The article you linked to implies (through sloppy writing, I might add) that 29% of black people in 1995 believed OJ was guilty, compared to 72% of whites. That’s a difference of 43 percentage points.
In contrast, according to CNN, 88% of blacks believed the jury decided correctly, compared to 41% whites. That’s a 47-point difference. Not much higher than 43, but it is inarguably higher.
So you can’t call me incorrect in my assertion that the racial divide was widest with respect to how the verdict was perceived. Even black people who believed OJ committed murdered still believed the verdict was fair given the problems associated with the case. And yes, I believe more whites have come to this position too.
I’m not totally discounting race. It probably played at least some roll. You’ll have to remember the LAPD had some well know race relations (Rodney King, Rampart, etc…)problems at the time. I’m very aware of the optics at the time. (Disclaimer: I was one of the few black people I knew saying he did it, at the time)
Any actual evidence for that? I mean, we can sit here and suppose all we want, but if it’s not falsifiable, it doesn’t mean anything.
Because some of the jurors have explained why they voted the way they did, and not one (that I could find, correct me if you know of one) has said that they acquitted Simpson as a political act:
David Aldana - “Things just didn’t add up,” Mr. Aldana said of the evidence. Like the others, Mr. Aldana said his decision was based solely on the evidence – or lack of the evidence – in the prosecution’s case.
Anise Aschenbach (same cite) - Ms. Aschenbach told ABC News through her daughter that she believed Mr. Simpson was probably guilty but that because of the possibility that evidence had been planted, she felt compelled to acquit him.
There is no penalty for a juror acquitting a person they believe to be guilty as a political statement. And yet none of the jurors indicated that this was their intent. So, as I am without mind-reading powers or contrary evidence, I take them at their word when they say that acquitted due to the state failing to prove its case - something that I, as an external observer, can verify. I think I’d have voted to convict, but I can’t be certain, as I have access to evidence the jury never saw, and it was presented to me logically, intelligently, and concisely by writers like Bugliosi, not dribbled out over nine months by a series of profoundly incompetent morons.
Good links Human Action on the juror statements after trial, but what do you expect them to say? That they voted not guilty because of race?
Hey, we can all speculate what went on in the hearts of the jurors but it seems like everyone was saying the same thing- we didn’t listen or believe anything Fuhrman said or did because he is a racist.
If I’m in the jury, do I discount the blood soaked glove with all 3 people’s blood on it just because Fuhrman said the N word and lied that he didn’t? Does this lying mean he would also plant evidence just so a black man could get fried?
I don’t think the two go hand in hand. IMO, Planting evidence is much different than using the N word.
So, was race an issue? Read this from one of the jurors:
Cooley also feels manipulations were made by the white-controlled Los Angeles law enforcement system toward the predominantly black jury. When prosecutor Bill Hodgman disappeared, and Christopher Darden played a more prominent role, Cooley suspected “the first ‘race card,’ as it has come to be called,” had been put into play. She believes it’s as if his white superiors said, “Well, Chris, maybe you can communicate with them things that we are not able to communicate to them.” While she respected Darden despite his “very moody” demeanor, she felt his presence “didn’t fool me and it didn’t fool a lot of other people on the jury either.”
Concerning Robert Blake: Rich white guys (& women) are more likely to get away with murder because they can afford the really good lawyers. Robert Durst, who dismembered a guy, got off because he had a #1 legal team; he wasn’t famous but rich, rich, rich. (He’s continued to have legal troubles but has probably gotten away with more than one murder.)
These lawyers don’t need to prove their client’s innocence, they just need to cloud minds with “reasonable doubt.” Despite his race, OJ qualified as a Rich Guy; and LAPD did have some very real race problems. I did not follow the case in great detail but have been reminded the prosecution did badly.
Sure, why not? “We acquitted because America doesn’t need another black man in prison.” “We acquitted as an act of protest against a racist and corrupt system.” Whatever their motive was, they were completely free to speak it. I believe their motive was what they said it was: acquitting a man that hadn’t, in their opinion, been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
[QUOTE=TennisMenace]
Hey, we can all speculate what went on in the hearts of the jurors but it seems like everyone was saying the same thing- we didn’t listen or believe anything Fuhrman said or did because he is a racist.
[/quote]
There’s nothing wrong with ignoring the testimony of a witness you don’t find to be credible; making those determination is the jury’s job.
[QUOTE=TennisMenace]
If I’m in the jury, do I discount the blood soaked glove with all 3 people’s blood on it just because Fuhrman said the N word and lied that he didn’t? Does this lying mean he would also plant evidence just so a black man could get fried?
I don’t think the two go hand in hand. IMO, Planting evidence is much different than using the N word.
[/quote]
It’s certainly possible that he would. It’s the prosecution’s job to rebut the defense’s theory, and they botched it. The jurors voted accordingly. Blame lies with the prosecution.
[QUOTE=TennisMenace]
So, was race an issue? Read this from one of the jurors:
Cooley also feels manipulations were made by the white-controlled Los Angeles law enforcement system toward the predominantly black jury. When prosecutor Bill Hodgman disappeared, and Christopher Darden played a more prominent role, Cooley suspected “the first ‘race card,’ as it has come to be called,” had been put into play. She believes it’s as if his white superiors said, “Well, Chris, maybe you can communicate with them things that we are not able to communicate to them.” While she respected Darden despite his “very moody” demeanor, she felt his presence “didn’t fool me and it didn’t fool a lot of other people on the jury either.”
[/QUOTE]
So they felt pandered to when a white prosecutor was replaced with a black one once the mostly-black jury was seated. Nothing odd about that, and they were right to feel insulted.
I’ve read several people here painstakingly doing all they could to try to take “race” out of this decision. I’m scratching my head as to why it is THAT important to you guys that you want to believe this? That you maybe even NEED to believe this?
It seems pretty obvious in Americas short history even, race has always been an issue. Why would you think in 1995 somehow it magically vanished for 9 months…or 5 hours for that matter?
Knowing what I know about LAPD back then and having witnessed the Rodney King story, I can completely understand how this was an opportunity to “get even” and make a statement to America that not all Black men are going to prison.
Do I think the jury cared about justice for the Brown and Goldman family? Yes, I’m sure they did, but it was definitely secondary. I read all the juror comments that came out after the trial saying it was based on lack or disputed evidence, but what did you expect them to say?
As bad as the prosecution was, the blood trail was still there- from the crime scene, to the Bronco to the Simpson estate- all the way to that bloody glove that contained all 3 parties blood. Was all this planted? To believe it was takes an incredible leap of faith I certainly wouldn’t and could not have taken. Someone killed those two people, and it wasn’t the one-armed man. OJ had motive, means, and a temper. I know Furhman, like most of us if we are honest, is a racist to a certain degree, but does this mean he would therefore plant a missing glove after soaking it with all 3 parties blood? Do you really believe those two naturally go hand in hand? This jury obviously did. I wonder why? R-a-c-e!
If the shoe fits, wear it! The fact that OJs special Italian made size 12 shoe prints were on the murder scene is HUGE to me. Why wasn’t it to the jury? Did they think that was planted too? What about the Limo drivers testimony? Where is Bill…errrr, I mean where is OJ? 20 minutes, no OJ, no car in the Driveway. Where did the jury think he was? Did they honestly believe he was sleeping when he finally answered the door? (Only if you check your brain out, I suppose.)
And lastly, where was OJs clothes he wore that night? Did they just get up and walk away? What was in that bag that Kato wanted to help carry out for OJ? A jury could certainly infer things, if they wanted to. This jury seemed like they didn’t want to infer anything that was not beneficial to OJ. Even OJ’s deep finger cut was not explained away (when first interviewed) until his lawyers told him what to say days later.
OJ driving away in his Ford Bronco will forever be etched in my mind trying to leave it all behind. OJ was telling the world right there I AM GUILTY FOLKS. But OJ, good news- the prosecution wanted you to be convicted by people of your color, (so there wouldn’t be another Rodney King riot if found guilty by White people), so they allowed for this trial to be in LA County assuring a predominate Black jury and a jury lacking much formal education. Unfortunately for the Brown and Goldman families, they miscalculated badly. Hey, you are not the only guy who got away with murder, but as we all know, only the rich people can boast this claim.
Firstly, you can’t compare polls asking different questions and taken by two different organizations and at different times, especially if the results are in fact as close as they are here and you’re trying to make something of some very small differences.
In fact, in the very CNN cite that you link to, they also asked - in addition to the question about whether the jury decided correctly that you link to - whether in fact OJ was guilty. And the divide here was further than the WP poll that you compare too. A difference of 48% for guilty and 45% for not guilty, which is virtually the same as the difference in whether the jury decided correctly.
And that’s the bigger point here. Because the two questions - the “is he guilty or innocent” question and the “did the jury decide correctly” question are not unrelated. Because if you believe that he was in fact innocent, then it would obviously follow that the jury decided correctly. The difference between the responses on the two questions is the number of people who believed that he was in fact guilty but there was not evidence beyond reasonable doubt - and this number does not vary between blacks and whites. The margin between black and white responses to the “did the jury decide correctly” is entirely driven by the virtually identical margin between black and white responses to the “is he guilty or innocent” question. So the notion that the key difference between black and white opinions was about whether “the prosecution had had major problems with its case”, as contrasted with his actual guilt or innocence, is demonstrably false.
Race obviously matters in American life. Further, there are biological factors, such that our brains react differently to people who don’t look like us. It’s certainly possible, even probable, that an average white juror would have had a less favorable impression of Simpson than an average black juror.
But you aren’t arguing merely that race mattered; you’re arguing that the jurors believed Simpson to be guilty, and acquitted him anyway, bullying the white jurors into going along with it.
The problem is that you’ve presented no evidence whatsoever for this.
[QUOTE=TennisMenace]
Knowing what I know about LAPD back then and having witnessed the Rodney King story, I can completely understand how this was an opportunity to “get even” and make a statement to America that not all Black men are going to prison.
[/quote]
You can understand it. Cool. Without evidence, it means nothing.
[QUOTE=TennisMenace]
Do I think the jury cared about justice for the Brown and Goldman family? Yes, I’m sure they did, but it was definitely secondary. I read all the juror comments that came out after the trial saying it was based on lack or disputed evidence, but what did you expect them to say?
[/quote]
I already addressed this. And you’ve set up a non-falsifiable theory here.
[QUOTE=TennisMenace]
As bad as the prosecution was, the blood trail was still there- from the crime scene, to the Bronco to the Simpson estate- all the way to that bloody glove that contained all 3 parties blood.
[/quote]
And Simpson admitted to police that the blood came from him - but the prosecution never told this to the jury.
[QUOTE=TennisMenace]
Was all this planted? To believe it was takes an incredible leap of faith I certainly wouldn’t and could not have taken. Someone killed those two people, and it wasn’t the one-armed man. OJ had motive, means, and a temper. I know Furhman, like most of us if we are honest, is a racist to a certain degree, but does this mean he would therefore plant a missing glove after soaking it with all 3 parties blood? Do you really believe those two naturally go hand in hand? This jury obviously did. I wonder why? R-a-c-e!
[/quote]
I wouldn’t have taken that leap either; the timelines just don’t add up, for one thing. But Fuhrman alone shouldn’t have been enough to sink the case, if the prosecution hadn’t been the worst imaginable.
[QUOTE=TennisMenace]
If the shoe fits, wear it! The fact that OJs special Italian made size 12 shoe prints were on the murder scene is HUGE to me. Why wasn’t it to the jury? Did they think that was planted too?
[/quote]
Simpson had been photographed wearing the Bruno Maglis - but the prosecution never showed them to the jury.
[QUOTE=TennisMenace]
What about the Limo drivers testimony? Where is Bill…errrr, I mean where is OJ? 20 minutes, no OJ, no car in the Driveway. Where did the jury think he was? Did they honestly believe he was sleeping when he finally answered the door? (Only if you check your brain out, I suppose.)
[/quote]
Eh, that’s pretty thin, either way.
[QUOTE=TennisMenace]
And lastly, where was OJs clothes he wore that night? Did they just get up and walk away? What was in that bag that Kato wanted to help carry out for OJ? A jury could certainly infer things, if they wanted to. This jury seemed like they didn’t want to infer anything that was not beneficial to OJ.
[/quote]
Also pretty thin…you can’t convict on evidence that wasn’t found.
[QUOTE=TennisMenace]
Even OJ’s deep finger cut was not explained away (when first interviewed) until his lawyers told him what to say days later.
[/quote]
Yep, but again, the prosecution didn’t use this.
[QUOTE=TennisMenace]
OJ driving away in his Ford Bronco will forever be etched in my mind trying to leave it all behind. OJ was telling the world right there I AM GUILTY FOLKS.
[/quote]
Guess what? Simpson’s quasi-suicide note, that he fled with cash and a disguise - never introduced by the prosecution.
Picking up a theme here?
[QUOTE=TennisMenace]
But OJ, good news- the prosecution wanted you to be convicted by people of your color, (so there wouldn’t be another Rodney King riot if found guilty by White people), so they allowed for this trial to be in LA County assuring a predominate Black jury and a jury lacking much formal education. Unfortunately for the Brown and Goldman families, they miscalculated badly. Hey, you are not the only guy who got away with murder, but as we all know, only the rich people can boast this claim.
[/QUOTE]
If you haven’t already, read Outrage, then come back and try to argue that the problem was the jury, and not the prosecution.
Human Action already said a lot of what I would have said, which is mainly summed up as “the prosecution was weak”.
I agree with the comment upthread that the prosecution shouldn’t have led so heavily with the DNA evidence. Start with the macro pieces (like the shoe print, OJ’s blood in his car, his whereabouts), and then add on the technical detail later.
They failed to give the big picture and got mired in details, which allowed the defense to nitpick to death. It’s akin to a conspiracy theory, which fails to account for the long chain of consistent events and instead thinks that one reasonable doubt about one detail unravels the whole case.
And, as noted, the prosecutors didn’t use all of their ammunition. OJ admits to bleeding in the Bronco; a woman sees a frantic OJ driving hurriedly away from the crime scene; OJ takes off on a getaway with a gun, cash, and a disguise - none of this is worth introducing.
I also think that the detectives who investigated the case blew a huge opportunity when OJ was interviewedby them on June 13th, the day after the murder, without his lawyers present.
They noticed the deep cut on his finger, but never hammered down how it happened*. And they failed to drill him on his whereabouts during the time of the murder**. I thought they could have a done a better job.
And the prosecution dropped the ball in not refuting the tainted DNA nonsense. If the DNA was tainted (“garbage in, garbage out” was the mantra), it would have given inconclusive results, and not been able to target OJ Simpson. The DNA was, in fact, reliable.
*How did you get the injury on your hand?
Simpson: I don’t know. The first time, when I was in Chicago and all, but at the house I was just running around.
Vannatter: How did you do it in Chicago?
Simpson: I broke a glass. One of you guys had just called me, and I was in the bathroom, and I just kind of went bonkers for a little bit.
Lange: Is that how you cut it?
Simpson: Mmm, it was cut before, but I think I just opened it again, I’m not sure.
Lange: Do you recall bleeding at all in your truck, in the Bronco?
Simpson: I recall bleeding at my house and then I went to the Bronco. The last thing I did before I left, when I was rushing, was went and got my phone out of the Bronco.
Lange: So do you recall bleeding at all?
Simpson: Yeah, I mean, I knew I was bleeding, but it was no big deal. I bleed all the time. I play golf and stuff, so there’s always something, nicks and stuff here and there.
Lange: So did you do anything? When did you put the Band-Aid on it?
Simpson: Actually, I asked the girl this morning for it.
Lange: And she got it?
Simpson: Yeah, 'cause last night with Kato, when I was leaving, he was saying something to me, and I was rushing to get my phone, and I put a little thing on it, and it stopped.
** OJ: “I was basically at home. I mean, any time I was…whatever time it took me to get to the recital and back, to get to the flower shop and back, I mean, that’s the time I was out of the house…I came home, I got my car, I was going to see my girlfriend. I was calling her and she wasn’t around… as I was going over there, I called her a couple of times and she wasn’t there, and I left a message, and then I checked my messages, and there were no new messages. She wasn’t there, and she may have to leave town. Then I came back and ended up sitting with Kato…Eight-something, maybe.”
Yes, its fair, and ayes, his views should have negated his entire testimony. Racism isn’t rational, its not something you decide you are after poring over academic studies on the biological differences between races. There is no logical basis for it and thus no reasonable way to debate someone out of it. So if someone’s willing to hold such an invalid, irrational, and frankly stupid view based on nothing, then what’s to stop them from believing or doing all kinds of shit? Fuhrman’s fate should be that of all racists: discredited, fired, humiliated, and publicly scorned.
One frustrating thing was that the jury didn’t apparently understand DNA evidence. I remember one juror afterward saying OJ’s blood “could have been anyone’s blood.”
It must be acknowledged that the defense team did a good job of throwing a lot of the LAPD procedure into question. If the jury thinks the police tampered with evidence, the correct course is to find the defendant not guilty, even if it’s obvious he was guilty even with the ‘good’ evidence left (for instance, Ronald Goldman’s blood was in OJ’s Bronco, and the ‘pedigree’ for that evidence was ironclad).
I don’t think that’s *why *the jury reached the verdict they did, but perhaps OJ should have gotten off on a technicality anyhow.
I don’t agree with this. If the jury thinks that the police tampered with evidence, the correct course of action is to disregard that evidence. But if other evidence is airtight, then you should still find the perpetrator guilty.
I am of the opinion that there was enough evidence to convict, but one of the things that the Defense successfully did was get the jury to question each element of proof individually, in a vacuum, instead of looking at it all as part of a whole story. You can discount one or two pieces of proof and still leave yourself with a clear picture of what happened.
[QUOTE=TennaceMenace]
Two final questions.
Is there anyone here who believed after the trial that OJ was innocent?
Is there anyone here today who believes OJ was innocent?
If yes, please explain why you feel that way.
[/QUOTE]
I *think *even our resident conspiracy theorists will agree that OJ murdered those two people.
No evidence is air tight if other evidence has been tampered with. For the record, I’m sure he did it, but I don’t think the state proved its case.
If the prosecution has failed to prove an element of its case, there is no need for long deliberations. You just look at that element and discuss whether it was proven or not. If it wasn’t, the remaining elements are immaterial.
You seem to have the view that jurors were tasked with answering the question, “did he do it?” That’s not how a criminal trial works. In theory, the jury’s function is to reach a conclusion that will be the same as the answer to that question, but not always.