OJ: Made in America (ESPN Doc)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, every time a white person erupts in hysterics over the outcome of the OJ trial, I know I am dealing with:

(1) a person too stupid to understand what "beyond reasonable doubt" means.

(2) an idiotic racist who thinks white lives are more important than all other lives. If you are not similarly disturbed and aggrieved by the thousands of unavenged black deaths in the time since the OJ trial, feel free to take a flying leap off the nearest bridge.

I don't understand this. The evidence proved that he did it beyond reasonable doubt. How do you have his blood, Nicole's blood, and Ron's blood at HER house, in HIS car, and at HIS house if he didn't do it? And no one else's blood in ANY of those locations?* What other reasonable scenario is there? And don't say they cops framed him because they didn't have any of OJ's blood to plant in those locations when they were established as crime scenes. If anyone in your life was murdered, you would absolutely accept that much evidence as proof of guilt. Anybody would.

*Plus hairs and clothing fibers from all three people, OJ's gloves at two locations, shoe prints established to be from shoes he owned, etc etc. Not even getting into the multiple eyewitnesses who saw his car in both locations, etc. Just the literal physical evidence at three locations (two houses and the car) that the defense did NOT get thrown out.

When one of the detectives is asked directly if he planted evidence and takes the Fifth, even damning evidence doesn't do much damning anymore.

Other PP. No, I get this. Furman may have been good at his job "in the office" - but he was/is a racist.

[Anonymous]

Other PP again - "just remember me as the Juice" - resonated with me, as I remember OJ well growing up. As other PP said - he was everywhere! I think people want him to be that person, he just isn't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, every time a white person erupts in hysterics over the outcome of the OJ trial, I know I am dealing with:

(1) a person too stupid to understand what "beyond reasonable doubt" means.

(2) an idiotic racist who thinks white lives are more important than all other lives. If you are not similarly disturbed and aggrieved by the thousands of unavenged black deaths in the time since the OJ trial, feel free to take a flying leap off the nearest bridge.

+1

AMEN!

OJ thought he was white.

His quote when AAs came out to support him 'what are all these n@ggers doing in Brentwood?" was the highlight of the ESPN special. OMG.

+1

This totally changed my mind from the first PP on this post to the second PP on this post.

OJ had clear disdain for his own people - and AA people didn't even care. They used OJ as a "symbol", but OJ could not care less about them!

Kind of like white people who support Trump.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PP here. I remember the trial well, though my career was demanding, so it did not allow me time to watch the trial, which was televised constantly for months. For younger people, this was the first time a trial had been in the media to this extent.

I was riveted to this series. So many race issues remain unsolved; yet it is blatantly obvious who "did it".

For example, it blew my mind that the LAPD didn't respond to the riots and let the rioters burn down their own community. LAPD was corrupt, but also damned if they did/do and damned if the don't.

That part was surreal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, every time a white person erupts in hysterics over the outcome of the OJ trial, I know I am dealing with:

(1) a person too stupid to understand what "beyond reasonable doubt" means.

(2) an idiotic racist who thinks white lives are more important than all other lives. If you are not similarly disturbed and aggrieved by the thousands of unavenged black deaths in the time since the OJ trial, feel free to take a flying leap off the nearest bridge.

I don't understand this. The evidence proved that he did it beyond reasonable doubt. How do you have his blood, Nicole's blood, and Ron's blood at HER house, in HIS car, and at HIS house if he didn't do it? And no one else's blood in ANY of those locations?* What other reasonable scenario is there? And don't say they cops framed him because they didn't have any of OJ's blood to plant in those locations when they were established as crime scenes. If anyone in your life was murdered, you would absolutely accept that much evidence as proof of guilt. Anybody would.

*Plus hairs and clothing fibers from all three people, OJ's gloves at two locations, shoe prints established to be from shoes he owned, etc etc. Not even getting into the multiple eyewitnesses who saw his car in both locations, etc. Just the literal physical evidence at three locations (two houses and the car) that the defense did NOT get thrown out.

When one of the detectives is asked directly if he planted evidence and takes the Fifth, even damning evidence doesn't do much damning anymore.

That was brilliant lawyering...but it doesn't change who the killer was.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, every time a white person erupts in hysterics over the outcome of the OJ trial, I know I am dealing with:

(1) a person too stupid to understand what "beyond reasonable doubt" means.

(2) an idiotic racist who thinks white lives are more important than all other lives. If you are not similarly disturbed and aggrieved by the thousands of unavenged black deaths in the time since the OJ trial, feel free to take a flying leap off the nearest bridge.

I don't understand this. The evidence proved that he did it beyond reasonable doubt. How do you have his blood, Nicole's blood, and Ron's blood at HER house, in HIS car, and at HIS house if he didn't do it? And no one else's blood in ANY of those locations?* What other reasonable scenario is there? And don't say they cops framed him because they didn't have any of OJ's blood to plant in those locations when they were established as crime scenes. If anyone in your life was murdered, you would absolutely accept that much evidence as proof of guilt. Anybody would.

*Plus hairs and clothing fibers from all three people, OJ's gloves at two locations, shoe prints established to be from shoes he owned, etc etc. Not even getting into the multiple eyewitnesses who saw his car in both locations, etc. Just the literal physical evidence at three locations (two houses and the car) that the defense did NOT get thrown out.

When one of the detectives is asked directly if he planted evidence and takes the Fifth, even damning evidence doesn't do much damning anymore.

That was brilliant lawyering...but it doesn't change who the killer was.

Yes, which adds to the nuggets of reasonable doubt. So, no they didn't prove it beyond a reasonable doubt legally. Don't forget that DNA evidence at that time was still not ingrained in ordinary people's minds the way it is now post-CSI, etc. Of course we all know who did it, but the prosecution didn't get it over the threshold of "no reasonable doubt."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, every time a white person erupts in hysterics over the outcome of the OJ trial, I know I am dealing with:

(1) a person too stupid to understand what "beyond reasonable doubt" means.

(2) an idiotic racist who thinks white lives are more important than all other lives. If you are not similarly disturbed and aggrieved by the thousands of unavenged black deaths in the time since the OJ trial, feel free to take a flying leap off the nearest bridge.

I don't understand this. The evidence proved that he did it beyond reasonable doubt. How do you have his blood, Nicole's blood, and Ron's blood at HER house, in HIS car, and at HIS house if he didn't do it? And no one else's blood in ANY of those locations?* What other reasonable scenario is there? And don't say they cops framed him because they didn't have any of OJ's blood to plant in those locations when they were established as crime scenes. If anyone in your life was murdered, you would absolutely accept that much evidence as proof of guilt. Anybody would.

*Plus hairs and clothing fibers from all three people, OJ's gloves at two locations, shoe prints established to be from shoes he owned, etc etc. Not even getting into the multiple eyewitnesses who saw his car in both locations, etc. Just the literal physical evidence at three locations (two houses and the car) that the defense did NOT get thrown out.

When one of the detectives is asked directly if he planted evidence and takes the Fifth, even damning evidence doesn't do much damning anymore.

That was brilliant lawyering...but it doesn't change who the killer was.

And it doesn't change the inherent and rampant racism that helped make it happen. That was also a miscarriage of justice and, for some people, the greater one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, every time a white person erupts in hysterics over the outcome of the OJ trial, I know I am dealing with:

(1) a person too stupid to understand what "beyond reasonable doubt" means.

(2) an idiotic racist who thinks white lives are more important than all other lives. If you are not similarly disturbed and aggrieved by the thousands of unavenged black deaths in the time since the OJ trial, feel free to take a flying leap off the nearest bridge.

I don't understand this. The evidence proved that he did it beyond reasonable doubt. How do you have his blood, Nicole's blood, and Ron's blood at HER house, in HIS car, and at HIS house if he didn't do it? And no one else's blood in ANY of those locations?* What other reasonable scenario is there? And don't say they cops framed him because they didn't have any of OJ's blood to plant in those locations when they were established as crime scenes. If anyone in your life was murdered, you would absolutely accept that much evidence as proof of guilt. Anybody would.

*Plus hairs and clothing fibers from all three people, OJ's gloves at two locations, shoe prints established to be from shoes he owned, etc etc. Not even getting into the multiple eyewitnesses who saw his car in both locations, etc. Just the literal physical evidence at three locations (two houses and the car) that the defense did NOT get thrown out.

When one of the detectives is asked directly if he planted evidence and takes the Fifth, even damning evidence doesn't do much damning anymore.

In the documentary Fuhrman says that he had to take the fifth on those questions because he took the fifth on the earlier questions - something about if you don't take the fifth on all questions it negates the protections of the fifth on the earlier questions. The earlier questions were about his usage of the N word. While I don't begrudge him for not wanting to admit he said it, we all heard it anyway, and in my mind, getting OJ prosecuted should have trumped his desire to not incriminate himself.

Fuhrman's interview was interesting. He talks about how he had a nice life up to the minute he was called to investigate the murders and how that all went away. He and Ron Goldman were at the wrong place and the exact wrong time. That's not to excuse Fuhrman's racism, just a point that the course of (or, in Ron's case, your entire) life can change in an instant.

[Anonymous]

They dogged OJ in this DOC. They told all his dark secrets. Although, I have heard that OJ cannot read nor write.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, every time a white person erupts in hysterics over the outcome of the OJ trial, I know I am dealing with:

(1) a person too stupid to understand what "beyond reasonable doubt" means.

(2) an idiotic racist who thinks white lives are more important than all other lives. If you are not similarly disturbed and aggrieved by the thousands of unavenged black deaths in the time since the OJ trial, feel free to take a flying leap off the nearest bridge.

I don't understand this. The evidence proved that he did it beyond reasonable doubt. How do you have his blood, Nicole's blood, and Ron's blood at HER house, in HIS car, and at HIS house if he didn't do it? And no one else's blood in ANY of those locations?* What other reasonable scenario is there? And don't say they cops framed him because they didn't have any of OJ's blood to plant in those locations when they were established as crime scenes. If anyone in your life was murdered, you would absolutely accept that much evidence as proof of guilt. Anybody would.

*Plus hairs and clothing fibers from all three people, OJ's gloves at two locations, shoe prints established to be from shoes he owned, etc etc. Not even getting into the multiple eyewitnesses who saw his car in both locations, etc. Just the literal physical evidence at three locations (two houses and the car) that the defense did NOT get thrown out.

When one of the detectives is asked directly if he planted evidence and takes the Fifth, even damning evidence doesn't do much damning anymore.

In the documentary Fuhrman says that he had to take the fifth on those questions because he took the fifth on the earlier questions - something about if you don't take the fifth on all questions it negates the protections of the fifth on the earlier questions. The earlier questions were about his usage of the N word. While I don't begrudge him for not wanting to admit he said it, we all heard it anyway, and in my mind, getting OJ prosecuted should have trumped his desire to not incriminate himself.

Fuhrman's interview was interesting. He talks about how he had a nice life up to the minute he was called to investigate the murders and how that all went away. He and Ron Goldman were at the wrong place and the exact wrong time. That's not to excuse Fuhrman's racism, just a point that the course of (or, in Ron's case, your entire) life can change in an instant.

I think you're the one who doesn't understand this standard. The standard of proof is beyond a REASONABLE doubt -- not beyond any doubt. Fuhrman had to take the 5th as to all the questions, as PP said. It was simply not reasonable to think Fuhrman could have planted the glove. At the time the glove was supposedly planted, Fuhrman had no idea where OJ was at the time of the murders. What if it turned out OJ was already in Chicago or had some other airtight alibi? Fuhrman would have been risking his career and legal charges by planting that glove. Nor could Fuhrman possibly have known that Nicole had purchased that exact pair of gloves for OJ several years before. And, of course, if Fuhrman planted the glove, he would have had to get OJ's blood somehow and put it on the glove. And Fuhrman would have no way of knowing if the "real" killer's blood was on the glove -- so again he would be rolling the dice, risking his career, risking criminal charges all to frame a super rich and famous black guy whom the LAPD loved and turned a blind eye for every time he beat up his wife. No reasonable person would believe these theories, plain and simple.

I grew up in L.A. and lived through Rodney King, the riots, and the OJ case. I was a student at UCLA during the trial, and recorded and watched every single day of the trial. I remember the day that verdict was announced -- there was no celebrating on UCLA's campus that I saw. There was a lot of shock and many tears. I've watched both the documentary and the mini series, and it brought back a lot of emotions for me about that time period in L.A. But it was always very clear to me that OJ was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. I'm a lawyer now and understand very well what that standard means. The prosecution absolutely proved his guilt. Were there mistakes? Of course there were -- as there are in all cases. But OJ got off because he was rich and famous and the jury either didn't believe he murdered Nicole and Ron or, more likely IMO, just didn't care. As I think someone mentioned in the documentary, I wonder what that same jury would have done if all the facts were the same, but OJ had murdered his first wife, who was AA, instead of Nicole. In any event, I'm glad for the Goldmans and the Browns that OJ's finally in jail where he belongs.

[Anonymous]

OJ got off in that trial because the race card was played. And one asshole racist cop was a witness. That outcome was not about evidence.

