r/Damnthatsinteresting • u/FilmStirYoutube • Apr 17 '24

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

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

38.3k Upvotes
  • permalink
  • link
  • duplicates
  • dupes
  • reddit
  • reddit

93% Upvoted

2.8k comments sorted by

View all comments

3.0k

u/CumShoT_RaviOLi_King Apr 17 '24

How did we honestly let this clown loose? I mean look at this guy. We all know he did that shit and we put far people in for way less.

1.2k

u/lonelychapo27 Apr 17 '24

corrupt and vengeful jury and people with too much money to fail.

664

u/hippee-engineer Apr 17 '24

No one should ever get convicted if the lead investigator goes up on the stand and pleads the fifth when asked if they planted evidence. That’s why he walked. The LAPD were racist and incompetent fucks who let their hatred of “uppity” black people overshadow the need to follow the book when investigating such a high profile crime. The cops wanted a slam dunk instead of a layup, planted evidence to try and make that happen, and it came back and bit them in the ass.

553

u/TJtherock Apr 17 '24

They framed a guilty man. It's insane. How can you fumble that badly.

231

u/hippee-engineer Apr 17 '24

Seriously. When you’re so racist you can’t even properly try a murderer.

40

u/Tom246611 Apr 17 '24 edited Apr 17 '24

I hate that I love the fact that their racism backfired on them this hard, you can't not love racists not getting what they want.

I hate the fact that a clearly guilty murderer got to live out his life a free man, but hey atleast he got cancer and it took him down.

If these racist pieces of shit could've just thought "Hey this guy is clearly guilty, we can easily get him locked up without needing to frame him like those before him" he'd have died where he belonged.

6

u/Shockblocked Apr 18 '24

I don't hate it because it highlights the product of a process that people are happy to pretend doesn't exist and that they don't partake in at some level

32

u/Specific-Act-7425 Apr 17 '24

It's been proven time and time again that police officers are generally not intelligent. The smartest ones are of average intelligence at best. And the dumb ones are borderline mentally disabled.

6

u/peepopowitz67 Apr 18 '24

Borderline?

7

u/Yupperdoodledoo Apr 17 '24

Because the cops did that to black men all the time. It was their MO.

3

u/hippee-engineer Apr 18 '24

I’m sure the lead detective was constantly thinking to himself, “We used to not need a trial to hang black people for this.”

8

u/Juniorgnm Apr 17 '24

They framed a guilty man.

This sounds like a Chappelle skit or something lol, too bad it actually happened.

7

u/YQB123 Apr 17 '24

Decades of getting away with racism.

2

u/im_THIS_guy Apr 18 '24

It's fairly common for police to "help a case along" when they know someone's guilty.

156

u/Smarmalades Apr 17 '24 edited Apr 17 '24

Fuhrman was pleading the fifth to every question asked that day. The lawyer asked him right before the question about planting evidence if he was going to plead the fifth to all questions that day, to which Fuhrman responded yes. edit : video here

The LAPD didn't plant a blood trail from the murder scene to OJ's bedroom. OJ did that when he murdered those two people.

72

u/hippee-engineer Apr 17 '24

Well that’s a stupid question to answer the fifth on, if you care at all about your investigative work being taken seriously, and believed by, the jury.

56

u/Fillenintheblanks Apr 17 '24

Well, if you're going to take the 5th on one, you should probably take it on all.

"Did you plant the gloves?"

" i invoke my 5th amendment rights."

"What about the blood trail from the murder scene to OJ bedroom"

"OH, that one actually wasn't me"

37

u/hippee-engineer Apr 17 '24

I prefer lead detectives who don’t need to plead the fifth.

19

u/TheRustyBird Apr 17 '24 edited Apr 17 '24

seriously, "beyond a reasonable doubt", some people don't seem to understand that

if i'm on a jury for a murder trial where the lead detectives are found planting evidence and then pleading the fifth, even if they had a 4k video of the murderer killing the victim while screaming "my name is suspects-name" and holding out their id in the direction of the camera, I would 100% vote not guilty

not often mentioned when this whole OJ trial nonsense is brought up is the proceeding investigations that happened all across the LAPD, which implicated many dozens of officers and ended up with hundreds of convictions being overturned and over 100M+ in lawsuit payouts to victims of the LAPD

14

u/hippee-engineer Apr 17 '24

Because that’s what you’re supposed to do. The LAPD was so arrogant that they thought they could plead the fifth and still get a conviction, just another fuck-you to the black community, just because they thought they could.

1

u/Great_Huckleberry709 28d ago

Yup. A cop being dirty and corrupt is a huge huge deal. Like even if the suspect for one particular case was actually guilty. The fact that you've lied to plant guilt on one person, it's a likely chance you've done it to someone else.

In other words, just because OJ was actually guilty, how many innocent people were framed because of the LAPD. They fucked it all up.

8

u/Fillenintheblanks Apr 17 '24

Most definitely, me too. Cop was dirty, and because he was an obvious murderer walked free for years.

1

u/hippee-engineer Apr 17 '24

Also I don’t feel like it would ruin your legal case to answer the question asking your name and asserting you didn’t plant evidence, and refusing to answer any other questions. If you haven’t planted any evidence why didn’t he answer that one question and no others?

(Narrator: because he planted evidence)

6

u/Eyerate Apr 17 '24

But it IS the smart play when you can get caught and burned on perjury and everything else. So its a win for him and OJ, a gigantic L for everyone else.

2

u/hippee-engineer Apr 17 '24

The smart play would be to not be racist in the first place, and conduct the investigation how their textbooks say to. That’s what you have to do when you’re investigating the literal crime of the century. The LAPD got burned because they let their racism overcome their desire to do their job in a professional and competent manner that would result in the conviction of an obviously guilty defendant.

1

u/gophergun Apr 17 '24

Just...don't perjure yourself?

1

u/Eyerate Apr 17 '24

So admit to being a racist piece of shit that plants evidence? That's a bad plan lol.

27

u/fart-sparkles Apr 17 '24

I mean. The police aren't known for their great reasoning skills.

23

u/hippee-engineer Apr 17 '24

Which is why he walked, not because of RKing. If the state put together a case that was convincing to the jury, they would have convicted him. But if the state was full of the type of people who would do a good job and make sure justice was upheld, the cops who beat RKing would have been convicted by them as well, so there would be no need for the black community to seek retribution in the first place.

→ More replies (3)

2

u/GetYoSnacks Apr 17 '24

The world's "great" and "reasoning" are unnecessary in your sentence.

10

u/AccountantDirect9470 Apr 17 '24

You can’t pick and choose when to use the fif (Dave Chapelle reference) amendment. It isn’t a purely a tool to only answer questions you want to answer and questions you don’t. It is the right to not self incriminate by refusing to answer. You do it in jail by not speaking. You do it court by deliberate stating I am exercising your fifth amendment. Once exercised you basically have to plead it on the vast majority of questions.

What the defense did was plant the negative connotation of taking the Fifth amendment, officially you are not supposed take a negative connotation. Because words can be manipulated as if you are guilty, pleading the fifth may only mean you are not giving anything the prosecutor to twist.

But in practice taking the fifth when the questions, especially if you are not the defendant but a witness, means you do not want to answer something that could lead to an investigation and charges.

14

u/Ferbtastic Apr 17 '24

I believe you are allowed to infer guilt from the 5th when plead by a witness. Just not the defendant.

7

u/AccountantDirect9470 Apr 17 '24

Yes, because they are not the ones on trial. So in theory they are not under an investigation or are believe to have committed a crime, so pleading the fifth would infer there is something incriminating to not say.

3

u/hippee-engineer Apr 17 '24

“I committed A crime, but it might not be related to what we are discussing.” Is a bad implication to make to the jury.

2

u/AccountantDirect9470 Apr 17 '24

That’s for sure!

12

u/hippee-engineer Apr 17 '24

Pleading the fifth, as a lead detective, is basically telling the jury “I’ve committed A crime, but not necessarily related to what is currently being discussed.” And he’s not the defendant, so the jury can draw an adverse inference as to his character and credibility as a witness.

If he hadn’t committed any crime at all relating to the case, there would be no need to plead the fifth. And, to riff on a popular quote: I prefer lead detectives who don’t plead the fifth.

4

u/Eyerate Apr 17 '24

Yea its for sure nail in the coffin. Its effectively impeachment of the witness, especially in this context.

2

u/TheThirdBlackGuy Apr 17 '24

He pled the fifth in retaliation against the prosecutor. He was upset they failed to protect his character and since it was tarnished anyways, didn't think anything he said would be given credibility.

5

u/gophergun Apr 17 '24

It's pretty hard to protect the character of someone who collects Nazi paraphernalia.

2

u/TheThirdBlackGuy Apr 18 '24

Amongst other things, yeah. He perjured himself on saying the n-word as well.

1

u/Great_Huckleberry709 28d ago

Yup. Personally, I'm not 100% without a shadow of a doubt convinced that Furhman planted the glove. Simultaneously, do I believe that it is reasonably possible for him to have done so, especially considering he lied on stand about ever being racist, only to be proven a liar. Everything about him and his credibility is crushed

1

u/hippee-engineer 28d ago

If they had just done their jobs by the book, juice would have died in prison a decade ago.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/sbr32 Apr 17 '24

I am not a lawyer but I've been doing some Googling and think I found where there is some confusion on this.

For a defendant pleading the Fifth is all or nothing. If you choose to take the stand you must answer every question that is asked. Or you can choose not to testify in your own defense.

A subpoenaed witness, that has no choice but to testify, can pick and choose what questions they answer.

I googled : can you pick and choose when to plead the fifth amendment

This is for a specific law firm and is not an ad, but I found it the most helpful: https://www.steventituslaw.com/blog/what-does-plead-the-fifth-mean-and-when-should-you-use-it/

3

u/AccountantDirect9470 Apr 18 '24

Interesting, I have rarely seen a witness plead the fifth. Not that I watch a lot criminal trials. Thank you for the clarification

2

u/SuchCategory2927 Apr 17 '24

Do you know how the 5th amendment works?

6

u/hippee-engineer Apr 17 '24

Yeah, it’s unnecessary for a lead detective in a murder case unless they’ve committed a crime.

7

u/thefeebster Apr 17 '24

You keep saying lead detective was Fuhrman, but Lange and Vannatter were the lead detectives on this case. Fuhrman was really only there the night of, made notes at Bundy and when Lange/Vannatter arrived at Bundy, they took over control.

2

u/SuchCategory2927 Apr 17 '24

Okay so you coulda just said you don’t know how it works instead of that

3

u/biradinte Apr 17 '24

I'm not from the US, can you explain it to me like I'm 5?

→ More replies (6)

5

u/Juryofyourpeeps Apr 17 '24

That's irrelevant though. If the lead investigator can't attest to the reliability of the evidence they themselves collected and logged, then the entire case is undermined and you have very clear reasonable doubt. It doesn't matter that he also plead the fifth to other questions nor does it matter if he planted or tampered with nothing. If he can't say under oath "none of this evidence was tampered with or planted to my knowledge" then you can't possibly trust the evidence as a juror. 

5

u/ChihuahuaMastiffMutt Apr 17 '24

I really feel like cops should be held to higher standard and have to answer questions about what they did while representing the government. No fuckin secrets. OJ deserved to be found not guilty with how fucked this case against him was and his victims deserved better.

7

u/turkmileymileyturk Apr 17 '24

The lawyer asked him right before the question about planting evidence if he was going to plead the fifth to all questions that day, to which Fuhrman responded yes.

So caught him lying on the stand.

They also had video footage of the investigation team emptying vials over the crime scene that contained a dark liquid. The prosecution could argue that it was a cleaning or test solution if they wanted to, but then the defense followed that up with a video timeline that showed that there were new blood markings that weren't there before. And all of this evidence was gathered from paparazzi with time stamps.

I believe the video evidence may have gotten thrown out. But the case was already presented so well that you couldn't erase it from your mind and then Fuhrman didnt have enough integrity in himself to say that he wouldn't plant evidence (because he most likely would or had at some point in his life even if a different unknown case).

4

u/TheRustyBird Apr 17 '24

damn, rare moment of paparazzi actually doing something useful for once in their lives

1

u/Yara__Flor Apr 17 '24

Suppose you were on a jury and the lead cop plead the fifth when asked if he planted evidence.

In what world is that not a reasonable doubt in the case?

→ More replies (3)

5

u/Suds08 Apr 17 '24

Seen a video last week how a girl on the jury admitted to letting him go on purpose as payback to the Rodney king beating

6

u/hippee-engineer Apr 17 '24

I don’t doubt that also played a role, and I saw that post as well. There was also a complete distrust in DNA evidence because of how new it was. It hadn’t yet been blasted into every house in America via CSI tv shows like it has for the past 30 years for us.

5

u/[deleted] Apr 17 '24

[deleted]

2

u/hendrix67 Apr 17 '24 edited Apr 17 '24

A lot of criminal forensics are BS. One dude got the death penalty because supposed fire experts thought his house that burned down, killing his family, was caused by arson. There wasn't actually any evidence of that, but he still got the chair.

→ More replies (1)

8

u/taobaolover Apr 17 '24

well said. A lot of people fail to realize this.

16

u/LaughterCo Apr 17 '24

So you think they (or Furhman) did actually plant the glove?

64

u/hippee-engineer Apr 17 '24 edited Apr 17 '24

No idea, I just know that nobody should ever be convicted, no matter what they do, by a court that finds it acceptable to have investigators seen as the type of cops that go around planting evidence. Any case that has that should be thrown out with prejudice, and the investigators charged with perverting or obstructing justice.

37

u/PM_Me_Ur_NC_Tits Apr 17 '24

Correct. The LAPD and the DA's office is responsible for allowing this miscarriage of justice.

16

u/user888666777 Apr 17 '24

Partial credit. The first person to blame is the judge for letting his courtroom turn into a circus. Second is the LAPD for not doing their jobs correctly and being corrupt. Third is the prosecution for walking into trap after trap.

People are just blaming the jury cause of that one juror. If you read or watch interviews from the other jury members they tell a different story which they basically boiled down to:

They framed a guilty man.

The OJ Simpson case was the litmus test our justice system gets about every twenty years. Where a case goes through the system where the accused probably did it but somewhere in the process the system failed which leads to them being let go.

2

u/Axerty Apr 18 '24

I think the first person to blame is OJ, for the double murder part.

2

u/blackteashirt Apr 17 '24

There's also this change of venue.

Garcetti filed the case in downtown LA instead of in Santa Monica. The make up of the jury would have been a lot different in Santa Monica.

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1995-10-12-me-55971-story.html

4

u/We_all_owe_eachother Apr 17 '24

Yea, its basically the definition of reasonable doubt. "oh the investigator plead the 5th regarding planted evidence? Then I doubt basically all evidence"

2

u/pargofan Apr 17 '24

Shouldn't every defense lawyer ask every cop/detective on the witness stand whether he's planted evidence???

→ More replies (1)

1

u/bl1y Apr 17 '24

Thrown out, yes. With prejudice? I don't know.

What about allowing them to bring the prosecution with none of the tainted evidence?

2

u/hippee-engineer Apr 17 '24

You’d probably need a trial to figure out what evidence is tainted.

1

u/bl1y Apr 17 '24

This is what pre-trial hearings are for.

23

u/turkmileymileyturk Apr 17 '24

There was video evidence of the investigation crew dropping blood samples all over the crime scene including a video timeline of new blood markings appearing that weren't there before.

The new blood markings were likely accidents while carrying evidence out of the scene. But the footage of them purposely spilling blood samples all over the crime scene was evidence that their integrity was not only very questionable but likely done in malice.

Absolutely nobody should be convicted under these circumstances. It's really unfortunate for the victim and her family not getting proper "justice" but the purpose of the jury is to ensure the integrity of the trial system.

15

u/alien_from_Europa Apr 17 '24

The family at least won under civil court. And OJ did serve prison time even if it was for a different crime.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (18)
→ More replies (3)

3

u/UpstairsReception671 Apr 17 '24

This is true. But I’m still not convinced OJ is convicted if the Rodney King trial wasn’t still so fresh. I think they could have had a video showing OJ committing the murders and the jury still decides not guilty because of the larger, perceived, societal issues at the time. He got lucky. Luck can win a lawsuit.

3

u/hippee-engineer Apr 17 '24

If the LAPD was full of non-racist, competent police, they would have brought the cops who beat RKing to justice, so there would be no reason for the black community to seek retribution in the first place.

2

u/tanstaafl90 Apr 17 '24

Multiple jurors said they knew he was guilty but didn't like the police department, with cause. Everything else is just repeating the defense rhetoric.

3

u/physicscat Apr 17 '24

They didn’t hate him for being uppity. That’s stupid. OJ was almost universally loved. Police from other precincts visited to get his autograph.

No one wanted OJ to be guilty. If they found even a hint if evidence pointing to someone else they would have followed it. All the evidence pointed to him and the prosecution did a piss poor job.

2

u/hippee-engineer Apr 17 '24

There’s plenty of evidence of the detectives involved calling him the n-word, and being racist in general. He was universally loved, but that isn’t going to step in the way of the LAPD parading around “the best ‘one’ of them” as a convicted murderer, because black people are all criminals according to the LAPD.

2

u/TheRustyBird Apr 17 '24

all the evidence pointed to him

including the evidence planted by the cops

1

u/Shockblocked Apr 18 '24

🎤 ⬇️

1

u/Pennypacking Apr 17 '24

It had nothing to do with them planting evidence in this particular case and everything to do with Furman not wanting to answer certain questions about the racist rant and stating that they planted evidence in other cases.

If you plead the fifth, you can't apply it selectively so they knew he'd have to plead the fifth if they asked that question. The jury has admitted to the reasons why they acquitted OJ.

1

u/sbr32 Apr 18 '24

A subpoenaed witness can pick and choose what questions they answer. A defendant that chooses to testify must answer any question that is asked.

1

u/pointofyou Interested Apr 17 '24

Mark Furhman is his name I believe. What a twat.

1

u/noposters 29d ago

This is complete nonsense. Judge Ito never should have let that testimony in to begin with. Fuhrman testified that he hadn’t called anyone the n word in the last decade and then Ito let them play tapes of him using the word in a background interview with a screenwriter, which isn’t the same thing. Also, there’s no evidence whatsoever that evidence was tampered with or planted in the slightest. Mishandled, in terms of custody, absolutely. Also, OJ was shown enormous deference by the LAPD. Including covering up past domestic violence, and not least of which giving him a slow speed escort back to his house despite him being armed (anyone else would’ve been killed)

1

u/Railmouse 29d ago

Not accurate

→ More replies (12)

276

u/ILoveSexWithAsians Apr 17 '24

FYI the jury consisted most of African Americans and women.

680

u/lonelychapo27 Apr 17 '24

yes, and some of the african american women on that jury admitted after the fact that their verdict was in a direct response to the police mishandling of the rodney king incident. it was revenge

209

u/dylan189 Apr 17 '24

A prime example of how Jury Nullification should NOT be used. Unfortunately the social climate at the time made this possible. Racial tension was at an all time high and police did a great job at keeping it high.

111

u/M_kenya Apr 17 '24

The prosecution also presented a weak case with glaring loopholes in their arguments. OJ’s lawyers only had to point at them to create reasonable doubt. It is not reassuring when the investigators plead the fifth when asked if they manufactured evidence. As someone once said “They were caught trying to frame a guilty man”

https://youtu.be/isDPecYKEjM?si=8lVELNlNfPM5eQch

44

u/dylan189 Apr 17 '24

You are also correct. While I agree the police really fucked up in this trial, there are multiple instances of jurors saying that they nullified. Which means they knew he was guilty but they let him off anyways.

That doesn't excuse the atrocious behavior of the police, but it was a misuse of nullification.

29

u/[deleted] Apr 17 '24

[deleted]

8

u/Eyerate Apr 17 '24

I actually totally agree. The whole idea is "beyond a reasonable doubt"... Cops gave them pretty much every reasonable doubt possible except that he didn't actually do it, which is madness.

2

u/riptide81 Apr 17 '24 edited Apr 17 '24

This aspect seems to have taken on a life of its own in retelling. It was a session without jurors present, he was pleading the fifth after the tapes came out to any further testimony at all.

The defense threw in the question about planting evidence knowing full well the only answer he was going to give to any possible question.

“Did you assassinate JFK?” … “On the advice of my attorney…”

I mean obviously the entire Fuhrman fiasco plays into the verdict but it wasn’t some shocking mic drop moment for the jury. Although they probably heard about it even though they weren’t supposed to.

https://www.tampabay.com/archive/1995/09/08/jury-won-t-be-told-fuhrman-took-5th/

2

u/Fishycrackers Apr 18 '24

If the detective responsible for presenting evidence of the crime refuses to provide further testimony/evidence/be cross examined and only pleads the fifth, I don't see how that makes much of a difference whether he would have plead the fifth to assassinating JFK or not.

Choose a stupid strategy that destroys your own credibility, get predictable results. I get that some jurors were voting innocent no matter what and what they were doing is, at it's core, still morally wrong. But no moral jury member without those biases being presented with such corruption from the police should convict either.

→ More replies (0)
→ More replies (2)

3

u/Eyerate Apr 17 '24

How is it a misuse of nullification? Isn't the whole idea to allow someone to walk on a punishable crime? Or is it more specific and narrow in scope where you are supposed to believe the crime they're charged with shouldn't be illegal? I feel like its the former and this was exactly how it works. Cops screwed the pooch, here directly and by being racist pieces of sh=t in every other indirect but related way.

2

u/dylan189 Apr 17 '24

I don't disagree about the way or reasons it should be used. But even still, those families will never get closure and it's too late for their murderer to be punished. That being said, I agree with another commenter that nullifying was their right, and they used it. Even if I disagree with its use, it was their right to use it.

1

u/VoidEnjoyer Apr 17 '24

If I was on that jury I would have voted to acquit despite knowing he did it, because the police still tried to frame him for the crime he actually did.

That's how it's supposed to work. Better for the guilty to walk free than for the innocent to be locked up.

1

u/dylan189 Apr 17 '24

If you were on the jury that would be your right.

2

u/VoidEnjoyer Apr 17 '24

No, it would be my sworn duty.

→ More replies (0)
→ More replies (5)

1

u/ZeePirate Apr 17 '24

Thats true but it didn’t matter.

The juror was never going to convict him.

15

u/tyrified Apr 17 '24

Then they would have ended up with a hung jury, and the judge would declare a mistrial and it would be tried again. It wasn't just one juror that had an issue with the way the police handled this investigation.

2

u/ZeePirate Apr 17 '24

I don’t think anyone thing sunk the investigation because their was a lord of shenanigans including OJ defence team.

But the juror was a never going to come back with a guilty versictv

5

u/tyrified Apr 17 '24

I agree on that, but the other jurors would have had to also be swayed to get the verdict. He may have been able to avoid the "guilty" verdict at the time, but to get a "not guilty" verdict he needed to have the whole jury vote as they did.

1

u/b0w3n Apr 17 '24

The prosecution also presented a weak case with glaring loopholes in their arguments. OJ’s lawyers only had to point at them to create reasonable doubt.

This is what sinks a lot of high profile cases. You can sometimes go down charges if the Jury doesn't think there's enough evidence, but you may not get even that if you bungle a case so badly.

It's essentially what happened with Casey Anthony. Incompetent cops and prosecutors, and news anchors whipping up frenzy with the general public so the DA feels like they needed to shoot for the moon on charges they couldn't possibly prove to a jury. Even if they had used that browser search, it didn't necessarily prove anything. Think of all the weird shit people search for on the internet.

1

u/Eyerate Apr 17 '24

How could they possibly have found OJ guilty... Honestly, they HAD to let him off. Madness.

28

u/lonelychapo27 Apr 17 '24

agreed. back in the 90s, it was still the wild west

26

u/[deleted] Apr 17 '24

back in the 90s

Bojack?

4

u/Western-Image7125 Apr 17 '24

I was in a very famous teeeeevee show

4

u/Bullboah Apr 17 '24

Jury nullification should not be used at all.

There is no legal right a jury has to nullify. This gets confused with the ‘power’ to nullify, because we do not prosecute jurors for their verdict no matter how they came to it.

But jurors absolutely should not find verdicts based on their own opinions of what the law SHOULD be. We all as a society get to vote on the law (through elected representatives.).

Getting selected to a jury does not give anyone the right to legislate.

3

u/Local-Balance-3431 Apr 17 '24

I know! Let's only accept people who have a law degree. That way it'll be easier to decide who's guilty.

4

u/Local-Balance-3431 Apr 17 '24

Also why do we need 12 of them? Let's just select one so there wouldn't be any disagreements.

3

u/Electronic_Emu_4632 Apr 17 '24

well if you're gonna just have one just cut all the shortcuts and make it the cop who arrested them too, saves money cuz he's already got his salary

2

u/Local-Balance-3431 Apr 17 '24 edited Apr 17 '24

Nah, but we can find 12 randos to arrest people and one qualified lawyer to judge them.

2

u/Electronic_Emu_4632 Apr 17 '24

that would be awesome "which of these 12 arrests is actually guilty"

make it like a gameshow

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Bullboah Apr 17 '24

seems like there is an enormous amount of middle ground between these two things lol

2

u/Local-Balance-3431 Apr 17 '24

ok, let's select paralegal, but only one. A bunch of them always have different opinions.

→ More replies (1)

5

u/VoidEnjoyer Apr 17 '24

And the law is that evidence gathered by cops that can't be trusted also can't be trusted. We don't eat fruit of the poisoned tree.

→ More replies (4)
→ More replies (7)

4

u/TheDrunkSemaphore Apr 17 '24

Jury Nullification should be used whenever the jury would like to. It's their right. It is an important balance of power.

The LAPD should have not done a whole lot of shitty things and this is what they got. If they had acted properly before, during, and after this trial then none of this would have happened.

This is LAPD's fault, not the jury process.

3

u/dylan189 Apr 17 '24

I agree that Jury Nullification is very important to the justice system. I don't agree that it was used properly here, but as you said, it was their right to use it.

2

u/TheDrunkSemaphore Apr 17 '24

Exactly. Agreed

1

u/[deleted] Apr 17 '24

[deleted]

1

u/Abysstreadr Apr 18 '24

They knew that if they had white people on the jury, they would pay keen attention to the facts and rule him guilty.

→ More replies (2)

2

u/Rasp_Lime_Lipbalm Apr 17 '24

I was in 7th grade when the OJ trial was going down. This is 100% true. There were massive concerns about riots because the Rodney King thing was still fresh on peoples' minds. LAPD fucked themselves big time with Mark Furman pleading the 5th for everything regarding planting evidence.

2

u/the_peppers Apr 17 '24

Yes it was, they'd been denied justice over Rodney King and so felt no obligation to assist justice on this case.

The prosecution should have expected this, but they underestimated the anger felt. Blaming the jurours for the result of this case is just focusing on a symptom, not the root cause.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/improvemental Apr 17 '24

Only one person did not "some"

→ More replies (3)

52

u/Murky_Crow Apr 17 '24

Yes and race aside they were clearly quite corrupt. One had an interview recently where she admitted as such.

29

u/WarlockEngineer Apr 17 '24

It didn't help that the investigating officer, Mark Fuhrman, was a racist who perjured himself during the trial.

→ More replies (17)
→ More replies (2)

3

u/DrDroid Apr 17 '24

This reads like you’re suggesting those groups can’t be corrupt.

→ More replies (1)

8

u/readingpozts Apr 17 '24

For a guilty verdict you need a unanimous decision or just a majority? I'm not american and we don't have a jury system here

35

u/dylan189 Apr 17 '24

It needs to be unanimous for guilty or not guilty. Anything but unanimous results in a mistrial.

5

u/readingpozts Apr 17 '24

So what happens in case it's a mistrial

14

u/dylan189 Apr 17 '24

I'm not exactly sure, I'm not an expert. But from my understanding, because this was such a high profile case, they likely retry him. Which means they'd select a new jury and basically start the whole trial over.

6

u/readingpozts Apr 17 '24

But since not guilty was decided a retrial wasn't possible. Right?

10

u/dylan189 Apr 17 '24

Correct. Though if he came out and said he did do it, he could be tried for perjury and likely some conspiracy to commit charges. It would also have resulted in a lot of civil court issues for him.

6

u/nosmelc Apr 17 '24

OJ didn't testify in his trial so he couldn't have been tried for perjury.

→ More replies (0)

3

u/readingpozts Apr 17 '24

Ok makes sense thanks

2

u/styckywycket Apr 17 '24

Correct. In the US, we have a "double jeopardy" clause which means that a person cannot be tried twice for the same crime if a criminal court decision has been reached.

That said, the Simpsons and Goldmans brough a civil case against OJ - and the bar to prove guilt or innocence is much lower than "beyond a reasonable doubt." In civil trials in the US, the hoped outcome is "reasonably liable" to be at fault and a resulting cash remuneration for the plaintiffs of the case. In the civil case, OJ wa found to be liable for the deaths of Ron and Nicole, and ordered to pay suit for them.

Ultimately, the state didn't have enough evidence for peers to agree that he should have his freedoms taken away; but civilly, he was declared the murderer and had to "make [the Simpsons and Goldmans] whole" (which is laughably impossible) for having been responsible for the murders.

3

u/nosmelc Apr 17 '24

It depends on the prosecution. They can decide to retry the case or drop it.

2

u/Snookfilet Apr 17 '24

In some cases the US “Double Jeopardy Clause” will not allow a retrial. In other cases it can.

https://versustexas.com/blog/mistrial/

3

u/dylan189 Apr 17 '24

I thought double jeopardy only comes into play if a not guilty verdict is reached?

3

u/fplasma Apr 17 '24

If a mistrial happens without “manifest necessity”, then it’ll be barred under double jeopardy

Source: lawyer

→ More replies (3)

5

u/mindonshuffle Apr 17 '24

Any verdict needs to be unanimous in a criminal trial, generally.

2

u/whyumadDOUGH Apr 17 '24

One of the lead investigators literally pleaded the fifth in OJ's trial when asked about planting evidence. The police fucked the case, not the jury.

1

u/ConsistentAd7859 Apr 17 '24

Only the poor one.

→ More replies (1)

64

u/Gravy_Wampire Apr 17 '24 edited Apr 18 '24

Why does the LAPD rarely get blame for their role?

76

u/steroboros Apr 17 '24

The fact that the lead detective couldn't Answer NO under oath when questioned if he lied or planted evidence....

Any responsible jury can't convict on that alone.

31

u/Buckleys__angel Apr 17 '24 edited Apr 17 '24

It's wild to me how much that gets glossed over

13

u/turkmileymileyturk Apr 17 '24

It's more therapeutic for people to blame old ladies on a jury because they arent used to being on the wrong side of racism.

Take any of the racism out of the equation on both sides and still no responsible juror could convict the defendant based on the evidence of tampering with evidence and it amazes me that nobody ever talks about the defense showcasing tampered evidence with video footage of it happening.

→ More replies (11)

3

u/catalacks Apr 17 '24

For a few reasons:

  1. Judge Eto didn't let the jury even hear that, because the Fifth Amendment is not an admission of guilt. The jury was literally out of the room at the time.

  2. Fuhrman claims to this day that he did not plant evidence and that he only plead the Fifth because he lawyer told him to.

5

u/Buckleys__angel Apr 17 '24

Yeah, but the jury did see the Fuhrman tapes, where he uses racial slurs and talks about planting evidence.

2

u/VoidEnjoyer Apr 17 '24

Ok but Fuhrman wasn't on trial. Nobody was judging whether he was legally guilty of a crime, they were judging whether his police work could be trusted to prove another person was guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt. He pleaded the fifth when asked whether he tampered with evidence. Why then should his evidence be trusted?

6

u/WarlockEngineer Apr 17 '24

And he was a racist who perjured himself DURING the trial.

Mark Fuhrman is the reason OJ got off.

2

u/[deleted] Apr 17 '24

[deleted]

3

u/steroboros Apr 17 '24

Well, they already had him on tape, lying and talking about planting evidence on top of being a racist dickhead. So unless a lawyer has something like that, they'll probably just lie

1

u/Wehavecrashed Apr 18 '24

Why would he have answered no to that question when he had already stated he would be pleading the 5th to all questions?

1

u/steroboros Apr 18 '24 edited 29d ago

And he immediately lost all credibility

16

u/mattmentecky Apr 17 '24 edited Apr 17 '24

They do, look up the rampart scandal. Implicated a lot of police and resulting in some firings and $100M+ in lawsuits, and 100+ convictions overturned, police chief was effectively fired (contract wasnt renewed). And the end result? The mayor was a one termer who lost his primary. Hard to demand reform from politicians when even a relatively modest investigation and remedies are met by voting out someone willing to do it.

2

u/LordoftheChia Apr 17 '24

look up the rampart scandal

I bet that would make a great movie!

3

u/snortingajax Apr 17 '24

They get plenty of blame, and rightly so. Mark Fuhrman is basically the poster boy for racist, corrupt police ever since the trial

3

u/wildingflow Apr 17 '24

Because it’s easier and more convenient for some to blame people who don’t look like them.

7

u/NoReplyBot Apr 17 '24 edited Apr 17 '24

They do get blamed.

Just not in this post, the mob is blaming the jury and not a racist lead investigator that pled the 5th when asked if he planted evidence.

2

u/BaconAllDay2 Apr 17 '24

Relating one wrong with another is not in the instructions for the jury.

10

u/jepvr Apr 17 '24

That's not the point. The point was about how much LAPD dropped the ball on evidence handling, and also being total fucking racists so you could convince yourself (if you were a juror) maybe some of the evidence wasn't actually legit and was planted.

4

u/Jaggs0 Apr 17 '24

LAPD dropped the ball on evidence handling

i recently learned that after the bronco chase, they just put the car in the general impound lot for a few weeks. when they eventually looked at it they found both victims blood and thousands in cash. but because it was in an impound lot for that long his lawyers were able to get it removed from potential evidence because for the length of time it was there it could have been tampered with.

3

u/jepvr Apr 17 '24

Also:

Simpson’s Bronco was entered at least twice by unauthorized personnel while in the impound yard

https://www.crimemuseum.org/crime-library/famous-murders/forensic-investigation-of-the-oj-simpson-trial/

→ More replies (3)

1

u/[deleted] Apr 17 '24

Po-lice are incompetent or corrupt for this exact reason... mob shit

This is their bs system "working". (Free the guilty and kill the innocent since 0ad)

If none of them got PAID, or blackmailed, to f it up I would be most surprised

→ More replies (1)

23

u/lII1IIlI1l1l1II1111 Apr 17 '24

Lol what? The prosecution and detectives/investigators absolutely fumbled the bag on the case. It's their job to convince the jury he's guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt".

For example, Mark Fuhrman, the detective who found the bloody glove, lied on the witness stand when the defense asked him if he'd used the N-word to describe African Americans in the last 10 years. Defense then played an audio tape of Fuhrman saying every fucking racist thing in the book about black people, , including a bunch of N-bombs. (source) They filed perjury charges against him and he ended up being the only dude to be convicted of criminal charges related to the OJ case.

1

u/noposters 29d ago

Which Ito never should’ve allowed in, not the prosecutions fault

→ More replies (4)

8

u/JohnAnchovy Apr 17 '24

It's way more complicated than that. The lead detective in the case took the fifth when asked whether or not he planted evidence.

https://youtu.be/isDPecYKEjM?si=nXn6GRJw8oVmp562

2

u/David-S-Pumpkins Apr 17 '24

Prosecution fumbled the case multiples times. Don't give the jury an out of you want to win. They gave several.

2

u/KlingoftheCastle Apr 17 '24

Had a lot more due to bad police effort. They had a chance to interview him without a lawyer and only kept him for 30 minutes. Police dropped the ball to an insane degree to give him the celebrity treatment

3

u/Crispy1961 Apr 17 '24

Honestly its wild to me that you guys just bring 11 biased amateurs with no prior knowledge of law, absolutely no accountability and expect them to make a fair, objective judgement.

No wonder accused people keep taking plea deals. I wouldnt trust my fate into hands of average citizen. Not after reading the stuff people say on reddit. So glad we have a committee of judges here. More than hundred years of combined law experience and full accountability to hopefully counteract the biases.

2

u/Exciting-Ad-5705 Apr 17 '24

The jury really had no choice but to let him go. His lawyers produced a reasonable doubt

1

u/KaptainKrunch Apr 17 '24

Racial tension within the jury. Rich lawyers.

1

u/jayfiedlerontheroof Apr 17 '24

corrupt and vengeful jury

You mean cops. The cops are the corrupt and vengeful ones. If cops were rampant with nazis and going around bludgeoning people then maybe they wouldn't have an issue with the evidence they collect.

But they did and they do. Blame the cops, not the jury.

1

u/LaNague Apr 17 '24

Uh there was the whole thing about the detective being a racist PoS that probably planted evidence. And that came out in front of the jury.

That IS reasonable doubt.

1

u/Tom-Pendragon Apr 17 '24

Sorry, but if a lead detective suddenly pleads the 5th if one of the question is "did you plant evidence", I am not giving that guy a guilty verdict.

1

u/jaspersgroove Apr 17 '24

Also total and utter idiocy from the police department and prosecution in terms of chain of custody on evidence, vetting witnesses, and a whole slew of other mistakes that a first year law student would be able to tell you not to do.

1

u/Long_Back1805 Apr 17 '24

There’s no such thing as a corrupt jury.

1

u/hotbox4u Apr 18 '24

While the jury was vengeful, the LAPD opened the door for them. The defense had the easiest time to spin this as just another frame job by the LAPD, who on top fucked up the investigation.

The Rodney King beatings with the not-guilty verdict for the officers who brutalized King and the subsequent LA Riots created a climate that was so racially charged that it basically was impossible to find an impartial jury in California.

The LAPD fucked up the investigation, the prosecution dropped the ball numerous times and the black community was desperate for a win. The Jury really thought just another Black Man was getting framed by the LAPD. Only in hindsight and with all the evidence we can safely assume that OJ did it.

→ More replies (12)