babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » right brain babble   » culture   » OJ - Do you think he did it?

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: OJ - Do you think he did it?
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 25 February 2003 08:47 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I was just reading through some ancient threads on babble, and I noticed OJ mentioned. And I've always been meaning to start a thread on this but never have. Maybe this thread'll sink like a stone, who knows?

So what do you think? Do you think he did it? He was found innocent in the criminal trial but was held legally responsible in the civil trial if I remember correctly.

I remember being horrified when he was found innocent. I think he did it.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Scott Piatkowski
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1299

posted 25 February 2003 11:05 PM      Profile for Scott Piatkowski   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Yeah, I think he did it... but I also think that the LAPD tried to frame him (to make damn sure he was found guilty) and it backfired.
From: Kitchener-Waterloo | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Sine Ziegler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 225

posted 25 February 2003 11:39 PM      Profile for Sine Ziegler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Heehee. I think he DID IT!!!

But who really knows for sure. Innocent until proven guilty right?

(he did it, regardless)


From: Calgary | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Puetski Murder
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3790

posted 26 February 2003 12:09 AM      Profile for Puetski Murder     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I also think he's guilty.

The evidence against him was overwhelming (as I recall, feel free to correct me). I would be so embarassed to lose that case, had I been the prosecution. Then again, Johnny Cochran is a whiz. Has he ever *lost* a case?


From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mycroft_
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2230

posted 26 February 2003 12:32 AM      Profile for Mycroft_     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Troy McLure on an alternative "Who Shot Mr. Burns" ending with Smithers as the culprit:

"Of course, for that ending to fly you'd have to discount all the Simpson DNA evidence and that would just be wacky" pause, nervous laugh


From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 26 February 2003 12:36 AM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
He probably did it.

But the crux of the trial was the testimony of a LA police officer who said he was no racist, and then was presented with a tape of a discussion he had in which he admitted PLANTING EVIDENCE against "niggers" he disliked. He used the word "nigger" forty times in that tape.

And he was the lead investigator.

If a police department is so unconcerned about the black community that they let this go on, then should they be surprised when exposure costs them a trial?


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
prowsej
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 798

posted 26 February 2003 01:31 AM      Profile for prowsej   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I think that he did it.

"Don't squeeze the OJ"


From: Ottawa ON | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
verbatim
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 569

posted 26 February 2003 01:47 AM      Profile for verbatim   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I was disgusted with the verdict, no matter what the LAPD permitted or permits. It was a complete hijacking of the trial by very skilled defense counsel, and a politically timid and oversubscribed judge. It also exposed the absolute fiction of political unity and equality in America, but that doesn't seem to have taught them anything.
From: The People's Republic of Cook Street | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
TommyPaineatWork
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2956

posted 26 February 2003 01:47 AM      Profile for TommyPaineatWork     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Yes, remembering back I have the same suspicion as Scott, that OJ did it, but the LAPD salted the mound of evidence.

I think the two detectives (Furman?) were "fixers" and when they got "asked" to help out, that was direction to them to take the glove and the sock and put them in the "right place".

What I found interesting was the contrast between the OJ trial and the Bernardo/Homolka trial here in Canada.

In the OJ trial, far from a publication ban, the trial was played out in the media as much as anywhere else.

A publication ban was enforced in the Bernardo/Homolka trial. Notwithstanding the Homolka controversy, I think the results show that publication bans are the thing to do in high profile cases.

I also believe that OJ still might have been convicted if it wasn't for the Cops being aquited in the Rodney King beating.

A lot of blame went to the assistant prosecutor in the case, who broke the cardinal rule about never asking a witness a question you don't already know the answer to, ("try on the glove...D'oh!) but it seems to me that it was the LAPD who really screwed up, having such low credibility with the average LA citizen that it made it easy for them to put more credence in police malfeasance than the DNA evidence.


From: London | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 26 February 2003 08:15 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Okay, that "try on the glove" thing pissed me off. First of all, I do an excellent imitation of OJ "trying" to get it on his hand. Wanna see it? Oh wait, you can't see me. Oh well.

Secondly, if the thing was soaked in BLOOD, then could have shrunk. Or maybe it was one of those gloves that fit like a second skin, and he wasn't trying hard enough to get it on.

I was so ticked at that part.

However, I had to agree with Jeff House at the time - a police force as corrupt as the LAPD maybe deserves to lose a couple of high-profile cases if that's what it takes to address the problems they're having.

But also, how stupid of that one detective (was it Fuhrman) to answer that he had never said the "n-word" (hey, isn't it the OJ trial where the phrase "n-word" started becoming popular?) - he should have told the truth about having said it in the past, and let the crown (whoops, hee, I mean the prosecutor, remember which country you're in, Michelle!) make the case that just because he's used that word in the past does not mean that he necessarily planted evidence in this particular case.

I felt kind of sorry for Marcia - darn what was her last name, Clark? One of the prosecutors anyhow, I think she was the main one. I saw interviews with her, and I can't imagine the pressure she must have been under, being on television every single day of the trial, having to not only prepare for the trial (which I would think would be hard enough against a team like the one OJ had) but also make sure she was presentable enough for television - wardrobe, make-up, hair, etc. Wasn't her entire personal life splayed on the pages of all the national tabloids too since she was a celebrity? Imagine being under that kind of pressure. I think I'd be tempted to run off to Iceland.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
sheep
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2119

posted 26 February 2003 09:49 AM      Profile for sheep     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
But the crux of the trial was the testimony of a LA police officer who said he was no racist, and then was presented with a tape of a discussion he had in which he admitted PLANTING EVIDENCE against "niggers" he disliked. He used the word "nigger" forty times in that tape

Wasn't this tape supposedly him reading a script or something like that? Whatever it was, it was not a candid conversation caught on tape. If he had admitted planting evidence then why was he not charged and why, at the very least, weren't his arrests looked into?

It seems these days though, it's Fuhrman who is coming out looking like a rose.

Oh, and OJ didn't do it. And Saddam has no weapons of mass destruction. And the US invaded Afghanistan to build a pipeline.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Man With No Name
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3771

posted 26 February 2003 10:00 AM      Profile for Man With No Name     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Guilty!
From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Tommy Shanks
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3076

posted 26 February 2003 10:20 AM      Profile for Tommy Shanks     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
OJ didn't do it.

Nicole and Rob fell repeatedly fell on the knife he was holding, thats all.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
mighty brutus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3148

posted 26 February 2003 10:39 AM      Profile for mighty brutus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
OJ is as guilty as sin. The trial was a circus. The lead prosecutor was more interested in her love affair with her colleague than conducting the case. It became a case about Fuhrman who was a good cop that was crucified by the media. I love how OJ "couldn't remember" how he got the cut on his thumb-.
The investigators blew it bad though--it says a lot when you can't frame a guilty man!
As much as people condemn the National Enquirer, they were way ahead of the rest of the media reporting this case....remember the Bruno Magli shoes tha OJ didn't own??

From: Beautiful Burnaby, British Columbia | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
rob.leblanc
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2475

posted 26 February 2003 01:41 PM      Profile for rob.leblanc     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
GUILTY!

This thread just reminded me of when OJ vowed to find the killer and the first place he looked was a golf course. Ahh.....memories.......


From: Where am I? Where are YOU? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Wankity
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3723

posted 26 February 2003 01:57 PM      Profile for Wankity        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Dennis Miller, on the Tonight Show, shortly after O.J was acquitted.

"I'm glad he has vowed to find the real killer, apparently he thinks a caddie did it."


From: Saskabush | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
dale cooper
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2946

posted 26 February 2003 02:22 PM      Profile for dale cooper     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
How can he be guilty? He gave us so many things - Naked Gun, cowboy boots on the back of comic books, vitamin C.
From: Another place | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 26 February 2003 03:11 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
It became a case about Fuhrman who was a good cop that was crucified by the media.

Furman was the cop who admitted, while discussing
his policing practices with a researcher, that he would plant evidence to inculpate "niggers" he didn't like.

He also committed perjury.

The attitude that he was a "good cop" is about as morally blind as you can get.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
sheep
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2119

posted 26 February 2003 03:38 PM      Profile for sheep     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Furman was the cop who admitted, while discussing
his policing practices with a researcher, that he would plant evidence to inculpate "niggers" he didn't like.


