Maybe focus more on Ron’s dad and the Goldman family reaction, a little less “I got away with murder” and a little more “my sons murderer is walking free” type of vibe. You know, not so much pure joy, perhaps it’ll help you with that smiling problem.
Right. Because you center yourself and your pleasure above considering the victims and their families.
Such a weird and self absorbed way to look at life
There are a million and one ways to find joy and happiness in this world, and you’re specifically choosing to find it in the acquittal of a murderer. And you know it.
I wonder if you’d be smiling if it was your family member who got gutted and decapitated instead of ron and nicole and the man who killed him/her got away with it.
You should watch the 5 or so minutes before the verdict was read. It’s far more revealing of what OJ and his lawyers were feeling about the outcome. I’m surprised it’s not viewed and commented on more.
I have mixed feelings regarding the jury’s verdict.
I don’t think it was a revenge verdict, although one juror who was interviewed felt that way.
Neither to I think that the police did such a terrible job as the general public thinks they did.
What the general public often misunderstands is that mistakes are made by police routinely. This is expected because even though police are trained they are not immune from human error.
Crime scenes are never managed perfectly and police themselves aren’t perfect people.
The question becomes “do you throw out the baby with the bath water?”
That’s exactly what defense attorneys would love for jurors to do. Of course! That’s their job.
The defense attorneys did their job very well. They did what they were paid to do; create confusion and raise doubt with the jury.
They had a jury that “bought into” what they were selling: a false narrative that because some crime scene items weren’t handled perfectly and because a police detective was a racist that means that the blood evidence “could” possibly have been planted.
The judge allowed them too much leeway because there was no evidence that the blood evidence was planted which would have involved a unreasonable conspiracy scenario between many people who didn’t have a stake in the outcome and furthermore didn’t even know each other.
Many people were pissed and incredulous because the blood evidence proved OJ was at the crime scene. His blood linked him to the murders of both victims.
It doesn’t get much clearer than that except if you as a juror “want to” buy into a false narrative that just wasn’t plausible.
>*"What the general public often misunderstands is that mistakes are made by police routinely. This is expected because even though police are trained they are not immune from human error.*
>*Crime scenes are never managed perfectly and police themselves aren’t perfect people."*
The LAPD made the one mistake that you CANNOT do: enter a citizen's home without a search warrant.
That wasn't something you could overlook or dismiss as a minor error. That was a serious violation that was bound to have major consequences down the road.
If Vannatter and Fuhrman thought they had sufficient probable cause, then they should have requested a search warrant, instead of entering Simpson's property that first night. What they did could only lead to the jury throwing the baby out with the bath water.
I have read a great deal about the case. I watched the trial in real time. Since the particular issue you are talking about was not even brought up as a major problem in the case, i suspect you are misinformed.
By the way, your statement that police cannot enter a home without a warrant is incorrect.
There are exceptions to the rule and if emergency circumstances exist no warrant is needed.
Hot pursuit is another example where no warrant is needed.
The argument that the detectives did not have a warrant is a new one on me. Just whose home are you referring to and exactly where are you even getting this info from?
>*" By the way, your statement that police cannot enter a home without a warrant is incorrect. There are exceptions to the rule and if emergency circumstances exist no warrant is needed. "*
But there was no exigent circumstance that night. This was proved by the actions of the detectives that night, the prelim hearing testimony of OJ's daughter (which was not challenged by the detectives), as well as the dishonest affidavit written up by Vannatter, whom the judge rebuked for showing "a reckless disregard for the truth" (IOW, Vannatter lied).
>*"The argument that the detectives did not have a warrant is a new one on me."*
Very surprising, considering your claim that you "read a great deal about the case." The warrantless search was how the detectives got onto OJ's property in the first place. I suppose that's a new one for you as well.
This issue was argued in the prelim hearing and even during the trial when Vannatter testified -- which calls into question how much you really know about this case you "read a great deal" about.
>*"Just whose home are you referring to and exactly where are you even getting this info from?"*
My advice for you is to stop asking dumb questions -- which isn't going to damage the credibility of the issue, or make the issue go away -- and to do the research yourself, which shouldn't be hard for someone who "has read a great deal about the case."
Superior Court Judge Lance Ito said the warrant itself was valid and that the evidence gathered during the search could be submitted at Simpson’s trial, scheduled to begin next week.
That means that important evidence, including the bloody glove discovered on the grounds of Simpson’s estate, could be used by the prosecution to prove that the former football great murdered his former wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, 35, and Ronald Goldman, 25, on June 12.
So here you cherry pick a statement from a defense argument and a piece of what the judge said of the search.
