Well, if this don’t beat all!  Talk about being railroaded!!

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/12/09/simpson.codefendants/index.html

Peace.

maybe two/three years ago i was at the cigarette counter in Publix (kendall, florida) and OJ was in front of me sending a wire transfer to his daughter. as he stepped away, the computer/registers went down. i said ‘aw man, he killed that too?’ the cashier, who ive ‘known’ for years stared at me dumbstruck, which was odd because we all know im ‘that funny guy.’ she made one of those motionless gestures that made me look to my left only to see OJ still fumbling around w/his shit not 5 feet away from me. ah.. good times.

anyway, thanks for the verdict.

Frank Cajon—a concise and personally validating summary!

This is an interesting thread. Like Cyrena, I met Simpson eons ago, when he was a star running back at USC where my uncle was a professor and a friend of several of the coaches; not enough to learn anything about his personality or more than the fact that he had a one in ten million talent for running and playing football.
The Simpson murder trial was the greatest travesty in the history of modern American justice (until George Bush came along). This was simply a setup; the typical way things were done in LA at the time-planted evidence, false testimony, obstruction of justice, and all the while it was clear that in another city, with a clean scene and forensic investigation, they would have put OJ away forever.

The man is not the brightest bulb in the room, and arrogant enough to believe he was above the law in Sin City. The trial there was a farce, the jury a joke, the judge almost as bad as Ito, and the sentencing was clearly an example of payback being a bitch, but Simpson is more than likely a double murderer and not smart enough to have taken a plea bargain with shorter jail time. This was the smart road, which most of his pals did, but he felt he could beat the rap. There was no fix in this time. I personally feel that he should not be serving his sentence in special isolation, but in the general prison population. Enjoy your life, OJ.

“...and if he keeps out of trouble…”

IMHO, the time for “good behavior” is BEFORE you commit an offense. Once you commit a crime any benefits that might accrue because of “good behavior” should cancelled.

CJ:

Thank you for taking the high road.  I agree in all respects.  In fact, I am one of those few (often mocked) who believe not only that “the prosecution failed miserably to make a case back then. The jury was right to acquit Simpson of murder — based on lack of evidence, otherwise evidence falsified,” but also believe that Simpson did not murder Nicole and Ron (though that doesn’t mean he doesn’t know who did).

As for the LV trial, it was a mockery of justice, not only for its lack of a single AA on the jury (and its all-too-convenient claims by the judge and others that they were not influenced by the earlier trial and acquittal), but because - as everyone seems to be forgetting - the entire thing was a set-up from day 1 (and, of course, the person who set him up got off on a plea deal…).

As well, how can someone be convicted of armed roberry if they, themselves, were not carrying, and did not display, a gun?  And “kidnapping?!”  If I prevent you from leaving a room - whether by direct or indirect means - that is “intimidation,” not “kidnapping.”  Talk about “broad” definitions!

Consider this statement by the judge: “It was a little-bitty room and a lot of you big guys were in that little-bitty room.  That was ‘nobody leave this room.’  That was actually a very violent event. Guns were brought; one was displayed.  The potential for harm to occur in that room was tremendous.”

Excu-u-use me?!  “Very violent?!”  There was ZERO violence.  “Guns were brought; one was displayed.”  Note she does not say “brandished” or “pointed by one person at another.”  “Potential for harm?!”  Since when is “potential” enough to convict someone on the ultra-serious charges of armed robbery and kidnapping?

No matter how one feels about OJ, he was absolutely railroaded this time.  At worst, he is guilty of stupidity and gullibility.

Peace.

I don’t care about OJ or what happens to him but I am really interested in how much ink he still generates and how much lather he works up especially among white dudes.  I’m sure shrinks are having a ball with this as it epitomizes the manhood complex of the white male.  As white hetero males are threatened more each day, guys like Simpson become more provocative.  This blog, compared to say the SF Chronicle, is over him it seems as there doesn’t seem to be any ranting really.  It would be interesting to see the demographics of those who are experiencing true schadenfreude.

CJ,

Thanks for the excellent post. You’re absolutely correct on all points. (or at least it jibes with my own opinions).  And you’re certainly correct that one need not be an OJ ‘fan’ to know that the LA Prosecutors screwed the thing up from the very beginning.  In fact, from my view and understanding of the legal system, there wasn’t enough legal grounds for holding him over for a trial when they held the initial hearing. None of what they were using as ‘evidence’ had been legally obtained. Instead, the police (Mark Furhman himself in fact) had jumped over the gate and on to his property. So if we’re talking about following standard legal procedure, NONE of what they discovered was admissible in any judicial proceeding. Or, more to the point, it couldn’t be considered for the purposes of holding somebody over for trial.

But, I said that to say that I wasn’t a ‘fan’ either. I met Mr. Simpson decades ago, and for some years at least, had occasion to cross paths with him from time to time, as a peripheral member of the crowd he hung out with before he got to be ‘famous’. (Like back to the days at USC). My opinion is that he’s an arrogant asshole, and I thought that long before the tragedy that befell his second wife. So that personal opinion is not media induced.

But just him being an asshole isn’t proof that he murdered anybody, and no evidence was ever presented that he did. And contrary to what you’ve implied here:
Whether he might have done murders or not, and no one knows but for Simpson himself whether he did them. Not you, not anyone anywhere who wasn’t present at the time and place of the murders. For any to claim they “know” is insult to Simpson and to the jury that acquitted him, and to any other rational person.

If I said that I “knew” (or that most people “KNOW”) that OJ committed the crimes, than I stand linguistically corrected, since you’re correct that I was not there. Since you apparently weren’t either, YOU don’t know if anyone else besides Simpson was there and may be as knowledgeable as Simpson himself.  So, maybe he ISN’T the only one who ‘knows’ whether he did it or not.

Be that as it may, it was NEVER my intention to insult the jury, because while many others (big bad media) have done exactly that by claiming that decision to be jury nullification, I adamantly disagreed. That WAS an insult to the integrity of the jury, and I had I been a juror, I would have decided the same way, based on the law. The prosecution failed to make a case, and Johnnie Cochran, (I knew him as well by the way) did what all attorneys are supposed to do. He defended his client.

I didn’t pay as much attention to the civil trial, though I remember thinking that it pretty much HAD to be a farce. Ron Goldman, (far more so than the Browns) was never gonna let it rest.

So on this:
•  “….Despite Vegas judge’s rhetoric, she both allowed for a jury that included no African-Americans, and then—in that silly speech she delivered up before sentencing Simpson—protested too much. When she tried to claim that Simpson’s previous legal difficulties had no bearing on her sentencing now…”

The same thought crossed my mind when I read her comments as well. At least the part about her ‘protesting too much’.  It certainly could be interpreted that way, and I never have figured out where they came up with the kidnapping charges.  But then I admit that I haven’t followed it much at all, this time around.

Ya gotta admit though, that it was a pretty stupid thing for him to do. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I know exactly how he felt about getting his stuff back, but this really was stupid.

And yes, I remember the Rodney King verdict (the trial in Simi Valley of all places) and the aftermath. I could have predicted all of those outcomes, knowing well the racist underbelly of my native home, most obviously noted by the historical behavior of the LAPD.

Cyrena

One needn’t be an “O.J. fan” to know that the prosecution failed miserably to make a case back then. The jury was right to acquit Simpson of murder—based on lack of evidence, otherwise evidence falsified. Whether he might have done murders or not, and no one knows but for Simpson himself whether he did them. Not you, not anyone anywhere who wasn’t present at the time and place of the murders. For any to claim they “know” is insult to Simpson and to the jury that acquitted him, and to any other rational person. (The civil trial was a farce, not to mention a blatant case of skirting double-jeopardy. Civil cases should not be allowed after criminal trials result in acquittals, though civil cases are opportunity for families of victims and their squads of “outraged” lawyers.)

Media at the time was in the tank for Browns and Goldmans, as “news” was issued in standard, grossly biased fashion. Particularly by local LA media, infinitely hungry when it’s about local celebs.

Ito was, and still is, portrayed as an idiot (in all media) while Cochran was portrayed as a con-man. Con-job was on the part of media, not on Cochran’s part. Media does nothing but interfere in these cases. Even if their motive wasn’t racist per se, it was seeing to it that a “star” athlete was brought low. If it’s not an athlete then it’s some Hollywood “starlet,” or Robert Blake or Phil Spector. Media does nothing but exploit in the interest of boosting ratings among a populace largely ignorant of legal principles. (Right up until it happens to one of them.) In the case of Simpson, the more media claimed not to be racist, the more they exposed themselves for racists they really are. Media protested too much, with lots of talk about “race card” supposedly “played” by Cochran. As though the entire proceeding wasn’t about race from the outset. (“Hulking black man knifes innocent white ex and white male friend,” media might just as well have headlined.)

As for latest farce in Las Vegas, Simpson was found guilty by a jury on which were no African Americans. (Gee whiz, I wonder why not? No black people are served jury summonses in Vegas?) Vegas prosecutors manufactured a whole new reality, akin to that created by LA prosecutors when cops were found innocent by an all-white jury of beating the shit out of Rodney King, despite videotaping of the entire crime. Feds rightly stepped in to bring new charges against those cops who were then found guilty of violating King’s civil rights. (Events triggered LA uprising which I witnessed up close and personal. VERY personal.)

Despite Vegas judge’s rhetoric, she both allowed for a jury that included no African-Americans, and then—in that silly speech she delivered up before sentencing Simpson—protested too much. When she tried to claim that Simpson’s previous legal difficulties had no bearing on her sentencing now.

I didn’t believe a word of what she claimed as she sentenced Simpson and his partner to years in prison for not a helluva lot that happened among an albeit-not-too-savory crew of bosom buddies. Otherwise, the judge made an error in sentencing, which tells us something about her qualifications to be judge at all. (Ito was never found to have been in error.)

Those who think they know Simpson to be guilty of murders are all delighted that he’s been sentenced to at least six years (with early release), while those interested in justice know that “crime” he was lately found guilty of committing was nothing deserving of more that days already served. (Waving guns around is the American Way. Vegas is “Sin City,” for crissake.)

And that crime he was found not guilty of committing continues—despite denials on the part of judges, prosecutors, media and others who “know”—to be reason to hunt the man to the ends of the earth because, well, everyone KNOWS he did murders. Right? No one but Simpson knows any such thing.

By Little Brother, December 6 at 9:34 am
“There may still be a few die-hard OJ fans out there, but my guess is that nearly everyone else experienced a frisson of satisfaction at the news of OJ’s conviction and sentence.”

By Blackspeare, December 6 at 10:21 am
“For all those OJ fans out there——not to worry.  The judge’s pronouncement was so convoluted with concurrent and consecutive sentences that even the attorneys present hard a difficult time interpreting it!”

~~~
The language – ‘die hard OJ FANS’ and all the other visceral projections of retribution, revenge, punishment, and the rest that Americans love so much about our criminal justice system, says it all. Why else would we still be the only industrialized and civilized nation with the death penalty?

This is exactly why the judge went out of her way to say that she wasn’t sentencing him based on any of his previous experiences with the criminal justice system, because no judge should.

But in the reality, that’s exactly how it’s been interpreted by the society. The other reality is that this is the continuing saga of a lifetime of debilitating bitterness from the Goldmans, and even THIS isn’t going to help them.

I don’t believe there are many people left who doubt that OJ Simpson committed those crimes, but it has NOTHING to do with whether or not they are ‘fans’ of OJ Simpson. How trite. I’ll admit that those who’ve known him for decades and decades are still stuck in self-imposed denial, but those are family members, or the same as family members. They are few, and like I said, it’s a self-imposed denial.

But again, the reality is that this famous (to many) black guy killed two white folks and SEEMED to get away with it, simply because he only did that one year in jail. That’s all people see, and that’s what pisses them off. Now of course we ONLY saw that spectacle BECAUSE OJ was famous, and because HE is black, and the victims were white.  Had that not been the case, or God forbid if it had been his first wife, Marguerite, who’d turned up dead with a black friend who happened to be a waiter and part time actor,  there would have been 2 lines buried on page 33 of the LA Times.

So yeah, the criminal justice system has always been a cruel paradox in this country, and there’s no getting around that, even though there are on-going efforts to revamp it. The irony is that in the first case, the ‘law’ did prevail. The LA Prosecutor failed to make their case against him, beyond a reasonable doubt.  The jury (which is the law based on our procedure) did NOT find him ‘innocent’ of these crimes. They acquitted him because the spirit and the letter of the law dictate that the prosecution must prove their accusations beyond a reasonable doubt, and in this case, they failed to do that. It certainly isn’t the first time this has happened.

As for OJ getting away with it…yes, he did in terms of having been able to live outside of a jail cell for the past 12 years, but that’s about it. He’s obviously not been living the good life, and has been in personal hell the entire time, stalked and harassed the entire time by Ron Goldman and his hounds, determined to reap retribution.

Meantime, I’m confused on this details of the crimes in this case. Who was he supposed to have kidnapped? The brokers/dealers of the memorabilia? I’m curious, since that would seem to be the part of the crime to carry the most time.

Maybe Bush will pardon him.

Now he will repent, convert to a religion an write a book.$$$

Larry,

Take Scooter Libby for example.

It is a game of pretend by both sides.  O. J. Simpson pretends he is not a murderer, and the State of Nevada pretends Simpson is going to prison for many years because of “robbery” and “kidnapping” for getting his stuff back—that the Los Angeles murders had nothing to do with it.

OJ obviously got away with murder, but he played the race card at his trial, and was set free by his sleazy lawyers.

Someone once said,  it may of been Kunstler—If you can’t argue facts—argue law; if you can’t argue law—argue facts —and if you can’t argue facts or laws, play the race card.

It’s about time the man paid for something…....

Irony of life.

Fate would have OJ going down with much fanfare.

Actually, Mr. Simpson will be eligible for parole after nine years, 2017.

For all those OJ fans out there——not to worry.  The judge’s pronouncement was so convoluted with concurrent and consecutive sentences that even the attorneys present hard a difficult time interpreting it!  Be in the end OJ will be actually be eligible for parole in 2014 and if he keeps out of trouble the parole board will have to release him because no one was hurt in he crime.  It is interesting that there are people who were caught using marijuana who will spend more time in prison.

Krampus yesterday, gave Mr. Simpson a visit. Krampus, if you do not know, is the Christmas devil who comes to literally whip out punishment to those who have truly been naughty. A monster has been put in a cage.

There may still be a few die-hard OJ fans out there, but my guess is that nearly everyone else experienced a frisson of satisfaction at the news of OJ’s conviction and sentence.

Even if one normally takes the principled, thoughtful high road requiring that we not impose “justice” for one crime by convicting and sentencing someone for another crime, OJ gets no sympathy.  (Not that I buy the defense’s suggestion that this verdict was itself unjust or unfair; this time around, OJ was tried and convicted fair and square.)

The investigation and trial of the murders of Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson was an example of Murphy’s Law at its worst; slipshod and shabby police work and a “pig circus” of a trial.  “Lady Justice” came off as not only blind, but falling-down drunk. 

And the infusion of misplaced racial and identity politics, especially the insinuation that OJ was simply another black innocent being persecuted by The Man, inflamed and infected the already hysterical and chaotic atmosphere. 

Again, even knowing that it doesn’t, or shouldn’t, really work that way, it’s hard not to see this trial, verdict, and sentence as almost a redemptive “do-over” of the previous debacle—even if the violent crime this time around was so much less heinous than a barbaric double murder.  I think the acquittal left a bad taste in most people’s mouths, regardless of their race or ethnicity. 

Only the late Johnnie Cochran emerged as a the closest thing to a “winner” afterwards.

So far, I haven’t heard of any noteworthy outcries of outrage, or claims that OJ is once again the “real victim”—excluding some grumbling from OJ’s relatives. 

I’ll be interested to see whether anyone who saved their “Free OJ” T-shirts will take them out of mothballs and wear them proudly.

about time.hey he got off for murder in my opinion.in a way this is justice .. a little comfort to the goldmans and browns.i mean this guy has serious issues.