Print Page | Close Window

OJ and his team played us smh

Printed From: Black Hair Media Forum
Category: Lets Talk
Forum Name: Talk, Talk, and More Talk
Forum Description: In this Forum, the talk is about everything that can be talked about.
URL: http://Forum.BlackHairMedia.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=371402
Printed Date: Dec 16 2017 at 2:18am


Topic: OJ and his team played us smh
Posted By: noneyons
Subject: OJ and his team played us smh
Date Posted: Jun 11 2014 at 9:53pm
watching this dateline show about OJ and i'm smh at how they talked about OJ's team purposely choosing black women for the jury because they knew we wouldn't find him guilty. like it was strategically planned and an open and shut case. 

ion know if OJ is guilty but that sh*t is offensive. 

random. 



Replies:
Posted By: mizzsandra00
Date Posted: Jun 11 2014 at 9:54pm
You should be offended at 100% of the other defense teams that do the same exact thing in jury selection.....


Posted By: f8dagrate
Date Posted: Jun 11 2014 at 9:57pm
US?

Rofl, girl please most black people I know, knew he did it. But at that time we just didn't give an eff. Yes, it was wrong but at time it just felt right.


Posted By: noneyons
Date Posted: Jun 11 2014 at 9:58pm
you're right. but why didn't they purposely choose black MEN to be on the jury? 

they know our loyalty knows no bounds. 


Posted By: herwoman
Date Posted: Jun 11 2014 at 9:59pm
I don't even know what to say that would come close to being kind. Like...


Posted By: mizzsandra00
Date Posted: Jun 11 2014 at 10:00pm
I don't think he did.....


Posted By: rickysrose
Date Posted: Jun 11 2014 at 10:00pm
Originally posted by mizzsandra00 mizzsandra00 wrote:

You should be offended at 100% of the other defense teams that do the same exact thing in jury selection.....

Usually AGAINST black people


Posted By: noneyons
Date Posted: Jun 11 2014 at 10:00pm
let's try not to get sidetracked. 

my problem is with their stategic planning. like, damn. they think we're THAT transparent?


Posted By: herwoman
Date Posted: Jun 11 2014 at 10:01pm
Originally posted by noneyons noneyons wrote:

you're right. but why didn't they purposely choose black MEN to be on the jury? 

they know our loyalty knows no bounds. 
Because they would side with Becky or whatever her name was, I can't remember. Is this what you're getting at?


Posted By: noneyons
Date Posted: Jun 11 2014 at 10:01pm
i'm ok with unkind words


Posted By: herwoman
Date Posted: Jun 11 2014 at 10:02pm
Originally posted by mizzsandra00 mizzsandra00 wrote:

I don't think he did.....
He didn't, he's innocent as those gloves are too small.


Posted By: noneyons
Date Posted: Jun 11 2014 at 10:04pm
they talked about how oj plastered black power type pics all over his house AFTER the fact (before the trial) trying to woo the black audience. 

@herwoman, no, that's not what i'm getting at. i'm just perplexed is all.


Posted By: rickysrose
Date Posted: Jun 11 2014 at 10:06pm
Im not convinced he did all that leaving so little blood behind and overcoming two young fit people in a hand to hand fight, putting tongues through throats and all that mess

It did seem professional... 



Posted By: rickysrose
Date Posted: Jun 11 2014 at 10:08pm
you would've been more pleased if typically we'd fry a black man? 


Posted By: noneyons
Date Posted: Jun 11 2014 at 10:09pm
like i said, i don't know if he did it or not. i'm neutral about it tbh. my problem is with their assumption


Posted By: herwoman
Date Posted: Jun 11 2014 at 10:10pm
Chile...


Posted By: Lite Brite
Date Posted: Jun 11 2014 at 10:11pm
But their assumption was correct though LOL


Posted By: noneyons
Date Posted: Jun 11 2014 at 10:12pm
touche lol

yall aint with me though. i'm just talking random sh*t.


Posted By: noneyons
Date Posted: Jun 11 2014 at 10:14pm
if yall didn't watch the show, yall wouldn't understand where i'm coming from so this is a mute topic kindaLOL


Posted By: noneyons
Date Posted: Jun 11 2014 at 10:16pm
listen though. they can "assume" that we would take the side of a black man if the evidence of his innocence is overwhelming. all day every day. that wasn't the case for OJ. 


forget it


Posted By: Lite Brite
Date Posted: Jun 11 2014 at 10:17pm
Lol, I get what you're saying. You feel played. But shheeiit, they were right and it worked. Can't be mad at them, that's their job.

I wonder if the women on the jury feel salty after hearing that LOL


Posted By: noneyons
Date Posted: Jun 11 2014 at 10:21pm
thank you for understanding my pov. 

we so scared to be honest. what's up with that?


Posted By: Gkisses
Date Posted: Jun 11 2014 at 10:21pm
I believe he had a hand in the act and/or the coverup. There was a very convincing article about OJs son being the true murder.


Posted By: noneyons
Date Posted: Jun 11 2014 at 10:22pm
damn i donn't want to misquote but they also said OJ said something along the lines of 'i can't lose" after they chose a predominately black female jury


Posted By: Sang Froid
Date Posted: Jun 11 2014 at 10:22pm
You get to choose your own jury?



Posted By: noneyons
Date Posted: Jun 11 2014 at 10:25pm
i don't know how it works but apparently the defense has the majority power when it comes to jury selection. 


Posted By: ms_wonderland
Date Posted: Jun 11 2014 at 10:26pm
not the defendant but during voir dire the attorneys get to eliminate people that won't be exactly sympathetic to their position.

that entire case was too messy to decide but he was absolutely involved.  he deserves to be in jail right where he is.  im not outraged about the verdict because the injustice of a white victim is not that deep.


Posted By: noneyons
Date Posted: Jun 11 2014 at 10:30pm
i agree mswonderland. 

this is why bhm is so dry. we need more radicalism up in this piece


Posted By: rickysrose
Date Posted: Jun 11 2014 at 10:30pm
White juries and judges favor whites and give the most benefit of the doubt, stats overwhelming prove that 

Why is that considered fair and balanced?



Posted By: noneyons
Date Posted: Jun 11 2014 at 10:32pm
how deep this topic goes depends on how people respond. there's a lot i want to say but i won't cause everything is so touchy feely


Posted By: Lite Brite
Date Posted: Jun 11 2014 at 10:32pm
I always thought it would be a cool job to be a consultant for a defense team during jury (de)selection.

I wonder how extensive their training is and what type of educational background. I wonder if the ones for high profile cases have worked for the CIA prior


Posted By: india100
Date Posted: Jun 11 2014 at 10:32pm
I am too tired now , but i plan to give my 2 cents in the morning . I felt awful the day JC died . The family continues to fight for Cell phones warnings . I almost vomit when the dateline chose to end the show with KK pregnant mom and father comments . 
 
Mark racist butt plead the fifth because no matter what , that evil man planted blood . OJ was a arrogant fool to loose his freedom over nothing . I can't believe how bad he looks . People in prison are eating well . I know a man that obtain a masters degree in prison .  The daugher and son gain a lot of weight . I never hear anything about nicole children .   


Posted By: rickysrose
Date Posted: Jun 11 2014 at 10:32pm
if they built a case for him hiring a pro then I'd feel differently but they claimed he physically did it


Posted By: rickysrose
Date Posted: Jun 11 2014 at 10:34pm
probably a behavioral psychologist, who's a bad ass poker player lol


Posted By: carolina cutie
Date Posted: Jun 11 2014 at 10:37pm
Originally posted by noneyons noneyons wrote:

you're right. but why didn't they purposely choose black MEN to be on the jury? 

they know our loyalty knows no bounds. 


[OJ]these hoes ain't loyal[ratchet song] LOL




Posted By: newdiva1
Date Posted: Jun 11 2014 at 10:40pm
Originally posted by noneyons noneyons wrote:

watching this dateline show about OJ and i'm smh at how they talked about OJ's team purposely choosing black women for the jury because they knew we wouldn't find him guilty. like it was strategically planned and an open and shut case. 

ion know if OJ is guilty but that sh*t is offensive. 

random. 



*shrugs* welp. the way I understand it...that's what lawyers are supposed to do.  Try to get u a jury that will have a chance of letting you off.  A jury of your peers.


Posted By: Benni
Date Posted: Jun 11 2014 at 10:48pm
I refused to watch it



Posted By: Katrenia
Date Posted: Jun 11 2014 at 11:14pm
It would have been a struggle for me to be fair to him I remember how he treated his black employees at Pioneer Chicken when he owned it.






Posted By: noneyons
Date Posted: Jun 11 2014 at 11:18pm
tell us more


Posted By: noneyons
Date Posted: Jun 11 2014 at 11:19pm
not the angle i was going for but at what point do we stop AUTOMATICALLY defending people who are not for the cause? is there a point?


Posted By: noneyons
Date Posted: Jun 11 2014 at 11:20pm
i remember some new commentator said some racist sh*t about tiger woods and A LOT OF  SOME black women were up in arms. 

random


Posted By: Sang Froid
Date Posted: Jun 11 2014 at 11:24pm
Oh...so letting them slide with being racist is cool.
I see.


Posted By: noneyons
Date Posted: Jun 11 2014 at 11:30pm
i don't like being taken for granted. maybe i have deeper issues.


Posted By: Katrenia
Date Posted: Jun 11 2014 at 11:33pm
My Aunt worked at one of OJ's Pioner's in Los Angeles. The place was locate in the hood so he had to hire Blacks but never hired dark people, that was the unwritten rule.
I saw this to be true because I would visit my Aunt while she was working. 


Posted By: ms_wonderland
Date Posted: Jun 11 2014 at 11:34pm
black women have always been the unflinching defenders even when it came to putting race above women's issues...we don't really have a choice.  everything is always up to the women to deal with while men have the luxury to pick and choose.  


Posted By: PurplePhase
Date Posted: Jun 11 2014 at 11:34pm
at the time, I was a lil surprised that a jury with black women acquitted him.
but obviously the pros knew better.


Posted By: noneyons
Date Posted: Jun 11 2014 at 11:40pm
they'll appreciate us more if we make them work for it


Posted By: Alias_Avi
Date Posted: Jun 11 2014 at 11:46pm
http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&docid=p9O7IdhR1H4R3M&tbnid=s70L9tqOaUUKgM:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Frichardskipper.blogspot.com%2F2012%2F09%2Fmorgan-freeman-rudolph-pearl-baileycab.html&ei=izCZU93BMdefyATO74KQBg&bvm=bv.68911936,d.aWw&psig=AFQjCNESvd8d3wcjwR45kHvIxfuuRmTtQw&ust=1402634618011942" rel="nofollow">


Originally posted by noneyons noneyons wrote:

thank you for understanding my pov. 

we so scared to be honest. what's up with that?


Posted By: rickysrose
Date Posted: Jun 11 2014 at 11:49pm
first these hoes ain't loyal

now these hoes too loyal

can we let these hoes live!




Posted By: noneyons
Date Posted: Jun 11 2014 at 11:50pm
good question, samone.


we gotta set a precedence at some point. not convict out of spite but out of rational. not saying the black female jurors didn't convict because the burden of proof was on OJ's side and the prosecution sucked, but again, our loyalty made this case open and shut before it started let them tell it. 

oj said, i can't lose.



Posted By: noneyons
Date Posted: Jun 11 2014 at 11:55pm
i'ma do a thread about so called "ratched" black women when the mood strikes me. 




Posted By: ms_wonderland
Date Posted: Jun 12 2014 at 12:00am
Originally posted by rickysrose rickysrose wrote:

first these hoes ain't loyal

now these hoes too loyal

can we let these hoes live!



LOLLOL



Posted By: noneyons
Date Posted: Jun 12 2014 at 12:04am
i don't recall a time when we weren't loyal. in the bedroom maybe but not in the pressure cooker


Posted By: noneyons
Date Posted: Jun 12 2014 at 12:09am
i guess if i'm being honest, if a black man wants my benefit of a doubt/loyalty (when the evidence is pointing against him)he has to show himself approved otherwise i'm not treating you like kin. sorry


Posted By: Katrenia
Date Posted: Jun 12 2014 at 12:17am
Originally posted by SamoneLenior SamoneLenior wrote:


well if the evidence proves he is not guilty (to you) but he is a sell out new black, are still going to vote not guilty?

objectively, one has nothing to do with the other

you would be making a decision based on past hurt/anger and trying to even the score

There are times when that past anger obscures your best judgment.


Posted By: noneyons
Date Posted: Jun 12 2014 at 12:18am
nah, like i said, it shouldn't be out of spite. 

but we all agree that  race has a lot to do with jury's decisions. if i happen to be the same race of the person who's on trial and he is not a contributing member of the community, he gets treated just like anybody else. no sympathy, not loyalty. my bias goes out the window. 

and yall know damn well, oj did it or had something to do with it.


Posted By: rickysrose
Date Posted: Jun 12 2014 at 12:19am
what was the evidence against him? The only thing which was big but circumstantial was past abuse

But the blood was planted and it seemed a stretch he'd be able to do that to two young gym rats without leaving any physical evidence

I could be missing something though... tell me what Im missing



Posted By: noneyons
Date Posted: Jun 12 2014 at 12:19am
troy davis for example was guilty imo. the evidence was overwhelming. i pointed it out in the thread we did about him but if he had been pardoned i would not have cared one way or another.


Posted By: rickysrose
Date Posted: Jun 12 2014 at 12:21am
i wasn't in the US for the trial so we got summaries not play by plays and also perhaps a different slant to the reporting

So it's possible I missed something 




Posted By: noneyons
Date Posted: Jun 12 2014 at 12:23am
there are too many minute details in the oj trial. ion feel like going over them but yall know....LOL

i don't care though. kinda but not really


Posted By: carolina cutie
Date Posted: Jun 12 2014 at 12:27am
Originally posted by ms_wonderland ms_wonderland wrote:

Originally posted by rickysrose rickysrose wrote:

first these hoes ain't loyal

now these hoes too loyal

can we let these hoes live!



LOLLOL

CryLOLLOL


Posted By: rickysrose
Date Posted: Jun 12 2014 at 12:28am
I genuinely don't know, tell me


Posted By: Katrenia
Date Posted: Jun 12 2014 at 12:31am
I've seen the crime scene pictures from the OJ case and that was rage.
With a knife, that woman was nearly decapitate and the cutter used sawing strokes. 

Oj's team used every advantage because it was needed.

The racists LAPD tried to frame him by using OJ's blood that was tainted with preservatives. 

It was a messy attempt that work in OJ's favor. IMO


Posted By: noneyons
Date Posted: Jun 12 2014 at 12:35am
my buzz is wearing off. 


Posted By: Lilaca
Date Posted: Jun 12 2014 at 3:37am
Coon


Poor woman though regardless 


Posted By: afrokock
Date Posted: Jun 12 2014 at 3:41am
Originally posted by noneyons noneyons wrote:

let's try not to get sidetracked. 

my problem is with their stategic planning. like, damn. they think we're THAT transparent?


Posted By: blaquefoxx
Date Posted: Jun 12 2014 at 5:10am
Originally posted by rickysrose rickysrose wrote:

first these hoes ain't loyal

now these hoes too loyal

can we let these hoes live!


lmao


Posted By: bunzaveli
Date Posted: Jun 12 2014 at 6:46am
oj aint do sh*t, and if even if he did shame on any of you who tell white people you think oj did it. keep that sh*t to yourselves.


Posted By: fckwitmeuknoigotit
Date Posted: Jun 12 2014 at 7:00am
i still don't think oj did it. nicole and her boyfriend were some coke heads and dealt with fiends and drug dealers. makes more sense to me that one of their drug associates did it, imho..

when all this sht went down, los angeles was going through a lot dealing with race issues and they had the most corrupt police force in the country. oj saw the blood on the leaves and knew they were going to take the easy way out and pin this sh*t on him because that was his baby mom's, he's a celebrity and he's black.

all the shady sh*t that went on during the trial is proof they had no concrete evidence. white people weren't going to let oj get away with a win. he got sued anyways for the death(which was fucced up) and he's been ostracized and struggling financially ever since.  but that wasn't good enough, they finally got him in prison.....for trying to take back his own sh*t!!!


Posted By: bunzaveli
Date Posted: Jun 12 2014 at 7:03am
Originally posted by fckwitmeuknoigotit fckwitmeuknoigotit wrote:



all the shady sh*t that went on during the trial is proof they had no concrete evidence. 
lol @ framing a guilty man


Posted By: Jess
Date Posted: Jun 12 2014 at 7:08am
Originally posted by Katrenia Katrenia wrote:

I've seen the crime scene pictures from the OJ case and that was rage.
With a knife, that woman was nearly decapitate and the cutter used sawing strokes. 

Oj's team used every advantage because it was needed.

The racists LAPD tried to frame him by using OJ's blood that was tainted with preservatives. 

It was a messy attempt that work in OJ's favor. IMO
OMG. You saw the body?


Posted By: Blac1Chyna
Date Posted: Jun 12 2014 at 8:14am
they know many black women have an undying loyalty to anything with a penis and a lotta melanin and they use it to their advantage. since he was messing with all them white women, why he didn't put a bunch of white girls on the jury?? we all know why...

the same women who will make sure their "good black man" doesn't spend a day in jail will be the ones buying up kevin hart tickets. at some point you have to ask, do we get played or do we play ourselves?


Posted By: rickysrose
Date Posted: Jun 12 2014 at 11:58am
Even if what you are saying is true

For the black race's sake, the answer wouldn't be for black women to become disloyal to black men, the better answer would be for black men to be loyal to black women

Your shade is in the wrong direction 


Posted By: Katrenia
Date Posted: Jun 12 2014 at 12:58pm
Originally posted by Jess Jess wrote:

Originally posted by Katrenia Katrenia wrote:

I've seen the crime scene pictures from the OJ case and that was rage.
With a knife, that woman was nearly decapitate and the cutter used sawing strokes. 

Oj's team used every advantage because it was needed.

The racists LAPD tried to frame him by using OJ's blood that was tainted with preservatives. 

It was a messy attempt that work in OJ's favor. IMO
OMG. You saw the body?

No, I wouldn't want to see that. I saw full crime scene photos.


Posted By: Katrenia
Date Posted: Jun 12 2014 at 1:11pm
Originally posted by Blac1Chyna Blac1Chyna wrote:

they know many black women have an undying loyalty to anything with a penis and a lotta melanin and they use it to their advantage. since he was messing with all them white women, why he didn't put a bunch of white girls on the jury?? we all know why...

the same women who will make sure their "good black man" doesn't spend a day in jail will be the ones buying up kevin hart tickets. at some point you have to ask, do we get played or do we play ourselves?

We should keep our memories in tact for these Blacks who all but change their skin and hair to Caucasian (many try).
Because as soon as they commit an offense that causes the yt community to ostracize them, they want to re-join the Black community. 
I'm not one to be disloyal and I may forgive but I won't forget.

OJ wouldn't hold the door for a Black Woman to enter.


Posted By: Claudie
Date Posted: Jun 12 2014 at 1:24pm
Originally posted by bunzaveli bunzaveli wrote:

oj aint do sh*t, and if even if he did shame on any of you who tell white people you think oj did it. keep that sh*t to yourselves.


I do not believe that OJ did it . I think his Son did it


Posted By: rickysrose
Date Posted: Jun 12 2014 at 1:26pm
Was there any smoking guns or evidence that OJ did do it? Or is it more of a feeling that he must've done it?

I know I felt that way about Scott Peterson from his first interview way before he was implicated so I understand going on a hunch

I'm just really curious if there was something conclusive against OJ because I don't want to cape meanwhile they had the knife with his fingerprints on it or something 



Posted By: AshBash89
Date Posted: Jun 12 2014 at 2:21pm
Black people always have to "do the right thing." Don't base your verdict out of spite even though at the time there were so many racial cases going on in Cali. There's too many messed up convictions based on race and in Trayvon's case(and like cases), a lack of conviction. The justice system isn't fair or balanced so I don't fault those Black jurors at all. In the end, they got OJ but the same can't be said about the thousands of other cases.


Posted By: ragincajin
Date Posted: Jun 12 2014 at 3:01pm
Originally posted by mizzsandra00 mizzsandra00 wrote:

You should be offended at 100% of the other defense teams that do the same exact thing in jury selection.....

San, if I could thank you 1000 times, I would.
This is our 'justice' system.
Nary a straight road will ever be found therein.
Nothing but sharp turns and crooked spaces, filled with crooked folk with smiling faces.
My husband and I made that up years ago.
We sing it when whenever we've had a spectacularly sh*t*y day.LOLLOL



Posted By: noneyons
Date Posted: Jun 12 2014 at 4:25pm

Found this on PBS about the juror selection. Don't know why everything is highlighted *shrugs*

This intrigues me though.


The defense and the prosecution both hired jury consultants, focus groups, to test out their arguments before they went to court. What did they tell you?

The defense team had focus groups, and it's our understanding that the prosecution team had focus groups as well, where people from all ages, races, genders, come to sit and listen to some of … the evidence in the case and talk about some of the issues that were coming forth. It was obviously behind a mirror where they couldn't see us but we could see and hear them, and it was very, very clear that black women were the most sympathetic to O.J. Simpson. So it was very clear that we would want a jury made up primarily of African American women



Posted By: noneyons
Date Posted: Jun 12 2014 at 4:32pm
this is a testament to our loyalty if nothing else. we can go with that angle. 

I think [prosecuting attorney] Marcia Clark believed that gender would trump race with black women, and it turned out that wasn't the case; that many of these women identified much more with their brothers and fathers and uncles, who had seen police harassment. They were black first and women second. ...

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/oj/themes/prosecution.html


Posted By: noneyons
Date Posted: Jun 12 2014 at 4:36pm
like blackchyna said, did we get played or did we play ourselves? i should change the title maybe LOLi think this could be a good discussion.


Posted By: india100
Date Posted: Jun 12 2014 at 4:41pm
Originally posted by fckwitmeuknoigotit fckwitmeuknoigotit wrote:

i still don't think oj did it. nicole and her boyfriend were some coke heads and dealt with fiends and drug dealers. makes more sense to me that one of their drug associates did it, imho..

when all this sht went down, los angeles was going through a lot dealing with race issues and they had the most corrupt police force in the country. oj saw the blood on the leaves and knew they were going to take the easy way out and pin this sh*t on him because that was his baby mom's, he's a celebrity and he's black.

all the shady sh*t that went on during the trial is proof they had no concrete evidence. white people weren't going to let oj get away with a win. he got sued anyways for the death(which was fucced up) and he's been ostracized and struggling financially ever since.  but that wasn't good enough, they finally got him in prison.....for trying to take back his own sh*t!!!
 I agree with some of your points . I use to think OJ had nothing to do with it , but now i question if he hired a killer . No one deserves to die like that . I think Ron goldman was a innocent victim . Someone planned to murder her that night . I watch every minute of the trial . I feel sorry for her children . Ron dad seem racist and full of hate , but the man lost his son and went off .  


Posted By: noneyons
Date Posted: Jun 12 2014 at 4:45pm
how the black community viewed o.j. and the verdict 

What is the "delicious irony" some black Americans saw in the not-guilty verdict? Why did so many see it as justified on grounds of "reasonable doubt?" And a decade later, have black Americans changed their views about the jury's not-guilty verdict -- and their views of O.J. himself? Here, offering perspectives on these questions, in excerpts from their FRONTLINE interviews, are Kerman Maddox, Los Angeles businessman; Carl Douglas, coordinating attorney for the defense; Michael Eric Dyson, professor of humanities, the University of Pennsylvania; Shawn Chapman Holley, managing partner, the Cochran Law Firm; and Charles J. Ogletree Jr., Harvard law professor.

Kerman Maddox

Kerman Maddox, Los Angeles businessman and community activist.

KERMAN MADDOX

…What happens today when the conversation turns to O.J.?

… I'll give you an example. Within our family, as we got together for the holidays, things were so bad in our family -- and I come from a large, loving family, two parents, seven kids -- things were so bad in our family because we were so divided. I was the only one who thought he was guilty other than my brother, who is a cop. Everybody else was convinced that he had nothing to do with it, and my father just thought that I had lost my mind. …

And of course my father's an older man, he's a dark-complected man, and he's from the South, so his life experiences have been different from mine. He talks about an incredibly racist criminal justice system and an incredibly racist military. So my father was convinced, based on his life experiences, that O.J. Simpson had nothing to do with it. He was framed, it was a mockery, and it was all about Mark Fuhrman and planting evidence, and things like that. So my family is united in their opposition to me and my position. … But that just gives an indication of how divided even families were in the black community when one person -- in this case, me -- felt he was guilty and everybody else felt he was innocent.

Is that still true today?

It's not as bad today. I think a lot of people today, now that they look back on it, think he had something to do with it. And many people even admit, "Yeah, I think he's guilty." But they still like the verdict, and many of them will not admit that publicly. There are a lot of black people in this town that have told me privately, "You know, I agree with you. I think he did it, but I'll never tell anybody that." Because there's this kind of like racial code or something, this camaraderie, there's a line: If you cross that line, somehow you're not in sync with the thought process in the black community. You're not loyal, or you're a sellout. …

How did you feel when you heard first the verdict?

I was really conflicted because: 1) I thought he was guilty, and 2) it troubled me that a person who I felt was guilty got off with it. However, on the other hand, I saw this incredible excitement by these young African Americans and some of the older ones as I drove around the community. It was sheer excitement. So then I thought, "Well, God, this is bigger than O.J. This is something where people feel it is really a part of them." They really became attached to this case because of their life experiences and their families and the whole experience of African Americans with the criminal justice system.

But then I thought, "But O.J. has never really been a part of the black community." In fact, he moved out of the black community. He married a white wife. He lived in the white community. His money was spent in the white community. I thought they were excited about the wrong guy. So I had all these emotions going through my mind at that time.

Carl douglas

Carl Douglas, coordinating attorney for the defense team.

CARL DOUGLAS

… No one could really appreciate and understand the O.J. Simpson verdict without understanding the prism through which these jurors examined the facts of this case. In Los Angeles I dare say you could speak to seven African Americans at random, and out of that seven, five would have had a negative experience to talk to you about -- about themselves, a family member, or a friend at the hands of the police department. And no one can really properly analyze this verdict without appreciating the dynamics between the Los Angeles Police Department and the black community of Los Angeles.

Those women [the African American jurors] are the mothers, the wives, the sisters, and the girlfriends of African American men, all of whom over the years had been mistreated by the police. And therefore, they were open to the potential argument that the police might in fact plant evidence or lie against someone accused of a serious crime.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/oj/interviews/dyson.html" rel="nofollow">Michael Eric Dyson

Michael Eric Dyson, professor of humanities at the University of Pennsylvania and author of numerous books on race in America, including Is Bill Cosby Right?

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/oj/interviews/dyson.html" rel="nofollow - MICHAEL ERIC DYSON

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/oj/interviews/dyson.html" rel="nofollow - Read the full interview »

… It's not that we couldn't conceive that O.J. would be guilty; the question is, one, can you legally prove that the man did what was claimed that he did?; two, did the prosecution make a compelling case to substantiate their claim that Mr. Simpson was guilty?; and three, there's a difference between being innocent and not guilty.

So black people are not naive enough to think that the proof or the lack of proof of guilt suggests that somebody is innocent. It means that the prosecution didn't meet its burden of proof -- to prove the guilt of Mr. Simpson. So black people believed, when they looked at that racism of Mr. [Mark] Fuhrman and his promiscuous use of the "n" word, when they looked at the history of justice being doled out to African American people in L.A. and the refusal of the police system to reform itself, especially under Daryl Gates, who infamously headed the LAPD -- when you put all that stuff together, there's no question that black people saw the O.J. Simpson case through the lens of race, and that lens had been colored by their immediate experience, and the texture of their lives certainly influenced what they understood was happening in the O.J. Simpson case.

But did the African Americans rejoicing at O.J.'s acquittal really believe he was innocent?

Absolutely not. I don't think we should make the mistake of believing that black people who celebrated a) thought O.J. was innocent, or b) were even concerned most about O.J. as opposed to their Uncle Charlie or Bubba or their sister Shanaynay or their Aunt Jackie, who had been screwed by a system that never paid attention to them.

Again, O.J. was beyond his body. "O.J." was a term that represented every black person that got beat up by the criminal justice system, and now we have found some vindication, and guess what, white America? It was with a black man that you loved. It was with a black man that you said was better than us. It was with a black man that you said wasn't like us. He was different than we are. He wasn't a troublemaker. He didn't cause racial consternation, or he wasn't controversial. Ha, ha, ha. The very guy you thought was so perfect turns out to be the one who turned the tables on you. That was a delicious irony of the victory as well. …

Shawn Chapman Holley

Shawn Chapman Holley, managing partner of the Cochran Law Firm in Los Angeles.

SHAWN CHAPMAN HOLLEY

… The black community has a very different view of the O.J. case. And the media did make a big deal of showing the disparity in the reactions between the white community and the black community and particularly showing black college students at Howard or one of the predominately black colleges cheering. I really don't think that that cheering had much to do with O.J. Simpson himself. I mean, O.J. Simpson had not really been part of the African American community or a hero really to African Americans in recent years. It really had to do with Johnnie Cochran: Johnnie Cochran commanding that courtroom, being brilliant, beating the system. That's really what it had to do with … And here [comes] on TV a black, brilliant attorney winning the case against all the odds. That's what the black people were cheering about.

And the weight of history?

Absolutely. A lot of history, a lot of occasions where black men have been convicted for things that they didn't do, lots of unfair trials involving black male defendants, unfair results, a system that black people didn't think was fair to them overall. Here it could all be turned around in this one instant, and that is what the celebration was all about.

Is that the same feeling now, ten years later?

… Many black people now feel more free to say that they might think that O.J. Simpson was, perhaps, guilty, whereas right after the verdict black people collectively would say, "Absolutely, he was innocent; he didn't do it." As time has gone on, I think that some black people are willing to say, "Maybe not."

But I don't think that it really changes anything at all in terms of their feeling of victory and celebration over the outcome itself because, no matter what, the verdict was correct. The verdict was correct. The case was not proved beyond a reasonable doubt. …

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/oj/interviews/ogletree.html" rel="nofollow">Charles J. Ogletree Jr.

Charles J. Ogletree Jr., professor at Harvard Law School and Director of Harvard's Houston Institute for Race & Justice.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/oj/interviews/ogletree.html" rel="nofollow - CHARLES J. OGLETREE JR.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/oj/interviews/ogletree.html" rel="nofollow - Read the full interview »

… One of the interesting ironies of this entire trial, [one] that isn't lost on the African American community in particular, is that O.J. Simpson was a guest in the white community. He was welcome in the gated community. He was loved from being a great athlete in college and professionally, a pitch man running through airports, and it was clear that the moment he was accused of this, his privilege of whiteness, his privilege of being accepted in the white community, was revoked, and he had never been and will never be accepted in that community again.

Now, [by] the same token, O.J. Simpson was raceless. He was not a person who spent time in African American communities. He was not a person who was deeply committed to African American values. In fact, he talked more about being an American than an African American. And yet the African American community has accepted him not as an athlete or a hero, but as someone in the criminal justice system who, like them, would have been railroaded, they would say, if he had not had a Johnnie Cochran there to rescue him.

And so his privilege of membership in the gated communities of white America has been revoked permanently, and he now is a persona non grata. That will never change. He's lost that view of being raceless. Before he was the prince, and now he's just a Brotha Man. …

And the black community -- have they changed their minds?

… I think that there are probably African Americans now who still believe the system worked, but since no one else has been found, since there is no evidence leading to another suspect, I'm sure the conversation is -- I've heard it in the barbershop or heard it over coffee table or heard it after a church service -- that people are saying, "Hmm, I wonder if O.J. Simpson did it." That question can be asked to infinity, and it won't change anything, and I think the fact that people are asking about it a decade later is good. But I think the fact that people understand how the justice system worked, and it worked in this case, is even more important. …

Marc Watts

Marc Watts, covered the Simpson trial as a correspondent for CNN.

MARC WATTS

… I could see the trial the way most white people saw it. But because I'm an African American male, I could see it through the ways where 90 percent of African Americans saw it.

How did the 90 percent see it?

Well, I'm a product of the community. I grew up in southern California. And I'll tell you something that I've never said publicly: I was even arrested by the Los Angeles Police Department. So I can process all this suspicion of the LAPD and all this mistrust and all the incompetence and all the frustration that people in Los Angeles of color have towards [them]. I can see the trial through that prism.

And I could understand the mistrust in the community, the black community who sometimes thought that the prosecution planted evidence, thought that they could railroad a black man to a murder conviction because of sloppy police work. I could understand all that on their side, where people were rooting for O.J. Simpson, and hoping that although the man had retired, they hoped that he could outrun the justice system at this point. …

And remember, the final [jury] panel had nine African Americans on it. And by and large, African American people in Los Angeles don't trust the police. So this so-called "mountain of evidence" that the prosecution had, piece by piece crumbled as the defense team chipped away at the scientific evidence, at the so-called "O.J. Simpson timeline," the window of opportunity, the motive



Posted By: noneyons
Date Posted: Jun 12 2014 at 5:04pm
the best part of that long ass article is the part where dude said "we were excited about the wrong guy."



Print Page | Close Window