My wife was in the hospital at around the time the verdict was announced, and her roomate - an African-American woman - and her family were absolutely convinced that he was innocent and was framed by the police. They actually badgered some poor nurse to agree that he was innocent, and the nurse begged out by claiming that she hadn’t really followed it.
There was a joke about it on the Dave Chapelle Show I think. That’s the only time before this I’ve heard the notion that black people think OJ is innocent more than white people do.
Bolding added.
Exactly. Rodney King was seen locally as being typical, not unusual. Scandals over racial issues had rocked the LA department for years. When Fuhrman was shown to be a declared bigot, the plausibility of a frameup was enhanced. Recall that Fuhrman had responded to the scene when OJ actually attacked and struck Nicole, some time before. Showing him to be a self-declared “n- hater”, and given his prominence in the early investigation of the murders, suspicion of both his motives and his evidence was not terribly out of place.
I think I’m one of the few who refused to be sucked into the trial. I never watched any of it. Still, I was of course aware of it. I just remember—vividly—coming out of a big interview I had up in Boston. OJ was the last thing on my mind. I had just walked about 50 yards toward a hot dog truck when people exploded in both celebration, and moans. Some were jumping up in down screaming in glee, the others were shaking their heads in disgust. I had a lot on my mind having just met with 5 people and contemplating an actual move to Boston, and I was at a complete loss. Especially since it seemed that the black people were jubilant and the whites dejected. Then I heard people talking about the glove, etc.
I don’t know if the black people thought he was guilty and were just happy he beat the system, but it was exceedingly odd. Read into that what you will.
I’m a white guy and I entertained the idea for a while at the time as a plausible alternative - as in “If OJ didn’t do it, his behavior suggests he’s covering for the person who did, and the person most likely to be mad enough to do the killing AND have OJ cover for him is his son.” I thunk it up myself; I wasn’t aware anyone had seriously proposed it. Following his more recent book fiasco and subsequent lunacy in Las Vegas, however, I think he’s thoroughly erased whatever tiny benefit of the doubt I might have been prepared to give him.
I also think the police and prosecution really, really screwed the pooch on the whole investigation and trial. Shoddy work all around.
That was one of the things that made a frame-up so implausible. When OJ and the LAPD interacted before, when he beat up Nicole, the po-pos bent over backwards to treat him well.
There I suspect you have put your finger on the big problem with the verdict - large elements of the community are prepared to overlook murder, and endorse a theory of a frame-up that is impossible - to get back at the LAPD.
Regards,
Shodan
Chapelle on OJ: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=759SCBcUxto
Wait, wait, wait…
If OJ’s guilty, how come the gloves didn’t fit him?
I think that is more a problem of how domestic violence was treated than a sign of respect for the African American community.
When you have a police force that was seen by significant parts of the community it was meant to protect and serve as being corrupt, racist and incapable of giving an African American a fair shake, it is not surprising that major doubts arise as to high profile investigations. Yes the prosecutors made mistakes in the trial but it was the behavior of certain elements of the LAPD that created the environment that let Johnny Cochrane come across so well. And that includes not just the police who were actively racist/corrupt, but those who stood by and protected them through the code of silence.
It seems that a full fledged frame-up was impossible (of the type of OJ did not do it, but Furmann et al decided to make it look like he did), but that is looking at things with hindsight. That’s also, I think, a very small percentage of the type of frame-ups (using the term much more broadly, possibly too broadly) that go on. Evidence is much more likely to be enhanced, to make sure the person the cop is certain is guilty gets convicted. I’ve seen it happen on a smaller scale. Once that happens, or once people believe it may well have happened, it isn’t a huge step to reasonable doubt…
This.
So many people were so emotionally invested in the trial and the coverage was so extensive, that it’s really no surprise that immediately afterwards you could find jubilant/outraged black/white people. Put enough people on camera and you’ll eventually gets lots of whatever you want to show.
In the ensuing years, though, it’s cooled off. The only times it comes up are when someone makes a throwaway joke about getting away with a crime or when somebody has an axe to grind. I have heard exactly 2 black people say that they thought OJ was innocent and about 5 white people who have expressed outrage over his acquittal. All of these folks were older and had strong politcal beliefs involving race that seemed to color their perceptions of things. Anecdotes do not equal evidence, etc. but it seems that festering white outrage is as much a myth as lingering black gloating.
If you walk into your kid’s room and he is sitting there, joint in hand, cloud of smoke around him, do you question everyone else in the neighborhood to find out how weed got into your house? “You know, son, before I punish you, I should explore and dismiss all alternate theories of this crime”.
I know that the prosecution has the burden, but damn, what more did they need? There were two dead bodies, and the guy that they were looking at had blood, the victim’s blood, in his car, house, property, etc. He left his glove, his blood, and his same sized giant shoe prints at the scene.
As long as he never made the mistake of leaving his money in most places available to the rest of us.
And would you simply accept that where you can live is limited, that your debts will remain, and your future earning power, at the peak of your career, will drop to zero for the rest of your life? Would anyone be fine with that really?
Personally I’m not even convinced that the police & prosecution made major errors, as compared to any other investigation & trial. Most people make errors all the time, and no one is perfect. In my experience, even when professionals have official procedures that are supposed to be followed, it’s common for actual adherence to be slack. I suspect that most investigations and trials have more or less the same amount of errors and sloppiness as OJ’s did.
Where OJ differed from the others was 1) a high-priced legal team that could afford to dig up every single inconsistency and instance of sloppy work, 2) a very sympathetic jury that was willing to stretch all these into a “frame-up”.
[quote=“spoke-, post:58, topic:496474”]
Re: the OP
I was in a restaurant in Brookline Massachussetts at the same time, probably 50 people there, few if any blacks, and the same eruption occurred. So what?
This is a good point.
Honestly? They were leather, soaked with a fair amount of blood, then stored for a long time. Wet leather tightens up considerably. Plus he was wearing latex gloves to try them on, which might have made even a well-fitting pair of leather gloves more difficult to put on.
I remember Robert Kardashian’s face when the verdict was read- he looked like he was going to faint. I think he knew damned well that OJ did it- it was Kardashian who disposed of at least one gym bag full of stuff for OJ (on camera, no less). I always wondered if the only reason Kardashian was on the defense team was to insure that he couldn’t be called to tesitfy…
What?
-
OJ could live anywhere he wanted to live. Who was stopping him?
-
Is OJ debt-ridden, besides the judgment against him from the civil trial?
-
Even if I cannot earn another penny, that $25,000 I get EVERY FUCKING MONTH should take care of my needs.
And who knew 15 years later the Kardashian kids would have a reality TV show?
I don’t run my house like a courtroom, so I don’t know what else you need.
If you are asking if your testimony alone as to what you saw will be sufficient evidence to convict in some future trial, I’d guess not, given the nature and purpose of the adversarial system we have.
I know that the prosecution has the burden, but damn, what more did they need? There were two dead bodies, and the guy that they were looking at had blood, the victim’s blood, in his car, house, property, etc. He left his glove, his blood, and his same sized giant shoe prints at the scene.
[/QUOTE]
That is the direct testimony sure, but the defense is allowed to, and apparently sufficiently DID impeach it, casting doubt as to its truthfulness and/or persuasiveness in the eyes of the jury.
Otherwise why even have a fair trial?
Neither side did anything tricky, it was all out in the open. The prosecution either dropped the ball in fixing their impeached evidence or introducing new unimpeachable evidence, or they didn’t realize how badly the evidence had been impeached. Personally, I think the latter.
While I haven’t read any books on the subject, I wonder if that was because they deliberately chose to cut themselves off or ignore the analysis that that was happening that was from the media, and their internal staff either couldn’t or wouldn’t risk taking a stand to make plain what was happening.
People forget one of the lawyers who was supposed to be a prosecutor had a heart attack and did not work on the case much after that. I think most of his role went to Darden.