Remembering OJ

https://theskepticalgambler.blogspot.com/2024/04/remembering-oj.html

He would have been acquitted if he had walked into a bar with his wife's severed head tucked under his arm, chortled, "I finally got rid of the bitch!" and bought everybody a round of drinks. It was just time--sociologically, politically, whatever--for such an acquittal. Sticking it to the man, or something.

The clown-car absurdity of the defense was memorable, at least. So a glove was found that didn't fit OJ. He wriggled his fingers while Cochrane chanted a dumb rhyme. That was it. That was the defense. And because of the makeup of the jury, it was enough.

I remember him as a star running back, a violent thug, and an idiot. Not necessarily in that order.

This sub human got away with 2 murders and lived another 30 years. How this animal was able to sleep is unfathionable to me. There Is no doubt he is/was guilty - no one else was found to have done the murders. I hope he suffered greatly and may he rot in hell. Finally justice was done.

I still have his 1972 rookie football card.    It was valued as high as $500 during his trial....its not even half that now.    Should have sold that stupid thing.

Anyone interested?  =)

Although I assumed he was guilty, I did read a theory later that gave me pause. The idea was that his son, who had mental issues, actually committed the murders,OJ knew it, and covered for him. The son allegedly had some mental health issues, and it would explain the DNA evidence to a large degree. I'm not saying it's a likely scenario; I'm saying it took the events out of the "mortal lock" category for me.

The only trouble with that theory is, what would his son's motive have been? Even if he disliked them, was it enough to kill them?

And let's say that his son did commit the murders. Did OJ instigate them, telling his son that he would take the fall and due to his celebrity status, would probably be acquitted? In that case, OJ would be just as guilty as if he had physically committed the murders.

"USDOJ/OIG FBI Labs Report. During the California murder case of People v. O.J. Simpson, DNA results indicated that blood found on a rear gate at the crime scene belonged to O.J. Simpson and that blood found on socks at Simpson's residence belonged to murder victim Nicole Brown Simpson."

OJ Simpson murdered two people and walked.

OJ avoided criminal conviction of murder, but he was subsequently adjudicated a murderer in civil court. It sounds strange, but recently someone who evaded a criminal rape conviction  was adjudicated a rapist in a civil proceeding with a judgment of over 83 million dollars.

I'm familiar with the blood evidence. If you read my piece, you'd notice that my late wife, a forensic anthropologist, used the evidence from the case while teaching her physical anthropology courses. The insertion of the son into the equation does muddle the "mortal lock" aspects of the blood evidence a bit. Not enough to change my mind, but enough to take it out of mortal lock territory.

Everyone prefers "without a reasonable doubt" answers. Wrap it with a bow and all that. The problem with that is statistical. What is your personal definition of "without a reasonable doubt" when lives are at stake? I would think experienced gamblers would have a higher threshold than most.

Certainly better than "without a shadow of a doubt."  [my emphasis]  Wasn't that the standard decades ago?   Is there history of that change, or am I inventing something that didn't exist?

OK.  I served on four juries, three civil, one criminal. 

No lives were at stake in the criminal case, just loss of freedom for however long (jail) for a low income (if any income) minority male accused of "flashing" in windows in an up scale neighborhood.  I can't recall if there were any "reasonable doubt" discussions, which thinking back could be 1) potential for witness mis-identification and 2) racial bias, at a minimum.  All white jury, mixed male/female.  

Civil cases, like criminal ones, potentially involve loss of somebody's income (and maybe freedom too), thus to me they deserved as much attention. 

One civil case concerned a real estate "limited partnership" conflict.  Potentially big money (to me) at stake between the battling partners.  The judge (and attorneys) warned us prior to the trial that we would need to pay close attention and they would try hard to make things easier to understand, since few of us, if any (none) were versed in complex real estate law.  I don't recall the particulars of the case, don't recall the outcome.  Basically two guys would win, two would lose, or three vs one, something like that.   I can't remember how we came to one conclusion or another.  Reasonable doubt considerations?  Can't recall.

Another case concerned a fire in a truck that contained medical equipment, damaging the inside of the truck and its contents.  Who should pay?  The trucking company?  The driver?  The designer of the truck?  Whoever loaded items in the truck?   Source of the fire?  All I remember is learning the term "plackard load", the sign required to be mounted outside a truck hauling hazzardous material (e.g. oxygen, for one).  If the sign has a 'flame' on it, that's a "plackard load", in trucker-speak.  Reasonable doubt?  Can't remember who won, who lost, much of anything.

Most memorable was an 'affluenza teen' case.  A spoiled underage (drinking/driving) female alcoholic from a wealthy family driving her brother's car in a head-on collision.  Open cans of beer in the car.  The teen's guilt as the DUI driver causing the crash had already been established in a different court.   In the other car the driver's face was impaled by the shift stick jamming through her cheek.  Our case concerned who is to be responsible for the medical costs.  The teen had no income; she was driving her brother's car supposedly without his knowledge/permission; the mother maintained she wasn't home thus was unaware of her underage alcoholic daughter taking the brother's car to drive, so she (the mom) shouldn't have to pay (her defense).  Prior to this wreck the teen had already wrecked 2-3 cars after which Mom bought her more cars.   Reasonable doubt?  Can't think of any, other than if some law applied which exonerated the mom if she "didn't know."  Nah.  I'm pretty sure our jury found the mother liable for the medical bills.

Any "reasonable doubt" I might have, one or more other jurors might disagree, which can take time to discuss and rediscuss.  Which is a positive thing about our jury system.  With one exception, 'my' jurors were very thoughtful about our duty and reasonable doubts.  One guy (I think in the real estate case) said as soon as we first sat down to deliberate "We all know that guy is lying so lets just get this over with."  No, dummy, I don't know, and we have to do this right, so hush up.

Who hasn't seen the movie "Twelve Angry Men"?  Reasonable doubt, bias, personalities among jurors.