O.J. Simpson verdict: 10 Years Later

[sandramaac]

I was home with my kids.

Do I agree with the verdict----no--HOWEVER, while I feel that OJ had first hand knowledge of the murder, and in fact I think he showed just as or seconds after, I do feel that his older son commited the murders. The son never liked OJ's wife, and there was a fight between them earlier in the day. I think the son went over there to continue on with the fight, and well you know what happens. My reasoning for this conclusion are two things that happened during the whole fiasco. First was when during the chase, when the son ran out of the house, to the car, and was motioned to return to the house. Just something strange about that whole thing. But the bigger thing, and most people don't rememeber this is when they read the verdict in court. They had a shot of the son's face---and it's wasn't just a look of yes, my dad is free---it is difficult to describe, but it was a fearful, scared look---you know when your kids do something wrong, and they try to over compensate for being guilty by thier expressions or actions, well that was the look on his face. Anyway just my theory.

 

[Geoff_M]

....the racial divide that was common throughout America as it pertained to the case was alive and well at work as well.

This was a real eye opener to me how verdicts are so often racially filtered in the public. An even better example of this mindset was exhibited in an interview with Spike Lee I read in Rolling Stone some years ago. In it Lee talked about the recent Mike Tyson and William Kennedy Smith rape trials. Lee summed it up by saying courts are willing to believe the word of white man, but not a black man. The interviewer caught Lee off-guard by following up with "But if the verdicts were reversed, couldn't you argue that the courts were willing to believe the word of a white woman, but not a black woman???" Lee's only response was profanity.

 

[snoopy]

I was home with my kids.

Do I agree with the verdict----no--HOWEVER, while I feel that OJ had first hand knowledge of the murder, and in fact I think he showed just as or seconds after, I do feel that his older son commited the murders. The son never liked OJ's wife, and there was a fight between them earlier in the day. I think the son went over there to continue on with the fight, and well you know what happens. My reasoning for this conclusion are two things that happened during the whole fiasco. First was when during the chase, when the son ran out of the house, to the car, and was motioned to return to the house. Just something strange about that whole thing. But the bigger thing, and most people don't rememeber this is when they read the verdict in court. They had a shot of the son's face---and it's wasn't just a look of yes, my dad is free---it is difficult to describe, but it was a fearful, scared look---you know when your kids do something wrong, and they try to over compensate for being guilty by thier expressions or actions, well that was the look on his face. Anyway just my theory.

I have a friend out in LA who is fairly well connected in the entertainment world and she has the same theory.

 

[ead79]

I don’t remember where I was when the verdict was read. I’m assuming school, so I probably didn’t see it until watching the news later that night.

I think OJ is guilty. I also think that the prosecution/police/etc. botched the case; however, I think there was still enough evidence to convict. I agree with snoopy that the jury was predisposed to acquitting before the trial even began.

 

[Feralpeg]

I was in a restaurant at lunch. Just prior to the verdict, it was so quiet in the restaurant. Everyone was focused on the TV. When the verdict was read, one black girl yelled "Yes, Jesus!" very loud. There wasn't another sound in the restaurant and it stayed that way. Very subdued. I think that girl was the only one pleased with the verdict. IMHO he was guilty.

 

[Alicnwondrln]

i had just gotten off the T at haymarket station on my way to work
i was working at teh neaq
it was shocking and still is
OJ got off for years of corrupt police
and their wrong doing
not punishing him for killing 2 people wont change all the bad things the lapd did and probably still does to minorities

 

[Rozzie]

The best part of the OJ trial for me was that I was studying abroad that summer in France and I didn't have it crammed down my throat on a daily basis.

For Real! I was out in Yellowstone that summer working, no TV or phone. Sometimes I would read day old papers tourists would leave behind, and get so angry...

For the verdict, I remember I was in my apartment at college, and all my roommates and I skipped class to watch the verdict. I didn't agree with the verdict then, and still don't today. Money got him off.

My heart goes out to the victim's families. I can't imagine having to watch him strut around like a freaking rooster, while they visit their loved ones in the ground.

 

[KLAIT]

This is still such a vivid memory due to a comment that was made. Worked in the accounting office in a hospital. Our annual audit was in process. We all walked up to one of the waiting rooms on one of the floors with a group of Dr, Nurses, patients, etc.

Once the verdict was read, one of the ladies loudly announced that she had to go and call her sister who lived in California to tell her the verdict because they were 3 hours behind....everyone went dead silent...and one of the Dr's quietly told her that it was read live and the everyone was hearing it at the same time....

 

[phisigprincess]

I was in 7th grade Social Studies class. I remember morons who just started going insane running through the hallways screaming "the Juice is loose!" Yeah, the security guards were called. Ahh... junior high. What a hideous part of life.

Papa Deuce - you never know, if he keeps looking harder on the golf courses he might get a lead.

