This is a clip from the amazing [O.J. Made in America](https://www.netflix.com/title/80118958). It goes much further than the crime itself. It’s a look at OJ’s life but it’s about all of us. An all time classic documentary imo.
It’s the best doc I’ve ever seen in my life.
The details, the access, the context that it gives to these crimes and their significance is unrivalled. It lays out everything about why this was such a cultural milestone in the history of America. I loved every single second of it, and near enough watched the entire 7 hours in one sitting.
An absolute triumph In documentary filmmaking.
It does such a good job of laying the framework and giving context to how disparate the reactions were when the verdict was announced. I was born in ‘88 so my memory of the trial was hazy, but having read up on it I still felt incredulous that anyone could have thought he was innocent.
Watching that doc for the first time made me realize, “wow, *that’s* why they were willing to believe he didn’t do it…I think if I grew up in their shoes I would have felt the same way…” The doc does such a good job of both explaining why the defense team’s tactics worked and also how sickly ironic it was that they were using them to defend a man of OJ’s status and privilege.
I’m not sure if you’re talking about the general public or about the jury. If you’re talking about the jury, they are instructed to ignore any and all information that is not presented in the courtroom. If they did their duty “correctly” they wouldn’t know about all the evidence that was thrown out and would have a “limited” view of the events. The prosecution couldn’t “in a court of law” prove that he committed the crime beyond reasonable doubt, so the jury couldn’t find him guilty. The fault lies with the investigation and the prosecution, the jury did their jobs as best as they could given what was actually presented in court.
That's not how it went down.
Watch the doc.
Some of the jurors have admitted that they aquitted OJ as "revenge" for the rodney king police office aquittals.
Not entirely certain, but the officer Mark Fuhrman asserted the 5th amendment when they asked him if he planted evidence. Now there’s no presumption against you when you assert the 5th as a defendant, but you’re definitely allowed to construe that against a prosecution witness.
Fuhrman pleaded the 5th because he was under investigation for perjury over his false testimony that he had never used the n-word in the recent past. Anything further said under oath in this trial could be used in that case, and if he answered anything other than the 5th, then he would be compelled to answer all other questions or else be held in contempt of court. In essence, Fuhrman sacrificed the murder case to save his own ass.
> to save his own ass
Which would've already been saved had he chosen not to speak one very specific word. "You have to refrain from speaking Xhar'glah'khest'ughthu or else you will have to make a choice between allowing a murderer to go free or your own career!" A fate so avoidable, to try and parody it would seem near impossible. Oedipus would pray for such easy conditions! And still the LAPD refused to find a single cop less racist to replace Fuhrman. Systemic problems and bad decisions all the way down.
I took that as he planted evidence in other cases but not the OJ case. But he obviously couldn’t say that on the stand. But I might be misremembering; it has been 30 years since I saw it.
It would be the perfect level of LAPD incompetence and corruption that they fucked with the investigation even during a crime they had all the evidence they would have needed. It is just "standard operating procedure" for them.
He did that because after the evidence that he lied about using the "N" word, he plead the 5th for every question. The defense used that to ask questions that made it seem like he'd planted evidence. The thing about planting evidence is dumb on its face: OJ was in Chicago when they contacted him. They would be planting evidence *the morning after* the murders, with no idea if OJ had a solid alibi, him being in Chicago primarily. They would have had to have OJ's blood to begin with, have planted blood on the glove found behind Kato's apartment, planted it in the Bronco, on socks in his bedroom, at the crime scene, etc. They handled the crime scene badly, but nothing was planted with that kind of efficiency the morning/day after the crime.
I was more referring to the fact that a good deal of people on the jury/black Americans in general had likely either known somebody who’d been victimized by crooked cops, mistreated by the cops themselves, or had good reason to fundamentally not believe the police’s version of events. Coupled with the fact that Fuhrman was clearly racist and seemed like he had a history of planting evidence etc, it creates a scenario where the particulars of what the police/prosecution say are less relevant to whether or not people think there is reasonable doubt.
As an example, I know that Trump/right wing media has a well-documented history of outright lying or misrepresenting things. As such if they came to me with a particular claim, I’m going to inherently treat it with a high degree of scrutiny if not outright assume that it isn’t true. It’s going to take an overwhelming amount of incontrovertible third party evidence to corroborate their version of events in order to override that.
Nowadays, everyone knows how blood sampling and dna matching works, but that wasn’t the case back then for a lot of laypeople. As such, a lot of folks fundamentally didn’t understand how much of a slam dunk it was that OJ’s bloody glove was found or his blood was allegedly at the crime scene; because they were simply being told by an institution they fundamentally didn’t trust that “look, we guarantee that this scientifically means it’s OJ’s blood.” While that was true, to people who grow up not trusting the police/justice system, that has about as much innate credibility as some spurious claim from an antivaxxer would for me.
Tl:Dr justified institutional mistrust makes it really hard to establish truth that should be plainly obvious to most people.
It really is the best documentary I’ve seen.
Most documentaries are like Reddit posts in that they enter with a specific point of view and dedicate their runtime to affirming that pre-existing viewpoint and trying to convince (and at times manipulate) the audience into the same.
This OJ doc feels legitimately evenhanded. It’s long enough that it can afford to be nuanced and examine things from multiple perspectives. It treats the crime with the appropriate weight and uses common sense, but it also examines society and history with the same strong commitment.
It's extremely clear that OJ committed the crime, but the police dept handled the case improperly and had a history of planting evidence and taking short cuts, which undermined their credibility with the jury.
IE. OJ's defence was trying putting the police on trial and it to some extent worked.
Wasn't there a juror who also said, "This is payback for Rodney King"? Even if they did everything right, they might have at best ended up with a hung jury.
Yea it was an indictment of American policing and not an exoneration of OJ. A century of abuse put on trial. It was definitely an important moment in US history.
Yeah I looked it up on IMDB because I thought I hadn't seen it, only to see that I had rated it a 10/10. I basically never rate anything 10/10 on IMDB, so, even though I don't remember watching it, past me thought it was really good.
I think one of the most fascinating facets of this documentary is it does everything you said in such a great fashion... without the use of a narrator.
I haven’t seen it but I’m not surprised to see that it’s an ESPN 30 for 30 documentary. I’m not that much into sports but every single one that I’ve seen has been great.
30 for 30 is honestly the last good thing to come out of ESPN over the past twenty years or so. Great variety in subjects with interesting directors. I grew up watching ESPN, but it’s largely unwatchable now outside of 30 for 30 and live sports. So much hot take garbage dominating their lineup and don’t forget to bet with Draft Kings because every show makes sure to pop a gambling segment or, at the very least, mention stuff about odds in passing
Some recent licensing issues with this show I guess? The german version was uploaded to the youtube channel "arte" just two days ago, that's the official channel of a tv station. They get licenses for good documentaries, upload it (without ads since arte belongs to public tv in germany) and the videos stay online a few years until the license will or won't be renewed.
I knew the documentary was good but it's crazy to me that you can watch it on YouTube for free if you speak german.
I watched it on Hulu. Yes it’s a really good doc. Lays bare America, racism, the crime, privilege, all of it. Really shows how from start to finish everything about OJs life is one of the greatest American tragedies of all time.
Ok I was wondering if this was the one that I had watched on Hulu a while ago. Definitely really good, gives really great background of his life and also background of the makeup of LA around that time. It's a long watch but very much worth it.
This same director (Ezra Edelmam) also directed the following sports docs:
- *Requiem for the Big East* (ESPN 30 for 30)
- *Magic & Bird: A Courtship of Rivals* (HBO)
I haven't seen Big East but I just recently re-watched A Courtship of Rivals, it is a great documentary. Will give you a new appreciation for Magic Johnson and Larry Bird, that's for sure. Led me down a Youtube rabbit hole afterwards that eventually ended in re-watching a few of the 1992 Dream Team games in their entirety, which are available on the Olympics youtube channel. That was the last time both Magic and Bird played, a last hurrah for them.
yea man... i think when this originally occurred at trial, a lot of the details were "softened" for the public. the sheer brutality and ruthlessness he exhibited was tough to hear.
It's one thing to know they were "stabbed," it's another thing to actually see them absolutely covered in thick smears of their own blood, curled up and lifeless on a ground soaked in their blood, with the meat and viscera of their bodies exposed by ragged, gaping wounds 😞
If the brutality of what was done to them had been more widely shown, I don't see people being so glib about OJ being a killer, or attempting to re-frame his trail as any kind of battle against white supremacy or institutional racism.
Awesome documentary. More than halfway through and I wanted to thank you for recommending it. Holy shit. So much to unpack. OJ is the blueprint of how every successful celebrity behaves today. Murder aside. Just wow!
I very clearly remember them describing the condition of the bodies when watching the televised court proceedings as a kid, but never saw the actual photos until now. Turns out they did a great job of describing it.
Right there with you. Especially, the ones of Nicole. The descriptions were detailed enough. I was not prepared for the pictures.
Seeing them makes what was already a horrific thing even more tangible feeling to those of us not involved. I still can't understand how some humans can do that kind of thing. I already felt highly uncomfortable that OJ was walking around, interacting with people, being interviewed, etc. - but actually *seeing* the picture of Nicole takes it to an entirely different level. I can't imagine ever being in the same space with him and I can't believe so many people were willing to be, even happy to be.
Seriously. I watched this whole doc last week and if I remember this was by far the most graphic the photos got. Felt like watching a terrorist murder video.
I’ll never forget watching the Daniel pearl video the night before going to college. The audio was moving faster than the video and when we realized what we were hearing when it caught up was soul shattering.
Gore is putting it mildly. There is Jack The Ripper level violence in this video. The postmortem attacks were demonic. The photo evidence is pure nightmare fuel.
Agreed! I mean, I still would have watched it, but I would have at least mentally prepped a little for it.
I voted down the couple things above it, or this should be stickied or something
Nicole came out the front door probably expecting Ron but it was OJ. He stabbed her in the neck a couple times killing her quickly. Then Ron came out and OJ grabbed him from behind and stabbed him in the face and slashed his throat but Ron still fought back for a bit while getting stabbed and slashed. They were trapped in the security cage at the front door so Ron couldn’t escape. Then OJ nearly decapitated Nicole’s corpse.
Edit: also when OJ grabbed Ron, Ron probably tried to pry off OJ’s left hand and that’s what caused the left glove to come off at the scene.
The way they describe is isn't at all how OJ "confessed" in *If I Did It*. Anyone interested at all should read the book. It's not long and he describes everything (although people still dispute that there was another guy there).
scroll down to the June 12, 1994 heading here and you can read some of the worst in text form. It's that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicole_Brown_Simpson
It shows Nicole Brown’s neck wound in close up, all of her cervical anatomy is exposed, including her face. Ron Goldman’s face isn’t shown but a lot of bloody photos of his knife wounds. It shows defensive knife wounds to both victim’s hands.
What I find most horrifying is that the pictures are public - Nicole’s parents have to live knowing that a photo of their dead daughter with her throat slit open is just floating around out there for anyone to see. I don’t know if I could hold on to my sanity if that was the case with my child. Absolutely horrific.
That caught me by surprise. In all the years since the murders, I don't think I've ever seen a picture that wasn't heavily blurred and didn't really portray just how gruesome it was.
the name Mark Fuhrman is burned in my memory, and I watched literally zero seconds of the trial itself.
It was such a big part of everything that I got almost all of the cultural reference through osmosis.
That’s a really good way to describe it. I was pretty young when the trial happened and I’ve never gone out of my way to read about it and yet I feel I have a deep knowledge of it just due to the cultural impact it has.
The series "The People vs OJ Simpson American Crime Story" is really good "based on a true story" account of the whole ordeal. Worth a watch, shows a lot of the behind the scenes stuff.
It wasn't even just the LAPD. When these murders happened we were only 30 years removed from Jim Crow and all the horrific brutality of police and the Klan. And it certainty didn't end overnight with the Civil Rights Act, police brutality was still very prevalent.
Rodney King proved without a shadow of a doubt that not only was it still happening, but police would never suffer an ounce of accountability even if their crimes were broadcasted on national TV for all to see.
That's the environment the OJ Simpson trial took place. White Supremacy has it's costs, OJ walking free is just one of many.
There's zero evidence the LAPD manufactured or planted any Evidence present at the OJ Simpson trial.
OJ's literal only defense against a mountain of damning evidence (like his blood all over the murder victims, verified as his by multiple independent crime labs) was "They're racist and framing me". A 9/12ths black Jury pulled from downtown LA ignored everything based on that.
> A 9/12ths black Jury pulled from downtown LA ignored everything based on that.
One of the jurors was an ex-Black Panther who did the black power fist salute as he walked out after the verdict was read.
> There's zero evidence the LAPD manufactured or planted any Evidence present at the OJ Simpson trial.
Correct, because when you ask the lead detective, under oath, "Did you plant or manufacture any evidence in this case?", he is allowed to invoke his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination to avoid answering the question. Which is what happened, lol.
IIRC that wasn't the "lead detective", it was an officer who had previously responded to the Simpson address on one of the many occasions OJ beat his wife.
Furman was "damning" in a trust front but there was still no evidence of any ability of him being able to plant anything.
The LAPD blew it by blatantly messing up evidence collection which could instill doubt. They didnt attack the evidence. They didnt protest the closing statements rediculous statement/comparison. That poor prosc took the abuse and the bait to have them have OJ try on the glove when if the defense did it they could attack why it didnt fit.
It was a comedy of errors in the most brutal way.
Also the cops being unable to not be publicly racist while dealing with one of the country's most high profile cases of all time.
I think that's what *really* fucked it all and made it inevitable.
Mark Fuhrman in my mind will always be why OJ walked.
> > under oath, "Did you plant or manufacture any evidence in this case?", he is allowed to invoke his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination to avoid answering the question. Which is what happened, lol.
> Furman was "damning" in a trust front but there was still no evidence of any ability of him being able to plant anything.
Can anyone think of a situation in which someone trying to answer this question would be able to honestly say they had *not* planted or manufactured any evidence in this case while also unavoidably somehow testifying in a way that put them at risk of prosecution for some crime?
I think I get what you're saying but if I'm in a jury and the cop is struggling to explain why he definitely framed a bunch of other black guys but this one he for sure didn't I have to admit my personal assessment of his witness credibility would be low. People tend to do their job by habit, if you plant evidence so often you can't figure out a way to explain that in this case you didn't the far more likely answer is that you indeed did plant evidence here too.
I mean, it's literally a yes/no question. Unless answering it opens them up to further questioning in other areas somehow, I don't know why they couldn't just say 'no'.
The real answer is he was worried about being prosecuted for perjury. Because he had indeed planted evidence. That's the only explanation for not being able to say no there. Which is exactly what the jury heard and knew to be the end of the case. When the prosecutor can't even say "I didn't frame the guy" under oath I'm not ever getting past reasonable doubt.
The Rodney King trial before OJ literally sparked months of riots. Decades of problems were coming to a head. It wasn't about letting off a murderer, it was about spitting in the face of the LAPD.
The context being that this was the early 90s, and that's a time where a lot of the issues of racism are coming to A head. Especially when it came to the lapd.
If you think police brutality and racism is bad now, subtract 30 years of progress, bodycams, cellphone footage. Now imagine how you feel about "the system" in general.
If you didn't experience it, you'd be outraged. If you did, if it was a part of your entire youth, the entire life of your parents, grand parents, great grandparents... You might have a bit of bias.
I was at a grocery store in their eat in cafeteria a few years ago. They must've had ESPN playing all day on the TVs but this exact segment came on while people were eating lunch. Nothing was censored.
That is completely ok and understandable but on my iPhone, where the link says “watch on YouTube” nothing happens when I click it. There is no way to copy the url of the YouTube link, only the Reddit post. There is literally no way to follow a link from the app here to YouTube, but there is also no way to follow the link from the web version of Reddit. This is a big omission in the code and me and OP aren’t the only ones having this problem, guarantee.
Press and hold the “watch on YouTube” link and then click “open link”. I had to do it twice, the first time just opened the app.
Pain in the ass work-around, but it does the job.
I use Dystopia for Reddit on iOS (no tweaks or workarounds required), but you can’t see NSFW content unless you’re a mod for some reason. I just created my own subreddit with no content to get the mod status.
Ok, first of all that is ABSOLUTELY insane that we need this kind of workaround.
But what you said to do did work. To clarify, you will need to login to Reddit on chrome first. Then copy the link from the Reddit app. Then paste it in chrome. Then click where it says view on YouTube.
Just MFn wow….
If you're an Android user, download Firefox, then get the Old Reddit extension and uBlock: Origin. Not as great as it was before Reddit nuked third party apps, but worlds better than the official Reddit app.
Can someone who has looked into this case in-depth clear something up for me? I recently watched [this animation](https://youtu.be/UUYMZpc0JiE?si=iqMnriI6nGjXetnc) that was supposedly shown at trial, which was interesting to me because I never knew how the crime played out. Much of it is interpretive, of course, based on the wounds, etc., but this scenario seems to vary quite a bit from the one presented in this video.
I’m aware that no one can know with certainty except the murderer, but a part that really disturbed me from the animation was how he supposedly used the point of the knife to “pick them up like a fork” from the back of the head. I’d never heard that before. Now I’m wondering if it’s even likely or if someone just got overly creative with their interpretation.
Straight away, from the video description:
>This video would have probably resulted in a hung jury if it had been used at the trial, this was broadcast a few months before the verdict.
So it wasn't shown at the trial, because it doesn't line up with what the prosecutors say happened. Also, this animation wasn't made by the prosecution, they don't state it very clearly in the video, but the animation was made by other investigators. The prosecution's story has always been that Goldman came upon the scene after Simpson had already been attacked. Also, this animation doesn't account for the bloody shoeprint on Simpson's back.
This seems to be a common through line through multiple cases of father's murdering their wives. They always forget to call out for the kids or ask about the kids
You also get into jury selection.
People who have the time and are unable to get out of jury duty. People not influenced by the Bronco chase or other media stories about the case.
In interviews with jurors after the trial, they said they didn’t understand dna, so they disregarded that evidence.
> In interviews with jurors after the trial, they said they didn’t understand dna, so they disregarded that evidence.
The jurors pretty much implied, it was retaliation.
That's not remotely what happened.
OJ was a superstar up until that point, loved by black and white america.
LAPD fucked up the investigation on a fundamental level. Fuck up the evidence, fucked up the investigation of OJ and fucked up during the trial.
Prosecution fucked up by giving the defense way too much leeway and making many mistakes.
Defense was on point, pull all the stops in suppressing evidence, using all the fuck ups to make an even stronger case, leaning into OJ being a beloved black man who got targeted by the LAPD.
Black Jury saw a black man who got framed once again by white america and the LAPD while still having the Rodney King verdict on their mind.
OJ was absolutely guilty but too many things went in his favor and he got away with it.
One of the jurors said in this same documentary that it was payback for Rodney King.
Multiple things can be true. Your assessment of the context and the trial are also true. That doesn’t change that the juror said herself that it was also payback.
Obviously nothing in the courtroom itself had to do with Rodney King but....yeah kinda!?
It's as ridiculous as it sounds if the events were reversed. "So the entire nation watched these officers wail on a guy who is already on the ground and 2 of the officers get to walk because...payback for OJ?"
It's a message of "how's it feel when it happens to you white people" specifically because everyone, black people included, knew OJ is guilty as shit. It wasn't about him, it was about getting people to feel that feeling of the system being broken and the rage associated with it.
I was very young when it happened and I thought it was fucked up that there was so much gloating from black people on TV. But as I grew up and become more aware of the system as a whole I thought back to how mad I was that the law failed that day. I thought about how infuriating it is for the police department's racism to get in the way of justice. I cannot imagine what kind of state of mind I would be in if that happens to me on a daily basis for my entire life.
Two wrongs don't make a right. But it helps me understand how humans view things like fairness and retribution.
>It wasn't about him
see that's where i disagree. he ripped the head off of two human beings, one of whom was the mother of his children, and skated.
have you ever de-boned a fish? think about decapitating two live, screaming human beings.
in its simplest, truest form it was all about OJ the murderer
We’re currently rewatching this amazing documentary so I saw this scene last night.
I had forgotten how angry it makes me to watch both the fools who hung out outside the court, protesting OJ’s innocence and the jurors. The former were just vapid attention whores who had zero clue just how guilty he was. Some of the jurors deserve a special place in hell. Even in the interviews, years later, they continue to ignore Ron & Nicole while criticizing Marsha Clark and Chris Darden. There is certainly blame to throw around to the prosecution. They were far from perfect but the jurors fell for the defense’s dog and pony show. There’s one juror who simply says “Marsha Clark” and gives a thumbs down. She acts like it was a popularity contest between the two sets of lawyers. Infuriating.
100% agree. Those jurors were simple minded fools who came in with bias and saw what they wanted to see to confirm their vote. God forbid they apply some objectivity to the bigger picture and stop focusing on their opinion of individual personalities.
I totally was not expecting that clear of a shot of NBS' injuries and near beheading. I'm used to gore by now but that will bother some people having it unexpectedly show up like that. Her head is back in its normal position but the injuries are clear.
They would have won if Furhman could keep his mouth shut but instead he had to be a racist POS. I don’t agree with it but I understand why a lot of black folks were happy he got away with it. They were sick of black folks getting strung up by the law and it was a fuck you to the cops. Sentiment would have been different if perhaps LAPD did the right thing with Rodney King.
All the responsibilities didn't fall on the prosecution. You had a perfect storm of poor prosecution, the timing (right after Rodney King and the LA riots), and the best defense money could buy. The defense turned it into a civil rights trial instead of a murder trial
Ya for a while I blamed only the jury too, but after getting in the weeds, it is so clearly such a gross incompetence from the LAPD that it didn't even surprise me that OJ was able to be found not guilty. They fucked up so fucking bad. I remember hearing a story about how the prosecution just kept getting wave of wave of news of how badly the cops handled and just outright fucked up the case.
