12/03/24
June 11, 2004
I don't even have a scintilla of doubt about O.J. Simpson's guilt. Regarding the article, this is not a dichotomy: "a philandering husband and wife-beater who claimed that he loved his wife 'too much.'" The whole loving something "too much" is classic abuser talk, not a sincere expression of healthy love. Wife beaters often talk in an obsessive and possessive manner about the partner they're using as a punching bag. It's part of the same line of thinking that leads to "if I can't have her, no one will."
posted by rcade at 07:32 PM on June 11, 2004
I watched some TV show once which convinced that it was OJ's son that was the murderer, and OJ was covering for him.
posted by dng at 07:35 PM on June 11, 2004
Was it this show? I think he was guity. I also think the police framed him. (For me the thing that's always seemed wrong is the glove they found on his property, which was on the other side of the house from the trail of blood he left from his car to the house.) Not guilty doesn't mean that he didn't do it, it means the prosecution didn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did it.
posted by kirkaracha at 08:03 PM on June 11, 2004
I've just never understood OJ being found not guilty. I realize you can be guilty and not be convicted. I realize you're presumed innocent. Doesn't matter to me. He's as guilty as anyone ever convicted in my eyes. I don't think the problem was the cops, detectives, or lawyers. The evidence was overwhelming. It was the jury. With statements like this: "I didn't understand the DNA stuff at all. To me, it was just a waste of time. It was way out there and carried no weight with me." ...he had no chance of being convicted. I read "Outrage" by Vincent Bugliosi years ago and in it he says the circumstantial evidence was more incriminating than if they had a video of OJ wielding the knife. He's the luckiest man alive.
posted by justgary at 10:36 PM on June 11, 2004
But of course, for that ending to work, you would have to ignore all the Simpson DNA evidence. And that would be downright nutty.
posted by goddam at 10:44 PM on June 11, 2004
hah, i just had end-of-junior-year of high school flashbacks thinking about it all again. i remember my government teacher, in casual conversation, saying how it was going to be such a huge case. this was right after OJ did a Cannonball Run in the Bronco. I don't know where OJ got it in his head that the real killers were golfers, but I am still awaiting that day where Orenthal James is out for a round of golf and apprehends the double-murderers on the links. Of course he did it.
posted by jerseygirl at 10:47 PM on June 11, 2004
No he didn't! He's gonna find the real killers. He promised. And they are golfers, which is why all he does is golf. He's under cover! ;)
posted by justgary at 11:02 PM on June 11, 2004
I remember that stupid Bronco "chase." I was living in Illinois and listening to a Cubs game on the wireless when they actually cut away from the game to cover the goddamn chase. ON THE RADIO! My god, what a worthless waste of time and energy we as a nation spent on that shit. True story, when people started calling that trial the "Trial of the Century," my head exploded.
posted by NoMich at 11:29 PM on June 11, 2004
The bronco chase was on my birthday, and I missed it. I was out spending some birthday cash and gift certificates. I stopped off at the (what seems obvious now) almost-empty arcade to get in some gaming fun, and then headed back to the dorm. I walk in and everyone is huddled around the tv(s). Just as soon as they explain what happens, he arrives at his destination and I've missed all the fun. Oh, and he's so damn guilty it makes my head spin.
posted by grum@work at 12:46 AM on June 12, 2004
Anyone here think he was innocent? The real question should be why should we care? The man was found not guilty by a jury of her peers, end of story. After watching a special on Fox News I'm sure that America's obsession with O.J. comes from O.J.'s race. 10 years after the fact (yes, that's ten years folks) why is Fox News and Abrams Report (i.e. the conservative media) playing it up so much? Because a certain element of white-beard America saw a very pretty white woman get killed. Then, they were pissed that the black man who was accused of the crime walk and they wanted blood. Even if you’re the most hardcore O.J. basher, you gotta admit that rehashing it is a waste of time and a travesty. This is coming from an ex-0.J. trial junkie: People, get over it!
posted by Bag Man at 11:52 PM on June 12, 2004
Then, they were pissed that the black man who was accused of the crime walk and they wanted blood. Actually, I was pissed that a man who was accused of the crime walked away scott-free. I was upset that things like race, claiming to being framed, lack of understanding about DNA and stupid lawyers ("Try on the glove.") is what got him off. The fact that he was black, honestly had no bearing on me. I like (and hate) athletes of all colours.
posted by grum@work at 06:48 AM on June 13, 2004
grum@work, I want to make clear that I am imputing racism on the unnamed masses or the people here on SOFI. However, why in the world are people so obsessed with O.J. ten years after fact? And, why would the conservative media make such a big deal about it? Because there is a segment of white Americans who are still likely to be whipped into a frenzy about this case because of the race of the exonerated defendant and the victims. Quite simply Fox News and MSNBC are playing to the worst fears of people and steering up ratings by hate mongering. I guess I should not be surprised considering it's Fox News and the Abrams Report. Why not the same tizzy for the Rodney King defendants and the Memedez (sp.?) Brothers? Simple: race and hate mongering is good for ratings and the conservative media knows it. From gay bashing to O.J. case, the conservative media knows how to make a buck off hate and many white Americans are more than happy to pay. I have no reason to believe that people her are racist, but I really wonder why this is an issue worthy of posting.
posted by Bag Man at 11:53 AM on June 13, 2004
However, why in the world are people so obsessed with O.J. ten years after fact? Why should anyone have to defend themselves to you regarding their interest in the OJ trial? Each to his own. For me personally, it was the first time growing up where I realized that money could buy you anything, even freedom. Because there is a segment of white Americans who are still likely to be whipped into a frenzy about this case because of the race of the exonerated defendant and the victims. And black people are not whipped into a frenzy when it comes to court cases and race? This is not a quality relegated to one race. And, why would the conservative media make such a big deal about it? Npr : The Legacy of the O.J. Simpson Case I could also point to articles in the Washington Post, LA times, British papers, the NY Times, etc. etc, but I won't waste my time. To say this has only been covered by conservative media is ridiculous. but I really wonder why this is an issue worthy of posting. Because it is of interest to me. Really, don't like the link? Ignore it, and post what YOU find interesting. It really isn't that hard.
posted by justgary at 04:20 PM on June 13, 2004
For me personally, it was the first time growing up where I realized that money could buy you anything, even freedom. First, O.J. didn't "buy" anything. His money allowed him to level the playing field a little bit against the state, which as almost limitless recourses with which to prosecute him or anyone. And black people are not whipped into a frenzy when it comes to court cases and race? This is not a quality relegated to one race. All racist motivations are bad, but in the O.J. case (which your post refers to) it's white Americans that are displaying views distorted by race. Hence my comment. I could also point to articles in the Washington Post, LA times, British papers, the NY Times, etc. etc, but I won't waste my time. To say this has only been covered by conservative media is ridiculous. Good shot the "liberal media,” but your comment leaves out a whole lot of context (Carl Rove would so impressed). The people that are the most obsessed with case right how is the conservative media. That's where this 10-year-old story is getting the most the play in terms of air time and prominence on the conservative media. They just can't but help to run stories like "look at the evil back person who got away with murder" or "here’s another example of the ultra liberal court system is being used to harbor evil backs" or "look how the ACLU is using the court system to oppress poor white Christians." It's pure hate mongering and bashing, and like I said a lot of people are more than happy to eat it up. Then they vote Bush to get rid of pesky civil liberties that allows a man like O.J. to walk. I wonder where Bush and Abrams will be when the state thumps on them. They should watch what they wish for, because they just might get it. Because it is of interest to me. Really, don't like the link? Ignore it, and post what YOU find interesting. It really isn't that hard. Your post is systematic of this ridiculous obsession. If you don't like my post or comments you can follow your own advice. Why did you seem value your right to express an opinion over mine? Please, it's nothing personal, as I stated I am not imputing racism to anyone here; I'm just sick of people bashing a guy ten years after he was exonerated and its not hard to guess why the conservative media is manipulating it much more than anyone else.
posted by Bag Man at 06:26 PM on June 13, 2004
First, O.J. didn't "buy" anything. We are soooo far apart on this we can just agree to disagree. All racist motivations are bad, but in the O.J. case (which your post refers to) it's white Americans that are displaying views distorted by race. Hence my comment. Mostly white? Most black people thought oj was innocent, most whites thought he was guilty. You're just picking sides. Again, we are so far apart we'll agree to disagree. Good shot the "liberal media I could care less if its the liberal or conservative media. I have no agenda (unlike you). I was merely pointing out that EVERY paper in the country covered the oj trial over the last week. I was just stating a fact. You're speaking in semantics. So it's being covered everywhere, but its REALLY being pushed by conservatives. Whatever. I'm just sick of people bashing a guy ten years after he was exonerated Your pain is obvious. Ever think of going to south florida and helping him find the "real" killer? Good luck. Why did you seem value your right to express an opinion over mine? I don't value anyone's opinion over mine. YOU questioned why this was posted, which accomplishes nothing. This is a sports site, the link from a sports site. I find the topic interesting. Others do also. Sorry you don't. Really, I'm not going to argue with you anymore. This isn't metafilter. I'm not going to debate the validity of the link, and I'm certainly not going to get in an agenda driven conservative/liberal debate with you.
posted by justgary at 06:58 PM on June 13, 2004
Bag Man, I don't want to drag the argument out any more than you do (or justgary, on preview), but let's make a distinction between being acquitted and being exonerated. Acquit: to discharge completely (as from an obligation or accusation) "the court acquitted the prisoner" Exonerate: to clear from accusation or blame O.J. might have been acquitted, but he certainly wasn't exonerated. If DNA evidence was found that cleared him or someone else admitted committing the crime, for example, he would be exonerated. Hair splitting, I know, but little words changes make a big difference.
posted by dusted at 07:00 PM on June 13, 2004
I'll never get over the fact that one of my favorite movie characters is tainted forevermore. R.I.P. Nordberg. You lovable fool.
posted by garfield at 09:16 AM on June 14, 2004
I have no agenda (unlike you). So standing up for fairness is an "aganda"? Please, this is a fall back arguement when you have lost on the merits. I'm not going to debate the validity of the link I wasn't debating the validity of the link; I'm debating the validity of the news media's coverage.
posted by Bag Man at 11:21 AM on June 14, 2004
the motherfucker stabbed his wife and her boyfriend in ghastly fashion, is still roaming around free, upset because we all know he did it and won't buy his shit, and the coverage is invalid? If anything, he's invalid. really dude, get real.
posted by garfield at 11:48 AM on June 14, 2004
I remember playing Duke Nukem 3D, and walking into a bar in the game, and seeing a shot of a white Bronco creeping up the freeway...my absolute favorite memory of this whole debacle...
posted by MeatSaber at 12:31 PM on June 14, 2004
I personally think Simpson is completly guilty. The article hits the nail on the head when it says if the OJ trail happens today it's over in 2 weeks and he is rotting in jail. I heard the other day even though Simpson was found guilty in the civil trial and ordered to pay 33.5 million he hasn't payed a dime because he moved almost all of his assests to Florida and they are protected by state laws. Can anyone confirm this? Lastly why wasn't this trial ever appealed? I never understood why they never even attempted to convict him again.
posted by camcanuck at 04:09 PM on June 14, 2004
Lastly why wasn't this trial ever appealed? I never understood why they never even attempted to convict him again. Double Jeopardy.
posted by NoMich at 04:22 PM on June 14, 2004
Simpson was found guilty in the civil trial and ordered to pay 33.5 million he hasn't payed a dime because he moved almost all of his assests to Florida and they are protected by state laws. Can anyone confirm this? Yep, it's true. He lives on his pension, and it can't be touched. There's no incentive for him to actually work because then he'd have to pay on the civil ruling.
posted by justgary at 11:04 PM on June 14, 2004
the motherfucker stabbed his wife and her boyfriend in ghastly fashion, is still roaming around free, upset because we all know he did it and won't buy his shit, and the coverage is invalid? If anything, he's invalid. really dude, get real. Hey dude, put down the surf board and get the sand out of ears. Other than the Rosenberg’s and the Masons, there just hasn’t been a high profile case that people have rehashed 10 years later. Just face it, the conservative media sells by hate mongering and this just another example. If O.J. where white then this case would have gone away a long time ago. Does Bernie Getz ring a bell? No one cares about him anymore. I suppose many Americans, knowing he was guilty, even liked the fact he killed some black people. So it's being covered everywhere, but its REALLY being pushed by conservatives. Whatever. It's being covered a lot more by the conservative media and fits there M.O. perfectly. I'm not going to debate the validity of the link, and I'm certainly not going to get in an agenda driven conservative/liberal debate with you. Since when is trying to be fair and fight against racism an "agenda"? I hope it's not an agenda because fairness to all people regardless of race is one my most basic values and a value that America has at least paid lip service to. If you think fairness and racial equality is an "agenda" worthy of scorn you have some very serious problems beyond your belief the well off should not be able to defend themselves. Shame on you for bashing O.J. for using his right to defend himself. I’m sure if you’re ever in trouble with the law, you’d all of your recourses to beat the rap, whether you are innocent of guilty.
posted by Bag Man at 03:22 PM on June 15, 2004
Bagman, I respect your views. In other news Leonard Pitt's latest column just came out and I thought he had some good points. And blacks looking at that ink blot gloated at Simpson's acquittal like it was the Voting Rights Act, like it had some bearing on their lives, said something about their circumstances, proved anything beyond the fact that a rich man can afford a different brand of justice than you and I. Better than I said it.
posted by justgary at 12:13 AM on June 16, 2004
Bagman, I respect your views. In other news Leonard Pitt's latest column just came out and I thought he had some good points. And blacks looking at that ink blot gloated at Simpson's acquittal like it was the Voting Rights Act, like it had some bearing on their lives, said something about their circumstances, proved anything beyond the fact that a rich man can afford a different brand of justice than you and I. Better than I said it. So rich people can afforded better lawyers and other things others cannot? So what? Injustice? perhaps. Stating your argument more eloquently does not change its substance, which I know to be untrue or at best placing thing in a false light. It should be noted that I never argued (and will never argue) that O.J. winning was blow for racial equality or akind to civil rights victories. However, that doesn't chnage the fact that I think the recent over coverage is motivated by ladent (somethings outright) racism. The state posses so much power I don't think money "buys" freedom, it gives a little more chance at an even playing flied. Why do I think this? Even the richest man in the world couldn't out spend a state or the Federal government (think of the huge budgets the state and federal government have) or have access to the state of the crime labs and experts that the government as access to. That's my point. If God forbid, I am charged with a crime, I will use every penny I had to beat the rap. My guess is anyone would do the same. The way you and others have stated it, it's as if O.J. cut a check to the state of California and the jailhouse gate swung open. That's simple not true even for richest person.
posted by Bag Man at 02:57 PM on June 16, 2004
Anyone here think he was innocent?