Ten Years Later: Was O.J. Guilty?

[TLK]

I realize there was an ealier thread about this.... but without poll..... I'm interested to see how this turns out....

O.J. SIMPSON TEN YEARS LATER: NBC's Katie Couric and Fox's Greta Van Susteren duke it out.

O.J. Simpson

(Jun. 4, 2004) *O.J. hits the limelight again with media wanting in on his personal life after a decade of silence and an array of Tyson-like incidents.


It's been ten years since O.J. was acquitted of the double murder of his wife Nicole and her lover Ron Goldman, yet O.J. Simpson is sure to hit the sensation button with a remark about being angry at his slain ex-wife. In addition, he talks of hopes of starring in a new TV reality show.

"There are times I am angry at her," the former football star said in an interview set to air next week with Fox News Channel's Greta Van Susteren. Susteren covered Simpson's 1994-95 trial.

Excerpts of the interview, conducted in a Florida hotel and set to air next Monday on Fox News' "On the Record with Greta Van Susteren," were released by the cable channel on Thursday.

"There are things that she could be doing with the kids better than I, you know? When, it's emotional stuff, especially with my daughter, I am angry with her," Simpson said of his former wife. "I am angry that she found herself hanging out with the group of -- who are these people?"

Since the families of the murder victims were awarded $33.5 million in damages in 1997, Simpson and his children have retreated into seclusion, living near Miami on a $4 million pension that is exempt from civil court judgments.

Van Susteren asked Simpson about reports of his involvement in an upcoming reality show, and he said, "it's a takeoff on something called 'Punk'd,"' the MTV hidden-camera show featuring Ashton Kutcher pranks on celebrities. "It's me doing gags as Juice ... what they call 'juicing' people."

He also expressed sympathy for Michael Jackson and basketball star Kobe Bryant -- saying he considers both innocent until proven guilty. Although Van Susteren was the first to land a Simpson interview for the 10th anniversary of the murder case, NBC expects to beat Fox News to the punch with a special "Dateline NBC" edition on Friday featuring its own Simpson interview with Katie Couric that will be taped earlier in the day.

[Suicane75]

Van Susteren asked Simpson about reports of his involvement in an upcoming reality show, and he said, "it's a takeoff on something called 'Punk'd,"' the MTV hidden-camera show featuring Ashton Kutcher pranks on celebrities. "It's me doing gags as Juice ... what they call 'juicing' people."


Holy crap does he have balls.

[MrBug708]

I remember when the verdict was in, that last day of the trial, all we did in school was at the TV

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by Suicane75

Van Susteren asked Simpson about reports of his involvement in an upcoming reality show, and he said, "it's a takeoff on something called 'Punk'd,"' the MTV hidden-camera show featuring Ashton Kutcher pranks on celebrities. "It's me doing gags as Juice ... what they call 'juicing' people."

In the final episode of the season, he shows up at his ex-wife's house and juice's her and her friend...oh that's right, he already did that 10 years ago.

[TLK]

if the glove don’t fit, you must acquit

[stevew]

This needed to be a public poll.

[TLK]

I voted "no"... so that's why it isn't a public poll...... hopefully everybody else who votes "no" has the balls to step-up.....

[sterlingice]

I prefer the guilty, not guilty, innocent polls that were around at the time.

SI

[Suicane75]

Originally Posted by TheLionKing

I voted "no"... so that's why it isn't a public poll...... hopefully everybody else who votes "no" has the balls to step-up.....

You can't honestly believe he's innocent can you?

[TLK]

It depends how guilty is defined......

[Blade6119]

Originally Posted by Suicane75

Van Susteren asked Simpson about reports of his involvement in an upcoming reality show, and he said, "it's a takeoff on something called 'Punk'd,"' the MTV hidden-camera show featuring Ashton Kutcher pranks on celebrities. "It's me doing gags as Juice ... what they call 'juicing' people."


Holy crap does he have balls.

I can only imagine him jumping out at and then chasing down celebs while holding a knife..and after pulling them down and acting like hes going to kill them and saying something like:"I got off once, i can do it again," then be all:"oh, im just playing, you just got JUICED!"

[TLK]

I will say....

The funniest SNL skit I can remember is.... what's-his-name (Tim Meadows???) portraying O.J. and diagramming a football play spelling out "i did it", while only wearing one glove....

[stevew]

Originally Posted by TheLionKing

I will say....

The funniest SNL skit I can remember is.... what's-his-name (Tim Meadows???) portraying O.J. and diagramming a football play spelling out "i did it", while only wearing one glove....

