I can buy that but it went further. My cousin worked for the gov't in DC. She was interviewed coming out of work about the verdict, as were a number of co-workers of many races. She made it on tv with her quote, "A guilty man went free." Simple quote that ostracized her from her black co-workers. So, it wasn't just getting one over on the man. A polarizing topic for sure.

 

 

Very polarizing.

 

I do think getting one over on the man was at the core of it for a large number of the black community. I still remember the celebrations of joy and the displays of disgust shown all over the news when the verdict was announced. Most black people celebrating believed he was guilty but were still super happy to see the black man finally get one over on the man(LAPD). We weren't that far removed from Rodney King and the LA Riots. OJ defeating the LAPD was huge.

Some good points made.

 

FTR, no question he did it. Karma caught up with him 13 years later.

 

A couple key elements that often get overlooked:

 

1. the trial was moved from Santa Monica to downtown LA. Huge win for Simpson before the trial even started. I believe the prosecution had no objection to this move (of all their mistakes this may have been the biggest).

 

2. I believe the jury included eight black women. If so, the prosecution again had already made fatal errors before the trial even started. No implication of racism being implied here. But, like others have correctly pointed out, in LA County tensions against the LA police were still very high at the time.

 

3. In the CNN report, one of the jurors spoke of the DNA evidence, and noted it wasn't even brought up in deliberations. Tons of evidence there, but the prosecution beat it to death.

 

4. The prosecution actually had a couple of witnesses to testify against Simpson based on their sight of him that night. Neither were called. One had sold her story to a news show, which miffed Clark so she dropped from the list.

 

5. Neither of the prosecuting attorney's ever tried another case as a prosecutor. Pretty damning evidence of how bad they actually were.

 

6. OJ hit a jackpot of the climate around LA at the time, a totally inept and overly smug prosecution team, and a jury his team had a chance to influence. In high stakes cases like this, jury selection means almost everything.

Some good points made.

 

FTR, no question he did it. Karma caught up with him 13 years later.

 

A couple key elements that often get overlooked:

 

1. the trial was moved from Santa Monica to downtown LA. Huge win for Simpson before the trial even started. I believe the prosecution had no objection to this move (of all their mistakes this may have been the biggest).

 

2. I believe the jury included eight black women. If so, the prosecution again had already made fatal errors before the trial even started. No implication of racism being implied here. But, like others have correctly pointed out, in LA County tensions against the LA police were still very high at the time.

 

3. In the CNN report, one of the jurors spoke of the DNA evidence, and noted it wasn't even brought up in deliberations. Tons of evidence there, but the prosecution beat it to death.

 

4. The prosecution actually had a couple of witnesses to testify against Simpson based on their sight of him that night. Neither were called. One had sold her story to a news show, which miffed Clark so she dropped from the list.

 

5. Neither of the prosecuting attorney's ever tried another case as a prosecutor. Pretty damning evidence of how bad they actually were.

 

6. OJ hit a jackpot of the climate around LA at the time, a totally inept and overly smug prosecution team, and a jury his team had a chance to influence. In high stakes cases like this, jury selection means almost everything.

 

 

Excellent post. All great points.

Watched a replay of an interview done with hum in 2004. He was almost smug in the way he described the trial experience. If you've ever watched Criminal Minds and seen how they depict some of the sociopaths on that show it's almost exactly how he acted.

Watched a replay of an interview done with hum in 2004. He was almost smug in the way he described the trial experience. If you've ever watched Criminal Minds and seen how they depict some of the sociopaths on that show it's almost exactly how he acted.

 

Maybe. However, 2004 is 10 years after the trial and it's no secret that a large percentage of people watching the interview wanted to see the interviewer ask him to his face if he murdered Nicole and Ronald. He probably got paid for the interview which is the only reason why I can fathom he did the interview anyways. Not saying he isn't a sociopath just saying I think even Reid would say it is hard to get an accurate behavior assessment from that interview.

Isn't it funny how when talking about all time great Running Backs OJ's name rarely comes up anymore...Juice was a STUD but if you talk about the all time greats you'll get 10-20 or more names brought up before someone brings him up. He makes most top list but when people are just talking about the greats poor ol' OJ seems to be forgotten.

His freaking blood was in the crime scene! Did anyone else catch the Dateline special?

His freaking blood was in the crime scene! Did anyone else catch the Dateline special?

Rumor was that it was actually his son's blood but DNA back then had it as a match to OJ...he did it though IMO. Even though at the time I didn't want to think that he did. The shoe prints, the blood in the Bronco, blood at the scene, bloody glove found outside of his house...he did it but Prosecution botched it all.

 

Det Furman got crushed because he had used that famous bad word and once that was proven everything else he said was totally disregarded by the jury...F. Lee Bailey owned him on the stand

OJ is so guilty it's ridiculous. For anyone to question that makes me sick! :puke:

Very polarizing.

 

I do think getting one over on the man was at the core of it for a large number of the black community. I still remember the celebrations of joy and the displays of disgust shown all over the news when the verdict was announced. Most black people celebrating believed he was guilty but were still super happy to see the black man finally get one over on the man(LAPD). We weren't that far removed from Rodney King and the LA Riots. OJ defeating the LAPD was huge.

 

But, does this make it ok? Two wrong never make a right. I don't mind that someone actually thinks he's not guilty...though I don't believe that and I think it's hard to believe otherwise, but if someone actually believes that and thinks the verdict was correct, then ok. However, to celebrate his acquittal for getting one over on "the man" while still actually thinking he did it? Well, to me those people have NO interest in justice at all and I will never feel otherwise.

50-1.

But, does this make it ok? Two wrong never make a right. I don't mind that someone actually thinks he's not guilty...though I don't believe that and I think it's hard to believe otherwise, but if someone actually believes that and thinks the verdict was correct, then ok. However, to celebrate his acquittal for getting one over on "the man" while still actually thinking he did it? Well, to me those people have NO interest in justice at all and I will never feel otherwise.

 

Understood, but after centuries of being on the wrong side of injustice I can certainly see where it would happen. I would probably feel the same way in their shoes.

Understood, but after centuries of being on the wrong side of injustice I can certainly see where it would happen. I would probably feel the same way in their shoes.

 

This.

Understood, but after centuries of being on the wrong side of injustice I can certainly see where it would happen. I would probably feel the same way in their shoes.

 

And it still doesn't make it ok...and never will.

And it still doesn't make it ok...and never will.

 

Duly noted. Doesn't change anything for me. I'm still glad OJ beat the system and was acquitted.