the biggest memory i have from the o.j. trial is when they aired the verdict on t.v. live. i was in high school at the time. and for some reaon the class i was in only had one black student, and she was quiet and reserved as it was. anyways when they announced it on t.v. a lot of people were booing and cussing. i fealt so sorry for her she was just sitting there stairing at the ground. but i suppose thats what you have to deal with when you grow up in a smaller town full of a bunch of racist rednecks...
I remember I was in high school when the verdict was read. There was even an announcement over the PA system to let everybody know the verdict was being read. From what I heard, almost every teacher turned on their television and watched the verdict along with their students, including my English teacher at the time. When the verdict was read blacks cheered and whites jeeered. I believe I heard it was estimated that during the verdict US companies lost over $1 billion due to so many watching and stopping work. I don't know how true that is but just remember hearing that back then.
But guess who is Hall of Famer Rod Carew-he converted. I like how you tools start flaming me. If a person is found not guilty, then by law, he is not guilty of the crime for which he is charged and can not be charged again for that crime. Do I think he did it? Of course I do. As for my signature: cry about it. There are plenty of anti-Bush signatures floating around. What purpose do they have? None other than to inflame the right wing. I know how much you liberals love your protests and dislike any military action. I don't condone or condemn what happened at KSU. No one really knows what happened. If you don't like it, too bad. I refuse to hold my breath. That is my defense on my signature. If you think it's in the wrong forum, then don't attack me about it.
You should check out Christopher Darden's (the african american prosecutor) biography, In Contempt. After reading that book, I fully understood why so many people, even african americans despite Cochran.
I've seen Darden on television saying that Cochran set blacks back by playing the race card. I thought he was a bitter loser.
That's exactly true, but you cannot really blame Cochran for it since he only did what was his best bet to get his client out. I still cannot stand Cochran. Darden seemed like an honest guy, but the prosecution just did much worse than the defense in that case, obviously.
I think that race relations were set back a bit by the O.J. trial, and I did find it ironic that right after O.J. was found innocent, the Hopwood case came down against the U.T. Law School. But as far as actual programs that were designed to benefit minorities specifically blacks seeming to be attacked in the early to mid nineties, that was just a result of Reagan and Bush I packing the courts with conservative judges. The way the O.J. trial divided the country was unfortunate, but I don't really by into Darden's theory. Darden did seem like an honest guy, and he seemed generally dissappointed in the decision.
it was never about black and white except the lawyers who used that.. "fed up" are you kidding me?!!?! thats what they get after: her throat was slashed all the way to her spine from the front of her neck.. can you imagine the rage to do that?? a mob hit doesnt take that kind of rage.. i have never seen a more ridiculous injustice as what happened.. blood everywhere OJ makes me sick
I think O.J. was guilty. I think it is counterintuituve to know the facts and think otherwise. I am p*ssed off that he's walking free. I feel he's free partly because his defense used the race card, and partly because he's rich. But I thought the jury probably made the correct decision. There was too much mud in the water; especially surrounding the racist cop. Do I think Mark Fermahn( sp?) framed O.J for murder? No. Do I think it possible he influenced evidence to support what seemed to be the correct assumption; that O.J was guilty? Not sure, but it's possible. Cops do it all the time even without racism as an additional impetus. SO, IMO, the jury was presented with a reasonalbe doubt, as contrary as that seems to common sense. They were presented it because of race, because of racism, because the prosecution wasn't all that effective, and because O.J could afford enough lawyers throwing enough smoke in the jury's eyes that there had to be some doubt, merely by attrition. If O.J.'s poor, he;s in jail, right now. WHich is where he should be, IMO, based on justice. But not based on the law.
We've been through this discussion before... http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/Simpson/Dna.htm and http://www.cnn.com/US/OJ/verdict/dna/ On the stand in March, Lange described for jurors the scene of the crime: a river of blood, two bodies butchered beyond belief, and a curious trail of blood drops leading away from Nicole Brown Simpson's condo to O.J. Simpson's estate. They found blood on her back gate, blood in his driveway, blood in his front hall. And when they checked, they found blood in his white Bronco. Lab tests show the blood was O.J. Simpson's. But blood matching O.J. Simpson wasn't the only blood found in places hard to explain. Blood consistent with the two victims was on the telltale glove behind Simpson's house and in his Ford Bronco. And blood matching his ex-wife's was on socks on his bedroom floor. (...) Scientists say blood doesn't lie, and one prosecution expert told the jury blood drops near the victims had to be Simpson's, that the blood could have come only from one person, black or white, out of 170 million. But no, it was probably one of these other 30 or so guys in the world that had a DNA that could not be excluded - especially since those people had a motive, right? Why the heck would he have fled the scene in his Bronco? Etc. etc. etc. (By the way, coincidence, but Arlington Road is on TV here right now (in German)).
There was no reasonable doubt. The jury was biased and the defense managed to cloud the issues enough for the clear-cut evidence not to be relevant anymore in the eyes of the jury. The verdict was a complete joke.
MacBeth, I agree with your post completely. I believe OJ was guilty. But I do feel that Furman/LA PD probably did tamper with the evidence in order to give themselves an air tight case. The defense did their jobs by establishing that reasonable doubt.
So how would they have gotten enough of OJ's blood to produce the blood trail? So what if this Fuhrman was a racist jerk, this does not change anything about the whole blood trail thing. Again, the defense completely clouded the real issues and got away with it. They even got you guys STILL fooled into believing there could be any reasonable doubt...
IMO, when you're talking about convicting someone of a crime, especially a crime as serious as murder, the cops in question have to be akin to Caeser's wife.
