Jump to content
Forums forums
PRIMETIMER
Aethera

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

Recommended Posts


I was thinking about this case earlier, and how personally many of us seem to react to it...questioning why I don't feel the overwhelming hatred and vindictiveness towards OJ that I perhaps should, given the fact that I think he did commit this awful crime. Where I *do* feel visceral anger is towards the LAPD and police corruption in general.

 

For what it's worth, I feel BOTH of these things. And I don't think they are in tension with one another, either.

 

I think Marcia Clark & co. have largely been vindicated over the years as more and more time has passed. They probably have earned a few breaks. That being said, when you go back and look at the truly staggering evidence and insights the prosecution had at its disposal? It's unbelievable to me how badly they and the police effed this up from beginning to end. As Toobin says in his book, they had SO much evidence that they got lost in it - they were cocky, they didn't listen, they fell into every skillfully laid trap by the defense. They blew it. Then Ito did. You can't point fingers at the jury without starting with how the jury was selected and treated first. Do I think they sucked at their job? Yes. But I also think they were cogs in a machine.

Edited by hendersonrocks
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

Clark and Darden plus police blew it. How could Clark let so many black people on the jury? Even if she thought black women would be sympathetic to Nicole, how much more sympathetic would white men and white women be?

Share this post


Link to post

I believe having the black women on the jury was about Garcetti not wanting a repeat of Simi Valley. Having a mostly black jury convict OJ, in his mind, wouldnt have enraged the public as if a mostly white jury did it much like the mostly white jury acquitting the officers in the Rodney King case set LA on fire, figuatively and literally.

I think Clark just wanted women, though I think she did believe black women liked her.

But yea, its hard to say a prosecution lost the case at jury selection, but yikes they made some serious missteps there.

Share this post


Link to post

Nobody said he had the "highest" profile, or was the _most_ famous or loved. But he certainly was extremely popular, highly recognizable, and appealed to every demographic. Everywhere he went, he was swamped with autograph requests, dads would point him out to their kids, and people who never watched an NFL game knew exactly who he was. For some reason you continue to deny this -- these are all quotes from you in this thread and the episode thread:

  • He wasn't worshipped or universally beloved in my recollection.
  • He played football in a small market city (Buffalo) on a bad team and he didn't excel. He was not an NFL star.  His football career peaked in college
  • the notion that he was some universally beloved character in his retirement is just plain false. 
  • What I meant is that he wasn't as universally beloved or adored as some have pointed out.
  • never lived up to the level of promise he showed coming out of USC with the Heisman. 
  • some people who were adults at the time are claiming that OJ was larger than life and universally beloved which is absolutely not the case. 
  • Sure, he was known, but he wasn't universally adored
  • I still contend that the recollection of the level of OJ Simpson's fame is subconsciously magnified

Most of these are demonstrably false. OJ was a huge star in the NFL. He was elected to the Hall of Fame in his first year of eligibility, was a five-time All-Pro (meaning that for five seasons in his decade-long NFL career, he was voted the best running back in the league), and was the NFL MVP in 1973 (in other words, he was voted the best player in the entire league for that year). His rushing record of 2,003 yards in a single season stood for decades. Anyone who says OJ wasn't a big NFL star simply does not know what they are talking about.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post

Most of these are demonstrably false. OJ was a huge star in the NFL. He was elected to the Hall of Fame in his first year of eligibility, was a five-time All-Pro (meaning that for five seasons in his decade-long NFL career, he was voted the best running back in the league), and was the NFL MVP in 1973 (in other words, he was voted the best player in the entire league for that year). His rushing record of 2,003 yards in a single season stood for decades. Anyone who says OJ wasn't a big NFL star simply does not know what they are talking about.

You're right and I already corrected my statements about the level of his NFL fame.

 

However, I am absolutely correct that the statements that he was "universally beloved" in 1994, or ever, are completely false.  He was famous as a college and pro football player, as a mediocre actor in cheesy films and as a Hertz pitchman. This does not lead to "belovedness."    Being famous does not necessarily equal adoration.  To state that Simpson was universally adored is false revisionist history made to elevate the drama of his crimes.

Edited by RemoteControlFreak
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

On 4/25/2016 at 1:25 PM, RemoteControlFreak said:

You're right and I already corrected my statements about the level of his NFL fame.

 

However, I am absolutely correct that the statements that he was "universally beloved" in 1994, or ever, are completely false.  He was famous as a college and pro football player, as a mediocre actor in cheesy films and as a Hertz pitchman. This does not lead to "belovedness."    Being famous does not necessarily equal adoration.  To state that Simpson was universally adored is false revisionist history made to elevat the drama of his crimes.

I agree with your second paragraph. OJ Simpson's height of post-football fame passed in 1986, when he and Joe Namath were fired from Monday Night Football. He then went to NBC where IIRC, his sideline reporting and in-studio analysis were criticized in the sports media for their worthlessness; it was widely believed that Howard Cosell's infamous "jockocracy" rant when he left MNF (criticizing sports media for favoring ex-jocks over professional broadcasters and sportswriters) was directed at least in part at OJ.

 

He could only have been accurately described as "beloved" within the fanbases of the USC Trojans and Buffalo Bills. Most sports fans (especially those of us young enough to have not watched him play) viewed him as just another ex-jock.

 

Universally recognized? Definitely. Universally beloved? No way.

(Edited because Bruins and Trojans are not the same thing.)

Edited by Sir RaiderDuck OMS
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I can think of a few scenarios where it would be more likely. I mean they took blood out of OJ's arm right. What if when doing the DNA test, that blood went in the test tube mistakenly labelled "crime scene". What if sample results were misfiled. Hell what if the sample results came back inconclusive, but someone wanted to cover there ass because of their poor collection work on a high profile case and just fabricated the results and said they implicated OJ. Not saying any of those things happen, but would any of them be considered unreasonable, especially based on the time period and what the defense was able to point out about the crimelab?

 

All of these are kind of absurd "what if" scenarios.  It's not reasonable doubt.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

And part of the reason posters can say now that they thing OJ is 100% guilty is we have more information in the form of OJ's awful book and his own testimony at the civil trial. We know way more now that anyone did then. Even the shoes hadn't been proven at the criminal trial. Its hard to put yourself back in a place before you knew something. I know I thought OJ was guilty as a kid hearing things on the news, but ask me as a adult, with the information presented at trial if I could vote guilty, I honestly can't say because I know that I'm misremembering things and conflating one trial with the other. I just know that for me, I think the sock was planted evidence and that opens up a sliver of worry about how the case was handled as a whole. Is that enough to be "reasonable" in the face of the other facts like Alan Park and Kato, like OJ owning the gloves, like the issue of motive, like all of the rest of the blood evidence found almost immediately after the murders and OJs own behavior in the week after the murders. I don't think so, but I know that I'm looking at the situation with more information than I would have had at the time and my opinion might have been different back then.

 

True.  The jury's job is only to determine if the prosecution proves their case beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

How and why again do you think the socks were planted?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Something to remember every time you hear about the possibility of "planted evidence" in the OJ trial: California law at that time (and maybe even today -- I'm too lazy to look it up) stated that if a police officer planted evidence or committed perjury in a criminal investigation that led to a conviction, that officer would be subject to the exact same prison term the defendant received, up to and including the Death penalty. As the prosecution's decision not to seek Death was weeks away when all this supposedly happened, the officers would literally have been risking their lives planting all this evidence.

 

Why would they have done this? OJ was not a symbol to the black community: indeed, he was what George Carlin once described as "openly white." He left the old neighborhood when he got his millions and never returned. If anything, the police showed him preferential treatment, including then-patrolman Mark Fuhrman sweeping evidence of spousal abuse on OJ's part under the rug. Some big conspiracy to "nail him" for some imagined slight simply makes no sense, especially in light of the potential penalties for having done so.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post

True.  The jury's job is only to determine if the prosecution proves their case beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

How and why again do you think the socks were planted?

I think the sock was planted because it was examined by the prosecution and defence before suddenly a decent size spot of dried blood was noticed on the sock. Even on a black sock, dried blood would be crusty and you should notice it if that's what you're looking for. The fact that it was found later after all the blood samples were taken and that the evidence presented didn't match the initial examination has always bugged me. I can't think of a reasonable explanation that a tech looking for blood would miss the spot on the first examination. Add in the way the blood was on both the right and left side of the sock and the inconsistency between the crime scene video and photos, I personally feel that someone "helped" along the prosecution's case by planted blood evidence on the sock after the fact.

Share this post


Link to post
On 4/25/2016 at 4:57 PM, Sir RaiderDuck OMS said:

Something to remember every time you hear about the possibility of "planted evidence" in the OJ trial: California law at that time (and maybe even today -- I'm too lazy to look it up) stated that if a police officer planted evidence or committed perjury in a criminal investigation that led to a conviction, that officer would be subject to the exact same prison term the defendant received, up to and including the Death penalty. As the prosecution's decision not to seek Death was weeks away when all this supposedly happened, the officers would literally have been risking their lives planting all this evidence.

Why would they have done this? OJ was not a symbol to the black community: indeed, he was what George Carlin once described as "openly white." He left the old neighborhood when he got his millions and never returned. If anything, the police showed him preferential treatment, including then-patrolman Mark Fuhrman sweeping evidence of spousal abuse on OJ's part under the rug. Some big conspiracy to "nail him" for some imagined slight simply makes no sense, especially in light of the potential penalties for having done so.

Good points.  The only reason to frame Simpson would be to solidify an already tight case - - in which case, if that was done, the planting weakened the case.  I'm not saying LAPD (or any other PD) has never framed anyone (innocent or guilty) but it seems to choose Simpson would be beyond reasonable.  Not just for the reasons Sir Raiderduck stated but also because Simpson was very well known, insuring the case would be relentless as far as the media went, and Simpson had the resources to readily conduct his own investigation and tests.  

Regarding Simpson being "universally beloved" . . . I was not a football fan and knew nothing about his career.  I knew of him in June of 1994, mainly from his Hertz commercials and television/movie appearances.  I do agree that he would be beloved by Trojan and Bills fans; maybe as well as football fans in general.  I heard from a friend that Simpson had been an amazing football player and that he could run just as fast running sideways as he could straight ahead.  That's just crazy - - and definitely supports that he was indeed a crazy talented football player.  However, I think the general public only would have considered him "universally beloved" based on his public persona.  He was always smiling, the nice guy and he seemed to appreciate his fans.  I would imagine for many that was the conundrum when he was first accused of murder; they couldn't believe that the public O.J. Simpson had done such a thing, without knowing the private O.J. Simpson and seeing that the private O.J. Simpson could. 

I can't recall if it was in the link on the Dominick Dunne articles (which are well worth the time to read) or elsewhere but someone compared the Simpson criminal trial to the 1921-1922 trials of Roscoe (Fatty) Arbuckle.  It's a spot on comparison.  Prior to Labor Day of 1920, Arbuckle was seen as a happy-go-lucky comedian who wouldn't hurt a fly - - he presented an almost childlike quality on film, veering into asexual territory.  He was a massive star when he was accused of rape and murder.  He was eventually acquitted, after a third trial (with the first two ending in hung juries) and the jury in the third trial read a statement of great apology to him.  Nonetheless, his career was destroyed.  Not so much, I think, because of the accusation against him but because the myth of his image was destroyed by bootleg alcohol and half dressed adults partying at a hotel.  Simpson also was acquitted and his career shattered.  The main difference between Arbuckle and Simpson is that Simpson was clearly guilty and Arbuckle was innocent.  (Sorry to go off on a tangent but I did think the comparison was a good one.) 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

Quote

He could only have been accurately described as "beloved" within the fanbases of the USC Bruins and Buffalo Bills. 

You just pissed off a good portion of the Los Angeles community.  Its USC Trojans and UCLA Bruins, who are pretty serious cross-town rivals.

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, Hanahope said:

You just pissed off a good portion of the Los Angeles community.  Its USC Trojans and UCLA Bruins, who are pretty serious cross-town rivals.

OUCH! And I'm an Oregon Ducks fan, so I should know better. Original post corrected.

Share this post


Link to post
On 4/25/2016 at 7:57 PM, Sir RaiderDuck OMS said:

Something to remember every time you hear about the possibility of "planted evidence" in the OJ trial: California law at that time (and maybe even today -- I'm too lazy to look it up) stated that if a police officer planted evidence or committed perjury in a criminal investigation that led to a conviction, that officer would be subject to the exact same prison term the defendant received, up to and including the Death penalty. As the prosecution's decision not to seek Death was weeks away when all this supposedly happened, the officers would literally have been risking their lives planting all this evidence.

 

 

I suspect prison sentences, however stiff, is about as successful in deterring cops as it does actual criminals from committing crimes. Which is to say, not at all, as evidenced by the fact that dozens of LAPD officers not too long after this trial were convicted of planting evidence, and framing people. (See: Rampart Scandal).

I just finished watching the ESPN 30for30 episode about the Duke Lacrosse Case. The prosecutor had no problem railroading these rich white kids to get reelected. I mean, sheesh, is no one safe? Its not just poor minorities getting the shaft. Prosecutors and police will screw ANYBODY for a conviction especially if its high profile. The POS prosecutor in the Duke case actually convinced the lab tech to exclude information in his DNA reports that wouldn't point to the boys who were already targeted as the perpetrators.  Luckily, he was found guilty of misconduct and disbarred. But its THAT easy to fabricate stuff.

Several of the issues in the OJ case regarding the evidence doesnt even have to be malacious. It could just be some lab tech screwing up and wanting to cover their ass. Either way, the evidence cant be trusted.

Edited by FuriousStyles
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, FuriousStyles said:

I suspect prison sentences, however stiff, is about as successful in deterring cops as it does actual criminals from committing crimes. Which is to say, not at all, as evidenced by the fact that dozens of LAPD officers not too long after this trial were convicted of planting evidence, and framing people. (See: Rampart Scandal).

I just finished watching the ESPN 30for30 episode about the Duke Lacrosse Case. The prosecutor had no problem railroading these rich white kids to get reelected. I mean, sheesh, is no one safe? Its not just poor minorities getting the shaft. Prosecutors and police will screw ANYBODY for a conviction especially if its high profile. The POS prosecutor in the Duke case actually convinced the lab tech to exclude information in his DNA reports that wouldn't point to the boys who were already targeted as the perpetrators.  Luckily, he was found guilty of misconduct and disbarred. But its THAT easy to fabricate stuff.

Several of the issues in the OJ case regarding the evidence doesnt even have to be malacious. It could just be some lab tech screwing up and wanting to cover their ass. Either way, the evidence cant be trusted.

With respect, there's (I think unintentionally) what's called a "false equivalence" here. Just because examples of rich white kids being railroaded exist, doesn't mean the actual threat of such is realistic. Whereas the threat of a minority being railroaded is many magnitudes greater. I do get the greater point that people often try to build careers, or conversely cover their asses, via such avenues, but the "is no one safe" aspect still leans heavily towards the rich white kids. Generally they ARE safe--situations like the Duke Lacrosse case being the radical exception instead of the rule.

There IS a weakness in the whole adversarial relationship our legal system is based upon that the idea that "justice" is the goal is clear bullshit. Conviction rates, political capital, reelection campaigns, expediency, and satisfying special interests are the true goals, even if they're cloaked behind a veneer of saying it's about "justice". Even putting OJ away, as much as we do of course want to put away murderers, had this from the beginning. Gil Garcetti almost certainly (at first) saw this as a feather in his cap--a high profile conviction he could ride to reelection. Heck, the very fact that District Attorneys are elected is part of the greater problem. Of course prosecutors being strictly controlled by appointment isn't much better (other countries have that and it can be a problem too). Either you are "accountable" to the general population and thus all too likely to pander, or you are unaccountable and can be corrupted even more behind the scenes. Both situations can turn evil.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

I never heard of Simpson until he was arrested, but I have less than no interest in football, never saw NAKED GUN, and wasn't living in the US full-time in the 1980s. I missed a lot of things, apparently. Including where all those Kardashians I keep seeing people joke about on sitcoms came from. I did not know about Robert Kardashian's role in the Simpson trial, and had no idea that this was where the various KKs got their first taste of celebrity and decided they liked it. I do remember watching parts of the trial, but not with great attention, but I do remember how obsessed many of my online friends were about it. In the UK, everyone I knew was sure Simpson would walk because LA courts would never convict a celebrity.

 

My memory is that reactions to the verdict did split very strongly along racial lines. At the time, I thought sequestering the jury (especially for as long as it turned out) was a mistake, since all any human would want to do after eight months in a hotel was get finished and go home, and that the LAPD had been rewarded for decades of racism and abuse of power. Watching this, I think the jury members who said, "They didn't prove it" had a better point than it seemed at the time, given that they were constrained to what they saw in court. Two decades later, and despite the improvements in LAPD procedures documented elsewhere, we're still seeing an appalling number of police killings of black people; things have not changed enough.

 

In other areas, time has made a big difference. DNA evidence is far better understood and accepted now; then, it was largely unfamiliar to most people. There's also a lot different attitude now towards domestic violence and better understanding of the serious danger that an abuser will turn murderer. Sexism definitely played a role, not just during the trial but in the years leading up to the murders - what does it say if police could hang with Simpson after mediating in domestic disputes where his wife was beaten?

 

I do think, though, that ultimately Simpson has been pretty thoroughly punished: he didn't go to jail for those murders (though obviously he's in jail now), but instead he remained free to watch the celebrity life he'd built up fall away: the civil case took his money, and public opinion took his acceptance and stardom. In prison, he could played the martyr. Unfortunately, the victims of his later crimes paid the price.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

4 hours ago, Kromm said:

With respect, there's (I think unintentionally) what's called a "false equivalence" here. Just because examples of rich white kids being railroaded exist, doesn't mean the actual threat of such is realistic. Whereas the threat of a minority being railroaded is many magnitudes greater. I do get the greater point that people often try to build careers, or conversely cover their asses, via such avenues, but the "is no one safe" aspect still leans heavily towards the rich white kids. Generally they ARE safe--situations like the Duke Lacrosse case being the radical exception instead of the rule.

Additionally, the shenanigans in Durham (which were shameful) came to light well before the "rich white kids" were tried and falsely convicted.  Now many poor people, particularly poor people of color, are only exonerated after spending years if not decades in jail?  Or worse, posthumously.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
17 hours ago, Kromm said:

With respect, there's (I think unintentionally) what's called a "false equivalence" here. Just because examples of rich white kids being railroaded exist, doesn't mean the actual threat of such is realistic. Whereas the threat of a minority being railroaded is many magnitudes greater. I do get the greater point that people often try to build careers, or conversely cover their asses, via such avenues, but the "is no one safe" aspect still leans heavily towards the rich white kids. Generally they ARE safe--situations like the Duke Lacrosse case being the radical exception instead of the rule.

There IS a weakness in the whole adversarial relationship our legal system is based upon that the idea that "justice" is the goal is clear bullshit. Conviction rates, political capital, reelection campaigns, expediency, and satisfying special interests are the true goals, even if they're cloaked behind a veneer of saying it's about "justice". Even putting OJ away, as much as we do of course want to put away murderers, had this from the beginning. Gil Garcetti almost certainly (at first) saw this as a feather in his cap--a high profile conviction he could ride to reelection. Heck, the very fact that District Attorneys are elected is part of the greater problem. Of course prosecutors being strictly controlled by appointment isn't much better (other countries have that and it can be a problem too). Either you are "accountable" to the general population and thus all too likely to pander, or you are unaccountable and can be corrupted even more behind the scenes. Both situations can turn evil.

I thought my sarcasm was clear as day but I guess not.  Yes of course blacks and other minorities are at greater risk for being railroaded.  My point was to highlight the desperation of the prosecutor in the Duke case to secure his conviction that he was willing to railroad rich white kids who presumably had means to fight (hire great lawyers and investigators....which they did).  Ive seen several people ask why the cops or whoever would frame OJ who, was rich, a celebrity, etc.  None of that stuff matters when these people want to score a conviction in a high profile case.  It may not have been what happened in OJ's case, but its an impossibility.  That's why i sarcastically said "Is no one safe?".  Its par for the course to see minorities get chewed up by the system, but it was pretty surprising, IMO to see it almost happen to the Duke kids.

Edited by FuriousStyles
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I have to wonder if OJ will be canonized posthumously like Michael Jackson.

Share this post


Link to post
21 minutes ago, starri said:

I have to wonder if OJ will be canonized posthumously like Michael Jackson.

Not a chance.

Jackson was able to obfuscate/distract people from the charges against him by the end of his life. He was in the midst of a planned actual comeback that from how people talked about it, stood a decent chance of... if not making him the same star he'd been decades before, was projected to earn a truly epic amount of money-- based on pre-sales alone, apparently in the first two hours of selling tickets they'd sold over a MILLION tickets and were booked up 100% for over a year of shows (and so had to immediately add more). 

People put enough stock in his acquittal to allow themselves to forget about the charges. People even conveniently forgot that the real reason Michael had moved to Bahrain (after his second trial) was because him bolting there (rather than the more casual way he wound up doing it) was an escape plan in case he got convicted. They followed through with the plan of him moving there anyway, even with the acquittal, because Michael still needed to get out of the public eye, and also so it seemed like he'd always planned to go there anyway

And the key thing?  White people, by and large, were in denial/didn't want Michael to be guilty possibly just as much as black people didn't. There really wasn't much of a racial divide on it, vs. the OJ case where there was. So it was easy to deify Michael. So many more people wanted it to be so.

Now Cosby? It'll be interesting to see if anything, anything at all, changes when he dies. His remaining fans likely number in the thousands, since believing his version of things is outright impossible even for the biggest former fan.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

The problem with Cosby is that he spent so much of his time condemning and critizing black people that many didnt care for him even before his scandal broke.  I know I didnt.  I can appreciate what he's done for blacks in entertainment and its a shame such a great show like the Cosbys has been tainted (to the point where networks no longer air reruns) but I dont think Cosby is so revered a la MJ that we would be willing to overlook his (alleged) transgressions when he dies. I dont see it happening.

Edited by FuriousStyles
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, Kromm said:

And the key thing?  White people, by and large, were in denial/didn't want Michael to be guilty possibly just as much as black people didn't. There really wasn't much of a racial divide on it, vs. the OJ case where there was. So it was easy to deify Michael. So many more people wanted it to be so.

And sadly, it was very different talking about OJ and Michael because there was no doubt someone murdered Ron and Nicole but because the proof of MJs crimes was far less obvious and visible, people could easily brush it aside. If MJ had been accused of murdering someone with a body and everything, I think there would have been less deifying. MJs crimes were the type of crime a fan could deny even happened.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post

9 hours ago, FuriousStyles said:

The problem with Cosby is that he spent so much of his time condemning and critizing black people that many didnt care for him even before his scandal broke.  I know I didnt.  I can appreciate what he's done for blacks in entertainment and its a shame such a great show like the Cosbys has been tainted (to the point where networks no longer air reruns) but I dont think Cosby is so revered a la MJ that we would be willing to overlook his (alleged) transgressions when he dies. I dont see it happening.

The truly ironic part is that the allegations against Cosby had been known and ignored by the media for years. It was only when comedian Hannibal Buress, tired of seeing a serial rapist scold other African-Americans for their moral failings, made "You raped women, Bill Cosby!" part of his routine and it was recorded one night, put on the Internet, and subsequently went viral.

The problem with Cosby is the sheer weight of evidence of him. Over 50 women of different ages, nationalities, walks of life, and income levels have accused Cosby of sexual assault, using the same M.O. (drugging the women, then taking indecent liberties while they were unconscious and helpless) that he admitted to in a 2005 deposition. Either every single one of them is lying, or Bill Cosby is a rapist. There is literally no middle ground.

Edited by Sir RaiderDuck OMS
  • Like 10

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, FuriousStyles said:

The problem with Cosby is that he spent so much of his time condemning and critizing black people that many didnt care for him even before his scandal broke.  I know I didnt.  I can appreciate what he's done for blacks in entertainment and its a shame such a great show like the Cosbys has been tainted (to the point where networks no longer air reruns) but I dont think Cosby is so revered a la MJ that we would be willing to overlook his (alleged) transgressions when he dies. I dont see it happening.

I don't see that this is entirely different from Simpson.  I don't know if Simpson condemned and publicly criticized blacks but he certainly did nothing to keep one foot in the community and very famously (or infamously) said "I'm not black, I'm O.J."   I don't know how many may not have cared for him prior to the murders.

Regardless, I think many people can appreciate what athletic talent Simpson had and what he did for USC football and Bills football while still admitting that he's a two-time murderer.  I can admit that Cosby was a great entertainer but a filthy rapist nonetheless. 

