OJ Simpson

Donate To GopherHole
STPGopher said:
Really? Wow! That was a gift on a golden plater. I'll leave it at that.

Back to discussing running backs. O. J. was one of best with arguably the best season. 2000 plus yards in 14 games.
Click to expand...
Of course, it was the only prayer they had to pour gasoline on the race card and hope the jury was full of idiots. It worked. That doesn't make the jury any less stupid.

We all know the entire story about OJ Simpson. All of us that laugh at the idea that it could possibly be someone else understand that history of Fuhrman. I do not really need to repeat the endless amount of evidence against OJ Simpson that would have been impossible to plant. It's why if someone says he was "looking for the real killers", it's obviously a joke. He was the killer and literally everyone knows that's the case.

Like the jury, we all know about Fuhrman and it's still one of the most obvious cases you could imagine. The people that found him not guilty are unimaginably stupid (at best).
 



Bob_Loblaw said:
Of course, it was the only prayer they had to pour gasoline on the race card and hope the jury was full of idiots. It worked. That doesn't make the jury any less stupid.

We all know the entire story about OJ Simpson. All of us that laugh at the idea that it could possibly be someone else understand that history of Fuhrman. I do not really need to repeat the endless amount of evidence against OJ Simpson that would have been impossible to plant. It's why if someone says he was "looking for the real killers", it's obviously a joke. He was the killer and literally everyone knows that's the case.

Like the jury, we all know about Fuhrman and it's still one of the most obvious cases you could imagine. The people that found him not guilty are unimaginably stupid (at best).
Click to expand...
"Was the testimony you gave completely truthful?" I plead fifth.

"Have you ever falsified a police report?" I plead the fifth
...
"Detective Furman, did you plant or manufacture any evidence in this case? - I plead the fifth

Sounds like straight forward questions to me.

If you are inferring the following is why "The race card" (a phrase that began/ was coined with this case) then I think many would tend to think questioning his bigotry would be reasonable. He also didn't seem to mind threads of violence toward women. MAW[MEDIA=youtube]IAAY4JZaUak[/MEDIA]


Yep! Furman should have recused himself, or tried something new. Be honest during the investigation and on the witness stand?

"Detective Furman, did you plant or manufacture any evidence in this case? - I plead the fifth🎁🎁🎁
 



Bob_Loblaw said:
Of course, it was the only prayer they had to pour gasoline on the race card and hope the jury was full of idiots. It worked. That doesn't make the jury any less stupid.

We all know the entire story about OJ Simpson. All of us that laugh at the idea that it could possibly be someone else understand that history of Fuhrman. I do not really need to repeat the endless amount of evidence against OJ Simpson that would have been impossible to plant. It's why if someone says he was "looking for the real killers", it's obviously a joke. He was the killer and literally everyone knows that's the case.

Like the jury, we all know about Fuhrman and it's still one of the most obvious cases you could imagine. The people that found him not guilty are unimaginably stupid (at best).
Click to expand...
Bingo. If you bought anything from the defense in that trial you are pretty slow.
 

STPGopher said:
"Was the testimony you gave completely truthful?" I plead fifth.

"Have you ever falsified a police report?" I plead the fifth
...
"Detective Furman, did you plant or manufacture any evidence in this case? - I plead the fifth

Sounds like straight forward questions to me.

If you are inferring the following is why "The race card" (a phrase that began/ was coined with this case) then I think many would tend to think questioning his bigotry would be reasonable. He also didn't seem to mind threads of violence toward women. MAW[MEDIA=youtube]IAAY4JZaUak[/MEDIA]


Yep! Furman should have recused himself, or tried something new. Be honest during the investigation and on the witness stand?

"Detective Furman, did you plant or manufacture any evidence in this case? - I plead the fifth🎁🎁🎁
Click to expand...
You're talking to us like we didn't live through the OJ Simpson trial. Did something happen with a Bronco too? Do you really need the list of evidence against OJ that would be impossible to plant?

I also don't think bigotry and racism is "reasonable". I just think it has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that OJ Simpson cut off his ex wife's head and it would be impossible for anyone to plant the amount of evidence that there was on OJ Simpson. Furman is a racist who should have gotten canned - so what? You really, and I mean, really cannot be bringing up Furman's "threads of violence" towards women. I don't think he cut off his ex wife's head like OJ.

I actually don't believe most of them have reasonable doubt whether OJ did it. I think most of them are using some convoluted version of social justice because Furman was racist and OJ was black and it's all reactionary to Rodney King and the political climate at the time. But like most of these people, they cannot just come out and say it, so they pretend there is reasonable doubt.

Listen, if you have a reasonable amount of doubt whether OJ Simpson killed those people, then so be it. We all know the facts of the case, you can keep regurgitating them to me if you'd like. But it's a pretty famous case. That said, my opinion still stands on that jury and anyone who has reasonable doubt or pretends to have reasonable doubt.
 

Bob_Loblaw said:
You're talking to us like we didn't live through the OJ Simpson trial. Did something happen with a Bronco too? Do you really need the list of evidence against OJ that would be impossible to plant?

I also don't think bigotry and racism is "reasonable". I just think it has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that OJ Simpson cut off his ex wife's head and it would be impossible for anyone to plant the amount of evidence that there was on OJ Simpson. Furman is a racist who should have gotten canned - so what? You really, and I mean, really cannot be bringing up Furman's "threads of violence" towards women. I don't think he cut off his ex wife's head like OJ.

I actually don't believe most of them have reasonable doubt whether OJ did it. I think most of them are using some convoluted version of social justice because Furman was racist and OJ was black and it's all reactionary to Rodney King and the political climate at the time. But like most of these people, they cannot just come out and say it, so they pretend there is reasonable doubt.

Listen, if you have a reasonable amount of doubt whether OJ Simpson killed those people, then so be it. We all know the facts of the case, you can keep regurgitating them to me if you'd like. But it's a pretty famous case. That said, my opinion still stands on that jury and anyone who has reasonable doubt or pretends to have reasonable doubt.
Click to expand...
You are missing the point. The lead detective compromised the case. Simple as that. Cheers!
 

STPGopher said:
You are missing the point. The lead detective compromised the case. Simple as that. Cheers!
Click to expand...
No, you're missing the point. As @Bob_Loblaw stated, there was far too much evidence for it all to have been compromised. The detective may have compromised some of the evidence, but there was still plenty left to convict.

For whatever reason, you seem to want to justify the jury's decision. That's fine, just keep your irrational nonsense to yourself. No matter how hard you try to project it out, no one else is buying it. But in your mind, all you need to do is ignore the wealth of information being provided by @Bob_Loblaw and instead you just have to keep thinking to yourself, "detective, compromised" and viola, simple as that.

Your grade-school level of debating isn't gonna win this one for ya.
 




I was in law school at Mitchell when the trial took place. When they announced that the verdict was in, the cafeteria was packed, crowded around the tv's. standing room only with wall to wall students/faculty. When the Not Guilty verdict was read, literally half the cafeteria cheered and half either booed or stood there with their mouths open in shock. I'll never forget it.
 


GopherTheJugular said:
No, you're missing the point. As @Bob_Loblaw stated, there was far too much evidence for it all to have been compromised. The detective may have compromised some of the evidence, but there was still plenty left to convict.

For whatever reason, you seem to want to justify the jury's decision. That's fine, just keep your irrational nonsense to yourself. No matter how hard you try to project it out, no one else is buying it. But in your mind, all you need to do is ignore the wealth of information being provided by @Bob_Loblaw and instead you just have to keep thinking to yourself, "detective, compromised" and viola, simple as that.

Your grade-school level of debating isn't gonna win this one for ya.
Click to expand...
The jury made the decision. Mishandling of evidence (put all of the evidence into question) and the lead detective refusing to state whether or not he planted evidence was more than enough.

You say playing the race card, I say incompetence of the prosecution.
 



This just my WAG, but, if O.J. had been indicted, I think with the Rodney King verdict in April or May of 1992, LA would have turned into a riot, never seen before. Once again this is just a WAG.
 


Texas Tornado said:
This just my WAG, but, if O.J. had been indicted, I think with the Rodney King verdict in April or May of 1992, LA would have turned into a riot, never seen before. Once again this is just a WAG.
Click to expand...
Much testimony that many people in LA at that time agreed with that thought.
 

STPGopher said:
The jury made the decision.
Click to expand...

Agreed. We just disagree about the thought process to get to that decision.

STPGopher said:
Mishandling of evidence (put all of the evidence into question)
Click to expand...

This I don't agree with. Just because he might have mishandled some evidence, does that mean he got OJ's DNA everywhere else too? I can see that if someone mishandles something, you have to through out EVERYTHING they touched, but for stuff they didn't touch, I think that can stay.

STPGopher said:
and the lead detective refusing to state whether or not he planted evidence was more than enough.
Click to expand...

In line with what I wrote above, I would disagree again. Ignore everything Fuhrman touched and there was still enough to convict. Can I ask why you think evidence Fuhrman didn't touch should be lumped in with what he did touch? Or will you just conveniently let that happen because it results in the conclusion you want?

STPGopher said:
You say playing the race card, I say incompetence of the prosecution.
Click to expand...
I didn't say race card, AT ALL. And how can you say incompetence of the prosecution when your whole argument up to now has been tainted evidence?
 

GopherTheJugular said:
No offense, but I'm struggling to see why you agree with this? Are you saying that you think he's not innocent but agree with the not guilty verdict because of the actions of the detective?
Click to expand...
Here's the disconnect. All I've been saying is Mark Furman damaged the prosecutions case. I never even mentioned O.J.'s innocence, guilt, or thoughts on the jury and their verdict.
 

GopherTheJugular said:
Agreed. We just disagree about the thought process to get to that decision.



This I don't agree with. Just because he might have mishandled some evidence, does that mean he got OJ's DNA everywhere else too? I can see that if someone mishandles something, you have to through out EVERYTHING they touched, but for stuff they didn't touch, I think that can stay.



In line with what I wrote above, I would disagree again. Ignore everything Fuhrman touched and there was still enough to convict. Can I ask why you think evidence Fuhrman didn't touch should be lumped in with what he did touch? Or will you just conveniently let that happen because it results in the conclusion you want?


I didn't say race card, AT ALL. And how can you say incompetence of the prosecution when your whole argument up to now has been tainted evidence?
Click to expand...
The race card stuff was brought up by another poster.

Regarding the other evidence, the mishandling of evidence was another crack which I mentioned.

O.J.'s defense was able to put the LA PD on trial. O.J. Simpson’s trial cast a long shadow on the LAPD — but brought few changes

Edit: https://www.crimemuseum.org/crime-l...rensic-investigation-of-the-oj-simpson-trial/
 


John Wayne Bobbitt’s Toes Amputated 30 Years After Wife Lorena Bobbitt Cut Off His Genitalia​

 


Tough thread with much emotion. Much theater, screw ups, past history including Rodney King, and minds made up before the trial started. No one is going to win on this board due to made up minds that aren't going to change.
 


STPGopher said:
The race card stuff was brought up by another poster.

Regarding the other evidence, the mishandling of evidence was another crack which I mentioned.

O.J.'s defense was able to put the LA PD on trial. O.J. Simpson’s trial cast a long shadow on the LAPD — but brought few changes

Edit: https://www.crimemuseum.org/crime-l...rensic-investigation-of-the-oj-simpson-trial/
Click to expand...

Yeah, the LAPD teed up reasonable doubt of the forensic evidence. If the investigating officers and detectives and technicians can be painted as dirty or shady or biased the science doesn’t really matter. The glove incident…latex gloves are not slippery…whoops!

That said, the long history of domestic violence including at least a few calls caught on tape of OJ going nuts would normally persuade a reasonable person that yeah, this guy probably is capable of and committed a crime of passion even in the absence of ANY physical evidence.

So, it seems like the jury disbelieved the forensics (reasonable), dismissed the extensive domestic violence evidence (not reasonable), and probably really liked OJ, were biased against the LAPD. The trial was won at jury selection.
 
Last edited:

Pompous Elitist said:
Yeah, the LAPD teed up reasonable doubt of the forensic evidence. If the investigating officers and detectives and technicians can be painted as dirty or shady or biased the science doesn’t really matter. The glove incident…latex gloves are not slippery…whoops!

That said, the long history of domestic violence including at least a few calls caught on tape of OJ going nuts would normally persuade a reasonable person that yeah, this guy probably is capable of and committed a crime of passion even in the absence of ANY physical evidence.

So, it seems like the jury disbelieved the forensics (reasonable), dismissed the extensive domestic violence evidence (not reasonable), and probably really liked OJ, were biased against the LAPD. The trial was won at jury selection.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Regarding the jury, biased? Most likely. Maybe (notice I said maybe) suspicious is a little more accurate? I am assuming the jury did give it their level best. Can't imagine the pressure they were under from all sides.
 

STPGopher said:
Agreed. Regarding the jury, biased? Most likely. Maybe (notice I said maybe) suspicious is a little more accurate? I am assuming the jury did give it their level best. Can't imagine the pressure they were under from all sides.
Click to expand...

There was a follow up in recent years and some of the jurors said they still think he didn’t do it.

That doesn’t begin to make sense for me but we’re all subject to bias/prejuduce. He’s guilty AF.
 

Pompous Elitist said:
There was a follow up in recent years and some of the jurors said they still think he didn’t do it.

That doesn’t begin to make sense for me but we’re all subject to bias/prejuduce. He’s guilty AF.
Click to expand...
I am sure that they have their reasons. Not for me to judge. Unfortunately, some mysteries will most likely never be resolved. Not to mention countless conspiracies including gang/ drug dealers/ O.J.'s son did it etc, etc.

Once the dust settles, perhaps Ms Simpson, and Mr. Goldman can rest in peace.
 


Spaulding!No! said:
Give it time and there will be an OJ sympathetic book/movie.
Click to expand...
Maybe? Anything's possible. Some people actually listen to the likes of David Duke, so anything is possible. More likely is a "Vantage Point" type documentary attempting to explain some lingering questions.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom