A joke. They f'd things up so bad.
Nothing earth-breaking. Netflix documentary shows how bad Prosecution was in OJ case
- Thread starter Jimmy McGill
- Start date
Not really the Jury literally said we don't care we are voting him innocent to prove a point for the injustices in LA at the time.
Watch the documentary. There was a ton of evidence that was not introduced.
I know and there's stuff I know I haven't seen but watched a documentary on the jury who literally said what I posted.
I don’t want to be a spoiler, but it turns out, he was GUILTY!
It's a little bit dryer than the other seasons, but it really has some interesting and unique perspectives from some of the judges. Some good, some not so good. It talks about how people get caught in the cyclical nature of the parole system. It also covers police abuse and the effects the juvenile system can have on youth offenders.
Each season is really good, actually. First season is about a case between the murder of a high school student, another student is tried, and way after the fact someone says they have evidence it wasn't him. 2nd season is about someone who had a mental breakdown and went awol from their post in the desert and was captured by the Taliban and was held prisoner for 5 years. Season 4 is an in depth piece from the inside of Guantanamo.
Just one piece of evidence not introduced. OJ's legal team walked circles around LA D.A.
$8,000 cash, passport, disguise outfits caught with him.....none introduced.
Wouldn't have mattered one iota. It was a verdict based on race and perceived previous racial injustice.
So you’re saying every single juror would have voted to acquit no matter the evidence? Then the prosecution ROYALLY ****ed up in jury selection.
True.
I think the OJ trial result overall was about wealth.
OJ could afford the "dream team" and that team was good enough to get him off. The prosecution probably gets through their mistakes if the defendant had a public defender or maybe just 1 private lawyer.
I know folks talk about the "race" factor and composition of the jury but it was also about a rich dude being able to buy the best defense money can buy.
I don't know if it would have or not, but since the prosecution was incompetent then questions about the jury just don't matter.
Not worth arguing - the idea that 12 jurors would be seated, all with the mindset from the very outset that they were going to vote not guilty no matter the evidence is patently absurd. As the thread title alludes, everyone at the time of the trial could see the prosecution f'ing up the case even without knowing they had evidence they didn't present.
Him being able to buy the best defense money can buy is a part of it us. But the prosecution knew that ahead of time, they knew they were not facing off against some public defender 3 months out of law school. So they should have known ahead of time to bring their A game.
There could have been a conviction had they not made those mistakes. Other people loaded with money with the best lawyers money can buy have been convicted.
This is like the Atlanta Falcons blowing that big lead they had against the Pats at halftime. They could have won, they SHOULD have won, but they f***** it up.
i still believe that OJ's son Jason was involved in the murders, there is a documentary that goes into the theory with some pretty shocking info,
It had to be a perfect storm for him to be found not guilty. It's amazing that it actually happened.
- Not introducing crucial evidence
- Not calling witnesses to the stand
- Proof of cross contamination of said evidence
- Mark Fuhrman
- Terrible job by the prosecution
- Highly charged emotions shortly after the Rodney King trial
My Dad is a retired, once prominent, criminal defense attorney. He was apoplectic about how the prosecution handled the case while that trial went down. He'd literally meet his fellow lawyers at the bar (me in tow) and they would often be beside themselves asking how such high profile prosecutors would make such elementary mistakes.
My one wish from the OJ documentary that espn did - is that a different one from what OP is referring to?, is that I’d have loved an interview with Ito - whether he had any rulings he’d like to have back, what was going through his head at various parts of the trial, etc.
From what I’ve seen, police made many mistakes in the initial investigation, as well as the mistakes made by the prosecution. When all was said and done, I think they could have been perfect and OJ still would have even acquitted. Several of the black members of the jury said in that documentary that this was for King.
Seems to me, The Dream Team successfully made the trial about the corruption of the LA PD and their inefficiencies in the investigation. They were able to deflect the fact that OJ killed a couple of folks in cold blood. BTW, the LA PD did themselves no favors and the prosecutors were a fruggin’ joke.
Agreed, the prosecutors failed to effectively rebut the arguments.
Also thought it was ridiculous that OJ effectively fundraised from prison to pay for his lawyers.
Why is that ridiculous?
What if someone was incorrectly charged?
You can't preclude someone's ability to mount a defense in court because you already think they're guilty.
At least the way that it was portrayed…they were just parading things in for him to sign and then they’d sell it off to get the needed money. Just seemed sketchy somehow.
Prosecutors filed and tried case in downtown LA instead of Santa Monica district where crimes occurred and parties lived. Good luck finding a jury there that doesn't hate LA cops. They lost case before it started.
OJ got his brains beat out in the subsequent civil trial in Santa Monica.
OJ got his brains beat out in the subsequent civil trial in Santa Monica.
I forget why, but I think there were reasons why they had to do so.
Fewer rules in civil trials.
The facts of the case are hilarious, given the verdict. The blood of both Ron and Nicole was found in the Bronco and in Simpson’s residence. And it wasn’t Mark Furhman who found it or collected it. Simpson’s blood was found on the gate at the crime scene as well as nearby. The Bruno Magli shoe prints were matched to shoes that Simpson had been photographed wearing, despite his claim that he’d never owned them. The notorious gloves that “didn’t fit” were the same brand that Simpson had worn for years. Etc, etc etc.
Last edited:
There were reasons given such as size of the courtroom. Most observers, including the LA Times, called BS.
The plaintiffs' attorney got to put OJ on the stand in the civil case. That was an advantage. But I believe if OJ took the stand in the criminal case the LA jurors would have asked for autographs. They would have gobbled up his lies.
Not sure where, but I remember reading that the Mark Fuhrman angle is what won the case for OJ. Meaning, OJ’s defense team was able to generate sympathy for OJ by painting Fuhrman as a racist cop for allegedly saying the N word years prior. This in turn planted the seed (perception) that the entire LAPD was corrupt and racist, and that Fuhrman planted evidence to take down OJ, a black man.
With the Rodney King incident fresh in everyone’s mind at the time, and the fact the jury included 8 black jurors, this was a brilliant approach by the defense team.
With the Rodney King incident fresh in everyone’s mind at the time, and the fact the jury included 8 black jurors, this was a brilliant approach by the defense team.
Yep. There was an older black woman on the jury who admitted it on camera. They were NOT going to find him guilty.
Latest posts
-
Who Could Be Iowa MBB's Next Commit? + Two Priority Visitors Scheduled- Latest: chesapeake bay dog
-
-
-
-