RugbyRebels

O. J. Simpson, the former football hero and actor whose good-guy image vanished when he was accused of murdering his ex-wife and her friend, will go free after serving nine years in a Nevada prison on charges stemming from an armed robbery, a state parole board ruled on Thursday. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/20/us/o ... ml?mcubz=0

Yes , he did it .

Oh, he definitely did it, alright. Everybody knew that at the time and everybody knows it still. But when you're a celebrity you can get away with . . . what's it called again?

Did you see the recent documentary about him, it was quite eye-opening, basically 3/4 of the jurors interviewed said they let him off because of the Rodney King injustice.

Numbers wrote:Did you see the recent documentary about him, it was quite eye-opening, basically 3/4 of the jurors interviewed said they let him off because of the Rodney King injustice.

Wow, I never heard that before. I recall following the trial very closely, however, because I'd just returned from the States and wasn't working. I'd been studying in the US and one of my courses was in journalism. Those guys were in total denial about the Rodney King injustice - though there wasn't a single African-American in our class. But I think the OJ verdict had a lot more to do with the fact he was such a sporting icon - to the extent he basically transcended racial bias. It's more about celebrity culture than anything. Look at Andre Pistorious - found guilty, but likely to serve no more than three or four years, which is ridiculous.

I was framed.

rowan wrote:

Numbers wrote:Did you see the recent documentary about him, it was quite eye-opening, basically 3/4 of the jurors interviewed said they let him off because of the Rodney King injustice.

Wow, I never heard that before. I recall following the trial very closely, however, because I'd just returned from the States and wasn't working. I'd been studying in the US and one of my courses was in journalism. Those guys were in total denial about the Rodney King injustice - though there wasn't a single African-American in our class. But I think the OJ verdict had a lot more to do with the fact he was such a sporting icon - to the extent he basically transcended racial bias. It's more about celebrity culture than anything. Look at Andre Pistorious - found guilty, but likely to serve no more than three or four years, which is ridiculous.

Man oh man how could you miss the racial undercurrent that absolutely dominated the OJ case. Celebrity culture.....wow.

No, sadly for you, Morepork, it is you who missed everything, both in terms of your perception of the event and your interpretation of my comments. You make assumptions based on your own preconceived prejudices which have nothing to do with reality, and you do this all the time. Many of your views on society and politics appear quite ridiculous to me, and that probably has a lot to do with the environment you grew up in.

OptimisticJock wrote:I was framed.

Relax, there's more than one OJ in town

rowan wrote:No, sadly for you, Morepork, it is you who missed everything, both in terms of your perception of the event and your interpretation of my comments. You make assumptions based on your own preconceived prejudices which have nothing to do with reality, and you do this all the time. Many of your views on society and politics appear quite ridiculous to me, and that probably has a lot to do with the environment you grew up in.

Oh yeah. What environment was that?

Numbers wrote:Did you see the recent documentary about him, it was quite eye-opening, basically 3/4 of the jurors interviewed said they let him off because of the Rodney King injustice.

Not just the Rodney King problem but also the riots, a lot of people were rightly very worried about the riots, and the OJ case was sadly built into a test case for many in the black community. I'd suggest actually the riots, which were triggered by Rodney King, were a bigger factor than King himself, as the riots took place on a huge scale, properties destroyed/looted, dozens killed, fire and police almost giving up on some functions in some areas...

Looking back one almost feels sorry for the jury, yes some of the police work was inept, but it did seem given such instances guilty would be the verdict, but they also had to know a guilty verdict could have so easily triggered more rioting/violence.

The riots were triggered by the police brutally assaulting Rodney King and subsequent acquittal of those involved. I doubt very much fear of further riots had anything to do with the OJ verdict. There was no perception of the OJ case being one of racial victimization. Quite the opposite, in fact. General perception at the time was quite clearly that, due to his celebrity status and massive popularity, he would get off the crime. & he did. That's not to say the Rodney King case was irrelevant. Far from it. But to reduce this to atonement for the King case acquittals is stretching it a little, in my view.

rowan wrote:The riots were triggered by the police brutally assaulting Rodney King and subsequent acquittal of those involved. I doubt very much fear of further riots had anything to do with the OJ verdict. There was no perception of the OJ case being one of racial victimization. Quite the opposite, in fact. General perception at the time was quite clearly that, due to his celebrity status and massive popularity, he would get off the crime. & he did. That's not to say the Rodney King case was irrelevant. Far from it. But to reduce this to atonement for the King case acquittals is stretching it a little, in my view.

You're just ignoring the bit I wrote about the documentary, when I said the jurors admitted that this was exactly what it was about.

I think suggesting that you know better than the people who actually made the decision is stretching it a little don't you?

Numbers wrote:

rowan wrote:The riots were triggered by the police brutally assaulting Rodney King and subsequent acquittal of those involved. I doubt very much fear of further riots had anything to do with the OJ verdict. There was no perception of the OJ case being one of racial victimization. Quite the opposite, in fact. General perception at the time was quite clearly that, due to his celebrity status and massive popularity, he would get off the crime. & he did. That's not to say the Rodney King case was irrelevant. Far from it. But to reduce this to atonement for the King case acquittals is stretching it a little, in my view.

You're just ignoring the bit I wrote about the documentary, when I said the jurors admitted that this was exactly what it was about.

I think suggesting that you know better than the people who actually made the decision is stretching it a little don't you?

Silly comments, mate. I didn't ignore it but I haven't seen the documentary. You seem to forget who started this thread. You also seem to have ignored the last three words I wrote "in my view." If having a view which is not the same as some of those directly involved is somehow unacceptable to you, I would suggest you are an extremely narrow-minded individual.

Once again, I'm not commenting on something I haven't seen. I'm commenting on the comments on a thread I started. And I spent many hours in front of the TV watching live coverage of this trial at the time it was on, having just finished studying in the US, where we dealt with the Rodney King case extensively.

The impression I've always had of the OJ case was that it was mostly about the judiciary's failure to convict a celebrity of a crime he almost certainly committed, and much less so (if at all) about racial discrimination. But I'd stop short of declaring the the King Case had nothing to do with it, and may well have influenced some of the jurors.

Anyway, that's all I have to say about this, because there is no point repeating myself to people who have clearly made up their minds about something and are going to take a hostile approach to anything which doesn't fit with their own conclusions. That's the very reason I no longer post about politics. I didn't foresee this thread heading the same way.

rowan wrote:

Numbers wrote:

rowan wrote:The riots were triggered by the police brutally assaulting Rodney King and subsequent acquittal of those involved. I doubt very much fear of further riots had anything to do with the OJ verdict. There was no perception of the OJ case being one of racial victimization. Quite the opposite, in fact. General perception at the time was quite clearly that, due to his celebrity status and massive popularity, he would get off the crime. & he did. That's not to say the Rodney King case was irrelevant. Far from it. But to reduce this to atonement for the King case acquittals is stretching it a little, in my view.

You're just ignoring the bit I wrote about the documentary, when I said the jurors admitted that this was exactly what it was about.

I think suggesting that you know better than the people who actually made the decision is stretching it a little don't you?

Silly comments, mate. I didn't ignore it but I haven't seen the documentary. You seem to forget who started this thread. You also seem to have ignored the last three words I wrote "in my view." If having a view which is not the same as some of those directly involved is somehow unacceptable to you, I would suggest you are an extremely narrow-minded individual.

Once again, I'm not commenting on something I haven't seen. I'm commenting on the comments on a thread I started. And I spent many hours in front of the TV watching live cover of this trial at the time it was on, having just finished studying in the US, where we dealt with the Rodney King case extensively.

The impression I've always had of the case was that it was mostly about the judiciaries failure to convict a celebrity of a crime he almost certainly committed, and much less so (if at all) about racial discrimination. But I'd stop short of declaring the the King Case had nothing to do with it, and may well have influenced some of the jurors.

Anyway, that's all I have to say about this, because there is no point repeating myself to people who have clearly made up their minds about something and are going to take a hostile approach to anything which doesn't fit with their own conclusions. That's the very reason I no longer post about politicis. I didn't foresee this thread heading the same way.

Why are they silly, I would contend Rowan that it's you who is ignoring the facts which I have laid out for you quite simply, the fact you started the thread is irrelevant, can't you see that first hand evidence is far more convincing than some bloke on the internet's opinion?

I recall a lot of people involved with the OJ case exploited it for their own benefit and got famous on the back of it.

Rowan.....you are full of it mate. Where did you do your journalism course? Trump University?

FAKE NEWS! SAD!

Perhaps you'd like to revise civil unrest in Newark, Detroit, and all the rest?

O.J . is responsible for all this hostility .

O.J . is being considered for release as from 1st October '17 . I thought you should know .

He will be 70 years old .

It's official:

O.J. Simpson was released from prison on parole Sunday after serving nine years of a 33-year term, according to Ken Ritter of the Associated Press.

I saw the documentary ( I think I'm right in saying it was in 3-parts..?. The one on bbc2 was anyway)....and the whole slant of the docu' was deliberately couched in the background racial divisions and riots that were occurring.
Historical perspective is 20/20 vision but that historical perspective is not afforded to people who are living through the events. At the time, post Jacko avoiding 2 certain convictions, I too was primarily concerned that US justice was sinking further into the cult of wealthy celebrities being able to do no wrong..... and if anything it has got worse.

Similarly, there is a series of documentaries about the Vietnam war on at the moment and listening to the recordings of LBJ talking to his advisers it's plainly apparent, albeit a surprise to me, that the main reason for continuing the conflict wasn't actually monetary or empire building.......it was just a case of not looking like they'd lost.

On a more serious note , O.J.'s nickname in prison was ' melon head ' , due to the abnormal skull in or out of proportion to the rest of his body .


He still did it tho' .

Discreet Hooker wrote:On a more serious note , O.J.'s nickname in prison was ' melon head ' , due to the abnormal skull in or out of proportion to the rest of his body .


He still did it tho' .

He was a good-looking fellow in his youth. Used to do TV match commentaries and appear in ads and stuff. Now he's looking worn out and haggard from his life full of drama, but melon head he definitely ain't.

rowan wrote:

Discreet Hooker wrote:On a more serious note , O.J.'s nickname in prison was ' melon head ' , due to the abnormal skull in or out of proportion to the rest of his body .


He still did it tho' .

He was a good-looking fellow in his youth. Used to do TV match commentaries and appear in ads and stuff. Now he's looking worn out and haggard from his life full of drama, but melon head he definitely ain't.

ic


Of course not ,he's just an unconvicted murderer ( x 2) and storms into hotel rooms with his mates looking to improve his collections.

Indeed.