- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: The People v. O.J. Simpson: American Crime Story series long thread
Posted on 3/23/16 at 10:06 pm to mizzoubuckeyeiowa
Posted on 3/23/16 at 10:06 pm to mizzoubuckeyeiowa
Well, I for one only have to look at how OJ's life unfolded after all of this to come to the conclusion that he's guilty. Common sense people...if he's not a narcissistic murderer, then he wouldn't have gotten in to the repeated trouble he did from the end of the trial to now. He would've layed low, maybe...just maybe would've mentioned how he wanted to help find the killer and probably would've never written a book on "if he did it...."
1
Posted on 3/23/16 at 10:08 pm to OMLandshark
You think I should think like everyone else, 98% base their certainty on evidence like "my ex-boss said he was joking about killing her" and AC Cowlins was sick about the whole thing.
Of course, maybe AC knew OJ was covering for Jason or maybe OJ never told anyone so they naturally thought OJ did it.
98% of the country thought Richard Jewell bombed the Atlanta Olympics, including his boss and all his friends, should I continue to think he did it even when all those folks were eventually proven wrong...?
Of course, maybe AC knew OJ was covering for Jason or maybe OJ never told anyone so they naturally thought OJ did it.
98% of the country thought Richard Jewell bombed the Atlanta Olympics, including his boss and all his friends, should I continue to think he did it even when all those folks were eventually proven wrong...?
Posted on 3/23/16 at 10:08 pm to Tubedog13
quote:
Well, I for one only have to look at how OJ's life unfolded after all of this to come to the conclusion that he's guilty. Common sense people...if he's not a narcissistic murderer, then he wouldn't have gotten in to the repeated trouble he did from the end of the trial to now. He would've layed low, maybe...just maybe would've mentioned how he wanted to help find the killer and probably would've never written a book on "if he did it...."
Yeah, no shite. If I were OJ, I would have left the country pretty much for good as soon as the civil trial was over. Spend the rest of my days in Tahiti bartending.
Posted on 3/23/16 at 10:11 pm to More&Les
quote:
Of course, maybe AC knew OJ was covering for Jason or maybe OJ never told anyone so they naturally thought OJ did it.
But if you look at the footage, it isn't so much the Bronco chase they are questioning him over. It the years long friendship with OJ and his relationship with Nicole they're questioning. When they start talking about the brutality OJ did to her, AC breaks down completely, starts bawling like a girl, and says he feels guilty standing by when that happened. That doesn't indicate it had anything to do with OJ's son, but OJ himself.
Posted on 3/23/16 at 10:18 pm to OMLandshark
Right after the murder he should have had all his money transferred to offshore and hopped a plane to the first non extradition country he could come up with
Posted on 3/23/16 at 10:20 pm to OMLandshark
Again, OJ was a pos wife beater and AC and Kardashian should have felt guilt if they stood by for that shite.
And him covering for Jason doesn't make him a good dad, it makes him an even bigger pos for helping his maniac son get away with killing the mother of his other children and an innocent man in RG.
I'm not defending OJ, I'm just telling you, that in my humble opinion, the states case was weak as hell and mostly circumstantial.
And him covering for Jason doesn't make him a good dad, it makes him an even bigger pos for helping his maniac son get away with killing the mother of his other children and an innocent man in RG.
I'm not defending OJ, I'm just telling you, that in my humble opinion, the states case was weak as hell and mostly circumstantial.
This post was edited on 3/23/16 at 10:23 pm
Posted on 3/23/16 at 10:36 pm to OMLandshark
Well it's certainly very probable that he did it...
And if you think it's 99% of America who thinks the State proved their case beyond a reasonable doubt, then you think 99% can't discern facts and don't understand evidence to create reasonable doubt.
Everyone thinks the defense hoodwinked the jurors...or the defense bought OJ's freedom...they didn't, they did their job at showing the weaknesses in the State's case...and the State always had more money.
What do you win now?
An education in evidence and standards of guilt.
And if you think it's 99% of America who thinks the State proved their case beyond a reasonable doubt, then you think 99% can't discern facts and don't understand evidence to create reasonable doubt.
Everyone thinks the defense hoodwinked the jurors...or the defense bought OJ's freedom...they didn't, they did their job at showing the weaknesses in the State's case...and the State always had more money.
What do you win now?
An education in evidence and standards of guilt.
Posted on 3/23/16 at 10:42 pm to mizzoubuckeyeiowa
quote:
Well it's certainly very probable that he did it...
Exactly
quote:
And if you think it's 99% of America who thinks the State proved their case beyond a reasonable doubt, then you think 99% can't discern facts and don't understand evidence to create reasonable doubt.
I'm not sure about then (although I'm sure it was well into the 90 percentile even if they wouldn't admit it), but anyone who knows anything about the trial now knows he's guilty unless they're insane.
quote:
Everyone thinks the defense hoodwinked the jurors...or the defense bought OJ's freedom...they didn't, they did their job at showing the weaknesses in the State's case...and the State always had more money.
The last episode painted that well. It wasn't the defense or the prosecutions fault. It was Judge Lance Ito's fault. There's no way either for a guilty or not guilty verdict they could have come up with it in 4 hours for a 9 month trial. They were finally in control of their own destiny, Ito had mishandled this trial in the worst way possible, and they wanted out. It was clearly Ito's fault.
This post was edited on 3/23/16 at 10:45 pm
Posted on 3/23/16 at 11:08 pm to OMLandshark
quote:
but anyone who knows anything about the trial now knows he's guilty unless they're insane.
That's the easy answer. And if you believe the State had a great case...that's insane when you comb through it. It's all premised on the husband...and that's all the focus and prejudice, husbands do this. That's 50% of the State's evidence right there.
Even believing all the State said to the public...it's still not a mountain of evidence and not even close.
The glove on the property makes no sense, the footprint (one) apart from the victims...seems like someone stumbling upon something, not running away or in the fray.
The pristine Bronco, the stupid socks lying the middle of the bedroom (with perfectly round small two drop bloodstains on them.) Hmmm?
I marvel at the inconsistencies.
OJ was a mastermind who covered his Bronco in plastic wrap on the drive home...but says, shite...I forgot to take off this glove, let me drop it out the window despite the fact I will be the prime suspect.
And let me dispose of all these bloody clothes but a pair of socks...and I will make sure to leave it just where the cops can find it.
I don't know what to tell people who believe in the glove...it's the stupidest thing ever. Mastermind - disposes of everything incriminating...turns moron and says, frick it, I'm late for my flight...and tosses the glove from the driveway. (That doesn't mean OJ didn't do it - just means LAPD being LAPD...and wanting evidence to prove what they believe happened...the belief leads the evidence and not the other way around.)
This post was edited on 3/23/16 at 11:11 pm
Posted on 3/23/16 at 11:19 pm to OMLandshark
Friends thinking he did it is meaningless and no evidence at all.
Thinking he didn't do it doesn't require that you know who did. That's not necessary. The only issue is whether he did it. It's not "if he didn't, then who did. That's not how it works.
I think he did it, but I watched every second of that trial and I knew he wouldn't be convicted and it had nothing to do with the makeup of the jury. The LAPD and the prosecution bungled that case so badly that I'm surprised anyone thought he'd be convicted. Not a single friend of mine (of many and a number of lawyers) who watched that trial thought the jury would find him guilty. All white people. I've never thought it was a racist decision. The prosecution lost plainly. I've said before that if they'd had the photo of OJ in the shoes, it may have gone the other way.
I'm not sure how he got rid of the clothes etc...but I believe he did it.
People who venomously believe he did it like to ignore the disaster that was the investigation and the trial.
Thinking he didn't do it doesn't require that you know who did. That's not necessary. The only issue is whether he did it. It's not "if he didn't, then who did. That's not how it works.
I think he did it, but I watched every second of that trial and I knew he wouldn't be convicted and it had nothing to do with the makeup of the jury. The LAPD and the prosecution bungled that case so badly that I'm surprised anyone thought he'd be convicted. Not a single friend of mine (of many and a number of lawyers) who watched that trial thought the jury would find him guilty. All white people. I've never thought it was a racist decision. The prosecution lost plainly. I've said before that if they'd had the photo of OJ in the shoes, it may have gone the other way.
I'm not sure how he got rid of the clothes etc...but I believe he did it.
People who venomously believe he did it like to ignore the disaster that was the investigation and the trial.
Posted on 3/24/16 at 12:50 am to OMLandshark
quote:
. There's no way either for a guilty or not guilty verdict they could have come up with it in 4 hours for a 9 month trial.
It just shows the jury after a ridiculously long trial made up their minds long before...and all independently. Which is why the closing arguments and the famous "if it doesn't fit, you must acquit" is just a punchline.
Those jurors were punished and had heard enough, they were the ones forced to pay attention.... I've never bought the argument that the short verdict was a negative...."oh, they had their minds made up."
Of course, as well they should, they were there for 9 months taking notes. It's only week long trials where you need to go over testimony...the testimonies and evidence were laborious in length... And like others have said, the DNA evudence seemed like forever.
Reasonable doubt is just that...its not what the TV tells or sells you...it's what is presented in the courtroom...and guilty or not, there was never a coherent story nor mountain of evidence the prosecution claimed....nor could they explain the lack of blood outside of the crime scene.
Maybe OJ can? But this wasn't a civil case, more probable than not.
Posted on 3/24/16 at 1:01 am to mizzoubuckeyeiowa
Of course he did it. I challenge the intelligence of anyone who suggests otherwise. Like Ross said a few episodes ago, it is the most covered, dissected, obsessed over crime of all time. In human history. Everyone from every media personality to every Joe Blow on the street is uber focused on this. And not one single alternate theory has been legitimately proposed. If not OJ, then who? Who? Nwobody, of course.
I'm not even suggesting the verdict was wrong--the prosecution fricked up plenty for the jury to justify reasonable doubt. But you really think OJ didn't do it? Come the frick on. Be intellectually honest with yourself.
I'm not even suggesting the verdict was wrong--the prosecution fricked up plenty for the jury to justify reasonable doubt. But you really think OJ didn't do it? Come the frick on. Be intellectually honest with yourself.
Posted on 3/24/16 at 1:14 am to Hot Carl
The photo of him in the Bruno Magli shoes sealed the deal. Too bad the prosecution didn't have that photo of those "ugly arse shoes" as OJ referred to them in his civil depo.
The jury sat through that trial for 9 months with plenty of off time with little to do but think about what they saw and heard. The case would have had to have been a close call to result in long deliberations. I wasn't surprised by short deliberations. If you watched the trial, you knew it inside and out and you knew what you thought as soon as it was over. Not guilty wasn't innocent. It was just not beyond a reasonable doubt.
The jury sat through that trial for 9 months with plenty of off time with little to do but think about what they saw and heard. The case would have had to have been a close call to result in long deliberations. I wasn't surprised by short deliberations. If you watched the trial, you knew it inside and out and you knew what you thought as soon as it was over. Not guilty wasn't innocent. It was just not beyond a reasonable doubt.
Posted on 3/24/16 at 6:51 am to Hot Carl
quote:
. If not OJ, then who? Who? Nwobody, of course
Again, you don't have to know who did it to not convict the accused.
quote:
And not one single alternate theory has been legitimately proposed
Actually there are two. One is Jason, OJs son. There's a book about it and there was a shite ton of reasons the LAPD should have questioned and investigated him, if only to rule him out. They were going to bring him in at one point but his attorney (hired by OJ for Jason 18 hours after the murders and several days before OJ hired his own) stonewalled and they just dropped it. They had their man after all.
There is also a second Therory in that a now convicted serial killer that was working construction in Nicole's neighborhood, and supposedly did work for nicole, confessed to her murder and sent the necklace she was wearing home to his momma. (Glenn Rodgers, I think)
I personally lean toward toward the Jason Therory and the LAPD being incompetent.
However, reading about Rodgers is also quite interesting and disturbing but would mean that the LAPD did in fact plant evidence, which given all that we do know, it's not implausible.
quote:
I challenge the intelligence of anyone who suggests otherwise
The argument of those who can't defend their own positions/beliefs.
Posted on 3/24/16 at 8:55 am to Gris Gris
quote:
Friends thinking he did it is meaningless and no evidence at all. Thinking he didn't do it doesn't require that you know who did. That's not necessary. The only issue is whether he did it. It's not "if he didn't, then who did. That's not how it works. I think he did it, but I watched every second of that trial and I knew he wouldn't be convicted and it had nothing to do with the makeup of the jury. The LAPD and the prosecution bungled that case so badly that I'm surprised anyone thought he'd be convicted. Not a single friend of mine (of many and a number of lawyers) who watched that trial thought the jury would find him guilty. All white people. I've never thought it was a racist decision. The prosecution lost plainly. I've said before that if they'd had the photo of OJ in the shoes, it may have gone the other way. I'm not sure how he got rid of the clothes etc...but I believe he did it. People who venomously believe he did it like to ignore the disaster that was the investigation and the trial.
First drop in to the thread, just wanted to say how amazed I am at how well this show has been done. I'm hooked on it, much like I was back then. It is fascinating, and I'm so happy I was wrong about the show when I heard about it. I assumed it would be cheesy and heartless, and it has been anything but.
And Gris Gris, your post was excellent, and pretty much my exact thoughts on the entire saga. I was also convinced he did it, sometimes I still am, but I go back and forth about it. The complete lack of any other suspects is damning to OJ, but the minuscule amounts of blood found here and there do seem more like someone that happened upon the scene after the fact, or a bystander (I am certainly not one to buy into the LAPD conspiracy theories).
But my changing opinion, even today, just goes to show how much reasonable doubt there was, and how badly the State misplayed their hand on many issues throughout the trial. (The woman who saw OJ speeding away from the scene was an absolute must to put on the stand, paid interviews or not).
I don't know, it's a truly compelling story and chapter of American history, one that reverberates still today.
I followed the trial closely, but didn't follow up much after, was just kind of burnt out on it. But I've enjoyed hearing bits and pieces in this thread about Jason and especially the civil trial.
Does anyone think they could possibly do a Season 2 covering the civil trial? I know most of the cast wouldn't be involved but seeing AC and OJ on the stand would be amazing imo. And it would cover a lot of territory that didn't come up in the criminal trial.
Just a thought. Thanks for all the talk in this thread guys
Posted on 3/24/16 at 9:26 am to Tiger Voodoo
quote:
First drop in to the thread, just wanted to say how amazed I am at how well this show has been done. I'm hooked on it, much like I was back then. It is fascinating, and I'm so happy I was wrong about the show when I heard about it. I assumed it would be cheesy and heartless, and it has been anything but.
I haven't been as pleasantly surprised by a show since the first season of Game Of thrones.
I thought it was going pop culture trash with over the top cartoon performances. I would have still watched that show.
Posted on 3/25/16 at 12:21 am to Tiger Voodoo
quote:
But my changing opinion, even today, just goes to show how much reasonable doubt there was, and how badly the State misplayed their hand on many issues throughout the trial
This is all I'm saying against the supposed 99%ers.
With the footprint and the lack of blood..never made much sense to me at the time...
About a year ago I did hear about his volatile son and that theory...and the reason it seemed potentially plausible was only because the evidence against OJ seemed like someone who was there....stumbled upon, checked out, etc...but not the blood evidence of someone who left a horror scene.
This post was edited on 3/25/16 at 12:22 am
Posted on 3/25/16 at 8:08 am to mizzoubuckeyeiowa
Holy frick they're people in this thread that think OJ is innocent?? 
Just wow. Bless yalls heart
Just wow. Bless yalls heart
Posted on 3/25/16 at 8:11 am to Walt OReilly
The glove don't fit bro
Posted on 3/25/16 at 9:32 am to Byron Bojangles III
I just came back to this thread and read the last three pages or so.
I did watch the trial (almost in its entirety). The prosecution started strong, but then went off the rails with miscalculation and just silly mistakes.
It is true that Shapiro had grave misgivings about tainting the LAPD as a bunch of rogue cops. When Cochran saw the panel from which the jury would be selected, he absolutely knew the best way to focus his defense and have OJ acquitted was to use the "bad cop" theory and the racial angle. That really was his sole motivation, imo. And Mark Fuhrman was a gift on a silver platter.
That said, some people in here are minimizing the physical evidence. First of all, one thing I remember clearly is that, while it was stupid for Vanatter to carry the vials of blood in his pocket, it would have been impossible for him to plant anything at Rockingham given the time sequence of the discovered blood evidence there. And remember, there was also hair and fiber evidence tying OJ to the crime scene. I think the "evidence planting" scenario doesn't wash under close scrutiny.
No doubt Barry Scheck was masterful in attacking the state's crime lab and in explaining DNA evidence. Another thing that I also remember in later years is the Scheck, in a couple of interviews, made it very clear that he didn't necessarily believe that OJ was innocent. In fact he gave the impression it was the opposite.
I did watch the trial (almost in its entirety). The prosecution started strong, but then went off the rails with miscalculation and just silly mistakes.
It is true that Shapiro had grave misgivings about tainting the LAPD as a bunch of rogue cops. When Cochran saw the panel from which the jury would be selected, he absolutely knew the best way to focus his defense and have OJ acquitted was to use the "bad cop" theory and the racial angle. That really was his sole motivation, imo. And Mark Fuhrman was a gift on a silver platter.
That said, some people in here are minimizing the physical evidence. First of all, one thing I remember clearly is that, while it was stupid for Vanatter to carry the vials of blood in his pocket, it would have been impossible for him to plant anything at Rockingham given the time sequence of the discovered blood evidence there. And remember, there was also hair and fiber evidence tying OJ to the crime scene. I think the "evidence planting" scenario doesn't wash under close scrutiny.
No doubt Barry Scheck was masterful in attacking the state's crime lab and in explaining DNA evidence. Another thing that I also remember in later years is the Scheck, in a couple of interviews, made it very clear that he didn't necessarily believe that OJ was innocent. In fact he gave the impression it was the opposite.
Page 30 of 47
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News