20 years later, OJ Simpson & the verdict

[Irish27]

For those who thought OJ was innocent in the murders of Nicole Brown & Ron Goldman, do you still think he is innocent after 20 years? I always thought he was guilty and still do. Even though the prosecution screwed up many times, there was a lot of evidence against him.

Here is something of a surprise regarding African-Americans & what they think now about OJ today.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 ... =allsearch

[Chicat]

Here is something of a surprise regarding African-Americans & what they think now about OJ today.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 ... =allsearch

I never thought African Americans' attitudes about OJ had anything to do with the man or the case against him. Instead it was a reaction to the belief that an African American man could not receive a fair trial in this country, especially when the victim was White. Which is born out by incidences like the Chicago police department beating confessions out of Black suspects and even sending some innocent people to death row right around the same time. The facts of the case mattered a whole lot less than the notion that the police and court systems were out to get Black men, be they guilty or innocent.

[Spaceman Spiff]

Here is something of a surprise regarding African-Americans & what they think now about OJ today.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 ... =allsearch

I never thought African Americans' attitudes about OJ had anything to do with the man or the case against him. Instead it was a reaction to the belief that an African American man could not receive a fair trial in this country, especially when the victim was White. Which is born out by incidences like the Chicago police department beating confessions out of Black suspects and even sending some innocent people to death row right around the same time. The facts of the case mattered a whole lot less than the notion that the police and court systems were out to get Black men, be they guilty or innocent.

Or Mark Fuhrman's n-word dropping. I doubt most people ever thought OJ was innocent. Whether they thought he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt is more complex.

[ASUHATER!]

always believed he was guilty. i remember watching the verdict on tv when i was 8 haha.

[EastCoastCat]

Here is something of a surprise regarding African-Americans & what they think now about OJ today.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 ... =allsearch

I never thought African Americans' attitudes about OJ had anything to do with the man or the case against him. Instead it was a reaction to the belief that an African American man could not receive a fair trial in this country, especially when the victim was White. Which is born out by incidences like the Chicago police department beating confessions out of Black suspects and even sending some innocent people to death row right around the same time. The facts of the case mattered a whole lot less than the notion that the police and court systems were out to get Black men, be they guilty or innocent.

This.

I also think the fact that O.J. was not your sterotypical black man to the public at large also helped get him acquitted. My parents to this day say there is no way that O.J. - the famous football player and movie star - could have done it.

BTW, the prosecution screwed the pooch big time as well.

[Longhorned]

I remember feeling really invested in his innocence, and that was hard to overcome. Hard to relate to now that I think he's a sick creep.

[Chicat]

BTW, the prosecution screwed the pooch big time as well.

I don't know how you can let the trial portion of a case last for 8 months and not have some level of doubt creep into the minds of the jurors. If it was cut and dry that he did it, the prosecution's case should have lasted 3 days at most. Instead they tried overkill with technical witnesses and it backfired on them big time. And letting him try on gloves that were soaked in blood and then dried and shriveled? Whose bright idea was that?

My mom (an African American woman) was shocked at the time at the celebratory atmosphere in the African American community when he was acquitted. She understands better now, as do a lot of African Americans who now view him as guilty but at the time were cheering him on, but everyone has the benefit of hindsight. She approached it from the standpoint of a woman who was also physically abused and threatened with murder, and with the knowledge that you can love and marry a psychopath and have your life be in danger every moment that you are with that person.

I don't remember my thoughts on his guilt or innocence, but now I have no doubt in my mind that he slaughtered those two people. I'm glad he's in jail today, even if the charges and verdict were totally trumped up. He's getting what was long overdue to him.

[Longhorned]

BTW, the prosecution screwed the pooch big time as well.

I don't know how you can let the trial portion of a case last for 8 months and not have some level of doubt creep into the minds of the jurors. If it was cut and dry that he did it, the prosecution's case should have lasted 3 days at most. Instead they tried overkill with technical witnesses and it backfired on them big time. And letting him try on gloves that were soaked in blood and then dried and shriveled? Whose bright idea was that?

Attorneys basically have 5-7 years of junior college level education. It's a profession full of people who can't hack it in the real world. The notion that the state should pay its prosecutors a decent wage with long-term benefits is ludicrous.

[Chicat]

BTW, the prosecution screwed the pooch big time as well.

I don't know how you can let the trial portion of a case last for 8 months and not have some level of doubt creep into the minds of the jurors. If it was cut and dry that he did it, the prosecution's case should have lasted 3 days at most. Instead they tried overkill with technical witnesses and it backfired on them big time. And letting him try on gloves that were soaked in blood and then dried and shriveled? Whose bright idea was that?

Attorneys basically have 5-7 years of junior college level education. It's a profession full of people who can't hack it in the real world. The notion that the state should pay its prosecutors a decent wage with long-term benefits is ludicrous.

[Spaceman Spiff]

BTW, the prosecution screwed the pooch big time as well.

I don't know how you can let the trial portion of a case last for 8 months and not have some level of doubt creep into the minds of the jurors. If it was cut and dry that he did it, the prosecution's case should have lasted 3 days at most. Instead they tried overkill with technical witnesses and it backfired on them big time. And letting him try on gloves that were soaked in blood and then dried and shriveled? Whose bright idea was that?

My mom (an African American woman) was shocked at the time at the celebratory atmosphere in the African American community when he was acquitted. She understands better now, as do a lot of African Americans who now view him as guilty but at the time were cheering him on, but everyone has the benefit of hindsight. She approached it from the standpoint of a woman who was also physically abused and threatened with murder, and with the knowledge that you can love and marry a psychopath and have your life be in danger every moment that you are with that person.

I don't remember my thoughts on his guilt or innocence, but now I have no doubt in my mind that he slaughtered those two people. I'm glad he's in jail today, even if the charges and verdict were totally trumped up. He's getting what was long overdue to him.

I see things a little differently. DNA was a new science at the time, and not at all familiar to the public. To me, that's one thing where 20 years makes so much difference. In the mid 90's, you needed long presentations to explain DNA. Today, CSI teaches jurors all they need to know.

The prosecution was working with circumstantial evidence, and the bloody glove was the big link. That's why Fuhrman's racist tapes were a godsend for the defense. They needed to make the jury believe there was a chance the glove was planted. Why would a detective do that? Maybe because he's a racist...and we've got tapes to prove it!

In 2014, you have things like GPS tracking of cell phones. Assuming OJ did it, it would have been a heck of a lot easier to convict today because technology lets you do so much more. I'm not saying the prosecution did everything right (the glove fitting was bad) but it wasn't a slam dunk, particularly when Fuhrman hosed them.

Personally, I blame the judge allowing unfettered media access for the length and circus atmosphere. I doubt OJ's trial will ever be topped as a media circus. When Jay Leno has dancing Judge Ito's, you've gone off the rails. Hell, when I remember the judge's name 20 years later, there's an issue.

[Chicat]

All good points.

And yeah, I have the benefit of hindsight, but I remember thinking at the time as the trial dragged on that there was no way that someone could sit in a jury box month after month and come to the conclusion that a defendant is guilty beyond the shadow of a doubt.

I feel like Ito and the prosecutors were such media whores that they forgot what their job really was.

[Merkin]

Didn't the team in the civil trial find images of OJ with the Bruno Magli shoes on and the tight gloves from some broadcast that the DA never even looked for? That's just laziness.

[Chicat]

OJ was right. Those are some ugly shoes.

[Spaceman Spiff]

All good points.

And yeah, I have the benefit of hindsight, but I remember thinking at the time as the trial dragged on that there was no way that someone could sit in a jury box month after month and come to the conclusion that a defendant is guilty beyond the shadow of a doubt.

I feel like Ito and the prosecutors were such media whores that they forgot what their job really was.

I don't doubt the defense engineered the length intentionally. The longer and more confusing things are, the more potential for the jury to find doubts. I fault the judge more for a lack of control because the prosecution is always ultimately at the judge's mercy, but I can't say when the prosecutors write books after, it isn't fair to think they had their minds on fame.

[Zero]

Oh my. The Reebok Pumps.

[Merkin]

OJ was right. Those are some ugly shoes.

I'd kill the bitch that bought me those shoes.

[azgreg]

OJ killed someone? Who knew?

[Spaceman Spiff]

Oh my. The Reebok Pumps.

I had the pair with the plastic divider on the back so you could separately pump up the upper and the sole depending on where you put the switch. It was huge and it made it look like the shoe had a tumor.

[Alieberman]

I still haven't made my mind up

[EVCat]

His flight from police and "goodbye" letter, while inadmissible in court, are admissible in the trial of public opinion. Those simply were not the actions of an innocent man. At that point, he didn't know the case against him. If he didn't do it, and with the resources he had to prove so, his first reaction would have been "let's get this cleared up right the fcck now because this is going to hurt my reputation." This is not automatically the reaction one should expect from an innocent accused, because many have reason to fear incorrect charges. But given his resources, his fame, and his trading on positive public opinion of him as a commodity and career, his reaction if innocent would have, IMO, been far different. Even if not defiant, his reaction would have been something other than suicidal, apologetic, and resigned to a disastrous fate.

Add to that the actual physical evidence, past history, activities that day, witnesses who saw his rush back to the house but never testified because they cashed in with tabloids instead, and motive...there is no reasonable doubt.

I saw and heard more of that trial than I normally would have...I was still working in the media and my station ran trial updates every 15 minutes and a one hour recap at days end, all courtesy of CBS News. I was shocked at just how much evidence the prosecution had given the not guilty plea. I was covering courts at that time and, in comparison, the states case against OJ was far tighter than many that were leveraged into guilty pleas. We were still a more innocent people in this regard, and the celebrity of OJ, juror nullifification, and black anger with the LAPD didn't factor into my thinking. I mean, this case was a slam dunk, even with the prosecutor errors, in my eyes. And as a sports fan and OJ fan, I was shocked.

I have no doubt there was some evidence tampering. Make a great case fullproof. I would not be surprised if Mark Furmann himself distributed blood evidence at the scene. All that considered, the dude was still so obviously guilty in my eyes

[catgrad97]

Twenty years later, and never has there still been a trial more influenced by TV ever.

I still remember walking out of Cochise Hall to the Student Union to grab some lunch because I couldn't stand hearing anymore about "verdict day"--only to be followed all the way down to Old Main by the verdict blasting on 100 freaking TVs, on simultaneously in multiple dorms.

Holy God, was that overkill. Closest I've ever felt to being in red China. Creeped me the hell out.

Whether OJ was innocent or not ultimately became secondary to how much of a role TV played in the trial. Thank God for the Internet, because, whether you were playing up to it or simply couldn't turn it off, America that fall was virtually held hostage by the damn idiot box.

[PieceOfMeat]

Attorneys basically have 5-7 years of junior college level education. It's a profession full of people who can't hack it in the real world. The notion that the state should pay its prosecutors a decent wage with long-term benefits is ludicrous.

this website needs a rep system, badly.

....

as for OJ. I couldn't stand everyone's fascination with the trial, and I purposely avoided seeing it if I could (hard to do when every TV in every business/home has it on).

Didn't really care if he did it or not, verdict went his way and that was that. I do remember finding it a little ridiculous that once found not guilty on criminal charges, that he could be taken to the cleaners in civil court (again, not caring if he did it or not, just the fact that he could be taken to court and lose in civil court after being tried in criminal court already).

Though, his actions since have fairly obviously demonstrated his character, or lack thereof.

[Merkin]

Didn't really care if he did it or not, verdict went his way and that was that. I do remember finding it a little ridiculous that once found not guilty on criminal charges, that he could be taken to the cleaners in civil court (again, not caring if he did it or not, just the fact that he could be taken to court and lose in civil court after being tried in criminal court already).

Different standards required for conviction in a criminal case over a civil case. Since criminal takes away freedom you need to prove "without a reasonable doubt". Since civil only involves money you only need a "preponderance of evidence".

Simply speaking in a criminal case you need to know he did it. In a civil case you you can just think he did it.

[Merkin]

Dumb ass cop had it the whole time.

[UAEebs86]

Wouldn't have mattered in the criminal case, found too late, double jeopardy.

[ASUHATER!]

Oj is in prison anyways. Still intriguing

[Alieberman]

CNN has been cumming all over itself for the last couple hours.

[Merkin]

Should have had these guys on the case. OJ would be on death row.

[UAEebs86]

[Puerco]

Interesting timing on this 'find' given the new television series... Coincidence or aliens?