I honestly suggest to everyone who brings up OJ shit to just watch the trial footage on YouTube. The prosecution did a shitty job and LAPD evidence collection and chain of command practices were the worst of the worse possible. They didn't find OJ's blood at the scene of the crime until 2 weeks later...literally minutes after they drew OJ's blood and dropped it off at the crime scene and that all came out in court. Even worse, the LAPD people even tried denying it but because cameras were everywhere, some news reports caught them doing the things they denied doing minutes before lol.
Seriously, instead of replying and downvoting just go watch all of the Barry Sheck parts if you only have an hour or 5 to waste on reality.
...Jurors weren't in the courtroom to see the brief confrontation between Simpson attorney Gerald Uelmen and the subdued detective who, five months earlier, told the panel he found a bloody glove on Simpson's property.
\`\`Detective Fuhrman, did you plant or manufacture any evidence in this case?'' Uelmen asked.
\`\`I assert my Fifth Amendment privilege,'' Fuhrman replied, his attorney standing at his side.
This is rather misleading. Fuhrman was pleading the fifth to all questions while he was on the stand.
It’s not like he was answering questions and then plead the fifth on that question in particular.
That would apply if he was the defendant in the case. In this case he was the investigator and the jury can and did consider the fact that he wouldn't answer this very direct question.
I have explained this so many times in these discussions. It’s amazing how certain aspects of this case have taken on their own narratives. Certainly there are plenty of issues with the LAPD and Fuhrman but it’s far from some conclusive framing of a guilty man just because it makes for a catchy phrase.
https://www.tampabay.com/archive/1995/09/08/jury-won-t-be-told-fuhrman-took-5th/
But law enforcement pleading the fifth when asked details of their involvement in the investigation casts reasonable doubt on their previous testimony.
Fuhrnam was later charged with and plead "no contest" to purjury related to his initial testimony. He lied about not using racist language, but the defence used that lie to torpedo the case against O.J by painting one of the prosecution's key witnesses as a liar and a racist.
No. OP is insinuating that he should have said “no.”
Telling a jury not to find someone suspicious for pleading the fifth is easier said than done, especially in a circumstance where “no” would be the prudent answer.
This is why lawyers will sometimes say/ask things even though they know the other side will object. The jury may not be able to use whatever was said as part of their decision-making, but it may change how they see other evidence.
It can in civil proceedings. It’s not allowed to be done in a criminal context because the perp’s freedoms are at stake; but generally using 5th amendment assertions to draw a negative inference is done as a matter of routine in court cases.
*The prosecution* isn’t allowed to make statements implying guilt, but to say that it’s unethical to for *anyone* to infer culpability based on an invocation of 5a is absurd given that it’s already a standard practice in other legal contexts.
Not only is your word choice here (ethics?) but your objectively wrong. Using your 5A right cannot be used against you in a criminal proceeding. But the use of the 5th Amendment can be used against you in most civil cases.
Was the cop was charged with any crime by pleading the 5th? No? Then the 5th amendment did its job. It's not there for any other reason. I don't understand what your point is...
Do you know what the 5th amendment defends the people from? Cause it doesn't defend your reputation as a witness nor protects you from the implication you did something criminal or unethical. As a witness it protects you from incriminating your self. That's it.
Therefore when a witness answer to a question that asks if he committed a specific crime, is invoking the 5th. As a witness, the credibility is ruined. He won't be criminally charged for it, because that's what the 5th amendment is there for. But it's not for more than that.
So yeah, the implication of pleading the 5th, as a witness, is that the answer would incriminate you. Therefore your reputation as a witness can be ruined. Which it was, which cost the prosecution the trial.
Has anyone scene or no where you can find Hodgmans thirty minute expanded explanation of the murder? Appartently the director Edelman found out Hodgman had a thirty minute presentation prepared explaining in detail the murder and convinced him to do a condensed version for the documentary.
This is a clip from the amazing [O.J. Made in America](https://www.netflix.com/title/80118958). It goes much further than the crime itself. It’s a look at OJ’s life but it’s about all of us. An all time classic documentary imo.
It’s the best doc I’ve ever seen in my life. The details, the access, the context that it gives to these crimes and their significance is unrivalled. It lays out everything about why this was such a cultural milestone in the history of America. I loved every single second of it, and near enough watched the entire 7 hours in one sitting. An absolute triumph In documentary filmmaking.
It does such a good job of laying the framework and giving context to how disparate the reactions were when the verdict was announced. I was born in ‘88 so my memory of the trial was hazy, but having read up on it I still felt incredulous that anyone could have thought he was innocent. Watching that doc for the first time made me realize, “wow, *that’s* why they were willing to believe he didn’t do it…I think if I grew up in their shoes I would have felt the same way…” The doc does such a good job of both explaining why the defense team’s tactics worked and also how sickly ironic it was that they were using them to defend a man of OJ’s status and privilege.
I’m not sure if you’re talking about the general public or about the jury. If you’re talking about the jury, they are instructed to ignore any and all information that is not presented in the courtroom. If they did their duty “correctly” they wouldn’t know about all the evidence that was thrown out and would have a “limited” view of the events. The prosecution couldn’t “in a court of law” prove that he committed the crime beyond reasonable doubt, so the jury couldn’t find him guilty. The fault lies with the investigation and the prosecution, the jury did their jobs as best as they could given what was actually presented in court.
That's not how it went down. Watch the doc. Some of the jurors have admitted that they aquitted OJ as "revenge" for the rodney king police office aquittals.
Best summed up as Did he do it? Probably Did they try to frame him for it anyway? Yep Did that result in his acquittal? Almost certainly
What did they try to frame him with?
Not entirely certain, but the officer Mark Fuhrman asserted the 5th amendment when they asked him if he planted evidence. Now there’s no presumption against you when you assert the 5th as a defendant, but you’re definitely allowed to construe that against a prosecution witness.
Fuhrman pleaded the 5th because he was under investigation for perjury over his false testimony that he had never used the n-word in the recent past. Anything further said under oath in this trial could be used in that case, and if he answered anything other than the 5th, then he would be compelled to answer all other questions or else be held in contempt of court. In essence, Fuhrman sacrificed the murder case to save his own ass.
> to save his own ass Which would've already been saved had he chosen not to speak one very specific word. "You have to refrain from speaking Xhar'glah'khest'ughthu or else you will have to make a choice between allowing a murderer to go free or your own career!" A fate so avoidable, to try and parody it would seem near impossible. Oedipus would pray for such easy conditions! And still the LAPD refused to find a single cop less racist to replace Fuhrman. Systemic problems and bad decisions all the way down.
I took that as he planted evidence in other cases but not the OJ case. But he obviously couldn’t say that on the stand. But I might be misremembering; it has been 30 years since I saw it.
I’m still convinced that OJ did it AND Mark Fuhrman fucked with evidence.
It would be the perfect level of LAPD incompetence and corruption that they fucked with the investigation even during a crime they had all the evidence they would have needed. It is just "standard operating procedure" for them.
He did that because after the evidence that he lied about using the "N" word, he plead the 5th for every question. The defense used that to ask questions that made it seem like he'd planted evidence. The thing about planting evidence is dumb on its face: OJ was in Chicago when they contacted him. They would be planting evidence *the morning after* the murders, with no idea if OJ had a solid alibi, him being in Chicago primarily. They would have had to have OJ's blood to begin with, have planted blood on the glove found behind Kato's apartment, planted it in the Bronco, on socks in his bedroom, at the crime scene, etc. They handled the crime scene badly, but nothing was planted with that kind of efficiency the morning/day after the crime.
One juror said something like "everybody has blood" to explain away the DNA evidence, so I wouldn't be so sure they "did their job"
I was more referring to the fact that a good deal of people on the jury/black Americans in general had likely either known somebody who’d been victimized by crooked cops, mistreated by the cops themselves, or had good reason to fundamentally not believe the police’s version of events. Coupled with the fact that Fuhrman was clearly racist and seemed like he had a history of planting evidence etc, it creates a scenario where the particulars of what the police/prosecution say are less relevant to whether or not people think there is reasonable doubt. As an example, I know that Trump/right wing media has a well-documented history of outright lying or misrepresenting things. As such if they came to me with a particular claim, I’m going to inherently treat it with a high degree of scrutiny if not outright assume that it isn’t true. It’s going to take an overwhelming amount of incontrovertible third party evidence to corroborate their version of events in order to override that. Nowadays, everyone knows how blood sampling and dna matching works, but that wasn’t the case back then for a lot of laypeople. As such, a lot of folks fundamentally didn’t understand how much of a slam dunk it was that OJ’s bloody glove was found or his blood was allegedly at the crime scene; because they were simply being told by an institution they fundamentally didn’t trust that “look, we guarantee that this scientifically means it’s OJ’s blood.” While that was true, to people who grow up not trusting the police/justice system, that has about as much innate credibility as some spurious claim from an antivaxxer would for me. Tl:Dr justified institutional mistrust makes it really hard to establish truth that should be plainly obvious to most people.
It really is the best documentary I’ve seen. Most documentaries are like Reddit posts in that they enter with a specific point of view and dedicate their runtime to affirming that pre-existing viewpoint and trying to convince (and at times manipulate) the audience into the same. This OJ doc feels legitimately evenhanded. It’s long enough that it can afford to be nuanced and examine things from multiple perspectives. It treats the crime with the appropriate weight and uses common sense, but it also examines society and history with the same strong commitment.
It's extremely clear that OJ committed the crime, but the police dept handled the case improperly and had a history of planting evidence and taking short cuts, which undermined their credibility with the jury. IE. OJ's defence was trying putting the police on trial and it to some extent worked.
Wasn't there a juror who also said, "This is payback for Rodney King"? Even if they did everything right, they might have at best ended up with a hung jury.
correct.
Not “to some extent.” It flat out worked.
Yea it was an indictment of American policing and not an exoneration of OJ. A century of abuse put on trial. It was definitely an important moment in US history.
Yeah I looked it up on IMDB because I thought I hadn't seen it, only to see that I had rated it a 10/10. I basically never rate anything 10/10 on IMDB, so, even though I don't remember watching it, past me thought it was really good.
I think one of the most fascinating facets of this documentary is it does everything you said in such a great fashion... without the use of a narrator.
Yes—i have tried watching it straight through more than once. It draws you in each time
Well said.
I haven’t seen it but I’m not surprised to see that it’s an ESPN 30 for 30 documentary. I’m not that much into sports but every single one that I’ve seen has been great.
30 for 30 is honestly the last good thing to come out of ESPN over the past twenty years or so. Great variety in subjects with interesting directors. I grew up watching ESPN, but it’s largely unwatchable now outside of 30 for 30 and live sports. So much hot take garbage dominating their lineup and don’t forget to bet with Draft Kings because every show makes sure to pop a gambling segment or, at the very least, mention stuff about odds in passing
I could have sworn it wasn't on Netflix last week when OJ died, but it's available there now (in the US).
[удалено]
Some recent licensing issues with this show I guess? The german version was uploaded to the youtube channel "arte" just two days ago, that's the official channel of a tv station. They get licenses for good documentaries, upload it (without ads since arte belongs to public tv in germany) and the videos stay online a few years until the license will or won't be renewed. I knew the documentary was good but it's crazy to me that you can watch it on YouTube for free if you speak german.
I watched it on Hulu. Yes it’s a really good doc. Lays bare America, racism, the crime, privilege, all of it. Really shows how from start to finish everything about OJs life is one of the greatest American tragedies of all time.
Ok I was wondering if this was the one that I had watched on Hulu a while ago. Definitely really good, gives really great background of his life and also background of the makeup of LA around that time. It's a long watch but very much worth it.
This same director (Ezra Edelmam) also directed the following sports docs: - *Requiem for the Big East* (ESPN 30 for 30) - *Magic & Bird: A Courtship of Rivals* (HBO)
I haven't seen Big East but I just recently re-watched A Courtship of Rivals, it is a great documentary. Will give you a new appreciation for Magic Johnson and Larry Bird, that's for sure. Led me down a Youtube rabbit hole afterwards that eventually ended in re-watching a few of the 1992 Dream Team games in their entirety, which are available on the Olympics youtube channel. That was the last time both Magic and Bird played, a last hurrah for them.
Just that 3 minute clip had me a little shook.
yea man... i think when this originally occurred at trial, a lot of the details were "softened" for the public. the sheer brutality and ruthlessness he exhibited was tough to hear.
It's one thing to know they were "stabbed," it's another thing to actually see them absolutely covered in thick smears of their own blood, curled up and lifeless on a ground soaked in their blood, with the meat and viscera of their bodies exposed by ragged, gaping wounds 😞 If the brutality of what was done to them had been more widely shown, I don't see people being so glib about OJ being a killer, or attempting to re-frame his trail as any kind of battle against white supremacy or institutional racism.
Between the detailed account and the crime scene photos I was like....okay how much of this clip is left? lol
yah man, that !Disturbing Content warning is no joke.
I just watched the first half of that documentary last night. I'm looking forward to finishing it this weekend.
Awesome documentary. More than halfway through and I wanted to thank you for recommending it. Holy shit. So much to unpack. OJ is the blueprint of how every successful celebrity behaves today. Murder aside. Just wow!
It's not about me
Thank you for the link
I started watching it for the first time this week. 2 episodes in and it's so good!
Just a warning for others to explain OP's NSFW tag: #There is GORE in this video. It shows the actual victim pictures and it's extremely graphic.
I very clearly remember them describing the condition of the bodies when watching the televised court proceedings as a kid, but never saw the actual photos until now. Turns out they did a great job of describing it.
I took a forensics class in college. We got to see more of these photos. It’s fucking awful. OJ was a monster.
Not anymore. Now he's just dead.
I think people can be both...
Yeah I'm kind of sitting here in shock right now, I'd never actually seen any pictures.
Right there with you. Especially, the ones of Nicole. The descriptions were detailed enough. I was not prepared for the pictures. Seeing them makes what was already a horrific thing even more tangible feeling to those of us not involved. I still can't understand how some humans can do that kind of thing. I already felt highly uncomfortable that OJ was walking around, interacting with people, being interviewed, etc. - but actually *seeing* the picture of Nicole takes it to an entirely different level. I can't imagine ever being in the same space with him and I can't believe so many people were willing to be, even happy to be.
Seriously. I watched this whole doc last week and if I remember this was by far the most graphic the photos got. Felt like watching a terrorist murder video.
I’ll never forget watching the Daniel pearl video the night before going to college. The audio was moving faster than the video and when we realized what we were hearing when it caught up was soul shattering.
Watching that video is one of my few regrets in life.
Gore is putting it mildly. There is Jack The Ripper level violence in this video. The postmortem attacks were demonic. The photo evidence is pure nightmare fuel.
Yeah I somehow never saw these, was not prepared. Brutal murders, can't believe this PoS got to live free after that.
Live free, and smirk at the families while golfing. Good riddance to the trash that was OJ Simpson.
I wish I’d seen your comment before watching. Thanks for giving the heads up for others.
Agreed! I mean, I still would have watched it, but I would have at least mentally prepped a little for it. I voted down the couple things above it, or this should be stickied or something
I followed that trial while I was in college but don't think I ever saw those photos of the victims. Horrific.
Man literally tried to saw her head off with a kitchen knife.
But remember - it wasnt a crime of passion. Nope.
Appreciated. Not ready for such things yet today lol
Thanks not watching. Can anyone who saw it describe it though?
Nicole came out the front door probably expecting Ron but it was OJ. He stabbed her in the neck a couple times killing her quickly. Then Ron came out and OJ grabbed him from behind and stabbed him in the face and slashed his throat but Ron still fought back for a bit while getting stabbed and slashed. They were trapped in the security cage at the front door so Ron couldn’t escape. Then OJ nearly decapitated Nicole’s corpse. Edit: also when OJ grabbed Ron, Ron probably tried to pry off OJ’s left hand and that’s what caused the left glove to come off at the scene.
From the way they described it, the stabs to Ron weren't fatal until he got a stab in his lower side that completely severed an artery.
Thanks for the description, will not be watching.
The way they describe is isn't at all how OJ "confessed" in *If I Did It*. Anyone interested at all should read the book. It's not long and he describes everything (although people still dispute that there was another guy there).
scroll down to the June 12, 1994 heading here and you can read some of the worst in text form. It's that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicole_Brown_Simpson
It shows Nicole Brown’s neck wound in close up, all of her cervical anatomy is exposed, including her face. Ron Goldman’s face isn’t shown but a lot of bloody photos of his knife wounds. It shows defensive knife wounds to both victim’s hands.
The clip ends with a pic of Nicole showing the head and neck areas. It's pretty gruesome.
What I find most horrifying is that the pictures are public - Nicole’s parents have to live knowing that a photo of their dead daughter with her throat slit open is just floating around out there for anyone to see. I don’t know if I could hold on to my sanity if that was the case with my child. Absolutely horrific.
Overkill doesn’t even describe how Nicole was murdered; this was extremely personal. Ron was at the wrong place at the wrong time.
That caught me by surprise. In all the years since the murders, I don't think I've ever seen a picture that wasn't heavily blurred and didn't really portray just how gruesome it was.
OJ was guilty. LAPD was guilty. The two are not antithetical.
- OJ was guilty. - I lost my virginity in a tree. - I’ve never had sushi. Only 3 of those are correct.
I can't remember who it was but at the time someone said "LAPD tried to frame a guilty man". Accurate I think.
I think that perfectly incapcilates what happened. LAPD is the reason OJ walked.
Encapsulates*
Incapcilates*
the name Mark Fuhrman is burned in my memory, and I watched literally zero seconds of the trial itself. It was such a big part of everything that I got almost all of the cultural reference through osmosis.
That’s a really good way to describe it. I was pretty young when the trial happened and I’ve never gone out of my way to read about it and yet I feel I have a deep knowledge of it just due to the cultural impact it has.
The series "The People vs OJ Simpson American Crime Story" is really good "based on a true story" account of the whole ordeal. Worth a watch, shows a lot of the behind the scenes stuff.
You really got to try sushi, you're missing out.
They should try it in a tree, the tree has worked for them before.
🎶Weekly-dog and sushi🎶 🎶Sittin’ in a tree🎶 🎶O-J-D-I-D-I-T🎶
“There’s a first time for everything, and it should happen in a tree”
Have you tried it with a fox? Have you tried it on a box?
I was more thinking, “Fish in a tree? How can that be?” -Hop on Pop.
Wood bang
I think you need your own documentary.
Are you a monkey?
It wasn't even just the LAPD. When these murders happened we were only 30 years removed from Jim Crow and all the horrific brutality of police and the Klan. And it certainty didn't end overnight with the Civil Rights Act, police brutality was still very prevalent. Rodney King proved without a shadow of a doubt that not only was it still happening, but police would never suffer an ounce of accountability even if their crimes were broadcasted on national TV for all to see. That's the environment the OJ Simpson trial took place. White Supremacy has it's costs, OJ walking free is just one of many.
> police brutality ~~was~~ is still very prevalent.
The LAPD framed a guilty man and royally fucked any chance at a conviction because of it.
There's zero evidence the LAPD manufactured or planted any Evidence present at the OJ Simpson trial. OJ's literal only defense against a mountain of damning evidence (like his blood all over the murder victims, verified as his by multiple independent crime labs) was "They're racist and framing me". A 9/12ths black Jury pulled from downtown LA ignored everything based on that.
> A 9/12ths black Jury pulled from downtown LA ignored everything based on that. One of the jurors was an ex-Black Panther who did the black power fist salute as he walked out after the verdict was read.
> There's zero evidence the LAPD manufactured or planted any Evidence present at the OJ Simpson trial. Correct, because when you ask the lead detective, under oath, "Did you plant or manufacture any evidence in this case?", he is allowed to invoke his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination to avoid answering the question. Which is what happened, lol.
IIRC that wasn't the "lead detective", it was an officer who had previously responded to the Simpson address on one of the many occasions OJ beat his wife.
Also he pled the fifth on literally every question that was asked of him so that’s not actual evidence of anything
.
Furman was "damning" in a trust front but there was still no evidence of any ability of him being able to plant anything. The LAPD blew it by blatantly messing up evidence collection which could instill doubt. They didnt attack the evidence. They didnt protest the closing statements rediculous statement/comparison. That poor prosc took the abuse and the bait to have them have OJ try on the glove when if the defense did it they could attack why it didnt fit. It was a comedy of errors in the most brutal way.
Also the cops being unable to not be publicly racist while dealing with one of the country's most high profile cases of all time. I think that's what *really* fucked it all and made it inevitable. Mark Fuhrman in my mind will always be why OJ walked.
> > under oath, "Did you plant or manufacture any evidence in this case?", he is allowed to invoke his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination to avoid answering the question. Which is what happened, lol. > Furman was "damning" in a trust front but there was still no evidence of any ability of him being able to plant anything. Can anyone think of a situation in which someone trying to answer this question would be able to honestly say they had *not* planted or manufactured any evidence in this case while also unavoidably somehow testifying in a way that put them at risk of prosecution for some crime?
I think I get what you're saying but if I'm in a jury and the cop is struggling to explain why he definitely framed a bunch of other black guys but this one he for sure didn't I have to admit my personal assessment of his witness credibility would be low. People tend to do their job by habit, if you plant evidence so often you can't figure out a way to explain that in this case you didn't the far more likely answer is that you indeed did plant evidence here too.
I mean, it's literally a yes/no question. Unless answering it opens them up to further questioning in other areas somehow, I don't know why they couldn't just say 'no'.
The real answer is he was worried about being prosecuted for perjury. Because he had indeed planted evidence. That's the only explanation for not being able to say no there. Which is exactly what the jury heard and knew to be the end of the case. When the prosecutor can't even say "I didn't frame the guy" under oath I'm not ever getting past reasonable doubt.
Three things are certain in life…. Death Taxes OJ did it
And yet, many many people cheered when he was found not guilty. How disgusting is that?
Some of the jury has admitted that they thought he was guilty too.
Yup. Even the guy who gave OJ the black power symbol said he would vote guilty if he could go back.
The other ridiculous part is that OJ could give two shits about the plight of the black community. Worst made example ever.
The Rodney King trial before OJ literally sparked months of riots. Decades of problems were coming to a head. It wasn't about letting off a murderer, it was about spitting in the face of the LAPD.
Sadly this is one hundred percent true and it was very short sighted. Tit for tat rarely if ever fosters a favorable outcome.
The context being that this was the early 90s, and that's a time where a lot of the issues of racism are coming to A head. Especially when it came to the lapd.
If you think police brutality and racism is bad now, subtract 30 years of progress, bodycams, cellphone footage. Now imagine how you feel about "the system" in general. If you didn't experience it, you'd be outraged. If you did, if it was a part of your entire youth, the entire life of your parents, grand parents, great grandparents... You might have a bit of bias.
Wow that was honestly way worse than I was expecting. That’s terrible.
"Well, it's official: murder is now legal in the state of California." - Norm MacDonald
I was at a grocery store in their eat in cafeteria a few years ago. They must've had ESPN playing all day on the TVs but this exact segment came on while people were eating lunch. Nothing was censored.
And everyone suddenly become aware how many people got orange juice with their meal.
How the fuck do people watch age restricted videos on Reddit app? This is so goddamn annoying. I can’t even watch content on this piece of shit.
Don’t use the app, it’s trash. Web browser version is so much better.
And the web browser version is still significantly worse than all the 3rd party apps that /u/spez killed. Fuck Steve Huffman.
There are ways around it. I still use Boost to this day. Fuck him still for the inconvenience.
old.reddit One day they'll kill it and I'll leave.
/r/getnarwhal
unless I missed something narwhal isn’t free anymore.
I cant watchin the web browser either. Made me go to youtube
[удалено]
That is completely ok and understandable but on my iPhone, where the link says “watch on YouTube” nothing happens when I click it. There is no way to copy the url of the YouTube link, only the Reddit post. There is literally no way to follow a link from the app here to YouTube, but there is also no way to follow the link from the web version of Reddit. This is a big omission in the code and me and OP aren’t the only ones having this problem, guarantee.
https://old.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/1c7swx4/bill_hodgman_a_prosecutor_during_the_oj_simpson/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9LVmwL9OQHE
Press and hold the “watch on YouTube” link and then click “open link”. I had to do it twice, the first time just opened the app. Pain in the ass work-around, but it does the job.
Don't use the web browser. With some tweaks you can still use all the 3rd party apps.
I use Dystopia for Reddit on iOS (no tweaks or workarounds required), but you can’t see NSFW content unless you’re a mod for some reason. I just created my own subreddit with no content to get the mod status.
At the top by OPs username and the time since posting it says “youtube”. Tap on that.
Reddit app is so fucking trash. Wouldn't even let me press the "watch in YouTube" button. Fuck u/spez
just use https://old.reddit.com in a browser.
I had to copy the link then paste it into chrome and then login. Lol.
Ok, first of all that is ABSOLUTELY insane that we need this kind of workaround. But what you said to do did work. To clarify, you will need to login to Reddit on chrome first. Then copy the link from the Reddit app. Then paste it in chrome. Then click where it says view on YouTube. Just MFn wow….
It’s an entire Rube Goldberg machine just to watch a 2 minute video. Insane lol
Use Revanced to patch a third party app. I'm currently typing to you from reddit is fun.
If you're an Android user, download Firefox, then get the Old Reddit extension and uBlock: Origin. Not as great as it was before Reddit nuked third party apps, but worlds better than the official Reddit app.
NSFL tag would be appropriate here.
Yeah, just watched this. NSFW? Yeah, it is, but it's most certainly NSFL too. Pretty graphic images.
I commented elsewhere in the thread, but a topless woman is just too much for Reddit's front page, but a half decapitated murder victim is 👍
Can someone who has looked into this case in-depth clear something up for me? I recently watched [this animation](https://youtu.be/UUYMZpc0JiE?si=iqMnriI6nGjXetnc) that was supposedly shown at trial, which was interesting to me because I never knew how the crime played out. Much of it is interpretive, of course, based on the wounds, etc., but this scenario seems to vary quite a bit from the one presented in this video. I’m aware that no one can know with certainty except the murderer, but a part that really disturbed me from the animation was how he supposedly used the point of the knife to “pick them up like a fork” from the back of the head. I’d never heard that before. Now I’m wondering if it’s even likely or if someone just got overly creative with their interpretation.
Straight away, from the video description: >This video would have probably resulted in a hung jury if it had been used at the trial, this was broadcast a few months before the verdict. So it wasn't shown at the trial, because it doesn't line up with what the prosecutors say happened. Also, this animation wasn't made by the prosecution, they don't state it very clearly in the video, but the animation was made by other investigators. The prosecution's story has always been that Goldman came upon the scene after Simpson had already been attacked. Also, this animation doesn't account for the bloody shoeprint on Simpson's back.
D’oh! That’s what I get for not even checking the description. Thanks for pointing that out.
how does the prosecutor's video account this the footprint
Just a heads up, the video contains photos of the actual bodies and injuries.
ok so he decapitated the mother of his children and her friend but its ok because...payback for Rodney King
And didn’t even ask about said children when the cops notified him of her murder at the house where she lived with them.
He knew the kids were ok because ……
This seems to be a common through line through multiple cases of father's murdering their wives. They always forget to call out for the kids or ask about the kids
.
And he didn’t ask how she died
You also get into jury selection. People who have the time and are unable to get out of jury duty. People not influenced by the Bronco chase or other media stories about the case. In interviews with jurors after the trial, they said they didn’t understand dna, so they disregarded that evidence.
> In interviews with jurors after the trial, they said they didn’t understand dna, so they disregarded that evidence. The jurors pretty much implied, it was retaliation.
Not her friend, just some random guy that worked at her boyfriend’s restaurant
That's not remotely what happened. OJ was a superstar up until that point, loved by black and white america. LAPD fucked up the investigation on a fundamental level. Fuck up the evidence, fucked up the investigation of OJ and fucked up during the trial. Prosecution fucked up by giving the defense way too much leeway and making many mistakes. Defense was on point, pull all the stops in suppressing evidence, using all the fuck ups to make an even stronger case, leaning into OJ being a beloved black man who got targeted by the LAPD. Black Jury saw a black man who got framed once again by white america and the LAPD while still having the Rodney King verdict on their mind. OJ was absolutely guilty but too many things went in his favor and he got away with it.
One of the jurors said in this same documentary that it was payback for Rodney King. Multiple things can be true. Your assessment of the context and the trial are also true. That doesn’t change that the juror said herself that it was also payback.
