O.J.: Made in America

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Someone posted a link about it in a thread about the FX docudrama.

I've watched the first three episodes. To this point it is one of the greatest documentaries I've seen and sets the standard for an analysis of the intersection of race, class, and celebrity in America.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Tuckdaddy

To me what makes the whole OJ case interesting and sad at the same time is how crazy stupid our legal system can be.

--The accused murderer had his blood and both victims blood in his car, house and drive way and the seen of course. Claimed he cut his finger and just walked around letting bleed.
-- A woman saw him hauling ass in his car right after the murder but that info was never used in court.
-- He mysterious lost a bag that he took to the airport while making his get away. He wrote what sounds like a confession note that was read on the air.
-- He went crazy and tried to run in his Bronco from the cops with a gun in his hand with a costume to hide his identity that he bought two weeks prior to the murder. Claimed he was going to Nicole's grave

People have gone to prison over tiny drops of blood as DNA proof but in this case is was splattered all over the place and the juror's were actually stupid enough to let the defense convince them that the LAPD planted it all the evidence even though they had never done shit to him after the numerous 911 calls they got from Nicole for him beating her up. Now all of sudden in a span of like and hour everyone involved got top together and said "Let's frame OJ". The jurors were also duped into the contaminated evidence bullshit.

All of this happened not long after Rodney King got his ass kicked so the black jury in this case really didn't care because OJ is black. Just set him free for all black people was the theme. The defense messed up plenty but the stupidity of the jury is mind blowing. Furman screwed the pooch bad but how does him being an asshole mean OJ is innocent? Only in America would it be possible for OJ to have walked in this case and all I did was point out a small amount of the evidence. There was a lot more.

I watched the trial and I don't have a problem with the verdict. I'm sure OJ was guilty, but IMO the likelihood that at least some members of the LAPD sweetened the evidence pot is pretty high. At the very least, some of them lied on the witness stand. OJ had all the advantages of a best-money-can-buy defense team and it paid off by at least arguably creating a reasonable doubt. I think you should blame the cops and the prosecution for the acquittal, not the jury.

No one should believe Mark Furman jumped the fence without a warrant to make sure OJ was safe.

[Baby Lee]

Originally Posted by patteeu

I think you should blame the cops and the prosecution for the acquittal, not the jury.

Even with the verdict taking minutes, and the power salute to the defense team from a juror?

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by patteeu

I watched the trial and I don't have a problem with the verdict. I'm sure OJ was guilty, but IMO the likelihood that at least some members of the LAPD sweetened the evidence pot is pretty high. At the very least, some of them lied on the witness stand. OJ had all the advantages of a best-money-can-buy defense team and it paid off by at least arguably creating a reasonable doubt. I think you should blame the cops and the prosecution for the acquittal, not the jury.

No one should believe Mark Furman jumped the fence without a warrant to make sure OJ was safe.

If the jury said "I'm sure he did it based on the credible evidence but the cops may have planted additional evidence so I'm going to let him go" then yes, I'm absolutely blaming the jury.

They put a murdering psychopath back on the street because they were irritated at cops.

Now if they actually felt like the evidence was all false and planted by the LAPD and as such, they couldn't trust any of the evidence, first and foremost they are stupid, but at least in that event, they haven't engaged in nullification.

Your role as a juror is not to be a social activist. You are nothing more than a simple finder of fact. That's why verdict directors are almost kindergarten level in their breakdown. "If you believe that on X date, Y person killed victim, check this box and review Box B" Then box B will list off affirmative defenses that could justify the killing. Something else will lay out possible aggravating/mitigating factors.

You have one goddamn job, jury. You are there to do nothing more than that one job and when you try to do so, the entire trial process - the crux of our legal system- falls apart.

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

Jury nullification is most assuredly not the same as reasonable doubt.

I've had too much time on my hands the past two weeks because both of my children came down with the stomach flu in consecutive weeks. Because of that, I re-read every testimony given in the OJ trial, as well as his interview with the detectives pre-trial.

While I believe that OJ was either present at the murder or committed the murders himself, the defense did plenty, IMO, to convince the jury of reasonable doubt.

While the blood evidence is compelling, the entire LAPD investigation was a complete and utter sham. You've got the first cop that arrived on the scene walking through the crime scene, going into the home and using the phone (something he didn't admit until on trial). You've got Fuhrman at the crime scene for nearly two hours, who then heads over to Rockingham, "finds a spot of blood" on the Bronco, jumps the wall and spends 15 minutes completely alone and isolated, in which he finds the matching bloody glove. And this was AFTER he removed as lead detective of the case and told to discontinue investigating until his superiors arrived. Then, he lies on the stand about using the "N" word, he lies about making outrageous racial claims in the company of reliable witnesses and of course, there's the tapes.

Also, there's an infinitesimal amount of blood found in and on OJ's vehicle and one of his socks. Considering the amount of stab wounds and the gigantic pool of blood at Bundy, it doesn't seem reasonable to find a pin drop of OJ's blood. Add to that, the so-called "bloody clothes" were never recovered, neither was the murder weapon.

What's also interesting is the reported timeline. One neighbor swears to hearing a dog barking at 10:25 to around midnight, another hears absolutely nothing and has a journal of the evening. I've done the drive from Bundy to Rockingham and it would be nearly impossible to make that drive in the 10 minutes that the defense estimated.

Even more intriguing is the physical examination given by Dr. Robert Huizenga, who was the Los Angeles Raiders team physician and in recent years, has gained fame as the doctor on NBC's The Biggest Loser. Huizenga's physical took place over the course of two days. He noted massive inflammation of OJ's hands, knuckles and knees. He stated that OJ had a limp and would need a full knee replacement. While noting that his upper body was "well muscled", he noted that his joints and lower body showed scar tissue and injuries associated with professional football players. Basically, he described him as a gimp.

I could go on and on and on about the case (and probably will!) but to a jury of eight African American women and a few mixed race men that weren't highly educated, it's easy to understand why they voted to acquit, racial issues aside.

And the ironic thing is, which I've mentioned before, I was in a huge conference room on the Universal lot when the verdict was read and I think I was the only person in the room that was even remotely surprised that it was Not Guilty.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Baby Lee

Even with the verdict taking minutes, and the power salute to the defense team from a juror?

I get that there was a racial component at work here and that made the defense's job easier, but I still think the verdict was defensible.

[DJ's left nut]

I've had too much time on my hands the past two weeks because both of my children came down with the stomach flu in consecutive weeks. Because of that, I re-read every testimony given in the OJ trial, as well as his interview with the detectives pre-trial.

One of these days I'll have to go back through the transcripts. I'm sure something I have access to can get them. It's been probably about 10 years since I've really looked at them at all. Perhaps time will have softened my irritation somewhat as I certainly recall thinking that we had some dense damn jurors on our hands the last time I looked at it.

I still think the biggest issue was the novelty of DNA evidence. Nobody had a damn clue what they were talking about. I recall some of the post-trial interviews with jurors where they flat out said they disregarded it because it was too complicated.

Like I said - if they flat out didn't think they could trust the evidence because of problems with the investigation, that's one thing. But if they were just looking to send a message (and there were definitely indications that they were), that's a miscarriage of justice.

[Rausch]

Originally Posted by patteeu

I get that there was a racial component at work here and that made the defense's job easier, but I still think the verdict was defensible.

It's important to remember it was a product of the time it happened it.

The justice system doesn't operate in a sterile environment...

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

If the jury said "I'm sure he did it based on the credible evidence but the cops may have planted additional evidence so I'm going to let him go" then yes, I'm absolutely blaming the jury.

They put a murdering psychopath back on the street because they were irritated at cops.

Now if they actually felt like the evidence was all false and planted by the LAPD and as such, they couldn't trust any of the evidence, first and foremost they are stupid, but at least in that event, they haven't engaged in nullification.

Your role as a juror is not to be a social activist. You are nothing more than a simple finder of fact. That's why verdict directors are almost kindergarten level in their breakdown. "If you believe that on X date, Y person killed victim, check this box and review Box B" Then box B will list off affirmative defenses that could justify the killing. Something else will lay out possible aggravating/mitigating factors.

You have one goddamn job, jury. You are there to do nothing more than that one job and when you try to do so, the entire trial process - the crux of our legal system- falls apart.

I think it was the latter. I'm more empathetic with the jury than you are. For example, DNA evidence was in it's infancy and I thought Barry Scheck ran circles around the prosecution on that component. Beyond that, they sewed seeds of doubt at nearly every stage of the investigation from Furman's first entrance into OJ's property when he found the glove to the chain of custody of the evidence to the DNA conclusions. Those doubts may not have taken hold if the cops had played it straight but they didn't. It sucks that most defendants don't have the resources to hammer away at all of the evidence like that, but that's our system.

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

One of these days I'll have to go back through the transcripts. I'm sure something I have access to can get them. It's been probably about 10 years since I've really looked at them at all. Perhaps time will have softened my irritation somewhat as I certainly recall thinking that we had some dense damn jurors on our hands the last time I looked at it.

I still think the biggest issue was the novelty of DNA evidence. Nobody had a damn clue what they were talking about. I recall some of the post-trial interviews with jurors where they flat out said they disregarded it because it was too complicated.

Like I said - if they flat out didn't think they could trust the evidence because of problems with the investigation, that's one thing. But if they were just looking to send a message (and there were definitely indications that they were), that's a miscarriage of justice.

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/project...ranscript.html

That site has several of the excerpts.

While I agree that the blood evidence was likely way too complicated for the jurors to understand, the LAPD did such a horrific job of protecting the crime scene against contamination that regardless of the results, it's easy to dismiss it altogether.

Additionally, to the this day, I have a very difficult time believing that OJ carried out the murders alone. Ron Goldman wasn't an old, tiny guy. He was young and physically fit. Unless he walked in after OJ killed Nicole, it's difficult to imagine that a 48 year old man in OJ's physical condition would only walk away with a nick on his middle knuckle. I'm not saying that it's impossible but it's difficult to believe he could pull that off, head home as quickly as the prosecution suggested, shower, get to the airport in time to make his flight and not crack. IMO, it just doesn't add up.

From my perspective, in all likelihood, the LAPD framed a guilty man.

[Rausch]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

Additionally, to the this day, I have a very difficult time believing that OJ carried out the murders alone. Ron Goldman wasn't an old, tiny guy. He was young and physically fit. Unless he walked in after OJ killed Nicole, it's difficult to imagine that a 48 year old man in OJ's physical condition would only walk away with a nick on his middle knuckle. I'm not saying that it's impossible but it's difficult to believe he could pull that off, head home as quickly as the prosecution suggested, shower, get to the airport in time to make his flight and not crack. IMO, it just doesn't add up.

From my perspective, in all likelihood, the LAPD framed a guilty man.

I agree with almost all of this.

I'm short, fat, and out of shape. That said if I wanted to I could kill two much more fit people very quickly.

The big problem with that is the amount of blood. It's impossible to think of everything. It's impossible to clean everything.

On top of that it doesn't fit his personality. He's more likely to pay someone and not have to bother with it, while he watches, that do it himself.

[Dayze]

She's a juvenile delinquent?
#boss

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Originally Posted by Katipan

I think the public was willing to believe the worse of law enforcement after Rodney King.

That's the irony of all of this. The historic action of the LAPD towards blacks in LA and the rage behind what happened to Lathsha Harlins, Rodney King, and Eula Mae Love in the black community led to the freeing of a man who turned his back on that community, gave nothing back to it, and most importantly of all, was as overwhelmingly guilty as almost any defendant in history.

All that capital that Johnnie Cochran built up in fighting for righteous causes was wasted in defending a guilty man in the most unethical, puerile manner possible, which undercut all of the work he had done before.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

Jury nullification is most assuredly not the same as reasonable doubt.

Baby Lee's suggested a theory that's floated around the legal community since the verdict was read - that this jury simply didn't give a shit and was going to let him walk either way. Some argue celebrity or money, but the best argument was/is racial strife and this jury wanted a black man to beat the system that so often seemed stacked against them.
.

When you watch Part 5, you'll see that this is absolutely not a theory.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Originally Posted by Rausch

I agree with almost all of this.

I'm short, fat, and out of shape. That said if I wanted to I could kill two much more fit people very quickly.

The big problem with that is the amount of blood. It's impossible to think of everything. It's impossible to clean everything.

On top of that it doesn't fit his personality. He's more likely to pay someone and not have to bother with it, while he watches, that do it himself.

He didn't seem to have a problem beating the piss out of her numerous times before, using weapons to destroy her personal affects, break into her house, and threaten her friends/lovers previously.

He was fine with hanging his friends out to dry, stealing his best friend's girlfriend, cheating with ferocity, lying constantly, all the while projecting an image of benign charm.

If you look up the DSM's definition of a psychopath it's hard to find a clearer example than OJ Simpson.

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

That's the irony of all of this. The historic action of the LAPD towards blacks in LA and the rage behind what happened to Lathsha Harlins, Rodney King, and Eula Mae Love in the black community led to the freeing of a man who turned his back on that community, gave nothing back to it, and most importantly of all, was as overwhelmingly guilty as almost any defendant in history.

All that capital that Johnnie Cochran built up in fighting for righteous causes was wasted in defending a guilty man in the most unethical, puerile manner possible, which undercut all of the work he had done before.

And in 1977, when his affair with an 18 year old Nicole Brown began, OJ turned his back on women of color.

Every woman he had slept with or dated since have been Caucasian.