OJ Simpson's back in the news

Will we ever be out of the limelight? It's not enough that he killed two people and got away with it, now he has to flaunt the fact that he gets to play golf all day and avoid the judgement against him? Prick.

http://watchingthewatchers.org/index.php?p=173

Ridiculous human being, this guy.

~A!

I think he should be able to play goft anywhere.

Jason was the killer, IMHO.

Jason Vorhees, I'm assuming. It would be just like him to pull something like this, too.

Damn, can't believe I missed that. ;)

~A!

OJ son.

The one with same size shoes.

The one that could not account for two hours around the time of the killings.

That one.

:)

http://www.smartfellowspress.com/suspects.htm

snip
"Jason Simpson and Robert Kardashian had airtight alibis."

Or L.A.barynth and you will bet some doughts about the O.J. case.

You know, the guy who prosectued Charles Manson?

It goes into why an obviously guilty man got away with it.

~A!

I've always thought that there was a possibility that his son did it. It would explain so much about the case, and the evidence. OJ was trying to help his son get away with it, and almost got himself convicted in the process-or, if it came down to it, he was going to take the blame for his kid.

a son or daughter.

sorry.

I was home for 2 years surrounding the trial recuperating from a long illness. I ALWAYS believed it was Jason and I watched EVERY minute of the trial. May I add, That I grew up in LA and know where OJ lived and where Nicole's condo was. I never thought OJ did it.

for continuing the fight to see that he doesn't get away with it. I hope they're successful. The only way to hurt that psycho is his money.

What kills me is how openly flamboyant he is about it "If I have to work to pay them, I won't work"

Don't you wish we all had that option?

~A!

does not want to pay because he is not the killer. I don't think any innocent man would want to pay when he never committed the crime.

Last I looked, OJ was found "not guilty".

There were too many leaps and bounds the prosecutor wanted the jury to make.

If Simpson was indeed Guilty, blame the prosecution.

he was found responsible for the deaths in a court. Not paying is illegal.

joking. Many innocent people have been accused of crimes of which they were not guilty. Some have even been sent to prison only to be released after evidence showed they were not guilty. Just because people think a person is guilty does not mean it has to be true.

Wake up! Get some real fucking reality...Not your hero worship!

Like... "GO OJ"!

and just plain jerks.

you would just sit quietly by and say 'well, that was God's will' and not try to find her killer and bring him or her to justice.

Calling the victims names is just plain SICK.

someone who claims innocence be expected to spend his resources looking for the real killers? That's the job of law enforcement.

that she would fight like the Goldmans. Anybody with integrity would.

and he got a tv show out of it.

where did THAT come from?

remember Goldman's short-lived televison show?

I'm not the only one who got sick of seeing his mustache on the tv screen.

I'm sick of ALL OF THEM!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Clark, Ito, OJ, Mrs. OJ, OJ Jr., Mr. Goldman, Mrs. Goldman.

get a grip.

I find that perception horrifying. If anyone was an innocent in the matter, it was Ron Goldman. If you want publicity hounds, the Browns were disgusting. As for jerks, no one could possibly surpass Simpson, and that family he came from is not much to be proud of either.

But sliming the Goldmans, the only people with any class other than the prosecutors and judge in that court room- that's a wonderful new low. Yes, they got overexposed and were articulate, truly aggrieved, demonstrative people. But the Browns were inarticulate, shady, indistinct people- and you have to admit that Nicole's judgment was obviously bad, reflecting on them, and they were known to have opposed the marriage on both bad grounds- racism- and (in retrospective) accurate assessment of Simpson as a bad character match and ethically suspect-at best- by reputation.

I was L.A. at the time of the murders and I was doing DNA-based research. OJ's defense team had the trial moved to LA -rather than allowing it to go forward in Santa Monica- in order to get as many scientifically illiterate/ignorant people on that jury as possible. The defense team knocked out all the average-to-well educated people and all the whites and light colored Hispanics they could.

The LA (criminal) trial became an arena where people out of South Central struck back at the LAPD and a foolish woman from Orange County, a woman who was the epitome of white privilege, who had married a black man and celebrity- as they never could- and forgave him the situation and that he pretended he wasn't black until the day it was useful again.

The Santa Monica (civil) trial had a jury that was a clear cross-section of LA, mostly Latino and Asian in fact, and were people who had some good science education. This jury was insulted by the defense 'argument' about the blood evidence (which conclusively put OJ at the scene), which was prevarication and obfuscation and outright lies. The blood evidence was in fact beyond the two LAPD fellows' intelligence, opportunity, or capability to fabricate. Glove or no glove, the drops on the walkway amount to far more OJ blood than the defense could pretend was pilfered.

*

What this trial 'was about' was interracial relationships rather common (if not typical) during the Seventies and Eighties, the kind that were not carefully worked out and bounced along in one bad compromise after another. OJ and Nicole kept together across the Eighties because of sex, because of drugs, because of money, because of cross-racial fantasies of domination and ideals of desirability taken out of magazines and cocktail bars. It meant cocaine addictions, physical abuse, abortions, arguably rape at one point or another, forgiveness being bought and sold, alcoholism, vacation hideouts, trashy friends, lies, adultery, undesired children, drunken bouts, divorce proceedings, secrets, rehab, fancy cars, male privilege and white privilege, boob jobs, spousal abuse, stalking, chauvinism and bigotry. Destructive and selfdestructive people with seemingly nowhere to go- and the murders happening just when their friends thought both were getting on with their lives.

Everyone watched it because it was an argument about race relations. Racism is wrong, but this murder trial was a passion play about the early, post-1968 kind of quite blind accommodationism with covert racism breaking through here and there (from both sides of that marriage). The trial was telling Americans that money and celebrity and desire/willfulness weren't sufficient ingredients for this generation, e.g. Boomers, to make it work. Not that we couldn't have guessed that, but this was the twenty car pileup version.

The Central Park Jogger trial was more or less where the social conventions of the Eighties were put on trial most, the Scott/Laci Peterson trial might be the one to begin the expose of the horrors and hypocrisies and limitations of the Nineties.

The OJ trial was the post-'68 Boomers and the Seventies conventions they worked by being put on trial. That's why we watched. It was horrible, but it was an argument about how much further we have yet to go.

This is the kind of attitude blacks constantly encounter. The ignorant, illiterate, blacks eh? In other words, inferior beings not qualified to be jurors. Those words were not used to describe white Semi-Valley jurors who looked at a tape of a man on the ground being beaten horrifically yet decided on an acquittal.

As for the change of venue, that happens all the time. Lawyers try to get the best jury they can for their clients and if they feel a change of venue is necessary, they seek it. There were no complaints when the police sought a change of venue for the cops involved in the death of Johnny Gammage who died driving while black. There was no outcry when a change of venue was obtained for the police in New York state who were involved in the killing of another black man. After the trials were moved to the new locations, the jurors were mostly white and the defendants were acquitted. Had the cases remained in the original jurisdictions, the white police officers would have been tried before juries consisting mostly of minorities. Their lawyers successfully avoided that.