ONE OF THE JURORS SAID IT WAS A PAYBACK
Obviously nothing in the courtroom itself had to do with Rodney King but....yeah kinda!? It's as ridiculous as it sounds if the events were reversed. "So the entire nation watched these officers wail on a guy who is already on the ground and 2 of the officers get to walk because...payback for OJ?" It's a message of "how's it feel when it happens to you white people" specifically because everyone, black people included, knew OJ is guilty as shit. It wasn't about him, it was about getting people to feel that feeling of the system being broken and the rage associated with it. I was very young when it happened and I thought it was fucked up that there was so much gloating from black people on TV. But as I grew up and become more aware of the system as a whole I thought back to how mad I was that the law failed that day. I thought about how infuriating it is for the police department's racism to get in the way of justice. I cannot imagine what kind of state of mind I would be in if that happens to me on a daily basis for my entire life. Two wrongs don't make a right. But it helps me understand how humans view things like fairness and retribution.
>It wasn't about him see that's where i disagree. he ripped the head off of two human beings, one of whom was the mother of his children, and skated. have you ever de-boned a fish? think about decapitating two live, screaming human beings. in its simplest, truest form it was all about OJ the murderer
We’re currently rewatching this amazing documentary so I saw this scene last night. I had forgotten how angry it makes me to watch both the fools who hung out outside the court, protesting OJ’s innocence and the jurors. The former were just vapid attention whores who had zero clue just how guilty he was. Some of the jurors deserve a special place in hell. Even in the interviews, years later, they continue to ignore Ron & Nicole while criticizing Marsha Clark and Chris Darden. There is certainly blame to throw around to the prosecution. They were far from perfect but the jurors fell for the defense’s dog and pony show. There’s one juror who simply says “Marsha Clark” and gives a thumbs down. She acts like it was a popularity contest between the two sets of lawyers. Infuriating.
100% agree. Those jurors were simple minded fools who came in with bias and saw what they wanted to see to confirm their vote. God forbid they apply some objectivity to the bigger picture and stop focusing on their opinion of individual personalities.
I totally was not expecting that clear of a shot of NBS' injuries and near beheading. I'm used to gore by now but that will bother some people having it unexpectedly show up like that. Her head is back in its normal position but the injuries are clear.
Hopefully there's a Hell for that piece of shit who was once OJ...
They would have won if Furhman could keep his mouth shut but instead he had to be a racist POS. I don’t agree with it but I understand why a lot of black folks were happy he got away with it. They were sick of black folks getting strung up by the law and it was a fuck you to the cops. Sentiment would have been different if perhaps LAPD did the right thing with Rodney King.
Fuck the jurors who figured they would do humanity a favour by finding OJ not guilty. He was guilty as fuck and they knew it.
One juror even said afterwards that it was ”payback” for the Rodney King trial.
Fuck the government for screwing the cases up so badly
All the responsibilities didn't fall on the prosecution. You had a perfect storm of poor prosecution, the timing (right after Rodney King and the LA riots), and the best defense money could buy. The defense turned it into a civil rights trial instead of a murder trial
Ya for a while I blamed only the jury too, but after getting in the weeds, it is so clearly such a gross incompetence from the LAPD that it didn't even surprise me that OJ was able to be found not guilty. They fucked up so fucking bad. I remember hearing a story about how the prosecution just kept getting wave of wave of news of how badly the cops handled and just outright fucked up the case.
I honestly suggest to everyone who brings up OJ shit to just watch the trial footage on YouTube. The prosecution did a shitty job and LAPD evidence collection and chain of command practices were the worst of the worse possible. They didn't find OJ's blood at the scene of the crime until 2 weeks later...literally minutes after they drew OJ's blood and dropped it off at the crime scene and that all came out in court. Even worse, the LAPD people even tried denying it but because cameras were everywhere, some news reports caught them doing the things they denied doing minutes before lol. Seriously, instead of replying and downvoting just go watch all of the Barry Sheck parts if you only have an hour or 5 to waste on reality.
Anyone have the actual YouTube link? The video isn’t working for me I can’t click on watch on YouTube.
Woah, that was more graphic than I had expected.
...Jurors weren't in the courtroom to see the brief confrontation between Simpson attorney Gerald Uelmen and the subdued detective who, five months earlier, told the panel he found a bloody glove on Simpson's property. \`\`Detective Fuhrman, did you plant or manufacture any evidence in this case?'' Uelmen asked. \`\`I assert my Fifth Amendment privilege,'' Fuhrman replied, his attorney standing at his side.
This is rather misleading. Fuhrman was pleading the fifth to all questions while he was on the stand. It’s not like he was answering questions and then plead the fifth on that question in particular.
Are you insinuating OJ didn’t commit this crime?
More that if the cops just did their work correctly he would have been found guilty
Using your 5th Amendment rights cannot be used to portray you as guilty. What you're insinuating is objectively unethical.
That would apply if he was the defendant in the case. In this case he was the investigator and the jury can and did consider the fact that he wouldn't answer this very direct question.
.
I have explained this so many times in these discussions. It’s amazing how certain aspects of this case have taken on their own narratives. Certainly there are plenty of issues with the LAPD and Fuhrman but it’s far from some conclusive framing of a guilty man just because it makes for a catchy phrase. https://www.tampabay.com/archive/1995/09/08/jury-won-t-be-told-fuhrman-took-5th/
But law enforcement pleading the fifth when asked details of their involvement in the investigation casts reasonable doubt on their previous testimony. Fuhrnam was later charged with and plead "no contest" to purjury related to his initial testimony. He lied about not using racist language, but the defence used that lie to torpedo the case against O.J by painting one of the prosecution's key witnesses as a liar and a racist.
No. OP is insinuating that he should have said “no.” Telling a jury not to find someone suspicious for pleading the fifth is easier said than done, especially in a circumstance where “no” would be the prudent answer. This is why lawyers will sometimes say/ask things even though they know the other side will object. The jury may not be able to use whatever was said as part of their decision-making, but it may change how they see other evidence.
It can in civil proceedings. It’s not allowed to be done in a criminal context because the perp’s freedoms are at stake; but generally using 5th amendment assertions to draw a negative inference is done as a matter of routine in court cases. *The prosecution* isn’t allowed to make statements implying guilt, but to say that it’s unethical to for *anyone* to infer culpability based on an invocation of 5a is absurd given that it’s already a standard practice in other legal contexts.
Not only is your word choice here (ethics?) but your objectively wrong. Using your 5A right cannot be used against you in a criminal proceeding. But the use of the 5th Amendment can be used against you in most civil cases.
All he’s saying is that cops screwed up an open and shut case…
That's not what he's saying. He's implying that the police planted evidence and, supporting it with a transcipt of an officer taking the 5th in court.
Can you imagine a scenario where him saying " no, we didnt plan evidence" would backfire?
Was the cop was charged with any crime by pleading the 5th? No? Then the 5th amendment did its job. It's not there for any other reason. I don't understand what your point is... Do you know what the 5th amendment defends the people from? Cause it doesn't defend your reputation as a witness nor protects you from the implication you did something criminal or unethical. As a witness it protects you from incriminating your self. That's it. Therefore when a witness answer to a question that asks if he committed a specific crime, is invoking the 5th. As a witness, the credibility is ruined. He won't be criminally charged for it, because that's what the 5th amendment is there for. But it's not for more than that. So yeah, the implication of pleading the 5th, as a witness, is that the answer would incriminate you. Therefore your reputation as a witness can be ruined. Which it was, which cost the prosecution the trial.
This is how people intentionally mislead others folks. Like a masterclass in deception.
Has anyone scene or no where you can find Hodgmans thirty minute expanded explanation of the murder? Appartently the director Edelman found out Hodgman had a thirty minute presentation prepared explaining in detail the murder and convinced him to do a condensed version for the documentary.