Posted: Sat Jun 11, 2016 10:38 am Post subject: Most Black People Now Think O.J. Was Guilty
Quote:
A striking poll finding was cited often in coverage of the O.J. Simpson murder trial in 1994 and 1995: Most white people thought the former football star was guilty of killing his ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend Ronald Goldman, while roughly the same proportion of black people thought Simpson was innocent. The racial gap in public opinion was one of many elements of the case — along with a long history of conflict between the Los Angeles Police Department and the city’s black residents, and racist statements made by LAPD Detective Mark Fuhrman — that showed race was as important as glove size and forensic evidence.
In the two decades since Simpson was acquitted by a majority-black jury, the racial gap has narrowed significantly. In two recent polls, more than 50 percent of black respondents said they thought Simpson was guilty — up from about 20 percent in most polls before, during and right after the trial.
Joined: 10 Dec 2006 Posts: 52657 Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.
Posted: Sat Jun 11, 2016 11:02 am Post subject:
Basketball Fan wrote:
As someone who is neither black or white I always hated the stereotyping that came from this case.
That all black people wanted OJ free to make up for the system prosecuting innocent black men int he past.
And that all white people were horrified that OJ was free because he was a big black man who did this to two harmless white people.
I went to a predominantly white HS and most of them were thrilled when OJ got off because they didn't think he did it.
The silliest part is that at the time, he was the "whitest" black man around. He was a rich, yuppie, former athlete, B-movie actor, golfer living the life in Brentwood. He was a far from the "big black man" you describe. Nobody saw OJ as the the black guy who killed two white people. They saw a popular celebrity and charming likable guy who was clearly not the "good guy" that he was perceived as. And I guarantee you that if Garcettit had seen it as otherwise, he'd have never sent the case downtown instead of Santa Monica. No one really saw race at all until his defense team made it the cornerstone of their defense.
People weren't "horrified a 'big black man' was free after killing two white people". They were angry and shocked that his status as rich celebrity allowed his legal to game the system and manipulate the jury.
I don't blame anyone but the prosecutors and DA for botching the case. Of course OJ's defense team was going to pull out all the stops to get a not guilty verdict.
Joined: 10 Dec 2006 Posts: 52657 Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.
Posted: Sat Jun 11, 2016 11:22 am Post subject:
lakersken80 wrote:
I don't blame anyone but the prosecutors and DA for botching the case. Of course OJ's defense team was going to pull out all the stops to get a not guilty verdict.
Yep. There were countless miscalculations and assumptions made by the DA's office, which were compounded by their dysfunctional relationships. But one can't discount Ito's desire to make himself a part of the spectacle with behavior and decisions that allowed things that never should have happened in his court room.
As someone who is neither black or white I always hated the stereotyping that came from this case.
That all black people wanted OJ free to make up for the system prosecuting innocent black men int he past.
And that all white people were horrified that OJ was free because he was a big black man who did this to two harmless white people.
I went to a predominantly white HS and most of them were thrilled when OJ got off because they didn't think he did it.
The silliest part is that at the time, he was the "whitest" black man around. He was a rich, yuppie, former athlete, B-movie actor, golfer living the life in Brentwood. He was a far from the "big black man" you describe. Nobody saw OJ as the the black guy who killed two white people. They saw a popular celebrity and charming likable guy who was clearly not the "good guy" that he was perceived as. And I guarantee you that if Garcettit had seen it as otherwise, he'd have never sent the case downtown instead of Santa Monica. No one really saw race at all until his defense team made it the cornerstone of their defense.
People weren't "horrified a 'big black man' was free after killing two white people". They were angry and shocked that his status as rich celebrity allowed his legal to game the system and manipulate the jury.
Maybe you're totally right but maybe not. Even today, you can be the most successful, intellectual, likable, popular black sport celebrity but the minute you're perceived that you do something wrong, you can easily be seen as that 'big black man'
Joined: 17 Nov 2007 Posts: 67717 Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered a great way to learn.
Posted: Sat Jun 11, 2016 11:31 am Post subject:
I won't say "Most Black People Now Think O.J. Was Guilty" I can't speak for "Most." I'll offer an opinion.
I think many Black people wanted OJ to get off because he was Black not because he was OJ. If his name had been John Jones the feeling would have been the same. His guilt or innocence was secondary.
I think the fact he was a Black icon and Nicole and Ron were unknowns to the community weighed in the community's siding.
As time passed I think more Black people started to ask themselves was he guilty or innocent. In the beginning I don't think that took precedence for many. _________________ Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.
America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.
Joined: 10 Dec 2006 Posts: 52657 Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.
Posted: Sat Jun 11, 2016 11:38 am Post subject:
governator wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
Basketball Fan wrote:
As someone who is neither black or white I always hated the stereotyping that came from this case.
That all black people wanted OJ free to make up for the system prosecuting innocent black men int he past.
And that all white people were horrified that OJ was free because he was a big black man who did this to two harmless white people.
I went to a predominantly white HS and most of them were thrilled when OJ got off because they didn't think he did it.
The silliest part is that at the time, he was the "whitest" black man around. He was a rich, yuppie, former athlete, B-movie actor, golfer living the life in Brentwood. He was a far from the "big black man" you describe. Nobody saw OJ as the the black guy who killed two white people. They saw a popular celebrity and charming likable guy who was clearly not the "good guy" that he was perceived as. And I guarantee you that if Garcettit had seen it as otherwise, he'd have never sent the case downtown instead of Santa Monica. No one really saw race at all until his defense team made it the cornerstone of their defense.
People weren't "horrified a 'big black man' was free after killing two white people". They were angry and shocked that his status as rich celebrity allowed his legal to game the system and manipulate the jury.
Maybe you're totally right but maybe not. Even today, you can be the most successful, intellectual, likable, popular black sport celebrity but the minute you're perceived that you do something wrong, you can easily be seen as that 'big black man'
I'm just saying that as someone who was a white male in his 30's, living on the Westside of LA at the time and who watched it all play out over the following 15 months, "the big black man" perception that BF describes wasn't in play. In fact, until the low speed chase, most people weren't sure whether he was even involved or not.
As someone who is neither black or white I always hated the stereotyping that came from this case.
That all black people wanted OJ free to make up for the system prosecuting innocent black men int he past.
And that all white people were horrified that OJ was free because he was a big black man who did this to two harmless white people.
I went to a predominantly white HS and most of them were thrilled when OJ got off because they didn't think he did it.
The silliest part is that at the time, he was the "whitest" black man around. He was a rich, yuppie, former athlete, B-movie actor, golfer living the life in Brentwood. He was a far from the "big black man" you describe. Nobody saw OJ as the the black guy who killed two white people. They saw a popular celebrity and charming likable guy who was clearly not the "good guy" that he was perceived as. And I guarantee you that if Garcettit had seen it as otherwise, he'd have never sent the case downtown instead of Santa Monica. No one really saw race at all until his defense team made it the cornerstone of their defense.
People weren't "horrified a 'big black man' was free after killing two white people". They were angry and shocked that his status as rich celebrity allowed his legal to game the system and manipulate the jury.
Maybe you're totally right but maybe not. Even today, you can be the most successful, intellectual, likable, popular black sport celebrity but the minute you're perceived that you do something wrong, you can easily be seen as that 'big black man'
I'm just saying that as someone who was a white male in his 30's, living on the Westside of LA at the time and who watched it all play out over the following 15 months, "the big black man" perception that BF describes wasn't in play. In fact, until the low speed chase, most people weren't sure whether he was even involved or not.
Yeah, I wasn't in the Westcoast at that time so we'll go with your description regarding people's mood. All I remember is by the time the trial started, at least in the east coast, it was pretty much split in the middle, by race, white = guilty, black = framed by LAPD. I don't have any evidence, just anecdotal memories.
Is this new poll use the older generation whites and blacks that went thru the whole thing or is this a younger generation that learn about the story but wasn't old enough back then?
For what it is worth, especially considering I am not black, while I always believed he was guilty, I did not believe it was proven beyond a reasonable doubt in the criminal trial. _________________ "A metronome keeps time by using a Ringo"
Joined: 10 Dec 2006 Posts: 52657 Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.
Posted: Sat Jun 11, 2016 12:51 pm Post subject:
governator wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
governator wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
Basketball Fan wrote:
As someone who is neither black or white I always hated the stereotyping that came from this case.
That all black people wanted OJ free to make up for the system prosecuting innocent black men int he past.
And that all white people were horrified that OJ was free because he was a big black man who did this to two harmless white people.
I went to a predominantly white HS and most of them were thrilled when OJ got off because they didn't think he did it.
The silliest part is that at the time, he was the "whitest" black man around. He was a rich, yuppie, former athlete, B-movie actor, golfer living the life in Brentwood. He was a far from the "big black man" you describe. Nobody saw OJ as the the black guy who killed two white people. They saw a popular celebrity and charming likable guy who was clearly not the "good guy" that he was perceived as. And I guarantee you that if Garcettit had seen it as otherwise, he'd have never sent the case downtown instead of Santa Monica. No one really saw race at all until his defense team made it the cornerstone of their defense.
People weren't "horrified a 'big black man' was free after killing two white people". They were angry and shocked that his status as rich celebrity allowed his legal to game the system and manipulate the jury.
Maybe you're totally right but maybe not. Even today, you can be the most successful, intellectual, likable, popular black sport celebrity but the minute you're perceived that you do something wrong, you can easily be seen as that 'big black man'
I'm just saying that as someone who was a white male in his 30's, living on the Westside of LA at the time and who watched it all play out over the following 15 months, "the big black man" perception that BF describes wasn't in play. In fact, until the low speed chase, most people weren't sure whether he was even involved or not.
Yeah, I wasn't in the Westcoast at that time so we'll go with your description regarding people's mood. All I remember is by the time the trial started, at least in the east coast, it was pretty much split in the middle, by race, white = guilty, black = framed by LAPD. I don't have any evidence, just anecdotal memories.
There's no doubt that there was wide difference of opinion in regards to the split in opinion of guilt versus innocence by the time the case finally went to trial and that it broke down along racial lines.
I'm just saying that BF's simplistic description of how that came about didn't really reflects how events at the time played out. As I said, until the slow speed chase and the facts started to come out, most people, regardless of race, didn't think OJ was involved.
In fact, the reaction between me and my friends was not that OJ must have done it, it was quite the opposite - who the hell would kill is ex-wife? New boyfriend? Random? His status as a celebrity was a bigger influence than his race.
Quote:
Is this new poll use the older generation whites and blacks that went thru the whole thing or is this a younger generation that learn about the story but wasn't old enough back then?
I'm guessing the poll wasn't specific to people who were actually around and aware of the crime at the time it occurred and include younger people who have had the benefit of hindsight.
Joined: 10 Dec 2006 Posts: 52657 Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.
Posted: Sat Jun 11, 2016 1:15 pm Post subject:
ribeye wrote:
For what it is worth, especially considering I am not black, while I always believed he was guilty, I did not believe it was proven beyond a reasonable doubt in the criminal trial.
I agree that one would have to agree that Cochran was certainly able to inspire that "doubt" in the majority of the jury. And there's little point in debating that because the result is what it is.
However, when the actual physical evidence is weighed against the course of events, motive, prior history versus the obfuscation that Cochran managed to manipulate into the equation, there was no reasonable doubt. It was a clear cut case - and two of the jurors felt so until they were pressured to "re-consider" their vote to "not guilty"
At the time of the verdicts, the fact that it came in so quickly was universally believed to mean that the verdict was guilty, because the amount of evidence was profound and that no one could possibly come to an "not guilty" verdict so quickly given the volume of it.
In the end, the reality was that jury was never going to convict OJ, regardless of the evidence. And that's all that really matters.
For what it is worth, especially considering I am not black, while I always believed he was guilty, I did not believe it was proven beyond a reasonable doubt in the criminal trial.
I agree that one would have to agree that Cochran was certainly able to inspire that "doubt" in the majority of the jury. And there's little point in debating that because the result is what it is.
However, when the actual physical evidence is weighed against the course of events, motive, prior history versus the obfuscation that Cochran managed to manipulate into the equation, there was no reasonable doubt. It was a clear cut case - and two of the jurors felt so until they were pressured to "re-consider" their vote to "not guilty"
At the time of the verdicts, the fact that it came in so quickly was universally believed to mean that the verdict was guilty, because the amount of evidence was profound and that no one could possibly come to an "not guilty" verdict so quickly given the volume of it.
In the end, the reality was that jury was never going to convict OJ, regardless of the evidence. And that's all that really matters.
It wasn't Cockran, primarily, who convinced me but Barry Scheck and his associate (I forget his name). The blood evidence, poorly handled with maybe a third of a tube of missing blood, with odd number sequencing of the blood spatters, along with something I can't recall exactly, about clothes or a suitcase in his bedroom, and the timing or placement thereof. But most importantly, it was when Shapiro got the police to lock into their testimony at the Grand Jury hearing (which we did not see) that they felt it was an emergency situation that compelled them to jump the fence, without a warrant, and enter OJ's property, simply because they saw a couple small drops of blood in the driveway, which began the whole questioning of just how honest and forthright was the testimony of the police thereafter.
I knew it was going to be non-guilty or a hung jury (well I thought I did) so I cashed in big with many large bets to that end. It is the most money, by far, I ever earned in bets. _________________ "A metronome keeps time by using a Ringo"
Joined: 09 Dec 2009 Posts: 4330 Location: Meeting the man who met Andy Griffith.
Posted: Sat Jun 11, 2016 1:39 pm Post subject:
jodeke wrote:
I won't say "Most Black People Now Think O.J. Was Guilty" I can't speak for "Most." I'll offer an opinion.
I think many Black people wanted OJ to get off because he was Black not because he was OJ. If his name had been John Jones the feeling would have been the same. His guilt or innocence was secondary.
I think the fact he was a Black icon and Nicole and Ron were unknowns to the community weighed in the community's siding.
As time passed I think more Black people started to ask themselves was he guilty or innocent. In the beginning I don't think that took precedence for many.
Yep. _________________ "The best there is. The best there was. The best there ever will be.", said Bret Hart regarding the Los Angeles Lakers.
Joined: 10 Dec 2006 Posts: 52657 Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.
Posted: Sat Jun 11, 2016 1:49 pm Post subject:
ribeye wrote:
Barry Scheck and his associate (I forget his name). The blood evidence, poorly handled with maybe a third of a tube of missing blood, with odd number sequencing of the blood spatters, along with something I can't recall exactly, about clothes or a suitcase in his bedroom, and the timing or placement thereof. But most importantly, it was when Shapiro got the police to lock into their testimony at the Grand Jury hearing (which we did not see) that they felt it was an emergency situation that compelled them to jump the fence, without a warrant, and enter OJ's property, simply because they saw a couple small drops of blood in the driveway, which began the whole questioning of just how honest and forthright was the testimony of the police thereafter.
Yeah, the guys who blatantly contradicted their own science when they were given a nice paycheck.
All of that other "contradictory" evidence was refuted by the prosecution's experts. Including why the glove didn't fit.
The bottomline for me, the whole defense rested on the alleged "corruption" of the police - a group they attempted to portray as bumbling and incapable of professional police work. But it can't work both ways. A group of inept fools can't pull of such an amazing frame job - especially in the first couple of hours when they have no knowledge of OJ's circumstances and whose blood they are dealing with. How could they possibly know whose blood was what and what to "plant" where. It would have to be a pretty presumptive and foolish gamble to attempt such a frame job with their personal risks so great when there is no personal reward for doing so (other than Ferman's personal racist views).
Not to mention the preposterous diversionary theories of "Brazilian neckties" etc.
The defense case didn't add up at all - but it accomplished it's job. And as I said, that's all that matters at this point.
Barry Scheck and his associate (I forget his name). The blood evidence, poorly handled with maybe a third of a tube of missing blood, with odd number sequencing of the blood spatters, along with something I can't recall exactly, about clothes or a suitcase in his bedroom, and the timing or placement thereof. But most importantly, it was when Shapiro got the police to lock into their testimony at the Grand Jury hearing (which we did not see) that they felt it was an emergency situation that compelled them to jump the fence, without a warrant, and enter OJ's property, simply because they saw a couple small drops of blood in the driveway, which began the whole questioning of just how honest and forthright was the testimony of the police thereafter.
Yeah, the guys who blatantly contradicted their own science when they were given a nice paycheck.
All of that other "contradictory" evidence was refuted by the prosecution's experts. Including why the glove didn't fit.
The bottomline for me, the whole defense rested on the alleged "corruption" of the police - a group they attempted to portray as bumbling and incapable of professional police work. But it can't work both ways. A group of inept fools can't pull of such an amazing frame job - especially in the first couple of hours when they have no knowledge of OJ's circumstances and whose blood they are dealing with. How could they possibly know whose blood was what and what to "plant" where. It would have to be a pretty presumptive and foolish gamble to attempt such a frame job with their personal risks so great when there is no personal reward for doing so (other than Ferman's personal racist views).
Not to mention the preposterous diversionary theories of "Brazilian neckties" etc.
The defense case didn't add up at all - but it accomplished it's job. And as I said, that's all that matters at this point.
What science was contradicted?
Regarding the blood evidence, the one guy seemed inept and did not follow protocol and by the time the blood got to the lab, some was missing. Though there was some other, non convincing explanation by the prosecution, lost blood from one place to another, is quite a problem when the blood evidence was the strongest.
He was acquitted because the police appeared to have a motive to sweeten the evidence, since they were disingenuous from the beginning, the timeline was real tight, the lack of the weapon, and, in my mind the possible tampering with the blood evidence.
Based on the trial, the jury got it right. _________________ "A metronome keeps time by using a Ringo"
Joined: 17 Nov 2007 Posts: 67717 Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered a great way to learn.
Posted: Sat Jun 11, 2016 1:58 pm Post subject:
DaMuleRules wrote:
ribeye wrote:
For what it is worth, especially considering I am not black, while I always believed he was guilty, I did not believe it was proven beyond a reasonable doubt in the criminal trial.
I agree that one would have to agree that Cochran was certainly able to inspire that "doubt" in the majority of the jury. And there's little point in debating that because the result is what it is.
However, when the actual physical evidence is weighed against the course of events, motive, prior history versus the obfuscation that Cochran managed to manipulate into the equation, there was no reasonable doubt. It was a clear cut case - and two of the jurors felt so until they were pressured to "re-consider" their vote to "not guilty"
At the time of the verdicts, the fact that it came in so quickly was universally believed to mean that the verdict was guilty, because the amount of evidence was profound and that no one could possibly come to an "not guilty" verdict so quickly given the volume of it.
In the end, the reality was that jury was never going to convict OJ, regardless of the evidence. And that's all that really matters.
The brilliance of Cochran pushed forefront. I believe if Shapiro had remained OJ's lead attorney, he would have been found guilty.
Cochran said in the beginning of jury selection if he could get one Black juror he could get a hung jury or innocent verdict.
Johnnie L Cochran, Jr's. case approach, strategy, was the reason OJ was found not guilty.
The new age may think he was guilty, they may not.
I don't give much credence to the survey. I don't believe they went to the heart of the Black community, South Central, East Side, Compton etc. _________________ Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.
America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.
I am looking forward to watching part 1 of the documentary tonight. As a white guy I could probably learn a great deal. _________________ Nobody in the NBA can touch the Laker brand, which, like the uniform color, is pure gold.
As someone who is neither black or white I always hated the stereotyping that came from this case.
That all black people wanted OJ free to make up for the system prosecuting innocent black men int he past.
And that all white people were horrified that OJ was free because he was a big black man who did this to two harmless white people.
I went to a predominantly white HS and most of them were thrilled when OJ got off because they didn't think he did it.
The silliest part is that at the time, he was the "whitest" black man around. He was a rich, yuppie, former athlete, B-movie actor, golfer living the life in Brentwood. He was a far from the "big black man" you describe. Nobody saw OJ as the the black guy who killed two white people. They saw a popular celebrity and charming likable guy who was clearly not the "good guy" that he was perceived as. And I guarantee you that if Garcettit had seen it as otherwise, he'd have never sent the case downtown instead of Santa Monica. No one really saw race at all until his defense team made it the cornerstone of their defense.
People weren't "horrified a 'big black man' was free after killing two white people". They were angry and shocked that his status as rich celebrity allowed his legal to game the system and manipulate the jury.
I guess I should clarify my point: The media never stopped with these generalizations they ran with it even though it wasn't rooted in reality IMO.
Why does everything have to be biased based on your race?
If someone was caught murdering his wife and her lover, I wouldn't wish his punishment to be more or less based on his race, although I would also think that the wife shouldn't be having lovers on the side.
I won't say "Most Black People Now Think O.J. Was Guilty" I can't speak for "Most." I'll offer an opinion.
I think many Black people wanted OJ to get off because he was Black not because he was OJ. If his name had been John Jones the feeling would have been the same. His guilt or innocence was secondary.
I think the fact he was a Black icon and Nicole and Ron were unknowns to the community weighed in the community's siding.
As time passed I think more Black people started to ask themselves was he guilty or innocent. In the beginning I don't think that took precedence for many.
The Rodney King beatings and LA Riots were only 3.5 and 4.5 yrs prior to the acquittal on 10/3/95. It wasn't quite as hot in LA by the end of 95, but the coals were still glowing.
I always thought OJ did it, but I've always known the difference between that and being found not guilty. Therefore, I wasn't all torch and pitchfork afterwards, but now I'm more inclined to believe it was a 2 man job. At least Michael Baden does as well as I've said before and he's seen a lot of sh over the years to give his theory some heft. _________________ GOAT MAGIC REEL SEDALE TRIBUTE EDDIE DONX!
All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4Next
Page 1 of 4
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
