OJ Simpson Mystery Car
Discussion
cgt2 said:
HIS LM said:
Nicole's white Mondial was on e bay not so long ago - can't remember if it sold or not
What happened to the Juice's Testarossa ?
The trial was compelling viewing I remember watching it for many weeks and months and having long discussions in the office
Still a number of unanswered questions about the case maybe the book will hold the key
I think you'll enjoy the book and these videos. There was not much left unanswered by these. What happened to the Juice's Testarossa ?
The trial was compelling viewing I remember watching it for many weeks and months and having long discussions in the office
Still a number of unanswered questions about the case maybe the book will hold the key
Primarily the prosecution did some very dumb things such as not admitting all the evidence including an eyewitness who saw OJ driving away from the murder scene because Marcia Clark didn't like her. The mind boggles...
That completely disregards many of the underlying and deeply held emotions in the case. For instance, at least one juror has openly admitted that she would never have found Simpson guilty, regardless of what the prosecution did, because, as a member of the black LA community, white LAPD officers carried out injustices against her community on a daily basis. Therefore finding Simpson not guilty was just one way of her protesting against this.
What's more, Marcia Clark didn't decline to use the witness you mention "because she didn't like her", she declined to user her because the witness had already sold her story to the press and Clark felt that this introduced reasonable doubt into the witness' testimony - the defence could easily plant the idea in the jury's minds that the witness had either embellished or completely invented their account for monetary gain.
Clark felt that they had more than enough evidence to nail Simpson without relying on tainted or weak testimony and in any "normal" case, she would have been right.
Welshbeef said:
Didn’t the Us justice system nail him with the jail term given for his Vegas flaunt with the law?
Simpson was stitched up for the Vegas "robbery" on several levels, but as someone who dodged a life sentence for killing his ex and her friend, I struggle to find much sympathy for him.Welshbeef said:
No one ever really investigated Lethe possibility of OJs son as the possible
Yes, they did. Justin was working as a chef the night of the murders and had several colleagues give him an alibi. This seems to have been forgotten by the denizens of the internet more fond of tin foil headwear in recent years though.Regardless, there is so much evidence pointing to OJ Simpson that you couldn't really ask for more. There was a literal blood trail from the crime scene to his bedroom, plus he had motive and no alibi.
It's frankly amazing that he wasn't found guilty in the criminal case, but as above, there were many complicated factors involved, not least that the LAPD had a terrible reputation for corruption and persecution of the black community and this was seen by several of the jurors as payback time. One of the jurors even gave a black power salute upon leaving his seat for the last time!
youngsyr said:
I've read at least 4 of the biographies of the main participants in the OJ trial and yet couldn't get past the introduction to Bugliosi's book or documentary. He comes across as an arrogant, bigoted, charlatan, IMO. For instance, he directly accuses the jury of being stupid, his proof? That they found Simpson not guilty.
That completely disregards many of the underlying and deeply held emotions in the case. For instance, at least one juror has openly admitted that she would never have found Simpson guilty, regardless of what the prosecution did, because, as a member of the black LA community, white LAPD officers carried out injustices against her community on a daily basis. Therefore finding Simpson not guilty was just one way of her protesting against this.
What's more, Marcia Clark didn't decline to use the witness you mention "because she didn't like her", she declined to user her because the witness had already sold her story to the press and Clark felt that this introduced reasonable doubt into the witness' testimony - the defence could easily plant the idea in the jury's minds that the witness had either embellished or completely invented their account for monetary gain.
Clark felt that they had more than enough evidence to nail Simpson without relying on tainted or weak testimony and in any "normal" case, she would have been right.
I don't disagree, Bugliosi was VERY abrasive and aggressive, but in my view that's what an effective prosecutor should be and his results (and standing in the legal community) showed the effectiveness of his approach as opposed to Chris Darden who was asleep half the time (I recall colleagues in my office shouting at the TV when he missed things) and Marcia Clark who missed so many critical pieces of the puzzle. I lived in California during the trial and I recall the daily news coverage used to talk a great deal about mistakes the prosecution made. Bugliosi was very rude but also a great prosecutor, study some of his other trials (Manson being the most famous). It was how he practised law and was very effective. If Darden and Clark had been on the case would Charles Manson have walked!??!?!That completely disregards many of the underlying and deeply held emotions in the case. For instance, at least one juror has openly admitted that she would never have found Simpson guilty, regardless of what the prosecution did, because, as a member of the black LA community, white LAPD officers carried out injustices against her community on a daily basis. Therefore finding Simpson not guilty was just one way of her protesting against this.
What's more, Marcia Clark didn't decline to use the witness you mention "because she didn't like her", she declined to user her because the witness had already sold her story to the press and Clark felt that this introduced reasonable doubt into the witness' testimony - the defence could easily plant the idea in the jury's minds that the witness had either embellished or completely invented their account for monetary gain.
Clark felt that they had more than enough evidence to nail Simpson without relying on tainted or weak testimony and in any "normal" case, she would have been right.
I dont think Darden and Clark expected to bear so much of the burden as my recollection is one of the original DA's had a heart attack just as the trial was starting. The media interest also made it a truly crazy and impossible situation for anyone in that courtroom. My girlfriend at the time met Mr Darden through a work connection a couple of years after the trial and commented how boring and uncharismatic he seemed for a guy who was involved in one of the most important trials of the 20th Century.
I know Marcia Clark had a lot of personal issues during the trial which were not revealed at the time but the fact is the prosecution was very sloppy as any prosecutor would pile on the strong evidence not be selective as Clark was. If you have a strong hand of cards why would you not play it to the fullest in a courtroom.
Jill Shiveral was a critical eyewitness and yes she spoke to the press but so did Faye Resnick and that cop who used to be friends with OJ who also testified (can't recall his name now, maybe Shipp?). Kato Kaelin did TV interviews during the trial. I'm pretty sure (it was a long time ago now) that even Al Cowlings did an LA Times interview around that time. And the irony of discussing publicity seekers when the judge was so publicity hungry he bought Jay Leno into the courtroom and acted like his butler during the trial!
Anyway, enjoyable to have a spirited discussion of this, 20 years later. Thank you, it takes me back in time!
youngsyr said:
It's frankly amazing that he wasn't found guilty in the criminal case, but as above, there were many complicated factors involved, not least that the LAPD had a terrible reputation for corruption and persecution of the black community and this was seen by several of the jurors as payback time. One of the jurors even gave a black power salute upon leaving his seat for the last time!
And on this we completely agree! It was bonkers and we will probably never see anything like it again!cgt2 said:
youngsyr said:
I've read at least 4 of the biographies of the main participants in the OJ trial and yet couldn't get past the introduction to Bugliosi's book or documentary. He comes across as an arrogant, bigoted, charlatan, IMO. For instance, he directly accuses the jury of being stupid, his proof? That they found Simpson not guilty.
That completely disregards many of the underlying and deeply held emotions in the case. For instance, at least one juror has openly admitted that she would never have found Simpson guilty, regardless of what the prosecution did, because, as a member of the black LA community, white LAPD officers carried out injustices against her community on a daily basis. Therefore finding Simpson not guilty was just one way of her protesting against this.
What's more, Marcia Clark didn't decline to use the witness you mention "because she didn't like her", she declined to user her because the witness had already sold her story to the press and Clark felt that this introduced reasonable doubt into the witness' testimony - the defence could easily plant the idea in the jury's minds that the witness had either embellished or completely invented their account for monetary gain.
Clark felt that they had more than enough evidence to nail Simpson without relying on tainted or weak testimony and in any "normal" case, she would have been right.
I don't disagree, Bugliosi was VERY abrasive and aggressive, but in my view that's what an effective prosecutor should be and his results (and standing in the legal community) showed the effectiveness of his approach as opposed to Chris Darden who was asleep half the time (I recall colleagues in my office shouting at the TV when he missed things) and Marcia Clark who missed so many critical pieces of the puzzle. I lived in California during the trial and I recall the daily news coverage used to talk a great deal about mistakes the prosecution made. Bugliosi was very rude but also a great prosecutor, study some of his other trials (Manson being the most famous). It was how he practised law and was very effective. If Darden and Clark had been on the case would Charles Manson have walked!??!?!That completely disregards many of the underlying and deeply held emotions in the case. For instance, at least one juror has openly admitted that she would never have found Simpson guilty, regardless of what the prosecution did, because, as a member of the black LA community, white LAPD officers carried out injustices against her community on a daily basis. Therefore finding Simpson not guilty was just one way of her protesting against this.
What's more, Marcia Clark didn't decline to use the witness you mention "because she didn't like her", she declined to user her because the witness had already sold her story to the press and Clark felt that this introduced reasonable doubt into the witness' testimony - the defence could easily plant the idea in the jury's minds that the witness had either embellished or completely invented their account for monetary gain.
Clark felt that they had more than enough evidence to nail Simpson without relying on tainted or weak testimony and in any "normal" case, she would have been right.
I dont think Darden and Clark expected to bear so much of the burden as my recollection is one of the original DA's had a heart attack just as the trial was starting. The media interest also made it a truly crazy and impossible situation for anyone in that courtroom. My girlfriend at the time met Mr Darden through a work connection a couple of years after the trial and commented how boring and uncharismatic he seemed for a guy who was involved in one of the most important trials of the 20th Century.
I know Marcia Clark had a lot of personal issues during the trial which were not revealed at the time but the fact is the prosecution was very sloppy as any prosecutor would pile on the strong evidence not be selective as Clark was. If you have a strong hand of cards why would you not play it to the fullest in a courtroom.
Jill Shiveral was a critical eyewitness and yes she spoke to the press but so did Faye Resnick and that cop who used to be friends with OJ who also testified (can't recall his name now, maybe Shipp?). Kato Kaelin did TV interviews during the trial. I'm pretty sure (it was a long time ago now) that even Al Cowlings did an LA Times interview around that time. And the irony of discussing publicity seekers when the judge was so publicity hungry he bought Jay Leno into the courtroom and acted like his butler during the trial!
Anyway, enjoyable to have a spirited discussion of this, 20 years later. Thank you, it takes me back in time!
My take on your view is that it is overly influenced by Bugliosi's commentary as you don't mention two critical factors, the first being race, the second being how Barry Scheck in particular excelled in finding every single little mistake in the LAPD's forensic procedures (and let's not forget, this was 1996, DNA etc was still relatively new to every day people back then).
Overall, the defence opened up just enough of a crack to give a semblance of credibility to a jury that were already wanting to acquit Simpson for their own reasons.
Sure the prosecution made mistakes, they were human and under a huge amount of pressure, but to say that any other prosecutor would have got a different result is a stretch, IMO.
youngsyr said:
Indeed, it's a very interesting part of modern American history and as such is not discussed much in these parts!
My take on your view is that it is overly influenced by Bugliosi's commentary as you don't mention two critical factors, the first being race, the second being how Barry Scheck in particular excelled in finding every single little mistake in the LAPD's forensic procedures (and let's not forget, this was 1996, DNA etc was still relatively new to every day people back then).
Overall, the defence opened up just enough of a crack to give a semblance of credibility to a jury that were already wanting to acquit Simpson for their own reasons.
Sure the prosecution made mistakes, they were human and under a huge amount of pressure, but to say that any other prosecutor would have got a different result is a stretch, IMO.
Not really as I didn't become aware of Bugliosi's perspective until several years after the trial and I followed it daily when it was going on. I think I did see Bugliosi on TV during the trial though and was also aware of him from his Manson book 'Helter Skelter' (which I do recommend reading as it is fascinating). But Bugliosi's argument came much later and it did speak to me as cutting through a lot of the BS.My take on your view is that it is overly influenced by Bugliosi's commentary as you don't mention two critical factors, the first being race, the second being how Barry Scheck in particular excelled in finding every single little mistake in the LAPD's forensic procedures (and let's not forget, this was 1996, DNA etc was still relatively new to every day people back then).
Overall, the defence opened up just enough of a crack to give a semblance of credibility to a jury that were already wanting to acquit Simpson for their own reasons.
Sure the prosecution made mistakes, they were human and under a huge amount of pressure, but to say that any other prosecutor would have got a different result is a stretch, IMO.
Race was definitely a factor that was foremost in everyone's mind, Rodney King had only happened three years previously and every day the press was full of stories of police brutality around that time. Daryl Gates was the very racist LAPD chief at the time who made things much worse every time he opened his mouth. One of our clients was a well known rapper/actor who did lots of interviews vigorously defending OJ to the media but privately told me of course he was, and I paraphrase ''guilty as f**k!'' so everyone was playing both sides to some extent. OJ was a very beloved figure in LA at the time by people of all races even though his haughty and arrogant nature came across very clearly and as a Brit in LA he struck me as a thoroughly unlikeable character every time he was on TV (he even published a book in the middle of the trial and to my knowledge never expressed any thought about Nicole, it was always about him him him).
Glad you bring up Barry Scheck. He was brilliant in my view and he did as much to win the trial for OJ as the prosecution did to sabotage themselves. He blinded everyone with science and was a star of the defence team in a way along with Cochran who was just a purely charismatic and charming guy which really came over even on TV.
