Your feeling on the OJ Simpson murder case verdict?

[Nye Bevan]

What comes closest to your feelings on this case?

65 votes, 1 pass | Time left: Unlimited
	OJ was absolutely guilty without a shadow of a doubt. The "not guilty" verdict was an absolute travesty of justice.
	46 (71%)
	While OJ was probably guilty, the presence of the racist cop Mark Furhman on the investigation team introduced enough reasonable doubt (DNA planting?) to justify a "not guilty" verdict.
	15 (23%)
	OJ was probably innocent so the "not guilty" verdict was correct.
	4 (6%)
	1 DU member did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[AndyTiedye]

1. The Fur Man's Presence Taints the "Evidence" Beyond Repair

Furhman was a cop who has put black people in prison on falsified evidence and bragged about it.
If we throw out whatever "evidence" had passed through his hands, there is no case.
Maybe OJ did it, maybe he didn't.

[FarPoint]

56. That is how I saw it too.

Many resisted my rationale...

[hifiguy]

70. Add the timelines that didn't add up and

the sloppy forensics by the LAPD, which were crushed by Henry Lee, and there you have it.

[eridani]

2. From the standpoint of an analytical chemist--

--the chain of custody process for the evidence was completely fucked up. I think that if LAPD had behaved properly, the jury would have convicted./

[Live and Learn]

44. +1 nt

[mnhtnbb]

93. Agreed.

That is what introduced sufficient reasonable doubt to acquit.

[Travis_0004]

3. He is probably guilty, but I respect the verdict.

[BootinUp]

4. Next we need a poll on whether he was a total psycho.

[bluestateguy]

5. He's working with the police to find the real killer

nt

[hifiguy]

71. He's in the slammer in Nevada IIRC for the next 10-15 years.

For threatening a sports memorabilia dealer with a gun. He's on ice for the foreseeable future.

[bigwillq]

6. Probably guilty. At least involved.

Thought the prosecution did a horrible job of trying to prove their case. I probably would have voted to acquit.

edited

[Mr.Bill]

7. I watched every minute of that trial on TV.

The only thing that surprised me about the verdict was that it took longer than 15 minutes to reach it.

[bananas]

40. I was in shock at how the evening news completely misreported the days events.

Eventually it came out that the LAPD was completely manipulating the media,
feeding them false information, promising them scoops in exchange for skewing their reports, etc.

[uponit7771]

50. +1

[UTUSN]

8. Totally guilty but I'm wondering about the question, why now and also just why?!1 n/t

[TBF]

13. Why the questions? Conservatives illustrating that

a black man can be acquitted just like a white man. It might make sense if OJ were not a famous athlete and the police weren't shooting folks all over the country - including 12 year olds.

But it's a nice try.

FWIW, I always thought their son did it.

[Solomon]

55. I agree. i think the son did it.

If the cops hadn't tried to frame OJ they probably would have gotten a conviction. I watched the trial too and the media coverage was ridiculous in the way it lied to the public.

[Politicalboi]

98. OJ had a big cut on his hand

If you believe the broken glass story, I guess. The ONLY shoe prints were OJ's, but that shoe evidence was left out of criminal trail. Only OJ's blood was at the scene. He abused his wife all the time, and stalked her. Who else would kill her? The Mafia with their Neck Ties? Cato? This killing was personal. OJ cut out one of her breasts implants and almost decapitated her. Why would OJ's son do that?

[fadedrose]

112. OJ wasn't feeling right

He showered waiting for the cab.

Kato Kailen (sp) went with him to McDonald's or some other burger joint, and OJ ordered a drink, coke I think. It would have been easy for Kato to slip him something. Drugs are the keyword in this crime, and it was well-planned for a frame...breaking a glass or someone else doing it was not impossible in the woozy state OJ was in.

Kato and OJ did not hang out together. This was unusual...

And, if the glove don't fit, you must acquit.

[TBF]

122. The glove might have fit his son ... nt

[fadedrose]

137. I read a book about the son

It was maybe 5 years ago, and I couldn't come to the same conclusion.

The reputation of the restaurant and the number of other employees there who were killed because of drugs has me thinking it was a cartel murder.

Nicole and Ron were not together because of a planned "date." To my way of thinking it was arranged by someone at the restaurant, hurridly planned when they saw Nicole and her party come in, and the sunglasses were the perfect way to get Ron over there... So they lifted them and just waited for a call.

That's they way I see it and it will not leave my mind no matter what else I see or read about it.

It was well planned, even tho short notice. Kato had to be part of it.

But on one thing we agree, and I salute you for that. OJ didn't do it.

[TBF]

141. Interesting -

I was thinking more of who would benefit or kill because they were angry (you never know what is really going on in families) - but I didn't know about the drug angle. The cartels are good at what they do so that wouldn't surprise me at all.

[phil89]

151. Hope you're never, ever on a jury.

nt

[fadedrose]

152. I almost was

I sat in the jury room while the attorneys were picking out who they wanted. The defendant was black, and he told his lawyer to pick me, and he did.

Before the selection started, I looked at the huge pool of potential curers and saw nobody black. I asked the person, clerk, whoever, why there were no blacks in my group, since he's supposed to be judged by a jury of his peers, and she gave me a dirty look.

Anyways, next morning a call came, and I was told that the attorney did some plea bargaining and there would be no trial because some charges were dropped for a lesser crime. I was sorry it happened because I would love to have been on the panel.

If I was on a jury, I would pay attention to every detail and the deliberations would last at least a week.

I hope you are never, never an attorney for the defense...

[JonLP24]

114. If you believed he cut his hand while murdering his victims

then believing that he did it while wearing glove doesn't work since no cuts were found on them.

One theory or the other works but not both.

[fadedrose]

138. He cut his finger/thumb in his bathroom

or someone cut him, before a nap, or after he woke up late from a nap after he and Kato returned from, let's say, McDonalds.. He was not feeling himself, he was still drowsy...

He and Kato never went out together or spent time together. He just let him hang out there and do a couple of errands.

Gee I wish I had my notes from the trial....

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

78. You know why

[Terra Alta]

9. I think he is 100% guilty

But his "Dream Team" did a better job presenting their case than the prosecution and thus he was acquitted.

[Gidney N Cloyd]

10. Voted "B" but it was more than Furhman.

The prosecutors fucked up left and right, made a bad case with bad evidence and bad witnesses. The line at the time that's stuck with me is "they tried to frame a guilty man" and if you reward that then the next time they may get lazier and try to frame an innocent man.
Bottom line, and as various thinkers have said through the ages in different ways, essentially, "it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer".

[Live and Learn]

45. +1 nt

[ManiacJoe]

109. +1 n/t

[Anansi1171]

11. Was at UCLA at the time. I am ashamed to admit backed the verdict.

I was wrong. In any common sense theory of the crime, OJ was at the very least a direct accomplice to slaughter. And I believe he was the killer and it was indeed a travesty of justice.

Its only fair to discuss the OJ trial in the context of the Rodney King verdict, the subsequent unrest , and Darryl Gates' LAPD. Those events strongly influenced the social and political fabric in LA where this was happening.

The reaction of AAs at that time was misguided, maybe even repugnant, but understandable as politically-immature scorekeeping and bigotry.

And that answers the question: I think the passive agressive, tribal and unprincipled reaction in both cases are tragic consequences of racism.

[Freddie]

15. ^^this^^

OJ committed the crime, but that didn't matter to the jury, who were intent on sending a message related to the things you mentioned.

[tblue37]

46. +1. nt

[uponit7771]

52. So it was black people who were Immature and had nothing to do with Furman who was convicted

... of tampering with evidence during the trial?

You're fucking kidding me right!?

REALLY?!

Black folk are that fuckin stupid hunh?



No reason to see a cop who claimed to a writer that he wanted to burn black people alive as a bad actor during the whole thing?



sigh... this is the progressive board

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

58. No,

this is the Democratic board, not a progressive one. Lots of non-progressive Dems here too.

[Anansi1171]

65. No, you are correct. I absolutely recognize the racism of...

Furman and his and his partners likely tampering of evidence to fit their narrative.

My statement was not meant to blame my fellow blacks nor to look past the racism of the LAPD.

[Politicalboi]

96. When did Furman get convicted of tampering with evidence in OJ trial?

The jurors should have looked at ALL the evidence of a 9 month trial. 4 hours of deliberations is NOT enough. Itto should have called a mistrial.

[uponit7771]

128. Link

Mark Fuhrman (born February 5, 1952) is a former detective of the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD). He is primarily known for his part in the investigation of the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Lyle Goldman and his subsequent felony conviction for perjury. He has written true crime books and hosted talk radio.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Fuhrman

[TheKentuckian]

12. The evidence security and tainting issues are a reasonable doubt generator of epic scale.

It should be impossible at all times to get a conviction in such circumstances in a system with a true presumption of innocence even with a public defender, much less a "Dream Team".

If our system actually worked the judge would have dismissed before the case was ever turned over to defense.

[uponit7771]

53. +1, ++++POLICE TAMPERING WITH EVIDENCE++++++

[BillZBubb]

14. Absolutely guilty.

The attempt to blame Fuhrman is laughable. But, it worked.

The DNA evidence was compelling in spite of the not totally to the letter of the book handling.

What really gave it away to me was when OJ used the trick of bowing out his thumb to make it look like the "glove didn't fit". As soon as I saw that, I knew he did it.

[Staph]

37. The glove evidence drove me crazy.

Any one who lives in a cold and wet climate knows that when leather gloves get sopping wet and then dry, they shrink up. Combine that with trying to put on a pair of leather gloves over a pair of latex gloves, and you have a formula for "if they do not fit . . . ".

[BillZBubb]

59. Exactly. Plus if you've ever tried to put gloves on a reluctant kid,

they use the same tactic OJ did. They just spread out the thumb and the glove won't go on.

When you watch the video of that scene, you can see clearly what he does, but the incompetent prosecutors missed it completely.

[Politicalboi]

95. My exact thoughts

And I loved the small hand reference Marcia made to F. Lee Bailey.

And I don't know about you, but if I were innocent, I wouldn't want to touch that once blood soaked glove. If it could prove my innocence, I guess I would, but I wouldn't be happy to do it, and I would be while they put it on. And OJ never really thanked the jury. He didn't even make it to the Christmas party later that year to say a personal thank you to the people who saved his ass.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

79. It was more funny than anything, does it drive you crazy there are thousands of AfAm

in prisons because of systematic unjust courts and CIA planting crack cocaine in the AFAm communities?

[JonLP24]

104. They had him try on a new pair of the same gloves which did fit

Moisture was introduced to the jury as a cause for the gloves to shrink.

The verdict didn't come down to the glove.

[AndyTiedye]

68. It's Easy to Come Up With "Compelling" Evidence by Tampering

You want to brush that off as a triviality but it is not, especially when the police investigator has an admitted history of framing black people and getting them sent to prison. That was something Fuhrman was very proud of and bragged about.

[BillZBubb]

89. It would have been next to impossible in this case.

This was a very high profile case with lots of investigators involved. Fuhrman was one of many. Plus, there is no way Fuhrman could have gotten OJ's blood to sprinkle around the crime scene and in OJ's vehicle.

You have to come up with a very, very bizarre and frankly tin foil hat explanation for how Fuhrman could have done that.

[JonLP24]

113. He was alone in several key moments based on his own testimony

It wouldn't have to be just him. Lots of investigators that were mishandling the evidence, another detective had OJ's blood on him for several hours instead of taking it straight to evidence. Then there was the issue of "lost blood", about 1.5 ml missing.

Being alone doesn't mean anything, other cops are unlikely to turn another cop in either because that is the way things are or they don't want the "rat" reputation to follow them the rest of their careers. The Rampart Scandal suggested planting evidence was the status quo of the LAP.

How often does a lead detective in a murder trial takes the 5th on a question asking if he/she planted evidence in the same murder trial though not opening the door to the perjury he already committed is a reasonable explanation but still damning nonetheless.

[BillZBubb]

121. So, you have to resort to a conspiracy theory to explain the blood evidence?

Too many people would have had to be complicit. And for what purpose? It just doesn't make sense for a group to jeopardize their careers to frame a high profile defendant. They would have known the case would be fully scrutinized and that Simpson would have the best legal team money could buy. You might make the case one rogue cop would do it, but not more than one.

It has tin foil hat written all over it.

[JonLP24]

153. How else do you explain the lost blood and walking around with it for several hours?

Tin foil hat comes up with the most logical explanations.

As far as one rogue cop, police departments protect the rogue cops

The panel, called the Mollen Commission, agreed with police officials who contend that corruption was not systemic, but rather isolated to small groups of rogue officers. But the commission warned that if corruption itself was not systemwide, the department's failure to address it was.

"We find as shocking the incompetence and the inadequacies of the department to police itself," Milton Mollen, the commission chairman, said yesterday as the panel released an interim report on its principal findings. Will They Be Followed?

<snip>

But regardless of whether its recommendations are enacted, the commission's findings -- that there was a "reluctance to uncover and effectively investigate corruption" and that "no one seemed to care" -- are likely to be used to bolster whatever tack the new Mayor takes to solve the problem of police misconduct. Final Report in Spring

http://www.nytimes.com/1993/12/29/nyregion/new-york-s-police-allow-corruption-mollen-panel-says.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

[Spazito]

16. Another case where the prosecution screwed up royally...

they knew about the racist rantings of Furhman on tape yet didn't try to diffuse it by addressing the issue when Furhman was testifying as a prosecution witness and, instead, let the defense introduce it as a legitimate bombshell.

Complete failure on the part of the prosecution, imo.

[demosincebirth]

17. I if the jury had seen a video of him killing his wife they still wouldn't have convicted him.

[BillZBubb]

60. I wouldn't go that far...

juries have seen videos of cops abusing people and let them walk. Juries can do strange things, but I don't think OJ would have been acquitted if a video existed.

The jury was looking for any excuse to acquit him, but seeing the act would have negated all the flimsy excuses they clung to.

[demosincebirth]

73. I stand by my statement. nt

[Politicalboi]

100. The jury tossed 9 months of evidence out the window

In 4 hours. That alone is a crime. You take an oath to look at all the evidence. How can it be possible for them to come to a verdict so quick? They just wanted to go home. Itto should have called a mistrial. And I myself have said if the jury had a video, they would still let him go.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

81. Damn minorities, might have gotten away with ONE.

[davidpdx]

18. I think he was guilty and a combination of a bad prosecution and the best lawyers OJ could buy

led to the verdict. We will never know for sure though.

[Comrade Grumpy]

19. What I want to know is who killed JFK?

Speaking of ancient history.

[Logical]

22. That's easy, Lee Harvey Oswald! Nt

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

82. LOL

[Number23]

20. Why are you asking this? Particularly now?

[Number23]

23. You really are not lying.

[bettyellen]

67. We know, but would love to hear the OP explain it.

reminds me of women and POC are paid equally now, because: Beyonce.

[Nye Bevan]

126. I saw Mark Furhman commenting on the Michael Brown case

and it reminded me of the OJ Simpson case.

[seabeyond]

119. yup, nt

[Nye Bevan]

124. I saw Mark Furhman commenting on the Michael Brown case

and it reminded me of the OJ Simpson case.

[Number23]

140. LOL!

Yeah, okay honey.

[rufus dog]

24. He was guilty as fuck, Furman being a racist and Simpson's guilt aren't mutually exclusive

Same as Brown stealing cigars doesn't make Wilson not guilty, not mutually exclusive!

If you ever doubt the verdict, look at Kardashian's face when the verdict is announced. He was about ready to blow chunks! Why? He was the guy who carried the knife out of the house. Right in front of those two Sr. LAPD Detectives, the day after the crime. All caught on tape. Kardashian walks out with a duffel bag and throws it in his trunk, all caught on National TV. Then they put him on the Defense team so he can't be called to testify.

Racist cops, stupid cops, and OJ is still a fucking killer.

[lonestarnot]

25. Institutionalized racism.

[lapfog_1]

26. The police framed a guilty man. - n/t

[YOHABLO]

27. Oh please .. who else would have motive? He was a wife beater .. may he rot in hell.

[JDPriestly]

43. Do you think Zimmerman should have been found guilty?

[Smarmie Doofus]

28. He was ( is) probably guilty but Furhman's bias plus sloppy evidence collection...

... led to the reasonable POSSIBILITY of tainted evidence. Therefore... given the burden on the prosecution ( "beyond a reasonable doubt&quot ..... the jury's verdict was the only responsible one.

[jberryhill]

29. too few choices - it wasn't Furman

That prosecution was a mess. Every cop contradicted themselves on the stand. The medical examiner contradicted himself.

And, as much as it was a stupid thing to do, the stunt of having OJ try on the glove was idiotic.

The DNA lady spewed forth days of incomprehensible shit.

The prosecution proved the killer wore Bruno Magli shoes, and then never showed that OJ owned a pair.

There was a case in there, and the prosecution was a trainwreck.

The prosecution paid way too much attention to "what everybody knew from watching tv" and paid no attention to what was presented to the jury. Their time line was all over the map, they put on witnesses that didn't prove much.

If I was on that jury, I would've asked if Marsha Clarke could be sent to jail for something.

[akbacchus_BC]

30. Why are you bringing this up now? OJ is guilty!

And you will be asking why he is a nonentity! You reap what you sow! OJ, is a killer, enough said!

[Drunken Irishman]

31. I took a CJ class from a former police officer.

We spoke of the Simpson trial and he said the verdict was absolutely the right call due to the inept prosecution. Not only was there tainted evidence, but a racist cop brought enough reasonable doubt that the jury did what they should have done - in his opinion. He ultimately thought OJ was guilty but the prosecution was so poor that they bungled the case badly - going in expecting a slam dunk.

I know you're comparing this to Ferguson and I agree to a point - based on the prosecution, the verdict might've been the best. The attorney in this case absolutely purposely threw the case. He wanted no indictment and he got it.

[akbacchus_BC]

33. Mr. DI, I like you and your conversation but sometimes you are biased!

There is no rose garden here, it is politics! You always bend to President Obama and I have no idea why! I thought he would make a difference with his ' yes we can! but it did not work out well for him! Do carry on!

[Drunken Irishman]

38. I...don't even think I mentioned Obama once in my post?

[tularetom]

32. I selected your second option but actually the first two are both true

Plus a third - extreme prosecutorial ineptitude.

Of course OJ killed those two people and the only reason he got off is because the prosecution team got overconfident and cocky and Johnnie Cochran made them look like fools, from jury selection through exposing Fuhrman for the racist asshole he was to the glove trick ("If it doesn't fit you must acquit&quot .

Of course karma finally bit OJ in the ass so the entire argument is really sort of moot at this point.

[JI7]

34. how about Robert Blake

[Politicalboi]

110. Guilty

I think William Shatner killed his wife too. Almost the same scenario, of no longer wanting this woman in their lives but Shatner got away without a trial.

[KMOD]

35. It was the absolutey correct verdict based on the evidence.

I'm not saying OJ didn't do it, I'm just saying they did not prove he did it.

And I, as a result, breathed a sigh of relief, knowing that our justice system still works.

Oh yeah, I'm lily white by the way.

The mountain of evidence they claimed to have, was a bunch of BS, that fell, when we learned of the EDTA that someone, bled right through his foot, entirely through the sock as if no foot was there at all. I mean c'mon. The reasonable doubt came from the fact that is was highly probable that they forged the evidence to make him look guilty.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

36. .

[KMOD]

39. I laughed out loud!

[Raine]

41. I believe he was guilty but think the verdict was correct. nt

[JDPriestly]

42. OJ was not guilty because the jury found that the prosecutors did not prove beyond a reasonable

doubt that OJ was guilty.

No other suspect has been indicted for the murder, however, so we don't know who did it.

A lot of evidence suggested that OJ was the murderer, but the evidence was not conclusive enough for the jury.

In our system of justice, the jury verdict is guilty or not guilty. OJ's jury decided he was not guilty. That's the last word.

How many who answered this poll one way or the other has reviewed all the evidence presented at trial. As I understand it, the jury found that the time scheme the prosecutors presented could not have been possible in their view. Also, there was a question about Fuhrman as a witness and the chain of custody on the blood samples was not carefully enough recorded. Making sure the evidence and crime scene were protected from contamination was not properly done.

[Ichingcarpenter]

47. A serial killer performed the act, OJ was there

An interesting spin on the story which I hadn't heard before. I an't buying it but its a nice spin

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/11/20/justice/o-j-simpson-film-claim/

Irony note
The Studio wanted OJ to be the Terminator but Cameron didn't think he could convince the audience of being so ruthless, blood thirsty and menacing

OJ did it did the deed as the civil trial proved to me, the criminal trial was mishandled.

[SummerSnow]

48. The question is why did he kill her if he did?

[KingCharlemagne]

64. It's been a long time now, and I've forgotten much of that trial which happened

my first year living in LA (1994-5?). I remember the prosecution at the beginning of the trial introduced some witnesses about how domestic violence often follows easily predictable patterns that culminate in homicide. This thread seemed to die still born in the trial, being lost amidst all the forensic evidence and quibbling about DNA. But it's the part that stuck with me. OJ was angry that he could not 'control' Nicole and each step she took to assert her independence only made him all the more angry until it culminated in one final paroxysm of homicidal rage. (Ron Brown stumbled upon the homicide in progress and thus OJ had kill him to prevent any witness to OJ's murderous rampage from surviving.)

Cochran did a masterful job (with the connivance to varying degrees of D.A. Gil Garcetti, ADA Clark, Fuhrman and others) of converting what should have been a case about domestic violence reaching its final apogee into a case about race and a racist system determined to bring a successful black man down.

[StevieM]

115. I think you meant to say "Ron Goldman." You wrote "Ron Brown." (eom)

[KingCharlemagne]

116. You are absolutely 100% correct. Thanks for the correction\annotation! - nt

[RandiFan1290]

49. Not working out the way you hoped, eh?

BTW I noticed you did not vote.

[Nye Bevan]

123. To be honest I expected it to sink fairly quickly.

I certainly wasn't expected 120+ replies and 5 recs.

[pnwmom]

51. I would change the first option to the actual legal standard: beyond a reasonable doubt.

"Beyond a shadow of a doubt" is an almost impossible standard.

[DesertFlower]

54. johnny cochran was amazing. remember

how he put on the ski hat and said referring to the gloves "if it doesn't fit -- you must acquit".

how about the look on robert kardashian's face when the verdict came in. he was shocked. he knew a lot. OJ had been staying at his house.

[JonLP24]

91. He was referring to evidence

Such as OJ showing up on his own car two blocks away in a neighborhood that knows his car & knows OJ (I don't actually know, just what the attorney claims) and putting on the knit cap to show that you can still recognize him. "If it doesn't fit"

If anything, he seemed to be referring more to the knit cap than the gloves.

[NaturalHigh]

57. I wasn't one of those who watched every minute of the trial.

Frankly I was sick of hearing about the whole thing. The jury said not guilty, so that's my opinion on it too. If there was enough evidence to convict, I'd like to think the jury would have sent him away.

It's pretty much the same thing I feel about Darren Wilson. He's legally not been convicted of anything, and I'm not going to pound the pulpit and claim otherwise.

[Stellar]

61. What about

if it doesn't fit - you must acquit. The Glove?

[ScreamingMeemie]

62. My father has an interesting take on this, and had it long before a book came out about it.

In fact, he had it during the trial. (and no, he's no OJ fan)

To this day, he believes OJ's son, Jason, might have done it. He had a deep dislike for his stepmom, apparently, and my father feels that OJ took the fall, knowing full well he would probably get off (or buy his way out of it).

There is now a full-fledged fleshing out of this theory, and it always gave me something to think about.

[LanternWaste]

63. Tom, Bert or William?

Tom, Bert or William?

I'm betting on Bert. Better alliteration...

[Orsino]

66. A bellwether for the LAPD.

The defendant obviously killed two people, but the police undid much of their own case, and expensive defense attorneys did the rest.

When OJ's money ran low, he was unable to avoid jail on much more banal offenses.

[hifiguy]

69. I watched a lot of the trial

as I was between jobs at the time. Speaking as a lawyer, this case was NOT the slam dunk it was portrayed as being by the media. There were timeline issues that didn't add up, Dr. Henry Lee demolished the prosecution forensics, which were very sloppy, and then there was the Furhman factor.

The verdict came in shortly after I started a job clerking for a trial court judge and everyone on our floor predicted the outcome. I said he'd walk and people said I was crazy. Turns out I wasn't. There were enough inconsistencies that a jury could come out the way they did, particularly if they either liked OJ or were inclined to distrust the cops.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

72. He was guilty - but the police made tons of mistakes

like detective Vanatter bringing the blood sample from the scene of the murder at Bundy to OJ's mansion on the way to the criminologist and actually walking all over the grounds with the blood sample in his pocket. And Vanatter was overhead saying OJ was guilty in the presence of witnesses, showing prejudging and bias in the investigation. And Vanatter committed the worst mistake of all. Fuhrman found a fingerprint in blood at the murder scene and wrote it down in his notes. That finding could have been fatal to OJ's case. But Vanatter never read Fuhrman's notes and didn't collect it. This was not just about Fuhrman's racism. It was about mistake after mistake after mistake that raised reasonable doubt.

And Furhman's credibility was severely undermined when he told OJ's lawyer F. Lee Bailey that he'd never used the "N" word. After that, he was confronted with example after example of using it in a series of tape recordings. Fuhrman was later found guilty of perjury, a felony. And when Fuhrman suddenly decided to clam up and take the 5th amendment after testifying at length when asked if he'd ever falsified evidence in a police investigation, what did the prosecution expect the jury to think? Fuhrman's alleged falsification of evidence was the central issue in the case. Fuhrman lost the case right there. While I thought OJ was guilty, I would have had no choice but to find reasonable doubt, the prosecution and the cops fucked up so totally and irretrievably.

