Why didn't OJ have more wounds? I've always wondered how someone murders two people with a knife and only gets a little scratch.
[deleted] ยท 181 points ยท Posted at 01:59:41 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Idk, honestly, but my guess is O.J. was an amazing athlete with quick reflexes, sneaking up on the victims would give him the edge he needed to stay mostly unharmed.
Yeah I mean he was one of the best running backs of all time and he's a pretty big guy so he'd make a pretty formidable opponent, especially over 20 years ago.
I honestly believe if he snuck up on both of them he'd have taken out the man first. The man wouldn't have had defense wounds like he did.
But I dont believe he snuck up on them. This was a crime of passion and goldman was an unlucky witness that tried to help her and paid for it. However the hell OJ got rid of the bloody clothes is admirable in itself.
texum ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 09:21:07 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Quick change at home, put 'em in a bag, and... well, there are 2 things I think (or, more accurately, remember thinking back in '94 & '95) are the most likely possibilities - either he ditched that bag in the trash on the way to or at the airport, or he had someone take care of it.
I kinda lean towards the 2nd one. Airports were a much different world in 1994 than at any time since 9/11, and it's certainly possible that one could have put a bag into the trash and not have aroused suspicion. It would then move untraceably to a landfill. But this was OJ Simpson in 1994 - beloved former football player, goofy movie actor, and network football broadcaster. There was way too much of a chance of him being noticed, and of someone digging his stuff out of the trash for a souvenir, or just calling attention to him. No, I think it's likely that he had the bag taken care of by someone. I even have a suspicion who it was... find a clip (I can't search at work, most video sites are blocked) of the verdict being read, and look at the expression on Robert Kardashian's face. Obviously, I have no way of knowing what he was thinking at that time, but that face looks suspiciously to me like that of someone who has gotten away with something.
I thought Rob K. looked that way because he, personally, came to believe that OJ was guilty due to the undeniable evidence. The DNA statistic 1 in some billion chance that it's not OJ's blood really hit him hard.
You can't admire the amount of work required to cover up the evidence?
Ignore the emotion you have about the crime itself.
wren42 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:22:53 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I don't think "admire" is the right word, no. I get what you are saying-- the act can be formidable or even impressive-- but to admire is to look up to or revere as something you want to emulate, and I don't think that's the way I'd characterize a murder cover up.
He also had a second career as an actor, and he took it seriously, so he had taken fighting and weapons tactics classes with experts. A lot of actors, especially those that want to be in action movies (such as ex-athletes like OJ) get that training.
I'm gonna guess the victims were more afraid than anything and just sticking their hands out instead of actually fighting back.
edit: And they were probably weakened and in shock/pain after the first stab or two, and reasonably so. According to "The People v. O. J. Simpson: American Crime Story" they were covered in stab wounds.
t4p2016 ยท 11 points ยท Posted at 03:09:14 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Goldman had wounds on his hands that looked to have been caused by punching someone
Dr. Henry Lee, the world renowned criminologist who worked for the defense, actually offered his services to the prosecution but they said no because his theory was there were two people who committed the crime. Among other information, he said because of the nature of some of the stab wounds to Ron Goldman, someone had to be holding him while he was being stabbed. Thus two people committing the murder and why OJ didn't have more wounds.
As someone practising filipino knife fighting i can assure you if the victim is unarmed its pretty much sealclubbing time. If you cant back out your dead.
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 02:37:40 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Isn't it a common knowledge if leather is soaked in blood and let dry that the leather shrinks? Why didn't the prosecution bring this up? There's something royally fish about this entire shnanigans from LAPD's comical handling of the evidence to Furman's (sp?) involvement/testimony and the inept prosecution as if their hands were tied behind their backs. Feels like this was just a ploy by those behind the curtain to distract the masses from (fill in your conspiracy theory here).
Alright but what if OJ really didn't do it? He was found not guilty after all. If he really didn't do it than these people are berating him with that civil suit and this book while whoever did do it goes free and will continue to go free because they're making people believe OJ did it.
(OJ, or at the very least his son, probably did it tho)
EDIT: I DONT GIVE A SHIT IF HE DID IT OR NOT STOP REPLYING SAYING HE DID NO ONE CARES IT HAPPENED TWENTY FUCKING YEARS AGO AND HES BEEN IN JAIL ANYWAY FUCK OFF ALL OF YOU
Really? The evidence was pretty insurmountable. DNA evidence in his house, car and property. His DNA evidence all over the scene and he had a brand new wound on his hand from where the blood made the knife slippery and his hand slipped onto the blade. I'm no lawyer, but that's all the evidence I'd need. It was more about the times in which it took place. L.A. was a pressure cooker of lots of recent, racist shit going down towards black neighborhoods. Rodney King, Rampart division was going nuts. They were also threatening Rodney-King-style riots if OJ was found guilty.
He went free because the LAPD royally fucked up their handling of the physical evidence. It's not enough that someone is guilty, they must also be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Not enough people know about this. They are all convinced the verdict came down race/money. The LAPD and the prosecuting team dropped the ball in this case.
It didn't matter what the evidence was. That was jury nullification pure and simple. Mark Furhman used the n-word so the jury was going to pay back white people
Johnnie Cochrane was worth every penny and did his job: reveal even a little bit of reasonable doubt, then by law the defendant must be acquitted. Yeah, you have all the evidence you'd need to personally judge him guilty, but not technically a persuasive enough collection of evidence to convict him.
But he lost the civil suit. Which likely means the average person (or at least juror) thinks/thought there's a > 50% chance he did it, but the crime jury simply did not see a high enough probability to put him in jail for it. They almost certainly would have taken 6:5 odds if making bets.
It would be a shitty place to go to prison simply by being proven by a preponderance of the evidence.
But ppl who can't afford the likes of Cochrane do get locked up in prison all the time with lesser of evidence than OJs case. So, it is a shitty place.
Your whole comment is contingent on the basis that presumption of innocence is given. I'm just using Japan as an example to say that some places don't recognize the same rights. I'm simply giving a commentary on society as you did in your last line.
Iirc, the courts in Britain, the burden of proof is on the defendant, not the plaintiff. This is for civil trials, not criminal but still backwards from the American system.
Your whole comment is contingent on the basis that presumption of innocence is given.
This entire thread is about the OJ Simpson case and the criminal trial held in the US judicial system.
It's "contingent." It just is.
It's like coming into a thread about terminal velocity and coming out of nowhere saying, "well, on Mars the acceleration of free-falling objects is this, and when you consider the atmosphere then terminal velocity is this."
It's like saying "well, your calculation of terminal velocity is contingent on Earth's acceleration of free-falling bodies."
And I'd say, "no not really contingent. It's just using Earth's acceleration."
I'm just using Japan as an example to say that some places don't recognize the same rights.
But...why?
My post isn't political or geopolitical or about other countries.
Japan isn't so much an example of something different that it's more an outlier and exception than merely a place doing things differently.
Presumption of innocence is regarded as an INTERNATIONALhuman right by UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Meaning Japan is an exception to the rule.
Here are some countries that presume innocence:
Iran
Canada
Colombia
France
Italy
Most of Europe via the Council of Europe (Belgium, Denmark, UK, Ireland, Iceland, Greece, Turkey, Norway, Sweden, and 47 total European countries TOTAL)
Russia
South Africa
New Zealand
Brazil
Romania
Poland
Philippines
Spain
South Korea
US
China does NOT presume innocence NOR guilt
Japan is backwards from most of the world.
I'm simply giving a commentary on society as you did in your last line.
What? NO. I made no such "commentary" that is remotely related to Japan's system.
I barely made commentary about anything. My "commentary" boils down to this: judging criminals using the standard of proof for civil trials would be terrible.
I only said that the US' standard of proof for civil trials ("by preponderance of the evidence") would make the US criminal justice system horrible.
It would make any country's criminal justice system terrible regardless of presumption of innocence or guilt.
Even Japan, since you want to talk about Japan.
And you can't have two sides prove their side by preponderance of the evidence. That's like two sides proving their argument has over a 50% chance of being right -- which obviously surpasses 100%. You cannot have someone who is probably guilty and probably innocent.
Probable cause (for arrest) is close to "preponderance of the evidence." Like the police pulling someone over for changing lanes while making a late turn signal, and that person actually had one drink that night and had a 0.02
BAC, and they arrest him because he made a traffic violation and was under the influence -- which is arguably probable cause. The DA then says "if he didn't drink, would he have put on his signal on late? If you think that, by preponderance of the evidence, he was driving under the influence, then you must convict him." What can the defense say? He'd have to say "I often forget to put my signal on when sober." God forbid he run a stop sign or red light with a 0.01 BAC -- the prosecution could convict him simply by getting him to admit than 99% of the time he doesn't run red lights, and then ask the jury what the chances it was just a coincidence that the one time he runs a red light is when he drinks 0.01BAC worth, which is by preponderance of the evidence. Beyond reasonable doubt would acquit him because it would be reasonable to have doubt that the two are connected.
Sure. I'm "grateful" I'm not in Japan. But I'm not a criminal anyway.
I'm grateful I'm not in Syria, or living in war-torn Africa, or in Antarctica, or in North Korea. There are some places in the Middle East that cut your hand off if you steal! I'm so grateful I don't live there, because I don't want my hand cut off if/when I steal or get framed for it!
Really, I'm grateful I'm not in a lot of places. Hell, I'm grateful I'm not in many US states. But that's just as irrelevant.
My thinking is, no question he was there and caused the murders to happen, but the prosecution never established a timeline. Having been on a jury, it is very tough to convict if the pieces are not fitting.
Nersen ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 02:33:45 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The case also got dragged into murky territory when the defense claimed OJ was framed because of race, also throwing everything they could at the evidence so it seemed that the police were deliberately framing evidence, in front of a mostly black jury. The evidence was there, like the receipt for the gloves found, the blood in the car, OJ wound etc. But it came down to race for many of the jurors, and we have to respect that even though it does not seem correct.
I think context matters in this situation. The OJ trial was just a couple years after the Rodney King beatings. LAPD weren't exactly loved by the black community.
I understand the context, we are going through a similar issue today with BLM and cops. But understanding context and "respecting" the jury's ruling, ESPECIALLY based on the context, are two completely different things
It's highly unlikely that it was possible for the evidence to be planted that way.
[deleted] ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 04:26:57 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yes, highly unlikely, but I wouldn't say beyond all reasonable doubt. I could never convict someone with that out there. It brings everything into question.
The community has had so many innocent individuals rights trampled on and had a system built to work against them for so long I can kind of understand why they get it wrong sometimes and defend violent criminals in their own community.
The police frame black men for narcotics or gun violence a lot in their communities. Why would they think the OJ Trial was about blind lady justice fairly weighing all the facts?
Yeah the issue is trust towards the justice system and law enforcement. There is no trust because of an accumulation of historic incidents such as the police protecting the KKK (and sometimes being part of it), lynchers being found not guilty, etc.
Distrust and anger to that is a normal human reaction.
Insurmountable evidence doesn't matter if the prosecution is inept. Also being acquitted doesn't exactly mean your innocent, merely that it can't be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that you did the crime. There is alot of grey area between those two things.
Even wikipedia says that socks found in Simpson's room had Brown's blood on them. The chance of the DNA not being his is 1 in 21 billion. That's more than 3 times the world's population. Where are you pulling the 10% from, outta your ass?
Jozer99 ยท 29 points ยท Posted at 02:31:29 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
It would be pretty horrifying if he were innocent. However, he has confessed to the murders multiple times:
To friends in private shortly after the criminal trial
On a TV special around 2000
He wrote a @#$% book about how he did it and tried to profit from it
Nobody forced him to do any of those things, and they certainly didn't force him to do all three. If he really wanted to proclaim his innocence, perhaps he might have taken a different tact. The only time he presented himself as innocent was before and during his two trials, while his freedom (criminal trial) and fortune (civil trial) were on the line.
atguy07 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 04:14:54 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Do you have any sources for the first 2?
Jozer99 ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 11:00:33 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
That's what his lawyer said happened. Then OJ agreed. He had a ghost writer, like many people who can't actually write a decent readable book do. Has there been any proof otherwise? I'd love to see it if so.
Jozer99 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 11:02:32 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
If you were wrongly accused of a murder, would you agree to shill a book about how you were guilty?
The theory that his son did it is batshit. I've read about that and it all wraps up nicely until you then read the facts outside of the theory that contradict almost every point.
Sheeps ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 11:58:32 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I love when people say, "but OJ hired a lawyer for his son! That means the son did it!" Um ok, that's what any person with the means would do in that situation.
Tfish ยท 16 points ยท Posted at 02:28:23 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Well, he's not in jail for a double homicide and he's still wealthy so that's something.
I think the difference in OJ's trial as opposed to other people the public "feels" is guilty is that all the evidence really points in the guilty direction for OJ. He just happened to have amazing legal representation that was able to make the case that it's somewhere within the realm of reason that someone else could have done this crime. Years and a million investigations later, we know the evidence is heavily stacked against him more so than any other possible suspect.
I mean, even people like Casey Anthony who the whole country believed to be Satan incarnate has a substantially better sounding case for her innocence than OJ does when you really get into the facts of everything.
Very much so. Even after watching Cuba Gooding Jr.'s impression of him on American Crime Story, it really just didn't seem likely that he didn't do it.
That happens sometimes because the evidentiary standard used in civil cases is a 'preponderance of the evidence', meaning that if it is more likely than not that the accused engaged in the proscribed conduct, then the accused will be liable.
In criminal cases, the evidentiary standard used is 'beyond a reasonable doubt.' This is a much higher standard.
I agree with you. Sorry for the idiots who can't see the possible injustice and would rather berate you for thinking outside the box instead of immediately jump to defending their opinions.
The OJ Simpson case is pretty rock solid on evidence. It's always been an issue on racial tensions impacting the response to the evidence. Not so much a clean look at all the evidence.
Cyhawk ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:44:55 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You mean all the evidence collected with reporters and random people on the street were allowed to be during a fresh crime scene? Some of which had been taken by said random people?
What if the Earth is flat? What if we're living in the Matrix?
Come on, educate yourself just a little before pedaling a idea. There are such things as stupid questions, you know.
Watch the ESPN doc - it has an interview with one of OJ friends who says that OJ confessed to him, "If the bitch didn't answer the door with a knife she'd be alive."
Of course. Curiosity and asking questions and skepticism are important to any question of objective truth.
Suggesting OJ didn't murder his wife and Ron Goldman is not a topic where you should just "play Devil's advocate", at least not without educating yourself on the basics of the case.
For fucks sake, there are jurors that have publicly said they regret their decision and would make a different decision in hindsight. Not to mention the jurors that have suggested they only voted to acquit him based on the fact that OJ was black, the victims were white, and the jurors were upset about the race riots in LA.
Acquitting OJ for murder was a very strong, clear message from the black community of LA in response to the Rodney King beating. But don't take it from me - listen to the words of the jurors as interviewed in ESPN's OJ: Made in America.
Saying he "probably" did it is indistinguishably bad as saying he didn't do it.
He murdered them "beyond a reasonable doubt", but the jury committed one of the most famous cases of jury nullification in the history of US justice.
It's a shame, but honestly I find it hard to blame the jury, either. They got caught up in the zeitgeist of racial tensions and they decided to make a point.
But let's not mince words over what happened. OJ murdered Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman. It's a fact, regardless of how a jury of our peers judged. Rejecting the fact and holding out skepticism just makes you look ignorant or intentionally uninformed.
"Even speculating at the possibility of him not doing it is as bad as saying he's completely innocent."
Fuck off with that bullshit. No one is saying he did nothing wrong here. As I already said, I don't care if he did it or not. it doesn't effect me in the slightest. I only said probably because IMO, without a criminal conviction it isnt a fact. Probably could mean anything from 1% to 99% chance he did it.
You quoted a phrase that I didn't write which is disingenuous, at best. I didn't say what you quoted.
I said you shouldn't suggest a conclusion opposite of what all evidence "beyond a reasonable doubt" would lead any person to conclude. I didn't say you shouldn't speculate, I said you shouldn't speculate without educating yourself on the basics of the case.
It seems that you haven't educated yourself about the case beyond what you've heard or remember. You could do yourself a favor by doing so before commenting about what might or might not be true regarding the case.
Also I would suggest that you don't use rulings by a jury of peers as your bar for what is or isn't a fact. Objective reality is true regardless of judicial rulings.
OJ Simpson murdered Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman. It's a fact. If you're unsure, then you should pursue further education on the topic. I know, I know, he was not convicted. That is a completely separate topic, which truly is an interesting study on the US Judicial system and US race relations.
Sorry this hasn't been the most pleasant exchange. I'm sure we'd be friends if we just shared a beer.
Honestly though, if you have some time, check out ESPN's OJ: Made In America. It's a fascinating 5 part documentary. It's horrifying at times, but definitely captivating the entire way through. Best part is that, at least for me, it made me really think about race relations and how far we've come vs. how much more we still have to go. It's a really difficult subject for our civilization.
As for race relations, I wish the world would just take a step back and laugh at itself a bit. Instead of making racism taboo, make it funny so people realize how ridiculous it is.
It's not a fact bro. Extremely likely yes. But not a fact. And chill the fuck out. The guy your responding to said he agrees that OJ more than likely did it. Here's the thing though, all it takes sis a reasonable doubt. If you really know as much about this case as you say you do you would know that the defense attorneys demonstrated that reasonable doubt through out the trial.
Do you agree that it either happened or it didn't? If so, then whether it happened or not is a fact right?
If OJ confessed to a friend "If the bitch didn't answer the door with a knife she'd still be alive", then it happened right?
OJ did it - beyond a reasonable doubt. I agree though, the prosecutor didn't prove that. At least one juror says that exact line in the documentary, and that's why he was acquitted. But the jury didn't have all the information that we have at this time. And the same juror that says the prosecutor didn't prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, also says she would convict him now given the additional information she has gathered since the ruling.
So what - just because he wasn't convicted we are supposed to hold society in a time freeze of information, where OJ "might" not have killed? Even when the jurors who convicted him express regret at their decision? Why?
No that's not the definition of fact. Just because you want to state as a fact doesn't make it so. I don't even know what your arguing?!?? Everyone agrees he probably did it. But to say it's a FACT is ridiculous. Did you see him do it with your own eyes? Did anybody else??
Gonna sound like I'm being contradictory for the sake of being so but please hear me out when I play devils advocate. The jurors saying they would reverse their decisions after they were released is exactly the reason we sequester juries. They were influenced by the media and having juries exposed to media that has already made up its mind without the facts presented in a court of law would be more dangerous than the outcome of any one case. Do I agree with the decision they made to acquit him? No. But that's more on the prosecution team than anyone.
What if OJ really didnt do it? Ahahagahahahahahahahhahahahah hahahahahahah takes long breath @aaaaaaaaaaAAAaaaahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahah
I forgot... where people post absurdly elaborate comments about things with which they are uninformed, then lash out in a fit of self consciousness and clear mental instability when they get told off.
While I agree part of me doesn't like it. I'm 99.99% sure OJ did it, but in the 00.01% world where he did not do it, having a book titled this aggressively seems wrong.
Yeah if someone brutally murdered someone close to me, 99.99% or even 51% would be enough for me to condemn them personally. This isn't even mention how he was an abusive husband and it's not like they followed him home with a gun and shot the bastard. They changed the title of a book they owned the rights to.
NOW AVAILABLE the board game. Start with your tiny Bronco playing piece on the word "HE", draw and answer question cards, but only advance when you lie. Whoever gets to to the "DID IT" space first wins
Is that proper syntax? I just started learning spanish and i thought El was the masucline form of "the". Oh wait, is "El lo hizo" The cleaning lady? Wait, it wouldn't be though because it'd be La lo hizo right? So it is "He did it"?
Ah shit, i'm stupid. I forgot words can have multiple meanings. I was thinking El = the because of "El nino(squiggly over 2nd n)" is the boy, but forgot it can also mean he.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 01:49:56 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Out of curiosity, why doesn't it say OJ's name on it as an author? Also did he receive any royalties for writing the book or did the verdict on the civil trial make it so he literally didn't receive anything? Cause I don't get why he would still release the book. Sorry for all the questions lmao
itty53 ยท 624 points ยท Posted at 17:04:49 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Because OJ is not the author. This post is a bit misleading.
See the wiki page. Pablo Fenjves wrote it, claiming OJ collaborated. OJ denies collaboration. OJ claims Fenjves paid him $600k to say he collaborated, and to perform an interview. But OJ later claimed he was paid to say he collaborated, and that Fenjves basically wrote it all himself (marking it simple "true-crime" fiction, not a confession at all).
OJ's $600k payment is legit, it happened, but why is the debate. In any case, he kept that payment -- that wasn't "book sales" -- and the sales for the book went to the Goldmans. That being said, OJ probably never would've seen a penny of it anyway. Because again, he didn't write it. He didn't publish it. He just said he did.
250tdf ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 01:35:35 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Actually that was Nicole's Ferrari. She had a Ferrari Mondial and a Jeep Cherokee. The Mondial is what Goldman would drive around in. OJ also had a Ferrari but his was a Testarossa. Source: Am a ridiculous car aficionado.
I'm a car aficionado too, I never heard that. Still, what are the odds OJ might have felt his cash was backing Nicole's lifestyle including her Mondial? (frankly I don't like either of those models much and the engine in the Testarossa has to come out for cambelts every three years, then again OJ had the coin for that)
250tdf ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 13:04:48 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yep. She was a mom so she had the four seater Ferrari. License plate was "L84AD8" (his TR plate was JUICES) which made it very obvious that Goldman was driving her car. I'm sure OJ felt that way, mainly because he was very controlling, but as I understand it he was required to pay the car insurance on her cars so I'm sure that added to the rage. (If you're curious it was a white 86 Mondial 3.2.)
Don't forget that that engine out service on the TR is a $20,000 service!
I once considered a 360 Modena, now one bucket list item is to simply run a few laps in say a 458 next time I'm in Vegas. Twenty, k every three years, maybe next life I didn't achieve well enough for that in my current go around. Ferrari cars are like boats, it's not always the the acquisition cost, it's the everything else.
That's the most ironic part, he could have let her do her thing, picked himself up another groupie and taken the commercials and bit movie parts, but noooooooo.
It's about the life in your years, not the years in your life, right?
I believe it's called a severance package...
itty53 ยท 144 points ยท Posted at 19:45:10 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Not exactly. The publicist got screwed, which is just and fair, in my eyes. They stood to profit off the dramatized depiction of a brutal crime that they named in such a way as to rub it in the faces of the victims. They were the shitheads in the book fiasco. I dunno if OJ did it or not, but it's not really relevant to the civil suit surrounding the book when you think about it. It's about profiting off the publishing of a sensationalized telling of a story that has real victims alive today. Who did the crime the story is based on is irrelevant.
They would've paid the ghostwriter prior to the controversy to write the work, and ghostwriters don't usually get big royalty fees. OJ never stood to profit off the book itself, if he wasn't actually involved.
The Goldman's renaming and redesign of the cover was tacky, in my opinion, but I understand why they did it. They believe their sons killer got away with it, and they have proved it in at least a civil court. They know, they've confirmed in court that they're not liable for slander when they assert "OJ killed our son". He can't sue, they already proved his liability in the civil trial.
Seems like you're saying that you are always right if you experience tragedy even if it's blatantly, factually incorrect. Does that mean I can misrepresent things because my best friend and uncle were murdered? Why have I been bothering to live in reality all this time?
xHeero ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 01:55:17 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You should find another situation argue this point rather than arguing it for OJ Simpson.
arpan3t ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:03:20 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
That's incorrect. You either misunderstood my comment, or are purposely mischaracterizing it. Either way, you responded with a strawman. As for you being in touch, or not, with reality, or you choosing to misrepresent things like you are here, you do you. It's your life.
It's impossible to believe OJ didn't do it if you actually read the court transcripts. That jury was stunningly bad, through no fault of their own. They were manipulated, left without TV and magazines and pop culture for a year, could only see their family members 4 hours a week... If you haven't seen "The People Vs OJ Simpson" (which is maybe 85% accurate and takes liberties with the timeline if events but no liberties at all with the actual physical evidence) or read the book, your doubts will be squashed. OJ unequivocally did it.
There's good reason jurors shouldn't see media during a trial. They should ONLY be influenced by what is said in the courtroom.
itty53 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:05:59 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Thing is I wasn't there. Everything I read or see is third hand. So I just don't know. I have my own opinions and beliefs but they're just that. Nothing that adds to the conversation. I'm just staying unaffiliated here because I think it's a distraction from the topic of the book.
To me the fascinating events came after the murders. The murders themselves are kind of generic murders, albeit white people in Brentwood. The trial, the media storm, the social anxiety it caused and brought to the surface: that was what drew me. I remember it happening, vaguely, but I was a kid. I didn't understand a thing, much less even know who OJ was. I didn't get interested in it until a decade after.
Now this book, on the other hand, had tabloid on it from the start so I never even read it. But the controversy around the book and subsequent legal battles were interesting, to me at least.
They believe it and literally everyone else believes it because it's a thing that happened. That OJ's guilt wasn't proved in criminal court is incidental - he did it.
itty53 ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 02:17:52 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Aight
[deleted] ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 22:07:16 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
itty53 ยท 28 points ยท Posted at 22:10:12 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
No one who'd lost a civil suit that basically stated "he's responsible for the Zodiac killings" stood to eventually profit off the movie (and OJ very well could've profited off the book later on had the Goldmans not sued).
The suspect the movie fingered had even already passed away, years prior to the film's release.
Thats weird right.. how can you found innocent of a crime in a criminal court and guilty in a civil suit.(I know lower bar of proof) but how does that prevent you from being free of slander or libel. If he legally didn't kill him in a criminal case wouldn't that be the standard of proof for a slander case.
shozy ยท 51 points ยท Posted at 22:05:35 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The criminal case only fails to prove guilt it doesn't prove innocence so it doesn't affect the civil case that way.
last time i checked not guilty means innocent. so yes the criminal case proved his innocence by finding him not guilty.
edit: wow its truly embarrassing how many people don't understand how definitions work. In the us criminal law there is only guilty and not guilty while yes some countries have multiple definitions the us does not. Hence when if you google innocent the first definition is found not guilty of a crime. Its like people don't fucking realize you can be innocent and still have committed the crime. innocent is strictly a legal term and no definition of the world has anything to do with anything other than found NOT GUILTY in a court of law.
There's a very specific reason we say "not guilty," instead of "innocent." Innocence must be proven, but "not guilty" is just a rejection of a guilt claim. Which is actually very important in some situations - for example in the US you can be "not guilty" of first degree murder but still found guilty of other related crimes - that's because you weren't "innocent," the prosecution just didn't prove one of their charges. You can even be chargedin a different court (say, a federal court, if found not guilty of state charges) for the same crime/event, if it is criminal in both jurisdictions.
So "not guilty" and "innocent" should not be equated, because legally they're very different things.
Drigr ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 01:22:14 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Out of curiosity, why is "innocent until proven guilty" a thing then?
Because if "guilty until proven innocent" were a thing, then if you accuse me of stealing, it would be on me to prove that I didn't - and it's a hell of a lot harder (or impossible) to prove a negative. If you hated someone, it'd be really easy to cause harm to them with charges that they couldn't easily contest. If I had an enemy, I could accuse them of murder for every death listed in the paper, and it'd be up to them to waste time and money proving that none of those deaths (old age, flu, skiing accident, etc) were actually a cunning murder.
So we assume that everyone is innocent, and force the plaintiff or the state to prove that they aren't - this gives everyone the fairest starting point and ensures that people aren't taken to trial unless there's a real good reason for it (usually!).
And of course, if you do get taken to trial, you're still presumed innocent, which means that the prosecution has to work really hard to prove that you did it. Not just "maybe he did it" or "probably," but "I don't see how there's any chance he didn't do it." Which is how the OJ case ended - there was plenty of evidence to say "damn, he probably did it," but there was also reason to suspect "man, those racist cops may have set him up," and the defense worked hard to push that narrative and create enough doubt to get that "not guilty" verdict.
no legally there is no difference between not guilty and innocent because legally in the us there is no innocent verdicts. innocent is the legal standard in which you enter a trial and guilt must be proven. Therefor you are innocent until proven guilty.
You are presumed innocent, it's a starting point. And there are no innocent verdicts, but that doesn't mean that they're identical terms.
Here's an example: I murder my wife and leave the bloody knife under my bed. A police officer with a hunch enters my house illegally and finds the knife.... But it isn't admitted as evidence, because it's been obtained illegally. Without that piece of evidence, the prosecution can't prove their claim, and I'm found "not guilty."
But that doesn't mean I'm innocent of the crime. By no stretch of the word "innocent" am I - I'm only not guilty due to the incompetence of my accusers. Any my accusers who were privy to that illegal evidence know without a shadow of a doubt that I'm guilty, though they have no legal way to prove it. And in other courts (like civil court), I can certainly be held liable for that death and my "guilt" in it, though it's not a criminal charge.
omg...You seriously need to google legal definition and the regular definition of innocent. Tell me which of those means you committed a crime but it wasn't proven in a court of law.
Yes you can commit a crime and be innocent.
"A finding of actual innocence, as that term has come to be used in federal habeas corpus jurisprudence, is not the equivalent of a finding of not guilty by a jury or by a court in a bench trial.โ Lambert v. Blackwell, 134 F.3d 506, 509 (3d Cir. 1997). [emphasis mine]
To be considered innocent (or, properly, actually innocent), you have to go above and beyond simply disproving claims of guilt, you have to actually prove your claim of innocence.
Defendants often claim actual innocence when appealing criminal convictions. To prove actual innocence, the defendant must submit additional evidence that undermines the court's confidence in the verdict reached by the trier of fact. Appellate rules normally require that this evidence must not have been available to the defendant at the time of the trial.
Therefor your definition is for someone who has already been found guilty of said crime and has nothing to do with what we are talking about. its like you just ignored the proof i provided and realized you are wrong and can't handle it.
No, I'm saying that innocence is a completely different claim than "not guilty," and that it's not a part of a standard criminal trial. I never once said that it had to be a part of an initial criminal proceeding. You've provided absolutely no proof other than some google definitions and your own opinion - as many others in this thread are pointing out.
The word "innocent" should not be uttered in any sense in a criminal trial, and should not be equated with anything that goes on in criminal trial by jury. It's a separate proof that's managed in a completely different way. And if we're talking about the OJ trial, innocence has never been approached in any sense - all that's happened since the "not guilty" verdict is a civil proceeding that placed OJ far from the "innocent" side of preponderance.
jesus christ dude, its clear you really don't understand how this works.
I've shown you multiple legal definition and dictionary definitions. The entire point of innocence is a legal standard and has nothing to do with the fucking act. You could be on tape murdering someone and if that tape gets thrown out and you get off. You are innocent. it has nothing to do with the actual crime but the courts ruling. Just like you could not commit a crime and be guilty of said crime. it happens all the time. You are considered guilty until proven innocent.
THE WORD INNOCENT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ACT OF COMMITTING SAID CRIME BUT WHAT THE RESULTS OF WHAT HAPPENS IN A COURT CASE.
Lawyer here... you're wrong. When someone is charged with a crime, they are found guilty or not-guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This does not inform of someone's innocence as "innocence" is the default standing of a free person. I see also that you've quoted the term "actual innocence" below which has a higher bar of reasonable doubt. A person does not need to prove that they are "actually innocent" in order to be found not-guilty. They are two different terms. The court doesn't care if someone is innocent of a crime, unless they've been found guilty and are appealing the guilty verdict, it only cares if someone's guilt can be proven, again, beyond a reasonable doubt.
Please show one fucking citation to back up.your argument. Lol "lawyer" if you were any good you'd know you are wrong. Fyi actual innocence only exist in appeals cases where they were already found guilty. Seriously the definition of the word is someone found not guilty of a crime.
Except I'm not wrong. You're right that actual innocence only exists is appeals cases. I mentioned that. And the definition of innocence is "when someone is not guilty of a crime" not "when someone is found not guilty of a crime". That's a small but hugely meaningful distinction. As I said, the court doesn't need someone charged with a crime to prove their innocence. It only needs someone to provide reasonable doubt to their guilt. The reason you need to prove innocence (properly termed "actual innocence") in an appeal is because you've already been found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and you need to discredit or cast doubt on the previous judgement.
That's why you're getting downvoted and why you're wrong.
Im getting downvoted because there is a lot of morons here who cant produce a citation to prove me wrong. While ive provided two that back up my side. Funny how there are zero citations against me.
Once again you are citing an incorrect citation by a random blog. Show me a legal document that says not guilty doesnt mean innocent. Both the legal definition and the dictionary definition back what I am saying.
No once again you lack reading comprehension. Its those tricky adjectives. You'll notice the word factually innocent which implies a world in which innocent is used outside a court of law which its not used outside a court of law to describe guilt but this argument keeps going around and around because apparently people enjoy arguing with legal definitions and dictionary definitions.
But let's do this how do you explain that innocent means in all dictionaries first definition. Found not guilty in a court of law.
I think you're the one that lacks reading comprehension. The adjectives are there for exactly the argument in question. Namely, there is a distinction between the legal term for "innocent" and "not-guilty". In much the same way that the word "theory" has different meaning to a layman than it does in a scientific context, "innocent" has a different context legally than it does in the way people would normally use the term or the way a dictionary would describe it. Until you show that an actual legal dictionary defines innocent as something besides a plea or a person, you can say that all dictionaries use that definition when legal dictionaries definitely do not. In fact, here's a link from Cornell that flat out says you're wrong. "Innocent" is not a legal term. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/innocent
No, the phrase "innocent until proven guilty" is simply a layman way of explaining the presumption of innocence that is at the foundation of the US judicial system. As I've stated several times, the legal system in the US does not afford innocence to someone, it assumes it. You're using a semantic definition of "innocent" and then claiming that it's the same as the legal definition when that's not at all the case. Of course the word "innocent" exists in the English language. There's just no legal definition of "innocent" because every one, legally, is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Also, the fact that you're equating both a legal textbook and a law dictionary explanation of innocence from Cornell law school with uslegal.com pretty much proves that you're either trolling or you're denser than a bag of bricks at the bottom of the ocean.
Let me get this straight the fact you can't understand something means I'm dumb. Your sources have basically said innocent isnt a legal term while my sources have said its simply the same as saying not guilty. Which there are 100s of dictionaries but clearly they dont mean shit and the fact its not the only website that backs up my side. While your side just says it's not a legal term which is correct and no one was arguing that.
But one thing is clear you are not a lawyer and Cornell's definition isnt their own but they use nolos definition which follows the same contusion you are having.
No, you're dumb because you clearly don't understand that there's a difference between legal use of a word and layman use of a word. You can think whatever you want. You're still wrong.
So what is someone legally called after they are arrested before trial starts?
shozy ยท 16 points ยท Posted at 23:06:24 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
last time i checked not guilty means innocent.
Correct.
so yes the criminal case proved his innocence by finding him not guilty.
Wrong. In the American and many other systems innocence is never proven, it is presumed. You are "innocent until proven guilty." So if a court fails to find you guilty, it is true to say in the eyes of the court you are innocent but it didn't prove that, it just always presumed that.
So going on from that if there's a subsequent civil case your situation isn't much different than if there was no criminal case. In both situations you are presumed innocent.
jesus christ dude. talk about semantics. its like you want to argue for the sake of argument. For legal purposes being found not guilty means you are innocent of said crime. Therefor if someone went around saying oj murdered their son they'd be guilty of slander. The slander trial doesn't become another murder trial with a lower burden of proof. His proof is that he was found not guilty in a criminal case.
shozy ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 23:44:13 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Well yeah it is semantics so is what you're saying, maybe you should look up the word semantics? (joking)
You are presumed innocent and then that presumption prevails when you are found not guilty.
So if it never went to trial and they went around saying OJ murdered their son they could just as likely be guilty of slander. If someone went around saying OJ murdered Elvis they'd be guilty of slander.
A not guilty verdict does not mean that public accusations that weren't slander before become slander, if they're slander then they're slander whether there has been a verdict or not.
innocence is legal standard. its the point you always exist until proven guilty. Since he was never proven guilty in a court of law for murdering them he is considered innocent. The civil trial doesn't matter in this case. This is why its such an interesting legal standard.
There's a real difference between being proven innocent and presumed innocent. A criminal trial sees the prosecution trying to prove the accused is guilty, the defense is not actively trying to prove innocence. They're trying to create reasonable doubt of guilt.
no there isn't because can't be proven innocent unless you have already been found guilty of a crime. You are always innocent until you are found guilty and then once you are found guilty you have to prove you are innocent. Therefor if you are found not guilty you are innocent. it has nothing to with you actually committing said crime and is a legal standard. Nothing more.
You need to double check. The two things are different. "Not guilty," just means that the government couldn't legally prove that he was guilty of the crimes that he was charged with.
Not in the US legal system. Not guilty means the prosecution was unable to prove your guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. After being found "Not Guilty", a person could fully admit to having committed the crime and the justice system would be unable to do anything about it.
Regarding OJ, the criminal case found him not guilty of two counts of murder. The civil case found him responsible for the deaths.
After being found "Not Guilty", a person could fully admit to having committed the crime and the justice system would be unable to do anything about it.
I'm no lawyer, but I'm pretty sure the defendant admitting to the crime after the trial could be used as new evidence in a new trial. So you probably shouldn't tell the judge something like "Haha, you morons. I totally did it and you just let me go!" after getting your verdict. :-P
no hes not but you would know if you actually googled innocent. The first definition is found not guilty of a criminal offense. but hey i know its hard to research.
[deleted] ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 23:10:35 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
god help us that people don't understand that fact since there is no fucking proving innocence and innocence is presumed that not guilty is proof of innocence.
Lets try this simple logic test. You are presumed innocent. Ie you are start with a legal standard of innocent. You are found not guilty therefor you are still innocent of said crime.
Checked again still.means it. Tell you what show me one piece of evidence that backs up these idiotic theories. Innocent has nothing to do with the act itself and the criminal proceedings.
[deleted] ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 02:30:27 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Aww lol bitch who cant prove me wrong well number 5 you're wrong it must be embarrassing to not be able to establish a counter argument. Now fuck pathetic fuck.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:47:10 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yep you are still wrong you sad troll but hey since you so desperately need the last word and pathetically cant prove me wrong. Have it, show the world how pathetic you are.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 03:14:40 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
No that's not why but tell you what. If you can actually prove me wrong ill admit I'm wrong but when you can't because you won't be able too. You post a photo of yourself saying you are dumber than me.
American courts do not have a ruling for "innocent", merely "not guilty".
Even this is a bit of a misnomer, the court is not saying that you are innocent of the crime, only that the evidence presented before the court is not sufficient to prove that you committed the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.
For civil law, you only need to prove that it's more likely to be true. That's a HUGE difference.
Now, these are pulled out of thin air numbers, but the idea holds. In a criminal trial, they have to be 95% sure to win. In a civil case, it's 51% sure.
Again oj wasn't found guilty of murder in his civil trial. He was found liable in their negligent death. If you know anything about civil trials in the us they are a huge embarrassing joke especially when juries are involved.
A few things he wasn't found guilty of murder in a civil trial. He was found negligent and financially liable in their deaths. Now he was found not guilty of murder in a criminal case. The issue is does a liable verdict overrule a not guilty verdict in a slander case.
He was a public figure, so the standard to win a slander lawsuit is higher. He would have had to prove not only that what the Goldmans said wasn't true, but also that they knew they were lying. I think it's pretty obvious for various reasons that they truly believe OJ killed Ron, so they'd be safe.
The prosecution spectacularly botched what was a slam dunk case, and this problem was compounded by Judge Lance Ito's complete aversion to maintaining any order in the courtroom.
The suit filed in civil court was a wrongful death lawsuit filed by the Browns' counsel. Not a shock that private lawyers requiring a lower burden of proof proved more competent and got the result.
Edit: Nicole Brown's parents filed the lawsuit, not Ron Goldman's
Edited the edit: Rob to Ron
A good example of why racist police are a problem, as well. Had the cops approached this case more neutrally, OJ would quite possibly have been found guilty.
Of course, I have to wonder about other cases in that police department. The ones involving black men who were innocent and didn't have America watching the court room intently with an expensive lawyer on their side.
[deleted] ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 00:14:08 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
A jury determine that Simpson, more likely than not, killed them. As a result, it's hard for Simpson to win a libel suit, especially since he's a public figure.
and ghostwriters don't usually get big royalty fees
Idk if this is a valid generalization. Every ghostwriter's contract will be different. The guy who ghostwrote Donald Trump's The Art of the Deal got a $250k advance which was half of the total advance from the book ($500k, the other $250k going to Trump) and half of the royalties. Now his deal was a bit unprecedented as he wasn't very interested in writing the book for Trump so he just through that skyball offer and Trump accepted it. But idk if you can say ghostwriters don't get royalty fees, it depends.
He did it, and in the course of his crimes he also made his lawyer famous... Which set in motion the conditions to launch the 'careers' of the Kardashians and their 'fame' for nothing.
So, you see, OJ is guilty of more than just murder. He made the world a worse place overall.
J-Mosc ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 07:50:40 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
If you don't know if he did it or not, this tells me you haven't looked into any of the evidence of the case. It's clear he did it. The case was lost on technicality. If I told you my blood was all over the crime scene and DNA testing confirmed it but instead of one person putting the blood in the evidence bag and then the locker to be tested, that two people did it, so it doesn't count - would you ignore the fact that it was indeed my blood? There is literally a 100% chance he did it.
The head lady, I forget her name, but she was very high up and powerful in the publishing world, and she lost her job because of the book. I mean honestly she might have deserved it but...
They went after his entire estate, however OJ was very crafty at avoiding payment by hiding all his assets. To this day, he still owes the Goldmans millions.
did he also write a script for the two-part interview? It didn't seem to be made clear in the current version of the wikipedia article, but the interview was, in fact, filmed, it was just cancelled and never broadcast, but it was promoted, including airing of clips from the interview - one of which is quoted in the article, though it's identified as from "promotional material" and not explicitly as being a clip from the interviews. And the interviews were explicitly framed as promotions for the book. It strains credibility for me that he would go to that length for a one-time payoff of $600,000.
The emphasis on how he didn't actually write the book seems disingenuous to me as well; I mean, of course he didn't write it, nobody actually claimed he did personally write it. The debatable point is whether the book was based on the interviews, or the interviews were scripted and based on the already-written book.
The rights weren't held by OJ, they were held by a publisher that went bankrupt, then a judge allowed Ron Goldman's family to sue the bankruptcy holding firm for the rights.
OJ never had the rights. His name never appeared as an author on any version, it was always just presented like it was in his words. Him profiting was an unsubstantiated rumor from tabloids. He never stood to gain anything.
That's the most fucked up thing in my view. If he didn't write it, that's fucked up. It was just scummy people smelling blood and seeing green dollars.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:16:25 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
itty53 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:17:17 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
So how did the family win rights to the book in a civil suit if OJ actually wasn't a part of it? Was he paid $600k for perjury?
They won that ability in a suit because they are still considered his largest debtor. OJ still owes them from the civil suit that found him liable for the death of Ron Goldman. So when the publisher axed the book and wouldn't publish it and their portion of the rights reverted in total/were sold back to what was considered a shell corporation of OJ's, the Goldman's got the unedited script of the book and published it with the modification on the cover.
Pablo paid to be OJs ghost writer, Oj had been hunting for someone to write the book for him for about 3 or 4 years and Pablo thought he could make a killing with books sales.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:37:40 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
So like the opposite of the murder he said he didn't do.
Building off your point about OJ probably never seeing a dime of royalties, you're probably 100% correct. Son of Sam laws very strictly prohibit criminals from profiting from works of art they create or help create, particularly works of art related to their crimes.
itty53 ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 02:09:31 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
He wasn't convicted of a crime, so Son of Sam laws wouldn't have applied. The law doesn't apply to charges. Only convictions.
That was the whole premise behind the tabloids' assertion that he stood to profit off it. Because it was a legal truth that yeah, he could profit off interviews, books, rap cds, movies anything: he didn't get convicted.
And if and when he does, the Goldman family will sue for those profits, as OJ still owes them millions.
Aren't Son of Sam laws state specific? I know some states don't even allow for inmates to profit in any capacity beyond prison sanctioned work. I'm not sure what California's stipulate. Also, in the Son of Sam case wasn't the convicted trying to make money off paintings or something?
Best me to it. And you are 100% correct he won't isn't have ever seen a dime. Especially since he didn't even kill them. There are still a number of us that believe he didn't do it. The real truth is OJ's eldest is bisexual, was seeing Goldman and walked in on him and his ex step mom getting it on. Went into a rage and killed them both. OJ took the rap and was able to get off since the cops were raciest, incompetent and he was rich. Look at all the evidence now that you have heard my theory. The evidence doesn't line up to OJ. There are a number of parents that do whatever it takes to protect your children, including a murder rap. Maybe if the cops weren't concerned with pining it the Juice, planting evidence, saying raciest shit and fucking up DNA samples we would have gotten a conviction. I'm not saying he isn't a scumbag I'm just saying he didn't murder Simpson and Goldman.
Not sure I understand the question, as yes it has meaning. He was in a sexual relationship with Goldman. He walked in on his stepmother and Goldman engaged in intercourse and he flipped out, killing them both in a fit of jealous rage. At least that is one of the many, many theories.
itty53 ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 00:08:51 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I've heard similar theories, and I don't really buy the "OJ's son did it" story. I've heard also that Goldman was Nicole's coke-dealer. And it's not like OJ wasn't known to stalk Nicole in the time leading up to the murders. It's not like OJ hadn't been reported for domestic assault by Nicole on numerous occasions. I mean shit, you hear the 911 calls and Nicole sounds terrified of OJ. So I'm not making that call.
Really it's a question that we'll never get an answer to, but it makes for interesting legal drama.
[deleted] ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 00:16:38 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
All of those theories are fucking ridiculous.
itty53 ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 00:27:43 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
She was a known Coke head and she was a bit of a tramp. If you go back and listen and hear OJs side, she was doing blow and banging dudes with the kids in the other room. However, the juice was known for his temper and wasn't the gem he played up in the media. That also doesn't mean he committed a double homicide. What we should all rally take from this is how bad the cops fucked it all up. No matter what you believe or which theory you like best, the LAPD fucked up.... Royally. Police need to do better and do their jobs. The prosecutor was setup to fail from day one, they shouldn't have even gone forward knowing the cops were raciest, planted evidence and botched DNA. It's not like they found out mid trial the DNA was tainted or they had shit evidence. They were forced to go to trial and just kept the fuck train rolling
itty53 ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 00:27:34 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
She was a known Coke head and she was a bit of a tramp. If you go back and listen and hear OJs side, she was doing blow and banging dudes with the kids in the other room.
And yet that doesn't say "and thus she should've been murdered in brutal, cold blood". I mean really, dude, step back and think about exactly why saying that is at all important to your point.
The rest of your rant is basically just re-asserting your pet theory, and while that's fine, I've already responded to it.
Wow bro, didnt realize you were so emotionally connected to their deaths. You can believe whatever you want to believe, hopefully you sleep better tonight knowing that. I do need to understand though, outside of child rape, molestation and murder is when someone should be murdered? Like really dude? And if you felt that you already replied, then why reply again, to get the last word in? 20+ years and people are still upset that these murders weren't pinned on OJ.
itty53 ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 01:47:49 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
There was a "ghost writer" that OJ originally hired for it. I think it was just prior to publishing (or very late in the writing stage) that The Goldman family sued for the rights to the book. They won and published it with their own preface chapter.
rngtrtl ยท -43 points ยท Posted at 17:03:30 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
basically OJ wrote it, then 100% of the rights (including all royalties) went to the goldmans.
itty53 ยท 29 points ยท Posted at 17:15:27 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Uh, no, he didn't, and the wiki page confirms that immediately. Look at the cover of the book, even: In no way does it ever claim "By OJ Simpson".
rngtrtl ยท -41 points ยท Posted at 17:22:00 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
uhh, yes, yes he did. Go to the amazon link before you get all high and mighty.
Originally written by O.J. Simpson, this edition includes essays by the Goldmans and a member of the Goldman family legal team that reveal the fascinating story behind the bankruptcy case, the bookโs publication and the looming court proceedings, that would eventually lead to his conviction.
In 1994, Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson were brutally murdered at her home in Brentwood, California. O.J. Simpson was tried for the crime in a case that captured the attention of the American people, but was ultimately acquitted of criminal charges. The victims' families brought a civil case against Simpson, which found him liable for willfully and wrongfully causing the deaths of Ron and Nicole committing battery with malice and oppression. In 2006, HarperCollins announced the publication of a book in which O.J. Simpson told how he hypothetically would have committed the murders. In response to public outrage that Simpson stood to profit from these crimes, HarperCollins canceled the book.
The Goldman family views the book as his confession, and has worked hard to ensure that the public will read this book and learn the truth. This is O.J. Simpson's original manuscript, approved by him, with up to 14,000 words of additional key commentary.
itty53 ยท 43 points ยท Posted at 17:23:27 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Read the wiki page. He denies he wrote it, the ghostwriter claims he did.
Thanks, but I'm not getting "all high and mighty", I'm explaining the situation as it was documented. Amazon descriptions written by publishers themselves aren't a great primary source of information.
rngtrtl ยท -37 points ยท Posted at 17:25:33 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
neither is wiki...
itty53 ยท 36 points ยท Posted at 17:29:32 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
It's a whole lot better than simple marketing material, and has over 50 other primary references you're free to check into yourself.
Conversely, marketing material is meant specifically to encourage sales, not promote facts, and it's got zero references.
Saying "no no, he wrote it" is not backed up by the facts, that's just an emotion-driven opinion. The fact is that he denies writing it. He might have. But he denies it.
rngtrtl ยท -26 points ยท Posted at 17:35:41 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Author O. J. Simpson
Pablo Fenjves (ghostwriter)[1]
Dominick Dunne
The Goldman family
itty53 ยท 51 points ยท Posted at 17:39:25 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah, I gave you that link. You think I didn't read it first?
Here's your fucking quotes, direct from your fucking wiki page:
is a book by ghostwriter Pablo Fenjves and, purportedly, by O. J. Simpson
...
Screenwriter Pablo Fenjves, a witness at Simpson's 1995 trial, ghostwrote Simpson's book. Fenjves stated in interviews that Simpson actively collaborated on the manuscript, and that Fenjves "knew" Simpson was "a murderer"
...
Norman Pardo, Simpson's former manager, told the Huffington Post the book was written by a ghostwriter without Simpson's involvement. Rather, Simpson had accepted, against Pardo's advice, $600,000 from the publisher ReganBooks and its parent company NewsCorp to say he had written the book and to conduct an associated TV interview. Pardo told the Huffington Post that Simpson had rationalized:
"Hey, they offered me $600,000 not to dispute that I [wrote] the book." He said, "That's cash." I said, "They're going to think you wrote it." He said, "So? Everybody thinks I'm a murderer anyway. They're not going to change their mind just because of a book."
The book's ghostwriter Pablo Fenjves responded to the claim, saying the book is "based on extensive discussions with Simpson."
Learn to fucking read and converse like a fucking adult or get the fuck off this fucking sub.
Apologies for any outburst, but apparently that's how you treat others so that's how you'll be treated by me.
[deleted] ยท 10 points ยท Posted at 20:09:42 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
My favorite part is that you can pretty much pinpoint the moment that he realized he's a fucking moron and from then on tries to pretend he was trolling.
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 20:11:37 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
itty53 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 00:45:15 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
It is.
You should quit your day job. Seriously. Right now.
Just walk out. Go be a comedian. Your destiny beckons.
rngtrtl ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 13:28:05 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
perhaps good sir. perhaps.
rngtrtl ยท -26 points ยท Posted at 17:48:26 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
you gotta be fucking retarded...
itty53 ยท 15 points ยท Posted at 17:54:07 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Oh what a wonderfully well-thought rebuttal. /s
Stomp your feet and bitch some more, dude, I'm not the one flying off the handle and swearing at people because I can't accept that I might be misinformed. This sub respects honest, factual reporting of events and circumstances, and that's exactly what I've done. I friggin' held your hand in doing so.
And clearly, the sub appreciates that more than they do your childish tantrum.
Unless you've got anything else of substance to add, if I may speak to you in the language you're accustomed to: get fucked and fuck off.
rngtrtl ยท -21 points ยท Posted at 18:05:40 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
HAHAHaaa :)
itty53 ยท 11 points ยท Posted at 18:07:00 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I don't call people stupid often, because I think it's dismissive and not helpful to addressing stupidity.
That being said, I think yours might be the stupidest kind of reaction I've ever seen.
And you really think you've come off that much better?
itty53 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 21:25:38 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
When I swore at him, it was in an attempt to put to practice the concept of "treat others as they treat you". I did that to show him exactly how effective it is to just swear at people you disagree with: not very much at all. If you missed that nuance, I apologize.
In no way, shape or form am I looking for an apology. I'm just speaking from experience that you can't lower yourself to someone else's level and then try to cast yourself in a better light. No worries for you though, since the mob was thoroughly on your side.
itty53 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 21:48:15 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
No worries for you though, since the mob was thoroughly on your side.
Get off your high horse and deal with it. Maybe, just maybe, "the mob" was "on my side" because I was correct and backing up what I asserted, while the other guy just stomped his feet and insisted like a child. Maybe.
You don't like it, don't read it. Thanks, but I can do without your snark.
That's what I hate about civil suits like that. You can tell the loser of the suit they have to pay X amount, but, as far as I know, not much in the way of enforcing payout.
Ibrey ยท 34 points ยท Posted at 02:33:48 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
There is a lot you can do. The judge can order the loser's employer to pay part of his wages directly to the victor. The judge can order banks to hand over cash the loser has in his account. The judge can send the sheriff to the loser's house to seize as much property as necessary to satisfy the judgement and sell it.
In 1999, about $300,000 worth of sports memorabilia owned by O. J. Simpson was seized and auctioned to pay the Goldman family.
There is and there isn't. OJ quickly moved to Florida which is a creditor protected state for many assets. Your home, IRAs, annuities, life insurance and a handful of other items are totally protected from any type of judgment or civil suit. Sure, you can destroy someone's credit score but if that really only hurts people that need to borrow money which may not have been the case for OJ.
This is likely a big reason why that shitbag hardly paid any money and was able to play as much golf as he did.
If I owe a fine that goes unpaid I go to jail. No I'm not okay with people being locked up over debt. This includes child support, another debt that puts you in jail.
We don't have debtors prisons in America. The cops don't go around arresting people who owe money. The only way to force people to pay up some times is to garnish their income.
You can seize assets, and garnish wages. But that's about the best you can do.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 11:55:23 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
That's why you sue the business which has great insurance, instead of the employee who doesn't even own their own home. Sure the insurer can also hire the best lawyers on behalf of the business to avoid paying out, but what good is a million dollar verdict if the employee doesn't even have 5k that they could reasonably free up to pay out to you (not to mention that you'll bankrupt them in legal costs in the first place if you actually have a good claim).
[deleted] ยท 24 points ยท Posted at 20:56:44 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Okay that makes more sense! Than just "okay this is about our son, so you have to give us the book."
I'm a layperson so treat this as conjecture: but basically it's my understanding that if you are taken to court by someone and lose, in a civil case, and are forced to pay the person X amount of money (if that was part of the suit), yet you don't HAVE X amount of money, it's taken out from your assets in various ways as decided by the court and the weaselsvermin lawyers.
So if it is decided selling your nice new fancy car would result in money for the person who won, that's what would happen if you don't have any liquid assets that come close.
So in the case of a book, the book has potential to make a certain amount of money (conservatively) if everything goes right, someone's agreed to publish it, and sell it for a specific price. A value is placed on said book (the actual intellectual property, not a single copy of it) based on the potential it has to make money, which is then either sold if able or turned directly over to the person who was the receive the awarded money, again as decided by the lawyers and the court.
Just curious, why do you refer to lawyers as vermin/weasels in this case? What you described is them attempting uphold the most basic laws of this nation by attempting to find a way to enforce a judgment against a tortfeasor found guilty by the US court of law for damages resulting from injuries he inflicted on the opposing party.
The alternative would be to let someone found liable in a civil suit off with no repercussions. Not to mention the fact that doing this would also preclude the wronged party from being compensated for the injuries they suffer at the hands of the liable party.
I'm just joking, honestly. I have nothing against lawyers, but I found it funny to add those two crossed out words at the time. Lawyers are vital to our judicial system, no matter if they're criminal or civil cases.
Sdffcnt ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 21:48:54 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
That makes sense... if he actually wrote it, and owns/controls it. But didn't some other guy write it and a publishing company likely own it? Judge can legally only rule on OJ's share.
It was originally owned by the publisher and by a shell corporation that OJ formed to hide the profits from the courts. The publisher cancelled the release after it got a ton of shit from the public for trying to profit off of the murders, and the publisher sold its portion of the rights to OJ's shell corporation, so the corporation had 100% of the rights. After a judge ruled that the corporation was in fact a shell corporation, the rights were eligible to be included in the bankruptcy settlement.
OJ vowed never to voluntarily pay the judgment. Then OJ went bankrupt, and the rights to the book were given to the Goldmans as part of a settlement arranged by a court-appointed bankruptcy trustee.
Civil and criminal cases have different standards of proof. The people failed to prove in a criminal case that OJ murdered his Nicole and her friend Ron Goldman, but their families sued for wrongful death, which they proved in court by a preponderance of the evidence. It's not inconsistent that one court found Simpson more likely than not responsible for the deaths, when another court found him not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
After OJ failed to pay the damages awarded in civil court, they were awarded rights to the book to satisfy the judgment. It's irrelevant that the book was about the murder. What matters is that OJ failed to pay the award, and the book proceeds were awarded to the families to pay (in part) the judgment.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 21:42:54 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
There you go! Now I understand the different I was missing the whole payment/judgement thank you so much!!!
Why? Shouldn't the Goldman and Brown families get their day in court? I think they should be able to recover damages from the murderer of their children, don't you?
The problem is that if you say they can't sue because OJ was found not guilty by the higher standard of beyond reasonable doubt, then they never get the chance to prove their claim by the standard that would apply, for example, if they sued their doctor for a botched root canal. You would end up with the perverse situation that crime victims couldn't sue perpetrators, but people with much lesser torts could sue.
I mean I guess. In some countries being retried for the same crime is literally straight up legal, with the caveat being that the facts and/or circumstances and arguments used have to be different.
taw ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 02:01:32 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
There are different appeal procedures in different countries, but there's none other than US where you can be half-guilty.
You're not half guilty. You're guilty or not guilty in criminal court, which means that the state's argument for why it should be allowed to infringe upon your rights have either passed the test or not.
You're liable or not liable isn't half-guilty and isn't even on the same bar. Liability is an agreement by an entirely different type of court that someone's complaint against you is satisfactory enough to warrant compensation in some manner.
It's not half guilty in even the slightest, tiniest fashion unless you literally try to ram a square peg in a round hole.
taw ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 02:32:03 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You're not half guilty.
What else would you call "not guilty enough to go to jail but guilty enough to pay $30mln fine"?
There's seriously no other country where this kind of bullshit is possible.
I'd call it not guilty in a court of law but liable for damages. How are you incapable of grasping the concept that the state allows a mechanism for pursuing damage compensation for liability where the pursuing agent is the aggrieved, while simultaneously providing a system whereby the state can level charges against someone on behalf of itself for the purpose of punishment?
taw ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 06:32:24 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I understand the legal fiction, but there's a perfectly good reason why no other country allows this kind of bullshit.
Once you have a not guilty verdict in a criminal case, no court in the world would allow civil damages for the same act. Except US, which has its special retarded system.
I understand the legal fiction, but there's a perfectly good reason why no other country allows this kind of bullshit.
I'm going to be the intellectually honest one here and point out that I am not well learned enough in all of the various legal systems to be able to address the point of international legal systems. I only know enough to be able to comment on American law and it would be obscenely inappropriate to act as though I have even a tiny bit of authority in commenting on all the various interweaving European courts, African courts, Asian courts, Middle Eastern courts, et al et al.
That being said I also find it irrelevant. There's this weird idea that seems to exist on reddit that if America is the only group to do something it is America's obligation to follow lock step with everyone else, which isn't a sustainable argument.
Once you have a not guilty verdict in a criminal case, no court in the world would allow civil damages for the same act. Except US, which has its special retarded system.
That's such an incredibly overly simplified view of the interactions between civil and criminal court as to be completely devoid of merit. I'm not saying that the complexities are too great to appreciate, but rather that the position you've offered so robs the nuances of law that I don't even know where you're supposed to begin in responding to that.
It's almost like saying that America was retarded for involvement in World War II because America didn't have a defensive pact with Poland, it's that reductionist in nuance of the situation as to be pre-elementary.
That's not retarded. The standard of guilt in a criminal trial is "beyond a reasonable doubt", for simplicity's sake let's call that 99% sure. The standard at a civil trial is "preponderance of the evidence". Let's call that 51%.
So here is how it breaks down:
1-50% sure = defendant wins both
51-98% sure = defendant loses civil but wins criminal
99%+ = defendant loses both
It is not retarded. There is no way to "fix" it, and pretty much every system in the rest of the world works in a similar way. The standard is 51% for civil because setting it higher would rig the system in favor of wrongdoers. People could do bad things and not pay damages by hiding behind the burden of proof. On the other hand, for criminal, the standard is supposed to be very high because it is better that guilty men go free than that any innocents are punished.
You're wrong about the rest of the world. I just looked up the system in the UK and it is the same: criminal is beyond a reasonable doubt (like the USA) and civil is "balance of the probabilities" which is pretty much the same 51% as the USA.
The idea that you can't re-try someone on something the court has already decided is called res judicata. It doesn't apply from criminal to civil because the different burdens of proof could yield different results.
OJ negotiated the book deal after the civil trial. The Goldman family heard about it and went after him. OJ tried to bail on the deal but the judge decided the book rights were an asset that the Goldman family could claim to satisfy their judgment against OJ.
elola ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 06:19:22 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
There is a Law (son of Sam) that doesn't allow criminals to be able to profit off of their crimes. For some reason (I'm sure there's a scientific reason, please let me know!) many people find true crime to be fascinating and will purchase items such as books tv series and movies to learn more. So criminals were able to make a profit behind bars by writing about what they have already done and would sell well. Now I think the majority of books that are written about criminals give their profits to the victims families.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 13:34:39 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Dang okay, so this is a multifaceted amount of factors.
The more the merrier:) I believe I have a full understanding now.
The official title is still "If I Did It: Confessions of the Killer", but they obscure the "If" by hiding it in the "I" to make it look like the title is "I Did It" until you take a closer look.
My guess is that they legally couldn't make the title say "I Did It" but they could make the cover look however they wanted, so this was the way to do it.
Go watch ESPN's 30 for 30 on OJ simpson and his trial. It is on Hulu and ESPN.
It is 8hours but riveting. I was born in 1980 and lived through the whole sequence but was in school and thus couldn't follow the trial much. He did it. The verdict was revenge on the LAPD for years of racism. The holes in the prosecution were not real, only someone prejudiced against the LAPD would give them substantial credence to ignore the totality of the evidence.
After watching the OJ:MIA doc, I'm convinced more than ever OJ did it himself.
Beyond the overwhelming evidence presented of his guilt, the doc convinced me that OJ would NEVER have covered for his kid if he had been the killer.
I doubt OJ cared enough about any of his kids to allow himself to be accused of a murder they committed, but I know for sure OJ cared way too much about himself to allow himself to be accused of a murder his kid committed.
If Jason had been the killer, OJ would have turned him in eventually--not because it was the right thing, but to restore his image, standing, and popularity. I'm convinced of that.
It's hard to explain unless you've seen the doc, but it does a damn good job of dissecting his character over the course of 40-some years.
You cannot come away from watching it believing that OJ would willingly give up the trappings of fame or the comforts of wealth to become a total pariah for the benefit of his son. The doc really shows that he is not that guy, never was that guy, and won't ever be that guy.
A reasonable point. I'll admit i haven't watched that "OJ:MIA" doc. It was able to prove that he'd be willing to sell out his son?
It's on Hulu and is worth the 7.5 hour investment. And I agree with Phoenixphaerie, there's no way I believe that he wouldn't have used his son or given his son up if he thought it would elevate him or increase his standing. His narcissism is almost staggering.
At the very most his son was an accomplice. The amount of evidence that OJ did it is massive.
There are respectable theories that OJ didn't act alone but it's very clear what happened. Look at Nicole's previous 911 calls, her actions leading up to the murder, OJ's history of domestic abuse, and then all the evidence at the scene of the crime and you have a slam dunk. Seriously, those 911 calls are horrifying.
Serious question, why? What's the evidence for that theory?
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 01:52:09 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Looks like it's all just the thinnest of circumstantial evidence and a vaguely plausible story. I don't see how it can be anything other than a conspiracy theory since people who think Jason did it also need to come up with explanations for why OJ didn't do it given the physical evidence alone.
There's such a reasonable explanation for the physical evidence (like, you know, OJ did it) that it boggles the mind that someone could find OJ's son being the killer as more likely or believable.
The theory goes that OJ hired counsel for himself and his son. His son who was dishonorably discharged from the Navy was said to have anger issues or mental issues I don't remember which. The motive was that he was mad that Nicole cancelled plans to go to restaraunt where OJ's son was a server. The reason I mentioned him being in the Navy was because he would have been trained to use blades. It also gives OJ a motive for people thinking he did it so his son wouldn't go to jail.
[deleted] ยท -2 points ยท Posted at 01:14:47 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted] ยท -2 points ยท Posted at 01:38:40 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
But they would never drag the names of those poor poor white through the mud O.J wasn't am angel for sure but he got his moneys worth when he cheated on his wife with a hoe then that same hoe who he had children with turns around and cheats on him.
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 01:29:28 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Thaaaaat's racist
Toad32 ยท 479 points ยท Posted at 20:03:08 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Anyone read it? What are the highlights?
eqleriq ยท 1123 points ยท Posted at 21:02:43 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Turns out, he did it.
[deleted] ยท 376 points ยท Posted at 21:31:50 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
A history of domestic violence against the victim, especially in cases of jealousy
Blood of yourself and the victims at the crime scene, inside the pair of gloves, inside the truck a witness saw you angrily driving from the murder scene, and at your property where you were jumping the fence to avoid being seen by your driver
A cut on your hand that came from the same type of knife as the victims were murdered with
Fleeing from police with a gun when they are coming to arrest you
The idea was that the glove didn't fit "comfortably". They are noticeably tight. But you also have to factor in all the other variables that have been mentioned here and realize that, if it was a pair of gloves kept under normal conditions and one his hands under normal conditions, they would fit like.. well... a glove.
[deleted] ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 05:48:45 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Plus he was wearing latex gloves while he was trying it on as well I believe.
You should watch the dramatization American Crime Story. It's fantastic. I feel like the prosecution had an air tight case, but the defense told a more interesting story.
I've seen it and loved it and it sent me down an OJ rabbit hole. I even picked up Toobin's book (which the miniseries is based on). It really is an incredibly true crime story.
You could also say it was the ignorance of the jury that lost it. But then again the prosecution were the ones that fucked up with the jury selection, so I guess you could blame that on them.
That was entirely the prosecution's fault. They were absolutely retarded for going for 1st degree murder. Manslaughter, negligent homicide, reckless endangerment. Literally anything else would have been a slam dunk case, but for some retarded reason they went for 1st degree murder with nothing but a bunch of circumstantial evidence.
So. Fucking. Stupid.
lasping ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 02:19:22 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Actually she was additionally found not guilty of lesser charges.
OK, so I wasn't exactly right, but my main point was that they all went for things with intent. Drop the intent, and it would have been an easy case.
lasping ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:47:21 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I don't think so. There was very little evidence that wasn't completely circumstantial, and the prosecution's star witness (George Anthony) seems to have lied routinely on the stand, which damaged the prosecution's case. Those were the other two big problems the jurors had with the prosecutions case, not just the flimsy motive provided.
Besides, aggravated manslaughter doesn't have any link to intent. It's about culpable negligence.
The prosecution's entire case against Casey Anthony was basically the prosecutor walking up, pointing at her and going, "C'mon, it's Casey Anthony, am I right? Seriously, anyway I rest my case." Then acting shocked when they lost.
That case was lost by the poor performance of the police. The bag the little girl was found in was spotted months earlier by a cable installer, but when a cop came out to investigate it, he slipped and fell in the mud before getting to the bag. So he got pissed and left and nobody ever looked in the bag. A few months later the cable installer sees the bag again, and makes a second call and this time they find the body. A few months had gone by and the the body had decomposed badly while in a black plastic bag in the Florida sun. So they could never name a cause of death.
Without a cause of death, how could a prosecutor ask a jury for the death penalty, or even a guilty verdict? All the defense had to do was offer the most basic excuse, and the jury would have reasonable doubt.
I believe the prosecution understood that they had no case at all, which is why everyone took their time bringing it to trial - 3 years - as she sat in jail. They all knew that the pre-trial period was the only prison time she'd see. So she wasn't found guilty, but she did spend 3 years in jail, which is probably about right for negligent homicide.
The glove did fit, it just fit snug. There are images of OJ wearing the same gloves, with the same snug fit, while reporting at a football game. These images were shown to the jury.
I also heard he stopped taking his arthritis medicine
[deleted] ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 02:18:37 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Just an FYI. The Glove didn't fit, because it was shrunk leather that had been wet. It's like putting a cotton T shirt into a dryer, watching it shrink, then putting it on and saying "this couldn't be my shirt... it's much too small".
lol hilarious. It fit less in the tv series than it did in real life. I don't know what shit the jury was smoking but it must have been good.
jdol06 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:36:44 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Darden fucked up. They agreed it was a bad idea to make OJ try on the glove and he did it anyway to try and make a shocking courtroom moment. It's in the Made in America OJ doc which I HIGHLY recommend. Was 8 hours long but I wished there was another 8 hours when it was over
Yeah the size 12 Bruno Magli bloody footprint they found was always the piece of evidence that stood out to me. He was photographed wearing the exact shoe multiple times. Combine it with all the other evidence from the case it's pretty clear to me what happened. Such a shame a jury couldn't convict him. Proves that a good legal team can help someone get away with murder, even when all the evidence is stacked against them
[deleted] ยท 52 points ยท Posted at 02:30:32 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Seems to me it was a perfect storm - a good legal team, missteps by the prosecution, a likable celebrity, and a time of incredible racial tension between people in that city and the police.
Not that I don't have sympathy towards black people w.r.t unfair police treatment -- I definitely do -- but one of the jurors threw up the "black power" fist for OJ before leaving the court room. That jury was looking for a doubt, and willing to give a lot of wiggle room to "reasonable."
I don't recall who said it, but the real "victory" in that whole injustice was that finally, for once, a black man in America got acquitted because he was black, instead of convicted because he was black.
I get the reasoning, but its sad that somebody getting away with murder can be considered a victory. I cant imagine how the victim's family felt hearing things like that.
-MURS- ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 02:11:29 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Had nothing to do with the legal team and everything to do with a bunch of black jurors mad about the previous Rodney King ruling.
[deleted] ยท 14 points ยท Posted at 02:17:08 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
If you don't think OJ's legal team had something to do with it then you've lost all credibility.
-MURS- ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 02:56:29 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The main thing they did was turn the trial into a race war blacks v whites which allowed the largely black jury to retaliate against LAPD and justice system for the Rodney King verdict. That was their main contribution. I strongly believe the jury would have voted no guilty no matter what they said or did after hearing some the jury speak out on the decision.
I was really young when this was happening but seriously, how the fuck was he found not guilty? I obviously know all the jokes about Cochran's defense but... like I mean was the glove absurdly small? I just don't see how he got off.
Rush_nj ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 05:10:36 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The prosecution was rubbish, and the police involved were very shady. Throw in a bunch of racial tension and you get a bloke walk for murder.
rallar8 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:42:00 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
How is that nearly as interesting as his son doing it?
I hate these people that are like "Facts, evidence, publicly verififiable information and narratives that don't defy known laws of physics"
Of course OJ didn't do it. Just more bias from the lame stream media. /s
joanzen ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 02:17:29 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
How often do police match shoe prints or even get useful shoe prints from the crime scene? Clearly OJ was set up, and no wonder he fled.
That dude was straight up racist, and the prosecution was straight up retarded. A few members of the jury pretty much admitted it was payback for the Rodney King verdict.
That trial was so fucked.
jdol06 ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 02:38:14 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Johnny Cochran is a piece of shit as well. Fuck that loser and his identity politics clouding what is a clear cut case of murder given the evidence. Smart defense but absolutely reprehensible. If anything, I'd attribute further discrimination against the black community to Cochran, contrary to how he thought he was helping. He's a shining example of what a lawyer and activist is not supposed to do.
ryanvvb ยท 26 points ยท Posted at 01:43:05 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Its disgusting how they tried to parade the case as a victory for the black community. It was a victory for a rich murderer. OJ himself always said "Im not black, Im OJ"
[deleted] ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 02:43:17 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah it's not a victory for any race, it just proves that with enough money you can get away with anything. Even murder.
Wasnt Hitler pretty good for Germany up until he started losing on the Eastern campaign? I don't think efficacy at an immoral deed is worth celebrating. But whatever, every rich man is entitled to a sterling defense eh?
What's funny, is that he most likely wasn't a racist, or at the very least, not nearly as he was portrayed
.
The recordings were of him giving interviews to a wannabe screenwriter. The incidents he described on tape were extremely overstated and exaggerated, and afterwards, several black co-workers came forward in his defense. More likely, he was just exaggerating and basically playing a part for the screenwriter on the promise of a payday ($10k) and using the LAPD and black community's animosity towards one another to his advantage.
Him being a racist had no initial relevance to the case though. It only became relevant when he lied about it on the stand. I find that to be even funnier, that he was probably racist, but that fact still didn't matter cause OJ did it.
It came down to credibility. F. Lee Bailey straight up asked Furhman if he used the word nigger. Furhman said no. At that point, it was just a play to turn the case into a circus.
Then, they found the tapes, got them in as evidence that ruined his credibility.
The Los Angeles Police Department conducted an investigation to determine the validity of Fuhrman's claims on the tapes. The LAPD announced that Fuhrman exaggerated many of the acts of racially motivated brutality described on the recordings. Of the 29 incidents McKinny's tapes and transcripts, 17 could not be connected to known events. Investigators did link 12 accounts to known events, but their investigation was inconclusive, aside from the use of racial epithets and male officers' misogyny towards female officers, which was substantiated.[7] Regarding police brutality towards suspects, "just about everything Fuhrman told McKinny, which could be connected to an actual event, was bigger, bloodier and more violent than the facts", the report concluded. In one instance, Fuhrman reported that a suspect was beaten to death and three others were hospitalized with broken bones. While this was connected to a known event, only one suspect was treated for minor injuries caused by another officer.[7]
TL;DR: He was absolutely hamming shit up for the writer.
But, in this case, I don't. Fuhrman's career with LAPD was over. They had a scapegoat here. A perfect PR opportunity to show they were "getting rid of the bad ones", in an era when they desperately needed the PR win with the black community. In this case, the LAPD would have been incentivized to lay it on Fuhrman as thick and heavy as they could.
Oh black co-workers came forward eh? Well that settles it. Certainly if any black person defends you, you can't be a racist.
texum ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 03:01:21 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Everybody likes to say that the verdict was based on race, but it wasn't. If you ask an actual trial lawyer, you'll hear that that was not nearly as much a "slam dunk" case as people make it out to be. The media like to paint the jury as unreasonable racists, but if it had been a no-name white guy with an all-white jury, he still would have walked:
No confession
No eyewitnesses
No murder weapon
That right there makes the whole case circumstantial and difficult to prove. It's exactly the kind of case that prosecutors like to settle. And a case like this where every police procedure will come into question, and some of the evidence-collecting was even recorded by the press? I'm sure the prosecution would have settled if they could have, but the defense knew their case was strong enough that they never would have taken it. During the trial, out came:
A very bungled police interrogation with the suspect
Mishandling of evidence at the crime scene on multiple fronts
Contamination of Nicole's body and possibly the DNA evidence by throwing a blanket from inside the house on top of her
Improper procedure--a lot of the key evidence was found on O.J.'s property before the police had a search warrant
Possible contamination of some of the blood evidence, particularly with blood in the Bronco containing too much blood preservative
A possible second set of footprints
The key witness who found one of the gloves and the blood in the Bronco perjured himself over multiple statements, not just the racist ones, which, from a legal standpoint, rendered all of his testimony compromised at best and non-credible at worst. To this day, it's still the only case I've ever heard of where a police officer and star prosecution witness actually perjured themselves and had to take the 5th amendment later in the same trial. That's some Matlock level shit right there.
Those facts of the case right there are any defense lawyer's dream. A lot of it's been debunked in later analysis, but the prosecution
barely even tried to debunk much of it, and the jury was tasked with making a decision based on the court transcripts.
If you listen to what the jurors have actually said about their verdict, they've basically all said the same thing: the prosecution proved that OJ was a wife-beater, and they proved that he was there at the scene of the crime. And some of them say he probably did do it. But could they, beyond a reasonable doubt, say that OJ definitely is the one who did the stabbing and not a second person whose DNA was not recovered at the crime scene by a sloppy police force? The jury decided no. And I think any reasonable person couldn't honestly fault them for that, if they read back those 1995 transcripts with an open mind and took race out of it entirely.
I'm not really sure whether you're arguing against me or not here.... I mean, heck, I only partially disagree that the verdict was based on race. I will say it was at least partially based on race, however. Robert Shapiro went on national television and even admitted as much, saying, "Not only did we play the race card, we dealt it from the bottom of the deck." Race absolutely played a role. As did the massive media presence. You cannot honestly think that it didn't.
But, you're fairly on point with a lot of it. You're right, there was no confession, murder weapon, or witness to the crime. There was, however, eyewitnesses that put OJ driving away from the murder scene and arriving at his house after the murders (a passerby and his limo driver). The prosecution had a fairly air tight timeline put together. Circumstantial? Yes. But just about as perfect a circumstantial case gets.
I'll also disagree that it's a case that prosecutor's like to settle. For one, that's kind of a cop out sentence. Prosecutor's like to settle just about any case that isn't the perpetrator on camera, showing their identification to the camera, and bragging about the incident to the police.
It's funny that you mention that you don't think the defense would have taken the plea deal, considering Shapiro was widely known as the lawyer that could get his clients amazingly good deals and not much else.
As for your other bullet points, spot on. With one exception, the improper procedure. The police being on OJ's property was never thrown out or ignored for improper procedure. Had it been, the case against OJ would have fallen apart completely. Even up to the jury's verdict oddsmakers had OJ guilty. The defense pushed a bit, but it was ruled in court to be a clear case of exigent circumstances led to finding the glove, which got the warrant to search the house.
Those facts of the case right there are any defense lawyer's dream
Gotta disagree here, as well. OJ had some of the best legal minds of the generation working for him on this case, and defense they went with was very much throw everything at the wall and see what sticks, and keep throwing the ones that stick back at the wall anytime they can. Had OJ not had his "Dream Team", he'd likely have been found guilty, or at best, pled down to a lesser charge with a long sentence attached. On top of that, as much as the Dream Team won the case, the prosecution lost it. Darden having OJ try on the gloves was a bonehead move. Not securing OJ's house as a crime scene and allowing it to be redecorated while Nicole's house was emptied were huge misses by the prosecution.
In the end, absolutely race had a lot to do with the case. So did OJ's public persona (as a guy "too nice" to play a Terminator), the huge media scrutiny (another point being Ito's fondness of the media attention at the start, and his decision to let cameras into the gallery).
texum ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 07:43:37 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I will say it was at least partially based on race, however. Robert Shapiro went on national television and even admitted as much, saying, "Not only did we play the race card, we dealt it from the bottom of the deck." Race absolutely played a role. As did the massive media presence. You cannot honestly think that it didn't.
I agree, the defense definitely played the race card, and the cultural event that was the "The O.J. Simpson Trial" had a lot to do with race. But the verdict itself, and how the jury arrived at it, had little to do with race.
It's important to remember that the jury was not aware of any of the media publicity about the case whatsoever. They knew it was a big deal, but they had no idea what was being said about the case. They were guarded in separate hotel rooms by police without any access to TV or anything else that might cover the trial. They weren't even allowed to talk to each other about the trial, and several jurors got dismissed for violating this or several other rules. The jury had no idea how extensive the racial tone of the media coverage was, and were quite surprised by it when they did find out. Their verdict came as isolated as possible from that and by all accounts, they were in fact extremely isolated.
So the only time they saw the race card was right there in the court room, and it really wasn't played as much as pop culture says it was. The Fuhrman testimony was deemed non-credible because of the perjury charge, not because of the racist comments alone. He made multiple false statements, one of them being about planting evidence, which was a much more damaging statement.
The only other times that race became an issue was when Johnnie Cochran wore African ties and when they took the jury to O.J.'s house and the defense replaced all the photos on the wall with photos of O.J. with black people. The jury members later said they saw right through both tactics and found them both annoying and unnecessary.
Oh, and the other thing was Christopher Darden. After the first few court dates, the prosecution replaced one of their lawyers. A trial lawyer will tell you this is a big no-no already to replace a lawyer once a trial has already started, because juries will often read this as a sign that there's something wrong with your case. But when the prosecution replaced a white lawyer with a black lawyer, it practically telegraphed to the jury what the prosecutors thought was their biggest weakness. The jurors said they didn't respond well to Darden's sudden appearance, either.
In all, unless you consider Mark Furhman perjuring himself "playing the race card", then every other time the race card was actually played during the trial, the jury responded negatively. It didn't work.
I'll also disagree that it's a case that prosecutor's like to settle. For one, that's kind of a cop out sentence.
Maybe not at the start, but certainly at the time that Mark Fuhrman perjured himself.
It's funny that you mention that you don't think the defense would have taken the plea deal, considering Shapiro was widely known as the lawyer that could get his clients amazingly good deals and not much else.
That's part of the reason why I say it. He was famous for making plea deals, and he didn't make one here. Why break that pattern unless you have a stronger case than normal?
With one exception, the improper procedure. The police being on OJ's property was never thrown out or ignored for improper procedure. Had it been, the case against OJ would have fallen apart completely.
You're right. My point is, the jury was presented with this fact, and was able to consider it in their decision. And at least a couple of them didn't buy the cops' explanation that the only reason they hopped the fence to search O.J.'s house without a warrant was that they thought O.J. was in trouble. And the jury was probably right--police are trained to question the likely suspects in a murder investigation as soon after the murder as possible because they are statistically much more likely to confess. They were going over there to interrogate him, not to help him, but by telling the truth, it would make the search illegal. So the cops had to lie on the stand about the reason why they searched, and the jury could see right through the lie. The jurors later wrote that this made them doubt the credibility of the two cops (one of them Fuhrman) who testified to "just trying to help OJ". And those two cops were the two cops who found most of the evidence tying O.J. to the crime. Fuhrman's later perjury confirmed their suspicions, which cast doubt over both cops' testimony.
Gotta disagree here, as well. OJ had some of the best legal minds of the generation working for him on this case, and defense they went with was very much throw everything at the wall and see what sticks, and keep throwing the ones that stick back at the wall anytime they can.
You're right that his lawyers did help him win but here's the thing: it's not about them doing anything super impressive. They gave a pretty standard defense. The difference was, there was about eight of them so they each had time to prepare for each witness.
If this were a middle class person with a normal lawyer, they would never have the time to prepare like this. What they normally do is, they pick two maybe three of the key witnesses out of the prosecution's thirty and try to prove reasonable doubt on just those. "Here's what we're going to do. We have a good case against the blood evidence, but our strongest case is against the DNA evidence, so we're going to focus on that," or "Our strongest case is against that eyewitness, so we're going to focus on that." If your run-of-the-mill lawyer had the time and staff and energy, they'd give a defense pretty close to how O.J.'s lawyers did. They would pick apart two dozen witnesses point by point and also hire their own blood expert to refute the government's testimony.
Instead, since they don't have the time and money and are usually working alone or in a pair, not eight lawyers deep, they settle for picking apart the most important two or three witnesses, try their best to cross-examine the government's blood expert, and hope the jury doesn't care about the less important details.
I think O.J.'s lawyers were definitely more talented than the average lawyer, but none of what they did was some crazy out of left field defense. It was a standard defense with unlimited resources. When the prosecution presents blood evidence, you figure out a way to refute that evidence. They call a cop to the stand, you refute their testimony. They call a neighbor to the stand, you refute their testimony. The prosecution's case revolves around DNA evidence, you hire a defense lawyer who has experience refuting DNA evidence.
On top of that, as much as the Dream Team won the case, the prosecution lost it.
No argument there.
Darden having OJ try on the gloves was a bonehead move.
The jury said they thought this was bullshit and O.J. was just acting.
Remember that the jury essentially found that the prosecution proved that O.J. was there and was at the scene of the crime, but that they didn't prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that O.J. was the only one there, and therefore, the only person who could have done the stabbing.
Not securing OJ's house as a crime scene and allowing it to be redecorated while Nicole's house was emptied were huge misses by the prosecution.
Definitely.
In the end, absolutely race had a lot to do with the case. So did OJ's public persona (as a guy "too nice" to play a Terminator), the huge media scrutiny (another point being Ito's fondness of the media attention at the start, and his decision to let cameras into the gallery).
As a cultural event? Definitely, race had a lot to do with "The O.J. Simpson Trial". The media scrutiny certainly affected some of the behavior of some of the people in the courtroom, too, as they played for the cameras, but the jury themselves weren't aware of any of the specific media coverage, at all. They were also specifically picked because none of them knew much at all about O.J.'s public persona and hadn't watched the Bronco chase.
In the end, it really was based on the evidence. The prosecution was supposed to prove "Wife-beater with blood all over him was definitely the only one there and did the stabbing" but the jury decided that the prosecutors only proved "Wife-beater with blood all over him was definitely there at the scene, and probably did it, but there's a remote possibility a second person was with him that could have done the stabbing" or even "Goldman killed Nicole, and then OJ killed Goldman". That's how you win court cases, on those margins. It's how both Robert Blake and Robert Durst went free, too.
This is a hell of a post. I'm not familiar enough with the case to argue, but it would have been great to see the conversation this could have generated if it were a response to a more visible comment.
I agree that the recordings of him to the screen writer were exaggerated but it is a little a suspicious that when he left LA he moved to Northern Idaho. Probably the whitest place in America and former home of the Aryan Nation. At best he harbored racist tendencies.
The prosecution did a piss-poor job mitigating the shitstorm created by the defense constantly pushing the issue of race. They exploited the fuck out of Mark Fuhrman and the prosecution (and judge) let them get away with it. Pretty inexcusable really. Didnt help that the jury wasn't bright at all.
Now a commentator on FOX News, it's like they're not even trying to hide it.
PsySick ยท 41 points ยท Posted at 01:27:51 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Why would a Wookiee, an 8-foot-tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of 2-foot-tall Ewoks? That does not make sense! But more important, you have to ask yourself: What does this have to do with this case? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does not make sense! Look at me. I'm a lawyer defending a major record company, and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca! Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense! None of this makes sense! And so you have to remember, when you're in that jury room deliberatin' and conjugatin' the Emancipation Proclamation, does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does not make sense! If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit! The defense rests.
No,what he's saying is no one agrees on why he wasn't convicted.
[deleted] ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 02:20:05 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
A cut on your hand that came from the same type of knife as the victims were murdered with
I'm with you, but c'mon this is not provable. You mean a knife with an edge? Hold the presses.
jim653 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 01:55:38 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
at your property where you were jumping the fence to avoid being seen by your driver
Now, this raises a weird problem and it's always bothered me, but (as I recall) it was mentioned only in Mark Fuhrman's book. The driver of the limousine, Allan Park, was waiting on Ashford and said he saw a man enter the front door of OJ's place. He was presumably coming from Rockingham, which would agree with the blood drops logged on the driveway. So, what then, caused the banging outside Kato's room and who dropped the glove? If someone jumped over the fence, knocked into the air conditioner, and dropped the glove, he couldn't have been the one who left the blood trail. And why would this person have gone round to the front door when he could have slipped in the back? Presumably, he cut through the neighbour's and jumped the fence to stay out of sight, so why then walk out in full view at the front of the house.
thebumm ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:31:56 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I expected the other guy to share his evidence. I mean, he said it was so compelling, I'd have thought it would be so fun to share.
Kolada ยท -2 points ยท Posted at 00:36:06 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I think the argument is that his son did it and he tried to help cover it up which got his DNA everywhere etc. OJ wasn't going to give up his son so he went through the court case.
OJ's blood was present at the scene in amounts that I don't think could have been planted.
Plus, I'm sure that DNA technology was advanced enough that a familial match (like a son) would have registered if any of Jason's blood had been at the scene (which surely would have happened considering how vicious those murders were).
Kolada ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:12:33 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Right. Nothing planted. He was there after the fact to try to fix the situation because he didn't want his son going to jail. As the argument goes. This is not my opinion
I think the argument is that his son did it and he tried to help him cover it up. Not saying I buy it, but most of what you pointed out could be true along with his son doing the actual murdering.
The TV show that came out earlier this year? Is that still airing? I caught the first two but the one dude's theory was falling apart towards the end of what I've seen.
Man I wish I watched the Cuba Gooding one before Made in America. After watching the doc the scripted show was so trashy. The DA saying the line, in all seriousness, "this is worse than the day I found out I had cancer?" Laughable. The scene with the Kardashian girls chanting their last name? What was that? Setting the car chase to fucking "Sabotage?!" Way to squander an opportunity to do something interesting.
That could have been an amazing show but it was pulpy in a bad way.
Anyway, would also highly recommend 30 for 30's "June 17, 1994" for a really unique OJ experience.
My wife and I are about 3/4 through it and are enjoying it immensely, but there are a lot of stupid moments like this.
We have a theory: pay attention to the cinematography. The dramatic pans, spins, and even angles are incredibly reminiscent of 90s television, and we think that it was a deliberate stylistic choice. A bunch of kids chanting their last name? Someone saying that something was so bad that it was worse than cancer? These (at least in excessive tone) lines are also very 90s.
I'm not saying that it isn't goofy, pulpy writing, but I do think that there's a good reason why it's there.
That said, I do want to watch the documentary version after this as I'm really curious how certain things actually played out. I'm 33 and only really remember the huge moments like the Bronco chase and the glove thing).
Especially when he's crossing Fuerman (sp?) Have you ever called anyone a n****? (3x). I thought the camera work was excellent. Loved it.
I'm 31 so I'm in the same boat, I only remember the verdict that they announced on the the school playground, believe it or not.
And the documentary is excellent, but I think it's north of 7 hours total. It's really, really long but gives a ton of context to the excellent dramatic series. It's very very good. If you're a sports fan, the first section is pretty great. It chronicles his 2,000+ yard season pretty well.
I watched the chase and the trial as a kid. I thought it was interesting but it didn't really add anything for me I didn't know. I think it's great for all the people who weren't alive or too young for it though.
I totally agree it's intentional, but it's a few notches past my tolerance level for pulp, if that makes sense. I like the kinetic camera work just fine, but at the same time I look at it like they chose style over substance. The actual details are fascinating enough, I didn't feel like they needed to force so much melodrama in there.
I think of this in the hands of a director with more of a subtle focus and a little restraint and I feel like it's a better show.
You sure? There are a couple corny points but the performances are amazing. John Travolta, David Schwimmer, Sarah Paulson, and a lot of others... it's really amazing TV for something that isn't HBO.
The performances were incredible, one after another. The weakest link was Cuba Gooding Jr, which is a sign you've got something great. I'm 31 so I didn't remember Shapiro first hand, but after watching the documentary I was really impressed in retrospect with Travolta's portrayal. The way he spoke, his annunciation, everything was spot on. And the amazing thing is you can basically copy and paste that critique for almost every cast memeber. Even Schwimmer was great. Even David fucking Schwimmer was great.
Crazy. This is such a blue-and-black/white-and-gold dress thing. I mentioned above I really liked some of the performances but felt Schwimmer in particular was way off the mark. I feel bad but I found myself occasionally laughing when he appeared on screen.
At least he's finally getting some laughs, haha. I thought his happy-go-lucky innocence (which he plays so well anyway) then turning to heart break as he realizes his friend is a murderer was really great. The accuracy of his portrayal aside, his dumbass deer-in-headlights look was perfect for the role of someone realizing his friend is a killer.
I definitely agree the performances were great, Paulson, Courtney B. Vance, and Sterling K. Brown in particular (Schwimmer we'll have to agree to disagree on because I felt it was much too hammy).
Overall I watched the whole thing, so obviously on some level I enjoyed it, but at a certain point early on I realized it was something I didn't have to take too seriously because it was already taking itself seriously enough.
Again, maybe I watched it at the wrong time. I missed the hype as it was happening and watched it months later. And not only did I live through the event itself, but that doc series was so thoroughly and impeccably researched the scripted series just pales in comparison.
Exactly. I hate these alternate theories. If this were some average joe under the exact same circumstances there would be a conviction ten times out of ten. The evidence is so overwhelming.
texum ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 09:40:37 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
If this were some average joe under the exact same circumstances there would be a conviction ten times out of ten. The evidence is so overwhelming.
The evidence was overwhelming that he was at the scene of the crime. But what's the most compelling evidence he actually did the stabbing? What evidence rules out that there was a fourth person there who didn't get cut and therefore didn't leave behind any blood?
That's the problem with circumstantial cases like this and why they mostly end up with a plea bargain. For all we know, OJ hired Goldman to kill Nicole and then he grabbed the knife away and killed Goldman. Or OJ hired a hit man who met him at the scene, and did all the stabbing of both Nicole and Goldman while OJ held them immobile.
In a court of law, it's really easy to place OJ at the scene of the crime but not so easy to say without a doubt what exactly he did while he was there. There was no confession, no murder weapon, and no eyewitness. He basically walked for the same reason that Robert Blake, Robert Durst, and JonBenet Ramsey's family have all escaped justice.
If OJ had been white and so was the jury, but all the rest of the case was the same, it probably wouldn't have turned out much different than it did.
You have to do some mental gymnastics to get to that point.
There's no evidence of a fourth person at the crime scene. No evidence of a contract killing either. If OJ had hired a hitman, he would have been far, far away from the crime scene. That's what you do when you hire a hitman. You do that to remove yourself from the crime.
In a court of law, it's really easy to place OJ at the scene of the crime but not so easy to say without a doubt what exactly he did while he was there. There was no confession, no murder weapon, and no eyewitness
He was pretty clearly at the scene, yes. His blood was there, her blood was in the Bronco, he had a cut on his hand, and he was seen speeding away from the scene. He was there.
No confession means nothing. He clearly had a guilty mind and you can tell by what he said early on. And the fact that he fled from police, with a gun to his head the whole time. He also had a passport and a disguise kit. He wanted to get the fuck out.
It was a perfect storm for him. Celebrity, loved in the community, and ultra-high racial tensions. The defense knew they could acquit him with a mostly-black jury, easily.
I agree...But the argument people make with this particular theory was OJ was at the scene of the crime but only to protect his son.
zodar ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 03:19:39 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
And he cut his finger and bled all over the place and tracked blood everywhere and got the victims' blood on his socks because he was watching his son butcher two people with a knife? Have you ever heard of Occam's Razor?
No no no. Aside from the mountain of evidence pointing to OJ that theory assumes OJ is covering for his son. Every person interviewed, who talked to him that day in the Bronco, said the only way he settled down was when they talked about OJ. Not Nicole, not his kids,... They even touch on this in the ESPN doc. Makes no sense that he would cover for anybody but OJ.
He's a longtime raging wife beater, likely with CTE, who blames his victims (not himself) for the crime. He got off on technicalities used to show reasonable doubt, a moronic jury (payback? really?), and a race card throwing lawyer all coming at once. Plus, all during a heightened time\place of racial based tension.
Don't you hate how the justice system favors the blacks?
Thybro ยท 84 points ยท Posted at 22:55:36 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Ok you can't just drop that shit without an explanation. What evidence? The same ones that linked OJ to the crime except the son had a less of a clear/provable motive.
I imagine it's the theory from people back in the day who didn't fully understand DNA evidence (I'll admit I was one of them) and who also wanted to believe in OJ's innocence.
I was only a young teen at the time, but people on the news would say they found Simpson's DNA at the crime scene/in the glove/whatever. But then if it wasn't OJ (and it's not, because we don't want it to be), who was it? Nicole would have Brown DNA, so that would mean it must be one of their children! And their oldest son looks like he could have done it!!
So yeah. Now we know DNA doesn't work like that. The DNA matched OJ and no one else. OJ killed Nicole and Ron and got away with it thanks to the best legal defense team in history.
I thought the issue with the DNA was they couldn't prove it came from the glove/crime scene? The DNA was supposedly collected incorrectly and was dismissed, I don't believe the validity of the results were ever of question.
Actually the OJ's son as killer is from a well-known private investigator.
The theory was that Jason, who had a history of rage crimes up to and after the murders, for some reason became angry at Nicole. He is a chef, and had access to and reason to have large kitchen knives, and, I believe, one of them went missing around the time of the murders. The theory is he went, murdered Nicole and Ron, then went to OJ for help and OJ went to Nicole's and discovered the scene and tried to hide the evidence, accidentally cutting himself on the knife, and dropping one of the gloves while hurrying away
The only evidence here is a history of violence. Being a chef doesn't give him special access to sharp kitchen knives. I have a kitchen. I have kitchen knives. They're sharp. I am not a chef.
It goes deeper than that. He had two prior incidents of attacking people with knives, and inconsistencies in his timecard at the restaurant he worked at on the night of the murder.
Yeah, except I'm guessing you drive around with your knives in your car like he did, nor does one come up missing when you're being tentatively connected to a murder. Which was the point.
[deleted] ยท 57 points ยท Posted at 01:10:45 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I know right? Just tryin' to give people a super brief explanation and getting hated on and told I'm wrong.
Hell, I don't even believe it. I don't doubt OJ did it. The history of violence, the fact Nicole had a safety deposit box with a will, letters from OJ showing his abusive nature, police reports, journals, etc. and she had told multiple friends if she died OJ killed her, are enough for me to believe it.
If it's the truth, it would have made OJ an accessory after the fact. Also, if the entire point was to protect his son, then it would be pretty much the antithesis to turn around and throw it on him in court.
Also, because the evidence was so strong against OJ (it really was, if he had not been famous, he'd have never seen daylight without looking through bars again), the best defense was to turn it into a trial against anything but the murders. And that's what the Dream Team did.
DNA evidence can be manipulated, if we learned anything for the Amanda Knox case, where they swore "they found DNA on the knife", but it turned out it was cross contamination at the crime lab. I mean, I know OJ did it. But still.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:29:45 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I would say top 5 defenses... who can forget the 'Twinkie' defense, or the guy who came up with 'Temporary Insanity' for one of the biggest bootleggers of prohibition.
Funkit ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:39:02 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Twinkie defense?
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:08:24 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Thybro ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 04:05:43 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
It doesn't. That's just not how DNA works, If Jason's was at the scene they would have known since they had his dad's. There's absolutely no evidence to place him at the scene. On the other hand OJ's was all over the place. Hell half of the bullet points were about his mental condition and history of violence. Guess what OJ also had a history of violence except his was directly aimed at Nicole.
[deleted] ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 05:35:27 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
There WAS other DNA. It just wasn't tested. It was a very new science at the time.
And it was the son and Nicole who began hanging out nights together They were closer in age
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 04:54:29 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Less clear motive? It was the son and Nicole who were clubbing together and hangin out and getting closer after she left OJ. They are closer in age than her and OJ
And he was making her and her fam an entire special meal at his new restaurant job -- when she ditched him. He closed up the whole restaurant early and forged his time card.
He had been in and out of mental hospitals for being stabby, and carried his knives everywhere. OJ lawyered his son up first, not himself.
The cut on OJ could have came from the same person.
Edit: more from this site. Ron Goldman was a nth degree black belt, and had bruising from fighting back, the LAPD found zero bruising or other marks on the dad.
This post is literally why you should never turn to a major subreddit, ever, in any way, as your first source of information. Ever. Possibly, maybe, you can use it as a guide to push you in a certain direction and ask questions, but these subreddits are a game of telephone with the worst aspects of a popularity contest thrown in, with a smidgeon of tabloid and reality TV.
There isn't "pretty compelling evidence that his son did it", it was a hypothesis (and arguably a theory) proposed by someone that gained traction on reddit enough that people bobble head it blindly because it sounds more nuanced than "going with the herd" and saying OJ did it.
And then people see comments like this and go "Man I saw that somewhere else" (read: on reddit), and this guy has a lot of upvotes...maybe he's onto something...then they repeat it elsewhere and you get another of those bizarre reddit conspiracy theories that pops up in every fucking thread.
No it isn't, how can you be so impossibly naive? The voting system exists to feed and validate inherent biases and frequently propogates mistruths. How can you possibly, in any way, believe that reddit's voting system roots out the truth when not only are there not enough experts on subjects on Reddit in order to outweigh impulse responses (which isn't an insult, that's just the nature of how mass forums work, you get more laymen than experts and the experts still only get one vote) and Reddit is routinely rocked by hilarious about faces in the wake of bizarre myths and memes that over perpetuate themselves?
The fucking Boston Marathon fiasco should make you incredibly leery of anything at all that veers toward the top.
There isn't any. It's just a leftover conspiracy theory from back when not a lot of people outside scientific fields understood how DNA works and wanted to believe OJ's innocence. Like they found some of Simpson's DNA but it didn't match OJ (either because it wasn't a strong sample or they didn't want it to be OJ's) therefore it must have come from his son.
When I read the part about DNA under her fingernails not matching OJ, they would've known it was someone related to him. The rest of it does seem like it could maybe be enough to investigate him but certainly nothing "compelling".
What is that evidence? Do you have a link to a site that summarizes it? Not attacking you personally, just that you see this Jason Simpson theory floated out there all the time, always with a disclaimer at the end like "no joke" or "seriously", but you never see one shred of what that evidence actually is.
I subscribe to the theory that the Son is involved in some capacity, but OJ most certainly killed Nicole. Wether or not he did both or his son killed Goldman is the question. I'm leaning toward he killed Goldman because there are pretty solid facts to back it, but I'm not 100 percent on it.
Fuck you and your bullshit conspiracy theories. What an insult to the Goldmans and Browns. There is overwhelming evidence of OJ's guilt. Stop spreading this horseshit.
I'm convinced he went to Shapiro and told Shapiro that his son confessed to him and that under no circumstances would he let his son go down for it. After they try him and lied it's almost impossible to build a credible case against the son. That's my theory for why Shapiro never thought OJ did it.
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 01:44:39 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Change how you feel about him, thinking he might have sacrificed himself for his son?
klsi832 ยท 73 points ยท Posted at 21:24:49 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
He claims he had an accomplice that showed up to his house and told him all the sexual stuff Nicole had been up to. So they drove over there in a fit of rage and Ron tried some karate shit on him at first.
Jrook ยท 18 points ยท Posted at 22:24:17 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Someone else in the thread says that the author paid oj to say he wrote it but actually had no part in it
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:38:48 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Someone else in the thread said it was written before the murders.
Someone else in the thread said it was actually Nicole's dog that did it.
joanzen ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:19:42 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
It makes sense. Guilty or not, you wouldn't want to touch the topic with a 40 ft pole, even for $600k.
Jrook ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:39:26 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Basically nothing oj does or has done for 20 years has made any sense. If they showed he had a stroke from football that is basically the only reasonable explanation
[deleted] ยท 29 points ยท Posted at 01:36:59 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
It was a fairly quick read. The author (alleged ghostwriter for OJ), said that he had trouble getting OJ to discuss the actual murders, and that he invented a friend that rode along with him to shift some of the blame, so that was interesting.
You get to the chapter where he discusses the murders and you're like "wait, who the hell was this dude?" and then remember that this was in OJ's mind. The actual murder was over before I even really realized what was happening.
Most of the book is OJ talking about the complication in his relationship with Nicole and justifying the domestic violence accusations etc. A lot of "I mean, did it get out of hand occasionally? Of course it did, but usually it was her who started it, and I yelled back because what man doesn't want to defend themselves? But I never hit her. I would never do that. We'd yell, and she'd hit me, and maybe I pushed her too hard trying to get her off of me, and I'm sorry for that, I really am, but she was always the one who started it."
Sounds exactly like him at his sentencing. "I just went to get my stuff, they did this, I'd never hurt anyone, I didn't mean to kidnap anybody, I'd never do that, I just wanted my stuff." Admitting the crimes and saying it didn't matter because he didn't mean to hurt anybody by committing numerous felonies.
he invented a friend that rode along with him to shift some of the blame
It's widely theorized that he didn't invent the friend, but that Robert Kardashian was with OJ that night and either had something to do with the murder or at least knew 100% OJ killed them.
That is why Kardashian was put on OJ's defense team, even though he hadn't practiced law for years and had to get his license renewed to even be a part of the case. If you watch either of the docs/shows that came out last year, you'll see Kardashian did basically nothing as part of the defense team.
If he's a part of the trial, he has client/attorney privileges and can't be forced to tell the truth.
If he's a part of the trial, he has client/attorney privileges and can't be forced to tell the truth
Attorney client privilege would not exist at the time of the crime just because he hired Kardashian as an attorney later. So hiring Kardashian would do nothing to stop the police from questioning Kardashian about the time period of the double homicide. The privilege would only apply to what OJ said to him after he hired him as an attorney.
Kardashian also could choose not to speak to the police at all before the trial regardless of whether he is hired on as an attorney. The police cannot force you to speak. You can be forced to testify at a trial, unless you invoke your 5th Amendment right not to incriminate yourself.
He would have a 5th Amendment right not to incriminate himself regardless of whether he was OJ's attorney or not. If invoked, he would not have to testify if subpoenaed to testify at the trial.
No one can be forced to tell the truth, even if they choose to speak to the police or testify at trial. If you lie to the police, you could be charged with obstruction of justice/false report or whatever particular law California has on its books. If you lie under oath, you can be charged with perjury. To be convicted, the State would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you lied.
No comment on Kardashian's involvement, as I don't know all the facts, but the argument you gave for his motive to join the legal defense team doesn't make much sense to me.
All very true, although I suspect that they didn't want Kardashian to have to plead the 5th if he was forced to testify. Even though it's not true obviously, a lot of people, including probably a jury, sees pleading the 5th as an unofficial admission of guilt. See Fuhrman's taking the 5th.
I think it was being safe and keeping Kardashian close to the trial safely.
My coworker found out my username and I would like to take this time to clean my profile. Thanks to the mods for your patience, I know this impacts your work. What is this?
Simpson's former manager Norman Pardo told the Huffington Post Simpson was not involved in writing the book but rather accepted, against Pardo's advice, $600,000 from the ReganBooks and NewsCorp to say he had written it and to conduct an interview.
The book's ghostwriter Pablo Fenjves responded to the claim, saying the book is "based on extensive discussions with Simpson."
Read it, but to be fair I went into already thinking he did it. We studied the case extensively in my Criminal Forensics class pretty much as an example of how to completely screw up an investigation. It's been awhile, but I remember he runs you through the events of the night from his perspective "if he did it."
After I read it I had never been more convinced that he did it. Its a pretty good book. Chapter 6 is the one that is OJ's 'hypothetical' run-down of the murders where he goes into detail of what 'hypothetically' occurred that night.
bumjiggy ยท 145 points ยท Posted at 16:50:32 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted] ยท 444 points ยท Posted at 20:24:26 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I mean if he doesn't already own a paid off house then 2.7 million is not enough to live in a nice part of LA for his retirement. I'm sure he could go out in the middle of nowhere somewhere and live like a king on the money though.
umaro77 ยท 296 points ยท Posted at 21:27:05 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You can live in a nice part of LA for 1 million, as long as you don't mind living in a smaller house. And by smaller house, I mean a house that most middle class Americans would probably still envy.
[deleted] ยท 38 points ยท Posted at 23:41:45 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah, but what I'm saying is that you can't retire with 2.7 million after spending 1 million on a house. 1.7 million isn't enough to pay for property taxes and living expenses for the rest of his life.
He's a 69 year old black man. How long do you think he's going to live? In 2009 the average life expectancy was 71~.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 07:40:45 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
True. Especially being an ex football player. Add in the stress of his trials, facing his kids after murdering their mom, etc. It's pretty surprising he's made it this far really.
It shouldn't be that hard to make a 7-10% return on the non-emergency portion of that. 125k after taxes should not be out of reach in the Internet age of investing while the economy isn't shit (and if it is, you go but property and assets). That's upper middle class income for a couple in most places.
[deleted] ยท 69 points ยท Posted at 00:34:11 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Try my old neighborhood of Lincoln Heights. Lived there from the age of 14-23. Perfect place to raise a family, decent crack-house market, and the commute to Downtown LA isn't that bad!
But seriously in what "nice" neighborhoods could you get a house for 1 million dollars? Riverside County MAYBE but a nice area in LA? No way josรฉ.
Exactly. I've seen a lot of shitty run down houses sell for 800k+ just because of the neighborhoods they were in. You're totally right about it being the land and not the house.
thebumm ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:35:42 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Valley if you're lucky but the house isn't as described. Peta from Hunger Games got a place in Sherman Oaks (I think) for 1.5 but there's a place near me (NoHoarea) 2 bed/1ba going for 998k so that's hardly the envy of middle America and definitely not an OJ pad.
I've always thought Cheviot Hills would be a cool place to live in LA. It feels secluded and yet is really central and has quick access to the highways at the same time on the Westside. I think it's the most "practical" of the higher-end areas of LA if I were a millionaire executive.
But you're probably right in that Beverly Hills, Brentwood, the Hills, Santa Monica, Venice, Playa Vista all have far greater home values.
I know about the housing situation in LA. I have a good realtor. The Hollywood hills don't work for a number of reasons and Redondo Beach obviously would be a bitch of a commute.
I know about the housing situation in LA. I have a good realtor. The Hollywood hills don't work for a number of reasons and Redondo Beach obviously would be a bitch of a commute.
A commute to what though?!?
Why don't Hollywood Hills work? He would be close enough to west hollywood, and he would have the bonus of being more remote if he wanted to be.
I live south of DC, a house in a gated community with its own marina runs you 300-800k. Hour and a half from DC, and about 20 min from the Chesapeak bay.
About the furthest you can get from Lake Erie is 3 hours, and there are a bunch of inland lakes large enough for power sports. You'd be hard pressed to get more than an hour away from a beach.
[deleted] ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 02:55:15 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Lake beaches don't count, especially when the weather prohibits you from utilizing them for ~50% of the year.
There are 800k houses in Cincinnati, though. That's not even hitting the top of the real estate market, either. Hell, there are 300k condos in downtown Cincy that are only about 600sf.
Real estate is very local. I'd be amazed if there are any states where there aren't 800k houses that aren't even mansions.
I live in Ohio and there is a 2 million dollar home for sale 10 minutes from where I live. It's nearly 10,000 square feet, has two tennis courts, a basketball court, and two pools (one indoor, one outdoor). Actually it might not be on sale anymore because I haven't had to drive that way to school or work in a few months. There are some very nice areas in NE Ohio southeast of Cleveland. Hunting Valley is full of beautiful homes and land.
Hooray. Something Mississippi has that somebody else doesn't! Although, I live on the beach. The coast has million dollar homes scattered all the way down the gulf.
I actually just toured a similar house in San Francisco this weekend (the wife and I like going to open houses from time to time). 8 Million was the asking price.
JaronK ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 00:56:21 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
And in the East Bay right near San Francisco, I walked around a place that was advertised as a 5 bedroom that turned out to be a 2 Bedroom (but you could count the living room as a bedroom!) with a tenant in the two bedroom below... $1.1 million. Yehaw.
JaronK ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 05:41:54 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Please in my back yard. There's a development right next to my house going up, and I am in complete support (though traffic is getting worse by the day, we need infrastructure support to get more housing too).
manfrin ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:17:45 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
$1.1 for a 2x duplex ain't too bad.
JaronK ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 05:41:10 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I'm making more money than I've ever made in my life... and there's just no way I can afford that.
And in most other places, that's a heck of a lot of money for a duplex.
manfrin ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:34:20 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I meant for a duplex in the bay area; 1.1 is not terrible; that 2bdrm you can rent out for $3k-4k depending on where it is, which is enough to make payment on like 700k of your mortgage.
JaronK ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:51:31 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The tenant below was a school paying $2500 a month, and rent is taxed so you lose about half of that.
But we were comparing Bay Area to not Bay Area here.
For eight hundred k your living in a mansion on the Gulf of Mexico here in Pensacola Fl. My beach house on the Gulf, eighth floor, end 3,000 soft. Was only 315,000.000 when I bought it. Y'all need to move down here! Other than the one weekend when it got down to 38 I have worn shorts all "winter".
I clean a lady's house that is around 6000 sq ft with 6 beds, four full baths, three half baths, and an upstairs rec room, PLUS a guest house that is basically an additional one bedroom apartment of very comfortable size. This house is in the suburbs of a somewhat major Midwest city. You could have it all for around $675-700k.
sj79 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:46:03 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
There's a 5,100 square foot lake home for sale near me listed for $735,000. There are decent 3 bedroom homes with attached 2-car garages listing for under $70,000 in the area.
mdo556 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:01:55 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
DTLA isn't necessarily the nice part
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 01:39:04 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
In my hometown, 10 minutes north of Boston, a fixer upper will set you back at least $800,000
A lower class house in the midwest is dilapidated and 900 square feet. Show me a listing for a 1 million dollar home in LA that meets that description or piss off for exaggerating nonsense.
not lower class in the midwest but it does lend a little truth to his statement although still exaggerated. though every other house i looked at was quite beautiful at 1 mil
sj79 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 01:52:33 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
That listing is like right in the heart of LA. If you're living there then you'll be near a ton of events and attractions, with a lot of them being world famous. You really would have to value that over being at home to buy that house.
Most people don't live right in the heart of LA. LA isn't just a city, it's also a county. You can get houses at like 300k within LA county limits if you wanted to. My parents' house is worth one mill right now and it's almost 3k sq ft with a mountain view. It's not in the LA city but it's within the LA county boundaries
The exaggeration is exactly what I was disputing. I don't disagree that there's a major difference between the coasts and the midwest, but to suggest a million dollar home on the coasts is comparable to a lower class home in the midwest is just silly. It's just middle class. No need to exaggerate to make a point.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:39:31 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I havent been there, but... Having the cheapest housing shouldnt the midwest have a slightly higher bar for what middle class people can afford? So why are you defining "lower class" as sooo far below average? Theres hardly any houses that tiny.
There are a lot of houses this size, I'm not sure what you're talking about. I've spent the last several years scouring the housing market in the area.
They're fairly common here. As soon as you break $100-120k you rarely see houses that small, but once you break $100-120k you are also pretty firmly into middle class.
Yeah, over here if you want to buy a house below 100k, its not an issue of size, its an issue of location. You basically have to choose something in the 'less-safe' areas. So most normal people just.. dont. All those houses are owned by people who will probably never set foot in them again, and they rent them out.
My brother lived in one of those places for a year or two, its not exactly the slums, you aren't likely to get killed or anything and as long as you act smart and don't go out late at night or anything you probably wont get robbed.
Maybe thats just the difference between city slums and suburb slums? Because the places Im referring to definitely still resemble suburbs.
[deleted] ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 23:28:42 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Even that is much bigger than the house I grew up in
AbeRego ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:59:09 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I'm not sure about that. I know a couple in Hermosa beach who's house is probably worth around a million (granted, it could be higher now). It's small, but perfect for two people, and it's certainly not "lower class". Many of their neighbors are professional volleyball players.
Drugba ยท 10 points ยท Posted at 22:28:13 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
No, you can't. It kind of depends what you mean by nice area, but a million will get you a medium sized apartment (3 bed ~1400 sqft) in someplace like Santa Monica, Venice, or downtown, but that's not really the "nice" area of LA, especially for a celebrity. You're looking at well over a million for anything half decent in Hollywood Hills or Beverly Hills.
umaro77 ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 23:06:55 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
As a middle class person, I was thinking that a million dollar home in Pasadena would qualify as a pretty nice home.
Drugba ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 23:25:25 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You probably could get a pretty nice house in Pasadena for a million, but Pasadena isn't what I think of when I think of the "nice areas" of LA.
Jaysus. I paid $150,000 for mine, and I like to think it's nice, in a relatively nice area, and in great shape.
What the fuck is going on with real estate over there? I just saw a holy-shit-awesome 5 bedroom house with a four car garage and 30 acres of land go for $500K in my area. What the hell does a million dollar house looks like?
davdev ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:15:21 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
My house in a Boston suburb is about 1800sqft in less than a quarter acre and I could sell it for $550k tomorrow if I wanted. Prices are nuts here. Not LA nuts, but still nuts. A large house on 30 acres couldnt even be found, but if it could, it would approach $10 mil easy.
Pasadena is not a "nice area of LA". If you're talking about the County of LA, instead of the City of LA, then I'm sure you could find plenty of homes for a million that are fine to live in.
But, I had assumed you meant city of LA...
-500- ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:54:25 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
With as high a profile as he has, he almost needs a gated mansion.
He can try my old neighborhood in Lincoln Heights. It's a bustling and productive community in LA! 2 million could get a person pretty far there. You could find a nice crack house for 200k at most.
IIRC he lives in Florida so the Goldman family can't garnish his wages. He also had a few sham corporations in his kids names to funnel money to himself they couldn't touch or some such jazz.
He could go back to Vegas. Real estate is cheap. $500k will get you a very nice amount of house in the Vegas area.
Decyde ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:32:28 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
He can do book signings for more than the cost of the book when he gets out!
Tehmaxx ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:31:04 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
If he invested it properly, among his other investments that likely exist, he will probably make more money than most people that work 40 hours a week.
Malaysia isn't exactly middle of nowhere. There are plenty of expats here and with RM10M Ringgit, he can live a super decent life at 5% returns/contributions from bond funds
He's been living in Florida since the murder, up until prison in Nevada.
Funkit ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:43:25 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I doubt he could ever live in LA unless he's in South Central People of Brentwood were protesting after he was acquitted. He'd have to live in a majority black neighborhood if he wants to be seen without being harassed.
In West Virginia you could live like a god for that price. Like a man servant to wipe your ass level.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 07:18:29 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Well he can't spend all his retirement fund on a house. He should spend as little as possible so he has money to last until he dies. I was just saying he couldn't successfully retire for the rest of his life if he buys a 1.2 mln dollar house and then has to pay property taxes on that every year.
CRISPR ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 01:40:46 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Do not trust too much my memory. It's just stuck in from the times of the civil trial that they managed to get all of his money except this pension. It was a long time ago.
When you get money when you are young and dumb, you burn through it. When you sit in jail for a long time and think about what you've done and what you will do when you get out, you tend to have a much better idea of how to effectively use that money.
ZileanQ ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 02:25:42 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
It's one thing to make plans about future money - quite another to actually have the cash on hand.
Of course, I'm just saying that just-got-out-of-prison 69-year-old decision making about how to spend 2.7 mil is a hell of a lot more sensible than 28 years old, just got a signing bonus, have no time to sit and ponder what to do with the money before it's in your hands decision making.
He's 70 years old. I don't think he'll be living big like he did prior to going to jail. If you watch the documentary OJ: Made in America, after the civil trial, he lost everything. He lost memorabilia that was worth millions, he had to sell his house in Brentwood (which was then demolished by the person who bought it). He packed up his family and moved to Miami where he, to put it flatly, became a coke fiend. He also looked at becoming a rapper. Then the incident with his "stolen" memorabilia happened and now he's in prison. I could be wrong. But I think he knows with $2.7 million, that's going to be his last chance in this life. He'd going to find it difficult to find income in sports or autograph appearances, etc. And that's not even mentioning the fact that he could seek a regular job and still find it hard to get a job. Nobody will feel sympathy if he wastes that money and ends up homeless and broke.
Thank you for this. I don't understand people's subjective reasoning behind wanting someone to suffer after they've "paid their debt". There's a reaction to every action. No reason to screw millions of people to stick it to one guy.
Well, did he really pay his debt? Most murderers get life in prison. Sure, he went to jail for robbery and stuff, but everyone knows he did it, so his debt will never be paid.
Edit: I apologize. The context of your comment did not warrant my reply.
I can't imagine him really being in a position to live lavishly, even if he could afford it. If I were in his shoes, I'd probably want to head to some remote location somewhere like Montana or Wyoming. Somewhere I can live in quiet, peace, and when people say I look like 'That guy that killed his girlfriend' I can respond with 'haha, yeah, I get that a lot'.
It has been projected by the point system they use that he will be recommended for release. They have a clear cut system of + and - for risks and he, by any conservative measure, still fits in the window of recommendation for parole release.
Funkit ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:44:42 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Plus he is older, they tend to release older folk early.
Old, stable income, first time offender (as far as the law is concerned), and was over 24 at the time of his first arrest. He checks almost every box that a parole board is looking for to determine if someone will reoffend.
texum ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 10:01:25 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Except that he's OJ. A lot of people have a special animosity toward him. Maybe 4 of the 7 parole board members find a way to justify keeping him locked up.
[deleted] ยท 55 points ยท Posted at 21:17:30 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I bet he will be. From an objective legal view, he got really screwed with his sentencing.
Yeah, I feel just miserable for him. Really bad break.
[deleted] ยท 173 points ยท Posted at 21:31:38 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I didn't say anything remotely close to sympathizing with him. From a legal standpoint his sentencing was quite harsh compared to what people usually get for committing the same crimes he did in that hotel. The judge very clearly was getting "payback" against him. If you watch the video of his sentencing she strolls in sipping a big gulp.
If you watch the video of his sentencing she strolls in sipping a big gulp.
What the fuck is the relevance of this? I mean, yeah, for OJ, that's one of the most important days of his life, but for the judge, that's just getting back to work after lunch on Tuesday.
[deleted] ยท 143 points ยท Posted at 23:22:32 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
It's a courtroom, not a food court. If anyone else walked into the courtroom with a big gulp you'd be threatened with a contempt of court charge. Showed a major lack of professionalism that set the tone for the sentencing.
I agree with your point about the sentencing being deliberately harsh, and quite arguably out of proportion with the crime for which he was actually sentenced(at least by wealthy/famous/white person standards) But I feel like the big gulp criticism is reaching. Judges get thirsty too.
[deleted] ยท 13 points ยท Posted at 02:06:16 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
All I'm saying is that it casts an appearance of unprofessionalism. I'm not saying she should be removed or disbarred or anything, it's that it makes it appear she didn't care at all about the defense's arguments and had her own agenda to carry out.
j3utton ยท -9 points ยท Posted at 02:23:12 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yea, totally unprofessional of me to have a drink at my desk while I'm at work too.
joanzen ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 02:29:20 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah I am eating pasta for dinner so this is ok.
Really love your argument style. It's just a criminal trial that will decide a man's future. No biggie - gulp.
joanzen ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 02:27:57 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
So you're going to stroll into a murder trial hauling on a Super Big Gulp and when the judge asks you WTF you'll reply with, "Everyone gets thirsty!"?
It's her court room, not "anyone else's" she can do what she wants. My dad was a judge for a while and in his courtroom he did shit just because he could. If it isn't against the law or an ethics violation they pretty much have free reign over what is or isn't allowed. It's their office so to speak (although they do have a separate office close by). civilians have to be kept on a leash though, if you let one in with a big gulp, suddenly everyone else will bring their lunch, and basically trash the place up, it's a court not a movie theater. The judge having a drink is not a big deal, would you have felt better if her Dr. Pepper had been in a coffee mug?
[deleted] ยท 29 points ยท Posted at 23:44:51 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
That's all great but don't expect anyone to take you seriously when you do that. If I see a judge do that it makes me question their dedication to professionalism and upholding standards.
Does everyone have to stand when you enter the room or call you "your Honor"? If not, it's not really relevant. Judges are basically demigods in their court rooms and can do more or less whatever the hell they want.
I mean come on, not saying I agree with the guy above, but that is a dumb comparison. It should be painfully obvious to you that there are vastly different standards for courtroom conduct versus most offices.
The point I was making (which seems painfully obvious that everyone missed) is that judges are humans just like the rest of us. Humans get thirsty so what difference does it make if its a coffee mug, big gulp, slurpee or anything else?
It wasn't scotch in the cup so I don't see the unprofessionalism, if she's doing her job I personally could care less about the cup. Seems to me that people just look for excuses to rake others over the coals every chance they get - especially cops and judges.
Unfortunately, it really does matter to a lot of people (judges included). Carrying a massive big gulp cup in to court is an extremely, extremely atypical behaviour and it immediately begs the question of why. The most immediate conclusions that many would reach are either they don't give a shit about the case enough to observe standard court conduct, or they're trying to make the statement that they think the case should be treated as casual and not taken seriously.
That's just how it is, and if you don't get that by now, I'm sorry I can't explain anymore. Alternatively, however, if you're trying to make the case that there shouldn't be these stringent rules of conduct, that's a fair discussion to have. I think the counter-argument to that would be that the existence of stringent court conduct is a method employed to essentially manipulate the mindset of court attendees and participants into taking the whole court process seriously, and respectfully. That method seems to work, but I can see the argument for strict pragmatism, that is to say, judge (no pun intended) a judge solely on their performance and ethics.
[deleted] ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 01:29:13 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Because your reply was so extraordinarily intelligent and enlightening. If that comment was the measure of intelligence though I'll take that as a compliment.
Also maybe think twice next time you're going to throw out an insult at the expense of people afflicted with a medical condition that they have no control over.
Its a slippery slope. Do you think its acceptable for a judge to be munching on a Big Mac while they hear evidence that will decide if someone lives or dies?
They are literally about to pass judgement on someone and decide the course of the rest of their lives. Save your soda until after. This isnt the time to be sipping on your damn big gulp.
j3utton ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 02:50:50 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I mean, does eating a big mac somehow impair ones ability to hear evidence?
Yes it does. It is distracting. I dont have a study done on Judges eating while overseeing a court case but I do have some for driving.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates that eating and driving increases the likelihood of crashes by 80 percent. Additionally, 65 percent of near-miss crashes are caused by distracted drivers who are eating or drinking while driving
According to a Lytx study in 2014, a driver who is drinking or eating is 3.6 times more likely to be in an automobile crash than attentive drivers who are not eating or drinking while driving.
Lets put this a different way. You are in a courtroom being tried for murder. While your lawyer is laying out your defense the judge is burying their face in a burger, bending over to pick up fries that fell while evidence is being shown and slurping a soda while you plea your case. Do you have an issue with that?
j3utton ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 03:08:19 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Well... judges generally don't require the use of their hands and feet to control a 2 ton steel box traveling at 60+ mph while they're sitting behind their bench now, do they? Your analogy has no bearing on this conversation. Reaction time isn't comparable to someones hearing comprehension. Eating food, or drinking a beverage, does not impair ones ability to hear and interpret information.
And you've greatly exaggerated the argument past the point of absurdity... That's two logical fallacies now, Reductio ad absurdum and Slippery Slope, care to try for lucky number three?
Its not JUST reaction time. If you are eating at least some portion of your attention is devoted to that. Even if its only 1% of your attention, over enough court cases you will eventually overlook a vital piece of information. I did not mean it to be a 1:1 comparison. Simply showing that there is precedent for eating and drinking to have a negative effect on your attention.
It was rude, and there was 0 reason for that judge to be sipping on a big gulp aside from being obviously disrespectful towards OJ. I dont like the guy, I think he did it. But a judge should be better than that. It was petty.
j3utton ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:31:30 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Someone being hungry and or thirsty can have just an much, if not more of a distracting impact as your hypothetical 1% on their attention.
I really think some people are attempting to make a mountain out of a mole hill here.
Then maybe as an adult she should have known to eat/drink before a major national case. A cop cant just break out a burger in the middle of a traffic stop. Trump cant just whip out a big gulp during the presidential address (please, dont prove me wrong), and a judge shouldn't do it either.
Its not a huge deal, Im not calling for her to lose her job. But it was a petty thing to do and reflects poorly on her character. Same for the obvious bias in the punishment. It was objectively harsh for the crime when you compare it to other similar cases. All of this works together to show that the judge was not unbiased and used prior prejudices in their ruling.
Its easy to let things like that slide when its being done to someone like OJ but it sets bad precedent.
[deleted] ยท -14 points ยท Posted at 23:57:34 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Heres the best part: It doesn't fucking matter what you think. ESPECIALLY to the people on the other side of the bench in her court. You don't want to respect her? Tough shit. You will if she walks in with a god damned clown outfit on. You think she gives a fuck if you like her approach? As long as it is ethical and within the law, she can do whatever the fuck she wants.
[deleted] ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 23:58:06 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Wow, looks like someone is upset.
[deleted] ยท -3 points ยท Posted at 00:00:46 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Huh? Not at all. Im not the one bitching about a big gulp. LOL. Just trying to put into perspective how little your opinion of her professionalism actually matters.
[deleted] ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 00:02:22 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Good for you I guess? What's your point?
[deleted] ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 00:13:39 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You point has absolutely nothing to do with what /u/pinata_penis_pump2 said, though. Their point was that the judge was acting unprofessional as a judge, that's it. So your wild angry rant about how she can walk in with a clown outfit is clearly pointless and absurd.
[deleted] ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 00:07:26 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
[deleted] ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 00:12:36 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Woah, someone's mad. Damn, we are having a discussion and you come in throwing insults? Pretty lame.
It's not sympathizing to say the punishment he got for the crime he was convicted of is objectively harsher than is typical for those who commit the same crime.
If we allow justice to break down and become blind to equity just because we don't like somebody, the system is going to devolve and we will all suffer.
I agree except judges look at the persons history when sentencing. They could see this man had an extensive history of violence and gave him the higher sentencing based on he might repeat that.
So no this isnt revenge. the legal system worked. Just like how first time offenders usually get lighter sentences.
Sounds like you really have no understanding of how the legal system works. OJ was never even arrested or charged with any domestic related battery. These reports couldn't be used against him at sentencing, especially since the person who made the complaints was dead and could not corroborate them.
You sure that requires separate trials and not multiple convictions? He was arrested a few times, lost the civil suit. Laundry list of charges in his conviction.
Wasn't he guilty in civil court for the death, then guilty in criminal court for the kidnapping? Different evidentiary standards, beyond a reasonable doubt vs more probable than not. Sentencing has to weigh likelihood of danger to the public.
The law? He was found Not Guilty; as far as the Criminal justice system is concerned, he didn't do it. There is no basis whatsoever for a previous, unrelated civil matter to have an effect on the sentencing of a later criminal case.
It's absurd to allow a case resolved by 'preponderance of the evidence' change the outcome of a 'beyond a reasonable doubt' case; as it does an end-run around the whole point of 'beyond a reasonable doubt'
He was convicted of robbery, but sentenced for murder.
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 03:08:35 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
By law arrested doesn't count for anything unless you're convicted of a crime. Otherwise you can just have police arrest someone ten times with no evidence and have to let them go but oh no they got convicted on time number 11 and have been arrested so many times before so throw the book at them.
Yes, I think OJ did it, but previous arrests without conviction as a mitigating point are a VERY slippery slope.
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 00:20:10 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Judges can consider any relevant evidence in sentencing. The fact that a jury found him liable for stabbing two people to death is relevant here, especially since he was being sentenced for a crime of violence.
Judges look at the person's history when sentencing. They could see this man had an extensive history of violence and gave him the higher sentencing based on he might repeat that.
So no he didn't get screwed the legal system worked. Just like how first time offenders usually get lighter sentences.
Sports Illustrated recently wrote an article on this. Basically he is a slam dunk case for parole. There are seven questions the board looks at and if you pass two of them you have a chance at parole and three gives you a pretty good chance. OJ passes five of them.
There are 11 factors, not seven. And they are not pass/fail, they each contribute between -1 and 2 points to your overall score. Basically everything you've said is wrong.
Yeah. Because negative and positive points cancel each other out and some of those questions are uncontrollable such as gender. You could have written up a summary in the time it takes you to have this hostile back and forth with me.
Dude you aren't even contesting the conclusion I reached because it is correct. He has very favorable chances of parole. You aren't even contesting that. Just being unnecessarily abrasive in trival aspects because you don't like being wrong. If you didn't like how I summarized it, go copy and paste that SI article and make a better post rather than acting like a jerk. You clearly are arguing for the sake of arguing.
Like I said. the fact you want to ignore the conclusion of what I was getting at pretty much verifies all that I need to know. If you are the kind of poster who insists on always getting the last word. Have at it.
Technical kidnapping because he said "nobody leaves the room". He didn't kidnap anyone in the practical sense of taking someone away. I watched the show and it was clear the sentencing was partially revenge for not getting him in criminal court.
kaenneth ยท -21 points ยท Posted at 22:15:28 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I believe allowing corruption in the justice system is worse than allowing a single probable, but not proven beyond a reasonable doubt, murderer to go free.
[deleted] ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 02:46:35 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
[deleted] ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 03:06:39 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 04:46:52 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
probable, but not proven beyond a reasonable doubt, murderer
Oh come on. It was proven beyond a reasonable doubt, just not to that particular jury in 1995
You are free to have that opinion, but legally, he was acquitted.
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 16:15:15 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I'm just not sure what your point is when you keep saying he was legally acquitted. I'm not disagreeing. He was legally acquitted. And, he murdered two people. Those are both facts.
Juries can be wrong. On April 29, 1992, a jury found officers Koon, Powell, Briseno and Wind of the LAPD not guilty of the use of excessive force against Rodney King. They were wrong. A video that aired on every news channel in 1991 had proven beyond reasonable doubt that they had used excessive force.
Another example. Since 1973, 156 people who were sentenced to capital punishment have been exonerated. They were found guilty by juries, but the juries were wrong. That's not opinion, it's established fact.
I just don't get the mentality that a jury verdict is the ultimate bearer of truth. Trial by jury is the best way we've found to reach a verdict in criminal cases, but that doesn't mean that any belief that contradicts any jury verdict is merely an "opinion." Juries can be wrong. It's a fact that the LAPD used excessive force against Rodney King; it's a fact that certain people who were on death row did not commit the crimes they were accused of; and it's a fact that OJ Simpson killed Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman.
Going before a parole board is pretty far from a guarantee he'll be released. I don't know how they do things in Nevada but in many states it's basically a formality, they release very few people. A lot of prisoners don't even bother going to the hearing.
He wasn't convicted and paid a huge amount already. I would agree if convicted but the whole lower bar for civil and then lose everything isn't right either. Somewhere in between is right.
If someone killed my son, and got away with it. And I was already old/ had no other children, etc. I can't imagine me not just walking straight up to him and stabbing him right in his fucking throat.
And then you find out later he was innocent, even though it seemed like he wasn't (not about OJ, I just mean vigilantism is risky in that way) - and then you're a murderer of an innocent person.
Well yah but the evidence that OJ did it is overwhelmingly convincing. Not saying I'd condone the father murdering OJ, but I wouldn't blame him either.
To be 100% fair, coming from someone who thinks OJ is as guilty as they get, the LAPD fucked up pretty bad. Putting Marcia on while she was going through a divorce, only 2 lawyers on with few people actually working on the case, and then just fucking up evidence collection altogether (putting the shoes in the police officers car and taking them home), the prosecution and LAPD just horribly botched the way they went about this. And then allowing him to put on the glove??? Come on. OJ is guilty in my book, but the prosecution is just as guilty as he is for the way they brought this case did a terrible job bringing this case against him as well. Absolutely pitiful.
Very poor wording. I'll change it up. Good point. Of course a horrible bringing of a prosecution isn't as bad as violently murdering two people. Hyperbole got the best of me.
[deleted] ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 04:48:48 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Eh, OJ's son was in and out of mental hospitals for gettin stabby multiple times, and had arranged to see Nicole that night, which she broke off. They were closer in age than her and OJ, and had been seen hanging around together a lot.
And he carried his personal slew of Chef's knives in his car, and shut down his whole restaurant earlier when she didn't come, but forged the time clocking out.
OJ prolly helped fix things afterwards tho, and the first person that he lawyered up was not him, but his son.
I agree. Dr. Henry Lee, the criminologist who worked for the defense, said all along two people committed the crime. It was probably OJ and his son. Since OJ was acquitted the case is still open. The DNA under Nicole's fingernails was not OJ's. At the time they typed the blood to be type B. If they tested Jason's blood (OJ's son) I bet they'd find a match!
Also, Nicole and her family were supposed to go to Jason's restaurant the night of the murder after the kids' school program. However she cancelled at the last minute and went to Ron's restaurant. Jason did fudge his time card, creating an alibi that was debunked by his then girlfriend who said she picked him up from work 2 hours prior to when he wrote he left work. And yes he did take his chef's knives home with him as all real chefs do.
Furthermore, he had a history of documented domestic violence. He also had a history of violent outbursts and had been placed on medication for that. But he had abruptly stopped taking the medication a month or two before the murders. The theories are the following 1) he was pissed Nicole cancelled her families dinner plans at his restaurant and either went to her place to kill her and he and OJ randomly showed up at the same time and committed the crimes together, 2) he was pissed and called OJ to tell him about Nicole cancelling dinner plans and he and OJ met up and planned to kill Nicole together and then went to her place together, or 3) he called OJ pissed about the dinner thing and on the phone they decided to meet up at Nicole's separately and kill her.
It's extremely fascinating and a theory I just recently heard about. Also, I never really considered that the murder case was still open because OJ was acquitted. If they investigated the Jason lead and charged him with murder they could actually charge OJ as an accomplice and it not be double jeopardy. Listen to this theory in a podcast by a former FBI agent and a former Scotland Yard agent called Real Crime Profile.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:54:55 on March 10, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Nice summary! I'm usually not fascinated by this stuff, but this one was clearly intetesting. I think the son just went to tell her off initially until woops, hot dude at her house, and maybe either :
called his dad for help after the incident, or
he called his dad on her to really escalate it
OJ randomly happened to be stalky when Jason was stabby.
I think my main takeaway is for women to empower themselves so much that they're only attracted to guys that improve their lives
I guess I'll discuss it, I don't really care about internet points anyway. The trial was taking place in LA which was the same city Rodney King was beat up by four LA police officers. Some jurors went on record later saying that the reason they found OJ not guilty was to stick it to law enforcement for beating up Rodney King.
Wyzegy ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:20:18 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
OJ, and I might be wrong about this...I'm not an expert, was black. The victims they, and again I'd like to emphasize that this is just an educated guess, were white. Not just that, moderately attractive and white. One of them may have been a woman as well. So there's a lot of things like...right there, ya know?
thr new documentary that won besr doc oscar has a couple of the jurors on it. it has nothing to do with bad evidence, the blacks refused to convict because of rodney king and other very real and percieved racial injustices. it was a prejudiced jury against the LAPD. and they wanted their turn, fuck nicole and ron.
that is my takeaway from the verdict. one juror gave the black panther fist salute at the end. one juror when confronted decades later that clearly oj was guilty just shrugs and says it is what it is. no remorse.
[deleted] ยท 20 points ยท Posted at 01:55:35 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Wyzegy ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 02:21:38 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Depends on the ventriloquist.
thePZ ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 01:48:40 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I was too young at the time to remember it, but every educator of mine that has touched on the subject made it known that it was predominately perceived that OJ's team performed damn near perfectly and the other side was rather lackluster.
noiserr ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:31:38 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
OJs legal defense team was stacked.. I mean I didn't hurt the fact that his friend was on it who also happened to be a lawyer.
So you're saying that a televised trial shouldn't constitute a "fair trial" & as such should be declared a mistrial regardless?
Cossil ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 01:58:34 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
No, he's replying to a comment that is suggesting that the jury was somehow more knowledgeable about the trial than the public, and thus their opinion is more valid. That is false, as we had all the knowledge they had as it was televised.
This person who claims to be an attorney doesn't come off as a very good one. He claims the jury (that was physically at the trial throughout the whole thing) was not in a better position to determine facts over someone who watched TV. Even though:
the jurors HAD to be there for the whole thing. They weren't able to just sign on or off as they pleased like someone watching TV. Meaning that yes, they got all the facts from the source.
the media is very well-known for spinning content
the jurors weren't allowed to take into consideration anything outside of the courtroom, or discuss the case outside of it.
So yes, they were in a better position.
Also, he claims that it was because:
the jury was a predominantly uneducated & unsophisticated
the jury was duped by a brilliant litigator
This attorney must have never seen the inside of a courtroom because juries are made up of your peers, meaning that most juries are uneducated & unsophisticated. You know because again they are made up of peers, not out of a pool of the educated and sophisticated.
And claiming that the jury was duped by a brilliant litigator also implies that they've never seen the inside of a courtroom because that's exactly what litigation is. Defending your side of the case. Nobody is going to go out of their way to get a shitty lawyer.
Using this evidence stated above, I determine that attorney to be an idiot for thinking that watching something on TV puts you in a better position than participating in the actual trial & for also not understanding how legal proceedings work.
Some of those jury members of his peers stated that they voted innocent as retaliation for Rodney King so I take their verdict with a spoon full of salt.
You know absolutely nothing about the trial or evidence. One of the jurors gave OJ a Black Power salute on the way out, jurors have gone on record saying that they put evidence aside and voted to acquit for payback for Rodney King, and your reaction to that would be "yeah but the jury said not guilty lol"
Doubt is a funny thing when people are being exposed to new information. The one side has to basically teach them something technical to explain their findings and the opposition trying to poke holes in that new thing they just learned is given equal consideration. That's guaranteed to be confusing. There's no impartial third party to give a straight answer on what is an unequivocal fact.
Imagine taking someone with little exposure to the subject and having them judge a debate between evolution and creationism. It's going to come down to who gives the best simplified layman explanation.
That guy with the video about bananas being designed by God to fit in your hand and mouth is basically Johnnie Cochran.
ejp1082 ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 02:31:17 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
It's possible for all of the following true.
He did it. He's guilty as fuck. He murdered those two people.
The LAPD completely bungled the handling of the evidence, and the prosecution didn't prove his guilt beyond the shadow of a doubt as a consequence.
We have a justice system that (in theory, if not always in practice) guarentees certain rights to the accused, and can not and will not convict unless certain standards are met and practices are followed.
Those standards weren't met in the OJ case, and so he (rightly, IMHO) was found not guilty despite the fact that he absolutely, definitely did it.
He got lucky that they picked racist idiots to be his peers. Similar to the racist idiots that were the peers in the Rodney King case, just with different races.
Store clerk who killed a teenage black girl for buying milk from her got off
Prosecution did the trial in downtown vs close to the muder location took place, so it wouldn't seem racially motivated. Jury pool had to be made up of ppl who couldn't show a 6 month trial would destroy their life.
OJ could afford a superstar legal team, that had the resources to drag prosecution through the mud
Lot more emotions than judgement involved in that trial
It is by far the most unconventional case in American history. There is a very strong argument to be made that racial attitudes played a role in that verdict. One juror suggested it was payback for Rodney King and another was later found to be a member of the black panthers. A trial that lasted a year on a double murder had only four hours of jury deliberations to reach a not guilty verdict. You simply don't see that under normal circumstances.
A biased jury of twats and morons who ignore DNA evidence, blood of the defendant in three separate places at the crime scene, a history of domestic violence, who are kept in 2 hotels for almost a year "without any outside media consumption" cough yeah right, an incompetent judge, yeah that trial was fucked.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 01:33:16 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
"I listened to 12 morons with a race agenda, so he's not guilty."
LeJoker ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 01:53:36 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I don't understand why more people don't take this into account. It matters exactly zero how convincing the evidence against him is. He has been acquitted of murder. That's it. We're done. If a mistake was made, let it have been made.
It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer
[deleted] ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 01:45:46 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Apparently his peers include members of the Black Panther Party who are definitely unbiased
A jury who claimed, at least a few members, the it was outright revenge for the Rodney King beatings. A jury that had a member, upon exiting the courtroom one day, give OJ the black power fist raise. A jury selected from a group of people who grew up in Southern California, a place in which OJ had been seen as a hero for decades, one of the first black men who came from nothing, used his talent to become an athlete and star, and then, through his charisma, connections and generally being loved by everyone, black and white, relayed that success into national stardom in acting, commercials, commentating, etc., stardom way beyond football. He was an icon for people in Southern California. He was more than just an athlete. Or a star. He was the embodiment of all their hopes and dreams, the embodiment of the black lower class escaping hundreds of years of perceived subjugation and barriers to success. When you have someone like this, and the people asked to sit in judgement of him viewing him this way, it's nigh impossible to get a fair result out of their decision. Sure, legally he is criminally innocent because a jury of his peers said so. But there's so much more to this story, so much of America and class and race and power and fame and jealousy and lust and murder. There's a reason it was "the trial of the century" or what have you. You can think it's as black and white as "jury of his peers said he was innocent, he's innocent" all you want, but that would require being willfully obtuse to the absurd complexity of this case and of that point in history, in that city, with those people, and what it represented for all of America.
Juries have done one thing very well, proven that the average person can't be impartial or intelligent. The number of coloured people sent to prison or death by their "own peers" is staggering. The stories of people being sentanced to death off one witness's testimony that have been over-turned 30 years later due to DNA evidence. I cant believe. Unpopular opinion, Juries dont work, and democracy doesn't work. You can't just say everyone is equal and then think that means they all have a equally right opinion about everything.
I think the whole point is that you SHOULD blame them. Because no one is going to make the right decision in this sort of situation. One person might be able to correctly assign blame for who murdered their child, but that doesn't mean everyone can. And allowing one person to do that means a lot more innocent people are going to die, rather than just making sure some murderer somewhere gets "justice" for what they did.
There's a reason we have a system in place for this.
When I was younger, I was certain he was innocent. I thought he was covering for his son. There was a private investigator that wrote at length about this theory. Said he found son's murder weapon in an auctioned rental locker.
I'm probably just susceptible to crazy innocence theories though. I'd be terrible on a jury.
Idk. I am leaning toward OJ's son doing it and OJ covering for him.
[deleted] ยท -2 points ยท Posted at 01:42:22 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
More like a bunch of bullshit the police were known racists that planted evidence and mishandled DNA evidence fuck EM glad O.J got off that court trial was a damn circus
winkman ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:02:33 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You should just hire the Boondock Saints instead โบ
trada-l ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:14:03 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The problem is getting to him.
joanzen ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:31:11 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
When they put you behind bars and find the real killer, and he manages to weasel free on a legal snafu, how are you going to dole out your brand of justice? SMRT.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:30:50 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Even if someone would kill my son, and get away with it, I'd be royally pissed and angry, but I wouldn't kill that person. Everyone always tries to sound bad ass by saying shit like this, but I doubt you'd actually do it. I'm sorry, but I see stuff like "If this happened to me" all over Reddit, and I'm personally sick of people trying to sound edgy by saying they personally would kill somebody if in a position of a certain subject.
[deleted] ยท -14 points ยท Posted at 00:11:25 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
Exist50 ยท 98 points ยท Posted at 00:18:14 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
There's actually a theory that it was one of his sons (Jason) who committed the crimes, so it wouldn't surprise me if they did that. The evidence is purely circumstantial, though: he had mental health issues that often led him to being violent, OJ actually initially hired Jason a lawyer when the murder happened, etc. There was even a BBC documentary about the theory.
And? This is at least something remotely plausible. I'm also not condoning the theory, just pointing out that them killing Jason would make sense given that theory.
Fitting username! Not sure what you're wanting out of me. I'm just pointing out that the theory exists. Hell, I even remarked how it's purely based off of circumstantial evidence.
dall007 ยท 51 points ยท Posted at 23:06:28 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I would argue if someone killed my kid and got away with it, anger would not be "unreasonable". Whether or not it works with modern society, I think it would be abnormal if one didn't feel that way
EDIT: for everyone stuck on the words anger and emotion: as far as I know the u/lamb-and-lamia hasn't killed anyone. Therefore it's still an angry emotion. Stop getting caught up on semantics
Perhaps you're the one in need of mental health counseling. If you can't accept that retribution for murdering someone's child isn't an unreasonable response when the justice system fails, then you're either incapable of emotion or in denial of your own capacity for it.
If someone murdered my child, the seed that I spent hours raising and watching blossom, the genetic future of my lineage, I would be furious. If that person was then able to circumvent the justice system, walked free, then had the balls to write a book about how they savagely stripped my child of life, I would crawl to the ends of the world to reign hell down on that person.
If you can't see that as a reasonable emotional response, you're either an idiot or a troll.
[deleted] ยท 36 points ยท Posted at 23:06:12 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I don't agree thats what you should do but a therapist? Really? You think the urge to get revenge on someone who murdered your children is somehow unnatural or makes someone mentally ill? Give me a break.
Responding to anger with murder is not a reasonable thing to do. If your first reaction to being angry is to murder someone in a violent manner then yes, you should consider therapy.
[deleted] ยท 19 points ยท Posted at 23:31:25 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I think they sound like the only reasonable person in this thread who is sticking to words and meanings. They're pretty clearly saying it's fine to get incredibly angry, but that it can't translate into the action of murder. People keep unreasonably interpreting /u/GoonCommaThe's statements as "you shouldn't be angry" and other insipid shit, when /u/GoonCommaThe is sticking to their very reasonable guns in the face of reddit's angry, mob-justice hivemind.
And I absolutely agree with /u/GoonCommaThe. If you think murder for murder is OK then I believe you are either hyperbolically expressing yourself (safely on reddit) and wouldn't actually do it, or have a severe mental issue that keeps you from realizing why we left vigilantism and mob justice in the dark ages, where they belong.
Goon is telling lots of people that they need to go to mental health counseling because they would consider killing their child's murderer. And he's doing it with the condescending tone of a lone sane man amongst psychos. They already said they don't have a kid, which means they have no idea what they're talking about anyways. All of that seems silly to me.
Goon is telling lots of people that they need to go to mental health counseling because they would consider killing their child's murderer.
See, this is the issue - he's not responding to people saying "consider". The people he's responding to aren't saying "god I would really think about murdering them", they are saying "I would kill them". This is a super important distinction.
That doesn't seem like an important distinction at all. All of this is hypothetical dude. 100% of the comments were hypothetical. Nobody in this thread has killed their child's murderer.
And besides, did you read all his comments in that thread? He told a bunch of people that they need mental health counseling and some of those people did NOT explicitly say that they would kill anybody. He was absolutely responding to some people who who were just "considering".
You should hop off your high horse and grow some balls. I can't even imagine the ways in which you must get pushed around in life. I hope you realize that you would not even exist if your ancestors had the same attitude as you.
Fully aware of that. But someone doesn't need therapy just because they'd want justice for their son when the person who murdered their son got away with it and bragged about it in a book. At some point, the options are let your son's death be a mockery and the murderer a free man, or you get old and near death and take matters into your own hands and go out with at least partial justice being done.
No.. You can't do that. You can have that want to do it in your heart all you want but if we allow it then suddenly courts don't matter and anyone wronged by the court can just say "I can kill that person" and it's OK.
It isn't. Not by any metric, not by any age, you can't go fucking murder people because you didn't like the way a court case turned out.
I work in a court and see the consequences of actions every day, man. I am fully aware. I'm not saying it's allowed or that there are no consequences. The fact the original poster mentioned he would do it when he was old and near death implies that he realizes he's going to jail afterwards. I'm just saying it's a regular human emotion and I don't think any sane person is going to look down on someone who wants justice for someone they love and is willing to face the consequences for said justice.
What I'm saying is I agree with you, and that's why our laws are written that way. But if someone wants their last free act on this Earth to be killing someone who murdered their son and bragged about it, I'm not going to think negatively about them. Our justice system isn't perfect. It's made by people who aren't perfect. No one should be able to murder someone and get away with it, let alone brag about it. But like all things, there's consequences to actions.
Murdering someone because you are angry does not make you brave, it makes you someone who lacks self control. Consider mental health counseling before you land yourself in prison. I am done here. Have a good night.
GoonCommaThe has repeatedly said expressing that emotion is fine, but endorsing murder is evidence of a mental disorder. I strongly agree. Your inability to see the difference between (a) them expressing that an inclination towards murder is a mental health issue (b) telling someone they aren't allowed to feel a normal human emotion, (hint: they are only saying (a), and they aren't saying (b)), quite frankly, makes you the idiot.
I don't think you nor GoonCommaThe have any idea what constitutes a mental disorder. You both throw around that word way too easily. You do realize that, for centuries, people used to be killed for a hell of a lot less of a good reason. Did everyone back then have mental disorders or were societal norms just different? I think you know the answer. Murder can be related to mental illness, absolutely, and almost certainly is for anyone who kills an innocent person. But to compare that to this situation we're discussing is just ludicrous. The reason you can't take law into your own hands isn't because you'd have to have a mental disorder and it would never be justified; it's because there would be chaos if we let people get away with that, and people can be wrong and think they're exacting revenge but are actually killing an innocent person.
I'll grant you that mental disorder is too strong a term. I do think that if you consider the response to evil is to commit another evil, it indicates a very unhealthy perspective, and likely therapy would be necessary to deal with whatever part of you considers something as evil as murder as an option in any circumstance.
I get what you're saying, but I see it from a different perspective than you. There's a difference between wanting to commit the act of killing someone and wanting justice to be served/someone to be held accountable for their actions. Personally, I believe that if you kill an innocent person, you're a burden to society and deserve to be killed yourself. However, I respect that the law is in place for a reason and trust that the murderer would receive a lesser but still acceptable punishment of life in prison. If someone manages to get off on their charges because of money (a top attorney) and bullshit (making the trial about racism instead of murder) like OJ Simpson and then that person goes on to brag about it, that's not justice. That's not being held accountable. No sane, reasonable person is going to think that's okay. So what are the options at that point?
Amewica ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 00:22:54 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
... if somebody murdered my child and got away with it you think my natural reaction would be to let it go? Lol youdumb? I'd put a bullet through their fucking head
You seem to be an exceptionally arrogant person. Perhaps you should talk to a professional about that.
But anyway. Seeing violent action as an option is not a sign of something being wrong with a person. Reread the original comment to which you reacted with great smug condescension. you may note a caveat about "and got away with it".
My first thought about such a situation is not violence. It's to attempt to go through the system that is supposed to provide justice. If the system fails, perhaps due to a preference on the part of society do false negatives over fails positives or perhaps due to the perverse effects of wealth on the justice system my second or third or later options may be taking issues into my own hands much like in any other situation where society utterly fails in it's duties.
That's a sign of a reasonably normal and sane person.
You can't go around killing people because the court system fucked up in your opinion.
If you're OK with that then anyone found not guilty can be harmed by the other party after because the harmed party doesn't like the result of the case. And that is not OK.
Ok little diddums. One day when you're all grown up you might come to understand that one of the functions that courts serve is to end cycles of violent retribution. To perform that essential part of their function it is important that they show not just the public but also the victims that the court has behaved reasonably and that justice has been done. If someone can openly brag about crimes without the court doing anything then the court has failed in at least one of it's duties.
You appear to have a very childlike view of morality. From your comment history you seem to have a very childlike view on many issues. Like you lack the mental development to actually understand anything beyond black and white.
It'd be interesting to see your responses to the standard set of morality questions that 10 year old typically give very definite answers to. Right or wrong. Everything certain. Post-puberty most people develop important areas of their brains and lose that clear conviction as they gain the ability to see deeper. One day perhaps you'll reach that stage of growth.
tehmeat ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 01:51:40 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Holy shit, you aren't kidding huh? Actually, thats some serious understatement.
You can't go around killing people because the court system fucked up in your opinion.
If you're OK with that then anyone found not guilty can be harmed by the other party after because the harmed party doesn't like the result of the case. And that is not OK.
Having a child does not automatically make someone into a violent person with no self control. Those are exactly the type of people who shouldn't have kids.
[deleted] ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 23:31:36 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah.. god forbid a thought like that crosses your mind. I am sure no one healthy has thoughts like that. Nobody has ever thought I would go to jail if x was done to my kid etc.
You can't go around killing people because the court system fucked up in your opinion.
If you're OK with that then anyone found not guilty can be harmed by the other party after because the harmed party doesn't like the result of the case. And that is not OK.
You can't go around killing people because the court system fucked up in your opinion.
If you're OK with that then anyone found not guilty can be harmed by the other party after because the harmed party doesn't like the result of the case. And that is not OK.
No, you absolutely do not have that right. Are you joking here or are you actually delusional enough to believe that? It sounds like you should talk to a therapist before you land yourself in prison because of your fucked up ideas about how the world works.
You think that is more likely than the guy who frequently flew in uncontrollable violent rages that resulted in documented beatings over the course of like a decade?
klsi832 ยท 19 points ยท Posted at 21:22:39 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Not really. There was a miniseries recently that pretty much debunked it. The main evidence was his time card from work, which had the time he worked the Sunday night of the murders written instead of stamped for no good reason. But that time card was almost definitely from the week before as Jason didn't go into work for a while after the murders, and it showed him going to work as usual, even the day of Nicole's funeral.
d0r13n ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:24:54 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Wow! I just recently got interested in the whole OJ case (mainly because I wanted to see what all the hub bub was about the "People Vs OJ Simpson" miniseries) and hadn't hears that theory. There's a Globe article from 7 years ago that glosses over the evidence. It's quite a theory, for sure!
Have you seen "oj: made in America"? It's a 7 1/2 hour documentary that won an Oscar. It's amazing. Please tell me you've seen it or if not do yourself the favor. One of the best documentaries I've ever seen
d0r13n ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 05:27:33 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The family of Ron Goldman, the man OJ Simpson allegedly murdered, acquired the rights to Simpson's book If I Did It before it was published, changed its name to Confessions of A Killer and released it.
[1]: It was written by a ghostwriter, and Simpson's manager claims Simpson was paid $600k to say he helped write it and perform an interview. Fenjves claims without question OJ collaborated, but OJ denies it.
And that $600k would've been apart from the book sales themselves, so not applicable to the Goldman lawsuit.
Simpson was banking on being hated and it worked out exactly as anticipated. They get the rights to the book and get to say whatever they like, Simpson gets a cool $600k and the rest of the country goes on believing he did it like they did before.
Coming this summer, the smash hit and future NY Times bestseller "If I Wrote It" by OJ Simpson.
[deleted] ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 02:40:15 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Soon to be titled I Wrote It.
SgtGory ยท 32 points ยท Posted at 17:03:22 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I thought he still owed them a bunch of money, so the 600k would have gone straight to them. I think that is why the whole Vegas collection and hostage/robbery incident happened.
itty53 ยท 49 points ยท Posted at 17:10:06 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Nah, OJ had money. He still has plenty of money.
I think that is why the whole Vegas collection and hostage/robbery incident happened.
That was likely a setup, of sorts. Read into the case, his defense attorney Yale Galanter basically egged him on into doing it and then let the shoe drop on him by having a piss-poor defense prepared. OJ even later made an appeal and Galanter testified against him. I dunno about you, but yeah: Galanter is a shithead.
His lawyer testified against him because OJ was seeking an appeal by saying that Galanter had provided ineffective legal representation. So Galanter testified and mentioned that OJ had confided during the first trial that he had told the guys to bring guns, but couldn't say anything because of the at the time attorney-client confidentiality as his lawyer at the time, which during the appeal OJ had ended so Galanter could testify.
Also, The claim of Galanter egging him on was only brought up at the appeal, where Galanter testified that he had advised against it. So a he said / he said story.
Oj's defense against Galanter esentially is "He told me that I could go in and legally take what was stolen from me, and I didn't know that was actually illegal. Oh, I also didn't know there were guns in my friends hands, because I had tunnel vision, so I shouldn't get any kidnapping charges".
Sounds to me like a guy, OJ, who thinks he can get away with murder figuring that he is going to do whatever the fuck he wants and not get in trouble. And then when he does get in trouble, he blames everyone else and somehow he is uniquely immune from any repercussions of his actions.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:43:21 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You should come to law school. We can trade places. You've got it. Just trade IDs and practice each other's voices and I'll go on my way...
[deleted] ยท 24 points ยท Posted at 20:32:18 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
It's important to note why he has that money. He lost everything that wasn't protected in his retirement plan with the NFL.
[deleted] ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 18:37:46 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
itty53 ยท 28 points ยท Posted at 18:45:39 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I've got too much respect for the process of law and our judicial system to respect that mentality. That basically states, "We know he's a criminal, despite having been exonerated of the crime by a jury, so we'll do whatever it takes to lock him up anyway". I hope you can see the error in that.
That's kind of exactly the problem with police today, especially with regards to race. "oh, black guy in a nice car, I bet he's a criminal, I better pull him over".
The main reason one was found guilty in one and not the other is the difference of between a criminal and a civil case to achieve the "burden of proof".
Burden of proof is the legal way of saying "what does it take to prove he's guilty". In a criminal case you must prove guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt". In a civil case you must have "a preponderance of the evidence".
OJ's murder trial was a criminal trial-- it was to put OJ in jail. The defense was able to at least get the jury to have "a reasonable doubt" about his guilt-- thus he was found not guilty. The rational behind this very high standard is that in the US we are willing to let multiple guilty people go to insure we don't punish an innocent person.
The civil trial was the victims family suing OJ for money (not jail time) because he caused them harm. In a case like that the burden of proof is "a preponderance of the evidence" meaning you must have more evidence of guilt then the other side has of innocence. Almost every expert who has looked at OJ's trials agree there is more evidence to his guilt then innocence -- so that trial naturally was won by the prosecutor.
But its a civil trial so they only get OJ's money-- in this case $35 million was awarded. However it was never paid because after losing the case OJ said he has no money, it all got used up with his legal fees. Now the victim's family get to take the money any time they can prove OJ has it. That was why they got the book money-- it was money that could not be hidden because it was on the publishers books. That was why they got the book rights-- they went to the judge and said-- hey, he still owes us $34 million and the book rights has some value, make him hand it over.
and the rest of the country goes on believing he did it like they did before.
You have to understand that back then, a lot of people actually believed OJ to be innocent. Black people were almost all in favor of his innocence, and white people were probably split 50/50. Possibly even 60/40 or higher in favor of his innocence. The man was a famous and popular athlete that people loved, and he had a modest film career with prominent roles in The Naked Gun series and The Towering Inferno.
I'll admit that I was one of the ones who thought he was innocent back then. But DNA evidence was relatively new, and people would say stuff like, "They just found Simpson DNA! It could have been his son!"
20 years on, and I've long since realized that a team of lawyers helped a man get away with murder.
itty53 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 00:40:50 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
When I said what you quoted, I was referring to what OJ allegedly told the ghostwriter:
"Hey, they offered me $600,000 not to dispute that I [wrote] the book." He said, "That's cash." I said, "They're going to think you wrote it." He said, "So? Everybody thinks I'm a murderer anyway. They're not going to change their mind just because of a book."
It probably is how he saw it. Because he was a murderer and a black man, and he vastly underestimated exactly how beloved he was.
Here's a CNN poll from 1995 that shows that 41% of the white people and 88% of the black people polled thought the verdict was correct.
Rileyr22 ยท 144 points ยท Posted at 20:51:41 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Fun fact: Fred Goldman, his dad, works at a Nordstrom in Scottsdale, AZ. I work at the one in Chandler, AZ not far from it. I have a coworker who used to work with him and almost got fired for calling him a dick behind his back, in front of his wife. Also said that someone came in at least once a shift asking to buy Bruno Magli shoes from him.
OJ moved most of his assets to Florida where they're better protected legally from court judgements. In civil lawsuits, winning is one thing. Collecting is often the bigger hill to climb.
texum ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 10:55:35 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
By assets, OJ basically owns a house. Creditors took all his valuables before he left for Florida. His life is entirely funded by his NFL pension which the Goldmans can't touch.
OJ isn't hiding vast amounts of wealth from them. Even if he cashed in his house and pension, he'd still owe the Goldmans like $29 million. The 1995 trial nearly wiped him out, and the Goldmans got the last $500k when they won their lawsuit in 1997.
I'm from Scottsdale. My high school criminology teacher had him come in and talk to the class every few years or so when we were on the subject of murder.
[deleted] ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 01:13:13 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Damn that settlement money didn't do much...
jbl429 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:34:31 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Of all the things that aren't true, this is one of them.
My workplace at the time was 10 black and 20 or so white. When the verdict was announced on the radio it was awkward, black people cheering and white people looking disgusted.
What did the black people say? Were they really convinced of his innocence? Despite the documented violence against his wife; the DNA evidence; the blood samples etc? The evidence of guilt was fairly overwhelming
The black people I knew and worked with were overjoyed at the outcome. Facts didn't matter, it had become a racial issue. That cop had become the personification of every racist cop ever, so it wasn't about a murder charge anymore. To them it was more about the treatment the black community received from law enforcement.
It was surreal, a defining moment in modern American history where facts didn't matter and the murder of two people was less important to millions of Americans than a innocent verdict for OJ. A verdict that every minority that had been harassed by the police could collectively feel good about. In a weird way it seemed to make a statement from black Americans, about America, that a riot or political movement never could.
It seems like they were (willingly or manipulated into) supporting a murderer.
I mean couldn't the black community have a separate justifiable protest against police brutality and racism ... and not conflate it with supporting OJ?
I mean OJ Simpson was proved in the civil trial as being responsible. And throughout the 60s and 70s he has little to do with the black community.
OJ the person had almost nothing to do with it. The trial basically became, to many black Americans, the system vs black Americans. A verification that the police in America would take extra steps to convict a black man. And to a lot of black people, a victory against that system when the not guilty verdict was read.
From my perspective this was a precursor to alternative facts in mainstream America. Where facts don't matter as long as your narrative is advanced.
I see. Yes I see your points about alternative facts, that seems a good analogy.
I have a huge amount of sympathy towards the black community; and I can understand the antipathy towards the lapd particularly after the King beating.
But with the OJ case I can't really remove the image of Anne Nicole's beaten face or her dead body from my mind. And so I think whoever did that should face the consequences.
Sure, but it's not like OJ was closely connected to the black community.
Since a teenager he'd been at the almost entirely white University of Southern California - the holly wood university - surrounded by white people, with a white girlfriend, and living in a white neighborhood.
Black community leaders asked him to help out with the struggle for black rights in the 60s and 70s. OJ refused. Black church leaders asked him to help out with the struggle for black rights. OJ said he didn't want to.
When a number of black people - supporters - came to support him after the notorious chase, and when he returned to his property, you know what OJ's reaction to a number of black people being in his area? He said "Why are all these niggers here?". He really didn't identify with the black community.
I saw an interview of some of the jurors recently, they seemed pretty adamant they got it right. Seemed proud of themselves, and victim blamed a shit ton.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 05:47:27 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I think deep down they know he was guilty, but don't want to look stupid or have a bit of racism themselves. Mark fuhrman fucked the whole case though.
I was one. I was also 15 years old in high school in TX. Interesting to see now how that case was won. It was a perfect storm for the defense. I feel sorry for the victims and their families.
Did OJ do it? It sure looks like it. However, the state didn't do their job and prove it without a reasonable doubt. Racist cops with jacked up motives will do that.
Yep, you can't really blame the people who wanted to believe he was innocent. Black people at the time were too used to having their heroes framed by a racist judicial system and locked up; it makes sense they'd assume he was innocent. Remember what they did to Assata Shakur?
Lots of white people cheer when cops who kill black kids get off or aren't charged. Both are wrong, but it's also wrong to preserve our outrage for one group.
^ Vulcan? ...Wait, no must be some spiritual shit.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 06:31:30 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
two black co-workers of mine were talking about this like a decade ago. both thought he was innocent back in the day, but now feel he was probably guilty. i pushed them a little, insinuating that they KNEW he was guilty back in the day, and that they were lying to themselves and everyone else because of racial reasons. one of them said that was probably true, the other didn't want to discuss that.
Whats even more strange is that the Brown family sued the Goldman representatives in an attempt to stop the book from being released, they but failed.
Imagine the world we live in were a man murders two people, writes a book about it. And then the parents of those two dead people start fighting each other in court over the book written by the killer.
Almost as bizarre as an NBA playoff game being taken off the air because one of the biggest celebrities in America is in a never ending live TV police chase on the busiest highway in America which is now empty.
B3N15 ยท 24 points ยท Posted at 01:29:16 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I don't know about you guys, but releasing a book about how you would have murdered someone, after you were acquitted of murdering the same person, just sounds like a really bad idea.
I've actually read it (on the train this past weekend). It's a fascinating story and sounds very much like the syntax and phrasing he uses in media coverage I've seen (obviously that can be copied, I'm sure). The book has a forward from the ghost writer about his interviews with OJ (mostly because he, you know, denied giving them) and that's quite interesting as well. All in all, 10/10 would recommend, even if it's actually fiction (though I'm inclined to believe it isn't).
I read it when it was first released. I personally don't believe the ghost writing part, because as you mentioned the entire book reads exactly like his voice. No doubt he did it.
[deleted] ยท 121 points ยท Posted at 00:56:09 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Fuck OJ Simpson. He got away with double homicide because the jury was too fucking stupid too understand DNA and there was more than a little racial payback (yes, it's true - admit it), but Ron's family has made his life a living hell since.
Watching OJ made in America really opened my eyes.
Swipet ยท 11 points ยท Posted at 02:58:11 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah, it was an amazing documentary, one of the best ones I have seen. But one of the main takeaways in my eyes was the defence lawyer's doing everything they possibly could to make it a shitstorm. It was like they threatened to make the entire city riot if OJ was found guilty.
[deleted] ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 02:09:02 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:16:38 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Ah, cheers for the summary- appreciate that considering I'm going to watch a documentary on something I have literally no understanding off and this helps a lot.
As far as the Goldman family making OJ's life a living hell
By the way, how did the Goldman family achieve this exactly? Media, death-threats or was it something else?
Edit: I'm aware the book is an example, but was there anything else as drastic as this?
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:53:59 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
They won a judgement in civil court. Not only does it guarantee they own own pretty much everything OJ did, it also guarantees until the civil suit is paid off they can go after him for anything above basic living expenses. Summary: He is fucked for life.
[deleted] ยท 13 points ยท Posted at 01:23:06 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
little racial payback
What do you mean by this?
Ron's family has made his life a living hell since
I'm British, and have literally have no idea about the OJ case; are you referring to OJ's life being a living hell or Ron's?
Edit: I was told that Ron was the guy OJ (might or might not have) murdered, so that answers my second question.
BigDuse ยท 43 points ยท Posted at 01:37:53 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
What do you mean by this?
I believe at least one of the jurors has since insinuated that they found OJ innocent as "payback" of sorts for the Rodney King trial outcome earlier in the decade.
[deleted] ยท 55 points ยท Posted at 01:56:32 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
There have been several that said that, and one jury member was a former black panther. There were undoubted racial tones in the trial.
Pedropz ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:39:11 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I'm not American either, so I'm curious, if there had been suspicion that the jury had more in mind than simply deciding if the suspect is guilty or not shouldn't it have been changed?
Jury selection is an important act of the theater. Essentially, you choose your audience, like two captains picking their soccer team.
Someone chose a stronger team for their gameplan.
P.S.> Jurors do stupid shit, they are just normal you and me. Some fake it through just, to ... Fuck, idk, I always get kinda happy when I don't get jury duty after a notice.
Go watch OJ: Made in America. It's an ESPN documentary that's very well done and just won an Oscar. I watched it because I was born in 95 so I'd only every heard stories.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 01:48:19 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Not really. The OJ case only reentered the public discourse because of the 30 for 30 documentary and FX drama series last year and his up coming parole hearing. The 30 for 30 doc does shed light on a lot of details that got lost over time.
There has been a major shift in attitudes on his guilt. It was never an issue of the majority of people believing he was innocent but the extreme differences in opinion based on race.
The best answer to this is to watch the OJ documentary that just won an Oscar -- it spends a great deal of time laying out the racial history of Los Angeles in the years and decades leading up to the trial.
But the short version of it: the LAPD had a long history of shady treatment of black people, and the LA courts had a significant history of going easy on people who had harmed or killed black people. Plus, one of the central cops involved in the case had a history of explicit racism (which the prosecution used to cast doubt on the the validity of the evidence).
The trial was held in downtown LA, and resultantly had a jury where 8 of the 12 jurors were black -- jurors who knew firsthand about this history. So the "not guilty" verdict was likely a combination of...
maybe Mark Fuhrman planted the evidence, since we know he has a history of hating black people
and whether we think he may have done it, the prosecution didn't do it's job in proving it anyway
but even if he did do it, why shouldn't he get away with it? LA has let plenty of white people get away with killing black people
and, more abstractly, the case was very much framed as a case of white vs. black, both inside and outside the courtroom
If you watch the doc, two of the jurors get interviewed, one of whom is an older black woman who isn't shy about acknowledging the latter two, and the other juror avoids the question of whether he did it and focuses mostly on the second of these.
Plus, one of the other jurors famously raised his fist in a black power salute after the verdict was read.
The LA PD are racist shit heads. but more specially there was a video of several officers of the LAPD beating a man named Rodney King. They were all acquitted by an all white jury.
MLK was the carrot. X, black panthers, etc were the stick. It takes both.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:59:01 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Right. And that was just as wrong as OJ being acquitted. Two wrongs do NOT make a right. Everybody in this country knew what happened to Rodney King was wrong. Very wrong. White/Black/Purple. It doesn't matter. But what would Dr. Martin Luther King say? Think about that.
Funny thing is, the news didn't show the earlier part of the Rodney King video, and what a hostile handful he was. He was drunk, had just led them on a high speed chase, made a motion which appeared to be reaching for a weapon (he grabbed his butt cheek), and he resisted when they jumped on him to try to put him in cuffs. He was then tasered twice, while still continuing to resist. He tried to either run or rush one of the cops, who hit him with a baton. The cops stopped, then King got up again, so they struck him again with batons. He tried to get up again (instead of you know, submitting to his arrest) so the swarmed him and hit him until he stayed down. While his toxology came up negative for PCP, he certainly was behaving like someone high and out of their mind, and had resisted significantly for a long time.
I'm not saying what the police did was acceptable, but I am saying what was shown was purposefully trying to make them look as bad as possible. The jury has admitted they acquitted because of earlier video of King rushing the police that had been edited out of the news clips.
Then in 1993, two of the cops were found guilty at the federal level, because some of the last baton blows were considered excessive. So 55 people died, and millions of dollars in damages were caused, because blacks didn't want to wait for justice to work. Not only that, but Brown and Goldman got no justice for their murder, because a violent felon on parole who was significantly resisting arrest after leading police on a drunk high speed chase was hit with a baton more than was necessary to subdue him. Sounds fair.
I think the LA PD wound up being excessive. However, if you don't want to get beaten by batons, don't be a paroled felon leading cops on high speed chases while drunk, fight and resist them for minutes, and make motions which makes them worried about a weapon. I mean, look at all the other shit he was doing, is it unreasonable to think he might be armed too? Or high? He wasn't exactly being Rosa Parks.
Just for contrast, King was arrested again for DUI in 1993, violently ran over his wife in 1995 with car, DUI again in 2003 after running down a cop, and reckless driving in 2012. Then he died in 2012 from drowning while alone because he was too high on cocaine, PCP, alcohol, and marijuana. Guy was a total fuck up and had aggressive run-ins with cops all the time.
It's racist to say blacks rioted during the LA riots? Who the fuck do you think it was? An equal cross section of all races? You're why people can't have a candid conversation about race issues. You ignore the issues at hand to try to PC filter everything.
You're racist because you're simplifying really complex, difficult racial issues that were brewing at the time of the Rodney King situation for the sake of reframing it as if black people are just idiots who overreacted and blamed them for reacting to decades and decades of oppression. You're dehumanizing black people, as if they're just ignorant violent brutes.
I mean, either you're racist or just really stupid and ignorant of history, probably both. The part I quoted is particularly moronic. "Blacks couldn't wait for justice to work?" Dude, the justice system has never worked for blacks. Ever heard of the prison industrial complex? Ever heard of the school to prison pipeline? Ever heard of Assata Shakur? Have you ever heard of how blacks were treated at the time? Have you literally spent any time at all reading about how this shit works? It's clear you haven't.
Me telling you what you said is racist is just a fact, it's not me being PC. You're accusing me of "ignoring the issues at hand" but youre the one who hasn't educated yourself on any of this shit and then accuses other people of just "being PC" when they point out who stupid and hateful your views are. You clearly dislike and don't understand black people. Just admit it.
Doesn't matter what he did after the incident. What matters is the cops used excessive force and beat the shit out of a person. They can't do that. And they shouldn't be allowed to.
I think, and now I could be wrong, that some on the jury saw OJ as "payback" for the Rodney King verdict (basically, police officers beat the shit out of black guy, get acquitted, riots ensue).
Watch the entirety of the Academy Award winning documentary Made in America:The OJ Simpson Story. It's eight hours long, but it tells the whole story. You'll learn a lot about racism in America. A lot that you may have some ideas about but don't understand.
[deleted] ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 01:58:07 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Thank you bro, OJ's case is always something I've heard of, but never truly investigated lol.
It is the most bizarre event in American history and it had a major impact on ushering in the era of 24 hour news and reality television. Kim Kardashian is OJ Simpson's goddaughter. The Kardashian family fame is due exclusively to their connection to the OJ Simpson case.
OJ Simpson: Made in America (ESPN)
June 17th 1994 (ESPN)
American Crime Story season #1 (Netflix)
I highly recommend you watch all three of those productions.
Shortly before the murders there was a footage of the LAPD beating a black man named Rodney King. The officers responsible were let off basically Scot free. The jury had 9 black people on it and some have mentioned the innocent verdict being payback or black justice.
Edit: to specify the jury if OJ Simpson had a mostly black jury as it was held in downtown LA.
[deleted] ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 01:57:03 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Ah, so the idea that the final verdict was based off external factors that in no way related to the case is why he meant?
Fuck, that's rough- but emotions are emotions; who truly knows if they did actually affect the black people on the jury. And, perhaps the argument that the police brutality of a black man would affect the judgement of black members of the jury, could be quite belittling or even ignorant?
I'm mixed race, but as far as I'm aware, I wouldn't let impacting emotional factors (like police brutality) affect judgement over conviction; and if anything, I would take offence if people assumed I was hindered due to my skin relation of a victim of police brutality. Like, as if I can't think past that threshold of emotions to achieve an arbitrary view.
Yes, the early 90s in LA was a time with a lot of racial tension and the fact that the prosecution's main evidence was found by a man who was taped using many slurs and inflammatory remarks about minorities allowed the defense to turn the case into a civil rights trial instead of a murder trial. It's really interesting looking back on how it was now. If you're interested in finding out more about the case I recommend "OJ made in America" on hulu.
Los Angeles had some serious racial tension back then. Google the LA riots and the Rodney King beating. 15 police officers beat a defenseless black man 56 times with clubs. The officers are let off by an all white jury. This triggers severe riots which become front page news on every newspaper in the world.
Then this high profile case comes along. The prosecutor has a high profile case involving a black man (OJ Simpson) that is a slam dunk case in terms of evidence. Rather than risk another "black man vs an all white jury" case he moves it into the downtown court to get a more diverse jury.
Except it backfires as a wealthy Simpson hires a "dream team" of lawyers hiring every top lawyer in the nation. And those lawyers absolutely dismantle a rock solid case and distract the mostly black jury by feeding into the racial tension of the era.
He is found not guilty and for a lot of African Americans who have had to deal with decades of watching white defendants be let off of crimes against blacks it was something that was celebrated. For once white America had the tables turned on them where they had to experience being dumbfounded that a clear cut case ended in a non guilty verdict because of racism.
There was just enough reasonable doubt introduced with regard to evidence handling. The DNA evidence should've been overwhelming, but Barry Schenectady took it apart piece by piece.
Also, those jurors were sequestered for something like 8 months. It was practically like prison for them.
You should try to find a way to watch the 5? 6? part ESPN documentary called OJ: Made in America. It just won the Academy Award for best documentary I believe. It's really really good and explains almost everything you would ever want to know about OJ and about the case. Also, worth watching is American Crime Story: The People vs. OJ Simpson. It's a dramatized account of the arrest and trial and is very accurately cast (actors in large part look like their real life counterparts) with great acting (OJs actor, Cuba Gooding Jr. is probably the weakest link, but it doesn't hurt it that much because it's more about the trial and the people involved than it is overly about OJ himself), great production, nods to the specific time in which it is set, famous moments in the trial, etc. Both are absolutely worth diving into if you have any interest in the case whatsoever.
mdo556 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:06:35 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Someone correct me if I'm wrong but I think I saw someone else mention Rodney King and that incident was only a few years before OJ's trial. And I think thy mean that Ron'a family has made OJ's life a living hell as Ron is dead.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:07:43 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
How would they have done this?
Did they mock OJ through media, or were there threats?
They've loudly spoken of his obvious guilt, sued OJ for the wrongful death of his son (so a civil suit instead of criminal), which they won, and were awarded the vast majority of his fortune. Any item (especially memorable) they can get from his estate they rub in his face, and then items like this thread, where they double down on things showing his guilt. They basically have the hobby of making life as miserable as the can for their son's murderer. Good for them. OJs a murdering piece of shit and his guilt is ridiculously obvious. His acquittal is 100% about black people being pissed about Rodney King.
I said hi to him outside a Cheesecake Factory in Miami sometime shortly before he went back to jail for armed robbery. Seemed to be having a good time. He was walking into the restaurant with 6 or more tall women that looked like escorts. No other guys, just him and literally 6+ girls. It was funny.
No, he got away with double homicide because the blood evidence against him had been left out overnight, and became contaminated. So the evidence was thrown out, jury is forced by law to ignore it, and without that evidence they couldn't convict him.
dlerium ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:40:59 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Did they actually throw it out? There was just poor handling and the defense was able to rip apart the whole case with the blood handling.
Mark Furman didn't help. When your star witness says he never said the N word and then a tape comes out where he talks about how seeing black guys dating white women infuriates him and so he's always on the lookout for ways to set up interracial couples, that's bad. When that same witness gets recalled and is asked whether he planted any evidence to frame OJ and he pleads the fifth, that's bad. When the crime lab technicians testify that they took blood samples home with them and that some of the blood from those samples appears to be missing, that's reasonable doubt.
dlerium ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 02:42:20 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Basically the prosecution and the investigation just fumbled what should've been a slam dunk case. The DNA evidence was rock solid, but the defense really just tore it all apart.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:43:55 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
To be fair about the DNA..
A lot of people at the time didn't understand it, they didn't know how definitive it is. I was a teen during the trial, and remember it well. A lot of people thought he was innocent and didn't believe the DNA to be real proof of anything.
And before you start criticizing people of stupidity, you should double check your "too"s.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 03:45:25 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Simple typo brother. If that's the best you got, go back to start and do not collect $200.
It sucks, but after watching "The People v. O. J. Simpson: American Crime Story", I'm going to guess the nail in the coffin was when Fuhrman plead the 5th when asked if he planted evidence at the crime scene. That would plant doubt in anyone's mind.
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 03:43:47 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Agreed. Fuhrman is a douche and as a Caucasian (by birth) he offends me. But....Lets be honest - how many people (black/white or other) can honestly say they've never said Nigger? Hell, I've watched my favorite comedian Katt Williams a hundred times and he probably says it a hundred times every show. I call redneck fools honkey and white trash too occasionally and when I've heard somebody black say it, generally I agree with them.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:55:22 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Spot on.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:17:36 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:46:38 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Nope. Double Jeopardy. You cannot be tried for the same felony twice.
jolanar ยท 56 points ยท Posted at 01:09:58 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I just think the way he fought for his son in the face of everything else was courageous and took great strength. At the time a lot of people thought he was innocent still. I don't know I guess it was the conviction he had that makese feel that way. Hard to put into words I suppose.
Yeah, in all the interviews I've seen of him he seems like a strong person. He said his peace after the verdict while people cheered about the man who killed his son being free. He's probably the person I felt the worst for.
You gotta love the Goldmans. They never gave up. Much respect for doing everything in their power to make OJ's life a living hell before he sent himself back to prison, like the dimwit he is.
They were awarded over $33 million dollars in a civil lawsuit for one thing. They also attended court when O.J. was convicted for the stuff he did in Las Vegas. Watch O.J. Simpson Made In America, it's really good.
They took him to civil court where he was found liable for the death of their son. They were awarded about $34 million, which I think they had a hard time collecting from OJ. But, essentially, they helped bankrupt him.
"Me and Marcus Allen went over to see Nicole
When we heard a knock at the door, must have been Ron Gold
Jumped behind the door, put the orgy on hold
Killed them both and smeared blood in a white Bronco."
As much as I understand people disliking him. If he actually was innocent, that would mean he was in jail for a year with the entire world turning their back on him for the death of his ex-wife who he apparently loved. That's pretty fucked up if he didn't kill her. So why wouldn't he celebrate?
There's no one who believes he's actually innocent. Nobody who's innocent and suffers through the murder of their loved writes a book about how they would have killed their loved one if they were the murderer. That's insane.
Also I meant the celebration of people watching the news, not him.
Nobody who's innocent and suffers through the murder of their loved writes a book about how they would have killed their loved one if they were the murderer.
He didn't actually write that book. I don't know if he's actually innocent or not, but enough people did to be happy because it very much became about race and police corruption. Mark Fuhrman tainted the entire crime scene by jumping the gun and being a certifiably racist piece of shit.
There's actually 2, and they're both pretty new. There's a dramatization/tv show about it that aired last year that I've heard good things about. That might be HBO? I'm not sure. Then, ESPN released a 10 Part 30 for 30 documentary on the subject last year. The ESPN documentary actually was just awarded an Oscar.
[deleted] ยท 36 points ยท Posted at 21:47:06 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
People V.S. OJ Simpson is on Netflix and it was released by FX actually
I literally only started watching because I saw a picture on facebook of some of the cast and was like, is that Ross? In an OJ series? That series is so worth watching to anyone who hasn't checked it out, pretty good acting all around with a good cast (Travolta, Cuba etc) and was entertaining as well as semi interesting with a few parts of the trial (even if it isn't 100% accurate it's incredible to watch).
[deleted] ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 02:08:55 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Only thing I found kinda uninteresting were the scenes with the Kardashian kids, do they add to it at all?
Not really, although for someone fairly young at the time of the trial but who remembers the major points (the chase, the glove etc) I had absolutely zero clue the Kardashians father was one of the lawyers involved much less friends with OJ.
Definitely the ESPN 30 for 30 documentary. Legitimately one of the best, most thorough documentaries I've seen in my life. It's very well done, and covers his life from high school/college to present day. Can't recommend it enough.
I liked the documentary more. The Netflix one with Cuba Gooding Jr. was alright but didn't convey how charismatic OJ was, which I think played a big part in the outcome. Also, way more background knowledge of you're coming at it not knowing a whole bunch.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:49:38 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The show was on FX last February. I watched it every Sunday.
I'm in a three bedroom 1800 sqft on a full acre, half wooded, and I paid $150K, and I'm 15 minutes from my office, in a town that was once ranked at the ninth best town in the us.
I'll never understand how shit can be so expensive elsewhere.
Fuck. I should get a job in San Francisco and just work remotely from here.
Brown had called there to report that her mother, Juditha Brown, had accidentally left her sunglasses on the table. After a quick search, they were discovered in the gutter outside the restaurant. Although he had not served her table, he agreed to take them to her home after work.
Had Brown's mother not forgotten her sunglasses or had he not found them in the gutter he would still be alive.
The Goldman family contributed a portion of proceeds from the If I Did It book sales to the newly founded Ron Goldman Foundation for Justice.[18] It provides grants for multiple organizations and programs that provide resources to victims and survivors of violent crimes.[19] One of the largest donors to the foundation is Las Vegas executive Mark Goldman, Fred's first cousin.
It was a definite mistake for OJ to have written it.
GFK2K ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 02:05:21 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I read a leaked copy of that book when oj first finished it. He basically describes the killings and then says at the end, "if i did it, that's how it would have happened!"
Rudee66 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 02:23:35 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
If Nicole's Mother wouldn't have forgotten her eye glasses as the restaurant, or perhaps went back and got them herself, Ron Goldman might be alive today.
[deleted] ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 02:12:07 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
To set aside the uestion on if OJ actually murdered or not?
To get aqquitted and then suddenly lose everything you own because of a civil suit feels like double dipping.
It's not. Civil and criminal court are two separate entities. To be convicted in criminal court you have to be guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt". Civil suits are determined by a "preponderance of evidence". Which means that the plaintiff only has to prove that you are likely to blame.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:55:22 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
While true, it still feels like 'oh we couldn't get you in criminal court so we're gonna sue the pants off of you for anything you will ever earn in your life.'
Again, not really. The prosecution in the criminal case was the government. The plaintiff in the civil cases (two of them) were the Brown and Goldman families. The civil cases would have happened regardless of whether he was found criminally guilty or not. It happens all the time.
I agree. I never would have been seated in a civil jury because I would have been honest about the verdict. I think he did it, but the court found he did not. The civil matter is moot to me. I don't have sympathy for O. J., but one would think being found not guilty of a capital crime would provide some protection. The judgement was arbitrary and silly with no reality attached.
Simpson didn't just get away with something - the court system proved how much of a prostitute it is. Civil and criminal. Millions spent and nothing but a stain to show for it.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:54:25 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I personally think OJ did it. However, as you said, he was proven in a criminal trial that reasonable doubt exists on his guilt, therefor a civil suit seems less an attempt at justice and more 'we want a second roll with the bar lowered.'
So I feel torn here. On the one hand I want him to remain cowed so that he doesn't flaunt that he gets to be a free man. However on the other hand I feel that the justice system wronged him.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:36:31 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
OJ and Robert Blake are going to go find the real killers now.
jdol06 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:44:28 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
He did do it.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:46:22 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
what's worse is by changing that, they lost credibility - because people with common sense will have seen them make that chance then assume they made other changes (which they likely did).
not that i disagree that OJ didn't do it, but they didn't help themselves
Don't know if this is still true, but at the end of "The People v. O. J. Simpson: American Crime Story" (2016), it says the civil suit was supposed to award the Goldman's 6 million, but OJ gave them less than 500k.
Anybody ever see the article about the p.i that did a bunch of research and basically said OJs son committed the murders? It's a pretty interesting read, think he put out a book as well.
I'm in the middle of the documentary. The scope is huge. It's like 9 hours long and not just about the murders. It goes into the history of police violence in L.A., starting with the Watts riots in the 60s up through Rodney King.
The point of view of the doc seems to be something like, "Yeah, OJ is a piece of shit and totally did it, but skepticism of the L.A.P.D. vis a vis their treatment of black people was well-founded." It also does a good job drawing out how one of the reasons OJ was able to succeed was by effectively making himself not a black person (never spoke out on civil rights, almost all his friends were rich white guys), and then successfully defended himself by cynically capitalizing on the rage that people felt toward the police for their treatment of black people.
Also, you'll notice in the speech he also paid tribute to Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman.
Normally I'm down with comedy in all things, but man it's hard to joke about this poor guy and his family. I can't imagine the pain this family felt seeing their son as a footnote in his own murder. Not since nineteen ninety eight when the Undertaker threw Mankind off Hell In A Cell, and plummeted 16ft through an announcer's table has there been such a heinous act.
I don't know if he still works there, but Ron Goldman's father worked at Nordstrom's at the Scottsdale Fashion Square Mall in Arizona and I used to see him there all the time but never had the guts to ask him any questions.
itty53 ยท 73 points ยท Posted at 17:16:15 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Honestly, good. Dude probably gets questioned about his son's death almost daily. It'd be extremely rude as a stranger to butt in out of curiosity.
You should ask him which of the Naked Gun movies is his favorite.
Casey-- ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 00:20:26 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
This is really sad but I've just realised I've never heard his name before. I've heard of the OJ trials through pop culture but don't really know much about it as I was young at the time, plus I don't know if it was really a thing in England. It's a shame that the victim's name is so obscure but the alleged perpetrator is embedded in pop culture.
The people vs. oj Simpson on Netflix is pretty good.
I also knew of the trial but didn't know that many details. I watched it with my parents who followed the actual trial and news about it.
It's crazy how much of a circus it was.
I thought the Trayvon Martin trial was crazy but it had nothing on this. I'd recommend watching it with some older folks who paid attention to the real trial. It was great to have context and perspective for different events.
I'd recommend everyone also reads Dr. Henry Lee's Cracking Cases. It makes a pretty good case to debunk some of the theories that the prosecution presented.
With Lee's forensic research, it almost seems more likely that there was someone else involved. Obviously OJ had the motive for the crime and his footprints were there, but the book helps present a very different side of the story.
I had never really heard the full description of the murders until this recent round of OJ docs were on. I didn't realize how savage he was. I feel so bad for Ron and Nicole, that was inhumane.
If you haven't watched Oj: Made in America you're missing out. It really explains his celebrity status, I was born in 94', so seeing his USC highlights, to the NFL then watching him become a sports caster was just interesting. It allowed me to understand why he was such a hero to so many people.
SPOILER ALERT! Don't continue if you haven't watched the show!
What really kills me is finding out he was racist! Just seeing how his defense team took advantage of the Rodney King situation was insane. They exploited and manipulated the black community.
I think that after every shooting the uproar is more people just band wagoning, like the OJ thing, more so than people who actually give a fuck and wanna make a difference.
Kloc20 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:23:36 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Crazy, I was listening to a Joe Rogan Experience( the one with bill burr that came out like two months ago)today and the were talking about this exact thing . Damn Burr is hilarious .
Judging from the line "This is my confession" in the track, I'd say there's a bit of Usher's "Confessions Part II" in there, but from the rest of the sketch, I'd say there's at least as much 'OJ book' involved.
Imagine if he didn't actually do it? That's one hell of a tarnished reputation!!
mmnuc3 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 12:19:01 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I understand that it is due to the difference between a criminal trial and a civil trial. But I really don't like that you can be found not guilty criminally and guilty civilly. That is double jeopardy in all but name only.
I worked for the company that distributed the audio book and I had to sell it to record stores, and the company had demanded that I get it placed on the counter tops next to register, and it would sell like crazy. I thought the company was crazy, but I tried to do my job.
Literally every buyer told me to forget it. Not only were they not giving OJ placement on their most desirable real estate, next to the registers, they werent going to buy a single unit. There was no way they were going to support him in any way.
I took the message back to the bosses who tried to be pissed about it, but every sales rep came back with the same story. This one was was DOA, accept it and move on to the next release.
Im not sure how much editing was done to make him sound so guilty, but oh man, he sounded SO GUILTY. Like, basically no empathy for Nicole at all and often times making it sound like she was to blame for her own death.
[deleted] ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 22:17:36 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
rep85 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 22:29:02 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Fellow toucher and rich listener?
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 23:20:30 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
ramszil ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 01:17:02 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I thought they recalled and buried that book because it was in such poor taste and received scathingly negative publicity, but here it is on Amazon. I guess where there is a dollar, there is a way.
Now that it is owned by the victims family-- they want it spread around because OJ is not profiting from it and it is basically a confession proving his guilt. So no longer considered in such bad taste.
Ron Goldman's dad was one of the most vocal people against OJ and remains so. The man went after OJ with the fire of a thousand suns. I understand why, but he was more aggressive than even I could ever be.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:26:03 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Glen Rogers did it. Wake the fuck up. It all adds together too simply. His story is fucking eerily accurate.
dlerium ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:37:14 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Not trying to defend OJ here, but how do the rights of someone's first person account go to someone else? I understand that OJ was out of money, but at a certain point, doesn't one person's memoirs or whatever belong to them?
tarrach ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 08:02:53 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
As I understood it, the book was written as fiction.
Bankruptsy. Oj tried to skimp out claiming bankruptsy, but that puts all rights and goods up for sale. Then.. for humor, he robs some goods back and gets in prison.
I just read all his legal troubles in his wiki page and the Goldman may have failed to get him in jail for the murders but they've been steadily fucking his life up since the trials. It's thanks to them that OJ lost all the stuff that was 'stolen' from him that he was committing the robbery for.
This never sat right with me. The family threw a fit about the very thought of Orenthal making money by publishing the book. They then cash in themselves when they get their hands on the rights.
neugo ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 01:41:30 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Remember when black people were so outraged at white society for prosecuting OJ that they were willing to riot over it? I wonder how they feel about it now?...
I read somewhere that the overall sentiment was that they knew he was guilty, but it was the first time a black man beat the system that put innocent men in jail.
It was really just an eye for an eye. That case was about race relations in America, yes, but more specifically about the extreme corruption and racism in the LAPD specifically. Not only about the officers aquitted in the Rodney King beating a few years earlier, but men like Mark Furhman, one of the presiding officers at the scene of the murder, who was caught on tape talking in his own words about how much he hated "niggers and Mexicans."
neugo ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:33:59 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I read somewhere that the overall sentiment was that they knew he was guilty
Oh no, no, no! I lived through it - and there was a clear dividing line. White people all thought he was guilty, and black people all thought he was innocent. Almost to a man. Almost no one on the black side thought he was guilty (until after the book came out with the title implying OJ confessed). Black people almost all thought he was being rail-roaded and the police were framing him.
It was practically a civil war. Well, not 'practically' - there were groups of people actually out in the streets fighting.
Zardif ยท -2 points ยท Posted at 00:38:55 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Simpson's name, likeness, life story, and right of publicity in connection with the book
What the fuck, they get the rights to tell his own life and they get the rights to his likeness. So he can't do a commercial or anything because he doesn't own his own face?
There is a lower burden of proof required to win a civil trial compared to criminal. In civil cases it simply requires a "preponderance of the evidence," meaning the evidence favors a claim, but not positively. Criminally we use the famous words "beyond a reasonable doubt."
OJ won in criminal court because his lawyer successfully convinced the jury there was a slim chance he didn't do it. "If the gloves don't fit, you must acquit," was the most iconic example. Civilly a separate charge is tried again with a new jury.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:33:33 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
They won a civil trial against the murdering POS.
[deleted] ยท -5 points ยท Posted at 02:36:18 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The burden of proof is different in criminal vs civil courts. He wasn't found innocent, he was found not guilty. In criminal courts there can't be a reasonable doubt, the accused is innocent until proven guilty. In civil court the jury just decides what they think, whether they think the accused did it. The burden of proof is all on the prosecution, whereas the plaintiff and defendant are equally responsible in civil court.
[deleted] ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 02:42:24 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Im not saying he deserved it....but who the hell gets in the middle of a violent relationship where the ex is a NFL player with money, connections, and power and a history of beating the shit out of her......this mans dick got him killed.
TylrLS ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 01:11:50 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Wait Ryan Gosling died?!!!!
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 01:25:59 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah. You didn't hear? He was stabbed in the throat with an imitation katana on the set of Deadpool 2. Had been in the emergency room for like a week before he finally died. Sad stuff.
What's the documentary/dramatization about this that recently came out which everyone says is great? There's "OJ Simpson: Made in America" on Netflix, is it that one?
smopitt ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 12:37:57 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The documentary is OJ Simpson: Made in America. It was a 30 for 30 episode done by ESPN. You should watch every 30 for 30 as they're all excellent. The made for tv mini-series is American Crime Story. That's the one with Cuba Gooding Jr, Travolta, and David Schwimmer among others. Supposed to be pretty good but I was bored with the first episode and turned it off.
[deleted] ยท -2 points ยท Posted at 01:27:18 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
That's a bunch of bullshit they treated O.J like he wasn't acquitted.
Well, technically he wasn't found guilty of killing them, he was found by a preponderance of the evidence to be financially liable for their wrongful deaths. It sounds pedantic, but criminal and civil courts work a little differently and have different terms to distinguish each from the other because they serve very different roles in society.
If he wasn't found guilty of killing them how could he be found financially liable for their wrongful deaths. Just wondering as you seem to know a lot more than I do.
It's because there are different standards for assessing guilt in criminal and civil trials. Criminal trials require "guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (but not beyond all doubt)," which basically means "could a reasonable person look at all the evidence presented and reasonably conclude that the defendant did not commit the crime? If so, then you must vote not guilty." It's a very high standard because a lot is on the line in criminal trials.
Civil trials require a "preponderance of the evidence," which is just a legalese way of saying "more likely than not."
So what could have happened is that one jury, presented with the evidence, could not conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, that OJ Simpson killed Ron Goldman, while another jury, presented with the same evidence, found that it was more likely than not that he had committed the murder, and so he could be held financially liable, but not criminally liable.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 09:26:55 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Clever. But the whole Goldman family is money hungry. I actually got a letter from them once asking for money. It was totally random too. I have no connection with them whatsoever.
[deleted] ยท 13 points ยท Posted at 21:51:17 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I don't think there's any evidence to say that Ron and Nicole were in any kind of relationship. They knew one another, but the way the documentaries have made it sound, he was stopping by her place on the way home from work to drop something off. He walked in on Nicole being murdered or directly after the fact and...well...
I was not very old when it happened and I never cared enough to read about it until Right now lol
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:22:03 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Okay. I guess we can let this slide then.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:14:26 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I don't think there's any evidence to say that Ron and Nicole were in any kind of relationship. They knew one another, but the way the documentaries have made it sound, he was stopping by her place on the way home from work to drop something off.
Does that really make sense to you? They were
sunglasses.
Seems to me a person would call from the restaurant, say "hey I found your glasses. I'll save them for you"
You'd make a special trip to your friend's house at night just to return that?
I think they were more than friends, which is perfectly OK seeing as they were single and consenting adults.
[deleted] ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 23:20:34 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
She called the restaurant and said she had left them there, he was leaving work and offered to bring them. They very well could have been more than friends, but like I said, not really any evidence. I agree that it doesn't really matter either way. Hell even if she were still married it wouldn't have matter. Neither one of them deserved what happened to them.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 23:31:37 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
She called the restaurant and said she had left them there, he was leaving work and offered to bring them
Yeah I know he did it willingly. Just seems more than platonic behavior IMO
Hell even if she were still married it wouldn't have matter.
Hmm...well no they wouldn't deserve to die even in that case
That said,
People who commit adultery play a dangerous game. I've watched enough ID channel to believe that....
In their case though, they were single. Even if Nicole wasn't it would be irony for OJ to be upset about it since he first started dating Nicole when he was still married to his first wife.
Then again he's a murderer, so it's no stretch that he would be a hypocrite
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 23:44:47 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Very good points.
I was a kid when it happened, but I remember being under the assumption that Ron was Nicole's boyfriend. It wasn't until recently that I learned people had interpreted that differently.
This case is just horrible and the twists and turns it has taken since it happened...just seems almost unbelievable at times. OJ is guilty though. No doubt in mind about that.
lucuma ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:29:06 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I was in college and I recall it the same as you. They were dating or in a relationship. I'll have to check out the new shows on it .
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:03:45 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Definitely do. They are very informative. After watching I realized how much of Ron was lost at that the time. Im glad I wasn't the only one that assumed the dating stuff at the time though. Now I see the bigger picture and am thinking "Lots of assuming here."
Can someone explain how someone can be aquitted of murder and then sued in civil court for the death? OJ was obviously a piece of shit and obviously did it but that seems ridiculous.
Civil trials require a much lower standard of proof than a criminal trial. It's preponderance of the evidence, not beyond a reasonable doubt. OJ was found to be financially liable but not criminally responsible.
Different burdens of proof in civil cases vs. criminal cases. Criminal cases find guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt". Civil cases find guilt based on a "preponderance of the evidence".
The jury found reasonable doubt in the criminal case, so they acquitted him. But in the civil case, they found the evidence showed his culpability. They might still have reasonable doubt, but the evidence presented a convincing argument.
Imagine a coworker who you park behind every day backs into your car and leaves their color paint all over your front bumper. They've committed a hit and run, but the lack of hard evidence proving it was their car would prevent them from being found guilty. It could have been some other white car. However, if you took it to small claims court, you would probably win because they drive a white car, were there that day, and usually park in front of you.
Except the burden of proof was absolutely there. Simpson's DNA was all over the crime scene. But, OJ's lawyers pulled the race card during a racially polarized period. The rest is history.
Really wish they wouldn't use that picture of Goldman, makes him look like that kind of douchebag you wish someone would stab to death. IRL he was really cool, kind and very giving dude from all accounts I've seen.
EDIT: 7 downvotes. Does this mean people are unhappy that I DON'T think he was a douchebag? Reddit logic sometimes escapes me.....
Saved comment
sonia72quebec ยท 250 points ยท Posted at 00:24:24 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Poor Ron Goldman, he had a lot of defensive injuries. He probably fought with his killer for a while.
AccioMotherfucker ยท 87 points ยท Posted at 01:52:22 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Why didn't OJ have more wounds? I've always wondered how someone murders two people with a knife and only gets a little scratch.
[deleted] ยท 181 points ยท Posted at 01:59:41 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Idk, honestly, but my guess is O.J. was an amazing athlete with quick reflexes, sneaking up on the victims would give him the edge he needed to stay mostly unharmed.
skyline_kid ยท 89 points ยท Posted at 02:29:20 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah I mean he was one of the best running backs of all time and he's a pretty big guy so he'd make a pretty formidable opponent, especially over 20 years ago.
BanginNLeavin ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 04:01:42 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
And he was a damn good actor.
skyline_kid ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 04:42:46 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah he was hilarious in the Naked Gun movies
BountifulManumitter ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 12:53:14 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
It's surprising that Goldman had any defensive wounds at all, especially if he was snuck up on.
DogPooSalad ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:46:27 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
For you
onfire9123 ยท 29 points ยท Posted at 04:00:10 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I honestly believe if he snuck up on both of them he'd have taken out the man first. The man wouldn't have had defense wounds like he did.
But I dont believe he snuck up on them. This was a crime of passion and goldman was an unlucky witness that tried to help her and paid for it. However the hell OJ got rid of the bloody clothes is admirable in itself.
texum ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 09:21:07 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
And the knife.
Frothpiercer ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 11:32:04 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Wouldnt the book offer a "theory"?
pm_me_gnus ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:40:45 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Quick change at home, put 'em in a bag, and... well, there are 2 things I think (or, more accurately, remember thinking back in '94 & '95) are the most likely possibilities - either he ditched that bag in the trash on the way to or at the airport, or he had someone take care of it.
I kinda lean towards the 2nd one. Airports were a much different world in 1994 than at any time since 9/11, and it's certainly possible that one could have put a bag into the trash and not have aroused suspicion. It would then move untraceably to a landfill. But this was OJ Simpson in 1994 - beloved former football player, goofy movie actor, and network football broadcaster. There was way too much of a chance of him being noticed, and of someone digging his stuff out of the trash for a souvenir, or just calling attention to him. No, I think it's likely that he had the bag taken care of by someone. I even have a suspicion who it was... find a clip (I can't search at work, most video sites are blocked) of the verdict being read, and look at the expression on Robert Kardashian's face. Obviously, I have no way of knowing what he was thinking at that time, but that face looks suspiciously to me like that of someone who has gotten away with something.
onfire9123 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 19:57:47 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I thought Rob K. looked that way because he, personally, came to believe that OJ was guilty due to the undeniable evidence. The DNA statistic 1 in some billion chance that it's not OJ's blood really hit him hard.
pm_me_gnus ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 22:38:00 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
It certainly could be as simple as that.
wren42 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:40:54 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I don't think "admirable" is the right word there.
onfire9123 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 18:43:40 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You can't admire the amount of work required to cover up the evidence?
Ignore the emotion you have about the crime itself.
wren42 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:22:53 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I don't think "admire" is the right word, no. I get what you are saying-- the act can be formidable or even impressive-- but to admire is to look up to or revere as something you want to emulate, and I don't think that's the way I'd characterize a murder cover up.
The_Original_Gronkie ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 13:30:29 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
He also had a second career as an actor, and he took it seriously, so he had taken fighting and weapons tactics classes with experts. A lot of actors, especially those that want to be in action movies (such as ex-athletes like OJ) get that training.
FluffyBlizzard ยท -7 points ยท Posted at 02:37:17 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Maybe he didnt do it?
bitter_truth_ ยท -4 points ยท Posted at 11:42:50 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
If you found out your wife is fucking the pretty boy douche-waiter, you might be extra angry too. Oh wait, he was "her friend".
perhapsis ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 13:04:08 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Hmmm...
Pretty boy douche-waiter.
Who was tragically murdered. Probably while putting his life on the line helping a friend.
You seem like a real nice person.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:21:20 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
DAMN THAT GOLDMAN, Damn his pretty boy ways! /s
For real though, R.I.P
hystreni ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 11:56:04 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Extra angry? What do you mean?
gdmfr ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 12:04:32 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
OJangry
LFC_sandiego ยท 22 points ยท Posted at 07:52:19 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
He was filming a Navy SEALs show at the time and had done training with actual SEALs for it - including how to use a knife.
AccioMotherfucker ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 09:39:07 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I using knives wrong?
vergasion ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 13:15:37 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
deleted What is this?
dating_derp ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 02:53:41 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I'm gonna guess the victims were more afraid than anything and just sticking their hands out instead of actually fighting back.
edit: And they were probably weakened and in shock/pain after the first stab or two, and reasonably so. According to "The People v. O. J. Simpson: American Crime Story" they were covered in stab wounds.
t4p2016 ยท 11 points ยท Posted at 03:09:14 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Goldman had wounds on his hands that looked to have been caused by punching someone
AccioMotherfucker ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 03:30:02 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah like 70+ or something like that.
sonia72quebec ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 03:32:14 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
He was also 20 years older.
HAWAII_FIVE_O ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 10:33:48 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Because OJ was one of the biggest freaks of nature of all time. Big, strong and fast as hell
reverie02 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 11:59:21 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Dr. Henry Lee, the world renowned criminologist who worked for the defense, actually offered his services to the prosecution but they said no because his theory was there were two people who committed the crime. Among other information, he said because of the nature of some of the stab wounds to Ron Goldman, someone had to be holding him while he was being stabbed. Thus two people committing the murder and why OJ didn't have more wounds.
DopeyLabrador ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 12:42:55 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Isn't there a theory that his son was responsible but he covered for him?
N1LEredd ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 13:40:11 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
As someone practising filipino knife fighting i can assure you if the victim is unarmed its pretty much sealclubbing time. If you cant back out your dead.
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 02:37:40 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
Astridolea ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 02:24:29 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
He had a black belt in karate too, so he knew how to fight.
DrSandbags ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 02:52:08 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Unless he trained at a McDojo.
JustHach ยท 3866 points ยท Posted at 16:40:04 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
They also hid the "if" in the "I" in a tiny font to make the title look like it says "I Did It".
too_drunk_for_this ยท 2844 points ยท Posted at 16:43:06 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
"With exclusive commentary 'He Did It' by the Goldman family"
gothamwarrior ยท 1326 points ยท Posted at 20:34:19 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I really thought this was a sarcastic comment until I noticed the bottom of the cover.
Fifth_Down ยท 336 points ยท Posted at 02:02:15 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I can't blame them for it. That family had to deal with an abnormal amount of grief and pain. If that helps them cope with their loss then so be it.
Lurk3rsAnonymous ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 11:56:02 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Isn't it a common knowledge if leather is soaked in blood and let dry that the leather shrinks? Why didn't the prosecution bring this up? There's something royally fish about this entire shnanigans from LAPD's comical handling of the evidence to Furman's (sp?) involvement/testimony and the inept prosecution as if their hands were tied behind their backs. Feels like this was just a ploy by those behind the curtain to distract the masses from (fill in your conspiracy theory here).
MrHorseHead ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:14:37 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Alright but what if OJ really didn't do it? He was found not guilty after all. If he really didn't do it than these people are berating him with that civil suit and this book while whoever did do it goes free and will continue to go free because they're making people believe OJ did it.
(OJ, or at the very least his son, probably did it tho)
EDIT: I DONT GIVE A SHIT IF HE DID IT OR NOT STOP REPLYING SAYING HE DID NO ONE CARES IT HAPPENED TWENTY FUCKING YEARS AGO AND HES BEEN IN JAIL ANYWAY FUCK OFF ALL OF YOU
Not_ur_buddy__GUY ยท 181 points ยท Posted at 02:19:22 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Really? The evidence was pretty insurmountable. DNA evidence in his house, car and property. His DNA evidence all over the scene and he had a brand new wound on his hand from where the blood made the knife slippery and his hand slipped onto the blade. I'm no lawyer, but that's all the evidence I'd need. It was more about the times in which it took place. L.A. was a pressure cooker of lots of recent, racist shit going down towards black neighborhoods. Rodney King, Rampart division was going nuts. They were also threatening Rodney-King-style riots if OJ was found guilty.
PirateRobotNinjaofDe ยท 110 points ยท Posted at 02:35:55 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
He went free because the LAPD royally fucked up their handling of the physical evidence. It's not enough that someone is guilty, they must also be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Idiotology101 ยท 41 points ยท Posted at 02:58:11 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Not enough people know about this. They are all convinced the verdict came down race/money. The LAPD and the prosecuting team dropped the ball in this case.
blacklite911 ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 04:11:09 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
There was also an independent study done that says other individuals could've been involved but LAPD solely went after OJ.
Not_ur_buddy__GUY ยท 12 points ยท Posted at 03:18:51 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Agreed. The whole process was a joke. Even OJ is essentially saying he did it in his book.
getahitcrash ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 13:27:07 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
It didn't matter what the evidence was. That was jury nullification pure and simple. Mark Furhman used the n-word so the jury was going to pay back white people
BroJackson_ ยท 78 points ยท Posted at 02:25:46 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
We're not here to talk about Rampart
froyork ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 04:11:24 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Let's keep the focus on American Crime Story people. I consider my time valuable.
Death_Star_ ยท 34 points ยท Posted at 02:33:57 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Johnnie Cochrane was worth every penny and did his job: reveal even a little bit of reasonable doubt, then by law the defendant must be acquitted. Yeah, you have all the evidence you'd need to personally judge him guilty, but not technically a persuasive enough collection of evidence to convict him.
But he lost the civil suit. Which likely means the average person (or at least juror) thinks/thought there's a > 50% chance he did it, but the crime jury simply did not see a high enough probability to put him in jail for it. They almost certainly would have taken 6:5 odds if making bets.
It would be a shitty place to go to prison simply by being proven by a preponderance of the evidence.
Lurk3rsAnonymous ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 11:05:35 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
But ppl who can't afford the likes of Cochrane do get locked up in prison all the time with lesser of evidence than OJs case. So, it is a shitty place.
blacklite911 ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 04:30:34 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Places like Japan have a system where the presumption of innocence is not given. So be greatful.
Death_Star_ ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 06:00:29 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Not sure what relevance Japan has ....
Im as grateful as a western/democratized person can be about a basic right that exists in most democratized countries.
blacklite911 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 11:10:58 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Your whole comment is contingent on the basis that presumption of innocence is given. I'm just using Japan as an example to say that some places don't recognize the same rights. I'm simply giving a commentary on society as you did in your last line.
hrakkari ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:06:52 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Iirc, the courts in Britain, the burden of proof is on the defendant, not the plaintiff. This is for civil trials, not criminal but still backwards from the American system.
Death_Star_ ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:55:50 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
This entire thread is about the OJ Simpson case and the criminal trial held in the US judicial system.
It's "contingent." It just is.
It's like coming into a thread about terminal velocity and coming out of nowhere saying, "well, on Mars the acceleration of free-falling objects is this, and when you consider the atmosphere then terminal velocity is this."
It's like saying "well, your calculation of terminal velocity is contingent on Earth's acceleration of free-falling bodies."
And I'd say, "no not really contingent. It's just using Earth's acceleration."
But...why?
My post isn't political or geopolitical or about other countries.
Japan isn't so much an example of something different that it's more an outlier and exception than merely a place doing things differently.
Presumption of innocence is regarded as an INTERNATIONAL human right by UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Meaning Japan is an exception to the rule.
Here are some countries that presume innocence:
Iran
Canada
Colombia
France
Italy
Most of Europe via the Council of Europe (Belgium, Denmark, UK, Ireland, Iceland, Greece, Turkey, Norway, Sweden, and 47 total European countries TOTAL)
Russia
South Africa
New Zealand
Brazil
Romania
Poland
Philippines
Spain
South Korea
US
China does NOT presume innocence NOR guilt
Japan is backwards from most of the world.
What? NO. I made no such "commentary" that is remotely related to Japan's system.
I barely made commentary about anything. My "commentary" boils down to this: judging criminals using the standard of proof for civil trials would be terrible.
I only said that the US' standard of proof for civil trials ("by preponderance of the evidence") would make the US criminal justice system horrible.
It would make any country's criminal justice system terrible regardless of presumption of innocence or guilt.
Even Japan, since you want to talk about Japan.
And you can't have two sides prove their side by preponderance of the evidence. That's like two sides proving their argument has over a 50% chance of being right -- which obviously surpasses 100%. You cannot have someone who is probably guilty and probably innocent.
Probable cause (for arrest) is close to "preponderance of the evidence." Like the police pulling someone over for changing lanes while making a late turn signal, and that person actually had one drink that night and had a 0.02 BAC, and they arrest him because he made a traffic violation and was under the influence -- which is arguably probable cause. The DA then says "if he didn't drink, would he have put on his signal on late? If you think that, by preponderance of the evidence, he was driving under the influence, then you must convict him." What can the defense say? He'd have to say "I often forget to put my signal on when sober." God forbid he run a stop sign or red light with a 0.01 BAC -- the prosecution could convict him simply by getting him to admit than 99% of the time he doesn't run red lights, and then ask the jury what the chances it was just a coincidence that the one time he runs a red light is when he drinks 0.01BAC worth, which is by preponderance of the evidence. Beyond reasonable doubt would acquit him because it would be reasonable to have doubt that the two are connected.
Sure. I'm "grateful" I'm not in Japan. But I'm not a criminal anyway.
I'm grateful I'm not in Syria, or living in war-torn Africa, or in Antarctica, or in North Korea. There are some places in the Middle East that cut your hand off if you steal! I'm so grateful I don't live there, because I don't want my hand cut off if/when I steal or get framed for it!
Really, I'm grateful I'm not in a lot of places. Hell, I'm grateful I'm not in many US states. But that's just as irrelevant.
blacklite911 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:04:53 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Beo, it's just an observation, not a debate. I'm not reading that.
TheKodachromeMethod ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 06:04:33 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
It is used here as an example of the point OP is making. In some places, like Japan, you don't have the presumption of innocence.
dbrown5987 ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 02:27:28 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
My thinking is, no question he was there and caused the murders to happen, but the prosecution never established a timeline. Having been on a jury, it is very tough to convict if the pieces are not fitting.
Nersen ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 02:33:45 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The case also got dragged into murky territory when the defense claimed OJ was framed because of race, also throwing everything they could at the evidence so it seemed that the police were deliberately framing evidence, in front of a mostly black jury. The evidence was there, like the receipt for the gloves found, the blood in the car, OJ wound etc. But it came down to race for many of the jurors, and we have to respect that even though it does not seem correct.
R3belZebra ยท 17 points ยท Posted at 02:49:31 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
We have to respect that a jury of African Americans acquitted a murderer with an abundance of evidence because he was black? No, i don't think we do.
myflamingpi ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 02:54:49 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I think context matters in this situation. The OJ trial was just a couple years after the Rodney King beatings. LAPD weren't exactly loved by the black community.
R3belZebra ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 03:02:36 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
It doesn't fly when white folks do it, no matter the context, it doesn't fly here either
myflamingpi ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:07:37 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I'm not saying it's the right thing to do. I do think the context is important to get the full picture, though.
R3belZebra ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 03:12:29 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I understand the context, we are going through a similar issue today with BLM and cops. But understanding context and "respecting" the jury's ruling, ESPECIALLY based on the context, are two completely different things
strongblack04 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 05:30:16 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Hey man, it was a time to kill....
kingsmuse ยท 11 points ยท Posted at 02:57:52 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
How is that respectable in any way at all?
A juror gave a black power salute when the verdict was read.
It's worthy of contempt, not respect.
colorcorrection ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 02:27:44 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah, but like, the glove didn't fit. I mean, come on, that seems pretty open and shut that he's innocent.
[deleted] ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 02:36:56 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Didn't the one cop involve say that he frames n-words? Still pretty sure he did it, but most evidence can be explained by police framing him.
SilasX ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 08:38:31 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yes, a major witness, Detective Mark Fuhrman, was caught on tape saying nasty stuff like that.
What's worse, the defense asked him if he fabricated evidence in the case and he took the fifth amendment. *facepalm*
hrakkari ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 14:08:23 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
And this was after he already committed perjury. What a dumbass. Worse, a half-assed dumbass.
SynbiosVyse ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 04:22:43 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
It's highly unlikely that it was possible for the evidence to be planted that way.
[deleted] ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 04:26:57 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yes, highly unlikely, but I wouldn't say beyond all reasonable doubt. I could never convict someone with that out there. It brings everything into question.
strongblack04 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 05:31:15 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Oh, it's good of Nordstoms to hire him after all that.
scotscott ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 02:38:22 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah but the glove didn't fit
lala989 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 03:30:03 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
His lawyer had him stop taking medication that reduced swelling, thus his hands were not the same shape and size as normal. Don't remember the source.
scotscott ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 03:42:07 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Donald Trump must be due for an overdose any day now
NosVemos ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 02:24:59 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The tradition continues...
RodDamnit ยท 15 points ยท Posted at 02:41:44 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The community has had so many innocent individuals rights trampled on and had a system built to work against them for so long I can kind of understand why they get it wrong sometimes and defend violent criminals in their own community.
The police frame black men for narcotics or gun violence a lot in their communities. Why would they think the OJ Trial was about blind lady justice fairly weighing all the facts?
DankDialektiks ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 02:52:44 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah the issue is trust towards the justice system and law enforcement. There is no trust because of an accumulation of historic incidents such as the police protecting the KKK (and sometimes being part of it), lynchers being found not guilty, etc.
Distrust and anger to that is a normal human reaction.
GavriloPrincep ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 11:49:20 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah, like
one single small, old - "new" is a straight out lie - cut on one hand
from fighting for 10 minutes in a life-and-death struggle with a karate black belt
no other wounds from this 10-minute, life and death, karate vs knife fight
being presented with crime scene evidence, like the glove, that was comically too small for him
the blood sample being handled so badly and contaminated that it brought all DNA testing procedures into doubt.
Yup. That is all the evidence you need.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 09:54:31 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You should get a time machine and go back and tell that to the jury that found OJ not guilt.
MrHorseHead ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 02:25:17 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Y'all acting like I didn't include that in my comment. It was a hypothetical question ffs.
admbrotario ยท -4 points ยท Posted at 02:34:13 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Really? I thought he wasnt convicted...
theblackchin ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 02:41:01 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Insurmountable evidence doesn't matter if the prosecution is inept. Also being acquitted doesn't exactly mean your innocent, merely that it can't be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that you did the crime. There is alot of grey area between those two things.
dood98998 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:50:16 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
He wasn't, largely due to an impressive defense. The evidence was damning, the handling of said evidence, unfortunately, introduced doubt.
[deleted] ยท -4 points ยท Posted at 04:57:45 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
perhapsis ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 12:49:56 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Even wikipedia says that socks found in Simpson's room had Brown's blood on them. The chance of the DNA not being his is 1 in 21 billion. That's more than 3 times the world's population. Where are you pulling the 10% from, outta your ass?
Jozer99 ยท 29 points ยท Posted at 02:31:29 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
It would be pretty horrifying if he were innocent. However, he has confessed to the murders multiple times:
Nobody forced him to do any of those things, and they certainly didn't force him to do all three. If he really wanted to proclaim his innocence, perhaps he might have taken a different tact. The only time he presented himself as innocent was before and during his two trials, while his freedom (criminal trial) and fortune (civil trial) were on the line.
atguy07 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 04:14:54 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Do you have any sources for the first 2?
Jozer99 ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 11:00:33 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Here is the transcript of a CNN documentary that should support it: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0805/12/ng.01.html
genericauthor ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 12:54:43 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I remember he confessed to Rosey Grier while he was in jail awaiting trial. Something like, "Alright, I killed the bitch!"
MrHorseHead ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 02:34:46 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
He didn't actually write the book, the author paid him 600k to say he did.
DragonflyGrrl ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 10:26:45 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
That's what his lawyer said happened. Then OJ agreed. He had a ghost writer, like many people who can't actually write a decent readable book do. Has there been any proof otherwise? I'd love to see it if so.
Jozer99 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 11:02:32 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
If you were wrongly accused of a murder, would you agree to shill a book about how you were guilty?
DankDialektiks ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 02:58:45 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
There's a theory it was his son and he covered for him. That would explain all these 3 things. But who the fuck knows
SenatorPikachu ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 03:06:48 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The theory that his son did it is batshit. I've read about that and it all wraps up nicely until you then read the facts outside of the theory that contradict almost every point.
Sheeps ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 11:58:32 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I love when people say, "but OJ hired a lawyer for his son! That means the son did it!" Um ok, that's what any person with the means would do in that situation.
Tfish ยท 16 points ยท Posted at 02:28:23 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Well, he's not in jail for a double homicide and he's still wealthy so that's something.
I think the difference in OJ's trial as opposed to other people the public "feels" is guilty is that all the evidence really points in the guilty direction for OJ. He just happened to have amazing legal representation that was able to make the case that it's somewhere within the realm of reason that someone else could have done this crime. Years and a million investigations later, we know the evidence is heavily stacked against him more so than any other possible suspect.
I mean, even people like Casey Anthony who the whole country believed to be Satan incarnate has a substantially better sounding case for her innocence than OJ does when you really get into the facts of everything.
imperial_ruler ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 02:39:09 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
He is in jail for armed robbery though.
Tfish ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 04:05:51 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Which really just goes to further strengthen the case that this man is someone who is capable of doing terrible things.
imperial_ruler ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 04:07:12 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Very much so. Even after watching Cuba Gooding Jr.'s impression of him on American Crime Story, it really just didn't seem likely that he didn't do it.
And of course, he might be getting out this year.
Down_To_My_Last_Fuck ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:40:19 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
OJ's only worth about 250K hardly rich. He can still make money with his fame. If he ever gets out of the can.
banyun3b ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:41:34 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
He is in jail though. According to Wikipedia he might get out in October.
[deleted] ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 02:25:08 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Our justice has never failed..
kingsmuse ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 02:55:53 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
He did it, there's no question.
Goldmans blood was on his socks.
perhapsis ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 12:56:42 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
100% this
thebumm ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 02:24:45 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
He was later found responsible in civil court and had to pay an incredible amount of money (which is in part how this book deal happened).
suraj1989 ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 02:49:15 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
That happens sometimes because the evidentiary standard used in civil cases is a 'preponderance of the evidence', meaning that if it is more likely than not that the accused engaged in the proscribed conduct, then the accused will be liable.
In criminal cases, the evidentiary standard used is 'beyond a reasonable doubt.' This is a much higher standard.
moronmountainrange ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 10:39:22 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
OJ did it man, it was an open and shut case, still is.
Jackson3rg ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 13:18:30 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I agree with you. Sorry for the idiots who can't see the possible injustice and would rather berate you for thinking outside the box instead of immediately jump to defending their opinions.
MrHorseHead ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:19:32 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Thank you.
People took my comment way too seriously.
Tentapuss ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 02:37:09 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Spoiler alert - he did it. A team of good lawyers beat a team of doddering civil servants.
Fifth_Down ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 03:04:44 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The OJ Simpson case is pretty rock solid on evidence. It's always been an issue on racial tensions impacting the response to the evidence. Not so much a clean look at all the evidence.
Cyhawk ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:44:55 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You mean all the evidence collected with reporters and random people on the street were allowed to be during a fresh crime scene? Some of which had been taken by said random people?
CaliforniaShmopper ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 02:21:55 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
What if the Earth is flat? What if we're living in the Matrix?
Come on, educate yourself just a little before pedaling a idea. There are such things as stupid questions, you know.
Watch the ESPN doc - it has an interview with one of OJ friends who says that OJ confessed to him, "If the bitch didn't answer the door with a knife she'd be alive."
MrHorseHead ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 02:23:54 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Ever heard the term Devil's Advocate before? FFS man.
CaliforniaShmopper ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 02:30:45 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Of course. Curiosity and asking questions and skepticism are important to any question of objective truth.
Suggesting OJ didn't murder his wife and Ron Goldman is not a topic where you should just "play Devil's advocate", at least not without educating yourself on the basics of the case.
For fucks sake, there are jurors that have publicly said they regret their decision and would make a different decision in hindsight. Not to mention the jurors that have suggested they only voted to acquit him based on the fact that OJ was black, the victims were white, and the jurors were upset about the race riots in LA.
Acquitting OJ for murder was a very strong, clear message from the black community of LA in response to the Rodney King beating. But don't take it from me - listen to the words of the jurors as interviewed in ESPN's OJ: Made in America.
MrHorseHead ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:32:52 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You're also ignoring the fact that I said he probably did it.
Personally I don't care if he did it or not, it happened 20 years ago.
CaliforniaShmopper ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 02:39:00 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Saying he "probably" did it is indistinguishably bad as saying he didn't do it.
He murdered them "beyond a reasonable doubt", but the jury committed one of the most famous cases of jury nullification in the history of US justice.
It's a shame, but honestly I find it hard to blame the jury, either. They got caught up in the zeitgeist of racial tensions and they decided to make a point.
But let's not mince words over what happened. OJ murdered Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman. It's a fact, regardless of how a jury of our peers judged. Rejecting the fact and holding out skepticism just makes you look ignorant or intentionally uninformed.
MrHorseHead ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 02:42:07 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
"Even speculating at the possibility of him not doing it is as bad as saying he's completely innocent."
Fuck off with that bullshit. No one is saying he did nothing wrong here. As I already said, I don't care if he did it or not. it doesn't effect me in the slightest. I only said probably because IMO, without a criminal conviction it isnt a fact. Probably could mean anything from 1% to 99% chance he did it.
CaliforniaShmopper ยท -3 points ยท Posted at 02:48:23 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You quoted a phrase that I didn't write which is disingenuous, at best. I didn't say what you quoted.
I said you shouldn't suggest a conclusion opposite of what all evidence "beyond a reasonable doubt" would lead any person to conclude. I didn't say you shouldn't speculate, I said you shouldn't speculate without educating yourself on the basics of the case.
It seems that you haven't educated yourself about the case beyond what you've heard or remember. You could do yourself a favor by doing so before commenting about what might or might not be true regarding the case.
Also I would suggest that you don't use rulings by a jury of peers as your bar for what is or isn't a fact. Objective reality is true regardless of judicial rulings.
OJ Simpson murdered Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman. It's a fact. If you're unsure, then you should pursue further education on the topic. I know, I know, he was not convicted. That is a completely separate topic, which truly is an interesting study on the US Judicial system and US race relations.
MrHorseHead ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:49:43 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Well excuuuuuuuse me princess I'm sorry I didn't do thorough research before commenting on a fucking reddit thread.
Get over yourself.
CaliforniaShmopper ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 02:53:56 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Sorry this hasn't been the most pleasant exchange. I'm sure we'd be friends if we just shared a beer.
Honestly though, if you have some time, check out ESPN's OJ: Made In America. It's a fascinating 5 part documentary. It's horrifying at times, but definitely captivating the entire way through. Best part is that, at least for me, it made me really think about race relations and how far we've come vs. how much more we still have to go. It's a really difficult subject for our civilization.
MrHorseHead ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:58:16 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah you're probably right about the beer.
As for race relations, I wish the world would just take a step back and laugh at itself a bit. Instead of making racism taboo, make it funny so people realize how ridiculous it is.
Traptor14 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 02:52:18 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yah no shit. Thanks DAD.
suraj1989 ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 03:48:53 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You need to calm down, son.
Janders2124 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:58:17 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
It's not a fact bro. Extremely likely yes. But not a fact. And chill the fuck out. The guy your responding to said he agrees that OJ more than likely did it. Here's the thing though, all it takes sis a reasonable doubt. If you really know as much about this case as you say you do you would know that the defense attorneys demonstrated that reasonable doubt through out the trial.
CaliforniaShmopper ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:13:58 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Do you agree that it either happened or it didn't? If so, then whether it happened or not is a fact right?
If OJ confessed to a friend "If the bitch didn't answer the door with a knife she'd still be alive", then it happened right?
OJ did it - beyond a reasonable doubt. I agree though, the prosecutor didn't prove that. At least one juror says that exact line in the documentary, and that's why he was acquitted. But the jury didn't have all the information that we have at this time. And the same juror that says the prosecutor didn't prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, also says she would convict him now given the additional information she has gathered since the ruling.
So what - just because he wasn't convicted we are supposed to hold society in a time freeze of information, where OJ "might" not have killed? Even when the jurors who convicted him express regret at their decision? Why?
Janders2124 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:30:36 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
No that's not the definition of fact. Just because you want to state as a fact doesn't make it so. I don't even know what your arguing?!?? Everyone agrees he probably did it. But to say it's a FACT is ridiculous. Did you see him do it with your own eyes? Did anybody else??
moronmountainrange ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 10:41:38 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Wasn't a jury of his peers tho. His peers would be hollywood hills type sports stars and movie stars, not common working folk.
hrakkari ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:20:51 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Gonna sound like I'm being contradictory for the sake of being so but please hear me out when I play devils advocate. The jurors saying they would reverse their decisions after they were released is exactly the reason we sequester juries. They were influenced by the media and having juries exposed to media that has already made up its mind without the facts presented in a court of law would be more dangerous than the outcome of any one case. Do I agree with the decision they made to acquit him? No. But that's more on the prosecution team than anyone.
beebstingz ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:26:53 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
yea cuz your the first person to play devils advocate regarding ojs murder
ConwayThrifty ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 04:01:40 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
SOMEBODY MURDERED OJ?!?!?!?
EXACTLY_ ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:34:40 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
What if OJ really didnt do it? Ahahagahahahahahahahhahahahah hahahahahahah takes long breath @aaaaaaaaaaAAAaaaahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahah
MrHorseHead ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 02:38:23 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Personally I dont care if he did it but he probably did, I even said so in my comment. Theres no need to be an ass.
EXACTLY_ ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 08:13:43 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
he probably did https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rm81LSKJC2k
Lurk3rsAnonymous ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 11:12:05 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
What do you mean no one cares? If that was the case, no one would spend their time posting here, including you.
akpak ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 06:27:12 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I recommend you watch the 5 part "Made in America" documentary. I think it was recently added to Netflix.
Then come back and give your thoughts.
GINGERnHD ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 10:43:55 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
If you didn't care why'd you comment ๐๐ป
MrHorseHead ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 10:46:27 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You realize you're on reddit right?
GINGERnHD ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 10:58:52 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I forgot... where people post absurdly elaborate comments about things with which they are uninformed, then lash out in a fit of self consciousness and clear mental instability when they get told off.
Jackson3rg ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 13:15:55 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
While I agree part of me doesn't like it. I'm 99.99% sure OJ did it, but in the 00.01% world where he did not do it, having a book titled this aggressively seems wrong.
getahitcrash ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 13:25:56 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I can't blame them either since OJ murdered their son.
hrakkari ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:24:13 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah if someone brutally murdered someone close to me, 99.99% or even 51% would be enough for me to condemn them personally. This isn't even mention how he was an abusive husband and it's not like they followed him home with a gun and shot the bastard. They changed the title of a book they owned the rights to.
feelin_cheesy ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:39:44 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
OJ moved to Florida to avoid having to pay them a settlement awarded in civil court. When the book deal came out they sued for the rights and won.
Cromesett ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 04:10:45 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
It says that?! I thought so too! What?!
Edit: hahahah it does! That is kinda like straight from Mr Show.
Nitsua87 ยท 442 points ยท Posted at 21:24:39 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
With an intro to the exclusive commentary called "He really, really did it"
PickitPackitSmackit ยท 266 points ยท Posted at 21:26:41 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
On the last page it says "See, we told you he did it!"
Hulasikali_Wala ยท 172 points ยท Posted at 23:38:06 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
With afterword "No, seriously, he did it." by the Goldman Family
Paradoxmoron ยท 103 points ยท Posted at 23:40:37 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
And CD audio accompaniment "He didn't NOT do it", read aloud by various members of the Goldman household.
mclellac ยท 92 points ยท Posted at 00:08:25 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
And the celebrity audio book of it with Jaden Smith saying, "How could we do it, if he did it?", and Samuel L. Jackson with, "Mother fucker did it!"
NotKevinJames ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:18:55 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
NOW AVAILABLE the board game. Start with your tiny Bronco playing piece on the word "HE", draw and answer question cards, but only advance when you lie. Whoever gets to to the "DID IT" space first wins
Jellyfish15 ยท 56 points ยท Posted at 00:44:16 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
"El lo hizo" - The cleaning lady
Funkit ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 02:26:35 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
No...no...
Sephiroso ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:44:26 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Is that proper syntax? I just started learning spanish and i thought El was the masucline form of "the". Oh wait, is "El lo hizo" The cleaning lady? Wait, it wouldn't be though because it'd be La lo hizo right? So it is "He did it"?
What did you say?
SuperFishermanJack ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 04:03:14 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
They probably just don't have the ร key on their keyboard and unlike me didn't want to look it up.
dumbdumbnutcase ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 04:46:26 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yes, it's correct.
El = he Lo = it Hizo = Past Simple Tense, third person, see "hacer."
Sephiroso ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 04:56:54 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Ah shit, i'm stupid. I forgot words can have multiple meanings. I was thinking El = the because of "El nino(squiggly over 2nd n)" is the boy, but forgot it can also mean he.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 01:49:56 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Thank you for that fucking laugh today. Goodness
grayfox2713 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:45:20 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
With like a tape showing him do it signed by OJ himself.
Spree8nyk8 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:31:17 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The back cover has a black guy shrugging shoulders saying "Maybe?"
MatlockJr ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:55:32 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
FFS why did you give away the ending? Smh
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 14:56:56 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Relevant
wasdennkommran ยท 16 points ยท Posted at 01:24:32 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
grafino ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:51:07 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I can't believe you've done this.
Sabbatai ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 01:29:36 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
With bonus commentary, "He da best" by Eli Porter.
Why_are_you_so_dumb_ ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 01:55:58 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
And the previously unreleased track, "He Looks Like Rosie O'Donnell at a Bisexual Bridal Shower."
stalk_craft ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:18:56 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Plus the live version of "He runnin' from the Cat."
collarpoppppppin ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 01:37:24 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
He da best mane, he deed it
itty53 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:50:17 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
metyuadem ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 01:47:26 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Foreward ghostwritten by Ron himself.
Tantes ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:38:49 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
deleted What is this?
vaders_other_son ยท 246 points ยท Posted at 16:44:58 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Out of curiosity, why doesn't it say OJ's name on it as an author? Also did he receive any royalties for writing the book or did the verdict on the civil trial make it so he literally didn't receive anything? Cause I don't get why he would still release the book. Sorry for all the questions lmao
itty53 ยท 624 points ยท Posted at 17:04:49 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Because OJ is not the author. This post is a bit misleading.
See the wiki page. Pablo Fenjves wrote it, claiming OJ collaborated. OJ denies collaboration. OJ claims Fenjves paid him $600k to say he collaborated, and to perform an interview. But OJ later claimed he was paid to say he collaborated, and that Fenjves basically wrote it all himself (marking it simple "true-crime" fiction, not a confession at all).
OJ's $600k payment is legit, it happened, but why is the debate. In any case, he kept that payment -- that wasn't "book sales" -- and the sales for the book went to the Goldmans. That being said, OJ probably never would've seen a penny of it anyway. Because again, he didn't write it. He didn't publish it. He just said he did.
Funkmob925 ยท 183 points ยท Posted at 19:26:52 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
So....Pablo Fenjves really got the short end of the stick here.
isaackleiner ยท 570 points ยท Posted at 21:27:04 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I mean, I'd say Ron Goldman got the short end of the stick, but sure.
csonny2 ยท 353 points ยท Posted at 23:29:12 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
No, he got the sharp end of the knife.
Norse_of_60 ยท 60 points ยท Posted at 00:31:27 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Going for the jugular I see.
turowski ยท 33 points ยท Posted at 01:14:32 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The Colombian necktie always goes for the jugular.
DeadmanDexter ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 02:06:07 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I bet the tie matched his shirt.
BEAVER_TAIL ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 02:03:25 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
To bad he didn't
FourEyedJack ยท 26 points ยท Posted at 00:27:37 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
r/jesuschristreddit
CryoftheBanshee ยท 15 points ยท Posted at 01:15:27 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
/r/itsJasonBourne
DannyZesta ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 01:08:28 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
/CheeseandRiceReddit/
TyrionMannister ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:24:31 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
dude just put the name in with the r/ and it makes the link for you
/r/CheeseandRiceReddit
Funkit ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:28:38 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
/r/voteforikereddit/
DannyZesta ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:07:38 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
/rCheeseandRiceReddit/
Funkmob925 ยท 40 points ยท Posted at 22:15:19 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You're right.
I was strictly referring to the book. But yes, I'm not attempting to discredit the suffering of the Goldmans
Hashtag_Dickface ยท -11 points ยท Posted at 22:18:17 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Nicole was pretty sexy. Pretty sure he got to tap that.
onetimerone ยท -2 points ยท Posted at 22:34:09 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Rumor was he drove OJ's Ferrari too so yeah.
250tdf ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 01:35:35 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Actually that was Nicole's Ferrari. She had a Ferrari Mondial and a Jeep Cherokee. The Mondial is what Goldman would drive around in. OJ also had a Ferrari but his was a Testarossa. Source: Am a ridiculous car aficionado.
onetimerone ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 08:17:15 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I'm a car aficionado too, I never heard that. Still, what are the odds OJ might have felt his cash was backing Nicole's lifestyle including her Mondial? (frankly I don't like either of those models much and the engine in the Testarossa has to come out for cambelts every three years, then again OJ had the coin for that)
250tdf ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 13:04:48 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yep. She was a mom so she had the four seater Ferrari. License plate was "L84AD8" (his TR plate was JUICES) which made it very obvious that Goldman was driving her car. I'm sure OJ felt that way, mainly because he was very controlling, but as I understand it he was required to pay the car insurance on her cars so I'm sure that added to the rage. (If you're curious it was a white 86 Mondial 3.2.)
Don't forget that that engine out service on the TR is a $20,000 service!
onetimerone ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 13:19:19 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I once considered a 360 Modena, now one bucket list item is to simply run a few laps in say a 458 next time I'm in Vegas. Twenty, k every three years, maybe next life I didn't achieve well enough for that in my current go around. Ferrari cars are like boats, it's not always the the acquisition cost, it's the everything else.
Hashtag_Dickface ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 22:39:45 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Sounds like a bitchin' month and a half.
onetimerone ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 22:40:41 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yup, it's likely they were vacuuming up fat lines like a Hoover upright too.
Hashtag_Dickface ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 22:46:42 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Dayum. I bet it was that good shit too. This dude lived an enviable life.
onetimerone ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:48:47 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
That's the most ironic part, he could have let her do her thing, picked himself up another groupie and taken the commercials and bit movie parts, but noooooooo.
Hashtag_Dickface ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 23:00:25 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I was talking about Ron Goldman getting to drive a Ferrari, blowing lines, and banging a cougar chick.
onetimerone ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:04:34 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
He was really young but it's not a bad out package
Hashtag_Dickface ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:13:44 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
It's about the life in your years, not the years in your life, right?
I believe it's called a severance package...
itty53 ยท 144 points ยท Posted at 19:45:10 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Not exactly. The publicist got screwed, which is just and fair, in my eyes. They stood to profit off the dramatized depiction of a brutal crime that they named in such a way as to rub it in the faces of the victims. They were the shitheads in the book fiasco. I dunno if OJ did it or not, but it's not really relevant to the civil suit surrounding the book when you think about it. It's about profiting off the publishing of a sensationalized telling of a story that has real victims alive today. Who did the crime the story is based on is irrelevant.
They would've paid the ghostwriter prior to the controversy to write the work, and ghostwriters don't usually get big royalty fees. OJ never stood to profit off the book itself, if he wasn't actually involved.
The Goldman's renaming and redesign of the cover was tacky, in my opinion, but I understand why they did it. They believe their sons killer got away with it, and they have proved it in at least a civil court. They know, they've confirmed in court that they're not liable for slander when they assert "OJ killed our son". He can't sue, they already proved his liability in the civil trial.
goodvibeswanted2 ยท 146 points ยท Posted at 20:17:50 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You know what's really tacky? A double murder.
spangles- ยท 21 points ยท Posted at 22:09:31 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
A blood soaked knife left in the sun
snoogans122 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:43:47 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Ugh it just never comes off. Not even with dawn.
Beersaround ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:21:23 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Ill-fitting gloves.
losturtle1 ยท -4 points ยท Posted at 01:16:40 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Seems like you're saying that you are always right if you experience tragedy even if it's blatantly, factually incorrect. Does that mean I can misrepresent things because my best friend and uncle were murdered? Why have I been bothering to live in reality all this time?
xHeero ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 01:55:17 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You should find another situation argue this point rather than arguing it for OJ Simpson.
arpan3t ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:03:20 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Hence the best friend and uncle...
foxtrot1_1 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 02:12:09 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Are you suggesting OJ didn't do it? Because I have some news for you.
goodvibeswanted2 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:16:24 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
That's incorrect. You either misunderstood my comment, or are purposely mischaracterizing it. Either way, you responded with a strawman. As for you being in touch, or not, with reality, or you choosing to misrepresent things like you are here, you do you. It's your life.
Guilty_Remnant ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 01:51:03 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
It's impossible to believe OJ didn't do it if you actually read the court transcripts. That jury was stunningly bad, through no fault of their own. They were manipulated, left without TV and magazines and pop culture for a year, could only see their family members 4 hours a week... If you haven't seen "The People Vs OJ Simpson" (which is maybe 85% accurate and takes liberties with the timeline if events but no liberties at all with the actual physical evidence) or read the book, your doubts will be squashed. OJ unequivocally did it.
ThePerfectScone ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:41:04 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
There's good reason jurors shouldn't see media during a trial. They should ONLY be influenced by what is said in the courtroom.
itty53 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:05:59 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Thing is I wasn't there. Everything I read or see is third hand. So I just don't know. I have my own opinions and beliefs but they're just that. Nothing that adds to the conversation. I'm just staying unaffiliated here because I think it's a distraction from the topic of the book.
To me the fascinating events came after the murders. The murders themselves are kind of generic murders, albeit white people in Brentwood. The trial, the media storm, the social anxiety it caused and brought to the surface: that was what drew me. I remember it happening, vaguely, but I was a kid. I didn't understand a thing, much less even know who OJ was. I didn't get interested in it until a decade after.
Now this book, on the other hand, had tabloid on it from the start so I never even read it. But the controversy around the book and subsequent legal battles were interesting, to me at least.
foxtrot1_1 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:12:49 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
They believe it and literally everyone else believes it because it's a thing that happened. That OJ's guilt wasn't proved in criminal court is incidental - he did it.
itty53 ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 02:17:52 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Aight
[deleted] ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 22:07:16 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
itty53 ยท 28 points ยท Posted at 22:10:12 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
No one who'd lost a civil suit that basically stated "he's responsible for the Zodiac killings" stood to eventually profit off the movie (and OJ very well could've profited off the book later on had the Goldmans not sued).
The suspect the movie fingered had even already passed away, years prior to the film's release.
kung-fu_hippy ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 01:46:04 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
There is a difference between a neutral third party and the person acquitted of the crime.
Millionairesguide ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 21:44:08 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Thats weird right.. how can you found innocent of a crime in a criminal court and guilty in a civil suit.(I know lower bar of proof) but how does that prevent you from being free of slander or libel. If he legally didn't kill him in a criminal case wouldn't that be the standard of proof for a slander case.
shozy ยท 51 points ยท Posted at 22:05:35 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The criminal case only fails to prove guilt it doesn't prove innocence so it doesn't affect the civil case that way.
Millionairesguide ยท -63 points ยท Posted at 22:31:27 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
last time i checked not guilty means innocent. so yes the criminal case proved his innocence by finding him not guilty. edit: wow its truly embarrassing how many people don't understand how definitions work. In the us criminal law there is only guilty and not guilty while yes some countries have multiple definitions the us does not. Hence when if you google innocent the first definition is found not guilty of a crime. Its like people don't fucking realize you can be innocent and still have committed the crime. innocent is strictly a legal term and no definition of the world has anything to do with anything other than found NOT GUILTY in a court of law.
stairway2evan ยท 29 points ยท Posted at 23:07:33 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
There's a very specific reason we say "not guilty," instead of "innocent." Innocence must be proven, but "not guilty" is just a rejection of a guilt claim. Which is actually very important in some situations - for example in the US you can be "not guilty" of first degree murder but still found guilty of other related crimes - that's because you weren't "innocent," the prosecution just didn't prove one of their charges. You can even be chargedin a different court (say, a federal court, if found not guilty of state charges) for the same crime/event, if it is criminal in both jurisdictions.
So "not guilty" and "innocent" should not be equated, because legally they're very different things.
Drigr ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 01:22:14 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Out of curiosity, why is "innocent until proven guilty" a thing then?
stairway2evan ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 01:33:02 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Because if "guilty until proven innocent" were a thing, then if you accuse me of stealing, it would be on me to prove that I didn't - and it's a hell of a lot harder (or impossible) to prove a negative. If you hated someone, it'd be really easy to cause harm to them with charges that they couldn't easily contest. If I had an enemy, I could accuse them of murder for every death listed in the paper, and it'd be up to them to waste time and money proving that none of those deaths (old age, flu, skiing accident, etc) were actually a cunning murder.
So we assume that everyone is innocent, and force the plaintiff or the state to prove that they aren't - this gives everyone the fairest starting point and ensures that people aren't taken to trial unless there's a real good reason for it (usually!).
And of course, if you do get taken to trial, you're still presumed innocent, which means that the prosecution has to work really hard to prove that you did it. Not just "maybe he did it" or "probably," but "I don't see how there's any chance he didn't do it." Which is how the OJ case ended - there was plenty of evidence to say "damn, he probably did it," but there was also reason to suspect "man, those racist cops may have set him up," and the defense worked hard to push that narrative and create enough doubt to get that "not guilty" verdict.
Millionairesguide ยท -20 points ยท Posted at 23:23:25 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
no legally there is no difference between not guilty and innocent because legally in the us there is no innocent verdicts. innocent is the legal standard in which you enter a trial and guilt must be proven. Therefor you are innocent until proven guilty.
stairway2evan ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 23:32:44 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You are presumed innocent, it's a starting point. And there are no innocent verdicts, but that doesn't mean that they're identical terms.
Here's an example: I murder my wife and leave the bloody knife under my bed. A police officer with a hunch enters my house illegally and finds the knife.... But it isn't admitted as evidence, because it's been obtained illegally. Without that piece of evidence, the prosecution can't prove their claim, and I'm found "not guilty."
But that doesn't mean I'm innocent of the crime. By no stretch of the word "innocent" am I - I'm only not guilty due to the incompetence of my accusers. Any my accusers who were privy to that illegal evidence know without a shadow of a doubt that I'm guilty, though they have no legal way to prove it. And in other courts (like civil court), I can certainly be held liable for that death and my "guilt" in it, though it's not a criminal charge.
Millionairesguide ยท -8 points ยท Posted at 23:36:57 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
omg...You seriously need to google legal definition and the regular definition of innocent. Tell me which of those means you committed a crime but it wasn't proven in a court of law. Yes you can commit a crime and be innocent.
stairway2evan ยท 12 points ยท Posted at 23:40:35 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Fine, here:
To be considered innocent (or, properly, actually innocent), you have to go above and beyond simply disproving claims of guilt, you have to actually prove your claim of innocence.
Millionairesguide ยท -6 points ยท Posted at 23:44:04 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Here you go missed a part.
Defendants often claim actual innocence when appealing criminal convictions. To prove actual innocence, the defendant must submit additional evidence that undermines the court's confidence in the verdict reached by the trier of fact. Appellate rules normally require that this evidence must not have been available to the defendant at the time of the trial.
Therefor your definition is for someone who has already been found guilty of said crime and has nothing to do with what we are talking about. its like you just ignored the proof i provided and realized you are wrong and can't handle it.
stairway2evan ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 23:47:39 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
No, I'm saying that innocence is a completely different claim than "not guilty," and that it's not a part of a standard criminal trial. I never once said that it had to be a part of an initial criminal proceeding. You've provided absolutely no proof other than some google definitions and your own opinion - as many others in this thread are pointing out.
The word "innocent" should not be uttered in any sense in a criminal trial, and should not be equated with anything that goes on in criminal trial by jury. It's a separate proof that's managed in a completely different way. And if we're talking about the OJ trial, innocence has never been approached in any sense - all that's happened since the "not guilty" verdict is a civil proceeding that placed OJ far from the "innocent" side of preponderance.
Millionairesguide ยท -2 points ยท Posted at 23:55:00 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
jesus christ dude, its clear you really don't understand how this works. I've shown you multiple legal definition and dictionary definitions. The entire point of innocence is a legal standard and has nothing to do with the fucking act. You could be on tape murdering someone and if that tape gets thrown out and you get off. You are innocent. it has nothing to do with the actual crime but the courts ruling. Just like you could not commit a crime and be guilty of said crime. it happens all the time. You are considered guilty until proven innocent. THE WORD INNOCENT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ACT OF COMMITTING SAID CRIME BUT WHAT THE RESULTS OF WHAT HAPPENS IN A COURT CASE.
dpkonofa ยท 10 points ยท Posted at 01:24:52 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Lawyer here... you're wrong. When someone is charged with a crime, they are found guilty or not-guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This does not inform of someone's innocence as "innocence" is the default standing of a free person. I see also that you've quoted the term "actual innocence" below which has a higher bar of reasonable doubt. A person does not need to prove that they are "actually innocent" in order to be found not-guilty. They are two different terms. The court doesn't care if someone is innocent of a crime, unless they've been found guilty and are appealing the guilty verdict, it only cares if someone's guilt can be proven, again, beyond a reasonable doubt.
bobdob123usa ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:43:01 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Thanks, I had forgotten about needing to prove innocence on appeal.
Millionairesguide ยท -2 points ยท Posted at 01:26:43 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Please show one fucking citation to back up.your argument. Lol "lawyer" if you were any good you'd know you are wrong. Fyi actual innocence only exist in appeals cases where they were already found guilty. Seriously the definition of the word is someone found not guilty of a crime.
dpkonofa ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 01:45:37 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Except I'm not wrong. You're right that actual innocence only exists is appeals cases. I mentioned that. And the definition of innocence is "when someone is not guilty of a crime" not "when someone is found not guilty of a crime". That's a small but hugely meaningful distinction. As I said, the court doesn't need someone charged with a crime to prove their innocence. It only needs someone to provide reasonable doubt to their guilt. The reason you need to prove innocence (properly termed "actual innocence") in an appeal is because you've already been found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and you need to discredit or cast doubt on the previous judgement.
That's why you're getting downvoted and why you're wrong.
Millionairesguide ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 02:30:12 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Im getting downvoted because there is a lot of morons here who cant produce a citation to prove me wrong. While ive provided two that back up my side. Funny how there are zero citations against me.
dpkonofa ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 02:44:58 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You provided dictionary definitions that did not support what you're saying.
Here... a source: http://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2016/05/actual-innocence-and-how-it-differs-from-a-not-guilty-verdict.html
Found a better source in a criminal law textbook: https://books.google.com/books?id=2g_vqAl6SdIC&pg=PA37&lpg=PA37&dq=not+guilty+doesn't+mean+innocent&source=bl&ots=LajrOrURHI&sig=CbsU3DBSljhV5igQ88IxKl9wjzY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiD-sy98sXSAhXCsFQKHVcfAjY4FBDoAQgfMAE#v=onepage&q=not%20guilty%20doesn't%20mean%20innocent&f=false
PS. Suck it.
Millionairesguide ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 02:48:51 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Once again you are citing an incorrect citation by a random blog. Show me a legal document that says not guilty doesnt mean innocent. Both the legal definition and the dictionary definition back what I am saying.
dpkonofa ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 02:51:26 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah, I did and edited my comment to show it.
PS. Suck it.
Millionairesguide ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 02:58:01 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
No once again you lack reading comprehension. Its those tricky adjectives. You'll notice the word factually innocent which implies a world in which innocent is used outside a court of law which its not used outside a court of law to describe guilt but this argument keeps going around and around because apparently people enjoy arguing with legal definitions and dictionary definitions.
But let's do this how do you explain that innocent means in all dictionaries first definition. Found not guilty in a court of law.
dpkonofa ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 03:29:58 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I think you're the one that lacks reading comprehension. The adjectives are there for exactly the argument in question. Namely, there is a distinction between the legal term for "innocent" and "not-guilty". In much the same way that the word "theory" has different meaning to a layman than it does in a scientific context, "innocent" has a different context legally than it does in the way people would normally use the term or the way a dictionary would describe it. Until you show that an actual legal dictionary defines innocent as something besides a plea or a person, you can say that all dictionaries use that definition when legal dictionaries definitely do not. In fact, here's a link from Cornell that flat out says you're wrong. "Innocent" is not a legal term. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/innocent
PS. Suck it.
Millionairesguide ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 03:36:20 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I guess innocent until proven guilty doesnt exist and the dictionary is incorrect. https://definitions.uslegal.com/i/innocent/
dpkonofa ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 03:48:41 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
No, the phrase "innocent until proven guilty" is simply a layman way of explaining the presumption of innocence that is at the foundation of the US judicial system. As I've stated several times, the legal system in the US does not afford innocence to someone, it assumes it. You're using a semantic definition of "innocent" and then claiming that it's the same as the legal definition when that's not at all the case. Of course the word "innocent" exists in the English language. There's just no legal definition of "innocent" because every one, legally, is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Also, the fact that you're equating both a legal textbook and a law dictionary explanation of innocence from Cornell law school with uslegal.com pretty much proves that you're either trolling or you're denser than a bag of bricks at the bottom of the ocean.
PS. Suck it.
Millionairesguide ยท -2 points ยท Posted at 03:54:18 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Let me get this straight the fact you can't understand something means I'm dumb. Your sources have basically said innocent isnt a legal term while my sources have said its simply the same as saying not guilty. Which there are 100s of dictionaries but clearly they dont mean shit and the fact its not the only website that backs up my side. While your side just says it's not a legal term which is correct and no one was arguing that. But one thing is clear you are not a lawyer and Cornell's definition isnt their own but they use nolos definition which follows the same contusion you are having.
dpkonofa ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 04:19:47 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
No, you're dumb because you clearly don't understand that there's a difference between legal use of a word and layman use of a word. You can think whatever you want. You're still wrong.
Millionairesguide ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 04:27:44 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
So what is someone legally called after they are arrested before trial starts?
shozy ยท 16 points ยท Posted at 23:06:24 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Correct.
Wrong. In the American and many other systems innocence is never proven, it is presumed. You are "innocent until proven guilty." So if a court fails to find you guilty, it is true to say in the eyes of the court you are innocent but it didn't prove that, it just always presumed that.
So going on from that if there's a subsequent civil case your situation isn't much different than if there was no criminal case. In both situations you are presumed innocent.
Millionairesguide ยท -18 points ยท Posted at 23:12:42 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
jesus christ dude. talk about semantics. its like you want to argue for the sake of argument. For legal purposes being found not guilty means you are innocent of said crime. Therefor if someone went around saying oj murdered their son they'd be guilty of slander. The slander trial doesn't become another murder trial with a lower burden of proof. His proof is that he was found not guilty in a criminal case.
shozy ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 23:44:13 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Well yeah it is semantics so is what you're saying, maybe you should look up the word semantics? (joking)
So there's the Presumption of innocence
You are presumed innocent and then that presumption prevails when you are found not guilty.
So if it never went to trial and they went around saying OJ murdered their son they could just as likely be guilty of slander. If someone went around saying OJ murdered Elvis they'd be guilty of slander.
A not guilty verdict does not mean that public accusations that weren't slander before become slander, if they're slander then they're slander whether there has been a verdict or not.
Millionairesguide ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 23:49:31 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
innocence is legal standard. its the point you always exist until proven guilty. Since he was never proven guilty in a court of law for murdering them he is considered innocent. The civil trial doesn't matter in this case. This is why its such an interesting legal standard.
BCharmer ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 23:41:56 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
There's a real difference between being proven innocent and presumed innocent. A criminal trial sees the prosecution trying to prove the accused is guilty, the defense is not actively trying to prove innocence. They're trying to create reasonable doubt of guilt.
Millionairesguide ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 23:46:11 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
no there isn't because can't be proven innocent unless you have already been found guilty of a crime. You are always innocent until you are found guilty and then once you are found guilty you have to prove you are innocent. Therefor if you are found not guilty you are innocent. it has nothing to with you actually committing said crime and is a legal standard. Nothing more.
MichaelIArchangel ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 23:33:17 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
lol
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 01:45:47 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
His proof? That's up to a jury or a judge to decide. A verdict is not absolute evidence of anything.
Millionairesguide ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 02:30:57 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Well there is the dumbest thing I've read in a while.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 03:01:27 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Only if you choose to be obtuse.
Thomz0rz ยท 20 points ยท Posted at 22:51:44 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You need to double check. The two things are different. "Not guilty," just means that the government couldn't legally prove that he was guilty of the crimes that he was charged with.
Millionairesguide ยท -18 points ยท Posted at 22:56:31 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
google what innocent means.
Discoamazing ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 23:09:11 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
"Innocent" means that you didn't do it. "Not guilty" means that we couldn't prove you did it when we went to trial. Big difference.
MichaelIArchangel ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 23:25:20 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
But bruh like I totally googled it.
bobdob123usa ยท 18 points ยท Posted at 22:49:55 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Not in the US legal system. Not guilty means the prosecution was unable to prove your guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. After being found "Not Guilty", a person could fully admit to having committed the crime and the justice system would be unable to do anything about it.
Regarding OJ, the criminal case found him not guilty of two counts of murder. The civil case found him responsible for the deaths.
OptimusPrimeTime ยท -2 points ยท Posted at 01:36:39 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I'm no lawyer, but I'm pretty sure the defendant admitting to the crime after the trial could be used as new evidence in a new trial. So you probably shouldn't tell the judge something like "Haha, you morons. I totally did it and you just let me go!" after getting your verdict. :-P
bobdob123usa ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:36:05 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Not in the US legal system. If you are acquitted, you cannot be tried for the same crime, under any circumstances.
[deleted] ยท -6 points ยท Posted at 23:20:38 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
That's nit true at all lol.
Millionairesguide ยท -19 points ยท Posted at 22:56:19 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
google what innocent means.
Toadxx ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 01:16:46 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Your defense is literally Google.
Millionairesguide ยท -2 points ยท Posted at 01:20:26 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
My defense is the legal definition and the dictionary definition of the word. So far no one has proved me incorrect with proof
Toadxx ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 01:27:03 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
They have, but you adamantly refuse to even consider what they offer. Also, definition and use of a word are not necessarily the same thing.
Millionairesguide ยท -2 points ยท Posted at 01:31:03 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Nope not one accurate citation has been shown. Just idiots spreading misinformation.
[deleted] ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 23:02:27 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Be not an idiot. The dudes right hombre.
Millionairesguide ยท -7 points ยท Posted at 23:04:47 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
no hes not but you would know if you actually googled innocent. The first definition is found not guilty of a criminal offense. but hey i know its hard to research.
[deleted] ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 23:10:35 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
k
MichaelIArchangel ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 23:13:15 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
God help us if google becomes the standard of legal definitions.
Millionairesguide ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 23:16:45 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
god help us that people don't understand that fact since there is no fucking proving innocence and innocence is presumed that not guilty is proof of innocence.
Millionairesguide ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 23:21:03 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
is the legal standard that you are innocent until proven guilty? He wasn't proven guilty therefor he is.....
bobdob123usa ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 23:13:26 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Google "Legal Definition"
Millionairesguide ยท -2 points ยท Posted at 23:20:19 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Lets try this simple logic test. You are presumed innocent. Ie you are start with a legal standard of innocent. You are found not guilty therefor you are still innocent of said crime.
dpkonofa ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 02:50:22 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Posting higher up for visibility. You're wrong.
https://books.google.com/books?id=2g_vqAl6SdIC&pg=PA37&lpg=PA37&dq=not+guilty+doesn't+mean+innocent&source=bl&ots=LajrOrURHI&sig=CbsU3DBSljhV5igQ88IxKl9wjzY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiD-sy98sXSAhXCsFQKHVcfAjY4FBDoAQgfMAE#v=onepage&q=not%20guilty%20doesn't%20mean%20innocent&f=false
[deleted] ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 00:42:49 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Check again.
Millionairesguide ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 01:04:37 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Checked again still.means it. Tell you what show me one piece of evidence that backs up these idiotic theories. Innocent has nothing to do with the act itself and the criminal proceedings.
[deleted] ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 02:30:27 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Check.
Again.
Millionairesguide ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 02:31:48 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Checked a 3rd time still right. Tell.you prove me wrong show me one citation. You'd be the 5th fucking moron who cant.
[deleted] ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 02:38:01 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
What do you do? Check.
How do you do it? Again.
Millionairesguide ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 02:40:13 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Show me one citation proving me wrong. Again no can or has. I wonder why that is.
I'm a multi-millionaire who runs multiple companies
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:45:12 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You're a poor troll who needs to what? That's right. Check again.
Millionairesguide ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:46:31 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Aww lol bitch who cant prove me wrong well number 5 you're wrong it must be embarrassing to not be able to establish a counter argument. Now fuck pathetic fuck.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:47:10 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Check. It. Again.
Millionairesguide ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 02:50:36 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yep you are still wrong you sad troll but hey since you so desperately need the last word and pathetically cant prove me wrong. Have it, show the world how pathetic you are.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 03:14:40 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Check...Again.
ThirdFloorGreg ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 00:43:48 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You are an exceptionally stupid person.
Millionairesguide ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 01:06:49 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yep that's me. Apparently the only person who understands that innocence has nothing to with the actual crime and is only about the criminal trial.
ThirdFloorGreg ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 01:09:00 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
This is the exact opposite of how it works. That's why the verdict isn't fucking called "innocent."
Millionairesguide ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 01:10:36 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
No that's not why but tell you what. If you can actually prove me wrong ill admit I'm wrong but when you can't because you won't be able too. You post a photo of yourself saying you are dumber than me.
ThirdFloorGreg ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 01:13:08 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Alternately, go fuck a cactus. I leave it up to you wether you are the receptive or penetrative partner.
Millionairesguide ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 01:16:51 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Well thanks for showing you are dumber than me. Cant even prove me wrong pathetic. Cant admit you are wrong super pathetic.
longtimegoneMTGO ยท 30 points ยท Posted at 23:14:09 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
There is no such finding.
American courts do not have a ruling for "innocent", merely "not guilty".
Even this is a bit of a misnomer, the court is not saying that you are innocent of the crime, only that the evidence presented before the court is not sufficient to prove that you committed the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.
For civil law, you only need to prove that it's more likely to be true. That's a HUGE difference.
Now, these are pulled out of thin air numbers, but the idea holds. In a criminal trial, they have to be 95% sure to win. In a civil case, it's 51% sure.
Millionairesguide ยท -13 points ยท Posted at 23:18:30 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I don't know why this is so hard for people to bridge. You are presumed innocent. If you are found not guilty then you are innocent.
longtimegoneMTGO ยท 20 points ยท Posted at 23:22:15 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Why you are right, that's why OJ won his civil case since he had been proven innocent by the trial.
Oh wait, that's not what happened at all, because that's not how any of this works.
Millionairesguide ยท -3 points ยท Posted at 23:25:17 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Again oj wasn't found guilty of murder in his civil trial. He was found liable in their negligent death. If you know anything about civil trials in the us they are a huge embarrassing joke especially when juries are involved.
longtimegoneMTGO ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 23:36:08 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yes, because you can't sue someone for murder.
He was found liable for their wrongful death. This is the closest thing to guilty of murder a civil court can rule.
xHeero ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 02:00:20 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
It's so hard for people to "bridge" because you are as wrong as you can fucking get.
[deleted] ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 22:08:30 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
Millionairesguide ยท -6 points ยท Posted at 22:32:21 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
yes which means he could easily win a slander lawsuit against the goldmans.
[deleted] ยท 13 points ยท Posted at 22:48:19 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
Millionairesguide ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 22:53:50 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
A few things he wasn't found guilty of murder in a civil trial. He was found negligent and financially liable in their deaths. Now he was found not guilty of murder in a criminal case. The issue is does a liable verdict overrule a not guilty verdict in a slander case.
grambino ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:46:25 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
He was a public figure, so the standard to win a slander lawsuit is higher. He would have had to prove not only that what the Goldmans said wasn't true, but also that they knew they were lying. I think it's pretty obvious for various reasons that they truly believe OJ killed Ron, so they'd be safe.
brooklynscribe ยท 24 points ยท Posted at 23:33:47 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The prosecution spectacularly botched what was a slam dunk case, and this problem was compounded by Judge Lance Ito's complete aversion to maintaining any order in the courtroom.
The suit filed in civil court was a wrongful death lawsuit filed by the Browns' counsel. Not a shock that private lawyers requiring a lower burden of proof proved more competent and got the result.
Edit: Nicole Brown's parents filed the lawsuit, not Ron Goldman's Edited the edit: Rob to Ron
kung-fu_hippy ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 01:49:33 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
A good example of why racist police are a problem, as well. Had the cops approached this case more neutrally, OJ would quite possibly have been found guilty.
Of course, I have to wonder about other cases in that police department. The ones involving black men who were innocent and didn't have America watching the court room intently with an expensive lawyer on their side.
SoMuchMoreEagle ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:37:18 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
*Ron
[deleted] ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 00:14:08 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
A jury determine that Simpson, more likely than not, killed them. As a result, it's hard for Simpson to win a libel suit, especially since he's a public figure.
SoMuchMoreEagle ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:37:54 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Plus, he's currently in prison for kidnapping.
TaiGlobal ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:57:36 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Idk if this is a valid generalization. Every ghostwriter's contract will be different. The guy who ghostwrote Donald Trump's The Art of the Deal got a $250k advance which was half of the total advance from the book ($500k, the other $250k going to Trump) and half of the royalties. Now his deal was a bit unprecedented as he wasn't very interested in writing the book for Trump so he just through that skyball offer and Trump accepted it. But idk if you can say ghostwriters don't get royalty fees, it depends.
DieLoserDie ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 11:35:28 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
He did it, and in the course of his crimes he also made his lawyer famous... Which set in motion the conditions to launch the 'careers' of the Kardashians and their 'fame' for nothing. So, you see, OJ is guilty of more than just murder. He made the world a worse place overall.
robreddity ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 11:55:05 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Publicist or publisher?
J-Mosc ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 07:50:40 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
If you don't know if he did it or not, this tells me you haven't looked into any of the evidence of the case. It's clear he did it. The case was lost on technicality. If I told you my blood was all over the crime scene and DNA testing confirmed it but instead of one person putting the blood in the evidence bag and then the locker to be tested, that two people did it, so it doesn't count - would you ignore the fact that it was indeed my blood? There is literally a 100% chance he did it.
mismanaged ยท -2 points ยท Posted at 21:54:39 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I thought the point of murder was that the victims weren't alive today.
itty53 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 22:02:48 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The trial surrounding the book has nothing to do with the crime of murder, despite the book being about murder.
Couldnotbehelpd ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 23:40:04 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The head lady, I forget her name, but she was very high up and powerful in the publishing world, and she lost her job because of the book. I mean honestly she might have deserved it but...
Sam-Gunn ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 21:20:55 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I would say the dude who was murdered got the shortest end of said stick, but...
bruzie ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 21:27:02 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Wasn't it with a knife?
drTNT ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:25:55 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
If there is no stick then it is truly the shortest stick of all
FolkSong ยท 18 points ยท Posted at 22:30:12 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Couldn't the Goldman's have gone after the $600k as well?
DeputyDawg30 ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 07:44:56 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
They went after his entire estate, however OJ was very crafty at avoiding payment by hiding all his assets. To this day, he still owes the Goldmans millions.
GopherAtl ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 02:00:44 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
did he also write a script for the two-part interview? It didn't seem to be made clear in the current version of the wikipedia article, but the interview was, in fact, filmed, it was just cancelled and never broadcast, but it was promoted, including airing of clips from the interview - one of which is quoted in the article, though it's identified as from "promotional material" and not explicitly as being a clip from the interviews. And the interviews were explicitly framed as promotions for the book. It strains credibility for me that he would go to that length for a one-time payoff of $600,000.
The emphasis on how he didn't actually write the book seems disingenuous to me as well; I mean, of course he didn't write it, nobody actually claimed he did personally write it. The debatable point is whether the book was based on the interviews, or the interviews were scripted and based on the already-written book.
Vaginal_Decimation ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 01:26:48 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
So how did the family win rights to the book in a civil suit if OJ actually wasn't a part of it? Was he paid $600k for perjury?
itty53 ยท 13 points ยท Posted at 01:40:24 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Read the last bit in the wiki page, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If_I_Did_It
The rights weren't held by OJ, they were held by a publisher that went bankrupt, then a judge allowed Ron Goldman's family to sue the bankruptcy holding firm for the rights.
OJ never had the rights. His name never appeared as an author on any version, it was always just presented like it was in his words. Him profiting was an unsubstantiated rumor from tabloids. He never stood to gain anything.
That's the most fucked up thing in my view. If he didn't write it, that's fucked up. It was just scummy people smelling blood and seeing green dollars.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:16:25 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
itty53 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:17:17 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I left out a word :p
regretfulhalo ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 02:20:30 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
They won that ability in a suit because they are still considered his largest debtor. OJ still owes them from the civil suit that found him liable for the death of Ron Goldman. So when the publisher axed the book and wouldn't publish it and their portion of the rights reverted in total/were sold back to what was considered a shell corporation of OJ's, the Goldman's got the unedited script of the book and published it with the modification on the cover.
Vaginal_Decimation ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 06:24:43 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
That makes more sense.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:13:20 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Also because of the civil suit OJ wouldn't have seen a penny of it anyway.
Kang_andor_Kodos ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:28:57 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Still pretty much profiting off the notoriety though.
Boredandthatsit ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:47:25 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Pablo paid to be OJs ghost writer, Oj had been hunting for someone to write the book for him for about 3 or 4 years and Pablo thought he could make a killing with books sales.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:37:40 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
So like the opposite of the murder he said he didn't do.
jtyndalld ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:50:11 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Building off your point about OJ probably never seeing a dime of royalties, you're probably 100% correct. Son of Sam laws very strictly prohibit criminals from profiting from works of art they create or help create, particularly works of art related to their crimes.
itty53 ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 02:09:31 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
He wasn't convicted of a crime, so Son of Sam laws wouldn't have applied. The law doesn't apply to charges. Only convictions.
That was the whole premise behind the tabloids' assertion that he stood to profit off it. Because it was a legal truth that yeah, he could profit off interviews, books, rap cds, movies anything: he didn't get convicted.
And if and when he does, the Goldman family will sue for those profits, as OJ still owes them millions.
jtyndalld ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:02:18 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Aren't Son of Sam laws state specific? I know some states don't even allow for inmates to profit in any capacity beyond prison sanctioned work. I'm not sure what California's stipulate. Also, in the Son of Sam case wasn't the convicted trying to make money off paintings or something?
the_doctor04 ยท -6 points ยท Posted at 00:06:38 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Best me to it. And you are 100% correct he won't isn't have ever seen a dime. Especially since he didn't even kill them. There are still a number of us that believe he didn't do it. The real truth is OJ's eldest is bisexual, was seeing Goldman and walked in on him and his ex step mom getting it on. Went into a rage and killed them both. OJ took the rap and was able to get off since the cops were raciest, incompetent and he was rich. Look at all the evidence now that you have heard my theory. The evidence doesn't line up to OJ. There are a number of parents that do whatever it takes to protect your children, including a murder rap. Maybe if the cops weren't concerned with pining it the Juice, planting evidence, saying raciest shit and fucking up DNA samples we would have gotten a conviction. I'm not saying he isn't a scumbag I'm just saying he didn't murder Simpson and Goldman.
Hugginsome ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 01:42:43 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Does this have meaning or were you just throwing that out there?
the_doctor04 ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 01:49:52 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Not sure I understand the question, as yes it has meaning. He was in a sexual relationship with Goldman. He walked in on his stepmother and Goldman engaged in intercourse and he flipped out, killing them both in a fit of jealous rage. At least that is one of the many, many theories.
Hugginsome ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 01:56:38 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
That makes more sense. Thanks!
itty53 ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 00:08:51 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I've heard similar theories, and I don't really buy the "OJ's son did it" story. I've heard also that Goldman was Nicole's coke-dealer. And it's not like OJ wasn't known to stalk Nicole in the time leading up to the murders. It's not like OJ hadn't been reported for domestic assault by Nicole on numerous occasions. I mean shit, you hear the 911 calls and Nicole sounds terrified of OJ. So I'm not making that call.
Really it's a question that we'll never get an answer to, but it makes for interesting legal drama.
[deleted] ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 00:16:38 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
All of those theories are fucking ridiculous.
itty53 ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 00:27:43 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I was trying to be nice.
Norse_of_60 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 00:32:19 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
So probably aliens then?
the_doctor04 ยท -5 points ยท Posted at 00:19:12 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
She was a known Coke head and she was a bit of a tramp. If you go back and listen and hear OJs side, she was doing blow and banging dudes with the kids in the other room. However, the juice was known for his temper and wasn't the gem he played up in the media. That also doesn't mean he committed a double homicide. What we should all rally take from this is how bad the cops fucked it all up. No matter what you believe or which theory you like best, the LAPD fucked up.... Royally. Police need to do better and do their jobs. The prosecutor was setup to fail from day one, they shouldn't have even gone forward knowing the cops were raciest, planted evidence and botched DNA. It's not like they found out mid trial the DNA was tainted or they had shit evidence. They were forced to go to trial and just kept the fuck train rolling
itty53 ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 00:27:34 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
And yet that doesn't say "and thus she should've been murdered in brutal, cold blood". I mean really, dude, step back and think about exactly why saying that is at all important to your point.
The rest of your rant is basically just re-asserting your pet theory, and while that's fine, I've already responded to it.
the_doctor04 ยท -8 points ยท Posted at 01:36:59 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Wow bro, didnt realize you were so emotionally connected to their deaths. You can believe whatever you want to believe, hopefully you sleep better tonight knowing that. I do need to understand though, outside of child rape, molestation and murder is when someone should be murdered? Like really dude? And if you felt that you already replied, then why reply again, to get the last word in? 20+ years and people are still upset that these murders weren't pinned on OJ.
itty53 ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 01:47:49 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Wow bro, troll harder.
*head pat*
I think you're needed in TRP.
the_doctor04 ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 13:50:24 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I'm good mate, Tentacle Rape Porn really isn't my thing but I'm not going to judge you.
itty53 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:12:53 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
*head pat*
the_doctor04 ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 17:19:43 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
ass slap
itty53 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:20:15 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I'm straight, thanks.
the_doctor04 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:43:51 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Oh...I wasn't asking, ass has been slapped. Enjoy
[deleted] ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 00:16:04 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Do you believe any other conspiracy theories or just this one? How about 9/11 or Sandy Hook?
Ms_Curi0sity ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:21:31 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
There was a "ghost writer" that OJ originally hired for it. I think it was just prior to publishing (or very late in the writing stage) that The Goldman family sued for the rights to the book. They won and published it with their own preface chapter.
rngtrtl ยท -43 points ยท Posted at 17:03:30 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
basically OJ wrote it, then 100% of the rights (including all royalties) went to the goldmans.
itty53 ยท 29 points ยท Posted at 17:15:27 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Uh, no, he didn't, and the wiki page confirms that immediately. Look at the cover of the book, even: In no way does it ever claim "By OJ Simpson".
rngtrtl ยท -41 points ยท Posted at 17:22:00 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
uhh, yes, yes he did. Go to the amazon link before you get all high and mighty.
Originally written by O.J. Simpson, this edition includes essays by the Goldmans and a member of the Goldman family legal team that reveal the fascinating story behind the bankruptcy case, the bookโs publication and the looming court proceedings, that would eventually lead to his conviction.
In 1994, Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson were brutally murdered at her home in Brentwood, California. O.J. Simpson was tried for the crime in a case that captured the attention of the American people, but was ultimately acquitted of criminal charges. The victims' families brought a civil case against Simpson, which found him liable for willfully and wrongfully causing the deaths of Ron and Nicole committing battery with malice and oppression. In 2006, HarperCollins announced the publication of a book in which O.J. Simpson told how he hypothetically would have committed the murders. In response to public outrage that Simpson stood to profit from these crimes, HarperCollins canceled the book.
The Goldman family views the book as his confession, and has worked hard to ensure that the public will read this book and learn the truth. This is O.J. Simpson's original manuscript, approved by him, with up to 14,000 words of additional key commentary.
itty53 ยท 43 points ยท Posted at 17:23:27 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Read the wiki page. He denies he wrote it, the ghostwriter claims he did.
Thanks, but I'm not getting "all high and mighty", I'm explaining the situation as it was documented. Amazon descriptions written by publishers themselves aren't a great primary source of information.
rngtrtl ยท -37 points ยท Posted at 17:25:33 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
neither is wiki...
itty53 ยท 36 points ยท Posted at 17:29:32 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
It's a whole lot better than simple marketing material, and has over 50 other primary references you're free to check into yourself.
Conversely, marketing material is meant specifically to encourage sales, not promote facts, and it's got zero references.
Saying "no no, he wrote it" is not backed up by the facts, that's just an emotion-driven opinion. The fact is that he denies writing it. He might have. But he denies it.
rngtrtl ยท -26 points ยท Posted at 17:35:41 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
heres your fucking wiki page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If_I_Did_It
Author O. J. Simpson Pablo Fenjves (ghostwriter)[1] Dominick Dunne The Goldman family
itty53 ยท 51 points ยท Posted at 17:39:25 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah, I gave you that link. You think I didn't read it first?
Here's your fucking quotes, direct from your fucking wiki page:
...
...
Learn to fucking read and converse like a fucking adult or get the fuck off this fucking sub.
Apologies for any outburst, but apparently that's how you treat others so that's how you'll be treated by me.
[deleted] ยท 10 points ยท Posted at 20:09:42 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
mrkushie ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 20:36:01 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
My favorite part is that you can pretty much pinpoint the moment that he realized he's a fucking moron and from then on tries to pretend he was trolling.
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 20:11:37 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
itty53 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 00:45:15 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
It is.
You should quit your day job. Seriously. Right now.
Just walk out. Go be a comedian. Your destiny beckons.
rngtrtl ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 13:28:05 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
perhaps good sir. perhaps.
rngtrtl ยท -26 points ยท Posted at 17:48:26 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
you gotta be fucking retarded...
itty53 ยท 15 points ยท Posted at 17:54:07 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Oh what a wonderfully well-thought rebuttal. /s
Stomp your feet and bitch some more, dude, I'm not the one flying off the handle and swearing at people because I can't accept that I might be misinformed. This sub respects honest, factual reporting of events and circumstances, and that's exactly what I've done. I friggin' held your hand in doing so.
And clearly, the sub appreciates that more than they do your childish tantrum.
Unless you've got anything else of substance to add, if I may speak to you in the language you're accustomed to: get fucked and fuck off.
rngtrtl ยท -21 points ยท Posted at 18:05:40 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
HAHAHaaa :)
itty53 ยท 11 points ยท Posted at 18:07:00 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I don't call people stupid often, because I think it's dismissive and not helpful to addressing stupidity.
That being said, I think yours might be the stupidest kind of reaction I've ever seen.
Enjoy your ignorant bliss.
DildoMcHomie ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 18:21:59 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Remember there's a bunch of kids in reddit.
Being right is more important than being accurate, thanks for the quotes.
I wouldn't have imagined a man who suffered concussions on a yearly basis to be elloquent enough to write such a book.
I probably couldn't write 200 about myself either.
itty53 ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 18:48:40 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
He's not a kid, he's a college-educated graduate who should know better. I checked his history.
He's just that special kind of stubborn-headed stupid that only comes with middle age and smugness.
___Redditsucks___ ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 21:22:21 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
And you really think you've come off that much better?
itty53 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 21:25:38 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
When I swore at him, it was in an attempt to put to practice the concept of "treat others as they treat you". I did that to show him exactly how effective it is to just swear at people you disagree with: not very much at all. If you missed that nuance, I apologize.
___Redditsucks___ ยท -2 points ยท Posted at 21:44:39 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
In no way, shape or form am I looking for an apology. I'm just speaking from experience that you can't lower yourself to someone else's level and then try to cast yourself in a better light. No worries for you though, since the mob was thoroughly on your side.
itty53 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 21:48:15 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Get off your high horse and deal with it. Maybe, just maybe, "the mob" was "on my side" because I was correct and backing up what I asserted, while the other guy just stomped his feet and insisted like a child. Maybe.
You don't like it, don't read it. Thanks, but I can do without your snark.
ThisAintI ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:47:40 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Breathe. Don't feed the trolls.
rngtrtl ยท -3 points ยท Posted at 20:10:54 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
i dont mind being dumb, its kinda fun.
Nrksbullet ยท 11 points ยท Posted at 18:55:56 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Wow, it's rare to see someone so owned that they try to pretend they were trolling by responding with laughs. You're sad, mate.
[deleted] ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 20:36:15 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
CapitalistLion-Tamer ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:58:04 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Or better yet, "I was being sarcastic!!"
rngtrtl ยท -4 points ยท Posted at 20:10:41 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
i had some time to kill at work :) sometimes it pays it to troll.
CapitalistLion-Tamer ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 21:58:41 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Psst...nobody is buying it. Everyone knows you just got owned.
rngtrtl ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 23:07:12 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
you mean pwnd!
personwhogyms ยท -4 points ยท Posted at 20:01:03 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Fag
rngtrtl ยท -2 points ยท Posted at 20:09:55 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
it
[deleted] ยท 53 points ยท Posted at 20:16:25 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Question! How do you possibly win an author's book from a civil?
Just because the judge was like "okay you admit to it, I want the proceeds and book you wrote to now go to the victim?"
Just curious, I know a good bit about law but not something like that.
IgnorantOfTheArt ยท 176 points ยท Posted at 20:54:57 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
OJ lost a civil suit in the 90s where he owed this family something like 30 million dollars and he never paid more than like ~100k of the settlement
This is probably the judge enforcing that failed payment in some way
JohnnyDarkside ยท 30 points ยท Posted at 01:07:23 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
That's what I hate about civil suits like that. You can tell the loser of the suit they have to pay X amount, but, as far as I know, not much in the way of enforcing payout.
Ibrey ยท 34 points ยท Posted at 02:33:48 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
There is a lot you can do. The judge can order the loser's employer to pay part of his wages directly to the victor. The judge can order banks to hand over cash the loser has in his account. The judge can send the sheriff to the loser's house to seize as much property as necessary to satisfy the judgement and sell it.
In 1999, about $300,000 worth of sports memorabilia owned by O. J. Simpson was seized and auctioned to pay the Goldman family.
crspphoto ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 05:38:02 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Is that the same memorabilia he attempted to burglar back, but got caught and sent to jail for?
Ibrey ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 11:38:38 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I think what he stole was memorabilia he had entrusted to friends to prevent it from being seized.
Geauxst44 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 12:09:17 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
There is and there isn't. OJ quickly moved to Florida which is a creditor protected state for many assets. Your home, IRAs, annuities, life insurance and a handful of other items are totally protected from any type of judgment or civil suit. Sure, you can destroy someone's credit score but if that really only hurts people that need to borrow money which may not have been the case for OJ.
This is likely a big reason why that shitbag hardly paid any money and was able to play as much golf as he did.
kung-fu_hippy ยท 13 points ยท Posted at 01:50:46 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Not really a lot of options though, are there? We don't want to have debtors jails again.
Wallace_II ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 02:56:34 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
If I owe a fine that goes unpaid I go to jail. No I'm not okay with people being locked up over debt. This includes child support, another debt that puts you in jail.
rangemaster ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:38:15 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I know a guy that got thrown in jail for not paying child support. He earns his money by selling cars, so he has to physically be there to do it.
How do they expect a guy like that to pay off his debts while in jail?
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:20:38 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
kung-fu_hippy ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 02:21:54 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Hard to get 30 million out of someone's wages.
AlmightyNeckbeardo ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 03:27:06 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
We don't have debtors prisons in America. The cops don't go around arresting people who owe money. The only way to force people to pay up some times is to garnish their income.
Dualbocks ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 05:28:34 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You can seize assets, and garnish wages. But that's about the best you can do.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 11:55:23 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
That's why you sue the business which has great insurance, instead of the employee who doesn't even own their own home. Sure the insurer can also hire the best lawyers on behalf of the business to avoid paying out, but what good is a million dollar verdict if the employee doesn't even have 5k that they could reasonably free up to pay out to you (not to mention that you'll bankrupt them in legal costs in the first place if you actually have a good claim).
[deleted] ยท 24 points ยท Posted at 20:56:44 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Okay that makes more sense! Than just "okay this is about our son, so you have to give us the book."
Sam-Gunn ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 21:24:32 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I'm a layperson so treat this as conjecture: but basically it's my understanding that if you are taken to court by someone and lose, in a civil case, and are forced to pay the person X amount of money (if that was part of the suit), yet you don't HAVE X amount of money, it's taken out from your assets in various ways as decided by the court and the
weaselsverminlawyers.So if it is decided selling your nice new fancy car would result in money for the person who won, that's what would happen if you don't have any liquid assets that come close.
So in the case of a book, the book has potential to make a certain amount of money (conservatively) if everything goes right, someone's agreed to publish it, and sell it for a specific price. A value is placed on said book (the actual intellectual property, not a single copy of it) based on the potential it has to make money, which is then either sold if able or turned directly over to the person who was the receive the awarded money, again as decided by the lawyers and the court.
thevadster ยท 11 points ยท Posted at 01:54:57 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Just curious, why do you refer to lawyers as vermin/weasels in this case? What you described is them attempting uphold the most basic laws of this nation by attempting to find a way to enforce a judgment against a tortfeasor found guilty by the US court of law for damages resulting from injuries he inflicted on the opposing party.
The alternative would be to let someone found liable in a civil suit off with no repercussions. Not to mention the fact that doing this would also preclude the wronged party from being compensated for the injuries they suffer at the hands of the liable party.
Sam-Gunn ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 11:57:32 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I'm just joking, honestly. I have nothing against lawyers, but I found it funny to add those two crossed out words at the time. Lawyers are vital to our judicial system, no matter if they're criminal or civil cases.
Sdffcnt ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 21:48:54 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
That makes sense... if he actually wrote it, and owns/controls it. But didn't some other guy write it and a publishing company likely own it? Judge can legally only rule on OJ's share.
some_recursive_virus ยท 14 points ยท Posted at 01:56:33 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
It was originally owned by the publisher and by a shell corporation that OJ formed to hide the profits from the courts. The publisher cancelled the release after it got a ton of shit from the public for trying to profit off of the murders, and the publisher sold its portion of the rights to OJ's shell corporation, so the corporation had 100% of the rights. After a judge ruled that the corporation was in fact a shell corporation, the rights were eligible to be included in the bankruptcy settlement.
http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=3298473&page=1
Sdffcnt ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:41:23 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
If true, that works. Interesting. TIL
jallain ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 04:13:59 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Dude, nice user name
some_recursive_virus ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 01:40:49 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yep: https://www.google.com/amp/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSPAR10010320070731
OJ vowed never to voluntarily pay the judgment. Then OJ went bankrupt, and the rights to the book were given to the Goldmans as part of a settlement arranged by a court-appointed bankruptcy trustee.
ExistentialEnso ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 00:55:46 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Actually, according to Wikipedia, the Goldmans bought it when the shell company that owned the rights to it went bankrupt from the trial.
Nicole Brown's father actually tried to stop the Goldmans from publishing it.
PiperArrow ยท 34 points ยท Posted at 20:58:12 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Civil and criminal cases have different standards of proof. The people failed to prove in a criminal case that OJ murdered his Nicole and her friend Ron Goldman, but their families sued for wrongful death, which they proved in court by a preponderance of the evidence. It's not inconsistent that one court found Simpson more likely than not responsible for the deaths, when another court found him not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
After OJ failed to pay the damages awarded in civil court, they were awarded rights to the book to satisfy the judgment. It's irrelevant that the book was about the murder. What matters is that OJ failed to pay the award, and the book proceeds were awarded to the families to pay (in part) the judgment.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 21:42:54 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
There you go! Now I understand the different I was missing the whole payment/judgement thank you so much!!!
Woodshadow ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:50:49 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I was curious why he didn't have money any more
[deleted] ยท -2 points ยท Posted at 01:36:42 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Civil court sounds like a bunch of bullshit
PiperArrow ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:36:04 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Why? Shouldn't the Goldman and Brown families get their day in court? I think they should be able to recover damages from the murderer of their children, don't you?
The problem is that if you say they can't sue because OJ was found not guilty by the higher standard of beyond reasonable doubt, then they never get the chance to prove their claim by the standard that would apply, for example, if they sued their doctor for a botched root canal. You would end up with the perverse situation that crime victims couldn't sue perpetrators, but people with much lesser torts could sue.
Solinvictusbc ยท -11 points ยท Posted at 21:34:08 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
This sounds suspiciously like double jeopardy to me.
dabobbo ยท 15 points ยท Posted at 21:46:12 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Double jeopardy is being criminally tried for the same crime twice by the government. Civil does not count because the government is not involved.
Bakoro ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 22:11:14 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The government is involved, but just as the arbiter (and sometimes enforcer) of the dispute.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 21:44:12 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Nope, civil and criminal are seperate. Double jeopardy does not apply at all in that respect.
taw ยท -6 points ยท Posted at 01:11:59 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Because it is. In pretty much no other country this travesty would stand - you're either guilty or not, none of this half-guilty bullshit.
But US legal system is special.
omegashadow ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 01:36:20 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I mean I guess. In some countries being retried for the same crime is literally straight up legal, with the caveat being that the facts and/or circumstances and arguments used have to be different.
taw ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 02:01:32 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
There are different appeal procedures in different countries, but there's none other than US where you can be half-guilty.
fiction_for_tits ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 02:19:09 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You're not half guilty. You're guilty or not guilty in criminal court, which means that the state's argument for why it should be allowed to infringe upon your rights have either passed the test or not.
You're liable or not liable isn't half-guilty and isn't even on the same bar. Liability is an agreement by an entirely different type of court that someone's complaint against you is satisfactory enough to warrant compensation in some manner.
It's not half guilty in even the slightest, tiniest fashion unless you literally try to ram a square peg in a round hole.
taw ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 02:32:03 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
What else would you call "not guilty enough to go to jail but guilty enough to pay $30mln fine"?
There's seriously no other country where this kind of bullshit is possible.
fiction_for_tits ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:06:02 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I'd call it not guilty in a court of law but liable for damages. How are you incapable of grasping the concept that the state allows a mechanism for pursuing damage compensation for liability where the pursuing agent is the aggrieved, while simultaneously providing a system whereby the state can level charges against someone on behalf of itself for the purpose of punishment?
taw ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 06:32:24 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I understand the legal fiction, but there's a perfectly good reason why no other country allows this kind of bullshit.
Once you have a not guilty verdict in a criminal case, no court in the world would allow civil damages for the same act. Except US, which has its special retarded system.
fiction_for_tits ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 18:25:52 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I'm going to be the intellectually honest one here and point out that I am not well learned enough in all of the various legal systems to be able to address the point of international legal systems. I only know enough to be able to comment on American law and it would be obscenely inappropriate to act as though I have even a tiny bit of authority in commenting on all the various interweaving European courts, African courts, Asian courts, Middle Eastern courts, et al et al.
That being said I also find it irrelevant. There's this weird idea that seems to exist on reddit that if America is the only group to do something it is America's obligation to follow lock step with everyone else, which isn't a sustainable argument.
That's such an incredibly overly simplified view of the interactions between civil and criminal court as to be completely devoid of merit. I'm not saying that the complexities are too great to appreciate, but rather that the position you've offered so robs the nuances of law that I don't even know where you're supposed to begin in responding to that.
It's almost like saying that America was retarded for involvement in World War II because America didn't have a defensive pact with Poland, it's that reductionist in nuance of the situation as to be pre-elementary.
pewpsprinkler ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 09:21:29 on March 10, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
That's not retarded. The standard of guilt in a criminal trial is "beyond a reasonable doubt", for simplicity's sake let's call that 99% sure. The standard at a civil trial is "preponderance of the evidence". Let's call that 51%.
So here is how it breaks down:
It is not retarded. There is no way to "fix" it, and pretty much every system in the rest of the world works in a similar way. The standard is 51% for civil because setting it higher would rig the system in favor of wrongdoers. People could do bad things and not pay damages by hiding behind the burden of proof. On the other hand, for criminal, the standard is supposed to be very high because it is better that guilty men go free than that any innocents are punished.
You're wrong about the rest of the world. I just looked up the system in the UK and it is the same: criminal is beyond a reasonable doubt (like the USA) and civil is "balance of the probabilities" which is pretty much the same 51% as the USA.
The idea that you can't re-try someone on something the court has already decided is called res judicata. It doesn't apply from criminal to civil because the different burdens of proof could yield different results.
pewpsprinkler ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 11:11:58 on March 10, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The US system comes from British common law, so the UK is very similar.
What happened with OJ could have happened in most countries, not just the USA.
TrollPrincess ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:57:40 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
OJ negotiated the book deal after the civil trial. The Goldman family heard about it and went after him. OJ tried to bail on the deal but the judge decided the book rights were an asset that the Goldman family could claim to satisfy their judgment against OJ.
elola ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 06:19:22 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
There is a Law (son of Sam) that doesn't allow criminals to be able to profit off of their crimes. For some reason (I'm sure there's a scientific reason, please let me know!) many people find true crime to be fascinating and will purchase items such as books tv series and movies to learn more. So criminals were able to make a profit behind bars by writing about what they have already done and would sell well. Now I think the majority of books that are written about criminals give their profits to the victims families.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 13:34:39 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Dang okay, so this is a multifaceted amount of factors.
The more the merrier:) I believe I have a full understanding now.
jigokusabre ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 01:50:05 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
if I Did It
dracofiredong ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:06:47 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=poz6W0znOfk
blacklite911 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 04:07:33 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Also removed OJ's name from the cover lol.
Spikey_71 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:02:16 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
And also wrote it in "blood"
Minister_for_Magic ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:55:12 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Could OJ have counter-sued for libel/defamation of character because they intentionally misrepresented what he wrote?
SoMuchMoreEagle ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 01:41:41 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You can sue anyone for anything, but I doubt it would have gone very far.
MiscBrahBert ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:17:08 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
...So did they rename it or just shrink the "if"?
JustHach ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:19:06 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The official title is still "If I Did It: Confessions of the Killer", but they obscure the "If" by hiding it in the "I" to make it look like the title is "I Did It" until you take a closer look.
MiscBrahBert ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:52:49 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Not according to the title of the thread.
JustHach ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 03:05:35 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah, OP's title is misleading.
1) OJ didn't write it
2) They didn't completely change the title, they just added "Confessions of the Killer" to it.
Edited my previous post for more accuracy
Dragull ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:24:32 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I like how they dont even Tell who is the author
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:34:21 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I'm curious, if they owned the rights to the book, and could change the title, why didn't they simply rename it "I did it" instead of hiding the if?
imperial_ruler ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:45:20 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
My guess is that they legally couldn't make the title say "I Did It" but they could make the cover look however they wanted, so this was the way to do it.
kungfoojesus ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:34:32 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Go watch ESPN's 30 for 30 on OJ simpson and his trial. It is on Hulu and ESPN.
It is 8hours but riveting. I was born in 1980 and lived through the whole sequence but was in school and thus couldn't follow the trial much. He did it. The verdict was revenge on the LAPD for years of racism. The holes in the prosecution were not real, only someone prejudiced against the LAPD would give them substantial credence to ignore the totality of the evidence.
onrocketfalls ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:39:21 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I too saw the Oscar winner for best documentary
[deleted] ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 21:27:02 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
And meanwhile oj's son gets away with murder.
phoenixphaerie ยท 18 points ยท Posted at 01:30:54 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
After watching the OJ:MIA doc, I'm convinced more than ever OJ did it himself.
Beyond the overwhelming evidence presented of his guilt, the doc convinced me that OJ would NEVER have covered for his kid if he had been the killer.
I doubt OJ cared enough about any of his kids to allow himself to be accused of a murder they committed, but I know for sure OJ cared way too much about himself to allow himself to be accused of a murder his kid committed.
If Jason had been the killer, OJ would have turned him in eventually--not because it was the right thing, but to restore his image, standing, and popularity. I'm convinced of that.
momojabada ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 01:47:36 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I love how both " to allow himself to be accused of a murder" in your post line up perfectly on my screen.
phoenixphaerie ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:06:41 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Total accident, but it makes my comment look extra profound.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 01:35:34 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
A reasonable point. I'll admit i haven't watched that "OJ:MIA" doc. It was able to prove that he'd be willing to sell out his son?
phoenixphaerie ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:03:32 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
It's hard to explain unless you've seen the doc, but it does a damn good job of dissecting his character over the course of 40-some years.
You cannot come away from watching it believing that OJ would willingly give up the trappings of fame or the comforts of wealth to become a total pariah for the benefit of his son. The doc really shows that he is not that guy, never was that guy, and won't ever be that guy.
regretfulhalo ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:31:39 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
It's on Hulu and is worth the 7.5 hour investment. And I agree with Phoenixphaerie, there's no way I believe that he wouldn't have used his son or given his son up if he thought it would elevate him or increase his standing. His narcissism is almost staggering.
wobbysobby ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:03:22 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
At the very most his son was an accomplice. The amount of evidence that OJ did it is massive.
There are respectable theories that OJ didn't act alone but it's very clear what happened. Look at Nicole's previous 911 calls, her actions leading up to the murder, OJ's history of domestic abuse, and then all the evidence at the scene of the crime and you have a slam dunk. Seriously, those 911 calls are horrifying.
THE_LORD_HERESY ยท -3 points ยท Posted at 22:15:53 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I also believe Jason did it.
joec_95123 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 01:18:36 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Serious question, why? What's the evidence for that theory?
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 01:52:09 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Looks like it's all just the thinnest of circumstantial evidence and a vaguely plausible story. I don't see how it can be anything other than a conspiracy theory since people who think Jason did it also need to come up with explanations for why OJ didn't do it given the physical evidence alone.
There's such a reasonable explanation for the physical evidence (like, you know, OJ did it) that it boggles the mind that someone could find OJ's son being the killer as more likely or believable.
Big_Toke_Yo ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 01:46:29 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The theory goes that OJ hired counsel for himself and his son. His son who was dishonorably discharged from the Navy was said to have anger issues or mental issues I don't remember which. The motive was that he was mad that Nicole cancelled plans to go to restaraunt where OJ's son was a server. The reason I mentioned him being in the Navy was because he would have been trained to use blades. It also gives OJ a motive for people thinking he did it so his son wouldn't go to jail.
[deleted] ยท -2 points ยท Posted at 01:14:47 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
SoMuchMoreEagle ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 01:42:04 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Source for that?
[deleted] ยท -2 points ยท Posted at 01:38:40 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
But they would never drag the names of those poor poor white through the mud O.J wasn't am angel for sure but he got his moneys worth when he cheated on his wife with a hoe then that same hoe who he had children with turns around and cheats on him.
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 01:29:28 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Thaaaaat's racist
Toad32 ยท 479 points ยท Posted at 20:03:08 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Anyone read it? What are the highlights?
eqleriq ยท 1123 points ยท Posted at 21:02:43 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Turns out, he did it.
[deleted] ยท 376 points ยท Posted at 21:31:50 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
DoesntReadMessages ยท 1154 points ยท Posted at 23:39:01 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
More compelling than, say:
A history of domestic violence against the victim, especially in cases of jealousy
Blood of yourself and the victims at the crime scene, inside the pair of gloves, inside the truck a witness saw you angrily driving from the murder scene, and at your property where you were jumping the fence to avoid being seen by your driver
A cut on your hand that came from the same type of knife as the victims were murdered with
Fleeing from police with a gun when they are coming to arrest you
SirKeyboardCommando ยท 876 points ยท Posted at 00:51:31 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
shadowenx ยท 624 points ยท Posted at 01:13:01 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
...and your wife bought you both the shoes and the gloves, which prosecution proved.
sarcasm_included ยท 230 points ยท Posted at 01:22:41 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
But the glove didn't fit!
Delaweiser ยท 182 points ยท Posted at 01:34:57 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
And we all know leather gloves couldn't possibly shrink after being left outside in the rain for an extended period of time!
jdmejia ยท 110 points ยท Posted at 01:53:53 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The gloves were actually frozen.. The idiot police department thought that freezing leather gloves would be smart... They shrunk lol
Sephiroso ยท 36 points ยท Posted at 02:49:00 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You say they're idiots, but maybe they were really into football and sabotaged the investigation.
Beersaround ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:26:03 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I thought the defense argued that the police planted evidence.
ryanvvb ยท 151 points ยท Posted at 01:41:00 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
And he also didn't take his arthritis medicine for a couple weeks so his hands were swollen and he struggled to movie his joints.
jtyndalld ยท 90 points ยท Posted at 01:51:31 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
And he was wearing surgical gloves underneath the leather glove, further increasing the size of his hand.
LevyMevy ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 08:30:29 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Damn I didn't know that. OJ definitely did it. Like it's ridiculous just how much he did it, yet got away.
[deleted] ยท 36 points ยท Posted at 01:49:58 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I mean it was clear that the glove completely fit him
PM_ME_TRUMP_PISS ยท 43 points ยท Posted at 02:32:54 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I never understood this either. In every picture I've seen of it, the glove is clearly on his fucking hand.
[deleted] ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 02:33:48 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
He pretended to struggle in court
PM_ME_TRUMP_PISS ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 02:40:29 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I just watched the video and yea, he definitely over dramatized the SHIT out of putting those gloves on.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 12:12:38 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
AssCrackBanditHunter ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 04:07:40 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah. I wouldn't say they were a good fit. They were probably a bit tight... but his fingers are in the fucking things. They're functional
PM_ME_YOUR_RGS ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 13:40:29 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The idea was that the glove didn't fit "comfortably". They are noticeably tight. But you also have to factor in all the other variables that have been mentioned here and realize that, if it was a pair of gloves kept under normal conditions and one his hands under normal conditions, they would fit like.. well... a glove.
[deleted] ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 05:48:45 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Plus he was wearing latex gloves while he was trying it on as well I believe.
Fluffyfuckoff ยท 152 points ยท Posted at 01:29:49 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
...and we all know if it doesn't fit you must acquit!
[deleted] ยท 169 points ยท Posted at 01:37:08 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Why would a wookie, an 8 foot tall wookie wanna live on Endor with a bunch of Ewoks? Think about that. That does NOT MAKE SENSE.
another_replicant ยท 36 points ยท Posted at 01:50:16 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
OH god, it's the chewbacca defense!!
GrushdevaHots ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 02:10:44 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Look at the monkey! Look at the silly monkey!
LeNoir ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:40:01 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Midget fetish.
MonteInVirginia ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 02:10:13 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Wookiee barber here. Can confirm, Chewbacca is a Wookiee, makes no sense.
babyblanka ยท 35 points ยท Posted at 01:35:54 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Chewbacca is a wookie. Wookies come from Kashyyyk!
tempinator ยท 16 points ยท Posted at 01:42:04 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
*Kashyyyk
VeteranKamikaze ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:13:16 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
They must've briefly thought "Maybe George Lucas isn't a COMPLETE hack and the spelling isn't nonsense" and took out the third 'y'.
RedWolfz0r ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 01:43:59 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Wookiees come from Kashyyyk.
tyrrannothesaurusrex ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 02:05:51 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Well it rhymes, what more evidence do you need?
EXACTLY_ ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:56:55 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
It rhymes so it must be true!
PM_YOUR_BOOBS_PLS_ ยท 57 points ยท Posted at 01:38:17 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
While wearing another pair of latex gloves...
I was super young, but it's still one of the stupidest failures of logic I have ever fucking seen in my life.
jtyndalld ยท 32 points ยท Posted at 01:52:19 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I flip back and forth from thinking that the defense won the case or that the prosecution lost the case.
westward_man ยท 20 points ยท Posted at 02:15:29 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You should watch the dramatization American Crime Story. It's fantastic. I feel like the prosecution had an air tight case, but the defense told a more interesting story.
jtyndalld ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:59:54 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I've seen it and loved it and it sent me down an OJ rabbit hole. I even picked up Toobin's book (which the miniseries is based on). It really is an incredibly true crime story.
str00del ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 02:48:45 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You could also say it was the ignorance of the jury that lost it. But then again the prosecution were the ones that fucked up with the jury selection, so I guess you could blame that on them.
foxtrot1_1 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 02:15:19 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Vincent Bugliosi wrote a good book about it arguing against the prosecutors: https://www.amazon.ca/Outrage-Five-Reasons-Simpson-Murder/dp/0393330834
But the two recent OJ TV series (both of which are amazing) have a different view
Ghitzo ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:49:26 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Prosecution definitely lost.
[deleted] ยท 39 points ยท Posted at 01:57:48 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
PM_YOUR_BOOBS_PLS_ ยท 56 points ยท Posted at 02:02:54 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
That was entirely the prosecution's fault. They were absolutely retarded for going for 1st degree murder. Manslaughter, negligent homicide, reckless endangerment. Literally anything else would have been a slam dunk case, but for some retarded reason they went for 1st degree murder with nothing but a bunch of circumstantial evidence.
So. Fucking. Stupid.
lasping ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 02:19:22 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Actually she was additionally found not guilty of lesser charges.
PM_YOUR_BOOBS_PLS_ ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:25:54 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Really? I do not remember that at all.
lasping ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:29:27 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
"On July 5, 2011, the jury found Casey Anthony not guilty of counts one through three regarding first-degree murder, aggravated manslaughter of a child, and aggravated child abuse..."
PM_YOUR_BOOBS_PLS_ ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:35:35 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
OK, so I wasn't exactly right, but my main point was that they all went for things with intent. Drop the intent, and it would have been an easy case.
lasping ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:47:21 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I don't think so. There was very little evidence that wasn't completely circumstantial, and the prosecution's star witness (George Anthony) seems to have lied routinely on the stand, which damaged the prosecution's case. Those were the other two big problems the jurors had with the prosecutions case, not just the flimsy motive provided.
Besides, aggravated manslaughter doesn't have any link to intent. It's about culpable negligence.
TheOfficialTheory ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 03:17:11 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah, the prosecution really dropped the ball and jumped the gun at the same time on that one.
The_Original_Gronkie ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 13:33:03 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
100% true. It was prosecutorial overreach, and the same prosecutors did the same thing in the George Zimmerman trial.
fiction_for_tits ยท 15 points ยท Posted at 02:23:22 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The prosecution's entire case against Casey Anthony was basically the prosecutor walking up, pointing at her and going, "C'mon, it's Casey Anthony, am I right? Seriously, anyway I rest my case." Then acting shocked when they lost.
The_Original_Gronkie ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 13:39:57 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
That case was lost by the poor performance of the police. The bag the little girl was found in was spotted months earlier by a cable installer, but when a cop came out to investigate it, he slipped and fell in the mud before getting to the bag. So he got pissed and left and nobody ever looked in the bag. A few months later the cable installer sees the bag again, and makes a second call and this time they find the body. A few months had gone by and the the body had decomposed badly while in a black plastic bag in the Florida sun. So they could never name a cause of death.
Without a cause of death, how could a prosecutor ask a jury for the death penalty, or even a guilty verdict? All the defense had to do was offer the most basic excuse, and the jury would have reasonable doubt.
I believe the prosecution understood that they had no case at all, which is why everyone took their time bringing it to trial - 3 years - as she sat in jail. They all knew that the pre-trial period was the only prison time she'd see. So she wasn't found guilty, but she did spend 3 years in jail, which is probably about right for negligent homicide.
westward_man ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 02:16:19 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
There was definitely more to it. Her parents were almost certainly involved.
funlickr ยท 45 points ยท Posted at 01:48:55 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The glove did fit, it just fit snug. There are images of OJ wearing the same gloves, with the same snug fit, while reporting at a football game. These images were shown to the jury.
picasso_penis ยท 18 points ยท Posted at 01:26:17 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
It's gotta be right on the skin!
FX114 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:44:07 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Like a glove!
NJ_state_of_mind ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:52:13 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Like a glove
[deleted] ยท 24 points ยท Posted at 01:38:20 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
He also quit taking his arthritis meds before trying the glove, which caused his hands to swell up.
NJ_state_of_mind ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:22:36 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I also heard he stopped taking his arthritis medicine
[deleted] ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 02:18:37 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Just an FYI. The Glove didn't fit, because it was shrunk leather that had been wet. It's like putting a cotton T shirt into a dryer, watching it shrink, then putting it on and saying "this couldn't be my shirt... it's much too small".
thuursty ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:37:01 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You must acquit!
addiktion ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:32:49 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
lol hilarious. It fit less in the tv series than it did in real life. I don't know what shit the jury was smoking but it must have been good.
jdol06 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:36:44 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Darden fucked up. They agreed it was a bad idea to make OJ try on the glove and he did it anyway to try and make a shocking courtroom moment. It's in the Made in America OJ doc which I HIGHLY recommend. Was 8 hours long but I wished there was another 8 hours when it was over
strangebrew420 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:49:01 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
But the LAPD is racist! Who's side are you on?
supertimes4u ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 01:38:13 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
He sounds guilty
shadowenx ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 01:59:52 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Twelve jurors in the 90s would disagree.
supertimes4u ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:57:09 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
God bless America
buys knife and gloves one size too small
ProfoundProphet ยท 63 points ยท Posted at 01:55:38 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah the size 12 Bruno Magli bloody footprint they found was always the piece of evidence that stood out to me. He was photographed wearing the exact shoe multiple times. Combine it with all the other evidence from the case it's pretty clear to me what happened. Such a shame a jury couldn't convict him. Proves that a good legal team can help someone get away with murder, even when all the evidence is stacked against them
[deleted] ยท 52 points ยท Posted at 02:30:32 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Seems to me it was a perfect storm - a good legal team, missteps by the prosecution, a likable celebrity, and a time of incredible racial tension between people in that city and the police.
Not that I don't have sympathy towards black people w.r.t unfair police treatment -- I definitely do -- but one of the jurors threw up the "black power" fist for OJ before leaving the court room. That jury was looking for a doubt, and willing to give a lot of wiggle room to "reasonable."
I don't recall who said it, but the real "victory" in that whole injustice was that finally, for once, a black man in America got acquitted because he was black, instead of convicted because he was black.
heyhowareyaa ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 08:26:54 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I get the reasoning, but its sad that somebody getting away with murder can be considered a victory. I cant imagine how the victim's family felt hearing things like that.
-MURS- ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 02:11:29 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Had nothing to do with the legal team and everything to do with a bunch of black jurors mad about the previous Rodney King ruling.
[deleted] ยท 14 points ยท Posted at 02:17:08 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Don't forget the incompetent LAPD and LA DA
ProfoundProphet ยท 15 points ยท Posted at 02:26:46 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
If you don't think OJ's legal team had something to do with it then you've lost all credibility.
-MURS- ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 02:56:29 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The main thing they did was turn the trial into a race war blacks v whites which allowed the largely black jury to retaliate against LAPD and justice system for the Rodney King verdict. That was their main contribution. I strongly believe the jury would have voted no guilty no matter what they said or did after hearing some the jury speak out on the decision.
perhapsis ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 13:13:40 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
For me it was Brown's sock with blood on it found in Simpson's home.
SetYourGoals ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:03:58 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Guys who buy those shoes must just HATE OJ's wife.
almightySapling ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:31:02 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I was really young when this was happening but seriously, how the fuck was he found not guilty? I obviously know all the jokes about Cochran's defense but... like I mean was the glove absurdly small? I just don't see how he got off.
Rush_nj ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 05:10:36 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The prosecution was rubbish, and the police involved were very shady. Throw in a bunch of racial tension and you get a bloke walk for murder.
rallar8 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:42:00 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
How is that nearly as interesting as his son doing it?
I hate these people that are like "Facts, evidence, publicly verififiable information and narratives that don't defy known laws of physics"
Of course OJ didn't do it. Just more bias from the lame stream media. /s
joanzen ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 02:17:29 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
How often do police match shoe prints or even get useful shoe prints from the crime scene? Clearly OJ was set up, and no wonder he fled.
Ubercritic ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 02:23:20 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
200 shoes or 200 pairs?
[deleted] ยท 80 points ยท Posted at 00:19:47 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah but Mark Fuhrerman
CherrySlurpee ยท 222 points ยท Posted at 00:35:18 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
That dude was straight up racist, and the prosecution was straight up retarded. A few members of the jury pretty much admitted it was payback for the Rodney King verdict.
That trial was so fucked.
jdol06 ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 02:38:14 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
and they just wanted to go the hell home already
idgaf_about_yr_imgur ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 01:32:22 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Johnny Cochran is a piece of shit as well. Fuck that loser and his identity politics clouding what is a clear cut case of murder given the evidence. Smart defense but absolutely reprehensible. If anything, I'd attribute further discrimination against the black community to Cochran, contrary to how he thought he was helping. He's a shining example of what a lawyer and activist is not supposed to do.
ryanvvb ยท 26 points ยท Posted at 01:43:05 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Its disgusting how they tried to parade the case as a victory for the black community. It was a victory for a rich murderer. OJ himself always said "Im not black, Im OJ"
[deleted] ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 02:43:17 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah it's not a victory for any race, it just proves that with enough money you can get away with anything. Even murder.
foxtrot1_1 ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 02:16:17 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I mean, he won a case that he should have lost.
portman420 ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 02:43:42 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Can't hate on a man for doing his job well.
goodolarchie ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 06:38:53 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Wasnt Hitler pretty good for Germany up until he started losing on the Eastern campaign? I don't think efficacy at an immoral deed is worth celebrating. But whatever, every rich man is entitled to a sterling defense eh?
FrankGoreStoleMyBike ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 00:55:01 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
What's funny, is that he most likely wasn't a racist, or at the very least, not nearly as he was portrayed . The recordings were of him giving interviews to a wannabe screenwriter. The incidents he described on tape were extremely overstated and exaggerated, and afterwards, several black co-workers came forward in his defense. More likely, he was just exaggerating and basically playing a part for the screenwriter on the promise of a payday ($10k) and using the LAPD and black community's animosity towards one another to his advantage.
bman23433 ยท 12 points ยท Posted at 02:08:49 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Him being a racist had no initial relevance to the case though. It only became relevant when he lied about it on the stand. I find that to be even funnier, that he was probably racist, but that fact still didn't matter cause OJ did it.
FrankGoreStoleMyBike ยท 10 points ยท Posted at 02:43:37 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
It came down to credibility. F. Lee Bailey straight up asked Furhman if he used the word nigger. Furhman said no. At that point, it was just a play to turn the case into a circus.
Then, they found the tapes, got them in as evidence that ruined his credibility.
TheVineyard00 ยท 38 points ยท Posted at 01:33:51 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Even ignoring those recordings he was definitely a racist, sorry.
FrankGoreStoleMyBike ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 02:51:11 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Eh. I don't really have a dog in the fight. All I know is his friends and colleagues came to support him, and they were black people.
[deleted] ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 06:58:20 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
People come out to support scumbags all the time. The evidence is all that matters.
itty53 ยท 14 points ยท Posted at 01:55:46 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah, no. You don't play that racist on tape as an act, unless you're an actor.
He was a cop. Not an actor. Dude was racist as fuck.
portman420 ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 02:41:42 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I don't have an opinion on the guy but I do know that I am not an actor, but if someone gives me $10,000 I will become an actor.
FrankGoreStoleMyBike ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 02:45:59 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Eh. Pretty much everything on the tapes was found to be a gross exaggeration of reality. He was pretty clearly hamming it up for the screenwriter.
Edit: Downvote if you want, that's the truth.
The tapes even have their own wiki page
And a quote:
TL;DR: He was absolutely hamming shit up for the writer.
nemo_nemo_ ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 11:17:03 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Maybe you're right but it's not like I trust the LAPD to conduct an investigation on themselves.
I've seen the Rodney King tapes. That certainly wasn't exaggerated.
FrankGoreStoleMyBike ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:49:16 on March 11, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
As a general rule, I'd agree absolutely.
But, in this case, I don't. Fuhrman's career with LAPD was over. They had a scapegoat here. A perfect PR opportunity to show they were "getting rid of the bad ones", in an era when they desperately needed the PR win with the black community. In this case, the LAPD would have been incentivized to lay it on Fuhrman as thick and heavy as they could.
Podesta_tha_molesta ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:31:27 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
He's got a point. $10,000 is a lot of money for just speaking into a microphone.
pottersquash ยท 19 points ยท Posted at 01:51:50 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Oh black co-workers came forward eh? Well that settles it. Certainly if any black person defends you, you can't be a racist.
texum ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 03:01:21 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Everybody likes to say that the verdict was based on race, but it wasn't. If you ask an actual trial lawyer, you'll hear that that was not nearly as much a "slam dunk" case as people make it out to be. The media like to paint the jury as unreasonable racists, but if it had been a no-name white guy with an all-white jury, he still would have walked:
That right there makes the whole case circumstantial and difficult to prove. It's exactly the kind of case that prosecutors like to settle. And a case like this where every police procedure will come into question, and some of the evidence-collecting was even recorded by the press? I'm sure the prosecution would have settled if they could have, but the defense knew their case was strong enough that they never would have taken it. During the trial, out came:
Those facts of the case right there are any defense lawyer's dream. A lot of it's been debunked in later analysis, but the prosecution barely even tried to debunk much of it, and the jury was tasked with making a decision based on the court transcripts.
If you listen to what the jurors have actually said about their verdict, they've basically all said the same thing: the prosecution proved that OJ was a wife-beater, and they proved that he was there at the scene of the crime. And some of them say he probably did do it. But could they, beyond a reasonable doubt, say that OJ definitely is the one who did the stabbing and not a second person whose DNA was not recovered at the crime scene by a sloppy police force? The jury decided no. And I think any reasonable person couldn't honestly fault them for that, if they read back those 1995 transcripts with an open mind and took race out of it entirely.
FrankGoreStoleMyBike ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 03:47:27 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I'm not really sure whether you're arguing against me or not here.... I mean, heck, I only partially disagree that the verdict was based on race. I will say it was at least partially based on race, however. Robert Shapiro went on national television and even admitted as much, saying, "Not only did we play the race card, we dealt it from the bottom of the deck." Race absolutely played a role. As did the massive media presence. You cannot honestly think that it didn't.
But, you're fairly on point with a lot of it. You're right, there was no confession, murder weapon, or witness to the crime. There was, however, eyewitnesses that put OJ driving away from the murder scene and arriving at his house after the murders (a passerby and his limo driver). The prosecution had a fairly air tight timeline put together. Circumstantial? Yes. But just about as perfect a circumstantial case gets.
I'll also disagree that it's a case that prosecutor's like to settle. For one, that's kind of a cop out sentence. Prosecutor's like to settle just about any case that isn't the perpetrator on camera, showing their identification to the camera, and bragging about the incident to the police.
It's funny that you mention that you don't think the defense would have taken the plea deal, considering Shapiro was widely known as the lawyer that could get his clients amazingly good deals and not much else.
As for your other bullet points, spot on. With one exception, the improper procedure. The police being on OJ's property was never thrown out or ignored for improper procedure. Had it been, the case against OJ would have fallen apart completely. Even up to the jury's verdict oddsmakers had OJ guilty. The defense pushed a bit, but it was ruled in court to be a clear case of exigent circumstances led to finding the glove, which got the warrant to search the house.
Gotta disagree here, as well. OJ had some of the best legal minds of the generation working for him on this case, and defense they went with was very much throw everything at the wall and see what sticks, and keep throwing the ones that stick back at the wall anytime they can. Had OJ not had his "Dream Team", he'd likely have been found guilty, or at best, pled down to a lesser charge with a long sentence attached. On top of that, as much as the Dream Team won the case, the prosecution lost it. Darden having OJ try on the gloves was a bonehead move. Not securing OJ's house as a crime scene and allowing it to be redecorated while Nicole's house was emptied were huge misses by the prosecution.
In the end, absolutely race had a lot to do with the case. So did OJ's public persona (as a guy "too nice" to play a Terminator), the huge media scrutiny (another point being Ito's fondness of the media attention at the start, and his decision to let cameras into the gallery).
texum ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 07:43:37 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I agree, the defense definitely played the race card, and the cultural event that was the "The O.J. Simpson Trial" had a lot to do with race. But the verdict itself, and how the jury arrived at it, had little to do with race.
It's important to remember that the jury was not aware of any of the media publicity about the case whatsoever. They knew it was a big deal, but they had no idea what was being said about the case. They were guarded in separate hotel rooms by police without any access to TV or anything else that might cover the trial. They weren't even allowed to talk to each other about the trial, and several jurors got dismissed for violating this or several other rules. The jury had no idea how extensive the racial tone of the media coverage was, and were quite surprised by it when they did find out. Their verdict came as isolated as possible from that and by all accounts, they were in fact extremely isolated.
So the only time they saw the race card was right there in the court room, and it really wasn't played as much as pop culture says it was. The Fuhrman testimony was deemed non-credible because of the perjury charge, not because of the racist comments alone. He made multiple false statements, one of them being about planting evidence, which was a much more damaging statement.
The only other times that race became an issue was when Johnnie Cochran wore African ties and when they took the jury to O.J.'s house and the defense replaced all the photos on the wall with photos of O.J. with black people. The jury members later said they saw right through both tactics and found them both annoying and unnecessary.
Oh, and the other thing was Christopher Darden. After the first few court dates, the prosecution replaced one of their lawyers. A trial lawyer will tell you this is a big no-no already to replace a lawyer once a trial has already started, because juries will often read this as a sign that there's something wrong with your case. But when the prosecution replaced a white lawyer with a black lawyer, it practically telegraphed to the jury what the prosecutors thought was their biggest weakness. The jurors said they didn't respond well to Darden's sudden appearance, either.
In all, unless you consider Mark Furhman perjuring himself "playing the race card", then every other time the race card was actually played during the trial, the jury responded negatively. It didn't work.
Maybe not at the start, but certainly at the time that Mark Fuhrman perjured himself.
That's part of the reason why I say it. He was famous for making plea deals, and he didn't make one here. Why break that pattern unless you have a stronger case than normal?
You're right. My point is, the jury was presented with this fact, and was able to consider it in their decision. And at least a couple of them didn't buy the cops' explanation that the only reason they hopped the fence to search O.J.'s house without a warrant was that they thought O.J. was in trouble. And the jury was probably right--police are trained to question the likely suspects in a murder investigation as soon after the murder as possible because they are statistically much more likely to confess. They were going over there to interrogate him, not to help him, but by telling the truth, it would make the search illegal. So the cops had to lie on the stand about the reason why they searched, and the jury could see right through the lie. The jurors later wrote that this made them doubt the credibility of the two cops (one of them Fuhrman) who testified to "just trying to help OJ". And those two cops were the two cops who found most of the evidence tying O.J. to the crime. Fuhrman's later perjury confirmed their suspicions, which cast doubt over both cops' testimony.
You're right that his lawyers did help him win but here's the thing: it's not about them doing anything super impressive. They gave a pretty standard defense. The difference was, there was about eight of them so they each had time to prepare for each witness.
If this were a middle class person with a normal lawyer, they would never have the time to prepare like this. What they normally do is, they pick two maybe three of the key witnesses out of the prosecution's thirty and try to prove reasonable doubt on just those. "Here's what we're going to do. We have a good case against the blood evidence, but our strongest case is against the DNA evidence, so we're going to focus on that," or "Our strongest case is against that eyewitness, so we're going to focus on that." If your run-of-the-mill lawyer had the time and staff and energy, they'd give a defense pretty close to how O.J.'s lawyers did. They would pick apart two dozen witnesses point by point and also hire their own blood expert to refute the government's testimony.
Instead, since they don't have the time and money and are usually working alone or in a pair, not eight lawyers deep, they settle for picking apart the most important two or three witnesses, try their best to cross-examine the government's blood expert, and hope the jury doesn't care about the less important details.
I think O.J.'s lawyers were definitely more talented than the average lawyer, but none of what they did was some crazy out of left field defense. It was a standard defense with unlimited resources. When the prosecution presents blood evidence, you figure out a way to refute that evidence. They call a cop to the stand, you refute their testimony. They call a neighbor to the stand, you refute their testimony. The prosecution's case revolves around DNA evidence, you hire a defense lawyer who has experience refuting DNA evidence.
No argument there.
The jury said they thought this was bullshit and O.J. was just acting.
Remember that the jury essentially found that the prosecution proved that O.J. was there and was at the scene of the crime, but that they didn't prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that O.J. was the only one there, and therefore, the only person who could have done the stabbing.
Definitely.
As a cultural event? Definitely, race had a lot to do with "The O.J. Simpson Trial". The media scrutiny certainly affected some of the behavior of some of the people in the courtroom, too, as they played for the cameras, but the jury themselves weren't aware of any of the specific media coverage, at all. They were also specifically picked because none of them knew much at all about O.J.'s public persona and hadn't watched the Bronco chase.
In the end, it really was based on the evidence. The prosecution was supposed to prove "Wife-beater with blood all over him was definitely the only one there and did the stabbing" but the jury decided that the prosecutors only proved "Wife-beater with blood all over him was definitely there at the scene, and probably did it, but there's a remote possibility a second person was with him that could have done the stabbing" or even "Goldman killed Nicole, and then OJ killed Goldman". That's how you win court cases, on those margins. It's how both Robert Blake and Robert Durst went free, too.
baddoggg ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 03:25:10 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
This is a hell of a post. I'm not familiar enough with the case to argue, but it would have been great to see the conversation this could have generated if it were a response to a more visible comment.
cheftlp1221 ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 01:43:30 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I agree that the recordings of him to the screen writer were exaggerated but it is a little a suspicious that when he left LA he moved to Northern Idaho. Probably the whitest place in America and former home of the Aryan Nation. At best he harbored racist tendencies.
portman420 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:42:18 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Probably the only place that would take him.
ohbillywhatyoudo ยท -2 points ยท Posted at 01:39:43 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah but why? $10,000 for your dignity and letting everyone possibly know you are a racist?
Podesta_tha_molesta ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 02:33:32 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Did he know the tapes would be played for the public?
portman420 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:42:46 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Wouldn't have been a problem if OJ didn't kill someone.
FrankGoreStoleMyBike ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:47:51 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The tapes weren't meant for public release. They were supposed to be for the private use of the screenwriter who interviewed him.
TheSicilianDude ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 03:09:45 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yup.
The prosecution did a piss-poor job mitigating the shitstorm created by the defense constantly pushing the issue of race. They exploited the fuck out of Mark Fuhrman and the prosecution (and judge) let them get away with it. Pretty inexcusable really. Didnt help that the jury wasn't bright at all.
jtyndalld ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 01:53:11 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Now a commentator on FOX News, it's like they're not even trying to hide it.
PsySick ยท 41 points ยท Posted at 01:27:51 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Why would a Wookiee, an 8-foot-tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of 2-foot-tall Ewoks? That does not make sense! But more important, you have to ask yourself: What does this have to do with this case? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does not make sense! Look at me. I'm a lawyer defending a major record company, and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca! Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense! None of this makes sense! And so you have to remember, when you're in that jury room deliberatin' and conjugatin' the Emancipation Proclamation, does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does not make sense! If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit! The defense rests.
albitzian ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 04:58:45 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I'd hire you.
[deleted] ยท 23 points ยท Posted at 01:36:25 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
foxtrot1_1 ยท 14 points ยท Posted at 02:16:36 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Is there anyone arguing he didn't do it?
[deleted] ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 02:47:56 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Well the initial comment that started this string of comments said there's "compelling evidence his son did it," but that's about it.
Kang_andor_Kodos ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:41:06 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
No,what he's saying is no one agrees on why he wasn't convicted.
[deleted] ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 02:20:05 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I'm with you, but c'mon this is not provable. You mean a knife with an edge? Hold the presses.
jim653 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 01:55:38 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Now, this raises a weird problem and it's always bothered me, but (as I recall) it was mentioned only in Mark Fuhrman's book. The driver of the limousine, Allan Park, was waiting on Ashford and said he saw a man enter the front door of OJ's place. He was presumably coming from Rockingham, which would agree with the blood drops logged on the driveway. So, what then, caused the banging outside Kato's room and who dropped the glove? If someone jumped over the fence, knocked into the air conditioner, and dropped the glove, he couldn't have been the one who left the blood trail. And why would this person have gone round to the front door when he could have slipped in the back? Presumably, he cut through the neighbour's and jumped the fence to stay out of sight, so why then walk out in full view at the front of the house.
thebumm ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:31:56 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I expected the other guy to share his evidence. I mean, he said it was so compelling, I'd have thought it would be so fun to share.
septagons ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:28:58 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah but the glove didn't fit! /s
Kolada ยท -2 points ยท Posted at 00:36:06 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I think the argument is that his son did it and he tried to help cover it up which got his DNA everywhere etc. OJ wasn't going to give up his son so he went through the court case.
phoenixphaerie ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 01:33:26 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
OJ's blood was present at the scene in amounts that I don't think could have been planted.
Plus, I'm sure that DNA technology was advanced enough that a familial match (like a son) would have registered if any of Jason's blood had been at the scene (which surely would have happened considering how vicious those murders were).
Kolada ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:12:33 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Right. Nothing planted. He was there after the fact to try to fix the situation because he didn't want his son going to jail. As the argument goes. This is not my opinion
AMAathon ยท 17 points ยท Posted at 00:49:10 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Not sure how much you know about the guy but OJ was not a selfless person.
Kolada ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:13:17 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I'm not saying this is my personal theory. Just that this is the argument.
overthemountain ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 01:41:16 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I think the argument is that his son did it and he tried to help him cover it up. Not saying I buy it, but most of what you pointed out could be true along with his son doing the actual murdering.
SimpleManSC ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 02:01:08 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The knife that killed the victims was just found recently. How was it known that the wound on his hand was from the murder weapon?
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:36:40 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Reading fail..
They can tell a lot about a knife by the cut.
SimpleManSC ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:40:17 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
How was it known to be the same type of knife before the knife was found?
sk8tergater ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:51:10 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Wound casts for one would tell you if two wounds were inflicted by similar weapons. I don't know if they did that here, but that is one way.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:51:50 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Like I said, they can tell a lot about a knife by the cut. This is where forensics shine.
Serrated blade vs non-serrated, length of blade, etc.
Even without the weapon, they can form an idea of what it was. Obviously not enough to convict anyone, but gives them something to look for.
hmblmfkrwitabgassdik ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 02:04:35 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The first one isn't evidence he did it, that's a genetic fallacy.
dating_derp ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 02:51:36 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You forgot the blood also made it to his sock which made it to O.J.'s bedroom.
Source: Just finished watching "The People v. O. J. Simpson: American Crime Story". Good series.
elbows2nose ยท 61 points ยท Posted at 22:49:31 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The TV show that came out earlier this year? Is that still airing? I caught the first two but the one dude's theory was falling apart towards the end of what I've seen.
LAKings97 ยท 32 points ยท Posted at 23:18:47 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Was it the documentary (OJ: Made in America) or the television show with Cuba Gooding Jr?
KevinBaconsBush ยท 55 points ยท Posted at 00:19:51 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Watched the biopic thing with Cuba Gooding Jr. a few weeks ago then followed it up with made in america. Great watch highly recommend both.
AMAathon ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 00:54:08 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Man I wish I watched the Cuba Gooding one before Made in America. After watching the doc the scripted show was so trashy. The DA saying the line, in all seriousness, "this is worse than the day I found out I had cancer?" Laughable. The scene with the Kardashian girls chanting their last name? What was that? Setting the car chase to fucking "Sabotage?!" Way to squander an opportunity to do something interesting.
That could have been an amazing show but it was pulpy in a bad way.
Anyway, would also highly recommend 30 for 30's "June 17, 1994" for a really unique OJ experience.
addledhands ยท 18 points ยท Posted at 01:18:15 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
My wife and I are about 3/4 through it and are enjoying it immensely, but there are a lot of stupid moments like this.
We have a theory: pay attention to the cinematography. The dramatic pans, spins, and even angles are incredibly reminiscent of 90s television, and we think that it was a deliberate stylistic choice. A bunch of kids chanting their last name? Someone saying that something was so bad that it was worse than cancer? These (at least in excessive tone) lines are also very 90s.
I'm not saying that it isn't goofy, pulpy writing, but I do think that there's a good reason why it's there.
That said, I do want to watch the documentary version after this as I'm really curious how certain things actually played out. I'm 33 and only really remember the huge moments like the Bronco chase and the glove thing).
another_replicant ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 01:54:46 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Especially when he's crossing Fuerman (sp?) Have you ever called anyone a n****? (3x). I thought the camera work was excellent. Loved it.
I'm 31 so I'm in the same boat, I only remember the verdict that they announced on the the school playground, believe it or not.
And the documentary is excellent, but I think it's north of 7 hours total. It's really, really long but gives a ton of context to the excellent dramatic series. It's very very good. If you're a sports fan, the first section is pretty great. It chronicles his 2,000+ yard season pretty well.
portman420 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:46:51 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I watched the chase and the trial as a kid. I thought it was interesting but it didn't really add anything for me I didn't know. I think it's great for all the people who weren't alive or too young for it though.
AMAathon ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 04:02:25 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I totally agree it's intentional, but it's a few notches past my tolerance level for pulp, if that makes sense. I like the kinetic camera work just fine, but at the same time I look at it like they chose style over substance. The actual details are fascinating enough, I didn't feel like they needed to force so much melodrama in there.
I think of this in the hands of a director with more of a subtle focus and a little restraint and I feel like it's a better show.
ohbillywhatyoudo ยท 14 points ยท Posted at 01:41:25 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You sure? There are a couple corny points but the performances are amazing. John Travolta, David Schwimmer, Sarah Paulson, and a lot of others... it's really amazing TV for something that isn't HBO.
another_replicant ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 01:58:23 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The performances were incredible, one after another. The weakest link was Cuba Gooding Jr, which is a sign you've got something great. I'm 31 so I didn't remember Shapiro first hand, but after watching the documentary I was really impressed in retrospect with Travolta's portrayal. The way he spoke, his annunciation, everything was spot on. And the amazing thing is you can basically copy and paste that critique for almost every cast memeber. Even Schwimmer was great. Even David fucking Schwimmer was great.
AMAathon ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 04:08:26 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Crazy. This is such a blue-and-black/white-and-gold dress thing. I mentioned above I really liked some of the performances but felt Schwimmer in particular was way off the mark. I feel bad but I found myself occasionally laughing when he appeared on screen.
another_replicant ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:49:54 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
At least he's finally getting some laughs, haha. I thought his happy-go-lucky innocence (which he plays so well anyway) then turning to heart break as he realizes his friend is a murderer was really great. The accuracy of his portrayal aside, his dumbass deer-in-headlights look was perfect for the role of someone realizing his friend is a killer.
AMAathon ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:47:09 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I definitely agree the performances were great, Paulson, Courtney B. Vance, and Sterling K. Brown in particular (Schwimmer we'll have to agree to disagree on because I felt it was much too hammy).
Overall I watched the whole thing, so obviously on some level I enjoyed it, but at a certain point early on I realized it was something I didn't have to take too seriously because it was already taking itself seriously enough.
Again, maybe I watched it at the wrong time. I missed the hype as it was happening and watched it months later. And not only did I live through the event itself, but that doc series was so thoroughly and impeccably researched the scripted series just pales in comparison.
atomofconsumption ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:13:40 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Saving
McChickenMcDouble ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 00:19:00 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Probably the TV show because the documentary doesn't say shit about that theory.
[deleted] ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 01:34:35 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
No it was some horribly acted show where these specialists "proved" it was Jason.
Garber617 ยท 21 points ยท Posted at 23:01:00 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
It's on Netflix now.
Fawkestrot15 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 01:41:33 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
It's on netflix.
*edit: Oh you meant the documentary. Stupid brain. I've seen it rerunning lately.
jtyndalld ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 01:54:38 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The miniseries is on Netflix. The ESPN doc is not afaik.
J2BASEBALL ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:32:54 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah the ESPN doc is on hulu so will probably stay there for a while
oracleguy ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:59:50 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The American Crime Story one is on Netflix now. (At least the US one) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Crime_Story#The_People_v._O._J._Simpson
zodar ยท 147 points ยท Posted at 23:26:18 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
There's a trail of OJ's and the victims' blood leading from the crime scene to OJ's bedroom. OJ's son did not kill those people.
TheSicilianDude ยท 11 points ยท Posted at 03:11:12 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Exactly. I hate these alternate theories. If this were some average joe under the exact same circumstances there would be a conviction ten times out of ten. The evidence is so overwhelming.
texum ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 09:40:37 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The evidence was overwhelming that he was at the scene of the crime. But what's the most compelling evidence he actually did the stabbing? What evidence rules out that there was a fourth person there who didn't get cut and therefore didn't leave behind any blood?
That's the problem with circumstantial cases like this and why they mostly end up with a plea bargain. For all we know, OJ hired Goldman to kill Nicole and then he grabbed the knife away and killed Goldman. Or OJ hired a hit man who met him at the scene, and did all the stabbing of both Nicole and Goldman while OJ held them immobile.
In a court of law, it's really easy to place OJ at the scene of the crime but not so easy to say without a doubt what exactly he did while he was there. There was no confession, no murder weapon, and no eyewitness. He basically walked for the same reason that Robert Blake, Robert Durst, and JonBenet Ramsey's family have all escaped justice.
If OJ had been white and so was the jury, but all the rest of the case was the same, it probably wouldn't have turned out much different than it did.
TheSicilianDude ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:36:17 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You have to do some mental gymnastics to get to that point.
There's no evidence of a fourth person at the crime scene. No evidence of a contract killing either. If OJ had hired a hitman, he would have been far, far away from the crime scene. That's what you do when you hire a hitman. You do that to remove yourself from the crime.
He was pretty clearly at the scene, yes. His blood was there, her blood was in the Bronco, he had a cut on his hand, and he was seen speeding away from the scene. He was there.
No confession means nothing. He clearly had a guilty mind and you can tell by what he said early on. And the fact that he fled from police, with a gun to his head the whole time. He also had a passport and a disguise kit. He wanted to get the fuck out.
It was a perfect storm for him. Celebrity, loved in the community, and ultra-high racial tensions. The defense knew they could acquit him with a mostly-black jury, easily.
fresh2deafbill ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:42:21 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I agree...But the argument people make with this particular theory was OJ was at the scene of the crime but only to protect his son.
zodar ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 03:19:39 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
And he cut his finger and bled all over the place and tracked blood everywhere and got the victims' blood on his socks because he was watching his son butcher two people with a knife? Have you ever heard of Occam's Razor?
fresh2deafbill ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:25:59 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Preaching to choir here bud. I was just playing devil's advocate.
The theory regarding his son is circumstantial at best.
RipErRiley ยท 22 points ยท Posted at 02:05:04 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
No no no. Aside from the mountain of evidence pointing to OJ that theory assumes OJ is covering for his son. Every person interviewed, who talked to him that day in the Bronco, said the only way he settled down was when they talked about OJ. Not Nicole, not his kids,... They even touch on this in the ESPN doc. Makes no sense that he would cover for anybody but OJ.
He's a longtime raging wife beater, likely with CTE, who blames his victims (not himself) for the crime. He got off on technicalities used to show reasonable doubt, a moronic jury (payback? really?), and a race card throwing lawyer all coming at once. Plus, all during a heightened time\place of racial based tension.
Beersaround ยท -6 points ยท Posted at 03:33:35 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Don't you hate how the justice system favors the blacks?
Thybro ยท 84 points ยท Posted at 22:55:36 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Ok you can't just drop that shit without an explanation. What evidence? The same ones that linked OJ to the crime except the son had a less of a clear/provable motive.
HolycommentMattman ยท 59 points ยท Posted at 00:43:38 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I imagine it's the theory from people back in the day who didn't fully understand DNA evidence (I'll admit I was one of them) and who also wanted to believe in OJ's innocence.
I was only a young teen at the time, but people on the news would say they found Simpson's DNA at the crime scene/in the glove/whatever. But then if it wasn't OJ (and it's not, because we don't want it to be), who was it? Nicole would have Brown DNA, so that would mean it must be one of their children! And their oldest son looks like he could have done it!!
So yeah. Now we know DNA doesn't work like that. The DNA matched OJ and no one else. OJ killed Nicole and Ron and got away with it thanks to the best legal defense team in history.
not_a_cup ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 01:33:27 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I thought the issue with the DNA was they couldn't prove it came from the glove/crime scene? The DNA was supposedly collected incorrectly and was dismissed, I don't believe the validity of the results were ever of question.
FrankGoreStoleMyBike ยท 19 points ยท Posted at 01:07:05 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Actually the OJ's son as killer is from a well-known private investigator.
The theory was that Jason, who had a history of rage crimes up to and after the murders, for some reason became angry at Nicole. He is a chef, and had access to and reason to have large kitchen knives, and, I believe, one of them went missing around the time of the murders. The theory is he went, murdered Nicole and Ron, then went to OJ for help and OJ went to Nicole's and discovered the scene and tried to hide the evidence, accidentally cutting himself on the knife, and dropping one of the gloves while hurrying away
BalmungSama ยท 59 points ยท Posted at 01:30:47 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The only evidence here is a history of violence. Being a chef doesn't give him special access to sharp kitchen knives. I have a kitchen. I have kitchen knives. They're sharp. I am not a chef.
Gangstrocity ยท 43 points ยท Posted at 01:47:44 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Are you absolutely certain you're not a chef?
MuhTriggersGuise ยท 10 points ยท Posted at 02:03:31 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
OMG call the police we found the killer!
Miserable_Fuck ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 02:00:54 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Let me check......
....yeah, not a chef
beebstingz ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:29:30 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
how are you not a chef yet, you miserable fuck
edit: just to be clear did someone get wooshed or is it just not funny
VonRansak ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:33:07 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Good point, I mean, you do have a Chef's knife in your kitchen O_O
outphase84 ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 02:14:41 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
It goes deeper than that. He had two prior incidents of attacking people with knives, and inconsistencies in his timecard at the restaurant he worked at on the night of the murder.
FrankGoreStoleMyBike ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 02:49:41 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah, except I'm guessing you drive around with your knives in your car like he did, nor does one come up missing when you're being tentatively connected to a murder. Which was the point.
[deleted] ยท 57 points ยท Posted at 01:10:45 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
lmfao
picasso_penis ยท 25 points ยท Posted at 01:28:27 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
We all know only chefs have access to knives and gloves!
VonRansak ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:34:43 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Tbf, a chef would have been able to clean blood up from a white Ford Bronco... Amirite?
[deleted] ยท 15 points ยท Posted at 01:27:08 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
LOL
redrich2000 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 02:06:23 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I think Nicole was supposed to have had a booking at the restaurant he worked at but cancelled at the last minute.
[deleted] ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 02:47:49 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
FrankGoreStoleMyBike ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 02:53:45 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I know right? Just tryin' to give people a super brief explanation and getting hated on and told I'm wrong.
Hell, I don't even believe it. I don't doubt OJ did it. The history of violence, the fact Nicole had a safety deposit box with a will, letters from OJ showing his abusive nature, police reports, journals, etc. and she had told multiple friends if she died OJ killed her, are enough for me to believe it.
ProfoundProphet ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 01:59:41 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
This is the biggest bunch of horse shit I've ever read LOL
EpsilonRider ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:26:38 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Why wasn't this a compelling argument for one of the best legal defense teams at the time?
FrankGoreStoleMyBike ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:41:00 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
If it's the truth, it would have made OJ an accessory after the fact. Also, if the entire point was to protect his son, then it would be pretty much the antithesis to turn around and throw it on him in court.
Also, because the evidence was so strong against OJ (it really was, if he had not been famous, he'd have never seen daylight without looking through bars again), the best defense was to turn it into a trial against anything but the murders. And that's what the Dream Team did.
flexcabana21 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:01:16 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
William Dear is only famous because he throw himself into the spotlight, he never did solve anything of significance.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:21:26 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Holy crap, I'd sooner believe that the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles did it. FFS.
_THIS_GUY_FUCKS ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:32:23 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Actually thanks to the racist black people on the jury.
Rush_nj ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 05:12:12 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
and that's the story of how Homer was arrested when it was Maggie who shot Mr. Burns. The end.
blahblahmama ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:12:32 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
DNA evidence can be manipulated, if we learned anything for the Amanda Knox case, where they swore "they found DNA on the knife", but it turned out it was cross contamination at the crime lab. I mean, I know OJ did it. But still.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:29:45 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I would say top 5 defenses... who can forget the 'Twinkie' defense, or the guy who came up with 'Temporary Insanity' for one of the biggest bootleggers of prohibition.
Funkit ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:39:02 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Twinkie defense?
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:08:24 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twinkie_defense
hugecrybaby ยท 22 points ยท Posted at 00:36:30 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
there's a conspiracy theory somewhere that says OJ covered up for his son - give me a few minutes and i'll see if i can find it!
edit - here you go! sorry for mobile link
philogos0 ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 01:55:22 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
wow. That.. kind of fits.
hugecrybaby ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:22:33 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
i know! i definitely had second thoughts about OJ after reading that
cookie-writes ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:32:42 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Like the glove?
Sanglorian ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:35:36 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Then you must kind of acquit.
Thybro ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 04:05:43 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
It doesn't. That's just not how DNA works, If Jason's was at the scene they would have known since they had his dad's. There's absolutely no evidence to place him at the scene. On the other hand OJ's was all over the place. Hell half of the bullet points were about his mental condition and history of violence. Guess what OJ also had a history of violence except his was directly aimed at Nicole.
[deleted] ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 05:35:27 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
There WAS other DNA. It just wasn't tested. It was a very new science at the time. And it was the son and Nicole who began hanging out nights together They were closer in age
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 04:54:29 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Less clear motive? It was the son and Nicole who were clubbing together and hangin out and getting closer after she left OJ. They are closer in age than her and OJ
And he was making her and her fam an entire special meal at his new restaurant job -- when she ditched him. He closed up the whole restaurant early and forged his time card.
He had been in and out of mental hospitals for being stabby, and carried his knives everywhere. OJ lawyered his son up first, not himself.
The cut on OJ could have came from the same person.
Edit: more from this site. Ron Goldman was a nth degree black belt, and had bruising from fighting back, the LAPD found zero bruising or other marks on the dad.
DNAThere was other DNA there that wasn't tested. http://blacksportsonline.com/home/2016/04/5-reasons-why-its-likely-ojs-son-jason-killed-nicole-ron-goldman/
fiction_for_tits ยท 20 points ยท Posted at 02:21:51 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
This post is literally why you should never turn to a major subreddit, ever, in any way, as your first source of information. Ever. Possibly, maybe, you can use it as a guide to push you in a certain direction and ask questions, but these subreddits are a game of telephone with the worst aspects of a popularity contest thrown in, with a smidgeon of tabloid and reality TV.
There isn't "pretty compelling evidence that his son did it", it was a hypothesis (and arguably a theory) proposed by someone that gained traction on reddit enough that people bobble head it blindly because it sounds more nuanced than "going with the herd" and saying OJ did it.
And then people see comments like this and go "Man I saw that somewhere else" (read: on reddit), and this guy has a lot of upvotes...maybe he's onto something...then they repeat it elsewhere and you get another of those bizarre reddit conspiracy theories that pops up in every fucking thread.
DeadPrateRoberts ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 12:12:22 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Oh, go away. Stop being so dramatic. The voting system is very effective at rooting out the truth, major subreddit or not.
fiction_for_tits ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:21:18 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
No it isn't, how can you be so impossibly naive? The voting system exists to feed and validate inherent biases and frequently propogates mistruths. How can you possibly, in any way, believe that reddit's voting system roots out the truth when not only are there not enough experts on subjects on Reddit in order to outweigh impulse responses (which isn't an insult, that's just the nature of how mass forums work, you get more laymen than experts and the experts still only get one vote) and Reddit is routinely rocked by hilarious about faces in the wake of bizarre myths and memes that over perpetuate themselves?
The fucking Boston Marathon fiasco should make you incredibly leery of anything at all that veers toward the top.
Skootchy ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 01:30:59 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
What evidence? I've never even heard anything relating to his son.
FencingFemmeFatale ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 02:13:05 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
There isn't any. It's just a leftover conspiracy theory from back when not a lot of people outside scientific fields understood how DNA works and wanted to believe OJ's innocence. Like they found some of Simpson's DNA but it didn't match OJ (either because it wasn't a strong sample or they didn't want it to be OJ's) therefore it must have come from his son.
scotty_pimmpen ยท 39 points ยท Posted at 23:15:39 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
It's been pretty heavily debunked.
flexcabana21 ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 02:04:03 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Here's a link debunking William Dear's book
youAreAllRetards ยท -8 points ยท Posted at 23:22:18 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
By?
[deleted] ยท 19 points ยท Posted at 23:45:24 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Science.
youAreAllRetards ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 06:47:50 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
What science was used to debunk his claims about Jason's whereabouts, opportunity, history of violence, or motive?
sharkattackmiami ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 01:34:09 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Sure, probably.
But can you cite any of that science? Otherwise its just you claiming something because reasons.
For the record I agree that its unlikely. But showing why will always be better than saying "because reasons"
thesakeofglory ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 01:29:02 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
When I read the part about DNA under her fingernails not matching OJ, they would've known it was someone related to him. The rest of it does seem like it could maybe be enough to investigate him but certainly nothing "compelling".
ddrchamp13 ยท 20 points ยท Posted at 01:14:10 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
No there isnt, i cant believe people still spread this crap.
[deleted] ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 02:53:07 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Vaccines cause autism!
[deleted] ยท 10 points ยท Posted at 01:30:01 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
There is no evidence of this. You are fake news.
It's a wives tale from the 90s when people didn't understand DNA and believed OJ and his son had the same DNA
str00del ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 02:45:13 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
This theory is such bullshit. OJ 100% did it. There's a mountain of evidence against OJ, the "evidence" that it was his son is nothing in comparison.
thepikey7 ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 01:47:01 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Jesus, this shit again? It's the worst theory ever.
dmpastuf ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 01:59:57 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Na that's the theory that wookies did it
pimpmatches ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:16:55 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
What is that evidence? Do you have a link to a site that summarizes it? Not attacking you personally, just that you see this Jason Simpson theory floated out there all the time, always with a disclaimer at the end like "no joke" or "seriously", but you never see one shred of what that evidence actually is.
bdaily50 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:43:59 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
http://www.businessinsider.com/oj-simpson-murders-and-jason-simpson-2014-6?op=1 Found this a few threads up.
pimpmatches ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 03:27:28 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
thanks!
dagreenman18 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:38:23 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I subscribe to the theory that the Son is involved in some capacity, but OJ most certainly killed Nicole. Wether or not he did both or his son killed Goldman is the question. I'm leaning toward he killed Goldman because there are pretty solid facts to back it, but I'm not 100 percent on it.
kichaelmeaton ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 04:35:27 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Fuck you and your bullshit conspiracy theories. What an insult to the Goldmans and Browns. There is overwhelming evidence of OJ's guilt. Stop spreading this horseshit.
AscenededNative ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:00:07 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I too saw the buzzfeed OJ video
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 12:42:37 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
His son has a stamped time card that shows he was at work until 10:20 that night. The murders happened at 10:15.
dfwlawguy ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 01:28:27 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I'm convinced he went to Shapiro and told Shapiro that his son confessed to him and that under no circumstances would he let his son go down for it. After they try him and lied it's almost impossible to build a credible case against the son. That's my theory for why Shapiro never thought OJ did it.
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 01:44:39 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Change how you feel about him, thinking he might have sacrificed himself for his son?
klsi832 ยท 73 points ยท Posted at 21:24:49 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
He claims he had an accomplice that showed up to his house and told him all the sexual stuff Nicole had been up to. So they drove over there in a fit of rage and Ron tried some karate shit on him at first.
Jrook ยท 18 points ยท Posted at 22:24:17 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Someone else in the thread says that the author paid oj to say he wrote it but actually had no part in it
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:38:48 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Someone else in the thread said it was written before the murders.
hmblmfkrwitabgassdik ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:07:55 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Someone else in the thread said he saw a stripper with seven nipples.
DeftShark ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:56:56 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Someone else in the thread said it was actually Nicole's dog that did it.
joanzen ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:19:42 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
It makes sense. Guilty or not, you wouldn't want to touch the topic with a 40 ft pole, even for $600k.
Jrook ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:39:26 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Basically nothing oj does or has done for 20 years has made any sense. If they showed he had a stroke from football that is basically the only reasonable explanation
[deleted] ยท 29 points ยท Posted at 01:36:59 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
It was a fairly quick read. The author (alleged ghostwriter for OJ), said that he had trouble getting OJ to discuss the actual murders, and that he invented a friend that rode along with him to shift some of the blame, so that was interesting.
You get to the chapter where he discusses the murders and you're like "wait, who the hell was this dude?" and then remember that this was in OJ's mind. The actual murder was over before I even really realized what was happening.
Most of the book is OJ talking about the complication in his relationship with Nicole and justifying the domestic violence accusations etc. A lot of "I mean, did it get out of hand occasionally? Of course it did, but usually it was her who started it, and I yelled back because what man doesn't want to defend themselves? But I never hit her. I would never do that. We'd yell, and she'd hit me, and maybe I pushed her too hard trying to get her off of me, and I'm sorry for that, I really am, but she was always the one who started it."
hmblmfkrwitabgassdik ยท 24 points ยท Posted at 02:13:45 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Sounds exactly like him at his sentencing. "I just went to get my stuff, they did this, I'd never hurt anyone, I didn't mean to kidnap anybody, I'd never do that, I just wanted my stuff." Admitting the crimes and saying it didn't matter because he didn't mean to hurt anybody by committing numerous felonies.
GoddammitCricket ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 03:21:30 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
It's widely theorized that he didn't invent the friend, but that Robert Kardashian was with OJ that night and either had something to do with the murder or at least knew 100% OJ killed them.
That is why Kardashian was put on OJ's defense team, even though he hadn't practiced law for years and had to get his license renewed to even be a part of the case. If you watch either of the docs/shows that came out last year, you'll see Kardashian did basically nothing as part of the defense team.
If he's a part of the trial, he has client/attorney privileges and can't be forced to tell the truth.
ac655321 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 16:47:10 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Attorney client privilege would not exist at the time of the crime just because he hired Kardashian as an attorney later. So hiring Kardashian would do nothing to stop the police from questioning Kardashian about the time period of the double homicide. The privilege would only apply to what OJ said to him after he hired him as an attorney.
Kardashian also could choose not to speak to the police at all before the trial regardless of whether he is hired on as an attorney. The police cannot force you to speak. You can be forced to testify at a trial, unless you invoke your 5th Amendment right not to incriminate yourself.
He would have a 5th Amendment right not to incriminate himself regardless of whether he was OJ's attorney or not. If invoked, he would not have to testify if subpoenaed to testify at the trial.
No one can be forced to tell the truth, even if they choose to speak to the police or testify at trial. If you lie to the police, you could be charged with obstruction of justice/false report or whatever particular law California has on its books. If you lie under oath, you can be charged with perjury. To be convicted, the State would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you lied.
No comment on Kardashian's involvement, as I don't know all the facts, but the argument you gave for his motive to join the legal defense team doesn't make much sense to me.
GoddammitCricket ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:50:56 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
All very true, although I suspect that they didn't want Kardashian to have to plead the 5th if he was forced to testify. Even though it's not true obviously, a lot of people, including probably a jury, sees pleading the 5th as an unofficial admission of guilt. See Fuhrman's taking the 5th.
I think it was being safe and keeping Kardashian close to the trial safely.
FolkSong ยท 15 points ยท Posted at 22:35:01 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
OJ didn't write the book, it's just some writer's imaginary account.
JeepAtWork ยท -2 points ยท Posted at 23:44:50 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
My coworker found out my username and I would like to take this time to clean my profile. Thanks to the mods for your patience, I know this impacts your work. What is this?
FolkSong ยท 11 points ยท Posted at 00:01:17 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If_I_Did_It
Warpimp ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:08:27 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Totally not surprised to see NewsCorp there.
nlx0n ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 02:27:13 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
They owned the WSJ which put out the hit piece on pewdiepie. So you just know that's a fine organization.
zoobisoubisou ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 00:53:17 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Read it, but to be fair I went into already thinking he did it. We studied the case extensively in my Criminal Forensics class pretty much as an example of how to completely screw up an investigation. It's been awhile, but I remember he runs you through the events of the night from his perspective "if he did it."
Fr0styF0ster ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 01:30:37 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The book itself is decent as a book, but the new Goldman stuff is absolute crap. Skip those parts and just read the original part if you care.
AltimaNEO ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:59:02 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umUXVRU_neM
IMAROBOTLOL ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:00:01 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
He got read the riot act. Like forty times. It's the one phrase I remember from it.
Ms_Curi0sity ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:29:18 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
After I read it I had never been more convinced that he did it. Its a pretty good book. Chapter 6 is the one that is OJ's 'hypothetical' run-down of the murders where he goes into detail of what 'hypothetically' occurred that night.
bumjiggy ยท 145 points ยท Posted at 16:50:32 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
can't wait for the sequel "Glove and Mercy"
JoeSmashrad ยท 74 points ยท Posted at 20:30:12 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Does that have any correlation with "Eat, Prey, Glove"?
lipstickpizza ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:09:39 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Where's the comedy adaptation "Glove Actually"?
ForgotMyFathersFace ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:13:08 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Which inspired that hit song, "What's Glove Got To Do With It"
headtowind ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 05:55:08 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The Asain edition.
gougly ยท 1019 points ยท Posted at 17:12:17 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
OJ will be released in Oct and will have $2.7 million waiting for him when he walks out. Its his NFL retirement and the Goldsmans or the Browns cant touch it because its a retirement fund. Now that's some shit! http://nypost.com/2017/02/26/oj-simpson-may-be-released-from-prison-this-year/
rabidjellybean ยท 407 points ยท Posted at 19:56:46 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
How quickly you think he'll burn through it?
[deleted] ยท 444 points ยท Posted at 20:24:26 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I mean if he doesn't already own a paid off house then 2.7 million is not enough to live in a nice part of LA for his retirement. I'm sure he could go out in the middle of nowhere somewhere and live like a king on the money though.
MrTimmememe ยท 24 points ยท Posted at 21:48:59 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
But that's no life for OJ Simpson.
umaro77 ยท 296 points ยท Posted at 21:27:05 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You can live in a nice part of LA for 1 million, as long as you don't mind living in a smaller house. And by smaller house, I mean a house that most middle class Americans would probably still envy.
dickholebrownsimpson ยท 217 points ยท Posted at 21:34:27 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Maybe he can use Kato's pool house.
MasoKist ยท 24 points ยท Posted at 02:22:14 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Your username, in this thread - OMG
Ghitzo ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:55:01 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Its Kato trolling the entire internet.
haberstachery ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 03:10:21 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
That dudes pushing 60.
EXACTLY_ ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 05:20:45 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I would love to!
[deleted] ยท 38 points ยท Posted at 23:41:45 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah, but what I'm saying is that you can't retire with 2.7 million after spending 1 million on a house. 1.7 million isn't enough to pay for property taxes and living expenses for the rest of his life.
cutestain ยท 20 points ยท Posted at 01:29:25 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
r/personalfinance would say someone can retire on $2.7 million
PretendingToProgram ยท 42 points ยท Posted at 01:45:58 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Someone smart could. Let's not forget who we're dealing with
mrtrollmaster ยท 12 points ยท Posted at 02:03:17 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Using the old school 4% withdrawal rule that's $108,000 per year to live off of. If he buys a house, it's significantly less.
That's certainly livable, but not the way OJ wants to live.
humicroav ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:10:58 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I think I need $3M to retire
listerfyne ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 01:48:29 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
In LA?
flexcabana21 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 02:06:05 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
He lives in Florida so the court can't take away anything he owns. In California he loses that right to protect his property from seizure
imperabo ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 01:29:40 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
He's 69. A 4% withdrawal rate gives 68k per year. That's plenty for a reasonable lifestyle.
Airbornx2n1 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:11:33 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
So 2.4 mill i retirement from the nfl and social security... so he has a check a month as well
sharkattackmiami ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 01:36:38 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
No, but interviews and public speaking payments probably are.
apatheticviews ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:42:58 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
He's a 69 year old black man. How long do you think he's going to live? In 2009 the average life expectancy was 71~.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 07:40:45 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
True. Especially being an ex football player. Add in the stress of his trials, facing his kids after murdering their mom, etc. It's pretty surprising he's made it this far really.
goodolarchie ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 06:30:47 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
It shouldn't be that hard to make a 7-10% return on the non-emergency portion of that. 125k after taxes should not be out of reach in the Internet age of investing while the economy isn't shit (and if it is, you go but property and assets). That's upper middle class income for a couple in most places.
[deleted] ยท 69 points ยท Posted at 00:34:11 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
PatrioticHam ยท 22 points ยท Posted at 01:22:23 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Try my old neighborhood of Lincoln Heights. Lived there from the age of 14-23. Perfect place to raise a family, decent crack-house market, and the commute to Downtown LA isn't that bad!
But seriously in what "nice" neighborhoods could you get a house for 1 million dollars? Riverside County MAYBE but a nice area in LA? No way josรฉ.
flashcats ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 02:37:48 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah I know, the guy is just being an idiot. In another post he said that he considered Pasadena a "nice" part of LA...
Give me a break.
The house isn't expensive in LA. It's the land. Even a shit house in a reasonable neighborhood is going to fetch a good price.
PatrioticHam ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:45:31 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Exactly. I've seen a lot of shitty run down houses sell for 800k+ just because of the neighborhoods they were in. You're totally right about it being the land and not the house.
thebumm ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:35:42 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Valley if you're lucky but the house isn't as described. Peta from Hunger Games got a place in Sherman Oaks (I think) for 1.5 but there's a place near me (NoHoarea) 2 bed/1ba going for 998k so that's hardly the envy of middle America and definitely not an OJ pad.
TheVelveteenReddit ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:40:50 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Cheviot Hills sure looks nice on TV! 2 of the Modern Family houses are there (Mitch & Cam's and Phil & Claire's).
GatorWills ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:16:41 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I've always thought Cheviot Hills would be a cool place to live in LA. It feels secluded and yet is really central and has quick access to the highways at the same time on the Westside. I think it's the most "practical" of the higher-end areas of LA if I were a millionaire executive.
But you're probably right in that Beverly Hills, Brentwood, the Hills, Santa Monica, Venice, Playa Vista all have far greater home values.
El_Frijol ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:32:20 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
There are definitely good areas in LA that you can buy a nice house for a million still
One
Townhouse in Beverly Hills
Let's do a house in Redondo Beach?
There are more, but probably harder if you are looking specifically for downtown.
It's not as if he needs to worry about being close to areas where he'll need to work or worry about driving to nice areas.
Still if he invests that 1.7m he could live off of it.
flashcats ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 03:33:41 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I know about the housing situation in LA. I have a good realtor. The Hollywood hills don't work for a number of reasons and Redondo Beach obviously would be a bitch of a commute.
El_Frijol ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:45:39 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
A commute to what though?!?
Why don't Hollywood Hills work? He would be close enough to west hollywood, and he would have the bonus of being more remote if he wanted to be.
flashcats ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 04:06:39 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Who is the "he"?
El_Frijol ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 04:32:48 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
OJ...
Le_Alchemist ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 04:14:26 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Lived in Cheviot Hills. Not a top 5 neighborhood in LA but still a REALLY nice one. There's a reason celebs live there...
flashcats ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 04:35:52 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Well, why do you think I'm shopping there?
:)
SuburbanStoner ยท 54 points ยท Posted at 21:38:03 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
That's not true. A million dollar house in LA would be like a lower class house in the Midwest
[deleted] ยท 34 points ยท Posted at 22:05:11 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
[deleted] ยท 85 points ยท Posted at 00:39:31 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
[deleted] ยท 46 points ยท Posted at 01:29:17 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
ForgotMyFathersFace ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 02:14:23 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
At least an hour.
Paddy_Tanninger ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 06:11:40 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Probably less time than it takes to drive to the beach in LA traffic.
flashcats ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 02:36:32 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
LA beaches are pretty awful...
-Currently live in LA; haven't gone to the beach in years.
VladimirPootietang ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 02:42:13 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
go down to oc
flashcats ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:46:19 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah of course for beaches.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:33:19 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
capincus ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 02:47:33 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Ever heard of the Atlantic Ocean?
TheBeefClick ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:46:20 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I live south of DC, a house in a gated community with its own marina runs you 300-800k. Hour and a half from DC, and about 20 min from the Chesapeak bay.
rivalarrival ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:37:30 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
About the furthest you can get from Lake Erie is 3 hours, and there are a bunch of inland lakes large enough for power sports. You'd be hard pressed to get more than an hour away from a beach.
[deleted] ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 02:55:15 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Lake beaches don't count, especially when the weather prohibits you from utilizing them for ~50% of the year.
rivalarrival ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:56:06 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The weather prohibits you from utilizing most beaches for ~50% of the year.
Not too many places to snowmobile in southern California.
maxout2142 ยท -8 points ยท Posted at 01:47:48 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I don't know, but it sure as hell beats the taxes and politicians who you guys have to bend over to.
[deleted] ยท 15 points ยท Posted at 02:07:51 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Very, very basic laws of supply and demand suggest that most people disagree with you.
maxout2142 ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 02:55:18 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I'm comfortable with that. I'll enjoy my house at a 3rd of the cost of living.
not2betakensrsly ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 02:02:54 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Lol oh you do the fuckin in Ohio huh?
maxout2142 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:07:30 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
According to reddit all I must do in Ohio is corn which is news to me.
not2betakensrsly ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 02:11:15 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Why do you work at Cedar Point?
maxout2142 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:13:36 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The only time I went there I was disappointed I spent time at the park instead of time on the great lake. Good roller coaster park though.
not2betakensrsly ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 02:14:49 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Its my favorite part of Ohio.
kung-fu_hippy ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 01:54:13 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
There are 800k houses in Cincinnati, though. That's not even hitting the top of the real estate market, either. Hell, there are 300k condos in downtown Cincy that are only about 600sf.
Real estate is very local. I'd be amazed if there are any states where there aren't 800k houses that aren't even mansions.
ReallyForeverAlone ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 02:16:50 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Can confirm, Indian Hill is fucking loaded.
daaper ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 11:20:39 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Doesn't even have to be Indian Hill. You can find $1MM+ homes all over the city. There are quite a few on the west side, too.
flashcats ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:34:12 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Maybe I wasn't clear.
I was talking about my city.
Obviously there are more expensive cities in Ohio than the city I live in.
burnsrado ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 01:45:59 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah, but Ohio.
flashcats ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 02:56:08 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Meh. I live in LA now. Would not be upset to move back to Ohio when I'm in my 40s.
With the money I'm making now, I would be stupid rich back home.
burnsrado ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 05:04:27 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah I was just farting around. I live in LA too and loving it, but I'm definitely not living here forever.
treefitty350 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:24:05 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I live in Ohio and there is a 2 million dollar home for sale 10 minutes from where I live. It's nearly 10,000 square feet, has two tennis courts, a basketball court, and two pools (one indoor, one outdoor). Actually it might not be on sale anymore because I haven't had to drive that way to school or work in a few months. There are some very nice areas in NE Ohio southeast of Cleveland. Hunting Valley is full of beautiful homes and land.
Paddy_Tanninger ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 06:12:32 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I just looked at a semi-detached 3br house in Toronto for $2.5M :(
dumpsterfire_2016 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 01:31:26 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Hooray. Something Mississippi has that somebody else doesn't! Although, I live on the beach. The coast has million dollar homes scattered all the way down the gulf.
The rest of Mississippi...
Powerballwinner21mil ยท 11 points ยท Posted at 00:18:54 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
This is what roughly $800k gets you in the twin cities metro. I looked in the nicer area but you could find nicer in different areas.
http://www.themlsonline.com/minnesota-real-estate/4799810
IdeaGuru ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 00:29:31 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Can confirm. You can buy a mini mansion (5 bd 4 ba 3000 sq ft) on Summit Ave for that kind of money.
Deucer22 ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 00:45:45 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I actually just toured a similar house in San Francisco this weekend (the wife and I like going to open houses from time to time). 8 Million was the asking price.
JaronK ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 00:56:21 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
And in the East Bay right near San Francisco, I walked around a place that was advertised as a 5 bedroom that turned out to be a 2 Bedroom (but you could count the living room as a bedroom!) with a tenant in the two bedroom below... $1.1 million. Yehaw.
God we need to build more housing.
piezeppelin ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:08:56 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
NIMBY!
JaronK ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 05:41:54 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Please in my back yard. There's a development right next to my house going up, and I am in complete support (though traffic is getting worse by the day, we need infrastructure support to get more housing too).
manfrin ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:17:45 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
$1.1 for a 2x duplex ain't too bad.
JaronK ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 05:41:10 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I'm making more money than I've ever made in my life... and there's just no way I can afford that.
And in most other places, that's a heck of a lot of money for a duplex.
manfrin ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:34:20 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I meant for a duplex in the bay area; 1.1 is not terrible; that 2bdrm you can rent out for $3k-4k depending on where it is, which is enough to make payment on like 700k of your mortgage.
JaronK ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:51:31 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The tenant below was a school paying $2500 a month, and rent is taxed so you lose about half of that.
But we were comparing Bay Area to not Bay Area here.
TheMrBoot ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 01:38:34 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
That price range gets you a really nice house in Iowa, too.
neighborlyglove ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:18:56 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
this is edina. I'd think that house would be nearer $400k in other suburbs and surrounding areas. edina is one of the more elite areas.
Powerballwinner21mil ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:23:55 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
That's what I tried to say in the second sentence. Wanted to give a very reasonable example.
neighborlyglove ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:25:35 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
oh gotcha, apologies.
Powerballwinner21mil ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:32:36 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
All good. Your phrasing was much more clear.
Caesar100 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:49:15 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
For eight hundred k your living in a mansion on the Gulf of Mexico here in Pensacola Fl. My beach house on the Gulf, eighth floor, end 3,000 soft. Was only 315,000.000 when I bought it. Y'all need to move down here! Other than the one weekend when it got down to 38 I have worn shorts all "winter".
flashcats ยท 20 points ยท Posted at 00:42:33 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Houses or condos?
According to Zillow, there are currently two houses for sale in the entire city of LA for $800,000 or less.
plumhead27 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:40:23 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
What are you looking at? I guarantee you that is not true.
TheMightyChoochine ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 22:49:16 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
That would be a substantially larger house in the Mid Atlantic, let alone in the Midwest.
kartoffeln514 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 00:15:56 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Can confirm, currently purchasing a 2,500 sqft house outside of Wichita for $160,000. My 1,400 sqft condo in South Florida is selling for $200,000
10101010101011011111 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 01:12:28 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Upside is leaving Florida. Downside is moving to Kansas.
kartoffeln514 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:49:37 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Still better than Florida.
Dusty_Old_Bones ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:54:03 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I clean a lady's house that is around 6000 sq ft with 6 beds, four full baths, three half baths, and an upstairs rec room, PLUS a guest house that is basically an additional one bedroom apartment of very comfortable size. This house is in the suburbs of a somewhat major Midwest city. You could have it all for around $675-700k.
sj79 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:46:03 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
There's a 5,100 square foot lake home for sale near me listed for $735,000. There are decent 3 bedroom homes with attached 2-car garages listing for under $70,000 in the area.
mdo556 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:01:55 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
DTLA isn't necessarily the nice part
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 01:39:04 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
In my hometown, 10 minutes north of Boston, a fixer upper will set you back at least $800,000
lol_admins_are_dumb ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 23:27:36 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
A lower class house in the midwest is dilapidated and 900 square feet. Show me a listing for a 1 million dollar home in LA that meets that description or piss off for exaggerating nonsense.
imlost19 ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 01:17:43 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I love proving people wrong and looked for about 10 minutes and this is the worst I can find for around 1 mil:
https://www.redfin.com/CA/Los-Angeles/1153-N-Orange-Dr-90038/home/7107626
not lower class in the midwest but it does lend a little truth to his statement although still exaggerated. though every other house i looked at was quite beautiful at 1 mil
sj79 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 01:52:33 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
That house wouldn't sell for $65,000 here.
pizzatoppings88 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:22:23 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
That listing is like right in the heart of LA. If you're living there then you'll be near a ton of events and attractions, with a lot of them being world famous. You really would have to value that over being at home to buy that house.
Most people don't live right in the heart of LA. LA isn't just a city, it's also a county. You can get houses at like 300k within LA county limits if you wanted to. My parents' house is worth one mill right now and it's almost 3k sq ft with a mountain view. It's not in the LA city but it's within the LA county boundaries
Aerowulf9 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 01:49:37 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
How is 1000 sq feet not lower class? It totally is.
lol_admins_are_dumb ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:08:15 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The exaggeration is exactly what I was disputing. I don't disagree that there's a major difference between the coasts and the midwest, but to suggest a million dollar home on the coasts is comparable to a lower class home in the midwest is just silly. It's just middle class. No need to exaggerate to make a point.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:39:31 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Try Venice
Aerowulf9 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:01:18 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I havent been there, but... Having the cheapest housing shouldnt the midwest have a slightly higher bar for what middle class people can afford? So why are you defining "lower class" as sooo far below average? Theres hardly any houses that tiny.
lol_admins_are_dumb ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:06:12 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
There are a lot of houses this size, I'm not sure what you're talking about. I've spent the last several years scouring the housing market in the area.
Aerowulf9 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:08:23 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I guess I dont know what its like over there but I've only seen these kind of shack-sized houses like twice in my life over on the East Coast.
lol_admins_are_dumb ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:11:48 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
They're fairly common here. As soon as you break $100-120k you rarely see houses that small, but once you break $100-120k you are also pretty firmly into middle class.
Aerowulf9 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:21:22 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah, over here if you want to buy a house below 100k, its not an issue of size, its an issue of location. You basically have to choose something in the 'less-safe' areas. So most normal people just.. dont. All those houses are owned by people who will probably never set foot in them again, and they rent them out.
My brother lived in one of those places for a year or two, its not exactly the slums, you aren't likely to get killed or anything and as long as you act smart and don't go out late at night or anything you probably wont get robbed.
Maybe thats just the difference between city slums and suburb slums? Because the places Im referring to definitely still resemble suburbs.
[deleted] ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 23:28:42 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
lol_admins_are_dumb ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 23:35:12 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
These are absolutely not lower class homes in the midwest. You are making a ridiculous comparison.
Here's what a lower-mid class home looks like in the midwest: https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/201-S-James-Rd-Columbus-OH-43213/33884145_zpid/
thingsok ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:14:29 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Even that is much bigger than the house I grew up in
AbeRego ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:59:09 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I'm not sure about that. I know a couple in Hermosa beach who's house is probably worth around a million (granted, it could be higher now). It's small, but perfect for two people, and it's certainly not "lower class". Many of their neighbors are professional volleyball players.
Drugba ยท 10 points ยท Posted at 22:28:13 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
No, you can't. It kind of depends what you mean by nice area, but a million will get you a medium sized apartment (3 bed ~1400 sqft) in someplace like Santa Monica, Venice, or downtown, but that's not really the "nice" area of LA, especially for a celebrity. You're looking at well over a million for anything half decent in Hollywood Hills or Beverly Hills.
umaro77 ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 23:06:55 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
As a middle class person, I was thinking that a million dollar home in Pasadena would qualify as a pretty nice home.
Drugba ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 23:25:25 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You probably could get a pretty nice house in Pasadena for a million, but Pasadena isn't what I think of when I think of the "nice areas" of LA.
thndrchld ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 01:19:31 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Jaysus. I paid $150,000 for mine, and I like to think it's nice, in a relatively nice area, and in great shape.
What the fuck is going on with real estate over there? I just saw a holy-shit-awesome 5 bedroom house with a four car garage and 30 acres of land go for $500K in my area. What the hell does a million dollar house looks like?
davdev ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:15:21 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
My house in a Boston suburb is about 1800sqft in less than a quarter acre and I could sell it for $550k tomorrow if I wanted. Prices are nuts here. Not LA nuts, but still nuts. A large house on 30 acres couldnt even be found, but if it could, it would approach $10 mil easy.
flashcats ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 00:44:34 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Pasadena is not a "nice area of LA". If you're talking about the County of LA, instead of the City of LA, then I'm sure you could find plenty of homes for a million that are fine to live in.
But, I had assumed you meant city of LA...
-500- ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:54:25 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
With as high a profile as he has, he almost needs a gated mansion.
PatrioticHam ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:20:51 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
He can try my old neighborhood in Lincoln Heights. It's a bustling and productive community in LA! 2 million could get a person pretty far there. You could find a nice crack house for 200k at most.
iwhitt567 ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 00:16:11 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
What does this mean? 1 million a year? That's still only enough for 2.7 years.
EDIT: Why would you downvote this? "You can live on 1 million" is 100% meaningless; how long can you live on that amount of money?
I_HAVEN_NO_SHAMEN ยท 11 points ยท Posted at 21:35:38 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
He's got house's in cheaper places iirc
billabong27 ยท 29 points ยท Posted at 22:32:43 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
IIRC he lives in Florida so the Goldman family can't garnish his wages. He also had a few sham corporations in his kids names to funnel money to himself they couldn't touch or some such jazz.
imaginesomethinwitty ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 00:11:13 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Plus a homestead exception in FL right? So they can't get his house?
billabong27 ยท 10 points ยท Posted at 01:28:44 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yep! I would say he's a smart dude for it but I'm sure attorneys helped him with the decision.
flexcabana21 ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 02:06:59 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Kim Kardasian's dad set the whole thing up
goodolarchie ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 06:33:21 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
But the show taught me that Ross knew he did it
MuhTriggersGuise ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 02:05:37 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah I highly doubt he came up with any of it.
improbable_humanoid ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 01:21:30 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Only a moron would go back to LA after all that.
bruisedunderpenis ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:02:02 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
He could go back to Vegas. Real estate is cheap. $500k will get you a very nice amount of house in the Vegas area.
Decyde ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:32:28 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
He can do book signings for more than the cost of the book when he gets out!
Tehmaxx ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:31:04 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
If he invested it properly, among his other investments that likely exist, he will probably make more money than most people that work 40 hours a week.
oldtobes ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:35:36 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
He moved to florida because no income tax. He can't afford l.a. not to mention all of the press here.
SpiralCutLamb ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:55:04 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
He lived in Florida before
princessvaginaalpha ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:00:31 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Malaysia isn't exactly middle of nowhere. There are plenty of expats here and with RM10M Ringgit, he can live a super decent life at 5% returns/contributions from bond funds
MuhTriggersGuise ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:04:50 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
He's been living in Florida since the murder, up until prison in Nevada.
Funkit ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:43:25 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I doubt he could ever live in LA unless he's in South Central People of Brentwood were protesting after he was acquitted. He'd have to live in a majority black neighborhood if he wants to be seen without being harassed.
Woodshadow ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:51:51 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I hope for his own sake his own sake and everyone else's that he just goes to the middle of nowhere and never bothers anyone.
CarolinaPunk ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:27:34 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
He lives in FL he already has an estate.
crushcastles23 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 05:59:20 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
In West Virginia you could live like a god for that price. Like a man servant to wipe your ass level.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 07:18:29 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Well he can't spend all his retirement fund on a house. He should spend as little as possible so he has money to last until he dies. I was just saying he couldn't successfully retire for the rest of his life if he buys a 1.2 mln dollar house and then has to pay property taxes on that every year.
crushcastles23 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 07:24:37 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
A 1.2 million dollar house in WV (other than Morgantown) would be a castle. A nice 4 bedroom on a couple acres run $100000-150000.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 12:38:38 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
His home is in Florida because the laws there prevent the Goldman's from being able to seize it.
i8TheWholeThing ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 12:56:26 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
He most recently lived in Florida to protect his assets from the Goldman family.
CRISPR ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 23:49:35 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Does not he have a 30K per month NFL pension?
imlost19 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 01:26:23 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
is that a thing?
CRISPR ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 01:40:46 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Do not trust too much my memory. It's just stuck in from the times of the civil trial that they managed to get all of his money except this pension. It was a long time ago.
lol_admins_are_dumb ยท 21 points ยท Posted at 23:26:40 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
When you get money when you are young and dumb, you burn through it. When you sit in jail for a long time and think about what you've done and what you will do when you get out, you tend to have a much better idea of how to effectively use that money.
ZileanQ ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 02:25:42 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
It's one thing to make plans about future money - quite another to actually have the cash on hand.
lol_admins_are_dumb ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 03:10:45 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Of course, I'm just saying that just-got-out-of-prison 69-year-old decision making about how to spend 2.7 mil is a hell of a lot more sensible than 28 years old, just got a signing bonus, have no time to sit and ponder what to do with the money before it's in your hands decision making.
NotClayMerritt ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:58:38 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
He's 70 years old. I don't think he'll be living big like he did prior to going to jail. If you watch the documentary OJ: Made in America, after the civil trial, he lost everything. He lost memorabilia that was worth millions, he had to sell his house in Brentwood (which was then demolished by the person who bought it). He packed up his family and moved to Miami where he, to put it flatly, became a coke fiend. He also looked at becoming a rapper. Then the incident with his "stolen" memorabilia happened and now he's in prison. I could be wrong. But I think he knows with $2.7 million, that's going to be his last chance in this life. He'd going to find it difficult to find income in sports or autograph appearances, etc. And that's not even mentioning the fact that he could seek a regular job and still find it hard to get a job. Nobody will feel sympathy if he wastes that money and ends up homeless and broke.
MyUsernameIs20Digits ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:49:05 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I'm sure it will last all day at least.
BeforeTheDon ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:45:55 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
If he was smart, he'd throw it into an index and disappear
Odds are we'll hear about it in 6 months time after he's out
xmoda ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 07:29:10 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
He won't live long enough to spend it
[deleted] ยท 70 points ยท Posted at 20:16:58 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[removed]
General-ColinBile ยท 27 points ยท Posted at 22:22:29 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Thank you for this. I don't understand people's subjective reasoning behind wanting someone to suffer after they've "paid their debt". There's a reaction to every action. No reason to screw millions of people to stick it to one guy.
TheDudeNeverBowls ยท 15 points ยท Posted at 01:47:45 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Well, did he really pay his debt? Most murderers get life in prison. Sure, he went to jail for robbery and stuff, but everyone knows he did it, so his debt will never be paid.Edit: I apologize. The context of your comment did not warrant my reply.
General-ColinBile ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 02:11:43 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Takes a big person to do what you just did.
hoos89 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 01:19:31 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
$2.7m is enough for a comfortable but not lavish retirement. It's not some crazy amount of money when you have to make it last 30 years.
colorcorrection ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:42:35 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I can't imagine him really being in a position to live lavishly, even if he could afford it. If I were in his shoes, I'd probably want to head to some remote location somewhere like Montana or Wyoming. Somewhere I can live in quiet, peace, and when people say I look like 'That guy that killed his girlfriend' I can respond with 'haha, yeah, I get that a lot'.
properstranger ยท 149 points ยท Posted at 20:16:25 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Are you from the future? There is absolutely no information on whether he will be granted parole yet. The title of your own links says as much.
DWilmington ยท 21 points ยท Posted at 23:47:28 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
It has been projected by the point system they use that he will be recommended for release. They have a clear cut system of + and - for risks and he, by any conservative measure, still fits in the window of recommendation for parole release.
Funkit ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:44:42 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Plus he is older, they tend to release older folk early.
Fifth_Down ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 03:26:20 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Old, stable income, first time offender (as far as the law is concerned), and was over 24 at the time of his first arrest. He checks almost every box that a parole board is looking for to determine if someone will reoffend.
texum ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 10:01:25 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Except that he's OJ. A lot of people have a special animosity toward him. Maybe 4 of the 7 parole board members find a way to justify keeping him locked up.
[deleted] ยท 55 points ยท Posted at 21:17:30 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I bet he will be. From an objective legal view, he got really screwed with his sentencing.
redeemer47 ยท 20 points ยท Posted at 21:51:05 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
It was a "make up call"
CallSignIceMan ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:14:05 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Unfortunately this isn't football, it's the law. And you don't get make up calls in the law.
___Redditsucks___ ยท 90 points ยท Posted at 21:24:52 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah, I feel just miserable for him. Really bad break.
[deleted] ยท 173 points ยท Posted at 21:31:38 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I didn't say anything remotely close to sympathizing with him. From a legal standpoint his sentencing was quite harsh compared to what people usually get for committing the same crimes he did in that hotel. The judge very clearly was getting "payback" against him. If you watch the video of his sentencing she strolls in sipping a big gulp.
longtimegoneMTGO ยท 55 points ยท Posted at 23:18:38 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
What the fuck is the relevance of this? I mean, yeah, for OJ, that's one of the most important days of his life, but for the judge, that's just getting back to work after lunch on Tuesday.
[deleted] ยท 143 points ยท Posted at 23:22:32 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
It's a courtroom, not a food court. If anyone else walked into the courtroom with a big gulp you'd be threatened with a contempt of court charge. Showed a major lack of professionalism that set the tone for the sentencing.
MuhTriggersGuise ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 02:06:44 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I bet she had some juice in it too.
skepsis420 ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 02:46:22 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The judge at my court rolls in with a large mcd drink everyday rofl
JasperFeelingsworth ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 01:33:08 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
dude I noticed that too, that was wildly unprofessional of her
subjectWarlock ยท 13 points ยท Posted at 23:42:54 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Good answer
Imcorrectyuorgrammar ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 01:56:41 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I agree with your point about the sentencing being deliberately harsh, and quite arguably out of proportion with the crime for which he was actually sentenced(at least by wealthy/famous/white person standards) But I feel like the big gulp criticism is reaching. Judges get thirsty too.
[deleted] ยท 13 points ยท Posted at 02:06:16 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
All I'm saying is that it casts an appearance of unprofessionalism. I'm not saying she should be removed or disbarred or anything, it's that it makes it appear she didn't care at all about the defense's arguments and had her own agenda to carry out.
j3utton ยท -9 points ยท Posted at 02:23:12 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yea, totally unprofessional of me to have a drink at my desk while I'm at work too.
joanzen ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 02:29:20 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah I am eating pasta for dinner so this is ok.
Really love your argument style. It's just a criminal trial that will decide a man's future. No biggie - gulp.
joanzen ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 02:27:57 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
So you're going to stroll into a murder trial hauling on a Super Big Gulp and when the judge asks you WTF you'll reply with, "Everyone gets thirsty!"?
Imcorrectyuorgrammar ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:11:01 on March 14, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
It wasn't a murder trial.
joanzen ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:15:27 on March 15, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Tell that to Super Big Gulp judge..
ngwoo ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:02:41 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
If anyone else banged a little hammer on the table they'd get kicked out too
SlopKnockers ยท -25 points ยท Posted at 23:39:46 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
It's her court room, not "anyone else's" she can do what she wants. My dad was a judge for a while and in his courtroom he did shit just because he could. If it isn't against the law or an ethics violation they pretty much have free reign over what is or isn't allowed. It's their office so to speak (although they do have a separate office close by). civilians have to be kept on a leash though, if you let one in with a big gulp, suddenly everyone else will bring their lunch, and basically trash the place up, it's a court not a movie theater. The judge having a drink is not a big deal, would you have felt better if her Dr. Pepper had been in a coffee mug?
[deleted] ยท 29 points ยท Posted at 23:44:51 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
That's all great but don't expect anyone to take you seriously when you do that. If I see a judge do that it makes me question their dedication to professionalism and upholding standards.
sodajonesx ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 00:48:39 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Your username is relevant because there was a judge removed, jailed and disbarred for, among other things, wearing a penis pump and using it during court hearings.
So yeah.
imlost19 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 01:30:04 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
holy shit balls
one of my judges will love this
[deleted] ยท -14 points ยท Posted at 23:51:47 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
[deleted] ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 23:57:20 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Ok?
_Sinnik_ ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 01:19:18 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I think you might find a lot of judges hold a similar opinion to /u/pinata_penis_pump2 regarding upholding an appearance of professionalism.
ย
And for the record, I don't really give a shit either way.
ย
Edit: repeated myself
mech1985 ยท -5 points ยท Posted at 00:47:31 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Came back to my office today with a soda from Taco Bell. Am I unprofessional?
Minister_for_Magic ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 01:01:00 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Does everyone have to stand when you enter the room or call you "your Honor"? If not, it's not really relevant. Judges are basically demigods in their court rooms and can do more or less whatever the hell they want.
AerThreepwood ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 01:54:02 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I'm going to see if I can get the rest of the maintenance department to do that now.
_Sinnik_ ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 01:13:17 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I mean come on, not saying I agree with the guy above, but that is a dumb comparison. It should be painfully obvious to you that there are vastly different standards for courtroom conduct versus most offices.
mech1985 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 13:34:37 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The point I was making (which seems painfully obvious that everyone missed) is that judges are humans just like the rest of us. Humans get thirsty so what difference does it make if its a coffee mug, big gulp, slurpee or anything else?
It wasn't scotch in the cup so I don't see the unprofessionalism, if she's doing her job I personally could care less about the cup. Seems to me that people just look for excuses to rake others over the coals every chance they get - especially cops and judges.
_Sinnik_ ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:53:20 on March 9, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Unfortunately, it really does matter to a lot of people (judges included). Carrying a massive big gulp cup in to court is an extremely, extremely atypical behaviour and it immediately begs the question of why. The most immediate conclusions that many would reach are either they don't give a shit about the case enough to observe standard court conduct, or they're trying to make the statement that they think the case should be treated as casual and not taken seriously.
That's just how it is, and if you don't get that by now, I'm sorry I can't explain anymore. Alternatively, however, if you're trying to make the case that there shouldn't be these stringent rules of conduct, that's a fair discussion to have. I think the counter-argument to that would be that the existence of stringent court conduct is a method employed to essentially manipulate the mindset of court attendees and participants into taking the whole court process seriously, and respectfully. That method seems to work, but I can see the argument for strict pragmatism, that is to say, judge (no pun intended) a judge solely on their performance and ethics.
[deleted] ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 01:29:13 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
mech1985 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 13:13:46 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Because your reply was so extraordinarily intelligent and enlightening. If that comment was the measure of intelligence though I'll take that as a compliment.
Also maybe think twice next time you're going to throw out an insult at the expense of people afflicted with a medical condition that they have no control over.
sharkattackmiami ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 01:40:19 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Are you a judge overseeing a major national interest case? Then no, no one cares what you do
j3utton ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 02:26:18 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
And no one should care if a judge brings a drink with them. For fucks sake, what are we even arguing about here?
sharkattackmiami ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 02:33:30 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Its a slippery slope. Do you think its acceptable for a judge to be munching on a Big Mac while they hear evidence that will decide if someone lives or dies?
They are literally about to pass judgement on someone and decide the course of the rest of their lives. Save your soda until after. This isnt the time to be sipping on your damn big gulp.
j3utton ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 02:50:50 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I mean, does eating a big mac somehow impair ones ability to hear evidence?
sharkattackmiami ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 02:59:12 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yes it does. It is distracting. I dont have a study done on Judges eating while overseeing a court case but I do have some for driving.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates that eating and driving increases the likelihood of crashes by 80 percent. Additionally, 65 percent of near-miss crashes are caused by distracted drivers who are eating or drinking while driving
According to a Lytx study in 2014, a driver who is drinking or eating is 3.6 times more likely to be in an automobile crash than attentive drivers who are not eating or drinking while driving.
Lets put this a different way. You are in a courtroom being tried for murder. While your lawyer is laying out your defense the judge is burying their face in a burger, bending over to pick up fries that fell while evidence is being shown and slurping a soda while you plea your case. Do you have an issue with that?
j3utton ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 03:08:19 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Well... judges generally don't require the use of their hands and feet to control a 2 ton steel box traveling at 60+ mph while they're sitting behind their bench now, do they? Your analogy has no bearing on this conversation. Reaction time isn't comparable to someones hearing comprehension. Eating food, or drinking a beverage, does not impair ones ability to hear and interpret information.
And you've greatly exaggerated the argument past the point of absurdity... That's two logical fallacies now, Reductio ad absurdum and Slippery Slope, care to try for lucky number three?
sharkattackmiami ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 03:25:56 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Its not JUST reaction time. If you are eating at least some portion of your attention is devoted to that. Even if its only 1% of your attention, over enough court cases you will eventually overlook a vital piece of information. I did not mean it to be a 1:1 comparison. Simply showing that there is precedent for eating and drinking to have a negative effect on your attention.
It was rude, and there was 0 reason for that judge to be sipping on a big gulp aside from being obviously disrespectful towards OJ. I dont like the guy, I think he did it. But a judge should be better than that. It was petty.
j3utton ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:31:30 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Someone being hungry and or thirsty can have just an much, if not more of a distracting impact as your hypothetical 1% on their attention.
I really think some people are attempting to make a mountain out of a mole hill here.
sharkattackmiami ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 04:02:47 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Then maybe as an adult she should have known to eat/drink before a major national case. A cop cant just break out a burger in the middle of a traffic stop. Trump cant just whip out a big gulp during the presidential address (please, dont prove me wrong), and a judge shouldn't do it either.
Its not a huge deal, Im not calling for her to lose her job. But it was a petty thing to do and reflects poorly on her character. Same for the obvious bias in the punishment. It was objectively harsh for the crime when you compare it to other similar cases. All of this works together to show that the judge was not unbiased and used prior prejudices in their ruling.
Its easy to let things like that slide when its being done to someone like OJ but it sets bad precedent.
[deleted] ยท -14 points ยท Posted at 23:57:34 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Heres the best part: It doesn't fucking matter what you think. ESPECIALLY to the people on the other side of the bench in her court. You don't want to respect her? Tough shit. You will if she walks in with a god damned clown outfit on. You think she gives a fuck if you like her approach? As long as it is ethical and within the law, she can do whatever the fuck she wants.
[deleted] ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 23:58:06 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Wow, looks like someone is upset.
[deleted] ยท -3 points ยท Posted at 00:00:46 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Huh? Not at all. Im not the one bitching about a big gulp. LOL. Just trying to put into perspective how little your opinion of her professionalism actually matters.
[deleted] ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 00:02:22 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Good for you I guess? What's your point?
[deleted] ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 00:13:39 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
My point is explicit in the post. What? Lol
Hambone_Marone ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 02:03:00 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You point has absolutely nothing to do with what /u/pinata_penis_pump2 said, though. Their point was that the judge was acting unprofessional as a judge, that's it. So your wild angry rant about how she can walk in with a clown outfit is clearly pointless and absurd.
[deleted] ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 00:07:26 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
[deleted] ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 00:12:36 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Woah, someone's mad. Damn, we are having a discussion and you come in throwing insults? Pretty lame.
_Sinnik_ ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 01:22:33 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Why are you being so hostile
hyasbawlz ยท -2 points ยท Posted at 23:59:53 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You clearly have no idea what the word "professionalism" means.
doctorbuttpirate ยท -5 points ยท Posted at 00:15:28 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
It's a courtroom, yes. Her courtroom, she can do whatever she pleases.
[deleted] ยท 11 points ยท Posted at 00:20:35 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Never said she couldn't.
[deleted] ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 01:27:34 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
doctorbuttpirate ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:45:19 on March 9, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
And you're the king of originality!
jhutchi2 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:35:27 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Someone hasn't seen My Cousin Vinny.
___Redditsucks___ ยท -59 points ยท Posted at 21:40:12 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
"quite harsh" = sympathy
Spin it any way you like. You're saying he got a raw deal. No one thinks that unless they're sympathizing with him, end of story.
CapitalistLion-Tamer ยท 21 points ยท Posted at 22:02:15 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
No it doesn't. At all.
He qualified his statement with "from an objective legal view". He's not offering sympathy to OJ.
[deleted] ยท 19 points ยท Posted at 21:42:16 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
If it helps you feel better about yourself, sure thing fella.
___Redditsucks___ ยท -36 points ยท Posted at 21:47:07 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Right back at ya, DUDE.
Hashtag_Dickface ยท 11 points ยท Posted at 22:20:57 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
It's not sympathizing to say the punishment he got for the crime he was convicted of is objectively harsher than is typical for those who commit the same crime.
___Redditsucks___ ยท -28 points ยท Posted at 22:21:57 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Thanks for the input, asshole. We already settled that hash.
obfuscate_this ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 22:29:48 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
you make no sense.
___Redditsucks___ ยท -4 points ยท Posted at 22:45:55 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The fuck with the brigading up in this piece?
itty53 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 23:14:56 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Complaining about bogeymen brigades?
That's a down-votin'.
___Redditsucks___ ยท -4 points ยท Posted at 00:55:52 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Being a hypocrite? You guessed it.
Hashtag_Dickface ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 22:31:01 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I just want to hear you admit publicly, you've accepted the facts, and you were wrong. Give me that, eat glass, then we're good.
___Redditsucks___ ยท -2 points ยท Posted at 22:44:17 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
What???? You're on crack dude. One day there may be eating of crow, but it is not this day.
obfuscate_this ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 22:28:53 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
...
___Redditsucks___ ยท -2 points ยท Posted at 22:46:48 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Now what is your particular problem?
lol_admins_are_dumb ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 23:31:59 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Child A bullies Child B and makes him feel bad. Eventually Child B gets fed up and shoots Child A in the head and he dies.
I don't have to sympathize with Child A's bullying to objectively state that Child B had a major overreaction and his response was unwarranted.
Put on your thinking cap once in a while.
___Redditsucks___ ยท -2 points ยท Posted at 00:54:11 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Fuck off once in a while, you condescending prick.
PS: you suck at analogies.
psychHOTic ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 01:53:20 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Now kiss...
GleeUnit ยท 29 points ยท Posted at 21:32:18 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Couldn't have happened to a nicer guy, really. Next they'll tell me Suge Knight is a huge piece of shit. I mean come on.
confessrazia ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 02:27:30 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
If we allow justice to break down and become blind to equity just because we don't like somebody, the system is going to devolve and we will all suffer.
Itwasme101 ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 02:42:12 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I agree except judges look at the persons history when sentencing. They could see this man had an extensive history of violence and gave him the higher sentencing based on he might repeat that.
So no this isnt revenge. the legal system worked. Just like how first time offenders usually get lighter sentences.
salamandroid ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:16:30 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
He had no prior violent convictions.
Itwasme101 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 03:55:48 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
He had plenty of domestic violence reports made on him. Sounds like you don't know anything about him or his case.
salamandroid ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 04:14:57 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Sounds like you really have no understanding of how the legal system works. OJ was never even arrested or charged with any domestic related battery. These reports couldn't be used against him at sentencing, especially since the person who made the complaints was dead and could not corroborate them.
Itwasme101 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:25:57 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah he killed her. That will shut someone up.
schizodancer89 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:27:32 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Vanilla Ice used to hang out with Suge Knight , you can't tell me he wasn't a nice guy
Birsic52 ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 21:31:00 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I wonder why.
CallSignIceMan ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:18:26 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Doesn't matter why. You can't do that.
The_Gene_Parmesan ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:30:12 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I bet he won't be. He's one of the most infamous criminals in America and a repeat offender.
[deleted] ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 00:17:14 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Couldn't have happened to a nicer guy.
IDGAF1203 ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 21:30:38 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Seems like judges just don't really like repeat offenders that much
kaenneth ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 22:14:49 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
He had no prior convictions.
[deleted] ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 00:19:00 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Judges can consider all prior wrongdoing in sentencing. That includes being found civilly liable for stabbing two people to death.
IDGAF1203 ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 23:01:39 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You sure that requires separate trials and not multiple convictions? He was arrested a few times, lost the civil suit. Laundry list of charges in his conviction.
kaenneth ยท 17 points ยท Posted at 23:07:59 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
In court, only Convictions are supposed to matter, not prior arrests and acquittals.
If we judged people guilty just based on being arrested... well, "Innocent until PROVEN guilty." is the rule we supposedly operate under.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 23:34:20 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
"supposed to" "supposedly"
Exactly.
IDGAF1203 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:20:09 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Wasn't he guilty in civil court for the death, then guilty in criminal court for the kidnapping? Different evidentiary standards, beyond a reasonable doubt vs more probable than not. Sentencing has to weigh likelihood of danger to the public.
kaenneth ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 23:25:32 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
There is no 'Guilt' in Civil court, only 'Liability'
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:12:27 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
kaenneth ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 02:46:51 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The law? He was found Not Guilty; as far as the Criminal justice system is concerned, he didn't do it. There is no basis whatsoever for a previous, unrelated civil matter to have an effect on the sentencing of a later criminal case.
It's absurd to allow a case resolved by 'preponderance of the evidence' change the outcome of a 'beyond a reasonable doubt' case; as it does an end-run around the whole point of 'beyond a reasonable doubt'
He was convicted of robbery, but sentenced for murder.
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 03:08:35 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
kaenneth ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 03:20:17 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
So you agree with Brock Turners sentence? or the Affluenza kid?
DWilmington ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 23:50:47 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
By law arrested doesn't count for anything unless you're convicted of a crime. Otherwise you can just have police arrest someone ten times with no evidence and have to let them go but oh no they got convicted on time number 11 and have been arrested so many times before so throw the book at them.
Yes, I think OJ did it, but previous arrests without conviction as a mitigating point are a VERY slippery slope.
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 00:20:10 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Judges can consider any relevant evidence in sentencing. The fact that a jury found him liable for stabbing two people to death is relevant here, especially since he was being sentenced for a crime of violence.
DefendedCobra29 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:41:38 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
What is an "objective legal view"?
Itwasme101 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:42:41 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Judges look at the person's history when sentencing. They could see this man had an extensive history of violence and gave him the higher sentencing based on he might repeat that.
So no he didn't get screwed the legal system worked. Just like how first time offenders usually get lighter sentences.
kaenneth ยท -5 points ยท Posted at 22:12:58 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
It really was an abuse of the justice system.
He probably deserved it, but it's wrong to imprison someone because you don't like them.
and I doubt they would have gone to the trouble if he weren't a black man accused of killing a white woman.
Fifth_Down ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:09:46 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Sports Illustrated recently wrote an article on this. Basically he is a slam dunk case for parole. There are seven questions the board looks at and if you pass two of them you have a chance at parole and three gives you a pretty good chance. OJ passes five of them.
properstranger ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:30:33 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Here's the article you mention.
There are 11 factors, not seven. And they are not pass/fail, they each contribute between -1 and 2 points to your overall score. Basically everything you've said is wrong.
You sure you read the article dude?
Fifth_Down ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 03:02:52 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I just highly simplified it because of the positive and negative points and that there is some dispute to the specific point total.
properstranger ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:05:45 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You "simplified" the number 11 into 7?
Fifth_Down ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 03:12:56 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah. Because negative and positive points cancel each other out and some of those questions are uncontrollable such as gender. You could have written up a summary in the time it takes you to have this hostile back and forth with me.
properstranger ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 03:20:58 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
So in your mind, if they had asked 5 questions that add points and 5 that remove points, they would have asked no questions at all?
Most of them are uncontrollable. Do you think they're just asking them for fun, but they won't actually count because they're uncontrollable?
Fifth_Down ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 03:28:45 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Do you always act like this? FFS dude get over it.
properstranger ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 03:39:26 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
How about you stop spewing bullshit then? You wanna be ignorant, fine. Don't spread your bullshit to others.
Fifth_Down ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 03:45:15 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Dude you aren't even contesting the conclusion I reached because it is correct. He has very favorable chances of parole. You aren't even contesting that. Just being unnecessarily abrasive in trival aspects because you don't like being wrong. If you didn't like how I summarized it, go copy and paste that SI article and make a better post rather than acting like a jerk. You clearly are arguing for the sake of arguing.
properstranger ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 04:03:52 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Hahahhahahahhaha. You got every aspect you quoted from the article wrong. You didn't even read it. But yep, I'm mad cuz I'm wrong. Hahahahahahha.
Fifth_Down ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 04:08:12 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Like I said. the fact you want to ignore the conclusion of what I was getting at pretty much verifies all that I need to know. If you are the kind of poster who insists on always getting the last word. Have at it.
Waveseeker ยท 33 points ยท Posted at 20:30:34 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
It's so funny how there's still a debate weather he's a good guy after he went to jail for robbery and kidnapping..
invisi1407 ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 00:57:08 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Technical kidnapping because he said "nobody leaves the room". He didn't kidnap anyone in the practical sense of taking someone away. I watched the show and it was clear the sentencing was partially revenge for not getting him in criminal court.
kaenneth ยท -21 points ยท Posted at 22:15:28 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
He was absolutely set up.
Waveseeker ยท 12 points ยท Posted at 01:04:58 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
He admitted to it and his defence was that the stuff was his. He still had a gun and didn't let anyone leave.
kaenneth ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 01:21:37 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The other people with him actually had the guns, and they got just got Probation.
[deleted] ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 01:39:16 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
kaenneth ยท 12 points ยท Posted at 01:51:01 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I believe allowing corruption in the justice system is worse than allowing a single probable, but not proven beyond a reasonable doubt, murderer to go free.
[deleted] ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 02:46:35 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
[deleted] ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 03:06:39 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 04:46:52 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Oh come on. It was proven beyond a reasonable doubt, just not to that particular jury in 1995
kaenneth ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 05:34:36 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You are free to have that opinion, but legally, he was acquitted.
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 16:15:15 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I'm just not sure what your point is when you keep saying he was legally acquitted. I'm not disagreeing. He was legally acquitted. And, he murdered two people. Those are both facts.
Juries can be wrong. On April 29, 1992, a jury found officers Koon, Powell, Briseno and Wind of the LAPD not guilty of the use of excessive force against Rodney King. They were wrong. A video that aired on every news channel in 1991 had proven beyond reasonable doubt that they had used excessive force.
Another example. Since 1973, 156 people who were sentenced to capital punishment have been exonerated. They were found guilty by juries, but the juries were wrong. That's not opinion, it's established fact.
I just don't get the mentality that a jury verdict is the ultimate bearer of truth. Trial by jury is the best way we've found to reach a verdict in criminal cases, but that doesn't mean that any belief that contradicts any jury verdict is merely an "opinion." Juries can be wrong. It's a fact that the LAPD used excessive force against Rodney King; it's a fact that certain people who were on death row did not commit the crimes they were accused of; and it's a fact that OJ Simpson killed Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman.
kaenneth ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:33:02 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
But Judges can't sentence people based on 'what everyone knows', they have to use a legally established basis for sentencing.
Everyone has the right to shun him for the rest of his life, but Judges need to operate within the rule of law, or we all suffer.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 23:35:51 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Oh shit! Why didn't you just say so sooner?
Bet he's pissed now. Just wait 'till he gets out. You gonna get a visit.
hmblmfkrwitabgassdik ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 02:22:08 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Going before a parole board is pretty far from a guarantee he'll be released. I don't know how they do things in Nevada but in many states it's basically a formality, they release very few people. A lot of prisoners don't even bother going to the hearing.
logicallyillogical ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 23:20:56 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
How is he getting out in Oct? I thought he got like 30 yrs or something?
tjking333 ยท 11 points ยท Posted at 23:50:07 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
He's not, that's when he's up for parole, but there's not guarantee he'll be granted it.
DWilmington ยท -4 points ยท Posted at 23:51:26 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You've never year of parole or early release?
StuckPenis ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:36:29 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
How much debt does he have now though?
TMoney67 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:39:52 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I have no doubt that if OJ is released early for some reason, he'll have no problem getting himself back into prison a week later.
Either that, or he'll land a job in the Trump Administration.
excited_by_typos ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:11:20 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Can't wait to follow OJ on Twitter
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:13:10 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
DeftShark ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:42:19 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Entirely different case.
dating_derp ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:48:53 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
It's not that he "will be released in Oct", he's just up for parole. He could very well stay in prison for his entire 33 year sentence.
Sephiroso ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:52:06 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Wait, he went to prison? I thought he got acquitted.
Prophatetic ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 04:46:37 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
There is still room for Trump cabinet
AnyDemocratWillDo ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:31:25 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
He wasn't convicted and paid a huge amount already. I would agree if convicted but the whole lower bar for civil and then lose everything isn't right either. Somewhere in between is right.
yslithal ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 02:05:55 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
good
Lamb-and-Lamia ยท 728 points ยท Posted at 21:36:36 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
If someone killed my son, and got away with it. And I was already old/ had no other children, etc. I can't imagine me not just walking straight up to him and stabbing him right in his fucking throat.
why_rob_y ยท 458 points ยท Posted at 01:05:03 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
And then you find out later he was innocent, even though it seemed like he wasn't (not about OJ, I just mean vigilantism is risky in that way) - and then you're a murderer of an innocent person.
AdmiralThrawnProtege ยท 187 points ยท Posted at 01:19:27 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Well yah but the evidence that OJ did it is overwhelmingly convincing. Not saying I'd condone the father murdering OJ, but I wouldn't blame him either.
xXTheCitrusReaperXx ยท 17 points ยท Posted at 02:51:39 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
To be 100% fair, coming from someone who thinks OJ is as guilty as they get, the LAPD fucked up pretty bad. Putting Marcia on while she was going through a divorce, only 2 lawyers on with few people actually working on the case, and then just fucking up evidence collection altogether (putting the shoes in the police officers car and taking them home), the prosecution and LAPD just horribly botched the way they went about this. And then allowing him to put on the glove??? Come on. OJ is guilty in my book, but the prosecution
is just as guilty as he is for the way they brought this casedid a terrible job bringing this case against him as well. Absolutely pitiful.Edited: I let hyperbole get the best of me.
AdmiralThrawnProtege ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 03:10:38 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Although I do agree with all your points this one is a bit harsh. Botching a murder trial isn't nearly as bad as committing the murder itself.
xXTheCitrusReaperXx ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 03:12:28 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Very poor wording. I'll change it up. Good point. Of course a horrible bringing of a prosecution isn't as bad as violently murdering two people. Hyperbole got the best of me.
AdmiralThrawnProtege ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 04:45:34 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Hey it happens to everyone! No worries
[deleted] ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 04:48:48 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Eh, OJ's son was in and out of mental hospitals for gettin stabby multiple times, and had arranged to see Nicole that night, which she broke off. They were closer in age than her and OJ, and had been seen hanging around together a lot.
And he carried his personal slew of Chef's knives in his car, and shut down his whole restaurant earlier when she didn't come, but forged the time clocking out.
OJ prolly helped fix things afterwards tho, and the first person that he lawyered up was not him, but his son.
And there was other DNA there that was never tested. http://blacksportsonline.com/home/2016/04/5-reasons-why-its-likely-ojs-son-jason-killed-nicole-ron-goldman/
reverie02 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 11:42:19 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I agree. Dr. Henry Lee, the criminologist who worked for the defense, said all along two people committed the crime. It was probably OJ and his son. Since OJ was acquitted the case is still open. The DNA under Nicole's fingernails was not OJ's. At the time they typed the blood to be type B. If they tested Jason's blood (OJ's son) I bet they'd find a match!
Also, Nicole and her family were supposed to go to Jason's restaurant the night of the murder after the kids' school program. However she cancelled at the last minute and went to Ron's restaurant. Jason did fudge his time card, creating an alibi that was debunked by his then girlfriend who said she picked him up from work 2 hours prior to when he wrote he left work. And yes he did take his chef's knives home with him as all real chefs do.
Furthermore, he had a history of documented domestic violence. He also had a history of violent outbursts and had been placed on medication for that. But he had abruptly stopped taking the medication a month or two before the murders. The theories are the following 1) he was pissed Nicole cancelled her families dinner plans at his restaurant and either went to her place to kill her and he and OJ randomly showed up at the same time and committed the crimes together, 2) he was pissed and called OJ to tell him about Nicole cancelling dinner plans and he and OJ met up and planned to kill Nicole together and then went to her place together, or 3) he called OJ pissed about the dinner thing and on the phone they decided to meet up at Nicole's separately and kill her.
It's extremely fascinating and a theory I just recently heard about. Also, I never really considered that the murder case was still open because OJ was acquitted. If they investigated the Jason lead and charged him with murder they could actually charge OJ as an accomplice and it not be double jeopardy. Listen to this theory in a podcast by a former FBI agent and a former Scotland Yard agent called Real Crime Profile.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:54:55 on March 10, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Nice summary! I'm usually not fascinated by this stuff, but this one was clearly intetesting. I think the son just went to tell her off initially until woops, hot dude at her house, and maybe either :
called his dad for help after the incident, or
he called his dad on her to really escalate it
OJ randomly happened to be stalky when Jason was stabby.
I think my main takeaway is for women to empower themselves so much that they're only attracted to guys that improve their lives
Alkaholic ยท 41 points ยท Posted at 01:26:37 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
A jury of his peers disagrees...
Tychus_Kayle ยท 226 points ยท Posted at 01:32:12 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
At a time when DNA evidence was very new and jurors were generally less convinced of its substance.
daymanxx ยท 110 points ยท Posted at 01:36:55 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
And let's not even get into the race thing
MyUsernameIs20Digits ยท 138 points ยท Posted at 01:55:25 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
No, let's. I have an entire bowl of popcorn here & nothing to eat it to.
Sonic527 ยท 25 points ยท Posted at 02:25:56 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I guess I'll discuss it, I don't really care about internet points anyway. The trial was taking place in LA which was the same city Rodney King was beat up by four LA police officers. Some jurors went on record later saying that the reason they found OJ not guilty was to stick it to law enforcement for beating up Rodney King.
GoNinGoomy ยท 59 points ยท Posted at 02:08:24 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Donald Trump is the POTUS... If you have nothing to eat it to you're just not trying.
Buttholes_Herfer ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:41:07 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Wyzegy ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:20:18 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
OJ, and I might be wrong about this...I'm not an expert, was black. The victims they, and again I'd like to emphasize that this is just an educated guess, were white. Not just that, moderately attractive and white. One of them may have been a woman as well. So there's a lot of things like...right there, ya know?
potatoesarenotcool ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:06:39 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Inb4 numerous cross posts to srs, drama, jesuschristreddit, depthhub? Maybe.
ForgotMyFathersFace ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:16:00 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Popcorn is good.
MyUsernameIs20Digits ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:33:56 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You dirty son of a bitch. You take that back.
DrapeRape ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 02:03:32 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Race is the whole reason he got off. That and an incompetent prosecutor. The evidence was all there.
People were threatening to riot like it was Rodney King 2.0, and everyone watching it like hawks since it was televised.
It had only been 3 years since the L.A. Riots when the trial was done.
MuhTriggersGuise ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 02:07:56 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Plus the whole LA just having gotten over rioting due to the Rodney King thing.
S550_Stang ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:55:14 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
BLACKS
chikenwingking ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 03:20:44 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
This man singlehandedly solved racism
S550_Stang ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:51:01 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Thank you thank you
The_Law_of_Pizza ยท 122 points ยท Posted at 01:34:56 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The entire trial was televised, so the argument that the jury was in a better position to determine fact holds essentially no weight in this instance.
It was a predominantly uneducated, unsophisticated jury duped by a brilliant litigator.
Source: am attorney.
poikilocyte ยท 101 points ยท Posted at 01:48:13 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
thr new documentary that won besr doc oscar has a couple of the jurors on it. it has nothing to do with bad evidence, the blacks refused to convict because of rodney king and other very real and percieved racial injustices. it was a prejudiced jury against the LAPD. and they wanted their turn, fuck nicole and ron.
that is my takeaway from the verdict. one juror gave the black panther fist salute at the end. one juror when confronted decades later that clearly oj was guilty just shrugs and says it is what it is. no remorse.
[deleted] ยท 20 points ยท Posted at 01:55:35 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
poikilocyte ยท 21 points ยท Posted at 02:13:42 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Fair
foxtrot1_1 ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 02:20:18 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah, it's almost as if a history of brutal racist violence by police against a community will pervert the course of justice. So crazy
kungfoojesus ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 02:29:43 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
True. Also true that justice was perverted in the case.
Thedmatch ยท 11 points ยท Posted at 01:35:40 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Freaking Cochran is a fantastic speaker
philogos0 ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 01:47:30 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Not as much any more though.
Wyzegy ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 02:21:38 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Depends on the ventriloquist.
thePZ ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 01:48:40 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I was too young at the time to remember it, but every educator of mine that has touched on the subject made it known that it was predominately perceived that OJ's team performed damn near perfectly and the other side was rather lackluster.
noiserr ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:31:38 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
OJs legal defense team was stacked.. I mean I didn't hurt the fact that his friend was on it who also happened to be a lawyer.
cbburch1 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 04:08:28 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Your assessment is 100% correct.
Source: am attorney.
blueliner17 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 09:30:54 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Can you explain how the prosecutor allowed nine black jurors?
foxtrot1_1 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:19:33 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
This is way more common than people think.
MyUsernameIs20Digits ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 01:53:23 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
So you're saying that a televised trial shouldn't constitute a "fair trial" & as such should be declared a mistrial regardless?
Cossil ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 01:58:34 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
No, he's replying to a comment that is suggesting that the jury was somehow more knowledgeable about the trial than the public, and thus their opinion is more valid. That is false, as we had all the knowledge they had as it was televised.
MyUsernameIs20Digits ยท -8 points ยท Posted at 02:29:38 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
This person who claims to be an attorney doesn't come off as a very good one. He claims the jury (that was physically at the trial throughout the whole thing) was not in a better position to determine facts over someone who watched TV. Even though:
So yes, they were in a better position.
Also, he claims that it was because:
This attorney must have never seen the inside of a courtroom because juries are made up of your peers, meaning that most juries are uneducated & unsophisticated. You know because again they are made up of peers, not out of a pool of the educated and sophisticated.
And claiming that the jury was duped by a brilliant litigator also implies that they've never seen the inside of a courtroom because that's exactly what litigation is. Defending your side of the case. Nobody is going to go out of their way to get a shitty lawyer.
Using this evidence stated above, I determine that attorney to be an idiot for thinking that watching something on TV puts you in a better position than participating in the actual trial & for also not understanding how legal proceedings work.
Case closed.
onfire9123 ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 03:54:46 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Wrong. There is a reason the jury does not see the entire trial.
The_Law_of_Pizza ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 04:01:18 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Oh boy.
Please, Mr. Layperson, tell me more about my own profession?
[deleted] ยท 40 points ยท Posted at 01:42:33 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
BaconAllDay2 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 04:03:17 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I've watched it over three times. It's an excellent movie
my_knee_grows ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 07:08:50 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Jesus Christ that's a lot of OJ haha, once was long enough for me (totally worth it though, I loved it)
Alkaholic ยท -3 points ยท Posted at 01:54:30 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Didn't a cop contaminate the crime scene and try to plant evidence?
SpoatieOpie ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 02:23:41 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Wasn't that hearsay perpetrated by the race card litigator without any facts or evidence?
Fifth_Down ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:23:53 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
It really is impossible for a cop to plant evidence in that situation. A very risky move when it was unknown if OJ Simpson had an alibi.
AdmiralThrawnProtege ยท 44 points ยท Posted at 01:40:58 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Some of those jury members of his peers stated that they voted innocent as retaliation for Rodney King so I take their verdict with a spoon full of salt.
Alkaholic ยท -26 points ยท Posted at 01:55:02 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
So ignore the court verdict and accept yours, got it.
[deleted] ยท 18 points ยท Posted at 02:09:16 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yes. Lol, you fuckin idiot
DrSandbags ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 02:44:07 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You know absolutely nothing about the trial or evidence. One of the jurors gave OJ a Black Power salute on the way out, jurors have gone on record saying that they put evidence aside and voted to acquit for payback for Rodney King, and your reaction to that would be "yeah but the jury said not guilty lol"
Hambeggar ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 06:33:43 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
How was the salute not grounds for an investigation into the jurors integrity or is that not allowed in US law?
[deleted] ยท 16 points ยท Posted at 01:33:30 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
[deleted] ยท 30 points ยท Posted at 01:44:56 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
MuhTriggersGuise ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 02:09:11 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The funny thing is, no police had been brutal to OJ.
riptide81 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:41:52 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Doubt is a funny thing when people are being exposed to new information. The one side has to basically teach them something technical to explain their findings and the opposition trying to poke holes in that new thing they just learned is given equal consideration. That's guaranteed to be confusing. There's no impartial third party to give a straight answer on what is an unequivocal fact.
Imagine taking someone with little exposure to the subject and having them judge a debate between evolution and creationism. It's going to come down to who gives the best simplified layman explanation.
That guy with the video about bananas being designed by God to fit in your hand and mouth is basically Johnnie Cochran.
ejp1082 ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 02:31:17 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
It's possible for all of the following true.
We have a justice system that (in theory, if not always in practice) guarentees certain rights to the accused, and can not and will not convict unless certain standards are met and practices are followed.
Those standards weren't met in the OJ case, and so he (rightly, IMHO) was found not guilty despite the fact that he absolutely, definitely did it.
stonedboss ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 01:38:28 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yes because they didn't get all of the straight forward evidence. The civil trial, which did, found him guilty.
Alkaholic ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 01:55:30 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Including the ones planted by Furman?
spoonymangos ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 02:14:53 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah someone else also committed a crime, so that makes oj innocent
Adamapplejacks ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 02:03:35 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
He got lucky that they picked racist idiots to be his peers. Similar to the racist idiots that were the peers in the Rodney King case, just with different races.
DangKilla ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:49:54 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
A jury of this groups peers disagreed too. It doesn't mean the jury was right.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundy_standoff#Criminal_charges_against_standoff_participants
red3biggs ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:54:20 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
That case was all fucked up.
Police had abused blacks for decades.
Rodney King beating cops got off
Store clerk who killed a teenage black girl for buying milk from her got off
Prosecution did the trial in downtown vs close to the muder location took place, so it wouldn't seem racially motivated. Jury pool had to be made up of ppl who couldn't show a 6 month trial would destroy their life.
OJ could afford a superstar legal team, that had the resources to drag prosecution through the mud
Lot more emotions than judgement involved in that trial
Alkaholic ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:02:53 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
That doesn't imply guilt...
red3biggs ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 03:10:26 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I'm giving the reasons why the jury was not unbiased in their ruling
Panwall ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 05:55:22 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Too bad he lost in civil court and was found guilty of murder there
Alkaholic ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 10:42:45 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I'm pretty sure he was found guilty of wrongful death not murder...
Fifth_Down ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 02:20:07 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
It is by far the most unconventional case in American history. There is a very strong argument to be made that racial attitudes played a role in that verdict. One juror suggested it was payback for Rodney King and another was later found to be a member of the black panthers. A trial that lasted a year on a double murder had only four hours of jury deliberations to reach a not guilty verdict. You simply don't see that under normal circumstances.
TheAdmiralCrunch ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:11:20 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Not that hard to find 12 idiots who agree on something stupid
SpoatieOpie ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:21:29 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
A biased jury of twats and morons who ignore DNA evidence, blood of the defendant in three separate places at the crime scene, a history of domestic violence, who are kept in 2 hotels for almost a year "without any outside media consumption" cough yeah right, an incompetent judge, yeah that trial was fucked.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 01:33:16 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
DrSandbags ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 02:45:55 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
"I listened to 12 morons with a race agenda, so he's not guilty."
LeJoker ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 01:53:36 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I don't understand why more people don't take this into account. It matters exactly zero how convincing the evidence against him is. He has been acquitted of murder. That's it. We're done. If a mistake was made, let it have been made.
It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer
[deleted] ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 01:45:46 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Apparently his peers include members of the Black Panther Party who are definitely unbiased
Alkaholic ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 01:53:29 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Wat?
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 01:58:12 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
https://www.google.com/amp/www.thewrap.com/oj-juror-who-raised-black-power-fist-salute-black-panther/amp/
muddisoap ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:12:04 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
A jury who claimed, at least a few members, the it was outright revenge for the Rodney King beatings. A jury that had a member, upon exiting the courtroom one day, give OJ the black power fist raise. A jury selected from a group of people who grew up in Southern California, a place in which OJ had been seen as a hero for decades, one of the first black men who came from nothing, used his talent to become an athlete and star, and then, through his charisma, connections and generally being loved by everyone, black and white, relayed that success into national stardom in acting, commercials, commentating, etc., stardom way beyond football. He was an icon for people in Southern California. He was more than just an athlete. Or a star. He was the embodiment of all their hopes and dreams, the embodiment of the black lower class escaping hundreds of years of perceived subjugation and barriers to success. When you have someone like this, and the people asked to sit in judgement of him viewing him this way, it's nigh impossible to get a fair result out of their decision. Sure, legally he is criminally innocent because a jury of his peers said so. But there's so much more to this story, so much of America and class and race and power and fame and jealousy and lust and murder. There's a reason it was "the trial of the century" or what have you. You can think it's as black and white as "jury of his peers said he was innocent, he's innocent" all you want, but that would require being willfully obtuse to the absurd complexity of this case and of that point in history, in that city, with those people, and what it represented for all of America.
Alkaholic ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 02:59:37 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Jury being racist don't make him guilty. Can I question every jury case now if I don't agree with the verdict?
muddisoap ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 03:00:12 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
No it doesn't. The mountain of evidence, despite the Jury's verdict, does though.
OdinsSong ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:12:19 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Juries have done one thing very well, proven that the average person can't be impartial or intelligent. The number of coloured people sent to prison or death by their "own peers" is staggering. The stories of people being sentanced to death off one witness's testimony that have been over-turned 30 years later due to DNA evidence. I cant believe. Unpopular opinion, Juries dont work, and democracy doesn't work. You can't just say everyone is equal and then think that means they all have a equally right opinion about everything.
Xerox748 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:16:53 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
His peers? I don't remember any rich middle aged white men on that jury...
freshestpr1nce ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:48:38 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
They could've had a video of OJ murdering Ron and Nicole in broad daylight and that jury still wouldn't have convicted him.
DarknessSavior ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:30:37 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I think the whole point is that you SHOULD blame them. Because no one is going to make the right decision in this sort of situation. One person might be able to correctly assign blame for who murdered their child, but that doesn't mean everyone can. And allowing one person to do that means a lot more innocent people are going to die, rather than just making sure some murderer somewhere gets "justice" for what they did.
There's a reason we have a system in place for this.
EEKaWILL ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 08:13:29 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Probably not the best source but didn't be so sure
CaptnCarl85 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 08:42:23 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
When I was younger, I was certain he was innocent. I thought he was covering for his son. There was a private investigator that wrote at length about this theory. Said he found son's murder weapon in an auctioned rental locker.
I'm probably just susceptible to crazy innocence theories though. I'd be terrible on a jury.
StrayMoggie ยท -7 points ยท Posted at 01:28:26 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Idk. I am leaning toward OJ's son doing it and OJ covering for him.
[deleted] ยท -2 points ยท Posted at 01:42:22 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
More like a bunch of bullshit the police were known racists that planted evidence and mishandled DNA evidence fuck EM glad O.J got off that court trial was a damn circus
capitalsfan08 ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 01:46:45 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah, and even on the uncontested evidence there was plenty of proof it was him.
pole7979 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 01:55:24 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Mystic river type shit
joec_95123 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 01:21:56 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
And then someone stabs you in the throat for it. It's a vicious cycle.
Imcorrectyuorgrammar ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:58:11 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
A throat for a throat makes the whole world blind? Or deaf?
....dyslexic?
Tensuke ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 12:50:33 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Mute, I guess.
themza912 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:04:55 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Do you really think the US justice system is foolproof and not "risky" in terms of finding the truth?
dbarts21 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 04:31:48 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Dear Zachary
Sibraxlis ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:56:01 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
And that's why we shouldn't have the death penalty.
DoItViolently ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 02:03:08 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Which doesn't apply here
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:02:13 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
easy to say when not in the situation
Lamb-and-Lamia ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 04:17:53 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Absolutely
winkman ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:02:33 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You should just hire the Boondock Saints instead โบ
trada-l ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:14:03 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The problem is getting to him.
joanzen ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:31:11 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
When they put you behind bars and find the real killer, and he manages to weasel free on a legal snafu, how are you going to dole out your brand of justice? SMRT.
HeadCrusher3000 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:16:29 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Check out death sentence with Kevin bacon
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:30:50 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Even if someone would kill my son, and get away with it, I'd be royally pissed and angry, but I wouldn't kill that person. Everyone always tries to sound bad ass by saying shit like this, but I doubt you'd actually do it. I'm sorry, but I see stuff like "If this happened to me" all over Reddit, and I'm personally sick of people trying to sound edgy by saying they personally would kill somebody if in a position of a certain subject.
[deleted] ยท -14 points ยท Posted at 00:11:25 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
Exist50 ยท 98 points ยท Posted at 00:18:14 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Let's sloooowwwww down there a sec, bucko.
CherrySlurpee ยท 31 points ยท Posted at 00:33:31 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Bronco*
sharkattackmiami ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:35:16 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
*kiddo
jimothee ยท 23 points ยท Posted at 00:14:56 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Fuckkk I needed something to get me off Reddit for a bit. Thanks!
LitterallyShakingOMG ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 01:32:16 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
u got off while reading his comment? jfc man...
jimothee ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:29:11 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I get off when I can
DAasi ยท 11 points ยท Posted at 00:25:08 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Then you're no better than him...
nixielover ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 09:19:11 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Killing OJ is getting even and I would 100% get that, killing his kid is just straight up murder
Lamb-and-Lamia ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 04:20:30 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
No that's just you being a murderer yourself.
ExistentialEnso ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 00:46:11 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
There's actually a theory that it was one of his sons (Jason) who committed the crimes, so it wouldn't surprise me if they did that. The evidence is purely circumstantial, though: he had mental health issues that often led him to being violent, OJ actually initially hired Jason a lawyer when the murder happened, etc. There was even a BBC documentary about the theory.
I_dont_like_you_much ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 01:25:18 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
There is a theory that aliens assassinated Kennedy to get the Lizard People into office... so...
ExistentialEnso ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 01:26:22 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
And? This is at least something remotely plausible. I'm also not condoning the theory, just pointing out that them killing Jason would make sense given that theory.
I_dont_like_you_much ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:41:12 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
... and the Racist police force framed OJ.
... and the Colombian Cartel: Brentwood Chapter killed a house wife and her waiter fuck toy
After all, just floating stupid fucking theories worked for Johnnie Cochran... lets come up with some more!
ExistentialEnso ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 01:46:41 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Fitting username! Not sure what you're wanting out of me. I'm just pointing out that the theory exists. Hell, I even remarked how it's purely based off of circumstantial evidence.
I_dont_like_you_much ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 01:56:04 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You've been so helpful in this conversation. Thanks!
stanley_twobrick ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:59:59 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Odds are you wouldn't have the nuts to do it though.
GoonCommaThe ยท -119 points ยท Posted at 22:35:07 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Then you should talk to a therapist.
dall007 ยท 75 points ยท Posted at 23:03:42 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
To be fair, I fail to see how this isn't a natural emotion to something like that.
GoonCommaThe ยท -60 points ยท Posted at 23:04:59 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Some people aren't unreasonably violent.
dall007 ยท 51 points ยท Posted at 23:06:28 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I would argue if someone killed my kid and got away with it, anger would not be "unreasonable". Whether or not it works with modern society, I think it would be abnormal if one didn't feel that way
EDIT: for everyone stuck on the words anger and emotion: as far as I know the u/lamb-and-lamia hasn't killed anyone. Therefore it's still an angry emotion. Stop getting caught up on semantics
jazaniac ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 23:11:03 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
he didn't say anger, he said violence.
GoonCommaThe ยท -27 points ยท Posted at 23:07:38 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Nobody said anything about anger being unreasonable. Nobody said anything about feelings. You are failing to read what is being said.
SEXUALLYCHARGDADONIS ยท 10 points ยท Posted at 01:35:17 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You're an idiot
GoonCommaThe ยท -2 points ยท Posted at 01:38:00 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Well at least I'm smart enough not to resort to violence when I get upset. Must suck to have less self control than an idiot, doesn't it?
SEXUALLYCHARGDADONIS ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 02:15:03 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
O look who just decided to go full retard congrats! You come here often?
Edit: By the looks of those downvotes im not sure if your just trolling in this thread or need to eat some fingerpaint either way nite nite
GoonCommaThe ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 02:22:18 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Have a good night, kiddo.
DoctorMcAstronaut ยท 11 points ยท Posted at 23:40:29 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I would call that reasonable.
GoonCommaThe ยท -2 points ยท Posted at 23:41:08 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Then you should consider mental health counseling.
DoctorMcAstronaut ยท 18 points ยท Posted at 23:58:08 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Perhaps you're the one in need of mental health counseling. If you can't accept that retribution for murdering someone's child isn't an unreasonable response when the justice system fails, then you're either incapable of emotion or in denial of your own capacity for it.
If someone murdered my child, the seed that I spent hours raising and watching blossom, the genetic future of my lineage, I would be furious. If that person was then able to circumvent the justice system, walked free, then had the balls to write a book about how they savagely stripped my child of life, I would crawl to the ends of the world to reign hell down on that person.
If you can't see that as a reasonable emotional response, you're either an idiot or a troll.
matthauke ยท -9 points ยท Posted at 00:10:28 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
An eye for an eye and we'll all go blind... DO YOU WANT TO GO BLIND?!?
SEXUALLYCHARGDADONIS ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 01:36:05 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
10/10
[deleted] ยท 36 points ยท Posted at 23:06:12 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I don't agree thats what you should do but a therapist? Really? You think the urge to get revenge on someone who murdered your children is somehow unnatural or makes someone mentally ill? Give me a break.
GoonCommaThe ยท -16 points ยท Posted at 23:08:43 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Responding to anger with murder is not a reasonable thing to do. If your first reaction to being angry is to murder someone in a violent manner then yes, you should consider therapy.
[deleted] ยท 19 points ยท Posted at 23:31:25 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
GoonCommaThe ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 23:34:13 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The comment I responded to said nothing about feelings, only actions. These are separate things.
bornthisgood ยท 10 points ยท Posted at 23:40:58 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
It's not responding to anger with murder. It's responding to murder with murder when the justice system fails.
GoonCommaThe ยท -5 points ยท Posted at 23:41:29 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You should consider mental health counseling.
cannibalkat ยท 16 points ยท Posted at 23:54:56 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You don't sound as smart as you think you sound.
brettins ยท -5 points ยท Posted at 01:25:52 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I think they sound like the only reasonable person in this thread who is sticking to words and meanings. They're pretty clearly saying it's fine to get incredibly angry, but that it can't translate into the action of murder. People keep unreasonably interpreting /u/GoonCommaThe's statements as "you shouldn't be angry" and other insipid shit, when /u/GoonCommaThe is sticking to their very reasonable guns in the face of reddit's angry, mob-justice hivemind.
And I absolutely agree with /u/GoonCommaThe. If you think murder for murder is OK then I believe you are either hyperbolically expressing yourself (safely on reddit) and wouldn't actually do it, or have a severe mental issue that keeps you from realizing why we left vigilantism and mob justice in the dark ages, where they belong.
cannibalkat ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:22:01 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Goon is telling lots of people that they need to go to mental health counseling because they would consider killing their child's murderer. And he's doing it with the condescending tone of a lone sane man amongst psychos. They already said they don't have a kid, which means they have no idea what they're talking about anyways. All of that seems silly to me.
brettins ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 23:50:30 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
See, this is the issue - he's not responding to people saying "consider". The people he's responding to aren't saying "god I would really think about murdering them", they are saying "I would kill them". This is a super important distinction.
cannibalkat ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:08:03 on March 10, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
That doesn't seem like an important distinction at all. All of this is hypothetical dude. 100% of the comments were hypothetical. Nobody in this thread has killed their child's murderer.
And besides, did you read all his comments in that thread? He told a bunch of people that they need mental health counseling and some of those people did NOT explicitly say that they would kill anybody. He was absolutely responding to some people who who were just "considering".
bornthisgood ยท -2 points ยท Posted at 23:44:55 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You should hop off your high horse and grow some balls. I can't even imagine the ways in which you must get pushed around in life. I hope you realize that you would not even exist if your ancestors had the same attitude as you.
DWilmington ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 23:53:04 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You can't go around killing people because the court system fucked up in your opinion.
bornthisgood ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 23:57:46 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Fully aware of that. But someone doesn't need therapy just because they'd want justice for their son when the person who murdered their son got away with it and bragged about it in a book. At some point, the options are let your son's death be a mockery and the murderer a free man, or you get old and near death and take matters into your own hands and go out with at least partial justice being done.
DWilmington ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:00:43 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
No.. You can't do that. You can have that want to do it in your heart all you want but if we allow it then suddenly courts don't matter and anyone wronged by the court can just say "I can kill that person" and it's OK.
It isn't. Not by any metric, not by any age, you can't go fucking murder people because you didn't like the way a court case turned out.
bornthisgood ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:35:06 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I work in a court and see the consequences of actions every day, man. I am fully aware. I'm not saying it's allowed or that there are no consequences. The fact the original poster mentioned he would do it when he was old and near death implies that he realizes he's going to jail afterwards. I'm just saying it's a regular human emotion and I don't think any sane person is going to look down on someone who wants justice for someone they love and is willing to face the consequences for said justice.
DWilmington ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:01:43 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
How about its OK to have that emotion and be angry but it isn't ok to kill someone no matter what?
bornthisgood ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 01:13:46 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
What I'm saying is I agree with you, and that's why our laws are written that way. But if someone wants their last free act on this Earth to be killing someone who murdered their son and bragged about it, I'm not going to think negatively about them. Our justice system isn't perfect. It's made by people who aren't perfect. No one should be able to murder someone and get away with it, let alone brag about it. But like all things, there's consequences to actions.
GoonCommaThe ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 23:48:47 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Murdering someone because you are angry does not make you brave, it makes you someone who lacks self control. Consider mental health counseling before you land yourself in prison. I am done here. Have a good night.
bornthisgood ยท 10 points ยท Posted at 23:53:21 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Recommending therapy to every person who exhibits normal human emotion doesn't make you a beacon of peace and understanding; it makes you an idiot.
brettins ยท -3 points ยท Posted at 01:30:51 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
GoonCommaThe has repeatedly said expressing that emotion is fine, but endorsing murder is evidence of a mental disorder. I strongly agree. Your inability to see the difference between (a) them expressing that an inclination towards murder is a mental health issue (b) telling someone they aren't allowed to feel a normal human emotion, (hint: they are only saying (a), and they aren't saying (b)), quite frankly, makes you the idiot.
bornthisgood ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:55:04 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I don't think you nor GoonCommaThe have any idea what constitutes a mental disorder. You both throw around that word way too easily. You do realize that, for centuries, people used to be killed for a hell of a lot less of a good reason. Did everyone back then have mental disorders or were societal norms just different? I think you know the answer. Murder can be related to mental illness, absolutely, and almost certainly is for anyone who kills an innocent person. But to compare that to this situation we're discussing is just ludicrous. The reason you can't take law into your own hands isn't because you'd have to have a mental disorder and it would never be justified; it's because there would be chaos if we let people get away with that, and people can be wrong and think they're exacting revenge but are actually killing an innocent person.
brettins ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:11:20 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I'll grant you that mental disorder is too strong a term. I do think that if you consider the response to evil is to commit another evil, it indicates a very unhealthy perspective, and likely therapy would be necessary to deal with whatever part of you considers something as evil as murder as an option in any circumstance.
bornthisgood ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:35:01 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I get what you're saying, but I see it from a different perspective than you. There's a difference between wanting to commit the act of killing someone and wanting justice to be served/someone to be held accountable for their actions. Personally, I believe that if you kill an innocent person, you're a burden to society and deserve to be killed yourself. However, I respect that the law is in place for a reason and trust that the murderer would receive a lesser but still acceptable punishment of life in prison. If someone manages to get off on their charges because of money (a top attorney) and bullshit (making the trial about racism instead of murder) like OJ Simpson and then that person goes on to brag about it, that's not justice. That's not being held accountable. No sane, reasonable person is going to think that's okay. So what are the options at that point?
Amewica ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 00:22:54 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
... if somebody murdered my child and got away with it you think my natural reaction would be to let it go? Lol youdumb? I'd put a bullet through their fucking head
GoonCommaThe ยท -2 points ยท Posted at 00:55:16 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You should consider mental health counseling. Have a good night.
Amewica ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 01:03:51 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Alright buddy.
WTFwhatthehell ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 23:42:53 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You seem to be an exceptionally arrogant person. Perhaps you should talk to a professional about that.
But anyway. Seeing violent action as an option is not a sign of something being wrong with a person. Reread the original comment to which you reacted with great smug condescension. you may note a caveat about "and got away with it".
My first thought about such a situation is not violence. It's to attempt to go through the system that is supposed to provide justice. If the system fails, perhaps due to a preference on the part of society do false negatives over fails positives or perhaps due to the perverse effects of wealth on the justice system my second or third or later options may be taking issues into my own hands much like in any other situation where society utterly fails in it's duties.
That's a sign of a reasonably normal and sane person.
DWilmington ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:54:46 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You can't go around killing people because the court system fucked up in your opinion.
If you're OK with that then anyone found not guilty can be harmed by the other party after because the harmed party doesn't like the result of the case. And that is not OK.
WTFwhatthehell ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 00:08:44 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Ok little diddums. One day when you're all grown up you might come to understand that one of the functions that courts serve is to end cycles of violent retribution. To perform that essential part of their function it is important that they show not just the public but also the victims that the court has behaved reasonably and that justice has been done. If someone can openly brag about crimes without the court doing anything then the court has failed in at least one of it's duties.
DWilmington ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 00:59:21 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
He was found not guilty, the book was some ghostwriter thing, and not least of all you can't just go kill people because you want to.
GoonCommaThe ยท -3 points ยท Posted at 23:44:32 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You should consider mental health counseling.
WTFwhatthehell ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 23:52:10 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You appear to have a very childlike view of morality. From your comment history you seem to have a very childlike view on many issues. Like you lack the mental development to actually understand anything beyond black and white.
It'd be interesting to see your responses to the standard set of morality questions that 10 year old typically give very definite answers to. Right or wrong. Everything certain. Post-puberty most people develop important areas of their brains and lose that clear conviction as they gain the ability to see deeper. One day perhaps you'll reach that stage of growth.
tehmeat ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 01:51:40 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Holy shit, you aren't kidding huh? Actually, thats some serious understatement.
GrapeSoda920 ยท 14 points ยท Posted at 23:22:05 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You must not have a child
DWilmington ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 23:55:20 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You can't go around killing people because the court system fucked up in your opinion.
If you're OK with that then anyone found not guilty can be harmed by the other party after because the harmed party doesn't like the result of the case. And that is not OK.
GoonCommaThe ยท -5 points ยท Posted at 23:27:53 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Having a child does not automatically make someone into a violent person with no self control. Those are exactly the type of people who shouldn't have kids.
MaxFreyermuth ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 23:51:54 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
People who wouldn't resort to violence for their kids are the ones who shouldn't have them.
ZunterHoloman ยท 19 points ยท Posted at 22:52:51 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
No, don't you know. Reddit loves vigilante justice. It never goes wrong ever.
DJCherryPie ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 23:01:57 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Hey everyone, let's go kill OJ!
DWilmington ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 23:52:18 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
We did it reddit! BOSTON BOMBER CAUGHT!
shiner_bock ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 23:02:27 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I can vouch for this.
source: I am an internet user.
[deleted] ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 23:31:36 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah.. god forbid a thought like that crosses your mind. I am sure no one healthy has thoughts like that. Nobody has ever thought I would go to jail if x was done to my kid etc.
pumapunch ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 23:10:43 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Pussy
DWilmington ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 23:55:10 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You can't go around killing people because the court system fucked up in your opinion.
If you're OK with that then anyone found not guilty can be harmed by the other party after because the harmed party doesn't like the result of the case. And that is not OK.
GoonCommaThe ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 23:27:06 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
"Anyone with reasonable self control is a pussy."
Grow up.
pumapunch ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 00:03:40 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Pussy
HoTs_DoTs ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:34:19 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Someone kills or molests your child you have the right to murder them. You don't need a therapist.
DWilmington ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 23:55:38 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You can't go around killing people because the court system fucked up in your opinion.
If you're OK with that then anyone found not guilty can be harmed by the other party after because the harmed party doesn't like the result of the case. And that is not OK.
GoonCommaThe ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 23:36:06 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
No, you absolutely do not have that right. Are you joking here or are you actually delusional enough to believe that? It sounds like you should talk to a therapist before you land yourself in prison because of your fucked up ideas about how the world works.
pumapunch ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 00:03:00 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Pussy
ZunterHoloman ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 00:14:59 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
"I'm being called a violent anarchist so I'll respond with violent insults."
pumapunch ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 00:46:48 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
"Pussy"
ZunterHoloman ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 03:43:01 on March 9, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Sorry all I hear is "I want to be Frank Castle"
pumapunch ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 04:01:55 on March 9, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
No idea who that is but he's probably a pussy just like you
HoTs_DoTs ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 23:45:41 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
.............
Codoro ยท -3 points ยท Posted at 23:49:20 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Found the minor.
[deleted] ยท -5 points ยท Posted at 02:11:01 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
OJ would kill you knife or not, but it's cute that you'd say this on reddit
Lamb-and-Lamia ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 04:17:28 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Lol did I insult your hero?
[deleted] ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 11:33:07 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Sure bud
pumapunch ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 05:36:45 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
OJ Simpson is a bitch. He is old as fuck and killed a defenseless woman and an unsuspecting young man. Lots of people on Reddit could beat his ass.
Lovehat ยท 65 points ยท Posted at 16:25:21 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Did OJ do it?
Misdirected_Colors ยท 104 points ยท Posted at 19:24:55 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I'm like 99.9999% sure OJ did it.
Workwithmepeople ยท 128 points ยท Posted at 17:14:43 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Does a bear shit in the woods?
shadalator ยท 21 points ยท Posted at 21:29:17 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Who killed Jon Benet Ramsay?
Displayed ยท 32 points ยท Posted at 21:57:47 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Her parents.
kaenneth ยท -4 points ยท Posted at 22:18:03 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
False: http://www.nbcnews.com/id/25608543/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/t/family-cleared-jonbenet-ramseys-death/#.WL8xO9gzV9A
http://abcnews.go.com/US/da-opens-cleared-ramsey-family-jonbenets-murder/story?id=43106426
A prosecutor admitting they were wrong is unthinkable, and only happens if they are absolutely sure.
And Richard Jewell was a Hero: http://www.foxnews.com/story/2007/08/29/richard-jewell-wrongly-accused-in-atlanta-olympics-bombing-dead-at-44.html
lakast ยท 13 points ยท Posted at 22:26:22 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The current prosecutor does not stand by that premature clearing of the Ramsey's, and rightly so.
Lovehat ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 01:22:44 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
FALSE! - Black Bear!
IngrownPubez ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 10:41:26 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
a bear
bluegrassjunkie ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 21:48:14 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
If aย tree fallsย in aย forestย and no one is around to hear it,ย doesย it make a sound?
Workwithmepeople ยท 11 points ยท Posted at 22:12:21 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Absolutely if it falls on a piano.
Minister_for_Magic ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:04:19 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I thought they used litter boxes
xmoda ยท -2 points ยท Posted at 18:15:51 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
But the glove didn't fit
Workwithmepeople ยท 34 points ยท Posted at 18:21:40 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Because he knew that if he stopped taking his medication, his hands swell.
xmoda ยท 14 points ยท Posted at 18:39:29 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
thats next level
[deleted] ยท 11 points ยท Posted at 20:56:53 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
But it's true.
November_Nacho ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:00:00 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
If the glove don't fit, a bear won't shit.
scroom38 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 06:21:30 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Apparently the police froze the glove. Which was left outside in the rain. Both of these are things that cause leather to shrink.
redeemer47 ยท 36 points ยท Posted at 21:54:03 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
He for sure did
Lovehat ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 01:20:33 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
That's what I thought. I didn't really know anything about it but happened to be in America on the anniversary of it there.
seedanrun ยท 51 points ยท Posted at 21:12:28 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Legally -- no he did not.
Logically -- pretty much any expert that looks at the evidence says they would have found him guilty without hesitation.
So if you say he is innocent you are technically correct .... the best kind of correct.
[deleted] ยท 67 points ยท Posted at 21:33:18 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Innocent != Not Guilty
SavingStupid ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 22:07:18 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Innocent until proven guilty
LAKings97 ยท 20 points ยท Posted at 23:24:03 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
No he's saying that "innocent" and "not guilty" are two completely different things.
Innocent means he didn't do it. Not guilty means the prosecution failed to prove that he did do it.
SavingStupid ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 00:17:28 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah, that's why I put emphasis on proven. I agreed with him but apparently it was lost on some people
Tychus_Kayle ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:36:17 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Well, legally he kinda did. There's the whole weirdness with the civil suit.
colinmhayes ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:48:55 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Technically correct is bullshit when you're not in a car and the other party is, though, and can still result in your death.
Not so sure it's the best kind.
Lovehat ยท -2 points ยท Posted at 01:20:56 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
What about the theory that his son did it?
addiktion ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:37:40 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The mountain of evidence would suggest so Bob.
pentillionaire ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 02:14:10 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
i know 100% nothing about it or about oj but i think hes innocent
Lovehat ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:36:22 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
you're probably right
HAWAII_FIVE_O ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 10:39:38 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Nahhhh... natural causes
Pan_Borowik ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 13:12:08 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tSeek1ouq7A
Blakewald ยท -3 points ยท Posted at 19:54:17 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Check out the evidence suggesting OJ's son did it. It's pretty compelling.
Deuce232 ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 22:59:16 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You think that is more likely than the guy who frequently flew in uncontrollable violent rages that resulted in documented beatings over the course of like a decade?
klsi832 ยท 19 points ยท Posted at 21:22:39 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Not really. There was a miniseries recently that pretty much debunked it. The main evidence was his time card from work, which had the time he worked the Sunday night of the murders written instead of stamped for no good reason. But that time card was almost definitely from the week before as Jason didn't go into work for a while after the murders, and it showed him going to work as usual, even the day of Nicole's funeral.
___Redditsucks___ ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 21:29:30 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
"The miniseries says no...acquitted!"
d0r13n ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:24:54 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Wow! I just recently got interested in the whole OJ case (mainly because I wanted to see what all the hub bub was about the "People Vs OJ Simpson" miniseries) and hadn't hears that theory. There's a Globe article from 7 years ago that glosses over the evidence. It's quite a theory, for sure!
showdefclopclop ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 03:51:41 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Have you seen "oj: made in America"? It's a 7 1/2 hour documentary that won an Oscar. It's amazing. Please tell me you've seen it or if not do yourself the favor. One of the best documentaries I've ever seen
d0r13n ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 05:27:33 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I haven't, but I will check it out.
allcanadianbacon ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 16:27:09 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Titlegore
ShoutOutTo_Caboose ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 16:33:14 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The family of Ron Goldman, the man OJ Simpson allegedly murdered, acquired the rights to Simpson's book If I Did It before it was published, changed its name to Confessions of A Killer and released it.
TooShiftyForYou ยท 274 points ยท Posted at 16:39:34 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The balls on OJ to write a book called "If I did It."
itty53 ยท 229 points ยท Posted at 16:49:22 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
OJ claims he didn't write it. See the wiki page
[1]: It was written by a ghostwriter, and Simpson's manager claims Simpson was paid $600k to say he helped write it and perform an interview. Fenjves claims without question OJ collaborated, but OJ denies it.And that $600k would've been apart from the book sales themselves, so not applicable to the Goldman lawsuit.
Simpson was banking on being hated and it worked out exactly as anticipated. They get the rights to the book and get to say whatever they like, Simpson gets a cool $600k and the rest of the country goes on believing he did it like they did before.
[1]
If I Did It
suddenly_seymour ยท 32 points ยท Posted at 23:48:59 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Coming this summer, the smash hit and future NY Times bestseller "If I Wrote It" by OJ Simpson.
[deleted] ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 02:40:15 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Soon to be titled I Wrote It.
SgtGory ยท 32 points ยท Posted at 17:03:22 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I thought he still owed them a bunch of money, so the 600k would have gone straight to them. I think that is why the whole Vegas collection and hostage/robbery incident happened.
itty53 ยท 49 points ยท Posted at 17:10:06 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Nah, OJ had money. He still has plenty of money.
That was likely a setup, of sorts. Read into the case, his defense attorney Yale Galanter basically egged him on into doing it and then let the shoe drop on him by having a piss-poor defense prepared. OJ even later made an appeal and Galanter testified against him. I dunno about you, but yeah: Galanter is a shithead.
a_monomaniac ยท 87 points ยท Posted at 21:02:14 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
His lawyer testified against him because OJ was seeking an appeal by saying that Galanter had provided ineffective legal representation. So Galanter testified and mentioned that OJ had confided during the first trial that he had told the guys to bring guns, but couldn't say anything because of the at the time attorney-client confidentiality as his lawyer at the time, which during the appeal OJ had ended so Galanter could testify.
Also, The claim of Galanter egging him on was only brought up at the appeal, where Galanter testified that he had advised against it. So a he said / he said story.
Oj's defense against Galanter esentially is "He told me that I could go in and legally take what was stolen from me, and I didn't know that was actually illegal. Oh, I also didn't know there were guns in my friends hands, because I had tunnel vision, so I shouldn't get any kidnapping charges".
Sounds to me like a guy, OJ, who thinks he can get away with murder figuring that he is going to do whatever the fuck he wants and not get in trouble. And then when he does get in trouble, he blames everyone else and somehow he is uniquely immune from any repercussions of his actions.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:43:21 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You should come to law school. We can trade places. You've got it. Just trade IDs and practice each other's voices and I'll go on my way...
[deleted] ยท 24 points ยท Posted at 20:32:18 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
It's important to note why he has that money. He lost everything that wasn't protected in his retirement plan with the NFL.
[deleted] ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 18:37:46 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
itty53 ยท 28 points ยท Posted at 18:45:39 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I've got too much respect for the process of law and our judicial system to respect that mentality. That basically states, "We know he's a criminal, despite having been exonerated of the crime by a jury, so we'll do whatever it takes to lock him up anyway". I hope you can see the error in that.
That's kind of exactly the problem with police today, especially with regards to race. "oh, black guy in a nice car, I bet he's a criminal, I better pull him over".
seedanrun ยท 11 points ยท Posted at 21:03:55 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The main reason one was found guilty in one and not the other is the difference of between a criminal and a civil case to achieve the "burden of proof".
Burden of proof is the legal way of saying "what does it take to prove he's guilty". In a criminal case you must prove guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt". In a civil case you must have "a preponderance of the evidence".
OJ's murder trial was a criminal trial-- it was to put OJ in jail. The defense was able to at least get the jury to have "a reasonable doubt" about his guilt-- thus he was found not guilty. The rational behind this very high standard is that in the US we are willing to let multiple guilty people go to insure we don't punish an innocent person.
The civil trial was the victims family suing OJ for money (not jail time) because he caused them harm. In a case like that the burden of proof is "a preponderance of the evidence" meaning you must have more evidence of guilt then the other side has of innocence. Almost every expert who has looked at OJ's trials agree there is more evidence to his guilt then innocence -- so that trial naturally was won by the prosecutor.
But its a civil trial so they only get OJ's money-- in this case $35 million was awarded. However it was never paid because after losing the case OJ said he has no money, it all got used up with his legal fees. Now the victim's family get to take the money any time they can prove OJ has it. That was why they got the book money-- it was money that could not be hidden because it was on the publishers books. That was why they got the book rights-- they went to the judge and said-- hey, he still owes us $34 million and the book rights has some value, make him hand it over.
ExistentialEnso ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 00:50:48 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Pretty sure /u/itty53 is referring to OJ's multiple criminal trials (i.e. the murder and the robbery) not the criminal and civil murder trials.
DoesntFearZeus ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:31:41 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
"oh, black guy in a nice car, I bet he's a criminal, I better pull him over".
HolycommentMattman ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:38:17 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You have to understand that back then, a lot of people actually believed OJ to be innocent. Black people were almost all in favor of his innocence, and white people were probably split 50/50. Possibly even 60/40 or higher in favor of his innocence. The man was a famous and popular athlete that people loved, and he had a modest film career with prominent roles in The Naked Gun series and The Towering Inferno.
I'll admit that I was one of the ones who thought he was innocent back then. But DNA evidence was relatively new, and people would say stuff like, "They just found Simpson DNA! It could have been his son!"
20 years on, and I've long since realized that a team of lawyers helped a man get away with murder.
itty53 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 00:40:50 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
When I said what you quoted, I was referring to what OJ allegedly told the ghostwriter:
That's how OJ saw it.
HolycommentMattman ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:57:40 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
It probably is how he saw it. Because he was a murderer and a black man, and he vastly underestimated exactly how beloved he was.
Here's a CNN poll from 1995 that shows that 41% of the white people and 88% of the black people polled thought the verdict was correct.
Rileyr22 ยท 144 points ยท Posted at 20:51:41 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Fun fact: Fred Goldman, his dad, works at a Nordstrom in Scottsdale, AZ. I work at the one in Chandler, AZ not far from it. I have a coworker who used to work with him and almost got fired for calling him a dick behind his back, in front of his wife. Also said that someone came in at least once a shift asking to buy Bruno Magli shoes from him.
PM_ME_YOUR_DALEKS ยท 169 points ยท Posted at 01:21:51 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
People coming in to joke about my son's murder at my place of work would make me much more than a dick.
Rileyr22 ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 01:41:42 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
My coworker said it didn't bother him much. It's all commission sales so it just helped him make more money.
inanimatecarbonrob ยท 29 points ยท Posted at 02:31:45 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Do pranks like this usually end in the prankster buying very expensive shoes?
"Well, he called my bluff, so I'll just buy these loafers...."
[deleted] ยท 105 points ยท Posted at 21:10:29 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
ai1267 ยท 51 points ยท Posted at 23:45:51 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Fun fact: Fun facts are rarely fun, nor are they factual!
123full ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 01:13:46 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Fun fact: Obama murdered 84 Billion children during his presidency
aimsmallmismall ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:27:39 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
__Amnesiac__ ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:07:10 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
FTFY
TMoney67 ยท 29 points ยท Posted at 01:37:50 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
"Also said that someone came in at least once a shift asking to buy Bruno Magli shoes from him."
That shit is seriously fucked up.
[deleted] ยท 24 points ยท Posted at 22:35:34 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
Rileyr22 ยท 18 points ยท Posted at 23:23:36 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
He just works in Men's Clothing which is just suits and dress clothes. He isn't that great. Probably makes around 35k before taxes.
GabeDef ยท 74 points ยท Posted at 00:41:31 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
It's a job. I wouldn't knock it.
TheDudeNeverBowls ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 01:55:42 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
More than I make most years.
DrSandbags ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 02:49:28 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Pretty standard fuck-around job for a semi-retired 76 year old.
potatoesarenotcool ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 02:09:46 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Would love a job like that right now tbh
[deleted] ยท -3 points ยท Posted at 00:01:44 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
fakeplasticdroid ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 00:17:42 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Definitely not sociopathic.
Bossmaine ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 01:39:43 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
He still had to work? I thought they were awarded millions in the lawsuit
Rileyr22 ยท 14 points ยท Posted at 01:43:33 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Awarded 33 million. OJ paid about $500,000
DrSandbags ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 02:50:53 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
OJ moved most of his assets to Florida where they're better protected legally from court judgements. In civil lawsuits, winning is one thing. Collecting is often the bigger hill to climb.
texum ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 10:55:35 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
By assets, OJ basically owns a house. Creditors took all his valuables before he left for Florida. His life is entirely funded by his NFL pension which the Goldmans can't touch.
OJ isn't hiding vast amounts of wealth from them. Even if he cashed in his house and pension, he'd still owe the Goldmans like $29 million. The 1995 trial nearly wiped him out, and the Goldmans got the last $500k when they won their lawsuit in 1997.
pinkberrry ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 03:04:18 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Wow can't imagine why he'd come off as a dick given the circumstances. That is fucked up..harassing a murder victims father is pathetic.
skepsis420 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:48:40 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I'm from Scottsdale. My high school criminology teacher had him come in and talk to the class every few years or so when we were on the subject of murder.
[deleted] ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 01:13:13 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Damn that settlement money didn't do much...
jbl429 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:34:31 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Of all the things that aren't true, this is one of them.
FrenchTaint ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:37:04 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
He is also a real estate agent.
[deleted] ยท 87 points ยท Posted at 00:27:07 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
Greenbeanhead ยท 17 points ยท Posted at 02:31:57 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
My workplace at the time was 10 black and 20 or so white. When the verdict was announced on the radio it was awkward, black people cheering and white people looking disgusted.
pseudonym1066 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 12:58:00 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
What did the black people say? Were they really convinced of his innocence? Despite the documented violence against his wife; the DNA evidence; the blood samples etc? The evidence of guilt was fairly overwhelming
Greenbeanhead ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 14:17:18 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The black people I knew and worked with were overjoyed at the outcome. Facts didn't matter, it had become a racial issue. That cop had become the personification of every racist cop ever, so it wasn't about a murder charge anymore. To them it was more about the treatment the black community received from law enforcement.
It was surreal, a defining moment in modern American history where facts didn't matter and the murder of two people was less important to millions of Americans than a innocent verdict for OJ. A verdict that every minority that had been harassed by the police could collectively feel good about. In a weird way it seemed to make a statement from black Americans, about America, that a riot or political movement never could.
pseudonym1066 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 14:24:15 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Hmm. I still struggle a bit with it.
It seems like they were (willingly or manipulated into) supporting a murderer.
I mean couldn't the black community have a separate justifiable protest against police brutality and racism ... and not conflate it with supporting OJ?
I mean OJ Simpson was proved in the civil trial as being responsible. And throughout the 60s and 70s he has little to do with the black community.
Greenbeanhead ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:48:57 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
OJ the person had almost nothing to do with it. The trial basically became, to many black Americans, the system vs black Americans. A verification that the police in America would take extra steps to convict a black man. And to a lot of black people, a victory against that system when the not guilty verdict was read.
From my perspective this was a precursor to alternative facts in mainstream America. Where facts don't matter as long as your narrative is advanced.
pseudonym1066 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:19:07 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I see. Yes I see your points about alternative facts, that seems a good analogy.
I have a huge amount of sympathy towards the black community; and I can understand the antipathy towards the lapd particularly after the King beating.
But with the OJ case I can't really remove the image of Anne Nicole's beaten face or her dead body from my mind. And so I think whoever did that should face the consequences.
aaron2610 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:57:04 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I get it. It was a black man vs. the racist cops.
I'm sure many had dealt with racist cops at that time.
I'm sure if the cops hadn't abuses their powers, race wouldn't have been at the center.
pseudonym1066 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 09:33:26 on March 9, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Sure, but it's not like OJ was closely connected to the black community.
Since a teenager he'd been at the almost entirely white University of Southern California - the holly wood university - surrounded by white people, with a white girlfriend, and living in a white neighborhood.
Black community leaders asked him to help out with the struggle for black rights in the 60s and 70s. OJ refused. Black church leaders asked him to help out with the struggle for black rights. OJ said he didn't want to.
When a number of black people - supporters - came to support him after the notorious chase, and when he returned to his property, you know what OJ's reaction to a number of black people being in his area? He said "Why are all these niggers here?". He really didn't identify with the black community.
MrLocust ยท 49 points ยท Posted at 01:57:19 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I saw an interview of some of the jurors recently, they seemed pretty adamant they got it right. Seemed proud of themselves, and victim blamed a shit ton.
dating_derp ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 02:58:46 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Do you remember where you saw that?
ThisIsNotAMonkey ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 03:13:04 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Probably on oj made in America. They had a couple juror interviews
MrLocust ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 10:47:06 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Netflix doc
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 05:47:27 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I think deep down they know he was guilty, but don't want to look stupid or have a bit of racism themselves. Mark fuhrman fucked the whole case though.
BornTexan ยท 20 points ยท Posted at 02:10:43 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I was one. I was also 15 years old in high school in TX. Interesting to see now how that case was won. It was a perfect storm for the defense. I feel sorry for the victims and their families. Did OJ do it? It sure looks like it. However, the state didn't do their job and prove it without a reasonable doubt. Racist cops with jacked up motives will do that.
ChardeeMacdennis78 ยท 18 points ยท Posted at 02:47:05 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yep, you can't really blame the people who wanted to believe he was innocent. Black people at the time were too used to having their heroes framed by a racist judicial system and locked up; it makes sense they'd assume he was innocent. Remember what they did to Assata Shakur?
ProfoundProphet ยท 13 points ยท Posted at 02:04:47 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I think we both know the answer to that one
CarolinaPunk ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 03:29:19 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
OJ brought equality to the justice system.
Like a white person he beat the rap with money.
inanimatecarbonrob ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 02:29:55 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Lots of white people cheer when cops who kill black kids get off or aren't charged. Both are wrong, but it's also wrong to preserve our outrage for one group.
VonRansak ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 02:55:17 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
^ Vulcan? ...Wait, no must be some spiritual shit.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 06:31:30 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
two black co-workers of mine were talking about this like a decade ago. both thought he was innocent back in the day, but now feel he was probably guilty. i pushed them a little, insinuating that they KNEW he was guilty back in the day, and that they were lying to themselves and everyone else because of racial reasons. one of them said that was probably true, the other didn't want to discuss that.
imdistracted ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 03:25:15 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Like Emmett Till? I bet so many white people that cheered for his verdict changed their viewpoints!
[deleted] ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 05:45:17 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Probably. I wasn't alive during that portion. But Emmett till and oj are very different cases.
properstranger ยท 74 points ยท Posted at 20:13:19 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Your own link clearly says "Confessions of the Killer", not a killer.
Tasteful_Dick_Pics ยท 41 points ยท Posted at 01:13:52 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Ooooh boy, OP DONE FUCKED UP NOW!
ivebeenbanned30times ยท 13 points ยท Posted at 00:48:38 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Whats even more strange is that the Brown family sued the Goldman representatives in an attempt to stop the book from being released, they but failed.
Imagine the world we live in were a man murders two people, writes a book about it. And then the parents of those two dead people start fighting each other in court over the book written by the killer.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If_I_Did_It#Lawsuits
Fifth_Down ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 03:00:18 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Almost as bizarre as an NBA playoff game being taken off the air because one of the biggest celebrities in America is in a never ending live TV police chase on the busiest highway in America which is now empty.
B3N15 ยท 24 points ยท Posted at 01:29:16 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I don't know about you guys, but releasing a book about how you would have murdered someone, after you were acquitted of murdering the same person, just sounds like a really bad idea.
Itstheonlyway_k ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 02:25:46 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I mean legally that can't do shit so...
Chestah_Cheater ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 02:58:57 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Why is your E bold?
Chaingunfighter ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 03:01:37 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
It's a stupid attempt to force a meme into popularity as a result of some bet someone made to someone else.
It relies on people like you asking and people like me giving an explanation in the hopes that people will just start doing it. I don't know.
Chestah_Cheater ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 03:10:02 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
That's retarded.
Chaingunfighter ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 04:31:49 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I agree
AmadeusCziffra ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 03:01:45 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Youre a nosy fella, aintcha?
KangarooKidd ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:11:57 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Anyone with a functioning brain agrees with you.
2SP00KY4ME ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 07:16:12 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
How? Double jeopardy is constitutionally banned, and most everyone already thinks he did it. What would possibly be a risk?
CallSignIceMan ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:31:41 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Well they can't try him again so he can say whatever he wants
Netrilix ยท 12 points ยท Posted at 01:59:53 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Amazon had that book listed for a little while back when Simpson was going to release it himself, before it was cancelled.
This is the entire "About the Author" they had listed for it:
I had a screenshot of it at the time, but it was 11 years ago and I've lost it.
GoddammitCricket ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:30:37 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The original 2006 version that was recalled still has a few copies floating out there, including one that was on eBay in 2013.
Delta_Princess ยท 32 points ยท Posted at 21:48:19 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I've actually read it (on the train this past weekend). It's a fascinating story and sounds very much like the syntax and phrasing he uses in media coverage I've seen (obviously that can be copied, I'm sure). The book has a forward from the ghost writer about his interviews with OJ (mostly because he, you know, denied giving them) and that's quite interesting as well. All in all, 10/10 would recommend, even if it's actually fiction (though I'm inclined to believe it isn't).
YouAndMeToo ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:36:40 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I read it when it was first released. I personally don't believe the ghost writing part, because as you mentioned the entire book reads exactly like his voice. No doubt he did it.
[deleted] ยท 121 points ยท Posted at 00:56:09 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Fuck OJ Simpson. He got away with double homicide because the jury was too fucking stupid too understand DNA and there was more than a little racial payback (yes, it's true - admit it), but Ron's family has made his life a living hell since.
ownage516 ยท 46 points ยท Posted at 01:44:16 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Watching OJ made in America really opened my eyes.
Swipet ยท 11 points ยท Posted at 02:58:11 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah, it was an amazing documentary, one of the best ones I have seen. But one of the main takeaways in my eyes was the defence lawyer's doing everything they possibly could to make it a shitstorm. It was like they threatened to make the entire city riot if OJ was found guilty.
everyoneismyfriend ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 03:27:18 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
How so?
[deleted] ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 02:09:02 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:16:38 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Ah, cheers for the summary- appreciate that considering I'm going to watch a documentary on something I have literally no understanding off and this helps a lot.
By the way, how did the Goldman family achieve this exactly? Media, death-threats or was it something else?
Edit: I'm aware the book is an example, but was there anything else as drastic as this?
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:53:59 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
They won a judgement in civil court. Not only does it guarantee they own own pretty much everything OJ did, it also guarantees until the civil suit is paid off they can go after him for anything above basic living expenses. Summary: He is fucked for life.
[deleted] ยท 13 points ยท Posted at 01:23:06 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
What do you mean by this?
I'm British, and have literally have no idea about the OJ case; are you referring to OJ's life being a living hell or Ron's?
Edit: I was told that Ron was the guy OJ (might or might not have) murdered, so that answers my second question.
BigDuse ยท 43 points ยท Posted at 01:37:53 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I believe at least one of the jurors has since insinuated that they found OJ innocent as "payback" of sorts for the Rodney King trial outcome earlier in the decade.
[deleted] ยท 55 points ยท Posted at 01:56:32 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Not insinuated. Said.
DammitEd ยท 28 points ยท Posted at 01:51:20 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
There have been several that said that, and one jury member was a former black panther. There were undoubted racial tones in the trial.
Pedropz ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:39:11 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I'm not American either, so I'm curious, if there had been suspicion that the jury had more in mind than simply deciding if the suspect is guilty or not shouldn't it have been changed?
VonRansak ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 03:01:15 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Jury selection is an important act of the theater. Essentially, you choose your audience, like two captains picking their soccer team.
Someone chose a stronger team for their gameplan.
P.S.> Jurors do stupid shit, they are just normal you and me. Some fake it through just, to ... Fuck, idk, I always get kinda happy when I don't get jury duty after a notice.
prettyfacebasketcase ยท 16 points ยท Posted at 01:46:39 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Go watch OJ: Made in America. It's an ESPN documentary that's very well done and just won an Oscar. I watched it because I was born in 95 so I'd only every heard stories.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 01:48:19 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Cheers bro, will do
Sentinel13M ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 01:55:37 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Watch it for sure. People are saying the payback is just about the King beating but it is more than that.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 01:58:41 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Is the debate still on-going today?
Edit: in terms of general discussions of OJ's case?
Sentinel13M ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 02:08:14 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Not really. The OJ case only reentered the public discourse because of the 30 for 30 documentary and FX drama series last year and his up coming parole hearing. The 30 for 30 doc does shed light on a lot of details that got lost over time.
Fifth_Down ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:34:53 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
https://espnfivethirtyeight.files.wordpress.com/2016/06/bialik-oj-11.png?quality=90&strip=all&w=1150&ssl=1
There has been a major shift in attitudes on his guilt. It was never an issue of the majority of people believing he was innocent but the extreme differences in opinion based on race.
GeekAesthete ยท 18 points ยท Posted at 02:02:05 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The best answer to this is to watch the OJ documentary that just won an Oscar -- it spends a great deal of time laying out the racial history of Los Angeles in the years and decades leading up to the trial.
But the short version of it: the LAPD had a long history of shady treatment of black people, and the LA courts had a significant history of going easy on people who had harmed or killed black people. Plus, one of the central cops involved in the case had a history of explicit racism (which the prosecution used to cast doubt on the the validity of the evidence).
The trial was held in downtown LA, and resultantly had a jury where 8 of the 12 jurors were black -- jurors who knew firsthand about this history. So the "not guilty" verdict was likely a combination of...
If you watch the doc, two of the jurors get interviewed, one of whom is an older black woman who isn't shy about acknowledging the latter two, and the other juror avoids the question of whether he did it and focuses mostly on the second of these.
Plus, one of the other jurors famously raised his fist in a black power salute after the verdict was read.
HyliaSymphonic ยท 34 points ยท Posted at 01:39:32 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The LA PD are racist shit heads. but more specially there was a video of several officers of the LAPD beating a man named Rodney King. They were all acquitted by an all white jury.
Leightonian ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 02:15:50 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
So the right thing to do is to let another murderer go, all for the sake of "payback"?
HyliaSymphonic ยท 18 points ยท Posted at 02:18:16 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I'm just saying how it was viewed. Not that OJ should have gotten off.
Also the prosecution was hugely incompetent.
Kang_andor_Kodos ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 02:47:44 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Did he say that?
freshestpr1nce ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:59:33 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The Jurors definitely said that
Leightonian ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 03:26:02 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Well, to me it sounds like he is making an accuse for why he was acquitted.
erichiro ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 03:08:19 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
It wasn't just about payback. It was about demanding that the government and police clean up their act. They were trying to change an entire city
Leightonian ยท -4 points ยท Posted at 03:31:29 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Letting a murderer go to demand change sounds like a terrible idea. People should learn from MLK on how to protest and actually get results.
erichiro ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 03:41:47 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
MLK was the carrot. X, black panthers, etc were the stick. It takes both.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:59:01 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Right. And that was just as wrong as OJ being acquitted. Two wrongs do NOT make a right. Everybody in this country knew what happened to Rodney King was wrong. Very wrong. White/Black/Purple. It doesn't matter. But what would Dr. Martin Luther King say? Think about that.
HyliaSymphonic ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 04:27:39 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
These are not my arguments take your mlk brow beating elsewhere
MuhTriggersGuise ยท -4 points ยท Posted at 02:31:59 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Funny thing is, the news didn't show the earlier part of the Rodney King video, and what a hostile handful he was. He was drunk, had just led them on a high speed chase, made a motion which appeared to be reaching for a weapon (he grabbed his butt cheek), and he resisted when they jumped on him to try to put him in cuffs. He was then tasered twice, while still continuing to resist. He tried to either run or rush one of the cops, who hit him with a baton. The cops stopped, then King got up again, so they struck him again with batons. He tried to get up again (instead of you know, submitting to his arrest) so the swarmed him and hit him until he stayed down. While his toxology came up negative for PCP, he certainly was behaving like someone high and out of their mind, and had resisted significantly for a long time.
I'm not saying what the police did was acceptable, but I am saying what was shown was purposefully trying to make them look as bad as possible. The jury has admitted they acquitted because of earlier video of King rushing the police that had been edited out of the news clips.
Then in 1993, two of the cops were found guilty at the federal level, because some of the last baton blows were considered excessive. So 55 people died, and millions of dollars in damages were caused, because blacks didn't want to wait for justice to work. Not only that, but Brown and Goldman got no justice for their murder, because a violent felon on parole who was significantly resisting arrest after leading police on a drunk high speed chase was hit with a baton more than was necessary to subdue him. Sounds fair.
I think the LA PD wound up being excessive. However, if you don't want to get beaten by batons, don't be a paroled felon leading cops on high speed chases while drunk, fight and resist them for minutes, and make motions which makes them worried about a weapon. I mean, look at all the other shit he was doing, is it unreasonable to think he might be armed too? Or high? He wasn't exactly being Rosa Parks.
Just for contrast, King was arrested again for DUI in 1993, violently ran over his wife in 1995 with car, DUI again in 2003 after running down a cop, and reckless driving in 2012. Then he died in 2012 from drowning while alone because he was too high on cocaine, PCP, alcohol, and marijuana. Guy was a total fuck up and had aggressive run-ins with cops all the time.
ChardeeMacdennis78 ยท 12 points ยท Posted at 02:54:38 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Dude..... you're sounding really racist rn man.....
MuhTriggersGuise ยท -7 points ยท Posted at 03:15:49 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
It's racist to say blacks rioted during the LA riots? Who the fuck do you think it was? An equal cross section of all races? You're why people can't have a candid conversation about race issues. You ignore the issues at hand to try to PC filter everything.
ChardeeMacdennis78 ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 11:20:03 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You're racist because you're simplifying really complex, difficult racial issues that were brewing at the time of the Rodney King situation for the sake of reframing it as if black people are just idiots who overreacted and blamed them for reacting to decades and decades of oppression. You're dehumanizing black people, as if they're just ignorant violent brutes.
I mean, either you're racist or just really stupid and ignorant of history, probably both. The part I quoted is particularly moronic. "Blacks couldn't wait for justice to work?" Dude, the justice system has never worked for blacks. Ever heard of the prison industrial complex? Ever heard of the school to prison pipeline? Ever heard of Assata Shakur? Have you ever heard of how blacks were treated at the time? Have you literally spent any time at all reading about how this shit works? It's clear you haven't.
Me telling you what you said is racist is just a fact, it's not me being PC. You're accusing me of "ignoring the issues at hand" but youre the one who hasn't educated yourself on any of this shit and then accuses other people of just "being PC" when they point out who stupid and hateful your views are. You clearly dislike and don't understand black people. Just admit it.
CallSignIceMan ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 03:29:43 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Doesn't matter what he did after the incident. What matters is the cops used excessive force and beat the shit out of a person. They can't do that. And they shouldn't be allowed to.
MuhTriggersGuise ยท -3 points ยท Posted at 04:09:08 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
It absolutely does matter because it corroborates the description of his behavior before he had to be subdued.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 09:21:46 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Or you know, cops shouldn't beat people
MuhTriggersGuise ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:00:48 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You're right, they should've let him continue his high speed drunk driving.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:10:42 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I guess I didn't know he was doing a high speed chase even after he got out of his car. Guy must run super fast. Wow
blisteringchristmas ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 01:35:21 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I think, and now I could be wrong, that some on the jury saw OJ as "payback" for the Rodney King verdict (basically, police officers beat the shit out of black guy, get acquitted, riots ensue).
TheDudeNeverBowls ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 01:54:04 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Watch the entirety of the Academy Award winning documentary Made in America:The OJ Simpson Story. It's eight hours long, but it tells the whole story. You'll learn a lot about racism in America. A lot that you may have some ideas about but don't understand.
[deleted] ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 01:58:07 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Thank you bro, OJ's case is always something I've heard of, but never truly investigated lol.
Fifth_Down ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:56:03 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
It is the most bizarre event in American history and it had a major impact on ushering in the era of 24 hour news and reality television. Kim Kardashian is OJ Simpson's goddaughter. The Kardashian family fame is due exclusively to their connection to the OJ Simpson case.
OJ Simpson: Made in America (ESPN)
June 17th 1994 (ESPN)
American Crime Story season #1 (Netflix)
I highly recommend you watch all three of those productions.
JARAXXUS_EREDAR_LORD ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 01:46:23 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Shortly before the murders there was a footage of the LAPD beating a black man named Rodney King. The officers responsible were let off basically Scot free. The jury had 9 black people on it and some have mentioned the innocent verdict being payback or black justice. Edit: to specify the jury if OJ Simpson had a mostly black jury as it was held in downtown LA.
[deleted] ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 01:57:03 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Ah, so the idea that the final verdict was based off external factors that in no way related to the case is why he meant?
Fuck, that's rough- but emotions are emotions; who truly knows if they did actually affect the black people on the jury. And, perhaps the argument that the police brutality of a black man would affect the judgement of black members of the jury, could be quite belittling or even ignorant?
I'm mixed race, but as far as I'm aware, I wouldn't let impacting emotional factors (like police brutality) affect judgement over conviction; and if anything, I would take offence if people assumed I was hindered due to my skin relation of a victim of police brutality. Like, as if I can't think past that threshold of emotions to achieve an arbitrary view.
JARAXXUS_EREDAR_LORD ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 02:25:52 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yes, the early 90s in LA was a time with a lot of racial tension and the fact that the prosecution's main evidence was found by a man who was taped using many slurs and inflammatory remarks about minorities allowed the defense to turn the case into a civil rights trial instead of a murder trial. It's really interesting looking back on how it was now. If you're interested in finding out more about the case I recommend "OJ made in America" on hulu.
Fifth_Down ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 02:50:59 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Los Angeles had some serious racial tension back then. Google the LA riots and the Rodney King beating. 15 police officers beat a defenseless black man 56 times with clubs. The officers are let off by an all white jury. This triggers severe riots which become front page news on every newspaper in the world.
Then this high profile case comes along. The prosecutor has a high profile case involving a black man (OJ Simpson) that is a slam dunk case in terms of evidence. Rather than risk another "black man vs an all white jury" case he moves it into the downtown court to get a more diverse jury.
Except it backfires as a wealthy Simpson hires a "dream team" of lawyers hiring every top lawyer in the nation. And those lawyers absolutely dismantle a rock solid case and distract the mostly black jury by feeding into the racial tension of the era.
He is found not guilty and for a lot of African Americans who have had to deal with decades of watching white defendants be let off of crimes against blacks it was something that was celebrated. For once white America had the tables turned on them where they had to experience being dumbfounded that a clear cut case ended in a non guilty verdict because of racism.
nickmortensen ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:27:42 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
There was just enough reasonable doubt introduced with regard to evidence handling. The DNA evidence should've been overwhelming, but Barry Schenectady took it apart piece by piece.
Also, those jurors were sequestered for something like 8 months. It was practically like prison for them.
muddisoap ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 02:21:40 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You should try to find a way to watch the 5? 6? part ESPN documentary called OJ: Made in America. It just won the Academy Award for best documentary I believe. It's really really good and explains almost everything you would ever want to know about OJ and about the case. Also, worth watching is American Crime Story: The People vs. OJ Simpson. It's a dramatized account of the arrest and trial and is very accurately cast (actors in large part look like their real life counterparts) with great acting (OJs actor, Cuba Gooding Jr. is probably the weakest link, but it doesn't hurt it that much because it's more about the trial and the people involved than it is overly about OJ himself), great production, nods to the specific time in which it is set, famous moments in the trial, etc. Both are absolutely worth diving into if you have any interest in the case whatsoever.
Shipshayft ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 01:46:59 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Ron is the dude OJ murdered so..
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:00:48 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Whoops, can't read lmao
Shipshayft ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:03:26 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Win some lose some ยฏ_(ใ)_/ยฏ
mdo556 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:06:35 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Someone correct me if I'm wrong but I think I saw someone else mention Rodney King and that incident was only a few years before OJ's trial. And I think thy mean that Ron'a family has made OJ's life a living hell as Ron is dead.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:07:43 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
How would they have done this?
Did they mock OJ through media, or were there threats?
MuhTriggersGuise ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:37:28 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
They've loudly spoken of his obvious guilt, sued OJ for the wrongful death of his son (so a civil suit instead of criminal), which they won, and were awarded the vast majority of his fortune. Any item (especially memorable) they can get from his estate they rub in his face, and then items like this thread, where they double down on things showing his guilt. They basically have the hobby of making life as miserable as the can for their son's murderer. Good for them. OJs a murdering piece of shit and his guilt is ridiculously obvious. His acquittal is 100% about black people being pissed about Rodney King.
tablefrosting ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:33:43 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
OJ; Ron was dead.
argonaut93 ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 01:59:21 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I said hi to him outside a Cheesecake Factory in Miami sometime shortly before he went back to jail for armed robbery. Seemed to be having a good time. He was walking into the restaurant with 6 or more tall women that looked like escorts. No other guys, just him and literally 6+ girls. It was funny.
408Lurker ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 02:17:07 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
No, he got away with double homicide because the blood evidence against him had been left out overnight, and became contaminated. So the evidence was thrown out, jury is forced by law to ignore it, and without that evidence they couldn't convict him.
dlerium ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:40:59 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Did they actually throw it out? There was just poor handling and the defense was able to rip apart the whole case with the blood handling.
408Lurker ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:44:01 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
That's my understanding yes, though law isn't my forte and I could be mis-remembering.
MuhTriggersGuise ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:10:32 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah living free in a mansion in Florida sounds like hell.
TheyCallMeClaw ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:24:42 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Mark Furman didn't help. When your star witness says he never said the N word and then a tape comes out where he talks about how seeing black guys dating white women infuriates him and so he's always on the lookout for ways to set up interracial couples, that's bad. When that same witness gets recalled and is asked whether he planted any evidence to frame OJ and he pleads the fifth, that's bad. When the crime lab technicians testify that they took blood samples home with them and that some of the blood from those samples appears to be missing, that's reasonable doubt.
dlerium ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 02:42:20 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Basically the prosecution and the investigation just fumbled what should've been a slam dunk case. The DNA evidence was rock solid, but the defense really just tore it all apart.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:43:55 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
To be fair about the DNA..
A lot of people at the time didn't understand it, they didn't know how definitive it is. I was a teen during the trial, and remember it well. A lot of people thought he was innocent and didn't believe the DNA to be real proof of anything.
And before you start criticizing people of stupidity, you should double check your "too"s.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 03:45:25 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Simple typo brother. If that's the best you got, go back to start and do not collect $200.
dating_derp ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:57:02 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
It sucks, but after watching "The People v. O. J. Simpson: American Crime Story", I'm going to guess the nail in the coffin was when Fuhrman plead the 5th when asked if he planted evidence at the crime scene. That would plant doubt in anyone's mind.
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 03:43:47 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Agreed. Fuhrman is a douche and as a Caucasian (by birth) he offends me. But....Lets be honest - how many people (black/white or other) can honestly say they've never said Nigger? Hell, I've watched my favorite comedian Katt Williams a hundred times and he probably says it a hundred times every show. I call redneck fools honkey and white trash too occasionally and when I've heard somebody black say it, generally I agree with them.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:55:22 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Spot on.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:17:36 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:46:38 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Nope. Double Jeopardy. You cannot be tried for the same felony twice.
dabbster465 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 05:20:08 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
If OJ came out and said "I killed Ron Goldman" would they be able to try him for perjury for lying during the initial trial?
onfire9123 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 04:00:48 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
To hell with the DNA evidence. This was NOT about incompetence. Their decision was based in emotion.
givemelib ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:09:56 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Or they understood DNA and the defense successfully discredited the police force's handling of the evidence in the eyes of the jury.
dlerium ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 02:38:19 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Don't blame the jury. Blame the prosecution for putting together such a shitty case together. It should've been a slam dunk case for them.
jolanar ยท 67 points ยท Posted at 16:33:48 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Fred Goldman is a personal hero of mine.
lastnameiswhalepenis ยท 19 points ยท Posted at 01:02:23 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Why?
jolanar ยท 56 points ยท Posted at 01:09:58 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I just think the way he fought for his son in the face of everything else was courageous and took great strength. At the time a lot of people thought he was innocent still. I don't know I guess it was the conviction he had that makese feel that way. Hard to put into words I suppose.
JARAXXUS_EREDAR_LORD ยท 23 points ยท Posted at 01:43:45 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah, in all the interviews I've seen of him he seems like a strong person. He said his peace after the verdict while people cheered about the man who killed his son being free. He's probably the person I felt the worst for.
flipflop979 ยท 12 points ยท Posted at 01:14:51 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yes, absolutely. I would like to think if put in his position I would be able to fight as much as he did. Grief does different things to people.
TheDudeNeverBowls ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 02:01:42 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
My wife just told me she wants to go to Scottsdale and shake the man's hand.
He still hasn't given up.
mrsuns10 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 07:34:06 on March 20, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Damn he lives close to me
lastnameiswhalepenis ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:27:30 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Ah makes sense thank you.
dragon123tt ยท 17 points ยท Posted at 17:10:42 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Man he clickbaited that book
[deleted] ยท 11 points ยท Posted at 02:40:21 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
OJ originated the Kardashians. He should receive life in prison for that.
TMoney67 ยท 20 points ยท Posted at 01:35:06 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You gotta love the Goldmans. They never gave up. Much respect for doing everything in their power to make OJ's life a living hell before he sent himself back to prison, like the dimwit he is.
2SP00KY4ME ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 07:17:20 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
What did the Goldman's do to him exactly? Haven't heard of this.
ZippytheMuppetKiller ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 09:34:00 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
They were awarded over $33 million dollars in a civil lawsuit for one thing. They also attended court when O.J. was convicted for the stuff he did in Las Vegas. Watch O.J. Simpson Made In America, it's really good.
TMoney67 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 13:52:44 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
They took him to civil court where he was found liable for the death of their son. They were awarded about $34 million, which I think they had a hard time collecting from OJ. But, essentially, they helped bankrupt him.
gregsapopin ยท 14 points ยท Posted at 01:23:39 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
"Me and Marcus Allen went over to see Nicole When we heard a knock at the door, must have been Ron Gold Jumped behind the door, put the orgy on hold Killed them both and smeared blood in a white Bronco."
ZiggyTheHamster ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 01:25:51 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
"We did it"
jknknkjn ยท 12 points ยท Posted at 19:29:03 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Almost as savage as OJ himself and the rejoice at his acquital.
hyasbawlz ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 00:06:42 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
As much as I understand people disliking him. If he actually was innocent, that would mean he was in jail for a year with the entire world turning their back on him for the death of his ex-wife who he apparently loved. That's pretty fucked up if he didn't kill her. So why wouldn't he celebrate?
jknknkjn ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:16:23 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
There's no one who believes he's actually innocent. Nobody who's innocent and suffers through the murder of their loved writes a book about how they would have killed their loved one if they were the murderer. That's insane.
Also I meant the celebration of people watching the news, not him.
hyasbawlz ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:34:57 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
He didn't actually write that book. I don't know if he's actually innocent or not, but enough people did to be happy because it very much became about race and police corruption. Mark Fuhrman tainted the entire crime scene by jumping the gun and being a certifiably racist piece of shit.
_morganspurlock ยท 14 points ยท Posted at 21:03:30 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The article doesn't say how much the Goldmans made off the book, but they were awarded 19.5 million from OJ Simpson.
elbows2nose ยท 55 points ยท Posted at 22:46:59 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The family has since stated that they've received less than 1% of the civil suit judgement.
undercooked_lasagna ยท 13 points ยท Posted at 01:23:19 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
According to a poster in this thread, Fred Goldman works at Nordstrom's.
[deleted] ยท 29 points ยท Posted at 17:23:58 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
dicklessrick ยท 60 points ยท Posted at 17:45:33 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
There's a series on Netflix that follows the OJ murders and trial. Not sure if it's a new series, but it's new to Netflix I believe.
Misdirected_Colors ยท 53 points ยท Posted at 19:24:39 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
There's actually 2, and they're both pretty new. There's a dramatization/tv show about it that aired last year that I've heard good things about. That might be HBO? I'm not sure. Then, ESPN released a 10 Part 30 for 30 documentary on the subject last year. The ESPN documentary actually was just awarded an Oscar.
[deleted] ยท 36 points ยท Posted at 21:47:06 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
People V.S. OJ Simpson is on Netflix and it was released by FX actually
SeanStormEh ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 02:07:04 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I literally only started watching because I saw a picture on facebook of some of the cast and was like, is that Ross? In an OJ series? That series is so worth watching to anyone who hasn't checked it out, pretty good acting all around with a good cast (Travolta, Cuba etc) and was entertaining as well as semi interesting with a few parts of the trial (even if it isn't 100% accurate it's incredible to watch).
[deleted] ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 02:08:55 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Only thing I found kinda uninteresting were the scenes with the Kardashian kids, do they add to it at all?
SeanStormEh ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 02:19:26 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Not really, although for someone fairly young at the time of the trial but who remembers the major points (the chase, the glove etc) I had absolutely zero clue the Kardashians father was one of the lawyers involved much less friends with OJ.
DreadMaster_Davis ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 02:15:45 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Well, their parents were close friends of OJ and Nicole so, realism played a factor in the series.
dating_derp ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:59:25 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
And I just finished watching that series. It was really good.
[deleted] ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 19:52:56 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
There was one this year also, (from discovery, maybe?) about how some evidence pointed towards his son's involvement.
d0r13n ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 21:27:14 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
American Crime Story was on FX and is now on Netflix. The 30 for 30 documentary just left Netflix.
elmatador12 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:40:24 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I think it's on Hulu and amazon now.
Shalabadoo ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:23:11 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
been meaning to watch both, should I watch the documentary first or the cuba gooding jr one first?
PourGnawgraphy ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 00:30:03 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Definitely the ESPN 30 for 30 documentary. Legitimately one of the best, most thorough documentaries I've seen in my life. It's very well done, and covers his life from high school/college to present day. Can't recommend it enough.
aggieemily2013 ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 00:38:23 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I liked the documentary more. The Netflix one with Cuba Gooding Jr. was alright but didn't convey how charismatic OJ was, which I think played a big part in the outcome. Also, way more background knowledge of you're coming at it not knowing a whole bunch.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:49:38 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The show was on FX last February. I watched it every Sunday.
TheDudeNeverBowls ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:57:15 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The FX show won multiple Emmys.
Janders2124 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:25:13 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The People vs OJ Simpson was on FX. The documentary on ESPN was 5 parts.
yesiownslippers ยท 21 points ยท Posted at 22:24:30 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Just finished watching the 10 episode series about half an hour ago. Started yesterday. That should tell you how good it is.
The People V OJ Simpson - brilliant.
TheDudeNeverBowls ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 01:58:04 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Now you need to watch Made in America. That documentary fills in the blanks.
JesterTheMasses ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 04:27:04 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Just finished it maybe 30 minutes ago. I'm not watching the "Made In America" documentary on Hulu. Both amazing.
thndrchld ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 02:25:56 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I'm in a three bedroom 1800 sqft on a full acre, half wooded, and I paid $150K, and I'm 15 minutes from my office, in a town that was once ranked at the ninth best town in the us.
I'll never understand how shit can be so expensive elsewhere.
Fuck. I should get a job in San Francisco and just work remotely from here.
HAWAII_FIVE_O ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 10:46:18 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Top comment right here
professorTracksuit ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 02:31:50 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Wow, I had no idea of the following:
Had Brown's mother not forgotten her sunglasses or had he not found them in the gutter he would still be alive.
zafarrafiq ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 03:04:01 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The Goldman family contributed a portion of proceeds from the If I Did It book sales to the newly founded Ron Goldman Foundation for Justice.[18] It provides grants for multiple organizations and programs that provide resources to victims and survivors of violent crimes.[19] One of the largest donors to the foundation is Las Vegas executive Mark Goldman, Fred's first cousin.
maxlevelfiend ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 05:49:41 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
the problem with the american justice system is that the jury is invariably full of idiots.
Wyettt ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 00:51:18 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The Goldmans have slowly been killing OJ
๐๏ธ jeezmyeyesarefucky ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 12:42:23 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Good.
fuckoffplsthankyou ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 01:29:28 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I read that book.
It was a definite mistake for OJ to have written it.
GFK2K ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 02:05:21 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I read a leaked copy of that book when oj first finished it. He basically describes the killings and then says at the end, "if i did it, that's how it would have happened!"
Rudee66 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 02:23:35 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
If Nicole's Mother wouldn't have forgotten her eye glasses as the restaurant, or perhaps went back and got them herself, Ron Goldman might be alive today.
[deleted] ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 02:12:07 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
To set aside the uestion on if OJ actually murdered or not?
To get aqquitted and then suddenly lose everything you own because of a civil suit feels like double dipping.
H4ppenSt4nce ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 02:38:07 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
It's not. Civil and criminal court are two separate entities. To be convicted in criminal court you have to be guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt". Civil suits are determined by a "preponderance of evidence". Which means that the plaintiff only has to prove that you are likely to blame.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:55:22 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
While true, it still feels like 'oh we couldn't get you in criminal court so we're gonna sue the pants off of you for anything you will ever earn in your life.'
H4ppenSt4nce ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 04:46:12 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Again, not really. The prosecution in the criminal case was the government. The plaintiff in the civil cases (two of them) were the Brown and Goldman families. The civil cases would have happened regardless of whether he was found criminally guilty or not. It happens all the time.
KangarooKidd ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 02:47:17 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I agree. I never would have been seated in a civil jury because I would have been honest about the verdict. I think he did it, but the court found he did not. The civil matter is moot to me. I don't have sympathy for O. J., but one would think being found not guilty of a capital crime would provide some protection. The judgement was arbitrary and silly with no reality attached.
Simpson didn't just get away with something - the court system proved how much of a prostitute it is. Civil and criminal. Millions spent and nothing but a stain to show for it.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:54:25 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I personally think OJ did it. However, as you said, he was proven in a criminal trial that reasonable doubt exists on his guilt, therefor a civil suit seems less an attempt at justice and more 'we want a second roll with the bar lowered.'
So I feel torn here. On the one hand I want him to remain cowed so that he doesn't flaunt that he gets to be a free man. However on the other hand I feel that the justice system wronged him.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:36:31 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
OJ and Robert Blake are going to go find the real killers now.
jdol06 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:44:28 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
He did do it.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:46:22 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
what's worse is by changing that, they lost credibility - because people with common sense will have seen them make that chance then assume they made other changes (which they likely did).
not that i disagree that OJ didn't do it, but they didn't help themselves
dating_derp ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:46:49 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Don't know if this is still true, but at the end of "The People v. O. J. Simpson: American Crime Story" (2016), it says the civil suit was supposed to award the Goldman's 6 million, but OJ gave them less than 500k.
MyUsernameIs20Digits ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 01:48:21 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Why doesn't this give OJ the chance to turn around and sue for slander, defamation of character?
reverie02 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 12:19:09 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Because in the civil trial he was found liable for the murders of Ron and Nicole.
Imfrank123 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 02:00:20 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Anybody ever see the article about the p.i that did a bunch of research and basically said OJs son committed the murders? It's a pretty interesting read, think he put out a book as well.
melvinthefish ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 22:30:57 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
He went to my high school
logicallyillogical ยท 23 points ยท Posted at 23:23:36 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Who? Ron, OJ, Johnnie Cochran?
aabicus ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 02:40:18 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah, him.
melvinthefish ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 03:12:37 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Correct
TheDwarvenGuy ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:47:59 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yes.
[deleted] ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 02:13:22 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
[deleted] ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 09:26:01 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
If the cops could control themselves a bit better OJ probably wound't be acquitted.
HarrietFuckingTubman ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 03:45:49 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Police incompetence and ignorance played an enormous role in the verdict of this case.
newguy1787 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 12:08:53 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I think if the speech had said that, it would've been more apt. There was negligence, but no violence on the police's part in that case.
diglettdigyourself ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 17:43:21 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I'm in the middle of the documentary. The scope is huge. It's like 9 hours long and not just about the murders. It goes into the history of police violence in L.A., starting with the Watts riots in the 60s up through Rodney King.
The point of view of the doc seems to be something like, "Yeah, OJ is a piece of shit and totally did it, but skepticism of the L.A.P.D. vis a vis their treatment of black people was well-founded." It also does a good job drawing out how one of the reasons OJ was able to succeed was by effectively making himself not a black person (never spoke out on civil rights, almost all his friends were rich white guys), and then successfully defended himself by cynically capitalizing on the rage that people felt toward the police for their treatment of black people.
Also, you'll notice in the speech he also paid tribute to Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman.
PaperPlanesSean ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 01:35:03 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Normally I'm down with comedy in all things, but man it's hard to joke about this poor guy and his family. I can't imagine the pain this family felt seeing their son as a footnote in his own murder. Not since nineteen ninety eight when the Undertaker threw Mankind off Hell In A Cell, and plummeted 16ft through an announcer's table has there been such a heinous act.
ForgotMyFathersFace ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 02:19:14 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Hey, you're not the guy! Get your own shtick!
Itstheonlyway_k ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:22:11 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Really did not expect that.
Conquer_All ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:23:21 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
TIl OP watched OJ Made in America
hightimesinaz ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 16:45:15 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I don't know if he still works there, but Ron Goldman's father worked at Nordstrom's at the Scottsdale Fashion Square Mall in Arizona and I used to see him there all the time but never had the guts to ask him any questions.
itty53 ยท 73 points ยท Posted at 17:16:15 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Honestly, good. Dude probably gets questioned about his son's death almost daily. It'd be extremely rude as a stranger to butt in out of curiosity.
DickmanComedy ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:15:11 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sS-GJhEoRVA
tukarjerbs ยท 54 points ยท Posted at 17:18:40 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
why would you even consider asking him?! wtf is wrong with you?!!?!?
Jesus Christ. Thank God you didn't actually act on your stupidity
[deleted] ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 21:01:02 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
turddit ยท 20 points ยท Posted at 22:17:21 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
uh this is reddit, getting angry is OUR FUCKING JOB
thats how we SAVE THE WORLD one post at a time
Jolly_WhiteGiant ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 19:39:46 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
No he and his wife are now Real Estate agents in the North Valley. Great people.
tranek4real ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 12:43:44 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You should ask him which of the Naked Gun movies is his favorite.
Casey-- ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 00:20:26 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
This is really sad but I've just realised I've never heard his name before. I've heard of the OJ trials through pop culture but don't really know much about it as I was young at the time, plus I don't know if it was really a thing in England. It's a shame that the victim's name is so obscure but the alleged perpetrator is embedded in pop culture.
Artificecoyote ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 01:56:01 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The people vs. oj Simpson on Netflix is pretty good.
I also knew of the trial but didn't know that many details. I watched it with my parents who followed the actual trial and news about it.
It's crazy how much of a circus it was.
I thought the Trayvon Martin trial was crazy but it had nothing on this. I'd recommend watching it with some older folks who paid attention to the real trial. It was great to have context and perspective for different events.
TheTVC15 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 01:19:26 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I'd recommend everyone also reads Dr. Henry Lee's Cracking Cases. It makes a pretty good case to debunk some of the theories that the prosecution presented.
With Lee's forensic research, it almost seems more likely that there was someone else involved. Obviously OJ had the motive for the crime and his footprints were there, but the book helps present a very different side of the story.
CitrusCBR ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:06:03 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Bit of a bittersweet victory, but a victory nonetheless.
brewquest ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:19:21 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Took me down a wikipedia rabbit hole. Also, TIL that OJ Simpson will likely get out of jail this year
ShadowPeopleAreReal ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:20:47 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Who wrote the book, OJ or RG? Pronouns people!
408Lurker ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 02:20:45 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
How the hell would RG write a book about his own murder?
I mean, you're right, but the context is pretty obvious here.
byurazorback ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:34:51 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
That is some dad level trolling there
Terrapinz ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:42:23 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Is this the guy played by John Travolta in the Netflix series?
DutchPhlowerz ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 01:44:51 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
No he was the restaurant guy killed at the same time as Nicole Simpson.
pablo78 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:59:07 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
So many mistakes in this title.
W00DERS0N ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:00:06 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I had never really heard the full description of the murders until this recent round of OJ docs were on. I didn't realize how savage he was. I feel so bad for Ron and Nicole, that was inhumane.
Joarthus ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:11:12 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
OJ has got to be the luckiest stupid person alive.
tylordark ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:15:46 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
If hate begets hate, then where can his kingdom stand?
christianmcld ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:20:46 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
How can a dead guy have right to a book, let alone rename a book AND republish it....
Spokker ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:21:56 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
His family did it...
hpcross10 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:21:12 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Spoiler!
Soonergriff ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:34:27 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
It makes me feel super old that OP felt the need to explain Ron Goldman.
lady_winchester ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:37:48 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I'm having an Inigo Montoya moment here. "You keep using that word and I don't think it means what you think it means".
"If" my foot, he did it.
mizredds ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:39:21 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I read the book. It was crazy af
yourfriendfromwork ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:04:37 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
If you haven't watched Oj: Made in America you're missing out. It really explains his celebrity status, I was born in 94', so seeing his USC highlights, to the NFL then watching him become a sports caster was just interesting. It allowed me to understand why he was such a hero to so many people.
SPOILER ALERT! Don't continue if you haven't watched the show! What really kills me is finding out he was racist! Just seeing how his defense team took advantage of the Rodney King situation was insane. They exploited and manipulated the black community. I think that after every shooting the uproar is more people just band wagoning, like the OJ thing, more so than people who actually give a fuck and wanna make a difference.
Kloc20 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:23:36 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Crazy, I was listening to a Joe Rogan Experience( the one with bill burr that came out like two months ago)today and the were talking about this exact thing . Damn Burr is hilarious .
GenericReditUserName ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:31:06 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Thumbnail looks like Ryan Gosling
RyvenZ ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:48:19 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Was this book the basis for the Key and Peele sketch about the rapper "confessing" in his lyrics?
OmegaX123 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:25:15 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Judging from the line "This is my confession" in the track, I'd say there's a bit of Usher's "Confessions Part II" in there, but from the rest of the sketch, I'd say there's at least as much 'OJ book' involved.
Rommelsfoot ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 04:05:19 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Obviously was billy batts of Brentwood whom called the hit on those cokes
Sicfast ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 06:12:26 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I can't believe their are people in here that still believe OJ is innocent.
Roman420 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 06:41:37 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
OJ must of been a beast of a man to take out His ex and then this guy.
jw2498 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 08:30:25 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
In the thumbnail, he looks a lot like Jon Hamm. On closer inspection, he morphs into a lovechild of Hamm and Channing Tatum.
HAWAII_FIVE_O ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 10:41:13 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Imagine if he didn't actually do it? That's one hell of a tarnished reputation!!
mmnuc3 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 12:19:01 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I understand that it is due to the difference between a criminal trial and a civil trial. But I really don't like that you can be found not guilty criminally and guilty civilly. That is double jeopardy in all but name only.
Edit:minor changes due to being on mobile.
๐๏ธ jeezmyeyesarefucky ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 12:37:58 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The standard is different between civil and criminal.
Criminal: beyond reasonable doubt.
Civil: on balance of probabilities (essentially 51% likelihood).
I'm not sure why it came about like this, but it's one of the first things they teach you in law.
The_Original_Gronkie ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 13:27:10 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I worked for the company that distributed the audio book and I had to sell it to record stores, and the company had demanded that I get it placed on the counter tops next to register, and it would sell like crazy. I thought the company was crazy, but I tried to do my job.
Literally every buyer told me to forget it. Not only were they not giving OJ placement on their most desirable real estate, next to the registers, they werent going to buy a single unit. There was no way they were going to support him in any way.
I took the message back to the bosses who tried to be pissed about it, but every sales rep came back with the same story. This one was was DOA, accept it and move on to the next release.
insert_username_he ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:20:18 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I understand that OJ Simpson will likely get out of jail.
blahblahmama ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:10:00 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Im not sure how much editing was done to make him sound so guilty, but oh man, he sounded SO GUILTY. Like, basically no empathy for Nicole at all and often times making it sound like she was to blame for her own death.
[deleted] ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 22:17:36 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
rep85 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 22:29:02 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Fellow toucher and rich listener?
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 23:20:30 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
ramszil ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 01:17:02 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Do you?!
Like_meowschwitz ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 00:28:00 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Seriously. That whole series was pretty good. That scene was just cringeworthy
DickmanComedy ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:13:34 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=726Ujz_KOHE
Ahab_Ali ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 16:40:10 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I thought they recalled and buried that book because it was in such poor taste and received scathingly negative publicity, but here it is on Amazon. I guess where there is a dollar, there is a way.
seedanrun ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 21:14:32 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Now that it is owned by the victims family-- they want it spread around because OJ is not profiting from it and it is basically a confession proving his guilt. So no longer considered in such bad taste.
HoundDogs ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:39:28 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Ron Goldman's dad was one of the most vocal people against OJ and remains so. The man went after OJ with the fire of a thousand suns. I understand why, but he was more aggressive than even I could ever be.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:26:03 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Glen Rogers did it. Wake the fuck up. It all adds together too simply. His story is fucking eerily accurate.
themiDdlest ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:47:21 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
His parents used to live in Phoenix. I met them while working a retail job. Seemed like great people. Such a horrible thing to have to go through
jakefatman17 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:13:25 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
And...their son is still dead
dlerium ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:37:14 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Not trying to defend OJ here, but how do the rights of someone's first person account go to someone else? I understand that OJ was out of money, but at a certain point, doesn't one person's memoirs or whatever belong to them?
tarrach ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 08:02:53 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
As I understood it, the book was written as fiction.
terribads ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:50:09 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Bankruptsy. Oj tried to skimp out claiming bankruptsy, but that puts all rights and goods up for sale. Then.. for humor, he robs some goods back and gets in prison.
ratloach ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 11:46:14 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I just read all his legal troubles in his wiki page and the Goldman may have failed to get him in jail for the murders but they've been steadily fucking his life up since the trials. It's thanks to them that OJ lost all the stuff that was 'stolen' from him that he was committing the robbery for.
๐๏ธ jeezmyeyesarefucky ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 12:40:29 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Poor guy. I'd imagine the Goldman's and Simpson's families might have been a bit fucked up since the trials too.
edit: I'm retarded
rdldr1 ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 00:04:28 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
OJ Simpson. Still not a Jew.
AshingiiAshuaa ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 02:57:07 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
This never sat right with me. The family threw a fit about the very thought of Orenthal making money by publishing the book. They then cash in themselves when they get their hands on the rights.
Who does that?
AnxiousAxis ยท -16 points ยท Posted at 16:49:07 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
And while OJ is in jail, the real killer is out there . . . somewhere.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 12:44:45 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
AnxiousAxis ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:26:11 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I left the </sarcasm> tag off. Sorry.
neugo ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 01:41:30 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Remember when black people were so outraged at white society for prosecuting OJ that they were willing to riot over it? I wonder how they feel about it now?...
mackdaddy220 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 01:47:19 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I read somewhere that the overall sentiment was that they knew he was guilty, but it was the first time a black man beat the system that put innocent men in jail.
Anwar_is_on_par ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 01:58:43 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
It was really just an eye for an eye. That case was about race relations in America, yes, but more specifically about the extreme corruption and racism in the LAPD specifically. Not only about the officers aquitted in the Rodney King beating a few years earlier, but men like Mark Furhman, one of the presiding officers at the scene of the murder, who was caught on tape talking in his own words about how much he hated "niggers and Mexicans."
neugo ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:33:59 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Oh no, no, no! I lived through it - and there was a clear dividing line. White people all thought he was guilty, and black people all thought he was innocent. Almost to a man. Almost no one on the black side thought he was guilty (until after the book came out with the title implying OJ confessed). Black people almost all thought he was being rail-roaded and the police were framing him.
It was practically a civil war. Well, not 'practically' - there were groups of people actually out in the streets fighting.
Zardif ยท -2 points ยท Posted at 00:38:55 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
What the fuck, they get the rights to tell his own life and they get the rights to his likeness. So he can't do a commercial or anything because he doesn't own his own face?
dcmcdevitt ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 01:29:09 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
It's almost like brutally murdering two people has consequences.
HermitMelville ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 02:27:12 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Controversial or not, OJ was found innocent.
How can the Goldmans then sue him for book rights?
Rocked_rs ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 02:34:26 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
There is a lower burden of proof required to win a civil trial compared to criminal. In civil cases it simply requires a "preponderance of the evidence," meaning the evidence favors a claim, but not positively. Criminally we use the famous words "beyond a reasonable doubt."
OJ won in criminal court because his lawyer successfully convinced the jury there was a slim chance he didn't do it. "If the gloves don't fit, you must acquit," was the most iconic example. Civilly a separate charge is tried again with a new jury.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:33:33 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
They won a civil trial against the murdering POS.
[deleted] ยท -5 points ยท Posted at 02:36:18 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Against someone found innocent
qwertx0815 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 12:04:11 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
somebody not proven guilty. that's an important difference.
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 13:40:01 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Innocent until proven otherwise
qwertx0815 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 13:46:44 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
you do know how the civil justice system works, right?
the criminal court didn't state 'jup, this guy is innocent'.
they said 'there is a tiny, outlandish chance that he didn't do it, but that's enough doubt to not declare him guilty'.
that means that a civil court could come to the conclusion that it was much more likely than not that he did it.
that's how preponderance of evidence works...
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 13:47:07 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
That you don't start out as guilty
qwertx0815 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 13:52:24 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
he didn't.
but the court found that it is more likely than not that he is guilty and therefore liable for damages.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 13:53:14 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Well that's all I had said is that you don't start out as guilty.
newguy1787 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 12:07:02 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The burden of proof is different in criminal vs civil courts. He wasn't found innocent, he was found not guilty. In criminal courts there can't be a reasonable doubt, the accused is innocent until proven guilty. In civil court the jury just decides what they think, whether they think the accused did it. The burden of proof is all on the prosecution, whereas the plaintiff and defendant are equally responsible in civil court.
[deleted] ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 02:42:24 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Im not saying he deserved it....but who the hell gets in the middle of a violent relationship where the ex is a NFL player with money, connections, and power and a history of beating the shit out of her......this mans dick got him killed.
juicepuddles ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 05:00:30 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I'm pretty sure he was just a friend of Nicole. He was simply returning her mother's sunglasses, and happened to be there.
smopitt ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 12:40:43 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Have you watched the documentary? It seemed pretty evident that they were more than friends.
thestudlyscot ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 00:11:42 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I also watched that.
TylrLS ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 01:11:50 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Wait Ryan Gosling died?!!!!
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 01:25:59 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah. You didn't hear? He was stabbed in the throat with an imitation katana on the set of Deadpool 2. Had been in the emergency room for like a week before he finally died. Sad stuff.
paradigm_shift119 ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 01:27:09 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
There's some strong theories that his son did it.
ja647 ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 01:29:02 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The ironic thing about the OJ case is that if he had not been acquitted, he'd probably be out of jail.
nitzua ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 01:43:31 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I think ojs son did it
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 02:10:35 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Theoretically, could OJ have sued for slander if the book was proved to have caused harm to him in anyway? Since the title called him a killer.
supersonic-turtle ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 02:44:40 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
you kill a cockroach you murder people
SterlingEsteban ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 04:27:58 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
/r/titlegore
For anyone who's confused, the Goldman family were awarded the rights to OJ's book.
Edit: Actually, just a book about the trial... I think?
coffeeinvenice ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 04:36:48 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Does anybody know if any evidence has ever surfaced that OJ Simpson has chronic traumatic encephalopathy?
LevyMevy ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 08:36:25 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
What's the documentary/dramatization about this that recently came out which everyone says is great? There's "OJ Simpson: Made in America" on Netflix, is it that one?
๐๏ธ jeezmyeyesarefucky ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 10:25:03 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Nah mate, American Crime Story: The People Versus OJ Simpson is the one you're after.
LevyMevy ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 10:29:44 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
God bless ๐๐ผ
smopitt ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 12:37:57 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The documentary is OJ Simpson: Made in America. It was a 30 for 30 episode done by ESPN. You should watch every 30 for 30 as they're all excellent. The made for tv mini-series is American Crime Story. That's the one with Cuba Gooding Jr, Travolta, and David Schwimmer among others. Supposed to be pretty good but I was bored with the first episode and turned it off.
[deleted] ยท -2 points ยท Posted at 01:27:18 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
That's a bunch of bullshit they treated O.J like he wasn't acquitted.
doobiesnackz ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:33:41 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
OJ pretty much co-wrote the book when he was a money desperate cocaine fiend in Florida.
Google OJ rapping. Made a bunch of hilariously sad videos/TV show material
[deleted] ยท -3 points ยท Posted at 02:03:35 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Was he posing for a photo shoot as a 1980s douchebag in this photo? Because, he looks like an immense douchebag.
Nonconformist666 ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 12:37:37 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
TIL Fred Goldman is a money hungry bastard who is pissed because his bar mitzvah money ran out.
๐๏ธ jeezmyeyesarefucky ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 12:43:32 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I assumed it was done for charity's sake?
edit: and as a fuck you to OJ, i guess.
Nonconformist666 ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 12:52:26 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Fred could find other ways to donating to charity instead of leeching off someone else.
terribads ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 15:46:09 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
What if it's not leeching, but taking what he could legally, per his settlement, from O.J.? What are you holding it against the victims family dude?
GrapeSoda920 ยท -15 points ยท Posted at 23:29:23 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah you're fucking retarded, I'm not even going to indulge in this argument
[deleted] ยท -12 points ยท Posted at 00:22:05 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
BruceCocklove ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 01:47:40 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
He wasn't an alleged victim, OJ was found guilty of killing Ron and Nicole in a civil suit that happened after the criminal trial.
matt18224 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 02:03:54 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Well, technically he wasn't found guilty of killing them, he was found by a preponderance of the evidence to be financially liable for their wrongful deaths. It sounds pedantic, but criminal and civil courts work a little differently and have different terms to distinguish each from the other because they serve very different roles in society.
BruceCocklove ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:28:54 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
If he wasn't found guilty of killing them how could he be found financially liable for their wrongful deaths. Just wondering as you seem to know a lot more than I do.
matt18224 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 05:51:06 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
It's because there are different standards for assessing guilt in criminal and civil trials. Criminal trials require "guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (but not beyond all doubt)," which basically means "could a reasonable person look at all the evidence presented and reasonably conclude that the defendant did not commit the crime? If so, then you must vote not guilty." It's a very high standard because a lot is on the line in criminal trials.
Civil trials require a "preponderance of the evidence," which is just a legalese way of saying "more likely than not."
So what could have happened is that one jury, presented with the evidence, could not conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, that OJ Simpson killed Ron Goldman, while another jury, presented with the same evidence, found that it was more likely than not that he had committed the murder, and so he could be held financially liable, but not criminally liable.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 09:26:55 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
No
SithisVX ยท -8 points ยท Posted at 01:30:28 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Clever. But the whole Goldman family is money hungry. I actually got a letter from them once asking for money. It was totally random too. I have no connection with them whatsoever.
yslithal ยท -6 points ยท Posted at 02:05:37 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
fuck that family
AntiAbleism ยท -8 points ยท Posted at 01:10:33 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
He didn't do it.
KartezDonovan ยท -2 points ยท Posted at 03:19:11 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Fuck them
EZ_does_it ยท -8 points ยท Posted at 16:54:16 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Trolling in the name of justice
[deleted] ยท -7 points ยท Posted at 02:36:42 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
If Ron Goldman could fight he would still be alive right now. Guy was a pussy
newguy1787 ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 12:14:26 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The story goes, she was going down on him and OJ slit his throat from behind. In that position I don't think my guard would be up, either.
[deleted] ยท -8 points ยท Posted at 23:49:48 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[removed]
agrenet ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 00:11:01 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
lmao wtf
rootbeer_cigarettes ยท -2 points ยท Posted at 01:18:51 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I'm confused. I thought he was accused of killing his wife?
blackestofelephants ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 01:30:22 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
both his wife and ron
Zachary9 ยท -29 points ยท Posted at 21:22:59 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
There's a reason they say not to fuck a married woman
DemissiveLive ยท 27 points ยท Posted at 21:36:37 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Except she was divorced
[deleted] ยท 13 points ยท Posted at 21:51:17 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I don't think there's any evidence to say that Ron and Nicole were in any kind of relationship. They knew one another, but the way the documentaries have made it sound, he was stopping by her place on the way home from work to drop something off. He walked in on Nicole being murdered or directly after the fact and...well...
limac333 ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 22:07:27 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
If I remember correctly, it was Nicole's glasses that she left at the restaurant that Ron worked at.
LAKings97 ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 23:28:30 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Close. It was Nicole's mothers glasses that Ron was dropping off.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 23:45:20 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Oh wow. Okay.
limac333 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 00:15:13 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Ahh, I knew it was glasses. Thanks.
[deleted] ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 22:29:49 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yes, you're right. Thanks for clarifying!
AMAathon ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 00:47:58 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
It was her mom's glasses, and the restaurant was Mezzaluna.
Zachary9 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:20:45 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
... This whole time I thought it was his wife!
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:34:15 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
How in the hell?! lol
Zachary9 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:46:27 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I was not very old when it happened and I never cared enough to read about it until Right now lol
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:22:03 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Okay. I guess we can let this slide then.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:14:26 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Does that really make sense to you? They were sunglasses. Seems to me a person would call from the restaurant, say "hey I found your glasses. I'll save them for you" You'd make a special trip to your friend's house at night just to return that? I think they were more than friends, which is perfectly OK seeing as they were single and consenting adults.
[deleted] ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 23:20:34 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
She called the restaurant and said she had left them there, he was leaving work and offered to bring them. They very well could have been more than friends, but like I said, not really any evidence. I agree that it doesn't really matter either way. Hell even if she were still married it wouldn't have matter. Neither one of them deserved what happened to them.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 23:31:37 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah I know he did it willingly. Just seems more than platonic behavior IMO
Hmm...well no they wouldn't deserve to die even in that case
That said,
People who commit adultery play a dangerous game. I've watched enough ID channel to believe that....
In their case though, they were single. Even if Nicole wasn't it would be irony for OJ to be upset about it since he first started dating Nicole when he was still married to his first wife.
Then again he's a murderer, so it's no stretch that he would be a hypocrite
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 23:44:47 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Very good points. I was a kid when it happened, but I remember being under the assumption that Ron was Nicole's boyfriend. It wasn't until recently that I learned people had interpreted that differently.
This case is just horrible and the twists and turns it has taken since it happened...just seems almost unbelievable at times. OJ is guilty though. No doubt in mind about that.
lucuma ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:29:06 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I was in college and I recall it the same as you. They were dating or in a relationship. I'll have to check out the new shows on it .
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:03:45 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Definitely do. They are very informative. After watching I realized how much of Ron was lost at that the time. Im glad I wasn't the only one that assumed the dating stuff at the time though. Now I see the bigger picture and am thinking "Lots of assuming here."
Renoirio ยท -5 points ยท Posted at 01:14:03 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Can someone explain how someone can be aquitted of murder and then sued in civil court for the death? OJ was obviously a piece of shit and obviously did it but that seems ridiculous.
dcmcdevitt ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 01:34:06 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Civil trials require a much lower standard of proof than a criminal trial. It's preponderance of the evidence, not beyond a reasonable doubt. OJ was found to be financially liable but not criminally responsible.
ZiggyTheHamster ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:37:26 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Different burdens of proof in civil cases vs. criminal cases. Criminal cases find guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt". Civil cases find guilt based on a "preponderance of the evidence".
The jury found reasonable doubt in the criminal case, so they acquitted him. But in the civil case, they found the evidence showed his culpability. They might still have reasonable doubt, but the evidence presented a convincing argument.
Imagine a coworker who you park behind every day backs into your car and leaves their color paint all over your front bumper. They've committed a hit and run, but the lack of hard evidence proving it was their car would prevent them from being found guilty. It could have been some other white car. However, if you took it to small claims court, you would probably win because they drive a white car, were there that day, and usually park in front of you.
lookupmystats94 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:59:19 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Burden of proof is higher in criminal court.
Except the burden of proof was absolutely there. Simpson's DNA was all over the crime scene. But, OJ's lawyers pulled the race card during a racially polarized period. The rest is history.
aimsmallmismall ยท -12 points ยท Posted at 01:23:17 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
because all white people are racist, and owed all black people for something that happened a long time ago.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 01:30:16 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The hell?
Cinemaphreak ยท -7 points ยท Posted at 00:28:53 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Really wish they wouldn't use that picture of Goldman, makes him look like that kind of douchebag you wish someone would stab to death. IRL he was really cool, kind and very giving dude from all accounts I've seen.
EDIT: 7 downvotes. Does this mean people are unhappy that I DON'T think he was a douchebag? Reddit logic sometimes escapes me.....
midnitte ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:44:32 on March 8, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
"don't judge a book by it's cover"?
Cmoore4099 ยท -9 points ยท Posted at 21:45:54 on March 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I always thought it was Nicole's family.