I still don't understand why Darden on the spur of the moment asked OJ to try on the glove which allowed him to play theatrics. If you watch the video the moment he springs that beauty, look at Marcia Clark's face. She is absolutely aghast at what has to be one of the dumbest moves in legal history!
cgt2 said:
youngsyr said:
Indeed, it's a very interesting part of modern American history and as such is not discussed much in these parts!
My take on your view is that it is overly influenced by Bugliosi's commentary as you don't mention two critical factors, the first being race, the second being how Barry Scheck in particular excelled in finding every single little mistake in the LAPD's forensic procedures (and let's not forget, this was 1996, DNA etc was still relatively new to every day people back then).
Overall, the defence opened up just enough of a crack to give a semblance of credibility to a jury that were already wanting to acquit Simpson for their own reasons.
Sure the prosecution made mistakes, they were human and under a huge amount of pressure, but to say that any other prosecutor would have got a different result is a stretch, IMO.
Not really as I didn't become aware of Bugliosi's perspective until several years after the trial and I followed it daily when it was going on. I think I did see Bugliosi on TV during the trial though and was also aware of him from his Manson book 'Helter Skelter' (which I do recommend reading as it is fascinating). But Bugliosi's argument came much later and it did speak to me as cutting through a lot of the BS.My take on your view is that it is overly influenced by Bugliosi's commentary as you don't mention two critical factors, the first being race, the second being how Barry Scheck in particular excelled in finding every single little mistake in the LAPD's forensic procedures (and let's not forget, this was 1996, DNA etc was still relatively new to every day people back then).
Overall, the defence opened up just enough of a crack to give a semblance of credibility to a jury that were already wanting to acquit Simpson for their own reasons.
Sure the prosecution made mistakes, they were human and under a huge amount of pressure, but to say that any other prosecutor would have got a different result is a stretch, IMO.
Race was definitely a factor that was foremost in everyone's mind, Rodney King had only happened three years previously and every day the press was full of stories of police brutality around that time. Daryl Gates was the very racist LAPD chief at the time who made things much worse every time he opened his mouth. One of our clients was a well known rapper/actor who did lots of interviews vigorously defending OJ to the media but privately told me of course he was, and I paraphrase ''guilty as f**k!'' so everyone was playing both sides to some extent. OJ was a very beloved figure in LA at the time by people of all races even though his haughty and arrogant nature came across very clearly and as a Brit in LA he struck me as a thoroughly unlikeable character every time he was on TV (he even published a book in the middle of the trial and to my knowledge never expressed any thought about Nicole, it was always about him him him).
Glad you bring up Barry Scheck. He was brilliant in my view and he did as much to win the trial for OJ as the prosecution did to sabotage themselves. He blinded everyone with science and was a star of the defence team in a way along with Cochran who was just a purely charismatic and charming guy which really came over even on TV.
I still don't understand why Darden on the spur of the moment asked OJ to try on the glove which allowed him to play theatrics. If you watch the video the moment he springs that beauty, look at Marcia Clark's face. She is absolutely aghast at what has to be one of the dumbest moves in legal history!
The other mistake was obviously Fuhrman, but that was only a mistake in hindsight, only two people knew of the tapes of Fuhrman making racist remarks (he claims "playing it up as a potential screenplay") years earlier: Fuhrman and the lady who taped them and obviously Fuhrman lied on oath about having made them.
Other than those two (and those by the LAPD and forensic team, which were outside the ability of the prosecution to control), I don't think the other prosecution "mistakes" were anything other than the normal types of oversights that human beings make.
Even with them, the evidence against OJ Simpson was overwhelming.
Still, I've got Bugliosi's book on JFK on my Kindle, maybe I'll sit down and give it a read as it's supposed to be a landmakr book on the assassination.
youngsyr said:
I believe there are pictures of him wearing them
and there are pics of Bruno Maglis too despite him denying he owned a pair.. How many random killers wear $800 shoes only sold in very limited numbers in that exact style and size as the victim's ex-husband who happened to beat her regularly. And then walk all through the blood with the same shoes. Unbelievable.
cgt2 said:
youngsyr said:
I believe there are pictures of him wearing them
and there are pics of Bruno Maglis too despite him denying he owned a pair.. How many random killers wear $800 shoes only sold in very limited numbers in that exact style and size as the victim's ex-husband who happened to beat her regularly. And then walk all through the blood with the same shoes. Unbelievable.
The fact that he lied, under oath, about ever owning a pair of those "ugly ass shoes" is just another piece of damning evidence. I'm usually reluctant to judge people, especially if they've been found innocent at trial, but Simpson is the exception: the guy is as guilty as sin.
Gassing Station | Ferrari V8 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff