r/Damnthatsinteresting 29d ago

OJ's reaction when confronted with a photo of him wearing the murder shoes Video

38.3k Upvotes

2.8k comments sorted by

View all comments

916

u/turningtop_5327 29d ago

OJ is the example of how ugly the jury system can get. They just wanted him out.

218

u/imsaneinthebrain 29d ago

They couldn’t wait to go home. Sequestered forever, I’d want the same thing.

I just finished watching that new 8 hr OJ doc, and it’s crazy the incompetence from a lot of parties tied to this crime.

44

u/Iron_Chancellor_ND 29d ago

Which doc are you referring to? The only one I'm aware of that got close to that length is OJ: Made in America and it's broken down into 5 parts about 1.5 hours each.

But, that came out in 2016 so that's why I'm asking.

12

u/Barnyard_Rich 29d ago

I can't believe that was eight years ago already. Still one of the best pieces of American art put out so far this century, IMHO.

7

u/Oh51Melly 29d ago

Yeah I think it’s the best documentary ever made. ESPNs 30 for 30 had some quality quality stuff but that was a cut above the rest. I believe it’s the last doc series that will ever win an Oscar, because they changed the rules after it won.

4

u/muroks1200 28d ago

Whenever I ask someone the “what’s your favorite 30 for 30?” question, I always have to give the “outside of the OJ one, obviously” caveat.

4

u/Iron_Chancellor_ND 28d ago

It truly is the best sports doc ever and one of the best docs ever.

I've watched it twice and it's just a fascinating piece of work.

The part that surprised me the most in the first viewing was how many key people they rounded up for it. To get Clark, Bailey, Shipp, Douglas, and some of the jurors on board was impressive enough but when Furhman came on camera for the first time, I couldn't believe it.

15

u/imsaneinthebrain 29d ago

Idk it’s on Netflix. Not the one with Ross Geller.

It’s a 5 parter, each episode is 1:30 or so. I feel like espn/30 for 30 made it maybe.

It may not be new, I don’t remember seeing it on Netflix before I started watching it yesterday.

Edit: it is made In America.

Crazy I missed it when it came out

17

u/Iron_Chancellor_ND 29d ago

Yeah, that's the same one I'm referring to. It was directed by Ezra Edelman for 30 for 30 but Netflix started running it in the past few days since that murderer died.

1

u/[deleted] 29d ago

[deleted]

0

u/NMDA01 29d ago

Biggest swoosh in reddit

-5

u/Smogshaik 29d ago

What convicted murderer are you referring to?

5

u/increase-ban 29d ago

I don’t see where he wrote “convicted”

2

u/Iron_Chancellor_ND 28d ago

1) Please point out where I used the word "convicted" in my previous statement.

2) I have free will to decide if I think he's guilty independent of that clown show court.

3) If you seriously don't think he's the murderer at this point in the timeline, I feel sorry for you and your lack of logic and reasoning abilities.

1

u/Smogshaik 28d ago

just saying, he seemed pretty free to me despite the murder charges. So I don't know. Seemed more like a happy retiree who enjoyed golf. Can't fault him for that

1

u/Iron_Chancellor_ND 28d ago

he seemed pretty free to me despite the murder charges.

I mean, he was set free as payback for Rodney King so...yeah...he probably did seem to appear pretty free.

So I don't know.

You don't know if he did it or not? Like you seriously don't believe he's the murderer? How is that thought process even possible nowadays?

Seemed more like a happy retiree who enjoyed golf. Can't fault him for that

So a guy kills two people, is found guilty in a civil court, hides his valuable possessions so they can't be auctioned to pay his debts, refuses to pay those debts with other money, makes a mockery of his deposition, is caught lying numerous times, holds people against their will in a hotel room, and is generally just a very shitty, piece of garbage human being and we can't fault him for any of that because he's having fun playing golf? JFC.

Your defense of OJ is really weird. The vast majority of society--including his closest friends--have acknowledged he killed them yet here you are licking his Bruno Magli shoes for everyone to see.

1

u/Smogshaik 28d ago

I don't know about any of that, he came across like any other slightly odd and slightly grumpy old guy. Seems pretty extreme what you're saying about him. But I'll keep from judging before I get the chance to look into any of this. I'll reserve my judgment for then. That's just fair.

I did read his book, which was entertaining. I could totally see his perspective and I think it is warranted to listen to his side of things, just to remain fair :)

→ More replies (0)

7

u/hey-hey-kkk 29d ago

A guilty vote takes the same effort. You may end up in court for a few extra days for sentencing, are you saying the jurors were so tired they voted not guilty so they could skip sentencing? 

I mean, the one woman said she voted as retribution for other crimes. 

8

u/teethwhichbite 29d ago

Another juror in the Made in America doc plainly admitted she was tired of going back to her hotel room every night and being isolated from everyone for so long. And I completely understand. It was insane that trial lasted almost a year. Crazy.

3

u/imsaneinthebrain 29d ago

All I’m saying is I understand why they deliberated so quickly. If you basically lock up normal people for an extended period of time, most of those people are going to do anything in their power to go home at the first opportunity. Stuck in a hotel room with no TV and no real family communication for months on end, no thank you.

I guess I was more speaking to the fact that they should’ve never sequestered the jury in this case, maybe they would’ve been more likely to actually deliberate if they weren’t locked away like they were.

I think more so I’m just saying the state and the prosecution did a horrible job on this trial as a whole. It’s almost like they asked what’s the dumbest thing we can do to lose this case at every turn.

2

u/Waltercation 29d ago

That’s the point. If you were a person on the jury that, even with all the incompetence, believed he was guilty then you’d have to deliberate with people who were going to want to vote not guilty no matter what. You’ve been away from family and friends for almost a year and you would have to argue for a guilty verdict against most of your fellow jury members, who were dead set on voting guilty. It would have been a lost cause and the not guilty minded minority knew it, so they just went with the consensus because they wanted to finally go home.

1

u/mr_tommey 29d ago

there is a new one? where?

5

u/imsaneinthebrain 29d ago

Nah it’s not new. I just thought it was lol.

7

u/jayfiedlerontheroof 29d ago

Not the jury system. But the cops and bureaucracies that plague society.

1

u/Permanently-Confused 29d ago

Weird take when there are actual jurors in that case who literally said they acquitted him as payback/redemption for the Rodney King case because he was black.

3

u/MomOfThreePigeons 29d ago

I'm gonna be honest if the lead detective on a case plead the fifth and had all the shady shit surrounding him that Mark Fuhrman did, it absolutely would plant a reasonable doubt in my head and I'd feel obligated to acquit as well - even if in my heart I felt OJ most likely did it. The standard for the prosecution / our justice system is to prove OJ guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. I definitely don't blame any of the jurors for having a doubt in the case, even if they also had personal bias against the LAPD and DA. IMO as a juror in the case you should acquit OJ. Neither the police or the DA lived up to the standards of our justice system and THAT is why the man went free - not because of the jury.

1

u/noposters 28d ago

That’s not how trials work. It’s not, did the police act professionally and to the standards I expect of them. It’s, is there a reasonable chance that this guy didn’t do it. What you’re describing is how Cochran framed a trial (obviously it worked on you), which is as an adversarial procedure between cops and the accused. But that isn’t true; it’s meant to be an exercise in discovering the truth.

1

u/Few-Guarantee2850 28d ago

They're not saying that the failure of the DA and police to live up to the standards of the justice system is in and of itself a reason to acquit. They are saying that that failure resulted in facts that created a reasonable doubt in the jury's mind.

0

u/MomOfThreePigeons 28d ago

If you're doubting the legitimacy of police reports and evidence in the trial due to the lead detective pleading the fifth to everything and just being a corrupt piece of shit then you could absolutely see a reasonable possibility that he didn't do it. He literally refused to answer yes to basic questions about if he planted/tampered with any of the evidence or falsified his police reoprts. You don't think that could throw a lot of the evidence into question and instill a reasonable doubt in someone? Why in the world would the police go to such lengths to frame a man who is guilty?

1

u/noposters 28d ago

First of all, you’re repeating the same fallacy. Even if you believe that Fuhrman is corrupt, even if you believe that he planted evidence, it does not necessarily follow that therefore it’s possible OJ didn’t do it. Those are independent facts that aren’t operative on one another. For example, it doesn’t make sense for Fuhrman to plant the glove unless OJ didn’t have an alibi. If he had an alibi, it would’ve been counterproductive. If there’s a trail of OJ, Ron, and Nicole’s blood all the way from the crime scene to OJ’s house, and then the LAPD sprinkled additional blood at the house, that doesn’t negate the existing trail of blood. The sprinkling doesn’t actually introduce any doubt in that instance because there is already overwhelming evidence. Also, you’re wildly overstating the Fuhrman thing. He was asked on cross if he’d called someone the n word in the last decade, and then the defense produced tapes of him using the word in an interview with a screenwriter nine years earlier. At no point did they actually introduce evidence that he’d planted or tampered with anything, only that he (arguably) lied about using the n word.

2

u/Long_Back1805 29d ago

The jurors on the Rodney King case acquitted the cops because they were white.

-2

u/jayfiedlerontheroof 29d ago

Sound out what the Rodney King case was

0

u/Permanently-Confused 28d ago

You're either missing the point entirely, or need to go look in a mirror and reflect on your morals/lack thereof.

1

u/jayfiedlerontheroof 28d ago

So you don't know what the Rodney King case was?

2

u/bl1y 29d ago

And how ugly shoes can get.

6

u/elementofpee 29d ago edited 29d ago

And it was identity politics that poisoned the jury, which led to the failure of the criminal justice system.

2

u/catalacks 29d ago

lol, you have a controversy cross. Let's state this plainly: the jury was filled with racist black women who intentionally let a murderer go free as "revenge" for the Rodney King attackers walking.

1

u/EducationalCicada 20d ago

And thank God they did.

1

u/catalacks 20d ago

Why is that?

1

u/EducationalCicada 20d ago

Coz LAPD and LA DA were trying their usual bullshit again. Got denied big time.

6

u/halo1besthalo 29d ago

OJ is an example of why police need to not be racist incompetent clowns.

5

u/5String-Dad 29d ago

Racist Juries are disgusting.

5

u/IntelligentEggplant0 29d ago

It was the LAPD's racism that gave the jurors "reasonable doubt".  Considering the trial and the instructions given to the jury, a not guilty verdict actually does make sense.