Do I need to explain the difference between ‘innocent’ and ‘not guilty’? These terms are not really synonymous.
I didn’t see the interview, so I can’t comment on that.
A little light reading I just dug up… interview or not, the evidence says the man did it. Perhaps the prosecution screwed up (e.g. try on this glove) and let a murderer walk, but that doesn’t change what the evidence says.
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/Simpson/simpson.htm
The prosecution pretty much dropped the ball at every step. And they didn’t get much help from the coroner or the cops.
Christ, they may as well of let Hamilton Burger run the prosecution.
The fact that Paila Zahn gave this guy yet another forum for his bullshit drops her completely off the scale of legitimate newspeople and right down into the Springer/Lake section.
I used to think that OJ was guilty, now I am sure. I believe that if you tell yourself a lie over and over, eventually you will believe it. I know it works, I have done it to myself.
I thought at first that this is what OJ had done- convinced himself that he was innocent. Now I think he may actually be clinically insane, or psychotic. Nicole was stalking him? Oh for Christ’s sweet sake.
And J. J.- all the conspiracy theory stuff is fun, but I believe all the things you noted have been refuted numerous times. The one I remember best- the suspicion that the knife, the clothes he was wearing that night and maybe other evidence (run money?) were in an overnight-type or garment-type bag, which you can clearly see Robert Kardashian carrying away to dispose of! It’s on video! Kardashian was only on the legal team so that he couldn’t be called to testify against Orenthal. I believe that Kardashian looked in the bag and knew that OJ did it. Did you catch the look on Kardashian’s face when they read the not-guilty verdict in the criminal trial? He was horrified, he couldn’t believe it. (Guy quit practicing to avoid sanctions by the Bar, if I remember correctly- no cite, just memory, so take that part with a hunk of salt)
Don’t forget about that low-speed chase and the note they read to the media. I tore myself away from watching the Rangers march to the Cup that year to hear Shapiro read what I was convinced was a suicide note from OJ.
He did it, his “only” punishment is ostracization (is this a word? You know what I mean). He might as well be wearing a scarlet letter. I still feel awful for his kids, though.
Oh, and Orenthal? Happy birthday asshole!
Sorry, but it doesn’t work that way. Attorney-client confidentiality would prevent Kardashian from testifying about anything O.J. told him about the case, but would certainly not prevent him from being made to answer questions about any evidence he personally had in his possession or had seen.
Additionally, no attorney in his right mind would ever knowingly hide or destroy murder evidence in the manner you suggest. Not only is it a huge violation of the professional ethics and criminal law, but he’d be running a huge risk because the guilty defendant could easily confess and get the lawyer tossed in jail too. Kardashian may have worked for a scumbag of a client, but that in no way implies that he was complicit covering up O.J.'s guilt.
minty green, I am usually the first person to defend the legal profession from shitty stereotypes and lame jokes.
Having said that, I disagree with the idea that no lawyer in his “right mind” would taint, destroy, dispose of or otherwise tamper with evidence in a murder case. I don’t think it happens every day, or even every year, but I think it happens. Not smart or acceptable, but plausible. Unfortunately, violations of criminal law and professional ethics happen every day.
Fact note- I’m sure you are right about what he could & could not be compelled to testify about, I wasn’t thinking. Got caught up in an “Orenthal-bashing moment!” 
Okey doke, fine by me if you want to recast my point to read “Robert Kardashian would have to be out of his mind to hide or destroy evidence of O.J.'s guilt.” Seriously, there’s no way Kardashian would be that stupid, what with a desperate client facing a possible death penalty and a mountain of evidence showing he’s guilty as sin. That’s a recipe for plea bargain and confession. It’s not the sort of situation where any sane lawyer would risk jail and disbarment by destroying evidence. Barn doors and cows, eh?
Um, ok, but I didn’t recast your point, I just disagreed with it. I didn’t even bring RK back into the discussion. I just think that there are indeed lawyers out there who will tamper with or otherwise compromise evidence. The question of their mental health is what’s at issue, I guess.
Sorry, my bad. Never mind.
And just to work back towards the OP- maybe in the first day or two, OJ was a “desperate” client. But I think after that, he got an iron grip on his version of events (“it wasn’t me, baby”) and won’t ever let go. This man convinced himself that there was no way that jury would convict him, and damn it, he was right.
Funny, I always thought that OJ was a bad actor… 
I think it is very distasteful and tiresome to keep insulting the intelligence and/or integrity of the Simpson trial jury. If you simply assume the jury must have been racist because most of the jurors were black, and you have no evidence that any of them ever made a racist statement or espoused racist views, then you may be a racist yourself. (prejudice: pre-judging someone without knowing them individually) And remember, the prosecution had an equal part in picking this jury.
Joe Bosco, who attended almost every day of the trial (except that one day when he broke his neck) and wrote one of the best O.J. books, A Problem of Evidence, says the cops, the chemists and the court basically bungled the case, leaving the jury no choice.
The jurors afterwards said they were hardly influenced at all by Fuhrman’s perjury. They were more impressed by Barry Scheck ripping into the lab evidence. (Scheck, a legal expert on DNA, has also been instrumental in the exoneration of several prisoners who were headed for Death Row, which has reinvigorated the debate on the death penalty.)
Eve: why is it so hard to believe that the cops would plant evidence? Didn’t the Rampart scandal prove that too many L.A. cops will indeed frame innocent people and lie in court? Why would Fuhrman, with all his psychological demons, be above that? When the Rampart story broke, even Bill Maher from “P.I.” seemed to reconsider his previous certainty about O.J.'s guilt. (Side note: I met an African-American mother who was convinced that Fuhrman framed her son as well. Don’t remember the details, but it was before the Fuhrman perjury story broke. Yes, of course, she’s the mother of a suspect, so she must be a dumbass brainless racist, just like the jury.)
I agree that if all the blood evidence is legit, O.J. must be guilty. But, remember the back-fence bloodstain with the EDTA preservative in it? Remember the bloody socks, conveniently left on the carpet of a man described as a “neatnik”? Remember the high murder rate of Mezzaluna waiters? Remember Fuhrman telling that writer that he would “find something” if he pulled over an interracial couple? That goes beyond racism, that is actual contemplation of framing people. Remember Vanatter saying he was immediately suspicious of O.J.'s reaction to the murder news because most people ask what happened – and it turns out O.J. really did ask, “What do you mean Nicole’s dead?” There is just too much room for reasonable doubt. Even the positioning of the gloves seems a little too perfect.
If there was no police corruption, then O.J. must be guilty. So that could explain why so many blacks are willing to believe O.J. is innocent – they have first-hand experience with being profiled and framed that whites don’t have. They, unlike Eve, believe it happens a lot.
A while back, there was a lie-detector show, hosted by Marcia Clark, which featured Mark Fuhrman. He was asked questions like, “Did you go back to Rockingham before such-and-such a time” – in fact, it seemed like he was asked every question EXCEPT the most obvious and direct one: “Did you plant evidence?” Very convenient. A child could have seen what was going on. Fuhrman probably insisted, as a condition of him going on the show and taking a polygraph test, that he not be asked any direct questions about planting and framing and perjury. My suspicion of him only increased after that show.
KwikStah: I could be wrong, this is just my TV-lawyer-show intuition, but aren’t polygraph tests admissible in court if both sides agree to it?
No witnesses + no murder weapon + crime lab bungling + police corruption = no conviction. But I guess only an ignorant racist would fall for that equation. Duhhh…
If O.J. killed them, he must have had help. There’s no way a fading ex-jock with encroaching arthritis could so efficiently lay waste to two young, fit people all by himself. LAPD was wrong to close the books on this case, while there’s the possibility of multiple perpetrators still out there.
Did O.J. do it? I don’t think anybody will ever know for sure, except for him and/or the “real killer(s),” if different.
tclouie lots of debating points so I’ll just pick one. I was under the impression that the type of people who were framed by the LAPD over the years were those from the underclass. You know, people without the resources to fight back. The LAPD didn’t frame celebrities, people with the bucks to hire fancy lawyers who could possibly expose the police wrongdoing. As to the police wanting to frame OJ because he had an interracial marriage: while I can believe a racist cop would pull over for no good reason a black male driver who has a white woman passenger, I can’t believe the LAPD would conspire to frame OJ for murder because Nicole was white.
So, you believe the LAPD is perfectly willing and capable of framing people, just not celebs?
tclouie referred to the rampart scandal. So yes, I’m perfectly willing to believe that corrupt members of a police force have framed people. But It just makes senes to me that cops would tend not to frame celebrities, knowing that the media is going to put their investigation under a spotlight.
tclouie, is OJ innocent of the crime just because he’s black and black men get the shaft in LA?
I agree that there were evidence problems, in the collection, storage, analysis or presentation. And the jurors probably weren’t racist (I don’t know any of them, so I can’t say), but they were constrained by the rules of admissibility and other rules. So the conclusion they are able to draw based on the allowable evidence and testimony might be very different from what you and I decide from our armchairs.
But the police doing a shitty job does not prove the innocence of the accused. The police had a ton of evidence to work with, and they screwed a bunch of it up. I don’t believe they had the time to plan, plant, “discover” and frame on the spur of the moment, so does that mean that it was an ongoing conspiracy against OJ? So it wasn’t Nicole who was stalking him, but the LAPD? Doubtful.
EJsGirl:
The accused is presumed innocent. It’s his guilt that must be proven.
• Admissibility varies among jurisdictions. Some courts allow the determination if both sides agree; some allow it in civil cases but not in criminal, and others do not allow it at all.
Source: Milton O. “Skip” Web President, American Polygraph
–
The only question now is whether California allows it in criminal cases at all.