I am a 46 white male who believes that O.J. did commit the crime. I also think that O. J. has convinced himself that he didn’t really do it, or “just wasn’t himself” when he killed them.
Actually, I have always wondered if O.J. would have been convicted if no one had brought up Fuhrman and the "N-word " fiasco.
[QUOTE=Walloon]
Motive does not have to be proved, only intent.
[/QUOTE]
I didn’t say they had to prove it, only that there would be one. Unless you’re hypothesizing a complete psychotic break on the part of the killer, there would be a logical motive that made sense somehow. My point remains that even that lawyer cabal couldn’t come up with another suggestion for a killer, not even unnamed.
[QUOTE=Mark Ryle]
From the National District Attorney’s Association:This article is filled with statistics and only about 10 paragraphs, so please read.
[/QUOTE]
You weren’t talking to me, but I’m not seeing your point or any statistics.
[QUOTE=Cardinal]
I didn’t say they had to prove it, only that there would be one. Unless you’re hypothesizing a complete psychotic break on the part of the killer, there would be a logical motive that made sense somehow. My point remains that even that lawyer cabal couldn’t come up with another suggestion for a killer, not even unnamed.
[/QUOTE]
Despite Mark Geragos I’m pretty sure that the defense is not required to produce a murderer but merely prove the prosecution didn’t prove their case.
[QUOTE=Stuffy]
You weren’t talking to me, but I’m not seeing your point or any statistics.
[/QUOTE]
From The Wrongfully Exonerated, Joshua Marquis, District Attorney, Clatsop Co. OR (A version of this originally was published as an Op-Ed in the New York Times)
[QUOTE=brickbacon]
I am sure the 207 freed by the innocence project would disagree.
[/QUOTE]
I’m sure they would. I don’t know if I discussing it with them would be productive though. Their poster girl, Christy Sheppard, says, “When I learned about this innocence commission, all the stars aligned, and I knew that’s what needed to be done."
Is there someone else I could speak with?
It’s mostly because Simpson’s back in the news lately.
I agree Fuhrman was a racist. But he didn’t have the opportunity to plant all of the evidence that was found. It’s not like he carried false evidence around in his trunk and started throwing it around the crime scene when he arrived.
Fuhrman’s racism was irrelevant to the actual facts of the case. But it gave the jury an excuse to ignore the evidence.
I’d say that’s exactly what the jury did. Simpson is a known liar but his reality was convenient and appealing, so they accepted it.
It’s also incredibly insulting and mind-numbingly stupid to assume I said that. Black jurors are certainly capable of rendering a fair verdict. Which is why they should be condemned when they choose not to do so. A Black jury that acquits a Black defendant because of his race is just as wrong as a White jury that acquits a White defendant because of his race.
As individuals, Black jurors and White jurors are both equally wrong when they make their decisions based on race rather than the evidence. But my point was that all racially motivated decisions like this foster racial discord and that Black people, because they are the minority in the United States, suffer more from racial discord then White people do.
A White supremist who advocates race war is a fool anywhere because his ideology is stupid. But a White supremist who’s advocating race war in Kenya or Japan is a lot stupider than a White supremist who’s advocating race war in America. For people in a racial minority, supporting racial tolerance isn’t just a morally good idea, it’s also in their own self-interest.
36, female, white.
He probably did it, I guess. I didn’t follow the trial. I didn’t care. I still don’t care. I hope he was innocent since he was acquitted, and I think he’s obviously a damned fool.
But I’m not taking opinion as fact, so every person on the planet can say that they just know he’s guilty and it doesn’t prove anything.
Some of the African Americans I was with when the guilty verdict was announced cheered - not because they felt O.J. was actually innocent - but because they wanted the greater public to see what injustice felt like “on the other side.” One older man noted a case in South Carolina when a black soldier was blinded and the offender was freed. The offender was a police officer.
I didn’t see all the evidence in the case, but my gut feeling was that he was probably guilty - I based this on the slow car chase and his attitude after the case was over.
I really dislike him since he dared to write about the mother of his children in such a horrific way.
I’m black- female - 49
I
[QUOTE=Wee Bairn]
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.
[/QUOTE]
On a total hijack, this is the reason why my Mother absolutely insisted that I live with the man I plan to marry before I actually do.
I don’t know the circumstances with the Simpson household, but it’s entirely possible to not know a persons violent tendency during the dating process. It’s entirely possible for the man to be in the frame of mind that you court the woman until you are married and then she is yours to do as you please. It can be tremendously difficult to leave an abusive husband, yes even if you didn’t know his true nature beforehand. Social pressures are huge to some people, especially when kids are involved.
I have known a few brave women who have left abusive situations, and a few that have not been that brave. It is a dark road, and I personally don’t care if she knew his violence or not. She should not have to expect to be killed by her ex.
Hijack done.
26 Female - Guilty
hijack/
[QUOTE=Wee Bairn]
I have more sympathy for Goldman who was an innocent bystander than someone who chose to align themselves with an evil bastard.
[/QUOTE]
And Nicole Simpson was not an innocent bystander? She was an evil bastard too, just because she went out with a guy that turned out to be crap? I don’t understand your reasoning here at all.
On preview, what Ludy said.
/hijack
26, female, white, as guilty then as he is now.
I knew this thread would devolve. I was simply looking for facts
Guilty? Y/N
Age
Race
Gender
This was a piss poor duplication of the original surveys. No justifications for views asked, simply your opinion and some demographics. I was hoping to compare it against the earlier surveys to see if opinions have changed.
I expected that, based on previous surveys and polls, that there might be a racial split. I understand that some African-Americans might have viewed the verdict as a way to get back at white people or the police. I know that there were major screw-ups on the side of the prosecution, emotional gamesmanship on the part of the defense and investigative incompetence throughout.
