Then they grew up and found out all the white people were one step ahead and had long ago left town.
No one on this board has had access to all of the material that the jurors had access to and so none of you can really say you know he’s guilty, you may feel he’s guilty but you don’t know because you’re not armed with enough information to know.
If you take a look at http://www.innocenceproject.org you’ll see a list of about 100 people exhonerated for murder after spending significant numbers of years behind bars. These people didn’t have access to lawyers that could match the resources available to the state during their trials, some were tortured into confessing. OJ happened to be in a position to have resources that could match those of the state. Without those resources, he would have been convicted, which has nothing to do with guilt or innocence as the link above illustrates.
Nzinga, Seated, you don’t know every black person and black people aren’t a monolithic group either so your “survey” doesn’t really carry much weight. 
Lastly, in this country there are two standards of justice which is why the poplulation of blacks and latinos in prison for drug offenses are disproportionate to their numbers in the general soceity soceity even when whites, blacks and latinos use drugs at the same rate.
EasyPhil, I AM all black people!
As I am. And yet I am not identical to the you. It’s a trinity thing; one substance, 75 jazillion persons.
This is Brookline we are talking about, not some right wing haven like Berkeley. Osama bin Laden would get a parade in Brookline.
Its a trinity thing? Ha!!! I keep forgetting you are black. How DO you do that? I wear my blackness in front me like a huge neon sign!
Wait. There’s now a black President and a black* Overlord.
Oh, my.
- I already knew you were black.
I can understand a white Brookline audience shrugging and saying, “Well, the prosecution didn’t prove its case.” But celebrating? I have a hard time buying that. What would they have been celebrating, exactly? I understand why a black audience would celebrate OJ beating the rap, but what rooting interest would a white Brookline audience have in that? Doesn’t ring true.
No, no, I gave up the overlording thing now. I just do garden-variety evil now–no more world conquering stuff.
:: turns up the amps on the electric current running through Aquaman for no particular reason ::
Either I’m King of the Whoosh, or my humour is far too tongue-in-cheek.
I wasn’t seriously suggesting “the gloves don’t fit” constituted reasonable doubt. 
Capital-J Justice living to see another day
Sadly, the trial was IIRC televised in it’s entirety, so yes, there are lots of people who know everything the jury knew. What I’ve always been curious about is the evidence that was excluded.
We may not have actually seen him decapitate Nicole and kill Ron, but neither did anybody else. We’re going on available evidence.
Actually, by watching TV, you had access to far MORE than the jury did.
In reality the public had a lot MORE information than the jury, which is one reason people were so stunned by the verdict. A thousand reporters had dug up stuff that never made it into the trial and reported on it. Even the “slow speed chase”, which for some reason the prosecution never mentioned.
You need to get out and meet more black people.
“An NBC poll taken in 2004 reported that, although 77% of 1,186 people sampled thought Simpson was guilty, only 27% of blacks in the sample believed so, compared to 87% of whites. Whatever the exact nature of the “racial divide,” the Simpson case continues to be assessed through the lens of race.”
The poll is here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5139346/
:smack:
But there ARE a lot of morons out there who seriously believe that.
So you’re saying they thought he wasn’t guilty?
Or are you saying they were cheering that a poorly-executed prosecution failed? That seems maybe a reason to decry the prosecution, but a reason to cheer?
Still not buying it.
What do you mean by “Justice?” Please elaborate.
Plenty of smart people too.
If your case hinges on the bloody glove, and you didn’t think to offer evidence, in advance, that the glove would shrink as a result of the blood, and then you are tupid enough to let defendant try on the glove, I’d say anyone that does not find that reasonable doubt in itself is not paying attention, and it casts into doubt everything else that prosecution said before or after, because it was such a simple and profound fuckup entirely of their own making.
Not that the case wasn’t lost long before that, but hell yeah, if I was on a jury, and they claim they have the clothes the killer wore, and they don’t even fit and it is not even close, then what is a juror to infer?
By definition , he was not, and remains, “not guilty”. There is no debating that.
You are asking “did they think he did it” maybe? that is a horse of a different color.
No, I don’t think that was it at all.
For all I or anyone knows, the prosecution actually did the best they could with a poor case.
dunno myself, it is not what I am saying so I dunno.
That concept they teach in Civics Class, Law School 101, and maybe Philosophy.
Very Roughly, the idea that Society is Just in dealing with each other, that trials are fair, and that we strive to reach all that over and above convicting someone falsely. In the US, justice includes the idea that we would rather let 10 guilty men go free than convict one man wrongly, to paraphrase someone, I don’t recall who". A fair trial each time is more important than the result of any individual trial, for example
You will need many books to find more on the concept of Justice, so that is all I will say about it here, and I won’t entertain discussion, as it is necessarily a fortune cookie introduction, if that. But I hope that is at least a start for you.
Don’t be cute. “Guilty” is not just a legal term. But I’ll put a finer point on it if you insist: Were they cheering because they thought he really didn’t kill Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman? (And is that clear enough for you?)
You’re being cute again. What, precisely, do you mean when you say they were cheering for “Justice?” In what way did Simpson’s acquittal serve Justice, in the eyes of a white Brookline audience?
(Frankly, I think your story of cheering white Brookliners is a load, but I’m willing to be convinced if you can give me some rational reason they might have been cheering.)