posted on November 14, 2000 09:32:07 PM new
I am watching a 2 hour history show on the Simpson saga on A&E. I am curious if after all this time and what you know today do you think guilty or not guilty? No fights to start - I am just curious where you see it now.
I vote guilty.
PS - anyone catch the girlfriend interview of many years that recently broke up with him?
posted on November 14, 2000 09:48:15 PM new
The A&E program is being rerun at 1 am and I'm planning to watch it. I was an OJ Trial junkie. I didn't miss a day of TV coverage.
He was guilty as hell then, and in my book he's even guiltier now, his crime compounded by his going on TV programs talking about how much people love him and are pleased to have him around.
I read a funny piece in the New York Times magazine a few weeks ago in which OJ made an arrangement with the reporter for the two of them to walk the streets of New York so that the reporter could witness all the strangers who greet him warmly and wish him well whereever he goes. The day of the scheduled walk, the reporter showed up at the hotel, only to get a message from OJ that he wouldn't be able to make the walk with him after all, something else came up.
posted on November 14, 2000 09:56:49 PM new
BOYSMOMMY,
re: the girlfriend interview.
I smell a rat. She gave that interview to the Enquirer a couple months ago, saying how OJ admitted killing Nicole and Ron, and how she herself feared for her own safety, etc.
Yet on Monday, the day after the OJ movie ran on CBS, the CBS news affiliate here in NY ran a recent interview with OJ done at his new Florida home -- you know, asking him about "the movie OJ doesn't want you to see." Anyway, in comments outside the main interview, the reporter mentioned the Enquirer girlfriend interview, but emphasized that the SAME girlfriend was seated beside OJ during his interview for this news report, although she declined to be shown on camera.
posted on November 14, 2000 10:00:28 PM new
OK - I said I would not start an argument but I am getting as angry now as I was back then by watching this show.
If he was 'any Joe' he would be awaiting his turn in the chair.
From the chase with 9K, disguise and passport to the police record of a wife batterer to the DNA - how the HE double toothpicks as my grandma would say - did the jury find him innocent?
I knew this probably was not a good idea to watch this show.
posted on November 14, 2000 10:03:40 PM new
Spaz -
I agree with you on the girlfriend - anyone that would date him is obviously out for fame and money - she was probably paid a hefty fee from the Enquirer.
Interesting how OJ filed a suit to get the movie stopped as he said Kardashian could not supply information as a part of client/attorney priveleges from the trial. That was thrown out and the movie went on.
Did you watch the movie? I was unable to - was wondering if it was any good?
posted on November 14, 2000 10:18:22 PM new
I only saw the second half of the first part (it conflicted with X-Files), but I found it unintentionally hilarious. There's something so silly about watching actors trying to portray famous real life people. Just listening to the actor trying to duplicate Barry Sheck's intonations set me to laughing. Also, some of the actual events portrayed are inherently funny because they were so unbelievable. I remember when these things were happening, people would say "If this were a movie, no one would believe it." And that's the exact case with this film. You see the movie version of things that actually occurred and they just seem so absurd -- for example, Simpson's lawyers going to his house before the jury walk-through and running around switching all the photos of white people with photos of black people. Funny stuff -- except that it really happened!
The second part of the movie is on tomorrow night.
posted on November 14, 2000 10:22:05 PM new
O.J. is guilty as sin, but let's back this thing up, if we can.
I am so tired of reading/hearing about OJ, when there are a ton of similar cases, that receive no scrutiny. Black-on-black crimes, receive virtually no attention.
A black sports figure, charged with slashing his WHITE wife, rivets a nation. But a 20-year-old black guy, who shoots another, is general fodder. What's wrong with this picture?
posted on November 14, 2000 10:47:14 PM new
It isn't a black issue, Hoop. It is a sensational crime involving a widely known personality.
Any case with that coverage, that number of twists, and that amount of mystery would have brought a similar hoopla, and many have over the years.
Where's the race card in the Lindberg kidnapping? Thousands of children are kidnapped and killed each year but they are just fodder by your reasoning because they do not raise the interest of the nation to the level that the Lindberg kidnapping did?
posted on November 15, 2000 03:09:12 AM new
Simpson got away with murder. He and his team of million dollar lawyers made a mockery of our legal system. They were able to make a murder case into a racial issue and turn O.J. into a victim.
posted on November 15, 2000 06:06:58 AM new
My opinion is that he was probably guilty. However, everyone on the prosecution's side, including the police, the judge, and the prosecutors made so many mistakes in handling the case that the verdict was hardly a surprise.
It is a shame that people unfamiliar with the U.S. justice system think that OJ Simpson's case is a typical example. Not only is it an anomaly (very few minority defendants are that rich; the police department there is historically more problematic than many other jurisdictions; etc.), but as stated above it was full of mistakes, bad practices, and witnesses from hell.
________
I never had one, and I didn't want one, and I don't, so now I do...
posted on November 15, 2000 01:00:40 PM new
I believe he was guilty. but since I live in Los Angeles, there's something that I wanted to point out about why he was found innocent, that people from other places may not realize. Our police system here is known to be very corrupt. YES there are some great and 100% trustworthy officers here and NO I am not saying ALL police officers are bad here. But a great many people here are aware that major bad things *frequently* go down in the LAPD. Even I, a middle class white woman living in the suburbs, have had certain experiences and have heard of enough others happening to lead me to believe that police here are able to rationalize very bad behavior even when it goes directly against the rules set down by the department. Right now we're in the middle of a huge scandal (the Rampart Division *mess*) that's once again proving this assertion correct. So, the people hearing the case for OJ aren't stupid. They more than likely know all this just as well as I do. And thus there were probably all kinds of questions in their mind whether the evidence could be trusted. So while it may look inexplicable that they let him off, it probably has a lot to do with the tendancy many people here have to not trust the police. With all the other evidence, I happen to think they should have found him guilty anyway but I have no problem understanding their tendancy to doubt the veracity of ANYTHING the police said. Not discount what they said, but subject it to the same kind of reasonable doubt that I would if anyone else made sworn statements.
posted on November 15, 2000 01:21:14 PM new
Guilty, guilty oh boy is he guilty.
Did you see the interview where he was stabbing the air and laughing about it?
It was the same one where he was walking out with this reporter and a tourist came up to sheake his hand. He was all smiles until the women siad "I've never shaken hands with a murderer before". ZING!!!!
Talk about a deer caught in the headlights look. Lets just say if looks could kill.
posted on November 15, 2000 02:06:12 PM new
KRS said "Juice wasn't tried for stabbing air, but if you saw him do it, he probably did."
Huh?
OK ,he was miming someone stabbing someone on the video. I saw it, most of the news broadcasts at the time picked it up and ran with it.
I did not say that this was proof that he killed Nicole. But if he did or didn't do it it was in terrible taste to joke about it.
Of course what they asked for in the original post was my opinion which I thought I was intitled to.
I think he did it.
Thae fact that he was uncomfortable with what the tourist said does not bother me in the least. The odds of someone saying this to me are very slim because I never killed anyone.
[ edited by tegan on Nov 15, 2000 02:10 PM ]
posted on November 15, 2000 03:28:07 PM new
brighid,
I also lived in LA at the time and you are right regarding the police. However; the DNA spelled it out and as bumbling as the police may be they certainly could not corrupt the DNA evidence as was suggested. I feel Judge Ito did a horrible job managing this trial. The police did not manufacture the tapes of Nicole screaming when he broke down her door - again with no regard for his children who were asleep - again - upstairs at the time. How about the pics of her bruised face - horrible - and telling the tale.
IMHO -
This was a wife abuser who did the classic rage killing. Ron Goldman was in the wrong place at the wrong time. OJ got off because of a community that fantasized about saving one of their own only to find out afterwards that he never felt a part of that community, never has given any money or his time to the community, only dated and associated outside of that community and is not the savior they wanted him to be held up to. In addition the fact that several of his closest friends have now turned on him speaks volumes. I also feel that Nicole's family has guilt to bear as they knew he was abusive but loved the money etc. and never got her out.
KRS - can we start calling you spoon?!? (just kidding - you always amuse me)
posted on November 15, 2000 04:52:27 PM new
KRS "You gave your opinion and you offered two points apparently as your reasons for your opinion. "
I never said they were the reasons for his guilt.
I think this happens alot in online conversations. Things are assumed and then a conclusion is drawn from them that misses the mark entirely.
I never said this plus this makes me feel this. I said I thought he was guilty and by the way did you see this.
I watched the trial and I thought the evidence was pretty strong againest him.
Not to mention the evidence that came out later (Photos found of him in the Bruno mali shoes he said he wouldn't be caught dead in and the ones of him with skin tight gloves on).
My opinion was formed long before this tasteless interview came out. I don't think the interview indicates guilt or innocence either. I think it indicates extreme bad taste.
posted on November 15, 2000 05:46:52 PM new
boysmommy, I agree with you about the evidence. I believe he is guilty. But you know they don't pick the brightest bulbs on the tree to be jurors and I believe that the bad rep of LA's police officers (deserved in many cases, but irrelevant here in the presence of so much overwhelming evidence such as DNA) gave them the excuse to find the verdict that they seemed to emotionally want to give.
IMO it was also majorly fumbled by the prosecution. The whole glove thing and the Mark Fuhrman thing were embarassing. And Marcia Clark (who now has a radio talk show here in town) was pretty much guaranteed to tick off a panel of working class jurors.
posted on November 16, 2000 02:56:42 PM new
The look on Robert Kardasian's face when the verdict was read was very telling. His jaw dropped and he looked absolutely stunned. His best friend was arrested for murder, and he knew that he did it, but he decided to stand by him, hoping that justice would ultimately prevail.
I watched the entire trial and when the jury was deliberating, they asked for one clarification, the limo driver's timeline. I remember thinking, good for them, they are dismissing all of the high drama and going for the one simple piece of evidence that puts the lie to whole defense-that OJ didn't have time to commit the murder. Boy, did they fool me.
posted on November 16, 2000 03:05:32 PM new
Very Guilty.
I think part of the problem was his celebrity status. It seems many of the law enforcement people involved were just star-struck.
And it seems his vow to not rest until he finds the "real killer" ended when he got home and looked in the mirror. Although he's obviously searched every golf course in America to find him.
******************
That's Flunky Gerbiltush to you!
posted on November 16, 2000 07:35:50 PM new
DNA is not overwhelming evidence when it is poorly presented (puts jury to sleep) and when one of the key witnesses discussing the evidence handling gives incredibly stupid answers on the stand.
________
I never had one, and I didn't want one, and I don't, so now I do...
posted on November 16, 2000 08:46:58 PM new
netlawful,
DNA does put people to sleep if not presented accurately. However; in this case the DNA was only part of it. What still amazes me is that the jury did not understand the blood trail, the person who showed up when OJ was supposed to be ready for the limo, the bronco parked in a hurried fashion on the curb with blood on the door, the past abuse of Nicole etc etc etc.
The jury still loved the juice, wanted to save a member of their community, did not understand DNA evidence (not their fault, presented poorly)did not feel his lies about the time and where he was and how he injured his hand made any difference etc.
One juror was interviewed the other night prior to the mini-series and she had the audacity to say she thought the defandant's attorneys were adorable. HELLO - two people were brutally murdered with two children sleeping in the home and you focused on the adorableness of the defandant and his attorneys.
The whole thing just sickens me that this monster is still walking the streets, er I meant golf courses. He does not even have the common sense to embrace the community that saved him or to make any effort at all to look for the killers as he committed to do. Pathetic excuse for a human being.
posted on November 16, 2000 09:37:04 PM new
Of course he's guilty!
And he vowed to spend the rest of his life finding the "real" murderer! Can you imagine for an instant that if he didn't do it, he wouldn't care desperately to find the person who murdered his children's mother, even if he had been fighting with her? How would that look to his children?! Actually, how *does* it look to his children?!
As one wag put it, "Yes, O.J. is vigorously pursuing the true murderer of his wife on every golf course in America."
I watched the whole trial and was so sickened at the verdict that I went to a weekly auction nearby because I couldn't stand to stay in my own house. The auction hooked me and here I am, buying and selling.
Yes, I saw Kardashian's face. Very telling.
Yes, the DNA didn't lie.
And I thought the limo driver's testimony was pivotal, since he had absolutely nothing to gain by lying. (In fact, limo drivers probably think highly of their celebrity customers.)
I think the jury, for the most part, wanted him to be innocent for lots of reasons and disliked Marcia Clark as a white #*!@ from the beginning so reached for "reasons" to acquit. How great that the civil trial jury thought differently.
I am a liberal and have spent a lot of my adult life trying to help minorities. The jury verdict set me back a long way; I found myself thinking negatively about blacks and hated myself for doing it. The jurors who spoke up later seemed rather ignorant. It has taken me all this time to get back to my former mindset.
Bad Karma is going to get him for sure. Just watch.
posted on November 17, 2000 11:33:18 AM new
Boysmommy3, your arguments are of the type often put forth by people who want to do away with our current jury system. Yes, jurors do sometimes make decisions based on stupid reasons like an adorable attorney or a sympathetic (or unsympathetic) defendant. If you have seen the movie "12 Angry Men" you've pretty much got the picture. Rule one for attorneys is that a jury is NOT a logical body but an emotional one. Attorneys know this and should know how to work with it. It was blatantly clear in the Simpson case that Simpson's attorneys understood this fact and the prosecution either didn't understand it or couldn't apply it. If the prosecution had done a good job and the jury still decided the case on OJ's fame or on his goodlooking attorneys or whatever, then I would be more upset. But given the way the prosecution ran its case I think the jury's decision was fully understandable, although I disagree with it.
________
I never had one, and I didn't want one, and I don't, so now I do...
