Boatdrinks Posted April 13 Posted April 13 Fwiw it’s being reported by at least one major news outlet that OJ had left specific instructions on what to do with his remains and his brain will not be donated for CTE research. Quote
Mike in Horseheads Posted April 13 Posted April 13 25 minutes ago, Boatdrinks said: Fwiw it’s being reported by at least one major news outlet that OJ had left specific instructions on what to do with his remains and his brain will not be donated for CTE research. Yup getting cremated in tact Quote
Just Jack Posted April 13 Posted April 13 Executor of O.J. Simpson's estate plans to fight payout to the families of Brown and Goldman (yahoo.com) Quote LaVergne, who had represented Simpson since 2009, said he specifically didn't want the Goldman family seeing any money from Simpson’s estate. “It’s my hope that the Goldmans get zero, nothing,” he told the Review-Journal. “Them specifically. And I will do everything in my capacity as the executor or personal representative to try and ensure that they get nothing.” ... The will lists his four children and notes that any beneficiary who seeks to challenge provisions of the will “shall receive, free of trust, one dollar ($1.00) and no more in lieu of any claimed interest in this will or its assets.” 1 Quote
Fleezoid Posted April 13 Posted April 13 And of course, the infamous White Ford Bronco. What became of it? Read on..... https://www.autoevolution.com/news/the-moment-oj-simpson-made-the-ford-bronco-the-most-hated-car-in-the-world-232289.html The following line near the end of the article is actually disputed in another article claiming the incident wasn't the reason for discontinuing the Bronco and that sales actually spiked for a couple years after the trial. "Ford discontinued the Bronco after the trial due to the sales figures collapsing. Ford always denied that their decision had any connection with the murder case." Quote
Augie Posted April 13 Posted April 13 (edited) 1 hour ago, Fleezoid said: And of course, the infamous White Ford Bronco. What became of it? Read on..... https://www.autoevolution.com/news/the-moment-oj-simpson-made-the-ford-bronco-the-most-hated-car-in-the-world-232289.html The following line near the end of the article is actually disputed in another article claiming the incident wasn't the reason for discontinuing the Bronco and that sales actually spiked for a couple years after the trial. "Ford discontinued the Bronco after the trial due to the sales figures collapsing. Ford always denied that their decision had any connection with the murder case." Clearly they should have stopped the manufacture of all white vehicles as well. . Edited April 13 by Augie Quote
Behindenemylines Posted April 13 Posted April 13 3 hours ago, CowgirlsFan said: RIP Thank you for all the football memories 🏈 I hope this is satire. Who gives a sh?t what he did on the field compared to what he did in the real world. Quote
TheCockSportif Posted April 13 Posted April 13 4 hours ago, Thrivefourfive said: You can’t leave out the jury. That group is fascinating to me. Wonder if any of them have commented on his death. If a juror admitted that their judgement was based on anything other than their unbiased understanding of the evidence presented, they are committing a felony. This isn’t Nam. Again, I actually think he didn’t do it, but I think he knew exactly what happened. I think of it in simple(r) terms, and the docu series kinda broke it down in the same way; it came down to the shriveled glove. Quote
Thrivefourfive Posted April 13 Posted April 13 1 minute ago, TheCockSportif said: I think of it in simple(r) terms, and the docu series kinda broke it down in the same way; it came down to the shriveled glove. Were you around during the trial? I swear, I remember thinking the glove moment was such a joke. I felt like nobody could possibly believe for a second that OJ didn’t manipulate his hand and the glove. 1. Who wouldn’t if they were in his Bruno Magli’s?! What idiot is going to gleeful slip on the evidence.. hahahaha. Preposterous!! 2. He didn’t give a ***** about trying on the glove that the killer wore to squeeze the knife that killed his ex. Man, if anyone needs anymore evidence that he is deranged.. there you go. So I question that juror’s claim, or the attempt of that 30for30 to cover the juror’s asses. Makes way more sense that that juror took it out on the LAPD. It was a wild WILD time in LA for law enforcement back then. The mini series about the Biggie investigation, with the guy from The Wire, is a nice look into LA LE in the 90s. Quote
TheCockSportif Posted April 13 Posted April 13 2 minutes ago, Thrivefourfive said: Were you around during the trial? I swear, I remember thinking the glove moment was such a joke. I felt like nobody could possibly believe for a second that OJ didn’t manipulate his hand and the glove. I was definitely around during the trial, both in WNY (finishing up at UB) and watching it with a perverse curiosity. I loved watching OJ play football. He was a great PR guy and a pretty funny fall guy in the Naked Gun. I couldn't help but watch. It wasn't just the glove didn't fit, given my recollection; it was the look on OJ's face and his mannerisms that totally sold that moment. Around the jury, I'm wondering if the previous LA riots played a role in their decision, but admittedly this is just conjecture on my part. Quote
Augie Posted April 13 Posted April 13 6 minutes ago, Thrivefourfive said: Were you around during the trial? I swear, I remember thinking the glove moment was such a joke. I felt like nobody could possibly believe for a second that OJ didn’t manipulate his hand and the glove. 1. Who wouldn’t if they were in his Bruno Magli’s?! What idiot is going to gleeful slip on the evidence.. hahahaha. Preposterous!! 2. He didn’t give a ***** about trying on the glove that the killer wore to squeeze the knife that killed his ex. Man, if anyone needs anymore evidence that he is deranged.. there you go. So I question that juror’s claim, or the attempt of that 30for30 to cover the juror’s asses. Makes way more sense that that juror took it out on the LAPD. It was a wild WILD time in LA for law enforcement back then. The mini series about the Biggie investigation, with the guy from The Wire, is a nice look into LA LE in the 90s. That trial is right up there with the non-existent DPI call that would have sent the Saints to the Super Bowl. Some things are in a class of their own. That investigation/trial was a mess, and it wasn’t just one moment. It was a start to finish slow motion train wreck. 1 Quote
BillsPride12 Posted April 13 Posted April 13 1 hour ago, Thrivefourfive said: Were you around during the trial? I swear, I remember thinking the glove moment was such a joke. I felt like nobody could possibly believe for a second that OJ didn’t manipulate his hand and the glove. 1. Who wouldn’t if they were in his Bruno Magli’s?! What idiot is going to gleeful slip on the evidence.. hahahaha. Preposterous!! 2. He didn’t give a ***** about trying on the glove that the killer wore to squeeze the knife that killed his ex. Man, if anyone needs anymore evidence that he is deranged.. there you go. So I question that juror’s claim, or the attempt of that 30for30 to cover the juror’s asses. Makes way more sense that that juror took it out on the LAPD. It was a wild WILD time in LA for law enforcement back then. The mini series about the Biggie investigation, with the guy from The Wire, is a nice look into LA LE in the 90s. Seinfeld knocked this out of the park 1 Quote
NoSaint Posted April 14 Posted April 14 On 4/12/2024 at 7:08 AM, Sweats said: Think of him what you will, but the legal system found him innocent. That's not to say the legal system is not broken, however, he was judged by a jury of his peers and was found not guilty......i, however, think he's guilty as hell, but i was not on the jury panel, i only heard what the media expressed for the trial and did not have to make the decision of innocent or guilty. Now, OJ may have been found innocent in the eyes of the law, but he was definitely found guilty in public opinion. it’s so important not to use not guilty and innocent interchangeably Quote
WotAGuy Posted April 14 Posted April 14 21 minutes ago, NoSaint said: it’s so important not to use not guilty and innocent interchangeably “Not convicted” is probably most accurate in this case. Quote
sonyab1974 Posted April 14 Posted April 14 On 4/11/2024 at 10:50 AM, Roundybout said: Odds of a deathbed confession? Zero to none! Quote
Just Jack Posted April 14 Posted April 14 On 4/11/2024 at 10:50 AM, Roundybout said: Odds of a deathbed confession? It seems there is an NDA in place... OJ Simpson's loved ones signed NDA while on he was on deathbed in his final days: report (nypost.com) Quote The outlet’s source revealed that anyone who was around Simpson while he was under hospice care also was required to sign the NDA — including medical professionals. 1 Quote
st pete gogolak Posted April 14 Posted April 14 Anyone outraged by Blacks’ reaction to the verdict needs to look at American history. How would you feel if you had witnessed whites being acquitted of murder by all-white juries hundreds, if not thousands of times - Emmett Till, Medger Evers, the list goes on and on - when obviously guilty. The OJ trial didn’t expose the American system of justice. It just exposed it to a different set of people. 1 1 Quote
BRH Posted April 14 Posted April 14 (edited) 12 hours ago, WotAGuy said: “Not convicted” is probably most accurate in this case. https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/55ac6735-8411-47d6-9536-31c0af62a7d3 Edited April 14 by BRH 1 Quote
Mr. WEO Posted April 14 Posted April 14 On 4/11/2024 at 11:33 AM, mannc said: Semantics. What is the practical difference? Under our system, “not guilty” is the only available “vindication” for someone wrongly accused of a crime. No one has ever been found “innocent”. not true. evidence (video, DNA for example) can establish actual innocence... Quote
mannc Posted April 14 Posted April 14 31 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said: not true. evidence (video, DNA for example) can establish actual innocence... That is true, as I noted in a subsequent post, but a jury cannot make such a finding. Quote
Mr. WEO Posted April 14 Posted April 14 7 minutes ago, mannc said: That is true, as I noted in a subsequent post, but a jury cannot make such a finding. not by a jury, no. But the above examples would be presented in court during trial or even years later. Charges are dropped or sentences vacated after being proven in court to be actually innocent. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.