 

[Jimbo]

I was in a conference room at work that had a TV, and our whole department watched it there.

I'm certain he's a murderer that got away with it. Stop me if I've posted this before, but I think it would be different if the trail was today. They had compelling DNA evidence that tied him to the crime. But when questioned, the jurors said that they completely rejected this evidence. They didn't seem to understand it, and thought it was all mumbo-jumbo and ignored it.

Now, 10 years later, CSI and its spinoffs have had a hundred episodes revolving around DNA evidence. Most everybody thinks of DNA as a reliable way to identify someone. So I think the jurors would be forced to accept the evidence.

 

[snoopy]

I was in a conference room at work that had a TV, and our whole department watched it there.

I'm certain he's a murderer that got away with it. Stop me if I've posted this before, but I think it would be different if the trail was today. They had compelling DNA evidence that tied him to the crime. But when questioned, the jurors said that they completely rejected this evidence. They didn't seem to understand it, and thought it was all mumbo-jumbo and ignored it.

Now, 10 years later, CSI and its spinoffs have had a hundred episodes revolving around DNA evidence. Most everybody thinks of DNA as a reliable way to identify someone. So I think the jurors would be forced to accept the evidence.

I agree. DNA evidence introduced in court was in its early stages 10 years ago. I still think even if the prosecution had done their job and made the jury understand the significance of the evidence, they still would have acquitted. Many of the jurors said as much after the fact.

 

[JoeEpcotRocks]

So, ten years later and a wonder how O.J.'s search for the "real killer" is going???

He must think the killer plays golf.

Edit: Oops I was late with that. ITA with Papa Deuce.

 

[goofygirl]

I was at work in a hospital, where 10yrs later, I still work today. We all stopped what were doing and gathered around a tv by an unoccupied patient bed. You heard gasps of shock throughout the whole building.

I still think he's guilty, and it still annoys me to think of the people that cheered the verdict.

I agree that perhaps if the trial was held today with today's forensics, the verdict would be a lot different.

 

[lulugirl]

I don't recall where I was when I heard the verdict but I think he got away w/ murder.

 

[Tinkim]

I don't remember where I was, but I do remember thinking of my mother. She died during the circus, and everyday she had complained that my dad had it on all day long.

I was at the Fryeburg Fair in Maine. I remember they announced the verdict on a loudspeaker and thousands of fair-goers stopped what they were doing for a few minutes to listen. I do think he was guilty.

I thought of my dad too because he was the one who tuned in to the trial every day and he died in August and never did get to hear the verdict.

 

[rcyannacci]

I was at a job interview at a school, and waited over 30 minutes past the time I was suppose to interview with the principle. All he could talk about was the verdict (they left me in the waiting room while everyone watched on TV). He was a complete jerk, and I found a different job.

 

[bimshire]

not punishing him for killing 2 people wont change all the bad things the lapd did and probably still does to minorities

I agree with this. That police department is a "cesspool" of corruption and evil.

 

[maddiel]

My dad retired the year before the trial started and pretty much made a hobby of watching the coverage. On the other hand, I didn't have cable tv (and therefore no American channels) and my husband and I declared our house an OJ-free zone.

Dad died of pancreatic cancer September 30th, the morning after the jury was sent out to deliberate, Pretty much all the chit-chat at the wake was about the trial and what the verdict would be. The verdict was scheduled to be announced the day of his funeral, so my whole family made sure we left the reception in time to watch the announcement together. My in-laws thought we were nuts, but I know if dad had been alive he'd have been glued to it, so it seemed like the thing to do to us.

M.

 

[janette]

They had compelling DNA evidence that tied him to the crime. But when questioned, the jurors said that they completely rejected this evidence. They didn't seem to understand it, and thought it was all mumbo-jumbo and ignored it.

Now, 10 years later, CSI and its spinoffs have had a hundred episodes revolving around DNA evidence. Most everybody thinks of DNA as a reliable way to identify someone. So I think the jurors would be forced to accept the evidence.

I think the prosecution worked too hard to convince them of this evidence. It took months and they had all those visual aids etc. It was part of what I caught on TV, my thoughts were that they made it so complicated it was easy to reject. Jurors didn't need to know everything about the science that proved the blood evidence they just needed to know whose blood was where and that it was a fact within 1 in whatever.

I also watched a police officer lie on the stand, don't know who he was but he said that the reason they didn't wait for a search warrant was they were concerned for the well being of OJ. I didn't believe it, can't see why the jury would have. If they would lie about one thing they damage their entire testimony.

I also agree with Snoopy that the jury was predisposed to acquit, it was very easy with the trial as it was presented.

 

[Sparx]

I don't remember hearing the verdict. (I was like three) but I do remember watching the car chase. I was laying in the living room floor, and I remember looking up and watching the news over this white car. It was on all the channels and I couldn't figure out for the life of me why everyone was so interested in that car.