O.J.Simpson

There are 15 replies in this Thread which has previously been viewed 650 times. The latest Post () was by GlasgowJohn.

    This is the main reason why I don't say "RIP" to well known people, on social media, because you don't know if they have any bad secrets.


    I didn't follow the trial that closely at the time, but to have a high speed chase from the police like he did, is a huge red flag of guilt

    Quote from SpaceNut

    This is the main reason why I don't say "RIP" to well known people, on social media, because you don't know if they have any bad secrets.


    I didn't follow the trial that closely at the time, but to have a high speed chase from the police like he did, is a huge red flag of guilt

    We briefly examined his case in a litigation class. He was acquitted in the criminal case because his lawyer was able that he wasn't guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, but he was condemned in the civil proceedings, where the criteria is of the preponderance of evidence.

    Quote from serafina

    We briefly examined his case in a litigation class. He was acquitted in the criminal case because his lawyer was able that he wasn't guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, but he was condemned in the civil proceedings, where the criteria is of the preponderance of evidence.

    That's just nuances, I guess the jury and the lawyer are to blame for the original case, which might have seen him go to the chair, I dunno??

    Quote from serafina

    We briefly examined his case in a litigation class. He was acquitted in the criminal case because his lawyer was able that he wasn't guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, but he was condemned in the civil proceedings, where the criteria is of the preponderance of evidence.

    Exactly right, serafina . Far easier for a jury to find someone liable in a civil case than guilty in a criminal case, where one single juror can prevent a guilty verdict.

    Quote from SpaceNut

    That's just nuances, I guess the jury and the lawyer are to blame for the original case, which might have seen him go to the chair, I dunno??

    That's not nuances, it is simply a demonstration of how the same event can lead to different outcome if handled in a criminal proceeding vs. a civil proceeding.

    Also, in the case of OJ Simpson, first was the criminal proceeding, where he was acquitted by a predominantly Afro-American jury in response to the Rodney King's killing due to police brutality, and later was found guilty in the civil proceeding.


    After the civil proceeding guilty verdict and further arrest of OJ later in the years, some jurors of the criminal trial reconsidered their vote:

    Quote from Reversal of opinion by some jurors and defense attorneys


    Several jurors have reversed their previous opinions of Simpson's innocence. In 2016, Carrie Bess admitted that while she still believes that acquitting Simpson as payback for Rodney King was the correct decision in the atmosphere of the 1990s, she regrets the not guilty verdict following Simpson's arrest in Las Vegas, and labelled Simpson as "stupid" for getting himself into more trouble.[63] Juror number nine, Lionel Cryer, a former member of the Black Panther Party[74] who notably gave Simpson a black power raised fist[75] after the verdict, said that in retrospect, he would render a guilty verdict.[76] Juror Anise Aschenbach, who initially voted guilty before changing her vote, stated she regrets the decision and believes Simpson is guilty because he is not looking for the "real killer" like he promised he would.[77] As of 2023, Carrie Bess remains the only author of Madame Foreman who has not apologized to either the Browns or Goldmans for the verdict, the book or her comments about Nicole, and who continues to assert that acquitting Simpson as payback for Rodney King was not an incorrect decision.

    In Outrage, Bugliosi pointed out that after the verdict was read, while Johnnie Cochran was the only one who appeared happy to the point that he hugged Simpson from behind, Shapiro and Kardashian both looked rather shocked, while Bailey looked indifferent, the latter three which Bugliosi cited was uncommon for defense attorneys who had successfully acquitted a client they truly believed to be innocent.

    This is the problem, the jury shouldn't have behaved like they did and be swayed by other political motives. Their job was to either acquit OJ or find him guilty, there job was not to look at other events that occurred previously. Cassie Bell should have been arrested for being in contempt of court procedures, but I don't know if that's a thing in America. If not, they have very lax rules over there

    Contempt of court is taken very seriously. With all defendants in all cases with one YUUUUGE exception, who has already gotten away with far more than you or I ever would.


    I’m curious about what you mean about the “very lax rules.” Specifically, which rules are lax?

    Quote from Rice

    Contempt of court is taken very seriously. With all defendants in all cases with one YUUUUGE exception, who has already gotten away with far more than you or I ever would.


    I’m curious about what you mean about the “very lax rules.” Specifically, which rules are lax?

    I don't know why she wasn't prosecuted, she was clearly influenced by something that shouldn't have been in her mind. It would have had a different outcome on the case, on the BBC today, the person talking about the Trump case, said they will have to fine comb the suitable jury members, because they can't allow for political influence to get in the way of justice. Its that serious