OJ Simpson Dead at 76 in Las Vegas

41 views
Skip to first unread message

PGage

unread,
Apr 11, 2024, 9:59:59 PM4/11/24
to tvor...@googlegroups.com
From Prostate Cancer.

We have an OJ trial expert on the list, so I will not attempt to sum up or draw conclusions, though I too watched a lot of that trial. 

I will just say this: while I do not object to obituary stories saying evidence presented at the criminal trial appeared to indicate he was guilty, it does outrage me when that observation action is not paired (as it rarely is) with some allusion to the Ramparts scandal, which at least should explain to most white people why that jury found the claims of Simpson’s lawyers reasonable




Sent from Gmail Mobile

Steve Timko

unread,
Apr 11, 2024, 10:08:31 PM4/11/24
to TV or Not TV
A civil jury found he caused the deaths.
Who is the legal expert?

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TVorNotTV" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to tvornottv+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAKGtkYJc4Li3Jph55rUSTW7oKu1vG9mseNjeinP0kr%3DuGpmXPg%40mail.gmail.com.

PGage

unread,
Apr 11, 2024, 10:17:01 PM4/11/24
to tvor...@googlegroups.com
Well, the Civil Jury found him liable for the deaths. 

But, to my point, that jury was quite different than the LA criminal jury. The criminal jury knew things about the LAPD that made the accusations of planting evidence and covering up even the most extreme police wrongdoing reasonable, though not necessarily true.

Kevin is not a legal expert, but he is an expert on the OJ trial.

Sent from Gmail Mobile


Tom Wolper

unread,
Apr 11, 2024, 10:46:00 PM4/11/24
to tvor...@googlegroups.com
There’s no reason to try and relitigate the case. It stands, and is meaningful, that in the almost 30 years after the case no exonerating evidence or even an alternate theory of how the murders happened.

Kevin M.

unread,
Apr 11, 2024, 10:55:20 PM4/11/24
to tvor...@googlegroups.com
The jurors in the criminal trial had no choice but to find OJ not guilty based on the evidence actually presented, as well as the way in which the evidence was presented. The sequestered jury members did not see everything the rest of us saw. Reasonable dedicated viewers of the circus all concluded that the police framed a guilty man, but the jury was really only allowed to focus on the flawed evidence handling and then-unfamiliar DNA evidence. The highly paid defense attorneys spun everything to OJ’s favor, and the underpaid district attorneys didn’t do what they needed to do. 

By contrast, the civil trial evidence was presented very differently by very different lawyers. Even if the burden of proof had been the same as a criminal trial, OJ would have lost the civil trial.

As we near the 30th anniversary of the murders, time has offered a bit of perspective. The OJ trial paved the way for prime time shows (both “reality” and fictional) with extended story arcs. It also made DNA evidence so common that shows like CSI and NCIS didn’t have to waste exposition teaching the viewers about it, which meant they could do more story and character development. What it didn’t do was change any aspect of the criminal justice system, nor did it lead to much needed reform in the LAPD or DA’s offices. What it did do was provide money for the lawyers who work at The Innocence Project.

Yeah, I watched every possible minute of the trial, and yeah I wrote a blog which evolved into a book about it. And, yeah, that’s how I got to know Aaron Barnhart, and that’s how I ended up in this group. I met most everybody involved in the trial and Kato even followed me on Twitter. As an intern, I sometimes chose the courtroom clips that Geraldo Rivera used on his CNBC show when he was in LA. I believe that an embittered Robert Kardashian leaked the autopsy results to me and others in an attempt to sabotage the trial. 

My personal belief is that at least one of OJ’s kids woke up to the sound of the murders, and at least one of them knows exactly what happened, and one day (sooner rather than later) they will come forward. I believe at least some of the Kardashians also know exactly what happened, but it didn’t serve their own self-serving interests to come forward. 

No, I’m not a lawyer, but Jeffrey Toobin is a lawyer, and I am more informed than he was about the OJ trial, and frankly my book was better written than his. That said, I’m ashamed I wrote my book, and I’m ashamed I read Toobin’s.

Kevin M. (RPCV)


PGage

unread,
Apr 11, 2024, 10:56:16 PM4/11/24
to tvor...@googlegroups.com
It is fascinating that after three decades it is still hard to have a reasonable discussion about this case. FWIW, my view is he probably did kill his wife. I just hate how the criminal jury has been maligned over the years as either too stupid to understand the DNA evidence, or to biased to convict a black man of murder (a ridiculous claim given how many black men get convicted of murder in Los Angeles). The fact is that jury knew something about LAPD behavior that made the Simpson defense more plausible than it seemed to many white people who only casually watched the trial.

Sent from Gmail Mobile


JW

unread,
Apr 12, 2024, 5:57:42 AM4/12/24
to tvornottv
This looks like the complete collection of Norm MacDonald's OJ jokes on Update. Don't tell Don Ohlmeyer.

Kevin M.

unread,
Jul 2, 2024, 2:41:46 PM7/2/24
to tvor...@googlegroups.com
BET failing to read the room



Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages