Jump to content

Type keyword(s) to search

  • Reply
  • Start Topic

Recommended Posts

I'm just saying ... we had the trial on TV at work, so I watched it pretty much front to back. And I had doubts.

Maybe that was the difference -- I watched it a lot, and so the defense's arguments made more sense to me because I saw them all play out live.

I watched the trial too. Almost every day

Link to comment
(edited)

Sometimes memory is tricky as to what most people believed 20 years ago. Here's Gallup poll information covering the period right after the murders, right after the verdict announcement, and five years after the murders. A majority of Americans always has thought Simpson committed the murders. Maybe it is even higher now, but the "He did it" camp has always outnumbered the "He was framed" camp. 

 

http://www.gallup.com/poll/3781/fifth-anniversary-nicole-brown-simpson-ron-goldman-murders-find.aspx

 

In the short term, of course, he only needed twelve people to believe he was framed, and he got them.  

Edited by Asp Burger
  • Love 6
Link to comment

But if you read that poll, a majority of Americans thought he was guilty from the time they heard he was a suspect, about two-thirds. So the trial didn't affect those numbers at all. I think that number would be much closer to 80 or 90 percent now, don't you? 

 

And those numbers showed that only 30 percent thought he definitely did it, while 37 percent said he probably did it. Reading these days, you'd have to say that the number for definitely is much higher now than it was then. 

 

It also showed that after the verdict, 72 percent of whites thought he was guilty. I'd imagine that number's closer to 90 or 95 now. 

 

Thanks for the polls. While other might disagree of have different anecdotal evidence, I think they show that 20 years ago it didn't seem as absolute as it does now. 

  • Love 2
Link to comment

Like I said before, there's a whole new generation of people to factor in as well not just people who probably changed their minds over the course of 20 years. In 1994, I was 7 and lived outside US and didnt pay any attention to this case. Now, almost 30 having the benefit of hindsight, countless documentaries, books etc. its easy for me (and probably most people around my age) to say yes, he definitely did it. I dont think the divide between whether he did it or not even exists. Its probably more like he definitely did it vs he probably did it/had something to do with it/knew who did it.

  • Love 2
Link to comment

Neither I nor anyone else I knew ever doubted that OJ was guilty the first time around. I was 27 and didn't even pay full attention as my life was in full upheaval, but the facts and the evidence always seemed very straightforward to me. I'm sure there were many on the fence but I never knew any.

I think, after watching this show, it is worth noting that a lot of things that the general public know about were never presented as evidence. This includes the lady who saw OJ speeding away from the crime scene, the shoe prints, the bronco chase (including the getaway gear)ans the suicide note. So the jury couldn't consider any of that when trying to determine guilt.

  • Love 4
Link to comment
Thanks for the polls. While other might disagree of have different anecdotal evidence, I think they show that 20 years ago it didn't seem as absolute as it does now.

 

Well, I did write "Maybe it is even higher now," but those polls show there was a clear majority believing he was probably or definitely responsible for the murders then as well.   

 

Here is a more recent poll (2015). The definitely/probably-guilty percentage for whites is almost exactly where it was at its highest point in the 1990s. The definitely/probably number for blacks is dramatically higher. 

 

http://tiny.cc/d9yv9x

 

I think his post-acquittal behavior harmed his image, and the layman is more accepting of forensic science now. DNA evidence in criminal cases in the U.S. was still a very recent development in 1994-95.  

  • Love 1
Link to comment

I think his post-acquittal behavior harmed his image, and the layman is more accepting of forensic science now. DNA evidence in criminal cases in the U.S. was still a very recent development in 1994-95.  

Ironically, the reason why DNA evidence is more accepted is because of the OJ trial.  Who even knows.

  • Love 1
Link to comment
(edited)

I am totally amazed at this comment. Did you not see the thousands of people on street corners all around the US with looks of disbelief when they heard not guilty? You could hardly find a white person who didn't think he did it. History is not being re-written. Even blacks thought he did it. They thought "not-guilty" was payback.

And I'm totally amazed at this comment, considering I'm black and watched the verdict with all black folks. Nobody was talking about "payback."

I agree with you, whiporee.

Edited by charmed1
  • Love 2
Link to comment
While other might disagree of have different anecdotal evidence, I think they show that 20 years ago it didn't seem as absolute as it does now.

 

People understand DNA now.  There are a ton of crime shows out now, and they talk about a mere drop of blood in the wrong place being enough for conviction.  Criminal Minds, the various CSI shows, NCIS, Bones, hell, they go on and on, not to mention real crime shows.  Also, they now have absolute proof that OJ did wear those shoes. 

 

Someone said that black people were rooting for Cochran more than for OJ to "win."  I have no idea if that's true, but it does make a certain kind of sense, and Cochran was a man worth rooting for, even if he was on the wrong side of justice on this one.  He did his job, and he did it well.  That said, the prosecution lost this case the moment they changed venues.  OJ should have been tried where he lived and where the murders occurred.  To hell with the press.

  • Love 7
Link to comment

Totally agree, changing venues was the biggest mistake made. They should have been worried about securing a conviction. Period. Although I feel a tinge awkward thinking a white jury would automatically convict OJ. But anyway, they were more concerned about public backlash if that white jury did convict OJ and thought a conviction from a black jury would do more for the "optics". Talk about a plan backfiring. Yikes.

  • Love 3
Link to comment

 

Thanks, Diva. Since it's true that the defense team emptied out Nicole's house (to make it look cold and unlived-in), the fact that they were allowed to do this baffles me far more than that they were allowed to alter OJ's house. Or perhaps the defense team had nothing to do with the emptying of Nicole's house? I just can't imagine anyone in Nicole's family giving access to the defense team to do this. Was it emptied out for other reasons--e.g., the house was on the market--and that just turned out to be a lucky break for the defense?

Link to comment

And I'm totally amazed at this comment, considering I'm black and watched the verdict with all black folks. Nobody was talking about "payback."

Yeah, and I don't think this show is portraying it as "payback" either. It IS showing that a lot of black people reacted to the situation emotionally and not with cold logic, but that's not really different than anyone might if they were the people who'd been wronged so many times in the past.

I thought it was a decent (fair) scene where Darden pointed out to the militant reporter than OJ in no way represented them. People WANTED to believe he did though, because when so much else got taken away, you cling to things. That's denial, not payback--there's a big difference.

And thrown into the mix is that you always had people like Cochrane, Al Sharpton, etc. who jumped into situations and exploited them in ways that often did good for the community... but which also allowed them to aggrandize themselves and their own agendas (things haven't really changed, at least with Sharpton, except now he's skinny).

I think it's tough for some sheltered (mostly white) folks who don't understand the difficultly of what Chris Darden did--who don't quite understand the power of a term like "Uncle Tom" and how public union of a community sometimes seemed to be maintained while people had private doubts or differences.

  • Love 5
Link to comment

Thanks, Diva. Since it's true that the defense team emptied out Nicole's house (to make it look cold and unlived-in), the fact that they were allowed to do this baffles me far more than that they were allowed to alter OJ's house. Or perhaps the defense team had nothing to do with the emptying of Nicole's house? I just can't imagine anyone in Nicole's family giving access to the defense team to do this. Was it emptied out for other reasons--e.g., the house was on the market--and that just turned out to be a lucky break for the defense?

The defense didn't empty out Nicole's house, her family did -I believe because they were selling it, but someone with deeper knowledge of the case can confirm if that's the reason why. The only house the defense touched was OJs.

Edited by Princess Sparkle
Link to comment

Thanks, Diva. Since it's true that the defense team emptied out Nicole's house (to make it look cold and unlived-in), the fact that they were allowed to do this baffles me far more than that they were allowed to alter OJ's house. Or perhaps the defense team had nothing to do with the emptying of Nicole's house? I just can't imagine anyone in Nicole's family giving access to the defense team to do this. Was it emptied out for other reasons--e.g., the house was on the market--and that just turned out to be a lucky break for the defense?

Yeah, and I think Nicole's house was a rental as well.

 

I know one of the Browns testified about emptying the house during the civil trial, I read that transcript, so I remember it from there.  Other family members washed the rest of the blood off, and there was still a lot.  So I assume for the landlord. 

 

Also, gathering a dead family members things up is just something that family does.  They also had the kids, so getting their clothes and toys and furniture was probably part of the reason for the speed of it too.  While they were there, probably some place they never wanted to come back to, might as well do it all, completely clean it out.

Link to comment

Yeah, and I think Nicole's house was a rental as well.

I know one of the Browns testified about emptying the house during the civil trial, I read that transcript, so I remember it from there. Other family members washed the rest of the blood off, and there was still a lot. So I assume for the landlord.

Also, gathering a dead family members things up is just something that family does. They also had the kids, so getting their clothes and toys and furniture was probably part of the reason for the speed of it too. While they were there, probably some place they never wanted to come back to, might as well do it all, completely clean it out.

Nicole owned the condo. Here is an article about the Browns trying to sell it . Edited by biakbiak
  • Love 1
Link to comment

Sterling Brown absolutely breaks my heart.

 

Yes.  Also - I am in love

 

Marcia Clark, bless her heart. Colorblind ideology is bullshit and her portrayal on this show is providing wonderful evidence of that fact. Seeing racial/ethnic/cultural differences doesn't make you racist. Assigning hierarchical values to them makes you racist. All she had to do was listen. That's it. And she refused. In the annals of history, she will go down as the woman who didn't see color. Yay?

This show continues to be awesome.

 

Beautifully stated ridethemaverick

 

Umbelina, while you're already liking my post ( waves ) I'd just like to say that I love reading your posts here in these OJ threads!

 

Are you talking about this poster? I think many people have that piece of art in their homes. It was a popular painting by Norman Rockwell, called "The Problem We All Live With." OJ may not really have owned it, but Johnny Cochran did and plenty of people, black and white, also do.

 

I am crying now, looking at this

 

WAS Johnnie really looking out for Darden when it comes to questioning Fuhrman?  Because I think Darden questioning Fuhrman highlights Fuhrman's racism even stronger and so is better for the defense.

 

But now -- reading this forum and elsewhere, and even in my own head -- there doesn't seem to be a lot of question as to whether he committed the crime. But no new evidence has appeared, it's just that the narrative that OJ was a murdered has won out. It's a very odd cultural shift, and I wonder whether it was a factor of the civil suit, or the myriad of books that have come out or a better understanding of DNA or what. But it is interesting watching the thing again -- and reading this and other forums -- how much the conversation has shifted in 20 years. Because back then there wasn't nearly the consensus about his guilt that there is now.

 

I was an idiot child at the time of the trial.  For me, it was taking Criminology in college.  Everything I learned about domestic violence and violence against women in general.   Everything I learned basically screamed OJ did it.  The statistics -- to learn that the overwhelming majority of women who are attacked or murdered are by someone they know or an ex.  Even before that point I kept wondering who else could have done it?  When the case was discussed in the media.  I mean, it's a rhetorical question, LOL.  I always knew.  Interesting to learn about the facts or recollections of Nicole and Ron though.  The way the whole thing played in my head was a story of OJ walking in on Ron and Nicole and going into a jealous rage.  Like I said I was a child at the time of the trial so this is just my own head making up things.   Obviously this is show is a chance for me to read what was really reported.  Everything seemed so "black and white" back in the 90s but separation from the trial allows people to see more nuance.  To see that racism is still so powerful and that power corrupts absolutely (the police) but to also see that OJ  murdered Nicole.  Also, football players and the issues discussed in the movie "Concussion" -- people have known about those violence issues for a long time.  This was also discussed in my Criminology classes.

Edited by Ms Blue Jay
  • Love 4
Link to comment

Yes. We saw a date stamp of 1982. There is some confusion on my part-one source states it actually happened in 1978, another, in 1980, I think.

It's highly likely that Cochran was stopped for Driving a Mercedes While Black more than once.

  • Love 3
Link to comment

It's highly likely that Cochran was stopped for Driving a Mercedes While Black more than once.

 

I'm sure he was, but the one we saw on the show, actually happened in 1978 or 1979, according to the fact v. fiction article upthread. So the date stamp for this episode wasn't the one based on what happened, nor the circumstances.  According to the article.

Link to comment

I just watched this ep, and my DVR said the ep was 1 hour 16 minutes, but right after Johnnie tells Chris to let a white guy try Fuhrmann, at 1 hour, there was nothing else taped, and I was asked to keep or delete it. What happens after that scene? Was that actually the end?

By the way, how was the Simpson team allowed to go into the crime scene and change everything? Is that legal??? That was shocking, and I certainly don't remember that detail from the time. I guess there's a lot I've forgotten, which I never would have believed, being how I was so totally obsessed with the trial at the time. I didn't remember that Hodgman had a heart attack during the trial, which is a pretty big deal.

  • Love 1
Link to comment

By the way, how was the Simpson team allowed to go into the crime scene and change everything? Is that legal??? That was shocking, and I certainly don't remember that detail from the time. 

When did they do that?  OJ's home was not a crime scene and Nicole's family cleaned out the condo.

Link to comment

OJ's house WAS a crime scene, but it was also where his daughter lived, and had been released (much too soon IMO) back to the defendant.

 

Should the prosecution have inspected it before the jurors got there and told that idiot Ito that the prosecution shouldn't change it?  Probably.  I don't think anyone expected such audacious shenanigans though.  They should have, with Cochran.

 

Once the jury was there though?  There was nothing anyone could do.

Edited by Umbelina
  • Love 3
Link to comment

I am totally amazed at this comment. Did you not see the thousands of people on street corners all around the US with looks of disbelief when they heard not guilty? You could hardly find a white person who didn't think he did it. History is not being re-written. Even blacks thought he did it. They thought "not-guilty" was payback.

 

I remember reading an article, an opinion piece, in the Washington Post written by a black person perhaps a few months or a year after the verdict. The gist was "yeah, yeah, we got you off even though you never did shit for us. But don't think we don't know what really happened and can you go away please?" Something like that--the idea was that the verdict was a cynical and self-serving one. I wish I could find the piece but I think I'd go crazy trying to search the Post archives for a specific article on the Simpson case!

 

But yeah. Everyone I talked to in my neck of the woods, black and white, believed he'd done it.

  • Love 1
Link to comment

Some of the stuff that happened in this episode made me think man, you can't make this stuff up! If I were watching a Lifetime movie with some of these elements, I would think gawd, quit piling on all the theatrics, but this really happened: a prosecutor having a heart attack, the defense redecorating OJ's house, Fuhrman being a Nazi. I mean, seriously. It's all just so bonkers. This is what they mean when they say that truth is stranger than fiction!

 

On 3/1/2016 at 8:32 PM, Eolivet said:

Anyone else notice during...what could only be described as Dominick Dunne's Downton Abbey-type dinner party that the servers were African-American and he stopped discussing the trial when they were serving the food? Again, just loving these subtle touches -- very effective.

I was thinking about Downton Abbey during that scene too. The difference is that on DA, the upper class people would just keep on talking regardless of how many servants entered the room, regardless of how private the conversation was. I don't know what's worse - acting like your staff is invisible or halting your conversation while they're in the room.

Is it common for the entire jury to be taken to a crime scene? That seemed so unusual to me.

A+ for the music again!

Edited by ElectricBoogaloo
  • Love 2
Link to comment

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
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...