And then there was the utter outrage I felt over Fuhrman's police personnel file. OJ's lawyers brought a motion to obtain it to see if Fuhrman's file revealed an ongoing series of common acts of police abuse against minorities. We know that an orthodox rabbi filed a complaint alleging that Fuhrman had beaten him up while he was waiting in line at a movie theater, right in front of his wife. Judge Ito upheld the privilege of confidentiality of such files and the defense wasn't allowed to examine it. Once the prosecution received this ruling, the police called former police chief Darrel Gates to police headquarters. Gates while he was chief of police famously promoted use of the chokehold despite several deaths of black suspects taken into custody. He explained the deaths of black people through use of the choke hold as follows: "blacks might be more likely to die from chokeholds because their arteries do not open as fast as they do on 'normal people.' " Gates was given Fuhrman's entire personnel file to review (the one the defense wasn't allowed to see) despite then being,a retired civilian. At the height of the defense's efforts to impeach Fuhrman, Gates went on radio station KFI to gleefully pronounce that he found no evidence of any abusive or racist actions on Fuhrnan's part. This was a case of one known racist clearing another. I would have made a motion then and there that by allowing a civilian to review and publicly comment on the personnel file constituted a waiver of the privilege of confidentiality. The LAPD was basically saying “fuck you” to the people and the justice system, “we can do whatever we want.”

[JonLP24]

74. The chain of custody was horrible

Cases have been thrown out on far less.

[liberalhistorian]

75. One of my husband's legal

colleagues likes to say that "the LAPD conspired to frame a guilty man and failed."

That about sums it up for me.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

76. "Some" people will NEVER get over the fact that an AfAm male MAY have gotten

away with murder

This thread seems like the epitome of a drive by, has anyone seen the OP respond yet?

[BronxBoy]

87. Not that he got away with murder...

but more that the system didn't work for them the way it should have.

I'm Black and my feeling from day one was that OJ was as guilty as fuck. But then I didn't give a fuck about OJ even if he was Black.

What was interesting to me about that case was how widely misunderstood the Black reaction to the not guilty verdict. An awful lot of Black folk thought OJ was guilty but said you know what "It's about time we got one!"

I know it's fucked up...2 people got hacked to death and the person most likely responsible for that got off. But that's the way people felt. I'm ashamed to say that's how I felt back then. But that's the reality warts and all...

And when you see case after case after case after case of Black people being killed under highly questionable circumstances with not even a trial (at least OJ was brought to trial) and not even a grudging admission that we find something wrong with the justice system as it applies to Black and Brown people......

Well....then you can understand why people were cheering and horns were blaring in celebration up in Washington Heights when the verdict was announced......Not right but I can understand it.

[CBGLuthier]

77. Possibly guilty, likely guilty, but the shittiest sloppiest prosecution and police work imaginable

But let us be perfectly honest, without the money to hire the great lawyers and the celebrity factor he would have been convicted in a heartbeat.

[cwydro]

107. He got off because he was rich.

You are so right.

And Judge Ito was so in love with his own celebrity. Ugh, that guy creeped me out.

[noiretextatique]

80. my feeling: OJ wasn't a cop

or a "former neighborhood watch captain" quasi-cop. having said that, i think he did it....or knows who did.

here's a verdict that was handed down in February of 1994, not too long before the OJ trial started. note: it was only 30 years after the crime.

Today in black history: Medgar Evers’ killer convicted
http://peoplesworld.org/today-in-black-history-medgar-evers-killer-convicted/

[JustAnotherGen]

83. It was like 20 years ago

Isnt he in jail now? Eh? This is coming from me - the woman who jazzed about the Lindbergh trial anniversary events coming up in my town - so who am I judge!

[DefenseLawyer]

84. It was a botched prosecution

Mark Furman wasn't the only thing that botched the case. He wasn't even the main problem. The lax handling of evidence was huge in the case. There is a crime scene evidence collector on video in the crime scene eating a sandwich. The famous Bronco was let unsecured in a tow lot. The detective, after taking a sample of OJ's blood at headquarters, inexplicably put the sample in the trunk of his car and drove back to the crime scene, rather than taking it two floors down to the lab. Barry Scheck destroyed their forensic case. Crushed it. That's really what won the case.

[Mike Nelson]

85. Case was decided when Johnny removed 1 juror...

...accused of writing a book (she wasn't) and, overall, through jury selection. Everything else was theater.

[Auggie]

86. I remember his eyes when the verdict was read. That's when I know for sure he did it.

[noiretextatique]

88. i don't understand why some people take this case as a personal affront

michael brown was not the first person murdered by a cop who was not charged, arrested, indicted or prosecuted...and he won't be the last. zimmerman was not the first murderer of the black male who got away with it...and he won't be the last. and OJ is not the first rich asshole who might have gotten away with murder...and he probably won't be the last. the justice system is not just, and certainly not for poor people and people of color. never has been. OJ did not change that. the people who keep raging about this case don't seem to give a damn about the two victims, they just seem upset that the jury didn't return the verdict they wanted, even though a racist cop and an inept prosecution tanked the case.

[JustAnotherGen]

142. Well - I'd like to remind people noire that well . . .

Justice was served, the jury has spoken and fiddle dee -

They all need to just get over it.

[noiretextatique]

143. that...and

earlier in the year, before the trial started, the killer of medgar evers was FINALLY convicted, after 30+ years. doesn't THAT outrage people?

[JustAnotherGen]

145. 30 years?

You don't say . . .

Yeah - they aren't outraged about that - at all.

[noiretextatique]

146. ...

i can't even get ONE of the outraged to respond to THAT outrage.

[LeftInTX]

90. That case reminded me never to follow a "media circus" dubbed "trial of the century"

He was very rich, he was very popular, it was after the Rodney King case with a predominant AA jury. I'm pretty sure he did it, but the odds were kinda stacked against a conviction. It kinda reminded me of the Casey Anthony case. OJ wasn't a danger to me or anyone I knew, so if he walks, he walks. Nicole's family sued and won.

Marcia Clark knew before the trial even started that they would not get a conviction. I feel the media created a frenzy over the case. In hindsight, it was more of a "celebrity trial" than anything. Just like Robert Blake.

If OJ was unknown and poor, he probably would have been found guilty.

[Politicalboi]

94. 100% agree

Casey Anthony can party all the while her 3 year old is missing from the top of the concrete stairs she left her at that morning. Maybe someday when OJ is out of jail they'll meet up with each other. They can start a reality TV show looking for the murderers.

[Politicalboi]

92. I remember the verdict

Ms. Moran, jury foreman, says to the reporters. "We was deliberated" and drove away in a taxi. 9 months of evidence and it only took these jurors less than 4 hours to come to a verdict. They should have all been arrested for not doing their job of actually "looking" at all that evidence. And judge Itto should have called a mistrial. The press were at OJ's house and Nicoles, so planting blood wouldn't have worked, and doing so would mean facing the death penalty for 2 retiring cops. Where's their motive? These same cops that covered OJ's ass all those years, now want to frame him.

And if I were in OJ's spot, putting on the glove with the woman I loved blood is all over it would make me sick. And he stressed his thumb, so it wouldn't have ever fit along with the rubber glove. OJ is guilty. And his trail should have been held in Santa Monica where the crime was committed.

[JonLP24]

99. The handling of the evidence was at-the-very least "sloppy"

and there is strong evidence to suggest there was planting.

No blood was found in the area of the glove that was found. There is the issue of the "lost blood" where a detective drove around with it for several hours (his explanation) instead of taking it straight to the lab. Other evidence was either lost or mishandled.

Also a detective was convicted of perjury for testimony he gave in the OJ Simpson trial. The audio tape that contradicted his testimony which also included violating the constitutional rights of minority gang members. He also took the 5th when asked if he ever planted evidence.

The strongest is the EDTA found on the sock. Prosecutors sent it to the FBI lab and when it came back EDTA the prosecutor decided not to use him as a witness so the defense attorneys decided to use him.

[Politicalboi]

105. Why would there be blood in Cato's yard?

And the cops who were going to retire had his blood, and they could of faced the death penalty for framing OJ. And the ONLY person who never would have acquitted OJ was tossed by some lame book story that the defense cooked up, and Itto tossed her. 4 hours for 9 months of evidence is impossible to come to a conclusion. But there is a good feeling knowing OJ sits in jail today and the coming holidays. He's where he belongs. He should have been there years before the murder for all the abuse he caused his family. And this whole page ignores the abused victim, and the real possibility that OJ really did do it. No matter how many times Furhman said ni***r

[JonLP24]

106. Sloppy handling & the combination of the detectives being in position to mix and plant

led to the verdict. Usually cases are dismissed due to this kind of police work.

Short deliberations aren't unusual depending on the strengths and weaknesses of the case and the evidence of the sloppy handling was very strong.

Not part of the trial the Rampart scandal was exposed shortly after and an entire department of the LAPD engaged in this sort of thing speaks to the overall culture.

[Politicalboi]

108. Far out stories IMO

OJ was loved by a lot of people. Even the cops helped him keep the abuse silent. Now these same cops are gung ho to frame him. OJ was an abuser. And in time, a lot of those abusers become killers. OJ did it, and Itto should have called a mistrial.

[JonLP24]

111. Which is far out?

The bungling and mishandling of the evidence isn't in doubt. In fact, I'm sure the OJ Simpson trial is used as a common example on what not to do in training on chain of custody procedures.

As far as planting when it came to the blood on the sock, it was socked from one side to the other and also was contaminated with EDTA. Philip Vannatter went to OJ Simpson's residence instead of taking his blood straight to evidence.

Unless those same cops that protected OJ were also the primary detectives in this case it would be a convincing rebut of the planting theory but the sloppiness alone would get a case thrown out.

[tavernier]

97. I thought the evidence was overwhelming.

It broke my heart to see so many people cheering and laughing and celebrating the man who slaughtered two people in cold blood without a hint of remorse, even giving us a self satisfied finger by writing a book about how he did it.

[bobclark86]

101. I'm gonna go with...

Pretty much everybody screwed the pooch. The guy who tried to cut his ex-wife's head off, the piss-poor cop job by the racist asshats, the laughably bad judge... By the end, it didn't matter. It was just so badly done he would have walked no matter what the jury came back with as a verdict.

[fadedrose]

102. One thing I thought was impossible...

Marcia Clark read off the times that Nicole was called by her mother, the call that Nicole made to the Messzaluna (sp). The call that Nicole made to her mother according to phone records was 2 minutes atter she called the restaurant.

I've had kids and people stay at my house, and when something has been left here, it sure as hell takes more than 2 minutes to search everywhere the kid spent time.

At the restaurant, the waitress would have had to run, and I mean run, to the table, check the chairs, look under the table, and as a last resort, look at the sidewalk. In 2 minutes, no can do.

I think the sunglasses were removed from the table when nobody was looking to give Ron an excuse to go to Nicole's. The drug people wanted to get rid of both of them and framed OJ. He may have been drugged and his finger cut.

There were other employees at that restaurant that had gang connections and were murdered....

OJ would not have killed and left the bodies there for his kids to find.

There were other things too...the lady next door who fled to El Salvador (?) who gave descriptions of what she heard and saw...they threw out her testimony as useless because she lied about her age....

There used to be a website that had the entire trial transcript posted. I can't remember the guy's name who kept it up. I had my own file which has been long lost, and the VCR tapes all gone too....

[brewens]

103. I don't think the cops proved exactly what happened. They need to follow the rules to make things

stick. I think they could have if they weren't so busy framing a guilty man.

[LeftinOH]

117. I was appalled at how much press this case received.

A local crime in Los Angeles became a national fixation. I followed the case very little at the time (I was an adult then, too) and found the whole circus to be incredibly distracting - and uninteresting. Maybe this was the point when ratings-based "news" became the standard?

Five months after the murders, the Republicans took over the House and Senate.

[Erose999]

118. He was probably guilty, but they botched the investigation big time. As they did in the Darren

Wilson case.

[pipi_k]

120. One of those mixed

bag things, once again.

I would be tempted to choose option 1, that I think he did it and got away with it and it's a complete travesty of justice. I felt that way for a long time, until reading "Reasonable Doubts..." by Alan Dershowitz, a book in which he goes to great lengths to explain why the legal system worked in this case.

It's one of those books not for anyone who can't hold conflicting viewpoints.

The main theme of the book is that the legal system worked because the prosecution failed to present enough irrefutable evidence for a conviction, and because of that, the jury could not find Simpson guilty. Sort of like the Casey Anthony deal. It's not the defendant's job to prove his innocence. It's the government's job to prove his guilt. And the government failed.

So my personal opinion is that he is more than likely guilty.

As to whether or not it's a travesty of justice that he got away with murder...

yes AND no.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

125. OJ was a private citizen and not part of our government. Hence, this conflation of OJ and Wilson

is really troubling to me.

[Nye Bevan]

127. Wait... someone conflated OJ and Wilson?

That's just wrong.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

129. someone is conflating one racially based verdict with another

one is a systemic issue, and one is a random occurence

[Nye Bevan]

130. Who? (nt)

[La Lioness Priyanka]

131. are we not discussing OJ here because of the Wilson trial?

or is OJ suddenly all over DU for some other reason??

[Nye Bevan]

132. I saw Mark Furhman commenting on the Brown case and that reminded me of the OJ Simpson case,

but I don't think that one can really "conflate" these two cases.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

133. i think a lot of people, and i am not necessarily saying this is true of you, are

conflating these two issues.

1. OJ had a real trial whereas Wilson did not. A grand jury is not a real trial.

2. OJ is not an arm of the govt, hence he doesn't represent systemic violation of a people, the way Wilson does.

3. OJ is the one black person who believe got off unfairly and therefore is often used as a justification for the million times whites have been able to get off unfairly for killing a black person.

for these reasons, i think OJ and Wilson conflations are just silly.

[Capt. Obvious]

134. Don't worry, we got OJ

Hopefully Darren Wilson tries to take his commendation back by force so we can get him too.

[Nye Bevan]

136. LOL (nt)

[Derek V]

135. I strongly suspect that Simpson commited both murders

But the cops? The prosecution? Their witnesses (way more than just Fuhrman!)? > Biggest damn clusterfuck I've ever seen. These goobers couldn't put away Cookie Monster for stealing Oreos!

[moondust]

139. Not sure.

At the time I thought he was maybe too big, dumb, and clumsy to pull it off without leaving a massive blood trail, fingerprints, and other evidence. Wasn't the scene of the crime a bloody mess?

[stevenleser]

144. There was an indictment and a trial. Hard to compare that to Ferguson or Eric Garner

You don't always get the result you want with a trial, but the witnesses and evidence is/are examined and challenged and the full system of justice gets the chance to work.

I can't select an option knowing the intent is a comparison to what is going on now.

[noiretextatique]

150. +1000 eom

[noiretextatique]

147. Your feeling on the Medgar Evers murder case verdict?

Last edited Thu Dec 4, 2014, 04:19 PM - Edit history (1)

it happened the same year the OJ trial started. The killer was finally convicted: 30 years later. I have never seen a post about THAT here. Nor have I seen a poll about THAT here. Your feelings?

[Nye Bevan]

148. I assume you mean "Medgar" Evers?

Is there any controversy about whether the murderer is guilty?

[noiretextatique]

149. yep...I meant Medgar

and the fact that it took 30 years to convict his killer. And the fact that many other killers of black people were not, and still are not held accountable...any comment on that? Or do you prefer to focus on one BLACK asshole who got away with murder? That you, and other bring up OJ now speaks volumes about YOU.