I think MJ was deified because, as others have pointed out, there was no specific public evidence that he was guilty of what he was accused of.  I think many people found it easy to believe that he would be a target of people looking for a quick buck; he acted and spoke like a child or an asexual being; therefore, it must be so.  There have been way too many Cosby accusers with similar versions of the same story.  Simpson had two bodies behind him, one his ex-wife, and his actions and comments did nothing to promote his case of innocence. 

Should either Cosby or Simpson die tomorrow, neither would be memorialized as MJ was, rightly or wrongly.  

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

It's weird that you guys brought up Michael Jackson and his crimes.

I believe he was guilty.  Probably of all of it, but definitely of at least some of it.  Even with that though, my brain can separate his immense talent from those crimes.  He was a genius with music and dance, and I still remembering him performing as a very young child, and even then, blowing people away.  I think it's also that I can believe the way he was raised warped him emotionally, working all the time, the abusive father, the fame, just all of it combines to at least explain, but not to ignore his crimes.  Also, maybe it's because he's dead now, but I find all of it more sad than anything.  Sad for the victims, and a little sad for MJ as well, because he seemed like a victim himself in many ways.

The idea that OJ's relatively short career as a football player is anywhere near the fame or talent level of Michael Jackson is like comparing an apple seed and an apple orchard.

As for Cosby?  Fuck him.  Hopefully in prison with a coat hanger.  While too drugged to resist, but not drugged enough to not know it was happening.

Edited by Umbelina
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post

In light of the ESPN 5 Part documentary set to start tonight, they interviewed Marcia Clark about the case and part of it is playing. She actually said the whole thing about OJ trying on the glove was suggested by Judge Ito! At some point there was a sidebar with the attorneys and Ito said OJ should put them on for the jury. Marcia vehemently objected but Darden as we know kind of went ahead on his own. 

Share this post


Link to post

Is anyone watching the ESPN doc? I have been and it really is well done. I like all the insights with all of the different people and their opinions. I was taken aback by the crime photos that they showed of Nicole and Ron. Personally, I try never to look at things like that as it upsets me so much. But, I wasn't expecting it and there it was. I looked for a thread and I couldn't find one, does anyone know if there is one?

Share this post


Link to post

OJ Simpson Juror: Not-Guilty Verdict Was ‘Payback’ for Rodney King
http://www.thewrap.com/oj-simpson-juror-not-guilty-verdict-was-payback-for-rodney-king/

No surprises here.  More at link.

Quote

Interviewer: Do you think there are members of the jury that voted to acquit OJ because of Rodney King?Bess: Yes.
Interviewer: You do?
Bess: Yes.
Interviewer: How many of you do you think felt that way?
Bess: Oh, probably 90 percent of them.
Interviewer: 90 percent. Did you feel that way?
Bess: Yes.
Interviewer: That was payback.
Bess: Uh-huh.

Quote

 

Juror Carrie Bess tells “OJ: Made in America” that she was among “90 percent” of jurors seeking payback

Trial watchers, sociologists and even FX’s show “People v OJ Simpson” have argued that the jurors in O.J. Simpson’s murder case acquitted him as payback for the Rodney King beating. And in ESPN’s new event series, “O.J.: Made in America,” one juror finally comes out and says it.

In an excerpt aired on public radio show “Fresh Air” this week, juror Carrie Bess, who is now in her 70s, is asked whether “there are members of the jury that voted to acquit OJ because of Rodney King.”

“Yes,” she says simply. Later she says that she was one of them.

 

Edited by Umbelina
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Finally Carrie Bess comes clean and admits the verdict had nothing to do with the evidence, the law or whether 90% of the jury believed Simpson to be a lying murderer.  I'm not surprised by the admission but offended by how proud she seems of it. Very tragic for the Goldman and Brown families.  

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
On 2/29/2016 at 6:06 PM, CeeBeeGee said:

 

What. The. Fuck.

 

Jesus, dude. You fucking cut her head off. Can't you stop molesting her this one last time while YOUR CHILDREN are grieving?

My reaction exactly, but you said it so much better than I would have. Yeesh. He's gross. 

 

Editedt o explain I'm reading this thread and pages back someone mentioned OJ pulling at Nicole's skirt while she was in the casket until someone made him stop. Ew!! Just....ew. 

Edited by bubbls

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Customize font-size