Do you think OJ did it?

[DuctapeFatwa]

I made a reference to OJ in another thread (link below) and a couple of people seemed interested in the subject, so I am pre-emptively starting this OJ thread so the other one won't get too Juicy.

In the interest of efficiency, my opinion is that he did not.

From what I have been able to determine from media reports, which are admittedly by no means authoritative, OJ is (or at least was at that time) a disturbed man, a domestic abuser with drug problems and anger management issues, unfaithful to his wife, a sort of generalist sleazeball, who may or may not have killed people. He appears to have done everything else.

However, the question before the jury was not whether OJ was a model husband or a nice man or a good role model for kids. The jury was not asked to decide whether OJ was a sleazeball, an unfaithful husband, an unreformed batterer, a drug abuser, or even whether he had ever killed anybody else.

Their charge was to decide if he killed those two particular people that night.

I think the answer is no. Aside from the ill-fitting glove forever enshrined in bad verse, and while acknowledging that OJ is no intellectual giant, I do not think that he is stupid enough to slit the throat of his ex-wife and her friend and then go order a Big Mac.

OJ is (or at least then he was) a rich man, who, if he wanted Nicole dead, could very easily have simply had her killed.

He had his problems, there is no indication that he was happy, or even content. But he could afford his vices, he could party. He was a rich man, a celebrity, with plenty to lose.

Going out into the street and butchering two people on the way to McDonald's like the glove, does not fit.

What do you think?



Here is the link to the thread mentioned at the beginning of this post
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=230251

[nixonwasbetterthanW]

1. of course he did it

Why was Ron Goldman's blood in O.J.'s car?

What was O.J. cradling his hand when he was on the flight to Chicago?

Why did it take O.J. half an hour to answer the door when his limo arrived to take him to the airport?

Why did O.J. flee?

[trumad]

3. OJ is innocent

He was framed by predudice cops who wanted to make names for themselves and go on to right books. He was framed by the DA so they sould go on to become CNN analysts and spokespeople. He was used by Johnny Cochran so that Seinfeld could base a character after him... He was framed by Catwoman so she could badger me for the last couple of years about this subject.

I am convinced OJ will find who murdered Nicole and Ron and I am positive he will find them on a Golf Course!

[tom_paine]

59. OJ will find the real killer when Ashcroft finds the Plame Leaker

For the same reasons.

[Indiana Democrat]

62. Framed???

So, these racist cops framed OJ while on the scene JUST AFTER THE MURDERS WERE COMMITTED.

I guess part of the conspiracy was that these same cops committed the murders so they KNEW the "Real Killers" wouldn't be found later in the day, later that month or anytime in the future?

Is that what you're saying????


Or maybe they just rolled the Death Row Dice and hoped the real killers would never be turned-up?

Maybe that's what you're saying????

[nostamj]

5. exactly

i was on a jury for a murder trial and we convicted on MUCH less evidence than was available in the OJ case.

and Ron's blood in OJ's car is one of the most significant. and there's TONS more.

read the petrochelli or schiller books

[DUreader]

24. Mark Furman cast the Huge shadow of Doubt

crooked cops lead to that kind of shadow

[jmowreader]

92. Of course he didn't do it

Why did Philip Vannatter take OJ's blood for a ride all over LA without proper chain of evidence paperwork?

Why was OJ's car so clean? I know that when I stab two people to death then get in my white Bronco, the car's just covered in blood. Especially the upholstery; it always looks like an abattoir in there after I commit a double murder with a hunting knife. OJ's white Bronco was cleaner after he supposedly killed two people than mine was the day I bought it from a car dealer. And especially why was there no blood on the gas pedal? (And no, Mr. Ashcroft, I haven't murdered anyone. This is called "sarcasm.")

Why did the prosecution stop Kary Mullis from taking the witness stand? Could it have been because Kary Mullis (who won the Nobel Prize for inventing the polymerase chain reaction DNA amplification technique) knows just slightly more about PCR than did the prosecution, and he was ready to divulge his disdain for forensic PCR? As Dr. Mullis once said, quantitative PCR is an oxymoron.

Why did they need to bring the phlebotomist back to the stand? Remember this guy? Little mousy gentleman who drew OJ's blood. When the defense started to question the missing blood from OJ's sample, they brought this guy back to admit that he drew less blood than he testified he did. "I remember that over a year ago I drew seven milliliters of blood from OJ Simpson's arm, not eight." Uhh...guys, you just killed your case right there. You impeached all of your evidence. Not that Vannatter's hauling the defendant's blood around with no chain-of-custody documentation was enough to get all of the blood evidence ruled inadmissable in any courtroom in America. You have a milliliter of blood. Give me a milliliter of blood, a unit of plasma, a paint shaker and a PCR system and I can manufacture enough evidence to put anyone away. And like I'm going to remember to the milliliter how much blood I drew from someone a year and a half ago.

Why did OJ flee? I dunno...maybe he knew some of the LA cops are racist thugs? Maybe he thought he'd get one?

[Lindacooks]

100. 'Why was OJ's car so clean?'

That's the wrong question. Why was there any blood there at all? Do you routinely drip blood while driving and walking around your house?

Of course the SOB is guilty. This was a standard domestic abuse situation which escalated into violent murder when the man could no longer control the woman. Happens all the time.

[Demonaut]

96. Trumad, my guess is you're Black.....please dont think I'm prejudiced

or racist but this is was a defining point on black justice in the US, I used to work in a store that sold tv's, the store was in a very mixed race business location, a large crowd of business people showed up to watch the verdict on our 200 plus tv's, the blacks in the crowd cheered the verdict and the whites looked on glumly...it was an eye opener for sure, I believe the verdict was wrong and in a way set back black white relations to some degree, but again It's just my opinion. Injustices do happen all the time and being black in the US is still being a second class citizen.

[Solomon]

123. I see. The O.J. verdict set back race relations

but the acquittal of rodney king's batterers did not. OK.

[Tomee450]

140. Unfortunately,

racism blinds people. As another African American, it is very disheartening to read some of these posts. The rage is so glaring. I do not believe Simpson did the crime. However, even if he had, why this great outrage years after the verdict has been rendered. It's all about race;the fact that Nicole was allegedly killed by a black man, and he did not pay for it. I doubt if this case would even be discussed had Nicole been a black woman. All of us know this. Any black person who believes the attitude of millions of whites toward black has improved, need only to read some of these post. Oj is called names, the jury is racist, the jury is paying back. Your statement that blacks convict other blacks every day is completely dismissed.

In Texas Robert Durst admitted to killing and dismembering his neighbor and is believed to have killed his wife and friend. He was acquitted of the murder. Where is the outrage? Durst is not being discussed and will soon be forgotten.

Some people's racism leads them to ignore any evidence that would exonerate a black accused of murdering a white.

There are whites who do not believe the cops would frame anyone. Yet police in the Ramparts Division of the LA police department did just that. Not only did they frame but also shot defendants, then testified against them at trial which resulted in prison sentences. Many verdicts have been overturned and prisoners released. Geronimo Pratt spent over twenty years in jail for a crime he did not commit.Yet, in the case of OJ in the minds of some, the cops just would not have framed him.

This is supposedly a progressive board,butit appears that many forget about being progressives when it comes to black people accused of harming whites. Fairness and reason go out the window and they begin to sound like individuals one would find on a racist right wing forum. Given the history of this country, I wonder how anyone could carry such rage over this one case when whites have murdered so many blacks and gotten away with it. It's all about race, period.

I truly find this thread to be most disturbing.

[petrock2004]

148. i haven't read most of the posts in this thread yet, but

i have to disagree with some things that you said.

"I doubt if this case would even be discussed had Nicole been a black woman."

i could be completely wrong, but i think that race was less of an issue with OJ than his celebrity. i think that if any celebrity was accused in a murder this brutal, it would be a huge news story. that one guy was accused of shooting his wife, but he didn't slit her throat... i think the goriness kind of made it seemed worse.

i think racism still runs rampant in american culture, from both sides. i've never heard anything about the LA police that would make me think they're the most colorblind group of people in the world - on the contrary, i could believe that a lot of them are bigots.

however, i think your attitude is very destructive to your point. not all whites are murdering racist hate-mongers. i'm sure you don't mean to imply that, but your statement is very angry.

i think it would do everybody a lot of good to back away from generalizing statements, because it's hard to get people to agree with you once you've offended them.

[Tomee450]

151. I am upset

by what I see as whites playing by two sets of rules. This case was all about race. Too many whites have gotten away with murdering black people without this kind of rage being engendered. I stand by what I wrote. I do not belive that had the victims been black, we would still be talking about this case. I watched this case from beginning to end and imo, there was reasonable doubt. Thirteen year old Emmitt Till was murdered in Mississippi and white jurors acquitted the murderers. This case is rarely spoken of by white people. Four little girls were murdered in Birmingham and only recently have one of the murderers gone to jail. Two of the murderers died without ever being brought to justice. I don't see any outrage coming from the white community. White policemen kill black youth who are fleeing from them;shoot them in the back. They are rarely convicted and many whites offer excuses for the police.

