Toggle sidebar

OJ: Made in America

B

Bill Derington

Well-known member
Jan 21, 2003
17,690
2,057
113
The police didn't mishandle or cover anything up, that was as close to a slam dunk case as there ever was evidence wise.
The difference was the jury DID NOT want to convict OJ, and Fuhrman's past gave them the excuse needed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: musrat59 and Cawood86_rivals
B

Bill Derington

Well-known member
Jan 21, 2003
17,690
2,057
113
UK_Is_Good said:
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.
Click to expand...

This is correct, if he answers any of the questions, he can't plead the fifth.
 
WildcatFan1982

WildcatFan1982

Active member
Dec 4, 2011
21,089
397
51
I listened to Steve Romines talk about this case once. He said it was obvious that OJ did it but the prosecution blew it with stupid errors. When Matt Jones asked him about the glove he said "I could make it look like a catchers mitt is too small"
 
K

krazykats

New member
Nov 6, 2006
23,768
2,330
0
Well his agent even admitted he didn't take his medicine for two weeks in jail to make his hands swole.
 
E

EdHochuli'sTriceps

New member
Nov 13, 2004
368
142
0
Bill Derington said:
The police didn't mishandle or cover anything up, that was as close to a slam dunk case as there ever was evidence wise.
Click to expand...

the crime lab guy was clearly a schmuck, the two detectives neglected to pin oj down on several points of fact, fuhrman's testimony was a disaster

the prosecution/police made plenty of mistakes
 
C

Cawood86_rivals

New member
Feb 20, 2005
36,711
3,212
0
OJ got off because of past abuses and brutality of the LAPD. Once they heard Fuhrman saying those awful things on tape, it was over. No way they were going to find him guilty.
The jury didn't care that he beat Nicole. They didn't care that there was a 911 call of her being beaten by him. All they cared was Fuhrman used the N-word.
OJ only became a lack man after he killed Nicole and Ron Goldman. Before that he was as white as Casper. There was no other suspects and no other theory given. It was, black man set up by white cops.
The defense lawyers were lower than OJ. The Goldman family were the forgotten victims in all of this
 
L

legalbeagle123

New member
Jun 16, 2001
28,376
1,171
0
UK_Is_Good said:
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.
Click to expand...

The fact that Ito allowed that to happen in front of the jury is ridiculous. You're not even supposed to call a witness to the stand if you know he will invoke the 5th. One of many awful errors by Ito.
 
D

David Rice

New member
Sep 9, 2013
3,926
1,120
0
I'm on part 4 so far and I felt for Ron Shipp one of O.J's friends. He said after the testimony that he wanted to kill O.J.
 
L

legalbeagle123

New member
Jun 16, 2001
28,376
1,171
0
Haven'tseen part 5 yet so I don't know if it's covered, but I think I read somewhere that when the detectives first told OJ his wife was dead, he never asked any questions about how. Arguably the most damning evidence of all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Guess Who and Get Buckets
U

UK_Is_Good

New member
Dec 7, 2005
11,735
442
0
legalbeagle123 said:
Haven'tseen part 5 yet so I don't know if it's covered, but I think I read somewhere that when the detectives first told OJ his wife was dead, he never asked any questions about how. Arguably the most damning evidence of all.
Click to expand...

It was in the FX series, but not the documentary.
 
S

starchief

New member
Feb 18, 2005
10,137
4,743
0
O J's Jury:

The Jury By Race: 9 Blacks, 1 Hispanics, 2 Whites

The Jury By Sex: 10 Women, 2 Men

The Jury By Education: 2 College Graduates, 9 High School Graduates, 1 Without Diploma

Some other facts about the final jury: (1) None regularly read a newspaper, but eight regularly watch tabloid TV shows, (2) five thought it was sometimes appropriate to use force on a family member, (3) all were Democrats, (4) five reported that they or another family member had had a negative experience with the police, (5) nine thought that Simpson was less likely to be a murderer because he was a professional athlete.

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/Simpson/Jurypage.html#Final Jury








 
  • Like
Reactions: mashburned
M

Mojocat_rivals48469

New member
Jan 29, 2003
18,120
3,074
0
That case can stand for many things, I always thought it was less about race than it was about celebrity and wealth - anyone who could have afforded that team of defense lawyers was going to win. Yeah, the prosecution and the police screwed a bunch of stuff up. But I wondered as I watched - there are a lot of moving parts to that, and wouldn't even pretty competent people make some screw ups along the way? Thousands of pieces to that puzzle, and if you have lawyers like that, they will exploit them enough to cause reasonable doubt. And if the jury already wants to acquit, all the more.

Also - many wanted to paint Ito as a star struck celebrity wannabe - and that was easy enough to believe....
 
M

MacCard

New member
May 29, 2001
2,788
202
0
I couldn't get past the extremely white black guy and that other guy's awful voice.
 
A

AlbanyWildCat

New member
Mar 18, 2009
6,895
440
0
Cawood86 said:
So you think the legal system worked in this case? You think justice was blind in this case? You think that OJ was acquitted in the name of justice?
Click to expand...

Yes...this is our justice system. The only thing the defense needed to do was establish doubt. The defense team easily was able to do it. And OJ was able to easily afford it.
 
D

d2atTech

New member
Apr 15, 2009
3,477
1,550
0
krazykats said:
It's good, and seeing the history of the relationship there is no doubt he killed. Some think not alone, but I'd say otherwise.

It's really well done though and gets into more than just the case which is a nice change.
Click to expand...

look, i think he did it too, but the law has declared him innocent. did you get the chance to read his book?
 
N

ndk_rivals308474

New member
Feb 8, 2004
115
67
0
d2atTech said:
look, i think he did it too, but the law has declared him innocent. did you get the chance to read his book?
Click to expand...
The law did not declare him innocent. The jury in the criminal case said they had reasonable doubt about whether he was guilty. However, another jury (the civil case) said it was more likely than not that he had killed them.
 
N

ndk_rivals308474

New member
Feb 8, 2004
115
67
0
The documentary did a good job of showing how the defense at the very least gave the impression that the police were sloppy in this case: The initial interview at the police station before OJ clammed up was useless. Fuhrman finds the other glove in an alley behind OJ's house with no other witnesses around. Evidence technicians admit to taking OJ's blood back to the crime scene while it's be processed. Videos show the evidence being recovered by people not wearing gloves. Photographs taken at the scene don't show blood in one spot on a fence where pictures from later on show blood.

But really all it comes down to is the old lady who was the juror saying she absolutely voted not guilty as payback for Rodney King.
 
wcc31

wcc31

Well-known member
Mar 18, 2002
504,733
11,721
98
ndk said:
The documentary did a good job of showing how the defense at the very least gave the impression that the police were sloppy in this case: The initial interview at the police station before OJ clammed up was useless. Fuhrman finds the other glove in an alley behind OJ's house with no other witnesses around. Evidence technicians admit to taking OJ's blood back to the crime scene while it's be processed. Videos show the evidence being recovered by people not wearing gloves. Photographs taken at the scene don't show blood in one spot on a fence where pictures from later on show blood.

But really all it comes down to is the old lady who was the juror saying she absolutely voted not guilty as payback for Rodney King.
Click to expand...

Barry Scheck did a helluva job confusing the jury. That's for sure.
 
K

krazykats

New member
Nov 6, 2006
23,768
2,330
0
Kentucky fan 1989 said:
What did Rodney King do to get beaten up anyway?
Click to expand...

The police story was he was pulled over for reckless driving possible dui. Once they asked him to get out of the car he became resistant and at some point came at the police. Who then clubbed him and he would not lay down.

They kept clubbing him instead of actually cuffing him once they got him down for fun I guess. But the original problem was legit apparently.

It was LAPD so who knows.
 
C

Cawood86_rivals

New member
Feb 20, 2005
36,711
3,212
0
AlbanyWildCat said:
Yes...this is our justice system. The only thing the defense needed to do was establish doubt. The defense team easily was able to do it. And OJ was able to easily afford it.
Click to expand...
The jurors in the case admitted that the verdict was pay back for Rodney King and you still think justice was done in this case? So, do you think justice was done in the Rodney King case?
 
V

Violent Cuts

New member
Jun 22, 2001
26,917
1,192
0
I love how some people "think" he did it. He wrote a freaking book about how he did it and some of you aren't certain? This is why juries suck if anyone is still wondering.
 
K

krazykats

New member
Nov 6, 2006
23,768
2,330
0
By the math he paid 15M for his defense. They could have paid off Ito and the Jury and still made 2.5M a piece.

Think about that and then you will know what justice is all about
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom