O.J. Simpson, that is. I am reasonably sure that around 99.9% of the entire world believes that he got away with murder, and that it was all his money that got him aquitted. I certainly am within the 99.9%. But, if I had been on the jury and heard ONLY what they heard, I would have had to come to the same conclusion that they did. They did not hear all of the arguments. All the stuff about Furman, etc.
There are also still, at least in my mind, a lot of unanswered questions. For instance, why would O.J. throw one of the gloves and the hat down at the crime scene and then ditch the other one behind his house right next to the sidewalk where anybody that went back there would find it, and at the same time club the wall of Kato’s room to bring attention to himself? And if he had just murdered two people the way these people were murdered, why was there not a whole lot more blood in the Bronco? A few stains? Seems to me that there should have been blood EVERYWHERE. And, thirdly, what did he do with the knife? If he was in such a hurry that he had to ditch the glove behind the house, why did he have time to hide the murder weapon so well that they never found it?
These are just a few of the questions I have. I am not saying that he is innocent, but these are a few of many questions that I still have.
The media have already declared him guilty. Doesn’t matter if he actually didn’t do it. No one will ever think of him as being innocent, people will always think of him as having “escaped justice”.
My thoughts: I think the main influence for everyone believing OJ to have been the real killer is twofold. One: The absence of any other possible suspects. Two: All the jokes made about it by Jay Leno & Co.
The same thing has happened with the Jean-Bennet Ramsey murder… the only imagined suspects are the parents, so therefore, everyone “knows” that they did it. It’s part of the human tendency to place blame, in my opinion. We NEED someone to hate. We NEED someone to list as a monster. It puts validation on terrible (or otherwise newsworthy) events.
I think, even if he didn’t actually commit the murders, I think the now-painfully-infamous “White Ford Bronco” chase shows that he was involved SOMEhow, even if he just knew of it happening, or just expected it to happen. Did he actually go postal with a knife towards a couple of vulnerable necks? ::shrug::
I considered OJ guilty almost immediately because of the way he handled the tragedy with his children with Nicole. Normally a parent tries to be there for a child in a time of crisis, but OJ immediately became concerned for his own welfare and left others to comfort and shield the children. This just didn’t sit right with me if he was innocent.
As far as the gloves go, I think OJ didn’t leave them behind on purpose, but instead just lost them. Obviously the murders occured very quickly and once leaving the murder scene he might have noticed that one of the gloves was missing but he didn’t have time to go back and search for it. I think the second glove was dropped when he scaled the wall behind the property to get into the house undetected. Again, even if he noticed the glove missing he wouldn’t have known exactly where it was lost and didn’t have time to search. Also the noise against Kato’s wall was just a result of him scaling the wall in a hurry in the dark.
What I thought at the time was that OJ was guilty, and I still think so. But I’ll agree with my85car–if I was on the jury, I would have had to vote to acquit. The prosecution did not prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Wanderer, people like you that judge how others should react when faced with the news of a tragedy really annoy me. People tend to think that in the same situations that they would react either by crying or providing support for others around them. Frankly, unless you have been in a similar situation, you should not judge. Of course you believe that you would react in a rational matter in the same situation because you currently in a rational state of mind. In reality, most people react like rocks to the news that a loved one has been harmed.
What you should be asking, was why he threw away his carryon bag when returning from Chicago.
Why he had that long car trip and cash and cut hands and his DNA everywhere, and the special gloves and shoes.
The “didn’t fit” thing was so phoney! I’ve had to toss every pair of winter gloves I ever owned when they shrunk after getting soaked.
Save your doubts for speculating on if he will kill again.
Even the most rabid OJ haters generally assume that it was a crime of passion and not evidence of some sort of homicidally psychotic problems.
For the record, I basically agree with Spooje, the jury made the right decision. However, there still is a distinct possibility that he was involved in, or committed the murders. The best way to view the OJ situation is that it’s a fine example that the system does, in some cases, work despite the best efforts of people within the system. (Ie, those that would frame him.) Of course, it also shows that it generally only helps if you happen to have a lot of money. Not necessarily a comforting conclusion for all of us.
Sorry, but I think most people who have been parents will agree that you put your children above almost anything else. Under other circumstances I am not sure I know what I would have done, but I am sure beyond a shadow of a doubt what I would have done and any good father would have done if the mother of my young children had just been murdered (assuming I wasn’t the one who murdered her).
If you ask me, the man was GUILTY. I mean, look at his attitude: you’d think someone who was innocent would be more fired up about what happened, or what have you. He seemed too calm, too happy. The thing that made me ILL was him trying to claim Nicole beat him. I believe it was a fact that he DID beat her.
Yes, the prosecution screwed up, but when you think about a conspiracy, like my teacher said, it’s just kind of stupid. Yeah, Mark Furman’s a racist, but why would he risk his career just to go out and squirt OJ’s DNA everywhere?
What about the gloves (them not fitting-he tried them on over LATEX GLOVES…of course they didn’t fit, duh!)
The man is just a pig. I don’t like his attitude, everything about him just SCREAMS guilty.
He got off because he was rich and famous. If it had been a POOR man and they had that kind of evidence, he’d have been nailed. (And I’m not even going into the race thing. It shouldn’t fucking matter. Johnny Cochrane was the racist there, he actually claimed to USE OJ’s race as a factor to get him off…which should be illegal.)
The man is a thug, period.
Juice did it and planned it well in advance. Sort of poetic justice that it ended up like Raskolnikov’s two murders.
He brought nothing home - though he may have made the thump that Kato heard.
Mark Furman - who had been involved in a previous fight between the Simpsons - planted all the evidence found at the Simpson home and in the Bronco. Furman may also not have acted alone in this.
Juice packed up a body suit and the knife and disposed of these things in the trash at LAX, assured that the cops would never find the items in the tons of trash generated at the airport.
The district attorney blew the case by assigning the trial not where the murders occurred by in the central city. The two prosecuting attorneys were not competent to try the case, ignored the evidence used in the civil trial (those candy-ass shoes caught on photos taken at a football game in Buffalo that Juice covered) and allowed the dream team to select and lead a jury that understood nothing about DNA and everything about racist LA cops.
One day Juice will own up to it, he almost did with a slip of the tongue (loved her so much). But then again, like Lizzy Borden, maybe not.
[sarcasm]
Yep, if someone murdered my wife and I was innocent the first thing I’d do is write some letters asking people to not bother my children, then I’d get in a car chase with the LAPD for an hour or so. Yep, exactly what I’d do.
[/sarcasm]
Sheesh… it seems pretty obvious that if he didn’t do it that he certainly knew something of it. I don’t know enough of the details of the prosecutions case to know whether or not the jurors made an appropriate decision but I certainly feel that regardless of the outcome the judicial system was created such that the popular decision will not always be made. I certainly can’t complain about that.
I’ll reiterate a few of Michael Moore’s points on this:
the rich and famous never commit murder. They may in a larger sense (like Henry Kissenger), and their relatives may, and they may pay to have it done, but they have too much to lose to do it themselves.
This is the LAPD were talking about here. These guys practically move outta the way so that the camera can get a better shot of them beating the suspect. I’ve had some very bad interactions with them; it’s not fun.
Much of the damnation (in the press, not in terms of evidence) was based on the fact of prior abuse. Unfortunately, this argument is backwards. Just becasue most spousal murderers were abusive in no way means most spousal abusers are murderers.
Don’t want to sound cynical (ok, I do :)), but this is the white ex of a black guy found dead. Where else does the blame go? Hell, if I were in that situation I’d run from the cops too.
Now, this is not to say he wasn’t involved in some way, but frankly I doubt it. It certainly wasn’t proved in any way.
Now then, why the heck is this coming up * now? *
Guinastia:
I’m not talking about how he LOOKS… I’m asking about full on real hard evidence.
I agree that there’s a number of actions that suggest he was guilty (the luke-warm car chase for starters… I remember that and remembered laughing my a$$ off)
Nixon:
Seems like you’re going by preconcieved notions. I’m asking about things he said, did, and had. What was his official aliby?
Grim:
I agree that it makes sense (common or no) that he might have had somethign to do with it. But I’m just trying to clear away the age old rubble and go for the pure data.
Myrr:
I love that guy Moore! Inspiring and smart fellow!
But why bring this up now?
Two things:
The hype of the “Askoj.com” site… and how he wants his story to be heard (for a price, of course)
Enough time has lapsed since the trial that I’m hoping we can look at the details of the case rather than try to fan throught the smoke of the media circus.
I didn’t fall into watching the televised trial (I have a life) that went on for …how many years?
I’m trying to cut through the joking, the bad press and popular opinions that SAY he’s guilty. If someone says “He’s guilty”, and I ask “why?”… the response is usually “uhh… 'cause everybody says he is.” Or they quote somethign tehy read somewhere.
It’s like the Gerbil-Gere thing that became an urban legend.
The dust has settled. So now I’m sweeping around, blowing it off of the facts. I’m curious to the facts.
I know the verdict, and I know he paid. But I want to know what was the evidence, what wasn’t that should have been, and what was his defense (Okay I know that last one: Racism and an LAPD conspiracy… I’ll hold off on my thoughts on those until I get the other questions answered)
Threw away the garment bag at LAX?!? Didn’t I see video of Robert Kardashian carring that damn bag? As long as he was OJ’s attorney, he wouldn’t have to testify about it. Think about it- how much legal work did you see or hear Kardashian doing? Right.
Even worse than OJ doing Ron & Nicole, are his recent media excursions. I can’t believe that people are still willing to give this guy a forum to air his bullshit. Did you hear his response to “how goes the search for the real killer?” “Uh, well, I haven’t really found anything in the last year or so, but we’ve still got some leads…” Give me a fuckin’ break.
And that crack about Nic’s sister really wanting to sleep with him? The man is truly beyond the pale.
It was probably Gloria Allred or some other lawyer I don’t like who said it, but wasn’t there some stat about how while not all men who beat their wives kill them, most men who kill their wives have beaten them? OJ, I really don’t think Nicole got those marks from beating the shit out of YOU…
I actually was very impressed by his challenge to NBC (?) to put up a reward for information on “the real killer”. Think about it; if he did it, they have nothing to lose. If he didn’t, then they get ridiculous PR from it.
That may have been said, and I missed it. What I do remember is, at one point in the trial, Dershowitz pointed out that only 1 in 100 men who beat their wives go on to kill them. Someone then wrote in to …Scientific American?..and pointed out that of men who beat their wives and whose wives are later murdered, the husband is the killer 60% of the time.
Yeah, I think he did it, but I also think the jury produced the correct verdict based on the case given them by the prosecution. Marcia Clark et al were like the JV going up against the reining world champs.
BTW, does anyone know of a good, balanced book on the case/trial, one that avoids the posturing in books written by participants or those with decided biases?