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

[CeeBeeGee]

Insane, just like everything else in this case. However, finding the knife at the time of trial wouldn't have mattered. It would be just one more thing that the LAPD planted to frame him the defense would argue.

Truth is stranger than fiction indeed.

 

The jury had mountains of physical evidence, including DNA. They didn't care. They weren't going to convict.  They took less than four hours to review a case that went on for six months. They weren't going to convict.

 

The knife wouldn't have mattered, they would've found some way to blame the LAPD for it.

[KenyaJ]

I seem to recall that Jodi Arias had a major conflict with her attorneys, that she wanted to take the stand, and they advised against it. The accused does open themselves up to cross-examination. And it can expose their arrogance, as many L&O episodes will illustrate. One of my personal favorites was L&O with Robert Knepper ... the character's arrogance did him in.

 

As a federal law clerk, I've seen this happen more than once. It's always the arrogant defendants who want to testify, because they're so sure they can convince the jury of their innocence, and every time I've see it, it backfires on them. If I were a criminal defense attorney, I would never let my client testify, even if I knew for an absolute fact that he or she was innocent. There's so much that can go wrong and so many other ways to cast doubt on the prosecution's case.

 

I find it really ironic that no one's known anything about this knife for almost two decades because a cop decided to keep it as a personal souvenir. I think O.J. is guilty as sin, but the evidence collection was so sloppy that I'm honestly not sure I could have voted to convict. And the actions of this cop seem like an extension of the haphazard handling of the evidence. I know the LAPD and police departments all over the country have become so much more sophisticated about evidence collection in the years since this case, but Jesus. Nothing about the 90s LAPD inspires any confidence at all.

[psychoticstate]

As a federal law clerk, I've seen this happen more than once. It's always the arrogant defendants who want to testify, because they're so sure they can convince the jury of their innocence, and every time I've see it, it backfires on them. If I were a criminal defense attorney, I would never let my client testify, even if I knew for an absolute fact that he or she was innocent. There's so much that can go wrong and so many other ways to cast doubt on the prosecution's case.

 

 

Absolutely.  Look at Jeffrey MacDonald (maybe better known as the "Fatal Vision" case.)  He testified in his 1979 trial and his arrogance, dismissal and general assholery did him no favors with the jury.  Many jurors later said they wanted to acquit him but hearing him speak changed everything.

 

A guilty client should never take the stand, nor should one with anger management and control issues.

[Shannon L.]

I was in the car when the news of the knife broke and I must have made quite a sight driving along with my eyes wide, my jaw on the ground and my hand over my mouth  :)  This is unreal.  My husband thinks the cop didn't turn it in either because it was yet another think that would make the LAPD look bad, or could once again open up the discussion of planted evidence. 

 

On the station I was listening to, they said that they'd look for finger prints.  After 12 years, is that even possible?  The guy speaking said that there could be other fingerprints on the knife that lead to someone who helped him get rid of the it.  I don't know if OJ possibly having accomplices was even a theory at the time. 

 

I know that there's the double jeopardy thing, but still....I find myself hoping that they can prove something. I'm not holding my breath, though.

 

As for the cop--I'm not surprised that he kept it, but it really bothers me that he thought it was ok to do so.  Anyway, he's retired, so there's not really anything that they can do to him (unless, like others have suggested, obstruction of justice is a possibility). 

 

I wonder what the surviving members of teams of lawyers are thinking right now?

[starri]

I wonder what the surviving members of teams of lawyers are thinking right now?

I am sure the surviving members of the defense are probably well-aware that OJ was guilty.

 

As for Clark and Darden, I'm sure they'll be on TV tonight to talk about it.

[Umbelina]

I doubt Darden or Clark will say a word, at least not until the knife has been thoroughly tested.  Fred Goldman will not let the police cover for that officer, even if they wanted to, which I doubt.  He's tenacious, for very good reasons. 

[GHScorpiosRule]

Fred Goldman will not let the police cover for that officer, even if they wanted to, which I doubt. He's tenacious, for very good reasons.

Agreed. I mean, once again the fucking media is referring to the murder as 'Nicole Simpson' murder, when it should be the Brown Simpson-Goldman murders (since Nicole was always referred to as 'Nicole Brown Simpson') or just refer to it as the Brown-Goldman murders.

Edited March 4, 2016 by GHScorpiosRule

[toodywoody]

It wouldn't surprise me if it is the knife. OJ'S plans got screwed that night when he came back. So he has the knife with him in the Bronco and sees the limo driver, jumps the fence and drops the knife wherever and the glove. He wasn't in a right state of mind. He might not even known where he dropped it. Who knows. He was in a hurry to establish his next alibi and get going to Chicago.

[GHScorpiosRule]

Even if it turns out that this knife is the murder weapon, the statute of limitations has run out, I'm sure, and so the State couldn't charge him with lesser crimes. Now if he hadn't been tried? He could still be brought on murder charges, since there is no statute of limitations on murder.  But, it's all moot.  I think it matters, so one way or another, if it is the murder weapon, at least the public will finally know. It may change some minds, but it may not.  I know I'd like to know, either way.

[biakbiak]

Double jeopardy even applies to lesser counts otherwise prosecuters could keep trying people for lesser and lesser offenses.

[DangerousMinds]

I think he intended to get to Nicole's condo earlier than he did.  Kato ruined his plans by inviting himself along on the McDonalds jaunt.  I think his initial plan was to say he was going to McDonalds, swing by Nicole's condo and eliminate her.  He could swing by the Mickey D's drive thru on the way to Bundy or on the way back and return with a bag of food, "proving" his alibi.  Having Kato tag along set him back. 

 

The main reason I think this, besides the presence of the shovel, is despite what a shitty human being Simpson is, I don't think he would plan to kill his ex-wife and leave her butchered body where his children could wake up and find her.  He also didn't account for Ron to come upon the scene.  Had Ron not shown up, would Simpson have attempted to carry Nicole, perhaps unconscious, off?  Hard to say.  I'm not familiar enough with that area of Brentwood to know if there is anywhere he could drive to fairly quickly in order to bury her and return home in time for his flight. 

 

I definitely don't believe Shapiro's theory that Simpson went there to slash her tires and things got out of hand when Ron showed up.

I also read that Ron went home from the restaurant to change clothes before going over to Nicole's to return the glasses. What if he had just gone straight from the restaurant to her place? Funny how much difference a few minutes may have made.

I think he intended to get to Nicole's condo earlier than he did.  Kato ruined his plans by inviting himself along on the McDonalds jaunt.  I think his initial plan was to say he was going to McDonalds, swing by Nicole's condo and eliminate her.  He could swing by the Mickey D's drive thru on the way to Bundy or on the way back and return with a bag of food, "proving" his alibi.  Having Kato tag along set him back. 

 

The main reason I think this, besides the presence of the shovel, is despite what a shitty human being Simpson is, I don't think he would plan to kill his ex-wife and leave her butchered body where his children could wake up and find her.  He also didn't account for Ron to come upon the scene.  Had Ron not shown up, would Simpson have attempted to carry Nicole, perhaps unconscious, off?  Hard to say.  I'm not familiar enough with that area of Brentwood to know if there is anywhere he could drive to fairly quickly in order to bury her and return home in time for his flight. 

 

I definitely don't believe Shapiro's theory that Simpson went there to slash her tires and things got out of hand when Ron showed up.

I also read that Ron went home from the restaurant to change clothes before going over to Nicole's to return the glasses. What if he had just gone straight from the restaurant to her place? Funny how much difference a few minutes may have made.

[FozzyBear]

I don't think us "older folk" can convey just how HUGE this was in the media. Where ever there was a TV, the trial was on, and EVERYONE was talking about it, in depth, with smart opinions. Can someone refresh my memory on how the verdict was conveyed to the public? I remember signs through the courthouse windows. Google isn't helping me....too much OJ stuff to wade through.

I was just starting college and if you were taking any sort of criminal law or journalism class you probably spent most of the semester watching the case. It was huge. Imagine if the coverage the week of 9/11 went on for months.

[Umbelina]

I heard the verdict live, on TV.  In the non-televised civil trial there were coded signs put up in the windows to tell the press and everyone below the verdict for each count, there were several items.  Interestingly enough, they only needed 8 out 12 votes (I think that's it) to convict him, but each vote was unanimous anyway for Guilty in that 3 week trial, where he DID testify.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tYK4QvX26JE

 

If you skip to 1:33 on this tape, the walk around the property is very interesting.  Remember that narrow pathway that runs by Kato's room was full of all kinds of junk from kid's toys to building material, to building supplies, and overgrown on the bushes side.

Edited March 5, 2016 by Umbelina

[Marigny]

 

Knife at OJ's inconsistent with murders                                                                                   A knife found a dozen years ago on land where O.J. Simpson once lived is a utility-style knife inconsistent with the 1994 murders of the former football star's wife and her friend, multiple law enforcement sources told NBC News.

                                                       Los Angeles police said Friday they were testing the knife, which was recently handed over by a retired LAPD traffic officer, for any possible connection to the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman.

Simpson was acquitted in the case, and can't be retried for the killings. The case has remained open.

The retired traffic officer told police he was working on a film shoot 12 years agowhen a construction worker gave it to him, explaining that he had found it on the perimeter of the former Simpson property, sources said.

The knife found is a relatively inexpensive, smaller-bladed utility knife typically carried and used by construction workers, gardeners, landscapers or other laborers, the sources said.

The sources would not elaborate on specifics, but they said that the characteristics and condition of the knife were not consistent with the weapon used in the Brown and Goldman murders nor does it appear it was buried for a length of time that would put it in the time frame of the slayings.

But the sources cautioned that forensics tests must still be conducted to conclusively rule out the knife out as a possible murder weapon.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/...ources-n532091

Also among those who seriously doubt the veracity of the discovered knife story is Mike Weber, the owner of the grading and construction company that demolished the infamous Tudor mansion.

“I think it’s a joke," the 70-year-old said. "No one on my crew found anything. ... I give this story no credibility."

Weber, who owns Castaic-based Weber-Madgwick Inc., said that when he took the job, he knew there was a chance his crew might uncover evidence, and that it had to be properly handled.

“I had instructed my people, ‘If you find anything, don’t keep it. Tell me, we’ll take the appropriate action,’” Weber said.

In 1994, a woman discovered a kitchen knife smeared with red stains less than a block from Simpson's home.

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/l...304-story.html

Edited March 5, 2016 by Marigny

[Dust Bunny]

“I think it’s a joke," the 70-year-old said. "No one on my crew found anything. ... I give this story no credibility."

Weber, who owns Castaic-based Weber-Madgwick Inc., said that when he took the job, he knew there was a chance his crew might uncover evidence, and that it had to be properly handled.

“I had instructed my people, ‘If you find anything, don’t keep it. Tell me, we’ll take the appropriate action,’” Weber said.

 

I was just thinking that. I could imagine a group of construction workers thinking, while they're on the property, wouldn't it be funny to hand off a company knife and pass it off for a discovered weapon - simply as a joke, like a dare or something.

 

If the officer is stupid enough not bring it forward but hold onto it and get caught now, that officer is stupid enough to be easily tricked. Or, the officer knew it was a joke, and still wanted to get it framed truly as a souvenir, being so close to the property.

 

Sometimes the hoof prints belong to just a horse, as much as we want that zebra - or even a unicorn.

Edited March 5, 2016 by Dust Bunny

[helenamonster]

The chain of stupidity that had to have occurred to get to this point is astounding. So first you have the construction worker, who either honest to goodness found a knife, thought it could be the murder weapon, and did the responsible thing by giving it to the first cop he saw. Or it was a joke. Then you have the cop that took it: either he thinks it's legit and held onto it all this time, deciding with the resurgence of interest in the case that it was the time to get it framed as a conversation piece...or he thought it was bullshit but still wanted to keep it and, for some reason, attempt to pass it off as the real thing. Maybe there wasn't even a construction worker and this cop came out of the woodwork with this story on his own.

 

Either way, this guy wanted the case file to frame this knife. Whether it was fake or not, he wanted it displayed in his home and for people to believe it was real. How fucking bizarre. Could you imagine going over to your good buddy's house, let's call him Chad, and seeing a framed knife and being like, "Gee, Chad, what's with the knife there?" and him telling you, "Oh, it was found on OJ Simpson's property when they were tearing down his house, it's the knife he used to kill Ron and Nicole." Like what was this guy's endgame in all this? This isn't one of Fuhrman's WWII medals. There would be a follow-up conversation. No one was just gonna be like, "Oh, how interesting. What about this election, huh?" I just...don't understand what this cop was trying to do here.

[Dev F]

Or, the officer knew it was a joke, and still wanted to get it framed truly as a souvenir, being so close to the property.

 

This seems like a distinct possibility to me. Years ago when my first boss retired, a coworker and I were cleaning out his office when we found a small drawer concealed in the underside of his conference table. Weirdly, the only thing inside was one copy of my business card and one copy of my coworker's business card. We joked that these were our souls, which our boss had stolen and hidden away in his secret drawer. Of course, I never actually thought that a business card was my soul, but it's an interesting story to tell and a fond memory, so even now, a decade later, I still have that card in a frame in my apartment.

 

It could be the same with this cop -- that he doesn't actually believe this knife could be the murder weapon, but it's still a compelling memento and conversation piece.

Edited March 5, 2016 by Dev F

[ArizonaGrown]

I was under the impression that they LAPD found the box to the knife but not the knife? I do remember the testimony about OJ visiting the shop and buying the knife. I also seem to remember the instruction he was give from a consultant on the show he did on how to kill a person (Cut their throat and keep them from making noise).

Knife bought by OJ and said to be thought the weapon at his home was found not to have ever been used by testing its finishing oil.

[riverheightsnancy]

This seems like a distinct possibility to me. Years ago when my first boss retired, a coworker and I were cleaning out his office when we found a small drawer concealed in the underside of his conference table. Weirdly, the only thing inside was one copy of my business card and one copy of my coworker's business card. We joked that these were our souls, which our boss had stolen and hidden away in his secret drawer. Of course, I never actually thought that a business card was my soul, but it's an interesting story to tell and a fond memory, so even now, a decade later, I still have that card in a frame in my apartment.

 

It could be the same with this cop -- that he doesn't actually believe this knife could be the murder weapon, but it's still a compelling memento and conversation piece.

Yes, your story is certainly interesting and definitely a conversation story (I would wonder why too!). However, this is different. I have seen documentaries of cops who become personally involved in a cold case and they never would frame a weapon (whether real or not) from a double murder (which is still considered "open"). Some of these detectives lament and anguish for years (I have seen 20+) over a cold case, often revisiting it here and there, hoping that a new clue or insight will jump out at them. They never can put it to rest. What I have seen are these cops (even after they retire) may keep a picture of the victims as a reminder not to forget the case and they relive their failure to bring justice to the families and the victims as opposed to gleeful gloating and boasting about a "knife" found at the scene of a horrific murder of two innocent people. Completely different IMO. There is a show on TBS/TNT that goes back on these cold cases (I think it is called Cold Justice) and you can see that sometimes the detectives that failed to solve the case are haunted by it, but they only want justice for the victims. It is never about a cool or interesting artifact from the case. That is macabre, especially for someone not even involved in the original case. 

[Mya Stone]

I heard the verdict live, on TV. In the non-televised civil trial there were coded signs put up in the windows to tell the press and everyone below the verdict for each count, there were several items. Interestingly enough, they only needed 8 out 12 votes (I think that's it) to convict him, but each vote was unanimous anyway for Guilty in that 3 week trial, where he DID testify.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tYK4QvX26JE

If you skip to 1:33 on this tape, the walk around the property is very interesting. Remember that narrow pathway that runs by Kato's room was full of all kinds of junk from kid's toys to building material, to building supplies, and overgrown on the bushes side.

I don't know why I chose to watch that. OJ's absolute disdain for his detractors and admonishment to the viewers gave me the chills. Ugh.

[Umbelina]

Yeah, and he misstated facts as well.  Personally, I think those blood drops were when he left, not arrived, for example.  Also, he went along the back area only in one direction, I think he came from the other direction, skirting the back of the house, then giving up on that after crashing into Kato's wall.  You could see how very narrow that area was though, and easily imagine it crammed with junk.

 

No blood on the carpet?  Obviously he took off the damn shoes at one point, probably took off some plastic over-covering of his clothes as well.

 

The sock still bothers me though, even with Bulagosi's excellent explanation.

Edited March 5, 2016 by Umbelina

[smiley13]

Agreed. I mean, once again the fucking media is referring to the murder as 'Nicole Simpson' murder, when it should be the Brown Simpson-Goldman murders (since Nicole was always referred to as 'Nicole Brown Simpson') or just refer to it as the Brown-Goldman murders.

Most people are not referred to by their maiden names so Simpson would be accurate since she was still using OJ's name even though she divorced him.  

[Umbelina]

The point was, they left out Ron's name.  AGAIN.  He was an afterthought, and this time?  Not even that.

 

This is a strange little BBC documentary, but it has a lot of footage from the time, including RK reading the suicide note, and crime scene action.  As for the speculation...well. 

Edited March 6, 2016 by Umbelina

[smiley13]

That video says it is restricted as well. like all of the other YouTube items.

[Umbelina]

smiley13, it must be your computer, or security settings, or location?

[psychoticstate]

I was with a friend yesterday and we were talking about the show and the knife discovery.  She and her husband are friends with a man who works in the entertainment biz in a fairly prominent position.  After the murders and before Simpson moved to Florida, my friend was invited to dinner with this man who said Simpson was also coming.  The dinner was going to be at this man's house because the majority of restaurants in LA refused to serve Simpson.   My friend said no thanks, as she believed him guilty.  Turns out that during this dinner, attended by the man, his wife and Simpson, Simpson told them that he had gotten away with the murders and that "the bitch deserved it."  The couple severed their relationship with Simpson that night.

 

Clearly Simpson was/is such a narcissist that he assumed everyone would be just dandy with his disclosure and agree that Nicole brought this on herself.  And Ron, yet again, is not worth mentioning. 

Edited March 6, 2016 by psychoticstate

[Umbelina]

Another analysis.  At around the 19 minute mark, something admittedly odd happens.  I didn't remember this about the autopsy performer didn't testify, and that was very unusual.  Someone else testified for him.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxcWQgEHAvo

 

Right after that, phone call information that was probably refuted comes up, saying that Nicole called her mother at 11PM.  The hell?  All of this stuff is obviously pro-OJ so keep that in mind.  At the very least, pro two murderers.

Mostly it's a bunch of shit thrown at the wall, to see what might stick.  However, for the younger people here, this could be interesting since they show a bit of the TV coverage of this trial.  Which went on daily, and nightly.

 

Wow. 

 

They even smear Ron's name.  Fascinating really.

 

OMG, I just got further into this, and now they are blaming Jewish people for OJ's framing.  Holy crap.  I will leave this up but beware, there is a bunch of sickening stuff in this.

Edited March 7, 2016 by Umbelina

[hoosiermom]

I remember two jurors making 2 statements after the trial that just floored me. When asked what she thought about Simpson beating his wife and did she think it was important during the deliberations, she said " no, because this was a murder trial not a domestic violence trial"! And another one when asked if they considered any of the DNA evidence she said " that was just stupid that they said it was a billion to one Simpson's DNA because there aren't even a billion people on earth"! I have no words.

Edited March 7, 2016 by hoosiermom

[psychoticstate]

I remember two jurors making 2 statements after the trial that just floored me. When asked what she thought about Simpson beating his wife and did she think it was important during the deliberations, she said " no, because this was a murder trial not a domestic violence trial"! And another one when asked if they considered any of the DNA evidence she said " that was just stupid that they said it was a billion to one Simpson's DNA because there aren't even a billion people on earth"! I have no words.

 

These are perfect examples as to how unfit this jury was.  These jurors could not, and did not want to, realize that domestic violence can and does lead to murder.  And that Simpson was a batterer before he was a murderer. 

 

hoosiermom, I think you mean that the odds were a billion to one that the DNA belonged to anyone other than Simpson but again - - if you're thinking that number is higher than the number of people on earth, that should solidify Simpson's guilt.  But this jury acted as though that made Simpson seem more innocent.

 

The whole case makes me crazy. 

[Crs97]

 

These are perfect examples as to how unfit this jury was.  These jurors could not, and did not want to, realize that domestic violence can and does lead to murder.  And that Simpson was a batterer before he was a murderer.

 

I cut the jury a little slack here (very little, but still) because it took society a long time to take domestic violence seriously.  Even the police allowed OJ to beat up Nicole a bunch of times before they finally arrested him.  In that one arrest, the legal system only gave him probation.  In today's world we know domestic violence escalates, but back then it wasn't all that surprising to hear people not make the connection.  

[tribeca]

I was 12 or 13 at the time.  At first I did not think OJ did the crime.  When the 911 tapes and all the domestic violence came out that is what convinced me he did it.  Even at that young age I knew how those cases turned out. 

 

[Isabella15]

But what if it does fit?

 

Tweet from Dateline producer:  "Don't forget after the glove demo, the prosecution had Simpson try on a new pair of gloves (same as the murder gloves) and this time, they did fit."

Link to that story:  http://lmtribune.com/nation/world/o-j-tries-on-a-new-pair-of-gloves-at/article_8f52d3eb-bf12-5ebc-a8c7-c49877e6b4cb.html

 

Wow!  We sure don't see a million replays of that clip do we?  I wonder why not. Should they have asked him to also try the new gloves with latex underneath?  That would have been a more fair comparison.  Here's a link to the photo of OJ with new gloves: 

http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/OJ-Simpson-20-Years-Later-Glove-Fit-Darden-Dunne-Murder-Trial-of-the-Century-262534821.html

 

I can't post the photo but maybe we can have a caption contest for it. 

Here's one:  "If the Glove's a perfect fit, the Lawyer's full of sh*t."

;-)

Edited March 7, 2016 by Isabella15

[FormerMod-a1]

I know I posted it earlier in this thread, but I still can't believe people fell for that hammy performance of struggling to get the glove on.  I can take a glove 2 sizes too big for me and make it look like I have trouble putting it on.  Especially if they are leather gloves.  Plus, look at OJ's hammy performance.  Seriously??  People fell for that?  Add to that that leather shrinks, as many other have pointed out.  It was ridiculously stupid of Darden to ask OJ to put them on, but it was equally stupid for people to think it proved anything, imo.

[starri]

hoosiermom, I think you mean that the odds were a billion to one that the DNA belonged to anyone other than Simpson but again - - if you're thinking that number is higher than the number of people on earth, that should solidify Simpson's guilt.  But this jury acted as though that made Simpson seem more innocent.

The prosecution also never seemed to figure out a way to counter the defense assertion that one of the reasons the DNA matched OJ was because it was tainted.  In fact, the opposite is true.

[qtpye]

I am really enjoying all the wonderful insight this thread is providing and all the intelligent posts.

 

If, I read correctly... even if the prosecution had video tape evidence of OJ brutally stabbing Ron and Nicole, the jury would still not find him guilty, because they would think it was doctored due to the horrible reputation the LAPD had in it's treatment of African American males?

 

So, all the evidence is moot, because this was the assumption by the jury from the beginning?

 

This means Marcia and company lost the trial at the jury selection (which is not a huge surprise).  I was alive during the trial, but a little too young to understand all the nuances.

Edited March 7, 2016 by qtpye

[Umbelina]

I know I posted it earlier in this thread, but I still can't believe people fell for that hammy performance of struggling to get the glove on.  I can take a glove 2 sizes too big for me and make it look like I have trouble putting it on.  Especially if they are leather gloves.  Plus, look at OJ's hammy performance.  Seriously??  People fell for that?  Add to that that leather shrinks, as many other have pointed out.  It was ridiculously stupid of Darden to ask OJ to put them on, but it was equally stupid for people to think it proved anything, imo.

I remember watching that live.  Ugh, still makes me sick.  Not as sick as preacher man Cochran hitting on his mantra "If it doesn't fit, you must acquit!"

 

Now we know that Simpson stopped taking his arthritis medicine, which allowed his fingers to swell.  Darden walked right into Cochran's trap there. 

 

That jury wanted to acquit, and Cochran allowed them to do it, in less than 4 hours.  You don't even have time in a jury room to elect a fore-person and introduce yourselves, let alone discuss the case.  Apparently they just walked in and took a vote, the two for convict him changed their minds, and I don't dismiss the fact that they had been sequestered for a hell of a long time and just wanted to go home.  The two for conviction probably felt it was hopeless anyway, so get it over with. 

 

Domestic violence against black women is also much higher,  http://time.com/3313343/ray-rice-black-women-domestic-violence/ 

 

 

And for Black women, it’s an even bigger problem: Black women are almost three times as likely to experience death as a result of DV/IPV than White women. And while Black women only make up 8% of the population, 22% of homicides that result from DV/IPV happen to Black Women and 29% of all victimized women, making it one of the leading causes of death for Black women ages 15 to 35. Statistically, we experience sexual assault and DV/IPV at disproportionate rates and have the highest rates of intra-racial violence against us than any other group. We are also less likely to report or seek help when we are victimized.

 

The reasons Black women suffer disproportionately from abuse are complex. Racism and sexism are two of the biggest obstacles that Black women in America face. But because many Black women and men believe racism is a bigger issue than sexism, Black women tend to feel obligated to put racial issues ahead of sex-based issues. For Black women, a strong sense of cultural affinity and loyalty to community and race renders many of us silent, so our stories often go untold. One of the biggest related impediments is our hesitation in trusting the police or the justice system. As Black people, we don’t always feel comfortable surrendering “our own” to the treatment of a racially biased police state and as women, we don’t always feel safe calling police officers who may harm us instead of helping us. And when we do speak out or seek help, we too often experience backlash from members of our communities who believe we are airing out dirty laundry and making ourselves look bad in front of White people.

 

Frankly, we now know it's much more of a problem for many women than we knew back then, or even in the many decades before then.  We also know it can lead to murder, and about stalking, just all of it.  When women finally began to have options, and the biggest one was being able to make their own living, get their own jobs, LEAVE those situations, talking about it began.  Even then though, especially for women with children, it was very hard, since entry level jobs might not even cover child care, so once again, women were trapped with the need for a breadwinner, or dependent on child support from their previous abusers, hit or miss at best.

 

Watching this, I GET why it all happened, why the jury jumped on the defense's effective strategy of muddying the waters at every moment of the trial, the sheer energy of Cochran in front of an audience (the jury.)  It was a much a verdict FOR Cochran as it was for OJ.  Probably more.

 

By the way, I am one of those who felt that if I was ever in trouble with the law, I'd hire Cochran in a heartbeat.  He OWNED that trial, start to finish.

Edited March 7, 2016 by Umbelina

[Totale]

You know, I'm not sure this is the right thread here to say this, but can't think of a better one.  I was around during the original trial and heard about it, but was working a lot and didn't pay much attention.  Spurred by ACS I have watched two documentaries with original footage, one on some random cable channel and last night's two hour special on Dateline.  What I noticed:

 

When she turns it on, Marcia Clark has a beautiful, captivating smile.  Then and today.

[psychoticstate]

The prosecution also never seemed to figure out a way to counter the defense assertion that one of the reasons the DNA matched OJ was because it was tainted.  In fact, the opposite is true.

Absolutely.  DNA evidence that's been contaminated is LESS likely to match a suspect. 

 

Marcia Clark could have screamed this at the top of her lungs every single day of court and the jurors would still have dismissed it.  They dismissed the DNA evidence in general because they allegedly didn't understand it.  They dismissed Denise Brown's testimony because they didn't like her and felt she was gunning for Simpson.  They basically dismissed anything that didn't fit into the defense's argument of racial tension and police corruption.

 

I am really enjoying all the wonderful insight this thread is providing and all the intelligent posts.

 

If, I read correctly... even if the prosecution had video tape evidence of OJ brutally stabbing Ron and Nicole, the jury would still not find him guilty, because they would think it was doctored due to the horrible reputation the LAPD had in it's treatment of African American males?

 

So, all the evidence is moot, because this was the assumption by the jury from the beginning?

 

This means Marcia and company lost the trial at the jury selection (which is not a huge surprise).  I was alive during the trial, but a little too young to understand all the nuances.

I don't think anything would have made that jury convict.  I still remember listening to a radio talk show before jury selection and the topic was whether or not you could be a fair and impartial juror, given all the pre-trial press and media speculation.  One person stated that he could be shown a video of Simpson committing the murders and he STILL wouldn't find him guilty.  Another said that Simpson should be forgiven this one little "mistake" because of all he had done for the world of football. 

 

You just can't make this stuff up.

[starri]

I feel like I remember some of his supporters waving signs that said things like "OJ, Beat Her Again!"  Even thinking about it makes me want to take a shower.

[Umbelina]

My boss, an OJ look alike, only taller and in better shape, watched this trial every single moment from his "back office."  You could hear his television.  He laughed out loud and applauded when the crime scene photos were shown.  When the verdict came in, he whooped and yelled "YES!" over and over again, then started laughing again. 

 

I will never forget that.  Ever.  It's how I learned the verdict, his gloating.  It was the only time during the two long years I worked for that maniac that he was ever happy.  Normally he spent his time terrorizing employees, happiest when he could get grown men to cry in the bathroom as well as the women.  I was, unfortunately, the middle management between the employees and him, and obviously also did all of his work.  I didn't mind the later, but the former was tough.  My employees called me "Nicole" and told me to be careful (I did look as much like her as he looked like OJ.)  He never made me cry, and it drove him crazy, but after 2 years I'd had enough, and especially after his "OJ period.)  moved to another state, same company.  Best move I ever made...

 

I watched it for myself later during one of the endless replays (both the crime scene photos and the verdict.)  Actually they played the highlights of the trial every evening, so even when I was working, I saw most of it.

 

In my area, which was pretty well integrated as far as national stats, the reaction to the verdict was right down racial lines, not one deviation. 

[GHScorpiosRule]

It is absolutely mind-boggling that Darden thought the gloves would fit! On Dateline last night, they showed a clip where Darden said they should have fit. Really? I mean, even I knew leather shrinks, and the gloves were drenched with blood. AND he put on latex gloves underneath it. I knew they would never fit. And then to learn later, that OJ had stopped taking his medicine?

 

Juror No. 6 sounded reasonable.  But he even said, the glove. It didn't fit! And that cinched it for him.

[Umbelina]

They were looking for sound bites, Cochran found one.  So they ignored the rest, or blamed the cops for the ridiculous idea of framing OJ.  Yeah, then how were his shoe prints at the sight before they ever visited his house, where, by the way, the shoes were gone?  Anyway, I agree, frustration from beginning to end.  It was over when they moved the case downtown.

[Kel Varnsen]

They were looking for sound bites, Cochran found one.  So they ignored the rest, or blamed the cops for the ridiculous idea of framing OJ.  Yeah, then how were his shoe prints at the sight before they ever visited his house, where, by the way, the shoes were gone?  Anyway, I agree, frustration from beginning to end.  It was over when they moved the case downtown.

Were the shoe prints used as evidence in the criminal trial? I thought they were just used in the civil trial?

[Umbelina]

No, they weren't.  I don't think the Enquirer found the photos yet. 

[Isabella15]

I couldn't remember about the shoes/ prints either-- as Umbelina said above, the photos of OJ in the Bruno Magli shoes hadn't been found yet, so they could not directly link Simpson to the bloody prints at the scene, yet.  They could only use testimony about the prints in the criminal trial, that the prints were Simpson's shoe size, and indicated only one killer.

 

  But it was still effective -- William Bodziak, the FBI expert. was a good witness and the defense couldn't damage his testimony.  He was the one who tracked down that they were Magli shoes.  He also was positive that only one set of prints was at the scene: Henry Lee had implied there were two or more sets i.e. killers, at the scene. 

I had also forgotten there were shoe prints on Nicole's dress, and on her back.  Horrible. 

 

Simpson's Shoe Size Fits Bloody Crime Scene Prints

http://www.nytimes.com/1995/06/20/us/simpson-s-shoe-size-fits-bloody-prints-left-crime-scene-fbi-expert-says.html

 

Simpson Expert's Theory Disputed

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1995/09/16/simpson-experts-theory-disputed/34eeca6e-f070-4fde-9c83-d08fd5c104ba/

 

FBI Shoeprint Expert William Bodziak Testimony OJ Criminal Trial

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ft106OAc9wo

                                                                                   (near the end they include analysis from Court TV )

Edited March 8, 2016 by Isabella15

[FuriousStyles]

Something that's always bothered me....why would OJ wear an expensive (and rare) pair of shoes + expensive leather gloves to kill his wife.

Did he plan on doing it quickly and cleanly, then race back to his house to catch the limo driver? I think they never found the rest of the clothes he was wearing? Probably had on a nice blazer and a Calvin Klein shirt or something....really dressing up for the occasion and all. Smh.

If everything is to be believed he was smart in some areas and just really dumb in others. He left so much evidence at the crime scene itself (shoe prints, the ski cap, glove) then evidence at his own house (blood dripping everywhere and the other glove) and car (Nicole and Ron's blood) but then tried to establish 2 different alibis (Kato McDonald's run and trip to Chicago), got rid of the murder weapon (assuming whatever the LAPD have today isnt it) and tossed a bunch of other stuff in a trash can at the airport and not just some regular dumpster around the city somewhere.

I know Shapiro made up some theory about how OJ was at Nicole's to slash her tires and Nicole surprised him and he killed her in a rage. But did the prosecution ever establish whether he expressly went over there to kill her (premeditation) or maybe he was there to talk or see his kids before he left on his trip or for some other purpose and then got angry and just decided to kill her on the spot?

[Simon Boccanegra]

It's always been debated among the case followers (the ones who believe Simpson is guilty) whether it was premeditated or something happened close to the event, like at the dance recital, to push him over the edge. I personally feel it was planned, and that that day was D-day. The receipt in the bag that contained all the elements of his disguise (fake goatee and moustache and the solutions to affix and remove them) was dated May 27. So I think he had a lot of elements in readiness for the murder weekend. Simpson was not someone who habitually wore disguises. Nor was he the kind of celebrity who tried to avoid being recognized. Quite the opposite. Before the murders, he loved being recognized in public. He was disappointed when he didn't get that attention. That's out of the mouths of people who know him and even in his own words, in a biography.    

 

I know Shapiro made up some theory about how OJ was at Nicole's to slash her tires and Nicole surprised him and he killed her in a rage.

 

"Made up" being the operative words. Shapiro himself did not think that that happened. It was a "We could claim..." thing he floated, and he didn't get any takers. Pleas were Shapiro's strong suit, although he did have good courtroom skills when it came down to it.  

Edited March 8, 2016 by Simon Boccanegra

[Inquisitionist]

That jury wanted to acquit, and Cochran allowed them to do it, in less than 4 hours.  You don't even have time in a jury room to elect a fore-person and introduce yourselves, let alone discuss the case. 

 

While the jury may have wanted to acquit, a lot can be accomplished in four hours.  I was on a criminal (murder trial) jury in Chicago a few years before the Simpson case.  Selecting a fore-person took a few minutes.  We then had a very substantive discussion for several hours that resulted in a guilty verdict.  Granted, we had a lot less evidence to discuss, but discuss it we did.  The initial reading was 8 jurors voting Guilty, 3 Not Guilty, and one who basically recused himself and said "whatever the rest of you decide."  It took a while for the 3 NGs to come around, but we did persuade them that the defendant's alternate story of self-defense made no sense.

[kassa]

From a juror's mouth -- (http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/oj-simpson-juror-defends-verdict-evidence-didnt-prove/story?id=37485960)

“What we were given, do I think he did it?” Aldana said. “Yeah, there’s a shot that he did do it but, then, on the other hand, the evidence didn’t prove it.”

 

When asked whether he thought there was one piece of evidence that could’ve changed the verdict, Aldana said it would’ve had to have been the murder weapon with Simpson’s handprints on it.

 

 

I would expect somebody playing the "we didn't necessarily see everything the people at home saw" card, but this guy doesn't even do that -- he just doubles down, 20 yrs later.  Cochran could have spun the prints as easily as the blood with this jury, so short of a video shot by a bus load of nuns, he was going to walk.

Edited March 8, 2016 by kassa

[starri]

I have to wonder if he would still have been acquitted if Johnny Cochran hadn't joined the defense.  I know that's just intellectual exercise as this point, but Bailey was a drunk who'd lost his last high-profile case and Shapiro had tried to avoid setting foot in a courtroom.