O.J. Simpson.....GUILTY!
- Thread starter Mike Collins
- Start date
Dunash
Banned
With 11 of the 12 Jurors being black, could they ever find a bro' guilty....ever?! Even if they had actually been eywitnesses to OJ slaughtering with his knife Nicole Simpson & Ron Goldman? In the trial of Meir Kahane, despite multiple eyewitness testimony that Nosair pulled the trigger, the all negroe jury found the Muslim assassin totally innocent of murder, just because the victim was a Jewish rabbi (i.e. "a Christ-killer"). The flabergasted judge was forced instead to give Nosair the maximum 20 year sentence for illegal possession of a gun. Nosair was later implicated in the WTC attack, having aided Al Qaida from within jail, and 10 more years were added to his term. In short: is justice in the hands of today's black US jurors likely to be compromised, even more than that of a black being tried for rape by an all-white jury in 1950 Alabama?!
NapoleonXIV
Banned
I doubt it. Most blacks I know were as surprised by that verdict as were most whites. Few had any real sympathy for O.J. in any case.
There's a big difference between a black millionaire celebrity facing a mountain of evidence he committted murder and a black motorist being nearly beaten to death by four policemen on a traffic stop.
A better WI might be...naw, I'll just post it myself.
There's a big difference between a black millionaire celebrity facing a mountain of evidence he committted murder and a black motorist being nearly beaten to death by four policemen on a traffic stop.
A better WI might be...naw, I'll just post it myself.
Mike Collins
Banned
Concur Napoleon. I think everyone was expecting a guilty verdict.
So why the joyous outcry when he was aquitted? I talked to some black friends about this. Most of them came up with something to the effect of "Yeah, we all thought he was guilty as Hell. But it was just great seeing him get away with killing a bunch of white people."
Kinda scary.................
So why the joyous outcry when he was aquitted? I talked to some black friends about this. Most of them came up with something to the effect of "Yeah, we all thought he was guilty as Hell. But it was just great seeing him get away with killing a bunch of white people."
Kinda scary.................
NapoleonXIV
Banned
Mike Collins said:
Actually, most blacks looked at the evidence more closely. Kick out the DNA (and the defense did that, altho the prosecution did their best work here in 'muddying the waters' with irrelevant accusations of drug use and a profligate lifestyle against the men who had themselves originated the test whose results they were depending on) and the case becomes very flimsy. Not only that it had the classic pattern of a "frame" all over it. (Remember anyone, especially the murderer, could have framed OJ, it didn't have to be the police) I remember wondering throughout that trial if anyone I talked to had ever seen "Vertigo" or read Agatha Christie, or even watched "Rockford" once or twice.
I'm not saying it still doesn't SEEM as if O.J. did it. I am saying there was "reasonable doubt" and given our system that gets him off. I think maybe the blacks were celebrating that a fellow was here getting the same treatment a white would, rather than a murderer going free.
Michael E Johnson
Banned
---Why did the all-white jury find him guilty in the civil case?---
Payback.
Unfortunatley thats likely why many of the black jurors made the decision they did and so many African-Americans approved-as a statement about 100's of years of injustice blacks suffered at the hands of whites. It's unfortunate that they chose to do it at the expense of 2 people who were murdered but it says alot about how deep the resentment for racism goes. If OJ Simpson had been found guilty by the same jury there wouldnt have been any riots as the Rodeny King situation isnt comaparable-there is a long history of blacks being brutalized by whites in this country-the examples of blacks doing the same to whites are not as numerous and certainly not as crippling to the white community.
Payback.
Unfortunatley thats likely why many of the black jurors made the decision they did and so many African-Americans approved-as a statement about 100's of years of injustice blacks suffered at the hands of whites. It's unfortunate that they chose to do it at the expense of 2 people who were murdered but it says alot about how deep the resentment for racism goes. If OJ Simpson had been found guilty by the same jury there wouldnt have been any riots as the Rodeny King situation isnt comaparable-there is a long history of blacks being brutalized by whites in this country-the examples of blacks doing the same to whites are not as numerous and certainly not as crippling to the white community.
Last edited:
Michael E Johnson
Banned
---that Nosair pulled the trigger, the all negroe jury found the Muslim assassin totally innocent of murder---
This probably wont matter to you becuase I'm sure you did it deliberately but hardly anyone who has been alive the past 25 years calls black people Negroes anymore. You managed to use the word Muslim not a Muhammadean - so whats the problem?
---is justice in the hands of today's black US jurors likely to be compromised, even more than that of a black being tried for rape by an all-white jury in 1950 Alabama?!
----
By golly your right-we beter repeal the 1964 civil rights acts and all those constitutional amendements that deprived whites of their right to keep blacks as second class citizens.
This probably wont matter to you becuase I'm sure you did it deliberately but hardly anyone who has been alive the past 25 years calls black people Negroes anymore. You managed to use the word Muslim not a Muhammadean - so whats the problem?
---is justice in the hands of today's black US jurors likely to be compromised, even more than that of a black being tried for rape by an all-white jury in 1950 Alabama?!
----
By golly your right-we beter repeal the 1964 civil rights acts and all those constitutional amendements that deprived whites of their right to keep blacks as second class citizens.
Last edited:
The real issue was that the prosecutors just didn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty, period. This doesn't mean he was innocent, you'd have to be pretty simple to think he was, only that they did not meet the test.
The real problem was not the jury, it was the district attorney's office that seemed to suffer from what the Greeks called hubris, they were just so proud of what they would do to OJ, that they didn't present a plausible case, while Johnny Cochrane (OJ's defense Lawyer) was brilliant.
Did he play to the jury's prejudice and preconceptions, you bet, but so what, that is exactly what he was supposed to do.
The real problem was not the jury, it was the district attorney's office that seemed to suffer from what the Greeks called hubris, they were just so proud of what they would do to OJ, that they didn't present a plausible case, while Johnny Cochrane (OJ's defense Lawyer) was brilliant.
Did he play to the jury's prejudice and preconceptions, you bet, but so what, that is exactly what he was supposed to do.
Michael E Johnson
Banned
---"Yeah, we all thought he was guilty as Hell. But it was just great seeing him get away with killing a bunch of white people."
Kinda scary.................----
But a perfect mirror of the racist attitudes of many whites about the brutality inflicted on blacks by whites. That doesnt make it right but you really shouldnt be surprised that they had that attitude .
Kinda scary.................----
But a perfect mirror of the racist attitudes of many whites about the brutality inflicted on blacks by whites. That doesnt make it right but you really shouldnt be surprised that they had that attitude .
Michael E Johnson
Banned
--Just out of interest, Michael, do you think he was guilty ? Leaving aside all politics and reasons why a jury might acquit him regardless...---
He probably was or at the very least he had an accomplice and tried to cover it up.
He probably was or at the very least he had an accomplice and tried to cover it up.
I was REALLY pissed off about the verdict when it happened, but when I look back at how things went, it seems that the police and the prosecution made a number of VERY serious mistakes that undermined their case. Some of the evidence was collected in a pretty slipshod way, and one of the senior police investigators was a man who turned out to have a history of racist remarks and at least a few possible racist acts. I don't know much about criminal law, but it seems that if you're dealing with a case where there aren't any eyewitnesses, if your forensic evidence and the police investigators both have problems with their credibility, then the entire case is tremendously weakened. The whole "glove incident" just made things worse. If, in place of Mark Fuhrman (sp?), there had been an officer with no skeletons in his closet, and if the evidence had been handled with the greatest care so that there was no plausible way that it could have been contaminated or altered, then I think that a conviction would have been likely no matter what the backgrounds of the people on the jury.
BTW, I don't think it was an all-black jury. If I remember right there were Hispanics and Asians on the jury, and 1 white.
BTW, I don't think it was an all-black jury. If I remember right there were Hispanics and Asians on the jury, and 1 white.
Paul: You are correct about the jury. Neither one was monochromatic (the civil jury had several blacks, unless I am very much mistaken...), though I think that this is less important than many (on either side of the case) make it out to be...
More appalling to me was the fact that the original jury (the description of them as 'bowling balls' by one of the defense staff later was particularly apt) brought in a verdict in 5-odd hours. Given that the paperwork and other 'overhead' for such cases usually consumes about 3 hours, this means that these folks didn't even have much in the way of a conversation. It was fairly clear that their minds were made up, which really isn't much of a surprise. The prosecution was awful, and the judge let the defense get away with some nonsense that wouldn't have cut it on an episode of "Law and Order" (perhaps "The Practice", but even they have their standards...). Judge Ito gave very wide latitude to the defense, and his instructions to the jury seem best summarized as 'hey, just go with it...'
If you have ever spent time on a jury or at least sat through jury selection, none of the antics of either jury should really surprise you. The American jury system seems designed to select the people least capable of reasoned thought or critical judgement, a very scary thing indeed...
More appalling to me was the fact that the original jury (the description of them as 'bowling balls' by one of the defense staff later was particularly apt) brought in a verdict in 5-odd hours. Given that the paperwork and other 'overhead' for such cases usually consumes about 3 hours, this means that these folks didn't even have much in the way of a conversation. It was fairly clear that their minds were made up, which really isn't much of a surprise. The prosecution was awful, and the judge let the defense get away with some nonsense that wouldn't have cut it on an episode of "Law and Order" (perhaps "The Practice", but even they have their standards...). Judge Ito gave very wide latitude to the defense, and his instructions to the jury seem best summarized as 'hey, just go with it...'
If you have ever spent time on a jury or at least sat through jury selection, none of the antics of either jury should really surprise you. The American jury system seems designed to select the people least capable of reasoned thought or critical judgement, a very scary thing indeed...
I find it hard to believe that there are so many biggoted blacks out there that they would not recoil in horror at letting a "brother" go free who was clearly a murderer. In the case, the prosecution made a lot of mistakes in its presentation, letting the defense walk all over it with Cochrane's grand-standing and handwaving away of evidence. The jury was probably not very bright and didn't understand the nature of DNA evidence as being as incontrovertible as it is. They were easily manipulated by the defense. It shouldn't come as any surprise. They were picked by them! Jurors seem to be picked not for their intelligence, but for their stupidity. It is far easier for counsel to manipulate and mold a jury's decision if the panel is as dumb as dirt, rather than let them think for themselves and come to their own decisions. The judge is left passive, essentially rendering a verdict to the lawyers rather than to the court.