CA - O.J. Simpson & the murders of Nicole Brown, Ron Goldman, 1994 *not guilty*

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

I worked for DecisionQuest some time after the trial was over. DQ worked (pro bono as I recall) as a jury selection/trial consultant for the prosecution.

As such, they went through a process of determining who might best represent the prosecutions desire for a verdict of guilt, and advised Clark that a predominantly black, female jury would be to her disadvantage due to results of social and psychological studies. Clark disagreed, she felt that women would identify with Nicole being an abused wife, and have sympathy.

IMHO, Marcia was wrong, and the jury stood on a racial platform and voted their race vs. what was presented.

The trial exhibits (incl. crime scene photos, and reams of transcripts) were some of the most horrific I've ever read and seen. :-( There were prosecutorial errors in judgement made, errors in evidence collection, etc. and yet, still plenty of evidence to show guilt.

I am not an atty., nor a psychologist, just someone who has read the testimony, crime reports and viewed the photos.

In my mind (and I am a fairly reasonable person), there is no doubt of OJ's guilt. He did it, and got away with it.
 
BingoBongo-welcome. Do you think there was jury tampering?
 
LinasK said:
I worked with black people who were ecstatic that OJ got off. It was tough!
Click to expand...

I was having lunch with a group of co workers at Bennigan's a restaurant in the Galleria in Dallas. We had heard that a verdict had come in so of course every one was sitting where they could see the t.v. I will have to say that I was worried because the restaurant was full of black people that had also come in to see the verdict. I was afraid there would be trouble if the verdict was guilty. I won't say I was happy he was found not guilty, but I will say that everyone in the restaurant was shocked, but relieved in this particular situation. And yes the black people all cheered and were very happy. jmo
 
BingoBongo said:
I worked for DecisionQuest some time after the trial was over. DQ worked (pro bono as I recall) as a jury selection/trial consultant for the prosecution.

As such, they went through a process of determining who might best represent the prosecutions desire for a verdict of guilt, and advised Clark that a predominantly black, female jury would be to her disadvantage due to results of social and psychological studies. Clark disagreed, she felt that women would identify with Nicole being an abused wife, and have sympathy.

IMHO, Marcia was wrong, and the jury stood on a racial platform and voted their race vs. what was presented.

The trial exhibits (incl. crime scene photos, and reams of transcripts) were some of the most horrific I've ever read and seen. :-( There were prosecutorial errors in judgement made, errors in evidence collection, etc. and yet, still plenty of evidence to show guilt.

I am not an atty., nor a psychologist, just someone who has read the testimony, crime reports and viewed the photos.

In my mind (and I am a fairly reasonable person), there is no doubt of OJ's guilt. He did it, and got away with it.
Click to expand...

Was the jury predominantly black females? I watched the trial at first but all that DNA evidence was so boring and technical. I don't know how anyone sat through that trial. jmo
 
I was in some unique environments during the OJ verdict and the LA riots, fwiw. I don't think that people could be easily separated along racial lines for either event, imvho. Everyone is a sum of their own experiences I guess. I know people who have felt unfairly treated and others who haven't. I don't think I could group the thoughts and feelings by skin color, but that is just me.

I never thought Mark Fuhrman could have reasonably thrown the trial because of the wealth of evidence pointing to OJ. I remember how camera conscious and star struck Ito was, and I remember how both sides were so calculated in how they played that race card. It was a terrible crime, it was a terrible wrong and OJ has spent the rest of his life running from the consequences of it...sadly, just financial consequences but so be it.

I often sit back and think how many people put themselves on the line for the Juice and I wonder if he ever appreciates it or if it was some kind of business transaction. They all had to live with themselves because of their participation and it seems clear it ate away at more than one of them.

How about the witness who saw him buying coke? I thought that potential aspect made a lot of sense.
 
LinasK said:
Dateline aired the trial last night, plus the civil trial and his current conviction- 33 years, but he's eligible for parole in 2017, ugh!
There were a couple of witnesses we didn't hear about that could have bolstered the prosecution- a woman who saw him speeding away from Bundy with his lights off shortly after the time of the murders and recognized him- but she sold her story. And a man at LAX airport who witnessed OJ dumping items from his gym bag into a trash can there. It was too late to retrieve the items when they found out about it. Kato also admitted OJ pressured him to lie about his alibi, about the time they went to McDonald's (right before the murders).
And when the jury saw OJ's house, all the pictures of OJ with white people were changed to pictures of black people to stage it to sway the jury.
They also played OJ's depo tapes where he admitted beating her up, and he told his prosecution team, "If this jury convicts me, then I guess I did it!"
OJ's blood matched what was found at the crime scene- this was no plant!
Click to expand...


I watched it too and ask myself how did anyone not find him guilty. So sad it turned out the way it did.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
STANDREID said:
Thursday, the 12th, will be 20 years.



I wonder if O.J. went there with then intention of killing Nicole. Maybe he went there to talk before he left or to scare her but flew off the handle when he saw Goldman and thought she was calling in a young 25-year-old stud. Only he knows.
Click to expand...


The way it was portrayed on dateline last night was that was Ron's first visit there and to only return the glasses someone left at the restaurant. I was always under the impression Ron and Nicole knew each other prior to that night and he was part of the celebration with the family after the restaurant.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
I think he went with the intention of killing her or at least harming her again. He had a weapon, right?
 
OJ and innocent do not belong in the same sentence. Just another farce to make lotsa money.

If you doubt his guilt, all you have to do is read his book, "If I did it...." He tells you he did it!

I watched every second of the trial, read the books, watched the documentaries, looked at the evidence and nothing has ever changed my mind. Nothing ever will.

That verdict sure was a stunning shocker. (Until Casey's verdict, that is)
 
QueenD said:
The way it was portrayed on dateline last night was that was Ron's first visit there and to only return the glasses someone left at the restaurant. I was always under the impression Ron and Nicole knew each other prior to that night and he was part of the celebration with the family after the restaurant.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Ron was a waiter at the restaurant that Nicole and family went to often. They were there that day for a celebration. Nicole left her sunglasses and I think she called the restaurant and Ron said he would take them to her. But, I also heard that she had candles light in the bathroom which she did when she was going to entertain. So, I don't know if someone else was expected or what. That is the version I have always heard. jmo
 
QueenD said:
The way it was portrayed on dateline last night was that was Ron's first visit there and to only return the glasses someone left at the restaurant. I was always under the impression Ron and Nicole knew each other prior to that night and he was part of the celebration with the family after the restaurant.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

i set my tv to record this and it didn't... grrr. i wonder if it's online...
 
mck16 said:
Was the jury predominantly black females? I watched the trial at first but all that DNA evidence was so boring and technical. I don't know how anyone sat through that trial. jmo
Click to expand...
Yes, they said 8/12 were black females.
 
BingoBongo said:
I worked for DecisionQuest some time after the trial was over. DQ worked (pro bono as I recall) as a jury selection/trial consultant for the prosecution.

As such, they went through a process of determining who might best represent the prosecutions desire for a verdict of guilt, and advised Clark that a predominantly black, female jury would be to her disadvantage due to results of social and psychological studies. Clark disagreed, she felt that women would identify with Nicole being an abused wife, and have sympathy.

IMHO, Marcia was wrong, and the jury stood on a racial platform and voted their race vs. what was presented.

The trial exhibits (incl. crime scene photos, and reams of transcripts) were some of the most horrific I've ever read and seen. :-( There were prosecutorial errors in judgement made, errors in evidence collection, etc. and yet, still plenty of evidence to show guilt.

I am not an atty., nor a psychologist, just someone who has read the testimony, crime reports and viewed the photos.

In my mind (and I am a fairly reasonable person), there is no doubt of OJ's guilt. He did it, and got away with it.
Click to expand...

Welcome to Websleuths!

I absolutely agree. As I have said before, the look on Kardashians face was priceless.

Oj Verdict - YouTube

Although I didn't to see that to know his guilt.
 
Elley Mae said:
Welcome to Websleuths!

I absolutely agree. As I have said before, the look on Kardashians face was priceless.

Oj Verdict - YouTube

Although I didn't to see that to know his guilt.
Click to expand...
His whole "Dream Team" knew they were defending a GUILTY man. I corresponded with one of them years after the fact. Claims it was "moral cover". Two of the are dead- Kardashian and Cochran. Wonder if the stress contributed to killing them...
 
I don't know what the motivation was for each of the team members defending Simpson, but like many in the world today, there are those who cannot put friendship or fame aside in order to take a hard look at the facts.

I too believe that Kardashian knew and accepted the truth, maybe he felt obligated in some way, to continue to stand by his friend regardless of what he found to be true. Only he knows.

Sad case for so many involved.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 95 more.
Total: 272 (members: 96, guests: 176)

Online statistics

Members online
96
Guests online
176
Total visitors
272
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
608,560
Messages
18,241,258
Members
234,401
Latest member
CRIM1959
Back
Top