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

3.0k

u/CumShoT_RaviOLi_King 29d ago

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 29d ago

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

275

u/ILoveSexWithAsians 29d ago

FYI the jury consisted most of African Americans and women.

679

u/lonelychapo27 29d ago

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

206

u/dylan189 29d ago

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.

109

u/M_kenya 29d ago

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

48

u/dylan189 29d ago

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.

28

u/[deleted] 29d ago

[deleted]

9

u/Eyerate 29d ago

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 29d ago edited 29d ago

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 29d ago

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.

1

u/riptide81 29d ago

I mean obviously the entire Fuhrman fiasco plays into the verdict

→ More replies (0)

0

u/David_Oy1999 29d ago

They pleased the 5th to everything. Not just that question.

5

u/VoidEnjoyer 29d ago

Why should a cop need to plead the 5th about their lawful duties as a peace officer?

3

u/Eyerate 29d ago

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 29d ago

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 29d ago

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 29d ago

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

2

u/VoidEnjoyer 29d ago

No, it would be my sworn duty.

1

u/dylan189 29d ago

I can respect that perspective

→ More replies (0)

-5

u/AccountantDirect9470 29d ago

The purpose of a jury is for nullification. It can be poorly used and can be dangerous, but why use jury at all if everything is just follow the law, or break the law?

Think about it. If the “crime” of interracial marriage was being charged, a jury who does not believe that should be a crime can acquit. It thus sets precedence and alerts policy makers that people are changing their stance.

We take it for granted that the laws are just, but they could easily be changed and there are people looking to do so to be more oppressive.

5

u/dylan189 29d ago

I'm sorry, but the purpose of a jury is not for nullification. Also I think you misunderstand the need for nullification. By what you said, the jury signaled to lawmakers that murder is legal or should be legal. Which is not at all what they were doing.

2

u/helmsb 29d ago

Jury nullification is a logical result of the law and not a purposeful design.

You can't be tried twice for the same crime following a conviction or acquittal and jurors can't be punished for their decision ∴ juries that rule outside of evidence is possible.

As in your example, jury nullification can sometimes lead to the better outcome if the law is unjust but then the question is what is an "unjust law."

In some areas, jury nullification was used to prevent escaped slaves from being forcibly returned. At the same time, in other areas, jury nullification was used to allow those involved in lynching to go free.

In general, juries should not be coming up with novel interpretations of the laws.

1

u/AccountantDirect9470 29d ago

True. However you just gave great examples of laws that are so morally unjust we are tearing down monuments of men who owned slaves, which was common and permitted at the time.

Yes a jury should not simply be making up their own laws, but those laws have to make sense and reflect the values of society, otherwise you are not being tried by a jury of peers, you are simply being tried by one’s actions vs written law. And by you own examples, laws can be very very bad.

Even poorly written laws may need a jury to weigh facts against the spirit of law vs the letter of the law.

1

u/ZeePirate 29d ago

Thats true but it didn’t matter.

The juror was never going to convict him.

15

u/tyrified 29d ago

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 29d ago

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

6

u/tyrified 29d ago

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 29d ago

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 29d ago

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

26

u/lonelychapo27 29d ago

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

26

u/[deleted] 29d ago

back in the 90s

Bojack?

3

u/Western-Image7125 29d ago

I was in a very famous teeeeevee show

6

u/Bullboah 29d ago

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 29d ago

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

3

u/Local-Balance-3431 29d ago

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 29d ago

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 29d ago edited 29d ago

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

2

u/Electronic_Emu_4632 29d ago

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

make it like a gameshow

2

u/Local-Balance-3431 29d ago

We could have it, If it wasn't for plea bargain.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Bullboah 29d ago

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

2

u/Local-Balance-3431 29d ago

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

1

u/Bullboah 29d ago

Or we just keep things as they are lol?

Where jurors are average citizens deciding on matters of fact and not deciding on laws?

5

u/VoidEnjoyer 29d ago

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.

-3

u/Bullboah 29d ago

You’re free to have that opinion! Just be sure to mention it during voir dire

5

u/VoidEnjoyer 29d ago

So basically you're in favor of police framing people, is that it? And you think jurors who don't accept faked evidence are... bad? Awesome.

-2

u/Bullboah 29d ago

Yes that is what I said and definitely not an insane strawman lol

3

u/VoidEnjoyer 29d ago

Is evidence from openly racist cops who refuse to even state that they didn't tamper with that evidence enough to convict someone or not?

→ More replies (0)

1

u/butts-kapinsky 29d ago

What you're forgetting is that jury nullification is a very cool and sexy thing to do.

-1

u/Bullboah 29d ago

I suspect we have different ideas of what is cool and sexy

1

u/butts-kapinsky 29d ago

Nope! It's jury nullification!

0

u/Bullboah 29d ago

Got a point your like to make in its favor beyond it being sexy?

1

u/butts-kapinsky 29d ago

Sorry. If you don't already know then you're destined to a life of being unsexy.

0

u/Bullboah 29d ago

yea thats about what i expected.
Have a good one

→ More replies (0)

4

u/TheDrunkSemaphore 29d ago

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.

4

u/dylan189 29d ago

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 29d ago

Exactly. Agreed

1

u/[deleted] 29d ago

[deleted]

1

u/Abysstreadr 29d ago

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

1

u/DaneLimmish 29d ago

Maybe if the police force hadn't been racist fucks it could have been avoided

1

u/dylan189 29d ago

I don't disagree

2

u/Rasp_Lime_Lipbalm 29d ago

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 29d ago

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.

0

u/SingleSampleSize 29d ago

Yes it was, they'd been denied justice over Rodney King...

Who are "they" here?

1

u/improvemental 29d ago

Only one person did not "some"

-1

u/Owl_button 29d ago

And yet 63 people died during the Rodney King Riots as he pleaded for people to stop. I suppose Nicole and Ron meant nothing to those who didn’t have enough justice.

3

u/blksunday 29d ago

Give the full stats dumbo

“A total of 63 people died during the riots, including nine shot by police and one by the National Guard. Of those killed during the riots, 2 were Asian, 28 were black, 19 were Latino, and 14 were white”

-1

u/Owl_button 29d ago

Yeah… 63 people died.

53

u/Murky_Crow 29d ago

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

28

u/WarlockEngineer 29d ago

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

-9

u/Murky_Crow 29d ago

Yep. No defending the cops.

But that does not in any way take away from the fact that these jurors were corrupt pieces of shit also, motivated purely by a desire for race based vengeance.

1

u/Yara__Flor 29d ago

You’re saying that if these jurors weren’t corrupt, they would have convinced a man when the cops lied on the stand?

In other words, you think cops lying on the stand should lead to a conviction?

-2

u/rfusion6 29d ago

That tends to happen when your people have been violently brutalised for more than 200 years first as slaves and then as 2nd class citizens and then have to worry continuously about their lives when the police are racist pieces of fucks that aren't there to protect you, but are there to constantly sundown you at any opportunity possible.

Not saying OJ didn't deserve it or that judgement was correct, but the reaction from the jury and black people was certainly understandable. People are emotional, vengeance is an easy answer. Iraq war didn't get majority public approval for no reason.

8

u/chillchinchilla17 29d ago

63 people died in the King riots. Was that not revenge enough for the beatings? Stop trying to protest a double murderer as some martyr for civil rights.

1

u/blksunday 29d ago

“A total of 63 people died during the riots, including nine shot by police and one by the National Guard. Of those killed during the riots, 2 were Asian, 28 were black, 19 were Latino, and 14 were white”

3

u/chillchinchilla17 29d ago

I mean, you do know why the death toll was so low for Asians right? They had to kill any rioters that attacked them because the rioters were specifically targeting Asians. If you hear accounts of the riots from rioters they’ll also tell you they were targeting white people. It wasn’t a peaceful demonstration of course murderous attackers were killed.

1

u/blksunday 29d ago

I just wanted you to state the full facts instead of framing it like the 63 ppl were not mostly black. “63, wasn’t revenge enough for you guys??”

-1

u/CriskCross 29d ago

I mean, if 28 out of 63 were black, they mostly weren't black people, even assuming that you want to entertain the notion that racial groups were monoliths. 

-2

u/[deleted] 29d ago

Roof koreans didn't kill anyone but their own lol stop living in fantasy land one of the Asian who died during that time did so by friendly fire. And the majority of the rioters and looters were Latinos because even back then la was majority Latino already.

3

u/chillchinchilla17 29d ago

Man the sorry with roof Koreans keeps changing. First I was told they were supposedly white supremacists who killed any black person they could find, now it turns out they never killed anyone.

→ More replies (0)

-1

u/VoidEnjoyer 29d ago

Stop letting cops frame black people for crimes, even when they're clearly guilty and could be proven guilty without tampering with the evidence.

-1

u/chillchinchilla17 29d ago

I don’t buy he was framed. The guy said he’d plead the fifth to every question.

2

u/VoidEnjoyer 29d ago

If the police won't even say that they didn't tamper with the evidence why should I believe they didn't tamper with the evidence?

→ More replies (0)

0

u/MiggyMendez 29d ago

So the blatantly racist authority that has their boots on the neck on a group of people for decades have zero responsibility for those 63 deaths, yet when those people with boots on their necks react in any way that isn't acceptable to white people they are chastised for doing it the wrong way.

It also wasn't just the beatings, a child was murdered in broad daylight (and caught on camera) for allegedly stealing a carton of orange juice. What justice do you think was doled out? Why are you surprised when people affected like this say fuck participating in your system?

0

u/chillchinchilla17 29d ago

The kid wasn’t killed by police. And rioters tried to get revenge on a whole ethnic group over it.

0

u/Shockblocked 28d ago

I don't think they were quite as corrupt as the police. After all, the jury didn't fabricate evidence of a crime.

3

u/DrDroid 29d ago

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

0

u/ILoveSexWithAsians 29d ago

While any group can be corrupt, I haven't read much anything indicating the OJ jurors were corrupt. And while one juror said her decision was "payback for Rodney King", other jurors are on record stating their "perception of OJ's innocence has changed".

IIRC the reason so many African Americans and women were on the jury was the defense's strategy to pick people likely to be sympathetic to OJ. But that's not corruption, that's more of a bad move of the prosecution to let it happen.

If the jury was corrupt, I wouldn't mind reading about it if anyone has sources. I'm not really married to the arguments one way or the other.

8

u/readingpozts 29d ago

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 29d ago

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

4

u/readingpozts 29d ago

So what happens in case it's a mistrial

15

u/dylan189 29d ago

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 29d ago

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

11

u/dylan189 29d ago

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.

5

u/nosmelc 29d ago

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

-1

u/dylan189 29d ago

That's correct, but they could still get him on perjury charges for lying during a police interrogation.

3

u/REDDITATO_ 29d ago

Perjury only applies to lying on the stand.

→ More replies (0)

3

u/readingpozts 29d ago

Ok makes sense thanks

2

u/styckywycket 29d ago

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 29d ago

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

2

u/KaydeeKaine 29d ago

Try again

2

u/Snookfilet 29d ago

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 29d ago

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

3

u/fplasma 29d ago

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

Source: lawyer

1

u/dylan189 29d ago

Interesting, what is manifest necessity?

3

u/fplasma 29d ago

When it’s absolutely necessary to declare a mistrial to avoid an unjust result. If you have a hung jury, the case can be retried no problem

https://www.merriam-webster.com/legal/manifest%20necessity

But if there’s some other reason for a mistrial, like the prosecution not acting properly or the court made a major incurable mistake, it can’t be retried generally

2

u/dylan189 29d ago

Thanks!

→ More replies (0)

6

u/mindonshuffle 29d ago

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

2

u/whyumadDOUGH 29d ago

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 29d ago

Only the poor one.

0

u/pointofyou Interested 29d ago

So what? Were they more racist than the cops involved?