Tim Meadows was funny as hell when he did OJ.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by TheLionKing

I will say....

The funniest SNL skit I can remember is.... what's-his-name (Tim Meadows???) portraying O.J. and diagramming a football play spelling out "i did it", while only wearing one glove....

I remember that sketch. Pure comedy gold. Too bad SNL hasn't been funny like that for nearly 10 years.

SI

[TLK]

an FYI- that sketch is on the SNL 25 year DVD in clipped form.... but still enjoyable

[sabotai]

Another good one was Tim Meadows playing OJ with reporters outside his house with a shovel and money sticking to it. "Show me the money, show me the money." Those sketches were awesome.

[tucker342]

of course he was guilty

[Jon]

Originally Posted by Suicane75

You can't honestly believe he's innocent can you?

Voting "no" to a question of "Was OJ guilty" doesn't mean you think he's innocent. WE don't have that as an option in our criminal justice system.

[ice4277]

Originally Posted by Suicane75

Van Susteren asked Simpson about reports of his involvement in an upcoming reality show, and he said, "it's a takeoff on something called 'Punk'd,"' the MTV hidden-camera show featuring Ashton Kutcher pranks on celebrities. "It's me doing gags as Juice ... what they call 'juicing' people."


Holy crap does he have balls.

For some reason, the thought of this show makes me sick to my stomach.

[Noop]

No.

[Fritz]

I don't much care

[Ksyrup]

Admittedly, the passing of time and my lack of attention to detail back when the trial was going on probably renders this conclusion impossible, but I've always thought that if he didn't do it, the only possible explanation was that his son did it. He would have had a similar blood type, he could have been the shadow someone saw on the front lawn, the way he ran up to the Bronco when OJ pulled into the driveway after the chase, the fact that no one ever focused on him, since it appeared so obvious who did it...I've always had that in the back of my mind.

Maybe I've seen one too many TV movies, though.

[TroyF]

I think he did it, thus my guilty vote, but I think the prosecution screwed up the case, so if I were in the jury box I'd have voted not guilty.

[Ksyrup]

I don't think the prosecution necessarily screwed up the case, I think the police knew he was guilty, went out of their way to make sure he was found guilty, likely planted some evidence, and thus got what they deserved. That, and some questionable prosecution moves, makes it easy, in hindsight, to see why he was found not guilty.

[spleen1015]

I voted no because I honestly don't know if he did it or not.

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by stevew

Tim Meadows was funny as hell when he did OJ.

What made that sketch so great was that you had the double whammy. On the one hand, the sketch itself was hilarous. On the other hand, you had the unintentional comedy gold that comes with "the guy on SNL who has to play a celebrity he looks nothing like because he happens to be the only black guy on the cast".

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

I don't think the prosecution necessarily screwed up the case, I think the police knew he was guilty, went out of their way to make sure he was found guilty, likely planted some evidence, and thus got what they deserved. That, and some questionable prosecution moves, makes it easy, in hindsight, to see why he was found not guilty.

Outrage
by Vincent Bugliosi

Publisher: Island Books; Reprint edition (April 1997)
ISBN: 0440223822

Read this and tell me your opinion of the prosecution doesn't do a 180. They screwed it up badly.

They NEVER EVEN interviewed the defense witnesses before the trial.

Wonder why they'd ask questions, get an answer then run back to the table looking puzzled?? They had no idea what the answers to the questions they asked were. Basic legal mistake.

That's just the tip of the iceberg but this one puzzled me at the time. The book cleared it up.

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

What made that sketch so great was that you had the double whammy. On the one hand, the sketch itself was hilarous. On the other hand, you had the unintentional comedy gold that comes with "the guy on SNL who has to play a celebrity he looks nothing like because he happens to be the only black guy on the cast".

I like the one where he's Al and says "You know who I am dammit!"

[Young Drachma]

Greta Van Susteren can thank he TV career to OJ. If it weren't for that trial, she'd be somewhere doing whatever the hell she was doing before she made it on the little screen.

As for whether he did it or not - after all, he was found not guilty - I don't know if we understand all of what happened. With all the botched evidence and essentially every media outlet in America stacked against him, its really hard to know what really was true and what was tweaked to make him look more "guilty" than he was.

At the end of the day, he has the stain of being "guilty by America" meaning he is shamed forever and the guy has himself to blame for that largely. But its been long documented that he's got some serious issues with himself and his perception in the media.

