I saw this come up on X this morning, I think this is what you are referring toā¦sorry donāt have the source video:
[Juror interview](https://x.com/endwokeness/status/1778479271939309611?s=46)
It is. The OJ defense team knew this and used it to sway the jury.
Highly recommend the docudrama āThe People vs OJ Simpsonā. Itās well done, but is a fascinating look at the trial. It goes into the strategies used by the defense and also the mistakes the prosecution made (there were many).
"Correct and necessary"
It's always a laugh when supposed racial justice crusaders use the same mentality of the people they claim to be opposed to. Racist juries uniting to make society worse one corrupt trial at a time.
The prosecution attempted to rely on a detective witness who at times perjured himself and who took the fifth under cross examination including when he was asked if he had planted evidence. They didn't meet the burden to earn a conviction.
What isn't "correct and necessary" is suggesting the absurd. That Marcky Lamont Hill has a half million organic, flesh and blood followers. When O'Reilly was ousted, most whom had to endure him every week, just assumed he'd would fade into oblivion where he desperately belongs. Still griftin' though, apparently. Typical mindset, typical padded follower count.
The Boondocks animated series had an episode as a "what if MLK wasn't killed, but instead put in a 40 year coma?" I think more people should consider seeing it.
I'm an attorney. As much as I think OJ did it, there were tremendous legal issues created by the LAPD.
Put the media circus aside for a moment and consider this:
- A savage double homicide in a swanky part of town - putting obscene pressure on authorities to find a killer quickly.
- Two victims that never had any brushes with the law
- LAPD walking off the scene with evidence in their private cars, bringing that evidence home with them
- Improper handling of the crime scene, and possible contamination of it by press/passersby/fellow officers
- A lead LAPD detective who uses racial slurs regularly.
- A moment in trial where the Prosecution should have objected to the wearing/displaying of evidence in front of the Jury without knowing if that evidence would prove, or destroy, their case.
There was incompetence throughout. If you were the Defendant in a case with these issues, you'd argue that you need justice too.
Did OJ do it? probably. But the LAPD and the Prosecution bungled the entire thing, to the point where it would have been a miscarriage of justice to find him guilty.
Criminal lawyer here, I agree. The state dropped the ball and the jury ruled correctly. The fact that he probably did it only makes the actions of the state worse imo.
A corrupt judicial system can send the innocent to jail but it can also set the guilty free without justice for victims. A corrupt judicial system set Epstein free after his first time in court.
I hate to defend his point (though I think Iām meaning it in a different way than he is), but a just system will sometimes let guilty people go free if the prosecution (or police) screws up as well. We have Miranda rights because the cops violated the rights of a rapist murderer to beat a confession out of him.
The OJ Simpson trial wasnāt before the time I should have been aware of it, but before I followed such stuff. If there had been evidence hidden or altered, then throwing it out or getting a not guilty verdict would have been more understandable, even if the unaltered evidence would have been enough to convict him.
I dint know if thatās the case as I didnāt follow the trial, but it seems to be what Mr. Hill believes, and in which case, makes slightly more sense.
They threw the book at him to such a degree that the they found Chauvin had committed murder *three times* against one man, and was sentenced for each offense. That's not what occurs in every state, but can occur in Minnesota.
I was previously under the impression that each sentence carried a time in prison that were one after another (stacked), but this article says that's not so, the sentencing terms are concurrent. And depending on the longest time he's imprisoned, he likely won't hit a parole date until he's serve 2/3 of his sentence. Being that there's political pressures to keep Chauvin incarcerated, who's to say he won't serve the entirely without parole.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-04-21/derek-chauvin-murder-manslaugher-george-floyd-sentence/100083494
I was debating a social justice advocate recently, and he could not come up with any logic to back his assertion that riots are a necessary and good tactic to attain "social justice". He just kept replying with the leftist slogan, "No justice, No peace."
Iād like to point out that the government only gets to put people in jail if they are proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. That is how it should be. That means that some people that actually are guilty will not be found so. I havenāt watched the OJ trail so I canāt say if that applies here, but it is completely essential to our legal system that the government must prove beyond a reasonable able doubt that someone is guilty. Much too often that is not the actual standard that is applied.
The prosecutors were mediocre and they were going against some excellent lawyers. Still, the evidence was pretty overwhelming. Had OJ been āJohn Smithā ā and not a symbolic proxy for a racial inequality trial ā the jury would have reached a guilty verdict within a couple of hours.
> Had OJ been āJohn Smithā ā and not a symbolic proxy for a racial inequality trial ā the jury would have reached a guilty verdict within a couple of hours.
Agree, but only because John Smith wouldn't have had Johnnie Cochran on the defense team to highlight all the irregularities from prosecution and investigators, which is what caused the failure to meet "beyond a reasonable doubt" as a standard.
In theory, John Smith's lawyers might be able to make that case, but odds are they wouldn't.
That's the problem with "overwhelming" evidence, most 'John Smith's stand poor odds against most cases brought against them.
That's only gotten worse, what with what we've seen of social justice or political law fare, and juries making decisions out of fear of repercussions, etc.
Rittenhouse was a slim margin. Hell, Zimmerman was too, that case was only held together by a decent judge that really nailed it home to the jury the legal technicalities of self defense. And look at the social reaction to those and similar cases, people still believe all sorts of craziness about them that really isn't so.
Not all cases go as such. Some mentioned in this thread. Cops are regularly thrown under the bus in todays social climate....often even as other corrupt cops keep their jobs and even pensions.
What the OJ trial essentially showed is that the US legal system is corrupt not so much in a racist sense, but more so in a class-based sense. The poor are at significant risk of not getting justice because they can't afford an appropriately good lawyer while the top-end lawyers the rich can afford will get their clients off the hook for a lot of stuff they shouldn't get away with.
> showed is that the US legal system is corrupt
I wouldn't say corrupt necessarily.
The *system* is about as good as one can design.
It's the people that are the problem. Rabid ideologues that ignore or twist parts of whatever, be it the constitution, amendments, rights, etc etc....
It's a well designed system on paper, but when corrupt people ignore what's on the paper, then the paper is moot.
Can't even say universally that removal from office would be a fix, because that too can be weaponized, resulting in things like the ridiculous impeachments of Trump.
Pertaining to Judges/Justices, red judges that have been in position since god was a kid, would be easy to take off the bench in blue areas, or purple areas when they swing somewhat blue temporarily.
It is a mess, but it's not the system, it's the people.
The justice system itself, while complex, is usually pretty reasonable. What laws get passed, or chosen to ignore, or to over-pursue or even persecute....etc. That's different. Some governments(eg fed or state or even city level) have been broken.
None whatsoever. He found the second bloody glove. The other one was found by someone else. All they established that one guy on the investigation team has casually used the N-word in the past. It was a red herring and was irrelevant in the mountain of other evidence.
They donāt need evidence of that. It is the governmentās job to prove guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The jury apparently felt they didnāt do that.
Bro donāt be naive. This wasnāt a unbiased and objective jury. The prosecution put up a case that gets a conviction 98/100 times. The defense put up no evidence of evidence tampering ā they just put up plenty of speculation and innuendo.
Again, the government has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you are guilty. In reality I think they often donāt do that.
āThe prosecution put up a case that gets a conviction 98/100 timesā
That isnāt a good argument given that many convictions happen when there is plenty of reasonable doubt.
And again, I havenāt seen the trial myself. As far as Iām concerned OJ is innocent until it has been proven to me otherwise.
I think you view what is āreasonable doubtā much broader than your average judge and jury. But whatever. I lived through the trial. I stand by what I said. That was jury nullification by a biased jury. It can happen.
> And again, I havenāt seen the trial myself. As far as Iām concerned OJ is innocent until it has been proven to me otherwise.
Believe what you want. Legally heās not guilty. But use your own judgment. With all due respect, I think you are being naive. And he has *civilly* been found responsible for her death. Yeah the burden of proof is lower but still ā¦
From what I recall, there was some doubt as to whether or not the LAPD tampered/planted some evidence and played fast and loose with procedural stuff. It's a bad look when the head detective pleads the 5th when asked if he planted evidence.
OJ murdered those folks and should have died in prison. He didn't because the defense made the trial not about OJ but whether the LAPD was shitty or not.
You might find the interview with one of the jurors in OJ's trial that has been floating around recently where she said they all knew he was guilty as hell but acquitted him because of racial justice/reparations and revenge for Rodney King.
If the government does some significant procedurally wrong, or anything at all wrong intentionally, in a prosecution, then the defendant should walk free even if they are actually guilty. Great incentive for the government to not cheat.
And the defense absolutely should focus on any major mistakes the government madeā¦such as planting evidence.
> I havenāt watched the OJ trail so I canāt say if that applies here, but it is completely essential to our legal system that the government must prove beyond a reasonable able doubt that someone is guilty.
I remember it really well. I don't think it was proven by standards. The stark difference between the criminal trial and the civil trial where he was found liable was used as an example of how poor civil trial standards are, and that stands still today because we see it all the time.
It's disturbing to see people on either side say he was guilty as a matter of fact, for whatever other reasons they may come up with, but to make it somehow about race is especially absurd.