Can you back that up Jeff? I do not ever recall any admission by Furman that he would plant evidence being admitted into court. He perjured himself on the stand by saying he'd never used the word, and this was proven by the surfacing of his taped interview with a script researcher. But nothing about planting evidence. You would think the prosecution would have a field day with that.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 26 February 2003 03:48 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Can you back that up Jeff? I do not ever recall any admission by Furman that he would plant evidence being admitted into court.


Yes, I can back it up. There is a book by a Harvard Law Prof. named Randall Kennedy. It is called "Race, Crime, and the Law". It was published in 2000, I believe. Kennedy discusses the fact that the tape included this particular admission by Furmann. The section of the book on the OJ trial contains this information.

The judge, Lance Ito, refused to let the jury hear that particular part of the tape. (I am fairly sure he was legally wrong in that ruling.) But the idea that Furman was an honest cop cannot be seriously maintained, given the existence of the tape, and those admissions.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
mighty brutus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3148

posted 26 February 2003 04:22 PM      Profile for mighty brutus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
So, you don't like Fuhrman because he talked some trash and that justifies freeing a guilty man? See what I mean when I said the trial became all about Fuhrman? I'm sure the relatives of the girl that the Kennedy cousin (Skakel) killed have a different opinion of him. He would still be walking free if not for Fuhrman's book ("Murder in Greenwich").
From: Beautiful Burnaby, British Columbia | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 26 February 2003 04:29 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
So, you don't like Fuhrman because he talked some trash and that justifies freeing a guilty man? See what I mean when I said the trial became all about Fuhrman?

Of course it doesn't justify freeing a guilty man. But the jurors -- most of them black, some of them with experience at the sharp end of the LAPD -- were working out years of accumulated rage at said LAPD. Goaded along, of course, by the tactics of a sharp defence lawyer, and the really lousy tactics of the prosecution. There's no more significance to the verdict than that, though one would have thought that enough. It was almost a textbook case of jury nullification, was all.


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
mighty brutus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3148

posted 26 February 2003 04:49 PM      Profile for mighty brutus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
"If it doesn't fit, you must acquit!" Yeah, putting a key piece of evidence (the glove) in possession of the defendant was an unmitigated disaster. Interestingly, this is not the first time that this tactic was tried as a defence. Back in the '20s, during the Sacco-Vanzetti trial there was a hat found at the scene. The hat didn't fit either of the defendants, but Sacco and Vanzetti fried anyway.

This is great--the only thing I love more than the OJ case is the JFK assassination--somebody start a thread quick!!


From: Beautiful Burnaby, British Columbia | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
paxamillion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2836

posted 26 February 2003 04:56 PM      Profile for paxamillion   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
OJ lost on the wrongful death suit, though, right?

[ 26 February 2003: Message edited by: paxamillion ]


From: the process of recovery | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 26 February 2003 05:26 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Yup, I believe so. And I saw interviews with the jurors afterwards where they claimed that they couldn't believe the criminal jury found any reasonable doubt.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
mighty brutus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3148

posted 26 February 2003 05:27 PM      Profile for mighty brutus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Yes, he lost the wrongful death suit, but he doesn't have to pay a penny--apparently his only income is his NFL pension, which they can't go after...
From: Beautiful Burnaby, British Columbia | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 26 February 2003 06:20 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I think this was the reason he moved to Florida. Under Florida law, your house can't be seized to settle a civil suit.
From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
clersal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 370

posted 26 February 2003 09:06 PM      Profile for clersal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I wonder if we are not making a big to-
do because OJ is black?
I bet that there are a hell of lot of white people who get away with murder all the time.
Or maybe because he is good looking?
Or maybe because he was in movies and did some kind of sport?
Because he was a devoted father?
I am sure there are as many excuse for why he did it,. I think the main one, 'If I can't have her nobody else will either'.
Same reasons as anyone who gets away with murder.
I believe the black community cheered when he was found not guilty as finally one of theirs beat the law.

From: Canton Marchand, Québec | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
abnormal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1245

posted 26 February 2003 09:27 PM      Profile for abnormal   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The most interesting interview I saw on this topic was the day after OJ was found not guilty. Young black guy from some backwoods Mississippi town "Maybe he did it, in fact he probably did, but tell you something, if I had been on that jury and he'd been found guilty, I couldn't have gone home again, not to my town!"
From: far, far away | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca