The People v OJ Simpson - FX (3 Viewers)

[Willie Neslon]

Great start. Schwimmer surprised me

He was excellent in this.

Because he isn't a caricature. Travolta and guy playing Kato are. Paulson great as well. Cuba great in spite of the physical disparity.

 

[Higgs]

Anyone think O.J. didn't do the double homicide?

Iirc there's a rather interesting argument his son did.

Yes, it went something like this:

OJ's son : "Dad can I borrow the Bronco?"

OJ : "Go axe your mother."

I'll be here all week.

 

[Smack Tripper]

I hope we get some friends and pulp fiction asides.

 

[Grace Under Pressure]

Vincent Vega and Ross, lol.

 

[packersfan]

Didn't everyone assume Nicole and Goldman were hooking up in some capacity?

It sure seemed pretty obvious. He's driving her (O.J.'s) car around. He comes to her place late at night while she's got candles lit all over the house. Sure seemed like it was a late-night hookup.

Wouldn't she have invited him into the condo if they were going to hook up? Did she get her mom in on it and have her (mom) leave the glasses in the restaurant on purpose so he would come over for a booty call? I don't buy it.

She could've honestly forgot her glasses at the restaurant. So many signs sure seem to point to them being intimate and again it serves as an excellent motive for why O.J. went apes**t that night. Otherwise we don't have any idea why he snapped that night? Why then? If he was stalking her that's one thing, but what happened that day to trigger his rage? The prosecution never offered up anything indisputable as a motive. I'm just speculating that if he found out Ron and Nicole were sleeping together or was led to believe they were in some way you now have one helluva good motive.

 

[Tom Servo]

Here is one guy that needs to #### already. Your constant kvetching about it isn't bringing your son back. If this still haunts him, he needs to get help.

You know what? This post was wrong...all kinds of wrong. My attempt to say something didn't come from my head to my hands as I wanted it. This wasn't right to say. I am wrong and I apologize to all of you for posting this.

 

[Higgs]

Here is one guy that needs to #### already. Your constant kvetching about it isn't bringing your son back. If this still haunts him, he needs to get help.

You know what? This post was wrong...all kinds of wrong. My attempt to say something didn't come from my head to my hands as I wanted it. This wasn't right to say. I am wrong and I apologize to all of you for posting this.

Thanks for that retraction. Wish more people would just admit when they make a mistake. It happens.

 

[packersfan]

Great start. Schwimmer surprised me

He was excellent in this.

Because he isn't a caricature. Travolta and guy playing Kato are. Paulson great as well. Cuba great in spite of the physical disparity.

One review I read before the episode raved about how good Travolta was. I thought he was a weak link myself. I couldn't get past whatever was going on with his face and his odd vocal choice which sounds nothing like Shapiro. Agree that Ross did a great job and I liked Cuba too other than the physical part.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

I literally had not seen Schwimmer in years. At least he didn't turn into a bloated druggie like Chandler.

 

[jamny]

Phew. Pg 2 was not readable.

Yeah, Wtf was that?

 

[Willie Neslon]

Didn't everyone assume Nicole and Goldman were hooking up in some capacity?

It sure seemed pretty obvious. He's driving her (O.J.'s) car around. He comes to her place late at night while she's got candles lit all over the house. Sure seemed like it was a late-night hookup.

Wouldn't she have invited him into the condo if they were going to hook up? Did she get her mom in on it and have her (mom) leave the glasses in the restaurant on purpose so he would come over for a booty call? I don't buy it.

She could've honestly forgot her glasses at the restaurant. So many signs sure seem to point to them being intimate and again it serves as an excellent motive for why O.J. went apes**t that night. Otherwise we don't have any idea why he snapped that night? Why then? If he was stalking her that's one thing, but what happened that day to trigger his rage? The prosecution never offered up anything indisputable as a motive. I'm just speculating that if he found out Ron and Nicole were sleeping together or was led to believe they were in some way you now have one helluva good motive.

She would have just buzzed him in the gate, had him come to the door and let him in if he came over for sex. Instead she had him wait at the gate and walked down to get the glasses there. The mom left the glasses in the restaurant by mistake and he went to her condo to drop them off. She had been dating again after their failed reconciliation. That was what set OJ off. He showed up, saw her talking to a young guy at the gate and lost it. Goldman could have been anyone. Mom doesn't forget her glasses that night and he's still alive today.

 

[Higgs]

I see OJ. He lookie scared.

 

[Daywalker]

I see OJ. He lookie scared.

This is quite tenses.

 

[Smack Tripper]

I see OJ. He lookie scared.

This is quite tenses.

I be in the back of a news van

 

[Joe T]

Travolta was pretty awful. Kati was worse. Almost bad enough to be laughable.

Overall it was pretty average. Felt more like a Saturday afternoon movie of the week.

 

[packersfan]

Didn't everyone assume Nicole and Goldman were hooking up in some capacity?

It sure seemed pretty obvious. He's driving her (O.J.'s) car around. He comes to her place late at night while she's got candles lit all over the house. Sure seemed like it was a late-night hookup.

Wouldn't she have invited him into the condo if they were going to hook up? Did she get her mom in on it and have her (mom) leave the glasses in the restaurant on purpose so he would come over for a booty call? I don't buy it.

She could've honestly forgot her glasses at the restaurant. So many signs sure seem to point to them being intimate and again it serves as an excellent motive for why O.J. went apes**t that night. Otherwise we don't have any idea why he snapped that night? Why then? If he was stalking her that's one thing, but what happened that day to trigger his rage? The prosecution never offered up anything indisputable as a motive. I'm just speculating that if he found out Ron and Nicole were sleeping together or was led to believe they were in some way you now have one helluva good motive.

She would have just buzzed him in the gate, had him come to the door and let him in if he came over for sex. Instead she had him wait at the gate and walked down to get the glasses there. The mom left the glasses in the restaurant by mistake and he went to her condo to drop them off. She had been dating again after their failed reconciliation. That was what set OJ off. He showed up, saw her talking to a young guy at the gate and lost it. Goldman could have been anyone. Mom doesn't forget her glasses that night and he's still alive today.

Didn't Goldman arrive after Nicole was being attacked? I thought that was the timeline but it's been awhile so I could be wrong.

If they weren't intimate and O.J. wasn't suspicious/jealous of that (especially if they go to the restaurant after the recital and there's the guy Nicole's banging or O.J. thinks she's banging) then I think you go back to a huge issue of motive. They'd been divorced for awhile so there had to be something which set him off that particular day. The prosecution was never able to prove what that was. To me, that was a huge flaw in their case and it's one reason why I would not have pushed the domestic abuse front and center like Clark did. I would've just focused on the blood evidence. That alone should've been enough to get a conviction if everyone involved on the prosecution side was competent.

 

[Willie Neslon]

Didn't everyone assume Nicole and Goldman were hooking up in some capacity?

It sure seemed pretty obvious. He's driving her (O.J.'s) car around. He comes to her place late at night while she's got candles lit all over the house. Sure seemed like it was a late-night hookup.

Wouldn't she have invited him into the condo if they were going to hook up? Did she get her mom in on it and have her (mom) leave the glasses in the restaurant on purpose so he would come over for a booty call? I don't buy it.

She could've honestly forgot her glasses at the restaurant. So many signs sure seem to point to them being intimate and again it serves as an excellent motive for why O.J. went apes**t that night. Otherwise we don't have any idea why he snapped that night? Why then? If he was stalking her that's one thing, but what happened that day to trigger his rage? The prosecution never offered up anything indisputable as a motive. I'm just speculating that if he found out Ron and Nicole were sleeping together or was led to believe they were in some way you now have one helluva good motive.

She would have just buzzed him in the gate, had him come to the door and let him in if he came over for sex. Instead she had him wait at the gate and walked down to get the glasses there. The mom left the glasses in the restaurant by mistake and he went to her condo to drop them off. She had been dating again after their failed reconciliation. That was what set OJ off. He showed up, saw her talking to a young guy at the gate and lost it. Goldman could have been anyone. Mom doesn't forget her glasses that night and he's still alive today.

Didn't Goldman arrive after Nicole was being attacked? I thought that was the timeline but it's been awhile so I could be wrong.

If they weren't intimate and O.J. wasn't suspicious/jealous of that (especially if they go to the restaurant after the recital and there's the guy Nicole's banging or O.J. thinks she's banging) then I think you go back to a huge issue of motive. They'd been divorced for awhile so there had to be something which set him off that particular day. The prosecution was never able to prove what that was. To me, that was a huge flaw in their case and it's one reason why I would not have pushed the domestic abuse front and center like Clark did. I would've just focused on the blood evidence. That alone should've been enough to get a conviction if everyone involved on the prosecution side was competent.

She told him the reconciliation was over. She was done. That's what set him off. Guy was brooding during the recital. Later he heads over with a knife and sees her talking to some guy at the gate and loses it.

 

[packersfan]

Possibly. Still not sure I buy it. You have people saying he was brooding at the recital. You have a video tape of him afterwards laughing, smiling and hugging family members (including the Browns). Again, there was no indisputable proof about his state of mind that day, so motive was really tough. That's why I would've brought the blood evidence out Day 1, established the trail that went from Nicole's house to O.J.'s and dropped the mic. That should've done it but I think Clark made a huge mistake focusing so much on the domestic violence. All that did was show that O.J. was a bad guy who would beat his wife. It didn't show that he would take the next step and kill her. At least it didn't for me.

 

[Willie Neslon]

Possibly. Still not sure I buy it. You have people saying he was brooding at the recital. You have a video tape of him afterwards laughing, smiling and hugging family members (including the Browns). Again, there was no indisputable proof about his state of mind that day, so motive was really tough. That's why I would've brought the blood evidence out Day 1, established the trail that went from Nicole's house to O.J.'s and dropped the mic. That should've done it but I think Clark made a huge mistake focusing so much on the domestic violence. All that did was show that O.J. was a bad guy who would beat his wife. It didn't show that he would take the next step and kill her. At least it didn't for me.

No doubt she botched the case. Not to mention she was shwarmy and fake with the jury the entire time. I don't get your lack of motive argument though.

 

[packersfan]

Possibly. Still not sure I buy it. You have people saying he was brooding at the recital. You have a video tape of him afterwards laughing, smiling and hugging family members (including the Browns). Again, there was no indisputable proof about his state of mind that day, so motive was really tough. That's why I would've brought the blood evidence out Day 1, established the trail that went from Nicole's house to O.J.'s and dropped the mic. That should've done it but I think Clark made a huge mistake focusing so much on the domestic violence. All that did was show that O.J. was a bad guy who would beat his wife. It didn't show that he would take the next step and kill her. At least it didn't for me.

No doubt she botched the case. Not to mention she was shwarmy and fake with the jury the entire time. I don't get your lack of motive argument though.

I just wonder why he snapped that day? She told him it was over? They'd been divorced for a long time already so I'm not buying that was it. I think there had to be something more and I do think Nicole and Ron were sleeping together. If O.J. found out or suspected now you have your motive. It's one thing to tell him it's over; it's another to tell him it's over and have a good-looking young guy already lined up to replace you.

Again, I have no idea if they were sleeping together or not. I'm just guessing. But given all the signs that were there we know about it's hard for me to believe they weren't. Obviously that's not a reason for her to be killed but it would give O.J. a motive for him snapping.

 

[Willie Neslon]

Possibly. Still not sure I buy it. You have people saying he was brooding at the recital. You have a video tape of him afterwards laughing, smiling and hugging family members (including the Browns). Again, there was no indisputable proof about his state of mind that day, so motive was really tough. That's why I would've brought the blood evidence out Day 1, established the trail that went from Nicole's house to O.J.'s and dropped the mic. That should've done it but I think Clark made a huge mistake focusing so much on the domestic violence. All that did was show that O.J. was a bad guy who would beat his wife. It didn't show that he would take the next step and kill her. At least it didn't for me.

No doubt she botched the case. Not to mention she was shwarmy and fake with the jury the entire time. I don't get your lack of motive argument though.

I just wonder why he snapped that day? She told him it was over? They'd been divorced for a long time already so I'm not buying that was it. I think there had to be something more and I do think Nicole and Ron were sleeping together. If O.J. found out or suspected now you have your motive. It's one thing to tell him it's over; it's another to tell him it's over and have a good-looking young guy already lined up to replace you.

Again, I have no idea if they were sleeping together or not. I'm just guessing. But given all the signs that were there we know about it's hard for me to believe they weren't. Obviously that's not a reason for her to be killed but it would give O.J. a motive for him snapping.

They had gotten back together or attempted to. Before the murder she told him she was 100% done with the reconciliation. She wasn't sleeping with Goldman.

 

[packersfan]

Possibly. Still not sure I buy it. You have people saying he was brooding at the recital. You have a video tape of him afterwards laughing, smiling and hugging family members (including the Browns). Again, there was no indisputable proof about his state of mind that day, so motive was really tough. That's why I would've brought the blood evidence out Day 1, established the trail that went from Nicole's house to O.J.'s and dropped the mic. That should've done it but I think Clark made a huge mistake focusing so much on the domestic violence. All that did was show that O.J. was a bad guy who would beat his wife. It didn't show that he would take the next step and kill her. At least it didn't for me.

No doubt she botched the case. Not to mention she was shwarmy and fake with the jury the entire time. I don't get your lack of motive argument though.

I just wonder why he snapped that day? She told him it was over? They'd been divorced for a long time already so I'm not buying that was it. I think there had to be something more and I do think Nicole and Ron were sleeping together. If O.J. found out or suspected now you have your motive. It's one thing to tell him it's over; it's another to tell him it's over and have a good-looking young guy already lined up to replace you.

Again, I have no idea if they were sleeping together or not. I'm just guessing. But given all the signs that were there we know about it's hard for me to believe they weren't. Obviously that's not a reason for her to be killed but it would give O.J. a motive for him snapping.

The had gotten back together or attempted to. Before the murder she told him she was 100% done with the reconciliation. She wasn't sleeping with Goldman.

OK. I still think there had to be more than just her saying it's over for him to snap the way he did. Something else had to have happened that day in my opinion. Maybe that's just me but I always got stuck on that and couldn't get past it. For me, motive was a tough sell so I would've just focused on the blood evidence. That should've been front and center.

 

[Willie Neslon]

Possibly. Still not sure I buy it. You have people saying he was brooding at the recital. You have a video tape of him afterwards laughing, smiling and hugging family members (including the Browns). Again, there was no indisputable proof about his state of mind that day, so motive was really tough. That's why I would've brought the blood evidence out Day 1, established the trail that went from Nicole's house to O.J.'s and dropped the mic. That should've done it but I think Clark made a huge mistake focusing so much on the domestic violence. All that did was show that O.J. was a bad guy who would beat his wife. It didn't show that he would take the next step and kill her. At least it didn't for me.

No doubt she botched the case. Not to mention she was shwarmy and fake with the jury the entire time. I don't get your lack of motive argument though.

I just wonder why he snapped that day? She told him it was over? They'd been divorced for a long time already so I'm not buying that was it. I think there had to be something more and I do think Nicole and Ron were sleeping together. If O.J. found out or suspected now you have your motive. It's one thing to tell him it's over; it's another to tell him it's over and have a good-looking young guy already lined up to replace you.

Again, I have no idea if they were sleeping together or not. I'm just guessing. But given all the signs that were there we know about it's hard for me to believe they weren't. Obviously that's not a reason for her to be killed but it would give O.J. a motive for him snapping.

The had gotten back together or attempted to. Before the murder she told him she was 100% done with the reconciliation. She wasn't sleeping with Goldman.

OK. I still think there had to be more than just her saying it's over for him to snap the way he did. Something else had to have happened that day in my opinion. Maybe that's just me but I always got stuck on that and couldn't get past it. For me, motive was a tough sell so I would've just focused on the blood evidence. That should've been front and center.

The guy was a jealous, possessive hothead who didn't want "his" woman with anyone else. What more needed to happen to establish motive other than her saying she was done? They did focus on the blood evidence. The jury didn't buy it.

 

[Capella]

Just watched with my wife. She asked what would happen if when he dies, it comes out that he has CTE.

thought that was interesting.

 

[packersfan]

Possibly. Still not sure I buy it. You have people saying he was brooding at the recital. You have a video tape of him afterwards laughing, smiling and hugging family members (including the Browns). Again, there was no indisputable proof about his state of mind that day, so motive was really tough. That's why I would've brought the blood evidence out Day 1, established the trail that went from Nicole's house to O.J.'s and dropped the mic. That should've done it but I think Clark made a huge mistake focusing so much on the domestic violence. All that did was show that O.J. was a bad guy who would beat his wife. It didn't show that he would take the next step and kill her. At least it didn't for me.

No doubt she botched the case. Not to mention she was shwarmy and fake with the jury the entire time. I don't get your lack of motive argument though.

I just wonder why he snapped that day? She told him it was over? They'd been divorced for a long time already so I'm not buying that was it. I think there had to be something more and I do think Nicole and Ron were sleeping together. If O.J. found out or suspected now you have your motive. It's one thing to tell him it's over; it's another to tell him it's over and have a good-looking young guy already lined up to replace you.

Again, I have no idea if they were sleeping together or not. I'm just guessing. But given all the signs that were there we know about it's hard for me to believe they weren't. Obviously that's not a reason for her to be killed but it would give O.J. a motive for him snapping.

The had gotten back together or attempted to. Before the murder she told him she was 100% done with the reconciliation. She wasn't sleeping with Goldman.

OK. I still think there had to be more than just her saying it's over for him to snap the way he did. Something else had to have happened that day in my opinion. Maybe that's just me but I always got stuck on that and couldn't get past it. For me, motive was a tough sell so I would've just focused on the blood evidence. That should've been front and center.

The guy was a jealous, possessive hothead who didn't want "his" woman with anyone else. What more needed to happen to establish motive other than her saying she was done? They did focus on the blood evidence. The jury didn't buy it.

It didn't help that Fung got blistered by the defense's DNA experts. In fact, that was a rather huge blow against the prosecution.

Back to O.J., he was a possessive hothead and clearly a piece of #### as a person. He beat her and stalked. However, there wasn't a single thing provided that indicated he would take the next step and kill her. There was testimony not given to the jury, however, which had Nicole's friends alleging that O.J. said he would kill Nicole if he ever found her with another man. So if O.J. did suspect she was with Ron there's your motive. The prosecution had this information and never presented it to the jury. Yet another example of Clark's blundering.

 

[Short Corner]

Anyone think O.J. didn't do the double homicide?

Iirc there's a rather interesting argument his son did.

The picture of jason after the verdict was read is haunting. He had loose ties to the Venice Beach Crips and was allegedly Nicole's crack dealer.

eta link to pic

 

[Short Corner]

What is astounding is 12 people all agreed not guilty.

****ing mind boggling.

The defense did a masterful job with jury selection. If you saw any of the interviews of the jurors back then, they had a combined IQ of around 60.

Pretty much. To top it off, they reasoned that any evidence they didn't understand shouldn't count. "The DNA is one in a trillion? How do they even know that? There ain't a trillion people in the whole world. Let's just ignore it."

The defense created a reason to believe that the blood was planted. The blood on the sock had anti-coagulants already present and the splatter pattern on one side matched the other. Once that evidence is tainted you can attack the rest of the blood trail.

 

[ClownCausedChaos2]

Mark Fuhrman is Dumb Sean from Rescue Me!

 

[packersfan]

Anyone think O.J. didn't do the double homicide?

Iirc there's a rather interesting argument his son did.

The picture of jason after the verdict was read is haunting. He had loose ties to the Venice Beach Crips and was allegedly Nicole's crack dealer.

eta link to pic

Even if you're convinced there's no way anyone other than O.J. killed her the documentary about his son being the killer makes for interesting viewing. It's like a JFK theory where there's just enough there that makes you wonder.

 

[Short Corner]

Anyone think O.J. didn't do the double homicide?

Iirc there's a rather interesting argument his son did.

The picture of jason after the verdict was read is haunting. He had loose ties to the Venice Beach Crips and was allegedly Nicole's crack dealer.

eta link to pic

Even if you're convinced there's no way anyone other than O.J. killed her the documentary about his son being the killer makes for interesting viewing. It's like a JFK theory where there's just enough there that makes you wonder.

It also creates a scenario where he is at the scene that night - son is off his meds goes ape #### calls dad in a panic. There is an interesting doc on this. I don't buy all of it but, like you said, it opens up possibilities that I hadn't previously considered. Clearly enough reasonable doubt to acquit IMO.

 

[Higgs]

Anyone think O.J. didn't do the double homicide?

Iirc there's a rather interesting argument his son did.

The picture of jason after the verdict was read is haunting. He had loose ties to the Venice Beach Crips and was allegedly Nicole's crack dealer.eta link to pic

I don't now, the white guy behind OJ's mom looks awfully suspicious.

 

[packersfan]

Anyone think O.J. didn't do the double homicide?

Iirc there's a rather interesting argument his son did.

The picture of jason after the verdict was read is haunting. He had loose ties to the Venice Beach Crips and was allegedly Nicole's crack dealer.

eta link to pic

Even if you're convinced there's no way anyone other than O.J. killed her the documentary about his son being the killer makes for interesting viewing. It's like a JFK theory where there's just enough there that makes you wonder.

It also creates a scenario where he is at the scene that night - son is off his meds goes ape #### calls dad in a panic. There is an interesting doc on this. I don't buy all of it but, like you said, it opens up possibilities that I hadn't previously considered. Clearly enough reasonable doubt to acquit IMO.

Yeah it did a good job of placing O.J. at the scene but providing a reason why he wasn't the killer. And it would explain why the defense had to come up with something else as an explanation since O.J. was protecting his son. I think the doc is only on YouTube. Maybe not but that's where I watched it. I'm into conspiracy things and who done its and stuff like that so I thought it was interesting viewing.

 

[Higgs]

And let me guess, OJ got the cuts on his hand trying to stop his son, right?

 

[Short Corner]

Anyone think O.J. didn't do the double homicide?

Iirc there's a rather interesting argument his son did.

The picture of jason after the verdict was read is haunting. He had loose ties to the Venice Beach Crips and was allegedly Nicole's crack dealer.eta link to pic

I don't now, the white guy behind OJ's mom looks awfully suspicious.

I'm listening....

 

[packersfan]

And let me guess, OJ got the cuts on his hand trying to stop his son, right?

I don't remember how that was explained. Again I think O.J. did it. I'm just saying this doc was interesting and had some points that at least made you think about what could've happened.

 

[Short Corner]

And let me guess, OJ got the cuts on his hand trying to stop his son, right?

Perhaps you're not familar with how reasonable doubt works.

 

[packersfan]

And let me guess, OJ got the cuts on his hand trying to stop his son, right?

Perhaps you're not familar with how reasonable doubt works.

That's the thing. I always thought there was a huge amount of reasonable doubt in this case due to the ineptitude of the prosecution, cops lying on the stand and Fung's incompetence. Like I said before I don't know how anything other than a Not Guilty verdict could've been reached given how the case was presented.

 

[Higgs]

Read Vincent Bugliosi's book. There's a chapter on incompetence that is one of the best things ever written. The basic premise is that if you look hard enough in any industry, job, or event, you are going to find normal people making all sorts of mistakes. You can find it in any criminal case, if you look hard enough. And guess what? When you hire 7 of the best attorneys in the country, with an army of people working full time tearing things apart, you are going to find a lot of ####. And, quite honestly, you may even find a few crooked folks.

But the totality of the evidence here is such that no reasonable, unbiased person could find OJ not guilty. I don't care what warped definition you have of reasonable doubt. The amount of coordination required to frame him was just not humanly possible. Take a moment and review the evidence again. http://pages.infinit.net/reparvit/nicole12.html

 

[packersfan]

Read Vincent Bugliosi's book. There's a chapter on incompetence that is one of the best things ever written. The basic premise is that if you look hard enough in any industry, job, or event, you are going to find normal people making all sorts of mistakes. You can find it in any criminal case, if you look hard enough. And guess what? When you hire 7 of the best attorneys in the country, with an army of people working full time tearing things apart, you are going to find a lot of ####. And, quite honestly, you may even find a few crooked folks.

But the totality of the evidence here is such that no reasonable, unbiased person could find OJ not guilty. I don't care what warped definition you have of reasonable doubt. The amount of coordination required to frame him was just not humanly possible. Take a moment and review the evidence again. http://pages.infinit.net/reparvit/nicole12.html

I've seen the evidence and I watched the case back in the day. For me, the only verdict that made sense was Not Guilty given how poorly the case was presented. I'm white, educated and have no great love for O.J. other than appreciating his football skills. But in my opinion this case was all about the prosecution's failure to present what should have been a slam-dunk case.

I agree the evidence was so strong and so powerful in O.J.'s direction. The problem is the prosecution spent far too much time on things other than the evidence and then when they did present it they had to deal with lying cops and a DNA man who got royally ##### slapped by the defense's experts on the stand. Hell, the prosecution put freaking O.J. right in front of the jury and had him try on a glove that didn't fit and gave him the opportunity to say to the jury it didn't fit. I'm no lawyer but how in God's name do you even allow that to happen? It happened because Darden was an overmatched incompetent who got schooled by Johnny Cochran I've watched enough Law and Order to know you don't give the person on trial the opportunity to speak to the jury unless he's under oath.

The list of mistakes made by the prosecution in this case goes on for days. That's why they lost in my opinion and that's why Not Guilty was the only verdict I would have given if I were on the jury.

 

[Higgs]

Read Vincent Bugliosi's book. There's a chapter on incompetence that is one of the best things ever written. The basic premise is that if you look hard enough in any industry, job, or event, you are going to find normal people making all sorts of mistakes. You can find it in any criminal case, if you look hard enough. And guess what? When you hire 7 of the best attorneys in the country, with an army of people working full time tearing things apart, you are going to find a lot of ####. And, quite honestly, you may even find a few crooked folks.

But the totality of the evidence here is such that no reasonable, unbiased person could find OJ not guilty. I don't care what warped definition you have of reasonable doubt. The amount of coordination required to frame him was just not humanly possible. Take a moment and review the evidence again. http://pages.infinit.net/reparvit/nicole12.html

I've seen the evidence and I watched the case back in the day. For me, the only verdict that made sense was Not Guilty given how poorly the case was presented. I'm white, educated and have no great love for O.J. other than appreciating his football skills. But in my opinion this case was all about the prosecution's failure to present what should have been a slam-dunk case.I agree the evidence was so strong and so powerful in O.J.'s direction. The problem is the prosecution spent far too much time on things other than the evidence and then when they did present it they had to deal with lying cops and a DNA man who got royally ##### slapped by the defense's experts on the stand. Hell, the prosecution put freaking O.J. right in front of the jury and had him try on a glove that didn't fit and gave him the opportunity to say to the jury it didn't fit. I'm no lawyer but how in God's name do you even allow that to happen? It happened because Darden was an overmatched incompetent who got schooled by Johnny Cochran I've watched enough Law and Order to know you don't give the person on trial the opportunity to speak to the jury unless he's under oath.

The list of mistakes made by the prosecution in this case goes on for days. That's why they lost in my opinion and that's why Not Guilty was the only verdict I would have given if I were on the jury.

You do realize that OJ was on trial and not the Prosecution, right?

 

[packersfan]

Read Vincent Bugliosi's book. There's a chapter on incompetence that is one of the best things ever written. The basic premise is that if you look hard enough in any industry, job, or event, you are going to find normal people making all sorts of mistakes. You can find it in any criminal case, if you look hard enough. And guess what? When you hire 7 of the best attorneys in the country, with an army of people working full time tearing things apart, you are going to find a lot of ####. And, quite honestly, you may even find a few crooked folks.

But the totality of the evidence here is such that no reasonable, unbiased person could find OJ not guilty. I don't care what warped definition you have of reasonable doubt. The amount of coordination required to frame him was just not humanly possible. Take a moment and review the evidence again. http://pages.infinit.net/reparvit/nicole12.html

I've seen the evidence and I watched the case back in the day. For me, the only verdict that made sense was Not Guilty given how poorly the case was presented. I'm white, educated and have no great love for O.J. other than appreciating his football skills. But in my opinion this case was all about the prosecution's failure to present what should have been a slam-dunk case.I agree the evidence was so strong and so powerful in O.J.'s direction. The problem is the prosecution spent far too much time on things other than the evidence and then when they did present it they had to deal with lying cops and a DNA man who got royally ##### slapped by the defense's experts on the stand. Hell, the prosecution put freaking O.J. right in front of the jury and had him try on a glove that didn't fit and gave him the opportunity to say to the jury it didn't fit. I'm no lawyer but how in God's name do you even allow that to happen? It happened because Darden was an overmatched incompetent who got schooled by Johnny Cochran I've watched enough Law and Order to know you don't give the person on trial the opportunity to speak to the jury unless he's under oath.

The list of mistakes made by the prosecution in this case goes on for days. That's why they lost in my opinion and that's why Not Guilty was the only verdict I would have given if I were on the jury.

You do realize that OJ was on trial and not the Prosecution, right?

Of course. Unfortunately the prosecution blundered its way through what appeared to be a slam-dunk case. So in the end they're the ones who should be under scrutiny most in my opinion. They were entrusted with the job of ensuring the lives of two people would have justice and they failed badly.

 

[Short Corner]

Read Vincent Bugliosi's book. There's a chapter on incompetence that is one of the best things ever written. The basic premise is that if you look hard enough in any industry, job, or event, you are going to find normal people making all sorts of mistakes. You can find it in any criminal case, if you look hard enough. And guess what? When you hire 7 of the best attorneys in the country, with an army of people working full time tearing things apart, you are going to find a lot of ####. And, quite honestly, you may even find a few crooked folks.

But the totality of the evidence here is such that no reasonable, unbiased person could find OJ not guilty. I don't care what warped definition you have of reasonable doubt. The amount of coordination required to frame him was just not humanly possible. Take a moment and review the evidence again. http://pages.infinit.net/reparvit/nicole12.html

Got to number 14 before I stopped. Speculative, speculative, speculative, hearsay, hearsay, hearsay If you want to discuss the case fine, but don't link to a text wall of crap.

 

[packersfan]

Read Vincent Bugliosi's book. There's a chapter on incompetence that is one of the best things ever written. The basic premise is that if you look hard enough in any industry, job, or event, you are going to find normal people making all sorts of mistakes. You can find it in any criminal case, if you look hard enough. And guess what? When you hire 7 of the best attorneys in the country, with an army of people working full time tearing things apart, you are going to find a lot of ####. And, quite honestly, you may even find a few crooked folks.

But the totality of the evidence here is such that no reasonable, unbiased person could find OJ not guilty. I don't care what warped definition you have of reasonable doubt. The amount of coordination required to frame him was just not humanly possible. Take a moment and review the evidence again. http://pages.infinit.net/reparvit/nicole12.html

Got to number 14 before I stopped. Speculative, speculative, speculative, hearsay, hearsay, hearsay If you want to discuss the case fine, but don't link to a text wall of crap.

I'm not sure how the argument that people make mistakes all the time and people are going to lie is supposed to make a jury feel as if the prosecution is equipped to do its job and how it should remove the potential for reasonable doubt.

People make mistakes for sure but if your job is to convict someone of a double murder you sure as hell better not make a lot of them. Unfortunately Clark and Darden went All In with their joint incompetence.

 

[Todem]

Read Vincent Bugliosi's book. There's a chapter on incompetence that is one of the best things ever written. The basic premise is that if you look hard enough in any industry, job, or event, you are going to find normal people making all sorts of mistakes. You can find it in any criminal case, if you look hard enough. And guess what? When you hire 7 of the best attorneys in the country, with an army of people working full time tearing things apart, you are going to find a lot of ####. And, quite honestly, you may even find a few crooked folks.

But the totality of the evidence here is such that no reasonable, unbiased person could find OJ not guilty. I don't care what warped definition you have of reasonable doubt. The amount of coordination required to frame him was just not humanly possible. Take a moment and review the evidence again. http://pages.infinit.net/reparvit/nicole12.html

Got to number 14 before I stopped. Speculative, speculative, speculative, hearsay, hearsay, hearsay If you want to discuss the case fine, but don't link to a text wall of crap.

Well there is 101 things listed.

A ton of DNA evidence.

Insane amount of scientific proof.

But you stopped reading.

You think he did not do it? LMFAO. Oh lord.

 

[Short Corner]

Read Vincent Bugliosi's book. There's a chapter on incompetence that is one of the best things ever written. The basic premise is that if you look hard enough in any industry, job, or event, you are going to find normal people making all sorts of mistakes. You can find it in any criminal case, if you look hard enough. And guess what? When you hire 7 of the best attorneys in the country, with an army of people working full time tearing things apart, you are going to find a lot of ####. And, quite honestly, you may even find a few crooked folks.

But the totality of the evidence here is such that no reasonable, unbiased person could find OJ not guilty. I don't care what warped definition you have of reasonable doubt. The amount of coordination required to frame him was just not humanly possible. Take a moment and review the evidence again. http://pages.infinit.net/reparvit/nicole12.html

Got to number 14 before I stopped. Speculative, speculative, speculative, hearsay, hearsay, hearsay If you want to discuss the case fine, but don't link to a text wall of crap.

Well there is 101 things listed.

A ton of DNA evidence.

Insane amount of scientific proof.

But you stopped reading.

You think he did not do it? LMFAO. Oh lord.

I never said I didn't think he did it.

And why would I keep reading if the first 14 were crap? I'm not going to link a 90 minute video and ask you to refute everything in it.

A lot of what you call scientific proof was tainted by the LAPD. Link to something specific. Nicole's dog not protecting her is not evidence incriminating OJ and neither is anyything I got thru on the list.

 

[Short Corner]

Evidence:

Black cap (beanie) found at the scene had hairs from an African-American that were not OJ's

Skin underneath Nicole's nails and blood on her back did not match Brown's, Goldman's, or OJ's DNA.

Splatter pattern of blood on OJ's sock matched on both sides indicating it got there while he wasn't wearing it. It also contained an anti-coagulant indicating it came from a sample.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I used to think OJ did it. But after watching this first episode there is no way all those candles had been burning long enough for that timeline to be plausible.

 

[Smack Tripper]

I used to think OJ did it. But after watching this first episode there is no way all those candles had been burning long enough for that timeline to be plausible.

I remember there being something about melted ice cream that helped determine a timeline

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I don't get your lack of motive argument though.

I just wonder why he snapped that day?

I wonder why he used a knife instead of a gun.

Those things really have nothing to do with whether I believe him to be guilty or innocent, however.

 

[Mors Venit]

Has anyone in this thread heard of "spoiler alerts"?

Geez