African Americans have been tried before all white juries who routinely convicted them. Is it any wonder that any lawyer for a black defendant would seek a venue that would allow them a shot at getting a fair trial? Your post completely ignores the history of this country and its relationship with black people. I have even heard white attorneys say that it is much more difficult for a black person to get a fair trial before a white jury, especially if his alleged victim is white. You choose to ignore that truth.

The bottom line is this. OJ Simpson, a black man, was accused of murdering two white people. Even though there was evidence leading to reasonable doubt, many in the majority community chose to ignore that fact and with the help of the news media, concluded early that Simpson was guilty. This was a rare instance of a black man being acquitted of harming a white person and many people cannot get over it. If one believes in Simpson's guilt, his anger at the acquittal is quite understandable. However, what is absolutely shocking to me and millions of other blacks is the continued emotion, continued outrage, over this one case. Whites have been acquitted of murdering African Americans and we have had to live with those decisions. It almost seems to me that the lives of two white persons, in the eyes of their community, are more valuable than the thousands of black lives taken at the hands of whites who were usually not charged. When they were prosecuted, it was rare that the white juries convicted them.

It is absolutely wrong to suggest that because it was a mainly black jury that this was a case of pay back. I might remind you also that three of the jurors were not African Americans. A no vote by any of them could have resulted in a hung jury. Why is it that only the actions of the black jurors are suspect as if the other three did not participate in the decision. All over this country African Americans vote to convict other blacks and send them away for long periods of time.I believe that had those jurors been fairly certain of Simpson's guilt they would have convicted. OJ Simpson has never been a beloved figure in the African American community. It is highly doubtful that black jurors would have ignored convincing evidence of guilt and acquit him. The jury saw that there was reason for doubt and they did what was required;they rendered a Not Guilty verdict.

tough if you don't like them.

How's that blood pressure?

I thought that was his mission. Perhaps the first step is to establish that he's not lurking on the golf courses of the world. Which, of course, he is.

And took him out golfing. Hell, he sleeps with the killer every night, even brushes his teeth for him.

~A!

that OJ was acquitted of murder. He has every right to get on with his life just as every other acquitted person. You may believe he is guilty but he has said he did not commit the crime and a jury said he was not guilty. If he is not guilty, why should he go around acting like a guilty man? I don't know whether he is guilty or not. I do know there was reasonable doubt. I wonder why people continue to be so concerned about Simpson. Robert Durst of Texas who admitted to killing and dismembering his neighbor was also acquitted but no one even talks about him and that case was fairly recent.

and the civil jury found him liable. Are you saying he shouldn't do what the court says to do? How the fuck is that acting guilty, doing what the court ordered you to do?

That's called respecting the law.

~A!

He was acquitted and he should then pay for a crime he says he did not commit? Would you want to do that? I think not. Why the fascination with Simpson? There have been plenty of people acquitted of crimes who have been allowed to get on with their lives. There are plenty of innocent people who have been judged guilty of crimes they did not commit. African Americans are being released almost monthly from prison after serving long terms only to have evidence presented that proved they were not the perpetrator. This happens all the time to black people.

"Ignore the facts! Vote on race! Acquit almost immediately!"

now you want to cry 'foul' because it's been turned around?

dont make a right. Cliched but true. Heck lets make all the white people slaves. Seems some here would support that.

Thousands of blacks have been lynched in this country with no one being called to account. In recent history blacks have been gunned down by cops who got off. Whites never got angry when all those black men, women and children were dying but they can't get over one case, one case, in which a wealthy black defendant was able to gain acquittal. You think that's right? You can't see why this reaction angers many black people? It's more than two wrongs, it's many wrong suffered by African Americans for which the perpetrators did not pay, never spent one day in jail. Blacks are told to forget our grievances yet it seems that many in the white community can't forget this one case and are hanging onto their grievance for dear life. It is sad.

I never even think about OJ. Bring up a specific case in which a black man has been unjustly accused of a crime and I will agree with you in all likelyhood.

Edit- I meant to say in which a white man has done a crime against black people. I really dont think much about skin color unless its like " oh now what did some stupid moron do now? (referring to white people)"

The jurors looked at the evidence, found there was reasonable doubt. If they found reasonable doubt, the only verdict was not guilty.

http://www.cnn.com/US/OJ/daily/9510/10-03/index.html

>>Testimony in the trial took almost nine months, encompassing about 120 witnesses, 45,000 pages of evidence and 1,100 exhibits. But the jury of 10 women and two men, comprising nine blacks, two whites and one Hispanic, took less than four hours to reach the verdicts. <<

That's rather impossible for a jury to "look at the evidence" in that timeframe. You either didn't know the ratio between evidence and deliberations, or you are just lying.

Black jury saves black murderer. They can be racist too, believe it or not.

The jury was in that courtroom for months. They heard all the evidence. Evidently, six months of trial testimony was enough for some to conclude Simpson guilt, but not enough for the jurors to make a decision even though they were in the actual court room. You want to ignore the planting of evidence, a bigoted detective known for his mistreatment and hatred of blacks, shoes not being checked in, blood on the back gate not present initially, blood being carried around by a detective and later a certain amount being missing. Blood appearing in the house that the photographer didn't see when pictures were first taken. All of the above leads to reasonable doubt yet is to be ignored. Oh yes, he's black, he's accused of killing white people, ignore reasonable doubt....HE'S GOT TO BE GUILTY.

pictures.

Why does it always have to be about race?

~A!

when it's something to do with blacks and whites, it will always be about race.

You're right, what can I say? I can't stand it, but you're 100% right. It's always about black and white, and that takes away from the deep meaning in a lot of situations, meaning that goes beyond race.

If we could eliminate racism, I think we'd have better things to think about, and might be able to start fixing this broken wagon of a country.

~A!

I sat on a jury for a complex murder trial. We were able to make the right decision, and we were able to do it within a few hours. And, yes, we looked at all of the evidence - stacks and stacks of it for weeks and weeks before we got into the jury room - and did not make our decision without looking at the facts. The beauty of the jury system is that you have 12 sets of eyes and ears and 12 brains working on it. Believe me, it is the rare jury that does not fully understand the case in front of them. In our case, we came back with a guilty verdict, which is much more difficult to return than a verdict of innocent.

This second-guessing of the jury system is very dangerous. It is one of the last checks against the police state that we have. That is why you are even talking about it - because the right wing media has made it into an issue. When was a white jury ever bombarded with the abuse that is still being heaped on this jury?

Just curious. ----I don't know if you were around when all of that was going on but race was a HUGE issue. We were just coming off the Rodney King shenanigans and what not. In any case not just this one I don't think you can assume the jurors looked at the evidence. I watched a show called THE JURY ROOM a couple of times, where cameras were inside a real jury room. It was so freakin' scary!!!!! The evidence was second to emotions and personal agendas, I am telling you scary!!!! I could not believe my eyes.

Why don't you watch the movie "12 Angry Men" and give yourself some equal time on the issue? I served on the jury for a racially charged high-profile murder case in Detroit, and while emotions ran high, justice was served. Juries tend to be biased toward the prosecution, and the scenario in that film was very similar to my own experience and I suspect that it is common. Juries exist as a check against abuse of power by the state, not as lynch mobs.

Wealthy people have had better access to justice for a long time. Why the sudden and vehement outrage over this case? Racism is a factor in every aspect of our society. Why the sudden reversal in this case, so that people think that no whites are in any way influenced by racism, yet a presumed and imagined unfair and ignorant "anti-racism" explains everything about the case?

Issues of race are certainly a factor in the case. why are so many whites saying that it is the factor in the jury's decision, yet is no factor in the way that whites view the trial? That thinking is purely the product of right wing propaganda, yet so many liberals have advanced it.

The right wing media used the OJ case to abuse and undermine the jury system in people's minds - which is a right wing goal - and whites ate that up. African Americans did not. Why would that be? Why do people automatically assume that they are free of racism in their thinking, and then blame "them" for "playing the race card?"

The coverage of the OJ trial was just steeped in racist innuendo and assumptions, and when whites deny that this continual bombardment has had no influence whatsoever on their view of the trial, it stretches credulity to the breaking point.

OJ is a black male who can be hated by whites without them having to feel guilty about it.

a major prosecution witness committed perjury on the stand. That goes a long way to putting reasonable doubt in a jury's mind.

Many complex cases are decided quickly. The speed of the verdict does not necessarily reflect on the quality of the justice, as you are implying here. Quick convictions are a cause for concern. Quick acquittals are not.

How many hundreds of all white juries have brought back quick guilty verdicts against African American men who were later proved to be innocent, yet we don't have years and years of emotionally charged obsession by the white community over the terrible travesty of justice in those cases.

There is just no way to talk about this case intelligently without pointing out this obvious double standard.

.

for a criminal conviction, but a civil one. You are saying two things about the same topic: we should respect the criminal court's decision, and we should ignore the civil court's.

That's hypocrisy. Either respect the court system or don't


~A!

the verdict was unjust. No one is going to willingly pay out money for a crime he never committed. There have been mnay unjust verdicts rendered in cases involving black people.

But what if the laws are unjust. There were laws in the south that said blacks had to ride at the back of the bus? Perhaps they should not have marched to end all that in your opinion? After all, it was the law that said segregation was legal. Perhaps you agree that it was right that "the law" would dictate that Martin Luther King would be put in jail for opposing segregation. It was the law, you know.

We're talking about a judgement from a lawsuit. Stop with bringing race into it, that's not the point here.

~A!

for you but as an African American, I know that race is OFTEN the case. People remain angry about this case because the victims were white, the alleged perpetrator, black.

Just IMHO, of course. Then again, I think he's guilty based on the evidence, and don't care what color he is.

~A!

may think he's guilty because of the evidence but the continued anger long after the trial has been over is because of race. I feel that very strongly. I have no problem with people saying Simpson is guilty. What I have problem is the continued outrage over the verdict by some. African Americans have had to face all white juries for as long as they have been in this country. Innocent black people have been sent to prison for crimes they did not commit. White killers of blacks have been repeatedly exonerated with no outrage from the same people who would condemn the jurors in the first trial. Most blacks can speak of such cases. The justice system has always been unfair to African Americans and we have had to accept the injustice. It seems though, that some in the majority community believe that they should not have to accept a verdict they deem unjust. Now it seems, an acquitted black person, is still a guilty black person, if the white community disagrees with the verdict. Sorry, as an African American, that just bothers me a lot.

You make good points, but your choice of 'underdog' to defend is dubious in this case. People still think Bush stole the election, even after the Supreme Court said he was president. Same thing, really, except that Bush isn't black.

People are still fired up about the case because the guy had tons of evidence proving him guilty, got away, and is a high-profile personality. Yes, for christ's sake, he's black. I get it. Still not why I posted the piece.

~A!

your assertion that i am using the underdog defense to support by contentions. What I have been saying is factual and can be verified. There is much racism in this society and the continued outrage over the Simpson case is evidence of it. Many defendants have been acquitted, and we rarely hear about them after the trial has ended. Yet we are still talking about Simpson. Many people are in denial about the reasons for their hatred but most blacks, even those who believe in Simpson's guilt, see the situation very clearly. Usually when blacks are acquitted of killing another black, that's the end of it. That's also usually the case when a white person has killed another white and been exonerated. But in cases in which a black is accused of harming a white person, everything changes. That is an absolute fact supported by history.

This is still talked about because of celebrity hubris, not race. I'm sure there are some people out there who obsess about race as much as you do, I'm just saying I'm not one of them.

Champion him if you like, but at least do it for a good reason. Defending him just because he's black is just as bad as someone who hates him because he's black.

Hell, I don't hate him at all. He gamed the system, and he won. Wish we could all do it.

~A!

It is about race because so many white Americans have made it about race.

My father and I, neither of whom watch television, were puzzled for weeks as to why people were so worked up about OJ. One morning he called me and said "did you know that his wife was white?" That - and only that - explains the mystery as to why people are so obsessed - and obsessed is the right word - with OJ. Yes, he was a celebrity. Yes, people are obsessed in general these days with gruesome crimes. But the OJ fascination among whites is so clearly over the top that there must be another factor in play. To deny even the remotest possibility that racism is that factor is to deny our history and to deny the current political climate.

You can scream and argue and deny this up and down all you want. The resistance that people have to even considering that racism is what the obsession with OJ is about becomes strong evidence that it IS in fact racism. Otherwise, why do you care? What difference does it make to you? Murder trials are going on every day, What makes this one so special? What could the hypothesis that racism is motivating the interest in this case harm, except that it calls into question, and threatens to undermine the enjoyment of, an ongoing hate fest against an African American man without having to confront or admit the fact that this is what is going on.

Have you seriously stopped, used you imagination, and thought this through? If the victim had been Black, or the perpetrator white, would there have been this sort of obsession with the case?

Why do people so desperately fight to protect and defend their OJ obsession? Why can it not be - in this case and for many white people in only this case - that racism us absolutely out as a factor in any way? Why are OJ's lawyers accused of "playing the race card" while whites are presumed to be bias-free and pure as gold in their attitudes about this? What is the true meaning and hidden message of the phrase "playing the race card?" And, finally, why are so many white liberals unwilling to entertain these very rational and relevant questions?

Right?? Laws no, decision of the court, yes.

He would have been legally bound to spend time in prison. They acquitted him on criminal charges, which means he has no legal obligation to be in jail.

Civil law is also law. When a civil court enters a judgement and assigns damages to ensure equity, it is also legally binding. So, the law in this case says he has to pay the Goldman's a bunch of money. He was found liable, not guilty. The difference is an entire semester of law classes.

~A!

Sorry, I was kinda being a smartass. The other poster keeps talking about we have to respect the decision of the criminal court and treat him as if he is not guilty----but OJ should not have to respect the decision of the civil court because it is based on faulty laws..or at least that it could be. I don't know this thread is irritating me. A person almost cuts off the head of the mother of his child after abusing her for years, and somehow it comes down to a race issue. You know what how about the horrible way women have been treated in this country and in the world????????? And apparently if your husband almost cuts your head off,and he is black, that is just tough shit, because we need to heal as a country. Racially, of course NEVER in terms of gender.

Well said. _Very_ well said.

~A!

and your husband is not some football star exemplary negro (to that point) with fame and wealth. if your husband is black and a nobody who cuts off your head, and you are a black woman...especially if you are both poor...no one would give a damn. no tv coverage, no legends of folks outraged that you didn't get justice, no team of investigators combing for evidence, etc, etc, etc.
of course there would probably be a conviction, in this case, but that would have more to do with gender and race.

on another note though, i hated the way the press and the defense put nicole on trial...basically blamed her for her own murder. i think you make an excellent point in that regard...female victims are still too often blamed...even when they are murdered. i remember the robert chambers case...he strangled his girlfriend, them claimed that it was just rough sex that got out-of-hand. later he joked about killing her on videotape with some friends. another disgusting case of blaming the victim.

Wow, that's a really good point. Without the fame, this whole thing would never have hit the radar. The race card makes it good, divisive press, too.

~A!

I didnt' think OJ was guilty because he was black and she was white ... I thought he was guilty because he was an abusive prick and that's what they do, if the woman doesn't get far enough away.

His case was all over the news and he was indeed guilty, he admitted it. Right is right. If one cannot get upset when an admitted killer is acquitted, but remains upset over the acquittal of anothr, there is something else going on. The difference is race, pure and simple. Simpson's alleged victims were white, he is an African American. In this country, blacks who harm whites are supposed to get the ultimate punishment. This case has been over for years yet people are still talking about it. Thirteen year old Emmit Till was murdered and his killers have never been brought to justice but of course they were white. Furthermore, it took almost forty years for civil rights worker Metger Evers killer to be brought to justice and there was no outrage while he remained free to live his life. Three of the killers of four young girls in Birmingham never spent a day in jail and still there was no outrage over this. The only people who thought about the case were members of the black community. Now, one black man is acquitted of killing two white people and it's still being talked about many years have the acquittal. We all know why.

You're right. It's all about race.

race just plays a small role.

It's about celebrity.

It's about rich "justice"

It's about race.

It's about sexism.

It's about time to relegate OJ to the back burner.

My thing is: what about Jon Benet Ramsey????

Why hasn't anyone stood trial for her murder?

Where is the "outrage" there?

It was about celebrity and fortune. Yes, some of the black jurors all but admitted to jury nullification, but even the black jurors would have done no such thing if O.J. hadn't been rich, famous, and loaded with a top shelf defense team.

A PD for some young street thug, black or white, would never have gotten that jury to acquit.

It's all about the ability to "pay" for justice.
The Professor

No 'average' person would have been acquitted, given the evidence they had at hand on him.

~A!

WTH happened there. No one can be found period? Seems like there was some evidence against the parents. Hope whoever did is haunted by guilt, anguish and fear atm.

all about race. If Simpson's alleged victims had been black, no one would be still talking about the case. The Simpson case was an aberration;a case in which a black man had enough money to mount an adequate defense which resulted in an acquittal. Usually, poor black men who are accused of murdering whites go to jail or get the death penalty. Recently a young black man was released from prison after serving years in prison for the rape of a white woman. She identified him as the rapist. It turns out she and the prosecutors were wrong as evidence was presented that proved his innocence. Many black men have recently been released through the help of the Innocence Project. They had been accused, prosecuted and convicted of crimes they never committed. Neither you nor I were there when the victims in the Simpson case were murdered. I believe there was reasonable doubt and that the jury in the criminal trial made the right decision. The only reason why this case continues to be talked about is because of the racial element. That is my belief and that of many people in the African American community.

It is "morely likely true than not" that he did it. You can have whatever opinion you want, but the law said he did it.

but many in this country would rather accept a verdict by a mostly all white jury which was convinced by tainted evidence and a biased news media. There was more than reasonable doubt in this case; the first verdict was correct, the second was not, IMHO. To some, the verdict of the mostly black jury was not the law, and should be ignored. I strongly disagree.

the civil court only says 'he might have done it'. Preponderance and beyond a reasonable doubt are two different ends to two different means.

Once reduced to judgment by the court. There are several sources of the law, and a civil judgment certainly is one.

He cannot be deprived of his liberty because of criminal jury's finding. However, he can be deprived of his property from the civil jury's finding.

Civil judgment means you did it. Just a lower burden of proof.

African Americans experience racism in their daily lives. They know it when they see it.

OJ was an industry to himself. Every writer and media hack was trying to cash in on this thing since it centered on three taboos...sex, race & the intermingling of the two. The trial was a sham as Ito lost control of the courtroom from the outset and this "trial" was more Roman spectacle. No matter what the verdict was, the procedure was a disgrace. It became a resume piece for everyone who could get involved, including OJ and the Goldmans and the lawyers and the "journalists".

That said, your point is well taken on the racial tones, but you can't compare OJ to Emmit Till (I'm from Chicago, I grew up with that story, and it still continues) and the crooked justice system of the Jim Crow South. OJ benefitted from his race and he wasn't ashamed to exploit it if it meant saving his ass. But OJ wasn't the only one exploiting here.

The argument should be framed that OJ was found guilty in a civil suit where the burden of proof is far lower and the judge in that case shut off the cameras and got the job done quickly. Simpson owes restitution according to the verdict (which I don't think was appealed) and has gone out of his way to avoid payment despite having the means to do so. This is also a sham as these people lives were "harmed" (interpret as you will) by this man's actions, and this was proven true in front of a jury, and he's purposely avoided obeying the law...he should be forced to cough up some of that huge NFL pension money he lives on...or the NFL Players Association should be forced to garnish money, just like in a divorce case, until the judgement payment is made.

I just wish this goon would go away...

laws there are immoral verdicts. If a man knows he is not guilty, committed no crimes he is very unlikely to wish to pay for the crimes of another. If OJ really is not guilty as he says, his actions are very understandable. OJ did not use his race for anything, his race was used against him. What he did use was his money, something not available for most black defendants. Had he not had wealth, he would have gone to prison just like many other black defendants.

As far as the crooked justice system of the south, you are dreaming if you don't believe that the justice system can be just as crooked in the rest of the country when it comes to African Americans. It is black people who are usually given the death penalty, especially in cases involving white people. It is black people who are filling up the prisons due to unjust drug laws. It is black people to whom prosecutors usually apply the three strikes law. Black people are likely to run into crooked justice wherever they live, especially in cases in which they are believed to have harmed white people. That is a fact of life for African Americans.

The Emmett Till case is now being discussed because of the actions of a black filmmaker. For years no one paid much attention to this case, certainly not members of the white community. Black people, however, have never forgotten it. It's not just the Till case, there are many other cases in which blacks have been killed by whites who never were convicted, indeed some were not even charged.

As far as OJ being called a goon, well that's the usual reaction of some when referring to a black that has angered them. He does not have to be guilty yet to be accused he is then an animal, a thug etc.
Furthermore, to blame OJ for him being in the limelight is ridiculous. I am sure he does not call up the reporters to tell them he is going on the golf course. If the reporters did not report on him, there would be no limelight. Once again it's all the black man fault.

OJ did use his race in trying to gain sympathy in having the trial held in LA County, where he knew he would get a predominately black jury (a smart move by his lawyers) and he had the money and fame that was spent to fuel the circus...the more the trial was soap opera, the better it served his ultimate goal of getting acquitted.

I don't know if the man did the crime or not...I saw many plausible reasons and had I been a juror with that evidence, I couldn't have voted to convict. That is all needed in criminal...civil is another story.

I'm sure we could go for hours on the messes in our judicial system; especially when it comes to dealing with blacks. The profiling, stiffer sentences and lack of quality legal services is appauling and is nationwide. My hope would be that we'd have that truly "justice is blind" system, but it is so easily manipulated by money and influence, we can only hope there are reformers from within who can overcome incredible odds and temptations to change things.

Unfortunately in these regressive times, the movement for civil rights will only be subjects on a movie screen. The Emmit Till case was the first step that led to some eyes opening...sadly it took another decade until the Civil Rights killings in '64 to really start changes happening in the South, and there are still many injustices of that time that will never be absolved. Sadly a lot of racists got away with murder and, like Nazi war criminals, time is running out on bringing the few remaining alive to justice.

Again, my scorn of OJ is not his race, but his attitude and how he's played on his controversies, and the angst of two families, for his own vanity and selfishness...not to mention the hell his children had to endure. All for ego and self importance. But that's where we cross into the moral/immoral issue, and again, we probably would agree to disagree on the nuiances...not if his actions were immoral, just which ones and how.

Cheers.

That settles it..... He must be guilty!!!!!!!

SHEEEESSHHH.............

"Again, my scorn of OJ is not his race, but his attitude and how he's played on his controversies, and the angst of two families, for his own vanity and selfishness...not to mention the hell his children had to endure. All for ego and self importance. But that's where we cross into the moral/immoral issue, and again, we probably would agree to disagree on the nuiances...not if his actions were immoral, just which ones and how."

I disagree with the above sentiments. OJ is acting just like any other man who is not guilty. One may believe in his guilt but that does not matter since the accused says he is not guilty and thus should not be expected to act like a guilty man. And as an innocent man, he would not be thinking that he is doing anything to harm his family. It would be those who are continuing to call him guilty who are making life difficult for his relatives. And if he has killed no one, why should he curtail his own lifestyle just so as to not offend the victims family. That just not make sense. Why should a man who claims to be innocent go around looking and acting guilty just to please those who hate him. I don't see where OJ is playing on anything. It seems the only thing he is doing is going out to the golf course often. What seems to bother people is that he, who claims to be innocent, is not acting guilty, is not willing to pay the relatives of the people he claims he did not kill. I am not noticing him on any ego trip. When I've seen him, it's been when reporters were asking questions and he was responding. How is that evidence of ego. I think some of the hatred and scorn is irrational and borne of racial prejudice. I don't know if Simpson is guilty or innocent. If he is guilty I am sure God will take care of that. I do know that others have been acquitted of heinous crimes and been allowed to move on. OJ has been treated differently and I think it's because of his race.

And the jury vote was nullification. Go back and read some papers written at the time.

heard that "being acquitted is Not the same thing as innocence" until the Simpson case. I wonder why. Whites who have murdered blacks and whites and been acquitted never had to hear that explanation applied to them. Two sets of rules perhaps?

Plane crash--on his house with him inside,bus runs over him,lightning hits him on the golf course.

O.J will get his,just wait for it...

So why dosen't he just write a tell all book and be a REAL sh!thead?

"How I Killed My Wife And Got Away With It Cause I Had Money" by O.J. Simpson

Ugh. Perhaps he'll rob a liquor store and end up in jail like he should be in anyways.

So they go back to the classics--a sure-fire winner like OJ.

Media Whoredom's "finest" hour.

Judge

Jury

Executioner

All in One!!!!!!

Plus -- you're putting him in the news. He isn't.

Will you be interviewing for Dan Rather's job, too?

In the news. That's silly. I didn't make it up, I got it from the news and posted it to my blog.

~A!

the DA in the case knows OJ did not do it and per OJ lawyers knows that Jason could not account for two hours around the time of the murders. BUT once the case of the Century started there was no going back.

Too many people made millions off OJ being guilty and some from the DA office for the real truth to come out. OJ has something like 250,000 per year to live on and that while not a lot of money will raise his kids and maybe after his two young kids leave home, he will move out of the country. IMHO.

How'd he get that inch deep cut on his hand? Cell phone, he says. Oh, ok.

Why did he get in the jeep and drive down the highway at thirty miles an hour for a while, with a pre-written suicide note? Dunno.

Why did the DNA evidence come down to either him, Ralph in detroit, or Marvin the martian?

Right, he's innocent. mmmm-kay.

~A!

We have a system for defining and deciding "guilty" and "innocent" in this country. If you want to talk about the shortcomings of our system, then we will have to look at more than one case, I think.

But we're talking about one case, not necessarily the whole system in tandem.

~A!

... you are talking about the whole system. When you select the OJ case as the one case to make an issue out of, you invite a discussion of the broader context. You want it to be merely about this case, but you don't want to examine why you want it to be merely about this one case - of all cases.

Often, distortion and prejudice are not expressed in what is said, but in which subjects are raised and how they are viewed. The publicity around the OJ case - which is the reason we keep hearing about it - is because a Black man harmed white people and because the right wing media has an agenda to undermine our justice system and question the integrity of juries and to inflame and pander to latent racism. How can we ignore those when you bring up OJ and then opine as to whether he was guilty or innocent and where you think justice was miscarried?

White people badly, badly wanted OJ to be convicted, long before they heard any evidence. That is odd. White people were deeply disappointed when he was acquitted. That is odd. How can we ignore that? Bars and coffee shops in white neighborhoods all over Detroit were packed with white people - standing room only! - to watch the jury deliver its verdict as a sort of tribal ritual of communal togetherness. That is odd. I overheard what the people were saying to each other about it, and I am sure you did too. Yet people want to claim that racism is not involved, and claim they just have a deep and abiding interest in criminal justice of all kinds. That is odd.

No, I didn't post an article about the jury system, or even about his guilt or non-guilt. All I posted about was the possibility that he was hiding assets, which would be against the law.

That doesn't make me want to talk about the broader scale of jurisprudence, no.

I'm not "after" OJ Simpson, and I didn't much care whether he was convicted or not, it's all the same to me, really. I do know I found an interesting news tidbit and posted it, and you're all up in huffy-huff.

Relax.

~A!

But I like the term. :-)

I have just responded to the various issues as they have arisen. If all I were responding to were the initial post, I probably would have just said "so what?"

The reason that I am in a huffy-huff is not because I am upset, but because it is an opportunity to think through this one particular news item - the ongoing OJ drama - and to put it into a larger political and social context so that we all can gain more understanding.

I don't mean to attack you, accuse you, nor beat you down in any way. Much of the hubbub surrounding the OJ case is about our system of justice and about race. The hubbub around the case is about... well, it is about the hubbub, not about the details of the case.

Any and all attempts at increasing understanding and reconciliation on issues of race and the role that racism plays in our society, and the integrity and inviolability of our system of justice as a check against arbitrary power being exercised by the state, are under intense and relentless attack by the right wing. These attacks, and the way in which the OJ case has been presented to white audiences to reinforce these attacks, define the context for these issues in a destructive and dangerous way. That is why it is imperative that whenever the OJ trial comes up and people want to talk about it, that we use the opportunity to broaden the discussion.

Seriously, good point. I'm really surprised at the anger and division this case continues to cause. I would have thought that almost ten years later we'd be able to talk about it like rational folk, but the color line seems very prominent in this country.

Racism is bullshit, and it shouldn't affect things the way it does. I do not deny that it played a role in the OJ Simpson trial, I just don't think it was everything. I do think he's guilty, by virtue of the facts of the case and all the research I did into it in college, but I never looked at the race angle, and I certainly didn't look at it the way y'all have forced me to today.

Thanks

~A!

A murderer who flaunts it and throws it in your face.

I loved when Gary Garver interviewed him and asked the immortal question "Are you keeping your knife sharp in case you get remarried?" Classic.

he's guilty, he says he's innocent. So he is supposed to act guilty to please people?

But he needs to obey the law. Is obeying the law 'acting guilty'?

~A!

he wouldn't be in the news if people wouldn't give a damn about his ass.

But it's a good example of what an earlier poster said: The media doesn't give a hit about what's really going on, so they stick to the sensationalism.

~A!

if people weren't so ready to 'suck the media dick', then they would leave it alone and report on the dying going on in Iraq, which, to me, is far more important that OJ playing golf.

Remember, though, that the majority of Americans don't want to know about the things going on in Iraq. They want their desperate housewives and Scott Peterson trials.

~A!

there must be some people whose hatred is so strong they keep talking about the one case in which a wealthy black man was acquitted of killing white people. Those same people never talk of the cops who gunned down an innocent black man for trying to show his wallet. They don't talk of Mr. Dorismund, another innocent black man killed by cops. No, the very sight of Simpson makes them furious but blacks who complain about injustice are often told to move on, get over it. Some people need to listen to Billie Holliday's strange fruit or some of the pictures of whites having a picnic while the body of a black man burned. But no, that probably would not bother them. It's only when a black harms a white person that there is great outrage. The only reason why this case continues to be discussed is because of race. I am outraged when people of any color are murdered. It seems, however, only when it is a black person accused of killing a white that the ire of some people is raised.

that has been shouldered by minorities in this country is extreme, and should never be tolerated. People should be outraged when things like what you metioned happen, and I know I am.

However, that doesn't preclude me from thinking he's guilty because of facts, does it? Am I a racist because I think he's guilty? Again, I could give a fuck what color he is, makes no difference to me.

This story was supposed to be about the law, not racism. Whatver.

~A!

whether he's guilty or not is irrelevant at this point...he was acquitted. he will be forced to pay the judgement for the civil claim the families filed. the fact that some are still so obsessed with the man has everything to do with WHO he alleged killed.
i wouldn't call this OJ obsession racism, but it is curious. i suppose this case is for white people what a zillion other cases have been for african-americans, like the rodney king case.
i suppose it's understandable on some level, but it was only one case in comparsion to...well, so many, many others. it will be a long time before we are equal...

talk about the truth slapping one in the face!!!

:hi:

:hi: shit...i am sick of this m.f., and those obsessed with his stupid ass. i wonder if he hadn't been such an ass-kissing tom if people would have been so upset (thinking he turned on THEM). :nuke:

You can't make other people do anything, so you can blather on about how racist we are for watching the news all you want, but it won't change the fact that we watch the news.

~A!

but you seem very eager to accept the title, for some reason.
you don't like my posts...tough.

I have seen ONE news story about him in the last six years. One. That is not a continuing obsession, and it is not exactly dogging him for his race.

Again, what the fuck is the issue here? He's famous, he's rich, and he's black. Ok, thanks, so the first two mean nothing and the last means everything?

That's a little skewed.

One more time, I don't give a shit what color he is. You do.

~A!

:hi: sorry, if the truth hurts :spank:

is a subjective entity, constantly morphing and changing.

See, now you could come right out and call me a racist, but you use that little underhand lob of the accusation. That's just plain offensive. Why shouldn't I protest? You see a black man, I see a man, and you infer that I am the racist.

Again, I call bullshit.

~A!

nor do i infer it. what i said is: if the victims were white, most of you outraged would not give a fuck. the outrage most of you feel is that you believe the jury nullified the charge because you don't believe there was reasonable doubt that he was not guilty. that view makes YOU a victim of racism...that's the real "outrage" isn't it? here's the problem with that view: this is ONE case.
someone posted a thread yesterday about how hate crime legislation came about...and it was because of a PATTERN of jury nullification that was a part of white terrorism against people of color, particularly indians and african-americans.
i get the sense that some of the OJ-obsessed folk are IMPLYING that THIS ONE CASE is the same as that pattern. i think that is bullshit...and i think that mindset is racist. if the shoe fits...

It was the line about protesting too much. I'm sitting here going "Hey, all I did was post a piece of news about an old case.", and the next thing I know people are throwing race at me like I did it becuase of anything other than I thought it would be an interesting tidbit.

~A!

:hi: sorry...i get a little annoyed with the true obsessors...peace.

Yeah, I know how it is, I get angry with the wrong people all the time. Today, in this forum, as a matter of fact. :)

:pals:

~A!

I wonder alevensalor if you would be willing to look at this in a slightly different way. Not to lose the argument, or have to eat humble pie or anything, but just see it a little differently.

You said "people are throwing race at me" and earlier you denied being a racist, even though no one accused you of that.

Just think about this, because we are all victims of racism in one way or another.

We have allowed the right wing bigots to re-define the terms race, racism and racist and that has permeated all of the discussions about race now. The charge of being unfairly charged with being a racist - think about it, that is what happens a lot now - is the perfect defense mechanism to shut down any meaningful discussion where race is involved. It removes race as a consideration in any and all contexts. See what I mean? It is cover for bigotry. That doesn't mean you are a bigot. It means that you are using the language that bigots use. Not surprising, since we are saturated with it, and it isn't some big accusation or condemnation of you, rather a plea to discuss it in a less charged and more enlightening way.

Blind people don't know about race - unless someone tells them. Blind people do know about racism, though, and that is the only way that they ever find out about race. Just think about that and let it soak in. If no one "saw" race as being about a category of people, a generalization, then it wouldn't exist. Race being used as an arbitrary and mostly imaginary excuse for mistreating people and seeing anyone with a certain appearance as a member of a group with certain supposed characteristics, however, is so prevalent that no blind person can function in America and make sense of things without being aware of the existence and ramifications of racism - even though they can't see race.

and I agree with it, in a general sense. I'm sure we would disagree on the particulars, but I hear you.

My entire point is that the discussion went down a rathole about race, and I didn't start that. I'm loathe to say yet again that I don't give half a flying fuck what color anyone is, but that's denying being a racist, which is evidently the same thing as being a racist, according to you.

So, I'm not allowed to post news items about black people, is that it? Tell you what: You think what you like, I'm done arguing about it. You want to think I subconsciouly chose a news piece because one of my favorite footballs players of all time happens to be black, you do that.

~A!

whether he's guilty or not is irrelevant at this point...he was acquitted. he will be forced to pay the judgement for the civil claim the families filed. the fact that some are still so obsessed with the man has everything to do with WHO he alleged killed.
i wouldn't call this OJ obsession racism, but it is curious. i suppose this case is for white people what a zillion other cases have been for african-americans, like the rodney king case.
i suppose it's understandable on some level, but it was only one case in comparsion to...well, so many, many others. it will be a long time before we are equal...

The story here - the only thing worth discussing - is about the strange and bizarre reaction to, and obsession over this particular case by many in the white community. That is the only reason that the subject keeps coming up. You want to talk about "the case" and resist anyone putting it into context. Why are people so interested in this case? Why do people in the white community see this case the way that it does?

Why are people so resistant to seeing the racism in the obsession over this case, and then falling back on "are you calling me a racist" as a last ditch defense, thereby shifting the burden and putting the people who are pointing out the racist overtones to this on the defensive?

I have always had an interest in criminal investigation and have read dozens of non-fiction books about unusual crimes. The crime that OJ was accused of is merely one of thousands, and yet it gets a disproportionate amount of interest and an unusual and strong emotional reaction - from right wing media and from the white community.

So, clearly, the story here is not the case itself, but rather the attention the case gets from cetain people. Why, when the strong reaction is exclusively from the white community and the right wing media pushes the story, would any liberal be resistant to the notion that racism could be involved in people's reactions and opinions on this?

YOU know what I'M thinking, that's it. Thanks for the help, I have no idea how my own fucking mind works, even though I've spent, well, my whole life working with it.

~A!

Tomee-

I think you are making an awful lot of assumptions here. How do you know that white people don't think about the injustice of a black man being shot while reaching for his wallet? Some people want justice for all. Dig? Stop painting everyone with same hateful brush.

Some people are in denial about their racist attitudes. The fact is that whites do not spend any time being angry about the injustices experienced by black people. That is a fact. As I indicated earlier black men and women have been murdered, their killer acquitted, and the defendant allowed to get on with his life. Whites in those cases don't continue talking about the case. Blacks who are unhappy are told the jury has spoken, move on. Some people may say they want justice for all but in reality they can live with injustice for blacks but become enraged when they perceive whites are on the receiving end of such treatment, especially if the perpetrator is believed to be an African American.

And the sensationalist element in this that keeps it at the forefront is race.

"OJ is a registered Democrat and a killer. Just like Bill Clinton. Just like Ted Kennedy. Just like John Kerry (who murdered a teenager in Vietnam). Democrats never have to pay for their sins. That is why G_d has punished them at the polls."

What a nimrod....

is $$$$ really ever going to bring either of them back??

I've never understood how they can award money to a family. I know the civil court's responsibility is equitable remedy, and I can't imagine how money would balance out not having my loved ones because of someone's jealousy and anger.

~A!

you love to talk about him...still.

blah blah OJ blah blah blah black blah.

I bet most of the people here only saw the word 'black'.

~A!

you folks LOVE him...as i mentioned already.

Yeah, 'us people', as if you're not sitting there monitoring posts. Who's obsessed?

~A!

and if you've been around here for a while, you would know what i'm talking about re: the OJ-obsessed and their near-insane ramblings. as they go...you aren't too bad :shrug:

I've only been here for a bit, not long enough to really see those patterns. Chances are you're right and I'm wrong, the victim of inexperience.

C'est la vie, non?

~A!

the OJ horse, that is.

It's been beaten here on DU many, many times.

At one point, at least once monthly.

it was ubiquitous. I almost went nuts. I took an interest in the trial from an analysis point of view after the fact, because it sparked so much anger and I couldn't figure out precisely why.

Now, 8 years later, I have a much better handle on why, I think.

~A!

Does that sound familiar?

Who puts him in the limelight, and why?

OJ mad at Nicole day of murder.

OJ known to seriously beat her on serveral occasions. She takes pictures and tells her sister she is fearful of her life. Her recorded calls to 911 seem to back this up.

OJ timeline that night very fuzzy. His bronco is seen in the area of her house. He makes the limo driver wait while he showers and covers up the crime. Blood is found in the Bronco.

Bloody footprints found to be made from a very expensive designer pair of shoes. OJ lies to detectives and tells them he doesn't own a pair. Soon, NFL photographer provides picks of OJ wearing said shoes. And oh yea....bloody footprints happen to be his size.

Both murders were brutal stabbings with a knife. When OJ is finally found he has many cuts on his hand. He claims to have broken a glass in his hotel room. You know....break a glass...get your knuckles all sliced up.

He tries to run with large sum of cash, disguise and then threatens suicide.

Yea. Sounds innocent to me.

And oh yea....those Bruno's and the clothes he wore to dinner that night? They've never been found.

He didn't remember how he got the cut on his knucle to begin with. Said it was his cell phone in the police interview, then switched it up to something that can actually cut you after the fact.

~A!

There are thousands of interesting cases to play detective on.

My question is, why this one?

What are you going to do if I play detective, ground me?

~A!

Sorry. You are the op so you are getting the brunt of the comments.

Yes, you are grounded. :-)

Not sure how I can enforce that....

Thanks for hanging in there with the discussion and reading my comments. I am not just trying to be a pain or ruin your day.

but you're frustrating the hell out of me. I just wanted to chat about the news....

~A!

I may have come on to strongly, and I apologize if I put you on the defensive.

Give it some thought, though, because there are important reasons why people have so much to say about this, and I was sincere and not meaning to just start a pissing match over it.

Why this case? Many people have been acquitted of murder. I mentioned the name of Robert Durst. He admitted to murdering and dismembering his neighbor. He is also suspected of killing his wife and her friend. A jury acquitted him. I haven't heard anyone criticize the jurors or say they lack intelligence. An all white jury acquitted the policemen in the Rodney King trial even though they had a tape showing the beating. People aren't still talking about those jurors either. It should be obvious why many black people feel the continued outrage over this one case is racist. Robert Durst's crime was just as heinous as Simpson's alleged crime and it was recent. Yet, it is Simpson's acquittal ten years ago that whites still talk about, not Durst. It's all about race.

Umm, I don't believe that the OJ case is about race. I believe that they had a very, very strong case for murder. You can talk about it being about race all you want, but it was just shoddy prosecution. The blood in his car, the bloody footprints made from his shoes, the deep cuts all over his knuckles and a mountain of other evidence. Care to justify any of that? He's guilty. Flat out guilty. That's what people are pissed about. There are 2 dead people because of OJ Simpson. How many times did that woman have to cry out for help? People are just tired of celebrities getting away with bullshit.



I'd also like to note that this thread was created to discuss OJ. I you start a thread about those bastard LA cops that beat Rodney King...I'd be on talking about how it's BS they got off as well. Or Robert Durst for that matter. Or that Ken Lay isn't in jail yet.

Life is full of wrong-doing by all kinds of people. Please don't try to pin the OJ discussion on race. It's more a flat out disappointment in the justice system for me.

and I will do likewise. I am an African American who has lived in this country my entire life. I know racism when I see it. You can deny the racial aspect all you want but that does not mean it does not exist. Whites have killed blacks for centuries and never were held responsible. The white community did nothing about it and were not outraged. Blacks can tell of case after case of whites being exonerated of murdering blacks by all white jurors. If no outrage at those cases of injustice, why all the rage now. It is because OJ is black his alleged victims white. It is racism,pure and simple.
As for a strong case for murder, I think not. There was more than reasonable doubt;that's why the jury acquitted. As someone mentioned above, why no outrage that Jon Benet Ramsey's murder has not been solved. One of the lead investigators quit because he was so certain that a member of the Ramsey family committed the crime. No one is talking about the murder of that little girl;they are still talking about a ten year old case in which a black man was acquitted of the murder of two white people.

that need resolution. This isn't about justice, the law, or the news to you, but about skin color alone. Guess what? That's exactly what you're accusing the white folks of doing, making it all about race.

You're more obsessed with his race than anybody here.

~A!

This case is about race and justice, the kind of justice or lack thereof given to minorities. A black man's acquittal by a mostly black jury is illegitimate in the eyes of some people. The verdict of that black jury is not accepted. The verdict of a mostly white jury IS accepted. And yet some will say no racism involved. I disagree and can assure you that many African Americans,even those who believe Simpson may be guilty are in agreement with me. If there is no outrage when an admitted murderer is acquitted but continued rage at a black man who was acquitted ten years ago, there is something else going on and IMHO, it's race.

The Jon Bonet Case is still in the news all the time. And you are wrong...2 detectives quit because they are convinced that nobody in the family DID commit the crime and that the dept has ignored other leads.

I'm not saying that racism doesn't still exist. Of course it does. On both sides. I've met plenty of black people who are definitely racist. I've met plenty of white people who are definitely racist. Of course, most of them have one thing in common - lack of education.

There is a young black girl who was found beheaded in my community years ago and nobody has come forward to claim her body. I see this story in the news frequently and it has been several years.

I don't know what part of the country you live in, but the people I know care about our community - all of it - and want justice to be done throughout.

Having said that - I think OJ is one guilty MoFo - based on the facts.

And yes. Through history - black people have been wronged. No doubt. But this isn't 1804. It's not 1904. It's not even 1954. It's 2004 and we have come along way as a society. There's even hope that Barrack Obama will be the first black president. We've come along way baby.

There was a report just last week which indicated that most of the victims of hate crimes are African Americans. There is rampant prejudice against black people today. Just because Barrack OBama has become a senator doesn't mean things have changed substantially in this country. Doesn't mean he would win a national election either. If you think Oj is guilty fine, but what I find rather astounding is that you like so many other are still talking about a ten year old case. No other person has been acquitted of murder in this country? A black man's face is envisaged each time someone thinks of a murderer?

As for the Ramsey case, people are not really paying that much attention to that case. No outcry was heard when Mr. Ramsey decided to run for office. I am glad that there was no outcry but imagine had he been a black man whose daughter had died under such mysterious circumstances. And I am not wrong. I saw the lead detective on the Larry King show. He believed someone in the family had something to do with the crime and quit because he was so upset over how the case was handled. And as far as this society coming a long way, that is the opinion of someone who seem unaware of the facts. Racial profiling, discrimination in housing and employment, police brutality, high poverty rate and infant mortality for blacks, inferior medical treatment, poor public schools, disproportionate number of blacks in jail because of draconian drug laws. Oh yes, we've come along way alright......Not!! IMHO We are regressing in race relations with blatant racism on the rise. It is now fashionable to be a bigot.

He won the criminal trial easily and from the several books i've read on the subject, he deserved to win. The media lied about the trial like they lie about everything. I'm surprised to see so many democrats believing the media spin on the case.

PS - he lost the civil trial but that was a foregone conclusion. Juries always make the rich guy pay.

I think part of that might be human nature. Why amass a lot of money if it is going to be given to someone else, especially if *you* (the earner) don't think it is just?

I know lots of deadbeat Moms and Dads who won't work because they are avoiding judgments... What makes OJ so special and "flaunting" it?

(Note: I am not touching your assumptions on his guilt. I won't touch that one here)

But maybe it will change the direction of the conversation a little bit. I think there was something going on in the popular consciousness at the time.

The Bronco chase on the LA freeway took place on June 12, 1994. The movie Speed opened Friday June 10, and I remember going to see it the day after it opened. When I saw the O.J. Bronco chase on tv THE NEXT DAY it was absolutely surreal to me. It was like somebody had transplanted the LA freeway chase in the movie (with Keanu in the silver Jeep -- early on) onto the small screen and substituted O.J. in the white Bronco. There were the aerial shots tracking the car from above, the same as in the movie. It was like reality and fantasy were conflating. The similarity of the scenes was so glaring to me, I wondered why I never heard anybody *else* mention it. Of course then, too, most of the country hadn't seen the movie yet.

I was deeply impacted emotionally by the movie Speed (for personal reasons that I won't get into), and then to see some of that drama reenacted again so soon on the small screen really messed with my conceptions of the nature of reality. And certainly fascinated me, to say the least. I was obsessed with Speed for a long time after that, and to a large extent the O.J. saga too. You could say the obsessions fueled each other, even though they diverged.

Lords, doesn't my home turf have ENOUGH of an image problem!?!? No no no, we need ONE MORE scumbucket!!!!! As if Ann(thrax) KKKoulter and Matt Fudge living here isn't BAD enough!!! And I wonder why 9 outta 10 of my favorite bands skip playing shows in this state, and I gotta go to NYC to see Siouxsie!!! GRRR!!! GO AWAY OJ, WE HATE YOU LIKE POISON! (No not the band Poison!) Move somewhere else...say, the South Pole.

Lu Cifer, FOR THE LOVE OF GODS, PLEASE GO TO http://www.TheCreatures.com and even if you aren't from South Florida, fake like you are on their forum and BEG SIOUXSIE TO PLAY DOWN HERE!!! Can't hurt for me to at least TRY!

lest we focus on more important issues.

that bought into the whole race issuse ,a murderer , a man that killed the mother of his children, and a totally inocent man , who was just doing a favor(wrong place at wrong time) is walking around a free man. While the family of the dead has to live with seeing this disgusting excuse for a human being on T.V.,smiling into the camera ! This was one time an a mostly African American jury ,could have shown that they are better then the mostly white juries that for years sent inocent black men to death row. Instead they let everyone down , including their own race ! History will not look kindly on them. O.J. and his attorneys all have a special place in hell waiting for them !

the black jurors, why not be fair and also criticize the three that were not black. Did the blacks force them to vote to acquit? Why is it that blacks who vote to acquit blacks in cases involving white victims are gullible, but whites who vote to acquit whites in cases involving blacks are not described as such? I never hear anyone saying that those jurors in Semi Valley could have showed the world they were better than many other all white juries who routinely exonerated members of their community accused of harming blacks. The racial aspect is so glaring. You blame the black jurors yet the three non blacks are given a pass. If even one of three had voted to convict, there would have been a hung jury. Why single out the blacks? Do you think they threatened the other three? They certainly did not indicate that they were afraid in any way.

You speak of being let down. What a statement to make. Do you think that black people don't feel sorrow when their loved ones are sent before all white juries knowing full well what the outcome is likely to be? We have to accept unjust verdicts all the time and if we complain,many in the majority community say the verdict is in, live with it. Members of the grieving community know there is little to be done so they just go on with their lives.

but I'm not drinking anymore because it comes from Florida. }(

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.