Full Case Discussion: If It Doesn't Fit, You Must Acquit

[ArizonaGrown]

Haha your funny and original

[VanillaBeanne]

Are there also two white Ford Broncos? Just read a NYTs review of first episode and it stated the car used in the chase was owned by Al Cowlings. Is that the same car OJ used the night of the murders and parked in front of his house, or did he and AC both have white Ford Bronco? (Another coincidence like he and Nicole both having a Kato - Nicole's a guard dog, and OJ's a lapdog, I mean, houseguest).

Edited February 6, 2016 by VanillaBeanne

[starri]

I recall all the photos produced during the civil trial with OJ wearing Bruno Magli shoes.  Wasn't there testimony that the gloves were the same brand and size as a pair that Nicole had bought for him?

I'm pretty sure they found photos of him in those ugly-ass Bruno Magli shoes for the criminal trial as well.

 

Also, him being allowed to try on the gloves WHILE WEARING LATEX GLOVES UNDERNEATH stupid thing the prosecution should never have agreed to.  Of course they weren't going to fit.

[Avaleigh]

Also note that two of Ron Goldmans friends and co workers at restaurant he was employed that evening were also murdered - in exactly same way one year after.

Is one of the co-workers you're referring to Michael Nigg? He wasn't killed in exactly the same way. A witness saw two men, Nigg was shot, and the two men had a getaway driver. I thought those sounded like two different sitations completely.

[poeticlicensed]

Really do you think if Oj did this he would risk this book? He knew everyone was pissed that thought he got off - and maybe he was trying to play with them but I really think he needed the cash. And I would not be surprised to find out that some of the same "friends" of his that approached him when this Vegas thing went down had something to do with the book idea.

 

I think it was a combo of the wanting the money and wanting to tell his side, without having to be cross examined. He was strapped after the trial. The lawyers, then the Goldman's took pretty much everything but his football pension. I don't know if he didn't think the Goldman's would go after the proceeds or he was too arrogant to believe that a judgment would be enforced. But I also think he wanted a vehicle to tell what a horrible bitch Nicole was. It's been many years since I read the book, but it seems like the whole first half is him talking about how much Nicole provoked him. I think he actually thought that people might think gee poor guy, she pretty much drove him it it. 

 

As for knowing who OJ was before the trial, oh yes, I grew up with OJ as a pop culture figure. I was in my 30s when the murders happened (Nicole and I were the same age when she was murdered) and my kids are a little younger than hers. I knew who OJ was, not so much from football, I didn't really grow up in a football house, but I do remember after he retired and started doing the hertz commercials, acted in movies, etc. He was everywhere, with that big smile and magnetic personality. As for him being barely literate, I find that surprising. He always seemed well spoken, I just assumed he was that way when reading and writing. When the murders happened and then immediately OJ was accused, I was stunned, as was everyone else. Kind of like how everyone was stunned when the allegations about Bill Cosby came out. I mean, he was America's dad, how could he be a rapist? It was much the same reaction. He was a football star, turned celebrity, he had it all, no way could this be true. 

 

I worked full time and there was not the Internet we know today, with streaming and live news, so I wasn't able to watch most of the trial live, but they did replay it at night and with the time difference, it was sometimes still live broadcasting when I got home. I did watch some of the nightly coverage, especially as the media circus grew. I work at a university and on the day of the verdict, every TV on campus was tuned. People were in shock. 

 

I know this is unrelated, but I remember having a discussion with my coworkers when all this went down, saying that the world was going crazy. Just a few months before the murders, the Tonya Harding Nancy Kerrigan thing happened and there was massive media coverage. One of my colleagues said first we have little white skater girl beats up another with stick,, OJ murders his ex, what's next?? 

Edited February 6, 2016 by poeticlicensed

[candall]

Spurred by the title of this thread, I'm going to get this one little thing off my chest that's been bugging me all these years:

 

Am I the only person in the world who's ever ruined a nice pair of leather gloves by getting them wet?

 

In my case, it was snowballs and not blood, but those gloves were expensive (a rare luxury) and I was determined to salvage them.  It was crazy--they seemed to have shrunk to half their size.  If I hadn't known, with 100% certainty, that they were mine, I would never have believed they once fit my hands.  I patiently tugged and breathed warm breath on them to soften them up and FINALLY got them stretched back out.  (They were never supple and beautiful again, but at least I could wear them.) 

 

When that whole pivotal moment happened, with OJ standing there showing his hands to the jury and Cochran trumpeting "If it doesn't fit, you must acquit," I patiently started waiting for someone to suggest what was obvious, to me.

 

But AFAIK, it never happened.  I know that the glove demonstration was a crucial turning point in the trial and dispositive for many, even though testimony went on for months. 

 

"The gloves" started the ball rolling against Furman for planting evidence.  "The gloves" were the first incredibly bonehead move by Darden, of the prosecution.  (He said he looked at the gloves and at OJ's hands and thought they'd fit.  "Don't ask questions when you aren't sure of the answers" is practically the golden rule for trial attorneys.  Did he miss the memo on that?)

 

For everyone here who's done extensive followup, please let me know if this issue was ever scrutinized and I simply missed it.

******************

 

My $.02 for the young'uns:  In my lifetime, no other news story has ever been so pervasive.  It was always on tv, every magazine, every newspaper--so basically ALL media.  It was constantly being discussed.  You heard "OJ" maybe 50 times every day, whether you wanted to or not. 

 

And for an amazing number of people, it wasn't a matter of dispassionate observation.  I had a relatively close friend, going back ten years, who permanently withdrew when she learned I wasn't pro-OJ.  The intensity of her commitment--either way--stuns me almost as much now as it did then.

 

There hasn't been anything like it, since.  Maybe the McCarthy hearings were like that.  Our grandparents would probably be astonished to know how fuzzy our knowledge of the Lindbergh baby kidnapping has become.  Mmm. . .the Lincoln assassination, for sure. . .

Edited February 6, 2016 by candall

[suomi]

Assume that the killer wore a pair of gloves, not just one glove. A glove for the right hand, and only the right hand, was found at the Bundy crime scene. There were bloody shoe prints on the walkway (determined to be men's size 12, OJ's size) leading away from the bodies to the back gate. Do we know why Fuhrman and his partner Roberts were the ones who saw the glove at Bundy? Yes. They were the first detectives called to the scene; they arrived about an hour after the first uni responded and saw the bodies.

 

The initial unis cleared the scene (determined that there was not a perp was on the premises) and secured the scene. The unis did not "look" for evidence because that was not their job. They reported what they observed during a cursory examination after arriving on scene: blood drops falling to the left of bloody shoe prints on the walkway, and the detectives saw that as well. When the right hand glove was found and the left hand glove was not, that appeared to gibe with blood drops to the left of the shoe prints. Those drops were observed by the unis while Fuhrman was still asleep at home. The defense planted seeds of unreasonable doubt when they posited that the drops came from someone in a stationary position, ie: a cop with an eye dropper. As if someone leaving a murder scene might not and did not momentarily pause in flight for various reasons: a nearby door or window opening, hearing a voice, a vehicle passing by in the alley, shushing a dog who was whining or barking.

 

At Rockingham, there most certainly were blood drops leading from the Bronco toward the front door. Not as if someone had a gushing wound (No One Ever suggested that) but a sporadic and linear path of blood drops. And IIRC nothing about stationary drops was posited by the defense here; evidently there was no hesitating - someone was on "safe" ground and in a hurry. Fuhrman and Roberts flagged the drops on the driveway for collection and were nonplussed when they noticed Forensics setting their own flags and collecting every 3-4 drops rather than every drop. But it was no longer their case so they had to shrug it off. Inside the foyer, the trail of blood drops continued. So yes, there was blood evidence leading from the Bronco, up the driveway and inside the house.

 

I wish someone would explain how the collection and storage bungled the identification. Not just say it, explain it. It's not like Any of the samples resulted in Female/unidentified or Male/Unidentified. All of the samples identified as OJ Simpson, Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman, singly or mixtures of those three persons. Why did Not Even One sample come back as Unidentified/Inconclusive? Bloody size 12 Bruno Magli shoe print where the driver sat in the Bronco? Nicole Simpson.

 

Let's put it this way: if the DNA results had been inconclusive (rather than conclusive), the defense would have promoted the purity and verity of LA County's DNA testing from sea to shining sea. But, all kinds of things go on when you know your boy is guilty.

[poeticlicensed]

The glove thing was a HUGE miscalculation on the part of the prosecution. Wasn't it Darden who decided spontaneously to have OJ put on the glove? Rookie mistake, for sure. One of the things they teach you in law school is to NEVER ask a question unless you know the answer, and never do a demonstration where you don't know the result. 

 

As for the gloves, not only does leather shrink, so that makes them smaller, on top of that, I believe that OJ had arthritis in his hands, for which he took meds to keep his hands from swelling. I think I read somewhere that he stopped taking the meds before the trial. I don't know if it strategic, or because he was in jail, but in any event, if it's true, then his hands would be swollen, thus making it harder to put on a glove. 

 

As for the blood drops, has anyone cut their hand or finger with a knife, or gotten a deep scratch from a cat? I have and after I got  to a sink to clean it off, I looked back and yes indeed, there are drops of blood, not a gushing trail, but drops here and there that marked my path. Not surprised that there were little drops here and there. 

 

Also, isn't it true they never recovered the clothes OJ was wearing when he allegedly committed the murders? I remember reading speculation that they were packed in a suitcase and disposed of by someone, maybe Robert Kardashian?

Edited February 6, 2016 by poeticlicensed

[FormerMod-a1]

I rolled my eyes so hard at the glove thing, I couldn't believe anyone would fall for his inability to put the glove on.  Not only does leather shrink but what incentive does he have to put it on correctly? If it hadn't shrunk (I don't know that it did), you can still make it look like it takes an effort to put it on.  Then that stupid rhyme?  I was like "Nice catchy rhyme but it doesn't prove a thing".  Boy was I wrong.

[suomi]

Both OJ and AC had white Broncos. The blood evidence was in the one belonging to OJ.

I rolled my eyes so hard at the glove thing, I couldn't believe anyone would fall for his inability to put the glove on.  Not only does leather shrink but what incentive does he have to put it on correctly? If it hadn't shrunk (I don't know that it did), you can still make it look like it takes an effort to put it on.  Then that stupid rhyme?  I was like "Nice catchy rhyme but it doesn't prove a thing".  Boy was I wrong.

 

Plus all those hambone, mouth breather faces he was making.

[poeticlicensed]

Both OJ and AC had white Broncos. The blood evidence was in the one belonging to OJ.

 

Plus all those hambone, mouth breather faces he was making.

Yes it was like Acting 101 class, with the furrowed brow. I swear I saw him bite his lip at one point. Bad acting for sure

[psychoticstate]

Also Mark Furman took plea agreement to felony charges of perjury for his testimony in the Oj Simpson case - that is more than name calling or past racism. 

 

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/case63.htm

 

Fuhrman admitted to perjury with regards to the whether or not he said the "n" word in the last ten years prior to the trial.  I personally despise the "n" word and find it cruel and vulgar; however, Fuhrman's use of it in whatever fashion (speaking as a fictional cop for a screenplay; daily use) does not necessarily mean he was a bad detective.

 

In fact, he was the least senior detective on the scene out of the three.  Once again, how likely was it that Fuhrman convinced the more senior Lange and Vannatter - - the same two detectives,, BTW, who pussy footed around Simpson during their interview - - to frame Simpson and plant evidence, not knowing where Simpson was during the murders and who he was with.  All at the risk of their pensions and careers. For a man they treated like a special little snowflake in their "interrogation."

[suomi]

Also, isn't it true they never recovered the clothes OJ was wearing when he allegedly committed the murders? I remember reading speculation that they were packed in a suitcase and disposed of by someone, maybe Robert Kardashian?

 

At Rockingham, Fuhrman's partner Brad Roberts found black sweats in the washing machine, freshly washed, and blood smeared on the light switch in the laundry/service area. Roberts was never called to testify and had he done that he would have verified the history of numerous pieces of evidence at both scenes. But, Vannatter broke a cardinal rule when the case was transferred from Fuhrman and Roberts to Lange and Vannatter: he didn't read Fuhrman's case notes. The biggest fuckup resulting from that was overlooking the bloody fingerprint on the back gate at Bundy (until 2 weeks later) and (evidently) not checking for prints on the coin(s) lying in the alley next to that gate. So, in protecting her lead detective/Vannatter, Marcia compromised all kinds of good evidence (and what remained of Fuhrman's reputation).

[psychoticstate]

Did either one of you ever hear the name Glenn Rodgers? He too has put a good narrative out there as to how he killed them. And guess what he is now in prison for the many murders he committed in the same fashion with a knife. And what do you know he was doing work on Nicoles house around the time of the murder- and he sent his mother a angel pin (Nicole was pictured with said pin on at recital the night of murder) which his mother wore and was pictured wearing at his trial later once captured for his crime spree. He was pictured shortly before the murders with Nicole and Fay Resnick out partying and told his brother that he was going to kill them. 

 

Really do you think if Oj did this he would risk this book? He knew everyone was pissed that thought he got off - and maybe he was trying to play with them but I really think he needed the cash. And I would not be surprised to find out that some of the same "friends" of his that approached him when this Vegas thing went down had something to do with the book idea. What I am saying is that Oj was not the smartest person when it came to his friends - we know this from the way his "good" friends sold him down the river regarding the Vegas case and seemed to encourage him during the said crime but were able to save their own hide by turning on him. So I think it is safe since this person was his quote friend for many years unquote to assume he had lots of friends who only were worried about exploiting him for their own gain and did. I truly do not believe he is so arrogant as to write this if he did it. Also if he did I would ask you how he was able oto control his anger and emotions to precisely and deliberately kill these two and make it home and on plane within 20 minutes of murder? I have not read the book which is speculation as is the confession of Glenn Rodgers but I have read the trial transcripts and gone over the evidence at the criminal trial.

 

What I think most people dont understand is the amount of blood found at home , Bronco and on his socks was a very very small amount of blood. Most just run on the sensationalized media stories who claim there was a trail leading to his house - this is not the case. Dontcha think who ever did this had to have a significant amount of blood on them? Not just eyedropper size amount of blood here and there?  

 

I think Oj may have arrived after she was killed and did step in the blood and fled. Glenn Rodgers said he killed Nicole because Oj had agreed to pay him for it- and he said that Oj wanted to see after it was done. Along with witness that saw bronco in area that evening there was a truck described just like the one Rodgers had been driving at time of murders as well seen that night. 

 

My huge problem is with the way some are content with the pay for first crime with the second theory - this is not ok because of the fact it is Oj. Like it or not he was not found guilty in criminal trial but was in civil court. He has had to pay for this loss monetarily- which is the way our courts are set up to work. To say that he should sit it prison for 30 years for the Vegas thing does not show a just system which America is prided on being. One crack in the system will grow to a canyon if allowed to happen - we all have to follow the laws of our justice system but it too should not be biased and is suppose to remain fair with accordance of crime committed clearly this has not happened here. If you think about it for a few minutes with the shoe being on your foot or a family member  how would you feel?  A system tipped refusing to hear or be fair about the case before them - I did not think this was suppose to happen here. 

 

Lastly again I will ask you if you all are so sure he did this that you would be willing to give up your own freedom if you were proven to be wrong? This is what you are taking from him when you say that he deserves this treatment so I really wonder if you truly would stand behind what you say to be his truth? So sure now? 

 

Here is some other links other than Kato stories ( who was a serious drug addict at time ) which state facts not made up stories.

 

http://web2.airmail.net/marjo/bosco.htm

 

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cas62.htm

 

Also note that two of Ron Goldmans friends and co workers at restaurant he was employed that evening were also murdered - in exactly same way one year after.

Not Glen Rogers again.  Sigh.  Glen Rogers is a conspiracy theorist's wet dream.  So despite Simpson having no solid alibi during the murders, having a violent temper and past with Nicole, his blood found at the crime scene, along with a glove and a knit cap with hairs that matched his DNA, a severe cut to his finger he could not explain, the victims' blood in his vehicle, on his clothing, in his home, a so-called suicide note with a smiley face and an overheard "Nicole made me do it!" to Rosie Grier while incarcerated, Glen Rogers did it.  Sure.  Glen Rogers "confessed" because he's a famewhore, plain and simple. 

 

If Simpson arrived after Nicole and Ron were killed, why didn't he call 911?  Why didn't he check on the safety of his children??  And how does that fit into your police framing Simpson scenario? 

 

Whoever killed Ron and Nicole would NOT necessarily be soaked in blood.  For the second time.  Nicole's killer stood behind her to cut her throat.  Her blood would have been AWAY from him.  I'm sure he stepped in it (hence, the bloody footprints) but otherwise, not a significant amount.  And again, Simpson was wearing a black sweatshirt and sweat type pants.  He was covered from wrist to ankle.  The clothing would have absorbed blood and hidden it.

 

With regard to the section I bolded, I say we ask Ron and Nicole how well Simpson controlled his anger and emotions.  I have a strong feeling they would disagree with your assessment.

 

Simpson wrote the book because he's a narcissist.  Plain and simple.  Like other killers and abusers, he had a strong desire to share what he'd done.  He also needed money and he could not be touched legally for what he wrote.  If you were innocent of killing the mother of your children, would you ever even THINK about writing such a thing? 

 

And speaking of, Nicole was the mother of his children.  Those gloves he supposedly attempted to put on, the ones he laughed and joked and mocked around, had the blood of the mother of his children on them.  If you were innocent, wouldn't you be disgusted at having to put them on? 

 

If you were innocent, wouldn't your good friend Bob Kardashian look elated once you were acquitted?  Look at the footage of the verdict and study Kardashian AND Shapiro.  Both of them look horrified, devastated and shocked.  Not exactly the reaction you would expect if your innocent friend and client were acquitted.

 

I have zero doubt in Simpson's guilt.  ZERO.  There are not many cases you can say that about but I agree with Vincent Bugliosi.  There is no mystery here as to who killed Ron and Nicole.  The real mystery is how people can continue to believe in and promote Simpson's innocence. 

[Umbelina]

http://www.nationalenquirer.com/true-crime/exclusive-i-helped-oj-kill-nicole-ron/

“Glen Rogers has described in chilling detail what happened at Nicole’s condo that night,” said one source. “He told me, ‘I helped O.J. kill Nicole and Ron.’”

 

Rogers, a petty criminal from Hamilton, Ohio, was drifting around the country and landed a job with the Galvin Painting Company in California in the summer of 1994. At the time he was using the name of James Peters, insiders said.

 

Rogers says one of his first jobs was to paint the exterior of Nicole’s condominium at 875 Bundy Drive, said an insider. Rogers claims that he met Simpson when he dropped by the condo, and chatted with the former football player several times, sources say.

“On one occasion, O.J. told Glen that he’d given Nicole a pair of diamond earrings worth about $30,000, and he wanted them back,” said the insider. “He asked Glen to steal the earrings for him. Glen claims O.J. told him, ‘If she puts up a fight, kill her.’”

 

On the night of the murders, Rogers claimed he was casing out Nicole’s condo when he overheard Nicole and O.J. screaming at each other, claimed the source.

“Glen says he ducked into some bushes and saw Nicole holding a kitchen knife,” said the insider. “O.J. got angrier and angrier. Finally, he grabbed Nicole and struck at her with a knife he’d concealed. Glen says watching them fired up his blood lust. He pulled his knife out of his boot, rushed in and stabbed Nicole himself,” added the source.

 

Moments later, Rogers said he heard someone rushing up the front walk, said the source. It was Ron Goldman, the young waiter who was returning a pair of eyeglasses.

“Glen said O.J. lunged at Goldman, and stabbed him repeatedly,” revealed the insider. “But Goldman was stronger than O.J., and Glen jumped in to help subdue the young man as O.J. slashed at him.”

 

Sounds like he read OJ's book and became the "other man" in that story.   Either way, in his statements, and I did read a few, including some "debunked" articles, he says that OJ told him to "kill the bitch" if needed (to get the earrings back) and in other versions that OJ started the killings and he helped.

 

How did Robert Shapiro get involved in the case? The show never gave any hint as to who called him. Kardashian? Was Shapiro a friend of OJ's previously?

I was in my late twenties when this all went down and had forgotten many details. I had thought there was more time between the murders and O.J. becoming an official suspect and then the car chase was even further along.

Was the car chase Bronco the same one that was parked on Rockingham? Wouldn't the police have held that as evidence because of the blood found in/on it?

Yes, AC had a white Bronco as well.  Although, honestly I don't know if the prosecution still had OJ's Bronco.  Forensics has come a long way since 1994.  They probably did, I remember reading in some of the depositions that various witnesses still didn't have their things back.  It was ridiculously stupid on the police department's part to allow OJ and his family and friends BACK into his house so quickly though.  The power of fame.  That place should have been sealed until they combed every inch of it.

Edited February 6, 2016 by Umbelina

[Umbelina]

 

 

I keep looking at this map and trying to put it together, especially now, for the first time hearing about the dark clothes in the washer (I probably heard it before, but forgot in 20 years.)

 

So, he parked on Rockingham when he came back from murdering them.  It makes complete sense that he went in the back way (see the laundry room there) and possibly even showed in that bathroom before going upstairs.)  But WHY did he go around the long way, causing the bumps on Kato's wall?  Note, MUCH of this foliage had grown up over the years before this diagram.  I need to find the court diagrams, anyone? 

 

One possibility, remembering that the bright street light was on Ashford.  After he parked the Bronco, seeing that the Limo and driver, and Kato were already there, he stayed in the shadows, went around the back way, forgot about the air conditioner, and smacked straight into it, throwing himself back into the wall.  In other words, didn't hop the fence at all, but slammed into the air conditioner since he was hurrying.  Then cuts through the laundry/bath area by the maid's room.   So not blood from that (or the investigators who turned his house over so FAST) didn't see any. 

 

Why were the golf clubs out there in the travel bag?  Was that when Kato saw the shadow/blurry dark figure running? 

Dashes upstairs, comes down with his bags.

 

THEN the blood drops happened when Kato told him about the thumps, and he went back inside to get a flashlight, his finger cut had opened up by then, and to the Bronco to get his phone accessories, leaving blood from his cut on the door. 

 

Anyway, off to work, just trying to figure it out.

[BBDi]

With regard to the gloves, yes the prosecution fucked that up by having him try them on when they didn't know the outcome.

I also wonder if the fact that most people in so Cal don't know from gloves factored into it. I grew up there but moved east after college and raised my kids in Massachusetts. If I were on that jury is know damn well that if someone doesn't want you to put gloves on them they can make it hard - ask anyone with kids. Not to mention the shrinking and stiffening factor. And the latex under gloves. Duh.

[FuriousStyles]

I can't wait to see the "behind the scenes" stuff at the DA's office after the "glove don't fit" fuck up in the courtroom.  Heads must have been rolling.  I expect Clark and Darden were ripped a new one?

[Kel Varnsen]

Also, him being allowed to try on the gloves WHILE WEARING LATEX GLOVES UNDERNEATH stupid thing the prosecution should never have agreed to.  Of course they weren't going to fit.

I always imagined that OJ sitting in LA county lock-up for all those days spending a good amount of that time just punching his cell wall so that if/when the time came for him to try the glove on his hand would be so bruised/swollen that it wouldn't fit.

 

I think it was a combo of the wanting the money and wanting to tell his side, without having to be cross examined. He was strapped after the trial. The lawyers, then the Goldman's took pretty much everything but his football pension. I don't know if he didn't think the Goldman's would go after the proceeds or he was too arrogant to believe that a judgment would be enforced.

I am curious, how much of the settlement did the victim's families actually get? I remember reading once that the reason OJ moved to Florida was that there was some law that makes it a lot harder for people who lose civil suits to have their money taken away if they have minor children and they are the only means of support the children have. Of course that has to be the most fucked up irony ever since the reason he was the only parent supporting those children was because he killed their mom.

 

I wish someone would explain how the collection and storage bungled the identification. Not just say it, explain it. It's not like Any of the samples resulted in Female/unidentified or Male/Unidentified. All of the samples identified as OJ Simpson, Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman, singly or mixtures of those three persons. Why did Not Even One sample come back as Unidentified/Inconclusive? Bloody size 12 Bruno Magli shoe print where the driver sat in the Bronco? Nicole Simpson.

 

Let's put it this way: if the DNA results had been inconclusive (rather than conclusive), the defense would have promoted the purity and verity of LA County's DNA testing from sea to shining sea. But, all kinds of things go on when you know your boy is guilty.

I think someone might be able to argue that if handling evidence was messed up that badly how do they know the results were honest. Just to play devil's advocate, someone could argue that the collection is evidence of a sloppy lab, and maybe the results really were inconclusive, but for the lab to save face and because of the profile of the case the experts just said it was OJ anyway. I mean it is not like they run the DNA test in the courtroom, it is basically experts testifying on what they believe right? Not that I believe that, but maybe if you stack that up with a bunch of other stuff maybe you get reasonable doubt.

[Dejana]

The CNN coverage would segue in and out of commercial breaks with this whole montage with graphics and music. I don't know if it was original or not but here's a bit of it toward the beginning of this preliminary hearing coverage:

 

 

There's a little more of it in this CNN ad for OJ trial coverage:

 

 

But I remember the whole "theme" going on much longer than that.

[psychoticstate]

I am curious, how much of the settlement did the victim's families actually get? I remember reading once that the reason OJ moved to Florida was that there was some law that makes it a lot harder for people who lose civil suits to have their money taken away if they have minor children and they are the only means of support the children have. Of course that has to be the most fucked up irony ever since the reason he was the only parent supporting those children was because he killed their mom.

 

In Florida, you can't have your house taken from you to satisfy a judgment.  That's why the killer moved there. 

 

I think the Goldmans and Browns got very little of their judgment.  A lot of sports memorabilia was hidden and/or switched before the Goldmans showed up to collect per Mike Gilbert (Simpson's sport agent.)  Gilbert also claims it was his idea for Simpson to stop taking his arthritis medication while in jail so the infamous gloves wouldn't fit.

[FanOfTheFans]

I have a hard time believing that someone who ran 9 miles every morning (per the autopsy special) was using. I have never done hard drugs but that seems to indicate a level of personal discipline that would preclude regular drug use, no? I'm going to ask the ex if he knew anything about that.

 

 

Yes, the narration for the Scandal special was awful. His actions that night are enough to characterize him as a vicious POS. Don't bring his upbringing into it--the projects had nothing to do with this. If anything his previous incredible success proved he had overcome whatever disadvantages he'd had growing up. And who knows if he was "bad" all along? What do we know about his marriage to his first wife--did he beat her?

 

 

Four words--If I Did It. In a way I was so relieved when that came out--finally we can stop pretending he's "not guilty." He just admitted he did it. And whoever said what a terrible thing to put his kids through (again)--yes! If you were innocent, why would you drag all that up again? I can't imagine how messed up those poor kids must be, under it all. I know they're adults now but it's heartbreaking. They lost both parents. And then he took them away from their mother's family as well,

Yes I agree with you about Nicole's drug use or lack of drug use I should say. During the trial that was part of what the defense used to smear her reputation. That all played into the speculation per the defense that Columbian drug lords killed Nicole because Faye Resnick owed them money and Faye had been staying at Nicole's.

[psychoticstate]

I think someone might be able to argue that if handling evidence was messed up that badly how do they know the results were honest. Just to play devil's advocate, someone could argue that the collection is evidence of a sloppy lab, and maybe the results really were inconclusive, but for the lab to save face and because of the profile of the case the experts just said it was OJ anyway. I mean it is not like they run the DNA test in the courtroom, it is basically experts testifying on what they believe right? Not that I believe that, but maybe if you stack that up with a bunch of other stuff maybe you get reasonable doubt.

 

Evidence that has been contaminated is LESS likely to match a suspect.  The odds of the DNA being anyone's other than the Simpson's was in the billions to one - - a total higher than the number of people on earth.  In other words, there was no way it was anyone's other than Simpson's, unless he has an identical twin walking around that we know nothing of.  Who is also a murdering shitbag. 

 

I imagine no crime scene is pristine and human error is made at every location as well as shortcuts.  It's unfortunate but I think when you take into account everything in this case, it points to Simpson and Simpson only.

[starri]

In Florida, you can't have your house taken from you to satisfy a judgment.  That's why the killer moved there. 

 

I think the Goldmans and Browns got very little of their judgment.  A lot of sports memorabilia was hidden and/or switched before the Goldmans showed up to collect per Mike Gilbert (Simpson's sport agent.)  Gilbert also claims it was his idea for Simpson to stop taking his arthritis medication while in jail so the infamous gloves wouldn't fit.

Didn't he also transfer a lot of of assets to his mother?

[helenamonster]

Jenny McCarthy and Donny Wahlburg were on ET tonight. They both believe OJ is innocent. Nice that they found each other and saved two other people.

 

Jenny McCarthy is also a fervent anti-vaxxer who still believes the now widely discredited study that vaccines cause autism so this doesn't surprise me in the least.

 

I agree that no innocent person would write a book like If I Did It. Look, I get being strapped for cash after a highly expensive legal battle but even if OJ didn't do it, exploiting the murders of two innocent people is a terribly shitty thing to do, especially considering that one of those people was the mother of his children. Also, since it is highly likely that he did do it, he wasn't risking anything legally by writing it. The American justice system has this fun little rule about double jeopardy. He could shout from the rooftops that he murdered both of them and enjoyed it after the verdict was read, and no one could do a damn thing.

[Kel Varnsen]

Evidence that has been contaminated is LESS likely to match a suspect.  The odds of the DNA being anyone's other than the Simpson's was in the billions to one - - a total higher than the number of people on earth.  In other words, there was no way it was anyone's other than Simpson's, unless he has an identical twin walking around that we know nothing of.  Who is also a murdering shitbag. 

 

I imagine no crime scene is pristine and human error is made at every location as well as shortcuts.  It's unfortunate but I think when you take into account everything in this case, it points to Simpson and Simpson only.

But that was sort of my point. The jury wasn't actually doing the dna testing, they were relying on the testimony of experts. Again not that i believe this, but i could see a juror thinking that if the evidence was poorly collected, maybe it wasn't able to point yo anyone and results were fabricated .

[helenamonster]

Also didn't someone mention before that DNA testing was relatively new and the average person wasn't as ready to accept its veracity as we are now? I suppose growing up during the explosion of crime procedural franchises (Law and Order, CSI, NCIS, Criminal Minds) I'm not really familiar with a world where people don't accept DNA evidence for what it is, but I can understand how its novelty would trip people up.

[suomi]

Because we keep hearing that the Goldmans cleaned him out:
 

June 8, 2014
 
With an untouchable pension and around $14 million in assets still missing, the now-unemployable fugitive will probably never pay the ultimate losers: the Brown and Goldman families.
 
After a criminal court found O.J. not guilty of killing wife Nicole Brown and her friend Ron Goldman, her estate and his relatives won a civil liability suit three years later that awarded them $33 million.
 
In the intervening time, O.J. managed to misplace what was then estimated at $11 million in accumulated wealth plus another $3 million in current income.
 
Part of that money went to pay down a reported $5 million in legal bills, but the rest simply vanished from the books.
 
Establishing residence in Florida ensured that his new Miami house was protected from creditors under homestead exemption rules, and ERISA ensured that his roughly $4 million NFL pension was equally untouchable.
 
As a result, when his dead wife’s estate and the Goldman family came to collect their $33 million in compensation and punitive damages, all they got was memorabilia worth $500,000 at auction.
 
When JP Morgan Chase foreclosed O.J.’s relatively modest $650,000 Miami house two years ago, it cut in front of the Goldmans and Brown heirs.
 
While the house secured maybe $500,000 in mortgage debt and so was subject to seizure and sale to pay back the bank, third-party creditors had no claim on the property under Florida’s homestead laws.

 
http://thetrustadvisor.com/news/20-years-after-the-bronco-chase-how-did-o-j-simpsons-5-million-asset-protection-strategy-pay-off

[GHScorpiosRule]

This is what talk and a show about this case has done to me: I spent time trying to figure out how it was possible for me to be here when this happened when I thought I was in India until July! And then I remembered- I was going to renew my visa to stay past July, but the heat was so bad plus my health wasn't the greatest, so I got home the day of the murders!

I also remember about a week before the verdict, my then husband and his friend, who were in India when the murders took place and had arrived in the States two months before the verdict, predicted that OJ would be found not guilty. I naively thought no way, he would be found guilty. Shows how much I knew!

Edited February 6, 2016 by GHScorpiosRule

[suomi]

Didn't he also transfer a lot of of assets to his mother?

 

Maybe, but I don't think so. He probably wanted to but surely he was advised that it would be a fraudulent conveyance.

[poeticlicensed]

The Goldmans got a huge judgment, but how much they have actually collected is small. I think the lawyers get paid before a judgment. I think the house on Rockingham was sold to pay the lawyer. The pension can't be touched by a judgment, so that leaves personal possessions and earnings outside the pension. I think some of the possessions were sold and the Goldman's got that money, and the proceeds from the book, paid interviews. Given that OJ is in jail, the probability of him earning much is very unlikely. Fred has stated that it was never about the money, it was about being a thorn in OJ's side forever. I think Fred has achieved what he set out to do. OJ despises the Goldmans, calls them the "gold diggers". He thought he would be able to go back to his old life in LA. My understanding is that with the exception of his inner circle, he was frozen out. Wasn't he disinvited from his membership at the Riviera Country Club? And nobody, except for the rags who are willing to pay for interviews, wanted to be around him. I think the move to FL was financial (I live in FL and yes lots of people park assets here to avoid taxes, etc) and partly because he thought he would be welcome in Miami. I don't think that happened either. 

[starri]

I believe Fred Goldman also said that he'd stop trying to collect the judgment if OJ admitted his guilt.

[rho]

If Simpson arrived after Nicole and Ron were killed, why didn't he call 911?  Why didn't he check on the safety of his children??  And how does that fit into your police framing Simpson scenario? 

 

This is what I don't understand when it comes to all these conspiracy theorists. Every wild theory has to account for the evidence of him present at the crime scene after the murders but before LAPD arrived. Even if he's not the murderer, he tampered with the crime scene and obstructed justice by not calling it in. And then he fucked off and went to Chicago knowing his kids would wake up to see that? I have zero sympathy for him. Even before the murders he had a history of violence and bribery. The bottom line is he's a criminal and his parole hearing should reflect his multiple past convictions, regardless of the acquittal. 

Edited February 7, 2016 by rho

[VanillaBeanne]

The defense was able to raise reasonable doubt about positive 1 in 1 billion DNA matches because of LAPD mistakes. fOr example, OJ gave a blood sample to the LAPD. The nurse who took it first testified that he collected 8 mm of blood in a vial. but the defense experts and the LAPD could only account for 6 mm. The nurse later testified (after the defense raised the issue) that he was wrong and he's sure he only collected 6 mm. In addition, there was another mistake relating to that very same vial. The lead detective took the vial and put it in his pocket and drove around with it for four hours, including driving to Bundy site. Each mistake individually could be overlooked. But the impact of both of those mistakes allowed the defense to raise the alternative theory that police had the opportunity to plant 1.5mm of OJ's blood on evidence, which caused the positive DNA match.

Another way the defense was able to mute the impact of positive DNa matches was by showing that LAPD mistakes in collection and storage could have caused cross-contamination of DNA. THe LAPD did not segregate all three crime scenes so the defense could then argue that members of the LAPD walking from Bundy to the Bronco and the Rockingham crime scenes could have introduced the victims DNA at those locations. The defense did not even have to assert bias here. Just negligence. The cross-contamination by miscollection theory was bolstered by showing that multiple pieces of evidence were not collected in separate bags, and were similarly not cleanly and separately processed at the lab, so that's how DNa of the victims could have got on OJs possessions and property, and OJs DNA could have gotten on the victims. The defense was able to show lots of little mistakes in collection and storage, which individually, were not fatal, but cumulatively looked very bad.

Also, the LAPD did not make sure that the evidence once entered into custody wasn't accessed by anybody else other than those who needed to. Therefore, the defense could argue that someone walked in and tampered with the evidence.

Last, any evidence that Furhman collected, and any associated positive DNA matches, was called into play because he perjured himself at trial. The jury had every right to disbelieve all of his testimony because he was shown to have lied about one small portion of his testimony. So the provenance of the glove and any of the blood evidence he found at Rockingman and the Bronco was rendered suspect. One of the white jurors, in an interview given right after the trial, stated she did not believe Furhman and thought he planted the glove.

A CSI-episode, this was not. Maybe the LAPD could be forgiven because 20 years ago, mayble the LAPD didn't have the proper training and procedures in place regarding DNA evidence collection. But the chain of custody mistakes are harder to understand. Sheck and Dr. Lee had a field day (actually, field weeks) pointing out all the procedural mistakes.

And let's not forget, the defense did not have to actually prove tampering or cross-contamination. Rather, the prosecution had to prove that the positive DNA matches could only mean one thing - that OJ was the killer. But because of the mistakes like the ones noted above, the defense was able to present alternative theories as to why the positive DNA matches could have occurred. The prosecution could counter the evidence tampering claims, but the best they could do with cross-contamination was argue that the sloppy collection did not necessarily lead to cross-contamination. They could not argue there was not multiple, multiple instances of sloppy collection and storage.

Edited February 6, 2016 by VanillaBeanne

[Shannon L.]

I've spent quite some time reading this thread and wanted to comment on a couple of things.  I can't keep up with the pace that this and the episode thread is running at, so you probably won't see a post from me too often.

 

I was 24 and living in LA at the time.  I was also here for the Rodney King verdict, and yes, it was weighing heavily on our minds.  IIRC*,  there were police in riot gear ready at the time of the verdict just in case it came back guilty and things started to get heated.  Also, it wasn't just a big deal that OJ was a part of it, but because of where it happened. I lived not too far from there for a while and Marcia was right--people don't get murdered in that neighborhood.  When something huge happens there, it's bound to become a big deal in the news.  Rodney King, OJ, Brentwood.....it had everything it needed for a media blitz.

 

In regards to the bronco chase:  Didn't that happen during a basketball play off game?  I think I remember being at a party for the game and everyone thinking that they'd eventually go back to the game because it was a low speed chase.  A while later, they put the game back on and put the bronco chase in the lower corner of the screen.  Or am I remembering something else?

 

I was working full time (really early hours, so I was exhausted at night and in bed early), so I didn't see too much on tv and my memory of it isn't great.  One thing that always stuck with me was the gloves, but in a different way:  Have you ever pulled on gloves that were too small? What happened when you tried to take them off?  You have to tug and peel them off.  OJ snapped those things off in a hot second.  As soon as he did that, I knew for sure that he was faking the difficulty of putting them on (as well as the gloves and shrinkage making it difficult). 

 

One of the links that was posted a while back had experts telling where they thought the prosecution went wrong.  I was surprised at the talk of how they shouldn't have tried to link the murders and domestic violence.   I wonder what was known about the statistics of domestic violence victims dying at the hands of their abusers. In this day and age, it's a pretty well known fact that the stats are high, but 20 years ago maybe they hadn't looked into that much? 

 

*I've been reading this thread off and on since Tuesday, so please forgive me if something I've mentioned has already been discussed--you all have gone into this with such great detail, that I could be forgetting a few things that I read here earlier.  Also, forgive me for not remembering who posted what (like the person who mentioned an Akita's natural instinct.  I remember wishing they could use dogs' behaviors as reliable testimony)--I like to mention them specifically when I can. 

[suomi]

IIRC after awhile, when the Bronco follow went on and on, the follow filled the screen and the NBA game was down in the corner.

[CeeBeeGee]

Jenny McCarthy and Donny Wahlburg were on ET tonight. They both believe OJ is innocent. Nice that they found each other and saved two other people.

 

Jenny has become addicted to the attention she gets as a nutty anti-vaxxer. She knows no one will interview her if she agrees with the rest of America--the only way she'll get coverage is if she is the opposing viewpoint.

 

I rolled my eyes so hard at the glove thing, I couldn't believe anyone would fall for his inability to put the glove on.  Not only does leather shrink but what incentive does he have to put it on correctly? If it hadn't shrunk (I don't know that it did), you can still make it look like it takes an effort to put it on.  Then that stupid rhyme?  I was like "Nice catchy rhyme but it doesn't prove a thing".  Boy was I wrong.

 

God, that stupid fucking rhyme. Perhaps the reason the jury acted like idiots who can't reason is because that's how Cochrane talked to them--"let me spoon feed it to you very carefully. Boys and girls, repeat after me..." I have held a grudge against Cochrane forever for his shenanigans at the trial. Whenever I saw he was going to appear on some TV I made sure to skip it. Like, really? After smearing two murder weapons you're going to leverage that for fame?

 

Yes it was like Acting 101 class, with the furrowed brow. I swear I saw him bite his lip at one point. Bad acting for sure

 

One of the Reelz specials talked about OJ's demeanor at the trial, how he "played" to the audience and what a great "performance" it was. Uh, what? OJ was a terrible actor. The reason he was in the Naked Gun movies was because it's funny to see bad, stiff actors deliver punchlines flatly--it makes them funnier. That was the Zucker brothers' entire shtick (also why they cast Priscilla Presley who eventually grew into a better actor with experience). OJ trying on the glove was, in actor terms, "indicating" (meaning he was exaggerating and overplaying it).

 

I agree that no innocent person would write a book like If I Did It. Look, I get being strapped for cash after a highly expensive legal battle but even if OJ didn't do it, exploiting the murders of two innocent people is a terribly shitty thing to do, especially considering that one of those people was the mother of his children. Also, since it is highly likely that he did do it, he wasn't risking anything legally by writing it. The American justice system has this fun little rule about double jeopardy. He could shout from the rooftops that he murdered both of them and enjoyed it after the verdict was read, and no one could do a damn thing.

 

In fact that is exactly what happened after the Emmett Till trial. After a disgraceful acquittal by a terrible jury that ignored all the evidence and voted along racial lines, Roy Bryant and JW Milam gave an interview with Look magazine where they bragged in detail about their kidnapping and murder of a 14 year old boy. Nothing anyone could do, since they were protected by double jeopardy.

 

Fred has stated that it was never about the money, it was about being a thorn in OJ's side forever. I think Fred has achieved what he set out to do. OJ despises the Goldmans, calls them the "gold diggers". He thought he would be able to go back to his old life in LA. My understanding is that with the exception of his inner circle, he was frozen out. Wasn't he disinvited from his membership at the Riviera Country Club? And nobody, except for the rags who are willing to pay for interviews, wanted to be around him. I think the move to FL was financial (I live in FL and yes lots of people park assets here to avoid taxes, etc) and partly because he thought he would be welcome in Miami. I don't think that happened either. 

 

I have warm memories of--a news program? A documentary?--that came out maybe a year or two after the verdict, showing OJ's life as the most hated man in America.  Restaurants refused to take his reservation, he couldn't get tee times, etc. The best was when a young woman walked up to him, asking to shake his hand--when he did so she smiled and said "now I know what it's like to shake hands with a murderer." He had this tight grin, like a rictus, as she walked away--he was absolutely furious but what could he do? This time the eyes of the world were on him.

[psychoticstate]

Jenny has become addicted to the attention she gets as a nutty anti-vaxxer. She knows no one will interview her if she agrees with the rest of America--the only way she'll get coverage is if she is the opposing viewpoint.

 

 

God, that stupid fucking rhyme. Perhaps the reason the jury acted like idiots who can't reason is because that's how Cochrane talked to them--"let me spoon feed it to you very carefully. Boys and girls, repeat after me..." I have held a grudge against Cochrane forever for his shenanigans at the trial. Whenever I saw he was going to appear on some TV I made sure to skip it. Like, really? After smearing two murder weapons you're going to leverage that for fame?

 

 

One of the Reelz specials talked about OJ's demeanor at the trial, how he "played" to the audience and what a great "performance" it was. Uh, what? OJ was a terrible actor. The reason he was in the Naked Gun movies was because it's funny to see bad, stiff actors deliver punchlines flatly--it makes them funnier. That was the Zucker brothers' entire shtick (also why they cast Priscilla Presley who eventually grew into a better actor with experience). OJ trying on the glove was, in actor terms, "indicating" (meaning he was exaggerating and overplaying it).

 

 

In fact that is exactly what happened after the Emmett Till trial. After a disgraceful acquittal by a terrible jury that ignored all the evidence and voted along racial lines, Roy Bryant and JW Milam gave an interview with Look magazine where they bragged in detail about their kidnapping and murder of a 14 year old boy. Nothing anyone could do, since they were protected by double jeopardy.

 

 

I have warm memories of--a news program? A documentary?--that came out maybe a year or two after the verdict, showing OJ's life as the most hated man in America.  Restaurants refused to take his reservation, he couldn't get tee times, etc. The best was when a young woman walked up to him, asking to shake his hand--when he did so she smiled and said "now I know what it's like to shake hands with a murderer." He had this tight grin, like a rictus, as she walked away--he was absolutely furious but what could he do? This time the eyes of the world were on him.

 

A big old WORD to your entire post. 

 

Besides the Homestead Act/law, I think another reason Simpson moved to Florida was because his celebrity was wearing thin if not completely dead in BevHills/LA.  Residents didn't want him around anymore.  Most believed in his guilt.

 

I have great respect for Fred Goldman.  I believe that the civil trial had nothing to do with money; it was simply the only avenue left to them to get some kind of justice.  It also speaks volumes about Fred and about Simpson that the offer was made to dismiss the case if Simpson would admit to guilt - - in which case nothing could be done to him legally - - and Simpson, ever the narcissist, refused. 

 

If Simpson gave any performance during the criminal trial, it was attempting to act as though he cared and grieved over the victims.  He didn't give a damn.  Simpson cares about Simpson.  He has zero conscience.  I think of him as masquerading as a human being.   His greatest accomplishments in life have been winning the Heisman, his football career and getting away with murder.

[Anela]

candall that bothered me about the gloves, as well! I assumed they would have shrunk.

[chlban]

Jenny has become addicted to the attention she gets as a nutty anti-vaxxer. She knows no one will interview her if she agrees with the rest of America--the only way she'll get coverage is if she is the opposing viewpoint.

God, that stupid fucking rhyme. Perhaps the reason the jury acted like idiots who can't reason is because that's how Cochrane talked to them--"let me spoon feed it to you very carefully. Boys and girls, repeat after me..." I have held a grudge against Cochrane forever for his shenanigans at the trial. Whenever I saw he was going to appear on some TV I made sure to skip it. Like, really? After smearing two murder weapons you're going to leverage that for fame?

One of the Reelz specials talked about OJ's demeanor at the trial, how he "played" to the audience and what a great "performance" it was. Uh, what? OJ was a terrible actor. The reason he was in the Naked Gun movies was because it's funny to see bad, stiff actors deliver punchlines flatly--it makes them funnier. That was the Zucker brothers' entire shtick (also why they cast Priscilla Presley who eventually grew into a better actor with experience). OJ trying on the glove was, in actor terms, "indicating" (meaning he was exaggerating and overplaying it).

In fact that is exactly what happened after the Emmett Till trial. After a disgraceful acquittal by a terrible jury that ignored all the evidence and voted along racial lines, Roy Bryant and JW Milam gave an interview with Look magazine where they bragged in detail about their kidnapping and murder of a 14 year old boy. Nothing anyone could do, since they were protected by double jeopardy.

I have warm memories of--a news program? A documentary?--that came out maybe a year or two after the verdict, showing OJ's life as the most hated man in America. Restaurants refused to take his reservation, he couldn't get tee times, etc. The best was when a young woman walked up to him, asking to shake his hand--when he did so she smiled and said "now I know what it's like to shake hands with a murderer." He had this tight grin, like a rictus, as she walked away--he was absolutely furious but what could he do? This time the eyes of the world were on him.

I live in Orange County not far from the Browns.

Not long after the trial I was out to lunch with some co-workers in Newport Beach. We walked in, and everyone was buzzing. We quickly spotted OJ sitiing with an older man very near the reception area. Back then reastaurants had "smoking" and non-smoking sections.

When the hostess asked the gentlman in front of us "smoking or non-smoking?" He looked right at OJ and said "I don't care, but I want to be in the non-murderer section".OJ heard and if looks could kill.. I have no idea who that man was, but I will always love him.

Edited February 7, 2016 by chlban

[Neurochick]

All the police brutality references made me angry, especially given that dislike against the police was basically the reason why the jury acquitted him. They didn't strike a blow for race relations, they let a murderer walk...and basically caused even more racial tensions.

 

 

I really don't get this comment at all and here's why.  When I first saw that video of Rodney King being beaten, I thought it was somewhere in South Africa, no, we don't do that in the USA.  

 

I think about that jury in Simi Valley, how they looked at that tape and thought it was okay that the police should be allowed to beat the shit out of somebody when they were already on the ground.  Yeah, right.

 

Sure OJ was totally guilty, but I get why the jury acquitted him, it's not right that they did, but I get it.  When you believe that the police are racist and are out to get you, you tend to not believe what they say.  That and the prosecution had a lousy narrative that made no sense to me.  I remember their story was that OJ killed both of them almost at the same time, which to me was stupid.  I felt he killed Nicole first, Ron Goldman saw her lying dead, was probably stunned, and that's when OJ stabbed him.  

 

Interesting that people who seem to think race shouldn't matter are white.

 

But the thing that is true, that Marcia Clark knew and understood was how male privilege was important to this case because if Nicole Brown Simpson had been a black woman, the verdict would have been the same.  The difference is that the case probably wouldn't have gone as coo coo bananas as it did.  

[Umbelina]

I understand what you are saying, but I think a better example would be a wildly popular, friendly, white football/tv/movie star viciously killing his younger black trophy wife.  In those circumstances, yes, I would be equally outraged.  Does the mixed age/race factor in?  Of course it does, but many, many people of all races wanted OJ to not be guilty.  As the trial went on, it was obvious he was. 

 

I do agree though it wasn't JUST about Rodney, this history of the treatment of black men by the police and in our justice system had a much longer history, and as we all know, continues to this day.

 

Personally I was horrified by Rodney King's beating, and sick to my stomach when those cops were deemed not guilty.  Just heartsick and discouraged.

Edited February 7, 2016 by Umbelina

[Kromm]

I really don't get this comment at all and here's why.  When I first saw that video of Rodney King being beaten, I thought it was somewhere in South Africa, no, we don't do that in the USA.  

 

I think about that jury in Simi Valley, how they looked at that tape and thought it was okay that the police should be allowed to beat the shit out of somebody when they were already on the ground.  Yeah, right.

 

Sure OJ was totally guilty, but I get why the jury acquitted him, it's not right that they did, but I get it.  When you believe that the police are racist and are out to get you, you tend to not believe what they say.  That and the prosecution had a lousy narrative that made no sense to me.  I remember their story was that OJ killed both of them almost at the same time, which to me was stupid.  I felt he killed Nicole first, Ron Goldman saw her lying dead, was probably stunned, and that's when OJ stabbed him.  

 

Interesting that people who seem to think race shouldn't matter are white.

 

But the thing that is true, that Marcia Clark knew and understood was how male privilege was important to this case because if Nicole Brown Simpson had been a black woman, the verdict would have been the same.  The difference is that the case probably wouldn't have gone as coo coo bananas as it did.

That comment about people who think race relations doesn't matter being white is a bit of a cheap shot though, because you are bordering on generalizing. You don't know for sure that they are (all white), so even if you also have room in your philosophy for white people who genuinely care about race relations (although making the statement the way you did is going to make a lot of people assume you don't), it's still a sweeping statement/judgment being made nonetheless.

I do agree that Nicole's race was very relevant to the case though and how people reacted. In both directions--from both sides I mean. After most white people got past their initial "a hero like OJ can't have done this" stage, a lot of them flipped extra hard because Nicole somehow magically came off as more of a victim to them because she was white. But I also remember some anger from the black community about how people only cared about the case because Nicole was white--and I mean AT the time not now so many years later--and while the pushback on that wasn't as direct as "therefore OJ is innocent", it definitely had the flavor of anger that the criminal case and prosecution even existed. It was a similar vibe to the kind of reactions that popped up when Michael Jackson was accused of child molestation and conveniently some of those kid faces were white. Sort of like a "so that's why you care?" Perhaps some sign that times have changed a bit is that I don't think that particular aspect happened quite as strongly (it happened, but faded pretty quickly) with the Bill Cosby rape accusers (in fact, people almost seemed relieved when black women showed up in that, because it helped pull it back a bit from a racial angle).

That quote you were responding to (I don't even know who made the quote here), I agree with you. I don't get it in the least. Maybe this person wasn't old enough at the time, or has a fuzzy memory, but the aura of Rodney King hung so heavy over everything in those days. Sure in some ways we've had incidents just as shocking in recent years that makes it seem like nothing has changed, but in fact what differs in the discussion surrounding those incidents. Rodney King's case was a swift kick to the underpinning of apathy about racial issues, but at the time a lot of (yes, mainly white folks) just dismissed its seriousness. The flip side is that you had people like Al Sharpton and Cochrane getting involved and their motives didn't always seem clear/pure. In a rough sort of way the OP is right that in some ways none of this, certainly including the OJ trial results, didn't help race relations, but that's HINDSIGHT. That OP is talking like people at the time should have magically known this. Mostly what people perceived at the time was that a lot of people were really angry about Rodney King and a lot of other people would be dismissive of it given any opportunity. So yeah, of course OJ being convicted seemed like it would be a blow the black community couldn't recover from and many rallied for him. Again, another sign of the times changing at least a little is what finally seems to be a societal recognition that that worm Bill Cosby isn't going to single-handedly sink race relations if they put his ass in jail for the rest of his life. If only people had been in that place back in the OJ days, maybe things would have been better, but to expect people to have had that attitude back then is a shocking statement made by that poster you were replying to. Things ain't perfect now--as evidenced by how many people STILL want to explain or justify away cop on black violence, but I'd argue that the percentage of white people who actually care now is a lot higher than back in 1995 (the problem being now that the white population is more polarized now--more people care but the ones who don't have crystallized around rotten cores even more solidly).

Edited February 7, 2016 by Kromm

[GHScorpiosRule]

If any of y'all are reading and posting in the "OJ Simpson: The missing tapes" thread, will notice my comments below are the same.

 

I watched the repeated airing of the special, and wish I had remembered to set my dvr to stop recording a minute after and before, because when it started, we got clips from people about the case/murder and the final scene with Fred Goldman was cut off, which was heartbreaking. But I don't know if there was anything more he added. And sadly, I don't see it being re-aired anytime soon.

 

That said, I thought I was immune to all things related to this case, since it's been so long, and until last Fall, I really hadn't thought about it. But damn. This special, hearing Fred Goldman and Kim Goldman break down in tears, and the last video of Ron, singing, dancing, and goofing off with his dad, Fred. It got to me. I teared up.

And I couldn't believe how OJ was flat out lying in his deposition, and the way he tried answer by not answering and trying to avoid admitting that he did abuse Nicole. Even when presented with proof. I just...I don't have any words. Except to say, he was LYING and you could see he was trying to figure out how to answer the question. If there is a word that is worse than Arrogant, OJ was it. Denying that the shoes he was wearing were Bruno Magli when presented with pictures he was wearing them, when earlier in the deposition he said no way would he wear "those ugly ass shoes." Or that even though the bill showed he retrieved his messages on the day of Nicoles murder, still continued to lie that he didn't get Paula's message, where she broke up with him. UNREAL.

Since the civil trial was so soon after the criminal, and people were still very much divided, I'm thankful, that there weren't any riots because he was found responsible for the deaths of Ron and Nicole. Just based on the footage that was shown of the people who still believed in OJ and were on his side.

[Shannon L.]

 

This special, hearing Fred Goldman and Kim Goldman break down in tears, and the last video of Ron, singing, dancing, and goofing off with his dad, Fred.

I've seen many posts about never forgetting the look on OJ's and his attorney's faces when the verdict was read.  I don't recall that, but I'll never forget the sob that came out of Kim and Fred at that moment.  It was heartbreaking. 

[Umbelina]

Handy little synopsis and dates of the two sides in the civil trial, gives dates so you can go to the court transcripts of those dates if you want to read their testimony.

Against Simpson:  http://simpson.walraven.org/p_wits.html

For Simpson:  http://simpson.walraven.org/d_wits.html

(These are GREAT!) 

example: 

Dale St. John, limousine driver
St. John testified that he has picked Simpson up over 100 times in more than three years. He said Simpson had always been at home when he arrived. He said he usually pulled up to Ashford and backed in the gate. He said he would then buzz the intercom and that someone would always answer. But he added that normally the housekeeper would answer the phone. Dale testified that he never saw Simpson's dog, Chachi, leave the property.

 

 

 

Criminal trial (no synopsis, but dates they testified, and you can look at trial transcripts on the same site. Main page:  http://simpson.walraven.org/index.html)

Prosecution Witnesses:  http://simpson.walraven.org/pwitness.html

Defense Witnesses:  http://simpson.walraven.org/dwitness.html

 

Edited because these are two different limo drivers, that guy wasn't the one who came to Rockingham the night of the murders.

Edited February 9, 2016 by Umbelina

[suomi]

If any of y'all are reading and posting in the "OJ Simpson: The missing tapes" thread, will notice my comments below are the same.

 

: ( I can't find that thread. If you read this, could you point me in the right direction? TIA

[GHScorpiosRule]

: ( I can't find that thread. If you read this, could you point me in the right direction? TIA

 

suomi

 

It's under Miscellaneous TV-->Specials, Movies, TV-One Offs section.  Here is the link

[red12]

So he set up an alibi with Kato because he knew Jason was going to kill Nicole? 

 

He was arrogant because he was a "star" and felt above the law, just as he did during his latest crime. 

 

So you think Jason, who had a great relationship with Nicole, loved her, admired her, thought she was a "wonderful mother" and a big sister to him, stopped by often even after the separation with his dad, who never beat her up, let alone regularly beat her up physically or emotionally is a more likely killer than OJ?  Jason never ran, never threatened suicide, didn't try to set up a fake alibi, just went home when he COULD have gone to his girlfriends, just did what he did every Sunday, worked the chef job at the restaurant because the chef took Sunday's off, and Jason, the sous chef would take over on those days, is a more likely killer?  Because Nicole changed the dinner plans?

 

His "mental issue" that people refer to is epilepsy, and he takes medication for that.  BTW, his deposition in the civil trial is also on that page, it's interesting reading. 

 

Edit, this is in another thread, but I'll put it here because of the golf ball comments.

 

For an OJ golf ball to hit Kato's wall he would have to somehow shoot through or OVER his neighbors house.  Kato never used the front door, that add-on addition had it's own doors, and the door TO the house was locked and protected by a security code.  Kato, Arnell's, and Jason (when he was a kid before he moved out) had rooms in that addition.

 

By the way, the house has been bulldozed, so if you google earth it, you will see the property lines, tennis court, etc, but the house is gone, they rebuilt.  Now that I know the owner of this site thinks OJ is innocent, I kind of want to find a new site, but there is a lot of good stuff there, timed the drive to Bundy, etc.  Basically 2 minutes max.

 

 

Obviously I am not nearly as passionate about this subject as you are. It was just something that occurred to me; especially after I heard (don't remember where) that Jason was pissed because Nicole and her family were supposed to have dinner cooked by Jason at the restaurant where he worked and ghosted him. Then I read that Jason had some violent incidents, one of which being with an ex-girlfriend. It was a theory. That's all. I wasn't aware this forum is actually a place to demand everyone just discuss how shitty it is that O.J. is a murderer who got away or be treated like a crazy person.

[Lizzing]

Also didn't someone mention before that DNA testing was relatively new and the average person wasn't as ready to accept its veracity as we are now? I suppose growing up during the explosion of crime procedural franchises (Law and Order, CSI, NCIS, Criminal Minds) I'm not really familiar with a world where people don't accept DNA evidence for what it is, but I can understand how its novelty would trip people up.

Just because I'm a L&O junkie, I do know they referenced the trial several times, specifically in "Angel" (S6E8, which I watched earlier this morning...insomnia is a bitch), but also, in an ep I can't recall, Briscoe is chastised for not wearing gloves/touching with his bare hands some evidence, and he mutters something about the OJ trial. It was pretty rapidly creeping into the real TV cops' world.  Pre the "CSI effect," one of the things the OJ trial brought to fruition, though it was in the offing (but not in a spotlight such as this), was clean collection of evidence for DNA analysis.  As much talk as there is (rightfully, I'm not disagreeing!) about how media changed, the collection of evidence practices also changed with this trial.  It would have happened at some point, but this trial gave a national stage for it.

 

I'm really enjoying reading all of y'alls "when & where" you were posts.  I was in college when the murders happened, and home for the summer when the Bronco chase interrupted whatever the family was watching.   We weren't mesmerized by the low speed chase as much as were were "WTF is this on all networks for?" being in the south and not remotely close to CA.  I do remember thinking, early on, pre Bronco chase, that there was no way in hell that doofus ex football player from Naked Gun could have pulled off 2 murders.  I have since revised my opinion.  Weirdly, I was in law school when the verdict came down, and I recall zero discussion of it.  I want to get in a time machine and smack my younger self upside the head for that.