Ding ding round 2. OJ Simpson part deux

[tamiznluv]

Originally Posted by Bunny Foofoo

Here is my theory on this : OJ truely does not believe he did that because he probably got SO mad and in a rage that his memory blacked it out .

He must have regained his memory to write the book "if I DID IT". Now that the Goldman's have the rights to the book, I will buy it. No way would I have bought it if the profits were going to OJ.

I am soooo happy they found him guilty.

[canibeyou]

Originally Posted by ExPit

He's gone from superstar to pariah,

Eh.. He seemed to be living a pretty cushy life in Florida. He seemed to always have lots of people wantin' to hang around with him for gawd knows what reasons. Every time I saw pics of him with various women I always wondered what they saw in him. Seriously... if someone I contemplated dating had even been suspected of murdering someone (never mind all the evidence pointing to the fact they did), I'd be distancing myself from them... and fast.

But then again, there's women writting proposal letters to Scott Peterson and even some women that have married folks like Richard Ramirez and the Menendez brothers.

I'm just sayin'!

[Alexus]

Originally Posted by DreamWeavin

He and his atty had approval of jury. If they deliberatley allowed/selected an all white jury so they could now scream Race card and appeal; they have no argument.

Of course they have an argument, are you kidding? I didn't say anything about them deliberately selecting an all-white jury. I believe this was all that was available to them. I think because of the sentiments expressed by whites of the criminal verdict, it can be argued here that OJ was incapable of getting an impartial jury if the jury is comprised of nothing but white people.

Unfortunately, the "race card" was first introduced into this society by whites when they brought africans here to be slaves. The distinction had been introduced and established. When that distinction was made, do you think whites screamed "race card"? Absolutely not. This "race card" nonsense is only brought up now by whites when they don't want to hear a black person identify yet another example of unfair treatment of them by whites. Nothing wrong with flagging the inequities whenever they arise. Rather than scream "race card" in order to avoid dealing with the inequities, acknowledge, recognize, and try to remedy them.

Here, OJ is a despised black man by whites because he allegedly killed a white (blond) woman. Certainly a tragic crime that would draw the wrath of anyone. Incredibly shameful, tragic circumstances there. Such a lynch mob mentality here by whites who arguably would not care as much if the alleged perpetrator were a white man killing a black woman. Such sentiments are no reason to ignore the fact that OJ might've been unfairly judged by an all-white jury in this trial, one completely unrelated. You call it the "race card." I call it grounds for an appeal and a very strong argument that recognizes the reality.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

[eevee]

Originally Posted by Alexus

Of course they have an argument, are you kidding? I didn't say anything about them deliberately selecting an all-white jury. I believe this was all that was available to them. I think because of the sentiments expressed by whites of the criminal verdict, it can be argued here that OJ was incapable of getting an impartial jury if the jury is comprised of nothing but white people.

Unfortunately, the "race card" was first introduced into this society by whites when they brought africans here to be slaves. The distinction had been introduced and established. When that distinction was made, do you think whites screamed "race card"? Absolutely not. This "race card" nonsense is only brought up now by whites when they don't want to hear a black person identify yet another example of unfair treatment of them by whites. Nothing wrong with flagging the inequities whenever they arise. Rather than scream "race card" in order to avoid dealing with the inequities, acknowledge, recognize, and try to remedy them.

Here, OJ is a despised black man by whites because he allegedly killed a white (blond) woman. Certainly a tragic crime that would draw the wrath of anyone. Incredibly shameful, tragic circumstances there. Such a lynch mob mentality here by whites who arguably would not care as much if the alleged perpetrator were a white man killing a black woman. Such sentiments are no reason to ignore the fact that OJ might've been unfairly judged by an all-white jury in this trial, one completely unrelated. You call it the "race card." I call it grounds for an appeal and a very strong argument that recognizes the reality.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

you seem to think that blacks didn't think he was guilty of the '95 crime or that there aren't blacks out there who are also saying he got what was coming to him. I know plenty of blacks, myself included, who think he's guilty of both crimes and got off unfairly for the first one

I'm about to possibly sound naive here, but I don't see why the defense think having an all black/majority non-white jury would have made a difference. are they saying that, had the exact evidence been presented, the exact same arguments, that a majority non white jury would have acquit him? if this is really what the difference thinks, that a jury can be so easily swayed based on the race of the defendant, then I fear for how justice system (well, fear for it even more!).