Was OJ innocent?

[Jon]

I watched a great drama series on this recently. It was on Netflix and I highly recommend it.

To me, it seemed obvious that he was guilty. When he spoke with the officers for the first time, he didn't ask how she died. Very odd indeed! I watched that call happen in the drama. But then later on, I thought to myself, "Wait, I saw it in the drama. The officer did turn to his colleague and say he never asked how she died. But this is where it is misleading. That was their testimony. We don't actually know if that was the case in reality. We are assuming it is because the drama showed that interaction. Given the corrupt nature of that particular police department, in particular with the Rodney King case not long before, together with the racist officer who was caught out with the tapes, can you really trust the testimony of any of the police department?

Food for thought...

 

[The_Doc_Man]

The circumstantial evidence is damning but the inability to actually find the murder weapons complicated matters tremendously. He had motive and opportunity, and he had a collection of Japanese swords of various types that would have easily inflicted the wounds actually found on the victims. His "slow speed white Bronco" chase isn't the action of an innocent man. It is clear to me that the prosecution botched the case. Johnny Cochrane's famous line about the gloves, "If they don't fit, you must acquit" is actually misleading. Gloves shrink if soaked in certain fluids and blood is one of them. It causes the proteins to coil tighter and thus shrink. So once those gloves were blood-soaked, OF COURSE they wouldn't fit. O.J. got away with criminal murder, though as I recall, he ended up losing the civil suits filed by the Goldman family.

Was he guilty? I try very hard to be objective about this, and I feel I can, since I didn't know O.J., Nicole Simpson, or Ron Goldman personally. I think he was guilty. But since the state failed to make a credible case, he was found not guilty with prejudice, meaning that double jeopardy applied and he couldn't be tried again. On the other hand, his sorry butt got caught on the armed robbery charge and he did some time for that, at least.

 

[Uncle Gizmo]

It never really interested me...

From this timeline, if it can be verified as being true then I would say he is guilty...

However if I were a black man living in America then I think I would have a very non trusting Attitude to the police.

This YouTube video was very enlightening!

A criminal defence attorney advises you "Don't Talk to the Police" but this is in America, I am assuming it would hold true for the UK.

 

[Jon]

Uncle, it never interested me either until I saw that series on Netflix. Then I got fascinated by it. And it appears that everybody has their own opinion on it!

 

[Bee]

I have watched that particular series three times now. It's interesting to me that you give more credence to the fact the cops 'may' have lied about whether or not OJ was incurious about the manner of her death, than you do to the fact that he had a record of domestic abuse to the point where Nicole is on tape frightened for her life.

But, let's say you're right and the cops lied - maybe because they were racist, or maybe because they felt that such a small detail wouldn't matter in the overall scheme of things because the rest of the evidence was overwhelming and it would assist a conviction. I'm not condoning such action by the way.

We also know that OJ was known colloquially as Mayor of Brentwood - the predominantly white, middle-class location he lived in. The police were regular guests at his parties. He played golf with many people who could 'fix' things. Did he turn to any of his associates for help? No, he wrote a suicide note and staged that very bizarre Bronco chase. Not the actions of an innocent man.

I agree with Doc about the gloves. They'd been soaked in blood, frozen, thawed, refrozen, rethawed. If you've ever dropped a leather glove in a puddle, you'll know that even rainwater changes the texture and feel of the glove - and if it's had a thorough soaking, chances are it will also have shrunk.

He did it. I'm convinced. Who else had motive?

 

[Jon]

Domestic abuse does not equal murder. If cops may have lied, their testimony is less credible. You can't convict on shaky testimony. The point I am making is my flip from "he did it because he didn't ask how she died", to "maybe he didn't do it because that may not be what actually happened". If the police department was highly racist, then perhaps the police lied to bolster their case. The fact he wasn't convicted would support the idea that the police realise these things sometimes might need a "little help".

His Bronco chase does not mean he killed her. It just means he tried to escape. Trying to escape does not equal murder. Any explanations for why he tried to escape is just speculation, m'lud.

Not knowing who else had a motive doesn't mean he killed her.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Jon, three very good "devil's advocate" points. As I said, there are botched spots all over the place just waiting for examination/elucidation.

Having said that:

Domestic abuse does not equal murder. But stats show that often it is a precursor to murder.

The Bronco chase as a means of escape does not equal murder. But it shows an incredibly agitated state of mind in which his thinking processes were off in some way. So the question is, from what was he escaping? Bee's mention of a suicide note reminded me of that fact. If he was suicidal but had been involved with domestic abuse of his wife, he would have been happy that she was gone.

Not knowing if anyone else had a motive is merely saying, "Anyone COULD have done it." Which is always true and is why you look for evidence to narrow down the field. And the field got narrowed down pretty far, since he was the guy they tried for the crime and nobody else has ever been named as a suspect. As I said earlier - all circumstantial, all suspicious. But since he escaped the charges, also all speculative.

 

[Jon]

People jump to conclusions. The police could have done the same, tainted by institutionalised racism. In fact, one of the cops was caught on tape about the planting of evidence. Why even bother check for other suspects if you can nail this person down? It gets their conviction figures up.

You could argue that in impoverished ghettos, the crime rates are high. Therefore, go in and imprison anyone, since the stats suggest living in that area is a precursor to crime. But we don't. Because location is not equal to the crime, however indicative the stats suggest it may be. Same argument applies to domestic abuse.

Whatever the Bronco chase is about, it is not evidence of murder.

As they seem to say in the movies, if you can't find the weapon you have a problem. If it was strangulation, then the weapons would be following OJ about because they would be dangling from his arms!

 

[Bee]

"Over half of the killings of American women are related to intimate partner violence, with the vast majority of the victims dying at the hands of a current or former romantic partner, according to a new report released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention today [July 20th, 2017].

The CDC analyzed the murders of women in 18 states from 2003 to 2014, finding a total of 10,018 deaths. Of those, 55 percent were intimate partner violence-related, meaning they occurred at the hands of a former or current partner or the partner’s family or friends. In 93 percent of those cases, the culprit was a current or former romantic partner. The report also bucks the strangers-in-dark-alleys narrative common to televised crime dramas: Strangers perpetrated just 16 percent of all female homicides, fewer than acquaintances and just slightly more than parents.

About a third of the time, the couple had argued right before the homicide took place, and about 12 percent of the deaths were associated with jealousy. The majority of the victims were under the age of 40, and 15 percent were pregnant. About 54 percent were gun deaths.
Black women were most likely to die by homicide of any kind, at 4.4 deaths per 100,000 people, followed by Native American women, Hispanics, and finally whites and Asians. Data from earlier reports suggest a far smaller percentage of men—around 5 to 7 percent—were killed by intimate partners."

 

[Jon]

Six times as many blacks are convicted for violent crimes than their white counterparts. But I still think we should convict them base on the evidence, rather than the colour of their skin.

 

[Bee]

This is the problem. The OJ trial shifted from being about whether he committed a double murder to whether the LAPD was institutionally racist. And if it was, then even in the face of overwhelming evidence to convict OJ, no-one wanted to be tainted with the stain of racism.

He was found guilty of the same charges in a civil court. All of the evidence was the same.

 

[Jon]

My comments were more about the statistics suggesting someone is guilty of something. So I threw the racial difference in crime rates in there, to illustrate a point.

I think the difference between civil court and criminal court is you have to be sure in the criminal court, but just the balance of probabilities in civil court.

 

[Bee]

Interesting. I've just found this:

The Same Conduct Can Produce Civil and Criminal Liability

Although criminal and civil cases are treated very differently, many people often fail to recognize that the same conduct can result in both criminal and civil liability. Perhaps one of the most famous examples of this is the OJ Simpson trial. The same conduct led to a murder trial (criminal) and a wrongful death trial (civil). In part because of the different standards of proof, there was not enough evidence for a jury to decide that OJ Simpson was guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt" in the criminal murder case. In the civil trial, however, the jury found enough evidence to conclude that OJ Simpson wrongfully caused his wife's death by a "preponderance of the evidence".

It appears to me, that by allowing the shift in focus from the murders to the alleged institutional racism of the police (the same police force that was happy to fraternise with OJ) the waters got muddied and allowed the 'reasonable doubt' to creep in.

 

[Jon]

Yes, that is it. They weren't sure enough in the criminal case, but they thought he probably did it in the civil case.

 

[Insane_AI]

From POst #3

However if I were a black man living in America then I think I would have a very non trusting Attitude to the police.

As a white person with uncles, cousins and brothers* on the police force, I still don't trust the police. Most of them are good but the bad ones still spoil the bunch; you never know which one you're going to get.

 

[Jon]

I watched "On My Skin" (Netflix) a couple of days ago. It is a true story about police brutality in Italy. Subtitles - which I normally hate - but I stuck through it and it is a harrowing story.