[Anonymous]

Fuhrman's interview was interesting. He talks about how he had a nice life up to the minute he was called to investigate the murders and how that all went away. He and Ron Goldman were at the wrong place and the exact wrong time. That's not to excuse Fuhrman's racism, just a point that the course of (or, in Ron's case, your entire) life can change in an instant.

It's disgusting that anyone is comparing Fuhrman, who has probably made millions as an author and pundit since the trial even though he had a huge hand in throwing it, to Goldman who was completely innocent and brutally murdered.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, every time a white person erupts in hysterics over the outcome of the OJ trial, I know I am dealing with:

(1) a person too stupid to understand what "beyond reasonable doubt" means.

(2) an idiotic racist who thinks white lives are more important than all other lives. If you are not similarly disturbed and aggrieved by the thousands of unavenged black deaths in the time since the OJ trial, feel free to take a flying leap off the nearest bridge.

I don't understand this. The evidence proved that he did it beyond reasonable doubt. How do you have his blood, Nicole's blood, and Ron's blood at HER house, in HIS car, and at HIS house if he didn't do it? And no one else's blood in ANY of those locations?* What other reasonable scenario is there? And don't say they cops framed him because they didn't have any of OJ's blood to plant in those locations when they were established as crime scenes. If anyone in your life was murdered, you would absolutely accept that much evidence as proof of guilt. Anybody would.

*Plus hairs and clothing fibers from all three people, OJ's gloves at two locations, shoe prints established to be from shoes he owned, etc etc. Not even getting into the multiple eyewitnesses who saw his car in both locations, etc. Just the literal physical evidence at three locations (two houses and the car) that the defense did NOT get thrown out.

When one of the detectives is asked directly if he planted evidence and takes the Fifth, even damning evidence doesn't do much damning anymore.

In the documentary Fuhrman says that he had to take the fifth on those questions because he took the fifth on the earlier questions - something about if you don't take the fifth on all questions it negates the protections of the fifth on the earlier questions. The earlier questions were about his usage of the N word. While I don't begrudge him for not wanting to admit he said it, we all heard it anyway, and in my mind, getting OJ prosecuted should have trumped his desire to not incriminate himself.

Fuhrman's interview was interesting. He talks about how he had a nice life up to the minute he was called to investigate the murders and how that all went away. He and Ron Goldman were at the wrong place and the exact wrong time. That's not to excuse Fuhrman's racism, just a point that the course of (or, in Ron's case, your entire) life can change in an instant.

I think you're the one who doesn't understand this standard. The standard of proof is beyond a REASONABLE doubt -- not beyond any doubt. Fuhrman had to take the 5th as to all the questions, as PP said. It was simply not reasonable to think Fuhrman could have planted the glove. At the time the glove was supposedly planted, Fuhrman had no idea where OJ was at the time of the murders. What if it turned out OJ was already in Chicago or had some other airtight alibi? Fuhrman would have been risking his career and legal charges by planting that glove. Nor could Fuhrman possibly have known that Nicole had purchased that exact pair of gloves for OJ several years before. And, of course, if Fuhrman planted the glove, he would have had to get OJ's blood somehow and put it on the glove. And Fuhrman would have no way of knowing if the "real" killer's blood was on the glove -- so again he would be rolling the dice, risking his career, risking criminal charges all to frame a super rich and famous black guy whom the LAPD loved and turned a blind eye for every time he beat up his wife. No reasonable person would believe these theories, plain and simple.

I grew up in L.A. and lived through Rodney King, the riots, and the OJ case. I was a student at UCLA during the trial, and recorded and watched every single day of the trial. I remember the day that verdict was announced -- there was no celebrating on UCLA's campus that I saw. There was a lot of shock and many tears. I've watched both the documentary and the mini series, and it brought back a lot of emotions for me about that time period in L.A. But it was always very clear to me that OJ was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. I'm a lawyer now and understand very well what that standard means. The prosecution absolutely proved his guilt. Were there mistakes? Of course there were -- as there are in all cases. But OJ got off because he was rich and famous and the jury either didn't believe he murdered Nicole and Ron or, more likely IMO, just didn't care. As I think someone mentioned in the documentary, I wonder what that same jury would have done if all the facts were the same, but OJ had murdered his first wife, who was AA, instead of Nicole. In any event, I'm glad for the Goldmans and the Browns that OJ's finally in jail where he belongs.

+1

The jury wanted to dismiss Nichole, because they felt dismissed themselves.