Who, in this thread, has said both those things?
Mine too. During English, my favorite class, no less. It shows what a pathetic state our nation’s academic culture - the nation’s culture in general - was in that grown effing adults allowed themselves to get personally involved with some soap-operaed celebrity murder trial, a trial relevant to no one but the few involved, enough to interrupt a school/work day just to hear the verdict.
No one here. Those comments just reminded me the sentiments revolving around the trial in general. The arrogant, unquestioning certainty with which people discuss their state-rebuked consensus, combined with their oddly strong opinion and emotional attachment on and to the ultimately insignificant trial and the afformentioned clean racial split of opinion, gives obvious lie to idea that personal racial issues exist, but are being ignored. However, this thread spells it out more blatantly.
That’s funny, I have no idea how your post follows. And I’m confident my response to the whole thing had nothing to do with race.
Anyhoo: I was also in school when the verict was announced (also English class). We didn’t watch it and we had a normal lesson, but the student teacher went out at the end of the period and came back to tell us what happened. He joked that we should diagram this sentence, and then wrote “OJ walked” on the board.
I like what Chris Rock said (paraphrased from memory):
“Black people were jumping up and down screaming “We won! We won!”, What the FUCK did we win? I don’t go out to the mailbox every day and get my OJ prize!”
A lot of people acted very shamefully about that trial. I had an openly racist black teacher that brought in a tv to watch the verdict. She was smiling, giggling, and almost crying tears of joy when he got off, then she turned around and scolded us all when she saw that none of us were quite so happy.
I loved OJ before the murders, I thought he was hilarious in The Naked Gun. I thought for sure the whole thing was a mistake and his name would be cleared, but you just can’t ignore all that evidence.
The prosecution’s actions and the reactions of a whole lot of people after the verdict was read were very, very shameful.
Otto & StarvingArtist & AnyoneElseWhoWantstoPry: some people can keep confidences, some can’t. I ran into someone who could not, but I can. (not that it even matters anymore, OJ was acquitted, and even if he subsequently would publically admit he did it he can’t be prosecuted twice for the same crime) So don’t bother asking. I’m sure, though, if you think real hard, you can figure that there’s only a few people I could have gotten this information from. It was one of them.
Good to know you can keep confidences. Otherwise it would sound like you were making up stuff. 
You’re not exactly Walter Cronkite, you know. You accuse me of prying, but you’re the one who came on here bragging of having “inside information.” Do you think we should believe you just because you’re you. Ain’t gonna happen! If you want to be believed you need to show some credibility, and if you don’t care or don’t want to be believed why did you even post?
Your post raised a couple of questions because it appears contradictory. There has been speculation that Simpson admitted to his first lawyer (the one whose name I can’t remember, I believe it was Howard somebody) that he was guilty and that this is why that particular lawyer dropped him. This lawyer had nothing to do with Simpson’s evidence defense.
Cochran and even Shapiro, who appears to be no particular fan of either Cochran or Simpson, both have said repeatedly that Simpson has never claimed to be anything but innocent. Either this is so, or they are bold-facedly lying.
Therefore, the questions become: which lawyer did Simpson supposedly confess to. And if it was the first one, as virtually all the speculation has it, you or your source are wrong about who made the evidence defense decision.
Again, it’s quite unreasonable of you to come in here claiming to know secrets and inside information regarding Simpson, and then to accuse people who want a little more clarification of prying, especially when your so-called inside information appears not to add up. You don’t have to give the name of the person who told you, but you should provide enough information to make your post credible.
What planet are you from, where keeping confidences involves posting them on public message boards? Keeping something in confidence means keeping your mouth shut – about what you are told, not just who told you. Especially since you yourself point out that there are only a couple of people who **could **have told you.
What is “Benihana”?
I just remember watching it in the library during study hall…and then I saw Kim Goldman just break down sobbing. I felt like vomitting.