Now we have people calling others naïve, stupid or ignorant. If you want to debate the case, the racial struggles and so on, then please feel free to create a new thread. You want to talk about racist cops, injustice in the legal system, improperly imprisoned/realeased people, then go right ahead, just not here. What I was hoping for here was, in the immortal words of Sgt. Joe Friday, “Just the facts.” Thank you.
White, Male, 66. Guilty as it gets.
Reason for Not Guilty verdict: Biased Jury. They wanted to go home.
[QUOTE=Little Nemo]
It’s mostly because Simpson’s back in the news lately.
[/QUOTE]
Perhaps, but I have noticed over the last decade that OJ Simpson is fallen into the same group as Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, in that whenever their name is brought up, white people tend to get pissed off.
[QUOTE=Little Nemo]
I agree Fuhrman was a racist. But he didn’t have the opportunity to plant all of the evidence that was found. It’s not like he carried false evidence around in his trunk and started throwing it around the crime scene when he arrived.
[/QUOTE]
True, but it wasn’t as though he couldn’t have switched evidence after the fact. I don’t claim to know for sure how he did it, or even if he did it, but knowing that he has done it before and lied on the stand, I can’t trust any of the evidence he had a part in collecting or anything he is testifying about.
[QUOTE=Little Nemo]
Fuhrman’s racism was irrelevant to the actual facts of the case. But it gave the jury an excuse to ignore the evidence.
[/QUOTE]
Bullshit. The reason he planted evidence and beat up “gang members” was partly because they were Black. His racism affected the way he did his job. If the job he has done is being scrutinized, his motivations and biases certainly have to come into play.
[QUOTE=Little Nemo]
I’d say that’s exactly what the jury did. Simpson is a known liar but his reality was convenient and appealing, so they accepted it.
[/QUOTE]
Tell me something consequential that Simpson lied about, that the jury was aware of. Simpson didn’t even take the stand, so they certainly didn’t have an opportunity to even present his reality.
[QUOTE=Little Nemo]
It’s also incredibly insulting and mind-numbingly stupid to assume I said that. Black jurors are certainly capable of rendering a fair verdict. Which is why they should be condemned when they choose not to do so.
[/QUOTE]
And yet you can’t get it through your thick skull that it was a fair verdict. The prosecution did not prove its case, thus he is found not-guilty. That’s how the game works. Unless you are arguing that they did a sufficient job, I don’t see how this is debatable.
[QUOTE=Little Nemo]
A Black jury that acquits a Black defendant because of his race is just as wrong as a White jury that acquits a White defendant because of his race.
[/QUOTE]
Where is your evidence that this was the case in the OJ Simpson trial.
[QUOTE=Little Nemo]
A White supremist who advocates race war is a fool anywhere because his ideology is stupid. But a White supremist who’s advocating race war in Kenya or Japan is a lot stupider than a White supremist who’s advocating race war in America. For people in a racial minority, supporting racial tolerance isn’t just a morally good idea, it’s also in their own self-interest.
[/QUOTE]
Easily one of the worst analogies I’ve ever read. Not only have you failed to offer any evidence that the jury acquitted OJ because of his race, but you have assumed they did so not only to free him, but to make a broader social point. A point that is similar to one a White supremist makes?
[QUOTE=brickbacon]
And yet you can’t get it through your thick skull that it was a fair verdict. The prosecution did not prove its case, thus he is found not-guilty.
[/QUOTE]
The majority of people here believe the prosecution did prove its case. Likewise, most legal analysts agree that the case was proved, even disregarding evidence in which Mark Fuhrman was involved. For example, Simpson’s blood was found inside his Bronco by others, collected by others, and had a known, unbroken chain of possession by others that did not include Fuhrman.
[QUOTE=brickbacon]
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]
When his wife was killed, Blake was a C-list celebrity who hadn’t worked in years. Spector has always been regarded as a nut, by people who even knew who he was; he is/was a big deal in the music industry, but not in the mainstream. Neither of them had outstanding reputations to be tarnished by the accusations made against them.
Prior to 1994, OJ was long regarded as an American success story, an all-around nice guy, a gentleman athlete. The general public, across the board, would probably have continued to regard him as such if people who knew him hadn’t come out of the woodwork to share what they’d seen and heard. Conversely, I don’t know anyone who thinks it’s a miscarriage of justice that Kobe Bryant was not brought to trial, because when that rock was turned over, no bugs came scurrying out.
OJ was on a very high pedestal, and he fell very abruptly. Few people were trying to prop him back up, either. That’s why the fascination.
And there is at least one person decrying the Spector jury.
[QUOTE=brickbacon]
Tell me something consequential that Simpson lied about, that the jury was aware of. Simpson didn’t even take the stand, so they certainly didn’t have an opportunity to even present his reality.
[/QUOTE]
He lied under oath several times at the civil trial about not owning the shoes and gloves that photographs by several photographers proved he did (including at least one photograph that was published before the murders).
[QUOTE=Cat Fight]
Yeah, I just noticed this, too. Because he beat her she should have… divorced him? Oh wait, she did. In 1992.
[/QUOTE]
Actually, Kim Kardishian (his attorney’s daughter) said that a week before the murders, both families went on a vacation to Mexico together because OJ and Nicole were trying to rekindle things. I’m not saying that validates the point that she deserved it or anything, just saying the fact.
Oh, and I’m a 21 year old white female and I think he is incredibly guilty.
Presumption of innocence until proof of guilt. Prosecution badly tainted. Evidence of guilt not 100% reliable. More likely guilty than innocent. Failure to prove it beyond reasonable doubt.
Therefore, not guilty.
White, male.