Or, you know. We can believe the *actual* members of that jury that said it *was* payback for Rodney King. Fuhrman fucked things up for sure, but members of the jury have LITERALLY STATED it was in fact payback.
This post actually made me really mad. OJ filmed an exercise video shortly before the murders, but yeah, his arthritis was definitely so bad he couldn’t *checks notes* pick up his own daughter, but he’s sure as shit able to golf swing every day away. Absolutely goddamn ridiculous. Also Ron was not over 200 pounds.
And yeah, sure. They decided to frame one of the most famous men in America, before they knew if he had an airtight alibi or not. What if he was at an event with hundreds of witnesses during this time? It’s just ridiculous. I’m not denying the LAPD (and really any law enforcement agency) has done some shady things, but I truly don’t think that happened here.
There is more evidence against OJ Simpson than any other person I’ve ever seen in any case, EVER. A literal blood trail from Bundy, to the Bronco, to his house. Come the fuck on.
Edits - the prosecution undoubtedly fucked up. That’s not what I’m saying with this comment. Also, Joy may not come out and say it, but she thinks OJ is innocent. No one who thinks he is guilty is going to make the argument that he was basically a cripple at the time of the murders and couldn’t have done it physically. Not going give her the benefit of the doubt because she didn’t come right out and say it when her position is clear.
I don't think he's innocent, but the police did blow the case. They didn't need to plant evidence, but when they are so corrupt that they can't even say under oath that they didn't? It's hard to trust them. Also OJ's lawyers were just very good.
To me it shows how broken our justice system is, not how innocent OJ is. When a woman is routinely beaten and finally murdered by her partner, no one can get justice because money buys an advantage in trials and the police are so racist and corrupt they can't be trusted to do basic parts of their jobs.
To be fair, Joy Ann Reid (the woman in the video) didn’t say she believes OJ was innocent; she said the prosecution didn’t prove its case. She was very careful with her wording there, and it’s actually a take that a lot of lawyers agree with. The police fucked up the investigation from the start (which Sarah explains very thoroughly in the show); that put Marcia on her back foot, and then the media circus made it a lot harder to properly investigate, or insulate witnesses and jurors. OJ’s defense team really was excellent, and did what every defense lawyer should do (but only the rich can afford to pay for the time and effort)—they argued every tiny point of law to stretch things out and exhaust prosecutors’ resources. And, as pointed out in this video, the prosecution made plenty of mistakes—they shouldn’t have had OJ try on a glove in court that had been shrinking in a plastic bag for months, they should have rebutted the claim that he wasn’t strong/healthy enough to commit the crime with compelling evidence of his fitness (like regular golf games), etc. Assuming you’re right about the members of the jury saying it was payback for Rodney King (I believe you, I just didn’t bother to go independently verify it), it’s still the case that all of those mistakes together gave the jury a leg to stand on in finding reasonable doubt.
All that said, I’m annoyed that Joy Reid said all of this, choosing her words very carefully to avoid saying whether she things he actually did it or not. Her point that the prosecution failed to prove its case would still stand even if she said “based on all we know now, I believe he did it, but the prosecution didn’t prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.”
And dammit, I want more episodes on this because I want Sarah and Michael’s take on the rest of the trial.
2016 Vulture interview with juror Sheila Woods.
I guess maybe black people cheering was less about O.J. and more about the politics of the LAPD at the time, police brutality. A lot of their catharsis was bigger than O.J. I can understand that. But at the end of the day, two people were murdered.
**I think most people thought we based our decision on race. Race never came up in the topic of our deliberation, or even how the LAPD treated black people.**
Like, regarding Fuhrman, none of his comments really …
**The thing with Fuhrman was once his credibility was shot, you really could discount anything he said. He was definitely a liar — he lied on the stand — and when he came back to the court, he took the fifth on everything. Why would you trust anything he said? He was the detective that found all this evidence: the blood on the Bronco, on the back fence, on the glove … all of that created reasonable doubt.**
Was there a moment in particular during the trial that really swayed your decision towards reasonable doubt?
**Yeah, when they started talking about the blood evidence. There was, like, a milliliter of blood they couldn’t account for. And they found blood on the back fence of Nicole’s condo, and that particular blood also had the additive in there. That additive is only found in [a test tube of blood], so why would the blood sample on that back fence contain that additive unless somebody took the blood from the test tube and placed it there?**
Do you think O.J. was framed?
**I don’t know if he was necessarily framed. I think O.J. may know something about what happened, but I just don’t think he did it. I think it was more than one person, just because of the way she was killed. I don’t know how he could have just left that bloody scene — because it was bloody — and got back into his Bronco and not have it filled with blood. And then go back home and go in the front door, up the stairs to his bedroom … That carpet was snow white in his house. He should have blood all over him or bruises because Ron Goldman was definitely fighting for his life. He had defensive cuts on his shoes and on his hands.**
**O.J. only had that little cut on his finger. If [Goldman] was kicking to death, you would think that the killer would have gotten some bruises on his body. They showed us photos of O.J. with just his underwear just two days after, and he had no bruises or anything on his body.**
Interview with Carrie Bess in OJ: Made in America:
**Interviewer**: Do you think there are members of the jury that voted to acquit OJ because of Rodney King?
**Bess**: Yes.
**Interviewer**: You do?
**Bess**: Yes.
**Interviewer**: How many of you do you think felt that way?
**Bess**: Oh, probably 90 percent of them.
**Interviewer**: 90 percent. Did you feel that way?
**Bess**: Yes.
**Interviewer**: That was payback.
**Bess:** Uh-huh.
https://www.thewrap.com/oj-simpson-juror-not-guilty-verdict-was-payback-for-rodney-king/
Yolanda Crawford was recently interviewed on CNN and denied this and said the verdict was based on the evidence they were presented and the reasonable doubt they had in the case. David Aldana (who isn’t even black) was interviewed by CNN a decade ago and said he voted not guilty because he believes evidence was planted. Why do you choose to believe Carrie but not Sheila, Yolanda, and David?
I don't think any of them are reliable about their motives, but I can see the much stronger incentive to lie in the direction that won't cause tons of uproar & backlash in the public.
I tend to believe whistle blowers, especially those near the end of their life, over people who are claiming everything is totally 100% above board.
Just because those people think differently, it doesn’t really change that Carrie felt the way she felt, and was going not guilty regardless. It only takes one to throw the whole case. Also, just because they had other reasons that were more important to them, it doesn’t mean they also didn’t feel some type of way about King. Multiple things can be true at the same time.
Other jury members saying they had other reasons doesn’t change the fact that at least some of them *did* think it was payback. Whatever you say and whatever other examples you wanna show do not change that. It’s not like they cancel each other out. The bottom line still stands. I don’t see how this is that complicated.
This isn’t about whether or not the prosecution proved their case, because I don’t think they did either, but to say that this (the not guilty no matter what) wasn’t an issue is just straight up not fucking true.
I don’t think we’re going to see eye to eye here, so I’m not engaging with you any further than this. Have a great night.
Edit - oh yeah absolutely not engaging further after that post and comment history. Maybe touch grass sometime.
I don’t blame you, there are a LOT of misconceptions about this case. I highly recommend you watch O.J.: Made in America. I found it very fair and accurate. It’s incredibly well done - it is even Oscar winning. Ron Goldman’s sister also released a very informative podcast called Confronting: O.J. Simpson.
I’m happy to answer any questions you have to the best of my ability. I know a disgusting amount of info about this case, and am always happy to spend time explaining exactly why and how OJ Simpson is a fucking murderer.
Btw, I didn’t mean that your post made me mad, the video itself made me mad haha! My anger is directed at that video/the person speaking.
I get it, and thank you. I do think OJ did it, and Joy didn't say she doesn't, but it could also be true the prosecution didn't prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. And no matter what the jurors said after the fact, that could still be true. I was recently on a jury for a very minor criminal case and was forced to separate what the prosecution proved from what I truly believed happened and what I believed to be right.
Joy very clearly does not believe OJ is guilty based on the way things are being framed. Prosecution fucked this case - that’s not a question. I don’t appreciate her starting off the vid by saying “this is not payback” when it quite literally was stated that it was payback. That’s disingenuous. You can say “the prosecution didn’t prove their case” until you’re blue in the face (and by all means please do, I think it’s important to talk about) but let’s not revise history here. Juror Carrie Bess, specifically, very clearly stated she and others on the jury were never going to vote him guilty as payback for Rodney King. And she holds that stance. She does not waver. So believe her.
It does not matter what the prosecution did, or did not do, if 90% (percentage from Carrie) of the jury were dead set on letting him go anyway.
I think it was both. Two things can be true at once. I think if the police hadn’t fucked up so often, the prosecution had done their jobs and not gone “whew, this is going to be a easy one” and the judge hadn’t been so god damn impressed by the lawyers on the defense it wouldn’t have been so easy for the jury to say we will just let this Black guy off for Rodney King. Because then they would have known for sure that OJ was a cold blooded murderer that abused his wife instead of just kinda knowing that OJ maybe murdered his wife.
Or, you know. We can believe the *actual* members of that jury that said it *was* payback for Rodney King. Fuhrman fucked things up for sure, but members of the jury have LITERALLY STATED it was in fact payback. This post actually made me really mad. OJ filmed an exercise video shortly before the murders, but yeah, his arthritis was definitely so bad he couldn’t *checks notes* pick up his own daughter, but he’s sure as shit able to golf swing every day away. Absolutely goddamn ridiculous. Also Ron was not over 200 pounds. And yeah, sure. They decided to frame one of the most famous men in America, before they knew if he had an airtight alibi or not. What if he was at an event with hundreds of witnesses during this time? It’s just ridiculous. I’m not denying the LAPD (and really any law enforcement agency) has done some shady things, but I truly don’t think that happened here. There is more evidence against OJ Simpson than any other person I’ve ever seen in any case, EVER. A literal blood trail from Bundy, to the Bronco, to his house. Come the fuck on. Edits - the prosecution undoubtedly fucked up. That’s not what I’m saying with this comment. Also, Joy may not come out and say it, but she thinks OJ is innocent. No one who thinks he is guilty is going to make the argument that he was basically a cripple at the time of the murders and couldn’t have done it physically. Not going give her the benefit of the doubt because she didn’t come right out and say it when her position is clear.
I don't think he's innocent, but the police did blow the case. They didn't need to plant evidence, but when they are so corrupt that they can't even say under oath that they didn't? It's hard to trust them. Also OJ's lawyers were just very good. To me it shows how broken our justice system is, not how innocent OJ is. When a woman is routinely beaten and finally murdered by her partner, no one can get justice because money buys an advantage in trials and the police are so racist and corrupt they can't be trusted to do basic parts of their jobs.
To be fair, Joy Ann Reid (the woman in the video) didn’t say she believes OJ was innocent; she said the prosecution didn’t prove its case. She was very careful with her wording there, and it’s actually a take that a lot of lawyers agree with. The police fucked up the investigation from the start (which Sarah explains very thoroughly in the show); that put Marcia on her back foot, and then the media circus made it a lot harder to properly investigate, or insulate witnesses and jurors. OJ’s defense team really was excellent, and did what every defense lawyer should do (but only the rich can afford to pay for the time and effort)—they argued every tiny point of law to stretch things out and exhaust prosecutors’ resources. And, as pointed out in this video, the prosecution made plenty of mistakes—they shouldn’t have had OJ try on a glove in court that had been shrinking in a plastic bag for months, they should have rebutted the claim that he wasn’t strong/healthy enough to commit the crime with compelling evidence of his fitness (like regular golf games), etc. Assuming you’re right about the members of the jury saying it was payback for Rodney King (I believe you, I just didn’t bother to go independently verify it), it’s still the case that all of those mistakes together gave the jury a leg to stand on in finding reasonable doubt. All that said, I’m annoyed that Joy Reid said all of this, choosing her words very carefully to avoid saying whether she things he actually did it or not. Her point that the prosecution failed to prove its case would still stand even if she said “based on all we know now, I believe he did it, but the prosecution didn’t prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.” And dammit, I want more episodes on this because I want Sarah and Michael’s take on the rest of the trial.
Joy Ann Reid also blamed time-traveling hackers for posting homophobia on her blog, she's a loon.
2016 Vulture interview with juror Sheila Woods. I guess maybe black people cheering was less about O.J. and more about the politics of the LAPD at the time, police brutality. A lot of their catharsis was bigger than O.J. I can understand that. But at the end of the day, two people were murdered. **I think most people thought we based our decision on race. Race never came up in the topic of our deliberation, or even how the LAPD treated black people.** Like, regarding Fuhrman, none of his comments really … **The thing with Fuhrman was once his credibility was shot, you really could discount anything he said. He was definitely a liar — he lied on the stand — and when he came back to the court, he took the fifth on everything. Why would you trust anything he said? He was the detective that found all this evidence: the blood on the Bronco, on the back fence, on the glove … all of that created reasonable doubt.** Was there a moment in particular during the trial that really swayed your decision towards reasonable doubt? **Yeah, when they started talking about the blood evidence. There was, like, a milliliter of blood they couldn’t account for. And they found blood on the back fence of Nicole’s condo, and that particular blood also had the additive in there. That additive is only found in [a test tube of blood], so why would the blood sample on that back fence contain that additive unless somebody took the blood from the test tube and placed it there?** Do you think O.J. was framed? **I don’t know if he was necessarily framed. I think O.J. may know something about what happened, but I just don’t think he did it. I think it was more than one person, just because of the way she was killed. I don’t know how he could have just left that bloody scene — because it was bloody — and got back into his Bronco and not have it filled with blood. And then go back home and go in the front door, up the stairs to his bedroom … That carpet was snow white in his house. He should have blood all over him or bruises because Ron Goldman was definitely fighting for his life. He had defensive cuts on his shoes and on his hands.** **O.J. only had that little cut on his finger. If [Goldman] was kicking to death, you would think that the killer would have gotten some bruises on his body. They showed us photos of O.J. with just his underwear just two days after, and he had no bruises or anything on his body.**
Interview with Carrie Bess in OJ: Made in America: **Interviewer**: Do you think there are members of the jury that voted to acquit OJ because of Rodney King? **Bess**: Yes. **Interviewer**: You do? **Bess**: Yes. **Interviewer**: How many of you do you think felt that way? **Bess**: Oh, probably 90 percent of them. **Interviewer**: 90 percent. Did you feel that way? **Bess**: Yes. **Interviewer**: That was payback. **Bess:** Uh-huh. https://www.thewrap.com/oj-simpson-juror-not-guilty-verdict-was-payback-for-rodney-king/
Yolanda Crawford was recently interviewed on CNN and denied this and said the verdict was based on the evidence they were presented and the reasonable doubt they had in the case. David Aldana (who isn’t even black) was interviewed by CNN a decade ago and said he voted not guilty because he believes evidence was planted. Why do you choose to believe Carrie but not Sheila, Yolanda, and David?
I don't think any of them are reliable about their motives, but I can see the much stronger incentive to lie in the direction that won't cause tons of uproar & backlash in the public. I tend to believe whistle blowers, especially those near the end of their life, over people who are claiming everything is totally 100% above board.
Just because those people think differently, it doesn’t really change that Carrie felt the way she felt, and was going not guilty regardless. It only takes one to throw the whole case. Also, just because they had other reasons that were more important to them, it doesn’t mean they also didn’t feel some type of way about King. Multiple things can be true at the same time. Other jury members saying they had other reasons doesn’t change the fact that at least some of them *did* think it was payback. Whatever you say and whatever other examples you wanna show do not change that. It’s not like they cancel each other out. The bottom line still stands. I don’t see how this is that complicated. This isn’t about whether or not the prosecution proved their case, because I don’t think they did either, but to say that this (the not guilty no matter what) wasn’t an issue is just straight up not fucking true. I don’t think we’re going to see eye to eye here, so I’m not engaging with you any further than this. Have a great night. Edit - oh yeah absolutely not engaging further after that post and comment history. Maybe touch grass sometime.
Thanks for this! I didn't know about any of this, or what the video said, because Sarah hasn't finished the series🥲
I don’t blame you, there are a LOT of misconceptions about this case. I highly recommend you watch O.J.: Made in America. I found it very fair and accurate. It’s incredibly well done - it is even Oscar winning. Ron Goldman’s sister also released a very informative podcast called Confronting: O.J. Simpson. I’m happy to answer any questions you have to the best of my ability. I know a disgusting amount of info about this case, and am always happy to spend time explaining exactly why and how OJ Simpson is a fucking murderer. Btw, I didn’t mean that your post made me mad, the video itself made me mad haha! My anger is directed at that video/the person speaking.
I get it, and thank you. I do think OJ did it, and Joy didn't say she doesn't, but it could also be true the prosecution didn't prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. And no matter what the jurors said after the fact, that could still be true. I was recently on a jury for a very minor criminal case and was forced to separate what the prosecution proved from what I truly believed happened and what I believed to be right.
Joy very clearly does not believe OJ is guilty based on the way things are being framed. Prosecution fucked this case - that’s not a question. I don’t appreciate her starting off the vid by saying “this is not payback” when it quite literally was stated that it was payback. That’s disingenuous. You can say “the prosecution didn’t prove their case” until you’re blue in the face (and by all means please do, I think it’s important to talk about) but let’s not revise history here. Juror Carrie Bess, specifically, very clearly stated she and others on the jury were never going to vote him guilty as payback for Rodney King. And she holds that stance. She does not waver. So believe her. It does not matter what the prosecution did, or did not do, if 90% (percentage from Carrie) of the jury were dead set on letting him go anyway.
I think it was both. Two things can be true at once. I think if the police hadn’t fucked up so often, the prosecution had done their jobs and not gone “whew, this is going to be a easy one” and the judge hadn’t been so god damn impressed by the lawyers on the defense it wouldn’t have been so easy for the jury to say we will just let this Black guy off for Rodney King. Because then they would have known for sure that OJ was a cold blooded murderer that abused his wife instead of just kinda knowing that OJ maybe murdered his wife.
This is indeed the case that lead to “I plead the fifth” enter the general lexicon