Jump to content

OJ Simpson has died


bamachine

Recommended Posts

Did it ever occur to any of you that obviously the killer of Nicole and Ron would go to hell for it just recently.    And now that this unknown killer is there, O.J. has rushed down there as well to find him in the zone of ends?  That’s called dedication.  It’s what makes a champion.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Evil Bill Obrien said:

people throw around the phrase “murderers row” a lot…but this…this is a murderers row

OJ way better football player than human being, hope he is having fun with Saddam and Epstein for all eternity…

How soon they forget

image.thumb.png.429d55be0c2525f30166c385a1da745e.png

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Foosters said:

I read your post and immediately the NBA on NBC jingle popped into my head 

One of my favorite sketches of all time that rarely is mentioned. 

So underrated.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 2
  • Haha 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
On 4/11/2024 at 2:01 PM, Pimphand said:

Jay Koehler was my statistics prof at UT and one of my favorite teachers.  He was on OJ's defense team...

Didn't realize he made it into law and teaches at Northwestern now.  Good for him

https://www.law.northwestern.edu/faculty/profiles/JonathanKoehler/

He was also my stats professor in late 90s and I remember he said that he most definitely did not prove OJ was innocent but that the sample that was proclaimed as a million to one was more like 75,000 to one.

I remember he said how masterful a job OJ’s lawyers did because they kept proving how wrongly inflated the odds were and how clearly wrong the defense was….all so that no one would notice how ridiculous 75,000 to one (still way guilty).

Edited by Hornbeliever
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/13/2024 at 10:43 AM, Hornbeliever said:

He was also my stats professor in late 90s and I remember he said that he most definitely did not prove OJ was innocent but that the sample that was proclaimed as a million to one was more like 75,000 to one.

I remember he said how masterful a job OJ’s lawyers did because they kept proving how wrongly inflated the odds were and how clearly wrong the defense was….all so that no one would notice how ridiculous 75,000 to one (still way guilty).

Jay showed us the footage and yes it was basically with the lab having a 5% chance of error being so much more statistically significant than the DNA profile matching you can absolutely just throw the DNA profile match out and focus only on the lab error.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/12/2024 at 12:58 AM, notre dame joe said:

 You can tell what generation you are by answering the question, Why is OJ famous?

 

Most everyone says "football"   few could answer the follow up, what team did OJ play for?

Spoiler

No respect for San Francisco City College.

So far my favorite answer came from a couple of 20-somethings at my globogym, He was the guy found not guilty of murder because his lawyer was Kim Kardashian's father.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/13/2024 at 9:39 AM, Longboard Horn said:

 

You give him way too much credit.  It was not really a police chase.  More of a parade.  A boring parade.  And whoever at NBC switched from game 5 of the NBA finals for that earned his ticket to hell!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

It irks me that we never beat Simpson; only two games because he started at City College.  OJ cut us up in 67.  68 was a tie despite the Irish pressing the juice to 55 yards rushing.  Ara Parseghian's offenses had two first half leads and two second half goose eggs.  

 

The closest to justice would be the 1969 Rose Bowl, where #1 Ohio State came back, after OJ's 80 yd td, against #2 SC with defensive coach (DC!?) Lou Holtz.  The articles say that Simpson threw an interception.

Edited by notre dame joe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Hook1997 said:

The Rockets only ever won anything because Jordan retired….   

I’m a fan of this statement even though it may be wrong.  That’s not the point - point is this is a perfect NBA derka bat signal and now we have lost our big goofy friend.  RIP Derka

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, ChiTownDoc said:

I’m a fan of this statement even though it may be wrong.  That’s not the point - point is this is a perfect NBA derka bat signal and now we have lost our big goofy friend.  RIP Derka

What happened to Derka?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, notre dame joe said:

It irks me that we never beat Simpson; only two games because he started at City College.  OJ cut us up in 67.  68 was a tie despite the Irish pressing the juice to 55 yards rushing.  Ara Parseghian's offenses had two first half leads and two second half goose eggs.  

 

The closest to justice would be the 1969 Rose Bowl, where #1 Ohio State came back, after OJ's 80 yd td, against #2 SC with defensive coach (DC!?) Lou Holtz.  The articles say that Simpson threw an interception.

You'll always have Rudy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/15/2024 at 2:15 PM, RollLeft said:

For those that didn't see this documentary...its worth the watch.

@1:20 thru 03:00 is all you need to know about how this case would go.   

 

the documentary is fantastic when paired with The People Vs OJ SImpson, the Cuba Gooding Jr Movie. Perfectly spells out and explains everything about the case, both before and after. I fully understand why he was found innocent after watching both of these. He deffo 100% did it, but the entire case was lost the moment Mark Furman could not say he didn't plant evidence to frame OJ Simpson because he had to plead the fifth otherwise he would have been asked if he'd ever planted evidence to frame anybody in his career, of which he likely had. If it's a question of reasonable doubt, they had done a good enough job of showing how systematically corrupt the LAPD was from top to bottom that not hearing outright "We didn't frame him" could constitute reasonable doubt.

I love the part in The People vs OJ Simpson where they go to his house and they've changed all the pictures on the walls, haha.

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

On 4/18/2024 at 3:23 AM, ChiTownDoc said:

I’m a fan of this statement even though it may be wrong.  That’s not the point - point is this is a perfect NBA derka bat signal and now we have lost our big goofy friend.  RIP Derka

I'm a fan of it because it pisses off Houstonians.

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

On 4/12/2024 at 8:55 AM, Thetexashammer said:

I'm still angry they preempted my Rockets playoff game for the idiotic car chase. Total bullshit.

I was still the weekend sports producer at KTRK. My night off and I dropped everything, went to work, and watched the live satellite feed while the entire city melted down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, WelfareBuysMyWeed said:

the documentary is fantastic when paired with The People Vs OJ SImpson, the Cuba Gooding Jr Movie. Perfectly spells out and explains everything about the case, both before and after. I fully understand why he was found innocent after watching both of these. He deffo 100% did it, but the entire case was lost the moment Mark Furman could not say he didn't plant evidence to frame OJ Simpson because he had to plead the fifth otherwise he would have been asked if he'd ever planted evidence to frame anybody in his career, of which he likely had. If it's a question of reasonable doubt, they had done a good enough job of showing how systematically corrupt the LAPD was from top to bottom that not hearing outright "We didn't frame him" could constitute reasonable doubt.

I love the part in The People vs OJ Simpson where they go to his house and they've changed all the pictures on the walls, haha.

He was not found innocent.

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

8 hours ago, WelfareBuysMyWeed said:

the documentary is fantastic when paired with The People Vs OJ SImpson, the Cuba Gooding Jr Movie. Perfectly spells out and explains everything about the case, both before and after. I fully understand why he was found innocent after watching both of these. He deffo 100% did it, but the entire case was lost the moment Mark Furman could not say he didn't plant evidence to frame OJ Simpson because he had to plead the fifth otherwise he would have been asked if he'd ever planted evidence to frame anybody in his career, of which he likely had. If it's a question of reasonable doubt, they had done a good enough job of showing how systematically corrupt the LAPD was from top to bottom that not hearing outright "We didn't frame him" could constitute reasonable doubt.

I love the part in The People vs OJ Simpson where they go to his house and they've changed all the pictures on the walls, haha.

 

1 hour ago, TrashMaster G said:

He was not found innocent.

Syntax. Everyone is innocent until proven guilty. 

Yes the conduct of the government established reasonable doubt against itself.  It seems to be a question of individual philosophy, Should you vote guilty or not guilty if the gov rigged it against the actual criminal?

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, notre dame joe said:

 

Syntax. Everyone is innocent until proven guilty. 

No, it's not syntax. It is a different thing conceptually.

Did the jury say he didn't do it (i.e. was innocent)?

Absolutely not.

They said he was not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt based on the case presented by the prosecution.

It's miles from the same thing.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, TrashMaster G said:

No, it's not syntax. It is a different thing conceptually.

Did the jury say he didn't do it (i.e. was innocent)?

Absolutely not.

They said he was not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt based on the case presented by the prosecution.

It's miles from the same thing.

 

nobody.png

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

2 hours ago, WelfareBuysMyWeed said:

 

nobody.png

Ron Goldman cares, and so does the jury that awarded him a civil judgment against OJ.
The criminal jury found that the prosecution had not met its burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that OJ caused the deaths.

The civil jury found that a preponderance of the evidence established that he did cause the deaths. 

There’s a huge difference in the standards of proof necessary in criminal and civil proceedings. You’ll care if you get in a wreck and the other driver isn't prosecuted or is acquitted by a criminal jury, but you can still recover from him in a civil suit. 

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
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...