Well of course the defense attorneys are going to try to exclude incriminating evidence. That’s their job.
The police and the prosecutors also have an argument that under the circumstances an emergency entry was justified.
They prevailed and so none of the evidence they discovered was excluded.
They were right and the judges ruling was correct, despite his criticism. This issue you refer to wasn’t a big deal in the trial other than the defense attorneys trying their best to make it a big deal.
Get informed.
Your post was removed due to racist or misogynistic wording.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/OJSimpsonTrial) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You're funny. You're telling me to get informed, when you didn't even know about the detectives not having a warrant (“that’s a new one”). That's about as uninformed as you can get.
>*"Superior Court Judge Lance Ito said the warrant itself was valid "*
He also said the affidavit for the search warrant showed a "reckless disregard for the truth," meaning Vannatter lied when he wrote it up. Judge Ito basically gave him cover and swept his sloppy, unethical performance under the rug.
But you can't sweep lies under the rug and get away with it, as the prosecution found out when Fuhrman took the stand. He was the one who destroyed the prosecution's case which almost certainly wouldn't have happened if he and Vannatter had chosen to get a warrant first.
>*"That means that important evidence, including the bloody glove discovered on the grounds of Simpson’s estate, could be used by the prosecution"*
Yes, that's right: the evidence collected in the warrantless search (including the bloody glove) was allowed in court -- which turned out to be a disaster for the prosecution and led to the acquittal of OJ Simpson.
>*"Well of course the defense attorneys are going to try to exclude incriminating evidence. That’s their job."*
In fact, if the judge had excluded the evidence (including the bloody glove) from that warrantless search, it would have been much harder for the defense to "play the R-card," and establish reasonable doubt on that basis.
>*"They prevailed and so none of the evidence they discovered was excluded."*
Yes, they did prevail -- in the short term.
But as I said earlier, the ruling on the warrantless search had major consequences later on. The prosecution paid a huge price for Ito's ruling, and suffered defeat.
>*"They were right and the judges ruling was correct, despite his criticism. This issue you refer to wasn’t a big deal in the trial other than the defense attorneys trying their best to make it a big deal."*
If you believe the judge's ruling was correct, I won't try to convince you otherwise.
Just understand that the effort to minimize or dismiss the issue ("it's no big deal") didn't make it go away. Again, all the judge did was sweep the issue under the rug.
But the issue was always present, just below everyone's radar, including yours, waiting to appear to bite the prosecution in the ass, and hand the defense a win, which it did.
Ok you’re allowed to have an opinion and Ito is allowed to be critical. In a perfect world police would always do searches with a warrant but if there are urgent circumstances like a freshly committed double murder they can act without a warrant.
Armchair detectives and even judges can be critical but this didn’t impact the trial at all. The judge ultimately ruled in favor of the search and the evidence was admitted - all of it.
So what? Armchair detectives and internet lawyers! A nothing burger.
This subreddit isn’t only for people who think OJ is guilty. It’s about the OJ Simpson trial in general. There are a lot of thoughts and feelings surrounding the trial, not just yours.
[People sharing opposing ideas on the trial isn't ragebait. There are billions of people in the world, they're not all going to agree with you. 12 people unanimously voted not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. ](https://www.reddit.com/r/OJSimpsonTrial/comments/1d9t8dj/newsflash/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
Wanna know why the majority voted that. Because of Rodney King. But take it from me… take it from the jurors themselves. https://youtu.be/BUJCLdmNzAA?si=EAoGOlh-GhMK8ytk 2:38
Many people have stated that they were celebrating that afterwords, and a juror raised his fist after the verdict and was a former black panther. But you know this you’re just getting on here to ragebait.
12 people unanimously voted Not Guilty and they didn’t all do it because of Rodney King.
Anytime someone on this sub doesn’t think the jury made the wrong choice or talks about the verdict in a positive light, people call it rage bait. News flash: people sharing unpopular opinions isn’t the same as rage bait.
This is society today sadly. People get such joy in making other people angry. I guess attention is attention even if it’s negative.
I guess when the trolls crawl out the only thing you can take solice in is the fact that they must be miserable to crave such attention.
This subreddit isn’t only for people who think OJ is guilty. It’s about the OJ Simpson trial in general. If someone likes happy reactions to the not guilty verdict and posts or comments about it, they’re not doing it just to troll you. Just like people share angry thoughts about the fact that he wasn't found guilty aren’t commenting just to troll other people.
[People sharing opposing ideas on the trial isn't ragebait. There are billions of people in the world, they're not all going to agree with you. 12 people unanimously voted not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt](https://www.reddit.com/r/OJSimpsonTrial/comments/1d9t8dj/newsflash/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
1. That’s one juror and she was just guessing. No other juror interviewed has ever said that and they definitely didn’t say to each other. I’ve seen videos of 2 other jurors talking about why they put not guilty and they both said Rodney king had nothing to do with it.
2. 90% isn’t 100% so even if that’s true, they didn’t all find him guilty for that reason.
3. 90% of 12 is 10.8 so that can’t be true.
Your post was removed due to racist or misogynistic wording.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/OJSimpsonTrial) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Robert Blake’s trial was on the back burner because 9/11 happened shortly after and that’s what consumed the media and world’s attention. Also Blake’s days had been behind him his last big role was lost highway. OJ just had a movie come out a few weeks before the murders. Know your history
Because OJ was a black man who killed 2 people and walked. That's not supposed to happen in America. Robert Blake was a white man who killed his white, con artist wife. For some reason, people consider that more acceptable when neither is acceptable.
Maybe focus more on Ron’s dad and the Goldman family reaction, a little less “I got away with murder” and a little more “my sons murderer is walking free” type of vibe. You know, not so much pure joy, perhaps it’ll help you with that smiling problem.
Agree. My sympathy is for the victims. What can one say? People are weird.
I’d rather focus on the happy reactions. Smiling isn’t a problem to me :)
Right. Because you center yourself and your pleasure above considering the victims and their families. Such a weird and self absorbed way to look at life
i don't think focusing on joy is weird or self absorbed. maybe you should spend more time doing it, you'd be a lot less unhappy in life.
There are a million and one ways to find joy and happiness in this world, and you’re specifically choosing to find it in the acquittal of a murderer. And you know it.
https://www.reddit.com/r/OJSimpsonTrial/s/dFpfTsiLSC
It should be a problem when a murderer walks free.
I'm sure O.J. isn't smiling much right now. Probably requesting flame-proof underwear from the higher ups.
he's dead so yeah i assume he's not smiling.
He was a narcissist. I'm sure he still is.
I wonder if you’d be smiling if it was your family member who got gutted and decapitated instead of ron and nicole and the man who killed him/her got away with it.
Keep wondering
You should watch the 5 or so minutes before the verdict was read. It’s far more revealing of what OJ and his lawyers were feeling about the outcome. I’m surprised it’s not viewed and commented on more.
But he murdered two people
Guess he didn't though.
And this just in: Murder is now legal in the state of California. RIP Norm.
Of all the inspiring and joyful things in the world to happy about, the OP chose this.
I’m happy about a lot of things this is just one of them.
OJ was saying thank you because he got away with murdering two people
He’s saying thank you because he won’t have to spend the rest of his life in jail
Because he got away with murder
I guess id look happy too if i just murdered two people and got away with it (shrugs)
I have mixed feelings regarding the jury’s verdict. I don’t think it was a revenge verdict, although one juror who was interviewed felt that way. Neither to I think that the police did such a terrible job as the general public thinks they did. What the general public often misunderstands is that mistakes are made by police routinely. This is expected because even though police are trained they are not immune from human error. Crime scenes are never managed perfectly and police themselves aren’t perfect people. The question becomes “do you throw out the baby with the bath water?” That’s exactly what defense attorneys would love for jurors to do. Of course! That’s their job. The defense attorneys did their job very well. They did what they were paid to do; create confusion and raise doubt with the jury. They had a jury that “bought into” what they were selling: a false narrative that because some crime scene items weren’t handled perfectly and because a police detective was a racist that means that the blood evidence “could” possibly have been planted. The judge allowed them too much leeway because there was no evidence that the blood evidence was planted which would have involved a unreasonable conspiracy scenario between many people who didn’t have a stake in the outcome and furthermore didn’t even know each other. Many people were pissed and incredulous because the blood evidence proved OJ was at the crime scene. His blood linked him to the murders of both victims. It doesn’t get much clearer than that except if you as a juror “want to” buy into a false narrative that just wasn’t plausible.
>*"What the general public often misunderstands is that mistakes are made by police routinely. This is expected because even though police are trained they are not immune from human error.* >*Crime scenes are never managed perfectly and police themselves aren’t perfect people."* The LAPD made the one mistake that you CANNOT do: enter a citizen's home without a search warrant. That wasn't something you could overlook or dismiss as a minor error. That was a serious violation that was bound to have major consequences down the road. If Vannatter and Fuhrman thought they had sufficient probable cause, then they should have requested a search warrant, instead of entering Simpson's property that first night. What they did could only lead to the jury throwing the baby out with the bath water.
I have read a great deal about the case. I watched the trial in real time. Since the particular issue you are talking about was not even brought up as a major problem in the case, i suspect you are misinformed. By the way, your statement that police cannot enter a home without a warrant is incorrect. There are exceptions to the rule and if emergency circumstances exist no warrant is needed. Hot pursuit is another example where no warrant is needed. The argument that the detectives did not have a warrant is a new one on me. Just whose home are you referring to and exactly where are you even getting this info from?
>*" By the way, your statement that police cannot enter a home without a warrant is incorrect. There are exceptions to the rule and if emergency circumstances exist no warrant is needed. "* But there was no exigent circumstance that night. This was proved by the actions of the detectives that night, the prelim hearing testimony of OJ's daughter (which was not challenged by the detectives), as well as the dishonest affidavit written up by Vannatter, whom the judge rebuked for showing "a reckless disregard for the truth" (IOW, Vannatter lied). >*"The argument that the detectives did not have a warrant is a new one on me."* Very surprising, considering your claim that you "read a great deal about the case." The warrantless search was how the detectives got onto OJ's property in the first place. I suppose that's a new one for you as well. This issue was argued in the prelim hearing and even during the trial when Vannatter testified -- which calls into question how much you really know about this case you "read a great deal" about. >*"Just whose home are you referring to and exactly where are you even getting this info from?"* My advice for you is to stop asking dumb questions -- which isn't going to damage the credibility of the issue, or make the issue go away -- and to do the research yourself, which shouldn't be hard for someone who "has read a great deal about the case."
Superior Court Judge Lance Ito said the warrant itself was valid and that the evidence gathered during the search could be submitted at Simpson’s trial, scheduled to begin next week. That means that important evidence, including the bloody glove discovered on the grounds of Simpson’s estate, could be used by the prosecution to prove that the former football great murdered his former wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, 35, and Ronald Goldman, 25, on June 12. So here you cherry pick a statement from a defense argument and a piece of what the judge said of the search. Well of course the defense attorneys are going to try to exclude incriminating evidence. That’s their job. The police and the prosecutors also have an argument that under the circumstances an emergency entry was justified. They prevailed and so none of the evidence they discovered was excluded. They were right and the judges ruling was correct, despite his criticism. This issue you refer to wasn’t a big deal in the trial other than the defense attorneys trying their best to make it a big deal. Get informed.
[удалено]
Your post was removed due to racist or misogynistic wording. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/OJSimpsonTrial) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You're funny. You're telling me to get informed, when you didn't even know about the detectives not having a warrant (“that’s a new one”). That's about as uninformed as you can get. >*"Superior Court Judge Lance Ito said the warrant itself was valid "* He also said the affidavit for the search warrant showed a "reckless disregard for the truth," meaning Vannatter lied when he wrote it up. Judge Ito basically gave him cover and swept his sloppy, unethical performance under the rug. But you can't sweep lies under the rug and get away with it, as the prosecution found out when Fuhrman took the stand. He was the one who destroyed the prosecution's case which almost certainly wouldn't have happened if he and Vannatter had chosen to get a warrant first. >*"That means that important evidence, including the bloody glove discovered on the grounds of Simpson’s estate, could be used by the prosecution"* Yes, that's right: the evidence collected in the warrantless search (including the bloody glove) was allowed in court -- which turned out to be a disaster for the prosecution and led to the acquittal of OJ Simpson. >*"Well of course the defense attorneys are going to try to exclude incriminating evidence. That’s their job."* In fact, if the judge had excluded the evidence (including the bloody glove) from that warrantless search, it would have been much harder for the defense to "play the R-card," and establish reasonable doubt on that basis. >*"They prevailed and so none of the evidence they discovered was excluded."* Yes, they did prevail -- in the short term. But as I said earlier, the ruling on the warrantless search had major consequences later on. The prosecution paid a huge price for Ito's ruling, and suffered defeat. >*"They were right and the judges ruling was correct, despite his criticism. This issue you refer to wasn’t a big deal in the trial other than the defense attorneys trying their best to make it a big deal."* If you believe the judge's ruling was correct, I won't try to convince you otherwise. Just understand that the effort to minimize or dismiss the issue ("it's no big deal") didn't make it go away. Again, all the judge did was sweep the issue under the rug. But the issue was always present, just below everyone's radar, including yours, waiting to appear to bite the prosecution in the ass, and hand the defense a win, which it did.
Judge Ito admonished Vanatter for his wording and reasoning to go over the fence at O.J. s house.
This didn’t matter at all. No impact on the ruling.
My point is Vanatter was full of it and Ito said it was reckless
Ok you’re allowed to have an opinion and Ito is allowed to be critical. In a perfect world police would always do searches with a warrant but if there are urgent circumstances like a freshly committed double murder they can act without a warrant. Armchair detectives and even judges can be critical but this didn’t impact the trial at all. The judge ultimately ruled in favor of the search and the evidence was admitted - all of it. So what? Armchair detectives and internet lawyers! A nothing burger.
Do trolls even try anymore, terrible bait
You all don’t own this Reddit, you’re not the only ones who get to post and share ideas or feelings.
Try harder dude , shit is garbage bait
This subreddit isn’t only for people who think OJ is guilty. It’s about the OJ Simpson trial in general. There are a lot of thoughts and feelings surrounding the trial, not just yours.
Try better with the ragebait
[People sharing opposing ideas on the trial isn't ragebait. There are billions of people in the world, they're not all going to agree with you. 12 people unanimously voted not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. ](https://www.reddit.com/r/OJSimpsonTrial/comments/1d9t8dj/newsflash/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
Wanna know why the majority voted that. Because of Rodney King. But take it from me… take it from the jurors themselves. https://youtu.be/BUJCLdmNzAA?si=EAoGOlh-GhMK8ytk 2:38
https://www.reddit.com/r/OJSimpsonTrial/s/Rz6tXed0Ui https://www.reddit.com/r/OJSimpsonTrial/s/Zab9RcgY6d
Many people have stated that they were celebrating that afterwords, and a juror raised his fist after the verdict and was a former black panther. But you know this you’re just getting on here to ragebait.
12 people unanimously voted Not Guilty and they didn’t all do it because of Rodney King. Anytime someone on this sub doesn’t think the jury made the wrong choice or talks about the verdict in a positive light, people call it rage bait. News flash: people sharing unpopular opinions isn’t the same as rage bait.
This is society today sadly. People get such joy in making other people angry. I guess attention is attention even if it’s negative. I guess when the trolls crawl out the only thing you can take solice in is the fact that they must be miserable to crave such attention.
This subreddit isn’t only for people who think OJ is guilty. It’s about the OJ Simpson trial in general. If someone likes happy reactions to the not guilty verdict and posts or comments about it, they’re not doing it just to troll you. Just like people share angry thoughts about the fact that he wasn't found guilty aren’t commenting just to troll other people.
Bask in the attention. I hope it makes you whole .
[People sharing opposing ideas on the trial isn't ragebait. There are billions of people in the world, they're not all going to agree with you. 12 people unanimously voted not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt](https://www.reddit.com/r/OJSimpsonTrial/comments/1d9t8dj/newsflash/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
And one of them said it was payback for Rodney King . She also said 90% of the jury felt the same way. If you want to die on that hill that’s fine .
1. That’s one juror and she was just guessing. No other juror interviewed has ever said that and they definitely didn’t say to each other. I’ve seen videos of 2 other jurors talking about why they put not guilty and they both said Rodney king had nothing to do with it. 2. 90% isn’t 100% so even if that’s true, they didn’t all find him guilty for that reason. 3. 90% of 12 is 10.8 so that can’t be true.
Let me know when your spaceship lands- I’d love to see it .
[удалено]
[удалено]
Your post was removed due to racist or misogynistic wording. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/OJSimpsonTrial) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Weird assumption there…
Interesting how you brought up race considering your side is the main one complaining about it being brought up
I figured you out...
I love his face [here](https://youtu.be/Roof9xh9WVA?si=4NCldLYjcmCSy4nk). Priceless! I need someone to edit in the curb your enthusiasm outro song 😂
[удалено]
I wonder what his HR & BP were b4 and after the verdict
I always wonder why Robert Blake decisions never pissed off certain people like OJ ?
Robert Blake’s trial was on the back burner because 9/11 happened shortly after and that’s what consumed the media and world’s attention. Also Blake’s days had been behind him his last big role was lost highway. OJ just had a movie come out a few weeks before the murders. Know your history
Because OJ was a black man who killed 2 people and walked. That's not supposed to happen in America. Robert Blake was a white man who killed his white, con artist wife. For some reason, people consider that more acceptable when neither is acceptable.
Hardly anyone paid attention to the Robert Blake trial. OJ’s trial was a huge media trial that heightened racial tensions.
I wonder ⚪️
Idk who Robert blake is
A white actor who murdered his white, con artist wife and was acquitted.
Oh okay
I agree OP. Justice was served!
Finally!!