OJ Simpson Talks Buffalo Bills and Twitter on Tim Graham Show

[Gugny]

12 hours ago, Phil The Thrill said:

Bills Hall Of Fame RB OJ Simpson was a surprise guest on The Tim Graham Show.  He started by talking about joining Twitter including how he deals with Twitter trolls!

 

The conversation turned toward the Bills.  OJ says he sees Bills fans everywhere and they always want to talk Bills football with him.  OJ sounds very unsure about the Bills this year.  He thinks Josh Allen is a good athlete but wants to see him pass more accurately.  He doesn’t think the Bills have good enough weapons him.  He doesn’t Beasley will do much, unless Allen becomes more consistent with short passes.  

 

He also likes Frank Gore and Shady in the backfield but thinks they spilt Carrie’s and will be bad fantasy players.  He sees Gore as the short yardage back.  

 

No no matter what you think about OJ, he’s interesting to listen to and super charismatic 

 

 

 

Ahhhh .... the Punchable Faces thread is among my favorites.

 

New low for Timmah!  He makes it so easy for me to lose respect for him.

 

Such a waste of actual writing talent.  At least he's not wasting it here anymore.

[K-9]

Why would Tim Graham give this guy the platform? Another reason to ignore TG. Not that I needed any. 

[yungmack]

3 hours ago, billsfan1959 said:

Personally, I don't know how anyone, who is aware of the brutality of that crime, could have any interest in (1) any thoughts Simpson might have on anything outside of what he did and why he did it, or (2) providing him a platform for self promotion.  Graham is welcome to interview anyone he wants; however, IMHO, laughing and joking with Simpson about twitter and football trivializes what he did. Graham is better than that. Again, IMHO.

So in spite of a jury decision of "Not Guilty," a lack of evidence of guilt, and several equally plausible potential perps, you have concluded he did it. 

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

1 hour ago, Buddy Hix said:

I’d prefer to give that guy a chance to rail against OJ, still feel awful for him.

 

...certainly understand your sentiment.....and Simp-scum deciding to return to the spotlight does not help...........

2 minutes ago, yungmack said:

So in spite of a jury decision of "Not Guilty," a lack of evidence of guilt, and several equally plausible potential perps, you have concluded he did it. 

 

...unfortunately Garcetti, Darden and Clark were woefully outmatched......

[K-9]

9 minutes ago, yungmack said:

So in spite of a jury decision of "Not Guilty," a lack of evidence of guilt, and several equally plausible potential perps, you have concluded he did it. 

First I’ve heard of other “plausible perps.” Any idea who they are? I’d be interested in learning more about follow up efforts by prosecutors. 

 

Lack of evidence of guilt? I’ll have to disagree on that. Especially considering the unanimous guilty verdict in civil court. 

 

I fully respect and abide by the jury’s verdict in the criminal case, though. I don’t agree, but I have never held it against them. Not for a second. 

[Rico]

12 hours ago, OldTimeAFLGuy said:

 

...maybe Fred Goldman tomorrow?............

[Phil The Thrill]

13 hours ago, ExWNYer said:

 

Maybe he can lend the Bills his knife...

 

Ted Bundy and Charles Manson were considered 'super charismatic' by a lot of people, too. They all were/are reprehensible sub-human beings.

 

No doubt.  I’m not saying that he isn’t reprehensible.  If you look at the evidence in the case, it doesn’t look so good for Juice.  

 

I was just noting that he was very charismatic on the phone, and I can see why so many people have been charmed by him over the years.

12 hours ago, OldTimeAFLGuy said:

 

...maybe Fred Goldman tomorrow?............

 

Tim Graham has justified his relationship with OJ before by saying that he plays it straight down the middle.  He’s believes he has always been fair and never has been sympathetic to OJ.  

 

Also his justification for bringing OJ on the show was because he recently opened a Twitter account that’s been followed by almost a million people.  So he could say that OJ is topical and newsworthy at the moment, not a grab for ratings...if anything, it’s a grab for headline.

 

No one listens to 1270  

[row_33]

every time i have had to wait for a public guest to fill a golf foursome i have hoped it would be Juice, that would be awesome

[billsfan1959]

1 hour ago, yungmack said:

So in spite of a jury decision of "Not Guilty," a lack of evidence of guilt, and several equally plausible potential perps, you have concluded he did it. 

I have investigated / analyzed more homicides over the last 35 years than I care to even remember. Having grown up idolizing O. J. Simpson, and from a professional curiosity perspective, I watched most of that trial and paid very close attention to the facts of the case. So, the answer to your question is, (1) Acquittal does not equal innocent, (2) there was NOT a lack of evidence of guilt, (3) there were no "equally plausible" suspects and (4) yes, I have concluded, based on everything I know about that case, that O. J. Simpson killed Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman. It was a text book example of jury nullification. That trial started as a murder trial and ended as a referendum on racism within the LAPD.

 

That is just my opinion; however, one, that I believe, is reasonably arrived at. You are welcome to have a different opinion.

[billykay]

1 hour ago, yungmack said:

So in spite of a jury decision of "Not Guilty," a lack of evidence of guilt, and several equally plausible potential perps, you have concluded he did it. 

Sorry Yungmack. Just because the proverbial smoking gun wasn't found in his hand doesn't change all the other evidence that he did the dastardly deed. Anyone who defends garbage, lowers himself. He is garbage.

[StHustle]

6 minutes ago, billsfan1959 said:

I have investigated / analyzed more homicides over the last 35 years than I care to even remember. Having grown up idolizing O. J. Simpson, and from a professional curiosity perspective, I watched most of that trial and paid very close attention to the facts of the case. So, the answer to your question is, (1) Acquittal does not equal innocent, (2) there was NOT a lack of evidence of guilt, (3) there were no "equally plausible" suspects and (4) yes, I have concluded, based on everything I know about that case, that O. J. Simpson killed Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman. It was a text book example of jury nullification. That trial started as a murder trial and ended as a referendum on racism within the LAPD.

 

That is just my opinion; however, one, that I believe, is reasonably arrived at. You are welcome to have a different opinion.

With that type of violent and bloody killing of two people by a knife...you dont find the lack of blood evidence a cause for concern?

 

Im just going off my memory of the case. I was very young then, like around 10 years old so I may be forgetting key things but if I remember correctly they couldnt connect him to blood of either victim besides evidence proven to have been planted.

[row_33]

12 minutes ago, StHustle said:

With that type of violent and bloody killing of two people by a knife...you dont find the lack of blood evidence a cause for concern?

 

Im just going off my memory of the case. I was very young then, like around 10 years old so I may be forgetting key things but if I remember correctly they couldnt connect him to blood of either victim besides evidence proven to have been planted.

 

it's not worth it.... 

 

one of those farces of life that is the price of a free society.

 

[4merper4mer]

1 hour ago, Phil The Thrill said:

 

No doubt.  I’m not saying that he isn’t reprehensible.  If you look at the evidence in the case, it doesn’t look so good for Juice.  

 

I was just noting that he was very charismatic on the phone, and I can see why so many people have been charmed by him over the years.

 

Tim Graham has justified his relationship with OJ before by saying that he plays it straight down the middle.  He’s believes he has always been fair and never has been sympathetic to OJ.  

 

Also his justification for bringing OJ on the show was because he recently opened a Twitter account that’s been followed by almost a million people.  So he could say that OJ is topical and newsworthy at the moment, not a grab for ratings...if anything, it’s a grab for headline.

 

No one listens to 1270  

Tim Graham can justify a lot of stupid things because he is stupid.

[4merper4mer]

1 hour ago, Rico said:

Goldman could make bank by charging to sign Rollie Fingers on baseballs.

[K-9]

22 minutes ago, billsfan1959 said:

I have investigated / analyzed more homicides over the last 35 years than I care to even remember. Having grown up idolizing O. J. Simpson, and from a professional curiosity perspective, I watched most of that trial and paid very close attention to the facts of the case. So, the answer to your question is, (1) Acquittal does not equal innocent, (2) there was NOT a lack of evidence of guilt, (3) there were no "equally plausible" suspects and (4) yes, I have concluded, based on everything I know about that case, that O. J. Simpson killed Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman. It was a text book example of jury nullification. That trial started as a murder trial and ended as a referendum on racism within the LAPD.

 

That is just my opinion; however, one, that I believe, is reasonably arrived at. You are welcome to have a different opinion.

We all view events through the prism of our own perspective. Per the bold, the defense team did a masterful job of doing exactly that. In addition, they were able to exploit the bungling by several technicians in charge of blood and other evidence. And, as has been pointed out, the prosecution team wasn’t up to the task of countering that kind of high priced defense. 

[Beast]

13 hours ago, OldTimeAFLGuy said:

 

...maybe Fred Goldman tomorrow?............

 

Goldman has hired a PI to find out if Orenthal made any money from this interview.

 

It will be interesting to see who gets to crap on the others grave.

Edited July 4, 2019 by Binghamton Beast

[Rico]

21 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said:

Goldman could make bank by charging to sign Rollie Fingers on baseballs.

No place is more dangerous than the space between Fred Goldman and a TV camera.

[Ridgewaycynic2013]

1 hour ago, row_33 said:

every time i have had to wait for a public guest to fill a golf foursome i have hoped it would be Juice, that would be awesome

The real killers of NBS and Ron Goldman were seen in your area?!

[hondo in seattle]

1 hour ago, billsfan1959 said:

I have investigated / analyzed more homicides over the last 35 years than I care to even remember. Having grown up idolizing O. J. Simpson, and from a professional curiosity perspective, I watched most of that trial and paid very close attention to the facts of the case. So, the answer to your question is, (1) Acquittal does not equal innocent, (2) there was NOT a lack of evidence of guilt, (3) there were no "equally plausible" suspects and (4) yes, I have concluded, based on everything I know about that case, that O. J. Simpson killed Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman. It was a text book example of jury nullification. That trial started as a murder trial and ended as a referendum on racism within the LAPD.

 

That is just my opinion; however, one, that I believe, is reasonably arrived at. You are welcome to have a different opinion.

 

You are I generally agree but I'm not sure about your opinion that this was textbook jury nullification.  That term usually means that the jury didn't convict because they don't like the consequences of the conviction.  To me the textbook example would be a dad who is accused of killing his daughter's rapist.  Should he be convicted of murder?  By law, if he is indeed the killer, yes.  But the jury doesn't want to see the guy punished for doing a very understandable thing.  So they find not guilty.  

 

I think OJ's case was all about reasonable doubt.  I think Cochran very adeptly played the race card and made the jury believe that white cops like Fuhrman may have manufactured some of the evidence against OJ.  And I think Scheck was masterful in casting doubt on the forensic evidence.   And there might have been some hanky-panky in the the glove fiasco.  

 

All in all, OJ's "Dream Team" did what they needed to do against an over-matched duo of prosecutors.  And a guilty man walked free.

If one of my children were butchered by a scumbag like OJ, I wouldn't want to see his name on the Wall of Fame or listen to him pleasantly chit-chatting with TG.

Edited July 4, 2019 by hondo in seattle

[billsfan1959]

1 hour ago, hondo in seattle said:

 

You are I generally agree but I'm not sure about your opinion that this was textbook jury nullification.  That term usually means that the jury didn't convict because they don't like the consequences of the conviction.  To me the textbook example would be a dad who is accused of killing his daughter's rapist.  Should he be convicted of murder?  By law, if he is indeed the killer, yes.  But the jury doesn't want to see the guy punished for doing a very understandable thing.  So they find not guilty.  

 

I think OJ's case was all about reasonable doubt.  I think Cochran very adeptly played the race card and made the jury believe that white cops like Fuhrman may have manufactured some of the evidence against OJ.  And I think Scheck was masterful in casting doubt on the forensic evidence.   And there might have been some hanky-panky in the the glove fiasco.  

 

All in all, OJ's "Dream Team" did what they needed to do against an over-matched duo of prosecutors.  And a guilty man walked free.

If one of my children were butchered by a scumbag like OJ, I wouldn't want to see his name on the Wall of Fame or listen to him pleasantly chit-chatting with TG.

There is no doubt that his legal team did their job, while the prosecution got caught up in playing to the cameras, and the judge allowed the courtroom to turn into a circus.  You are probably right in terms of the textbook example of jury nullification; however, I'm not so sure most of the jurors bought into reasonable doubt - but, I could be wrong on that. I don't believe the defense convinced most of the jurors that Simpson didn't do it, as much as they did a good job of portraying the LAPD as racist, corrupt, etc... - thereby, creating a choice for the jurors: convict Simpson and let the LAPD go unpunished, or acquit Simpson and punish the LAPD for a long history of egregious behavior.