Jump to content

O.J. Simpson has passed away


Recommended Posts

OJ was one of the more polarizing figures in America over the last 50 years or so. While I personally believe he killed his wife there are millions who believe he was framed. However, there was no doubting his on the field talent. If you can separate the football talent and his personal life (I realize that is a difficult task) there is no denying he was of the top 5 RBs in football history. At one time he was on every TV in America whether it was commercials, movies, or TV shows. Women loved him and men wanted to be like him. Of course that is similar to saying that, “Hitler loved his mom”. Whatever demons he dealt with in life will probably follow him into the Afterlife. There are very few people whose death I would celebrate (Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Saddam, Castro, etc) OJ is not one of them. I hope his death will allow millions to put his life and deeds, good and bad, behind them. 

  • Hook 'Em 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Met him in person once when I was a kid (this is 40+ years ago).

Two random thoughts:

- He had maybe the largest head for a human I had ever seen in person up to that point in my life.

- He wasn't rude, but he wasn't exactly nice either. It felt different than a lot of the other athletes I had met at that time.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Robert Gilbert said:

OJ was one of the more polarizing figures in America over the last 50 years or so. While I personally believe he killed his wife there are millions who believe he was framed. However, there was no doubting his on the field talent. If you can separate the football talent and his personal life (I realize that is a difficult task) there is no denying he was of the top 5 RBs in football history. At one time he was on every TV in America whether it was commercials, movies, or TV shows. Women loved him and men wanted to be like him. Of course that is similar to saying that, “Hitler loved his mom”. Whatever demons he dealt with in life will probably follow him into the Afterlife. There are very few people whose death I would celebrate (Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Saddam, Castro, etc) OJ is not one of them. I hope his death will allow millions to put his life and deeds, good and bad, behind them. 

 

That's a tough one to ask of people when they know he got away with murder. It was wrong. It was injustice. And you don't let go of that because you now know it can and probably will happen again.

The sheer brutality of the murders were such that it pointed to the person who would have reason to be THAT mad. And before anything got started, OJ basically admitted guilt with his runaway bronco. If you're innocent, you don't run.

Good riddance.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another lawyer and I watched the trial and second guessed it all the way through.  We did this long distance. He was in San Jose and I was in Austin.  

Our first joint realization was how different criminal trial procedure was then in CA from Texas.

California did not enforce a cumulative evidence rule in state criminal proceedings.  This meant that the defense in CA could carry on virtually forever, with multiple experts, where in Texas each party would have been most likely limited to one expert for each technical proffer.

The prosecution started well and made a solid case.  But then the case spun out of control from a Texas perspective, and even my San Jose buddy thought that the trial judge was allowing a circus by California's easier standards.  After closing arguments, we thought a hung jury would result, the prosecution's clear prima facie case then having become merely a distant memory.

Compared to that prosecution that somewhat lost control of its own messaging we later saw a different result in the civil case, in which the very experienced lawyers for the victim's family rode herd on the trial and won easily, and with no doubts whatsoever.

This is just a random historical comment from an old retired lawyer who thought the trial came to a predictable outcome because of how it was tried and not because OJ wasn't actually guilty, and not even because the jury was "unfair."  

I don't know what CA criminal trial procedure is like today, but at that time what would have taken five days of testimony in Austin would have required five weeks in L.A. -- really.  

 

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't realize his breakout game as a freshman was against Texas?

That career began in 1967, Simpson's first year at USC. In Week 2, he announced himself to the larger college world by running all over the Texas Longhorns.

Things didn't start off well for Simpson... At the 10-yard line in the first quarter, he fumbled, leading to an 85-yard Longhorns drive and a touchdown. That'd be the only time Texas would lead for the game.

Two possessions later, the Trojans tied the game after Simpson punched it in from the 2-yard line. They continued to feed their running back, controlling the clock and scoring another touchdown courtesy of a pass from quarterback Steve Sogge to receiver Bob Miller.

Texas ended up falling 17-14 and Simpson finished with 158 yards and a touchdown on 30 carries. While not his best performance of the season, he had carried USC's offense against one of the best teams in the nation.

Yeah, I know nobody reads or has access to the Statesman....

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, MarkInAustin said:

Another lawyer and I watched the trial and second guessed it all the way through.  We did this long distance. He was in San Jose and I was in Austin.  

Our first joint realization was how different criminal trial procedure was then in CA from Texas.

California did not enforce a cumulative evidence rule in state criminal proceedings.  This meant that the defense in CA could carry on virtually forever, with multiple experts, where in Texas each party would have been most likely limited to one expert for each technical proffer.

The prosecution started well and made a solid case.  But then the case spun out of control from a Texas perspective, and even my San Jose buddy thought that the trial judge was allowing a circus by California's easier standards.  After closing arguments, we thought a hung jury would result, the prosecution's clear prima facie case then having become merely a distant memory.

Compared to that prosecution that somewhat lost control of its own messaging we later saw a different result in the civil case, in which the very experienced lawyers for the victim's family rode herd on the trial and won easily, and with no doubts whatsoever.

This is just a random historical comment from an old retired lawyer who thought the trial came to a predictable outcome because of how it was tried and not because OJ wasn't actually guilty, and not even because the jury was "unfair."  

I don't know what CA criminal trial procedure is like today, but at that time what would have taken five days of testimony in Austin would have required five weeks in L.A. -- really.  

 

Not quite yet retired lawyer here with a different opinion.

The prosecution did not want to get a conviction.  It wanted to lose the criminal trial with an eye to making sure L.A. wasn't burned to the ground by rioters, so it embarked on a ridiculously long trial to punish Simpson by destroying his reputation and financial standing. 

I thought it was a brilliant strategy, and the prosecution got everything it wanted. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OJ’s legacy is a complicated one with two sides. On one hand OJ was one of the first crossover African American celebrities. He exploded upon the college football stage in the late 60s by winning the Heisman and USC winning the national championship. As the #1 pick of the Bills he was soon the best running back in the NFL and set the then record of 2,003 rushing yards in a season. Off the field he was a media darling whose good looks, charm, and personality resonated with both the black and white communities. After his football career ended his popularity and visibility increased.  Movies, TV shows, and commercial opportunities flooded in for him. He was everywhere, loved by millions, and respected by all Americans. 
On the other hand, his legacy is one of murder and betrayal. Of course many of our celebrities have committed murder, rape, or been jailed for drug charges. For example, Ali was stripped of his title and went to jail for failure to enter military service. OJ’s arrest ans subsequent acquittal divided Americans along racial lines. Most African Americans believed him to be innocent and whites viewed him as quilty. 
OJ’s betrayal was not to the two people I believe he murdered. That act alone should condemn him in America’s eyes. No, his betrayal was to the American people. Ali lost his title and went to jail but he came back and rewon the title and the hearts and respect of America. OJ was the first ‘modern’ hero/celeb whose actions, off the field, destroyed his legacy from the field. JMO.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, horns96 said:

I didn't realize his breakout game as a freshman was against Texas?

That career began in 1967, Simpson's first year at USC. ................................

He was a junior his first year at USC because he went to San Francisco CC

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/11/2024 at 2:31 PM, MarkInAustin said:

Another lawyer and I watched the trial and second guessed it all the way through.  We did this long distance. He was in San Jose and I was in Austin.  

Our first joint realization was how different criminal trial procedure was then in CA from Texas.

California did not enforce a cumulative evidence rule in state criminal proceedings.  This meant that the defense in CA could carry on virtually forever, with multiple experts, where in Texas each party would have been most likely limited to one expert for each technical proffer.

The prosecution started well and made a solid case.  But then the case spun out of control from a Texas perspective, and even my San Jose buddy thought that the trial judge was allowing a circus by California's easier standards.  After closing arguments, we thought a hung jury would result, the prosecution's clear prima facie case then having become merely a distant memory.

Compared to that prosecution that somewhat lost control of its own messaging we later saw a different result in the civil case, in which the very experienced lawyers for the victim's family rode herd on the trial and won easily, and with no doubts whatsoever.

This is just a random historical comment from an old retired lawyer who thought the trial came to a predictable outcome because of how it was tried and not because OJ wasn't actually guilty, and not even because the jury was "unfair."  

I don't know what CA criminal trial procedure is like today, but at that time what would have taken five days of testimony in Austin would have required five weeks in L.A. -- really.  

 

Appreciate this post. Thanks for sharing your perspective!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.