This is funny, and kind of sad. Boblibdem made an assertion, you corrected one part of it, but you’re evidently unaware of the facts about the rest of it. And now you’re whining about backpeddling, when my assertion remains more or less true.
and this?
Huh, let’s see. You corrected on poster with one fact that didn’t address the fact that the vast majority of what he said was true: OJ does not date black women. He did at one point, what was it? Twenty, thirty years ago? You’re the one backpeddling like crazy, trying to get away from that.
Gee, all I read is a couple of ‘blerbs’. You know what, ** you with the face?** Just ignore me. I’m getting sick of pointing out shit that you’re just determined to ignore, and you’re not going to be open-minded about this at all. ElivisLives I’ve actually read something similar, but I haven’t read anything that definative. Do you remember where you read it? I’m tempted to dig out the Toobin book—too bad that you with the face never encountered it----because it really is a good overview of the case. The sorry fact is that without the defense playing the only card they really had—the racial issues one----it would have been a fairly run-of-the-mill case. It didn’t have to wind up this way at all, and we can thank the defense for it.
What is this “rest of it” that you keep harping upon? BobLibDem asserts that OJ wouldn’t even think of marrying a woman, I rebut his error with fact that shows he is wrong, and yet you persist in saying I’m the one who is clueless. And you’re supposed to the logical-thinking one here?
And Jesus wept.
So fucking what? What does that have to do with anything? This may come as a big surprise to your all-so-very logical sensibilities, but just because a black man dates white women (even to the exclusion of other races) it does not make him a killer. Read this again until it sinks in.
Am I in the twilight zone or are you purposely trying to help me prove my point, which is that many white people let racial bias color how they viewed the case. If you are not consciously helping me out in this debate, I have no choice but to conclude that either you don’t really understand your position after all. You are making this all too simple for me, margin.
I really don’t know what you want me to be open-minded about. That OJ likes white women? Okay. I never opined otherwise. That the idea that OJ would even consider marrying/dating black women is preposterous? Um, facts suggest otherwise. And besides, I don’t care enough about him to form an opinion about his preferences based on silly hearsay. He’s a stranger to me. More on topic: Do you want me to agree with you that black people were the only ones influenced by race in this case? Sorry, no can do. You have done nothing except inadvertantly help me prove my position, which is that there was no black monopoly on race-tainted subjectivity. You can create all the weak strawmen that you want, but until you address that point then I will take you up on your advice; I will ignore you.
I thought she was black? Still, to me the what was so terrible about this case is that it was so blatantly obvi-flippin-ous that he did it and yet he was never convicted. I never particularly felt any identification with the victims. Heck, I rather liked the old, Pre-murder OJ in movies.
Cite for the 26 affadavits? Because it’s a fact that leather shrinks when wet. It’s also a fact that putting latex gloves in leather makes it just about impossible to get one’s hand inside.
‘Seemed’ planted? In what way? How was the blood totally out of place?
Nicole Simpson was knocked unconscious while Simpson dealt with Ron Goodman, who had many defensiveness woudnds. Once he was dead, the killer pulled Nicole’s head back by the hair and slit her throat. The fact that Simpson didn’t get blood on his shoes alone only indicates that he didn’t get blood on his shoes. Walking carefully would have avoided blood puddles or whatever. Who knows what he put on his shoes?
The defendant had a history of beating his wife. Apply this style of reasoning to Simpson—as you’ve done to Fuhrman, and his past acts are enough to convict him.
Well, I’m curious as to how blood can ‘seem’ planted.
[/QUOTE]
I know it is a mistake trying to answer this, but what the hell?
Where did you get the idea latex groves were used? Close-ups of the bloody gloves were shown, the prosecution was right there while he was trying them on and even tugged at them some. Where did you get the idea gloves of any kind shrink? I have never seen a pair of gloves shrink in my life. That’s what they’re made for, to muck around in the snow and clean ice off the windows. Oh, yes, there also was current research statistics from the glove manufacturer, done by an independent research firm, showing the gloves do not shrink when wet.
Some of the blood they took from OJ for testing turned up missing and unaccounted for. The blood on the socks was in a place covered by his pants under normal conditions when standing up.
If he had knocked his wife out as you say, what with? His knuckles were not brused, in fact, he had no bruses, scrapes, scratches or cuts anywhere on his body, save for a small cut on one finger. He said he got that cut when a glass used for rinsing the mouth fell into the sink and broke while he was brushing his teeth. The procecution never proved any different.
The testimony against Fuhrman, brought out a possible homicide he committed, along with several other accounts of his extreme racism.
He was indicted after the trial on some of these accusations, but I didn’t hear about the outcome.
There was a lot of talk about a bag that was supposed to contain bloody clothes and many other things of that nature, but no hard proof of anything.
I assume you just threw this in at random. Do you really need a cite that Simpson was wearing latex gloves when he “tried” to put on the gloves?
Again, I can’t believe this is meant seriously. Leather shrinks. It happens.
In Southern California?
Once you come up with the 26 affidavits you claimed earlier, I will need a cite for this too.
No, the technician who drew the blood mis-estimated the amount.
While you are at it, perhaps you could explain how they planted Simpson’s blood at the crime scene before he was in custody and before they had a sample from him.
So committing a double murder is “normal conditions”?
Um, did you happen to remember that this is a Hall of Fame former football player here, against a woman who weighed roughly half what he did.
Actually, Simpson told several different versions of how he got the cut. His story changed in other details significantly as well.
Bugliosi made an interesting point in his analysis of the case.
In the Simpson “suicide” letter, Simpson thanks the police for the way they treated him. Assuming that Simpson was really innocent, the police must have been framing him at that point. If Simpson were really innocent, he would have known this. Would you thank the police for framing you, if you were innocent?
No, it was an incorrect verdict. I would even go so far as to say that it was a verdict that no reasonably intelligent, fair-minded person could agree with.
<No, it was an incorrect verdict. I would even go so far as to say that it was a verdict that no reasonably intelligent, fair-minded person could agree with. >
Agree completely.Tho all circumstantial,the evidence ** overwhelmingly **pointed to the fact that OJ was up to somethingbetween 10 and 11,which every body seemed to agree was the murder timeframe.
His stories changed before and during the trail on key points (taking a nap-putting golf balls,cutting a hand in Chi,declining chauffer’s help in loading a bag).
Between the chaufeur and Kato I would have thought a hung jury may be the best he could hope for,based on circumstantial evidence/no eyewitness.But after-what-2 hours they come in with an innocent verdict?
This after the impassioned "If it doesn’t fit-you must acquit"or some rubbish like that.This is a million dollar attorney we’re talking about here.
I guess he knows more about the general populace than I do.Government by soundbite seems to be the vogue nowadays after all.
My initial thought after that summation,which I was chuckling over was “If they acquit,they’re full of shit”
I among other posters I never saw a racial slant to the participants until the whole Furman thing got rolling.Didn’t realize most of the jurors where black or African American or Negroid,or whatever is the currrent flavor of the month when describing that racial minority with the dark skin color.
I thought the prosecution did a terrible job trying to sidestep the Furman racehate thing and lost stature in the public (and obviously jurors) minds,and likely-as it turns out-lost it right there.
I still can’t believe the OJ believers aren’t wondering how that "search for the real killers"is going.
While not defending lekatt’s overall approach (or odd claims regarding material facts, the technical answer is that the criminal trial jury was required to reach a decision based on a standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt.” If the testimony of (for example) the forensic pathologist suggested tampering with the evidence or other information suggested that the testimony for the prosecution was flawed, the correct verdict was “not guilty.”
The civil trial required only a “preponderance of evidence” and that jury had the liberty to say to themselves, “somebody in the police force or prosecutor’s office screwed up, but boy does this evidence basically point directly to OJ.”
(On re-reading the thread: I’m also always amused by the number of people who huff that the “black” jury had already decided to let OJ go and that they simply used the prosecution’s mistakes (or Cochran’s rhetoric) as an “excuse” to do so. Most of the jurors (several of whom were white) were interviewed after the verdict. Every one whom I saw inteviewed pointed to the testimony of corrupted evidence, particularly from the Connecticut pathologist, as having played a key role in their decision. In one respect, it is unfortunate that Cochran played the race card, because now people who wish to cast the whole issue in terms of “blacks setting free one of their own” can point to Cochran’s antics as “evidence.” (I am not denying that race played a significant part in Cochran’s games or in the outside perception; I am only noting that the standard claim that the “black jury had already made up their minds to free OJ” (so beloved of the late and unlamented John John) is not supported by any evidence that has been presented to me.)
I should be packing the computer…but I will comment on this:
Here is what creeped me out about Simpson during the trial. When he was asked to try on the gloves, never mind that they “didn’t fit” (plenty of reasons for that, driving gloves are designed to be tight, and they aren’t for clearing snow & ice. They’re for being stylish. A paid of latex gloves will make them damn near impossible to put on).
What creeped me out was what OJ was doing while trying them on: Smiling and laughing.
Now say what you want about who owns the gloves, but they were the gloves of the killer.
OJ pleaded that he would ‘take a bullet’ for Nicole. He claimed to love her. (Never mind the beatings).
If I loved someone, and then was asked to put on the gloves of the killer. I sure as FUCK would not be smiling and laughing.
“[Forensics expert Herbert] MacDonell’s testimony was damaging to the prosecution. He testified that Nicole’s blood found on the socks which were in Simpson’s bedroom had been applied directly ‘by compression’ rather than being splattered on by someone walking through the blood puddles found at Bundy. That took the heart right out of their case and, worse, diverted attention away from the DNA evidence. Someone planted blood on the socks, so it’s entirely possible that someone could have planted Simpson’s blood at the scene of the crime. After all, didn’t Detective Philip Vannatter drive around all day with the defendant’s blood in his car instead of turning it right in? And didn’t the people over at Piper Tech leave the door to the evidence room unlocked on occassion, possibly allowing someone to sneak in and take Simpson’s blood and plant it? The answer to both questions is ‘yes.’”
“Further, there’s the question of why there are no Bruno Magli-tracked bloody footprints around the area where the glove was found. Nor was there evidence that the spiderwebs that Fuhrman broke to find the glove were broken by a killer who dropped the glove and then re-woven by a lightning-fast eight-legged creature.”
–The Simpson Trial in Black and White, Tom Elias and Dennis Schatzman
Even with a pair of latex gloves on, a pair of gloves that fit you will still fit even if harder to get on. Those gloves clearly didn’t fit OJ, the result would have been the same without the latex gloves. They just didn’t fit. It’s amazing to me that the prosecution didn’t know that before hand. How hard is it to find out what size gloves OJ wears? How hard would it be to find someone with the same size hands? I think the prosecution knew the gloves wouldn’t fit, but since they were in evidence they had to make the move before the defense made theirs, assumming of course that the defense would have made same move.
Blacks and whites were divided on this case because the life reality of black people are different than those of white people. All you have to do is look at the racial breakdown of the prison population to figure out that there are two types of justice based on what the color of your skin is. I will admit that even though most of the disparity has to do with class, it kind of still works out the same way. Police and prosecutors do lie and withhold evidence and are rarely held accountable for it. Look at all of the people that were on death row that had to be released(over 100, the marjority of them black) because they were innocent and in some cases tortured until the confessed to crimes they didn’t commit.
I think justice was served and I think the system worked the way it’s supposed to when the prosecution and the defense are on equal ground with access to specialist, experts, etc. OJ didn’t get away with murder, he got found not guilty.
And that was the bottom line, a reasonable doubt was created by the bumbling (and racist?) LA police, along with the ineptitude of the prosecution team.
:smack: :smack: Is there no legal case in America that can’t be turned into a racial hand-wringer?
I’m white. I’m not American. I couldn’t give two hoots for the racial profile of either victim or accused. or the supposed or actual racial bias of the police force. The facts and evidence are clear cut. He did it. Everything points to him doing it. Not one iota of evidence suggests someone else did it. There is nothing to support why anyone would wish to frame him. If the police had it in for him they had plenty of opportunity prior to the murders.
All the rest of the racial, blank/white divide nonsense is totally irrelevant, yet for some reason seems to loom large in American thoughts on this case.
And the whole glove thing… They were tight leather gloves that hadn’t been used in months. Leather left to it’s own devices dries and shrinks, particularly if it is old and worn. And to try wearing them over another pair of gloves :smack: Why did the prosecution try this? What possible evidence could it have supplied? If the gloves did fit, then so what? It’s evidence of nothing. It’s evidence only of how the trial and those in it had totally lost the plot and sight of what they were supposed to be doing. The entire thing was a farce.
If the facts and the evidence are so clear cut, why did twelve people that had first hand access to the facts and evidence find him not guilty? How does the word of someone that at best as second knowledge of case, stack up against that? What is your assertion based on? Where you a juror? One of the prosecutors? Have you seen or touched any of the evidence? Have you read the court transcript? Yeah, I didn’t think so.
Race is an issue in America. Study the history, and if you have the opportunity, live the life of a black person in America. Then and only then will you understand the relevance.
And why do so many others find their verdict incomprehensible? The reason to doubt their verdict is the same as the reason to doubt the sanity of all the performers in this circus.
Indeed. And totally irrelevant in this case. This was not a black man killing a white woman. This was not a famous and wealthy black man accused of murder. It was a straight-forward case of a man accused of murdering his wife. Race is only an issue if you want to make it one.