What's with the reaction to the OJ issue around here?

[TheWraith]

Looking around at people's reactions to the whole issue surrounding the OJ Simpson book/interview, I see much the same kind of reaction as in the general public. I would have expected out of DU, a group that's normally so suspicious of media bias, a little bit more of a balanced perspective.

One of my pet peeves is how big media circuses tend to result in the creation of a persistant mythology which believed to be true, yet is completely wrong. Classic examples of how this can happen in random events include the myth that Princess Di was engaged and/or pregnant when she was killed, or the trial by public opinion of Richard Ricci, the handyman/petty thief who was posthumously cleared of involvement in the kidnapping of Elizabeth Smart.

All it takes, particularly in a heated media environment, is for someone to report something, and suddenly it's fact, no matter how wrong it is. It's like what Mark Twain said: a lie can travel half-way around the world while the truth is getting its shoes on. It just sort of dismays me that most people here don't realize that the OJ Simpson trial is lousy with these sorts of myths, most of which are still reported and repeated as fact: the shoe photos which an expert testified were fake, the supposed receipt for the murder weapon, the "shrinking" gloves, the "confession" to Rev. Grier, and a dozen others.

I'd encourage everybody to remember in the future that the 12 people who were kept away from the media reports, and shown only the things verifiable as fact, unanimously agreed that the prosecution did not meet the standard of evidence for a conviction.

[jumpoffdaplanet]

1. personally I couldn't give two shits about it

Too many people dying in Iraq, i guess.

[EST]

2. disgust

[Waya]

3. .....still doesn't make him less guilty.......

.....IMHO

[boolean]

4. lol

Are you suggesting that you believe he's innocent? :rofl:

[greyl]

"did not meet the standard of evidence for a conviction"

is what I see.

[zreosumgame]

20. the LA DA's office tried to frame a guilty man

and failed, big time in front of 24/7 circus like coverage.

[slaveplanet]

45. actually, I see it as a little

more complicated than that. The LADA had a near slam dunk (or at least easily manipulated to be slam dunk) for conspiracy to commit murder, if they had only gone with the hardcore evidence that implicated Kardashian, and then drawn OJ into that way. Instead, they clearly suppressed the conspiracy evidence and went with the tenuous, "OJ as the lone slasher" angle. They knew it would fail, it's as if it was designed to fail, they dry ran the "lone OJ" scenario before no less than 3 "shadow juries", two in Arizona, and one in California, all three came to the same result as the real trial, and I'd wager that the Arizona juries didn't have the same melanin content as the real jury. There was also a grand jury that was recused (no indictment). In my opinion these fact runs in the face of "the jury was trying to stick it to the man" attitude that the MSM had after the acquittal.
Likewise there is evidence that the civil trial was also manipulated, but this time for culpability. The bottom line is, If the MSM and the DA were truly after justice in this matter they'd be calling for Kardashian's head on a platter, he's not in danger of double jeopardy. So why is/was the LA DA mum? Why did the prosecution call the evidence a hoax, when the author was stuck in prison at the time of the murders and had no access to the evidence? Could it be that the LAPD knows exactly what happened, but will do anything to make sure we never really find out.
I personally was looking forward to what light OJ may shed on some things, no matter how disgusting the prospect.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

5. phony disgust.

People bought the hype.

[William769]

6. OJ who?

[Hobarticus]

7. Bizarre sense of justice, there...

Where's your sense of justice for the Brown and Goldman families? True he escaped conviction in a criminal trial, but he also was found liable for their deaths in a civil trial, and he has yet to pay one red cent to them. Yet there he is, out shilling his story for a buck. Think he did that to pay them their due?

[LiberalinNC]

38. What about the "hush money" Fox tried paying the Brown and Goldman Families!

[LiberalinNC]

39. What about the "hush money" Fox tried paying the Brown and Goldman Families!

[Eugene]

8. It was a phony event.

The only interesting part is that Rupert Murdoch finally
underestimated the taste of the American public.

News Corp/Faux outdid themselves.

[walldude]

13. Hehe.. just when you think they can't sink any lower

something like this pops up. "When OJ Attacks!"


Oh and to the OP. If OJ was so innocent why was he in the white Bronco with cash, a passport, and a disguise? Yeah fleeing the country is the act of an innocent man :eyes:

[blondeatlast]

43. As one indirectly involved in the publishing biz...

I think you are absolutely correct.

[driver8]

9. I wouldn't piss on OJ if he was on fire...

and I didn't give a rat's ass about his book and movie.

The less time people spend paying attention to OJ, the better.

[Lex]

10. And 12 other people sitting in the jury stand said the opposite.

Finding, in fact, that he did cause the deaths of Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown.

[butterfly77]

11. I reserve the right to pick and choose ...

what I want to read or view...Didn't Jeffery Dahmer write a book or others give interviews...Would it be ok to watch or read if he said he was guilty...

[TahitiNut]

12. I've never personally felt OJ was guilty, even close to "beyond a reasonable doubt."

I studied the data and paid very close attention. I support the jury's verdict. :shrug:

Sadly, there's still a virtual lynch mob in America ... and not-so-virtual ones, too.

[butterfly77]

14. I tape the trial and went over it each at the end of the day...

and on the weekends and they didn't prove their case... from what I recall there was blood in places that was unexplained and too many lies...

