Jeffrey Toobin’s book noted the presence of the glove on the site before Fuhrman arrived. It had the victim’s blood on it, and this was before Simpson was even identified as a suspect. One thing that’s always interested me is that the people who believe that the police planted that can’t explain why the police would want to implicate Simpson and therefore let a vicious killer go free. And to implicate Simpson, they would have to suddenly reverse the comfy relationship they’d had with him for years. Voting to acquit wouid not have been the right choice.
As Zoe illustrates above, the evidence was there to convict. Nonetheless, doubt clouded the jurors’ mind. And we’re stuck with their verdict.
I do sympathize with (black) people who take issue with (white) people’s disproportionate outrage at the verdict. The greater travesty by far is that it is no rare occurrance that U.S. courts produce unjust verdicts – and the degree to which race and money can sway Lady Liberty.
In short, can you really blame a brother for ruefully furling his brow at Captain Renault’s exhortation: “I’m shocked, SHOCKED, to find that gambling is going on in here!”
Well, you could argue that it was racist to acquit him because he was black----and the victims were white. What didn’t remarked upon was the gender angle, either. There was an article in The Nation that revealed some startling attitudes toward Nicole Simpson’s having ‘asked for it’. But if letting a ‘brother’ go just because the victims were white isn’t racist, I don’t know what is. The books about the case have made it pretty clear that at least a few of the jurors were determined to acquit from the beginning. That’s not confusion or doubt—that’s bias, and it was long before Fuhrman took the stand.
Pizzabrat we’re only discussing one racially-charged situation, and it’s this one particular trial. For example, the jubilation at the verdict certainly indicates that there was more going on than a mere criminal proceeding. Furthermore, according to Jefffrey Toobin’s book about the case, at least two female jurors and one male juror had made up their minds from the beginning, and were not prepared to be swayed by the evidence, of which there was a mountain.
I don’t know that race is the determining factor here, either. Simpson just strikes me as being another Jeffery MacDonald, who murdered his wife and kids and to this day insists on his innocence. There’s actually a long history of people trying this, but they always seem to forget a key thing when they commit the crime----the overkill. What burglar is going to want to take the trouble to stab a victim and get that close to them? If, as Simpson’s defenders allege, there was more than one attacker—a theory now discredited—why was the crime scene so messy? So amateurish? If it was just some psycho, how come this was his only crime in the neighborhood? How come the evidence pointed so conclusively to Simpson? Oh, yes, that’s right----the police planted it all. But that doesn’t make sense----when the police first spotted the glove, Simpson himself could have been another victim. He was in Chicago—and he’d been buddy buddy with the cops forever.
Simpson wasn't unique, and neither were the people who acquitted him. There are lots of people who defend Jeffrey MacDonald, too. I guess being rich and nominally good-looking is enough to buy one at least *some* benefit of the doubt.I agree. I found it comical that the defense, in essence, was asserting that the “flaws” in how the tests were conducted produced a false positive–not deliberate fraud, mind you, just sloppiness that comprimised the results. Think about it. Out of the 6 billion people in the world that a false positive could have pointed to, it just randomly occurred that it came out to be the victim’s ex-husband. Talk about your bad luck. Puh-leeze!
Almost everyone’s remarked that the police were buddy-buddy with Simpson. Can someone elaborate for me? Thanks.
Alan Dershowitz was a consulktant to the “Dream team” defense. He boasted during the trial of how he could demolish the prosecution…to him, the brutal murder of two innocent people meant nothing. Anyway. did anybody notice the very sophisticated use of clothes made by the defense? OJ would regularly appear in drab looking ties…while his lawyers wore extravagantly colored, wild ties. This strategy was a deliberate attempt to inlfluence the jurors…shows you how far from a “search for the truth” that a jury trial is…it’s more like a broadway stage play. Every detail is calculated to influence the emotions of the twelve dummies of the jury.
I don’t remember the exact details but I seem to remember he buddied up to police officers’ groups, had cops as friends, and did some charity work for them. Of course they returned the favor by looking the other way when he beat up Nicole. There’s one 911 tape where the operator can be told telling Nicole that it’s a ‘private matter’ between Simpson and…whoever. In any event, they weren’t eager to arrest him, and from what I’ve read, that’s not an altogether unusual attitude in some police departments. He just happened to be a celebrity. It beggars belief that the police department that cozied up to him before he killed his wife and her friend would suddenly turn on him for…what reason, again? One crooked cop they didn’t even know was going to be the detective on call that night? When they didn’t yet know whether Simpson himself was another victim or the perpetrator?
I think the real reason the case so polarized along racial lines was because the guy was so blatantly guilty, and commited such a savage crime, and the message sent was that murder was okay, as long as it was white people. If it had been something where the crime was non-violent, and the crook was less priveleged, I just don’t think people would have disagreed as much. But Simpson killed two people, did so viciously, and then he and his supporters laughed off the murders as being payback for injustices that Simpson himself hadn’t suffered. He wasn’t some poor kid from the wrong side of the tracks, trying to make good, and making a mistake. He was a rich guy who killed and got away with it. The message wasn’t solely about race, in the end.
The trial was certainly racially charged, but it was a two-way street. If there was a disproportionate amount of relief on the part of black people in response to the verdict (which I agree there was), there was also a disproportionate amount of indignation on the part of whites. pizzabrat nailed it this time: If Nicole Simpson had been your average black woman, would the public ire towards OJ been a quarter of what it is today? Would the whole saga have been force fed down our gullets every damn day, with networks replacing truly newsworthy information with empty calorie OJ junk? On the day the verdict was given, would white people–most of them complete strangers of the victims–been crying and hugging each other in the streets and holding candle light vigils? Maybe I’m being overly cynical here, but I seriously doubt it. If the victims had been black, Johnny Cochrane would not be the household name he is today, Judge Ito would be Judge Who?, and Mark Furhman would more than likely still have a job with the LAPD. This thread would be nonexistent.
Before some of you point your finger at the jury and fault them for being racially-biased, check yourself. It’s stupid to pretend that only black people were reacting irrationally to the case, when white people were also taking irrationality to new heights.
margin
Um, no. I think it was polarized because black people identified with the defendant and white people identified with the victims.
If Nicole and Ron had been black?
I can’t speak for everyone, but I still think I would’ve been absolutely disgusted by Simpson.
And I still don’t think it was race exactly-but money. If he had been a poor black man, he wouldn’t have gotten off. Cochran MADE it about race, and that to me is wrong.
White people hugging and crying in the streets, you with the face were certainly outnumbered by black people gloating. That wasn’t relief; there was excitement and jubilation. Keep in mind that a battered woman and an innocent bystander were stabbed to death. I’m sorry, what was the justification there again? Simpson stopped being a victim once he started hitting women—and Nicole was not the first.
Cite?
I’m sorry, where’s the equality here? One group rejoiced that a murderer went free; another wondered at that machinations that allowed them to believe that any message was worth that. Two people are dead, and a murderer is raising two children. I’m sure Simpson is totally fair when he talks about his former wife, too.
The black community has long taken the side of black men over black women’s side, so you’re blaming white people for this? Anita Hill and Desiree Washington certainly weren’t embraced by the black community; in fact, they were ostracized. It appears that only when the attacker is white does a black woman get any sympathy from her community. Why this is the fault of white people is beyond me.
If the Simpson case illustrated anything, it’s that sexism is still seen as a weapon against racism in some quarters.
Who in this thread has blamed white people for anything?
Pizzabrat, the choice to support black men over black women makes your and you with the face’s attitude about the importance of the victim’s race disingenuous at best. White people can’t win. If we support a black woman over a black woman, we’re taking part in a ‘high-tech lynching.’ If we support a white woman, it’s racism. The only option appears to be to support black men, no matter what the evidence of their crime. Otherwise, we’re racist.
**
That’s presumption on your part.
I saw news footage of black college students, beauty parlor patrons, and all sorts of people jumping around and cheering that a murderer would go free. That sure didn’t look like relief to me. Indignation over the same seems like a fairly mild reaction when you consider that two people were murdered.
Hanging your indignation on your conclusion that white people don’t give a damn about black women is presumptuous indeed. The fact is, that black men are men, and just as prone by percentage to the things that some men do. Saying that white people only cared because the victim was white is, in fact, an accusation of sorts, when the black community has before supported its men at the expense of its women. What is the white community supposed to do about this?
