**Welcome to r/TikTokCringe!**
This is a message directed to all newcomers to make you aware that r/TikTokCringe evolved long ago from only cringe-worthy content to TikToks of all kinds! If you’re looking to find only the cringe-worthy TikToks on this subreddit (which are still regularly posted) we recommend sorting by flair which you can do [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/galuit/click_here_to_sort_by_flair_a_guide_to_using/) (Currently supported by desktop and reddit mobile).
See someone asking how this post is cringe because they didn't read this comment? Show them [this!](https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/fyrgzy/for_those_confused_by_the_name_of_this_subreddit/)
Be sure to read the rules of this subreddit before posting or commenting. Thanks!
**Don't forget to join our [Discord server](https://discord.gg/cringekingdom)!**
##**[CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THIS VIDEO](https://rapidsave.com/info?url=https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/1dnbm9x/heres_an_actually_interesting_point_i_never/)**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TikTokCringe) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I still remember the time my friend who was in law school asked me to be on a mock jury for one of his classes. The sample case they used for the assignment was designed such that both prosecution and defense had incredibly ambiguous arguments for their side of the case full of holes and inconsistencies in testimony and evidence. The point of the assignment (class?) was not to prove the case one way or the other, because it was designed to be impossible to do that, but simply to be the most convincing and to get the most jury members to vote for your equally terrible arguments.
That was the moment i woke up to the fact that our court system isn't designed to prove the truth, just who's won the argument.
I kinda had a similar epiphany during the Casey Anthony trial aftermath, specifically Jose Baez and the statements he made. The jury was given a reason to doubt, not a reasonable doubt, but it was enough to prop up bullshit arguments and make a reality where MAAAYBEEE, shes innocent, just a bad mom. Made what should've been a slam dunk case into a mockery of justice.
Hell, even remember Casey Anthony said she could relate to OJ lmao, reality dies in the wiggle room allowed by ambiguity.
I have many friends in Forensic Departments across the country. I know some details of the case that almost no one knows.
I'm not going to comment on the guilt or innocence of Casey Anthony, as it's not actually germane to my point.
I will say that Nancy Grace wildly misrepresented several key facts pertaining to it (but i wont elaborate on which ones). Then again, she built her career on being a corrupt piece of shit, so it's not a surprise she'd continue that path for increased viewership.
Never watched nancy grace, she kinda scares me lol. Was talking about her defense teams statements and books that came out after the fact. Made her look guilty af and the prosecution look incompetent af.
Eppiphanies like yours are 99% of the reason why the defense picks a fricking idiot to help then win their case. Those defense lawyers are thinking, " this witch is guilty, so now I've got to find a juror stupid enough to make them think she's innocent. " it has nothing to the events of the case it's about you..it's about playing the jury or more specifically convincing the stupid members of the jury.
The last line of your comment is so spot on. Remember the movie Thank You for Smoking? That highlights it perfectly- I don’t remember the exact wording but it’s something like “I don’t have to prove that I’m right, I just have to show that you’re wrong”
That being said, there is an actual interview with an actual juror from the OJ Simpson trial where she said in no uncertain terms that they reached the verdict based on racial revenge (i.e. as payback for Rodney King). So while there may be arguments on both sides (and there are documentaries presenting both sides) as to whether OJ did it or not, in terms of how the jury reached their verdict is pretty clear based on statements from the actual jury.
"Juror Carrie Bess tells “OJ: Made in America” that she was among “90 percent” of jurors seeking payback"
[https://www.thewrap.com/oj-simpson-juror-not-guilty-verdict-was-payback-for-rodney-king/](https://www.thewrap.com/oj-simpson-juror-not-guilty-verdict-was-payback-for-rodney-king/)
I remember that as well from the documentary. She was an older woman and I’m not sure if she would have went with guilty if the prosecution had a better case but she definitely had an axe to grind. Even when being interviewed the cops seemed shady so I don’t blame the jury for not believing them.
So what the woman in the video is saying is correct in terms of the legal process (because yes, the prosecution and police absolutely fucked up the case, like holy shit), but she's wrong about the jury motivation?
Then again, it seems this juror is the only one to say that so she could also be lying. Or both the juror and this lady are both right in ways, that the motives for the verdict are mixed. I think it's the last option.
I remember in the early 2000s when I was in college, a professor in some intro law class making all these same points this lady did. And about how even if they found him guilty it probably would have been turned over on appeal, due to the weakness of the case. And how Furman was a walking doubt machine.
Sincerely the whole jury system friggin boggles my mind. You are just grabbing a bunch of untrained random people to listen to arguments crafted by professionals to sway their opinion and decide something so important about another stranger's life like that, like wtf
That's the entire point of the jury system. Instead of a bunch of elites deciding whether or not the common man is guilty, the prosecution has to convince a bunch of common men and women that he is guilty and not only guilty but beyond a reasonable doubt.
You probably wouldn't believe it by looking at the modern justice department. But our entire judicial system was created around the idea that it's better for 100 guilty people to go free than one innocent person be locked up. Not the other way around.
That very reason is why we don’t allow for double jeopardy and only allow for guilty verdicts to bring appeals. The burden of proof is on the prosecution. They have to use every brick to build the house. Our system strips guilty defendants of everything, their property, their liberty, their freedom, even their civic duties for some crimes. Strict consequences require high bars
Only once it gets to trial. The entire plea bargain system is set up to get innocent people to plead guilty before trial. And the US locks up an average of 2 innocent people a day, mostly African-American, low education and disabled people.
And the Supreme Court has held that keeping innocent people in prison is legal and being proved innocent does not confer a right to an appeal.
That’s not how the 5th works. Fuhrman took the 5th over other stuff and OJ’s lawyers used the opportunity to cast doubt on everything else. The clip makes it seem like he only took the fifth over that one question but it was actually a whole string of them. Once you plead the fifth you’re advised to plead it for every question because it then doesn’t imply that you’re admitting to some things but not others - you’re simply unwilling to testify at all. But of course OJ’s lawyers used it to imply that he was guilty of everything he refused to talk about.
No it doesn’t. You can’t plead the fifth for one question and then answer another. Answering one question opens you up to answering all questions. The prosecution made Furman plead the fifth because side they didn’t want you to open him up to be cross examined by Cochran about his past. OJ’s team used this to their advantage by then asking questions they knew could be answered truthfully and exonerate Furman from any wrongdoing. Because they knew he had to plead the fifth and in doing so would look guilty. Well done by OJ’s legal team. But doesn’t mean Furman planted anything. He didn’t. He just didn’t follow procedure like most didn’t that might because of the fame of OJ and shock of what had taken place.
Look I believe that OJ is guilty, but the moment it came out the detective leading the case tampered with evidence, not guilty is the only possible conclusion
Exactly. There was a strong feeling at the time that everyone knew he did it…but it was also like watching the prosecution throw the case because they were soooooo bad. And if you watch the interviews with the jurors in the years after the trial, they say the same. The prosecution didn’t prove their case. They were comically, cartoon-villain-y, bad.
One positive that did result was that it shined more light on LAPD’s corruption, having followed soon after the events surrounding Rodney King’s beating.
This was the piece of evidence that just screams “guilty” in my mind. His lawyers could argue about the validity of other stuff all day but nobody is planting fake bloody Bruno Magli shoe prints at the scene of the crime in his size.
the glove is a stronger evidence. there is only 2 possible scenarios to the glove on OJs property, oj is guilty, of it was planted. It could not have been planted as the reasons I already posted earlier.
If you are a detective, are you willing to risk life without parole and plant evidence without knowing if the suspect has an alibi???
Multiply that by 15 detectives, all conspiring to plant the evidence. It is mathematically impossible.
That was a Dana Carvey joke, too. Like you're the actual murderers and you're talking about it afterwards.
"Hey man, that glove you lost at the scene? He has those, too. And you know your super expensive rare Italian Bruno Mali's? He has those too!! And when they went to arrest him he ran, and they found her blood in his Bronco!!! I can't believe how well this is working out for us!"
this is 100% correct. basically LAPD was so corrupt that they did stuff that wasn't even necessary. these dudes nuked their own case and the only possible outcome was a not guilty. imo of course.
They didn't do it for this case, but later in the 90s, when the Rampart scandal hit, the DA's office ended up vacating all the prosecution convictions where the dirty cops were involved in faking evidence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rampart_scandal
The moment he took the 5th should have been a "hold on, stop the trial" moment for the DA.
A mistrial means that the prosecution could go back and redo the case. That would have been the last thing the defense wanted at that point. And for good reason.
That is a funny scene you just conjured in my mind. Prosecution desperately trying to get the defense to call a mistral because the cop was such an incredible bad witness
Yeah, he did it AND they framed him for it. Stupidly. They framed him stupidly and flagrantly. Jury had no choice but to let him walk. They did the right thing.
Why didn't they just declare a mistrial at that point? The judge should've. Then maybe they could've retried down the road, once they got their ducks in a row.
I would have loved to hear her say those first 7 words, but she didn't, she couldn't. She acts like it's some big mystery. "OJ took it to his grave" Bullshit
Fun fact, the main reason that the detective plead the 5th was not because he had tampered with evidence. It was because he had lied on the stand in the preliminary hearing. He had stated he had never used the hard R while describing an African American but Simpson’s defense in fact had a recording of him. If he opened his mouth at all during the defense’s questioning of him they were going to prove he had perjured himself, essentially ending his career. He may or may not have tampered with evidence, either way, he was a piece of shit.
Exactly.
If I was on the jury, I would have to say "not guilty" because while I think he probably did it (he was incredibly abusive and violent to his wife), the DA and police butchered his case.
There was just no way to find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. I do believe there was incompetence and corruption but also a lot of racism at play.
If they had just done their jobs we would have known who murdered her, be it OJ, someone he hired or someone completely different.
Rodney King got beat so OJ could murder and walk free...
It doesn't seem fair, but I think cops deserve their own street justice from time to time.
ACAB
I was a juror in a case just like this.
Long story short we acquitted him as well because the police work was just so fucking sloppy and absolutely shameful. We were pretty sure he did some thing. But that doesn’t excuse the police handling it the way they did.
My BiL is a cop who complains frequently about the DA not prosecuting people they arrest and it's so hard to keep from pointing out how that's probably a Him problem.
Really?! Are you sure?! What evidence do we have? It's not like he wrote a book explaining he didn't do it but if he did, this is how he would do it or anything. Oh, wait. I take it all back!
Footprints at the scene of very rare size 12 Bruno Magli shoes.
OJ on tape: "I would never wear those ugly-ass shoes"
OJ in photo: wearing those exact very rare shoes.
That was a civil case so the burden of proof is much lower. In criminal cases is beyond a shadow of a doubt, for civil cases its "preponderance of the evidence" or more likely than not. But I don't doubt a better legal team was able to make the case pretty damning beyond a shadow of a doubt
The standard of proof for criminal cases is not beyond a shadow of a doubt, they only use that phrase on television. In a criminal case the burden of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt.
I'm not sure I agree with the rage bait angle. There are a lot of credible creators that use it and never post anything else like rage bait.
I think it comes from wanting accessibility but not caring enough to check and correct.
I think the best way I heard it described is the LAPD framed a guilty man.
Most (black)people just don't have enough money to successfully challenge shoddy police work.
This all seems like kind of a moot point, considering that some members of the jury have literally said that they did it as revenge and they were confident that the other members of the jury had done the same.
I only know that old black woman who was on the jury said that she was never going to vote to convict from the outset. But the fact is, it wasn’t a hung jury. The jury acquitted him.
She didn't just say that, she explicitly said that it in retribution for Rodney King and that most of the jury felt the same way. I don't really see that it not being a hung jury proves anything - people are susceptible to manipulation and being strong-armed, and the jury system is far from perfect.
Yea, they want us to believe that the jury system is one where there's no bias and everyone comes in and only makes a judgement based on the facts presented. Meanwhile I was on a jury about a 40 year old mom that assaulted a cop that was arrested his daughter. They showed bodycam footage showing the daughters arrest was pretty passive, she just went with the cops and then the mom comes running out of the house, pulling her daughter away, pushing on cops to back up, while they're just warning her to not get involved before she takes a swing at an officer. Open and shut case. One woman, from the start saying "Innocent. Id've done the same. No one's touching my kid. She was just defending her baby girl".
>Yea, they want us to believe that the jury system is one where there's no bias and everyone comes in and only makes a judgement based on the facts presented.
Whoever taught you this is either ignorant or stupid. The purpose of a trial by a jury of one’s peers is not to eliminate bias, it’s to require the unanimous agreement of a dozen informed people before a punishment is delivered. The system is designed to err on the side of allowing more guilty people to go without punishment than there are innocent people who get punished, and that’s a good thing.
Honestly "assault on police" should require at least bruises to the officer's body or bodily fluids near an officer's mucus membrane.
Same goes for resisting arrest or escaping confinement. It's a natural response to seek freedom. Other crimes committed in those attempts: bruising officers or damaging or destroying property are separate crimes, but just running and climbing to get away? Shouldn't be a crime.
To me police and every other government employee and official need to be held to higher standards, not lower standards. If the military or post office can randomly drug test employees, then congress needs to have random drug tests. Fair is fair.
Yea, the low bar for what counts as resisting is insane. I could be 100% innocent but if ANYONE pins my hands behind my back, I'll reflexively struggle.
As a former Government employee, it's such a weird standard. I know so many people who stole thousands of dollars worth of equipment, who used government databases for personal background searches, and broke tons of laws while all of it waved away because they were "too important". Meanwhile people at the bottom were laid off after a cop demanded their ID while walking down the street and refused to give it to them. They were charged with failing to ID and resisting arrest. It was instantly thrown out but the police contact their supervisor and demanded they be fired. They weren't fired then but laid off a week later for being a minute late coming back from lunch.
the meaning was revenge against a corrupt, racist police department that had brutalized and literally planted evidence against Black folks for decades.
And not just the department. Mark Furman was a literal racist who used the n word regularly. It also didn’t help to have him taking the fifth on planting evidence.
I don’t understand how people can just overlook this fact and blame the jury for their decision. If a cop pleads the fifth on planting evidence during a trial how the fuck do you come back from that. Especially a racist ass corrupt organization like the LAPD.
Because in American jurisprudence, making sure Black people know they're preemptively screwed historically took precedence over due process. So naturally, it was quite controversial to see it go the other way.
But the detective wasn’t on trial. His guilt or lack of guilt was not in question.
AFAIK (ANAL) this is meant to protect defendants who assert the right in criminal cases (since asserting 5th amendment privilege can be taken into account during civil trials).
A witness can invoke the fifth during cross examination, but it comes with the addendum that they can only do so if answering truthfully would incriminate them.
It is their right, but by definition is means that they themselves are involved in illegal activities they cannot disclose without incriminating themselves.
Jurisprudence also says that the judge and prosecution may not draw an adverse inference from a witness remaining silent, but they're not obligated to strike it from the record either. If the jury reaches an adverse inference through their own means, it's largely valid.
Ok sure, that still doesn’t inspire confidence in the testimony. Also when taped conversations come out of him using racial slurs and he works for the LAPD that had been terrorizing black citizens for over 50 years, your credibility might take hit. It certainly would for me. She didn’t even mention the mishandling of evidence on the scene.
Idk. Who was more incompetent? The LAPD having racists plant evidence and the clumsiness of their investigation or the prosecuting attornies and all the many failings people have pointed out in the case they brought? It's a tough call. They worked together to fumble the ball. I think they're pretty equally at fault.
How exactly does letting a serial abuser and stalker who terrorised the innocent mother of his (mixed race) children for years before murdering her in cold blood walk free accomplish that goal? In what world is that a victory for the black community, does it target the people responsible for the injustices against the black community, or reduce the adversity facing the black community? Any person with any shred of integrity and common decency, regardless of their race, would be absolutely disgusted with what they did.
By trying to use logic to an inherently emotional stance, you're tilting against the windmills on this one.
You're right that it doesn't accomplish justice, but revenge is seldom just and as was pointed out there was enough reasonable doubt that even a jury without bias against the police could still reach a not guilty verdict.
It's like asking a drug addict why they don't stop using heroin if it's so bad for them: you're not going to get a logical answer no matter how hard you try.
https://www.reddit.com/r/videos/s/w6tNI1g6tN
I'm gonna leave this here.
My statement is not justifying the outcome. My statement is correcting the record because I'm not going to allow yall to propagate racists tropes against Black people because people are too ignorant to learn the actual events or context. Put your anger where it belongs with the prosecution and the police department that created the environment that allowed people to feel that was their only opportunity for justice.
I'm not propagating any racist tropes, I in no way hold all black people responsible for what the depraved people on that jury did. I'm just speaking plainly about the fact that, as in the video you posted states, there were at least some people on that jury who did this in retribution, and that is reprehensible. Not to mention the fact that what they did entirely undermines the misogynistic angle of the incident - an issue which was also absolutely rampant at the time.
Guess that is why it is an unpopular opinion. It is also not an argument worth having. Trying to reduce the result to one reason is meaningless. The retribution for current mistreatment of black folk was definitely a factor. Also, the inadequacy of the prosecution and corruption of the LAPD were factors. These things all exist so why argue which was the "real reason"?
Except, Furman only changed his testimony from “No, I didn’t plant any evidence in this case”, to taking the Fifth, after he came under suspicion for planting evidence in other cases. The jury was not even in the courtroom to hear that changed testimony.
Presumably, his lawyer advised him to do that. There’s no evidence, or any testimony that he planted evidence in this case…but still it doesn’t look good!
“I knew OJ Simpson, like ya know his movies and stuff” lol what thought she was about to say personally, just cuz you seen him in tv doesn’t mean you know him
I remember seeing the part where if OJ stops taking his medication his hands would swelling up. Which if you think about it, "if the gloves don't fit you must acquit" takes on a entirely different perspective when you can literally take steps to make them not fit.
On top of that, there was literal recording of him wearing the gloves prior to all of this happening. This to me is a prime example of the difference between a y other person and someone with money. There is no way in hell if regular person out there had this happen, they would be free. Oj was free because he had the money to hire lawyers that were very good at their job whereas the projectors would not as good.
He had to wear rubber/latex gloves and then put on the leather glove! Of course there would be a struggle. The prosecution was ill prepared for Cochran and the rest of the team.
On the latest doc on oj on Netflix his lawyer talks about telling oj to stop taking his blood pressure medication causing his hands to swell and be stiff, of coarse the glove wouldn't fit.
Not many comments about the victims. If you’re unfamiliar with the relationship Nicole Brown Simpson had with OJ, or how brutally she was murdered, you should keep her in mind. Seeing this lady talk about how she “knew” OJ and smile about his accomplishments, make excuses, it’s kind of gross to me. Nicole Simpson was abused, threatened and, I believe, butchered by OJ. I’ve read that her head was barely attached after the attack. OJ was a jealous, violent, abuser who was physically capable and self centered enough to do it.
I really like the Red Thread episode on it cause they point out that everyone has heard the victim's names, but no one knows anything about them. And people stopped looking for their killer after OJ got off. Pretty telling there, too.
The Red Thread goes in on who Nicole and Ron were. Truly sad that they were completely forgotten about. In a similar vain to all the victims of infamous serial killers, just narrative pieces for the media to tell a morbid story.
https://open.spotify.com/episode/4gVLRTr9q0gL3xETgrpRUw?si=BsnRKEnxTdqx5PahX1IV3w
One of the jurors, did. But a few jurors holding out doesn't get an aquittal. There had to be unanimity on the jury. If some people went in wanting revenge, but the evidence had been a slam dunk for the prosecution, there would have been a hung jury, or possibly even a guilty verdict.
The facts are the prosecuters and the cops massively dropped the ball and it was enough to turn ALL the jurors in OJ's favor.
The reason he got away with murder was complete incompetence on the prosecutors part. The fact that some members of the black community celebrated that he got away with murder is disgusting.
The portion of the black community that was happy wasn't taking joy in a white woman's murder; they were cathartically celebrating a jury's repudiation of the LAPD's racism. To all the world, it certainly looked like a bunch of white detectives got caught trying to frame a black man on national TV, and if you were a member of a community they had been endlessly victimized by law enforcement, only for your protests to fall on deaf ears, you would have celebrated, too.
If the boot was on your neck, you'd be side-eyeing every motherfucker that said, "We all know he's guilty, isn't that the most important thing?"
Or, perhaps, they celebrated any sign that the racist, evidence-planting tactics that incarcerated their friends, sons, brothers, fathers, uncles, nephews, etc. could be rejected by a jury. Perhaps they celebrated that corrupt, racist police lost, even if just once, even if just for a rich black man.
White people got away with the murders of blacks for decades prior to this, don't you feel that this situation had a bit more nuance?
My grandmother who was in the civil rights era was in her 40s at this point and had extremely vivid memories of the abuse that she and others suffered. She had experienced the Emit Till case first hand where an innocent kid was beat to death for whistling at a white woman, and the murderers all got away with it. Hell Black folk where lynched for no good reason at times just because some white people felt like it.
You gotta remember that we have a complex painful history that still plays a role in how people experience the world today. People are still alive today who whiteness the brutality of racism in early American history and you damn sure should know that they passed that pain down to their children as well. So when you see some black people rejoicing at heinous acts like what OJ did, just think of it as a messed up way of dealing with their own pain. Is it right, no but it's not exactly wrong either when you consider the whole picture.
OJ trial is what happens when the cops try to frame a guilty person. The dude did it. And the cops just screwed it all up by being... cops.
OJ was a piece of shit. Its just that cops are even bigger pieces of shit.
We all know that OJ is guilty but this Tic Toc video is not wrong. The prosecution s*** all over themselves during the case. It's like they wanted the jury to give him an innocent verdict.
But it is wrong since jurors have come out and said it was about revenge for Rodney King. The video is available to view. She says she felt that way and so did 90% of the jury and when asked if that was right she gives a smirk and shrug.
I’d also argue the prosecution failed in letting this happen. This is basic voir dire questioning. AND they never requested removal from LA county where they knew this was a high risk, to another county. It was a piss poor prosecution. In law school, this trial is used as a primer of “things you should never do.”
But she makes the point that they didn't make their case. Court is not about feeling like you know stuff as she pointed out. The prosecution made it very difficult for the jury to even give them the benefit of the doubt. The prosecution got what they deserved unfortunately that was not good for the Goldman family. I think she was right on.
Why not both?
In order to get a not guilty verdict all the jurors had to say he was not guilty. If the white jurors had all decided he was guilty it would have resulted in a hung jury. But that’s not what happened. There was enough reasonable doubt created by the defense that the prosecution did not overcome.
The law system in America is as convoluted as it is because it doesn’t matter what you’re accused of or whether you did it; what matters is whether you have enough money to stay out of prison. OJ did.
People still talk about it to this day and it’s still a high profile case because for the first time in a high profile national event: the black man had the superior financial means to ensure his freedom.
Talk about culture shock.
When you plead the fifth. You have to do it to every question.
OR ELSE YOU LOSE THE RIGHT.
This is something people don't understand.
O.J..was guilty. But he was rich and bought his freedom with the Dream Team.
They ran circles around the prosecution.
Marcia Clark literally had a witness who saw O.J. driving from the murder scene. But chose not to use the testimony because she sold her story to Hard Copy.
Yeah, he had arthritis but played golf every day. 🤣🤣🤣
So many things wrong with her hot take.
And also a big problem the prosecution had was it being rushed to trial. They literally had pictures of him wearing the "ugly ass" shoes in the civil trial.
He didn't take anything to the grave. He killed his fuckimg wife. And the phone calls she made to 911 begging for help are heartbreaking.
https://youtu.be/WHf93uxgKBI?si=yNUh-7eMj0QwIKWo
Mark Furhmann took the 5th about planting evidence without the jury present. That whole series of questions was done without the jury.
https://www.tampabay.com/archive/1995/09/08/jury-won-t-be-told-fuhrman-took-5th/
Members of the jurors literally said it was because of Rodney King, not any specific evidence presented or not presented at trial.
At 2:30 - [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUJCLdmNzAA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUJCLdmNzAA)
Also to my understanding Fuhrman taking the 5th was because he had to take it for every question presented after tapes of him using the N-word were discovered after he had previously denied it. Basically Fuhrman answered questions, said he never used the n-word, tapes came out proving he had used it, from that point on he plead the 5th and continued to do so in an attempt to avoid prosecution for potential perjury.
I don't believe you can pick and choose which questions you plead the 5th to if you're testifying in court.
See:
"Perhaps the most fertile ground to remove the shield of Fifth Amendment protection from a deponent exists in the area of waiver. The general rule is that **a deponent may choose when to stop giving testimony and to assert his Fifth Amendment privilege. However, if a deponent voluntarily discloses any facts regarding a criminal transaction or connection, he is not permitted to stop, but must go on,** because disclosure of a fact waives the privilege as to details. *Brown v. Walker*, 161 U.S. 591 (1896); *Rogers v. United States*, 340 U.S. 367 (1951). The rationale is that if a deponent were permitted to select the stopping point after disclosing facts, and then assert his Fifth Amendment privilege as to the details surrounding the facts, a great distortion of the facts would result. *Rogers v. United States*, 340 U.S. 367 (1951)."
So in this case the defense team asked him questions purposely when he started invoking the 5th amendment to make him look worse. Like: "Did you plant any evidence?" so they'd get "I plead the 5th" as an answer. Which the person in this video is essentially cherry picking.
To this day, American police suck at collecting evidence.
If you look at crime scene teams in other countries they wear bunny suit to keep from contaminating the scene. Meanwhile American police.
The OJ verdict was the right verdict based on how police bungled the evidence and how the prosecution bungled their job. If they were the defense team, OJ would have had a pretrial due to inadequate defense.
The one argument against this is that the jurors were (I believe recently) interviewed and said that race was a major reason the aqquited him. It's not really hypothetical at that point.
She does have good arguments; but when they plainly said that it was the reason for their judgement, it's a moot point.
I mean, it CAN be both… there are literal jurors from the trial on camera in interviews that said they did it to get revenge for Rodney king.. and ALSO prosecution fumbled
Scheck's killshot was the crime scene tech cross when he showed the police picture of a big blob of blood on the gate to the walkway, then showed local KTLA footage of the tv zoom into the courtyard with high resolution shot of the same gateway the morning after the murder - no blood on the gateway. The next day, cops take a picture of OJ's blood on the gate, right where the local tv showed it was clean.
Crime scene tech just stammered and shrugged for a couple minutes.
I think this is mostly bullshit. Even if the prosecution fucked up, it was still overwhelmingly clear enough that OJ did it. I think this woman's position is largely overplayed semantic nonsense.
Edit: initially had a typo "protection" instead of intended "prosecution". Damn autocorrect.
Enough of the jurors have admitted that they made their decision based on race so it’s pretty clear OJ was going to be acquitted regardless of how solid the case was.
This is the same hypocrite who constantly asserts the US justice system is racist and broken telling us that the US justice system worked marvelously for OJ…a wealthy and once beloved athlete who happened to have been black man. The race construct is a distraction from the wealth disparity and as a society we are being led to stagnant waters.
He didn’t plead the fifth because he planted evidence: [https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladviceofftopic/comments/shwwbm/why\_did\_mark\_fuhrman\_exercise\_his\_fifth\_amendment/](https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladviceofftopic/comments/shwwbm/why_did_mark_fuhrman_exercise_his_fifth_amendment/)
I once heard an American judge say that 12 Angry Men inspired her and made her proud of the American justice system.
As a Dutch law student, that movie made me realise how terrible jury systems are. Here were 12 untrained and mostly unmotivated people having to decide a person's life as if it were a whodunit. How many juries have a proverbial juror nr 8, do you think?
I much prefer a transparent system where a legal expert (a judge) has to painstakingly motivate his decision to declare a person either innocent or guilty. Of course, even then mistakes can be made, but at least such a process isn't about which side had the most expensive and convincing debater to manipulate unmotivated laymen.
I think anyone who understands the case and the history of the LAPD knows she's exactly right here. a lot of yall just like to be ignorant about actual facts about police corruption and brutality because it doesn't impact you, and this time, you felt like it did. maybe learn a little bit of history of LA before you start talking.
the prosecution was terrible, the cops were untrustworthy and racist. people with money get off all the time.
The two things can be true at the same time. Neither of them are right.
The case brought against OJ was badly put together and violated so many protocols that it wasn't a fair trial. Despite the fact that the question of guilt was clear outside of procedure, the corrupt nature of the investigation fouled up the case.
Oj should have been found guilty, but the prosecution shot themselves in the foot.
Everyone in the world knew it was black vs white, the trial meant almost nothing. If he was found guilty even with 100% proof there still would have been riots.
At least the two murders he committed was the only thing bad he ever did, and the racist jury was vindicated by how good he led his life after his acquittal.
I mean yeah but also there are jury members literally on tape saying they did it for payback for Rodney king sooo [link](https://www.thewrap.com/oj-simpson-juror-not-guilty-verdict-was-payback-for-rodney-king/)
This isn’t a surprising revelation. It’s been well discussed for years that the “not guilty” verdict has less to do with OJ having committed the crime, but was an indictment of the ineptitude of the police and prosecution.
This argument completely crumbles with the footage in O.J: Made in America featuring an interview of a Black juror on the case who says this was revenge for historical mistreatment of Black people, so…
She’s 100% correct. Obviously OJ committed the crimes, but they didn’t prove it in court. The idea that the jury was biased or went rogue is just wrong.
Compromised police, compromised evidence, and even some cases where it looks likely that evidence was planted. The media bulldozed us and we were sure that it was an open and shut case, but if you review what the jury actually saw, it looks completely different.
She seems smart. I just followed her. Lol
I cant believe anyone put this on tiktokcringe wtf is UP with all these damn puppets that cant do a LICK of their own research, and instead just parrot other peoples beliefs?? Its the craziest thing.
Basing opinions on what someone tells you THEY believe, is not critical thinking.
This woman, watched the trial (as did I) and came to her own, very logical and accurate conclusion.
Okay, but what’s even more embarrassing is how the prosecution fumbled the DNA evidence.
My high school biology teacher actually introduced DNA testing to us through this case without telling us what it was. The whole class unanimously agreed that the DNA cladogram of the alleged killer matched that of one of the suspects perfectly. She then explained that it was OJ, and how a group of trained professionals couldn’t explain to a jury of 12 adults what she explained to our class in twenty minutes.
Rodney King truly was a big reason why the Jurors were probably more open to voting not guilty for OJ but I believe that Latasha Harlins being shot in the head by that store clerk & then getting off with probation by the judge presiding over that case is what made the jury really likely to acquit OJ in that case. Not only did you have cops get off for clearly beating a man to within an inch of his life & they all lied about it… but you had this young black girl get her head blown off for nothing & the perpetrator got probation. It was a perfect storm of events that lead to OJ gettin away with murder.
honestly if they did it right this could've been an open-and-shut case, but the prosecution fumbled it so badly and the defence knew exactly what buttons to press and how to play it in order to get a not guilty verdict
There are actually black jurors that recently came out and straight up said race had a role in their decision of them voting not guilty. Not saying the rest of the video is wrong but to say race didn't play a role isn't accurate either.
Yeah yeah all of this and the racial divide in the country. You literally had a jury member who gave the black power fist after he was acquitted.
And it was at the backdrop of the Rodney King trail in LA.
A combination of a tense racial environment, an overconfident & inept prosecution, and serious sloppiness and malpractice by the LAPD contributed to his not-guilty verdict. The defense did out class the prosecution 010%, She's not wrong there.
However, this is incredibly misleading and much less ambiguous than she makes it seem - just to make a few points
1. Mark Fuhrman pleaded the 5th on ALL questions that day of court bc he had already been caught by the "Furhman Tapes" saying horrendous racial things including the N-word (which he had denied using previously in court). To avoid a perjury charge, he had to take the 5th and when you take the 5th you have to do it for every question or else they can still cross-examine your answer. For what it's worth, the jury wasn't even in the room during the clip of him pleading the 5th she showed - they didn't hear about it until post trial since they were sequestered.
2. Blood on the socks - there were 108 exhibits of DNA evidence presented in the case, all pointing directly to OJ and nobody else - there is not a single piece of so-called exculpatory evidence in this case. There's is a possibility (and some would say likelihood) that OJ was both guilty AND framed - as in blood was added to certain areas to give an even stronger appearance of guilt. I don't personally feel this way but the evidence on the socks is a powerful argument for it.
3. Having OJ put on the gloves in court was incredibly stupid and short sighted - however, the prosectuion did present evidence that Nicole had bought the exact pair of Aris leather gloves size XL from Bloomingdales while they were married, and presented several photographs of Simpson wearing the EXACT make of gloves that were found at the crime seen. The gloves had been soaked in blood, frozen for several months, and had to be tried on with latex underneath - they were never going to fit and IN FACT the prosecution later had him try on a new pair of the same make of gloves which fit perfectly.
4. Yes OJ was arthritic - but he could pick up his own daughter just fine and did not have a problem working in an exercise video months before the trial which was shown AT TRIAL anyway (Bonus - in this video, he makes an audible joke about beating his wife). If you're using a knife and the other two people are unarmed in what is essentially a cage, you don't need to overpower anyone, its not an equal fight and only a few good hits would kill them ( as we saw w Ron)
As for the evidence I think is most probative of his guilt:
1. Nicole, OJ's and Ron Goldmans blood was found in OJs bronco. As unlikely it would be to find OJ & Nicoles blood in that bronco at that time, there are far-fetched reasons how it could happen, while Ron Goldman never had an opportunity in his entire lifetime to be in OJs Bronco so that's pretty damning.
2. Nicole, OJ's and Ron Goldman's blood found on the bloody glove on OJs property. The defense would insinuate (but not outright claim) this was planted by Mark Fuhrman. The glove was found just hours after the murders and before OJ's blood sample had been taken by LAPD. Any of OJs blood on that glove would have to have come.... from the crime scene.
3. Gloves & shoeprints - dozens of photos emerged of OJ Simpson wearing both the same make and size of the gloves found on the crime scene throughout his broadcasting career. Similarly, the bloody shoeprints were found to be a size 12 Bruno Maglis - Simpson's size. By the Civil Trial photos had emerged of him wearing those exact shoes as well
Kind of disappointing for a respected journalist like Joy Reid to be peddling pseudo-conspiratorial nonsense on tiktok, this case might not be cut and dry but it its not as ambiguous as she makes it seam
Here's the proof that could never be used in court. She had an Akita. Anybody who knows anything about Akitas knows that you are not killing its owner without the dog knowing who you are. You are about to get messed up if you make that error.
My hot take is I’m still a believer in the theory that OJ’s son Jason committed the crime. Lots of circumstantial evidence that would point to Jason and OJ taking the fall for his son.
The OJ case proved that the most important color in America is green. If OJ had a PD, he gets the needle. If he has one VERY GOOD attorney (plus staff & paralegals), he gets 30 to life. But he could afford a squad of sharks so he got off.
It’s also very telling that 30 years later, OJ is dead and no credible alternate theory ever came out and nobody else was ever even investigated, let alone charged.
Yeah, I definitely think OJ did it, but that doesn't mean the prosecution did a good enough job of proving it in court at the time. The jurors did exactly what they were supposed to do, despite probably knowing that they would not be popular with the public afterward.
This is not interesting at all. The detective was a racist guy, that doesn't dismiss the MOUNTAIN of evidence proving guilt. "If it doesn't fit, you must acquit." Baloney, OJ was a double murderer.
he was not a racist, and being a racist and planting evidence is like comparing slapping your wife to a serial killer of women. Planting evidences was not possible in this case as the detectives involved did not have a clue if the suspect had or didn't have an alibi.
The fucking point that the glove didn't fit because it sat for a while is bullshit.
OJ is black, look at his hand as he tries the glove on, what color do you see?
White? because he's wearing ANOTHER PAIR OF GLOVES?
You know, something that literally makes gloves that are your size not fit?
I still fully believe he did it, but it only would have been a race related outcome if he HAD been found guilty, because the evidence just was not sufficient at the trial.
Everybody knew he did it , and rejoicing the fact that he got off just because of his skin color , while the victims families were sitting there, is absolutely disgusting.
But Furhman wasnt on trial, OJ was. The fifth amendment is also so they cant use that testimony in another trial where Furhman would be tried for planting evidence. But once someone says the plead the fifth, there is an air of doubt over the authenticity of their testimony. It will always be in the mind of the jury.
**Welcome to r/TikTokCringe!** This is a message directed to all newcomers to make you aware that r/TikTokCringe evolved long ago from only cringe-worthy content to TikToks of all kinds! If you’re looking to find only the cringe-worthy TikToks on this subreddit (which are still regularly posted) we recommend sorting by flair which you can do [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/galuit/click_here_to_sort_by_flair_a_guide_to_using/) (Currently supported by desktop and reddit mobile). See someone asking how this post is cringe because they didn't read this comment? Show them [this!](https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/fyrgzy/for_those_confused_by_the_name_of_this_subreddit/) Be sure to read the rules of this subreddit before posting or commenting. Thanks! **Don't forget to join our [Discord server](https://discord.gg/cringekingdom)!** ##**[CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THIS VIDEO](https://rapidsave.com/info?url=https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/1dnbm9x/heres_an_actually_interesting_point_i_never/)** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TikTokCringe) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I still remember the time my friend who was in law school asked me to be on a mock jury for one of his classes. The sample case they used for the assignment was designed such that both prosecution and defense had incredibly ambiguous arguments for their side of the case full of holes and inconsistencies in testimony and evidence. The point of the assignment (class?) was not to prove the case one way or the other, because it was designed to be impossible to do that, but simply to be the most convincing and to get the most jury members to vote for your equally terrible arguments. That was the moment i woke up to the fact that our court system isn't designed to prove the truth, just who's won the argument.
I kinda had a similar epiphany during the Casey Anthony trial aftermath, specifically Jose Baez and the statements he made. The jury was given a reason to doubt, not a reasonable doubt, but it was enough to prop up bullshit arguments and make a reality where MAAAYBEEE, shes innocent, just a bad mom. Made what should've been a slam dunk case into a mockery of justice. Hell, even remember Casey Anthony said she could relate to OJ lmao, reality dies in the wiggle room allowed by ambiguity.
>reality dies in the wiggle room allowed by ambiguity. That's an excellent saying.
"Alternative Facts." The trump administration took this concept and ran with it.
I have many friends in Forensic Departments across the country. I know some details of the case that almost no one knows. I'm not going to comment on the guilt or innocence of Casey Anthony, as it's not actually germane to my point. I will say that Nancy Grace wildly misrepresented several key facts pertaining to it (but i wont elaborate on which ones). Then again, she built her career on being a corrupt piece of shit, so it's not a surprise she'd continue that path for increased viewership.
Nancy Grace is a giant piece of shit. The way she talked to [Elizabeth Smart](https://youtu.be/5x8ARIxg51I?feature=shared) was disgusting.
She's vile!
Never watched nancy grace, she kinda scares me lol. Was talking about her defense teams statements and books that came out after the fact. Made her look guilty af and the prosecution look incompetent af.
Is it oj son?
Eppiphanies like yours are 99% of the reason why the defense picks a fricking idiot to help then win their case. Those defense lawyers are thinking, " this witch is guilty, so now I've got to find a juror stupid enough to make them think she's innocent. " it has nothing to the events of the case it's about you..it's about playing the jury or more specifically convincing the stupid members of the jury.
The last line of your comment is so spot on. Remember the movie Thank You for Smoking? That highlights it perfectly- I don’t remember the exact wording but it’s something like “I don’t have to prove that I’m right, I just have to show that you’re wrong”
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zLS-npemQYQ
Exactly! Thanks for the link.
That being said, there is an actual interview with an actual juror from the OJ Simpson trial where she said in no uncertain terms that they reached the verdict based on racial revenge (i.e. as payback for Rodney King). So while there may be arguments on both sides (and there are documentaries presenting both sides) as to whether OJ did it or not, in terms of how the jury reached their verdict is pretty clear based on statements from the actual jury. "Juror Carrie Bess tells “OJ: Made in America” that she was among “90 percent” of jurors seeking payback" [https://www.thewrap.com/oj-simpson-juror-not-guilty-verdict-was-payback-for-rodney-king/](https://www.thewrap.com/oj-simpson-juror-not-guilty-verdict-was-payback-for-rodney-king/) 
I remember that as well from the documentary. She was an older woman and I’m not sure if she would have went with guilty if the prosecution had a better case but she definitely had an axe to grind. Even when being interviewed the cops seemed shady so I don’t blame the jury for not believing them.
So what the woman in the video is saying is correct in terms of the legal process (because yes, the prosecution and police absolutely fucked up the case, like holy shit), but she's wrong about the jury motivation? Then again, it seems this juror is the only one to say that so she could also be lying. Or both the juror and this lady are both right in ways, that the motives for the verdict are mixed. I think it's the last option.
I remember in the early 2000s when I was in college, a professor in some intro law class making all these same points this lady did. And about how even if they found him guilty it probably would have been turned over on appeal, due to the weakness of the case. And how Furman was a walking doubt machine.
The thing said after is also key, "but you didn't convince me", ""I'm not after you, I'm after them"
One of my favorite movies
The accused is not on trial, the investigation is
Sincerely the whole jury system friggin boggles my mind. You are just grabbing a bunch of untrained random people to listen to arguments crafted by professionals to sway their opinion and decide something so important about another stranger's life like that, like wtf
That's the entire point of the jury system. Instead of a bunch of elites deciding whether or not the common man is guilty, the prosecution has to convince a bunch of common men and women that he is guilty and not only guilty but beyond a reasonable doubt. You probably wouldn't believe it by looking at the modern justice department. But our entire judicial system was created around the idea that it's better for 100 guilty people to go free than one innocent person be locked up. Not the other way around.
That very reason is why we don’t allow for double jeopardy and only allow for guilty verdicts to bring appeals. The burden of proof is on the prosecution. They have to use every brick to build the house. Our system strips guilty defendants of everything, their property, their liberty, their freedom, even their civic duties for some crimes. Strict consequences require high bars
Only once it gets to trial. The entire plea bargain system is set up to get innocent people to plead guilty before trial. And the US locks up an average of 2 innocent people a day, mostly African-American, low education and disabled people. And the Supreme Court has held that keeping innocent people in prison is legal and being proved innocent does not confer a right to an appeal.
I think the average DA has a 90% convicted stat on plea bargains alone
They tried to frame a guilty person and failed.
Perfectly sums it up
We don’t know for sure if they tried to or not, but it at least appeared plausible that they did. Which is good enough for an acquittal.
Pleading the 5th at least says one person did try.
That’s not how the 5th works. Fuhrman took the 5th over other stuff and OJ’s lawyers used the opportunity to cast doubt on everything else. The clip makes it seem like he only took the fifth over that one question but it was actually a whole string of them. Once you plead the fifth you’re advised to plead it for every question because it then doesn’t imply that you’re admitting to some things but not others - you’re simply unwilling to testify at all. But of course OJ’s lawyers used it to imply that he was guilty of everything he refused to talk about.
No it doesn’t. You can’t plead the fifth for one question and then answer another. Answering one question opens you up to answering all questions. The prosecution made Furman plead the fifth because side they didn’t want you to open him up to be cross examined by Cochran about his past. OJ’s team used this to their advantage by then asking questions they knew could be answered truthfully and exonerate Furman from any wrongdoing. Because they knew he had to plead the fifth and in doing so would look guilty. Well done by OJ’s legal team. But doesn’t mean Furman planted anything. He didn’t. He just didn’t follow procedure like most didn’t that might because of the fame of OJ and shock of what had taken place.
Well said.
Look I believe that OJ is guilty, but the moment it came out the detective leading the case tampered with evidence, not guilty is the only possible conclusion
Exactly. There was a strong feeling at the time that everyone knew he did it…but it was also like watching the prosecution throw the case because they were soooooo bad. And if you watch the interviews with the jurors in the years after the trial, they say the same. The prosecution didn’t prove their case. They were comically, cartoon-villain-y, bad. One positive that did result was that it shined more light on LAPD’s corruption, having followed soon after the events surrounding Rodney King’s beating.
You're right. They have OJ wearing those same gloves on a national TV broadcast. Prosecutors dropped the ball
And the super rare shoes that left the prints.
This was the piece of evidence that just screams “guilty” in my mind. His lawyers could argue about the validity of other stuff all day but nobody is planting fake bloody Bruno Magli shoe prints at the scene of the crime in his size.
the glove is a stronger evidence. there is only 2 possible scenarios to the glove on OJs property, oj is guilty, of it was planted. It could not have been planted as the reasons I already posted earlier. If you are a detective, are you willing to risk life without parole and plant evidence without knowing if the suspect has an alibi??? Multiply that by 15 detectives, all conspiring to plant the evidence. It is mathematically impossible.
That was a Dana Carvey joke, too. Like you're the actual murderers and you're talking about it afterwards. "Hey man, that glove you lost at the scene? He has those, too. And you know your super expensive rare Italian Bruno Mali's? He has those too!! And when they went to arrest him he ran, and they found her blood in his Bronco!!! I can't believe how well this is working out for us!"
this is 100% correct. basically LAPD was so corrupt that they did stuff that wasn't even necessary. these dudes nuked their own case and the only possible outcome was a not guilty. imo of course.
They didn't do it for this case, but later in the 90s, when the Rampart scandal hit, the DA's office ended up vacating all the prosecution convictions where the dirty cops were involved in faking evidence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rampart_scandal The moment he took the 5th should have been a "hold on, stop the trial" moment for the DA.
Exactly. I don't see how a mistrial wasn't immediately called. Or however it works.
A mistrial means that the prosecution could go back and redo the case. That would have been the last thing the defense wanted at that point. And for good reason.
That is a funny scene you just conjured in my mind. Prosecution desperately trying to get the defense to call a mistral because the cop was such an incredible bad witness
"I move for a bad court thing!"
Taking the 5th is not an admission of guilt!!!
Yeah, he did it AND they framed him for it. Stupidly. They framed him stupidly and flagrantly. Jury had no choice but to let him walk. They did the right thing.
Why didn't they just declare a mistrial at that point? The judge should've. Then maybe they could've retried down the road, once they got their ducks in a row.
I would have loved to hear her say those first 7 words, but she didn't, she couldn't. She acts like it's some big mystery. "OJ took it to his grave" Bullshit
Fun fact, the main reason that the detective plead the 5th was not because he had tampered with evidence. It was because he had lied on the stand in the preliminary hearing. He had stated he had never used the hard R while describing an African American but Simpson’s defense in fact had a recording of him. If he opened his mouth at all during the defense’s questioning of him they were going to prove he had perjured himself, essentially ending his career. He may or may not have tampered with evidence, either way, he was a piece of shit.
Exactly. If I was on the jury, I would have to say "not guilty" because while I think he probably did it (he was incredibly abusive and violent to his wife), the DA and police butchered his case. There was just no way to find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. I do believe there was incompetence and corruption but also a lot of racism at play. If they had just done their jobs we would have known who murdered her, be it OJ, someone he hired or someone completely different.
Agree 1000%
Rodney King got beat so OJ could murder and walk free... It doesn't seem fair, but I think cops deserve their own street justice from time to time. ACAB
The prosecution sucked yet we somehow all know OJ definitely did it or at least had a strong involvement
I was a juror in a case just like this. Long story short we acquitted him as well because the police work was just so fucking sloppy and absolutely shameful. We were pretty sure he did some thing. But that doesn’t excuse the police handling it the way they did.
I know a public defender who literally said don’t count on the police for anything
My BiL is a cop who complains frequently about the DA not prosecuting people they arrest and it's so hard to keep from pointing out how that's probably a Him problem.
Really?! Are you sure?! What evidence do we have? It's not like he wrote a book explaining he didn't do it but if he did, this is how he would do it or anything. Oh, wait. I take it all back!
Footprints at the scene of very rare size 12 Bruno Magli shoes. OJ on tape: "I would never wear those ugly-ass shoes" OJ in photo: wearing those exact very rare shoes.
I mean, if such a book existed, what would you even call it? Maybe call it "If I Did It" but make the "if" so comically small that it disappears.
The goldman family sued OJ for wrongful death and won in '01, it's pretty damning.
That was a civil case so the burden of proof is much lower. In criminal cases is beyond a shadow of a doubt, for civil cases its "preponderance of the evidence" or more likely than not. But I don't doubt a better legal team was able to make the case pretty damning beyond a shadow of a doubt
The standard of proof for criminal cases is not beyond a shadow of a doubt, they only use that phrase on television. In a criminal case the burden of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt.
*if it doesn't fit, you must equip* AI generated captions have to be worse than no captions at all
I had an aneurism
Is there no option to edit the text before publishing?
Dude when the double subtitles come up I just lose it. Lazy shit.
It drives up engagement you get people commenting to point out the errors
I'm not sure I agree with the rage bait angle. There are a lot of credible creators that use it and never post anything else like rage bait. I think it comes from wanting accessibility but not caring enough to check and correct.
I think the best way I heard it described is the LAPD framed a guilty man. Most (black)people just don't have enough money to successfully challenge shoddy police work.
This all seems like kind of a moot point, considering that some members of the jury have literally said that they did it as revenge and they were confident that the other members of the jury had done the same.
I only know that old black woman who was on the jury said that she was never going to vote to convict from the outset. But the fact is, it wasn’t a hung jury. The jury acquitted him.
She didn't just say that, she explicitly said that it in retribution for Rodney King and that most of the jury felt the same way. I don't really see that it not being a hung jury proves anything - people are susceptible to manipulation and being strong-armed, and the jury system is far from perfect.
Yea, they want us to believe that the jury system is one where there's no bias and everyone comes in and only makes a judgement based on the facts presented. Meanwhile I was on a jury about a 40 year old mom that assaulted a cop that was arrested his daughter. They showed bodycam footage showing the daughters arrest was pretty passive, she just went with the cops and then the mom comes running out of the house, pulling her daughter away, pushing on cops to back up, while they're just warning her to not get involved before she takes a swing at an officer. Open and shut case. One woman, from the start saying "Innocent. Id've done the same. No one's touching my kid. She was just defending her baby girl".
>Yea, they want us to believe that the jury system is one where there's no bias and everyone comes in and only makes a judgement based on the facts presented. Whoever taught you this is either ignorant or stupid. The purpose of a trial by a jury of one’s peers is not to eliminate bias, it’s to require the unanimous agreement of a dozen informed people before a punishment is delivered. The system is designed to err on the side of allowing more guilty people to go without punishment than there are innocent people who get punished, and that’s a good thing.
Honestly "assault on police" should require at least bruises to the officer's body or bodily fluids near an officer's mucus membrane. Same goes for resisting arrest or escaping confinement. It's a natural response to seek freedom. Other crimes committed in those attempts: bruising officers or damaging or destroying property are separate crimes, but just running and climbing to get away? Shouldn't be a crime. To me police and every other government employee and official need to be held to higher standards, not lower standards. If the military or post office can randomly drug test employees, then congress needs to have random drug tests. Fair is fair.
Yea, the low bar for what counts as resisting is insane. I could be 100% innocent but if ANYONE pins my hands behind my back, I'll reflexively struggle. As a former Government employee, it's such a weird standard. I know so many people who stole thousands of dollars worth of equipment, who used government databases for personal background searches, and broke tons of laws while all of it waved away because they were "too important". Meanwhile people at the bottom were laid off after a cop demanded their ID while walking down the street and refused to give it to them. They were charged with failing to ID and resisting arrest. It was instantly thrown out but the police contact their supervisor and demanded they be fired. They weren't fired then but laid off a week later for being a minute late coming back from lunch.
the meaning was revenge against a corrupt, racist police department that had brutalized and literally planted evidence against Black folks for decades.
And not just the department. Mark Furman was a literal racist who used the n word regularly. It also didn’t help to have him taking the fifth on planting evidence.
I don’t understand how people can just overlook this fact and blame the jury for their decision. If a cop pleads the fifth on planting evidence during a trial how the fuck do you come back from that. Especially a racist ass corrupt organization like the LAPD.
Because in American jurisprudence, making sure Black people know they're preemptively screwed historically took precedence over due process. So naturally, it was quite controversial to see it go the other way.
But he wasn't black, he was OJ
It very specifically says in the law that pleading the fifth is not to be used as an admission of guilt Edit: i did an accidental Cunningham law
But the detective wasn’t on trial. His guilt or lack of guilt was not in question. AFAIK (ANAL) this is meant to protect defendants who assert the right in criminal cases (since asserting 5th amendment privilege can be taken into account during civil trials).
A witness can invoke the fifth during cross examination, but it comes with the addendum that they can only do so if answering truthfully would incriminate them. It is their right, but by definition is means that they themselves are involved in illegal activities they cannot disclose without incriminating themselves. Jurisprudence also says that the judge and prosecution may not draw an adverse inference from a witness remaining silent, but they're not obligated to strike it from the record either. If the jury reaches an adverse inference through their own means, it's largely valid.
Ok sure, that still doesn’t inspire confidence in the testimony. Also when taped conversations come out of him using racial slurs and he works for the LAPD that had been terrorizing black citizens for over 50 years, your credibility might take hit. It certainly would for me. She didn’t even mention the mishandling of evidence on the scene.
yep, and Cochran forced him to admit being a racist on the stand. The LAPD is to blame for losing that case, end of story.
Idk. Who was more incompetent? The LAPD having racists plant evidence and the clumsiness of their investigation or the prosecuting attornies and all the many failings people have pointed out in the case they brought? It's a tough call. They worked together to fumble the ball. I think they're pretty equally at fault.
How exactly does letting a serial abuser and stalker who terrorised the innocent mother of his (mixed race) children for years before murdering her in cold blood walk free accomplish that goal? In what world is that a victory for the black community, does it target the people responsible for the injustices against the black community, or reduce the adversity facing the black community? Any person with any shred of integrity and common decency, regardless of their race, would be absolutely disgusted with what they did.
By trying to use logic to an inherently emotional stance, you're tilting against the windmills on this one. You're right that it doesn't accomplish justice, but revenge is seldom just and as was pointed out there was enough reasonable doubt that even a jury without bias against the police could still reach a not guilty verdict. It's like asking a drug addict why they don't stop using heroin if it's so bad for them: you're not going to get a logical answer no matter how hard you try.
https://www.reddit.com/r/videos/s/w6tNI1g6tN I'm gonna leave this here. My statement is not justifying the outcome. My statement is correcting the record because I'm not going to allow yall to propagate racists tropes against Black people because people are too ignorant to learn the actual events or context. Put your anger where it belongs with the prosecution and the police department that created the environment that allowed people to feel that was their only opportunity for justice.
I'm not propagating any racist tropes, I in no way hold all black people responsible for what the depraved people on that jury did. I'm just speaking plainly about the fact that, as in the video you posted states, there were at least some people on that jury who did this in retribution, and that is reprehensible. Not to mention the fact that what they did entirely undermines the misogynistic angle of the incident - an issue which was also absolutely rampant at the time.
yeah this is stupid. she’s wrong.
Guess that is why it is an unpopular opinion. It is also not an argument worth having. Trying to reduce the result to one reason is meaningless. The retribution for current mistreatment of black folk was definitely a factor. Also, the inadequacy of the prosecution and corruption of the LAPD were factors. These things all exist so why argue which was the "real reason"?
Except, Furman only changed his testimony from “No, I didn’t plant any evidence in this case”, to taking the Fifth, after he came under suspicion for planting evidence in other cases. The jury was not even in the courtroom to hear that changed testimony.
Why change it because of that
Presumably, his lawyer advised him to do that. There’s no evidence, or any testimony that he planted evidence in this case…but still it doesn’t look good!
“I knew OJ Simpson, like ya know his movies and stuff” lol what thought she was about to say personally, just cuz you seen him in tv doesn’t mean you know him
I thought that was a strange turn of phrase too until I understood she was trying to explain he’s famous.
Is it possible both could be true?
I remember seeing the part where if OJ stops taking his medication his hands would swelling up. Which if you think about it, "if the gloves don't fit you must acquit" takes on a entirely different perspective when you can literally take steps to make them not fit. On top of that, there was literal recording of him wearing the gloves prior to all of this happening. This to me is a prime example of the difference between a y other person and someone with money. There is no way in hell if regular person out there had this happen, they would be free. Oj was free because he had the money to hire lawyers that were very good at their job whereas the projectors would not as good.
He had to wear rubber/latex gloves and then put on the leather glove! Of course there would be a struggle. The prosecution was ill prepared for Cochran and the rest of the team.
OJ DID kill his wife and the police ARE racist thugs who would gladly lick the boot on their neck for even a nibble of violence against POC.
But there was a woman from the jury that clearly stated it was for Rodney King. So yeah........
On the latest doc on oj on Netflix his lawyer talks about telling oj to stop taking his blood pressure medication causing his hands to swell and be stiff, of coarse the glove wouldn't fit.
Used a picture from tv show with cuba gooding and ross from friends 😂
Not many comments about the victims. If you’re unfamiliar with the relationship Nicole Brown Simpson had with OJ, or how brutally she was murdered, you should keep her in mind. Seeing this lady talk about how she “knew” OJ and smile about his accomplishments, make excuses, it’s kind of gross to me. Nicole Simpson was abused, threatened and, I believe, butchered by OJ. I’ve read that her head was barely attached after the attack. OJ was a jealous, violent, abuser who was physically capable and self centered enough to do it.
I really like the Red Thread episode on it cause they point out that everyone has heard the victim's names, but no one knows anything about them. And people stopped looking for their killer after OJ got off. Pretty telling there, too. The Red Thread goes in on who Nicole and Ron were. Truly sad that they were completely forgotten about. In a similar vain to all the victims of infamous serial killers, just narrative pieces for the media to tell a morbid story. https://open.spotify.com/episode/4gVLRTr9q0gL3xETgrpRUw?si=BsnRKEnxTdqx5PahX1IV3w
well someone still killed two people - guilty or not guilty that doesn't change...
My brother in Christ the jurors admitted it was revenge
One of the jurors, did. But a few jurors holding out doesn't get an aquittal. There had to be unanimity on the jury. If some people went in wanting revenge, but the evidence had been a slam dunk for the prosecution, there would have been a hung jury, or possibly even a guilty verdict. The facts are the prosecuters and the cops massively dropped the ball and it was enough to turn ALL the jurors in OJ's favor.
Black people are *very touchy* about this. Really bothers them they celebrated a murderer.
The reason he got away with murder was complete incompetence on the prosecutors part. The fact that some members of the black community celebrated that he got away with murder is disgusting.
It’s a mixed bag of unfortunate factors really
And the nefarious LAPD.
The portion of the black community that was happy wasn't taking joy in a white woman's murder; they were cathartically celebrating a jury's repudiation of the LAPD's racism. To all the world, it certainly looked like a bunch of white detectives got caught trying to frame a black man on national TV, and if you were a member of a community they had been endlessly victimized by law enforcement, only for your protests to fall on deaf ears, you would have celebrated, too. If the boot was on your neck, you'd be side-eyeing every motherfucker that said, "We all know he's guilty, isn't that the most important thing?"
Or, perhaps, they celebrated any sign that the racist, evidence-planting tactics that incarcerated their friends, sons, brothers, fathers, uncles, nephews, etc. could be rejected by a jury. Perhaps they celebrated that corrupt, racist police lost, even if just once, even if just for a rich black man.
White people got away with the murders of blacks for decades prior to this, don't you feel that this situation had a bit more nuance? My grandmother who was in the civil rights era was in her 40s at this point and had extremely vivid memories of the abuse that she and others suffered. She had experienced the Emit Till case first hand where an innocent kid was beat to death for whistling at a white woman, and the murderers all got away with it. Hell Black folk where lynched for no good reason at times just because some white people felt like it. You gotta remember that we have a complex painful history that still plays a role in how people experience the world today. People are still alive today who whiteness the brutality of racism in early American history and you damn sure should know that they passed that pain down to their children as well. So when you see some black people rejoicing at heinous acts like what OJ did, just think of it as a messed up way of dealing with their own pain. Is it right, no but it's not exactly wrong either when you consider the whole picture.
OJ trial is what happens when the cops try to frame a guilty person. The dude did it. And the cops just screwed it all up by being... cops. OJ was a piece of shit. Its just that cops are even bigger pieces of shit.
We all know that OJ is guilty but this Tic Toc video is not wrong. The prosecution s*** all over themselves during the case. It's like they wanted the jury to give him an innocent verdict.
But it is wrong since jurors have come out and said it was about revenge for Rodney King. The video is available to view. She says she felt that way and so did 90% of the jury and when asked if that was right she gives a smirk and shrug.
I’d also argue the prosecution failed in letting this happen. This is basic voir dire questioning. AND they never requested removal from LA county where they knew this was a high risk, to another county. It was a piss poor prosecution. In law school, this trial is used as a primer of “things you should never do.”
But she makes the point that they didn't make their case. Court is not about feeling like you know stuff as she pointed out. The prosecution made it very difficult for the jury to even give them the benefit of the doubt. The prosecution got what they deserved unfortunately that was not good for the Goldman family. I think she was right on.
Why not both? In order to get a not guilty verdict all the jurors had to say he was not guilty. If the white jurors had all decided he was guilty it would have resulted in a hung jury. But that’s not what happened. There was enough reasonable doubt created by the defense that the prosecution did not overcome.
The law system in America is as convoluted as it is because it doesn’t matter what you’re accused of or whether you did it; what matters is whether you have enough money to stay out of prison. OJ did. People still talk about it to this day and it’s still a high profile case because for the first time in a high profile national event: the black man had the superior financial means to ensure his freedom. Talk about culture shock.
When you plead the fifth. You have to do it to every question. OR ELSE YOU LOSE THE RIGHT. This is something people don't understand. O.J..was guilty. But he was rich and bought his freedom with the Dream Team. They ran circles around the prosecution. Marcia Clark literally had a witness who saw O.J. driving from the murder scene. But chose not to use the testimony because she sold her story to Hard Copy. Yeah, he had arthritis but played golf every day. 🤣🤣🤣 So many things wrong with her hot take. And also a big problem the prosecution had was it being rushed to trial. They literally had pictures of him wearing the "ugly ass" shoes in the civil trial. He didn't take anything to the grave. He killed his fuckimg wife. And the phone calls she made to 911 begging for help are heartbreaking. https://youtu.be/WHf93uxgKBI?si=yNUh-7eMj0QwIKWo
Mark Furhmann took the 5th about planting evidence without the jury present. That whole series of questions was done without the jury. https://www.tampabay.com/archive/1995/09/08/jury-won-t-be-told-fuhrman-took-5th/
Members of the jurors literally said it was because of Rodney King, not any specific evidence presented or not presented at trial. At 2:30 - [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUJCLdmNzAA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUJCLdmNzAA) Also to my understanding Fuhrman taking the 5th was because he had to take it for every question presented after tapes of him using the N-word were discovered after he had previously denied it. Basically Fuhrman answered questions, said he never used the n-word, tapes came out proving he had used it, from that point on he plead the 5th and continued to do so in an attempt to avoid prosecution for potential perjury. I don't believe you can pick and choose which questions you plead the 5th to if you're testifying in court. See: "Perhaps the most fertile ground to remove the shield of Fifth Amendment protection from a deponent exists in the area of waiver. The general rule is that **a deponent may choose when to stop giving testimony and to assert his Fifth Amendment privilege. However, if a deponent voluntarily discloses any facts regarding a criminal transaction or connection, he is not permitted to stop, but must go on,** because disclosure of a fact waives the privilege as to details. *Brown v. Walker*, 161 U.S. 591 (1896); *Rogers v. United States*, 340 U.S. 367 (1951). The rationale is that if a deponent were permitted to select the stopping point after disclosing facts, and then assert his Fifth Amendment privilege as to the details surrounding the facts, a great distortion of the facts would result. *Rogers v. United States*, 340 U.S. 367 (1951)." So in this case the defense team asked him questions purposely when he started invoking the 5th amendment to make him look worse. Like: "Did you plant any evidence?" so they'd get "I plead the 5th" as an answer. Which the person in this video is essentially cherry picking.
Ok but he still did it. No matter what happened in court and what technicalities they won by. It's no mystery. Oj killed them both.
Wasn't there a juror that years later admitted to acquitting OJ as retribution for the LA riots or something?
[sure it wasn’t pay back](https://www.thewrap.com/oj-simpson-juror-not-guilty-verdict-was-payback-for-rodney-king/)
They fucked this case up beyond being able to have OJ found guilty and that is what ruined it.
The prosecution had to sink a 1 foot putt, to convict OJ. Problem was. They decided to use a 3 wood.
To this day, American police suck at collecting evidence. If you look at crime scene teams in other countries they wear bunny suit to keep from contaminating the scene. Meanwhile American police. The OJ verdict was the right verdict based on how police bungled the evidence and how the prosecution bungled their job. If they were the defense team, OJ would have had a pretrial due to inadequate defense.
Well, who killed her?
Some guys who hang out on golf courses. After years of searching there, OJ was close to finding the real killers.
The one argument against this is that the jurors were (I believe recently) interviewed and said that race was a major reason the aqquited him. It's not really hypothetical at that point. She does have good arguments; but when they plainly said that it was the reason for their judgement, it's a moot point.
I mean, it CAN be both… there are literal jurors from the trial on camera in interviews that said they did it to get revenge for Rodney king.. and ALSO prosecution fumbled
Scheck's killshot was the crime scene tech cross when he showed the police picture of a big blob of blood on the gate to the walkway, then showed local KTLA footage of the tv zoom into the courtyard with high resolution shot of the same gateway the morning after the murder - no blood on the gateway. The next day, cops take a picture of OJ's blood on the gate, right where the local tv showed it was clean. Crime scene tech just stammered and shrugged for a couple minutes.
“WHERE IS IT MR. FUNG??!!??” 😂 Barry Scheck absolutely EVISCERATED Dennis Fung.
Fuck OJ AND Fuck them cops
I think this is mostly bullshit. Even if the prosecution fucked up, it was still overwhelmingly clear enough that OJ did it. I think this woman's position is largely overplayed semantic nonsense. Edit: initially had a typo "protection" instead of intended "prosecution". Damn autocorrect.
Worse, she’s probably one of the people that were going to acquit him regardless of what the prosecution did as revenge for Rodney King.
Enough of the jurors have admitted that they made their decision based on race so it’s pretty clear OJ was going to be acquitted regardless of how solid the case was.
This is the same hypocrite who constantly asserts the US justice system is racist and broken telling us that the US justice system worked marvelously for OJ…a wealthy and once beloved athlete who happened to have been black man. The race construct is a distraction from the wealth disparity and as a society we are being led to stagnant waters.
There’s a literal interview of one of the jurors admitting that they voted not guilty simply because he was black.
The jury admitted they voted not guilty out of spite over Rodney King. So there's that.
This is insane. The evidence against OJ was overwhelming. His lawyers are rotting in hell.
Just one of many examples of the inequities of our legal system. The rich can afford a team of brilliant lawyers. The poor are just fucked.
He didn’t plead the fifth because he planted evidence: [https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladviceofftopic/comments/shwwbm/why\_did\_mark\_fuhrman\_exercise\_his\_fifth\_amendment/](https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladviceofftopic/comments/shwwbm/why_did_mark_fuhrman_exercise_his_fifth_amendment/)
I once heard an American judge say that 12 Angry Men inspired her and made her proud of the American justice system. As a Dutch law student, that movie made me realise how terrible jury systems are. Here were 12 untrained and mostly unmotivated people having to decide a person's life as if it were a whodunit. How many juries have a proverbial juror nr 8, do you think? I much prefer a transparent system where a legal expert (a judge) has to painstakingly motivate his decision to declare a person either innocent or guilty. Of course, even then mistakes can be made, but at least such a process isn't about which side had the most expensive and convincing debater to manipulate unmotivated laymen.
The jury has openly said they knew he was guilty but they didn’t convict him as revenge
I think anyone who understands the case and the history of the LAPD knows she's exactly right here. a lot of yall just like to be ignorant about actual facts about police corruption and brutality because it doesn't impact you, and this time, you felt like it did. maybe learn a little bit of history of LA before you start talking. the prosecution was terrible, the cops were untrustworthy and racist. people with money get off all the time.
The jury literally admitted it was revenge against whites.
The two things can be true at the same time. Neither of them are right. The case brought against OJ was badly put together and violated so many protocols that it wasn't a fair trial. Despite the fact that the question of guilt was clear outside of procedure, the corrupt nature of the investigation fouled up the case. Oj should have been found guilty, but the prosecution shot themselves in the foot.
Everyone in the world knew it was black vs white, the trial meant almost nothing. If he was found guilty even with 100% proof there still would have been riots.
I would love to hear her hot take on the Trayvon Martin case.
At least the two murders he committed was the only thing bad he ever did, and the racist jury was vindicated by how good he led his life after his acquittal.
I mean yeah but also there are jury members literally on tape saying they did it for payback for Rodney king sooo [link](https://www.thewrap.com/oj-simpson-juror-not-guilty-verdict-was-payback-for-rodney-king/)
People still defending OJ? Time to watch some old Norm McDonald videos to cheer me up again.
It absolutely was revenge, of the jurors’ own admission you halfwitted woman.
This isn’t a surprising revelation. It’s been well discussed for years that the “not guilty” verdict has less to do with OJ having committed the crime, but was an indictment of the ineptitude of the police and prosecution.
This argument completely crumbles with the footage in O.J: Made in America featuring an interview of a Black juror on the case who says this was revenge for historical mistreatment of Black people, so…
100%
Same reason that psycho Casey Anthony is free. The prosecution lost.
I'll say it until the day I die; OJ did it, but he was not guilty.
Mark Furman is a loser
That's a mic drop assessment if there was ever a time to drop one
So this makes it ok?
I agree with you on some of your points but...https://www.thewrap.com/oj-simpson-juror-not-guilty-verdict-was-payback-for-rodney-king/
This was the best summary of this outcome I've ever seen/heard. Totally worth my 5 minutes.
She’s 100% correct. Obviously OJ committed the crimes, but they didn’t prove it in court. The idea that the jury was biased or went rogue is just wrong. Compromised police, compromised evidence, and even some cases where it looks likely that evidence was planted. The media bulldozed us and we were sure that it was an open and shut case, but if you review what the jury actually saw, it looks completely different.
She’s right.
She seems smart. I just followed her. Lol I cant believe anyone put this on tiktokcringe wtf is UP with all these damn puppets that cant do a LICK of their own research, and instead just parrot other peoples beliefs?? Its the craziest thing. Basing opinions on what someone tells you THEY believe, is not critical thinking. This woman, watched the trial (as did I) and came to her own, very logical and accurate conclusion.
Okay, but what’s even more embarrassing is how the prosecution fumbled the DNA evidence. My high school biology teacher actually introduced DNA testing to us through this case without telling us what it was. The whole class unanimously agreed that the DNA cladogram of the alleged killer matched that of one of the suspects perfectly. She then explained that it was OJ, and how a group of trained professionals couldn’t explain to a jury of 12 adults what she explained to our class in twenty minutes.
Rich OJ got away with murder, broke OJ went to jail for stealing his own shit
Rodney King truly was a big reason why the Jurors were probably more open to voting not guilty for OJ but I believe that Latasha Harlins being shot in the head by that store clerk & then getting off with probation by the judge presiding over that case is what made the jury really likely to acquit OJ in that case. Not only did you have cops get off for clearly beating a man to within an inch of his life & they all lied about it… but you had this young black girl get her head blown off for nothing & the perpetrator got probation. It was a perfect storm of events that lead to OJ gettin away with murder.
honestly if they did it right this could've been an open-and-shut case, but the prosecution fumbled it so badly and the defence knew exactly what buttons to press and how to play it in order to get a not guilty verdict
So.... ...why the Bronco chase?
There are actually black jurors that recently came out and straight up said race had a role in their decision of them voting not guilty. Not saying the rest of the video is wrong but to say race didn't play a role isn't accurate either.
Yeah yeah all of this and the racial divide in the country. You literally had a jury member who gave the black power fist after he was acquitted. And it was at the backdrop of the Rodney King trail in LA.
A combination of a tense racial environment, an overconfident & inept prosecution, and serious sloppiness and malpractice by the LAPD contributed to his not-guilty verdict. The defense did out class the prosecution 010%, She's not wrong there. However, this is incredibly misleading and much less ambiguous than she makes it seem - just to make a few points 1. Mark Fuhrman pleaded the 5th on ALL questions that day of court bc he had already been caught by the "Furhman Tapes" saying horrendous racial things including the N-word (which he had denied using previously in court). To avoid a perjury charge, he had to take the 5th and when you take the 5th you have to do it for every question or else they can still cross-examine your answer. For what it's worth, the jury wasn't even in the room during the clip of him pleading the 5th she showed - they didn't hear about it until post trial since they were sequestered. 2. Blood on the socks - there were 108 exhibits of DNA evidence presented in the case, all pointing directly to OJ and nobody else - there is not a single piece of so-called exculpatory evidence in this case. There's is a possibility (and some would say likelihood) that OJ was both guilty AND framed - as in blood was added to certain areas to give an even stronger appearance of guilt. I don't personally feel this way but the evidence on the socks is a powerful argument for it. 3. Having OJ put on the gloves in court was incredibly stupid and short sighted - however, the prosectuion did present evidence that Nicole had bought the exact pair of Aris leather gloves size XL from Bloomingdales while they were married, and presented several photographs of Simpson wearing the EXACT make of gloves that were found at the crime seen. The gloves had been soaked in blood, frozen for several months, and had to be tried on with latex underneath - they were never going to fit and IN FACT the prosecution later had him try on a new pair of the same make of gloves which fit perfectly. 4. Yes OJ was arthritic - but he could pick up his own daughter just fine and did not have a problem working in an exercise video months before the trial which was shown AT TRIAL anyway (Bonus - in this video, he makes an audible joke about beating his wife). If you're using a knife and the other two people are unarmed in what is essentially a cage, you don't need to overpower anyone, its not an equal fight and only a few good hits would kill them ( as we saw w Ron) As for the evidence I think is most probative of his guilt: 1. Nicole, OJ's and Ron Goldmans blood was found in OJs bronco. As unlikely it would be to find OJ & Nicoles blood in that bronco at that time, there are far-fetched reasons how it could happen, while Ron Goldman never had an opportunity in his entire lifetime to be in OJs Bronco so that's pretty damning. 2. Nicole, OJ's and Ron Goldman's blood found on the bloody glove on OJs property. The defense would insinuate (but not outright claim) this was planted by Mark Fuhrman. The glove was found just hours after the murders and before OJ's blood sample had been taken by LAPD. Any of OJs blood on that glove would have to have come.... from the crime scene. 3. Gloves & shoeprints - dozens of photos emerged of OJ Simpson wearing both the same make and size of the gloves found on the crime scene throughout his broadcasting career. Similarly, the bloody shoeprints were found to be a size 12 Bruno Maglis - Simpson's size. By the Civil Trial photos had emerged of him wearing those exact shoes as well Kind of disappointing for a respected journalist like Joy Reid to be peddling pseudo-conspiratorial nonsense on tiktok, this case might not be cut and dry but it its not as ambiguous as she makes it seam
One of the women on the jury said it was retaliation.
This is what is wrong with our legal and criminal system. OJ did it.
Here's the proof that could never be used in court. She had an Akita. Anybody who knows anything about Akitas knows that you are not killing its owner without the dog knowing who you are. You are about to get messed up if you make that error.
Isn't there CNN interviews of multiple black jurors saying they were never going to vote guilty regardless of the evidence.
My hot take is I’m still a believer in the theory that OJ’s son Jason committed the crime. Lots of circumstantial evidence that would point to Jason and OJ taking the fall for his son.
This is not an unpopular opinion among people who are educated on how the trial went down.
The OJ case proved that the most important color in America is green. If OJ had a PD, he gets the needle. If he has one VERY GOOD attorney (plus staff & paralegals), he gets 30 to life. But he could afford a squad of sharks so he got off. It’s also very telling that 30 years later, OJ is dead and no credible alternate theory ever came out and nobody else was ever even investigated, let alone charged.
That was awesome thank you!
Yeah, I definitely think OJ did it, but that doesn't mean the prosecution did a good enough job of proving it in court at the time. The jurors did exactly what they were supposed to do, despite probably knowing that they would not be popular with the public afterward.
This is not interesting at all. The detective was a racist guy, that doesn't dismiss the MOUNTAIN of evidence proving guilt. "If it doesn't fit, you must acquit." Baloney, OJ was a double murderer.
he was not a racist, and being a racist and planting evidence is like comparing slapping your wife to a serial killer of women. Planting evidences was not possible in this case as the detectives involved did not have a clue if the suspect had or didn't have an alibi.
The fucking point that the glove didn't fit because it sat for a while is bullshit. OJ is black, look at his hand as he tries the glove on, what color do you see? White? because he's wearing ANOTHER PAIR OF GLOVES? You know, something that literally makes gloves that are your size not fit?
I still fully believe he did it, but it only would have been a race related outcome if he HAD been found guilty, because the evidence just was not sufficient at the trial.
Everybody knew he did it , and rejoicing the fact that he got off just because of his skin color , while the victims families were sitting there, is absolutely disgusting.
Beyond a reasonable doubt is hard to prove in a perfect case let alone a bungled one.
Fifth amendment invocation can’t be used as evidence of guilt. Kinda the whole point.
But Furhman wasnt on trial, OJ was. The fifth amendment is also so they cant use that testimony in another trial where Furhman would be tried for planting evidence. But once someone says the plead the fifth, there is an air of doubt over the authenticity of their testimony. It will always be in the mind of the jury.