OJ dies of cancer
I thought there was extra heat coming from down below this morning!!!
46-50, M
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
Bumbles · 51-55, M
I wonder how the jurors rationalized their acquittal all these years.
trollslayer · 46-50, M
@Bumbles I remember being quite puzzled at the time as to how they came to acquit, thinking these jurors must have had other motivations besides the facts of the case. As I have gotten older, I understand more about human nature. I think a few things come into play:
1) DNA evidence was pretty new at the time. I think many jurors were completely baffled by that, and this tickled their "resentment towards smart people" in the same way it does towards the MAGA crowd today. It was easy for them to write off much of the prosecution's DNA evidence as eggheadery.
2) Mark Furman was a corrupt, racist detective. Considering OJ's trial was on the heels of the Rodney King trial and subsequent riots, the idea of the LAPD being racist and corrupt was fresh on peoples' minds, and the defense's premise that evidence was planted was much more believable given the context.
3) The glove not "fitting" - Defense probably pumped OJ full of salt and liquid causing his hand to swell first - but for jurors the glove not fitting plus the plausibility of a racist detective planting evidence was enough reasonable doubt to acquit.
I am sure some of the jurors feel differently now but having since served on a jury myself and having more life experience, it no longer seems absurd to me that he was acquitted. On the jury I served, we were quick to come to a guilty verdict, but out of respect for the process we considered various alternative scenarios before we reached an official verdict - was there any reasonable scenario where the accused could not be guilty? In our case, no.
1) DNA evidence was pretty new at the time. I think many jurors were completely baffled by that, and this tickled their "resentment towards smart people" in the same way it does towards the MAGA crowd today. It was easy for them to write off much of the prosecution's DNA evidence as eggheadery.
2) Mark Furman was a corrupt, racist detective. Considering OJ's trial was on the heels of the Rodney King trial and subsequent riots, the idea of the LAPD being racist and corrupt was fresh on peoples' minds, and the defense's premise that evidence was planted was much more believable given the context.
3) The glove not "fitting" - Defense probably pumped OJ full of salt and liquid causing his hand to swell first - but for jurors the glove not fitting plus the plausibility of a racist detective planting evidence was enough reasonable doubt to acquit.
I am sure some of the jurors feel differently now but having since served on a jury myself and having more life experience, it no longer seems absurd to me that he was acquitted. On the jury I served, we were quick to come to a guilty verdict, but out of respect for the process we considered various alternative scenarios before we reached an official verdict - was there any reasonable scenario where the accused could not be guilty? In our case, no.
Bumbles · 51-55, M
@trollslayer Indeed. I forgot about Furman and King. I also think it was the difference in the lawyers and racial politics were at play. Johnny Cochran was charismatic and spoke with great confidence. Marsha Clark was a mousy white woman with a perm, and Chris Darden was somewhat awkward and had no “street” about him.
I was on jury duty when the verdict came down, and the reaction of the black jurors was very telling. They knew he did it, but felt justice has been served as a kind of payback. They didn’t celebrate. It was more “yup, that’s how it goes.”
I was on jury duty when the verdict came down, and the reaction of the black jurors was very telling. They knew he did it, but felt justice has been served as a kind of payback. They didn’t celebrate. It was more “yup, that’s how it goes.”
Bumbles · 51-55, M
@GlitterEater The case was very well reported and so they didn’t know more than me. They were seduced by Johnny Cochran and I assume have rationalized letting a brutal murderer go and making the families of the victims suffer that much more.
And people didn’t think OJ was guilty. They knew it. Even the jurors, probably, deep down.
The standard was “beyond a reasonable doubt” not, “well did you see it personally, and even if you did, maybe it was an OJ double.”
And people didn’t think OJ was guilty. They knew it. Even the jurors, probably, deep down.
The standard was “beyond a reasonable doubt” not, “well did you see it personally, and even if you did, maybe it was an OJ double.”