Yes, this is about race. No one talks about Claus Von Bulou who was acquitted of attempting to murder his wife. No one talks about the white minister who also tried to kill his wife but was also acquitted
and as I indicated earlier people are no longer talking about Robert Durst who actually admitted committing murder and got away with it. As a black person, I cannot help but believe that racism is involved when whites show no great outrage when whites are acquitted of murder yet can't stop talking about the one case in which a black man of great wealth was acquitted of murdering whites.

[linazelle]

149. I believe OJ did it and I'm black...I don't think it's racist for

others to label the choices made in the OJ case as racist when most blacks did choose OJ's side. That's just a fact.

One argument I found disturbing was the one where many contend the same attention wouldn't have been generated had the victim been black.

Personally, I think OJ's celebrity would have created a sensation no matter what. Furthermore, that statement says that I don't care about Nicole being murdered because she was white since you wouldn't have cared if the victim was black.

I think that if a person commits murder, skin color is a non-issue. The concern should be the loss of life--especially when the conditions are as brutal as they were with OJ.

[Tomee450]

153. I strongly disagree with your assertions.

In this country race often determines whether a person goes to jail or not. It seems that every other month an African American is released from prison after having served long sentences for a crime he never committed. Sometimes the defendant was convicted by "eye witness" testimony. In this society, and I am surprised that you as a black, seem not to realize this, African American are often prosecuted for crimes a white person would never be charged with. Several years ago, a study showed that prosecutors used the three strikes law much more often if the accused was black. I must stand by what I wrote. This outrage is all about race and I am greatly saddened.

I too believe that race should not matter in determining the guilt or innocence of a defendant. The truth is that in cases involving black people, white people do consider the race of the defendant. There is ample evidence that show this to be true. I find it very insulting for people to assert that black people would let guilty people go free. The evidence does not support this belief. As another poster has indicated, African Americans have no qualms about convicting black defendants whom they believe to be guilty. IMO, there was enough reasonable doubt to acquit Simpson and the jury would have been irresponsible had it not done so.

[Democrats unite]

2. Mr. Simpson got away with murder

There is no doubt in my mind.

[mac56]

4. Remember when he said he'd find the real killers?

Wouldn't rest till he did?

How's that going for him, by the way?

[JPace]

22. O.J. is busy looking for the true killers

on all the golf courses he can find.

[Silverhair]

6. Yes, I believe he did it. n/t

[Loonman]

7. Has he been doggedly searching for the real killers?

Pulling out all the stops?

Hiring tons of PIs?

Making entreaties to anyone who'll listen about his deeply consuming desire for justice?


No,
No,
and No.

[mac56]

8. To the tune of "White Christmas":

"I'm search-ing for the ree-ee-e-al kil-lers...
With ev-ry round of golf I play..."

(from Letterman, way back when)

[Astarho]

9. I think he did

and while acknowledging that OJ is no intellectual giant, I do not think that he is stupid enough to slit the throat of his ex-wife and her friend and then go order a Big Mac.

OJ is (or at least was at that time) a disturbed man, a domestic abuser with drug problems and anger management issues,

I think those anger management issues finally pushed him over the edge and he snapped, and was not thinking about consequences at the time. The wounds to both seemed more like someone who had 'gone nuts' rather then a pre-planned execution.

I also think he probably blocked it from his mind, and does not remember it.

[PatrickHenry]

10. Of course he did it. He did not kill them and then go get

a Big Mac. He had gone with Kato to get a Big Mac EARLIER in the evening (also suspected of picking up some meth at the same time according to testimony from the meth dealer himself).

Basic timeline is: OJ and Kato go to grab some burgers and then stop and pick up some methamphetamine.

Later, all hopped up on speed, he murders the two victims and then rushes home and takes a limo to the airport to leave town, in the process leaving the victims blood on and in his car on on the glove on his property.

The next day when he is flown back to California you can see that he was still wide awake (due to the meth) and had a bloody cut on his hand.

After all that he rides around the California freeways with his buddy and hundreds of cops chasing him for hours calling friends and family telling them that he was going to kill himself etc. etc.

This is not the behaviour of an innocent man.

[sistersofmercy]

11. Ok I'm not convinced either way.

I know about the papercut on OJ's finger but if the crime happened as it has been stated, wouldn't OJ have bruises? Isn't the official story that Nicole's friend was the last killed? He was atheletic and would have fought. Also weren't there contamination issues with the blood in OJ's Bronco?

[DuctapeFatwa]

14. Oh you mischievous one! That is a whole nother pie!

And I should have at least touched on it in the original post.

The real question before the jury was whether the state had proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he killed those 2 particular people that night, and a very good argument can be made that even if he did, that Mr Fuhrman and his colleagues in their zeal to live out their creed, as it were, made such a mess of things that they ruined the state's chances of proving their case.

So, as I said, my personal opinion is that he did not do it.

But if he did do it, it was not the jury that "got him off," but police incompetence.

[sistersofmercy]

21. Where were the children?

Where was Nicole's dog? Outside iirc, I can't imagine that her dog made no attempt to protect her. I can't remember the breed but even untrained dogs will usually defend their owners. Was it an Akita (spelling) something like that. if so they are fiercely protective dogs. A friend of my had one. Did the dog have any injuries?

[DuctapeFatwa]

25. I think the kids were with Nicole's mom? I don't remember

it has been a little while and you see I already messed up and got the Big Mac event out of sequence.

I remember at the time there was a lot of "if only the dog could talk" stuff, but there was no blood on the dog, if I remember correctly.

[nostamj]

31. there WAS blood on the dog's feet

when they found him wandering the neighborhood.

and the kids were sleeping upstairs.

have you done ANY research at all?

[sistersofmercy]

35. I haven't read any of this in a while but I thought the children were

at Nicole's sleeping. My question to that is, do you honestly believe a father would kill the mother of his children while they were sleeping right upstairs? I don't. They could have been the ones to find her body and I don't believe OJ is ruthless enough to do that. I knew about the blood on the dog's feet but I asked if the dog had any injuries. Bruising? Mouth injuries? Was the dog ever checked for these things beyond the blood of the victims on it's feet?

[nostamj]

40. yes, i honestly believe

that a man in a drug-enhanced RAGE would do exactly what he did.

read "Triumph of Justice" by Daniel Petrocelli for starters.

[sistersofmercy]

53. But you didn't answer my question about the dog.

Was the dog examined for evidence of any injuries? I don't recall ever reading that it was.

[nostamj]

65. i don't know

and i don't think it's significant.

the evidence is still overwhelming.

and remember, OJ lost the civil case on the same evidence.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

106. The dog was...

from Nicole and Simpson's marriage, and was very familiar with OJ.

The dog would have a different reaction to a threat from a stranger.

[radwriter0555]

69. OUTRAGE by Bugliosi is a far better read on the trial and it's

wretched outcome.

Simpson did it, hands down. He also told Rosie Grier he did it, and he had his eldest son with him when he did.

Inside source told me this at the time.

[nostamj]

71. i've read ALL the books

just don't have a copy of that in my home library. and i agree it's one of the best.

OJ apologists remind me of 'no pentagon plane' activists.

no attempt to ground their arguments with logic.

the idea that the police would engineer a complex frame-up when they didn't even know if OJ was in the COUNTRY at the time of the murders.

but.... Mark Furman isn't an angel and the kids were upstairs. INNOCENT!

[Solomon]

77. Wrong wrong wrong.

Don't you think it's possible that police could plant evidence even on a guilty man? Or do you think that the only time evidence is planted, it's only on innocent people?

If the police hadn't planted evidence, he would have been convicted. But a jury should never make it okay for police to plant evidence. Once you see that, you have to throw the case out. Can you understand why? BECAUSE IF YOU DON'T PLANTING OF EVIDENCE WOULD BECOME STANDARD PROCEDURE IN EVERY CASE.

Black people have been hollering for years that the police were brutalizing us. White people didn't hear us. Then we got videotape of Rodney King, and you know what, whites still want to argue about it.

Well I tell you what. Police also plant evidence. Sometimes it's not malicious, they just want to make sure they get the guy convicted. They hate all the rules protecting defendants, they don't think its fair. So if they really believe someone is guilty, and they can make sure of the conviction by dropping a little evidence, they will do that. This has been shown over and over again.

Live with it. The police and the prosecution fucked up the trial. Don't blame it on the jury, the judge, the lawyers, it was the police and the stupid prosecution that fucked it up.

It's not always a question of framing an innocent man. You act like a guilty man can't be framed.

[nostamj]

83. your hypothosis is

the police created a complex, multi-faceted frame-up (with physical evidence--including the Bruno Mali footprints) of OJ before they knew his whereabouts at the time of the killing.

fine.

i don't buy it. it doesn't come close to logical.

and, btw, I don't blame ANYONE but OJ in my posts. to detail the prosecution screw-ups, the defense sleaze, the judge's incompetence would take forever.

[Solomon]

94. There you go again. It's obvious you didn't watch the trial. You got

your information from the media. THERE WAS NO BLOODY CLOTHES IN THE WASHING MACHINE, OR BRUNO MAGLI evidence in the criminal trial.

There was no complex frame-up. It's a fact that detective Van Atter took a vial of O.J.'s blood at the police station, but did not, I repeat DID NOT, take it to the evidence lab. He took it straight to the crime scene, held on to it all fucking day, and when he DID take it to the lab, some of O.J.'s blood was missing from the vial.
Does that sound complex, and involving the entire police department to you? Jeeeeez. There's a difference between the jury acquitting him, and whether he is innocent or not. The jury did the right thing with what THEY WERE PRESENTED WITH, even if the bastard was guilty.

Take the cloud out of your eye. It's not defending O.J. to say the jury did the right thing. I said I reserve judgment on it. I didn't say he was innocent, and neither did the jury.

[radwriter0555]

105. The prosecution totally lost the case.. the opening statement was

one of the lamest in HISTORY, as bugliosi points out, when the prosecution APOLOGIZED for putting a "HERO" on trial.

The jury did right with what they were presented, they were just presented with SHIT. What else could they do?

[Hell Hath No Fury]

108. Yes, there was...

some of the shoe evidence admitted at the criminal trial:

Week 22 (June 19 - 23, 1995)
JUNE 19 - An FBI expert testified that the person who killed Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman wore expensive Italian shoes that are the same size that O.J. Simpson wears.

William Bodziak, a nationally recognized shoe and tire print specialist, said he examined photos of the murder scene and found they were left by a size 12 pair of $160 Bruno Magli shoes.

Though the shoes that left a bloody trial along the walkway of Nicole Brown Simpson's condominium have not been recovered, Bodziak placed a similar pair of Bruno Magli shoes against a pair of O.J. Simpson's Reeboks and said that they were identical in size "for all practical purposes."

"The person wearing one would certainly be a candidate for wearing the other," Bodziak said.

htt://www.courttv.com/casefiles/simpson/ criminal/summary/week22.html


They were unable to link Simpson to anything but the size of the shoe. And yes, the clothes information ws not ontroduced at the trial.

[Solomon]

124. Read your own post again.

In the criminal trial, the prosecution DID NOT link Magli footprint to O.J. What the hell is your point?

[Hell Hath No Fury]

152. Read it yourself...

I said they linked the SIZE of the shoe to the print left by the Bruno Magli shoe on the scene. The print was a size 12, as was OJ's size.

[recidivist]

118. Query re: Rosie Grier.

I have always thought Judge Ito should have allowed that prison guard to testify about what he heard OJ say to Rosie Grier, and I assume that's what you are referring to here. Since the defense was frantic to keep the testimony out, I had supposed the guard overheard a confession. Is this confirmed by any direct testimony?

Not that it much matters. OJ is clearly guilty. He had slick lawyers who won the jury selection fight. Happens all the time.

[calimary]

56. As far as what I can recall, there was some doubt that

the kids were asleep. They were with Nicole in her condo. The little boy was believed to have been asleep, but there was some concern that Sydney, his older sister, had been awake at the time. Much discussion adn gossip around the neighborhood as to what SHE may have seen or heard.

The whole thing was just ICKY.

I can still remember the slow-moving cars jamming up South Bundy as people cruised by to look at the front of Nicole's place. Like they wree still looking for blood or something. I even saw carloads of tourists, WITH CHILDREN, stopping and looking, taking photos, and posing in front of the place. Once, I actually saw four teenagers there - one girl had lain down on the sidewalk, and another guy was standing over her in an attacking pose, and the other two were taking photos of it. COMPLETELY MACABRE. I remember thinking - why don't you sell tickets, or get one of those hot dog carts to feed the tourists - you'd make a friggin' fortune!

[DuctapeFatwa]

66. the dog's feet. but not on the bulk of the dog, as if there would be if

he had been right there and gotten splattered, nor was there blood from injury to the dog, if as sistersofmercy said, he had tried to protect Nicole and gotten cut himself.

My opinion is that the dog was NOT right there when it happened, but wandering around, then he came home and of course got blood on his feet because by then there was blood all over the place.

[Indiana Democrat]

63. The kids were in bed.

The peice of shit didn't even care if his kids found their mother like that.

[DuctapeFatwa]

68. I think you have unwittingly argued that he did not do it, or that the

prosecution overlooked an opportunity.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that he was indeed capable and willing to kill Nicole, and wanted to do so so badly that he was willing to kill whoever else was with her, and willing to risk killing her there in front of the house, quiet neighborhood or not.

If the jury is to believe that he killed her knowing his kids were there in the house, then should the prosecution not make some effort to establish that OJ is beyond the planet of not only a lousy husband, but an abusive, cruel and almost inhuman father?

[Indiana Democrat]

75. Why?

Being convicted of murder doesn't display that he's probably a horrible father too?

[DuctapeFatwa]

80. While murder under any circumstances hardly recommends one as a

parent, as your earlier post implies, to not only commit murder, but to murder the mother of one's children knowing that there is a possibility the children may see their mother murdered, and/or her butchered body, cranks it up a notch.

The prosecution should have gone there, and should have attempted to establish that OJ not only was a bad parent, but had so little regard for his children that he would not think twice about putting them in such a position, that in fact he HATED his children and that only by some miracle had he not already killed THEM.

[Indiana Democrat]

90. The prosecution could have marched the Ghost of Nicole in there...

...And the racist jury would have said she begged OJ to kill her because she was suicidal.

And I'm only half kidding.


The point being, the prosecution didn't need to muddy the waters by bringing up the kids...They had a slam-dunk case...Why make it more complicated?

[DuctapeFatwa]

97. Well, you may have a point. They may have THOUGHT they had a

slam-dunk case.

They did have a black man, and a dead white woman, who was known to have been with the black man, and known to have left the black man, and was in the company of a white man, who was killed at the same time.

It may not have occurred to them that even if OJ were going to kill Nicole, even if he were going to kill her with a knife, himself, in a public thoroughfare, that he would make sure his children, HIS children, were not present.

If I am wrong, and if OJ did in fact do it, you make a very good argument that the racism of the prosecution may have done as much damage to their case as the racism of Mark Fuhrman.

[Indiana Democrat]

104. You're freaking me out...

Somehow you're trying to make the case that a man who almost decapitated his wife while slitting her throat, gives a shit about his children??

Oh...And to make sure we stay on topic...

Black, white, black, white, black, white.

[DuctapeFatwa]

114. No, I'm elaborating on your argument that it would be necessary that

he NOT give a shit about his children in order to do that.

The prosecution did not seize the day, either because there was no evidence that that was the case, or because they are stupid, or because they are stupid racists.

[Indiana Democrat]

115. Again...

Why muddy the waters?

This is VERY elementary here.

[DuctapeFatwa]

117. It is indeed. There are two related questions

One, was a man so fucked up that he would slit his wife's throat?

Two, was so so totally fucked up that he would do it where his kids might see it?

Do most men who kill their wives do it in front of the kids?

Some do.

But your point is one that the prosecution apparently either overlooked, for whatever reason, or chose not to pursue.

[Indiana Democrat]

120. THEY CHOSE NOT TO PURSUE IT BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T NEED TOO!

IT WOULD HAVE MUDDIED THE WATTERS!

THEY HAD A SLAM-DUNK CASE!

[DuctapeFatwa]

121. Since they failed to prove that he did it, and were not helped by

the overzealous actions of the police, whose ardor exceeded their judgment, I cannot agree that their case was "slam dunk."


Their only chance for a slam dunk was if the entire case, including the defense, jury, judge and witnesses had agreed to abide by long-standing racial stereotypes, in the interests of keeping the waters simple and clear.

[Name removed]

125. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

150. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tomee450]

154. Really something

isn't it? The Semi-valley jury looked at a videotape of the horrible beating of Rodney King yet acquitted the perpetrators. Wonder why no outrage at that jury. They are rarely spoken of. I don't hear anyone calling them racist.

[Nashyra]

67. The children were inside the condo

The only thing that makes me question that he did it with the kids upatairs, it appeared that he loved those kids and to leave them to find their mother like that just doesn't make sense, but neither did the whole trial.

[MrPrax]

16. A Bit of a Stretch?

"Isn't the official story that Nicole's friend was the last killed? He was atheletic and would have fought."

Wasn't Ron a 'model' as well as a waiter?

Um...I vaguely remember some testimony about Orenthal Simpson being some sorta 'football player' in his younger days? Apparantly he was pretty good according to media accounts and eyewitness reports.

Now if I were a bettin' man...and this was Ultimate Fighter

[nostamj]

19. Ron never had a chance

he was backed into a corner and slashed repeatedly. bare hands against a BIG knife. he had numerous defensive wounds. he never had a chance. and even it had been mano-a-mano, OJ would have crushed him.

and btw, the official story is that Nicole was the last killed. she had been knocked down, perhaps unconcious. after OJ disposed with Ron, he came back and slit her throat.

Read Daniel Petrocelli or Larry Schiller

[sistersofmercy]

30. I thought I read that Nicole had defensive wounds

So the official story is she was in the process of being killed when Ron showed up? The attacker then turned to him?
I lived in LA for 3 years and there was when I lived there, all kinds of weird brutal stuff happening. I don't think it ever made national news but not long before I moved back to St Louis, a young woman's car broke down on the 405 in peak traffic time close to the airport, they found the parts of her dismembered body tossed around in ditches off various hiways around LA. I don't believe the murder was ever solved. Lots more stories like that.

[MrPrax]

37. Well...they don't call it Hollweird for nothing...

You make a good point that there are some sensationalized and particularly brutal killings in LA (Hillside, Manson, etc)...but I don't think, given the 'core' relationship, between the accused and the victims (his wife and her friend) fits into the 'thrill kill' category...

For instance, the bodies didn't end up in a fridge somewhere or hung on a clothes line waiting to be taxidermy or a ditch or even buried in a form mold at football stadium...

It smells 'domestic'...

[sistersofmercy]

43. I'm just saying...

there are other ways OJ could have done it and other times as well. Why would he choose that method and that time, his children were upstairs sleeping. Something just doesn't fit for me.

[MrPrax]

55. Fits for me...

He was 'dissed' eariler in the day at the school assembly--got cranked up and angry--decided to GO over to that 'bitches' place to talk some sense to her--but she just wouldn't listen to good sense...and then her 'boytoy' shows up...and 'oh man I just lost it!!!'

Sounds like a typical 'domestic' to me

I think it probably was second-degree murder, BTW (not premediated--just a wife beatin', drug abusin' piece of crap sitting around doing lines off the dashboard of his car waiting for her to come back from the restraunt)

The only difference it that this one had a few million and some cynical corrupt lawyers...

[Muddleoftheroad]

12. If the jury acquit

Trial fulla shit.

OJ did it. Even in the black community, it is the widespread belief.

The trial wasn't about any other color than GREEN.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

48. 100% right - Green is the color that matters here

n/t

[Bandit]

49. Do you think as a black man that it was a little bit of pay back

I'm sure almost everyone in the world believes OJ did it but do you think that because of all the thousands and thousands of innocent Blacks that have been wrongly accused or "lynched" that this was an "in your face" type of moment for the black community. Better a black man go free because of the slightest of doubt than to submit once again. Just asking. I got the impression that even among those that considered OJ guilty they weren't unhappy that he was aquited.

[sweetheart]

13. he did it

I used to deliver magazines to that street when i was a teenager and lived a few blocks away. It is a totally totally dead neighborhood, and a rather upscale posh one at that.. near the brentwood country club and all... my point... random acts of murder don't happen there. I used to walk there at night, as nobody was ever out, and if they were, it was never ever criminal.

The evidence was ridiculously compelling. The police corrupting a murder scene to frame him was really a deep deep stretch and profound manipulation of events.

The suicidal car chase was rather incriminating as well, were a psychological event to be admissable as evidence.

Finally, i SEE that he did it. Seeing is inadmissable in court, granted... but it is what i use in life.

[skypilot]

15. I think he did it and...

...I would hate to be in his children's shoes. As they get older they are going to become more familiar with the facts of the case. I think OJ has already had some trouble with his daughter Sydney. That must be an incredibly strange situation for those children to be in; mother's dead and the person who killed her is across the dinner table from you.

[KansDem]

17. The courts found OJ innocent of the murders of Nicole and Ron...

...and the courts found OJ responsible for the deaths of Nicole and Ron.

I don't understand it myself, but that's what people more learned than I have concluded. :shrug:

[sistersofmercy]

36. The criminal court found him innocent while the civil court found

him liable.

[KansDem]

50. Right, that's what I meant by "the courts"

He's not guilty of the murders, but responsible for the deaths...

This is what I have a difficult time understanding. Perhaps someone can explain it to me?

[Solomon]

52. The reason for the difference is that in a criminal trial you must

prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, but in a civil case, all that's needed is preponderance of the evidence. Now as to the civil trial, that was a foregone conclusion. Whites were already outraged by the criminal verdict, and his civil trial was brought in a white community before a white jury. I don't even know why they bothered to put on any evidence in the civil case, that jury would have convicted immediately.

[jsw_81]

18. Yes, he killed them

Consider some of the evidence:

- Simpson's blood was found near the bodies

- Simpson's blood was found in his vehicle (a Ford Bronco)

- Nicole's blood was found in the Bronco

- Ron's blood was found in the Bronco

- Hairs matching Simpson's were found on Ron's shirt

- Hairs matching Simpson's were found on a knit cap found near the bodies

- A bloody left-handed glove was found near the bodies

- A matching, bloody right-handed glove with Ron's blood and Nicole's blood (as well as some of Nicole's blonde hair and carpet fibers matching those in the Bronco) was found at Simpson's estate

- Carpet fibers matching those in Simpson's Bronco were found on Ron's shirt

- Bloody Bruno Magli shoe prints in Simpson's rare size-12 were found near the bodies (Simpson denied owning such expensive Italian shoes, but after the trial several dozen photos were found showing him wearing them only months before the murders.)

- Several drops of Simpson's blood were found on his driveway, in his foyer, and in his bathroom (rather odd for a man who was notorious for being a clean freak); these drops were seen BEFORE police arrived and BEFORE Simpson gave a blood sample, so there was no chance of them being "planted" by police

- There was chemical evidence that somebody had tried to wash a large amount of blood down Simpson's bathroom sink drain

- Simpson had mysterious cuts and bruises on his hand that he could not explain the morning after the murders

- Simpson had no alibi at the time of the murders

- Simpson gave conflicting, contradictory statements regarding his whereabouts and activities on the night of the murders

- Simpson was seen wearing a dark blue outfit on the night of the murders that was never seen again (dark blue fibers were found on both victims)

- Simpson had a piece of luggage on the night of the murders that was never seen again

- Simpson had beaten Nicole black and blue in the past; she was terrified that he'd kill her

- Simpson failed a polygraph test

- In the eight years since the infamous "not guilty" verdict, Simpson has spent virtually all of his time playing golf in Florida and hanging out with young blondes who look a lot like his murdered wife. He has made no real effort to find the "real" killers, and no evidence has been found that would suggest that Simpson was innocent and/or framed.

This is only some of the damning evidence against Simpson. Read either Daniel Petrocelli's book on the case ("Triumph of Justice") or Vincent Bugliosi's book ("Outrage") for more.

So yeah, I think it's rather obvious that Simpson did it. It would have taken a MASSIVE conspiracy involving police officers, the lab, the media and a whole lot of other people to frame him. Occam's razor and simple logic tells us that Simpson did it. Unfortunately, Simpson was rich, powerful, and able to afford smooth talking lawyers like Cochran and Shapiro. And as a result, a murderer went free.

BTW, you're uninformed regarding the trip to McDonald's on the night of the murders. Simpson and Kato went to McDonald's and then returned to Simpson's estate. That's when Simpson disappeared and the killings took place. Many people believe that Simpson was lying to Kato about the trip to McDonald's (his real plan was to go over to Nicole's place), but Kato asked if he could go and Simpson's plan fell apart.

[NoKingGeorge]

32. Throw out the blood. Dumb and Dumber as well as superboy

probably planted the blood. Evidence shows a quantity missing from OJ's blood vial. Do not discount that. sole print on Ron's pants, in his blood, is not matchable to anyone at the sceens(investigaters etc). Greatest Forensic expert in the country gives evidence that blood drippings were planted. Please consider All the evidence.

[sistersofmercy]

39. That's right and hence the two perpetrator theory.

I forgot about the sole print.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

41. Having worked for a high-profile criminal defense attorney...

in my 20s, I was especially interested in the trial, and followed it closely.

I have never seen that amount of physical evidence in a case before. It was overwhelming. And the whole "contamination" defense theory about the blood evidence was crap.

As for Simpson being the victim of a bigoted police force, that is also fairly laughable. OJ was a beloved sports figure, a wealthy man, and a police "wannabe" who had police officers over at his house all the time. That's not the kind of black man who is targeted.

This theory is also blown out of the water when you remember that the first glove was found by Furhman (and seen by other many other officers) BEFORE OJ had been contacted about the murders. At that time the police had NO idea of his whereabouts that evening -- for all they knew, he could have been out of town, speaking before an audience during the time of the murders -- in other words, he could have had a perfect alibi. Just because an officer may be racist, doesn't mean he is stupid. And framing a man on the spur of the moment for murder when you have no idea where that person was/is, is STUPID.


What sealed it for me was the initial phone call made to him about the murders. The detective who called (Vanatter?) testified that he called Simpson and told him his ex-wife was dead. He also testified that Simpson never asked WHICH wife (he had two ex's) and never inquired as to HOW she died.

I have gotten (too many) calls about friends who have died unexpectedly. From experience, the first thing out of your mouth is HOW.

[mithnanthy]

42. I followed the trial...

and all the facts you have listed were some of the most compelling in the case. Yes, he did it. And when he slit Nicole's throat, he was behind her, avoiding huge amounts of blood splatter.

[WildClarySage]

20. The glove thing

OJ put the glove on his hand and said "It doesn't fit".

Nobody bothered to assist him with that assertion. If they had, I would have been more convinced that he wasn't the owner of the glove. But since we have to take his word for it, no, I'm not buying it that the glove didn't fit.

[ProfessorGAC]

26. Don't Forget The Surgical Gloves

In order to not "taint" the evidence, he was required to try the gloves on while wearing surgical gloves. Find a pair of surgical gloves, then try to put on any other pair of gloves in your house over them. Unless the gloves are 2 sizes too large, they will not be very easy to get on over the surgicals.

The prosecutors completely missed that point. Dunces!
The Professor

[Minstrel Boy]

27. As I recall, he was asked to fit the glove over a hand which

already had a latex glove on it. Naturally he would struggle with it, and claim it didn't fit.

[jansu]

137. WHY DID THEY BRINGTHE GLOVES UP?

The first rule of asking questions in a court of law, is to know the answer! For whatever reason, they were too small. But, more importantly, was there any DNA from the gloves? Whomever wore those gloves, there should have been DNA inside the gloves that belonged to him. Unless they wore latex gloves inside. In which case, if OJ had done that, they still would have fit him later. The DNA on the gloves was never brought out by the Prosecution or Defense.

[NoKingGeorge]

23. Did not do it.

The amount of blood at the crime seen would drench an assailants clothes. Cold blooded butchering of two individuals takes some kind of special disconnect in an individuals make up. Did not /Could not.

[nostamj]

28. not so fast there

he slit Nicole's throat from BEHIND.

AND, remember the clothing found in the washing machine.

do you REALLY buy into the MASSIVE conspiracy to frame him? sad.

do even a little research....

[NoKingGeorge]

38. Not a massive conspircey . Two 'detectives' planting evidence

As determined by the number one forensics expert is not unusual.Now everyone who uses that evidence does not have to be aware it is BS.
You make assumptions (blood in various places was put there by OJ) and then base your conclusions on that. Or you do not research for yourself and you beleive an authors conclusions. Wow,give some credit to experts rather than promotion seekers like dumb and dumber as well as that joke ferman. When given the choice I lean towards the experts.

[Indiana Democrat]

64. Two detectives?????

So, these racist cops framed OJ while on the scene JUST AFTER THE MURDERS WERE COMMITTED.

I guess part of the conspiracy was that these same cops committed the murders so they KNEW the "Real Killers" wouldn't be found later in the day, later that month or anytime in the future?

Is that what you're saying????


Or maybe they just rolled the Death Row Dice and hoped the real killers would never be turned-up?

Maybe that's what you're saying????

[NoKingGeorge]

44. Research will show you that although Nicole may have been

attacked from behind, the amount of blood on Ron and the mixing of his blood with Nicoles on the ground ,would indicate a big struggle between Ron and an assailant/s. Research a little and you can get pictures that allow you to make your own determination. Good Luck.

[Solomon]

54. Now see, this is exactly what I'm talking about.

The media broadcasted this bloody clothes bullshit before the trial got started. If you actually looked at the trial, you would have seen, THERE WAS NO BLOODY CLOTHES IN THE WASHING MACHINE. Jeeeeez.

How would you like it, if the damn detective in charge of the investigation took a vial of your blood, and instead of marching it to the lab around the corner, proceeded to go to the crime scene with it, and then discover there was some blood missing from the vial? You guys really think that jury was stupid.

[NoKingGeorge]

84. I didn't refer to a washing machine.

The blood I referred to is seen in the crime sceen photos. Look at this evidence and you can see a lot of blood. It would have to have been all over the attackers clothes. I am pretty sure that blood soaked clothes would have left much more than a few drops in the get away vehicle. I did not know that bloody cloths/washing machine stuff.

[Solomon]

126. No. Noking. I wasn't responding to your post but to

Nostanj who keeps bringing up the bloody clothes in the washing machine.

[hlthe2b]

29. My only thought upon reading this, my dear ductapefatwa,

is that if I am EVER accused of a crime, I want YOU on my jury! (and 11 more just like you).

As for OJ, I liken the use of evidence in that trial to that the public perceives against the Bushies.....If distorted enough or incompletely reported by the media-- the public will continue to discount it. I think the evidence against OJ was overwhelming, but poorly presented and poorly understood by many within the media, the jury, and certainly the general public. The media was consumed with the celebrity aspects of the trial, rather than the solemnity that such a proceeding should have instilled, and certainly not on insuring that justice prevailed.

[throwthebumsout]

33. Completely, Absolutely Guilty

Thinking about the whole thing makes me completely nauseous, as it is such a disgusting example of racism at work in our culture. The physical evidence was overwhelming. Of COURSE he was guilty. Unfortunately, a racist jury let race cloud their decision-making. Thankfully, when a more objective jury ruled on it in the civil case, the right decision was made.

[Solomon]

34. Ahhhh! Ducttape!. You're a braver soul than I am.

You do realize don't you, that you can't apply logic to a black man. The image of black men in america makes it a cinch to believe that "he snapped" blah blah blah. Your analysis that it doesn't make sense for him to have done this, only applies to white men in this country. Black men are sexual beasts, didn't you know that.

Here's the bigger racist aspect to this case that boils me up. That white people believe that the jury (which was majority black) was getting payback and that's why they acquitted. That they acquitted based on race. This is one of the worse sliming against black people in this country that has been done in a long time.

Black juries convict the hell out of blacks everyday in cities and urban areas all over this country. Blacks on juries don't tolerate crimes. But they also don't tolerate planted evidence. The media did a great job with it's soundbites, but I got a chance to watch a great deal of that trial, and under the standards of the jury's charge, they did the right thing. The prosecution certainly did not prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. The standard for the jury is not whether he is innocent or not, but whether the prosecution proved their case beyond a reasonable doubt. There were certainly a ton of doubts in that case, which for time sake I will not even get into.

Now, let's look at the Rodney King case, which, sparked riots after the verdict. In King's case, the frustration of black people was clear. Here you had a case where the crime was caught on videotape. No speculation, no need to resort to circumstantial evidence. It was on fucking videotape, and you still had white people arguing about whether it was a crime or not. Jeeeeeezuz. This country is sick.

I'm still reserving judgment on O.J.'s guilt or innocence. And I was a person who couldn't stand O.J., never liked him, but there was too much planted evidence, and too many doubts. The soundbites coined the phrase "mountains of evidence" but I saw the jury squinting through telescopes trying to find this mountain. Of course, O.J.'s goose was cooked with the public, long before any trial started, what with all the inadmissible bullshit that the media kept feeding the public. Almost all the things the media reported, melted away by the time of trial, i.e., "bloody clothes in the washing machine", "digging tools in the back of his truck", etc. etc. Of course, people who did not actually watch the trial have no idea what was actually evidence, and what was not.

There's too much to talk about with this case, so I'll quite and just let people flame away.

[DuctapeFatwa]

61. You are right and I corrected my omission in post 14

You also brought out some more aspects of the OJ Trial Awakening that I did not put in my original post.

I risked getting Juice all over the Sharpton thread, but your point about Rodney King (and by now we could add several other instances of police atrocities against black people that white people look at and just see honest cops doing an honest days' work) makes it impossible for me not to think of the day when 30 million people watched two tall buildings implode...

[Arbustosux]

45. Of course he did it...

He had an incredible defense team that stacked the jury with worshiping dummies (proven that they went after low IQ people)

[evil_orange_cat]

46. OJ did it and the LA cops were racist...

just because Fuhrman is a racist, doesn't negate OJ's guilt...

[Skittles]

47. of course he did it

it wasn't just that he was guilty but that he was SO F***ING GUILTY.

[calimary]

51. From everything I saw as a reporter, and living in that neighborhood,

he ABSOLUTELY did it.

That was one of the last big stories I was involved with at the AP before I retired. I didn't have much directly to do with it, as I wasn't one of the many folks out at "Camp OJ" where all the media was, across the street from the courthouse every day. But other folks in our newsroom were, and I, being an entertainment reporter, was usually called upon to do backup for whatever they had to abandon to cover OJ 24/7. But I did have to handle the "who plays OJ in the TV movie," and the ratings for the slow-speed chase. But I still saw a lot, and all my friends were out covering it, and I had to cover some of the civil court proceedings and press conferences. Plus, I live about two miles from both Nicole's house and OJ's former residence. Even now, some weekends there are STILL people cruising up our street wondering "where that woman got killed," or "where's Rockingham?" or "am I near OJ's house?" Traffic in our neighborhood has never been the same since then. Used to be, EVERY weekend when I'd be out weeding the garden in front, people would pull over and stop and ask where the crime scene was. ALWAYS a traffic jam on South Bundy near her house. People still drive through there looking for it, even though it's been purchased and rebuilt, and the front is totally different and disguised, and even the street numbering was changed.

I am convinced beyond the shadow of ANY doubt that he did it. Not just the evidence (which the police kinda botched, and then the issue was clouded because Judge Ito allowed all this other race-baiting stuff to be let in). The kids went to school near us. In fact, Sydney was transfered to my kids' school. Everybody knew their cars, had seen 'em at the local stores and ice cream parlors and restaurants, had seen 'em in the neighborhood, had kids in class with their kids, had their kids in the Mommy and Me with Nicole. Everybody knew 'em. Everybody had seen instances of OJ going off in some temper tantrum against her. Everybody saw his size and strength and how intimidating he was when you were around him. Large hands, large head, large arms, and she was a slim little slip of a thing.

She was completely terrorized by him. It was very easy to see. Also, Kardashian's kids went to our school. So every now and then I'd see him in the parking lot or at school functions. I took to staring at him to see what he'd do, just out of curiosity. There was never a single time when he didn't look like a complete weasel. He'd avoid eye contact and try to hide behind somebody if he knew you were staring. And when you did catch his eye, there was guilt and discomfort all over his face, almost as though in neon. He looked every bit like the kid whose mom just caught him stealing something, and knew he'd been found out.

There seemed to be a predisposition among the first jury to find him innocent, no matter what, especially after Mark Fuhrman. We'd even heard mumblings of "payback." But if you separated yourself from the emotion and other ancillary baggage around the case, you could NOT dismiss the evidence. I'm sorry, it just was so obvious. And I don't buy that the cops were biased against him. They loved him. They fell all over themselves, for years, to be pals with him, get their pictures taken with him whenever, some of them had been his houseguests. And they gave him MANY, MANY a pass in other cases where there were 911 calls from her about his beating her or terrorizing her or threatening her, and they ALWAYS gave him the benefit of the doubt. ALWAYS. EVERY TIME. You cannot convince me that they were racist. And I really looked for instances of that. We all tried very hard to stay objective (I know, reporters don't know what that word means anymore, it's true), and to consider "just the facts, ma'am" at all times. And it is just not possible for me to come to any other conclusion than absolute 100 percent guilt.

[OneTwentyoNine]

72. Was it Kardashian that was at OJ's table when the not guilty was read?

If memory serves he was at that table and I'll never forget his look. While most were looking at OJ's reaction Kardashian's is the one that caught my eye. Its almost like he's in the most total disbelief of his life. Like he just could not believe with that mountain of evidence that they'd let this murderer walk.

BTW,whatever happened to that golf bag he hauled off about the time the police were detaining OJ? Can you believe Police would be so inept to let him haul off what could have been damning evidence?

David

[calimary]

111. Yes, you're correct. The very same.

He fairly soon moved his kids to another school.

Don't know about the golf bag, but I do know Kardashian himself recently died.

[KT2000]

155. Kardashian's face said it all

I was convinced by the evidence but seeing his expression while the verdict was read is something I will never forget.

[justsam]

57. NO!!!!! it's

the worst case of murder suicide that ever happened, first Nichole stabbed Ron Goldman 85 times then stabbed herself 94 times and then to top it off she crawled over to OJs and planted the glove if you don't believe just ask those slime balls that were on the dream team..

[tom_paine]

58. Guilty

The drops of blood in the Bronco? (among other things, but I avoided the OJ trial for the same reasons I avoid Corproate TV pravda today, so I am not an OJ expert, but I am aware of the salient features of the case)

This was not premeditated (if he did it) but a crime of passion. Had it been premeditated, the hiring of a hit man would be more believable.

But this was more like the guy snapped (which he certainly had a history of doing) and went nuts.

And yes, I could indeed see a frantic "crime of passion" murderer trying to keep up appearences by "acting normally".

[Indiana Democrat]

60. Of course he did it.

An incompetent judge, race-baiting lawyers and a racist jury let him off.

End of story.

[Solomon]

70. That's just disgusting. The whole goddamn criminal justice

system wouldn't be sticking blacks in jail hand over fist without black juries who do most of the convicting these days.

I'm truly getting sick to death of these "they picked people with low i.q.'s" and "the jury was racist". We got a long long ways to go in this country.

You people obviously don't know a damn thing about trials in the cities. And the besmerching of black people is intolerable. The media image of blacks is about 180 degrees the opposite of what it is. Despite all of the incredible bullshit blacks have had to put up with, blacks are some of the most LOYAL americans that exist. Loyal to the system and ideals, the words of the constitution, etc., the only despised group of people who have never resorted to potlitical terrorism, and we get this kind of tripe.

I tell you what. Since black juries are racist, I'd like to see what kind of wailing you'd do if they really did what you think they do. Yeah, let's see how many criminals are put into the system when black juries decide to let the criminals go because they are black.

You guys don't have a clue, do you?

[Courtney_P]

78. Besmirching of black people?

The OJ Simpson trial had nothing to do with race. Give me a break. The trial was terribly botched by the prosecution. Yes, Cochrane and company got inner city uneducated people, many of which happened to be black. Some may have been racist but who really knows? Get on the bus man, we don't base our judgements one way or the other on color of skin. Being black does not presume innocence nor does it presume guilt. There are bad black people and there are bad white people, there are bad gay people and there are bad straight people. Race, color or creed means nothing.

[Indiana Democrat]

85. Here's the way I always answer that slander...

I viewed OJ in the EXACT same light as Joe Nameth. They were both sports idols to me (And a great many others).

If Joe had done this, the coverage, the outrage and the surprise at the downfall of an idol would have been EXACTLY the same.

The only difference is that Joe wouldn't have gotten off.

[Solomon]

88. You don't even have the slightest clue of what I'm talking about.

Try reading my posts again. What I'm bitching about is the racist assumption, YES RACIST ASSUMPTION, that the jury acquitted him based on race, instead of throwing out the case because of planted evidence and reasonable doubt.

Get a clue. Don't you see all the tripe going on in this thread about how the jury let him go only because the jury was black. THAT'S WHAT I AM TALKING ABOUT WHEN I SAY BESMERCHING BLACK PEOPLE. It's disgusting and uncalled for.

Let me say this. I practiced criminal law for years before black juries in washington, d.c. and they are some of the most convicting juries there will ever be. As incredible as it may seem to you, blacks do not like crime. Okay. And they CONVICT black people everyday all day long across america. But I'll tell you what. It may seem okay to white people, but if black jurors catch you planting evidence, forget about it. And they are right. You cannot allow police to convict on planted evidence. If you do, you give open season to the cops.

The whole damn system would break down if not for black juries convicting black people.

[Indiana Democrat]

82. I have a clue about you...

...but the fear of getting banned prevents me from stating what that clue is.

THE jury was racist (Not ALL juries, like you seem to think...Or something). They let OJ off because he was "One of their own" and the world was coming down on him (Which it was, but not because he was black, but because he was a CELEBRITY!!). Whites do the same thing, unfortunately...It's called jury nulification...There is NO doubt about that. Why would there be a doubt about this?

Unless you think Blacks are somehow different than Whites?

[Name removed]

129. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Indiana Democrat]

146. Rodney King?

Your game is old and tired.

[bmbmd]

73. Explain the socks to me.

No one has ever explained the photographs of the bloody socks in OJ's bedroom. They were not there in the first photos, and then showed up in the later photos. What am I missing?

[Solomon]

89. Not only that, but the stupid fuckers forgot to turn the socks back

inside out, before planting the blood on them.

[OneTwentyoNine]

74. Prime reason to abolish the Death Penalty once and for all...

If your filthy rich and can afford the "dream team" you can butcher two people and walk. Lets see...what did OJ make while in prison off of pics and a book or two? Was it 5 or 6 million??

Meanwhile a floor or two below OJ some poor SOB has been tried and convicted in a span of a few days and now sets on death row.

David

[Indiana Democrat]

87. Or...

...Don't kill people and you don't have to worry about it.

[plurality]

76. I did at the time, but didn't care enough to form a definitive opinion

The small amount I did 'know' about the case from the media was that the victims' blood was found in his truck, which seemed fairly convincing, plus the whole white Bronco slow speed chase seemed like the final act of desperation from a man who knew he'd made a fatal mistake in a fit of momentary rage.

But in truth the whole thing disgusted me to no end, as I felt that the media attention and everything else was so ridiculously overblown that I could feel myself getting dumber every second I paid attention to it so I made a concious effort to avoid hearing, seeing, or thinking about it during the entire year of idiocy that was the OJ phenomenon. I remember with great disgust how they actually interupted class to announce the verdict.

So, I accept that it's entirely possible that my thoughts on the matter could be completely wrong as they were shaped entirely by the media, which I have since learned to trust less and less, and I have none of the evidence that the jury that acquitted him had.

[Solomon]

91. Damn. What a great post.

There are some people who still use the brain in their head. You guys are crying about what the media is doing with Bush and how bad it is, how much lying their doing, but hey, it's all different with O.J. Examine yourselves.

[jmags]

79. How's that search for the killer going?

I'll tell you, it's gone nowhere, because OJ knows perfectly well who did it. He looks at him when he shaves in the morning.
There was overwhelming evidence that OJ did it. The evidence that the jury acquitted him on was circumstantial at best.
The fact that you haven't heard much of OJ's crusade to find the "real killers" is rather telling, don't you think?
OJ's no Richard Kimble.

[OneTwentyoNine]

81. Par for the course.........

Yeah,I just HAD to do it....Heh he.....

David

[On the Road]

86. I Think They Framed a Guilty Man

OJ's behavior after the crime was not how an innocent man would react, regardless of racism. The Bruno Magli shoes in the civil trial were the piece of evidence that did it for me. At that point, OJ clearly denied something that was later proven.

[DuctapeFatwa]

93. OK now you have come back to a point in my original post

For the sake of argument, let's assume that I am right :) and that OJ did not kill Nicole and her friend.

That does not make him "innocent" in the sense of how an innocent man would behave. Leaving the trial and legal innocence of this crime aside, OJ was NOT an innocent man. I do not believe that he was devastated by Nicole's death. This was not a good relationship. He may have wished her dead a thousand times. He may have thought about killing her, having her killed.

Now suddenly she is dead, and the cops are after HIM. I don't care how rich he is, how famous he is, on a certain level, in his mind, whether he is guilty of the crime, guilty of everything else, or a pure and noble soul. He is a black man, there is a dead white woman that he is known to have been with, and the cops are coming.

All the how an innocent man acts just went out the window. Like it or not, that's the reality in America.

Now add to THAT all the bad history between him and Nicole, and the completely non-societally inspired personal guilt that unless he is a textbook psychopath, he would feel on hearing that this woman with whom he had this violent, love-lust-hate relationship and two kids with, is dead.

So I don't think you can use how he acted as an argument either way.

[Courtney_P]

98. Solomon

I agree, black people do hate crime. Black people also hate the unfortunate fact that the statistics show a greater proportion of blacks commit crimes than whites. This has a lot more to do with socio-economic status than anything, but unfortunately it makes the entire group look bad. I grew up in Charleston SC. Yes, I grew up in a predominantly white suburb filled with SUVs and all that. There were many blacks in my neighborhood that were just like me. We went to the same schools, rode around in the same kind of cars and I dated a few black men. I never understood racial prejudice until I moved to Toledo. My best friend here is a black girl named Contessa. She comes from the inner city and was lucky enough to get into college and out of her neighborhood. We have spent so many long hours discussing race. Every time we see a news report of a car jacking, or a murder and the perpetrators are black she gets embarrased and then angry. She told me herself that a lot of prejudice comes from thugs like these that get the newspaper headlines. She has more of a get tough on crime attitude than my republican parents. She is an avid Bush supporter which makes for some great juxtaposition jokes between the two of us. I call her a racist republican and she calls me a race baiting weinie Jesse Jackson clone. The point is, that I prefer to take people one at a time rather than reading race into everything. Was the OJ Simpson jury racist? I don't know, I wasn't there. I unfortunately cannot read minds. I do not believe they were, I think people of any color deserve the presumption of innocence regardless of the issue at hand. In the absence of evidence to the contrary I am inclined to believe the jury was not racist. I think a guilty man walked because of the prosecutions incompetence.

[Solomon]

131. That's very fair Courtney. I don't have a problem with that.

My fight is against those who slime the jury. It's clear that people are angry, but they need to be clear who they should be angry with. I don't think anyone will argue that the prosecution was incompetent. Even the guys maligning the jury. But to say the jury was racist and ignorant is bigotry of the worsen sort.

[Solomon]

130. Fair enough Ribofunk. Fair enough.

I just hate the racist jury thing. It's disgusting.

[eridani]

141. Good way of putting it

They had enough evidence, but they still couldn't resist gilding the lily. (BTW, the criminal trial just about had to end in acquittal because of LAPD's appalling violations of chain of custody with evidence handling.)

[kath]

95. Guilty, guilty, guilty

the amount of physical evidence against him was absolutely overwhelming. Anyone with even a halfway scientific mind knows this. No way could all of that evidence have been planted, and no possible way in hell could contamination have made the DNA results of the blood come out the way they did. Contamination causes DNA breakdown and the DNA sequence blots would come out as a blurred confused mess --- they can NOT magically tramsmogrify into some *other* DNA profile. And DNA particles do not fly around the room from test tube to test tube if two tubes happen to be open at the same time.

They deliberately picked a stupid jury that could be easily confused and misled.

[OneTwentyoNine]

99. That was where the Cops first screwed up...

They moved the case downtown somewhere instead of in the Brentwood area. They got a jury that was sympathetic to OJ instead of a jury that really looked at facts. Look how many were released during the trial. One guy even admitted he didn't even listen to testimony,OJ was Innocent and that was it.


David

[Solomon]

132. They took the case downtown because they use black juries every damn

day there to convict blacks. They rely on black juries to convict and they do.

I'm just gonna bookmark this thread for all the wonderful comments about how stupid and racist the jury was.

[John BigBootay]

101. He almost certainly did. eom

[Honesthumanbeing]

102. the defense team did a wonderful job

of making it seem doubtful that he did it, but when you look at the facts, he seems almost certainly guilty. Mountains of DNA evidence (as well as other physical evidence--fibers, bloody footprints, etc) , guilty behavior, no alabi, motive, means, opportunity, the cut on his hand--the list goes on and on. If OJ didn't do it, this is the best framing job in history.

[fob]

103. The only other choice is a completely random killing - Unlikely IMO

I think the answer is no. Aside from the ill-fitting glove forever enshrined in bad verse, and while acknowledging that OJ is no intellectual giant, I do not think that he is stupid enough to slit the throat of his ex-wife and her friend and then go order a Big Mac.

1. As was pointed out below, some of your "facts" are in the wrong order. (Food with Kato BEFORE killings, not AFTER). The "too stupid" defense is out.

2. The "ill-fitting glove", was part of the theater of the presentation. Here I agree that while no intellectual giant, he is smart enough to make sure the glove demonstration goes as badly as possible. Here the prosecution effed up by presenting him the chance to handle the evidence, especially with a blood-soaked glove and OJ wearing a latex glove over his hand making the whole experiment worthless for them.

OJ is (or at least then he was) a rich man, who, if he wanted Nicole dead, could very easily have simply had her killed.

3. I agree he could have easily afforded to have her offed, however, this was a crime of passion. The killer was very intimate with the victims. When was the last time a random stabbing of this brutality happened? Other than high-profile serial-type killers, random killings just don't happen like this.



He had his problems, there is no indication that he was happy, or even content. But he could afford his vices, he could party. He was a rich man, a celebrity, with plenty to lose.

4. Emotional decisions often are made without rational thought. The state of his lifestyle is no defense to awful acts

Going out into the street and butchering two people on the way to McDonald's like the glove, does not fit.

However, going to McDonalds with a buddy while your wife and kids live around the block and you see/hear the Missus letting a local busboy drive the expensive car you bought for her and maybe she's letting him park his car in her garage too, if you know what I mean, and you're a football hero and how dare she humiliate you like that and maybe you get some drugs and they don't make you calmer but mor euninhibited or you don't get drugs and your emotions take control and you're going out of town in the morning and there's no time to deal with it and you boil out of control and it's dark and you slip on you bruno magli's and head over to confirm she's playing you and you don't even realize you grabbed a knife and you're hiding in the bushes and....



What do you think?

I think you need to re-examine your stance

[NoKingGeorge]

110. My theory - drug relalated. Vicious nature, some evidence.

Seemed to have read somewhere that profilers attribute this kind of vicious multiple stabbing to denigrating.Something that someone involved with this person on a personnel level would not do. The use of mutiple knives indicates more than one killer. The slitting of throat is often a sign to others. All of which makes me think that Nicole and her friend (forgot her name) may have been fronted some powder and then they were unable to pay for it. Hence the hit.

[fob]

138. If it was a drug related hit intended to send a message, it failed.

If you are going to send a message that if you can't pay with money you pay with your life you MAKE SURE that's how it's reported. Also by all accounts Nichole's friend, Ron Goldman, was there by chance, returning some misplaced sunglasses.

Slitting the throat is a "message", but in this case the reports had her head almost cut off the severity of the cut was so deep. There was way too much emotion for someone there to do a hit.

[noonwitch]

107. Yes, I think he did.

I also think that if the LAPD had not been so racist all these years, the prosecution might have had a better chance of convicting him.

[jansu]

109. NO ONE WILL EVER KNOW!

Right from the start, the police did not follow procedure.

Instead of having the bodies liver temperature done, (which is the standard procedure for telling the time of death) they told the Doctor not to come and do it, because this was a special case and would be handled differently, (this was in their transcript of the calls on the radio). When you are dealing with someone who has money, and can hire the best lawyers and investigators, one would think that you would do everything "by the book". Instead, they relied on a "Perry Mason" moment....the barking dog, (dogs bark for many reasons, other than to tell the time of a murder)....to give them the time of death.

On the police video, at the crime scene, you see Mark Furman pointing at the gloves and stating, "Here are the gloves". (Note, gloves, plural).

The police decide to go over to her ex-husbands house immediately, before the crime scene was finished, without any evidence that he was involved. And, because no one answered the ring at the gate, deciding that they could break in and search, without a warrant. (You and I may decide to answer the door, or not. It is our right not to answer the door. This does not give the police the right to break in and search our houses)! If they thought at this time that they had probable cause that OJ had done this, and they needed to search the house, they could call in and get a warrant to do so. This was not done!

The "crime scene" pictures taken at OJ's house, do not match up. Neither do the testimony of the police officers match the pictures. The bloody socks were not there and then in pictures taken a while later, they were there.

A bloody glove is found behind the house, in a very small, narrow area. Hard to walk back there and the cobwebs were still there. No one had walked back there, before Mark Furman. As for OJ tossing them back there, why? If he had done this, he had gotten rid of everything else cleanly, why would you discard this ONE GLOVE behind his house? It does not pass the smell test!He was driving to the airport, there are many areas that he could have gotten rid of the glove. Just roll down the window on the drive and toss it. Leave the window down, and the driver would never know where you had done it.

The glove found at Nicole's house is dry. The glove found at OJ's house, much later, is wet. Why? Maybe, because it was put into a plastic baggie and planted there?!

Missing amounts of blood in the custody of the police.

The blood found on the back gate, three days later, (note, it was not found in the original search or for those other two days searches) had preservative in it. Which is what you would find from a blood sample taken from a live body. Not found in blood transfered from the victim, to the murderer, to the gate. None of us have preservative in our blood!

These are not the only ones that I had questioned at the time, but the only ones that I can remember right now.

Do I think he did it? I don't know. How could I? But, my gut feeling is, YES, he probably did it. Remember, our justice system is not that I think he did it, or that he probably did it, but that it is proved by the evidence that he did it beyond a reasonable doubt. The police and investigators did such a poor job, not even following the rules of procedure, that we can never KNOW!

If they had followed the rules, he probably would have been found guilty. But, from their errors, it led me to believe that they were trying to frame him. They might have been only trying to make sure that they "got" him and not frame him. Even this is wrong! They are to investigate and let the jury decide, with factual evidence, not twisted or planted evidence!

And, based on these, I would have acquitted him, also. But, I would have let the District Attorney, the Police and the News know that as a citizen, I will not let them pull this. I don't want it done to me, so I won't let them do it to another. It is more important that the authorities do what is right every time, than that one murderer is put in prison.

What if he was innocent? How many people are being released from prison, because of police misconduct, DNA tests proving that they were innocent? Those who truly did these crimes, are still out there. If the police had gone after the right person, maybe they would not be still committing crimes.

I believe that we need to force the police and authorities to do the right thing! Always! Then, we will be safer. If he is not guilty, then the person who did this is still out there.....are we safe from him?

[DuctapeFatwa]

116. Great Post!

And you are correct. We will never know, unless someone confesses at some point, and even then, there will still be a question of why would someone confess so long after the fact, so we will still not know.

What we do know is that there was a whole lot more on trial than OJ, and in that part of the case, witnesses are still being called :)

[Solomon]

133. God what a great post. I don't have the patience to point out all the

doubting evidence as you have done. There's much more. And I agree with you, I don't know whether he did it or not, but what I do know is that the jury faithfully discharged their duties under the law. And the rant against them is despicable.

Not only did O.J. drop one glove at the scene, but he went home and dropped the other glove behind Kato's room, and then, get this, to make sure somebody went back there to find it, he knocked on the fucking wall so Kato could hear him. What a fucking joke. They clearly went overboard trying to make sure they got a conviction.

But it backfired on them because it pissed the jury off. Until people can come to grips with the fact that, even if he was guilty, evidence was nonetheless planted, they will always disparage the jury. Of course there are some who think, so what, evidence was planted, but these people have absolutely no understanding of how the system is supposed to work. That jury certainly did.

[MISSDem]

112. Crimes of passion are not done

by someone hire. What would be the point? They are done in an emotional frenzy.

[Mandate My Ass]

113. The prosecution fumbled the ball

by not pursuing the domestic violence angle which, IMHO, was pivotal and crucial to establishing motive and pattern of abuse. Fearing alienating the jury by pointing out the obvious -- he treated her like a punching bag on *MANY* documented occasions, she publicly dissed him on the day of the murder, and the significant physical evidence (multiple facial stabbings, near decapitation, obvious overkill) which backed up his history of inability to control his anger against her (on or off drugs). Without any alternative theory of who the killer was, these statistics would have bolstered the already strong physical case against Simpson.

http://www.harborhouseoccadv.com/dvstats.htm

"A woman's risk of severe bodily harm from her abusive partner increases by 75% once she leaves that partner.

"Nearly one-third of all women murdered in the U.S. in 1998, were killed by a current or former intimate partner. Guns were used in almost two-thirds of these domestic homicides. (U.S. Dept. of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics; Homicide Trends in the U.S., Intimate Partner Homicide, 2001).

"90% of children in violent homes are aware of the abuse directed at their mothers (NWAPP 1989).

"4 to 5 women are killed each day by a male partner (Berry 1996).

"Domestic violence is the largest single cause of injury to women in the U.S. - more than injuries from auto accidents, muggings and rapes combined. (Surgeon General of the U.S.)."

[donco6]

119. Duh. Yeah. eom

[MrSlayer]

122. Absolutely, without a doubt.

His footprints were there and his blood was on the scene. The victims' blood was in his car. He is a known control freak with an extreme temper. No question he did it. DNA does not lie. His hunt for the "real" killer is going quite well on the golf course isn't it?

[kaitykaity]

127. No. He didn't do it.

Justin (the older son) did it, and OJ covered for him. (I don't remember where I heard that, but it makes the most sense to me.)

I always wondered:

1. Where were the bloody clothes?

2. Where was the murder weapon?

3. The fight Ron Goldman put up should have produced a lot more blood. Where was it?

4. The cops tried to make the evidence fit their theory, not the other way 'round. (They handcuffed OJ right after he got off the plane to Chicago, telling me they had already made up their minds.)

Add all that to the planted glove, the stuff from Barry Scheck, and the testimony of that forensic pathologist (Dr. Lee?) and . . . not no but hell no.

[Solomon]

134. I thought it might be the son too, but he had an alibi. So they

couldn't charge him. I wonder what the alibi was and whether it solely depended on someone vouching for him, or some direct evidence proving his alibi.

[kaitykaity]

139. Justin had invited Nicole to dinner that night,

to watch him cook, and she stood him up, which supposedly infuriated him. Thing was, he had a bunch of cooking knives with him that night.

Now, this guy has serious emotional problems, including a hair-trigger temper. 2+2=4 This is the only person I could see OJ clamming up for the way that he did.

[Carl Spackler]

128. There was some talk about a troubled nephew

I didn't follow the whole OJ thing, but did think that the glove think is kinda hard to dismiss. It would make sense if he had a family member who might have done it that he would just stay silent, expecting to be acquitted.

[goddess40]

135. Guilty, no doubt about it!

The glove didn't fit because of the way it was tried on.

Do you wear gloves over rubber gloves? Or splay out your fingers when you try to put them on? I don't think so, he tried to hard to show that they 'didn't' fit.

[MrSlayer]

136. And the fact that a blood soaked

leather glove would shrink. Soaked with anything for that matter.

[Uzybone]

142. Yes he did it

but the fucking police were so overzealous in their quest to nail another black man, that they planted evidence and in doing so shrouded the whole case with doubt. The perverse irony of watching a murderous criminal get OFF because of racist law enforcement is what I will always think of when I think of the OJ trial.

[linazelle]

143. He did it...but it puzzles me that as a sure as I am and most are

about OJ, that we could be so divided about *. I've often wondered about that.

[ThoughtCriminal]

144. Guilty AND Framed maybe

It is possible to frame the right guy by planting evidence to support a weak case.

[Blitz]

145. I was in law school at the time

and watched just about every moment of the trial that didn't interfere with my classes (which was most of it). I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that he did it. However, in hindsight, it's clear that the case was lost the day the jury was picked. It was over right then.

[PopSixSquish]

147. Simple - The Way They Were Killed

Maybe I've read too many true crime/detective novels or watched too many episodes of Law and Order, but stabbing someone repeatedly and slitting their throat is a rage killing.

If I recall correctly, OJ had spied on Nicole and another man once before during a sexual act. There were lit candles in the house and water in the bathtub, some speculated that she was waiting for someone or perhaps it seemed to OJ that she was waiting for someone.

The neighbor who testified that he heard the dog barking and the gate clanging also testified that he heard a man shout something like "hey, Hey, HEY" ie the voice getting louder. And then another voice answering as a growl or yell, couldn't make out any words.

She came outside to investigate the dog barking, he grabbed her and knocked her down, Ron Goldman interrupted him, OJ struck out at him, killed him and then slit Nicole's throat. The slitting of the throat perhaps makes a point - she's never gonna talk back to me again.

2nd degree murder for both. Wasn't she also cutting up fruit or something? She probably carried the knife with her to go call the dog in. Do you always set down whatever is in your hands to do another thing?

But not proven beyond a reasonable doubt in court due to many, many things which have been discussed repeatedly in the years since.

[sistersofmercy]

156. Hey DF...

One little suggestion...it's humorous to find everyone has and will always have an opinion on this subject which is absolute, well, there are a few of us who just simply don't know. :*