“Innocent until proven guilty” is a legal concept. I’m perfectly free to think he was guilty as all get out.
The only people I saw cheer were some guys in my class (we saw the verdict in school, actually), and most of them were white (and sports-fans). One was of Indian-descent
He was trying it on over a rubber glove, so naturally it wouldn’t fit… The prosecution had ordered a new pair of identical gloves, but they hadn’t arrived yet, and Darden didn’t want to wait any longer.
I remember a joke by Chris Rock that came out years before O.J.'s dumbass “Here’s How I Would Do It” book. He showed a pretend video that O.J. released called “Here’s How I would Do It”. How scary is that?
As for his money running out? My heart bleeds for him.
OK, now I have to bring back what I deleeted above.
Regardless of crime committed or nto committed, one is not guilty until there is a verdict.
Is it hard to imaging a group of law students celebrating the very visible evidnece to the entire world that our justice system does work, and that reasonable doubt and other principles are not just theories, but protect defendant’s rights to a fair adversarial trial?
What can’t they celebrate that, since that is where there careers were headed, even if they believe Simpson committed the crime?
I also remember people noting that he tried it on himself. That is, he could easily just say, “Look, I can’t get it on!” Might have been better to have had someone try to put it on for him. Though again, if it was blood saturated, that might not have done any good.
Sure you are, but we are perfectly free to assume you really mean “I think he killed the victims”, which is fine, but if you really mean “I think the courts convicted him to make him guilty”, well, that is just weird. I will give you the benefit of the doubt, but I am not sure the general public really understands the difference until they find themselves or a loved one in court.
Defense simply argues that if a guy can’t even put on his own glove, a man who made his fame as an athlete with fantastic body control, how can he perform the more complex acts he is accused of?
:: checks skin tone & penises to make sure I’m still black ::
I think he was probably morally guilty but not proven so beyond a reasonable doubt. I find it hard to imagine that his wife could possibly have deserved what was done to her.
OJ was long past the point of having fantastic body control. He was 48 at the time of the trial. He had been retired for 16 years and his last 2 years were average at best.
I think this is an entirely reasonable position, except I would extend it that I would say it is NOT possible that the wife or the waiter deserved what happened regardless of who did it.
I am pretty sure he was capable of pullloing on gloves - if the prosecution opens the door, they had to be prepared for coutner arguments too.
I remember as a kid, I read the aformementinoed Bugliosi’s book “Helter Skelter”.
The one detail I recall to this day was that he said somewhere in there, to the effect that, “A good lawyer never asks a question he doesn’t already know the answer to”.
Failing to follow that advice is what got the prosecution in trouble and kept them there, esp. but no only with the glove.
Having someone else handle the glove would have made it worse.
Oh, piffle. Like I’m the only person on Earth with multiple extensible penises. It’s not like ALL of them fire plasma beams; just the little (14") one. And only the middle one is enchanted so that anyone it penetrates will be impregnated, included dudes. So quit looking shocked.
I was engaging in understatement, of course. I can imagine being angry enough to murder someone, even brutally; I can’t ever imagine being angry enough to hurt my wife in any way shape or form.
And the waiter’s name was Ron Goldman, just as the ex-wife’s name was Nicole. I mention the ex-wife thing because that’s part of the reason the case always pissed me off. Even if Simpson were justified in taking vengeance for being cuckolded, which would not have been, he wasn’t being cuckolded.)
No. Hubby has worked both sides of the legal fence, so to speak, and has no particular loyalty or bias to either side. Frankly, he was horrified by the lack of a smart, professional prosecution and said so early on.
Um, yeah, that’s pretty basic… :rolleyes:
Actually, I think the comment he made at the time was that they were listening to the distant sucking sound of their careers draining away… They knew the case was slipping away long before that verdict came in, I imagine.
I think for a lot of black people (basing this off people I know, anyway), it was some sort of bizarre justice.
The day when a black guy armed with enough money and fancy lawyerin’ can kill two white people and get away with it, is the day it feels like there may some hope for racial equality. Money is finally more important than skin color, which is the way we’ve been perpetuating injustices since the dawn of money. Now if we can only stop rich people from getting away with murder, we’d have some actual justice and equality in the world.
It was a time when little brown faced boys and girls finally could look up to their mothers, truly believing every word, and say, “If I work hard enough, if I’m better than the rest, if I make enough money, when I grow up I can kill all the white people I want.” And it was beautiful.
