StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Curious if anyone else has been watching this docudrama over the past few weeks and your thoughts so far. I've found it to be quite interesting and compelling - this in spite of my loathing for the Kardashians - since I only have vague memories of the actual events.

They've been quite effective in laying down the groundwork for what I believe to be the series' premise: that OJ was guilty, but a combination of poor choices by the prosecution, simple bad luck, and "playing the race card" is what got him off. I do wonder if anyone here does believe OJ to be innocent, regardless if he was set up by a conspiracy or not, and why you feel that way.

Ugh, no. I remember having to sit through that shit in high school. I don't feel like watching a docu-drama about it.

Haven't watched or heard of it, but I remember the trial when I was a kid. It was basically the media's first 9/11, before terrorism became the new OJ. I don't think most people who weren't around for it really grasp just how much the country was collectively obsessed with the whole thing.

I think he was guilty, but I also think that his acquittal is what you should expect when the LAPD tries to frame a guilty man. Honestly I'm more curious what the half~ of the US that thought he was innocent at the time feels about the subject now.

Ralin wrote:Haven't watched or heard of it, but I remember the trial when I was a kid. It was basically the media's first 9/11, before terrorism became the new OJ. I don't think most people who weren't around for it really grasp just how much the country was collectively obsessed with the whole thing.

I think you're overstating things.

Ralin wrote:Haven't watched or heard of it, but I remember the trial when I was a kid. It was basically the media's first 9/11, before terrorism became the new OJ. I don't think most people who weren't around for it really grasp just how much the country was collectively obsessed with the whole thing.

I think he was guilty, but I also think that his acquittal is what you should expect when the LAPD tries to frame a guilty man. Honestly I'm more curious what the half~ of the US that thought he was innocent at the time feels about the subject now.

The one relevancethis has in modern times is that crime labs today are apparently doing their best to keep the OJ Simpson defense a viable defense.

http://reason.com/archives/2015/05/05/t ... s-disaster

General Zod wrote: I think you're overstating things.

The 24 hour news cycle constantly talking about every single detail over and over until some new detail replaced it, people watching it at home or work for hours and obsessing over it, the polarization between guilty and not guilty believers...no, don't think I am.

Ralin wrote:

General Zod wrote: I think you're overstating things.

The 24 hour news cycle constantly talking about every single detail over and over until some new detail replaced it, people watching it at home or work for hours and obsessing over it, the polarization between guilty and not guilty believers...no, don't think I am.

of course, this begs the question of the media's competence in reporting such matters.

There's one theory that OJ's SON Jason might have been the guilty party (he had a long history of mental problems, could be violent and didn't have an alibi). The theory is that OJ WAS on the scene but mostly covered up evidence to protect his son.

Darth Yan wrote:There's one theory that OJ's SON Jason might have been the guilty party (he had a long history of mental problems, could be violent and didn't have an alibi). The theory is that OJ WAS on the scene but mostly covered up evidence to protect his son.

I read a book by someone who managed...something, that used to be in OJ's inner circle who said that OJ told him once while they were high that Nicole Brown Simpson showed up with the knife he used to kill her and that the fight started with him taking it away from her and that she'd probably still be alive otherwise. No idea how credible he is, though obviously OJ called him a liar.

I'm not entirely sure, but there are a few things. The first thing OJ did was get an unknown person an attorney before procuring one form himself. Also OJ didn't have bruises or injuries that matched Ronald Goldman landing blows on him.

If it is true it's......kinda twisted.

Ralin wrote:

General Zod wrote: I think you're overstating things.

The 24 hour news cycle constantly talking about every single detail over and over until some new detail replaced it, people watching it at home or work for hours and obsessing over it, the polarization between guilty and not guilty believers...no, don't think I am.

We had the invasion of Kuwait and the Persian Gulf War well before OJ. There was also the Oklahoma City Bombing the same year as OJ.

General Zod wrote:
We had the invasion of Kuwait and the Persian Gulf War well before OJ. There was also the Oklahoma City Bombing the same year as OJ.

Eh. Okay this is subjective, but I personally don't remember the news media going as obsessively hog wild with constant coverage the way they did with the OJ trial. Maybe when it was still fresh, but not for the non stop months and months and months they did with the OJ trial.

You might say that it was really stupid to get so fixated on a millionaire killing his ex and her friend compared to actually world-shakingly important stuff like Desert Storm and all, and you'd be right, but the fact that it was so relatively trivial maybe just makes the frenzy stand out more. This is a story that America was obsessed with because the media was obsessed with it because people were obsessed with it because the media was so damned obsessive about telling people about it as opposed to actually warranting that kind of attention on its own merits.

Ralin wrote:

General Zod wrote:
We had the invasion of Kuwait and the Persian Gulf War well before OJ. There was also the Oklahoma City Bombing the same year as OJ.

Eh. Okay this is subjective, but I personally don't remember the news media going as obsessively hog wild with constant coverage the way they did with the OJ trial. Maybe when it was still fresh, but not for the non stop months and months and months they did with the OJ trial.

You might say that it was really stupid to get so fixated on a millionaire killing his ex and her friend compared to actually world-shakingly important stuff like Desert Storm and all, and you'd be right, but the fact that it was so relatively trivial maybe just makes the frenzy stand out more. This is a story that America was obsessed with because the media was obsessed with it because people were obsessed with it because the media was so damned obsessive about telling people about it as opposed to actually warranting that kind of attention on its own merits.

I remember the media interrupting regular TV programming all the time to bring us updates on the Gulf war. With OJ? Not so much.

That's because OJ was the regular programming. They made an entire TV channel for it!

Since I was only 12 at the time of the trial, I was really only peripherally aware of what was happening. The show has been, so far, a pretty fascinating look back, and by and large, very well-acted. It is kinda funny to see Jonesy from The Hunt for Red October as Johnny Cochran, though.

Ralin wrote:...but I also think that his acquittal is what you should expect when the LAPD tries to frame a guilty man. Honestly I'm more curious what the half~ of the US that thought he was innocent at the time feels about the subject now.

If the LAPD wanted to frame him, they wouldn't have been so blatant about it. I mean, assigning a known racist as the lead investigator? That's like having a man with a German accent infiltrate the British Army as a spy during WWI.

And, if OJ had been innocent, why did he run?!

That's my opinion.

The fact remains that a jury acquitted him, because the evidence was mishandled, the LAPD's credibility was shot to shit in the wake of the Rodney King incident, and, ultimately, because Simpson's defense team did a better job of establishing reasonable doubt than the prosecution was able to establish guilt by preponderance of the evidence.

So, we will never know for sure about Simpson's guilt or innocence.

U.P. Cinnabar wrote:

Ralin wrote:...but I also think that his acquittal is what you should expect when the LAPD tries to frame a guilty man. Honestly I'm more curious what the half~ of the US that thought he was innocent at the time feels about the subject now.

If the LAPD wanted to frame him, they wouldn't have been so blatant about it. I mean, assigning a known racist as the lead investigator? That's like having a man with a German accent infiltrate the British Army as a spy during WWI.

Their blatance was enough to blow the Rampart scandal open just three years later.

And even today, many public crime labs are funded in part per conviction. That has to inspire confidence in their results.

Ralin wrote:That's because OJ was the regular programming. They made an entire TV channel for it!

I'm with you on it, it really did drive the country up a wall in a way the Gulf War sure didn't.

As far as his guilt goes, any doubts I might have ever had went away when the whole 'If I Did It' book thing appeared. Seriously what innocent person would do that?

Sea Skimmer wrote: As far as his guilt goes, any doubts I might have ever had went away when the whole 'If I Did It' book thing appeared. Seriously what innocent person would do that?

Ultimately titled "If I Did It"

Ralin wrote:

Sea Skimmer wrote: As far as his guilt goes, any doubts I might have ever had went away when the whole 'If I Did It' book thing appeared. Seriously what innocent person would do that?

Ultimately titled "If I Did It"

By the Victim's Family IIRC.

Crazedwraith wrote: By the Victim's Family IIRC.

The Goldmans', yes. Who had the copyright thanks to the civil suit

That was only the title of a commentary added by the family, the book title was changed to 'If I Did It: Confessions of the Killer'

amigocabal wrote:Their blatance was enough to blow the Rampart scandal open just three years later.

And even today, many public crime labs are funded in part per conviction. That has to inspire confidence in their results.

Their blatancy was not what triggered the Rampart investigation. It was entirely based on one of their own blue-falconing his buddies for whatever reasons he might have had.

Public crime labs funded per conviction. That seems rather an extraordinary claim. Some extraordinary evidence would be nice, preferably from somewhere other than random anti-government/anti-police websites on the Net.

U.P. Cinnabar wrote: Public crime labs funded per conviction. That seems rather an extraordinary claim. Some extraordinary evidence would be nice, preferably from somewhere other than random anti-government/anti-police websites on the Net.

There was a paper published in a journal.

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1 ... 013.817070

And then of course there was Annie Dookhan.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massac ... story.html

Imagine if she had been the lab tech in a high profile murder case...

Darth Yan wrote:There's one theory that OJ's SON Jason might have been the guilty party (he had a long history of mental problems, could be violent and didn't have an alibi). The theory is that OJ WAS on the scene but mostly covered up evidence to protect his son.

I saw a series of videos based on some investigator's book that made a very good case that Jason was the murderer and that O.J. actually just covered it up, and that's part of the reason for various bits of evidence being wonky.

IIRC, a lot of the book was based on evidence collected from stuff found in a storage locker that had been supposedly been abandoned, via non-payment, by O.J..