"Gilbert claimed that Simpson had taken a sleeping pill prior to smoking marijuana and drinking beer in his Brentwood home when he revealed what occurred the night of June 12, 1994."
"Simpson said he visited Brown Simpson’s home, where he was greeted by his ex-wife wielding a knife. He allegedly mumbled to Gilbert: “If she hadn't opened that door with a knife in her hand ... she'd still be alive.” Gilbert then wrote: “Nothing more needed to be said. O.J. had confessed to me. There's no doubt in my mind."
So he did it after all. Could have been the Ambien.
- I do hope there's justice for victims, penalties-consequences for those who harm others...
If his family members inherit lotsa bucks, I hope they pay some reparations to the families of the victims as a token of remorse.
btw, the license plate of OJs bronco was 3DHX503 California; I believe it was given to OJ as part of his compensation from Hertz, but I'm not certain of that.
It's changed hands a few times after the chase, I think an eastern U.S. citizen owns it currently.
I was working for a hotelier at the time of the trial. One of my co-workers was a very nice lady with little more than a high school education who actually worked two jobs. Whin the O.J. verdict was announced, she became very frightened that he was going to kill her next.
To me, that was odd. Mr. Simpson was only charged with the murder of his wife and her boyfriend and I'm sure he was guilty of both--certainly the evidence went that way. But a serial murderer who would rape and kill female strangers? No! As my sister pointed out, this was a crime of passion, not some guy who would kill any woman he met on a blind date. That, I'm afraid, was what the late Phil Spector did but not O.J. Simpson.
It is hard to equate the vicious killer with the image of OJ gently placing the ball on the ground after a brilliant run for a TD. None of the show boating of so many but an act that simply said he had done it all before. His smiling face in ads and movie parts hiding the monster within.
The only one I know for sure is myself but would hate to believe that the majority of people have a hidden monster within that they have to control against butchery and murder.
Kentish Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The only one I know for sure is myself but would > hate to believe that the majority of people have a > hidden monster within that they have to control > against butchery and murder.
Yes, I agree Kentish. Mercifully for me, I see a lot of very good people, no sign of internal monsterish trends.
But for sure there are some out there. As for O.J., I read yesterday that he consumed drugs and alcohol (what a surprise! - not) and that that could have been a factor in how he reacted. Or maybe he consumed them after the murders and that's the state his agent found him in. I don't know all the details and there are some unanswered questions and unknown details. Who will ever untangle it all now?
It's very unfortunate that issues of race played into it all. How he was viewed, who comprised the jury, all the underlying factors that went into the trial and the eventual verdict. A lot of noise and fury that very likely played a huge part in it all.
I can never get used to seemingly everything being described in terms of skin colour.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/12/2024 02:51PM by Nightingale.
After I watched the entirety of the trial, there was no doubt in my mind that he did it. His lawyers were just that good. They were worth every penny that he paid them.
I think that trial was when I first realized the justice system isn't always about fairness (black people of course say DUH - but I was a slow learner). There seems to be no end to the tricks available for those who have the money and right friends.
It's not fair to the reputations of hardworking law professionals who don't pull a bunch of dirty tricks.
By the time Harvey Specter showed up on TV, I was still a bit naïve and wanted to believe everyone was on the up and up.
"I think that trial was when I first realized the justice system isn't always about fairness (black people of course say DUH - but I was a slow learner). There seems to be no end to the tricks available for those who have the money and right friends.
It's not fair to the reputations of hardworking law professionals who don't pull a bunch of dirty tricks."
When I took the required business law class in the late 1980s (I was working on an MBA which I eventually got), the professor addressed a very similar question; i.e., if you were a lawyer and you knew that your client was guilty of the crime charged, would you still be required to pull out all the stops to defend him?
The answer was "yes", though I don't remember right now which U.S. Supreme Court case he used to justify that answer.
I heard current analysis that because of the highly antagonistic race relations at the time some were worried O.J. wouldn't get a fair trial. Turns out there was apparently a higher percentage of Black jurors and many people thought that's why he was found innocent despite the prosecutors thinking their case was airtight. O.J.'s fans at the time sure looked shocked and then thrilled while white viewers looked disbelieving at the highly unexpected verdict. Most unfortunate that that aspect had to rear up.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/13/2024 08:57PM by Nightingale.
You made me curious. I just read that indeed, the majority of the jurors were black, and this was primarily because the trial took place in downtown Los Angeles as opposed to Santa Monica, where the crime occurred. Ten out of twelve jurors were women, with most having a high school education, but no higher.
I have no clear memory of the jury. Perhaps they were not shown on TV. I also don't remember anything in particular at the time that would have made race relations any worse.
I do remember OJ's lawyers working overtime to make their points. They were quite clever. My impression when the verdict was returned is that they had done their job in terms of creating reasonable doubt. I didn't have any doubt at all, but they convinced the jury.
The judge in that trial was incompetent, sort of like Aileen Cannon but without the nefarious intent.
He let the defense raise all sorts of arguments and evidence that should never have seen the light of day. The trial dragged on and grew exceptionally complicated. He was no match for Simpson's high-priced attorneys, who simply wanted to throw dust in the air and then complain that no one could see.
In those circumstances jurors get confused and fall back on their preconceptions. You have to remember that they were not allowed to see the news with which the rest of us were constantly bombarded. An entirely white jury might have likewise concluded that the judicial standard, beyond a reasonable doubt, had not been met.
The trial of the police officers in that case was moved to Simi Valley, and the officers were acquitted, then LA burned.
More importantly, imo, is the history of racism in LA law enforcement.
Venue and jury selection were key to both the defense and the prosecution. A conviction was assumed, but it would have had to have legitimacy in the public’s eyes.
But oops! Judge Ito! And oops! Well-paid defense lawyers doing their jobs well. And oops! Mark Furhman.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/14/2024 11:58AM by Beth.
summer Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You made me curious. I just read that indeed, the > majority of the jurors were black, and this was > primarily because the trial took place in downtown > Los Angeles as opposed to Santa Monica, where the > crime occurred. Ten out of twelve jurors were > women, with most having a high school education, > but no higher. > > I have no clear memory of the jury. Perhaps they > were not shown on TV. I also don't remember > anything in particular at the time that would have > made race relations any worse. > > I do remember OJ's lawyers working overtime to > make their points. They were quite clever. My > impression when the verdict was returned is that > they had done their job in terms of creating > reasonable doubt. I didn't have any doubt at all, > but they convinced the jury.
If I remember correctly, both the murder and trial occurred after the Rodney King beating (1992) and its aftermath (in fact, I believe it was after the police officers involved were acquitted of the charges brought against them by Mr. King and others.) So an African-american jury in downtown Los Angeles would have been more likely to believe O.J. Simpson than the prosecution. The late Vincent Bugliosi (hope I remembered the spelling correctly) who was a former Los Angeles District Attorney (if memory serves) wrote an article for Playboy magazine after the verdict noting that probably the biggest mistake the Simpson prosecution made was agreeing to have the case tried in downtown Los Angeles instead of in the wealthier Santa monica suburb where the crime was commited.
You guys really think OJ did it? Any guy with the wrong kind of enemies can have his life destroyed by offing his wife. Look at what happened to Robert Blake. Any guy in that position is going to be falsely accused and those false accusations will stick one way or another. OJ reacted the way I would expect a black man in America to react.
I remember thinking that this was a first. I was in my mid twenties, and I thought about race, class and spousal abuse more deeply than I had previously. I have had people in my family targeted and railroaded because of race, so it wasn’t like the occurrence was foreign to me. It was a given. But *this* guy…no. This guy does not get a pass.
The justice system did work as designed because there was reasonable doubt introduced by the defense.
None of us were on the jury. The prosecution screened the jury and presented its case, the jury decided. Everyone wants to second guess the jury without having been there.
This goes back to the question often raised here, what is truth? For the criminal case, the decision is the truth. The court of public opinion is not entitled to a lynching. Which argument is, I must confess, so much white supremacy. Blacks are screwed in court all the time.
OJ went to jail for trying to steal back his Heisman. With a gun. This tells me he ran with bad people, maybe mob people, and that he was dumb as rocks. Dumb enough to cross the wrong people.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/14/2024 12:31PM by bradley.
I acquired her book, "Tar Beach" early on in my teaching career. I used it for read-alouds and as a part of my classroom library. You still see it here and there in elementary schools.