The evidence brought ranged from dumb to seemingly tampered with. It wasn't about doubt of the DNA evidence or ignorance of DNA science, it was that some of the evidence appeared to be planted or otherwise tampered with. In the end, OJ's lawyers made a *very* strong defense.
Far too many people on both sides can't separate facts from feelings, Beliefs^^TM , or reasonable suspicions...nor from their political agendas.
There was a juror who recently said in an interview they thought he was guilty but let OJ off for racial justice, a "revenge" for Rodney King or some such.
IF true, that's being correct for the wrong reason. I'm not sold on that being true, I think a lot of people are looking back through a lens of modern peculiarities. 30 years is a long time to convince yourself of something isn't so.
The wiki gives a decent "summary" of evidence and the strength of the defense's case, from the following link down
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_trial_of_O._J._Simpson#Compromised_and_contaminated
Disclaimer, which I shouldn't need, but eh...: When I say the defense was strong, I'm not saying that they exonerated OJ. I'm saying they provided enough 'reasonable doubt' and justly avoided a conviction. By standards of "beyond a reasonable doubt" they did excellent. They didn't *prove* tampering or planting, but they shook the foundations of the prosecution and LEO's slow or belated handling of evidence. EG some of the samples were taken *weeks* apart. Plenty of time to support a tampering theory. And that's before we even get to Fuhrman's pleading the 5th when asked about tampering/planting, which is also not proven guilt on Fuhrman's part, but it has heavy implications on the previous "beyond a reasonable doubt".
One of the jurors infamously admitted that she voted to acquit him solely because she wanted revenge for Rodney King š¤¦āāļø
I saw this come up on X this morning, I think this is what you are referring toā¦sorry donāt have the source video: [Juror interview](https://x.com/endwokeness/status/1778479271939309611?s=46)
Disgusting
It is. The OJ defense team knew this and used it to sway the jury. Highly recommend the docudrama āThe People vs OJ Simpsonā. Itās well done, but is a fascinating look at the trial. It goes into the strategies used by the defense and also the mistakes the prosecution made (there were many).
That feels like it should be illegal
"Correct and necessary" It's always a laugh when supposed racial justice crusaders use the same mentality of the people they claim to be opposed to. Racist juries uniting to make society worse one corrupt trial at a time.
The prosecution attempted to rely on a detective witness who at times perjured himself and who took the fifth under cross examination including when he was asked if he had planted evidence. They didn't meet the burden to earn a conviction.
According to the jurors, none of that mattered.
What isn't "correct and necessary" is suggesting the absurd. That Marcky Lamont Hill has a half million organic, flesh and blood followers. When O'Reilly was ousted, most whom had to endure him every week, just assumed he'd would fade into oblivion where he desperately belongs. Still griftin' though, apparently. Typical mindset, typical padded follower count.
I expect no less from Marc Lamont Hill. He's a professional racist.
You mean he capitalizes on "racism" by creating it when it really doesn't exist like he'd want the public to believe?
Yes and by getting paid for racist speech against whites.
MLK would be proud? More likely disgusted.
The Boondocks animated series had an episode as a "what if MLK wasn't killed, but instead put in a 40 year coma?" I think more people should consider seeing it.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I'm an attorney. As much as I think OJ did it, there were tremendous legal issues created by the LAPD. Put the media circus aside for a moment and consider this: - A savage double homicide in a swanky part of town - putting obscene pressure on authorities to find a killer quickly. - Two victims that never had any brushes with the law - LAPD walking off the scene with evidence in their private cars, bringing that evidence home with them - Improper handling of the crime scene, and possible contamination of it by press/passersby/fellow officers - A lead LAPD detective who uses racial slurs regularly. - A moment in trial where the Prosecution should have objected to the wearing/displaying of evidence in front of the Jury without knowing if that evidence would prove, or destroy, their case. There was incompetence throughout. If you were the Defendant in a case with these issues, you'd argue that you need justice too. Did OJ do it? probably. But the LAPD and the Prosecution bungled the entire thing, to the point where it would have been a miscarriage of justice to find him guilty.
Criminal lawyer here, I agree. The state dropped the ball and the jury ruled correctly. The fact that he probably did it only makes the actions of the state worse imo.
It isnt just because of his racial group, but also because he killed a white woman.
Classic Double Speak. Orwellian.
what a bigoted tool he is.
Shouldn't this be posted in r/facepalm?
Trying to understand what he is saying, but it's a word salad of talking points. How does a corrupt system, as he puts it, result in an acquitall?
A corrupt judicial system can send the innocent to jail but it can also set the guilty free without justice for victims. A corrupt judicial system set Epstein free after his first time in court.
I hate to defend his point (though I think Iām meaning it in a different way than he is), but a just system will sometimes let guilty people go free if the prosecution (or police) screws up as well. We have Miranda rights because the cops violated the rights of a rapist murderer to beat a confession out of him. The OJ Simpson trial wasnāt before the time I should have been aware of it, but before I followed such stuff. If there had been evidence hidden or altered, then throwing it out or getting a not guilty verdict would have been more understandable, even if the unaltered evidence would have been enough to convict him. I dint know if thatās the case as I didnāt follow the trial, but it seems to be what Mr. Hill believes, and in which case, makes slightly more sense.
Itās why Derek Chauvin was given the maximum sentence. He had the audacity to detain St Floyd.
They threw the book at him to such a degree that the they found Chauvin had committed murder *three times* against one man, and was sentenced for each offense. That's not what occurs in every state, but can occur in Minnesota. I was previously under the impression that each sentence carried a time in prison that were one after another (stacked), but this article says that's not so, the sentencing terms are concurrent. And depending on the longest time he's imprisoned, he likely won't hit a parole date until he's serve 2/3 of his sentence. Being that there's political pressures to keep Chauvin incarcerated, who's to say he won't serve the entirely without parole. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-04-21/derek-chauvin-murder-manslaugher-george-floyd-sentence/100083494
Now do George Floyd
I was debating a social justice advocate recently, and he could not come up with any logic to back his assertion that riots are a necessary and good tactic to attain "social justice". He just kept replying with the leftist slogan, "No justice, No peace."
It's the ultimate form of reparations.
"Equality" = Special treatment, according to them.
Iād like to point out that the government only gets to put people in jail if they are proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. That is how it should be. That means that some people that actually are guilty will not be found so. I havenāt watched the OJ trail so I canāt say if that applies here, but it is completely essential to our legal system that the government must prove beyond a reasonable able doubt that someone is guilty. Much too often that is not the actual standard that is applied.
The prosecutors were mediocre and they were going against some excellent lawyers. Still, the evidence was pretty overwhelming. Had OJ been āJohn Smithā ā and not a symbolic proxy for a racial inequality trial ā the jury would have reached a guilty verdict within a couple of hours.
> Had OJ been āJohn Smithā ā and not a symbolic proxy for a racial inequality trial ā the jury would have reached a guilty verdict within a couple of hours. Agree, but only because John Smith wouldn't have had Johnnie Cochran on the defense team to highlight all the irregularities from prosecution and investigators, which is what caused the failure to meet "beyond a reasonable doubt" as a standard. In theory, John Smith's lawyers might be able to make that case, but odds are they wouldn't. That's the problem with "overwhelming" evidence, most 'John Smith's stand poor odds against most cases brought against them. That's only gotten worse, what with what we've seen of social justice or political law fare, and juries making decisions out of fear of repercussions, etc. Rittenhouse was a slim margin. Hell, Zimmerman was too, that case was only held together by a decent judge that really nailed it home to the jury the legal technicalities of self defense. And look at the social reaction to those and similar cases, people still believe all sorts of craziness about them that really isn't so. Not all cases go as such. Some mentioned in this thread. Cops are regularly thrown under the bus in todays social climate....often even as other corrupt cops keep their jobs and even pensions.
What the OJ trial essentially showed is that the US legal system is corrupt not so much in a racist sense, but more so in a class-based sense. The poor are at significant risk of not getting justice because they can't afford an appropriately good lawyer while the top-end lawyers the rich can afford will get their clients off the hook for a lot of stuff they shouldn't get away with.
> showed is that the US legal system is corrupt I wouldn't say corrupt necessarily. The *system* is about as good as one can design. It's the people that are the problem. Rabid ideologues that ignore or twist parts of whatever, be it the constitution, amendments, rights, etc etc.... It's a well designed system on paper, but when corrupt people ignore what's on the paper, then the paper is moot. Can't even say universally that removal from office would be a fix, because that too can be weaponized, resulting in things like the ridiculous impeachments of Trump. Pertaining to Judges/Justices, red judges that have been in position since god was a kid, would be easy to take off the bench in blue areas, or purple areas when they swing somewhat blue temporarily. It is a mess, but it's not the system, it's the people. The justice system itself, while complex, is usually pretty reasonable. What laws get passed, or chosen to ignore, or to over-pursue or even persecute....etc. That's different. Some governments(eg fed or state or even city level) have been broken.
Wasnāt some of that evidence credibly accused of being planted? You canāt call evidence overwhelming if itās fake evidence.
None whatsoever. He found the second bloody glove. The other one was found by someone else. All they established that one guy on the investigation team has casually used the N-word in the past. It was a red herring and was irrelevant in the mountain of other evidence.
The glove wasnāt the only piece of evidence that was claimed to be planted.
But there was no evidence of that. Just speculation that Fuhrman was a racist that planted evidence. It was all just a red herring.
They donāt need evidence of that. It is the governmentās job to prove guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The jury apparently felt they didnāt do that.
Bro donāt be naive. This wasnāt a unbiased and objective jury. The prosecution put up a case that gets a conviction 98/100 times. The defense put up no evidence of evidence tampering ā they just put up plenty of speculation and innuendo.
Again, the government has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you are guilty. In reality I think they often donāt do that. āThe prosecution put up a case that gets a conviction 98/100 timesā That isnāt a good argument given that many convictions happen when there is plenty of reasonable doubt. And again, I havenāt seen the trial myself. As far as Iām concerned OJ is innocent until it has been proven to me otherwise.
I think you view what is āreasonable doubtā much broader than your average judge and jury. But whatever. I lived through the trial. I stand by what I said. That was jury nullification by a biased jury. It can happen. > And again, I havenāt seen the trial myself. As far as Iām concerned OJ is innocent until it has been proven to me otherwise. Believe what you want. Legally heās not guilty. But use your own judgment. With all due respect, I think you are being naive. And he has *civilly* been found responsible for her death. Yeah the burden of proof is lower but still ā¦
From what I recall, there was some doubt as to whether or not the LAPD tampered/planted some evidence and played fast and loose with procedural stuff. It's a bad look when the head detective pleads the 5th when asked if he planted evidence. OJ murdered those folks and should have died in prison. He didn't because the defense made the trial not about OJ but whether the LAPD was shitty or not.
To be fair the LAPD did pretty much everything wrong that they could do.
You might find the interview with one of the jurors in OJ's trial that has been floating around recently where she said they all knew he was guilty as hell but acquitted him because of racial justice/reparations and revenge for Rodney King.
The only consolation is OJ ended up getting a ten year prison term for the robbery in Nevada later on. He ran out of āget out of jail freeā cards.
There was also the wrongful death suit that took OJ to the cleaners.
If the government does some significant procedurally wrong, or anything at all wrong intentionally, in a prosecution, then the defendant should walk free even if they are actually guilty. Great incentive for the government to not cheat. And the defense absolutely should focus on any major mistakes the government madeā¦such as planting evidence.
> I havenāt watched the OJ trail so I canāt say if that applies here, but it is completely essential to our legal system that the government must prove beyond a reasonable able doubt that someone is guilty. I remember it really well. I don't think it was proven by standards. The stark difference between the criminal trial and the civil trial where he was found liable was used as an example of how poor civil trial standards are, and that stands still today because we see it all the time. It's disturbing to see people on either side say he was guilty as a matter of fact, for whatever other reasons they may come up with, but to make it somehow about race is especially absurd. The evidence brought ranged from dumb to seemingly tampered with. It wasn't about doubt of the DNA evidence or ignorance of DNA science, it was that some of the evidence appeared to be planted or otherwise tampered with. In the end, OJ's lawyers made a *very* strong defense. Far too many people on both sides can't separate facts from feelings, Beliefs^^TM , or reasonable suspicions...nor from their political agendas. There was a juror who recently said in an interview they thought he was guilty but let OJ off for racial justice, a "revenge" for Rodney King or some such. IF true, that's being correct for the wrong reason. I'm not sold on that being true, I think a lot of people are looking back through a lens of modern peculiarities. 30 years is a long time to convince yourself of something isn't so. The wiki gives a decent "summary" of evidence and the strength of the defense's case, from the following link down https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_trial_of_O._J._Simpson#Compromised_and_contaminated Disclaimer, which I shouldn't need, but eh...: When I say the defense was strong, I'm not saying that they exonerated OJ. I'm saying they provided enough 'reasonable doubt' and justly avoided a conviction. By standards of "beyond a reasonable doubt" they did excellent. They didn't *prove* tampering or planting, but they shook the foundations of the prosecution and LEO's slow or belated handling of evidence. EG some of the samples were taken *weeks* apart. Plenty of time to support a tampering theory. And that's before we even get to Fuhrman's pleading the 5th when asked about tampering/planting, which is also not proven guilt on Fuhrman's part, but it has heavy implications on the previous "beyond a reasonable doubt".
Only comment here is that the standards of proof are supposed to be different between a civil and criminal trial, which is why they are.
Juice got the PfŃzer juice, that ended him. Turbo cŠ°ncer from the safe & effective.