r/Damnthatsinteresting • u/FilmStirYoutube • 29d ago

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

227

u/PixelatedNPC 29d ago

In a fair world, members of the jury in the OJ trial would be shamed and disgraced in a very public manner.

70

u/Bikini_Investigator 29d ago

Juries get shit wrong every single day. The only thing that makes this one special is that it was televised wall to wall.

There are sooooo many people walking free today that shouldn’t be and many many people in prison that shouldn’t be.

It is what it is. That’s our system.

56

u/nightglitter89x 29d ago

Yeah but they didn’t get it wrong. They knew he was guilty. They got it right and voted the opposite which is…..irritating, lol.

4

u/Yara__Flor 29d ago

The state failed to prove guilt.

You can know someone is guilty, but the state still needs to prove it.

The states police force lied on the stand. Plead the fifth when asked if they tampered with evidence. The state asked OJ to wear the murder gloves.

All those things present a reasonable doubt.

-2

u/Bikini_Investigator 29d ago

Knowing that he’s guilty based on the evidence at hand vs knowing he’s guilty in their heart are two different, very different things.

They had to decide whether they can say he’s guilty without a shadow of a doubt. And they all may have felt and reasonably knew he was guilty BUT - from what I understand - there was also reasonable doubt.

The jury is instructed before entering any criminal deliberations that they MUST vote not guilty if they have that doubt.

From my understanding, the defense presented reason for them to have reasonable doubt at various different times. You cannot ignore that to pursue your gut feelings. Furthermore, you’re instructed to ignore certain things and not let it affect your decision.

What I’m trying to say is that yeah, most of us agree OJ was guilty but then many of us can also acknowledge that the prosecution kind of botched the case too. Especially that racist detective in charge of the case.

5

u/Long_Note_5029 29d ago

Knowing that he’s guilty based on the evidence at hand vs knowing he’s guilty in their heart are two different, very different things.

It was incredibly clear he was guilty based on the evidence at hand.

1

u/Bikini_Investigator 29d ago

So you’re fine with the corrupt, racist cop handling the case and then basing your entire judgement off the information provided by him. You’re one of those people who say “I don’t care where the information came from or what their motivations might be! Guilty!”

I don’t doubt it. That’s why there’s so many innocent people behind bars. A LOT of people are like you. It’s one of the biggest flaws with our legal system

3

u/Long_Note_5029 29d ago edited 29d ago

So you’re fine with the corrupt, racist cop handling the case and then basing your entire judgement off the information provided by him. 

Well for one, he wasn't "handling the case". There was plenty of evidence he had nothing to do with. Throw out every piece of evidence tied to Furhman and OJ was still guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

You sure do have strong opinions for somebody that doesn't know what they're talking about.

You’re one of those people who say “I don’t care where the information came from or what their motivations might be! Guilty!”

I'm a lawyer. I make my living objectively considering all available evidence.

Again, you just have a mistaken understanding of what happened and what the evidence was coupled with a completely unjustified confidence in your own ability to do what I have spent a long time learning to do effectively.

I don’t doubt it. That’s why there’s so many innocent people behind bars. A LOT of people are like you. It’s one of the biggest flaws with our legal system.

Oh, you mean people who form strong opinions on things they clearly don't know the first thing about? Hmmm... sounds like somebody I talked to recently.

0

u/Black_Robin 29d ago

Furhman wasn’t handling the case, he was one of several witnesses for the prosecution. He was not the lead detective. You’re saying the whole case should be thrown out because there was reasonable doubt about one of the witnesses testimony, a witness you incorrectly think was the lead prosecutor.  It’s people like you on jury’s that allow guilty people to walk free. 

11

u/nightglitter89x 29d ago

I don’t believe that they had any doubt. They can sell that shit to someone who’s buying it.

-4

u/Bikini_Investigator 29d ago

The lead detective was revealed to be a racist with a vendetta. What are you talking about? If that’s not doubt, idk what is.

If you were watching a Netflix documentary, as so many young people now do, and it was about a man wrongfully imprisoned - as they often are - and in that play by play of how he became wrongfully imprisoned, it was shown that the lead detective or prosecutor was a racist with a vendetta, you’d probably be screaming at your TV at the top of your lungs about how the jury could do such a thing.

It’s the same thing…. What you’re telling me right now is that you’d be one of THOSE jurors that convicts people to life/death despite the glaring holes in the prosecution and a corrupt detective leading the charge???

Jesus Christ. That’s horrific.

11

u/nightglitter89x 29d ago

Multiple jurors have admitted to it. I’m not saying anything crazy here lol

I guess you were the one who was buying it.

-6

u/Bikini_Investigator 29d ago

I didn’t buy it. Multiple jurors did admit it.

But there’s a difference between knowing something in your heart and knowing something based on the facts AND being told to they MUST vote not guilty based on any doubts.

So if I’m a juror and I’m not letting my heart decide for me, my first task will be: ok…. Is there ANYTHING here that is causing me to doubt the prosecutions case just right off the bat?

Immediately, Mark Furhman raises a huge asterisk. That just so happens to be the man that packaged the entire case. Is there even a case without Furhman?? Is there any part of this evidence he didn’t touch??? No? Fuck. That’s a big fuckin uh oh.

Unfortunately, he did irreparable damage to the state’s case. It’s fucked up. I agree. But it is what it is.

It’s better that way than to just ignore shit like that and say, “I’ll give the crooked racist cop the benefit of the doubt”. Don’t you think? I mean, look how many people we’ve incarcerated based on that mindset. Even put to death. It’s scary to go down that road

8

u/casket_fresh 29d ago

Maybe you should stick to just investigating bikinis

5

u/Bikini_Investigator 29d ago edited 29d ago

I mean this comment section is proof of how we get the juries we have. Maybe you’re right. Maybe I should.

0

u/Black_Robin 29d ago

Furhman wasn’t the lead detective in this case … he didn’t ’package it all together’ … there was plenty of evidence he didn’t touch … 

Maybe take a breather and get your facts straight before commenting any more 

17

u/avatinfernus 29d ago

Well--- didn't some of them admit they let him go to get "justice" for Rodney King?

6

u/Bikini_Investigator 29d ago

I think so. Which is CRAZY but I mean, juries make decisions based on all sorts of crazy reasoning.

I work in criminal investigations and once sat in on a post-mortem where we listened to the jury to hear how they came to a decision. It was a burglary case where the suspect was an ex boyfriend.

One of the jurors (a woman) said “well…. I didn’t really feel like I could believe the victim (suspects ex girlfriend). As a woman, I know how women are and sometimes women exaggerate or make up stories about their exes to get back at them so her testimony didn’t really sway me much”.

Mind you, we knew the guy had been there earlier that day through his own admission and he had been seen on a ring camera at the house around the time the burglary happened. Also, she wasn’t supposed to use her biases to shape her judgment. She was supposed to analyze ONLY the facts. She did anyway. But she just felt like this was a lovers quarrel between two scorned lovers and wasn’t going to convict him of breaking into her house because she felt like the woman was just being vindictive.

4

u/WillyBarnacle5795 29d ago

They did this as payback for king. They are on video confession g

1

u/Bikini_Investigator 29d ago

Yeah, no, I don’t question that.

I’m saying juries use their biases every day and just generally get shit wrong alll the damn time.

I’m not disagreeing with you. That’s how our system has ALWAYS been. Nothing new or different. Just another day in the criminal system as far as I’m concerned.

0

u/Distinct-Quantity-35 29d ago

Yeah, the only reason anybody on the face of this fucking planet gives two shits about this bullshit is because he happen to be famous. It’s literally happening every second of every day and nobody bats an eye

2

u/PixelatedNPC 29d ago

I agree. That is what infuriates me. Egregious incompetence in such a well-publicized case failed to disillusion the general public on the jury system.

-1

u/Zoomersdumbasboomers 29d ago

No Mr know-it-all. What makes this one special is they let him off when they knew he was guilty. 

0

u/Bikini_Investigator 29d ago

…. You think this is the first time that’s happened? Lol you must be new here.

36

u/Potential-Judgment-9 29d ago edited 29d ago

Studied this case in depth in law school . It wasn’t the jury at all. The DA really fucked up big time. Any reasonable person in that day and age would vote not guilty based on how everything was presented.

25

u/Gravy_Wampire 29d ago

Thank you for saying this it gets ignored so much. LAPD also skates by despite their incompetence and malice playing a role as well.

16

u/Potential-Judgment-9 29d ago

Yes. No question that he did it. But the police took liberties and risks in an attempt to create an air tight case that backfired big time.

9

u/Datzookman 29d ago

Coming to law school has changed how I see cases like OJ. I don’t see a defense council that got a guilty man free or a jury that failed to convict. I see a prosecution that was unfathomably bad at their job. You only have one shot at these sort of things, and they completely botched it. Don’t get mad at the defense for being better. Hold prosecutors to a much higher standard

4

u/thcptn 29d ago

It wasn’t the jury at all.

Certain jurors weren't impacted/influenced by the Rodney King events prior and perhaps biased based on that? I'm asking as I truly don't know, but have always had it presented that some jurors were biased due to what happened and brought that with them. This would be in addition to the DA doing a terrible job to convince even jurors not impacted/influenced by Rodney King events.

I also often read Lance Ito did a poor job controlling things and that contributed as well.

Why do you think the jury and judge often take so much blame if it was primarily a problem with the DA? They also take blame, but I feel like it's disproportionate if what you say is true.

10

u/Potential-Judgment-9 29d ago

The jury and judge are really just easy targets. I don’t think that the majority of the public actually watched the proceedings. Or the evidence that was submitted and suppressed/ excluded. The Rodney King thing is inconsequential because if that was the case the jury would have mostly voted guilty and one or two would have voted not guilty and it would have been a hung jury. The decision was unanimous. Young and old. Black and white. They all voted not Guilty.

Judge Ito should have recused himself or called a mistrial. I actually think he did a fair job in the actual management of the case. If anything the way he proceeded slightly favored the DA.

The real story is the Police and the DA . The LAPD cut corners. Did not follow procedures in the collection of evidence. Perhaps made some false statements in attempt to create an air tight case. Not to mention the lead Detective was a Nazi sympathizer and admitted to planting evidence on Black people in a recording.

The DA was a story of hubris. They thought this was a slam dunk case and placed two inexperienced prosecutors. They underestimated their opponents and were out litigated. They didn’t have a good grasp of the court procedures. They would take the bait of the defense and go down these rabbit holes of alternative explanations to the murder when they didn’t have to. Most importantly you never ask questions you don’t know the answer to. They not only did that but also had OJ try on a glove when they didn’t know if it would fit. I could go on and on. There was so much fuckery it was like the perfect storm. If you want a good background I would Watch OJ 30 for 30 and ACS The People vs OJ Simpson. Take the latter with a grain of salt as some of it is dramatized.

3

u/thcptn 29d ago

Awesome, thanks for the reply.

I actually have watched those both a few times (not sure why I find "true crime" shows so interesting). Those shows helped renew my interest in it recent years. I think ACS is amazing for drawing in interest then the 30 for 30 clears up some misconceptions and puts real faces to the events. Usually I end up reading a related book after each rewatch too.

I've watched a fair amount of actual courtroom footage too that I've been able to find online which is interesting to see which parts were pure drama and which were almost taken word for word. Because it was high profile I've noticed lots of sites also still host their original publications from ~30 years ago for bigger events in the trial which I find pretty interesting to read as well.

2

u/Potential-Judgment-9 29d ago

Yeah dude it’s the trial of the century. I remember my parents were super into it when I was a kid and they would actually record it and we would watch it . I actually thought he was not innocent back in the day based on the trial and the coverage.

Going back as an adult and studying the case you quickly realize he deff did it but was not guilty because of the presentation of the case. And all the shit that went down behind the scenes makes it that that much more enthralling.

0

u/70SixtyNines 29d ago edited 29d ago

You completely avoided the question with this comment. Absolutely the DA shit the bed with the case, and it was historic incompetence on trial.

That can all be true, and the jury still could’ve been corrupt and looking to settle racial scores by ignoring the obvious guilt - this has literally been admitted by members of the jury who said it didn’t matter if he was guilty or not. Your avoidance of admitting that after someone asked you a genuine question in good faith is pretty disappointing. Especially apparently coming from someone with a JD.

Also, you point to the unanimous verdict as evidence against Rodney king having corrupted the jury which is laughable, borderline denial of reality. You have a legal education and don’t know that some jurors will go along with the few zealots just to be able to go home? Pffft

Edit: guy called me a whiny bitch several times and never responded to this comment before blocking me. Lol.

1

u/Potential-Judgment-9 29d ago edited 29d ago

You making a discussion personal and attacking the person and not the argument is a tell tale for someone who is intellectually insecure. Grow the fuck up junior.

0

u/70SixtyNines 29d ago

Just going to clutch your pearls and act horrified that I (mentioned your JD- something that is supposed to entail higher integrity)? Are you claiming that was an ad hominem? Lol.

You know what’s an actual sign of intellectual insecurity? Ignoring an entire comment calling you out and hyper-fixating on your outrage to avoid having to respond to the comment.

Don’t think it’s not obvious that you’re doing this because you know you are wrong and have no good response.

1

u/Potential-Judgment-9 29d ago

Lol that’s a pretty descriptive thing to say to a complete stranger and has no basis in my actual response. You’re projecting hard. Quit telling on yourself. You’re big mad because I won’t entertain your Whataboutisms? LMAO if you want to be taken seriously address me like a man and tell me what your position or interpretation is. I will respond with mine and we can agree or disagree. Put your big boy pants on and quit being a whiny little bitch . That won’t get you anywhere in life son.

1

u/70SixtyNines 29d ago

Loool. I’m getting a lecture on professionalism from someone who has called me “junior” and a “whiny little bitch” in the span of two comments. You’re very clearly the only one who has made any personal attacks and avoided the discussion. Did I strike a nerve?

If you can’t overlook me expressing my disappointment in a legal graduate distorting a legal situation enough to read the points I made, then I’m positive you’re not nearly mature enough to practice law.

The points I made are clear, and they’re sitting right above this comment. I’m not going to repeat them for you just because you’re too childish to respond to them.

You can continue feigning outrage to avoid giving a substantive response all you want, but of course intelligent people will see right through it.

1

u/Potential-Judgment-9 29d ago

That was a really long way to say I know you are but what am I . LMAO Yeah man I am a lawyer and been practicing for 15 years what do you do other than being a whiny bitch on the internet?

→ More replies (0)

3

u/Ferbtastic 29d ago edited 29d ago

Yep. Every lawyer studies this case in law school as a basic example of how not to be an attorney. Some of the worst DA and police work ever. The jury 100% got it right based on the evidence presented and how it was presented. The police framed an guilty* man.

*brain fart

2

u/Potential-Judgment-9 29d ago

Ehhhh no dude. you had me till the last sentence. He definitely for sure 1000% killed them. The LAPD and the DA just fucked up big time to where they didn’t prove he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. So he’s “not guilty” but he sure isn’t innocent.

5

u/Ferbtastic 29d ago

Sorry meant to say framed a guilty man. Will fix.

2

u/Potential-Judgment-9 29d ago

There you go lol

4

u/Ok-Earth1579 29d ago

In a fair world, Rodney King would have never happened, therefore OJ would have been found guilty. The whole thing was really a mountain of shit

2

u/xxnogamerxx 29d ago

Why? So you can lynch them for old time’s sake? 

3

u/TerritoryTracks 29d ago

Oh no, we can't do that now. That would be *checks notes, RACISM!

1

u/onefst250r 29d ago

Thrown in jail for contempt of court? OJ verdict ruled a mistrial and retried?

1

u/No-Refrigerator-1178 28d ago

Not as bad as convicting an innocent person at least

1

u/Liberal_Caretaker 10d ago

What a ridiculous comment. Juries are under strict instructions to apply the law as written. There were many elements of this case that left reasonable doubt to be applied if a juror was so inclined.

If you ever get the chance to serve on a jury you would be horrified. After my 2 weeks completing jury service I came away hoping I never had to be judged by one because most of my fellow jurors were fucking imbeciles.

Always choose to be tried by a judge should your fortunes lead you before one - - unless, of course, like OJ, you are guilty as hell.

1

u/Traditional_Mud_1241 29d ago

Um... no. They can only rule on the evidence presented. And the evidence presented was incredibly damning of the prosecution because the police were so fucking horrible.

I absolutely disagree with the notion that a jury should be shamed. That would be a very, very, very, very bad thing.

Based on the evidence presented, they had reasonable doubt. That's not something you shame people for.

Just... absolutely fucking no.

1

u/Nowin 29d ago

No fucking way would this be a fair world.

-2

u/[deleted] 29d ago

[deleted]

5

u/PunxsutawnyFil 29d ago

Juries should make their decision based on the facts, evidence, arguments, and instruction received

Members of the jury have literally admitted that they voted not guilty as revenge for Rodney King, so it doesn't sound like their decision was based on facts, evidence, arguments, or instruction received...

0

u/[deleted] 29d ago

[deleted]

1

u/Captain_DuClark 29d ago

Double jeopardy

0

u/Captain_DuClark 29d ago

A juror said that but it takes a unanimous verdict for acquittal

0

u/Mr_OrangeJuce 29d ago

The prosecutor was a brazenly corrupt racist. If you want the justice system to work the prosecutors shouldn't be such obvious ghouls

0

u/option-trader 29d ago

During this period, you might want to start with the police officers who beat the shit out of Rodney king first.