going to play things.
[/QUOTE]
And almost all of those things had a place in the trial. Why shouldn’t his defense team bring up race when the lead detective is a racist who beats up Black suspects, plants evidence, and calls us niggers? It would be professionally derelict for his defense to not “play the race card”. I believe it was the prosecution who instructed OJ to try on the glove. Should his defense team not bring up the fact that the glove did not fit? As much as I think the prosecution really blew it, it isn’t their fault they had to deal with a lazy, stupid cops that were destroyed on the stand.
[QUOTE=erie774]
At no point (and you can look through my posts) do I insinuate that “non-whites” are stupid for thinking he didn’t do it no more than I think that whites who think he is innocent are idiots. People based their opinions on their interpretation of the evidence they are presented with, both at the time of the trial and afterwards. I was sure that there would be whites that believed he was not guilty just as I was sure there would be people of other races who believed that was guilty.
[/QUOTE]
But throughout this thread people have implied that to believe he’s not guilty is stupid. I think you should you realize that starting a thread with a title “Anyone think OJ is not a killer” is a little condescending to people who don’t think he is, and that any discussion advanced from that starting point is bound to exacerbate that.
[QUOTE=brickbacon]
Cite? I am sure the 207 freed by the innocence project would disagree. You are talking out of your ass based on some misguided impression you have that no regular people find themselves in those situations. However, that is demonstrably false.
[/QUOTE]
From the National District Attorney’s Association:
This article is filled with statistics and only about 10 paragraphs, so please read.