[tongue-in-cheek] The moral of the story is, don't trust "the man".[/tongue-in-cheek]

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Jon

Voting "no" to a question of "Was OJ guilty" doesn't mean you think he's innocent. WE don't have that as an option in our criminal justice system.

OK allow me to rephrase....
You don't for a second think he should have been acquitted, do you?

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Admittedly, the passing of time and my lack of attention to detail back when the trial was going on probably renders this conclusion impossible, but I've always thought that if he didn't do it, the only possible explanation was that his son did it. He would have had a similar blood type, he could have been the shadow someone saw on the front lawn, the way he ran up to the Bronco when OJ pulled into the driveway after the chase, the fact that no one ever focused on him, since it appeared so obvious who did it...I've always had that in the back of my mind.

Maybe I've seen one too many TV movies, though.

Yes his son would have had a similar blood type, but NOT THE SAME FREAKING DNA!!

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Axxon

Outrage
by Vincent Bugliosi

Publisher: Island Books; Reprint edition (April 1997)
ISBN: 0440223822

Read this and tell me your opinion of the prosecution doesn't do a 180. They screwed it up badly.

They NEVER EVEN interviewed the defense witnesses before the trial.

Wonder why they'd ask questions, get an answer then run back to the table looking puzzled?? They had no idea what the answers to the questions they asked were. Basic legal mistake.

That's just the tip of the iceberg but this one puzzled me at the time. The book cleared it up.

While I haven't read this book, this is something I wholeheartedly agree with. I think the most capable person involved in the case was probably Mark Furman. The prosecution should have been disbarred. I felt the similarly about the original Rodney King trial. I read the summary of evidence after the prosecution finished their case in the L.A Times. It was at least a two full page article. When I finished I said to myself..."there is NO way these guys are going to go down for this".

[Bee]

Surprisingly, the passage of 10 years really doesn't change the fact that I think OJ did it.

[Dutch]

I remember the one about his web site proclaiming his innocents. You had to go to....

{backslash}{backslash}

{control}{backslash}

{backspace}{return}{backslash}

{backspace}{shift}{return}{backslash}{backslash}

{escape}

....but the "i did it" was the best.

[Ksyrup]

Having worked for the government as an attorney, I can tell you that, despite the defense's claims to the contrary, they have infinitely more time and money to spend on cases than the government and their attorneys do. I was involved in a huge, high-profile matter a few years back, and it's amazing how much crap got thrown at us from all angles, and how little we were able to do to respond. Even little things like professionally-made exhibits and such was a luxury for us, and travelling to do depos, etc., was expensive and had to be prioritized.

Mix in a high profile matter, where a bunch of great attorneys are working for the defense (usually for next to nothing, since all they want is their name out there), and it doesn't surprise me that the defense can make even a good set of government attorneys (not saying Clark and Durden were good) look unprepared and incompetent.

[Lucky Jim]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

Yes his son would have had a similar blood type, but NOT THE SAME FREAKING DNA!!

Ah see now maybe you haven't see enough TV movies. OJ's son could be a genetically engineered clone!

I can't believe the "juicing" show, although I wet myself at the idea, is real. Who's gonna air this?

[Noop]

When they convict the killers of Emmit Till(I think I spelled it wrong but whatever) Then you can have O.J. for those who want to see him in jail.

[Vegas Vic]

I still think that he most likely did it, but here are some excerpts from an article that cast a bit of doubt in my mind:

··· If the crime scene had been the horrific bloodbath described by media reports, why was it that such small amounts of blood were found in Simpson's Bronco?

·· ·If he had made his getaway from Nicole's condo and driven directly home to make certain he caught a scheduled late-night flight to Chicago, didn't it stand to reason that there would have been blood on the vehicle's gas pedal, brake or steering wheel?

·· ·Why, in the wall-to-wall beige carpeting inside Simpson's home, was there no blood left by a man who, just minutes earlier, had stabbed and killed two people?

·· ·In a limited time frame, how had he disposed of bloody clothing? And, assuming he'd done so, why would he have overlooked the pair of socks later found in his bedroom with a single droplet of blood on them? And what of the murder weapon?

·· ·Why, after what authorities assumed was a violent struggle with victim Goldman, did Simpson have no bruises or scratches except for a small cut on the knuckle of one finger? And if the finger had, in fact, been injured during the murders, why was it that there was no cut on either of the gloves Simpson was supposed to have worn?

·· ·Then, the most troubling question of all: If Simpson was wrongly accused, who else might have committed the horrific crimes?

