Reply to OJ: Made in America (ESPN Doc)

Forum Index » Entertainment and Pop Culture

Reply to "OJ: Made in America (ESPN Doc)"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

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

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

(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 [I]thousands[/I] of unavenged black deaths in the time since the OJ trial, feel free to take a flying leap off the nearest bridge.[/quote]

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. [/quote]

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.[/quote]

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. [/quote]

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.  [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics