I actually wanted to be a lawyer growing up until I saw the OJ trial. After I saw how ruthless and pathetic OJ's lawyers were I knew it was not for me. It was obvious at the time he was guilty as hell, but as soon as they brought race into the equation I knew he was going to be found not guilty.
OJ: Made in America
- Thread starter MrLair
- Start date
Guilty or not God is going to deal with you. You may not believe in God but there is a certain level of truth to the things the bible teaches, and OJ didn't go to jail but he has lived in a personal hell since that verdict.
Can you imagine what kind of pay yo would do this because he wasn't invited to dinner?
Can you imagine what kind of pay yo would do this because he wasn't invited to dinner?
Robert Kardashian (I believe) had some remorse for his part in the fiasco and I seem to remember an interview where he stated he believed OJ did it. Carl Douglas, in the documentary, admits to the shenanigans they pulled to get OJ off and laughs about it (and I appreciated his honesty). The others were the usual cast of slimeball lawyers earning a buck and seeking the spotlight to advance their careers (Marcia Clark especially).
His lawyers did their job. The lapd overplayed their hand. They had a really good case, but planted evidence and lied; to try and make it airtight. That was the downfall.
The cops didn't plant any evidence in this case.
They didn't need to, there was ample evidence, motive, past documented behavior, and timeline to convict him.
They didn't need to, there was ample evidence, motive, past documented behavior, and timeline to convict him.
I think you are right. Watch Kardashian's reaction when the verdict is read. Clark was at least on the right side of justice. Darden was baited Into the glove try on by the lowlife Bailey, who was only trumped in sleaziness by Cochran or Barry Scheck.
I was in middle school when this all happened. Oddly enough it was the summer between 5th and 6th grade when the murders happened. I was a cub scout. I went to camp during the whole bronco chase. I remember getting ready to leave and seeing on the news about dead people in LA. a week later when I got picked up from camp my mom and I talked about the Rockets and the Rangers. No mentioned of OJ. And I LOVED OJ because of the Naked Gun movies.
When we got back to my house my dad ran out and said "OMG OJ is in the driveway!" I was totally clueless. Talk about a shock.
We watched the verdict at lunch at Daviess County Middle School. Pretty much an all white school. Everyone cheered when he was found not guilty. everyone at DCMS loved Nordberg
When we got back to my house my dad ran out and said "OMG OJ is in the driveway!" I was totally clueless. Talk about a shock.
We watched the verdict at lunch at Daviess County Middle School. Pretty much an all white school. Everyone cheered when he was found not guilty. everyone at DCMS loved Nordberg
There was more than ample evidence. But the police and prosecution overplayed their hand, by trying to turn a good case into an airtight one. They paid the price.
Also as another poster pointed out, the prosecution got sidetracked trying to best the "dream team" rather than stick to their strong case.
i thought f lee bailey was the worst. he seemed proud of himself
fuhrman taking the 5th--good lord. they didn't need the glove. he should not have been put on the stand
fuhrman taking the 5th--good lord. they didn't need the glove. he should not have been put on the stand
Planted evidence? Good grief. OJ beat this woman on many occasions. When she finally left him for good, he couldn't take it. His blood and there was all mixed together. They found her blood on Golfman and her hair in his clothes.
The only thing planted was stupidity and racism on the part of the jury. When the Fuhrman tapes were played, nothing else mattered to them.
I could be way wrong, usually am, but couldn't the defense have introduced the glove if the prosecution didn't? And Fuhrman would have been on the stand in that case also.
Well after you see episode 5 you know it didn't matter what happened in court because the mostly black jury was going to find him not guilty because of race and Rodney King.
I was in high school and the time and thought he was innocent (because I was young and stupid). Now I don't know how anybody could think he did not do it.
But as mentioned above, karma got him in the end and he got what he deserved.
I was in high school and the time and thought he was innocent (because I was young and stupid). Now I don't know how anybody could think he did not do it.
But as mentioned above, karma got him in the end and he got what he deserved.
It's also irony b/c in the 5th episode OJ said people get what they deserve - bit him in the ***!
Can you imagine being his kids as they grow up and all these shows of late bring out things pointing to your father killing your mother and becoming a lowlife POS!
God bless those kids what a terrible situation.
God bless those kids what a terrible situation.
Has there ever been a case in American history where there was more overwhelming evidence? The fact people still believe evidence was planted is scary stuff. There was no chance whatsoever he was going to be convicted with that jury. The fact the one juror admitted it was payback for Rodney King and another former black panther raised his fist in the jury box as the decision was read is incredible.
Yes, but then the prosecution could show a) that once leather gets wet, it shrinks and needs to be re-stretched, and b) that OJ didn't try hard enough to get the gloves on, and c) that OJ's hands may be swollen. But they took all that away.
What's curious to me is the pictures of him wearing the gloves not fitting while reporting at a game and of him wearing the shoes that leave the blood pattern found at the scene didn't appear till after the trial was over. Why? Lousy (another) prosecution effort.
To me, Ito set a circus environment for the case and it went that way. Had a stronger judge been on the bench, I don't think as many of these shenanigans would have happened. But OJs team did what they were supposed to which was introduce enough doubt (real or not) to get their client off.
The lawyers did their job...introduced enough reasonable doubt that the jury was able to return a non-guilty verdict in less than four hours. Why anyone on here faults them is just silly and misguided. As if our judicial system has never put the wrong person in jail before.
The LAPD had a racist detective assigned to the case.
The criminologist were sloppy beyond belief.
Darden was a token and had no business on the prosecution team.
The prosecution had one bad day after another bad day.
Looking back at it all...it's easy to see why he got away with it.
The LAPD had a racist detective assigned to the case.
The criminologist were sloppy beyond belief.
Darden was a token and had no business on the prosecution team.
The prosecution had one bad day after another bad day.
Looking back at it all...it's easy to see why he got away with it.
not remotely a lawyer, but yeah, i guess they could have
not sure what the point would have been, though, if the prosecution didn't make the glove a big part of the case--to the point of idiotically having oj try it on in court
if the defense made fuhrman an issue, the prosecution could have just disowned him, the way they tried to after bailey destroyed him in cross-examination, when it was too late
oj definitely did it--the alternative that somebody else rage-slaughtered his estranged wife and a paramour on the doorstep is pretty much absurd on its face--but fuhrman may well have planted the glove. not so much because he's a racist (which he is), but because he's an attention-seeker
The primary reason was that there were members of the jury that basically said they weren't convicting him no matter what the evidence said. Filing in LA was the action that got him off.
That jury was never going to convict OJ. If the judge had been stronger, or the prosecution have done a better job it may have resulted in deadlock, but a guilty verdict was not going to happen in that trial.
This was a verdict based on emotion rather than reason.
This was a verdict based on emotion rather than reason.
I was wondering about the shoes as well. On the FX series, they talk about the pictures of him wearing the gloves as a reporter, so I don't know if that was something they chose not to use for some reason or if they did use it and the documentary glossed over it. It's also possible they didn't know about it at the time, but the FX series chose to put it in there, but I'm not sure why they would do that.
One interesting thing in the FX series that was not in the documentary is the fact that in the Fuhrman tapes, he makes disparaging remarks about Ito's wife.
You're missing the point. I think he did it. But the police and prosecution botched a case they should've won in their sleep.
I just read an article about the picture of him wearing the shoes.
The picture was one the Buffalo Bills had, or their beat writer. They had a position of staying neutral during the trial. Now, I don't know if they chose to sit on the pic, or if they didn't realize they had it until after the criminal trial, but it wasn't found until the civil case.
I honestly don't believe it would've mattered if the pics would've came out during the criminal case. I don't believe the jury, short of him saying he did it, was going to convict him.
They found his blood at the scene and at his home when OJ was in Chicago. How did the cops know he had a deep cut on his hand?
you don't know whether evidence was planted or not, so your flat statement of fact is out of line
that fuhrman elected to invoke the 5th amendment when asked if he'd planted evidence before certainly suggests that he had
He says in the documentary that if you plead the 5th to one question, you plead the 5th to all of them, that you can't pick and choose.
I don't know how accurate that is, but he was going to plead the 5th to everything. They could have asked if he committed the murders and he would have pled the 5th.
That's correct. And the reasoning behind it is that if you're picking and choosing which to answer or not you are showing a tendency to flip flop and giving away the the protection(for lack of a better word) of the 5th amendment.
The defense wasn't originally going to ask that question either until he admitted he was going to envoke his 5th amendment right.......they huddled and then brought that question forth knowing it would bury him farther.
The defense wasn't originally going to ask that question either until he admitted he was going to envoke his 5th amendment right.......they huddled and then brought that question forth knowing it would bury him farther.
How exactly did the police try to cover it up? Pretty sure you don't have any idea what you're talking about.