Here's the link to the entire article: Link

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

Yes his son would have had a similar blood type, but NOT THE SAME FREAKING DNA!!

Don't relatives have common DNA? Not an exact match, but something linking them, right?

I'm sure they ruled him out early on, like I said it's just one of those TV movie-type plot twists that has always been in the back of my mind.

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

I'm sure they ruled him out early on, like I said it's just one of those TV movie-type plot twists that has always been in the back of my mind.

Check out the link in my prior post.

Jason was never fingerprinted, and it turns out that he has a violent history of mental problems.

That is but one of many things Dear found troubling as his investigation progressed. Why was it, he asks, that unidentified fingerprints discovered in Nicole's condo were compared to 15 others, yet there was never any attempt to match them to Jason? To satisfy his curiosity, Dear has requested copies of all fingerprints taken at the crime scene.

"My investigation," he writes, "uncovered the fact that the day after the murders...O.J. retained a high-profile criminal defense attorney who specialized in death penalty murder cases to represent Jason Simpson. Why would he hire a criminal attorney to represent Jason, who was not even a suspect at the time?"

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

I don't think the prosecution necessarily screwed up the case, I think the police knew he was guilty, went out of their way to make sure he was found guilty, likely planted some evidence, and thus got what they deserved. That, and some questionable prosecution moves, makes it easy, in hindsight, to see why he was found not guilty.

Got what they deserved? Million dollar book deals? He and they should be in prison.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Got what they deserved? Million dollar book deals? He and they should be in prison.

I meant in terms of the verdict. If supply and demand will allow morons to make millions off of the poor job they did at work, more power to them.

[Noop]

You know that is very interesting about Jason.... I have never heard that before... That is wild... I mean man now that you say it seems likely... wow...

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Noop

When they convict the killers of Emmit Till(I think I spelled it wrong but whatever) Then you can have O.J. for those who want to see him in jail.

That's right. Untill every injustice ever done in history has been corrected, all prisoners should be set free and no criminals should be convicted no matter how guilty.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

*snip*
"My investigation," he writes, "uncovered the fact that the day after the murders...O.J. retained a high-profile criminal defense attorney who specialized in death penalty murder cases to represent Jason Simpson. Why would he hire a criminal attorney to represent Jason, who was not even a suspect at the time?"

Okay, if this is true, this is possibly the first thing that has made me even think anyone but OJ did it.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

Check out the link in my prior post.

Jason was never fingerprinted, and it turns out that he has a violent history of mental problems.

That is but one of many things Dear found troubling as his investigation progressed. Why was it, he asks, that unidentified fingerprints discovered in Nicole's condo were compared to 15 others, yet there was never any attempt to match them to Jason? To satisfy his curiosity, Dear has requested copies of all fingerprints taken at the crime scene.

"My investigation," he writes, "uncovered the fact that the day after the murders...O.J. retained a high-profile criminal defense attorney who specialized in death penalty murder cases to represent Jason Simpson. Why would he hire a criminal attorney to represent Jason, who was not even a suspect at the time?"

That's funny. I've never read that book nor any other stuff on the murders, but have always wondered about the investigation of the son. It's certainly possible that they could have targeted OJ as the killer, and of course, OJ would have had a reason not to come forward about his son, since he would have wanted to protect him, leaving him out of the picture altogether.

[Noop]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

That's right. Untill every injustice ever done in history has been corrected, all prisoners should be set free and no criminals should be convicted no matter how guilty.

Hmm no don't take it out of context. The point was people are crying for O.J. to be put in jail for murder but yet no one cries for Emmit... If I had the power I would glady trade you O.J. for Emmit's murders... O.J. beat system and he got off because someone planted some stuff.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Noop

Hmm no don't take it out of context. The point was people are crying for O.J. to be put in jail for murder but yet no one cries for Emmit... If I had the power I would glady trade you O.J. for Emmit's murders... O.J. beat system and he got off because someone planted some stuff.

No one cries? I would love it if they imprison the sacks of &%#@$ that killed Emmit Till. Just do a website search and see how many websites there are dedicated to the Till case. Frikin Bob Dillion wrote a song about it. It is not exactly been ignored. And having quilty people walk free is not exactly going to bring justice to those who murdered Till, will it?

[sachmo71]

Who killed Roger Rabbit?

[rkmsuf]

All the comedy provided over the last 10 years is worth it to let the Juice comb the golf courses of Flordia for the real killers.