1- How so? How is showing disapproval for a double murderer getting off disproportionate?
2- The very idea that OJ would ever consider marrying a black woman is preposterous. But if he had, and the victims were black, I would be just as upset over this miscarriage of justice.
3- Perhaps. If you think the outrage is based on the race of the victim, then you are not free of racism yourself.
4- I wouldn’t characterize you as cynical. You seem to find it hard to believe that white people are interested in justice, which is racist.
5- Checked. Not a racist. Just hate to see a guilty man of any race go free for a crime that he so obviously committed.
6- Oh yeah. If a trial is decided solely on the basis of race, which this one was, then the other guys are being irrational.
I didn’t choose to support anyone, and I didn’t see any support in you with the face’s posts either. I was in sixth grade when the case started and middle school when the verdict was released - too young to follow the trial, and arrogance never motivated me to form an opinion on the whole matter later on. But I can still detect the racist assumptions in the reactions to the trial. The country was split in two over the verdict by race, yet whites act like they all came to their strong, unwavering conclusion purely through calm, rational, unbiased study of all the facts while the entire black population blindly supported O.J. just because he’s black. The idea that the black jurors saw and understood something that the general white population didn’t is of couse ridiculous.
You act like you don’t believe that they thought he was innocent. Why wouldn’t they be happy to see an innocent man escape persecution? Assuming they were right (and they are, according to the State), whites’ dissappointment that an innocent man wasn’t going to fry was extremely voracious. That’s my point, the assumption that the white side is of course right while the black side is just caught up in race is sickening. And the point of my “black woman” conclusion is that the racial aspect is why just about every white person in the country has made it a point to form a definitive opinion on it (while at the same time claim that it’s blacks making it a racial thing).
That’s the sort of technicality that irriatated people. Do you seriously believe the guy is innocent? He’s just another wife-beater who killed the wife when she finally cut all ties, and as such, he’s not unique. You’re kind of missing the central fact here: *He got away with killing two people. *
Except he wasn’t innocent.
Sorry, but you’re guilty of some racism here yourself. You’re assuming that white people think they’re right because they’re white.
[quote]
And the point of my “black woman” conclusion is that the racial aspect is why just about every white person in the country has made it a point to form a definitive opinion on it (while at the same time claim that it’s blacks making it a racial thing.
[quote]
Just about every white person? That’s fairly definite. So…have you met ‘just about every white person’? You’re claiming that blacks didn’t make it a racial thing but whites did. That’s the racism you claim you resent.
As a side note, I should point out that not every black person was celebrating Simpson’s acquittal. It’s just that the celebrating ones got the media coverage.
No it wasn’t. It was clearly hyperbolic.
No I’m not. I’m claiming that both sides were caught up in the racial hysteria, but too many people are acting as if only the other side is doing so.
margin
My turn to say “cite”?
Anyway, this is a hyperbolic statement I made, but the point remains the same: black people and white people let race influence their perception of things. I saw plenty of knee-jerkitude from both sides. White people were not bastions of calm, reasoned objectivity while blacks were mindless, irrational, blithering twits.
When have I said Simpson was a victim of anything?
What I saw was one group being happy that someone (who they thought was innocent) was found not guilty and another group anguishing that someone (who they thought was guilty) was found not guilty. What I found most interesting (in a scientific, sociological way) was the magnitude of emotions on both sides. People are murdered everyday in horrifically brutal ways; we hear about this every time the news is aired. Justice, unfortunately, is not always served. But to look at how many white people reacted over the OJ trial, you would have thought that this was the first time that the judicial system didn’t work as expected. Nicole and Ron were given such inordinate attention you would have thought they were the first people in the country to be murdered. It’s sort of like the whole Jon Benet media infactuation. Blond hair, pretty face, and foul-play seem like the perfect recipe for overexposure and sensationalization in this country.
This country got swept up in this trial not just because of racially-biased black people. The whole thing was like a big stupid vacuum cleaner and white people got sucked up into it, too.
For what? This makes no sense.
Paula Jones and Gennifer Flowers weren’t exactly loved by the “white community”, either. Your point?