[lse7581011]

15. I Just Hope This Isn't A Sign

of future censorship in America! What I choose to read (or not read, for that matter) is not anyone's business!

[blondeatlast]

44. Not at all. It's a sign that the free-market economy is alive and well.

And Judith Regan and Rupert Murdoch hiccupped on this one.

[Sperk]

16. before the trial started.....believed in his guilt...WAS SURE OF IT!

I felt compelled to watch the trial (was home with small children at the time). And the only thing I was convinced beyond a reasonable doubt was that the blood on the back gate (appeared two weeks later) the blood on the sock (also appeared weeks later) the blood on the car console (not visible in original photos) and the glove was planted. Sorry, but evidence is not like a fine wine...it's not supposed to get better over time. And when the swatches were wet and Dr. What'shisname said, "somethings wrong", that was it for me. I told my husband right then and there...."He's gonna be aquitted."

Did he do it? I tend to think not because I don't think they would have had to plant so much evidence if he was. Whether he did it or not...I agree with the verdict...you cannot find someone guilty if you think evidence was planted.

And talk about the WHORE MEDIA...that's the time I woke up to the unbelievable deceit that these whores are capable of....they were NOT talking about the trial I saw.

I'm not saying that everyone who watched the trial would be convinced about planted evidence like I was. BUt I totally see why people who didn't watch the trial believe totally in his quilt.

[butterfly77]

27. That asshole Geraldo ...

had the nerve to say that blacks were fools because they did not agree with the verdict...He doesn't know what all blacks thought or all whites or any other race...He seems to think that blacks can't decipher the information as well as everyone else...For some who do believe that he is guilty many didn't watch the trial or are afraid to express their real thoughts and follow what they are told by the media.

[Buck Laser]

17. ho. hum.

[zreosumgame]

18. don't forget Richard Jewel

[sinkingfeeling]

19. The DNA evidence would have convicted anybody else all by itself.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

21. Sure.

If there had been DNA evidence.

[sinkingfeeling]

23. There was a ton of DNA evidence....here's just the blood drops....

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/Simpson/Dna.htm

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

25. Well, there was DNA.

The problem was, since it was tampered with, it's not really evidence.

[WI_DEM]

22. If the money was going to the victims families as the civil case decided

then I wouldn't care--since it wasn't--I'm glad they cancelled it.

[SmokingJacket]

24. It was a totally F*** up case.

I only remember it vaguely, but I do recall thinking that the prosecution/LAPD had messed up royally, and that the jury came to the only reasonable conclusion. That doesn't mean he's innocent -- just that the criminal justice system in this country ain't perfect.

But honestly, what's with the "If I Did It..." bullshit? If he's innocent, why come out with such a thing? It's like he's taunting people.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

26. He's been saying it for years.

Sounded to me it was like a big FU to all the people who've been flipping him shit.

[txindy]

28. Meanwhile, he was found liable in the civil trial. Fancy that.

So, just because you don't think he's guilty means that those of us here who do believe it don't have "a balanced perspective?"

:rofl:

Yeah, okay. :eyes:

[GoneOffShore]

29. We don't have a "Fair & Balanced" perspective!

:popcorn:
Needs more butter.

[txindy]

32. Well, I would hope we don't. Just the thought makes me twitchy.

And gives me the munchies. :popcorn:

[zreosumgame]

41. yeah, sure, and that jury had not been at all affected by

the saturation coverage and media orgasm over the previous trial? Yeah, I think he did it. However we have laws in this country, and we are not supposed to be able to be tried for the same crime over and over. That is beside the fact that the level of evidence is much much lower then in a criminal trial, add in people who had been innudated by 'OJ is GUILTY' coverage, and of course the perception that it was those stupid blacks on the jury who set him free, well yeah he was found liable.

Still sounds like double jepardy to me.

[warrens]

30. Not going to cry over cheap sensationalism

To me that fucking racist cop was a walking, talking reasonable doubt. But I still think OJ was guilty and I really don't want to hear another word from the creep.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

31. The Issue Is That He's A Cold Blooded Killer Who Shouldn't Profit From It.

I think that's a reasonable enough mindset.

[H2O Man]

33. Oh, come on!

I believe that we are at most hours away from OJ finding the real killer(s). He's been searching for a decade now.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

34. I Still Find It To Be Amazing That He Still Hasn't Come Across A Mirror In A Full Decade.

I wonder what odds Truth Is All could come up with for that likelihood?

[UTUSN]

35. What were the myths, exactly? The DNA? As for NOW, it's about the

FILTHY SLEAZE of BOTH Simpson AND Judith Regan.

[WinkyDink]

36. The Bruno Magli shoe photos, as printed in the NE, were real and accurate.

Don't know what you're talking about.

Read Bugliosi's book, any of you doubters. As well as Daniel Petrocelli's.

[Hobarticus]

37. Actually, once you get past the smell, Fuhrman's book was good too

And from what he found, they had OJ dead to rights.

[madmusic]

40. Jury? We don't need no stinkin' jury!

There are polls at CourtTV! Let's save money and let them decide.

[MrSlayer]

42. Might have something to do with a double murderer cashing in on his crimes.

Media bias in this argument is ludicrous. He's a murderer who walked.