this post was submitted on 13 Apr 2024

90 points (91.7% liked)

Ask Lemmy

27213 readers

1787 users here now

A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions

Rules: (interactive)

1) Be nice and; have fun

Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them

2) All posts must end with a '?'

This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?

3) No spam

Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.

4) NSFW is okay, within reason

Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected]. NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].

5) This is not a support community.

It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions. If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.

6) No US Politics.

Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try [email protected] or [email protected]

Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.

Partnered Communities:

Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

People who thought OJ Simpson was innocent at the time of the trial, did you later change your mind? (lemmy.ca)

submitted 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) by [email protected] to c/asklemmy

113 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] yesman 140 points 8 months ago (15 children)

OJ's trial goes beyond his innocence or guilt. His trial was racially charged and cannot be understood outside this context. I don't think those who celebrated his acquittal believed in his innocence as much as they saw it a victory that a black man used his privilege and resources to escape justice the way so many white criminals had in the past. Not justice, but equality, American style.

For white America, it came as quite a shock that a rich black celebrity could leverage race tensions to escape accountability. This was such a singular event it resonates 30years later. If you're black, you don't need a long memory to see justice betrayed behind some racist bullshit.

[–] [email protected] 44 points 8 months ago (2 children)

I think a major factor was also that the police apparently tried to frame him. It's unfortunate that this resulted in the jury not believing the actual evidence, but the blame lies with the police for that.

[–] [email protected] 30 points 8 months ago

Yeah the absolutely botched detective work and diareagrd for crime scene discipline caused a total overhaul of how crime scenes are handled today. The first cops on scene treked through the blood and took vloddy footprints across the house before the detectives showed up to start gathering evidence.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (3 children)

I find it weird how everyone acts like he absolutely 100% did it, when we know that the police investigation was racist, explicitly corrupt, and incompetent, and the evidence we do have points more heavily at his son Jason having done it.

load more comments (3 replies)

[–] jimmy90 14 points 8 months ago

it's true that it was close to impossible for the jury to remain unaffected by the political situation in LA at the time.

But the police and prosecutors did such a bad job it was almost impossible to convict him beyond reasonable doubt. He was convicted easily in the civil case later.

[–] GladiusB 9 points 8 months ago

There was something that you touched on that goes unnoticed in your presentation. The context also includes the media cycle. OJ's case was HIGHLY publicized. It was unlike any other trail in history. There was constant coverage of a former NFL superstar turned into a movie star under a murder charge that he ran away from in a high speed freeway chase. We literally watched the verdict being read in highschool where everyone could hear it. The scale was phenomenal and I don't feel it has been followed the same since.

[–] Waldowal 7 points 8 months ago

This is probably the most succinct I've ever heard it described.

[–] BonesOfTheMoon 4 points 8 months ago

This is a really good point.

load more comments (10 replies)

[–] ccunning 49 points 8 months ago (2 children)

I think the folks who were happy to see him get off were more interested in the (not legal)indictment of the LAPD and admission of their corruption:

https://hachyderm.io/@mekkaokereke/112253117381871866

[–] [email protected] 10 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

That was a good read, thanks for posting it.

[–] ccunning 6 points 8 months ago

Thanks for taking the time. He’s a great follow if you’re on Mastodon.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 8 months ago

It's the perfect example of what happens when your police department is so corrupt and racist that they try to frame a guilty man.

[–] [email protected] 30 points 8 months ago (5 children)

Question one, who the fuck thought this?

[–] [email protected] 46 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Essentially nobody now, there has been decades of right wing spin trying to make everyone forget just how badly the LAPD compromised the case with insane overt racism and mishandling evidence. The reason OJ Simpson was found not guilty wasn’t because the jury was hypnotized or just wanted to let him go, it was because of police misconduct.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 8 months ago

DNA evidence was also very new, and wasn't trusted by the larger population yet.
Oddly enough, there's reason to doubt DNA evidence from that era for not being robust enough

[–] [email protected] 15 points 8 months ago (98 children)

An awful lot of people at the time, especially black people, believed he was framed by the LAPD. And they tried to, despite the fact he actually did it, which came out during the trial.

In retrospect, most people realize that he was definitely guilty, but that, because of the corruption of the LAPD, the racism during the trial, and how mishandled everything was, the trial was totally fucked. As a result, OJ got off.

load more comments (98 replies)

[–] [email protected] 12 points 8 months ago

There was a huge disparity in opinion between black and white communities at the time of the trial: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/files/2015/09/Simpson-Public-Opinion.png

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] Brkdncr 19 points 8 months ago

No one I knew though he was innocent, but a lot of people thought he was going to be found innocent because Fuck The Police was a big deal.

No one objected to the outcome of the civil suit.

[–] jordanlund 18 points 8 months ago

Parts of the official story make no sense.

He killed two people, got rid of ALL the clothes he was wearing, got rid of the murder weapon, but somehow left one glove behind and took the other one home?

Then there was the bloody fingerprint:

https://www.crimemuseum.org/crime-library/famous-murders/forensic-investigation-of-the-oj-simpson-trial/

"An important bloody fingerprint located on the gateway at Nicole Brown’s house was not properly collected and entered into the chain of custody when it was first located. Although it was documented in his notes by Detective Mark Fuhrman, one of the first to arrive on the scene, no further action was taken to secure it.

The detectives who took over Fuhrman’s shift apparently were never aware of the print and eventually, it was lost or destroyed without ever being collected."

It's pretty clear the cops fucked it up. It's not possible to say if he was guilty or not because of the police fuckery.

Another good piece... cops found a bloody sock in his home and the blood was found to be from both himself and Nicole...

Problem was it also contained the preservative police labs use to keep blood liquid, and it had soaked through from one side of the sock to the other and down to the carpet,meaning it had been poured on the sock from above in the Simpson home:

https://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/world/former-o-j-simpson-lawyer-claims-evidence-showed-his-client-was-framed-1.6843159

[–] gimpchrist 17 points 8 months ago

No one who watched the trial in real actual time thought that he was innocent at all

[–] [email protected] 14 points 8 months ago (1 children)

OP thinking that Lemmy is popular enough with the boomers that someone is going to answer this.

[–] essell 10 points 8 months ago (7 children)

Was anyone on Lemmy, except me, alive at the time of the trial?

[–] WindyRebel 12 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

I’m in my 40s. Yeah, I was.

[–] BonesOfTheMoon 12 points 8 months ago

Hello I was alive. They made a joke out of that judge with the Dancing Itos, and made the whole thing into a circus. The victims got entirely swallowed up. Nicole Brown Simpson had called the cops for his actions nine times.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 8 months ago

yep. I never really paid attention to the show drama/trial. it was clear from the outset that he was guilty.

[–] june 7 points 8 months ago

You’re 17 days old, how could you have been alive in 1995?

[–] Hikermick 6 points 8 months ago

I was a young adult at the time (born in 66 so GenX for whatever it's worth). My take is the LAPD as a whole were despised and not just along racial lines. Watch any documentary on the early SoCal punk scene and you'll see what I mean

[–] MedicPigBabySaver 5 points 8 months ago

Yes. I knew that fucker was guilty the moment I heard of the murders.

I'm even old enough to see him play in the NFL. Although I have zero memories of that time as a child. Even though the Patriots and Buffalo would've played together.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 8 months ago

I was, but I was very young and on the other side of the planet. All I remember is allegations that he was on sedatives during thebtrial, as he seemed so calm and composed about it all.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I didn't really care at all at the time but that was mostly because I was 7 years old.

[–] Lightborne 15 points 8 months ago

I remember that fucking bronco car chase interrupted my cartoons and I was like, "get this car off the screen, I want to watch Batman the animated series."

[–] cobysev 8 points 8 months ago (4 children)

I mean, he confessed to the murder after the trial ended. Even wrote a book about it. There shouldn't be anyone left who thinks he didn't do it.

[–] faltryka 16 points 8 months ago

I mean… someone else wrote that book, and then offered him $600,000 to endorse it… and $600,000 is a lot of money.

[–] gimpchrist 6 points 8 months ago

It was fun watching the whole legal lawsuit with that book thing.. it's actually technically called 'if I did it' but something something.... People sued or whatever and now legally the 'if' is in very very very very small print and the 'I did it' is extremely large and I think that's pretty cute

[–] [email protected] 5 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

No he did not confess to it.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 8 months ago (1 children)

"at the time of the trial"

[–] cobysev 3 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Yeah, and I'm saying everyone who thought he was innocent at the time of the trial has later changed their mind.

[–] CheeryLBottom 5 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Wasn't one of the reasons because the jury was worried about a reaction similar to the Rodney King riots?

I had heard this at the time, but someone correct me if I'm wrong

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments