I know this is old stuff, but after reading about the trial again, for the life of me, I cannot fathom how the jury only needed a few hours to deliberate after 9 months of testimony, to come back with a unanimous guilty verdict.
I can only conclude two reasons for this, what I believe, egregious verdict:
the mostly Black women in the jury were sympathetic to one of their own kind, disregarded all the evidence, and “bullied” the two white women to change their mind
Mistrust of white policemen
I would love to read your thoughts as to how this ending was able to happen. Is there more I’m missing here?
By the way, I came in touch with this website when I googled “OJ Simpson message board” and found this site. I noticed the last discussion on this topic was 2012, so I really need to get this off my chest…again. (Every 5 years it comes back up somehow.)
Ok, let me have it.
TM
PS. I know I’m new here, but I didn’t find anywhere that said I have to wait 90 days before starting a thread. I hope I’m cool here. Let me know if not.
Did you happen to read the last discussion( or any of the several previous discussions), because I’m pretty sure we’ve covered all of these questions numerous times.
There is no ironclad consensus on why the O.J. jury voted as it did. Is there a reasonable possibility that the 9 black jurors were inclined to acquit a fellow member of their race? It may or may not be, to be honest. Remember this trial didn’t happen long after the Rodney King police officers were acquitted and the Korean grocer was acquitted for killing a 15 year old black shoplifter. There was not a lot of trust between the black community from which a majority of the jury was drawn, and the police department that was involved in building the case against OJ. A contra to that point is that O.J. as a rich, famous black man actually wasn’t a big figure in the black community, and actually intentionally separated himself from it in many ways. He was not seen by black community leaders as one of the black role models that was really “in touch”, but more like the type who had gotten rich and famous and not given any inkling of concern about the community in which he had been raised.
That being said, in the plain words of the jurors themselves, they voted based on lack of evidence and a perceived lack of credibility for many of the witnesses against OJ. This case had reasonable concerns about chain of custody of evidence, and one of the prosecution’s witnesses was a police detective who purjured himself in open court as to whether he had ever used a racial slur. Was there “genuine reasonable doubt”, I think that’s harder to say, but I think it was pretty damn close. I think a reasonable jury could vote to acquit. It was 10-2 for acquittal initially and quickly became unanimous. One of the two jurors that initially was voting guilty was an elderly white woman who later came forward in interviews and said she changed her vote because “she thought O.J. was guilty but not that there was enough evidence to convict him.” In her version she was just simply convinced of this fact by the other jurors, not “bullied” by the blacks on the jury.
So too one must consider these jurors were held in sequestration for nine months, which basically was close to being in prison for nine months for doing their civic duty. A pretty extraordinary circumstance for a juror as most are not treated this way. That means there was probably a very human/practical reason for wanting to get the deliberations over with quickly. If you’re sitting on that jury and it’s 10-2 to acquit, what’s the point in losing more of your life being locked in a hotel room, with no access to media and limited access to family? You’re not going to swing a 10-2 acquit vote to a 12-0 convict vote, might as well just change your vote and make it unanimous, get out of there and go home.
I think the OJ trial has parallels with Casey Anthony. Someone common sense and most of the public view as “guilty” but which the evidence was not actually so clear, or convincing, as to necessarily hit that burden of proof.
Agreed with Martin Hyde.The prosecution dropped the ball quite badly. They were not diligent in ensuring that the evidence they presented and relied upon did not have lacunae and they failed to cover for gaps which did appear. Nor did they present some fairly damning evidence which would have corroborated their case theory and called into doubt the defence case. Some of these later were put forth at the Civil trial, and some had been with the State at the time but were not presented.
Yes: the inept, bungled prosecution. If you haven’t already, read Outrage by Vincent Bugliosi. One thing he takes pains to point out is all the evidence the jury didn’t get to hear (like Simpson’s police interview, where he admits to bleeding all over his car and property), because the incompetent prosecutors never introduced it.
It’s not to the point where I think the prosecution intentionally threw the case, but if proof of that were to someday come out, I wouldn’t be surprised.
And the judge playing it as a media spectacle. Every time Ito had a choice between keeping his trial under control and keeping it on TV, he went for the latter. The defense only did what they did because the judge let them. That also contributed pretty strongly to the prosecution appearing disjointed.
The verdict always seemed to me to be based more on getting back at a police department with a strong history of misconduct than about Simpson. Of course we’ll never know.
Daniel Petrocelli, who successfully prosecuted/whatever the correct term the civil trial, wrote a book about it. In a review of the book, it is stated -
If the criminal trial hadn’t been such a farce, there would have been little point in filing civil charges, because OJ would have been serving a life sentence for murder.
You said it was based on a lack of evidence and lack of credibility.
How was there a lack of evidence:
Blood inside ford bronco- both victims blood
Bloody shoe impression on carpet floor
Blood on OJs driveway
Blood in OJs foyer
Blood in his bathroom
Blood drenched glove that matched the glove at the murder scene, found on OJ estate
Deep cut on OJs left fingers. When interviewed 15 hours after murder OJ has no explanation ( came up with an explanation after attorney told him what to say later on)
Shoe imprints at murder scene- The shoes were not just any shoes, but Bruno Magli- very expensive, sold in Bloomingdales where OJ buys his
Size 12 shoe- OJs size
The hat found at murder scene had OJs hair in it
Limo driver arrived at house, no white Ford Bronco there and no OJ for 20 minutes ( does anyone really believe OJs testimony given to explain that?)
The missing bag kato wanted to help carry for OJ that just happens to have the missing clothes OJ was wearing that night that he can’t find. Really??
The next night OJ asks old friend and retired cop Ron Shipp “how long it took to get DNA results back?”(family refutes)
No alibi given by OJ
Two hours to dismiss all this evidence and acquitt??
Am I getting confused with murder cases, but didn’t OJs lawyers insinuate that a drug crazed one armed man did it?
I read that both jury selection experts said black women would be the most favorable for acquittal, so how did the prosecution all for 9 of the 12 to be black women? They have challenges, yes?
Thanks to all so far for allowing me to get this off my chest again. Like I said, whenever I read or hear something about this, it triggers this reaction and a need to fellowship.
Fuhrman said “nigger” five years earlier while working on a TV concept, and OJ pretended that he couldn’t get on the glove. Therefore all the evidence was faked.
Since we’re bringing up an old topic just to vent things, I’ve got a slightly off-topic idea to vent that I’ve been sitting all this time.
I have a pet theory that OJ just suddenly mentally snapped (no idea what might have precipitated that), with the result that:
[ul][li] OJ did, in fact, done done it, and[/li][li] OJ doesn’t know that he did it.[/ul][/li]
Immediately after the murder (that is, within the next few hours and next few days), his behavior was bizarre. The whole freeway chase episode was especially bizarre. Also, when he pleaded not guilty, I recall him standing before the judge, grinning broadly as if life was just peachy, and declaring confidently, “One thousand per cent not guilty!” That also seemed odd behavior for him, in the circumstances.
My guess was (and still is) that he had some kind of psychotic break-down, went out and killed them, and afterward wasn’t even aware that he had done that.
I do think this one thing (Fuhrman using the N word) sealed the deal and that jury didn’t care about evidence. But it bothers me to think these 12 people didn’t give a rip about Nicole of Goldman’s families.
He was definitely in a fit of rage to kill her the way he did which I’m sure makes you do things you normally wouldn’t do, but to not be aware of what he did seems a bit of a stretch.