re: The People v. O.J. Simpson: American Crime Story series long thread

No, Ito wasn't the only factor. Did you actually watch the entire trial when it was going on?

This series is sort of a sideshow and compared to the real trial in real time, it's lacking in a huge way.

quote:

---

Dkd you watch the entire trial

---

Did you?The only people who watched the ENTIRE trial were those in the courtroom and those covering the trial.Anybody who claims they did are either lying through their teeth or had absolutely no life.

I would watch bits pieces or get highlights from that particular day at times.

I believe it was on Court TV but I did not watch very much of it.If anything relevant happened it would make the news that night.

quote:

---

Anybody who claims they did are either lying through their teeth or had absolutely no life.

---

Well, I worked nights at a sports bar that basically became an OJ Trial bar. We watched all the coverage on about half of the 20 tvs in the joint and argued/discussed it all night.

During the day, I followed the trial. Our jury took 15 minutes, same verdict.

(no message)

quote:

---

I followed it as well but your lying through your teeth if your saying you watched it live every day.

---

First, and I mean this in the nicest possible way, fuq off with the calling me a liar schtik.

Second, I watched it live most days but I had this magical little device called a vcr, it recorded the pre-specified channel at whatever time I told it to.

I watched the trial, I took notes at various points and I argued with about 15 people, including a few lawyers, on a nightly basis. When the jury went into deliberations we took our first straw poll, with the intent of deliberating ourselves, but it wasn't necessary, our poll was unanimous, not guilty.

I can also tell you that most of them, like gris gris, thought he did it but knew there was no way to convict based on the reasonable doubt standard.

I knew he wouldn't be convicted but I also didn't think he was the actual killer. I felt he knew and was in some way involved, and I viewed him as a total pos.

As to recalling ALL of the detail 20 years later, well, I'm a human and I'm getting old.

If your saying it watched every single day and you actually recall doing so 20 years later,sorry NO ONE can recall what they did every day for 9 straight months unless you have that memory affliction where you can recal every day of your life. So yea,I don't believe you.Now,if you want to tell me you followed closer than say,90% of the people I really have no reason to doubt you. And I could really care less how many attorneys you discussed the case with.

Now,there's HUGE difference between asking someone how they would have voted on the case in accordance with evidence presented and making the bizarre arguement that his son did it and he assited.

Once again, some "facts" presented by you to back up your case is nothing more than defense theories.It shows
completd lack of objectivty or little understanding of exactly what evidence was presented.

quote:

---

How has it been discredited?

---

It hasn't been, it's been discounted and disbelieved because "everybody knows oj did it"...

One big question I have is how do ppl rectify the fact that whoever killed Goldman should appeared to have been in a huge brawl and from all accounts we have all OJ had on him the next day was a small cut on his finger?

ETA: again before I get called a dumbass, I think OJ Is guilty of many crimes in this circumstance I just find it hard to believe he was the one who physically murdered them

quote:

---

Are you basing your opinion of Jason being the killer off of the book by Bill Dear?

---

Nope, I haven't actually read the book. I have done a bit of internet surfing for information after I heard about the book and the theory helps to fill some of the holes I've always found to exist in the OJ did it case.

I also did some reading on the Glen Rodgers confessions and I find that to be curious as well. Of the two theories, which are the only two I've ever thought plausible, I tend to think the Jason theory holds the most water.

I go back to the fact that the State had very little hard evidence tying OJ to the scene, people think the scene was drenched in his blood. That's false, there was blood at the scene that wasn't ruled out for OJ due to blood type, but it was not verifiable through DNA. The biggest piece of evidence placing OJ at the scene, which the state didn't even have, was the Bruno shoe.

To me that shows he was at least, at some point after the murders, at the scene, but why were those prints not everywhere. The killer, from all evidence was drenched in blood...

That then leads to the bronco, a couple of perfectly place smudges and a dab or two, is NOT consistent with the gory bloody mess that was the crime scene.

As to the evidence at Rockingham, again, MAJOR holes. OJ apparently had the cunning and presence of mind to vaporize his bloody clothes, save two socks, fortuitively placed smack in the middle of his bedroom floor, each with one perfectly round little spot of blood on it AND shower away any blood or DNA from his body and not a drop of it remained in the home's plumbing. It was a forensic miracle.

Also, as I have detailed previously, from the limo driver's testimony, the location of the Bronco and the location of the glove something doesn't add up. (and this is one of the major holes to me that is answered by the Jason theory.)

It has been a long time and I don't remember all the details but I knew the case pretty well at the time and I did not think OJ was the killer.

I thought he was a POS wife beater who either knew who did it and was covering for them or that he was complicit and it was possibly a hit.