Orenthal James Simpson 1947 - 2024. Was he a murderer?

[Reality Check]

I figured OJ's death deserved its own topic. What is his place in American culture and history? Did his trial damage race relations for years? How badly did the prosecutors blow the case or was it unwinnable from the start? Anything related is up for discussion.

[Reality Check]

I was thinking that OJ was responsible for two events that those of us who were alive and of age will remember where we were and what we were doing when they occurred. The first is the low speed car chase. NBC actually broke into the NBA playoffs to provide coverage. I was with 11 other guys at a golf outing in Virginia. It was the evening so drinking and poker playing were the what most of us were doing. Neither of those activities stopped but we certainly were watching the events.

The second was the verdict. If you recall the jury reached a verdict on a Friday but Judge Ito decided that it would not be announced until Monday. I was never sure why. Maybe the LE authorities asked him to hold it until then to give them time to prepare for whatever the outcome was. I was at some technical training at work. We didn't have access to a TV but the ladies in the training center office had a radio and were keeping us up to date.

[Suranis]

All I know is that I wouldn't have convicted him based on what I saw of the trial. They didn't seem to have any real evidence against him, or at least the Prosecution didn't present any.

[Slim Cognito]

Good.jpg (11.55 KiB) Viewed 527 times

[Sam the Centipede]

I didn't follow the evidence, just saw some of the international coverage of the trial. What struck me most was hearing that ordinary people's views on Simpson's guilt or innocence split on racial lines. I thought that was immensely depressing. Of course people's views on police and the fairness of otherwise of the justice system towards black people are correlated with respondents' race, but this wasn't about general attitudes or about a poor kid getting into trouble, this was about the specific actions of a very powerful, rich, sports star. His doing it not doing the crime seemed to me independent of his skin tone or police attitudes.

Maybe that was naïve of me?

I was surprised at the not guilty verdict and I don't recall hearing anything later that added support for that being the correct verdict.

[p0rtia]

The question of who did the murders is not up for debate.

This is a pic of oj wearing the shoes that left the bloody footprints by the bodies.

cf. "ugly-ass shoes"

Screenshot 2024-04-11 at 3.09.57 PM.png (217.82 KiB) Viewed 488 times

It's like debating whether or not fuckhead hid classified documents and lied about the coverup.

[Reality Check]

I thought he was a murderer and still do. I thought the prosecution and the police botched what should have been a conviction. One thing I do not understand is why the trial was moved to LA from Brentwood? Maybe Stern or someone who practices in CA could explain that. Judge Ito let the defense run amok too.

I didn't watch every day of the trial but saw a lot of it. I was betting on either a conviction or a hung jury. I would have put odds of an acquittal at less than 10%. I think I underestimated how bad Mark Fuhrman and the LA police would look to the jury. The defense was able to baffle the jury on DNA evidence in a way that would never fly in 2024 too. I seem to recall a conversation with Rikker on my radio show that black people were never going to convict OJ and that white people just didn't get it. Does anyone recall that conversation?

[Shizzle Popped]

[raison de arizona]

What OJ Simpson juror thinks of Simpson now, two decades after criminal trial
Lon Cryer served on the jury for Simpson's 1995 criminal trial.
By ABC News - July 19, 2017, 5:21 PM

A juror who served on the 1995 O.J. Simpson criminal trial says his perception of Simpson’s innocence has changed over the years, but he ultimately stands by the not guilty verdict.

“Based off the evidence as presented in the trial … the only conclusion I can come to is not guilty,” Lon Cryer told ABC News' "Nightline" co-anchor Dan Harris. “It wasn't based on whether or not I really thought he did it or didn't do it… The only thing that trial did was raise reasonable doubt in my mind about whether or not he was the perpetrator or not.”

Cryer, who was juror No. 247 in the 1995 “The People vs. O.J. Simpson” criminal trial, said he now feels differently about Simpson.

“I'm probably pretty sure that he probably is the person that went over there and killed Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldberg,” he said.

Cryer said his perception changed after Simpson’s notorious book, “If I Did It: Confessions of a Killer,” came to light.

“I thought that was so bush league,” he said. “It became apparent to me in my mind that he was probably the person that went over there and killed those people.”

Cryer is perhaps best known as the juror who gave Simpson a black power salute -- a raised fist -- as he left the courtroom after the verdict was announced.

“It was only to say to Mr. Simpson ... ‘Hey man, enjoy your life, go back and be a real person again, because really, truthfully this was a blessing to you that we gave you here,’” Cryer said. “I wanted to try to let him know how I felt about it, really, about him and about the fact that he had been acquitted.”

https://abcnews.go.com/US/oj-simpson-ju ... d=48730188

[raison de arizona]

Chilling. And way too much laughter.

This clip of OJ telling the “hypothetical” story of what happened will always be mind blowing to me

[raison de arizona]

Pry it out of his cold, dead hands?
https://twitter.com/MikeSington/status/ ... 7277771237

O.J. Simpson died owing $100 million to the families of his murder victims, Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman. Attorneys for the Goldman family have confirmed they will go after Simpson’s estate.

[p0rtia]

[Kendra]

Pry it out of his cold, dead hands?
https://twitter.com/MikeSington/status/ ... 7277771237

O.J. Simpson died owing $100 million to the families of his murder victims, Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman. Attorneys for the Goldman family have confirmed they will go after Simpson’s estate.

Good. I was wondering about that.

[Reality Check]

Good. I was wondering about that.

I watched an interview with Carl Douglas today. He was asked about the Goldman's chances of collecting and said they were very small.

[John Thomas8]

[sad-cafe]

I do not think he physically did it





He may know who did, but it wasn't him.

maybe his son?

[raison de arizona]

tl;dr version:

► Show Spoiler

https://x.com/mouvement33/status/1778582715157422104

The events that were covered up are from his days as a student at USC. He was there for 1 year. 1967-1968. He dated two women then and battered both, sexually assaulted one of those two girls. The families were paid off by USC. Kardashian wanted that covered up. Kardashian and OJ met as students at USC. Kardashian graduated in 1966. They had been friends forever.

https://x.com/mouvement33/status/1778566905881829792

I've been waiting 29 years to tell this story about OJ and his days at USC. Now that he's dead (may he burn in hell) I have a story that I signed an NDA for that is no longer valid. I was a junior at USC working in Topping Student Center on campus in 1995. I was an administrative assistant to the President of Student Affairs that semester in the work/study program.

In early 1995, Robert Shapiro and Robert Kardashian (USC Alumni) walked up to my desk and said they had an appt with my boss. I was studying to be a criminal defense lawyer with a dual major in PoliSci and International Relations so I knew who they were. The meeting lasted about 30 mins.

After they left I looked at my boss like wtf was that all about!? He walked me outside and we sat by the old sprawling big tree outside Topping and my boss lit a cigarette for the first time in years and told me I had to sign an NDA because I could confirm OJ's lawyers were there for a meeting. Then he told me what the meeting was about.

Before OJ could graduate from USC, the university paid off two families of two blonde white girls that he had dated and battered. They had both gone to the LAPD to report it. One claimed he also sexually assaulted her in their relationship. The school had a vested interest in OJ going far in football and protected him at all costs. OJ had been in custody for 6 months and lawyers were in the discovery process for the trial and OJ's friend Robert Kardashian, who knew OJ from also being a student at USC, thought it would be best if those stories never saw the light of day. So a large check was written, given to my boss, and they left. I'll never forget holding that check.

Now, did you hear about this before now? Nope. That's how much power money enables.

After he was acquitted I changed my major to Philosophy/Psychology double major. I understood that I could harm society more than not if I pursued law. This is also why I abhor the Kardashians. They're rich thugs. Nothing more. #OJISDEAD

[RVInit]

All I know is that I wouldn't have convicted him based on what I saw of the trial. They didn't seem to have any real evidence against him, or at least the Prosecution didn't present any.

There was a shit ton of evidence against him. The problem is that it was all collected by a cop who was proven to have made lots of racist statements. And a jury made up of 12 members, 11 of which belonged to a race of people who had experienced a long history of dirty cops planting evidence on people of their race. I don't agree with their verdict but I totally understand why they did not trust the mountain of evidence collected by a racist cop.

For fuck sake blood from both victims was found in the drain of his shower. And the testimony from the limousine driver alone was devastating. although those had nothing to do with Fuhrman, he did collect most of the other physical evidence. When called to the stand after the whistleblowers testified about his use of racist language he pleaded the fifth regarding his racist statements. That killed the case, which was one of the strongest cases I've ever seen, given that he wasn't an experienced killer and left all kinds of evidence behind.

[raison de arizona]

Dershowitz: I want to send my sincerest condolences to the Goldman family and the Brown family… If they called me first before the OJ team called me, I probably would have represented the Goldman or the Brown family

[p0rtia]

Wow....

[Suranis]

All I know is that I wouldn't have convicted him based on what I saw of the trial. They didn't seem to have any real evidence against him, or at least the Prosecution didn't present any.

There was a shit ton of evidence against him. The problem is that it was all collected by a cop who was proven to have made lots of racist statements. And a jury made up of 12 members, 11 of which belonged to a race of people who had experienced a long history of dirty cops planting evidence on people of their race. I don't agree with their verdict but I totally understand why they did not trust the mountain of evidence collected by a racist cop.

For fuck sake blood from both victims was found in the drain of his shower. And the testimony from the limousine driver alone was devastating. although those had nothing to do with Fuhrman, he did collect most of the other physical evidence. When called to the stand after the whistleblowers testified about his use of racist language he pleaded the fifth regarding his racist statements. That killed the case, which was one of the strongest cases I've ever seen, given that he wasn't an experienced killer and left all kinds of evidence behind.

I don't care. I was talking about the evidence at the trial and the way it was presented. Based on the Trial, i would have voted not guilty too.

Blaming "race" for it is frankly just passing the buck. The Prosecutors put forward a shitty case. As a Person who was not steeped in the American media storm at the time, that was pretty much the bottom line. Based on the trial, the prosecution failed in its burden to prove their case. The verdict was correct.

I know I sound a bit like that Kittenhouse defender, but all I can tell you is what I felt at the time and I haven't changed my mind since.

[raison de arizona]

All I know is that I wouldn't have convicted him based on what I saw of the trial. They didn't seem to have any real evidence against him, or at least the Prosecution didn't present any.

There was a shit ton of evidence against him. The problem is that it was all collected by a cop who was proven to have made lots of racist statements. And a jury made up of 12 members, 11 of which belonged to a race of people who had experienced a long history of dirty cops planting evidence on people of their race. I don't agree with their verdict but I totally understand why they did not trust the mountain of evidence collected by a racist cop.

For fuck sake blood from both victims was found in the drain of his shower. And the testimony from the limousine driver alone was devastating. although those had nothing to do with Fuhrman, he did collect most of the other physical evidence. When called to the stand after the whistleblowers testified about his use of racist language he pleaded the fifth regarding his racist statements. That killed the case, which was one of the strongest cases I've ever seen, given that he wasn't an experienced killer and left all kinds of evidence behind.

I don't care. I was talking about the evidence at the trial and the way it was presented. Based on the Trial, i would have voted not guilty too.

Blaming "race" for it is frankly just passing the buck. The Prosecutors put forward a shitty case. As a Person who was not steeped in the American media storm at the time, that was pretty much the bottom line. Based on the trial, the prosecution failed in its burden to prove their case. The verdict was correct.

I know I sound a bit like that Kittenhouse defender, but all I can tell you is what I felt at the time and I haven't changed my mind since.

Eh. This OJ Simpson juror disagrees with you. Obviously there was more to it than that though.

[Suranis]

Eh. This OJ Simpson juror disagrees with you. Obviously there was more to it than that though.

And this other juror, quoted above, agrees with me.

What OJ Simpson juror thinks of Simpson now, two decades after criminal trial
Lon Cryer served on the jury for Simpson's 1995 criminal trial.
By ABC News - July 19, 2017, 5:21 PM

A juror who served on the 1995 O.J. Simpson criminal trial says his perception of Simpson’s innocence has changed over the years, but he ultimately stands by the not guilty verdict.

“Based off the evidence as presented in the trial … the only conclusion I can come to is not guilty,” Lon Cryer told ABC News' "Nightline" co-anchor Dan Harris. “It wasn't based on whether or not I really thought he did it or didn't do it… The only thing that trial did was raise reasonable doubt in my mind about whether or not he was the perpetrator or not.”

So... People have different experiences I suppose. Maybe the juror in the video would have still voted not guilty even if they had video evidence of him doing it. I don't know. But the facts are that the Trial just didn't prove him guilty. Blaming race is just an excuse to poo poo and ignore that uncomfortable fact.

I had no particular affection for OJ Simpson and didn't know who he was, aside from seeing him in the Naked Gun movies. So my perspective was probably as neutral as you were going to get as a person in the USA.

[raison de arizona]

I don't believe the two theories are exclusionary, we can have a bit of one and a bit of the other.

I agree with both of them.

[Suranis]

Ya, that's fair.