So you think OJ had a number of options including:
Don’t kill her at all.
Pay someone to kill her, and ensure you are in Europe, in public when it happens, or
Kill her. Leave evidence everywhere. Have no alibi. Leave your blood at the scene and in your car. Leave your glove at the scene. Leave your footprints in blood at the scene. Pay Furman to be there. Hope he’s put on the case, and not sick or on leave. Hope that he plays a critical part in the case. Ensure that there’s tape of him using the ‘N’ word, and prey that three things come together that are critical for you -Judge Ito, the jury being sympathetic and the prosecutors being idiots. This will also leave you are pariah and broke.
Can you please describe how OJ bribed Fuhrman such that Fuhrman could guarantee to be assigned the case? Did OJ do this before he committed the killings, or after?
Did OJ also bribe the other police officer who was on the scene? How about the police who collected the other evidence?
Also, could you show how Fuhrman was “due to be driven off the force…before this crime occurred”? Fuhrman was a police officer for twenty years on the LAPD, and received (according to his Wiki page) more than 50 commendations during that time.
I don’t know how you can avoid the obvious- the shoes and gloves were very very unique brands and sizes. This is not a coincidence folks. It has OJ written all over it. How does a reasonably intelligent person avoid drawing reasonable conclusions here?
As part of generally kicked their butts kicked at voir dire, the prosecution ended up with a jury that had only two college graduates. We shouldn’t take it as a given that the jurors were reasonably intelligent people. Combine that with a historically awful prosecution, and you get what we got.
I still place the blame with the prosecution, and to a lesser extent, Judge Ito. The jurors were part of the miscarriage of justice, but they weren’t the cause of it.
His knife crazy son did it. DNA technology was primitive at the time, so the analysis mistook his son’s DNA for the father’s. OJ found out about it and covered for him.
The jury/prosecution were ordered to sandbag it to prevent riots.
Nicole was killed by Colombian drug dealers for unpaid cocaine debts for her friend Faye Resnick.
I was out of country for the trial, but read three of the books that were published later. Points that stuck in my mind:
(1) The change of venue, made to accomodate TV, moved the trial from a likely-to-convict jury pool to one likely to acquit. That seems a rather arbitrary aspect to “justice.”
(2) The prosecution presented multiple proofs: The jury could find Simpson guilty if A & B & C & D were all judged valid OR if E & F & G & H were all valid. In other words, if E, F, G, H were all valid any flaw in the A/B/C/D fork was irrelevant. However the jury didn’t see it that way: Reasonable doubt about C led them to reject A&B&C&D (correct) and therefore the entire case agaisnt Simpson (wrong). Would better prosecution summary or judge instructions have avoided this problem?
(3) At one point Marcia the Prosecutor said something like “Nobody wants to convict this wonderful American hero … but …” :eek: :smack: What??? She should have emphasized that he was a heinous murderer.
Absolutely without question. This problem and a thousand others. We, the public, wuz robbed - of huge expense, of a degree of social/racial/class harmony and of justice. By the Marx Siblings, ESQ.
It wouldn’t have even taken a Bugliosi. Just a competent prosecutor not star-struck and (IIRC) willing to make a long commute for a few months. (Unless I misremember, the prosecutors’ wish to have a shorter commute was a factor in the trial relocation as well.)
I still have this nagging little voice in the back of my head that wants me to believe that when jury deliberation started, the following sentence was uttered (paraphrasing):
“You guys know, if we just say he’s not guilty, we can all go home and sleep in our own beds tonight.”
Well, if they’d omitted “not,” they could have gone home just as quickly and been able to sleep for the rest of their lives.
But in general, yeah, locking down 18(?) people for over a year, moreso than some white-collar criminals on electronic monitoring etc., is NOT going to produce a sympathetic bunch.
It wasn’t about sympathy for OJ, but rather cultural norms. If a husband beating his wife is considered shocking and deviant behavior, then the idea that it’d drive the wife away, and ultimately escalate to murder, is totally reasonable.
If a husband beating his wife is considered normal, something that happens to many or most couples, then the idea of escalation to murder is not reasonable.
To conclude: women who’ve experienced violence in their lives are only going to be sympathetic to another victim of violence if they believe that the violence was wrong and undeserved.
Perhaps your reliance on stereotypes and assumptions is the source of your confusion. What evidence do you have that the jurors have experience with domestic violence?
Okay, let’s camp on this above comment. Are you saying these 9 black women in the jury probably did NOT think OJs “violence” (before he killed her) put on Nicole was wrong and undeserved? In other words, Nicole probably DESERVED the occasional beating she may have received at the hands of OJ. Is that was you are saying?
I think he murdered in rage, and fled without thought. Then paid big money to someone high up, to ‘do what they could’, on the police force. And what they ‘could do’, was assign a guy who had one foot out the door, about to lose his pension, to be first on the scene, compromising sufficient evidence to provide reasonable doubt. Break the chain of custody, let people into the scene before samples were taken etc.
Now the trial focuses on shitty cop and his shitty ways, bumbling police collection of evidence, and voila, OJ walks.
It’s scummy, but kinda slick too. All it takes us friends on the force, (the higher up the better!), and a pile of money. And celebrity seems to provide both of those in spades!
(I said it was a wild assed theory for a reason, y’know!:D)
The big flaw I see with that theory is time. There just wasn’t enough time for OJ to calmly plot such a course. I mean the cops were on the scene pretty quickly. OJ was doing all he could to hide the bloody clothes, gun, etc. he still had the Limo driver to deal with, not to mention Cato bugging him. I doubt he was calm and collected enough to have thought of paying off some racist cop before he goes out there to investigate the crime scene.
I’m confused about this post. What does my stereotypes have to do with this? We are discussing “stereotypes” the jury selection experts were passing onto the lawyers for their advice and research.
I don’t have my copy of Outrage here at the office with me, but what I recall as being the conclusion of the jury consultant (that the prosecution ignored) is that black female potential jurors were more likely than white females to view domestic violence as “normal”, something that happened in many or most relationships, and the fault of both partners.