Okay, let’s say he didn’t do it. That doesn’t change the fact that he used to beat her, and then tried to say that she used to beat HIM.
Yeah, right. Asshole.
“Benihana” is a restaurant chain where the customers sit around the chef and watch the meal being prepared. Many of the chefs have flashy moves with butcher knives – slicing up cuts of meat or fish.
Revtim, Baldwin – I also was at work when the verdict was announced. Someone had hauled in a TV for the occasion and we all gathered 'round; dozens of white people and no black people; this was in LA. Will you believe me when I tell you we all heaved a huge sigh of relief, because we expected more riots if he had been convicted?
I did not watch the interview, so I have a few questions:
(1) Was OJ asked about his hunt for the “real” killer? I remember that OJ made a vow to search for the miscreant after his trial was over. In any case…what gives?
(2) Does Kato Kaelin still have semi-celebrity status?
(3) OJ’s near moronic son (whom I have alwys suspected was his accomplic in the murders)…is this guy in trouble with the law?
(4) Ron Goldman’s father (who broke doen in tears during the trial)…is he still alive?
Inquiring minds want to know? 
Glad you’re having a good time. As it happens, my own reaction to the trial had nothing to do with race. I don’t like seeing a rich man get away with murder, which is what seemed to be happening. However, as a bleeding-heart liberal, I’d rather see a guilty man walk than see an innocent man railroaded, so I wasn’t actually pissed off that much by the trial itself, but by the reaction of my black coworkers – because either they believed in ridiculous conspiracy theories, or they didn’t care whether he was a murderer or not.
Every year, (and not just in Texas) people who don’t have the means to hire famous attorneys are railroaded into jail sentences they don’t deserve because the criminal justice system doesn’t work the way it’s supposed to. Black people, white people, but definitely poor people. Simpson was a rich man who discovered his blackness when it became expedient to use it to paint himself as a victim.
Definitely. I remember the rioting here in Atlanta when the cops in the Rodney King case were acquitted; it was a lot worse in LA, apparently, and I can only imagine what would have happened if Simpson had been convicted.
The Toronto Sun did not print the enlightening interview with Greta Van S., but they did have a boffo interview with O.J.'s frustration with no longer being able to afford, on the tenth year anniversary of Nicole’s murder, to be able to pay a posse to “follow leads” and to help find the real killer. It’s so hard to understand why this isn’t his highest priority. :rolleyes:
I didn’t think I was bragging; I didn’t intend to. Just fighting ignorance by relaying a little-known truth. I guess my reference to “prying” was inappropriate: sincere apologies. Your query was reasonable.
Again, to fight ignorance. Some will take me at my word, for those who don’t, it’s their choice. Some people won’t believe no matter what evidence you post, others will believe anything. I believe this info is true because of where I got it, but it is word-of-mouth.
I was not told which lawyer. In retrospect, it would seem to be the lawyer who made the last (winning) defense. It’s also reasonable to assume that my information (since word of mouth) had some inaccuracies.
I can’t provide any more information than I have without endangering people’s careers. What I posted was true, as posted. It doesn’t make much difference if it’s not, but I felt the American pople had a right to know the truth. Sorry if it’s not your cup of tea. OJ did take a polygraph test that indicated he was lying. I was told he subsequently admitted to the atty who provided his defense based on police mishandling that he did the crime, and that’s why the atty presented the case as he did.
FWIW, the lie detector test came up at the civil trial. Daniel Petrocelli seemed to think that Simspon scored a minus 22. Simpson said it didn’t happen “as far as he knew.”
Ummm, wasn’t the kid like 6 when the murders happened?
“I’m gonna kill you mommy! I’m gonna kill you and then you’re gonna watch Sesame Street with me and read me a bedtime story goddamnit!”
OJ had older children from a previous marriage. Two of them would’ve been in their 20s at the time of the murders.
Thank you. And thanks also for the further explanation re peoples’ careers, etc. I understand your position better now.