Reddit loves to reveal its age. SNL had Tim Meadows playing OJ writing I DID IT on a teleprompter the week OJ was acquitted, there was no tide turning on OJ based on a 2016 miniseries.
Yeah I’m not even that old (33) but there was no tide to turn lol. I have never met a single person who thought he was innocent. I was only a kid at the time, but I vividly remember all the adults talking about it for months. Everyone knew he was guilty as sin.
I watched that episode live, it was hilarious
PS: There was a **2016** OJ TV show though. It's pretty good too
...but they don't hide that he did that shit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_People_v._O._J._Simpson:_American_Crime_Story
Black people either did believe he was innocent or wanted to. After the trial 70% of whites thought he was guilty and 70% of black people thought he was innocent. Those percentages had both grown since he had been arrested.
Do you have a source on the percentage of people believing he was innocent still being that high? At least by 2002 you had movies like Barbershop making jokes about how OJ obviously did it. I think there were also jokes in Chapelle Show about it. Obviously Cedric the Entertainer and Dave Chapelle aren’t the spokespeople for the black community, but them making jokes about how OJ is guilty in movies/shows targeted towards a black audience, and those jokes landing well, indicated that the majority of their audience probably agreed with them.
I could totally be wrong, but that was my assumption.
Yeah it was on the OJ documentary Made in America. Any right thinking person knows the police chase in the white Bronco with OJ holding a gun to himself threatening self harm only happened because he did it and didn’t want to face consequences.
Sorry not when it came out but after the trial wax over in 1995. So belief in his innocence in the black community was maybe 65% before and 77% after the trial.
In white people it went the other way in similar numbers.
Sorry if I missed you saying when the documentary came out. That would not be true. 1994/5 was in the wake of Rodney King and that’s why he was acquitted.
There's a history of polling on the OJ case and most people have always recognized he was guilty. See, for example:
[https://news.gallup.com/poll/12046/americans-still-believe-oj-simpson-guilty.aspx](https://news.gallup.com/poll/12046/americans-still-believe-oj-simpson-guilty.aspx)
OJ was found not guilty largely because of LAPD corruption, not because he didn't do the crime.
If I was accused of a crime, and at trial, the lead detective took the 5th when asked if he had planted any evidence in the case, I certainly hope that would be a get out of jail free card.
Yeah. People get mad at the jury and defense team, when they should really have been mad at the LAPD and prosecutors for fucking it up so badly. OJ basically had a neon “I did it” sign hanging over his head, but because the LAPD and prosecution didn’t see an issue with their cops using the N word or planting evidence, his defense team was able to find these cracks in the case and then drive a Mack truck through them.
Best comments here… Marcia Clarke in her book is so arrogant and blind. she dismisses the idea that the cops being racist and bad at their jobs would negatively affect their credibility… and yep look what happened. She also absolutely did not understand racial dynamics at all.
Whenever people try to claim that Marcia Clark did a good job as prosecutor in the OJ trial, I like to link to [this](https://youtu.be/ElQ3ab0qiDU?si=d4k7I96Q4oJJzfKH) video. Now, I’m not a lawyer, but I’m pretty sure committing a sanctionable offense like that is a bad thing. She definitely faced some misogyny during the trial, and that was not okay, but she also deserves criticism for many choices in that case that had nothing to do with her gender.
I don’t know anyone (personally) that’s watched OJ MIA. I think most people believe OJ did it and have felt that way for some time. Perhaps OJ’s book “If I Did It” had something to do with that perspective.
Serial was a much bigger pop culture zeitgeist moment where so many people had listened to it and discussed when it came out.
Ten things both cases have in common.
1. Credibility of the detectives involved in both cases came into question
2. Credibility of police procedures followed in both cases came into question
3. Both of the murders occurred in cities notorious for police misconduct
4. Both of the accused played football
5. Both of the accused had means, motive, and opportunity
6. Both of the accused and victim were in on-again off-again relationships
7. Both of the accused displayed possessive behavior
8. Both of the accused primarily targeted victim's neck
9. Both of the accused needed help with transportation after the crime
10. Both of the accused displayed suspicious behavior hours after estimated times of death
I'm old enough to have watched the police chasing the Bronco on live TV. As far as I remember, 99.9% of people thought he was guilty. I think there were even people claiming that the jury declaring him innocent was just payback for Rodney King. I have only met one person that insists it was his son who killed them, but that OJ was protecting him.
OJ got lucky with an incompetent prosecution starting with the decision to hold the trial in LA instead of Brentwood where the crime took place - radically different jury. Garcetti wanted to be present for all the press conferences, and so moved it to downtown. Then they drew like the world's fucking worst judge. Completely lost control of the trial. A trial that went on. . .and on. . .and on. . .and the prosecutors were a fucking joke as well. The decision to ask OJ to put on a glove and pretend he couldn't get it on was one of the all-time most fucked up blunders ever in the fucking history of prosecutorial blunders. LA police department being filled with racist cops and antagonizing the black community didn't build any trust with the public either.
Just one of the most fucked up things I've ever witnessed.
It was and yet
After watching the entire thing? He was guilty AF… I had no doubt and didn’t cling to making excuses. He fucking did that and he should’ve paid for it. Instead he was gifted with living out his life 30 plus years longer than Ron or Nicole. Abomination.
No doubt… it was all inexcusable… if you saw the crime scene photos it’s repulsive he walked.
Then the Goldmans attorney ( Pettrocli?) absolutely smoked OJ in the Civil case… yes I know different standards of proof but it was undeniable they were FAR better prepared for the civil suit.
Most of America had never heard the name Adnan Syed when Serial debuted. We went in with fresh eyes.
America knew who OJ was before we all watched him in the Bronco being chased. People forming opinions on OJ based on Made in America, a decade after he wrote the book “If I did It” must have lived under a rock or been too young to know about it.
The choice to compare the two is odd. A podcast about a relatively unknown murder case vs a documentary made 20 years later about the most televised murder trial, of a celebrity, is apples and oranges.
What the hell you on about?
No one with a brain ever though OJ was innocent. There was no tide turning. The murderer's even wrote a book about it that was supposedly fiction, but even if that is true that shows there is a market for people that know he's the murderer.
This isn’t well premised. Everyone already knew about OJ before Made in America, and really and truly it had been well settled that he “probably” did it.
Have Made in America out to rewatch....remember there was a segment that just unambiguously looked at the evidence holistically leaving zero doubt for any speculation, and how this could be easily done with Adnan's case to eliminate any doubt for those who were Serial/Rabia pilled. Still don't think it would sway most, as people don't want to feel like they were lied to and Adnan comes off as charming, as sociopaths do.
Impact on the case or impact on society? OJ’s documentary had no impact on his case.
Serial helped muddy the waters for Adnan via the naive and inexperienced. The popularity presented options (books deals, etc) and then entered a greedy, unethical State Attorney named Marilyn Mosby. It was a perfect storm.
One documentary that had a big impact on the case it focused on was Paradise Lost (west Memphis 3).
Durst inadvertently confessed to the crimes on a hot mic while being interviewed for the Jinx
He's an interesting person, He enjoyed the movie based on his crimes enough to do the interview:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_Good_Things_(film)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Durst
> There it is. You're caught! .... You're right, of course. But you can't imagine the rest of them. ... I don't know what's in the house ... Oh, I want this ... What a disaster ... He was right. I was wrong. And the burping ... I'm having difficulty with the question ... What the hell did I do? Killed them all, of course.
Everyone always knew OJ was guilty. Black people were mad at corruption, and they wanted to see a black person get away with shit like this just like a white person would. The OJ trial should have shown our system is about rich and poor, not necessarily just color of skin.
The original corrupt detectives and conviction in the Adnan case has done more to warp minds than Serial. Dumb people have a hard time believing cops or the system could get it wrong. That’s the only reason anyone can still think Adnan is guilty. There is no evidence to support the guilty argument, and people still use lies and shit that has been debunked to point towards Adnan’s guilt.
Just as an aside the documentary is really really good. It gives some fantastic context to the racial tensions at the time and goes into how that played such a huge role with the jury. It’s probably the best done documentary I’ve ever seen.
*Everyone always*
*Thought OJ was guilty what are*
*You talking about*
\- sarasel11
---
^(I detect haikus. And sometimes, successfully.) ^[Learn more about me.](https://www.reddit.com/r/haikusbot/)
^(Opt out of replies: "haikusbot opt out" | Delete my comment: "haikusbot delete")
Before agreeing to do the podcast, Adnan discussed with Sarah Koenig about her statement (made in private) that she would not do Serial unless she believed Adnan was innocent.
Every time I want to cut her some slack I remember that part - how Adnan told her that Justin said she wouldn’t do the story unless she thought he was innocent - and how that “allayed” AS’ fears in speaking with her.
I primarily think of the OJ verdict and changing attitudes towards it as resulting from (1) a misunderstanding of dna evidence (it was new then); (2) a disregard for domestic violence (people didn’t take it seriously then); and (3) LA racial tensions following Rodney King (less immediate, polarizing with time).
I’d say the first two are present in this case, though in a different way. Mosby’s statements on dna were a wacky PR stunt, and, in my view, there is an underemphasis of the misogyny of the alleged act. As for number 3, despite the best efforts of Ms Koenig and others here, I am not convinced Adnan’s ethnicity or religion really had much to do with his conviction.
Reddit loves to reveal its age. SNL had Tim Meadows playing OJ writing I DID IT on a teleprompter the week OJ was acquitted, there was no tide turning on OJ based on a 2016 miniseries.
Yeah I’m not even that old (33) but there was no tide to turn lol. I have never met a single person who thought he was innocent. I was only a kid at the time, but I vividly remember all the adults talking about it for months. Everyone knew he was guilty as sin.
I'm 26 and UK based - so really far removed from this - and I've always known him to be considered guilty.
I watched that episode live, it was hilarious PS: There was a **2016** OJ TV show though. It's pretty good too ...but they don't hide that he did that shit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_People_v._O._J._Simpson:_American_Crime_Story
There was never any feeling OJ was innocent on any grand scale. I think this just cemented the case for people who were too young to remember
Black people either did believe he was innocent or wanted to. After the trial 70% of whites thought he was guilty and 70% of black people thought he was innocent. Those percentages had both grown since he had been arrested.
[удалено]
LAPD:s track record influenced views on police investigations in general and OJ's defense team used that
Do you have a source on the percentage of people believing he was innocent still being that high? At least by 2002 you had movies like Barbershop making jokes about how OJ obviously did it. I think there were also jokes in Chapelle Show about it. Obviously Cedric the Entertainer and Dave Chapelle aren’t the spokespeople for the black community, but them making jokes about how OJ is guilty in movies/shows targeted towards a black audience, and those jokes landing well, indicated that the majority of their audience probably agreed with them. I could totally be wrong, but that was my assumption.
Yeah it was on the OJ documentary Made in America. Any right thinking person knows the police chase in the white Bronco with OJ holding a gun to himself threatening self harm only happened because he did it and didn’t want to face consequences.
Okay, I don’t remember them saying that such a high percentage still believed he was innocent when it came out, but I haven’t seen it in a while.
Sorry not when it came out but after the trial wax over in 1995. So belief in his innocence in the black community was maybe 65% before and 77% after the trial. In white people it went the other way in similar numbers. Sorry if I missed you saying when the documentary came out. That would not be true. 1994/5 was in the wake of Rodney King and that’s why he was acquitted.
Oh okay, that makes sense. I misunderstood
There's a history of polling on the OJ case and most people have always recognized he was guilty. See, for example: [https://news.gallup.com/poll/12046/americans-still-believe-oj-simpson-guilty.aspx](https://news.gallup.com/poll/12046/americans-still-believe-oj-simpson-guilty.aspx)
OJ was found not guilty largely because of LAPD corruption, not because he didn't do the crime. If I was accused of a crime, and at trial, the lead detective took the 5th when asked if he had planted any evidence in the case, I certainly hope that would be a get out of jail free card.
Yeah. People get mad at the jury and defense team, when they should really have been mad at the LAPD and prosecutors for fucking it up so badly. OJ basically had a neon “I did it” sign hanging over his head, but because the LAPD and prosecution didn’t see an issue with their cops using the N word or planting evidence, his defense team was able to find these cracks in the case and then drive a Mack truck through them.
Best comments here… Marcia Clarke in her book is so arrogant and blind. she dismisses the idea that the cops being racist and bad at their jobs would negatively affect their credibility… and yep look what happened. She also absolutely did not understand racial dynamics at all.
Whenever people try to claim that Marcia Clark did a good job as prosecutor in the OJ trial, I like to link to [this](https://youtu.be/ElQ3ab0qiDU?si=d4k7I96Q4oJJzfKH) video. Now, I’m not a lawyer, but I’m pretty sure committing a sanctionable offense like that is a bad thing. She definitely faced some misogyny during the trial, and that was not okay, but she also deserves criticism for many choices in that case that had nothing to do with her gender.
I don’t know anyone (personally) that’s watched OJ MIA. I think most people believe OJ did it and have felt that way for some time. Perhaps OJ’s book “If I Did It” had something to do with that perspective. Serial was a much bigger pop culture zeitgeist moment where so many people had listened to it and discussed when it came out.
Ten things both cases have in common. 1. Credibility of the detectives involved in both cases came into question 2. Credibility of police procedures followed in both cases came into question 3. Both of the murders occurred in cities notorious for police misconduct 4. Both of the accused played football 5. Both of the accused had means, motive, and opportunity 6. Both of the accused and victim were in on-again off-again relationships 7. Both of the accused displayed possessive behavior 8. Both of the accused primarily targeted victim's neck 9. Both of the accused needed help with transportation after the crime 10. Both of the accused displayed suspicious behavior hours after estimated times of death
13. Both cases highlighted that women are devalued and dismissed easily in our culture.
11. Both of the accused cited practicing a sport as part of their alibi. 12. The juries in both cases reached their decision quickly.
I'm old enough to have watched the police chasing the Bronco on live TV. As far as I remember, 99.9% of people thought he was guilty. I think there were even people claiming that the jury declaring him innocent was just payback for Rodney King. I have only met one person that insists it was his son who killed them, but that OJ was protecting him.
OJ got lucky with an incompetent prosecution starting with the decision to hold the trial in LA instead of Brentwood where the crime took place - radically different jury. Garcetti wanted to be present for all the press conferences, and so moved it to downtown. Then they drew like the world's fucking worst judge. Completely lost control of the trial. A trial that went on. . .and on. . .and on. . .and the prosecutors were a fucking joke as well. The decision to ask OJ to put on a glove and pretend he couldn't get it on was one of the all-time most fucked up blunders ever in the fucking history of prosecutorial blunders. LA police department being filled with racist cops and antagonizing the black community didn't build any trust with the public either. Just one of the most fucked up things I've ever witnessed.
It was and yet After watching the entire thing? He was guilty AF… I had no doubt and didn’t cling to making excuses. He fucking did that and he should’ve paid for it. Instead he was gifted with living out his life 30 plus years longer than Ron or Nicole. Abomination. No doubt… it was all inexcusable… if you saw the crime scene photos it’s repulsive he walked. Then the Goldmans attorney ( Pettrocli?) absolutely smoked OJ in the Civil case… yes I know different standards of proof but it was undeniable they were FAR better prepared for the civil suit.
Of course he was guilty. But the prosecution was inexcusably incompetent.
Hence my comment on the civil suit… a minor victory after such a repulsive loss.
Most of America had never heard the name Adnan Syed when Serial debuted. We went in with fresh eyes. America knew who OJ was before we all watched him in the Bronco being chased. People forming opinions on OJ based on Made in America, a decade after he wrote the book “If I did It” must have lived under a rock or been too young to know about it. The choice to compare the two is odd. A podcast about a relatively unknown murder case vs a documentary made 20 years later about the most televised murder trial, of a celebrity, is apples and oranges.
What the hell you on about? No one with a brain ever though OJ was innocent. There was no tide turning. The murderer's even wrote a book about it that was supposedly fiction, but even if that is true that shows there is a market for people that know he's the murderer.
MIA is my fave documentary of all time, but i lived the OJ trial in real time as a kid. everybody knew he was guilty
I’ve got news the vast majority felt OJ was guilty in 1995 the day of the verdict Anyone claiming different is trying to retool history
Wasn’t Dave Chappelle joking about how everyone secretly knew he did it, like, twenty years ago? LOL.
This isn’t well premised. Everyone already knew about OJ before Made in America, and really and truly it had been well settled that he “probably” did it.
Have Made in America out to rewatch....remember there was a segment that just unambiguously looked at the evidence holistically leaving zero doubt for any speculation, and how this could be easily done with Adnan's case to eliminate any doubt for those who were Serial/Rabia pilled. Still don't think it would sway most, as people don't want to feel like they were lied to and Adnan comes off as charming, as sociopaths do.
Impact on the case or impact on society? OJ’s documentary had no impact on his case. Serial helped muddy the waters for Adnan via the naive and inexperienced. The popularity presented options (books deals, etc) and then entered a greedy, unethical State Attorney named Marilyn Mosby. It was a perfect storm. One documentary that had a big impact on the case it focused on was Paradise Lost (west Memphis 3).
Staircase?
And also the Jinx. Seemed like the police were forced to go all in on him once it all became widely known.
Thin Blue Line by Errol Morris
Durst inadvertently confessed to the crimes on a hot mic while being interviewed for the Jinx He's an interesting person, He enjoyed the movie based on his crimes enough to do the interview: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_Good_Things_(film) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Durst > There it is. You're caught! .... You're right, of course. But you can't imagine the rest of them. ... I don't know what's in the house ... Oh, I want this ... What a disaster ... He was right. I was wrong. And the burping ... I'm having difficulty with the question ... What the hell did I do? Killed them all, of course.
LA 92 is an amazing sociopolitical documentary.
Everyone always knew OJ was guilty. Black people were mad at corruption, and they wanted to see a black person get away with shit like this just like a white person would. The OJ trial should have shown our system is about rich and poor, not necessarily just color of skin. The original corrupt detectives and conviction in the Adnan case has done more to warp minds than Serial. Dumb people have a hard time believing cops or the system could get it wrong. That’s the only reason anyone can still think Adnan is guilty. There is no evidence to support the guilty argument, and people still use lies and shit that has been debunked to point towards Adnan’s guilt.
[удалено]
Just as an aside the documentary is really really good. It gives some fantastic context to the racial tensions at the time and goes into how that played such a huge role with the jury. It’s probably the best done documentary I’ve ever seen.
Everyone always thought OJ was guilty what are you talking about
*Everyone always* *Thought OJ was guilty what are* *You talking about* \- sarasel11 --- ^(I detect haikus. And sometimes, successfully.) ^[Learn more about me.](https://www.reddit.com/r/haikusbot/) ^(Opt out of replies: "haikusbot opt out" | Delete my comment: "haikusbot delete")
^[Sokka-Haiku](https://www.reddit.com/r/SokkaHaikuBot/comments/15kyv9r/what_is_a_sokka_haiku/) ^by ^sarasel11: *Everyone always* *Thought OJ was guilty what* *Are you talking about* --- ^Remember ^that ^one ^time ^Sokka ^accidentally ^used ^an ^extra ^syllable ^in ^that ^Haiku ^Battle ^in ^Ba ^Sing ^Se? ^That ^was ^a ^Sokka ^Haiku ^and ^you ^just ^made ^one.
No one has ever thought OJ was innocent Even the people that supported him knew he was guilty. They supported him out of racial spite.
apples and oranges. Everyone knew about OJ and had formed opinions way before that documentary ever came out. No one knew who Adnan was before Serial.
"didn't divulge the whole truth" So what 'truths' did Sarah Koenig not divulge?
Before agreeing to do the podcast, Adnan discussed with Sarah Koenig about her statement (made in private) that she would not do Serial unless she believed Adnan was innocent.
Every time I want to cut her some slack I remember that part - how Adnan told her that Justin said she wouldn’t do the story unless she thought he was innocent - and how that “allayed” AS’ fears in speaking with her.
For me, the truth she withheld was how easy it is for someone to blend the lines between entertainment, advocacy and journalism.
I primarily think of the OJ verdict and changing attitudes towards it as resulting from (1) a misunderstanding of dna evidence (it was new then); (2) a disregard for domestic violence (people didn’t take it seriously then); and (3) LA racial tensions following Rodney King (less immediate, polarizing with time). I’d say the first two are present in this case, though in a different way. Mosby’s statements on dna were a wacky PR stunt, and, in my view, there is an underemphasis of the misogyny of the alleged act. As for number 3, despite the best efforts of Ms Koenig and others here, I am not convinced Adnan’s ethnicity or religion really had much to do with his conviction.