The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 iSteve BlogTeasers
"The People vs. O.J. Simpson"
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments

I’ve been watching on Netflix this recent miniseries of the 1995 trial and it’s quite funny, although I’ve gotten through my usual six episodes of anything and probably won’t make it through all ten episodes — it’s maybe seven hours in total and that’s a little more than I’ll devote to a TV show, even a good one like this.

I was going to say the O.J. Trial was a formative event for me, but it was more of a confirmatory one. For example, in the miniseries, which is mostly accurate although somewhat pumped up, Johnnie Cochran starts out advising the Dream Team that their ideal juror is a black man, but they need to be worried about allowing black women on the jury because O.J. married a white woman.

But then focus groups reveal that not even Johnnie Cochran is cynical enough: black women love O.J., especially now that that blonde bitch ex-wife is permanently out of the picture. Meanwhile, white feminist prosecutor Marcia Clark thinks loading the jury up with black women is a great idea.

The miniseries length is a good one for this tale, since the screenwriters can squeeze in most of the self-satirizing incidents without needing to rush like in a movie or drag it out endlessly like in a multiyear series or in real life.

The casting is mostly fine. The quality actors playing Johnnie Cochran (Courtney Vance) and Marcia Clark (Sarah Paulson) look much like the originals. Nathan Lane is F. Lee Bailey. David Schwimmer is amusing doing his Ross-from-Friends nice guy shtick as O.J.’s true-hearted business lawyer Robert Kardashian, whose four small children are a little more savvy to the broader implications of the excitement surrounding “Uncle Juice’s” troubles than is poor dear old Dad. Selma Blair plays his ex-wife, Kris Kardashian Jenner. Bruce Jenner is mentioned, but I haven’t seen him on screen yet.

Doing an impression vaguely reminiscent of Jeremy Iron’s memorable version of Claus von Bulow in Reversal of Fortune as a cross between Dracula and Nixon, John Travolta dominates every scene he is in as O.J.’s self-absorbed celebrity criminal lawyer Robert Shapiro. This is a bit of a problem dramatically as Shapiro, who got elbowed aside as lead chair by the more street-smart Cochran, isn’t all that important of a character in the history. On the other hand, he’s John Travolta, genuine movie star since the 1970s, and nobody else in this Prestige Television-budgeted production brings that much charisma firepower to the screen. Travolta isn’t as competent as his fellow Scientologist Tom Cruise at picking scripts, but, even so, he’s one of the top 50 or so greatest movie stars of all time.

Unfortunately, Cuba Gooding Jr. is terribly miscast as O.J. First, he’s not a big man. He could play a semi-credible NFL star two decades ago in Jerry Maguire cast opposite Tom Cruise, but only because Cruise is a small man. But Travolta and Schwimmer tower over Gooding in their many scenes together. O.J. wasn’t huge for the most famous football player in America (first as the most celebrated college football star since Red Grange in the 1920s, second when he ran for over 2000 yards in a 14 game season in 1976 in the NFL), a little over six feet and 200 pounds, but Gooding isn’t close to that.

Second, Gooding sounds more like Michael Jackson than O.J. Simpson, who was a deep-voiced Monday Night Football commentator, actor, and endorser for many years.

Third, Gooding is kind of character actor funny looking, while O.J. was leading man handsome with a giant head.

One theme of the mini-series is spelled out in a derisive comment by Marcia Clark: the prosecution’s secret weapon is that all the alpha male egos on the Dream Team will cause the defense to implode. Like virtually every single thing Marcia says in the show, this sounds reasonable and intelligent under the current conventional wisdom (after all, gender diversity is our strength, and who has heard of a team of highly competitive males ever sorting out their differences, establishing a functional hierarchy, and buckling down to win anything?), but turns out to be wrong. The seemingly chaotic defense team managed, if barely, to battle out their differences and adjust to circumstances, most notably in the internal coup in which Cochran replaced Shapiro at the top. In contrast, the more hierarchical prosecution was doomed by boss lady Marcia’s self-confidence in her own bad judgment, most notably about blacks, women, and, especially, black women.

 
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. eah says:

    People interested in such depictions of the Simpson case should from time to time review fotos of the crime scene — so when they sit down with their popcorn and the show starts again they keep in mind what it was all about.

    Read More
    • Replies: @eah
    Also read the autopsy reports for Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson.
    , @Jim Don Bob
    Yeah, OJ didn't just kill those two, he butchered them.
    , @Lugash
    Looking at the crime scene photos brings up the "OJ was there, but didn't do the actual murders" theory. I personally find it quite possible, even though it never surfaced during the trial.
    , @SMK
    "What it was all about," of course, is that O.J. was guilty of cutting off his ex-wife's head and torturing Ron Goldman to death with a butcher knife, guilty not only "beyond a reasonable doubt" but any doubt, so transparently guilty that no honest and rational person could believe, even as a remote possibility, that he was innocent, or even that he wasn't "proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." I sure that most of the jurors, even the blacks, knew he was guilty, beyond any doubt.

    "What it was all about" is that a jury, dominated by blacks, freed a murderer they knew was guilty beyond any doubt, not so much because he was rich and famous but because he was a black man who murdered and tortured and mutilated two whites; blatant nullification as racial vengeance and tribalism/solidarity, a corruption of justice that is routine but was/is only infamous in this specific case, unavoidably exposed rather than suppressed by the left-liberal MSM, because of Simpson's fame.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /isteve/the-people-vs-o-j-simpson/#comment-1934760
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. I’m glad you wrote this brilliant and short article. My impression is: I know a lot of what there is to know about this stuff. Took me what – a few minutes. Such are the miracles of great writing.

    (What delighted me most is the remark about the group dynamics in the opposing teams of the Simpson lawyers and the prosecution, headed by Marcia Clark, and how they were motivated).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Pat Boyle
    On your recommendation I will now try to watch this series.

    In fact OJ himself wasn't all that big. I was running across Market Street in San Francisco many years ago when I noticed that Simpson was running beside me. I was surprised at how small he was.
  3. Whiskey says: • Website

    Nice White Ladies know what they know … deep down the “real enemy” are all those nerdy White guys who dared ask them out as young women. While of course, the oppressed sistahs and such will band together just like a Hollywood movie where they all dance around to some Motown soundtrack.

    The move into power and authority of Nice White Ladies has been disastrous for society; they lack the fear and hunger that motivates White dudes to extraordinary efforts.

    Read More
  4. “The miniseries length is a good one for this tale, since the screenwriters can squeeze in most of the self-satirizing incidents without needing to rush like in a movie or drag it out endlessly like in a multiyear series or in real life.”
    That´s why House of Cards should also have been a miniseries.

    Read More
    • Agree: Harry Baldwin
    • Replies: @bored identity
    Most of British, ergo Old World, moving-picture shows that have got unculturally appropriated by Hollywood end being technically maybe superior, but contentwise downgraded to junk.


    Enjoy the original version:

    http://www.primewire.ag/watch-116776-House-of-Cards-online-free
  5. >>Johnnie Cochran starts out advising the Dream Team that their ideal juror is a black man<<

    Men don't like men who kill women, whatever the race. Women are *much* more forgiving, especially if it's a good looking man. If you're defending a man, you want women on the jury. If you're defending a woman you want men on the jury – men tend to sympathise with female defendants more, too.

    I think it’s amazing a prosecutor could be so blind to human nature as not to realise this after a few trials.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    Bear in mind that the evidence against O.J. was so overwhelming that the prosecution was probably a little overconfident based on that.
    , @william munny
    Despite what we see on tv, nobody is very good at picking juries. There are lots of rules people assume are true, but you just never know how someone is going to act on a jury. Most of the time the prosecutors and defense attorneys actually agree, in large part, on the majority of people who make up the jury -- the people they each assume are reasonable and of course will view the case as they each do.
    , @whorefinder

    I think it’s amazing a prosecutor could be so blind to human nature as not to realise this after a few trials.

     

    Two reasons:

    1. The jury was weird. The people who usually get on juries are law-abiding folk who pay their taxes, renew their licenses on time, and obey government edicts, like orders to come to jury duty. The flakes, hustlers, scumbags, and anti-government types don't show up, or if they do make it known they won't take a case seriously, and so don't get on juries. So juries are usually pretty biased towards cops and law-and-order and prosecutors tailor their arguments towards their biases (and often don't have to try so hard to do it).

    The O.J. trial, however, was an event, and came right after the Rodney King cop acquittal, and many of those same yahoos and scumbags actively tried to get on the jury. Celebrity trials are exciting, and many blacks wanted O.J. off because of Rodney King . So it was an abnormal jury pool: far less pro-law-and-order and filled with a lot of folks openly hostile to convicting O.J. and also eager to serve on his jury. The prosecutors were too dumb to realize this.

    2. Affirmative action. Clark and Darden were two big affirmative action hires. They were pushed due to their sex (Clark) and race (Darden). So they kept failing upwards, and never learned to do better for tougher cases. They basically assumed because of their sex and race they would win and they were geniuses, because that's how they got ahead in the office and everyone told them so.

    Johnny Cochran must've licked his lips when he saw them at the prosecutor's table.

    , @kihowi
    You're assuming she really wanted to convict him and didn't let her vagina override her ambition. The last half century's politics have been dominated by white women's love for black criminals. Why would she be immune?
    , @Almost Missouri

    "it’s amazing a prosecutor could be so blind to human nature as not to realise this"
     
    She didn't need to see human nature. She's a feminist. She's on the right side of history, dammit!
    , @Pat Boyle
    Your thesis is that men go easier on women and women on men. If this is true there should be some statistics on this phenomenon.
    , @Ben Tillman
    Along the same line, you want male jurors in a rape trial. Women want to think they are in control and it can't happen to them, so they tend to blame the victim. Men on the other hand know how easy it is not to rape a woman regardless of the circumstances.
    , @Corn
    Slightly OT but I have read a couple different times over the years that during rape trials female jurors are actually harder on a victim's testimony and more discerning than male jurors. I do not know if there's been any stats collected or studies made that back that assertion up though.

    Supposedly the conventional wisdom for a lot of folks is you want more female jurors in a rape case. They'll be more empathetic and understanding than insensitive or "she wanted it" men. I've heard however the opposite is often true. When a victim testifies the male jurors are often angered, the papa bear in them is out for blood. Women on the jury are supposedly more skeptical. Perhaps they don't want women crying wolf so they'll be believed if they're raped, or maybe their feminine wiles can tell when a woman is lying to hurt a man.
  6. bjdubbs says:

    Part of what makes OJ fascinating is that he was able to adopt the manners of Brentwood while still maintaining the some hint of the menace of a gangbanger from Oakland, or wherever he’s from. Andre Braugher might have been good in the role.

    Read More
    • Replies: @ANON
    OJ was from the Potrero project San Francisco.

    It was built around 1950 to house families of black affirmative action workers at SF county hospital. It's small, less than 50 apartments. But those hospital employees and their thug spawn destroyed the lovely Portero Hill neighborhood in less than 10 years.


    .

    The affirmative action blacks worked as maids, janitors, food and security guards. Until 1946 or so they were all White and ther was little theft and rape and auto theft by security guards.

    When the affirmative action trash took over the theft of supplies and food was enormous. And uniformed black security guards raped women patients and White women staff in the parking lots.

    The Simpson family's income was too high to qualify for the project anyway. Dad was the chef, not cook or prep guy in the federal building cafeteria. Mom was a psychiatric tech, licensed and paid the same as a Licensed Vocational Nurse in the psych wing of SF county hospital. So mama was a welfare cheat.

    When OJ. was playing football at San Francisco City College, a young black rapist roamed the stairways of San Francisco County Hospital. Suspect was never caught but was described in the newspaper as " the son of a hospital employee and student at City College". May have been OJ. May have been another black thug from the project.

    , @Old Palo Altan
    "the manners of Brentwood".

    An acute observation. I saw him glide smoothly out of his cream coloured Rolls Royce on Rodeo Drive a year or two before his blood rage. He stood out a mile from everyone around him, but did not in any way exude the pernicious arrogance of today's celebrities.
    But there was no hint of menace, which is why whites liked and felt comfortable with him.
    Such emanations came later, after the murders.
  7. Dave Pinsen says: • Website

    The miniseries was very well done, and the casting, hair, and makeup were great for everyone except Cuba Gooding, Jr., as you note.

    Try to stick it out to the end, though. I’m curious if the shunning depicted in the last episode happened in real life.

    There’s also a humorous bit where Johnny Cochrane has O.J.’s house redecorated in Afrocentric style before the jurors get to tour it, IIRC (seems odd the court would let them do that, but I don’t know).

    There’s also a funny scene where the sequestered jurors have to decide whether to watch Seinfeld or Martin tapes.

    Read More
    • Replies: @40 Acres and A Kardashian

    There’s also a humorous bit where Johnny Cochrane has O.J.’s house redecorated in Afrocentric style before the jurors get to tour it, IIRC (seems odd the court would let them do that, but I don’t know).
     
    That part is true. Before the murders, the walls were filled with photos of OJ and his famous friends, nearly all of them rich white men and beautiful white women. On the nightstand by his bed he had a framed nude photo of the latest Playboy slut he was dating, Paula Barbieri. Practically the only black person in any of the photos was OJ. But after Cochran got done, all the white people were gone, replaced with pictures of his family members, black kids helped by some of his fundraising efforts, etc. The nude photo of his white girlfriend beside his bed was swapped out for a picture of his mother (hopefully fully clothed). Portraits of people like MLK were put up, African art was moved in, and to top it all off, a huge print of Norman Rockwell's The Problem We All Live With, the painting of the little black girl surrounded by federal marshals as she enters a formerly all-white school in 1960. Behind her, "the N word" has been sprayed on a wall, and a tomato has splattered, clearly meant for her. The painting dominated the room, and sent the jury a clear message that OJ was a true Race Man.

    No competent judge would ever allowed such a thing to occur. Lance Ito was a starstruck buffoon, and let the defense get away will all sorts of outrageous behavior.
    , @larry lurker

    There’s also a humorous bit where Johnny Cochrane has O.J.’s house redecorated in Afrocentric style before the jurors get to tour it, IIRC (seems odd the court would let them do that, but I don’t know).
     
    One of OJ's defense attorneys, Carl Douglas, in the 30 for 30 documentary from last year: “If we had had a Latin jury, we would have had a picture of him in a sombrero! There would have been a mariachi band out front! We would have had a piñata at the top of the staircase!”
    , @David In TN
    "seems odd the court would let them do that"

    Judge Lance Ito "let them do that." Marcia Clark protested going into O.J.'s house at all since none of the crime happened there. Also Clark wanted the trip to the crime scene done at night, but Ito insisted on doing it in the daytime.
  8. Dave Pinsen says: • Website
    @Simon in London
    >>Johnnie Cochran starts out advising the Dream Team that their ideal juror is a black man<<

    Men don't like men who kill women, whatever the race. Women are *much* more forgiving, especially if it's a good looking man. If you're defending a man, you want women on the jury. If you're defending a woman you want men on the jury - men tend to sympathise with female defendants more, too.

    I think it's amazing a prosecutor could be so blind to human nature as not to realise this after a few trials.

    Bear in mind that the evidence against O.J. was so overwhelming that the prosecution was probably a little overconfident based on that.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rod1963
    No they were just stupid. Not all DA's are like those SVU. Fact is most DA's don't like trials and prefer doing plea deals even in murder cases. Trials are messy and they expose stupid DA's real fast, especially if they can't get the right sort of jury.

    Look, no one today or even 20 years ago wants to serve on such a jury who works for a living, they'd lose everything if goes on for more than a few days as they don't get paid by their employer. This means you get losers on welfare, retirees, teachers and assorted nit nats that aren't to bright to begin with. Good for the defense bad for the prosecution.

    That said, the worst thing the DA did was let the jury be composed of blacks. Blacks will never convict a black man for killing whites. Hell that was talked about on talk radio when the trail was going on. They should had at least several white men on the jury, they could have had a hung jury and forced a retrial just to f**k with the dream team.

    It's black psychology 101. Whites not being tribal don't get it.
    , @flyingtiger
    The evidence was inconclusive. This reminds me of a quote from another case. There is no evidence the defendant is guilty, but their is no evidence the defendant is innocent."
    , @Bugg
    Which led to the stupidity of moving the trial downtown and more African-Americans into the jury pool.Remarkable supposedly seasoned prosecutors believed black women would be more inclined to convict; another example of goodwhites misreading reality.

    In my misspent youth as first an ADA in "the northeast" and then occasionally as a defense attorney, every jury selection in a criminal case involving an African-American defendant consisted of first challenging jurors for cause to make the jury more or less black and sympathetic to the defendant. Or then giving race-neutral reasons for knocking out a juror if you needed to use peremptory challenge. Most of those reasons in both instances were smokescreens either way; lawyers pretend otherwise. But we all know what's going on.

    But as to the OJ case, how empty must your life be to put everything on hold for almost a year. Further most Americans are used to getting their information in the 22.5 minutes of a Seinfeld or Martin rerun. The tedious legalese that lawyers pretend is brilliance are a great way to get 12 people very bored and drowsy. What attorneys are not allowed to say out loud is it's very hard find jurors who are truly unbiased.And further most sensible people figure out very quickly how to get out of jury duty. The one thing this show brings home is what a complete waste of time the jury system is. The OJ case is an extreme example, but the legalistic nonsense wastes hours an days of court time pointlessly.

    , @Bugg
    Clark did not present evidence of Simpson's fleeing, which legally could have had the jury instructed that while not dispositive, such an attempt to flee was consistent with consciousness of guilt. But those black ladies were not going to convict.
  9. There is one important lesson from the O.J. trial — wise individuals who are HBD-aware should use that knowledge to improve their own lives and that of their families and communities. It is also useful and fun whenever possible to take advantage of otherwise-smart people who are deliberately HBD-ignorant. Just do not ever mention to them, before or after, how you trapped them into bad decisions.

    Read More
    • Replies: @TTSSYF
    If I recall correctly, there was one white woman on the jury who held out for a little bit (couldn't have been too long, as the jury came back with a verdict after about two hours, I believe), then gave in...probably out of fear for her life by causing a hung jury.
    , @Wency
    But what can you do with this advice unless your career somehow intersects extensively with blacks/Hispanics?

    And if it does, you probably already screwed up somehow. E.g., you became a criminal attorney instead of any other kind of attorney. Or you're working for a payday loan company instead of JP Morgan.

    Cochran probably wouldn't have done as well as a tax attorney, but he also wasn't reading about HBD -- he was just observing the world for what it is. This is the more generally applicable skill/talent.
  10. eah says:
    @eah
    People interested in such depictions of the Simpson case should from time to time review fotos of the crime scene -- so when they sit down with their popcorn and the show starts again they keep in mind what it was all about.

    Also read the autopsy reports for Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson.

    Read More
  11. Trelane says:
    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Thanks.
    , @Joe Stalin
    OJ kept the Ford Bronco production going for two more years.

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2014/06/17/the-bronco-brand-after-oj/10257945/

    Absolutely the funniest non-sequitor I heard on OJ's innocence from Blacks was that "he couldn't have done it because he loved his kids." WTF.
  12. @Trelane
    Number #32 the Juice

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4LECXW_MQY

    https://youtu.be/jUyWS6j5rS4?t=457

    https://youtu.be/b1cu5ykSda0?t=180

    Thanks.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jenner Ickham Errican
    The highlight of the famous Bronco chase:

    https://youtu.be/bLmoqbR3gto?t=24s
  13. Rod1963 says:
    @Dave Pinsen
    Bear in mind that the evidence against O.J. was so overwhelming that the prosecution was probably a little overconfident based on that.

    No they were just stupid. Not all DA’s are like those SVU. Fact is most DA’s don’t like trials and prefer doing plea deals even in murder cases. Trials are messy and they expose stupid DA’s real fast, especially if they can’t get the right sort of jury.

    Look, no one today or even 20 years ago wants to serve on such a jury who works for a living, they’d lose everything if goes on for more than a few days as they don’t get paid by their employer. This means you get losers on welfare, retirees, teachers and assorted nit nats that aren’t to bright to begin with. Good for the defense bad for the prosecution.

    That said, the worst thing the DA did was let the jury be composed of blacks. Blacks will never convict a black man for killing whites. Hell that was talked about on talk radio when the trail was going on. They should had at least several white men on the jury, they could have had a hung jury and forced a retrial just to f**k with the dream team.

    It’s black psychology 101. Whites not being tribal don’t get it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dave Bowman
    Bravo, and thank you for this. Simply one of the very smartest, briefest and most timeless comments I've ever read online. I simply don't understand why millions of so-called "educated", "intelligent" people across the world don't get things as basic and critically important as this, and remember them for life.

    My greatest and only fear for the future is that the endless gullibility, worldly pig-ignorance and catastrophic race-blindness of the remaining White millions will eventually destroy us all.
    , @Barnard
    If I remember correctly, they let the trial get moved from whatever jurisdiction Brentwood is in to downtown mostly because they felt like they needed some blacks on the jury when they convicted him or they would have another riot. It would have been an easy conviction in Brentwood.
    , @Inquiring Mind
    You had the race thing going on in Mr. Simpson being a likable-to-whites celebrity black man as well as the black solidarity that if a black man is found guilty of anything, it is a white conspiracy to keep the black man down. But you also had the men as wife-abuser thing going on, where feminists regard men in the same light that badwhites hold blacks with regard to propensity for violence.

    The defense wanted blacks on the jury because of the race thing whereas the prosecution wanted women on the jury because of the men-as-violent-wife-abusers thing. They split the difference and ended up with black women on the jury.

    iSteve's take on this is the notion that women have an atavistic attraction to violent men -- think of the sympathy of many women to the surviving Boston Marathon bomber, and I was in a restaurant table talking inside-baseball evidentiary procedures based on what was said (on NPR!) about what Eric Holder's DOJ would allow when I caught both barrels of this from a woman the next table over. (Never quote NPR in front of a liberal whom you don't know, just like you don't repeat an ethnic joke you heard from an ethnic comic in front of strangers.)

    My take on this is that black women have a more realistic, perhaps more cynical view of the escalation of provocation in marriages gone bad and are more likely to assign proportional blame to each party instead of keeping to the white-progressive-feminist narrative.

    Obviously Chris Darden was on the prosecution team because of the race angle and Marcia Clark because of the women-as-abuse-victims angle. Mr. Darden was supposed to approach the jury box, look down at his shoes, and say, "Yeah, Mr. Simpson is black and he is here because of the Man and because of the System, but sometimes a brother does wrong and Mr. Simpson has done wrong and sometimes you as a brother have to do what a brother has to do."

    Marcia Clark, on the other hand, went the full feminist with men as spousal abusers. What I fault Ms. Clark is that a good lawyer is supposed to adhere to the Narrative when it helps their case. It seemed to me that Ms. Clark was keeping to the feminist Narrative out of ideological reasons well beyond what helped the State's case; Ms. Clark was not a competent lawyer.

    , @Bill P
    If anything, black women are more racially vindictive than black men. Having recently attended a half-black high school when the trial started, I knew OJ would dodge conviction when I saw they were a majority on the jury. I had no doubt at all.
    , @anon
    You were right till the last sentence. In fact, Barry Scheck, one of the Dream Teamers, went ahead to atone for racist jury decisions by setting up the https://www.innocenceproject.org/ to free mostly black defendants wrongly sentenced by all white juries.
    , @AnotherDad

    It’s black psychology 101. Whites not being tribal don’t get it.
     
    This is one of the great problems of our age.

    Whites psychology--open, cooperative, altruistic--is highly beneficial. In fact, it's the outcome of the great social achievement of the West--breaking down primitive tribalism and building "one people/one nation" societies with trust-at-scale, allowing the great nations and achievements of the West, and the incredible peace and prosperity we have today.

    However, this open, trusting, altruism makes it pathetically easy for tribal peoples to roll trusting Westerners. And doubly, triply--an order of magnitude easier--after the West politically empowered women.

    This is what we see in the West. Clueless Westerners welcoming "refugees" and other immigrants with their "diversity!" addled brains thinking these folks will behave just like Westerners once they are properly taught. While these tribal (non-trusting, non-altruistic, non-cooperative) foreigners are thinking "these folks are suckers" and taking them for everything they are worth.

    ~~~

    The OJ trial with a black jury freeing an obviously guilty man, and blacks everywhere cheering wildly over it, *should* have been a little 'window into reality', for white people--a little "wakeup call" about what's in store.

    And indeed it had that effect on some (probably me to some extent). But TPTB made sure that narrative was quickly pulled, and the "story" was Mark Furhman had said "nigger"--the worst crime imaginable. (Not some trivial shit, like slicing a couple of people's throats.)
  14. Harvey Levin, the guy who founded TMZ, covered the OJ trial for one of the networks. Some of the comments on the TMZ website wouldn’t be out of place here and I wonder if the trial woke Levin up or if he never believed the BS in the first place.

    Read More
  15. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    The BBC showed the series on. UK TV recently.

    They hyped it up something rotten.

    But, no one was interested in it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @El Dato
    I guess it's really US-centric.

    One of those unreal neverending crime dramas from across the pond, you see TV serials on those all the time. It would be interesting to ask European Colored People whether "O.J. Simpson" rings a bell. It would say no.

    Back from those times remember some reporting in "The Economist" with a caricature of Allan Ito shown presiding over a clownshow looking disinterested or resignated.

    And the hubbub over THE BLACKENING
    , @Sue D.Nim
    Interview with Cuba Gooding on playing OJ:

    www.radiotimes.com/news/2016-02-15/cuba-gooding-jr-on-oj-simpson-americas-race-divide-and-the-murder-trial-that-riveted-the-world

    He remembers the time on set when, as OJ, he attends Nicole Brown Simpson’s funeral, and, to the gasps of the mourners, shamelessly leans into her open coffin and kisses her face.

    “I had to rush out to my trailer, I just could not stop crying,” he says. “I realised it was because, in real life, rooting for OJ, I had never acknowledged the victims. We had even gone to church to pray for Johnnie Cochran to get OJ ‘out of his predicament’! I thought I was going crazy, having a nervous breakdown.”
  16. LondonBob says:

    Too young and not American to particularly know who OJ was so didn’t have a problem with Cuba. Thought Travolta was too fake and over acted. Very good series though, watched the documentary on him recently, didn’t realise what a sleaze OJ became. Probably should have plead guilty, ended up doing a very lengthy jail spell anyway.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    No, OJ was sentenced not for what he actually did (which was to repossess his own stuff without the proper legal unction-sheriffs legally rob small businesses in debt every day, it's called a "till tap"-but they are sheriffs) , it was for what he should have been sentenced for in the crime for which he was unjustly not convicted, in the mind of the sentencing judge.

    Had OJ been smart he would have left the country where his NFL pension would have gone a lot farther and no one would have cared all that much what he did. I have it on some good authority that up until the last few years he was a real stallion and on $300K he could have had a mansion, servants and no trouble rounding up plenty of booty.
  17. Charlie_U says:

    leading man handsome with a giant head

    New username available for anyone wanting to comment on Steve’s blog…

    :-D

    Read More
    • LOL: Kylie
    • Replies: @Jim Don Bob
    My favorite is still Ass Cheeks of Saturn.
  18. OT? The above song has been noticed by the ADL for these lines:

    “You wanna know what’s more important than throwin’ away money at a strip club? Credit.

    You ever wonder why Jewish people own all the property in America? This how they did it.”

    Like Steve has often noticed interesting demographic dynamics in debt peonage schemes, Ta-Nehisi ‘Redline’ Coates once noticed the ethnic background of operators in a specific type of alleged Chicago real estate “desegregation” chicanery, but doesn’t go too far with his reverse “J’accuse…!”:

    I am tempted to read something into this regarding the results of oppression, given that the speculators Satter is discussing are almost all Jewish, but I think that might be too far afield for me.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Charles Pewitt
    CREDIT says the song by Jay-Z in answer to the question as to how to build wealth instead of dissipating wealth at a strip club. That song by Jay-Z has a nice bass line with a fine piano accompaniment.

    White Core Americans should understand that voting to take over the corporate propaganda apparatus is the way to financial freedom. First you take over the propaganda, and then you take over the financial system.

    The Republican Party is going to campaign against the media in the mid-term elections. Patriots should force the Republican candidates to talk about de-concentrating the ownership of the corporate media. Republican donors like the fact that their essential interests are protected by the corporate media. Republican voters and Republican donors are going to brawl it out.

    The privately-controlled Federal Reserve Bank has kept CREDIT cheap in order to prop up asset bubbles. Jay-Z sings about how he has benefited from the asset bubble in art created by cheap credit. Dennis Hopper might have been a genius who invested in art knowing that art would be bid up to the stratosphere by monetary extremism and cheap credit.
    , @StillCARealist
    Is that a real song that people listen to? Appallingly bad. An insult to bad taste. Ugly, moronic, foul, boring, stupid, offensive, demeaning, dull. It sounds like something to zone out on when you're stoned beyond all boundaries (sorry Pink Floyd). Like something Satan would play to his insane minions to prolong the torment of Hell.

    I'm sorry, but if this is what black kids are listening to then there is no shred of hope for them.
  19. Danindc says:

    Do you still think he is innocent Steve? All due respect, that was one area where I always disagreed with you. I think the evidence was clear (DNA, no plausible alibi) that OJ killed Nicole.

    Do you still think Fuhrman planted that bloody glove?

    Read More
    • Replies: @ANON
    One thing most people don't know about Furhman is that he was only at the scene a few hours. He had to drive in from home and turned it over to the downtown special victims detectives as soon as they arrived.
  20. Rob McX says:

    A prosecutor called Nancy Grace appeared on the Geraldo show with some jurors who had written books. She recalls what one of them said as she was about to get into a limousine outside the studio: “You know, Nancy, the O.J. Simpson case — this trial — it’s the best thing that ever happened to me. I get to come to New York, I get all these nice clothes, I get all these interviews, I get to stay in all these hotels and [eat] fancy dinners. I mean, it’s been great!’”

    Read More
    • Replies: @tyrone
    It's the modern american celebrity ,famous for nothing ,who ever heard of a kardasian until this fiasco.
  21. @Steve Sailer
    Thanks.

    The highlight of the famous Bronco chase:

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jenner Ickham Errican
    Cited part 0:25 to 2:15.
    , @slumber_j
    That's wondrous. I remember at the age of I think thirteen learning the meaning of the word "supercilious" by my mother's deployment of it against Peter Jennings.
    , @larry lurker
    Quite the tensis!

    Al Michaels appeared on Stern a few months later to discuss the incident, video here. Apparently he was already a friend of the show.
    , @Reg Cæsar

    The highlight of the famous Bronco chase:
     
    I don't remember any jokes about the irony of a Bill driving a Bronco. Were there any? Sounds treasonous to me.
    , @anon
    I remember watching all those cheering, screaming, idiots waving signs "don't squeeze the juice" and "go O.J.", and thinking to myself he is going to get off if/when it goes to trial. I said this at the time to my family and friends watching too and they all laughed. I said 'you will see. It will become a circus and a freak show and he will walk'. Sadly I was right.
  22. El Dato says:
    @Anonymous
    The BBC showed the series on. UK TV recently.

    They hyped it up something rotten.

    But, no one was interested in it.

    I guess it’s really US-centric.

    One of those unreal neverending crime dramas from across the pond, you see TV serials on those all the time. It would be interesting to ask European Colored People whether “O.J. Simpson” rings a bell. It would say no.

    Back from those times remember some reporting in “The Economist” with a caricature of Allan Ito shown presiding over a clownshow looking disinterested or resignated.

    And the hubbub over THE BLACKENING

    Read More
  23. Simpson’s 2,000 yard season was in 1973, 1976 however was his last injury free season in which he lead the league in rushing. He got injured the following year and was never again the same player. I still haven’t watched the series yet, but I am intrigued now that you’ve have posted a review.

    Read More
  24. Sue D.Nim says: • Website
    @Anonymous
    The BBC showed the series on. UK TV recently.

    They hyped it up something rotten.

    But, no one was interested in it.

    Interview with Cuba Gooding on playing OJ:

    http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2016-02-15/cuba-gooding-jr-on-oj-simpson-americas-race-divide-and-the-murder-trial-that-riveted-the-world

    He remembers the time on set when, as OJ, he attends Nicole Brown Simpson’s funeral, and, to the gasps of the mourners, shamelessly leans into her open coffin and kisses her face.

    “I had to rush out to my trailer, I just could not stop crying,” he says. “I realised it was because, in real life, rooting for OJ, I had never acknowledged the victims. We had even gone to church to pray for Johnnie Cochran to get OJ ‘out of his predicament’! I thought I was going crazy, having a nervous breakdown.”

    Read More
  25. @Simon in London
    >>Johnnie Cochran starts out advising the Dream Team that their ideal juror is a black man<<

    Men don't like men who kill women, whatever the race. Women are *much* more forgiving, especially if it's a good looking man. If you're defending a man, you want women on the jury. If you're defending a woman you want men on the jury - men tend to sympathise with female defendants more, too.

    I think it's amazing a prosecutor could be so blind to human nature as not to realise this after a few trials.

    Despite what we see on tv, nobody is very good at picking juries. There are lots of rules people assume are true, but you just never know how someone is going to act on a jury. Most of the time the prosecutors and defense attorneys actually agree, in large part, on the majority of people who make up the jury — the people they each assume are reasonable and of course will view the case as they each do.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Racehorse Haynes, the top Texas trial lawyer of the 1970s (a couple of his cases were made into miniseries), had a lot of rules for keeping phonies off the jury. He particularly disliked guys who clipped multiple mechanical pencils in their shirt pockets so people would think they were engineers but they weren't.
    , @Hibernian
    There are people criminal defense lawyers and civil plaintiff's lawyers avoid like the plague. They include about evryone posting here including me and possibly excluding a few trolls.
  26. “Travolta isn’t as competent as his fellow Scientologist Tom Cruise at picking scripts, but, even so, he’s one of the top 50 or so greatest movie stars of all time”

    Really? I guess I haven’t been paying attention. I know him as the guy that did Grease-Urban Cowboy-Saturday Night Fever in about a 2-year stretch, then had a comeback on Pulp Fiction 20 years later. That wouldn’t put him in the top 50 for the 1970′s.

    I fully grant that I have the pop culture IQ of a Ted Kazinski, though.

    joe

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bill Jones
    I was running a derivatives desk in Sodom on Hudson at that time. We were therefore in a trading room with TV's all over the place.

    When it was announced that a decision had been made the room filled up with all the affirmative action hires.

    Without exception every black in the room cheered.

    Many relationships were irredeemably changed that day as white people realised the amount of racial hatred that blacks they worked with every day harbored for them.
  27. jim jones says:

    I vaguely remember the case from the news but had no idea the chap was a sportsman

    Read More
  28. @Rod1963
    No they were just stupid. Not all DA's are like those SVU. Fact is most DA's don't like trials and prefer doing plea deals even in murder cases. Trials are messy and they expose stupid DA's real fast, especially if they can't get the right sort of jury.

    Look, no one today or even 20 years ago wants to serve on such a jury who works for a living, they'd lose everything if goes on for more than a few days as they don't get paid by their employer. This means you get losers on welfare, retirees, teachers and assorted nit nats that aren't to bright to begin with. Good for the defense bad for the prosecution.

    That said, the worst thing the DA did was let the jury be composed of blacks. Blacks will never convict a black man for killing whites. Hell that was talked about on talk radio when the trail was going on. They should had at least several white men on the jury, they could have had a hung jury and forced a retrial just to f**k with the dream team.

    It's black psychology 101. Whites not being tribal don't get it.

    Bravo, and thank you for this. Simply one of the very smartest, briefest and most timeless comments I’ve ever read online. I simply don’t understand why millions of so-called “educated”, “intelligent” people across the world don’t get things as basic and critically important as this, and remember them for life.

    My greatest and only fear for the future is that the endless gullibility, worldly pig-ignorance and catastrophic race-blindness of the remaining White millions will eventually destroy us all.

    Read More
  29. slumber_j says:
    @Jenner Ickham Errican
    The highlight of the famous Bronco chase:

    https://youtu.be/bLmoqbR3gto?t=24s

    That’s wondrous. I remember at the age of I think thirteen learning the meaning of the word “supercilious” by my mother’s deployment of it against Peter Jennings.

    Read More
  30. watson79 says:

    A very fine essay that makes me feel old. Hard to believe that I watched CNN for news in 1995. I was having lunch in a lousy restaurant when the verdict was announced. The black kitchen staff cheered. The whites at the bar groaned.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Impolitic
    It was so long ago that kitchen staffs were black instead of Mexican.
  31. Jake says:

    It is simple: though most blacks had come to resent OJ for ‘not being black enough,’ he remained black. And that meant to the vast majority of blacks that he was a victim of Whitey.

    Shapiro was the typical Jew who simultaneously believed that black people are just like white people and, conversely, that blacks deserve special treatment for being innocent victims of Whitey the Gentile. That type of Jew will be shocked when a horde of Moslem-led blacks arrive to rape and murder his family in the name of Revenge of the Peoples of Color.

    Kardashin was the epitome of ultra naive white fool who was not able to imagine that the way he and his Ex had raised their kids would make them whores to Negrophilia even at its murderous worst, much less that blacks would act exactly as the ‘racists’ said they would.

    Cochran knew that his people (certainly 90% of them) could always be counted on to follow a charismatic black ‘leader’ into any violence against non-blacks, and against all facts and logic to protect a black from ‘white justice.’

    Clarke was the feminist bimbo who was certain that women of all colors hate men for being rapists and domestic abusers and that therefore black women would do justice for the white whore who stole their OJ. That she also deep down felt that every black man accused of raping a white woman probably was a Tom Robinson, and she would not be able to recognize that her own double-think doomed her.

    Darden was the rare black man who really could be an equal part of white society, which is exactly the reason that at least 90% of blacks would always take a Cochran over him and that white Feminist bimbos always eventually want to nudge him aside.

    As the verdict was nearing, I was buying a house. The man representing the lender was Jewish. He was absolutely certain that the verdict would be guilty, because the facts were clear and only a racist would suggest that either blacks were too ignorant to discern them or that blacks did not about facts when race was at play. He was sure in that slimy Leftist way that justice was obvious and that it would be done by blacks.

    I met with him about an hour after the verdict was read. He was in shock. His beloved Negroes had not acted as he asserted they would. And a Jew had been killed too. That was not to be tolerated, but how could Jews now sound like rednecks and say that blacks are what they are?

    He was in agony.

    Read More
    • Replies: @40 Acres and A Kardashian

    Clarke was the feminist bimbo
     
    Clarke was the Jewish feminist bimbo

    FIFY
    , @Jack D
    I don't know Shapiro personally but I know other Jewish defense lawyers and none of the ones I know are under any illusions about black criminality. No one who works in the criminal justice system from day to day is under any such illusion even if they started out as flaming liberals. You would have to be blind not to. Reality kicks like a mule. Limousine liberals can live in some fantasy world but people in contact with the system don't have that luxury.

    Everyone, even accused criminals, is entitled to a defense and Shapiro I'm sure got paid royally for defending OJ. This doesn't mean that he believed in his innocence or the innocence of blacks in general. After the trial, Shapiro said that the verdict was correct not in the sense that OJ was innocent but that the state had not met its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. I'm guessing that the lawyers took every last nickel that OJ had, which is why he was later reduced to stick-up jobs (that and the fact that he was unemployable as an endorser, even for black oriented products - blacks were willing to get him off to stick it to whitey but giving him a job after that was a bridge too far).
    , @Judah Benjamin Hur

    Shapiro was the typical Jew who simultaneously believed that black people are just like white people and, conversely, that blacks deserve special treatment for being innocent victims of Whitey the Gentile.
     
    Many Jews believe this, no doubt.

    It's amazing how Southern Jewish history got mostly wiped from the history books, a strange collaboration between liberal Jews and anti-Semites.
    , @anon
    A Jew hoisted on his own petard of political correctness and cultural Marxism. Fitting.
  32. TTSSYF says:
    @Peter Johnson
    There is one important lesson from the O.J. trial -- wise individuals who are HBD-aware should use that knowledge to improve their own lives and that of their families and communities. It is also useful and fun whenever possible to take advantage of otherwise-smart people who are deliberately HBD-ignorant. Just do not ever mention to them, before or after, how you trapped them into bad decisions.

    If I recall correctly, there was one white woman on the jury who held out for a little bit (couldn’t have been too long, as the jury came back with a verdict after about two hours, I believe), then gave in…probably out of fear for her life by causing a hung jury.

    Read More
  33. benjaminl says:
    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    Its the doing of the federal Liberal party. Canada's very own treason lobby. Ironically their core historical backers are French-Canadians who will be the biggest ultimate losers from all of this.
  34. Barnard says:
    @Rod1963
    No they were just stupid. Not all DA's are like those SVU. Fact is most DA's don't like trials and prefer doing plea deals even in murder cases. Trials are messy and they expose stupid DA's real fast, especially if they can't get the right sort of jury.

    Look, no one today or even 20 years ago wants to serve on such a jury who works for a living, they'd lose everything if goes on for more than a few days as they don't get paid by their employer. This means you get losers on welfare, retirees, teachers and assorted nit nats that aren't to bright to begin with. Good for the defense bad for the prosecution.

    That said, the worst thing the DA did was let the jury be composed of blacks. Blacks will never convict a black man for killing whites. Hell that was talked about on talk radio when the trail was going on. They should had at least several white men on the jury, they could have had a hung jury and forced a retrial just to f**k with the dream team.

    It's black psychology 101. Whites not being tribal don't get it.

    If I remember correctly, they let the trial get moved from whatever jurisdiction Brentwood is in to downtown mostly because they felt like they needed some blacks on the jury when they convicted him or they would have another riot. It would have been an easy conviction in Brentwood.

    Read More
  35. Romanian says: • Website

    Off-topic for Steve Sailer

    Maybe somebody avoided posting this to not hurt my feelings :), but here’s another jab at the effects of diversity.

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/07/14/pennsylvania-residents-protest-romanian-immigrants-defecating-killing-chickens-public/

    Although, I do feel the need to add scare quotes around Romanian.

    Also, the “European” immigrants seem to be appropriate targets for criticism. Kind of like when France experienced its extreme Schadenfreude when deporting EE Gypsies or the Brexiteers railed against the Polish plumber.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Fredrik
    Events like these could, and should, be used to teach unknowing do-gooders how things work.

    That the very people who either act disgustingly in public(Romanian gypsies) or rob/rape natives(Muslim "youths") are the same people the do-gooders feel so strongly for.

    But of course that won't happen.
    , @Alfa158
    Those aren't Romanians, they're Romany as they call themselves, better known as Gypsies. Of course the newspapers would never label them correctly, because then they would be showing non-Whites in a bad light.
    , @AnotherDad

    Although, I do feel the need to add scare quotes around Romanian.
     
    The gypsies are really the "people who must not be named".

    Endogamous minorities are bad--in the long run--for any people to host. But the gypsies are so openly parasitic and entirely negative in even their immediate effect, that there's just no hiding it.

    Gypsies get people questioning the whole "minorities are enriching", "diversity" pablum that the globalists spew, so it's important to avoid even mentioning them and when necessary generate as much confusion as possible. The gypsies are simply the clear compelling refutation of the dominant narrative.
  36. @Rod1963
    No they were just stupid. Not all DA's are like those SVU. Fact is most DA's don't like trials and prefer doing plea deals even in murder cases. Trials are messy and they expose stupid DA's real fast, especially if they can't get the right sort of jury.

    Look, no one today or even 20 years ago wants to serve on such a jury who works for a living, they'd lose everything if goes on for more than a few days as they don't get paid by their employer. This means you get losers on welfare, retirees, teachers and assorted nit nats that aren't to bright to begin with. Good for the defense bad for the prosecution.

    That said, the worst thing the DA did was let the jury be composed of blacks. Blacks will never convict a black man for killing whites. Hell that was talked about on talk radio when the trail was going on. They should had at least several white men on the jury, they could have had a hung jury and forced a retrial just to f**k with the dream team.

    It's black psychology 101. Whites not being tribal don't get it.

    You had the race thing going on in Mr. Simpson being a likable-to-whites celebrity black man as well as the black solidarity that if a black man is found guilty of anything, it is a white conspiracy to keep the black man down. But you also had the men as wife-abuser thing going on, where feminists regard men in the same light that badwhites hold blacks with regard to propensity for violence.

    The defense wanted blacks on the jury because of the race thing whereas the prosecution wanted women on the jury because of the men-as-violent-wife-abusers thing. They split the difference and ended up with black women on the jury.

    iSteve’s take on this is the notion that women have an atavistic attraction to violent men — think of the sympathy of many women to the surviving Boston Marathon bomber, and I was in a restaurant table talking inside-baseball evidentiary procedures based on what was said (on NPR!) about what Eric Holder’s DOJ would allow when I caught both barrels of this from a woman the next table over. (Never quote NPR in front of a liberal whom you don’t know, just like you don’t repeat an ethnic joke you heard from an ethnic comic in front of strangers.)

    My take on this is that black women have a more realistic, perhaps more cynical view of the escalation of provocation in marriages gone bad and are more likely to assign proportional blame to each party instead of keeping to the white-progressive-feminist narrative.

    Obviously Chris Darden was on the prosecution team because of the race angle and Marcia Clark because of the women-as-abuse-victims angle. Mr. Darden was supposed to approach the jury box, look down at his shoes, and say, “Yeah, Mr. Simpson is black and he is here because of the Man and because of the System, but sometimes a brother does wrong and Mr. Simpson has done wrong and sometimes you as a brother have to do what a brother has to do.”

    Marcia Clark, on the other hand, went the full feminist with men as spousal abusers. What I fault Ms. Clark is that a good lawyer is supposed to adhere to the Narrative when it helps their case. It seemed to me that Ms. Clark was keeping to the feminist Narrative out of ideological reasons well beyond what helped the State’s case; Ms. Clark was not a competent lawyer.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack D
    The case was lost in jury selection (actually even earlier when it was brought downtown instead of before a jury of OJ's lily white peers in Brentwood) because of Clark's mistaken belief that gender trumps race. It doesn't.

    Once she made that mistake, even if she had been the world's greatest prosecutor (and she was far from that) it wouldn't have made any difference (especially since Ito was completely worthless as a judge and let in all sorts of extraneous and prejudicial matters that had nothing to do with OJ's guilt or innocence, such as whether the cops were racist or not). The prosecution presented enough evidence to convict OJ 10 times over but it wasn't about guilt or innocence but about sticking it to the Man so the prosecution's presentation was irrelevant.
  37. MarkinLA says:

    The other series “OJ Made in America” made a lot of references to race as the reason OJ got off. It tied it into black women not wanting to convict and the defense team packing the jury with them, revenge for Rodney King, and the race baiting shenanigans of the OJ defense team. On the juries trip to the Simpson house, the defense team took down all his pictures and mementos indicating he was a coconut and replaced them with blackety, black, black, black.

    They also picked up on the incompetence of the prosecution. The defense team baited Darden into the glove must fit incident. They portrayed him as an Uncle Tom.

    Read More
  38. Corn says:

    I watched it on Netflix too. Enjoyed it. I had largely forgotten the crime after twenty plus years. It was infuriating remembering how OJ got away with it.

    Read More
  39. flayotters says: • Website

    Ah the OJ trial. Good times.
    So good I couldn’t bring myself to watch the smug SOB get off again.
    The day of the verdict is etched in my brain. I was on a photo shoot in New York, which involved a bunch of people driving from location to location in a Winnebago and shooting.
    We’d just done with one location, right outside the Javits Center, and were back in the bus when the driver turned up the radio and we all listened.
    Six crew and three models, male and female, aged from myself at 40 down to early 20s – all white – groaned and shook our heads at the ridiculous miscarriage of justice.
    The driver (Hispanic) said to the crowded bus: “I wonder who did it then.”
    We all groaned a second time and the younger and more foolish of the crew tried to explain.
    It didn’t work.
    I’m sure that guy is still wondering when OJ is going to track down the real killers.

    Read More
  40. I followed the OJ case very closely at the time. I am sure the jury knew he was guilty, but black juries tend to perceive court cases as a kind of quiz show in which they have to determine which side did better with what they had.

    Many years ago a black woman whom I knew quite well was on a jury in which a well known Bermuda physician and politician Dr. Paul de la Chevotiere was on trial facing an allegation by his daughter, now in her 20′s, that he had raped her when she was 12 years old.

    The only evidence was the testimony of the plaintiff herself.

    There was a hung jury and the case was never retried. “So”, I said to the juror, “I guess some of the jury did not believe her?”

    “Oh, yes,” she said, “we believed her all right, but we did not think the prosecution had adequately proved its case, so we found him not guilty.”

    De la Chevotiere died in 2012. The daughter who had made the accusations was for some reason left out of his will and did not inherit any part of his estate, so she contested the will in court.

    https://www.google.com/#q=dr+de+la+chevotiere+bermuda+trial+incest

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hibernian
    “Oh, yes,” she said, “we believed her all right, but we did not think the prosecution had adequately proved its case, so we found him not guilty.”

    My first impression is that sounds like they take reasonable doubt seriously; it's not an auto accident based civil case decided by the preponderance of the evidence. On further reflection, I see the point that it's about justice, not how good a show they put on. Her words, without the context you had knowing her and hearing them directly, don't seem shocking to me.

  41. Wency says:
    @Peter Johnson
    There is one important lesson from the O.J. trial -- wise individuals who are HBD-aware should use that knowledge to improve their own lives and that of their families and communities. It is also useful and fun whenever possible to take advantage of otherwise-smart people who are deliberately HBD-ignorant. Just do not ever mention to them, before or after, how you trapped them into bad decisions.

    But what can you do with this advice unless your career somehow intersects extensively with blacks/Hispanics?

    And if it does, you probably already screwed up somehow. E.g., you became a criminal attorney instead of any other kind of attorney. Or you’re working for a payday loan company instead of JP Morgan.

    Cochran probably wouldn’t have done as well as a tax attorney, but he also wasn’t reading about HBD — he was just observing the world for what it is. This is the more generally applicable skill/talent.

    Read More
  42. Anon7 says:

    I liked this miniseries a lot, but Cuba Gooding never gets it to work. The big problem is that OJ was on TV too much; I saw him up close and personal hundreds of times, in Hertz commercials, in the movie Naked Gun, as a sports commentator and then finally as a defendant in the actual trial. Also, as you say, Gooding is just too small; he’s like Ice Cube in the second film that killed the XXX movie franchise, I just can’t feel menaced by this little rolypoly cuddly guy.

    John Travolta is amazing; his portrayal of Shapiro as a focused and brilliant legal mind and fixer who is absolutely tone deaf about race relations is so good you just can’t take your eyes off him.

    I thought it was funny that the prosecution also had a “dream team”, that is, a white female and a black male lawyer, that was as good as diversity got in the 1990′s. And what a fiasco; both of them were put in place by a bureaucracy focused on Affirmative Action as the ultimate excellence, as opposed to competence.

    Read More
    • Replies: @ANON
    A woman, a black, and an Asian, affirmative action in action
  43. Those look like Roma Gypsies not ethnic Romanians.Defecating in the street is still common behavior in India .Yet the Roma left India in the Middle Ages and made their way to Eastern Europe . Damn , talk about HBD .

    Read More
  44. Fredrik says:
    @Romanian
    Off-topic for Steve Sailer

    Maybe somebody avoided posting this to not hurt my feelings :), but here's another jab at the effects of diversity.

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/07/14/pennsylvania-residents-protest-romanian-immigrants-defecating-killing-chickens-public/

    Although, I do feel the need to add scare quotes around Romanian.

    Also, the "European" immigrants seem to be appropriate targets for criticism. Kind of like when France experienced its extreme Schadenfreude when deporting EE Gypsies or the Brexiteers railed against the Polish plumber.

    Events like these could, and should, be used to teach unknowing do-gooders how things work.

    That the very people who either act disgustingly in public(Romanian gypsies) or rob/rape natives(Muslim “youths”) are the same people the do-gooders feel so strongly for.

    But of course that won’t happen.

    Read More
  45. Ragno says:

    Travolta is…..one of the top 50 or so greatest movie stars of all time

    Oh dear God no….say it ain’t so, Steve!

    Not that Revolta is one of the All-Time Top 50 (he clearly isn’t), but that you calibrate that Top 50 by overweighting whoever has dominated the past 25-odd years of tabloid coverage, while simultaneously discarding anyone who was around before PEOPLE and US magazines (and, by coincidence I’m sure, your own presence on the planet).

    Try this thought-experiment: fast-forward 25 years or so and retype that sentence only with “John Travolta” replaced by “Keanu Reeves”, “The Rock” or “Shia LaBouef”. Now – can you taste that acrid liquid squirting up from your esophagus? Relax – that’s just bile.

    Read More
  46. whorefinder says: • Website
    @Simon in London
    >>Johnnie Cochran starts out advising the Dream Team that their ideal juror is a black man<<

    Men don't like men who kill women, whatever the race. Women are *much* more forgiving, especially if it's a good looking man. If you're defending a man, you want women on the jury. If you're defending a woman you want men on the jury - men tend to sympathise with female defendants more, too.

    I think it's amazing a prosecutor could be so blind to human nature as not to realise this after a few trials.

    I think it’s amazing a prosecutor could be so blind to human nature as not to realise this after a few trials.

    Two reasons:

    1. The jury was weird. The people who usually get on juries are law-abiding folk who pay their taxes, renew their licenses on time, and obey government edicts, like orders to come to jury duty. The flakes, hustlers, scumbags, and anti-government types don’t show up, or if they do make it known they won’t take a case seriously, and so don’t get on juries. So juries are usually pretty biased towards cops and law-and-order and prosecutors tailor their arguments towards their biases (and often don’t have to try so hard to do it).

    The O.J. trial, however, was an event, and came right after the Rodney King cop acquittal, and many of those same yahoos and scumbags actively tried to get on the jury. Celebrity trials are exciting, and many blacks wanted O.J. off because of Rodney King . So it was an abnormal jury pool: far less pro-law-and-order and filled with a lot of folks openly hostile to convicting O.J. and also eager to serve on his jury. The prosecutors were too dumb to realize this.

    2. Affirmative action. Clark and Darden were two big affirmative action hires. They were pushed due to their sex (Clark) and race (Darden). So they kept failing upwards, and never learned to do better for tougher cases. They basically assumed because of their sex and race they would win and they were geniuses, because that’s how they got ahead in the office and everyone told them so.

    Johnny Cochran must’ve licked his lips when he saw them at the prosecutor’s table.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hibernian
    "The people who usually get on juries are law-abiding folk who pay their taxes, renew their licenses on time, and obey government edicts, like orders to come to jury duty."

    It may be one edict they might try to avoid, not blatantly by saying "I'm prejuidiced" thereby being subject to the wrath of the judge, but more subtly by advertising their nerdishness. "I love computers; I love analyzing facts; I'm a law and order guy but I'll TRY to be fair," etc. The defense will tend to use its preemptories on these people.

    While some of the poor may throw away the summons, to others it's something to do for a while and get a small cash stipend plus possibly some meals.

    The middle class is also thinking about their jobs , and also their salaries which far surpass the meager jury pay.

    I would say your point has some validity in that a trial such as that of OJ may amplify racial solidarity on the pro defense side and increase racial fear in prospective white middle class jurors.

  47. MikeJa says:

    If you can only manage one 7 hour mini-series then I’d recommend OJ: Made in America. I found the interviews with the players more compelling. It gets a bit PC when going over the history of the LAPD and race – I had more sympathy than the filmmakers for the LAPD – but if you don’t at least understand the other side you can’t see where the verdict came from.

    Read More
  48. Betcha the real Robert Shapiro was thrilled with Travolta’s portrayal of him as a barely closeted homosexual.

    Read More
  49. whorefinder says: • Website

    One theme of the series is spelled out in a derisive comment by Marcia Clark, who points out that the prosecution’s secret weapon is that all the alpha male egos on the Dream Team will cause the defense to implode.

    Only a feminist could be so stupid. Men do have ego battles, of course, but male-only groups will, if given enough time, coalesce into a hierarchy, and will follow along with that hierarchy to achieve a group goal. The length of the entire O.J. ordeal gave the defense team enough time to sort out who was top dog and who was going to run the show, and then attack the prosecution full force.

    Clark, being a feminazi, had no concept of how men actually behaved, since her delusional feminist religion didn’t allow her to think it. If she’d been smart, she’d have pushed very hard for a quick trial, to keep the men from consolidating, or maybe done some open whining to the press about how the O.J. team wasn’t “diverse” because it had no women, thereby getting a token female lawyer on board with O.J.’s squad and having her presence cause trouble (the presence of women, even unattractive ones, has long been noted to reduce male-group cohesion, since men invariably either seek to protect her or dismiss her, causing male conflict).

    But then again, if Clark’d been smart, she would have recused herself when she realized she was over her head.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AnotherDad

    Clark, being a feminazi, had no concept of how men actually behaved, since her delusional feminist religion didn’t allow her to think it.
     
    Yep.

    Women are clearly the more emotionally tuned in and socially aware sex. They are on average much better than men in understanding women. And they are better at understanding men--especially individually--than men are at understanding women. (Certainly better than men like me raised with no sisters and a fairly level-headed mom--a farm girl raised in the depression with four brothers. I was clueless about the actual nature of women, when I started out into the world as a wet behind the ears pup. Had to learn it all by "trial and error"--lots of error.)

    But despite their social awareness women seem to really suck at understand men's interactions with each other. And women seem to have little to no clue how utterly fortunate they are that men--white men at least--are quite capable of cooperating as necessary to get the job done and that as result women benefit from men's the incredible achievements and enjoy incredible peace and prosperity. To say feminism doesn't aid that understanding is an understatement.

  50. kihowi says:
    @Simon in London
    >>Johnnie Cochran starts out advising the Dream Team that their ideal juror is a black man<<

    Men don't like men who kill women, whatever the race. Women are *much* more forgiving, especially if it's a good looking man. If you're defending a man, you want women on the jury. If you're defending a woman you want men on the jury - men tend to sympathise with female defendants more, too.

    I think it's amazing a prosecutor could be so blind to human nature as not to realise this after a few trials.

    You’re assuming she really wanted to convict him and didn’t let her vagina override her ambition. The last half century’s politics have been dominated by white women’s love for black criminals. Why would she be immune?

    Read More
  51. BB753 says:

    John Travolta, one of the greatest movie stars of all time? Please, Steve!
    He’s been working steadily ever since his come-back in Pulp Fiction, but he’s not an A-lister. Close but not quite.

    Read More
  52. Anon7 says:

    In related OJ news, Simpson’s real-life parole hearing will take place at 10 a.m. PT on Thursday, July 20, from Nevada and will be broadcast in a video pool, with networks including ESPN airing it live.

    Read More
  53. @Simon in London
    >>Johnnie Cochran starts out advising the Dream Team that their ideal juror is a black man<<

    Men don't like men who kill women, whatever the race. Women are *much* more forgiving, especially if it's a good looking man. If you're defending a man, you want women on the jury. If you're defending a woman you want men on the jury - men tend to sympathise with female defendants more, too.

    I think it's amazing a prosecutor could be so blind to human nature as not to realise this after a few trials.

    “it’s amazing a prosecutor could be so blind to human nature as not to realise this”

    She didn’t need to see human nature. She’s a feminist. She’s on the right side of history, dammit!

    Read More
  54. Claude says:

    Just watched this miniseries with the wife a month or so ago. I remember her saying “John Travolta is playing Arnold Schwarzenegger in this?”

    I had my doubts about Cuba Holding Jr but when he said that line “I’m not black, I’m OJ!” I don’t think many black leading men could (or would want to) pull that off believably. Hard to imagine Denzel saying that and the audience accepting it.

    Read More
  55. a formative event for me, but it was more of a confirmatory one

    boss lady Marcia’s self-confidence in her own bad judgment, most notably about blacks, women, and, especially, black women.

    Yep.

    Read More
  56. tyrone says:
    @Rob McX
    A prosecutor called Nancy Grace appeared on the Geraldo show with some jurors who had written books. She recalls what one of them said as she was about to get into a limousine outside the studio: "You know, Nancy, the O.J. Simpson case — this trial — it’s the best thing that ever happened to me. I get to come to New York, I get all these nice clothes, I get all these interviews, I get to stay in all these hotels and [eat] fancy dinners. I mean, it’s been great!’”

    It’s the modern american celebrity ,famous for nothing ,who ever heard of a kardasian until this fiasco.

    Read More
  57. anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    Back in the day, I had the opportunity to assist in the defense of an auto accident case in which the client was Chinese. The attorney with whom I worked was petrified at the thought of having to put this man on the witness stand. One reason was because although the man claimed he had been living in America for nearly twenty years he kept insisting that he didn’t understand English well and needed an interpreter.

    The main reason, however, was because non-Oriental jurors for the most part hate Oriental drivers.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AnotherDad

    The main reason, however, was because non-Oriental jurors for the most part hate Oriental drivers.
     
    Our highways--one more area, another "commons", where the blessings of diversity are apparent as a nation of a common people and culture dies.

    (Really would it kill you to move out of the left lane so other people can pass?)
  58. @Dave Pinsen
    The miniseries was very well done, and the casting, hair, and makeup were great for everyone except Cuba Gooding, Jr., as you note.

    Try to stick it out to the end, though. I'm curious if the shunning depicted in the last episode happened in real life.

    There's also a humorous bit where Johnny Cochrane has O.J.'s house redecorated in Afrocentric style before the jurors get to tour it, IIRC (seems odd the court would let them do that, but I don't know).

    There's also a funny scene where the sequestered jurors have to decide whether to watch Seinfeld or Martin tapes.

    There’s also a humorous bit where Johnny Cochrane has O.J.’s house redecorated in Afrocentric style before the jurors get to tour it, IIRC (seems odd the court would let them do that, but I don’t know).

    That part is true. Before the murders, the walls were filled with photos of OJ and his famous friends, nearly all of them rich white men and beautiful white women. On the nightstand by his bed he had a framed nude photo of the latest Playboy slut he was dating, Paula Barbieri. Practically the only black person in any of the photos was OJ. But after Cochran got done, all the white people were gone, replaced with pictures of his family members, black kids helped by some of his fundraising efforts, etc. The nude photo of his white girlfriend beside his bed was swapped out for a picture of his mother (hopefully fully clothed). Portraits of people like MLK were put up, African art was moved in, and to top it all off, a huge print of Norman Rockwell’s The Problem We All Live With, the painting of the little black girl surrounded by federal marshals as she enters a formerly all-white school in 1960. Behind her, “the N word” has been sprayed on a wall, and a tomato has splattered, clearly meant for her. The painting dominated the room, and sent the jury a clear message that OJ was a true Race Man.

    No competent judge would ever allowed such a thing to occur. Lance Ito was a starstruck buffoon, and let the defense get away will all sorts of outrageous behavior.

    Read More
  59. O.J. was not acquitted because of Black women’s perceptions of his marriage. He was acquitted because the blood evidence was discredited once L.A.P.D. could not account for all the blood they extracted from Simpson. The cops screwed the case because they tried to frame a man they likely could have convicted.

    Read More
    • Replies: @larry lurker
    I'm agnostic about whether the LAPD tried to "tighten up" the case a bit by planting evidence. Regardless, it certainly didn't help the prosecution when Fuhrmann returned to the stand after being outed as a "genocidal racist"/perjurer and he played it safe by invoking the Fifth in response to every single question he was asked, including whether he had planted/tampered with evidence.
    , @ANON
    The cops had nothing to do with mishandling the blood evidence. That evidence was collected at the scene and handled by the affirmative action incompetent evidence technicians.

    I was there. Although all my information came from reading the newspaper, it was obvious to me that the powers that be ordered the mayor and DA Garcetti to lose the case because the black politicians threatened a repeat of the Holy Martyr Saint Rodney riots if OJ were not acquitted.

    Frankly, I was surprised he was arrested and charged.
  60. @Jenner Ickham Errican
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RM7lw0Ovzq0

    OT? The above song has been noticed by the ADL for these lines:

    "You wanna know what's more important than throwin' away money at a strip club? Credit.

    You ever wonder why Jewish people own all the property in America? This how they did it."
     
    Like Steve has often noticed interesting demographic dynamics in debt peonage schemes, Ta-Nehisi ‘Redline’ Coates once noticed the ethnic background of operators in a specific type of alleged Chicago real estate “desegregation” chicanery, but doesn’t go too far with his reverse “J’accuse…!”:

    I am tempted to read something into this regarding the results of oppression, given that the speculators Satter is discussing are almost all Jewish, but I think that might be too far afield for me.
     

    CREDIT says the song by Jay-Z in answer to the question as to how to build wealth instead of dissipating wealth at a strip club. That song by Jay-Z has a nice bass line with a fine piano accompaniment.

    White Core Americans should understand that voting to take over the corporate propaganda apparatus is the way to financial freedom. First you take over the propaganda, and then you take over the financial system.

    The Republican Party is going to campaign against the media in the mid-term elections. Patriots should force the Republican candidates to talk about de-concentrating the ownership of the corporate media. Republican donors like the fact that their essential interests are protected by the corporate media. Republican voters and Republican donors are going to brawl it out.

    The privately-controlled Federal Reserve Bank has kept CREDIT cheap in order to prop up asset bubbles. Jay-Z sings about how he has benefited from the asset bubble in art created by cheap credit. Dennis Hopper might have been a genius who invested in art knowing that art would be bid up to the stratosphere by monetary extremism and cheap credit.

    Read More
  61. kihowi says:

    But then focus groups reveal that not even Johnnie Cochran is cynical enough: black women love O.J., especially now that that blonde bitch ex-wife is permanently out of the picture.

    Ever thought about the possibility that black women now loved him because he killed his white wife?

    Read More
  62. Alfa158 says:
    @Romanian
    Off-topic for Steve Sailer

    Maybe somebody avoided posting this to not hurt my feelings :), but here's another jab at the effects of diversity.

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/07/14/pennsylvania-residents-protest-romanian-immigrants-defecating-killing-chickens-public/

    Although, I do feel the need to add scare quotes around Romanian.

    Also, the "European" immigrants seem to be appropriate targets for criticism. Kind of like when France experienced its extreme Schadenfreude when deporting EE Gypsies or the Brexiteers railed against the Polish plumber.

    Those aren’t Romanians, they’re Romany as they call themselves, better known as Gypsies. Of course the newspapers would never label them correctly, because then they would be showing non-Whites in a bad light.

    Read More
  63. That said, the worst thing the DA did was let the jury be composed of blacks. Blacks will never convict a black man for killing whites. Hell that was talked about on talk radio when the trail was going on.

    DA Garcetti wanted the jury to have lots of blacks on it. He could have held the trial in Santa Monica. Going by where the murders took place, and where the suspect lived, it should’ve been held there. Garcetti came up with all kinds of excuses for moving the trial downtown, but everyone knows he did so because a Santa Monica jury would’ve been overwhelmingly white, while a downtown jury was going to have very few whites and lots of blacks. Being just two years after the riots of the beating of the Rev. Dr. Rodney Luther King, Garcetti was afraid that if a white jury convicted a black supercelebrity of murder, all hell would break loose.

    In her book, Marcia Clark defends her idiotic feminist (and clearly racist) idea that she should gets lots of black women on the jury because black women suffer lots of domestic violence and would sympathize with Nicole. However, she says at several points in the book that it didn’t matter who wound up getting picked, a downtown jury was never going to convict OJ Simpson. In the section of her book describing the jury selection process, at the end, she says she then knew that this jury was never going to find Simpson, and that the case was doomed the moment Garcetti moved it from Santa Monica to downtown.

    They should had at least several white men on the jury, they could have had a hung jury and forced a retrial just to f**k with the dream team.

    That wasn’t going to happen downtown, which is why Garcetti moved it. And even in Santa Monica, there may have been only a few white men on the jury. White men are producers and breadwinners, and few can afford to spend months on a jury with no income. The white men who are successful enough that they could afford to so don’t want to – they’ve got stuff to do, and sitting on a jury for months listening to lawyers isn’t one of them. Plus, defense lawyers know that normal white Gentile males are the prosecution’s best friend,and they will do whatever it takes to keep as many as they can off the jury.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rob McX
    It's really strange that a prosecutor would make the decision to move a case to where acquittal was almost certain. Was he taking orders from higher up that this case had to be lost (a second riot in LA in three years could not be contemplated), or someone would see to it that his career would be ruined?
  64. @Dave Pinsen
    Bear in mind that the evidence against O.J. was so overwhelming that the prosecution was probably a little overconfident based on that.

    The evidence was inconclusive. This reminds me of a quote from another case. There is no evidence the defendant is guilty, but their is no evidence the defendant is innocent.”

    Read More
  65. @Dave Pinsen
    The miniseries was very well done, and the casting, hair, and makeup were great for everyone except Cuba Gooding, Jr., as you note.

    Try to stick it out to the end, though. I'm curious if the shunning depicted in the last episode happened in real life.

    There's also a humorous bit where Johnny Cochrane has O.J.'s house redecorated in Afrocentric style before the jurors get to tour it, IIRC (seems odd the court would let them do that, but I don't know).

    There's also a funny scene where the sequestered jurors have to decide whether to watch Seinfeld or Martin tapes.

    There’s also a humorous bit where Johnny Cochrane has O.J.’s house redecorated in Afrocentric style before the jurors get to tour it, IIRC (seems odd the court would let them do that, but I don’t know).

    One of OJ’s defense attorneys, Carl Douglas, in the 30 for 30 documentary from last year: “If we had had a Latin jury, we would have had a picture of him in a sombrero! There would have been a mariachi band out front! We would have had a piñata at the top of the staircase!”

    Read More
  66. @Erik Sieven
    "The miniseries length is a good one for this tale, since the screenwriters can squeeze in most of the self-satirizing incidents without needing to rush like in a movie or drag it out endlessly like in a multiyear series or in real life."
    That´s why House of Cards should also have been a miniseries.

    Most of British, ergo Old World, moving-picture shows that have got unculturally appropriated by Hollywood end being technically maybe superior, but contentwise downgraded to junk.

    Enjoy the original version:

    http://www.primewire.ag/watch-116776-House-of-Cards-online-free

    Read More
  67. @Jenner Ickham Errican
    The highlight of the famous Bronco chase:

    https://youtu.be/bLmoqbR3gto?t=24s

    Quite the tensis!

    Al Michaels appeared on Stern a few months later to discuss the incident, video here. Apparently he was already a friend of the show.

    Read More
  68. @Jenner Ickham Errican
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RM7lw0Ovzq0

    OT? The above song has been noticed by the ADL for these lines:

    "You wanna know what's more important than throwin' away money at a strip club? Credit.

    You ever wonder why Jewish people own all the property in America? This how they did it."
     
    Like Steve has often noticed interesting demographic dynamics in debt peonage schemes, Ta-Nehisi ‘Redline’ Coates once noticed the ethnic background of operators in a specific type of alleged Chicago real estate “desegregation” chicanery, but doesn’t go too far with his reverse “J’accuse…!”:

    I am tempted to read something into this regarding the results of oppression, given that the speculators Satter is discussing are almost all Jewish, but I think that might be too far afield for me.
     

    Is that a real song that people listen to? Appallingly bad. An insult to bad taste. Ugly, moronic, foul, boring, stupid, offensive, demeaning, dull. It sounds like something to zone out on when you’re stoned beyond all boundaries (sorry Pink Floyd). Like something Satan would play to his insane minions to prolong the torment of Hell.

    I’m sorry, but if this is what black kids are listening to then there is no shred of hope for them.

    Read More
  69. @eah
    People interested in such depictions of the Simpson case should from time to time review fotos of the crime scene -- so when they sit down with their popcorn and the show starts again they keep in mind what it was all about.

    Yeah, OJ didn’t just kill those two, he butchered them.

    Read More
  70. Marty says:

    OJ’s great rushing season was 1973, not ’76. He was 6’2″/205, which at the time was large for a running back, especially a fast one. For comparison, when OJ was at USC, the star running back for the L.A. Rams was Dick Bass, 5’9″, who I saw set a single-game pro rushing record of 248 yards one day in San Francisco.

    When we talk about the futility, for racial reasons, of convicting Simpson, it has to be remembered that in 1994 he was just about the only model of success in the wider commercial world that blacks could look to. I’ll never forget a piece in The New Republic, by some black woman I’d never heard of, arguing that Simpson had doubtless suffered from the “pressure” of being a successful black man among whites. Laughable as this seems, it was probably the actual view among blacks. For his book on the case, Bugliosi spoke to various black community leaders about any efforts Simpson had made to maintain contact with “the community.” Answer: nothing.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Dick Bass, 5’9″, who I saw set a single-game pro rushing record of 248 yards one day in San Francisco.

    I listened to the Dick Bass game on the radio.

    , @David In TN
    Dick Bass never rushed for 248 yards in a game for the Rams. Willie Ellison gained 247 yards for the Rams against the Saints on (I checked pro football reference) December 5, 1971. I saw it on CBS TV. It was the doubleheader game.

    O.J. broke the record Ellison set in 1971 with 250 yards against New England in the 1973 season opener.

    Dick Bass was quite a runner. He had several good seasons in the early 60's when the Rams were down. Vince Lombardi once said "Bass has more moves than a clock."

  71. hyperbola says:

    More “keep Americans dumb and gullible” stories? How about something with some real meat instead of regurgitating the thought-control stupidities of the racist, foreign sect that controls “our” media.

    Martin Luther King assassinated by US Govt: King Family civil trial verdict

    http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/01/martin-luther-king-assassinated-us-govt-king-family-civil-trial-verdict.html

    …Dr. Martin Luther King’s family and personal friend/attorney, William F. Pepper, won a civil trial that found US government agencies guilty of assassination/wrongful death. The 1999 trial, King Family versus Jowers and Other Unknown Co-Conspirators, is the only trial ever conducted on the assassination of Dr. King. The King Center fully documents the case, with full trial transcript (to more fully explain the following summary of evidence, here is the best article I’ve found).

    The overwhelming evidence of US government complicity found valid by the jury includes:

    US 111th Military Intelligence Group were at Dr. King’s location during the assassination.
    20th Special Forces Group had an 8-man sniper team at the assassination location on that day.
    Usual Memphis Police special body guards were advised they “weren’t needed” on the day of the assassination.
    Regular and constant police protection for Dr. King was removed from protecting Dr. King an hour before the assassination.

    Military Intelligence set-up photographers on the roof of a fire station with clear view to Dr. King’s balcony.
    Dr. King’s room was changed from a secure 1st-floor room to an exposed balcony room.
    Memphis police ordered the scene where multiple witnesses reported as the source of shooting cut down of their bushes that would have hid a sniper.
    Along with sanitizing a crime scene, police abandoned investigative procedure to interview witnesses who lived by the scene of the shooting.
    The rifle Mr. Ray delivered was not matched to the bullet that killed Dr. King, and was not sighted to accurately shoot.

    ….. US corporate media did not cover the civil trial, interview the King family, and textbooks omit this information. This is crucial evidence of a controlled corporate media rejecting coverage of a game-changing story. Journalist and author, James Douglass:

    “I can hardly believe the fact that, apart from the courtroom participants, only Memphis TV reporter Wendell Stacy and I attended from beginning to end this historic three-and-one-half week trial. Because of journalistic neglect scarcely anyone else in this land of ours even knows what went on in it. After critical testimony was given in the trial’s second week before an almost empty gallery, Barbara Reis, U.S. correspondent for the Lisbon daily Publico who was there several days, turned to me and said, ‘Everything in the U.S. is the trial of the century. O.J. Simpson’s trial was the trial of the century. Clinton’s trial was the trial of the century. But this is the trial of the century, and who’s here?’ ”

    For comparison, please consider the media coverage of O.J. Simpson’s trials:………….

    Read More
    • Replies: @Paul Jolliffe
    It's better than that, actually. It was apparent right from the start that the aliases used by James Earl Ray ( Eric St. V. Galt, John Willard, Paul Bridgman, and Ramon Sneyd) had been given to him by someone who knew that all four men - residents of Scarborough Canada - all four men strongly resembled James Earl Ray!

    Not only was Ray using Galt's name, but he was also using an old version of Galt's signature. However, the real Galt changed the way he signed his name in 1966, yet Ray was in prison from 1960 to 1967!

    The obvious conclusion is that someone provided Ray the name and signature from a file that was slightly outdated. A file drawn from a database that included the photographs of men whose resemblance to Ray matched down to the scars on their faces!

    The resemblance between Ray and these four real men was not a perfect match, yet it was close enough to fool any passing stranger who was not paying close attention. No one has ever alleged that Ray actually knew or met or had any connection to these men, nor they to each other.

    Yet someone had access to their photos and to Ray and put it all together to make him a fall-guy, just as he claimed in his letter to the judge (who literally dropped dead of a heart attack while reading it!)
  72. It wasn’t just that Marcia Clark “misunderestimated” the loyalty black women would have in standing by their man, but just as importantly, California law at the time would only allow DNA evidence if the party presenting it actually first proved its scientific merits to the jury.

    Clark”s mistake in allowing so many black women on the jury was compounded by the fact that they found the testimony of scientific experts boring and largely irrelevant. The jurors just flat out didn’t have the intelligence to comprehend what they were being told or what relevance it may have had for determining OJ’s innocence or guilt.

    It is impossible to overstate how stupid black people are. White people literally can’t fathom it because they are so much smarter.

    Read More
    • Replies: @ANON
    40 percent of them have IQs under 80 which is retarded.
  73. utu says:

    Travolta really stands out when miscast. I am thinking of him as a general in The Thin Red Line which is one of the best WWII movies.

    Read More
  74. Bugg says:
    @Dave Pinsen
    Bear in mind that the evidence against O.J. was so overwhelming that the prosecution was probably a little overconfident based on that.

    Which led to the stupidity of moving the trial downtown and more African-Americans into the jury pool.Remarkable supposedly seasoned prosecutors believed black women would be more inclined to convict; another example of goodwhites misreading reality.

    In my misspent youth as first an ADA in “the northeast” and then occasionally as a defense attorney, every jury selection in a criminal case involving an African-American defendant consisted of first challenging jurors for cause to make the jury more or less black and sympathetic to the defendant. Or then giving race-neutral reasons for knocking out a juror if you needed to use peremptory challenge. Most of those reasons in both instances were smokescreens either way; lawyers pretend otherwise. But we all know what’s going on.

    But as to the OJ case, how empty must your life be to put everything on hold for almost a year. Further most Americans are used to getting their information in the 22.5 minutes of a Seinfeld or Martin rerun. The tedious legalese that lawyers pretend is brilliance are a great way to get 12 people very bored and drowsy. What attorneys are not allowed to say out loud is it’s very hard find jurors who are truly unbiased.And further most sensible people figure out very quickly how to get out of jury duty. The one thing this show brings home is what a complete waste of time the jury system is. The OJ case is an extreme example, but the legalistic nonsense wastes hours an days of court time pointlessly.

    Read More
    • Replies: @hyperbola
    Dragging out this "psy-ops" divide and conquer operation for a full year was intended. And who were the major players in the circus.

    Alan Dershowitz: plagiarist, liar and racist
    http://jewssansfrontieres.blogspot.com.es/2006/05/alan-dershowitz-plagiarist-liar-and.html
  75. Bugg says:
    @Dave Pinsen
    Bear in mind that the evidence against O.J. was so overwhelming that the prosecution was probably a little overconfident based on that.

    Clark did not present evidence of Simpson’s fleeing, which legally could have had the jury instructed that while not dispositive, such an attempt to flee was consistent with consciousness of guilt. But those black ladies were not going to convict.

    Read More
  76. cthulhu says:

    The part of the OJ saga that sticks in my head is when the verdict was read: Robert Kardashian, sitting at the defense table, has this unmistakable gut-punched-sick-to-his-stomach, I-can’t-believe-he-got-away-with-it expression on his face and accompanying body language. Check out the video; it’s obvious he’s in real distress. Kardashian clearly knew that OJ was stone guilty; it’s highly plausible that OJ confessed to him early on before Shapiro came on board, when it seemed that Simpson was going to give up or possibly even commit suicide.

    Read More
  77. Bill P says:
    @Rod1963
    No they were just stupid. Not all DA's are like those SVU. Fact is most DA's don't like trials and prefer doing plea deals even in murder cases. Trials are messy and they expose stupid DA's real fast, especially if they can't get the right sort of jury.

    Look, no one today or even 20 years ago wants to serve on such a jury who works for a living, they'd lose everything if goes on for more than a few days as they don't get paid by their employer. This means you get losers on welfare, retirees, teachers and assorted nit nats that aren't to bright to begin with. Good for the defense bad for the prosecution.

    That said, the worst thing the DA did was let the jury be composed of blacks. Blacks will never convict a black man for killing whites. Hell that was talked about on talk radio when the trail was going on. They should had at least several white men on the jury, they could have had a hung jury and forced a retrial just to f**k with the dream team.

    It's black psychology 101. Whites not being tribal don't get it.

    If anything, black women are more racially vindictive than black men. Having recently attended a half-black high school when the trial started, I knew OJ would dodge conviction when I saw they were a majority on the jury. I had no doubt at all.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    Agree 100%. I have worked with many black women and I know just what they are like. Back in 2003 when Kobe Bryant was accused of raping a white woman, they all said that it didn't matter because black women were raped during slavery.
  78. @Jenner Ickham Errican
    The highlight of the famous Bronco chase:

    https://youtu.be/bLmoqbR3gto?t=24s

    The highlight of the famous Bronco chase:

    I don’t remember any jokes about the irony of a Bill driving a Bronco. Were there any? Sounds treasonous to me.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Brutusale
    OJ wasn't driving.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Cowlings

    It would have been a Bill/Ram/Oiler/Seahawk/49er driving a Bronco!
  79. “white feminist prosecutor Marcia Clark thinks loading the jury up with black women is a great idea.”

    Race trumps gender. Clark still doesn’t get that fact about human nature, and probably would’ve done the same thing if faced with the same decision today.

    For her to have won the case, she would’ve had to

    1. NOT agree to move the case downtown, but keep it in West LA.
    2. NOT agree to a jury composed largely of black women
    3. Attempt to stack the jury with mostly middle class white men
    4. Step down from leading the prosecution and bring in an A-list prosecutor from out of town.

    Still don’t fully understand the reasoning behind “Let’s move the trial from where the crime occurred to downtown”. Makes no sense whatsoever. With that reasoning, why not move it to Cupertino? Makes no sense. That ace in her hand was thrown away, she didn’t have to agree to that at all. The crime didn’t occur downtown, duh.

    Of course, Clark (or an A-list prosecutor) needed to have been perceptive enough to realize that OJ was well admired by sports loving white men, so either way there was no guarantee he would’ve been convicted.

    What about white women? That’s the wild card in the question. Would they have sided with OJ or convicted him at the time?

    “Travolta isn’t as competent as his fellow Scientologist Tom Cruise at picking scripts, but, even so, he’s one of the top 50 or so greatest movie stars of all time”

    That’s a mighty big claim to make, Steve. Not sure about top 50, perhaps top 100. Unless you mean that he’s among the top male 50 movie stars. No, still don’t see it. Classic Hollywood era (ca.1930-60) alone could produce near 25-35.

    “O.J. wasn’t huge for the most famous football player in America (first as the most celebrated college football star since Red Grange in the 1920s”

    TV, color TV, largely made that fact possible.

    Read More
    • Replies: @hyperbola
    Travolta has always struck me as vulgar and boring. That anyone would even think of including him in a list of "best" actors" is a good example of how dumbed down Americans/Hollywood have become.
  80. In contrast, the more hierarchical prosecution was doomed by boss lady Marcia’s self-confidence in her own bad judgment, most notably about blacks, women, and, especially, black women.

    A metaphor for the feminized disaster that’s the West.

    Read More
  81. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Rod1963
    No they were just stupid. Not all DA's are like those SVU. Fact is most DA's don't like trials and prefer doing plea deals even in murder cases. Trials are messy and they expose stupid DA's real fast, especially if they can't get the right sort of jury.

    Look, no one today or even 20 years ago wants to serve on such a jury who works for a living, they'd lose everything if goes on for more than a few days as they don't get paid by their employer. This means you get losers on welfare, retirees, teachers and assorted nit nats that aren't to bright to begin with. Good for the defense bad for the prosecution.

    That said, the worst thing the DA did was let the jury be composed of blacks. Blacks will never convict a black man for killing whites. Hell that was talked about on talk radio when the trail was going on. They should had at least several white men on the jury, they could have had a hung jury and forced a retrial just to f**k with the dream team.

    It's black psychology 101. Whites not being tribal don't get it.

    You were right till the last sentence. In fact, Barry Scheck, one of the Dream Teamers, went ahead to atone for racist jury decisions by setting up the https://www.innocenceproject.org/ to free mostly black defendants wrongly sentenced by all white juries.

    Read More
  82. Pat Boyle says:
    @Dieter Kief
    I'm glad you wrote this brilliant and short article. My impression is: I know a lot of what there is to know about this stuff. Took me what - a few minutes. Such are the miracles of great writing.

    (What delighted me most is the remark about the group dynamics in the opposing teams of the Simpson lawyers and the prosecution, headed by Marcia Clark, and how they were motivated).

    On your recommendation I will now try to watch this series.

    In fact OJ himself wasn’t all that big. I was running across Market Street in San Francisco many years ago when I noticed that Simpson was running beside me. I was surprised at how small he was.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Johann Ricke

    I was surprised at how small he was.
     
    To a tall person, everyone else seems like a midget.
    , @Dieter Kief
    Spoiler alert!

    (My comment was strictly aimed at Steve Sailer's (brillianty) written words, not at the mini-series).

    ((My intention was to show, that iSteve readers might s k i p the mini-series after having read Steve Sailer's few lines. So your reaction just seems to show, that saying something and understandig something are two pretty different things.
    As one of my favorite philosophers (and communication theorists...) has it: That people manage to understand one another via words is - given the complexity of the underlying phenomenons -something quite wonderous - if not improbable alltogether)). That's quite ironic, isn't it?

    Unless your comment was written as an ironic (=playful) reply...

    This then would mean, that I was a little bit slow (cf. my remarks up until the word "Unless"), but except for that, everything is fine...

    (((Everything's just fine anyway!)))
    , @Rohirrimborn
    I was surprised at how small he was.

    I had the same reaction when I (almost literally) bumped into OJ. It was December in the early nineties and I was getting off the escalator on the second floor of Bloomingdale's department store in Manhattan. I had to stop short to let a pretty blond in a buckskin jacket pass directly in front of me. The face of the man she was with and mine were just inches apart in the crowd and I instantly recognized it was OJ. Only after the murder did I realize that the blond was Nicole. What struck me is that I remember looking down at OJ even though I'm six-foot even. I immediately turned to my wife behind me and told her that the man who just passed in front of me was OJ. She looked at him walking away and didn't believe me. I insisted it was him so she purposely walked around the floor to approach him from the front. My wife was from a small midwestern town and had never seen a big celebrity in the flesh before. I'll never forget her excitement when she came back and confirmed that it was indeed OJ. Later it came out in the press that OJ had purchased the infamous gloves in December at Bloomingdale's. I'm sure that it was the same visit when I saw him and Nicole. Gives me the creeps every time I remember that encounter.
  83. Pat Boyle says:
    @Simon in London
    >>Johnnie Cochran starts out advising the Dream Team that their ideal juror is a black man<<

    Men don't like men who kill women, whatever the race. Women are *much* more forgiving, especially if it's a good looking man. If you're defending a man, you want women on the jury. If you're defending a woman you want men on the jury - men tend to sympathise with female defendants more, too.

    I think it's amazing a prosecutor could be so blind to human nature as not to realise this after a few trials.

    Your thesis is that men go easier on women and women on men. If this is true there should be some statistics on this phenomenon.

    Read More
    • Replies: @whorefinder
    Rape trials.

    When juries were all men, almost any rape case that went to trial got convictions. Why? Simple: if it got to trial, the DA would put the alleged victim on the stand, where she would look at the defendant and either faint or tearfully point at him and say that he raped her. Case closed: the all-male jury would hang the bastard.

    Then as women were allowed on juries, rape convictions after trial went down. Why? Because women on juries wouldn't fall for such theatrics. They'd notice the victim had gone home with the man willingly, was wearing a pretty daring outfit, and would hear testimony about how the man had spurned her for another woman, or notice that she was a little too friendly with the alleged rapist's longtime enemy, etc. . In short, women knew that women lied, and you started getting a lot more not guilties and hung juries.

    The feminist lies about the sisterhood don't hold water. Most women know other women are hysterical liars when they want something.

    Men get very protective of crying/emotional women. You only need look at the internet today: if a woman posts a YoutTube video or a blog post about being sexually assaulted (especially if she's emotional while doing it) men will fill the comments with angry "I'll kill the bastard!"-type comments, even if they don't know the woman at all. And if y0u, as a commenter, dare question her story, watch them attack you!

    The White Knight syndrome is innate in most men. Women use it a lot.

    , @Lugash

    Your thesis is that men go easier on women and women on men. If this is true there should be some statistics on this phenomenon.
     
    Dominick Dunne, who covered a number of high profile murder cases, had observed that female jurors seemed to feel protective of male criminals, particularly when they're facing a female DA, and that this appeared to happen during the OJ Simpson trial.

    The jurors in the Joel Steinberg murder trial were split by gender. The male jurors were extremely sympathetic to Hedda Nussbaum, even though her daughter was constantly abused. The female jurors hated Nussbaum with a passion and thought she was complicit.

    In the current year we'll probably never get past anecdata, but it would be an interesting study.


    I was going to say the O.J. Trial was a formative event for me, but it was more of a confirmatory one.
     
    It was transformative for me. Black America's glee at OJ's acquittal was mind blowing.
    , @ANON
    He's just expressing an ignorant opinion maybe based on reading too many Grisham novels.
  84. Mark Caplan says: • Website

    My spotty recollection of the trial is that the case swung strongly to O.J.’s favor when tapes of “racist cop” Mark Fuhrman spouting the n-word were played in court. Suddenly all the police-gathered evidence implicating O.J.’s guilt lost credibility in the eyes of the black jurors. The story got reframed as racist cops wanting to bring down a too successful black man.

    Read More
    • Replies: @whorefinder
    The trial was always going to go OJ's way once they got blacks on the jury. Blacks were furious at the Rodney King cop acquittals, even after they rioted. And they (especially black women) thought that it was a good thing OJ murdered his interloping blond hussy; no more competition!

    And that's before we get to the fact that blacks will never convict a black for killing a white. They absolutely think whites always have it coming. They hate you.

    There's an affirmative action blogger named Elie Mystal who blogs at Above the Law. He's openly said how happy he was OJ got off for murder, and how he was high fived his high school classmates about it. That's the level of hatred for whites we have today: a name blogger is openly celebrating blacks murdering whites and escaping punishment. On a well-known legal website. Because racism.

    The OJ trial is one of the touchstones in American racial history, because it demonstrated how much of the black population hates whites and wants them murdered. After whites had freed them from slavery, removed Jim Crow, and given them affirmative action. And the majority of blacks still want whites dead.

    , @40 Acres and A Kardashian

    My spotty recollection of the trial is that the case swung strongly to O.J.’s favor when tapes of “racist cop” Mark Fuhrman spouting the n-word were played in court.
     
    As the mini-series puts it, the tapes were definitely "manna from heaven."

    But they were just a bonus, and the jury would've acquitted OJ without them. Marcia Clark herself says that long before the tapes came out, she knew OJ would walk. She wrote in her book about the trial that she knew by the time jury selection was over that there wasn't a chance in hell that Simpson was going to be found guilty.

    Dominick Dunne, the famous novelist who was in the audience every day covering the trial for Vanity Fair, said much the same thing. He wrote that, long before the tapes came out, it was clear from observing the jury that OJ could've stood up and yelled, "Okay! I admit it! I killed the bitch!" and those jurors still would've found him not guilty.

    Cochran certainly made much of the tapes in his closing argument, comparing Fuhrman to Hitler, and talking about six million dead Jews, and how the same thing could happen to blacks in America if the jury didn't put their feet down and send "genocidal racists" like Fuhrman a message.

    But according to the prosecutor herself, and many others, the jury's decision had been made long before the tapes came out. Clark says they'd made their decision before the trial even started.

  85. @Pat Boyle
    On your recommendation I will now try to watch this series.

    In fact OJ himself wasn't all that big. I was running across Market Street in San Francisco many years ago when I noticed that Simpson was running beside me. I was surprised at how small he was.

    I was surprised at how small he was.

    To a tall person, everyone else seems like a midget.

    Read More
  86. Jeffrey Toobin wrote a good post-trial book. Prosecutors Marcia Clark, Chris Darden and Hank Goldberg also wrote books; Clark’s seemed very self-serving. The others were more informative.

    The miniseries version of Clark may be depicted as advancing reasonable-sounding but doomed strategies, but in real life Clark seemed unreasonable even at the time. The prosecution had a mock trial in Arizona and the mock jurors who were being monitored hated Clark in real life – in particular the black women. Their reactions to her were quite negative – “Bitch. White bitch. Jew bitch.” She was totally unshaken. She blew it all off and insisted that black women would identify with a blonde woman who had been abused and then murdered by a black man. Nothing Darden or anyone said could get her to rethink that.

    Clark was a liberal Jewish divorcee with a messy background and weird ideas about men due to her own bad experience. Her ex-husband was a sleazy backgammon shark and sometime chess shark, I think maybe Israeli, who ended up dead in suspicious circumstances. She thought all women thought the way she did about controlling, abusive husbands. Johnnie Cochran was only too happy to help Clark pack the jury with black women.

    Even at the end of the trial Clark had no idea how badly she had whiffed. Her closing statement ended by replaying Nicole’s old 911 call from when OJ was beating on her. She thought she had won the war or something. The jury just sat there stonefaced.

    Clark and her colleagues were indeed way out of their depth. They’re the sort of people who end up working in the prosecutors office while others like Cochran and Bailey are earning seven-figure fees. As I recall Darden’s annual salary was $40,000.

    The reality is that it would have been almost impossible for even a competent prosecution to succeed any better than earning a hung jury. Once DA Gil Garcetti moved the trial from Brentwood to downtown it became impossible to get a prosecution jury. The best they could have done was mixed, but Clark blew that. Garcetti was so scared of anothe riot he thre away any realistic chance of a conviction for peace at any price.

    I haven’t seen the miniseries so I’m not sure if Dave Pinsen’s comment about shunning refers to Robert Shapiro being shunned by his fellow templegoers due to his defending Ron Goldman’s killer.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    There's a scene in the miniseries where F. Lee Bailey complains to Shapiro about not getting paid.

    The shunning referred to O.J. In the miniseries, his favorite restaurant won't give him a reservation for a celebratory dinner, etc.
  87. whorefinder says: • Website
    @Pat Boyle
    Your thesis is that men go easier on women and women on men. If this is true there should be some statistics on this phenomenon.

    Rape trials.

    When juries were all men, almost any rape case that went to trial got convictions. Why? Simple: if it got to trial, the DA would put the alleged victim on the stand, where she would look at the defendant and either faint or tearfully point at him and say that he raped her. Case closed: the all-male jury would hang the bastard.

    Then as women were allowed on juries, rape convictions after trial went down. Why? Because women on juries wouldn’t fall for such theatrics. They’d notice the victim had gone home with the man willingly, was wearing a pretty daring outfit, and would hear testimony about how the man had spurned her for another woman, or notice that she was a little too friendly with the alleged rapist’s longtime enemy, etc. . In short, women knew that women lied, and you started getting a lot more not guilties and hung juries.

    The feminist lies about the sisterhood don’t hold water. Most women know other women are hysterical liars when they want something.

    Men get very protective of crying/emotional women. You only need look at the internet today: if a woman posts a YoutTube video or a blog post about being sexually assaulted (especially if she’s emotional while doing it) men will fill the comments with angry “I’ll kill the bastard!”-type comments, even if they don’t know the woman at all. And if y0u, as a commenter, dare question her story, watch them attack you!

    The White Knight syndrome is innate in most men. Women use it a lot.

    Read More
  88. wow says:

    The most striking thing for me was that immediately after the acquittal, one of the black female jurors, as she left the courthouse, made a sweeping motion with her hand over her head:

    “All that DNA stuff? Right over my head.” Completely dismissing hundreds of hours of DNA evidence.

    Stacking a jury with LOW IQ scientifically illiterate black women was also catastrophic for the prosecution, especially when there was so much circumstantial evidence.

    Read More
  89. whorefinder says: • Website
    @Mark Caplan
    My spotty recollection of the trial is that the case swung strongly to O.J.'s favor when tapes of "racist cop" Mark Fuhrman spouting the n-word were played in court. Suddenly all the police-gathered evidence implicating O.J.'s guilt lost credibility in the eyes of the black jurors. The story got reframed as racist cops wanting to bring down a too successful black man.

    The trial was always going to go OJ’s way once they got blacks on the jury. Blacks were furious at the Rodney King cop acquittals, even after they rioted. And they (especially black women) thought that it was a good thing OJ murdered his interloping blond hussy; no more competition!

    And that’s before we get to the fact that blacks will never convict a black for killing a white. They absolutely think whites always have it coming. They hate you.

    There’s an affirmative action blogger named Elie Mystal who blogs at Above the Law. He’s openly said how happy he was OJ got off for murder, and how he was high fived his high school classmates about it. That’s the level of hatred for whites we have today: a name blogger is openly celebrating blacks murdering whites and escaping punishment. On a well-known legal website. Because racism.

    The OJ trial is one of the touchstones in American racial history, because it demonstrated how much of the black population hates whites and wants them murdered. After whites had freed them from slavery, removed Jim Crow, and given them affirmative action. And the majority of blacks still want whites dead.

    Read More
  90. In a culture where racism isn’t the summum mallum think what a compelling story the life of Mark Fuhrman could have been. Literally the only cop that took Nicole’s domestic abuses accusations seriously who then becomes a focal point of the OJ murderer trial with a final denouement of his solving that Kennedy cousin murder cold case.

    Clearly the guy is a little bit off but that is an interesting life arch and I think the series- which I thought was great- would have benefitted from a rounder depiction of him. Marcia Clarke presents herself as Nicole’s avenger, but really the only person who tried to avert the tragedy as it unfolded was Fuhrman.

    Read More
    • Replies: @ANON
    It was Clark who destroyed Furhman. But then she, Ito and Darden were under orders by the mayor, DA Garcetti and TPTB to lose the case.
  91. Bruce Jenner is mentioned, but I haven’t seen him on screen yet.

    Bruce is played by Renee Zellweger.

    Read More
  92. @Dave Pinsen
    The miniseries was very well done, and the casting, hair, and makeup were great for everyone except Cuba Gooding, Jr., as you note.

    Try to stick it out to the end, though. I'm curious if the shunning depicted in the last episode happened in real life.

    There's also a humorous bit where Johnny Cochrane has O.J.'s house redecorated in Afrocentric style before the jurors get to tour it, IIRC (seems odd the court would let them do that, but I don't know).

    There's also a funny scene where the sequestered jurors have to decide whether to watch Seinfeld or Martin tapes.

    “seems odd the court would let them do that”

    Judge Lance Ito “let them do that.” Marcia Clark protested going into O.J.’s house at all since none of the crime happened there. Also Clark wanted the trip to the crime scene done at night, but Ito insisted on doing it in the daytime.

    Read More
    • Replies: @40 Acres and A Kardashian
    Judge Ito also let OJ "make a statement" to the court without being on the witness stand. This was unbelievably outrageous. If a defendant wants to "make a statement" he can go under oath and answer the questions his lawyers designed to send whatever message he wants. But the prosecution also gets to ask questions, and from what I understand, once a defendant answers a single question about a crime, he has waived his 5A privilege against self-incrimination. You can't answer some questions, but not others. But Ito essentially let Simpson testify to his innocence without losing his right not to have to answer questions about the crime.
    , @Dave Pinsen
    Howard Stern used to call him Judge Lance Ego.
  93. @Pat Boyle
    On your recommendation I will now try to watch this series.

    In fact OJ himself wasn't all that big. I was running across Market Street in San Francisco many years ago when I noticed that Simpson was running beside me. I was surprised at how small he was.

    Spoiler alert!

    (My comment was strictly aimed at Steve Sailer’s (brillianty) written words, not at the mini-series).

    ((My intention was to show, that iSteve readers might s k i p the mini-series after having read Steve Sailer’s few lines. So your reaction just seems to show, that saying something and understandig something are two pretty different things.
    As one of my favorite philosophers (and communication theorists…) has it: That people manage to understand one another via words is – given the complexity of the underlying phenomenons -something quite wonderous – if not improbable alltogether)). That’s quite ironic, isn’t it?

    Unless your comment was written as an ironic (=playful) reply…

    This then would mean, that I was a little bit slow (cf. my remarks up until the word “Unless”), but except for that, everything is fine…

    (((Everything’s just fine anyway!)))

    Read More
  94. @Simon in London
    >>Johnnie Cochran starts out advising the Dream Team that their ideal juror is a black man<<

    Men don't like men who kill women, whatever the race. Women are *much* more forgiving, especially if it's a good looking man. If you're defending a man, you want women on the jury. If you're defending a woman you want men on the jury - men tend to sympathise with female defendants more, too.

    I think it's amazing a prosecutor could be so blind to human nature as not to realise this after a few trials.

    Along the same line, you want male jurors in a rape trial. Women want to think they are in control and it can’t happen to them, so they tend to blame the victim. Men on the other hand know how easy it is not to rape a woman regardless of the circumstances.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Desiderius
    Same reason more women vote for invite the world.
    , @Rob McX
    That's an interesting perspective. I've heard the defence prefers women on rape juries. I thought it was because female jurors have a more realistic idea of the frequency of false rape claims. They might never do it themselves, but their understanding of female psychology makes it easier to contemplate the possibility. On the other hand, many men have been taken in by the feminist claim that false rape claims are vanishingly rare.
    , @AnotherDad
    Also
    --> Some women might be--with all the feminist and Hollyweird nonsense--confused about women's ability to avoid rape. Men are more realistic about the power disparity and how little control a women would actually have. Women are able to walk around freely--in the West--because men voluntarily don't rape them. (Note no absolution for women here: there are indeed a bunch of things women can/should do to avoid rape, starting with "don't get drunk" and "don't hang around blacks". Just men have more realism about actual power disparities.)

    --> Most men have had varying sexual experiences, but never had any woman claim they were raped. (They may or may not have experience with how flakey women can be, or the BPD types, but regardless they haven't had the false rape claim made against them.) Until it happens to you or someone you know, most guys are in the dark that women can and do lie.

    --> A corollary to that--male ego. Most guys have had whatever success they've had with women and are perhaps prone to think "this loser had to rape"
    , @Aleks
    "Women want to think they are in control and it can’t happen to them, so they tend to blame the victim. "

    Work by Seth Stephens-Davidowitz suprisingly shows that porn featuring violence against women is far more popular among women than men. This might explain why in rape cases women would be more prone to blaming the victim and 'she wanted it' beliefs than men.
  95. Chebyshev says:

    Steve, have you ever served on a jury in the LA area?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Steve, have you ever served on a jury in the LA area?

    Oh, yeah ... It was not exactly Stereotype Shattering.

    http://www.vdare.com/articles/diversity-is-strength-its-also-extended-crime-families-tax-fraud-and-hung-juries

  96. I saw the series when it aired last year and then read the book by Jeffrey Toobin.

    The mini series script closely follows that book. Toobin, a young recent Harvard Law graduate at the time gave up law and became a journalist. He was working for the New Yorker magazine during the time of the OJ trial and was assigned to cover the trial.

    I agree about Cuba Gooding not resembling OJ but his likable on screen presence helps suspend disbelief after a while.

    OJ’s Bronco was a perk of his Hertz job. By that time he was a sort of brand ambassador for hertz, playing golf and doing meet and greets for Hertz . The trip to Chicago after the murders was related to that.

    Travolta was instrumental in putting the mini-series together; it was something of a vanity project for him. That explains his inflated role. He overacts but is still quite good. The actors playing Marcia Clarke and Darden are also very good with the portrayal of Darden being the highlight of the film.

    Toobin ‘s book lays much of the blame for the verdict on Marcia Clarke and her notion that black women would be angry about domestic violence. He also makes the point that Gil Garcetti, the LA DA at the time, was the one who really sealed the deal for a not guilty verdict: He moved the venue from Brentwood/Santa Monica to downtown LA guaranteeing a majority AA jury. Acting under political pressure and worried about riots Garcetti also took the death penalty off the table from the very beginning. Toobin implies that Garcetti and LA politicians were quite willing to let OJ get away with it as long as they could avoid a repeat of the 92 riots.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corn
    Great points, especially your last paragraph. As a native of flyover country who's never really been to California (and never to LA) it was really illuminating how large the Rodney King riots loomed in Los Angelenos' minds. The prosecution seemed to afraid to take the gloves off, and the white defense attorneys seemed to be nervous at times, because "if something goes wrong we have King all over again".
  97. @Ben Tillman
    Along the same line, you want male jurors in a rape trial. Women want to think they are in control and it can't happen to them, so they tend to blame the victim. Men on the other hand know how easy it is not to rape a woman regardless of the circumstances.

    Same reason more women vote for invite the world.

    Read More
  98. Lugash says:
    @Pat Boyle
    Your thesis is that men go easier on women and women on men. If this is true there should be some statistics on this phenomenon.

    Your thesis is that men go easier on women and women on men. If this is true there should be some statistics on this phenomenon.

    Dominick Dunne, who covered a number of high profile murder cases, had observed that female jurors seemed to feel protective of male criminals, particularly when they’re facing a female DA, and that this appeared to happen during the OJ Simpson trial.

    The jurors in the Joel Steinberg murder trial were split by gender. The male jurors were extremely sympathetic to Hedda Nussbaum, even though her daughter was constantly abused. The female jurors hated Nussbaum with a passion and thought she was complicit.

    In the current year we’ll probably never get past anecdata, but it would be an interesting study.

    I was going to say the O.J. Trial was a formative event for me, but it was more of a confirmatory one.

    It was transformative for me. Black America’s glee at OJ’s acquittal was mind blowing.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Judah Benjamin Hur

    It was transformative for me. Black America’s glee at OJ’s acquittal was mind blowing.
     
    I was somewhat cynical by then, but that had a pretty big impact on me as well.
  99. Corn says:
    @Simon in London
    >>Johnnie Cochran starts out advising the Dream Team that their ideal juror is a black man<<

    Men don't like men who kill women, whatever the race. Women are *much* more forgiving, especially if it's a good looking man. If you're defending a man, you want women on the jury. If you're defending a woman you want men on the jury - men tend to sympathise with female defendants more, too.

    I think it's amazing a prosecutor could be so blind to human nature as not to realise this after a few trials.

    Slightly OT but I have read a couple different times over the years that during rape trials female jurors are actually harder on a victim’s testimony and more discerning than male jurors. I do not know if there’s been any stats collected or studies made that back that assertion up though.

    Supposedly the conventional wisdom for a lot of folks is you want more female jurors in a rape case. They’ll be more empathetic and understanding than insensitive or “she wanted it” men. I’ve heard however the opposite is often true. When a victim testifies the male jurors are often angered, the papa bear in them is out for blood. Women on the jury are supposedly more skeptical. Perhaps they don’t want women crying wolf so they’ll be believed if they’re raped, or maybe their feminine wiles can tell when a woman is lying to hurt a man.

    Read More
  100. @Mark Caplan
    My spotty recollection of the trial is that the case swung strongly to O.J.'s favor when tapes of "racist cop" Mark Fuhrman spouting the n-word were played in court. Suddenly all the police-gathered evidence implicating O.J.'s guilt lost credibility in the eyes of the black jurors. The story got reframed as racist cops wanting to bring down a too successful black man.

    My spotty recollection of the trial is that the case swung strongly to O.J.’s favor when tapes of “racist cop” Mark Fuhrman spouting the n-word were played in court.

    As the mini-series puts it, the tapes were definitely “manna from heaven.”

    But they were just a bonus, and the jury would’ve acquitted OJ without them. Marcia Clark herself says that long before the tapes came out, she knew OJ would walk. She wrote in her book about the trial that she knew by the time jury selection was over that there wasn’t a chance in hell that Simpson was going to be found guilty.

    Dominick Dunne, the famous novelist who was in the audience every day covering the trial for Vanity Fair, said much the same thing. He wrote that, long before the tapes came out, it was clear from observing the jury that OJ could’ve stood up and yelled, “Okay! I admit it! I killed the bitch!” and those jurors still would’ve found him not guilty.

    Cochran certainly made much of the tapes in his closing argument, comparing Fuhrman to Hitler, and talking about six million dead Jews, and how the same thing could happen to blacks in America if the jury didn’t put their feet down and send “genocidal racists” like Fuhrman a message.

    But according to the prosecutor herself, and many others, the jury’s decision had been made long before the tapes came out. Clark says they’d made their decision before the trial even started.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stan Adams
    Cochran's invoking the Holocaust was ironic, given that Ron Goldman was Jewish.
  101. Jesse says:

    I’m too young to remember the trial first hand, but the impression from here is that the trial ended all guilt/shame white people felt about kicking black people out of the nice places. If you’re throwing your less advantaged fellow citizens out of the nice real estate, that’s not exactly honorable. It’s not even a fair fight.

    But if those people go out of their way to get onto a jury and get an obviously guilty brutal wife beater and murderer off the hook, then celebrate, then it starts to feel more like self defense.

    Read More
  102. ANON says: • Disclaimer
    @bjdubbs
    Part of what makes OJ fascinating is that he was able to adopt the manners of Brentwood while still maintaining the some hint of the menace of a gangbanger from Oakland, or wherever he's from. Andre Braugher might have been good in the role.

    OJ was from the Potrero project San Francisco.

    It was built around 1950 to house families of black affirmative action workers at SF county hospital. It’s small, less than 50 apartments. But those hospital employees and their thug spawn destroyed the lovely Portero Hill neighborhood in less than 10 years.

    .

    The affirmative action blacks worked as maids, janitors, food and security guards. Until 1946 or so they were all White and ther was little theft and rape and auto theft by security guards.

    When the affirmative action trash took over the theft of supplies and food was enormous. And uniformed black security guards raped women patients and White women staff in the parking lots.

    The Simpson family’s income was too high to qualify for the project anyway. Dad was the chef, not cook or prep guy in the federal building cafeteria. Mom was a psychiatric tech, licensed and paid the same as a Licensed Vocational Nurse in the psych wing of SF county hospital. So mama was a welfare cheat.

    When OJ. was playing football at San Francisco City College, a young black rapist roamed the stairways of San Francisco County Hospital. Suspect was never caught but was described in the newspaper as ” the son of a hospital employee and student at City College”. May have been OJ. May have been another black thug from the project.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jim Don Bob

    ...a young black rapist roamed the stairways of San Francisco County Hospital...
     
    I am old enough to remember when you could us the fire stairs to walk from floor to floor in an office building if you did not want to wait for the elevator. Now you don't get out of the stairwell until you get to the ground floor. Wonder why?
  103. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    I’ve been watching on Netflix this recent miniseries of the 1995 trial and it’s quite funny, although I’ve gotten through my usual six episodes of anything and probably won’t make it through all ten episodes — it’s maybe seven hours in total and that’s a little more than I’ll devote to a TV show, even a good one like this.

    I have the same tendency. Even the best shows tend to turn into soap operas to fill time. This may be why all these new shows on Netflix are popular with women.

    Read More
  104. Rob McX says:
    @Ben Tillman
    Along the same line, you want male jurors in a rape trial. Women want to think they are in control and it can't happen to them, so they tend to blame the victim. Men on the other hand know how easy it is not to rape a woman regardless of the circumstances.

    That’s an interesting perspective. I’ve heard the defence prefers women on rape juries. I thought it was because female jurors have a more realistic idea of the frequency of false rape claims. They might never do it themselves, but their understanding of female psychology makes it easier to contemplate the possibility. On the other hand, many men have been taken in by the feminist claim that false rape claims are vanishingly rare.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stan Adams
    The William Kennedy Smith jury had four women and two men. He was acquitted after only 77 minutes of deliberations.

    (The Kennedy Smith trial was a big deal back in 1991. It was covered live, gavel-to-gavel, on CNN.)

    In 1989, an accused rapist was acquitted by a three-man, three-woman jury because they agreed with the defense argument that the victim was so provocatively dressed that she was "asking for it":
    http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/1989-10-05/news/8902020477_1_verdict-juror-georgia-woman
  105. Lugash says:
    @eah
    People interested in such depictions of the Simpson case should from time to time review fotos of the crime scene -- so when they sit down with their popcorn and the show starts again they keep in mind what it was all about.

    Looking at the crime scene photos brings up the “OJ was there, but didn’t do the actual murders” theory. I personally find it quite possible, even though it never surfaced during the trial.

    Read More
    • Replies: @40 Acres and A Kardashian

    Looking at the crime scene photos brings up the “OJ was there, but didn’t do the actual murders” theory. I personally find it quite possible, even though it never surfaced during the trial.
     
    It's very hard to believe OJ did all that damage by himself while suffering nothing worse than a tiny cut on one finger.

    There's a theory that OJ's son Jason did the murders. He was a chef at a restaurant, with his own collection of knives he took home every night. He also had a history of violent behavior, and was taking pills to control his violent outbursts. According to this account, he had told all his co-workers that Nicole and the kids were coming to the restaurant that night, but they never showed up, making him look like a fool. Supposedly Jason also had the hots for Nicole, adding jealousy and sexual frustration to his anger. Some say he had told his co-workers that he and Nicole were now dating. At any rate, he snapped when she stood him up, and went over to Bundy to teach her a lesson, and Ron Goldman just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. After the killings, he called his dad, who came over to the scene, which would explain why there were minutes amounts of OJ's blood and fibers at the scene, and some of the victims' blood in his home and vehicle.

    It's always seemed to me that if OJ acted alone, he would've been pretty roughed up at a minimum, and the Bronco should have been awash in blood.
  106. @David In TN
    "seems odd the court would let them do that"

    Judge Lance Ito "let them do that." Marcia Clark protested going into O.J.'s house at all since none of the crime happened there. Also Clark wanted the trip to the crime scene done at night, but Ito insisted on doing it in the daytime.

    Judge Ito also let OJ “make a statement” to the court without being on the witness stand. This was unbelievably outrageous. If a defendant wants to “make a statement” he can go under oath and answer the questions his lawyers designed to send whatever message he wants. But the prosecution also gets to ask questions, and from what I understand, once a defendant answers a single question about a crime, he has waived his 5A privilege against self-incrimination. You can’t answer some questions, but not others. But Ito essentially let Simpson testify to his innocence without losing his right not to have to answer questions about the crime.

    Read More
    • Replies: @David In TN
    Yes, that was Ito at his worst. He seemed to freeze when Simpson made a prepared spiel instead of just waiving his right to testify.
  107. ANON says: • Disclaimer
    @Pat Boyle
    Your thesis is that men go easier on women and women on men. If this is true there should be some statistics on this phenomenon.

    He’s just expressing an ignorant opinion maybe based on reading too many Grisham novels.

    Read More
  108. @Lugash
    Looking at the crime scene photos brings up the "OJ was there, but didn't do the actual murders" theory. I personally find it quite possible, even though it never surfaced during the trial.

    Looking at the crime scene photos brings up the “OJ was there, but didn’t do the actual murders” theory. I personally find it quite possible, even though it never surfaced during the trial.

    It’s very hard to believe OJ did all that damage by himself while suffering nothing worse than a tiny cut on one finger.

    There’s a theory that OJ’s son Jason did the murders. He was a chef at a restaurant, with his own collection of knives he took home every night. He also had a history of violent behavior, and was taking pills to control his violent outbursts. According to this account, he had told all his co-workers that Nicole and the kids were coming to the restaurant that night, but they never showed up, making him look like a fool. Supposedly Jason also had the hots for Nicole, adding jealousy and sexual frustration to his anger. Some say he had told his co-workers that he and Nicole were now dating. At any rate, he snapped when she stood him up, and went over to Bundy to teach her a lesson, and Ron Goldman just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. After the killings, he called his dad, who came over to the scene, which would explain why there were minutes amounts of OJ’s blood and fibers at the scene, and some of the victims’ blood in his home and vehicle.

    It’s always seemed to me that if OJ acted alone, he would’ve been pretty roughed up at a minimum, and the Bronco should have been awash in blood.

    Read More
    • Replies: @David In TN
    Detectives Lang and Vanatter checked out Jason Simpson. He had a firm alibi and his DNA wasn't there.

    Why should Simpson be roughed up? He had a knife and was wild with rage.
    , @ANON
    Jason was never a suspect. He was at work until 10:30 and then drove a friend home and was with her until about 11.
  109. @Chebyshev
    Steve, have you ever served on a jury in the LA area?

    Steve, have you ever served on a jury in the LA area?

    Oh, yeah … It was not exactly Stereotype Shattering.

    http://www.vdare.com/articles/diversity-is-strength-its-also-extended-crime-families-tax-fraud-and-hung-juries

    Read More
  110. Corn says:
    @jesse helms think-alike
    I saw the series when it aired last year and then read the book by Jeffrey Toobin.

    The mini series script closely follows that book. Toobin, a young recent Harvard Law graduate at the time gave up law and became a journalist. He was working for the New Yorker magazine during the time of the OJ trial and was assigned to cover the trial.

    I agree about Cuba Gooding not resembling OJ but his likable on screen presence helps suspend disbelief after a while.

    OJ's Bronco was a perk of his Hertz job. By that time he was a sort of brand ambassador for hertz, playing golf and doing meet and greets for Hertz . The trip to Chicago after the murders was related to that.

    Travolta was instrumental in putting the mini-series together; it was something of a vanity project for him. That explains his inflated role. He overacts but is still quite good. The actors playing Marcia Clarke and Darden are also very good with the portrayal of Darden being the highlight of the film.

    Toobin 's book lays much of the blame for the verdict on Marcia Clarke and her notion that black women would be angry about domestic violence. He also makes the point that Gil Garcetti, the LA DA at the time, was the one who really sealed the deal for a not guilty verdict: He moved the venue from Brentwood/Santa Monica to downtown LA guaranteeing a majority AA jury. Acting under political pressure and worried about riots Garcetti also took the death penalty off the table from the very beginning. Toobin implies that Garcetti and LA politicians were quite willing to let OJ get away with it as long as they could avoid a repeat of the 92 riots.

    Great points, especially your last paragraph. As a native of flyover country who’s never really been to California (and never to LA) it was really illuminating how large the Rodney King riots loomed in Los Angelenos’ minds. The prosecution seemed to afraid to take the gloves off, and the white defense attorneys seemed to be nervous at times, because “if something goes wrong we have King all over again”.

    Read More
  111. @Rob McX
    That's an interesting perspective. I've heard the defence prefers women on rape juries. I thought it was because female jurors have a more realistic idea of the frequency of false rape claims. They might never do it themselves, but their understanding of female psychology makes it easier to contemplate the possibility. On the other hand, many men have been taken in by the feminist claim that false rape claims are vanishingly rare.

    The William Kennedy Smith jury had four women and two men. He was acquitted after only 77 minutes of deliberations.

    (The Kennedy Smith trial was a big deal back in 1991. It was covered live, gavel-to-gavel, on CNN.)

    In 1989, an accused rapist was acquitted by a three-man, three-woman jury because they agreed with the defense argument that the victim was so provocatively dressed that she was “asking for it”:

    http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/1989-10-05/news/8902020477_1_verdict-juror-georgia-woman

    Read More
    • Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    Anyone know what happened to William Kennedy Smith? Or the victim of his trial for that matter?
  112. @Romanian
    Off-topic for Steve Sailer

    Maybe somebody avoided posting this to not hurt my feelings :), but here's another jab at the effects of diversity.

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/07/14/pennsylvania-residents-protest-romanian-immigrants-defecating-killing-chickens-public/

    Although, I do feel the need to add scare quotes around Romanian.

    Also, the "European" immigrants seem to be appropriate targets for criticism. Kind of like when France experienced its extreme Schadenfreude when deporting EE Gypsies or the Brexiteers railed against the Polish plumber.

    Although, I do feel the need to add scare quotes around Romanian.

    The gypsies are really the “people who must not be named”.

    Endogamous minorities are bad–in the long run–for any people to host. But the gypsies are so openly parasitic and entirely negative in even their immediate effect, that there’s just no hiding it.

    Gypsies get people questioning the whole “minorities are enriching”, “diversity” pablum that the globalists spew, so it’s important to avoid even mentioning them and when necessary generate as much confusion as possible. The gypsies are simply the clear compelling refutation of the dominant narrative.

    Read More
    • Agree: MEH 0910
    • Replies: @Pat Boyle
    When I was a public social worker in San Francisco they had no ethnic specialty workers for any of the various peoples in that most cosmopolitan city. The one exception was for the gypsies. Apparently from bitter experience they had learned that a regular social worker couldn't contend with the deviousness of gypsies. You needed a specialist.
  113. Wolverine says:

    I watched several episodes but couldn’t continue as it dredged up such bad memories regarding the outcome. I agree with Steve that Cuba Gooding was miscast. I also thought Travolta did a terrible job as Shapiro, just completely hamming it up.

    Read More
  114. @40 Acres and A Kardashian

    My spotty recollection of the trial is that the case swung strongly to O.J.’s favor when tapes of “racist cop” Mark Fuhrman spouting the n-word were played in court.
     
    As the mini-series puts it, the tapes were definitely "manna from heaven."

    But they were just a bonus, and the jury would've acquitted OJ without them. Marcia Clark herself says that long before the tapes came out, she knew OJ would walk. She wrote in her book about the trial that she knew by the time jury selection was over that there wasn't a chance in hell that Simpson was going to be found guilty.

    Dominick Dunne, the famous novelist who was in the audience every day covering the trial for Vanity Fair, said much the same thing. He wrote that, long before the tapes came out, it was clear from observing the jury that OJ could've stood up and yelled, "Okay! I admit it! I killed the bitch!" and those jurors still would've found him not guilty.

    Cochran certainly made much of the tapes in his closing argument, comparing Fuhrman to Hitler, and talking about six million dead Jews, and how the same thing could happen to blacks in America if the jury didn't put their feet down and send "genocidal racists" like Fuhrman a message.

    But according to the prosecutor herself, and many others, the jury's decision had been made long before the tapes came out. Clark says they'd made their decision before the trial even started.

    Cochran’s invoking the Holocaust was ironic, given that Ron Goldman was Jewish.

    Read More
  115. @Marty
    OJ's great rushing season was 1973, not '76. He was 6'2"/205, which at the time was large for a running back, especially a fast one. For comparison, when OJ was at USC, the star running back for the L.A. Rams was Dick Bass, 5'9", who I saw set a single-game pro rushing record of 248 yards one day in San Francisco.

    When we talk about the futility, for racial reasons, of convicting Simpson, it has to be remembered that in 1994 he was just about the only model of success in the wider commercial world that blacks could look to. I'll never forget a piece in The New Republic, by some black woman I'd never heard of, arguing that Simpson had doubtless suffered from the "pressure" of being a successful black man among whites. Laughable as this seems, it was probably the actual view among blacks. For his book on the case, Bugliosi spoke to various black community leaders about any efforts Simpson had made to maintain contact with "the community." Answer: nothing.

    Dick Bass, 5’9″, who I saw set a single-game pro rushing record of 248 yards one day in San Francisco.

    I listened to the Dick Bass game on the radio.

    Read More
  116. @40 Acres and A Kardashian
    Judge Ito also let OJ "make a statement" to the court without being on the witness stand. This was unbelievably outrageous. If a defendant wants to "make a statement" he can go under oath and answer the questions his lawyers designed to send whatever message he wants. But the prosecution also gets to ask questions, and from what I understand, once a defendant answers a single question about a crime, he has waived his 5A privilege against self-incrimination. You can't answer some questions, but not others. But Ito essentially let Simpson testify to his innocence without losing his right not to have to answer questions about the crime.

    Yes, that was Ito at his worst. He seemed to freeze when Simpson made a prepared spiel instead of just waiving his right to testify.

    Read More
  117. @40 Acres and A Kardashian

    Looking at the crime scene photos brings up the “OJ was there, but didn’t do the actual murders” theory. I personally find it quite possible, even though it never surfaced during the trial.
     
    It's very hard to believe OJ did all that damage by himself while suffering nothing worse than a tiny cut on one finger.

    There's a theory that OJ's son Jason did the murders. He was a chef at a restaurant, with his own collection of knives he took home every night. He also had a history of violent behavior, and was taking pills to control his violent outbursts. According to this account, he had told all his co-workers that Nicole and the kids were coming to the restaurant that night, but they never showed up, making him look like a fool. Supposedly Jason also had the hots for Nicole, adding jealousy and sexual frustration to his anger. Some say he had told his co-workers that he and Nicole were now dating. At any rate, he snapped when she stood him up, and went over to Bundy to teach her a lesson, and Ron Goldman just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. After the killings, he called his dad, who came over to the scene, which would explain why there were minutes amounts of OJ's blood and fibers at the scene, and some of the victims' blood in his home and vehicle.

    It's always seemed to me that if OJ acted alone, he would've been pretty roughed up at a minimum, and the Bronco should have been awash in blood.

    Detectives Lang and Vanatter checked out Jason Simpson. He had a firm alibi and his DNA wasn’t there.

    Why should Simpson be roughed up? He had a knife and was wild with rage.

    Read More
    • Replies: @40 Acres and A Kardashian

    Detectives Lang and Vanatter checked out Jason Simpson. He had a firm alibi and his DNA wasn’t there.
     
    Supposedly, they "checked him out" very cursorily, and proponents of this theory say his alibi doesn't hold up. Basically, they asked him where he was that night, he said he was at work, and a couple of his coworkers remembered him working that night. The DNA evidence was compared to Jason's? I wasn't aware of that. If so, there's not much to the theory. But everything I've read says they never got a DNA sample from Jason.

    Why should Simpson be roughed up? He had a knife and was wild with rage.
     
    Even if you're enraged and you have a knife, it seems to me that it's damn near impossible to slaughter two adults without getting a black eye, some deep scratches, serious cuts, a fat lip, some bruises, or something. Especially when one of the victims was a 25 year old man in excellent physical condition.

    On top of which, there should have been much more blood in the Bronco. I don't see how it's possible to spill gallons of blood in a murderous rage and only get a couple tiny swipes of the blood on/in the vehicle when you make your getaway.
  118. Bryan says:

    The thing that has surprised me these years is why O.J. wasn’t the subject of a revenge-killing by someone in the victims’ families. I mean it in all seriousness – it isn’t exactly like O.J. has been laying low these years. I think the temptation to get even and dare a jury to convict me would be significant. But perhaps the Goldmans and Browns are not exactly the McCoys.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AnotherDad

    The thing that has surprised me these years is why O.J. wasn’t the subject of a revenge-killing by someone in the victims’ families.
     
    Perhaps the Irish in me, but i'm surprised there isn't more of this generally.

    Again the open, high-trust, one-people/one-nation character of the West is a great thing and allows what would be family/clan/tribal disputes to be solved legally, rather than becoming blood feuds. But that demands that the legal system actually work. When it clearly does not work. And even worse does not work for ethno-tribal reasons, one would expect folks to be pissed.

    The Brown family situation is complicated because of the kids. ("Oh we offed your dad, to avenge your mom."). The Goldmans? Don't know what's up there. (You don't want to mess with my kids.)

    I suspect, as we have the diversity induced breakdown of West civilization--as it decays into anarcho-tyranny--we'll see more people seeking to deal resolve disputes "privately".
  119. I was running a derivatives desk in Sodom on Hudson at that time. We were therefore in a trading room with TV’s all over the place.

    When it was announced that a decision had been made the room filled up with all the affirmative action hires.

    Without exception every black in the room cheered.

    Many relationships were irredeemably changed that day as white people realised the amount of racial hatred that blacks they worked with every day harbored for them.

    Read More
  120. I remember some wag saying, as the OJ jury began its deliberations, “Los Angeles authorities are bracing for rioting by Jews and suburban white women in the event of an acquittal.”

    Read More
  121. @Marty
    OJ's great rushing season was 1973, not '76. He was 6'2"/205, which at the time was large for a running back, especially a fast one. For comparison, when OJ was at USC, the star running back for the L.A. Rams was Dick Bass, 5'9", who I saw set a single-game pro rushing record of 248 yards one day in San Francisco.

    When we talk about the futility, for racial reasons, of convicting Simpson, it has to be remembered that in 1994 he was just about the only model of success in the wider commercial world that blacks could look to. I'll never forget a piece in The New Republic, by some black woman I'd never heard of, arguing that Simpson had doubtless suffered from the "pressure" of being a successful black man among whites. Laughable as this seems, it was probably the actual view among blacks. For his book on the case, Bugliosi spoke to various black community leaders about any efforts Simpson had made to maintain contact with "the community." Answer: nothing.

    Dick Bass never rushed for 248 yards in a game for the Rams. Willie Ellison gained 247 yards for the Rams against the Saints on (I checked pro football reference) December 5, 1971. I saw it on CBS TV. It was the doubleheader game.

    O.J. broke the record Ellison set in 1971 with 250 yards against New England in the 1973 season opener.

    Dick Bass was quite a runner. He had several good seasons in the early 60′s when the Rams were down. Vince Lombardi once said “Bass has more moves than a clock.”

    Read More
  122. @bjdubbs
    Part of what makes OJ fascinating is that he was able to adopt the manners of Brentwood while still maintaining the some hint of the menace of a gangbanger from Oakland, or wherever he's from. Andre Braugher might have been good in the role.

    “the manners of Brentwood”.

    An acute observation. I saw him glide smoothly out of his cream coloured Rolls Royce on Rodeo Drive a year or two before his blood rage. He stood out a mile from everyone around him, but did not in any way exude the pernicious arrogance of today’s celebrities.
    But there was no hint of menace, which is why whites liked and felt comfortable with him.
    Such emanations came later, after the murders.

    Read More
    • Replies: @40 Acres and A Kardashian

    But there was no hint of menace, which is why whites liked and felt comfortable with him.
     
    When I was a kid growing up in rural Indiana in the mid-70s, almost everyone was white, and almost everyone was openly "racist." They didn't wish blacks any harm, but they didn't want to live near them, send their kids to school with them, or God forbid, let their daughters date one. The "N word" was used casually and in public. The few "liberals" around wouldn't go on a rampage like modern SJWs do when they heard/saw racism being expressed. In fact, they would often admit that, yes, many blacks are extremely dysfunctional, but not all of them are. And they would always point to the same two people to prove their point that "they're not all like that" - OJ Simpson and Bill Cosby.
    , @jesse helms think-alike
    your comment reminds me of my own reaction when it first came out that Simpson was the suspect: something along the lines of "he can't be guilty of this, he's so nice" I knew nothing about him except his movie roles and TV appearances. By then his football heroics were already decades in the past. His screenwriters had crafted a nice guy persona that turned out to be misleading.

    did not in any way exude the pernicious arrogance of today’s celebrities.
    But there was no hint of menace, which is why whites liked and felt comfortable with him.
     
    Despite Simpson's doubltess guilt I dont see his current incarceration as just. The fact that he skated on his real crime and was later convicted and given a ridiculously harsh sentence for what is a relatively minor offense actually makes things worse in my mind. The perversion of justice that was his acquittal is further perverted by his armed robbery conviction for an offense that was dubious at best.

    The aphorism Justice Must Not Only be Done, but Must be Seen to be Done comes to mind. This case was another example just like the Chinese judge in Hawaii of the Left making up the rules as they go along in order produce the result they want. Too many instances of this and the sheeple might someday realize that, to the Left, the Law and the Courts are just weapons to use against one's political enemies.
  123. @Rod1963
    No they were just stupid. Not all DA's are like those SVU. Fact is most DA's don't like trials and prefer doing plea deals even in murder cases. Trials are messy and they expose stupid DA's real fast, especially if they can't get the right sort of jury.

    Look, no one today or even 20 years ago wants to serve on such a jury who works for a living, they'd lose everything if goes on for more than a few days as they don't get paid by their employer. This means you get losers on welfare, retirees, teachers and assorted nit nats that aren't to bright to begin with. Good for the defense bad for the prosecution.

    That said, the worst thing the DA did was let the jury be composed of blacks. Blacks will never convict a black man for killing whites. Hell that was talked about on talk radio when the trail was going on. They should had at least several white men on the jury, they could have had a hung jury and forced a retrial just to f**k with the dream team.

    It's black psychology 101. Whites not being tribal don't get it.

    It’s black psychology 101. Whites not being tribal don’t get it.

    This is one of the great problems of our age.

    Whites psychology–open, cooperative, altruistic–is highly beneficial. In fact, it’s the outcome of the great social achievement of the West–breaking down primitive tribalism and building “one people/one nation” societies with trust-at-scale, allowing the great nations and achievements of the West, and the incredible peace and prosperity we have today.

    However, this open, trusting, altruism makes it pathetically easy for tribal peoples to roll trusting Westerners. And doubly, triply–an order of magnitude easier–after the West politically empowered women.

    This is what we see in the West. Clueless Westerners welcoming “refugees” and other immigrants with their “diversity!” addled brains thinking these folks will behave just like Westerners once they are properly taught. While these tribal (non-trusting, non-altruistic, non-cooperative) foreigners are thinking “these folks are suckers” and taking them for everything they are worth.

    ~~~

    The OJ trial with a black jury freeing an obviously guilty man, and blacks everywhere cheering wildly over it, *should* have been a little ‘window into reality’, for white people–a little “wakeup call” about what’s in store.

    And indeed it had that effect on some (probably me to some extent). But TPTB made sure that narrative was quickly pulled, and the “story” was Mark Furhman had said “nigger”–the worst crime imaginable. (Not some trivial shit, like slicing a couple of people’s throats.)

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    That is such a pleasant thought; Unfortunately, history of the world seems to put the lie to such utopia.
  124. @Pat Boyle
    On your recommendation I will now try to watch this series.

    In fact OJ himself wasn't all that big. I was running across Market Street in San Francisco many years ago when I noticed that Simpson was running beside me. I was surprised at how small he was.

    I was surprised at how small he was.

    I had the same reaction when I (almost literally) bumped into OJ. It was December in the early nineties and I was getting off the escalator on the second floor of Bloomingdale’s department store in Manhattan. I had to stop short to let a pretty blond in a buckskin jacket pass directly in front of me. The face of the man she was with and mine were just inches apart in the crowd and I instantly recognized it was OJ. Only after the murder did I realize that the blond was Nicole. What struck me is that I remember looking down at OJ even though I’m six-foot even. I immediately turned to my wife behind me and told her that the man who just passed in front of me was OJ. She looked at him walking away and didn’t believe me. I insisted it was him so she purposely walked around the floor to approach him from the front. My wife was from a small midwestern town and had never seen a big celebrity in the flesh before. I’ll never forget her excitement when she came back and confirmed that it was indeed OJ. Later it came out in the press that OJ had purchased the infamous gloves in December at Bloomingdale’s. I’m sure that it was the same visit when I saw him and Nicole. Gives me the creeps every time I remember that encounter.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Pat Boyle
    Until the accident (I fell off cliff) I had always been 6'4". So when I met celebrities I was often surprised at how small they were. Steve Sailer the host of this blog is also 6' 4". It's a good height. You stand out in crowds but you can still fit in most sports cars.

    I went to the opera every year and in the crush of the audience at intermission I was always happy that I had a clear view above the crowd. Being in the midst of a crowd can be a little claustrophobic.

    OJ was a larger than life celebrity in those days. He was on TV and in movies but in real life he wasn't all that big. I once met Nate Thurman on the street in front on city hall in San Francisco - that's a really impressive hunk of human being, Made me feel like an insect.
  125. Dave Pinsen says: • Website
    @Patrick Sullivan
    Jeffrey Toobin wrote a good post-trial book. Prosecutors Marcia Clark, Chris Darden and Hank Goldberg also wrote books; Clark's seemed very self-serving. The others were more informative.

    The miniseries version of Clark may be depicted as advancing reasonable-sounding but doomed strategies, but in real life Clark seemed unreasonable even at the time. The prosecution had a mock trial in Arizona and the mock jurors who were being monitored hated Clark in real life - in particular the black women. Their reactions to her were quite negative - "Bitch. White bitch. Jew bitch." She was totally unshaken. She blew it all off and insisted that black women would identify with a blonde woman who had been abused and then murdered by a black man. Nothing Darden or anyone said could get her to rethink that.

    Clark was a liberal Jewish divorcee with a messy background and weird ideas about men due to her own bad experience. Her ex-husband was a sleazy backgammon shark and sometime chess shark, I think maybe Israeli, who ended up dead in suspicious circumstances. She thought all women thought the way she did about controlling, abusive husbands. Johnnie Cochran was only too happy to help Clark pack the jury with black women.

    Even at the end of the trial Clark had no idea how badly she had whiffed. Her closing statement ended by replaying Nicole's old 911 call from when OJ was beating on her. She thought she had won the war or something. The jury just sat there stonefaced.

    Clark and her colleagues were indeed way out of their depth. They're the sort of people who end up working in the prosecutors office while others like Cochran and Bailey are earning seven-figure fees. As I recall Darden's annual salary was $40,000.

    The reality is that it would have been almost impossible for even a competent prosecution to succeed any better than earning a hung jury. Once DA Gil Garcetti moved the trial from Brentwood to downtown it became impossible to get a prosecution jury. The best they could have done was mixed, but Clark blew that. Garcetti was so scared of anothe riot he thre away any realistic chance of a conviction for peace at any price.

    I haven't seen the miniseries so I'm not sure if Dave Pinsen's comment about shunning refers to Robert Shapiro being shunned by his fellow templegoers due to his defending Ron Goldman's killer.

    There’s a scene in the miniseries where F. Lee Bailey complains to Shapiro about not getting paid.

    The shunning referred to O.J. In the miniseries, his favorite restaurant won’t give him a reservation for a celebratory dinner, etc.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    Wait, you're saying McDonald's refused to let him park his Bentley outside post-trial?
  126. @Ben Tillman
    Along the same line, you want male jurors in a rape trial. Women want to think they are in control and it can't happen to them, so they tend to blame the victim. Men on the other hand know how easy it is not to rape a woman regardless of the circumstances.

    Also
    –> Some women might be–with all the feminist and Hollyweird nonsense–confused about women’s ability to avoid rape. Men are more realistic about the power disparity and how little control a women would actually have. Women are able to walk around freely–in the West–because men voluntarily don’t rape them. (Note no absolution for women here: there are indeed a bunch of things women can/should do to avoid rape, starting with “don’t get drunk” and “don’t hang around blacks”. Just men have more realism about actual power disparities.)

    –> Most men have had varying sexual experiences, but never had any woman claim they were raped. (They may or may not have experience with how flakey women can be, or the BPD types, but regardless they haven’t had the false rape claim made against them.) Until it happens to you or someone you know, most guys are in the dark that women can and do lie.

    –> A corollary to that–male ego. Most guys have had whatever success they’ve had with women and are perhaps prone to think “this loser had to rape”

    Read More
  127. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @LondonBob
    Too young and not American to particularly know who OJ was so didn't have a problem with Cuba. Thought Travolta was too fake and over acted. Very good series though, watched the documentary on him recently, didn't realise what a sleaze OJ became. Probably should have plead guilty, ended up doing a very lengthy jail spell anyway.

    No, OJ was sentenced not for what he actually did (which was to repossess his own stuff without the proper legal unction-sheriffs legally rob small businesses in debt every day, it’s called a “till tap”-but they are sheriffs) , it was for what he should have been sentenced for in the crime for which he was unjustly not convicted, in the mind of the sentencing judge.

    Had OJ been smart he would have left the country where his NFL pension would have gone a lot farther and no one would have cared all that much what he did. I have it on some good authority that up until the last few years he was a real stallion and on $300K he could have had a mansion, servants and no trouble rounding up plenty of booty.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    One question I've never seen asked about O.J.'s "NFL pension" is when he set it up: immediately after his football career, or after the murders, in an attempt to shield assets from the future civil case.
    , @Njguy73

    Had OJ been smart he would have left the country where his NFL pension would have gone a lot farther and no one would have cared all that much what he did.
     
    "The first option would be to leave the country and live as an exile in someplace like Australia or France...A second option would be to exit public life while remaining in America...The third option — and the one Simpson selected — was to actually live like the innocent person he portrayed himself to be...When considered objectively, Simpson’s public profile during the late 1990's accurately reflects the reasonable response of a stubborn, egocentric person who did not murder two people. In a weird way, it’s the strongest argument in his favor (and maybe the only one). But it was a terrible, terrible move — and not just because I believe he murdered those two people. It would have been a terrible move even if he had not. He forced people to hate him, even if they barely cared."

    - Chuck Klosterman, "I Wear The Black Hat" (2013) on Simpson's post-trial options

    http://grantland.com/features/an-exclusive-excerpt-chuck-klosterman-new-book-wear-black-hat-kareem-oj/
    , @ANON
    He had a mansion and plenty of booty in Florida.
  128. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @AnotherDad

    It’s black psychology 101. Whites not being tribal don’t get it.
     
    This is one of the great problems of our age.

    Whites psychology--open, cooperative, altruistic--is highly beneficial. In fact, it's the outcome of the great social achievement of the West--breaking down primitive tribalism and building "one people/one nation" societies with trust-at-scale, allowing the great nations and achievements of the West, and the incredible peace and prosperity we have today.

    However, this open, trusting, altruism makes it pathetically easy for tribal peoples to roll trusting Westerners. And doubly, triply--an order of magnitude easier--after the West politically empowered women.

    This is what we see in the West. Clueless Westerners welcoming "refugees" and other immigrants with their "diversity!" addled brains thinking these folks will behave just like Westerners once they are properly taught. While these tribal (non-trusting, non-altruistic, non-cooperative) foreigners are thinking "these folks are suckers" and taking them for everything they are worth.

    ~~~

    The OJ trial with a black jury freeing an obviously guilty man, and blacks everywhere cheering wildly over it, *should* have been a little 'window into reality', for white people--a little "wakeup call" about what's in store.

    And indeed it had that effect on some (probably me to some extent). But TPTB made sure that narrative was quickly pulled, and the "story" was Mark Furhman had said "nigger"--the worst crime imaginable. (Not some trivial shit, like slicing a couple of people's throats.)

    That is such a pleasant thought; Unfortunately, history of the world seems to put the lie to such utopia.

    Read More
  129. It’s like watching the series about silicon valley, I lived it so I don’t want to watch it again.

    Read More
  130. @william munny
    Despite what we see on tv, nobody is very good at picking juries. There are lots of rules people assume are true, but you just never know how someone is going to act on a jury. Most of the time the prosecutors and defense attorneys actually agree, in large part, on the majority of people who make up the jury -- the people they each assume are reasonable and of course will view the case as they each do.

    Racehorse Haynes, the top Texas trial lawyer of the 1970s (a couple of his cases were made into miniseries), had a lot of rules for keeping phonies off the jury. He particularly disliked guys who clipped multiple mechanical pencils in their shirt pockets so people would think they were engineers but they weren’t.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ivy
    Were pocket protectors mentioned?
    , @Rob McX
    I used to think a white guy would never get off the way OJ did, till I read of the case of Thomas Cullen Davis, who was defended by Haynes.
  131. Ivy says:

    Lance Ito may have retired. Or perhaps he just missed the limelight.
    What if he shaved off his facial hair, transferred to a court in Hawaii and changed his name to Derrick Watson?
    First the OJ travesty of justice, and now the travel ban travails.

    Read More
  132. Ivy says:
    @Steve Sailer
    Racehorse Haynes, the top Texas trial lawyer of the 1970s (a couple of his cases were made into miniseries), had a lot of rules for keeping phonies off the jury. He particularly disliked guys who clipped multiple mechanical pencils in their shirt pockets so people would think they were engineers but they weren't.

    Were pocket protectors mentioned?

    Read More
  133. @David In TN
    Detectives Lang and Vanatter checked out Jason Simpson. He had a firm alibi and his DNA wasn't there.

    Why should Simpson be roughed up? He had a knife and was wild with rage.

    Detectives Lang and Vanatter checked out Jason Simpson. He had a firm alibi and his DNA wasn’t there.

    Supposedly, they “checked him out” very cursorily, and proponents of this theory say his alibi doesn’t hold up. Basically, they asked him where he was that night, he said he was at work, and a couple of his coworkers remembered him working that night. The DNA evidence was compared to Jason’s? I wasn’t aware of that. If so, there’s not much to the theory. But everything I’ve read says they never got a DNA sample from Jason.

    Why should Simpson be roughed up? He had a knife and was wild with rage.

    Even if you’re enraged and you have a knife, it seems to me that it’s damn near impossible to slaughter two adults without getting a black eye, some deep scratches, serious cuts, a fat lip, some bruises, or something. Especially when one of the victims was a 25 year old man in excellent physical condition.

    On top of which, there should have been much more blood in the Bronco. I don’t see how it’s possible to spill gallons of blood in a murderous rage and only get a couple tiny swipes of the blood on/in the vehicle when you make your getaway.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Inquiring Mind
    I had long wondered about the Lone O. J. narrative as well.

    For the incident in Las Vegas for which he was sent to prison, his plan to get his Heisman Trophy and other sports memorabilia back, he had a pack of his friends involved. That was his "M. O," As with the Dream Team, it appeared that Mr. Simpson never did anything without a small gang of people helping him out.

    Even when he led the police on that Slow Speed Chase down the Santa Monica Freeway and threatened to kill himself, he had his pal "A. C." Cowlings as his "wing man." That he committed the murders and discarded physical evidence all by his lonesome seemed out of character.
  134. @Bryan
    The thing that has surprised me these years is why O.J. wasn't the subject of a revenge-killing by someone in the victims' families. I mean it in all seriousness - it isn't exactly like O.J. has been laying low these years. I think the temptation to get even and dare a jury to convict me would be significant. But perhaps the Goldmans and Browns are not exactly the McCoys.

    The thing that has surprised me these years is why O.J. wasn’t the subject of a revenge-killing by someone in the victims’ families.

    Perhaps the Irish in me, but i’m surprised there isn’t more of this generally.

    Again the open, high-trust, one-people/one-nation character of the West is a great thing and allows what would be family/clan/tribal disputes to be solved legally, rather than becoming blood feuds. But that demands that the legal system actually work. When it clearly does not work. And even worse does not work for ethno-tribal reasons, one would expect folks to be pissed.

    The Brown family situation is complicated because of the kids. (“Oh we offed your dad, to avenge your mom.”). The Goldmans? Don’t know what’s up there. (You don’t want to mess with my kids.)

    I suspect, as we have the diversity induced breakdown of West civilization–as it decays into anarcho-tyranny–we’ll see more people seeking to deal resolve disputes “privately”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @dr kill
    Californians are pussies. End of story.
    , @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    Sounds like someone's been watching the opening monologue from Coppola's The Godfather, Part 1 "I believe in America..."


    The Goldmans would never have resorted to revenge honor-killing, and one supposes that Nicole's family was too clueless and greedy for money. Perhaps they initially thought that they could still collect on the civil suit vs OJ.

    But what you're saying makes sense for a certain kind of American, especially back in the day.

    "Never sue or threaten to sue those who've wronged you, settle them cases yourself"--Andrew Jackson's mother's words to her young son about honor and making things right vs those who could potentially cause him harm. And remember, Andrew Jackson fought many duels during the course of his life.

    Now, if Nicole had come from Appalachia, or Piedmont Region, or Mississippi Delta, you can bet that OJ would've known how Nordberg felt in the end of the Naked Gun (part 1).

    , @ANON
    Fred Goldman and one of Nicole's sisters went after OJ for years, Goldman via the court system and the sister in victims rights and domestic violence groups.

    I went to some of the sister's rallies and saw both the Goldmans and OJ during the civil trial where the criminal trial belonged, LA county courthouse, 1175 main st Santa Monica ca.

    All men look tall to me so I can't judge OJ's height, but his shoulders and torso looked about 3 ft wide and his hands the size of a football.
    , @kaganovitch
    I don't think the explanation can be American or western timidity - my namesake, the infamous Lazer Kaganovitch, had not 2 victim's families, but hundreds of thousands of victim's families with ample reason to kill him, Yet he lived well into his nineties in the middle of Moscow with no police protection.
  135. @Old Palo Altan
    "the manners of Brentwood".

    An acute observation. I saw him glide smoothly out of his cream coloured Rolls Royce on Rodeo Drive a year or two before his blood rage. He stood out a mile from everyone around him, but did not in any way exude the pernicious arrogance of today's celebrities.
    But there was no hint of menace, which is why whites liked and felt comfortable with him.
    Such emanations came later, after the murders.

    But there was no hint of menace, which is why whites liked and felt comfortable with him.

    When I was a kid growing up in rural Indiana in the mid-70s, almost everyone was white, and almost everyone was openly “racist.” They didn’t wish blacks any harm, but they didn’t want to live near them, send their kids to school with them, or God forbid, let their daughters date one. The “N word” was used casually and in public. The few “liberals” around wouldn’t go on a rampage like modern SJWs do when they heard/saw racism being expressed. In fact, they would often admit that, yes, many blacks are extremely dysfunctional, but not all of them are. And they would always point to the same two people to prove their point that “they’re not all like that” – OJ Simpson and Bill Cosby.

    Read More
  136. @Jake
    It is simple: though most blacks had come to resent OJ for 'not being black enough,' he remained black. And that meant to the vast majority of blacks that he was a victim of Whitey.

    Shapiro was the typical Jew who simultaneously believed that black people are just like white people and, conversely, that blacks deserve special treatment for being innocent victims of Whitey the Gentile. That type of Jew will be shocked when a horde of Moslem-led blacks arrive to rape and murder his family in the name of Revenge of the Peoples of Color.

    Kardashin was the epitome of ultra naive white fool who was not able to imagine that the way he and his Ex had raised their kids would make them whores to Negrophilia even at its murderous worst, much less that blacks would act exactly as the 'racists' said they would.

    Cochran knew that his people (certainly 90% of them) could always be counted on to follow a charismatic black 'leader' into any violence against non-blacks, and against all facts and logic to protect a black from 'white justice.'

    Clarke was the feminist bimbo who was certain that women of all colors hate men for being rapists and domestic abusers and that therefore black women would do justice for the white whore who stole their OJ. That she also deep down felt that every black man accused of raping a white woman probably was a Tom Robinson, and she would not be able to recognize that her own double-think doomed her.

    Darden was the rare black man who really could be an equal part of white society, which is exactly the reason that at least 90% of blacks would always take a Cochran over him and that white Feminist bimbos always eventually want to nudge him aside.

    As the verdict was nearing, I was buying a house. The man representing the lender was Jewish. He was absolutely certain that the verdict would be guilty, because the facts were clear and only a racist would suggest that either blacks were too ignorant to discern them or that blacks did not about facts when race was at play. He was sure in that slimy Leftist way that justice was obvious and that it would be done by blacks.

    I met with him about an hour after the verdict was read. He was in shock. His beloved Negroes had not acted as he asserted they would. And a Jew had been killed too. That was not to be tolerated, but how could Jews now sound like rednecks and say that blacks are what they are?

    He was in agony.

    Clarke was the feminist bimbo

    Clarke was the Jewish feminist bimbo

    FIFY

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    Clarke was the feminist bimbo

    Clarke was the Jewish feminist bimbo

    FIFY
     
    Interesting sidenote. She was raped at the age of 17 while visiting Israel:

    When Clark was 17 years old, she was raped on a trip to Eilat, Israel.[9] She has said it was an experience she did not deal with until much later, and that it informed much of why she became a prosecutor.[9]
     
    https://www.unz.com/isteve/the-people-vs-o-j-simpson/#new_comments

    However, the show has her say that the rape happened in Italy:

    Maybe you have to have something inside you already when you get here, something that you have to make right. Something you have to avenge. When I was 17, I was raped. I was raped in Italy by a waiter and I buried it. I didn't forget it... I just sort of stuffed it. When I had my first rape case, what happened to me, of course, came flying out from whatever rock I'd jammed it under and I had to deal with it. It was hell all over again, in a way. But it made something very, very clear to me. I have something, this thing in me, that wants vengeance. Vengeance for victims. That's what justice is to me. And I've always, always had faith that when I look at a jury, we have that in common. Everyone wants justice for victims, right? I never doubted that. Until this.

     

    https://www.bustle.com/articles/152063-marcia-clark-discusses-her-rape-on-american-crime-story-shedding-light-on-her-drive-for-justice
  137. Jack D says:
    @Jake
    It is simple: though most blacks had come to resent OJ for 'not being black enough,' he remained black. And that meant to the vast majority of blacks that he was a victim of Whitey.

    Shapiro was the typical Jew who simultaneously believed that black people are just like white people and, conversely, that blacks deserve special treatment for being innocent victims of Whitey the Gentile. That type of Jew will be shocked when a horde of Moslem-led blacks arrive to rape and murder his family in the name of Revenge of the Peoples of Color.

    Kardashin was the epitome of ultra naive white fool who was not able to imagine that the way he and his Ex had raised their kids would make them whores to Negrophilia even at its murderous worst, much less that blacks would act exactly as the 'racists' said they would.

    Cochran knew that his people (certainly 90% of them) could always be counted on to follow a charismatic black 'leader' into any violence against non-blacks, and against all facts and logic to protect a black from 'white justice.'

    Clarke was the feminist bimbo who was certain that women of all colors hate men for being rapists and domestic abusers and that therefore black women would do justice for the white whore who stole their OJ. That she also deep down felt that every black man accused of raping a white woman probably was a Tom Robinson, and she would not be able to recognize that her own double-think doomed her.

    Darden was the rare black man who really could be an equal part of white society, which is exactly the reason that at least 90% of blacks would always take a Cochran over him and that white Feminist bimbos always eventually want to nudge him aside.

    As the verdict was nearing, I was buying a house. The man representing the lender was Jewish. He was absolutely certain that the verdict would be guilty, because the facts were clear and only a racist would suggest that either blacks were too ignorant to discern them or that blacks did not about facts when race was at play. He was sure in that slimy Leftist way that justice was obvious and that it would be done by blacks.

    I met with him about an hour after the verdict was read. He was in shock. His beloved Negroes had not acted as he asserted they would. And a Jew had been killed too. That was not to be tolerated, but how could Jews now sound like rednecks and say that blacks are what they are?

    He was in agony.

    I don’t know Shapiro personally but I know other Jewish defense lawyers and none of the ones I know are under any illusions about black criminality. No one who works in the criminal justice system from day to day is under any such illusion even if they started out as flaming liberals. You would have to be blind not to. Reality kicks like a mule. Limousine liberals can live in some fantasy world but people in contact with the system don’t have that luxury.

    Everyone, even accused criminals, is entitled to a defense and Shapiro I’m sure got paid royally for defending OJ. This doesn’t mean that he believed in his innocence or the innocence of blacks in general. After the trial, Shapiro said that the verdict was correct not in the sense that OJ was innocent but that the state had not met its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. I’m guessing that the lawyers took every last nickel that OJ had, which is why he was later reduced to stick-up jobs (that and the fact that he was unemployable as an endorser, even for black oriented products – blacks were willing to get him off to stick it to whitey but giving him a job after that was a bridge too far).

    Read More
    • Replies: @40 Acres and A Kardashian

    Everyone, even accused criminals, is entitled to a defense and Shapiro I’m sure got paid royally for defending OJ. This doesn’t mean that he believed in his innocence or the innocence of blacks in general.
     
    In the show, Shapiro is portrayed as being convinced of Simpson's guilt from the start. While meeting with Kardashian and OJ to talk about taking on the case, Shapiro asks Kardashian to excuse them, and then asks Simpson if "there's anything you want to tell me." Kardashian is devastated when Simpson flunks a polygraph, getting the lowest score possible, but Shapiro doesn't seem surprised at all.
    , @Autochthon

    [T]he verdict was correct not in the sense that O.J. was innocent, but that the state had not met its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
     
    Laymen too often conflate "not guilty" with "innocent." There is a very good reason the latter is not an option among verdicts....
  138. @Jack D
    I don't know Shapiro personally but I know other Jewish defense lawyers and none of the ones I know are under any illusions about black criminality. No one who works in the criminal justice system from day to day is under any such illusion even if they started out as flaming liberals. You would have to be blind not to. Reality kicks like a mule. Limousine liberals can live in some fantasy world but people in contact with the system don't have that luxury.

    Everyone, even accused criminals, is entitled to a defense and Shapiro I'm sure got paid royally for defending OJ. This doesn't mean that he believed in his innocence or the innocence of blacks in general. After the trial, Shapiro said that the verdict was correct not in the sense that OJ was innocent but that the state had not met its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. I'm guessing that the lawyers took every last nickel that OJ had, which is why he was later reduced to stick-up jobs (that and the fact that he was unemployable as an endorser, even for black oriented products - blacks were willing to get him off to stick it to whitey but giving him a job after that was a bridge too far).

    Everyone, even accused criminals, is entitled to a defense and Shapiro I’m sure got paid royally for defending OJ. This doesn’t mean that he believed in his innocence or the innocence of blacks in general.

    In the show, Shapiro is portrayed as being convinced of Simpson’s guilt from the start. While meeting with Kardashian and OJ to talk about taking on the case, Shapiro asks Kardashian to excuse them, and then asks Simpson if “there’s anything you want to tell me.” Kardashian is devastated when Simpson flunks a polygraph, getting the lowest score possible, but Shapiro doesn’t seem surprised at all.

    Read More
  139. Jack D says:
    @Inquiring Mind
    You had the race thing going on in Mr. Simpson being a likable-to-whites celebrity black man as well as the black solidarity that if a black man is found guilty of anything, it is a white conspiracy to keep the black man down. But you also had the men as wife-abuser thing going on, where feminists regard men in the same light that badwhites hold blacks with regard to propensity for violence.

    The defense wanted blacks on the jury because of the race thing whereas the prosecution wanted women on the jury because of the men-as-violent-wife-abusers thing. They split the difference and ended up with black women on the jury.

    iSteve's take on this is the notion that women have an atavistic attraction to violent men -- think of the sympathy of many women to the surviving Boston Marathon bomber, and I was in a restaurant table talking inside-baseball evidentiary procedures based on what was said (on NPR!) about what Eric Holder's DOJ would allow when I caught both barrels of this from a woman the next table over. (Never quote NPR in front of a liberal whom you don't know, just like you don't repeat an ethnic joke you heard from an ethnic comic in front of strangers.)

    My take on this is that black women have a more realistic, perhaps more cynical view of the escalation of provocation in marriages gone bad and are more likely to assign proportional blame to each party instead of keeping to the white-progressive-feminist narrative.

    Obviously Chris Darden was on the prosecution team because of the race angle and Marcia Clark because of the women-as-abuse-victims angle. Mr. Darden was supposed to approach the jury box, look down at his shoes, and say, "Yeah, Mr. Simpson is black and he is here because of the Man and because of the System, but sometimes a brother does wrong and Mr. Simpson has done wrong and sometimes you as a brother have to do what a brother has to do."

    Marcia Clark, on the other hand, went the full feminist with men as spousal abusers. What I fault Ms. Clark is that a good lawyer is supposed to adhere to the Narrative when it helps their case. It seemed to me that Ms. Clark was keeping to the feminist Narrative out of ideological reasons well beyond what helped the State's case; Ms. Clark was not a competent lawyer.

    The case was lost in jury selection (actually even earlier when it was brought downtown instead of before a jury of OJ’s lily white peers in Brentwood) because of Clark’s mistaken belief that gender trumps race. It doesn’t.

    Once she made that mistake, even if she had been the world’s greatest prosecutor (and she was far from that) it wouldn’t have made any difference (especially since Ito was completely worthless as a judge and let in all sorts of extraneous and prejudicial matters that had nothing to do with OJ’s guilt or innocence, such as whether the cops were racist or not). The prosecution presented enough evidence to convict OJ 10 times over but it wasn’t about guilt or innocence but about sticking it to the Man so the prosecution’s presentation was irrelevant.

    Read More
    • Agree: Autochthon
    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    In the other series about OJ, that after the Jury selection, OJ joked to Cochran: "If that jury convicts me, then maybe I am guilty"
  140. Pat Boyle says:
    @Rohirrimborn
    I was surprised at how small he was.

    I had the same reaction when I (almost literally) bumped into OJ. It was December in the early nineties and I was getting off the escalator on the second floor of Bloomingdale's department store in Manhattan. I had to stop short to let a pretty blond in a buckskin jacket pass directly in front of me. The face of the man she was with and mine were just inches apart in the crowd and I instantly recognized it was OJ. Only after the murder did I realize that the blond was Nicole. What struck me is that I remember looking down at OJ even though I'm six-foot even. I immediately turned to my wife behind me and told her that the man who just passed in front of me was OJ. She looked at him walking away and didn't believe me. I insisted it was him so she purposely walked around the floor to approach him from the front. My wife was from a small midwestern town and had never seen a big celebrity in the flesh before. I'll never forget her excitement when she came back and confirmed that it was indeed OJ. Later it came out in the press that OJ had purchased the infamous gloves in December at Bloomingdale's. I'm sure that it was the same visit when I saw him and Nicole. Gives me the creeps every time I remember that encounter.

    Until the accident (I fell off cliff) I had always been 6’4″. So when I met celebrities I was often surprised at how small they were. Steve Sailer the host of this blog is also 6′ 4″. It’s a good height. You stand out in crowds but you can still fit in most sports cars.

    I went to the opera every year and in the crush of the audience at intermission I was always happy that I had a clear view above the crowd. Being in the midst of a crowd can be a little claustrophobic.

    OJ was a larger than life celebrity in those days. He was on TV and in movies but in real life he wasn’t all that big. I once met Nate Thurman on the street in front on city hall in San Francisco – that’s a really impressive hunk of human being, Made me feel like an insect.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bill Jones
    I'm 6' 4" and two fifty , other than flying there are few downsides and I find people tend not to fuck with me.
    , @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    Per Malcolm Gladwell in Blink, about 1% of all adult American males are 6'2" and above, and about 10% of all adult American males are 6'0" and above.
    , @Jack D
    I once met Manute Bol on the street in NY. I'm 5'10" and I was eye level with his belt buckle, I kid you not.

    https://i0.wp.com/www.thetallestman.com/images/manutebol/manutebol.jpg
  141. @joeyjoejoe
    "Travolta isn’t as competent as his fellow Scientologist Tom Cruise at picking scripts, but, even so, he’s one of the top 50 or so greatest movie stars of all time"

    Really? I guess I haven't been paying attention. I know him as the guy that did Grease-Urban Cowboy-Saturday Night Fever in about a 2-year stretch, then had a comeback on Pulp Fiction 20 years later. That wouldn't put him in the top 50 for the 1970's.

    I fully grant that I have the pop culture IQ of a Ted Kazinski, though.

    joe

    I was running a derivatives desk in Sodom on Hudson at that time. We were therefore in a trading room with TV’s all over the place.

    When it was announced that a decision had been made the room filled up with all the affirmative action hires.

    Without exception every black in the room cheered.

    Many relationships were irredeemably changed that day as white people realised the amount of racial hatred that blacks they worked with every day harbored for them.

    Read More
  142. @Pat Boyle
    Until the accident (I fell off cliff) I had always been 6'4". So when I met celebrities I was often surprised at how small they were. Steve Sailer the host of this blog is also 6' 4". It's a good height. You stand out in crowds but you can still fit in most sports cars.

    I went to the opera every year and in the crush of the audience at intermission I was always happy that I had a clear view above the crowd. Being in the midst of a crowd can be a little claustrophobic.

    OJ was a larger than life celebrity in those days. He was on TV and in movies but in real life he wasn't all that big. I once met Nate Thurman on the street in front on city hall in San Francisco - that's a really impressive hunk of human being, Made me feel like an insect.

    I’m 6′ 4″ and two fifty , other than flying there are few downsides and I find people tend not to fuck with me.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    As with Mr. Sailer you are lucky sport. Try going through life being only 5'3" and see how you like it.....
    , @Pat Boyle
    I sure wish I could get back down to two fifty again.
  143. The Juice answered the age-old question: “Who do I have to kill to avoid traffic on the 405?”

    Read More
  144. @anonymous
    Back in the day, I had the opportunity to assist in the defense of an auto accident case in which the client was Chinese. The attorney with whom I worked was petrified at the thought of having to put this man on the witness stand. One reason was because although the man claimed he had been living in America for nearly twenty years he kept insisting that he didn't understand English well and needed an interpreter.

    The main reason, however, was because non-Oriental jurors for the most part hate Oriental drivers.

    The main reason, however, was because non-Oriental jurors for the most part hate Oriental drivers.

    Our highways–one more area, another “commons”, where the blessings of diversity are apparent as a nation of a common people and culture dies.

    (Really would it kill you to move out of the left lane so other people can pass?)

    Read More
  145. When the verdict was read live over CNN, I was having lunch in some chain restaurant with two black male coworkers. While all of the black restaurant staff and nearly all of the white patrons erupted in glee over the verdict, my two black coworkers (conservative, smart, likeable CPAs) were genuinely upset and disappointed over the verdict. (Either that or they did a great job faking it for my benefit.)

    Nicole Brown Simpson was an “adventuress”! From Wikipeida:

    Brown met Simpson in 1977 when she was 18 years old, working as a waitress at the Beverly Hills private club called The Daisy.[5][6] Although Simpson was still married to his first wife, Marguerite, they began dating. He and Marguerite divorced in March 1979.

    Read More
  146. Brutusale says:
    @StillCARealist
    Is that a real song that people listen to? Appallingly bad. An insult to bad taste. Ugly, moronic, foul, boring, stupid, offensive, demeaning, dull. It sounds like something to zone out on when you're stoned beyond all boundaries (sorry Pink Floyd). Like something Satan would play to his insane minions to prolong the torment of Hell.

    I'm sorry, but if this is what black kids are listening to then there is no shred of hope for them.

    Would that it were only black kids.

    Read More
  147. Brutusale says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    The highlight of the famous Bronco chase:
     
    I don't remember any jokes about the irony of a Bill driving a Bronco. Were there any? Sounds treasonous to me.

    OJ wasn’t driving.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Cowlings

    It would have been a Bill/Ram/Oiler/Seahawk/49er driving a Bronco!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    It would have been a Bill/Ram/Oiler/Seahawk/49er driving a Bronco!
     
    BRO'S 49. Catchy name for a vehicle.
  148. dr kill says:

    Everybody lost, they are all Lefties, some naked, some clothed. But damn, it sure was fun to follow. Who ever gave a shit about anything in Cali? Y’all are fucked up.

    Read More
  149. dr kill says:
    @AnotherDad

    The thing that has surprised me these years is why O.J. wasn’t the subject of a revenge-killing by someone in the victims’ families.
     
    Perhaps the Irish in me, but i'm surprised there isn't more of this generally.

    Again the open, high-trust, one-people/one-nation character of the West is a great thing and allows what would be family/clan/tribal disputes to be solved legally, rather than becoming blood feuds. But that demands that the legal system actually work. When it clearly does not work. And even worse does not work for ethno-tribal reasons, one would expect folks to be pissed.

    The Brown family situation is complicated because of the kids. ("Oh we offed your dad, to avenge your mom."). The Goldmans? Don't know what's up there. (You don't want to mess with my kids.)

    I suspect, as we have the diversity induced breakdown of West civilization--as it decays into anarcho-tyranny--we'll see more people seeking to deal resolve disputes "privately".

    Californians are pussies. End of story.

    Read More
  150. @40 Acres and A Kardashian

    Detectives Lang and Vanatter checked out Jason Simpson. He had a firm alibi and his DNA wasn’t there.
     
    Supposedly, they "checked him out" very cursorily, and proponents of this theory say his alibi doesn't hold up. Basically, they asked him where he was that night, he said he was at work, and a couple of his coworkers remembered him working that night. The DNA evidence was compared to Jason's? I wasn't aware of that. If so, there's not much to the theory. But everything I've read says they never got a DNA sample from Jason.

    Why should Simpson be roughed up? He had a knife and was wild with rage.
     
    Even if you're enraged and you have a knife, it seems to me that it's damn near impossible to slaughter two adults without getting a black eye, some deep scratches, serious cuts, a fat lip, some bruises, or something. Especially when one of the victims was a 25 year old man in excellent physical condition.

    On top of which, there should have been much more blood in the Bronco. I don't see how it's possible to spill gallons of blood in a murderous rage and only get a couple tiny swipes of the blood on/in the vehicle when you make your getaway.

    I had long wondered about the Lone O. J. narrative as well.

    For the incident in Las Vegas for which he was sent to prison, his plan to get his Heisman Trophy and other sports memorabilia back, he had a pack of his friends involved. That was his “M. O,” As with the Dream Team, it appeared that Mr. Simpson never did anything without a small gang of people helping him out.

    Even when he led the police on that Slow Speed Chase down the Santa Monica Freeway and threatened to kill himself, he had his pal “A. C.” Cowlings as his “wing man.” That he committed the murders and discarded physical evidence all by his lonesome seemed out of character.

    Read More
    • Replies: @David In TN
    Simpson did have help. Somebody came into his house after he left for Chicago. Whoever did ran the washing machine and did some cleaning up.

    See Daniel Petrocelli's book on the civil trial.
  151. @Jake
    It is simple: though most blacks had come to resent OJ for 'not being black enough,' he remained black. And that meant to the vast majority of blacks that he was a victim of Whitey.

    Shapiro was the typical Jew who simultaneously believed that black people are just like white people and, conversely, that blacks deserve special treatment for being innocent victims of Whitey the Gentile. That type of Jew will be shocked when a horde of Moslem-led blacks arrive to rape and murder his family in the name of Revenge of the Peoples of Color.

    Kardashin was the epitome of ultra naive white fool who was not able to imagine that the way he and his Ex had raised their kids would make them whores to Negrophilia even at its murderous worst, much less that blacks would act exactly as the 'racists' said they would.

    Cochran knew that his people (certainly 90% of them) could always be counted on to follow a charismatic black 'leader' into any violence against non-blacks, and against all facts and logic to protect a black from 'white justice.'

    Clarke was the feminist bimbo who was certain that women of all colors hate men for being rapists and domestic abusers and that therefore black women would do justice for the white whore who stole their OJ. That she also deep down felt that every black man accused of raping a white woman probably was a Tom Robinson, and she would not be able to recognize that her own double-think doomed her.

    Darden was the rare black man who really could be an equal part of white society, which is exactly the reason that at least 90% of blacks would always take a Cochran over him and that white Feminist bimbos always eventually want to nudge him aside.

    As the verdict was nearing, I was buying a house. The man representing the lender was Jewish. He was absolutely certain that the verdict would be guilty, because the facts were clear and only a racist would suggest that either blacks were too ignorant to discern them or that blacks did not about facts when race was at play. He was sure in that slimy Leftist way that justice was obvious and that it would be done by blacks.

    I met with him about an hour after the verdict was read. He was in shock. His beloved Negroes had not acted as he asserted they would. And a Jew had been killed too. That was not to be tolerated, but how could Jews now sound like rednecks and say that blacks are what they are?

    He was in agony.

    Shapiro was the typical Jew who simultaneously believed that black people are just like white people and, conversely, that blacks deserve special treatment for being innocent victims of Whitey the Gentile.

    Many Jews believe this, no doubt.

    It’s amazing how Southern Jewish history got mostly wiped from the history books, a strange collaboration between liberal Jews and anti-Semites.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res

    It’s amazing how Southern Jewish history got mostly wiped from the history books, a strange collaboration between liberal Jews and anti-Semites.
     
    Indeed. Are there any good references on that subject? One interesting aspect is that sounds like early 20th century Germany, but without the denouement. Is there anything to be learned by exploring that analogy? To be clear, I mean, for example, how to prevent events like the Holocaust.
  152. MarkinLA says:
    @Jack D
    The case was lost in jury selection (actually even earlier when it was brought downtown instead of before a jury of OJ's lily white peers in Brentwood) because of Clark's mistaken belief that gender trumps race. It doesn't.

    Once she made that mistake, even if she had been the world's greatest prosecutor (and she was far from that) it wouldn't have made any difference (especially since Ito was completely worthless as a judge and let in all sorts of extraneous and prejudicial matters that had nothing to do with OJ's guilt or innocence, such as whether the cops were racist or not). The prosecution presented enough evidence to convict OJ 10 times over but it wasn't about guilt or innocence but about sticking it to the Man so the prosecution's presentation was irrelevant.

    In the other series about OJ, that after the Jury selection, OJ joked to Cochran: “If that jury convicts me, then maybe I am guilty”

    Read More
  153. @Lugash

    Your thesis is that men go easier on women and women on men. If this is true there should be some statistics on this phenomenon.
     
    Dominick Dunne, who covered a number of high profile murder cases, had observed that female jurors seemed to feel protective of male criminals, particularly when they're facing a female DA, and that this appeared to happen during the OJ Simpson trial.

    The jurors in the Joel Steinberg murder trial were split by gender. The male jurors were extremely sympathetic to Hedda Nussbaum, even though her daughter was constantly abused. The female jurors hated Nussbaum with a passion and thought she was complicit.

    In the current year we'll probably never get past anecdata, but it would be an interesting study.


    I was going to say the O.J. Trial was a formative event for me, but it was more of a confirmatory one.
     
    It was transformative for me. Black America's glee at OJ's acquittal was mind blowing.

    It was transformative for me. Black America’s glee at OJ’s acquittal was mind blowing.

    I was somewhat cynical by then, but that had a pretty big impact on me as well.

    Read More
  154. @whorefinder

    One theme of the series is spelled out in a derisive comment by Marcia Clark, who points out that the prosecution’s secret weapon is that all the alpha male egos on the Dream Team will cause the defense to implode.
     

    Only a feminist could be so stupid. Men do have ego battles, of course, but male-only groups will, if given enough time, coalesce into a hierarchy, and will follow along with that hierarchy to achieve a group goal. The length of the entire O.J. ordeal gave the defense team enough time to sort out who was top dog and who was going to run the show, and then attack the prosecution full force.

    Clark, being a feminazi, had no concept of how men actually behaved, since her delusional feminist religion didn't allow her to think it. If she'd been smart, she'd have pushed very hard for a quick trial, to keep the men from consolidating, or maybe done some open whining to the press about how the O.J. team wasn't "diverse" because it had no women, thereby getting a token female lawyer on board with O.J.'s squad and having her presence cause trouble (the presence of women, even unattractive ones, has long been noted to reduce male-group cohesion, since men invariably either seek to protect her or dismiss her, causing male conflict).

    But then again, if Clark'd been smart, she would have recused herself when she realized she was over her head.

    Clark, being a feminazi, had no concept of how men actually behaved, since her delusional feminist religion didn’t allow her to think it.

    Yep.

    Women are clearly the more emotionally tuned in and socially aware sex. They are on average much better than men in understanding women. And they are better at understanding men–especially individually–than men are at understanding women. (Certainly better than men like me raised with no sisters and a fairly level-headed mom–a farm girl raised in the depression with four brothers. I was clueless about the actual nature of women, when I started out into the world as a wet behind the ears pup. Had to learn it all by “trial and error”–lots of error.)

    But despite their social awareness women seem to really suck at understand men’s interactions with each other. And women seem to have little to no clue how utterly fortunate they are that men–white men at least–are quite capable of cooperating as necessary to get the job done and that as result women benefit from men’s the incredible achievements and enjoy incredible peace and prosperity. To say feminism doesn’t aid that understanding is an understatement.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    "when I started out into the world as a wet behind the ears pup"


    I'm sorry, but people really don't talk like this in real life 2017. The internet has a way of making people sound sappy, corny, and just plain silly.
  155. Hibernian says:
    @william munny
    Despite what we see on tv, nobody is very good at picking juries. There are lots of rules people assume are true, but you just never know how someone is going to act on a jury. Most of the time the prosecutors and defense attorneys actually agree, in large part, on the majority of people who make up the jury -- the people they each assume are reasonable and of course will view the case as they each do.

    There are people criminal defense lawyers and civil plaintiff’s lawyers avoid like the plague. They include about evryone posting here including me and possibly excluding a few trolls.

    Read More
  156. Europeans interactions with Africa–including the trans-atlantic slave trade, and the resulting massive unearned expansion of blacks’ territory–were clearly the greatest “own goal” in human history … until the last 50 when we started letting foreigners flood into our nations willy nilly.

    But even within all that sorry context, African-Americans have to set some sort of record for the most expensive “cheap labor” of all time.

    Read More
  157. Ragno says:
    @kihowi

    But then focus groups reveal that not even Johnnie Cochran is cynical enough: black women love O.J., especially now that that blonde bitch ex-wife is permanently out of the picture.
     
    Ever thought about the possibility that black women now loved him because he killed his white wife?

    Erm………………..“possibility”?

    Read More
  158. Hibernian says:
    @Jonathan Mason
    I followed the OJ case very closely at the time. I am sure the jury knew he was guilty, but black juries tend to perceive court cases as a kind of quiz show in which they have to determine which side did better with what they had.

    Many years ago a black woman whom I knew quite well was on a jury in which a well known Bermuda physician and politician Dr. Paul de la Chevotiere was on trial facing an allegation by his daughter, now in her 20's, that he had raped her when she was 12 years old.

    The only evidence was the testimony of the plaintiff herself.

    There was a hung jury and the case was never retried. "So", I said to the juror, "I guess some of the jury did not believe her?"

    "Oh, yes," she said, "we believed her all right, but we did not think the prosecution had adequately proved its case, so we found him not guilty."

    De la Chevotiere died in 2012. The daughter who had made the accusations was for some reason left out of his will and did not inherit any part of his estate, so she contested the will in court.

    https://www.google.com/#q=dr+de+la+chevotiere+bermuda+trial+incest

    “Oh, yes,” she said, “we believed her all right, but we did not think the prosecution had adequately proved its case, so we found him not guilty.”

    My first impression is that sounds like they take reasonable doubt seriously; it’s not an auto accident based civil case decided by the preponderance of the evidence. On further reflection, I see the point that it’s about justice, not how good a show they put on. Her words, without the context you had knowing her and hearing them directly, don’t seem shocking to me.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jonathan Mason

    Her words, without the context you had knowing her and hearing them directly, don’t seem shocking to me.
     
    Thanks for your response. I guess the point I was making was that the job of the jury was to make a determination whether the plaintiff was telling the truth, but it sounded like they wanted to look at the case in a more complex way.

    This was back in the 80's, but from what I remember, based on reading the reports of the trial, I personally did not believe the plaintiff.

    I was once the foreman of a jury in a drunk driving case of a woman driver and I asked for a preliminary show of hands before we started discussions about the evidence. Everyone raised their hand for guilty, so there was no further discussion, and we were all home in time for tea.

    After the case was over I did a bit of research. The defense case was that the defendant was a camera person for ESPN who had come to town (South Florida) to film a professional boxing contest at the local rodeo grounds, and had drunk too much on the plane on the way down from Minnesota, then rented a car and being thirsty had picked up some wine coolers which explained the empty bottles in the car. Further research revealed that the boxing fixture was not at the rodeo grounds, but a different venue, and was televised by a different network, but these issues never came up at trial. I have always wondered who she really was. Anyway, she looked like a lush, so her goose was cooked from the start.

  159. Dave Pinsen says: • Website
    @Anonymous
    No, OJ was sentenced not for what he actually did (which was to repossess his own stuff without the proper legal unction-sheriffs legally rob small businesses in debt every day, it's called a "till tap"-but they are sheriffs) , it was for what he should have been sentenced for in the crime for which he was unjustly not convicted, in the mind of the sentencing judge.

    Had OJ been smart he would have left the country where his NFL pension would have gone a lot farther and no one would have cared all that much what he did. I have it on some good authority that up until the last few years he was a real stallion and on $300K he could have had a mansion, servants and no trouble rounding up plenty of booty.

    One question I’ve never seen asked about O.J.’s “NFL pension” is when he set it up: immediately after his football career, or after the murders, in an attempt to shield assets from the future civil case.

    Read More
    • Replies: @ANON
    He got the pension when he retired from football. He didn't set it up, the team he worked for did everything.
    Pensions, like social security and disability are exempt from civil forfeiture.
  160. Rob McX says:
    @Steve Sailer
    Racehorse Haynes, the top Texas trial lawyer of the 1970s (a couple of his cases were made into miniseries), had a lot of rules for keeping phonies off the jury. He particularly disliked guys who clipped multiple mechanical pencils in their shirt pockets so people would think they were engineers but they weren't.

    I used to think a white guy would never get off the way OJ did, till I read of the case of Thomas Cullen Davis, who was defended by Haynes.

    Read More
  161. @Old Palo Altan
    "the manners of Brentwood".

    An acute observation. I saw him glide smoothly out of his cream coloured Rolls Royce on Rodeo Drive a year or two before his blood rage. He stood out a mile from everyone around him, but did not in any way exude the pernicious arrogance of today's celebrities.
    But there was no hint of menace, which is why whites liked and felt comfortable with him.
    Such emanations came later, after the murders.

    your comment reminds me of my own reaction when it first came out that Simpson was the suspect: something along the lines of “he can’t be guilty of this, he’s so nice” I knew nothing about him except his movie roles and TV appearances. By then his football heroics were already decades in the past. His screenwriters had crafted a nice guy persona that turned out to be misleading.

    did not in any way exude the pernicious arrogance of today’s celebrities.
    But there was no hint of menace, which is why whites liked and felt comfortable with him.

    Despite Simpson’s doubltess guilt I dont see his current incarceration as just. The fact that he skated on his real crime and was later convicted and given a ridiculously harsh sentence for what is a relatively minor offense actually makes things worse in my mind. The perversion of justice that was his acquittal is further perverted by his armed robbery conviction for an offense that was dubious at best.

    The aphorism Justice Must Not Only be Done, but Must be Seen to be Done comes to mind. This case was another example just like the Chinese judge in Hawaii of the Left making up the rules as they go along in order produce the result they want. Too many instances of this and the sheeple might someday realize that, to the Left, the Law and the Courts are just weapons to use against one’s political enemies.

    Read More
  162. Hibernian says:
    @whorefinder

    I think it’s amazing a prosecutor could be so blind to human nature as not to realise this after a few trials.

     

    Two reasons:

    1. The jury was weird. The people who usually get on juries are law-abiding folk who pay their taxes, renew their licenses on time, and obey government edicts, like orders to come to jury duty. The flakes, hustlers, scumbags, and anti-government types don't show up, or if they do make it known they won't take a case seriously, and so don't get on juries. So juries are usually pretty biased towards cops and law-and-order and prosecutors tailor their arguments towards their biases (and often don't have to try so hard to do it).

    The O.J. trial, however, was an event, and came right after the Rodney King cop acquittal, and many of those same yahoos and scumbags actively tried to get on the jury. Celebrity trials are exciting, and many blacks wanted O.J. off because of Rodney King . So it was an abnormal jury pool: far less pro-law-and-order and filled with a lot of folks openly hostile to convicting O.J. and also eager to serve on his jury. The prosecutors were too dumb to realize this.

    2. Affirmative action. Clark and Darden were two big affirmative action hires. They were pushed due to their sex (Clark) and race (Darden). So they kept failing upwards, and never learned to do better for tougher cases. They basically assumed because of their sex and race they would win and they were geniuses, because that's how they got ahead in the office and everyone told them so.

    Johnny Cochran must've licked his lips when he saw them at the prosecutor's table.

    “The people who usually get on juries are law-abiding folk who pay their taxes, renew their licenses on time, and obey government edicts, like orders to come to jury duty.”

    It may be one edict they might try to avoid, not blatantly by saying “I’m prejuidiced” thereby being subject to the wrath of the judge, but more subtly by advertising their nerdishness. “I love computers; I love analyzing facts; I’m a law and order guy but I’ll TRY to be fair,” etc. The defense will tend to use its preemptories on these people.

    While some of the poor may throw away the summons, to others it’s something to do for a while and get a small cash stipend plus possibly some meals.

    The middle class is also thinking about their jobs , and also their salaries which far surpass the meager jury pay.

    I would say your point has some validity in that a trial such as that of OJ may amplify racial solidarity on the pro defense side and increase racial fear in prospective white middle class jurors.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Autochthon

    The middle class is also thinking about their jobs , and also their salaries which far surpass the meager jury pay.
     
    Perhaps so for the working class and the self-employed middle class; employees in the middle class nowadays almost invariably are excused with pay for jury duty, because it looks good for the nonsense about corporate social responsibility for public relations.

    I'm wondering if you and I are defining the (admittedly endangered) middle class comparably – no one likes to admit he is working class or rich; persons in both situations generally claim to be middle class....
  163. Ivy says:

    A New York defense attorney told me that his job was to sell scum-buckets to juries. He knew they were usually, but that being NY, not always guilty and that they had many dysfunctions. (One truism in Court is that going to trial will result in conviction about 85-90% of the time, if not higher.). As others have mentioned, the verdict may hinge on whether the State proved its case instead of whether the perp, or alleged perp, was guilty or innocent. Many in flyover land may have trouble with that difference given how often they may have been tried, convicted and sentenced in the court of public or media opinion on flimsier grounds.

    Defense attorneys may have to take some unusual precautions when dealing with such select clients, such as having escape routes, secure dwellings well away from the fray including weekend places upstate, and careful handling of any billing interactions. Judges I’ve known take similar precautions, including steel doors and elevated windows that reduce break-in potential.

    The citizenist or public sense of duty or conscience is not as widespread as many would like, although one side effect is that judicial system interactions may result in some screenplay-worthy scenes. No wonder some writers attend trials for script ideas!

    Read More
  164. @Pat Boyle
    Until the accident (I fell off cliff) I had always been 6'4". So when I met celebrities I was often surprised at how small they were. Steve Sailer the host of this blog is also 6' 4". It's a good height. You stand out in crowds but you can still fit in most sports cars.

    I went to the opera every year and in the crush of the audience at intermission I was always happy that I had a clear view above the crowd. Being in the midst of a crowd can be a little claustrophobic.

    OJ was a larger than life celebrity in those days. He was on TV and in movies but in real life he wasn't all that big. I once met Nate Thurman on the street in front on city hall in San Francisco - that's a really impressive hunk of human being, Made me feel like an insect.

    Per Malcolm Gladwell in Blink, about 1% of all adult American males are 6’2″ and above, and about 10% of all adult American males are 6’0″ and above.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    Like so much of Malcolm Gladwell's oeuvre that seems misleading at best.

    Per this site 6'0" is 82.2 percentile in the US. (they give mean 5'9.3" and SD 2.92") and 6'2" is 94.6 percentile.
    https://tall.life/height-percentile-calculator-age-country/
    Unclear to me which source has better data. I am also unsure about issues like bare feet vs. wearing shoes (or cowboy boots ; ).

    But the far more important issue is differences between age cohorts. There is some data showing the increase in 1950-1980 birth cohorts in Europe at http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2007/03/evolution-of-adult-height-in-europe.html
    The paper itself is at https://ideas.repec.org/p/upf/upfgen/1002.html and has data on the SDs as well. I did not see a clear trend there though.

    This paper has US heights by race and state for US birth cohorts 1940-44 and 1980-84:
    http://uwrg.gsu.edu/files/2014/01/08-3-1_Paper_Height_Rashad.pdf
    One observation (Tables 1a and 1b) that surprised me was that the increase was larger for Whites (2.9cm) and Others (Asians mostly?) than it was for Blacks and Hispanics. Seems like a bit of a spoke in the wheel of the historical white privilege narrative.

    This looks like a comprehensive survey of worldwide height changes from 1896-1996: https://elifesciences.org/articles/13410
  165. @Dave Pinsen
    There's a scene in the miniseries where F. Lee Bailey complains to Shapiro about not getting paid.

    The shunning referred to O.J. In the miniseries, his favorite restaurant won't give him a reservation for a celebratory dinner, etc.

    Wait, you’re saying McDonald’s refused to let him park his Bentley outside post-trial?

    Read More
  166. Njguy73 says:
    @Anonymous
    No, OJ was sentenced not for what he actually did (which was to repossess his own stuff without the proper legal unction-sheriffs legally rob small businesses in debt every day, it's called a "till tap"-but they are sheriffs) , it was for what he should have been sentenced for in the crime for which he was unjustly not convicted, in the mind of the sentencing judge.

    Had OJ been smart he would have left the country where his NFL pension would have gone a lot farther and no one would have cared all that much what he did. I have it on some good authority that up until the last few years he was a real stallion and on $300K he could have had a mansion, servants and no trouble rounding up plenty of booty.

    Had OJ been smart he would have left the country where his NFL pension would have gone a lot farther and no one would have cared all that much what he did.

    “The first option would be to leave the country and live as an exile in someplace like Australia or France…A second option would be to exit public life while remaining in America…The third option — and the one Simpson selected — was to actually live like the innocent person he portrayed himself to be…When considered objectively, Simpson’s public profile during the late 1990′s accurately reflects the reasonable response of a stubborn, egocentric person who did not murder two people. In a weird way, it’s the strongest argument in his favor (and maybe the only one). But it was a terrible, terrible move — and not just because I believe he murdered those two people. It would have been a terrible move even if he had not. He forced people to hate him, even if they barely cared.”

    - Chuck Klosterman, “I Wear The Black Hat” (2013) on Simpson’s post-trial options

    http://grantland.com/features/an-exclusive-excerpt-chuck-klosterman-new-book-wear-black-hat-kareem-oj/

    Read More
  167. Veracitor says:

    Too bad actor William Marshall wasn’t available to play OJ. (Marshall died in 2003,)

    Read More
  168. @H. Kelly Taylor
    O.J. was not acquitted because of Black women's perceptions of his marriage. He was acquitted because the blood evidence was discredited once L.A.P.D. could not account for all the blood they extracted from Simpson. The cops screwed the case because they tried to frame a man they likely could have convicted.

    I’m agnostic about whether the LAPD tried to “tighten up” the case a bit by planting evidence. Regardless, it certainly didn’t help the prosecution when Fuhrmann returned to the stand after being outed as a “genocidal racist”/perjurer and he played it safe by invoking the Fifth in response to every single question he was asked, including whether he had planted/tampered with evidence.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Marty
    You can't assert the Fifth selectively. If you answer one question, you've waived the privilege as to all.
  169. syonredux says:
    @40 Acres and A Kardashian

    Clarke was the feminist bimbo
     
    Clarke was the Jewish feminist bimbo

    FIFY

    Clarke was the feminist bimbo

    Clarke was the Jewish feminist bimbo

    FIFY

    Interesting sidenote. She was raped at the age of 17 while visiting Israel:

    When Clark was 17 years old, she was raped on a trip to Eilat, Israel.[9] She has said it was an experience she did not deal with until much later, and that it informed much of why she became a prosecutor.[9]

    https://www.unz.com/isteve/the-people-vs-o-j-simpson/#new_comments

    However, the show has her say that the rape happened in Italy:

    Maybe you have to have something inside you already when you get here, something that you have to make right. Something you have to avenge. When I was 17, I was raped. I was raped in Italy by a waiter and I buried it. I didn’t forget it… I just sort of stuffed it. When I had my first rape case, what happened to me, of course, came flying out from whatever rock I’d jammed it under and I had to deal with it. It was hell all over again, in a way. But it made something very, very clear to me. I have something, this thing in me, that wants vengeance. Vengeance for victims. That’s what justice is to me. And I’ve always, always had faith that when I look at a jury, we have that in common. Everyone wants justice for victims, right? I never doubted that. Until this.

    https://www.bustle.com/articles/152063-marcia-clark-discusses-her-rape-on-american-crime-story-shedding-light-on-her-drive-for-justice

    Read More
    • Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    At the time, Marcia Clark's jewishness was never fully front and center, say, in the way it was for Robert Shapiro and Barry Shreck. (Or the Ron Goldman family). Now that it's been made into a mini-series, it's not hard to see why a personal anecdote is moved to a European nation rather than Israel.
    , @syonredux
    Corrected a link

    Clarke was the feminist bimbo

    Clarke was the Jewish feminist bimbo

    FIFY
     
    Interesting sidenote. She was raped at the age of 17 while visiting Israel:

    When Clark was 17 years old, she was raped on a trip to Eilat, Israel.[9] She has said it was an experience she did not deal with until much later, and that it informed much of why she became a prosecutor.[9]
     
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcia_Clark#Personal_life



    However, the show has her say that the rape happened in Italy:

    Maybe you have to have something inside you already when you get here, something that you have to make right. Something you have to avenge. When I was 17, I was raped. I was raped in Italy by a waiter and I buried it. I didn’t forget it… I just sort of stuffed it. When I had my first rape case, what happened to me, of course, came flying out from whatever rock I’d jammed it under and I had to deal with it. It was hell all over again, in a way. But it made something very, very clear to me. I have something, this thing in me, that wants vengeance. Vengeance for victims. That’s what justice is to me. And I’ve always, always had faith that when I look at a jury, we have that in common. Everyone wants justice for victims, right? I never doubted that. Until this.
     
    https://www.bustle.com/articles/152063-marcia-clark-discusses-her-rape-on-american-crime-story-shedding-light-on-her-drive-for-justice
    , @40 Acres and A Kardashian

    Interesting sidenote. She was raped at the age of 17 while visiting Israel

    However, the show has her say that the rape happened in Italy
     

    Wow. I didn't catch that while watching the show. And I had just read her book a few months earlier.

    She was no doubt raped by an "anti-Semite." Just like the one sending all those bomb threats to American Jewish centers from Israel a few months back.

  170. @AnotherDad

    The thing that has surprised me these years is why O.J. wasn’t the subject of a revenge-killing by someone in the victims’ families.
     
    Perhaps the Irish in me, but i'm surprised there isn't more of this generally.

    Again the open, high-trust, one-people/one-nation character of the West is a great thing and allows what would be family/clan/tribal disputes to be solved legally, rather than becoming blood feuds. But that demands that the legal system actually work. When it clearly does not work. And even worse does not work for ethno-tribal reasons, one would expect folks to be pissed.

    The Brown family situation is complicated because of the kids. ("Oh we offed your dad, to avenge your mom."). The Goldmans? Don't know what's up there. (You don't want to mess with my kids.)

    I suspect, as we have the diversity induced breakdown of West civilization--as it decays into anarcho-tyranny--we'll see more people seeking to deal resolve disputes "privately".

    Sounds like someone’s been watching the opening monologue from Coppola’s The Godfather, Part 1 “I believe in America…”

    The Goldmans would never have resorted to revenge honor-killing, and one supposes that Nicole’s family was too clueless and greedy for money. Perhaps they initially thought that they could still collect on the civil suit vs OJ.

    But what you’re saying makes sense for a certain kind of American, especially back in the day.

    “Never sue or threaten to sue those who’ve wronged you, settle them cases yourself”–Andrew Jackson’s mother’s words to her young son about honor and making things right vs those who could potentially cause him harm. And remember, Andrew Jackson fought many duels during the course of his life.

    Now, if Nicole had come from Appalachia, or Piedmont Region, or Mississippi Delta, you can bet that OJ would’ve known how Nordberg felt in the end of the Naked Gun (part 1).

    Read More
  171. @syonredux

    Clarke was the feminist bimbo

    Clarke was the Jewish feminist bimbo

    FIFY
     
    Interesting sidenote. She was raped at the age of 17 while visiting Israel:

    When Clark was 17 years old, she was raped on a trip to Eilat, Israel.[9] She has said it was an experience she did not deal with until much later, and that it informed much of why she became a prosecutor.[9]
     
    https://www.unz.com/isteve/the-people-vs-o-j-simpson/#new_comments

    However, the show has her say that the rape happened in Italy:

    Maybe you have to have something inside you already when you get here, something that you have to make right. Something you have to avenge. When I was 17, I was raped. I was raped in Italy by a waiter and I buried it. I didn't forget it... I just sort of stuffed it. When I had my first rape case, what happened to me, of course, came flying out from whatever rock I'd jammed it under and I had to deal with it. It was hell all over again, in a way. But it made something very, very clear to me. I have something, this thing in me, that wants vengeance. Vengeance for victims. That's what justice is to me. And I've always, always had faith that when I look at a jury, we have that in common. Everyone wants justice for victims, right? I never doubted that. Until this.

     

    https://www.bustle.com/articles/152063-marcia-clark-discusses-her-rape-on-american-crime-story-shedding-light-on-her-drive-for-justice

    At the time, Marcia Clark’s jewishness was never fully front and center, say, in the way it was for Robert Shapiro and Barry Shreck. (Or the Ron Goldman family). Now that it’s been made into a mini-series, it’s not hard to see why a personal anecdote is moved to a European nation rather than Israel.

    Read More
  172. Travolta [is] one of the top fifty or so greatest movie stars of all time.

    Whoa, Kemosabe!* He’s a genuine movie star, okay? Let’s leave it at that.

    (*No; big ballin’ ain’t my hobby.)

    Read More
  173. syonredux says:
    @syonredux

    Clarke was the feminist bimbo

    Clarke was the Jewish feminist bimbo

    FIFY
     
    Interesting sidenote. She was raped at the age of 17 while visiting Israel:

    When Clark was 17 years old, she was raped on a trip to Eilat, Israel.[9] She has said it was an experience she did not deal with until much later, and that it informed much of why she became a prosecutor.[9]
     
    https://www.unz.com/isteve/the-people-vs-o-j-simpson/#new_comments

    However, the show has her say that the rape happened in Italy:

    Maybe you have to have something inside you already when you get here, something that you have to make right. Something you have to avenge. When I was 17, I was raped. I was raped in Italy by a waiter and I buried it. I didn't forget it... I just sort of stuffed it. When I had my first rape case, what happened to me, of course, came flying out from whatever rock I'd jammed it under and I had to deal with it. It was hell all over again, in a way. But it made something very, very clear to me. I have something, this thing in me, that wants vengeance. Vengeance for victims. That's what justice is to me. And I've always, always had faith that when I look at a jury, we have that in common. Everyone wants justice for victims, right? I never doubted that. Until this.

     

    https://www.bustle.com/articles/152063-marcia-clark-discusses-her-rape-on-american-crime-story-shedding-light-on-her-drive-for-justice

    Corrected a link

    Clarke was the feminist bimbo

    Clarke was the Jewish feminist bimbo

    FIFY

    Interesting sidenote. She was raped at the age of 17 while visiting Israel:

    When Clark was 17 years old, she was raped on a trip to Eilat, Israel.[9] She has said it was an experience she did not deal with until much later, and that it informed much of why she became a prosecutor.[9]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcia_Clark#Personal_life

    However, the show has her say that the rape happened in Italy:

    Maybe you have to have something inside you already when you get here, something that you have to make right. Something you have to avenge. When I was 17, I was raped. I was raped in Italy by a waiter and I buried it. I didn’t forget it… I just sort of stuffed it. When I had my first rape case, what happened to me, of course, came flying out from whatever rock I’d jammed it under and I had to deal with it. It was hell all over again, in a way. But it made something very, very clear to me. I have something, this thing in me, that wants vengeance. Vengeance for victims. That’s what justice is to me. And I’ve always, always had faith that when I look at a jury, we have that in common. Everyone wants justice for victims, right? I never doubted that. Until this.

    https://www.bustle.com/articles/152063-marcia-clark-discusses-her-rape-on-american-crime-story-shedding-light-on-her-drive-for-justice

    Read More
  174. @Hibernian
    "The people who usually get on juries are law-abiding folk who pay their taxes, renew their licenses on time, and obey government edicts, like orders to come to jury duty."

    It may be one edict they might try to avoid, not blatantly by saying "I'm prejuidiced" thereby being subject to the wrath of the judge, but more subtly by advertising their nerdishness. "I love computers; I love analyzing facts; I'm a law and order guy but I'll TRY to be fair," etc. The defense will tend to use its preemptories on these people.

    While some of the poor may throw away the summons, to others it's something to do for a while and get a small cash stipend plus possibly some meals.

    The middle class is also thinking about their jobs , and also their salaries which far surpass the meager jury pay.

    I would say your point has some validity in that a trial such as that of OJ may amplify racial solidarity on the pro defense side and increase racial fear in prospective white middle class jurors.

    The middle class is also thinking about their jobs , and also their salaries which far surpass the meager jury pay.

    Perhaps so for the working class and the self-employed middle class; employees in the middle class nowadays almost invariably are excused with pay for jury duty, because it looks good for the nonsense about corporate social responsibility for public relations.

    I’m wondering if you and I are defining the (admittedly endangered) middle class comparably – no one likes to admit he is working class or rich; persons in both situations generally claim to be middle class….

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hibernian
    I don't think too many small businesses, which provide a lot of middle class jobs, offer paid jury leave. I have it because I work for a large local government agency. I didn't have it back in the day when I worked for small or medium sized businesses.

    I don't know how different our definitions of the middle class are; I don't include people on the border of poverty or rich people who won't admit to being rich.
  175. @AnotherDad

    Clark, being a feminazi, had no concept of how men actually behaved, since her delusional feminist religion didn’t allow her to think it.
     
    Yep.

    Women are clearly the more emotionally tuned in and socially aware sex. They are on average much better than men in understanding women. And they are better at understanding men--especially individually--than men are at understanding women. (Certainly better than men like me raised with no sisters and a fairly level-headed mom--a farm girl raised in the depression with four brothers. I was clueless about the actual nature of women, when I started out into the world as a wet behind the ears pup. Had to learn it all by "trial and error"--lots of error.)

    But despite their social awareness women seem to really suck at understand men's interactions with each other. And women seem to have little to no clue how utterly fortunate they are that men--white men at least--are quite capable of cooperating as necessary to get the job done and that as result women benefit from men's the incredible achievements and enjoy incredible peace and prosperity. To say feminism doesn't aid that understanding is an understatement.

    “when I started out into the world as a wet behind the ears pup”

    I’m sorry, but people really don’t talk like this in real life 2017. The internet has a way of making people sound sappy, corny, and just plain silly.

    Read More
    • Replies: @duncsbaby
    “when I started out into the world as a wet behind the ears pup”

    I’m sorry, but people really don’t talk like this in real life 2017. The internet has a way of making people sound sappy, corny, and just plain silly.

    -Some people still do talk like this. I do and so does @AnotherDad.

    , @El Dato
    It's writing, not talk. And nobody in real life is called "Yojimbo/Zatoichi" either.

    So what does it matter.
  176. Rob McX says:
    @40 Acres and A Kardashian

    That said, the worst thing the DA did was let the jury be composed of blacks. Blacks will never convict a black man for killing whites. Hell that was talked about on talk radio when the trail was going on.
     
    DA Garcetti wanted the jury to have lots of blacks on it. He could have held the trial in Santa Monica. Going by where the murders took place, and where the suspect lived, it should've been held there. Garcetti came up with all kinds of excuses for moving the trial downtown, but everyone knows he did so because a Santa Monica jury would've been overwhelmingly white, while a downtown jury was going to have very few whites and lots of blacks. Being just two years after the riots of the beating of the Rev. Dr. Rodney Luther King, Garcetti was afraid that if a white jury convicted a black supercelebrity of murder, all hell would break loose.

    In her book, Marcia Clark defends her idiotic feminist (and clearly racist) idea that she should gets lots of black women on the jury because black women suffer lots of domestic violence and would sympathize with Nicole. However, she says at several points in the book that it didn't matter who wound up getting picked, a downtown jury was never going to convict OJ Simpson. In the section of her book describing the jury selection process, at the end, she says she then knew that this jury was never going to find Simpson, and that the case was doomed the moment Garcetti moved it from Santa Monica to downtown.

    They should had at least several white men on the jury, they could have had a hung jury and forced a retrial just to f**k with the dream team.

    That wasn't going to happen downtown, which is why Garcetti moved it. And even in Santa Monica, there may have been only a few white men on the jury. White men are producers and breadwinners, and few can afford to spend months on a jury with no income. The white men who are successful enough that they could afford to so don't want to - they've got stuff to do, and sitting on a jury for months listening to lawyers isn't one of them. Plus, defense lawyers know that normal white Gentile males are the prosecution's best friend,and they will do whatever it takes to keep as many as they can off the jury.

    It’s really strange that a prosecutor would make the decision to move a case to where acquittal was almost certain. Was he taking orders from higher up that this case had to be lost (a second riot in LA in three years could not be contemplated), or someone would see to it that his career would be ruined?

    Read More
    • Replies: @40 Acres and A Kardashian
    I'm sure he had some "input" on the decision from higher ups.

    Just how high is a very good question.

  177. @syonredux

    Clarke was the feminist bimbo

    Clarke was the Jewish feminist bimbo

    FIFY
     
    Interesting sidenote. She was raped at the age of 17 while visiting Israel:

    When Clark was 17 years old, she was raped on a trip to Eilat, Israel.[9] She has said it was an experience she did not deal with until much later, and that it informed much of why she became a prosecutor.[9]
     
    https://www.unz.com/isteve/the-people-vs-o-j-simpson/#new_comments

    However, the show has her say that the rape happened in Italy:

    Maybe you have to have something inside you already when you get here, something that you have to make right. Something you have to avenge. When I was 17, I was raped. I was raped in Italy by a waiter and I buried it. I didn't forget it... I just sort of stuffed it. When I had my first rape case, what happened to me, of course, came flying out from whatever rock I'd jammed it under and I had to deal with it. It was hell all over again, in a way. But it made something very, very clear to me. I have something, this thing in me, that wants vengeance. Vengeance for victims. That's what justice is to me. And I've always, always had faith that when I look at a jury, we have that in common. Everyone wants justice for victims, right? I never doubted that. Until this.

     

    https://www.bustle.com/articles/152063-marcia-clark-discusses-her-rape-on-american-crime-story-shedding-light-on-her-drive-for-justice

    Interesting sidenote. She was raped at the age of 17 while visiting Israel

    However, the show has her say that the rape happened in Italy

    Wow. I didn’t catch that while watching the show. And I had just read her book a few months earlier.

    She was no doubt raped by an “anti-Semite.” Just like the one sending all those bomb threats to American Jewish centers from Israel a few months back.

    Read More
  178. @Rob McX
    It's really strange that a prosecutor would make the decision to move a case to where acquittal was almost certain. Was he taking orders from higher up that this case had to be lost (a second riot in LA in three years could not be contemplated), or someone would see to it that his career would be ruined?

    I’m sure he had some “input” on the decision from higher ups.

    Just how high is a very good question.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Paul Jolliffe
    That's a great question!

    If (completely legitimate) fears of a another god-awful riot prompted higher ups to throw the case, the simplest move (and the one that decided it, by ALL accounts) was the first one - move the trial to downtown.

    Everything else could have been totally on the up-and-up, yet the "not guilty" verdict was pre-ordained.

    Problem solved.

    So, did a quiet call from Washington D.C. ensure that the trial was moved? Were the political implications of another L.A. riot on the 1996 elections too awful for the Democrats to contemplate?
  179. @Jack D
    I don't know Shapiro personally but I know other Jewish defense lawyers and none of the ones I know are under any illusions about black criminality. No one who works in the criminal justice system from day to day is under any such illusion even if they started out as flaming liberals. You would have to be blind not to. Reality kicks like a mule. Limousine liberals can live in some fantasy world but people in contact with the system don't have that luxury.

    Everyone, even accused criminals, is entitled to a defense and Shapiro I'm sure got paid royally for defending OJ. This doesn't mean that he believed in his innocence or the innocence of blacks in general. After the trial, Shapiro said that the verdict was correct not in the sense that OJ was innocent but that the state had not met its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. I'm guessing that the lawyers took every last nickel that OJ had, which is why he was later reduced to stick-up jobs (that and the fact that he was unemployable as an endorser, even for black oriented products - blacks were willing to get him off to stick it to whitey but giving him a job after that was a bridge too far).

    [T]he verdict was correct not in the sense that O.J. was innocent, but that the state had not met its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

    Laymen too often conflate “not guilty” with “innocent.” There is a very good reason the latter is not an option among verdicts….

    Read More
  180. Jack D says:
    @Pat Boyle
    Until the accident (I fell off cliff) I had always been 6'4". So when I met celebrities I was often surprised at how small they were. Steve Sailer the host of this blog is also 6' 4". It's a good height. You stand out in crowds but you can still fit in most sports cars.

    I went to the opera every year and in the crush of the audience at intermission I was always happy that I had a clear view above the crowd. Being in the midst of a crowd can be a little claustrophobic.

    OJ was a larger than life celebrity in those days. He was on TV and in movies but in real life he wasn't all that big. I once met Nate Thurman on the street in front on city hall in San Francisco - that's a really impressive hunk of human being, Made me feel like an insect.

    I once met Manute Bol on the street in NY. I’m 5’10″ and I was eye level with his belt buckle, I kid you not.

    Read More
  181. @Hibernian
    “Oh, yes,” she said, “we believed her all right, but we did not think the prosecution had adequately proved its case, so we found him not guilty.”

    My first impression is that sounds like they take reasonable doubt seriously; it's not an auto accident based civil case decided by the preponderance of the evidence. On further reflection, I see the point that it's about justice, not how good a show they put on. Her words, without the context you had knowing her and hearing them directly, don't seem shocking to me.

    Her words, without the context you had knowing her and hearing them directly, don’t seem shocking to me.

    Thanks for your response. I guess the point I was making was that the job of the jury was to make a determination whether the plaintiff was telling the truth, but it sounded like they wanted to look at the case in a more complex way.

    This was back in the 80′s, but from what I remember, based on reading the reports of the trial, I personally did not believe the plaintiff.

    I was once the foreman of a jury in a drunk driving case of a woman driver and I asked for a preliminary show of hands before we started discussions about the evidence. Everyone raised their hand for guilty, so there was no further discussion, and we were all home in time for tea.

    After the case was over I did a bit of research. The defense case was that the defendant was a camera person for ESPN who had come to town (South Florida) to film a professional boxing contest at the local rodeo grounds, and had drunk too much on the plane on the way down from Minnesota, then rented a car and being thirsty had picked up some wine coolers which explained the empty bottles in the car. Further research revealed that the boxing fixture was not at the rodeo grounds, but a different venue, and was televised by a different network, but these issues never came up at trial. I have always wondered who she really was. Anyway, she looked like a lush, so her goose was cooked from the start.

    Read More
  182. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Jenner Ickham Errican
    The highlight of the famous Bronco chase:

    https://youtu.be/bLmoqbR3gto?t=24s

    I remember watching all those cheering, screaming, idiots waving signs “don’t squeeze the juice” and “go O.J.”, and thinking to myself he is going to get off if/when it goes to trial. I said this at the time to my family and friends watching too and they all laughed. I said ‘you will see. It will become a circus and a freak show and he will walk’. Sadly I was right.

    Read More
  183. anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    You are right. The black preachers, politicians, activists told the mayor and DA Garcetti that if Simpson was not acquitted they would riot again..

    The venue was moved from the court district where the murder was committed and the defendant lived to the big courthouse downtown. That courthouse district had the biggest percentage of blacks in the city.

    Clark and every other White woman who worked or works with black women knows all to well the hatred of black woman.

    Had it been any other case Judge Ito would have been censored by the judicial council for the way he ran his courtroom.

    Clark was an excellent prosecutor with a great win record. She lost but got a big reward. She and a ghostwriter got a book out soon after the trial. She got a 3 million dollar advance, quit the DA’s office, bought a million dollar home and settled down to enjoy mothering her boys.

    The entire thing was arranged well in advance by the black leadership, the mayor and DA Garcetti. The black jurors got rid of a White and a Hispanic juror with charges of racism.

    The king riots and the OJ trial were the last hurrah of Los Angeles blacks. Decisions were made at the highest level, the business, community, not politicians to blast the blacks out of Los Angeles with Hispanics.

    Read More
  184. ANON says: • Disclaimer
    @Dave Pinsen
    One question I've never seen asked about O.J.'s "NFL pension" is when he set it up: immediately after his football career, or after the murders, in an attempt to shield assets from the future civil case.

    He got the pension when he retired from football. He didn’t set it up, the team he worked for did everything.
    Pensions, like social security and disability are exempt from civil forfeiture.

    Read More
  185. Impolitic says:
    @watson79
    A very fine essay that makes me feel old. Hard to believe that I watched CNN for news in 1995. I was having lunch in a lousy restaurant when the verdict was announced. The black kitchen staff cheered. The whites at the bar groaned.

    It was so long ago that kitchen staffs were black instead of Mexican.

    Read More
  186. ANON says: • Disclaimer
    @Anon7
    I liked this miniseries a lot, but Cuba Gooding never gets it to work. The big problem is that OJ was on TV too much; I saw him up close and personal hundreds of times, in Hertz commercials, in the movie Naked Gun, as a sports commentator and then finally as a defendant in the actual trial. Also, as you say, Gooding is just too small; he's like Ice Cube in the second film that killed the XXX movie franchise, I just can't feel menaced by this little rolypoly cuddly guy.

    John Travolta is amazing; his portrayal of Shapiro as a focused and brilliant legal mind and fixer who is absolutely tone deaf about race relations is so good you just can't take your eyes off him.

    I thought it was funny that the prosecution also had a "dream team", that is, a white female and a black male lawyer, that was as good as diversity got in the 1990's. And what a fiasco; both of them were put in place by a bureaucracy focused on Affirmative Action as the ultimate excellence, as opposed to competence.

    A woman, a black, and an Asian, affirmative action in action

    Read More
  187. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Jake
    It is simple: though most blacks had come to resent OJ for 'not being black enough,' he remained black. And that meant to the vast majority of blacks that he was a victim of Whitey.

    Shapiro was the typical Jew who simultaneously believed that black people are just like white people and, conversely, that blacks deserve special treatment for being innocent victims of Whitey the Gentile. That type of Jew will be shocked when a horde of Moslem-led blacks arrive to rape and murder his family in the name of Revenge of the Peoples of Color.

    Kardashin was the epitome of ultra naive white fool who was not able to imagine that the way he and his Ex had raised their kids would make them whores to Negrophilia even at its murderous worst, much less that blacks would act exactly as the 'racists' said they would.

    Cochran knew that his people (certainly 90% of them) could always be counted on to follow a charismatic black 'leader' into any violence against non-blacks, and against all facts and logic to protect a black from 'white justice.'

    Clarke was the feminist bimbo who was certain that women of all colors hate men for being rapists and domestic abusers and that therefore black women would do justice for the white whore who stole their OJ. That she also deep down felt that every black man accused of raping a white woman probably was a Tom Robinson, and she would not be able to recognize that her own double-think doomed her.

    Darden was the rare black man who really could be an equal part of white society, which is exactly the reason that at least 90% of blacks would always take a Cochran over him and that white Feminist bimbos always eventually want to nudge him aside.

    As the verdict was nearing, I was buying a house. The man representing the lender was Jewish. He was absolutely certain that the verdict would be guilty, because the facts were clear and only a racist would suggest that either blacks were too ignorant to discern them or that blacks did not about facts when race was at play. He was sure in that slimy Leftist way that justice was obvious and that it would be done by blacks.

    I met with him about an hour after the verdict was read. He was in shock. His beloved Negroes had not acted as he asserted they would. And a Jew had been killed too. That was not to be tolerated, but how could Jews now sound like rednecks and say that blacks are what they are?

    He was in agony.

    A Jew hoisted on his own petard of political correctness and cultural Marxism. Fitting.

    Read More
  188. ANON says: • Disclaimer
    @AnotherDad

    The thing that has surprised me these years is why O.J. wasn’t the subject of a revenge-killing by someone in the victims’ families.
     
    Perhaps the Irish in me, but i'm surprised there isn't more of this generally.

    Again the open, high-trust, one-people/one-nation character of the West is a great thing and allows what would be family/clan/tribal disputes to be solved legally, rather than becoming blood feuds. But that demands that the legal system actually work. When it clearly does not work. And even worse does not work for ethno-tribal reasons, one would expect folks to be pissed.

    The Brown family situation is complicated because of the kids. ("Oh we offed your dad, to avenge your mom."). The Goldmans? Don't know what's up there. (You don't want to mess with my kids.)

    I suspect, as we have the diversity induced breakdown of West civilization--as it decays into anarcho-tyranny--we'll see more people seeking to deal resolve disputes "privately".

    Fred Goldman and one of Nicole’s sisters went after OJ for years, Goldman via the court system and the sister in victims rights and domestic violence groups.

    I went to some of the sister’s rallies and saw both the Goldmans and OJ during the civil trial where the criminal trial belonged, LA county courthouse, 1175 main st Santa Monica ca.

    All men look tall to me so I can’t judge OJ’s height, but his shoulders and torso looked about 3 ft wide and his hands the size of a football.

    Read More
  189. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @benjaminl
    Off topic

    http://vancouversun.com/opinion/op-ed/opinion-canada-replacing-its-population-a-case-of-wilful-ignorance-greed-excess-political-correctness

    Its the doing of the federal Liberal party. Canada’s very own treason lobby. Ironically their core historical backers are French-Canadians who will be the biggest ultimate losers from all of this.

    Read More
  190. ANON says: • Disclaimer
    @Anonymous
    No, OJ was sentenced not for what he actually did (which was to repossess his own stuff without the proper legal unction-sheriffs legally rob small businesses in debt every day, it's called a "till tap"-but they are sheriffs) , it was for what he should have been sentenced for in the crime for which he was unjustly not convicted, in the mind of the sentencing judge.

    Had OJ been smart he would have left the country where his NFL pension would have gone a lot farther and no one would have cared all that much what he did. I have it on some good authority that up until the last few years he was a real stallion and on $300K he could have had a mansion, servants and no trouble rounding up plenty of booty.

    He had a mansion and plenty of booty in Florida.

    Read More
  191. ANON says: • Disclaimer
    @40 Acres and A Kardashian

    Looking at the crime scene photos brings up the “OJ was there, but didn’t do the actual murders” theory. I personally find it quite possible, even though it never surfaced during the trial.
     
    It's very hard to believe OJ did all that damage by himself while suffering nothing worse than a tiny cut on one finger.

    There's a theory that OJ's son Jason did the murders. He was a chef at a restaurant, with his own collection of knives he took home every night. He also had a history of violent behavior, and was taking pills to control his violent outbursts. According to this account, he had told all his co-workers that Nicole and the kids were coming to the restaurant that night, but they never showed up, making him look like a fool. Supposedly Jason also had the hots for Nicole, adding jealousy and sexual frustration to his anger. Some say he had told his co-workers that he and Nicole were now dating. At any rate, he snapped when she stood him up, and went over to Bundy to teach her a lesson, and Ron Goldman just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. After the killings, he called his dad, who came over to the scene, which would explain why there were minutes amounts of OJ's blood and fibers at the scene, and some of the victims' blood in his home and vehicle.

    It's always seemed to me that if OJ acted alone, he would've been pretty roughed up at a minimum, and the Bronco should have been awash in blood.

    Jason was never a suspect. He was at work until 10:30 and then drove a friend home and was with her until about 11.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    So OJ's son by his first wife had a real job as a chef? Good for him.
  192. Aleks says:
    @Ben Tillman
    Along the same line, you want male jurors in a rape trial. Women want to think they are in control and it can't happen to them, so they tend to blame the victim. Men on the other hand know how easy it is not to rape a woman regardless of the circumstances.

    “Women want to think they are in control and it can’t happen to them, so they tend to blame the victim. ”

    Work by Seth Stephens-Davidowitz suprisingly shows that porn featuring violence against women is far more popular among women than men. This might explain why in rape cases women would be more prone to blaming the victim and ‘she wanted it’ beliefs than men.

    Read More
  193. @ANON
    Jason was never a suspect. He was at work until 10:30 and then drove a friend home and was with her until about 11.

    So OJ’s son by his first wife had a real job as a chef? Good for him.

    Read More
  194. ANON says: • Disclaimer
    @Sam Haysom
    In a culture where racism isn't the summum mallum think what a compelling story the life of Mark Fuhrman could have been. Literally the only cop that took Nicole's domestic abuses accusations seriously who then becomes a focal point of the OJ murderer trial with a final denouement of his solving that Kennedy cousin murder cold case.

    Clearly the guy is a little bit off but that is an interesting life arch and I think the series- which I thought was great- would have benefitted from a rounder depiction of him. Marcia Clarke presents herself as Nicole's avenger, but really the only person who tried to avert the tragedy as it unfolded was Fuhrman.

    It was Clark who destroyed Furhman. But then she, Ito and Darden were under orders by the mayor, DA Garcetti and TPTB to lose the case.

    Read More
  195. ANON says: • Disclaimer
    @ThreeCranes
    It wasn't just that Marcia Clark "misunderestimated" the loyalty black women would have in standing by their man, but just as importantly, California law at the time would only allow DNA evidence if the party presenting it actually first proved its scientific merits to the jury.

    Clark"s mistake in allowing so many black women on the jury was compounded by the fact that they found the testimony of scientific experts boring and largely irrelevant. The jurors just flat out didn't have the intelligence to comprehend what they were being told or what relevance it may have had for determining OJ's innocence or guilt.

    It is impossible to overstate how stupid black people are. White people literally can't fathom it because they are so much smarter.

    40 percent of them have IQs under 80 which is retarded.

    Read More
    • Replies: @FPD72
    I think that 70 is the IQ cutoff for retardation. That is the IQ level that has been cited in several court cases. Assuming a mean IQ of 85 and a standard deviation of 15 points, the back of the envelope calculation would be that only about 16% of the black population would be considered retarded, not 40%.
  196. @MarkinLA
    In the other series about OJ, that after the Jury selection, OJ joked to Cochran: "If that jury convicts me, then maybe I am guilty"

    Yeah, that line is in this miniseries too.

    Read More
  197. ANON says: • Disclaimer
    @H. Kelly Taylor
    O.J. was not acquitted because of Black women's perceptions of his marriage. He was acquitted because the blood evidence was discredited once L.A.P.D. could not account for all the blood they extracted from Simpson. The cops screwed the case because they tried to frame a man they likely could have convicted.

    The cops had nothing to do with mishandling the blood evidence. That evidence was collected at the scene and handled by the affirmative action incompetent evidence technicians.

    I was there. Although all my information came from reading the newspaper, it was obvious to me that the powers that be ordered the mayor and DA Garcetti to lose the case because the black politicians threatened a repeat of the Holy Martyr Saint Rodney riots if OJ were not acquitted.

    Frankly, I was surprised he was arrested and charged.

    Read More
  198. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Bill P
    If anything, black women are more racially vindictive than black men. Having recently attended a half-black high school when the trial started, I knew OJ would dodge conviction when I saw they were a majority on the jury. I had no doubt at all.

    Agree 100%. I have worked with many black women and I know just what they are like. Back in 2003 when Kobe Bryant was accused of raping a white woman, they all said that it didn’t matter because black women were raped during slavery.

    Read More
  199. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Bill Jones
    I'm 6' 4" and two fifty , other than flying there are few downsides and I find people tend not to fuck with me.

    As with Mr. Sailer you are lucky sport. Try going through life being only 5’3″ and see how you like it…..

    Read More
  200. @Stan Adams
    The William Kennedy Smith jury had four women and two men. He was acquitted after only 77 minutes of deliberations.

    (The Kennedy Smith trial was a big deal back in 1991. It was covered live, gavel-to-gavel, on CNN.)

    In 1989, an accused rapist was acquitted by a three-man, three-woman jury because they agreed with the defense argument that the victim was so provocatively dressed that she was "asking for it":
    http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/1989-10-05/news/8902020477_1_verdict-juror-georgia-woman

    Anyone know what happened to William Kennedy Smith? Or the victim of his trial for that matter?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stan Adams
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Kennedy_Smith
    http://www.vaildaily.com/news/out-from-behind-the-blue-dot/
  201. @El Dato
    I guess it's really US-centric.

    One of those unreal neverending crime dramas from across the pond, you see TV serials on those all the time. It would be interesting to ask European Colored People whether "O.J. Simpson" rings a bell. It would say no.

    Back from those times remember some reporting in "The Economist" with a caricature of Allan Ito shown presiding over a clownshow looking disinterested or resignated.

    And the hubbub over THE BLACKENING

    The judge was Lance Ito

    Read More
  202. Regarding jury selection, it is worth remembering that Dr. Phil made his bones as a jury consultant, specifically for Oprah

    Read More
  203. duncsbaby says:
    @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    "when I started out into the world as a wet behind the ears pup"


    I'm sorry, but people really don't talk like this in real life 2017. The internet has a way of making people sound sappy, corny, and just plain silly.

    “when I started out into the world as a wet behind the ears pup”

    I’m sorry, but people really don’t talk like this in real life 2017. The internet has a way of making people sound sappy, corny, and just plain silly.

    -Some people still do talk like this. I do and so does .

    Read More
    • Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    Nope. No they don't. Not in 2017. Unless they're throwbacks from before the Great Depression. It's like one can tell which generation's speaking and how out of it they are by the slang words they use. Same thing.
  204. @hyperbola
    More "keep Americans dumb and gullible" stories? How about something with some real meat instead of regurgitating the thought-control stupidities of the racist, foreign sect that controls "our" media.

    Martin Luther King assassinated by US Govt: King Family civil trial verdict
    http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/01/martin-luther-king-assassinated-us-govt-king-family-civil-trial-verdict.html
    ...Dr. Martin Luther King’s family and personal friend/attorney, William F. Pepper, won a civil trial that found US government agencies guilty of assassination/wrongful death. The 1999 trial, King Family versus Jowers and Other Unknown Co-Conspirators, is the only trial ever conducted on the assassination of Dr. King. The King Center fully documents the case, with full trial transcript (to more fully explain the following summary of evidence, here is the best article I’ve found).

    The overwhelming evidence of US government complicity found valid by the jury includes:

    US 111th Military Intelligence Group were at Dr. King’s location during the assassination.
    20th Special Forces Group had an 8-man sniper team at the assassination location on that day.
    Usual Memphis Police special body guards were advised they “weren’t needed” on the day of the assassination.
    Regular and constant police protection for Dr. King was removed from protecting Dr. King an hour before the assassination.

    Military Intelligence set-up photographers on the roof of a fire station with clear view to Dr. King’s balcony.
    Dr. King’s room was changed from a secure 1st-floor room to an exposed balcony room.
    Memphis police ordered the scene where multiple witnesses reported as the source of shooting cut down of their bushes that would have hid a sniper.
    Along with sanitizing a crime scene, police abandoned investigative procedure to interview witnesses who lived by the scene of the shooting.
    The rifle Mr. Ray delivered was not matched to the bullet that killed Dr. King, and was not sighted to accurately shoot.

    ..... US corporate media did not cover the civil trial, interview the King family, and textbooks omit this information. This is crucial evidence of a controlled corporate media rejecting coverage of a game-changing story. Journalist and author, James Douglass:

    “I can hardly believe the fact that, apart from the courtroom participants, only Memphis TV reporter Wendell Stacy and I attended from beginning to end this historic three-and-one-half week trial. Because of journalistic neglect scarcely anyone else in this land of ours even knows what went on in it. After critical testimony was given in the trial’s second week before an almost empty gallery, Barbara Reis, U.S. correspondent for the Lisbon daily Publico who was there several days, turned to me and said, ‘Everything in the U.S. is the trial of the century. O.J. Simpson’s trial was the trial of the century. Clinton’s trial was the trial of the century. But this is the trial of the century, and who’s here?’ ”

    For comparison, please consider the media coverage of O.J. Simpson’s trials:.............

    It’s better than that, actually. It was apparent right from the start that the aliases used by James Earl Ray ( Eric St. V. Galt, John Willard, Paul Bridgman, and Ramon Sneyd) had been given to him by someone who knew that all four men – residents of Scarborough Canada – all four men strongly resembled James Earl Ray!

    Not only was Ray using Galt’s name, but he was also using an old version of Galt’s signature. However, the real Galt changed the way he signed his name in 1966, yet Ray was in prison from 1960 to 1967!

    The obvious conclusion is that someone provided Ray the name and signature from a file that was slightly outdated. A file drawn from a database that included the photographs of men whose resemblance to Ray matched down to the scars on their faces!

    The resemblance between Ray and these four real men was not a perfect match, yet it was close enough to fool any passing stranger who was not paying close attention. No one has ever alleged that Ray actually knew or met or had any connection to these men, nor they to each other.

    Yet someone had access to their photos and to Ray and put it all together to make him a fall-guy, just as he claimed in his letter to the judge (who literally dropped dead of a heart attack while reading it!)

    Read More
  205. El Dato says:
    @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    "when I started out into the world as a wet behind the ears pup"


    I'm sorry, but people really don't talk like this in real life 2017. The internet has a way of making people sound sappy, corny, and just plain silly.

    It’s writing, not talk. And nobody in real life is called “Yojimbo/Zatoichi” either.

    So what does it matter.

    Read More
  206. @Inquiring Mind
    I had long wondered about the Lone O. J. narrative as well.

    For the incident in Las Vegas for which he was sent to prison, his plan to get his Heisman Trophy and other sports memorabilia back, he had a pack of his friends involved. That was his "M. O," As with the Dream Team, it appeared that Mr. Simpson never did anything without a small gang of people helping him out.

    Even when he led the police on that Slow Speed Chase down the Santa Monica Freeway and threatened to kill himself, he had his pal "A. C." Cowlings as his "wing man." That he committed the murders and discarded physical evidence all by his lonesome seemed out of character.

    Simpson did have help. Somebody came into his house after he left for Chicago. Whoever did ran the washing machine and did some cleaning up.

    See Daniel Petrocelli’s book on the civil trial.

    Read More
  207. I didn’t know that Marcia Clark is Jewish. If black women weren’t likely to vote guilty, maybe a Jewish woman on some level also wasn’t going to do her best to go after the murderer of a blonde, half-German shicksa.

    Read More
  208. Truth says:

    This whole thing was complete fiction, OJ killed nobody, didn’t serve a day in jail.

    Read More
  209. @40 Acres and A Kardashian
    I'm sure he had some "input" on the decision from higher ups.

    Just how high is a very good question.

    That’s a great question!

    If (completely legitimate) fears of a another god-awful riot prompted higher ups to throw the case, the simplest move (and the one that decided it, by ALL accounts) was the first one – move the trial to downtown.

    Everything else could have been totally on the up-and-up, yet the “not guilty” verdict was pre-ordained.

    Problem solved.

    So, did a quiet call from Washington D.C. ensure that the trial was moved? Were the political implications of another L.A. riot on the 1996 elections too awful for the Democrats to contemplate?

    Read More
    • Replies: @40 Acres and A Kardashian

    If (completely legitimate) fears of a another god-awful riot prompted higher ups to throw the case, the simplest move (and the one that decided it, by ALL accounts) was the first one – move the trial to downtown.
     
    Exactly. I don't believe any part of the trial itself was the result of any conspiracy. It played out naturally. The twists and turns weren't caused by government interference; they were due to the confluence of race, political correctness, incompetence, and other factors.

    The idea that it was all a scripted TV production between the media and the government is so idiotic it's hard to believe anyone could believe it. But more and more right wingers are a fan of the lunatic/con artist Miles Mathis, who says that very thing - the OJ murders were fake, a scripted production between the media and the government. So were the Manson murders. And the John Lennon murder. And the JFK assassination. And the Lincoln assassination. And a whole bunch of other stuff.

    And, oh yeah, pi is 4. He knows because he checked it on his calculator, and he says he's a genius, so he should know.

  210. @Trelane
    Number #32 the Juice

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4LECXW_MQY

    https://youtu.be/jUyWS6j5rS4?t=457

    https://youtu.be/b1cu5ykSda0?t=180

    OJ kept the Ford Bronco production going for two more years.

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2014/06/17/the-bronco-brand-after-oj/10257945/

    Absolutely the funniest non-sequitor I heard on OJ’s innocence from Blacks was that “he couldn’t have done it because he loved his kids.” WTF.

    Read More
  211. jim jones says:
    @anon
    As with Mr. Sailer you are lucky sport. Try going through life being only 5'3" and see how you like it.....

    You can buy Human Growth Hormone

    Read More
  212. res says:
    @Judah Benjamin Hur

    Shapiro was the typical Jew who simultaneously believed that black people are just like white people and, conversely, that blacks deserve special treatment for being innocent victims of Whitey the Gentile.
     
    Many Jews believe this, no doubt.

    It's amazing how Southern Jewish history got mostly wiped from the history books, a strange collaboration between liberal Jews and anti-Semites.

    It’s amazing how Southern Jewish history got mostly wiped from the history books, a strange collaboration between liberal Jews and anti-Semites.

    Indeed. Are there any good references on that subject? One interesting aspect is that sounds like early 20th century Germany, but without the denouement. Is there anything to be learned by exploring that analogy? To be clear, I mean, for example, how to prevent events like the Holocaust.

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    It’s amazing how Southern Jewish history got mostly wiped from the history books, a strange collaboration between liberal Jews and anti-Semites.

    Indeed. Are there any good references on that subject?

     

    The Jewish Confederates
    by Robert N Rosen

    Reveals the breadth of Jewish participation in the American Civil War on the Confederate side. Rosen describes the Jewish communities in the South and explains their reasons for supporting the South. He relates the experiences of officers, enlisted men, politicians, rabbis and doctors.
     
    https://www.amazon.com/Jewish-Confederates-NS-Robert-Rosen/dp/1570033633
  213. @Charlie_U

    leading man handsome with a giant head
     
    New username available for anyone wanting to comment on Steve's blog...

    :-D

    My favorite is still Ass Cheeks of Saturn.

    Read More
  214. ANON says: • Disclaimer
    @Danindc
    Do you still think he is innocent Steve? All due respect, that was one area where I always disagreed with you. I think the evidence was clear (DNA, no plausible alibi) that OJ killed Nicole.

    Do you still think Fuhrman planted that bloody glove?

    One thing most people don’t know about Furhman is that he was only at the scene a few hours. He had to drive in from home and turned it over to the downtown special victims detectives as soon as they arrived.

    Read More
  215. hyperbola says:
    @Bugg
    Which led to the stupidity of moving the trial downtown and more African-Americans into the jury pool.Remarkable supposedly seasoned prosecutors believed black women would be more inclined to convict; another example of goodwhites misreading reality.

    In my misspent youth as first an ADA in "the northeast" and then occasionally as a defense attorney, every jury selection in a criminal case involving an African-American defendant consisted of first challenging jurors for cause to make the jury more or less black and sympathetic to the defendant. Or then giving race-neutral reasons for knocking out a juror if you needed to use peremptory challenge. Most of those reasons in both instances were smokescreens either way; lawyers pretend otherwise. But we all know what's going on.

    But as to the OJ case, how empty must your life be to put everything on hold for almost a year. Further most Americans are used to getting their information in the 22.5 minutes of a Seinfeld or Martin rerun. The tedious legalese that lawyers pretend is brilliance are a great way to get 12 people very bored and drowsy. What attorneys are not allowed to say out loud is it's very hard find jurors who are truly unbiased.And further most sensible people figure out very quickly how to get out of jury duty. The one thing this show brings home is what a complete waste of time the jury system is. The OJ case is an extreme example, but the legalistic nonsense wastes hours an days of court time pointlessly.

    Dragging out this “psy-ops” divide and conquer operation for a full year was intended. And who were the major players in the circus.

    Alan Dershowitz: plagiarist, liar and racist

    http://jewssansfrontieres.blogspot.com.es/2006/05/alan-dershowitz-plagiarist-liar-and.html

    Read More
  216. hyperbola says:
    @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    "white feminist prosecutor Marcia Clark thinks loading the jury up with black women is a great idea."

    Race trumps gender. Clark still doesn't get that fact about human nature, and probably would've done the same thing if faced with the same decision today.

    For her to have won the case, she would've had to

    1. NOT agree to move the case downtown, but keep it in West LA.
    2. NOT agree to a jury composed largely of black women
    3. Attempt to stack the jury with mostly middle class white men
    4. Step down from leading the prosecution and bring in an A-list prosecutor from out of town.

    Still don't fully understand the reasoning behind "Let's move the trial from where the crime occurred to downtown". Makes no sense whatsoever. With that reasoning, why not move it to Cupertino? Makes no sense. That ace in her hand was thrown away, she didn't have to agree to that at all. The crime didn't occur downtown, duh.

    Of course, Clark (or an A-list prosecutor) needed to have been perceptive enough to realize that OJ was well admired by sports loving white men, so either way there was no guarantee he would've been convicted.

    What about white women? That's the wild card in the question. Would they have sided with OJ or convicted him at the time?

    "Travolta isn’t as competent as his fellow Scientologist Tom Cruise at picking scripts, but, even so, he’s one of the top 50 or so greatest movie stars of all time"

    That's a mighty big claim to make, Steve. Not sure about top 50, perhaps top 100. Unless you mean that he's among the top male 50 movie stars. No, still don't see it. Classic Hollywood era (ca.1930-60) alone could produce near 25-35.


    "O.J. wasn’t huge for the most famous football player in America (first as the most celebrated college football star since Red Grange in the 1920s"

    TV, color TV, largely made that fact possible.

    Travolta has always struck me as vulgar and boring. That anyone would even think of including him in a list of “best” actors” is a good example of how dumbed down Americans/Hollywood have become.

    Read More
  217. res says:
    @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    Per Malcolm Gladwell in Blink, about 1% of all adult American males are 6'2" and above, and about 10% of all adult American males are 6'0" and above.

    Like so much of Malcolm Gladwell’s oeuvre that seems misleading at best.

    Per this site 6’0″ is 82.2 percentile in the US. (they give mean 5’9.3″ and SD 2.92″) and 6’2″ is 94.6 percentile.

    https://tall.life/height-percentile-calculator-age-country/

    Unclear to me which source has better data. I am also unsure about issues like bare feet vs. wearing shoes (or cowboy boots ; ).

    But the far more important issue is differences between age cohorts. There is some data showing the increase in 1950-1980 birth cohorts in Europe at http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2007/03/evolution-of-adult-height-in-europe.html
    The paper itself is at https://ideas.repec.org/p/upf/upfgen/1002.html and has data on the SDs as well. I did not see a clear trend there though.

    This paper has US heights by race and state for US birth cohorts 1940-44 and 1980-84:

    http://uwrg.gsu.edu/files/2014/01/08-3-1_Paper_Height_Rashad.pdf

    One observation (Tables 1a and 1b) that surprised me was that the increase was larger for Whites (2.9cm) and Others (Asians mostly?) than it was for Blacks and Hispanics. Seems like a bit of a spoke in the wheel of the historical white privilege narrative.

    This looks like a comprehensive survey of worldwide height changes from 1896-1996: https://elifesciences.org/articles/13410

    Read More
    • Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    The number most often given for average height in US for males is 5'8.5".
  218. @res
    Like so much of Malcolm Gladwell's oeuvre that seems misleading at best.

    Per this site 6'0" is 82.2 percentile in the US. (they give mean 5'9.3" and SD 2.92") and 6'2" is 94.6 percentile.
    https://tall.life/height-percentile-calculator-age-country/
    Unclear to me which source has better data. I am also unsure about issues like bare feet vs. wearing shoes (or cowboy boots ; ).

    But the far more important issue is differences between age cohorts. There is some data showing the increase in 1950-1980 birth cohorts in Europe at http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2007/03/evolution-of-adult-height-in-europe.html
    The paper itself is at https://ideas.repec.org/p/upf/upfgen/1002.html and has data on the SDs as well. I did not see a clear trend there though.

    This paper has US heights by race and state for US birth cohorts 1940-44 and 1980-84:
    http://uwrg.gsu.edu/files/2014/01/08-3-1_Paper_Height_Rashad.pdf
    One observation (Tables 1a and 1b) that surprised me was that the increase was larger for Whites (2.9cm) and Others (Asians mostly?) than it was for Blacks and Hispanics. Seems like a bit of a spoke in the wheel of the historical white privilege narrative.

    This looks like a comprehensive survey of worldwide height changes from 1896-1996: https://elifesciences.org/articles/13410

    The number most often given for average height in US for males is 5’8.5″.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AnotherDad

    The number most often given for average height in US for males is 5’8.5″.
     
    Given by whom?

    Growing up I heard/read that 5'8" was the median for the US WWII draft call. But never heard that figure for the US today.

    Here's the Wikipedia on this question listing a bunch of reasonably recent studies:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_average_human_height_worldwide

    US whites 5'10"+
    US blacks 5'10"-
    US Hispanic 5'8"-
    US Asians 5'8"-

    US average 5'9"+ (another study 5'9-1/2")
  219. Marty says:
    @larry lurker
    I'm agnostic about whether the LAPD tried to "tighten up" the case a bit by planting evidence. Regardless, it certainly didn't help the prosecution when Fuhrmann returned to the stand after being outed as a "genocidal racist"/perjurer and he played it safe by invoking the Fifth in response to every single question he was asked, including whether he had planted/tampered with evidence.

    You can’t assert the Fifth selectively. If you answer one question, you’ve waived the privilege as to all.

    Read More
  220. syonredux says:
    @res

    It’s amazing how Southern Jewish history got mostly wiped from the history books, a strange collaboration between liberal Jews and anti-Semites.
     
    Indeed. Are there any good references on that subject? One interesting aspect is that sounds like early 20th century Germany, but without the denouement. Is there anything to be learned by exploring that analogy? To be clear, I mean, for example, how to prevent events like the Holocaust.

    It’s amazing how Southern Jewish history got mostly wiped from the history books, a strange collaboration between liberal Jews and anti-Semites.

    Indeed. Are there any good references on that subject?

    The Jewish Confederates
    by Robert N Rosen

    Reveals the breadth of Jewish participation in the American Civil War on the Confederate side. Rosen describes the Jewish communities in the South and explains their reasons for supporting the South. He relates the experiences of officers, enlisted men, politicians, rabbis and doctors.

    https://www.amazon.com/Jewish-Confederates-NS-Robert-Rosen/dp/1570033633

    Read More
  221. @ANON
    OJ was from the Potrero project San Francisco.

    It was built around 1950 to house families of black affirmative action workers at SF county hospital. It's small, less than 50 apartments. But those hospital employees and their thug spawn destroyed the lovely Portero Hill neighborhood in less than 10 years.


    .

    The affirmative action blacks worked as maids, janitors, food and security guards. Until 1946 or so they were all White and ther was little theft and rape and auto theft by security guards.

    When the affirmative action trash took over the theft of supplies and food was enormous. And uniformed black security guards raped women patients and White women staff in the parking lots.

    The Simpson family's income was too high to qualify for the project anyway. Dad was the chef, not cook or prep guy in the federal building cafeteria. Mom was a psychiatric tech, licensed and paid the same as a Licensed Vocational Nurse in the psych wing of SF county hospital. So mama was a welfare cheat.

    When OJ. was playing football at San Francisco City College, a young black rapist roamed the stairways of San Francisco County Hospital. Suspect was never caught but was described in the newspaper as " the son of a hospital employee and student at City College". May have been OJ. May have been another black thug from the project.

    …a young black rapist roamed the stairways of San Francisco County Hospital…

    I am old enough to remember when you could us the fire stairs to walk from floor to floor in an office building if you did not want to wait for the elevator. Now you don’t get out of the stairwell until you get to the ground floor. Wonder why?

    Read More
  222. @AnotherDad

    The thing that has surprised me these years is why O.J. wasn’t the subject of a revenge-killing by someone in the victims’ families.
     
    Perhaps the Irish in me, but i'm surprised there isn't more of this generally.

    Again the open, high-trust, one-people/one-nation character of the West is a great thing and allows what would be family/clan/tribal disputes to be solved legally, rather than becoming blood feuds. But that demands that the legal system actually work. When it clearly does not work. And even worse does not work for ethno-tribal reasons, one would expect folks to be pissed.

    The Brown family situation is complicated because of the kids. ("Oh we offed your dad, to avenge your mom."). The Goldmans? Don't know what's up there. (You don't want to mess with my kids.)

    I suspect, as we have the diversity induced breakdown of West civilization--as it decays into anarcho-tyranny--we'll see more people seeking to deal resolve disputes "privately".

    I don’t think the explanation can be American or western timidity – my namesake, the infamous Lazer Kaganovitch, had not 2 victim’s families, but hundreds of thousands of victim’s families with ample reason to kill him, Yet he lived well into his nineties in the middle of Moscow with no police protection.

    Read More
  223. SMK says: • Website
    @eah
    People interested in such depictions of the Simpson case should from time to time review fotos of the crime scene -- so when they sit down with their popcorn and the show starts again they keep in mind what it was all about.

    “What it was all about,” of course, is that O.J. was guilty of cutting off his ex-wife’s head and torturing Ron Goldman to death with a butcher knife, guilty not only “beyond a reasonable doubt” but any doubt, so transparently guilty that no honest and rational person could believe, even as a remote possibility, that he was innocent, or even that he wasn’t “proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” I sure that most of the jurors, even the blacks, knew he was guilty, beyond any doubt.

    “What it was all about” is that a jury, dominated by blacks, freed a murderer they knew was guilty beyond any doubt, not so much because he was rich and famous but because he was a black man who murdered and tortured and mutilated two whites; blatant nullification as racial vengeance and tribalism/solidarity, a corruption of justice that is routine but was/is only infamous in this specific case, unavoidably exposed rather than suppressed by the left-liberal MSM, because of Simpson’s fame.

    Read More
    • Replies: @ANON
    One good thing happened. The White voters of California voted for the anti affirmative action proposition. 209 shortly afterwards. Prop 209 is ignored of course but it's still in effect.

    What the black preachers and politicians didn't know was that TPTB had plans to replace them with more civilized Hispanics.
  224. Pat Boyle says:
    @Bill Jones
    I'm 6' 4" and two fifty , other than flying there are few downsides and I find people tend not to fuck with me.

    I sure wish I could get back down to two fifty again.

    Read More
  225. Pat Boyle says:
    @AnotherDad

    Although, I do feel the need to add scare quotes around Romanian.
     
    The gypsies are really the "people who must not be named".

    Endogamous minorities are bad--in the long run--for any people to host. But the gypsies are so openly parasitic and entirely negative in even their immediate effect, that there's just no hiding it.

    Gypsies get people questioning the whole "minorities are enriching", "diversity" pablum that the globalists spew, so it's important to avoid even mentioning them and when necessary generate as much confusion as possible. The gypsies are simply the clear compelling refutation of the dominant narrative.

    When I was a public social worker in San Francisco they had no ethnic specialty workers for any of the various peoples in that most cosmopolitan city. The one exception was for the gypsies. Apparently from bitter experience they had learned that a regular social worker couldn’t contend with the deviousness of gypsies. You needed a specialist.

    Read More
  226. Dave Pinsen says: • Website
    @David In TN
    "seems odd the court would let them do that"

    Judge Lance Ito "let them do that." Marcia Clark protested going into O.J.'s house at all since none of the crime happened there. Also Clark wanted the trip to the crime scene done at night, but Ito insisted on doing it in the daytime.

    Howard Stern used to call him Judge Lance Ego.

    Read More
  227. @Paul Jolliffe
    That's a great question!

    If (completely legitimate) fears of a another god-awful riot prompted higher ups to throw the case, the simplest move (and the one that decided it, by ALL accounts) was the first one - move the trial to downtown.

    Everything else could have been totally on the up-and-up, yet the "not guilty" verdict was pre-ordained.

    Problem solved.

    So, did a quiet call from Washington D.C. ensure that the trial was moved? Were the political implications of another L.A. riot on the 1996 elections too awful for the Democrats to contemplate?

    If (completely legitimate) fears of a another god-awful riot prompted higher ups to throw the case, the simplest move (and the one that decided it, by ALL accounts) was the first one – move the trial to downtown.

    Exactly. I don’t believe any part of the trial itself was the result of any conspiracy. It played out naturally. The twists and turns weren’t caused by government interference; they were due to the confluence of race, political correctness, incompetence, and other factors.

    The idea that it was all a scripted TV production between the media and the government is so idiotic it’s hard to believe anyone could believe it. But more and more right wingers are a fan of the lunatic/con artist Miles Mathis, who says that very thing – the OJ murders were fake, a scripted production between the media and the government. So were the Manson murders. And the John Lennon murder. And the JFK assassination. And the Lincoln assassination. And a whole bunch of other stuff.

    And, oh yeah, pi is 4. He knows because he checked it on his calculator, and he says he’s a genius, so he should know.

    Read More
  228. FPD72 says:
    @ANON
    40 percent of them have IQs under 80 which is retarded.

    I think that 70 is the IQ cutoff for retardation. That is the IQ level that has been cited in several court cases. Assuming a mean IQ of 85 and a standard deviation of 15 points, the back of the envelope calculation would be that only about 16% of the black population would be considered retarded, not 40%.

    Read More
    • Replies: @ANON
    There have been numerous articles on amren, TOO and other sites that claim 40 percent have IQs under 80. 80 is retarded as far as school, even achieving 2 nd grade reading level is concerned.

    No specific number has been agreed upon for purposes of criminal sentencing yet.
  229. ANON says: • Disclaimer

    If you are interested there is an OJ didn’t do it show on TV tonight Sunday 7/16. It’s on channel HLN 10/pm est 7 pst.

    I’ve seen it. This guy claims a mysterious assassin parked his White SUV in the alley behind Nicole’s house. Although he could not see the street or the front door, he knew the exact moment Goldman arrived. He rushed through the side yard and arrived in the front just as Nicole stepped outside, killed them, ran back to the alley and drove off.

    The show OJ made in America was the best as it made clear he did kill them and the mayor, DA Garcetti and TPTB arranged that he be acquitted by a mostly black jury.

    Read More
  230. ANON says: • Disclaimer
    @FPD72
    I think that 70 is the IQ cutoff for retardation. That is the IQ level that has been cited in several court cases. Assuming a mean IQ of 85 and a standard deviation of 15 points, the back of the envelope calculation would be that only about 16% of the black population would be considered retarded, not 40%.

    There have been numerous articles on amren, TOO and other sites that claim 40 percent have IQs under 80. 80 is retarded as far as school, even achieving 2 nd grade reading level is concerned.

    No specific number has been agreed upon for purposes of criminal sentencing yet.

    Read More
  231. ANON says: • Disclaimer
    @SMK
    "What it was all about," of course, is that O.J. was guilty of cutting off his ex-wife's head and torturing Ron Goldman to death with a butcher knife, guilty not only "beyond a reasonable doubt" but any doubt, so transparently guilty that no honest and rational person could believe, even as a remote possibility, that he was innocent, or even that he wasn't "proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." I sure that most of the jurors, even the blacks, knew he was guilty, beyond any doubt.

    "What it was all about" is that a jury, dominated by blacks, freed a murderer they knew was guilty beyond any doubt, not so much because he was rich and famous but because he was a black man who murdered and tortured and mutilated two whites; blatant nullification as racial vengeance and tribalism/solidarity, a corruption of justice that is routine but was/is only infamous in this specific case, unavoidably exposed rather than suppressed by the left-liberal MSM, because of Simpson's fame.

    One good thing happened. The White voters of California voted for the anti affirmative action proposition. 209 shortly afterwards. Prop 209 is ignored of course but it’s still in effect.

    What the black preachers and politicians didn’t know was that TPTB had plans to replace them with more civilized Hispanics.

    Read More
  232. @duncsbaby
    “when I started out into the world as a wet behind the ears pup”

    I’m sorry, but people really don’t talk like this in real life 2017. The internet has a way of making people sound sappy, corny, and just plain silly.

    -Some people still do talk like this. I do and so does @AnotherDad.

    Nope. No they don’t. Not in 2017. Unless they’re throwbacks from before the Great Depression. It’s like one can tell which generation’s speaking and how out of it they are by the slang words they use. Same thing.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hibernian
    Officers in the National Guard when I was in were fond of using cliches such as "if wishes were fishes" in briefings. One Major was annoyed because it wasn't very military. The word "folks" was thrown around a lot. Engineers like to use the phrase "belt and suspenders" for redundancy to increase reliability. Not every one under 85 is an urbane sophisticate.
  233. @El Dato
    It's writing, not talk. And nobody in real life is called "Yojimbo/Zatoichi" either.

    So what does it matter.

    Whatever, dude.

    Read More
  234. @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    The number most often given for average height in US for males is 5'8.5".

    The number most often given for average height in US for males is 5’8.5″.

    Given by whom?

    Growing up I heard/read that 5’8″ was the median for the US WWII draft call. But never heard that figure for the US today.

    Here’s the Wikipedia on this question listing a bunch of reasonably recent studies:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_average_human_height_worldwide

    US whites 5’10″+
    US blacks 5’10″-
    US Hispanic 5’8″-
    US Asians 5’8″-

    US average 5’9″+ (another study 5’9-1/2″)

    Read More
  235. I was working at a mostly black junior college near the ghetto during the OJ trial. On the day of the verdict they cancelled the classes that morning so that about 500 blacks and a few dozen whites could crowd into the cafeteria to see the verdict delivered live on the big-screen TV. It was so quiet you could have heard a pin drop. But as soon as the “Not guilty” verdict was read aloud, 498 blacks erupted in the loudest, most prolonged cheering I have ever heard in my life. They were literally dancing on the tables (several of which broke under the weight). There were only two blacks I saw who weren’t celebrating: a middle-aged militant lesbian with a shaved head who had been arguing earlier with a young, soft-spoken black girl that OJ was a vicious pig who had murdered two innocent people and that only idiots would support his acquittal; and a quiet young black guy whose idol was the Russian wrestler Alexander Karelin.

    It didn’t occur to me at the time, but later on I realized that if the verdict had been “Guilty”, I and the other 30 or so whites in the cafeteria might have been in serious trouble.

    Read More
    • Replies: @David In TN
    A friend of mine said Simpson's black support came not from doubt of his guilt but was due to the certainty of it.
  236. Hibernian says:
    @Autochthon

    The middle class is also thinking about their jobs , and also their salaries which far surpass the meager jury pay.
     
    Perhaps so for the working class and the self-employed middle class; employees in the middle class nowadays almost invariably are excused with pay for jury duty, because it looks good for the nonsense about corporate social responsibility for public relations.

    I'm wondering if you and I are defining the (admittedly endangered) middle class comparably – no one likes to admit he is working class or rich; persons in both situations generally claim to be middle class....

    I don’t think too many small businesses, which provide a lot of middle class jobs, offer paid jury leave. I have it because I work for a large local government agency. I didn’t have it back in the day when I worked for small or medium sized businesses.

    I don’t know how different our definitions of the middle class are; I don’t include people on the border of poverty or rich people who won’t admit to being rich.

    Read More
  237. Hibernian says:
    @OilcanFloyd
    I didn't know that Marcia Clark is Jewish. If black women weren't likely to vote guilty, maybe a Jewish woman on some level also wasn't going to do her best to go after the murderer of a blonde, half-German shicksa.

    What about Ron Goldman?

    Read More
  238. Hibernian says:
    @Truth
    This whole thing was complete fiction, OJ killed nobody, didn't serve a day in jail.

    Any idea who the real killer might be?

    Read More
  239. Hibernian says:
    @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    Nope. No they don't. Not in 2017. Unless they're throwbacks from before the Great Depression. It's like one can tell which generation's speaking and how out of it they are by the slang words they use. Same thing.

    Officers in the National Guard when I was in were fond of using cliches such as “if wishes were fishes” in briefings. One Major was annoyed because it wasn’t very military. The word “folks” was thrown around a lot. Engineers like to use the phrase “belt and suspenders” for redundancy to increase reliability. Not every one under 85 is an urbane sophisticate.

    Read More
    • Replies: @whoever
    I once went to a club where the ambient music was Japanese shoe gaze. As we entered, I paused, snapped my fingers, swayed and said, "Dig that crazy jive, Daddy-O!"
    My companion responded, "It's the bee's knees!"
    Some people just like to play with words and use phrases that amuse them, even if spergs and muggles don't get it.
  240. @Francis G.
    I was working at a mostly black junior college near the ghetto during the OJ trial. On the day of the verdict they cancelled the classes that morning so that about 500 blacks and a few dozen whites could crowd into the cafeteria to see the verdict delivered live on the big-screen TV. It was so quiet you could have heard a pin drop. But as soon as the "Not guilty" verdict was read aloud, 498 blacks erupted in the loudest, most prolonged cheering I have ever heard in my life. They were literally dancing on the tables (several of which broke under the weight). There were only two blacks I saw who weren't celebrating: a middle-aged militant lesbian with a shaved head who had been arguing earlier with a young, soft-spoken black girl that OJ was a vicious pig who had murdered two innocent people and that only idiots would support his acquittal; and a quiet young black guy whose idol was the Russian wrestler Alexander Karelin.

    It didn't occur to me at the time, but later on I realized that if the verdict had been "Guilty", I and the other 30 or so whites in the cafeteria might have been in serious trouble.

    A friend of mine said Simpson’s black support came not from doubt of his guilt but was due to the certainty of it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Francis G.
    Your friend might be right in a deeper sense, but I distinctly recall that during the trial numerous blacks were arguing and agreeing with each other about OJ's innocence. At the time, it seemed to be important for them to concoct some plausible (to them) explanation as to why he could not have committed those murders.
  241. @David In TN
    A friend of mine said Simpson's black support came not from doubt of his guilt but was due to the certainty of it.

    Your friend might be right in a deeper sense, but I distinctly recall that during the trial numerous blacks were arguing and agreeing with each other about OJ’s innocence. At the time, it seemed to be important for them to concoct some plausible (to them) explanation as to why he could not have committed those murders.

    Read More
    • Replies: @David In TN
    There were several atypical factors in the Simpson case. First, most black murder defendants are obviously guilty and unsympathetic characters. This is usually the case in black on white murders.

    The victims are innocent people who did nothing wrong. And most of the time black jurors vote guilty in these cases.

    O.J. Simpson couldn't have been more different. Aside from being a popular (black) celebrity, Simpson's ex-wife was everything a middle class black woman hates. And Nicole wasn't liked very much by white people either for that matter.

    Yes, some black folks wanted to find a reason to think OJ "innocent." But it's obvious many loved the idea of him killing two white people and getting away with it.
  242. whoever says: • Website
    @Hibernian
    Officers in the National Guard when I was in were fond of using cliches such as "if wishes were fishes" in briefings. One Major was annoyed because it wasn't very military. The word "folks" was thrown around a lot. Engineers like to use the phrase "belt and suspenders" for redundancy to increase reliability. Not every one under 85 is an urbane sophisticate.

    I once went to a club where the ambient music was Japanese shoe gaze. As we entered, I paused, snapped my fingers, swayed and said, “Dig that crazy jive, Daddy-O!”
    My companion responded, “It’s the bee’s knees!”
    Some people just like to play with words and use phrases that amuse them, even if spergs and muggles don’t get it.

    Read More
  243. @Francis G.
    Your friend might be right in a deeper sense, but I distinctly recall that during the trial numerous blacks were arguing and agreeing with each other about OJ's innocence. At the time, it seemed to be important for them to concoct some plausible (to them) explanation as to why he could not have committed those murders.

    There were several atypical factors in the Simpson case. First, most black murder defendants are obviously guilty and unsympathetic characters. This is usually the case in black on white murders.

    The victims are innocent people who did nothing wrong. And most of the time black jurors vote guilty in these cases.

    O.J. Simpson couldn’t have been more different. Aside from being a popular (black) celebrity, Simpson’s ex-wife was everything a middle class black woman hates. And Nicole wasn’t liked very much by white people either for that matter.

    Yes, some black folks wanted to find a reason to think OJ “innocent.” But it’s obvious many loved the idea of him killing two white people and getting away with it.

    Read More
  244. RobRich says: • Website

    OJ was innocent and targeted by the far-Left just like Cosby is because any harmonious racial figure has to go. There was also a subtext that Nicole was the victim of a drug murder of a lively local upper-class trade condoned by local police and social bureaucracy who get a rake-off. They had to divert attention somehow. That is believable to me as I lived in that area and the cops are as crooked as they come as far as that is concerned.

    Also–FAKE NEWS. As I was retired I watched the trial all day. What I noticed was the defense completely destroyed the prosecution case within days just through cross-examination. People White and Black who hung out during the day at the restaurant I used watching the OJ trial on TV agreed. The only mystery is why the trial wasn’t stopped by week 2. This live TV coverage is what stay-at-homes like many housewives, minorities, and unemployed saw.

    BUT when the evening news the trial was re-cast as a continuing win for the prosecution. This is the trial most middle-class on up Whites law, facts filtered by the far-Left media. If the defense scored a big win, somehow by 6PM it became a prosecution victory. That perception is what is misleading many commenters to this day.

    I also noticed that as the trial ended we started seeing a narrative about runaway juries on the evening news and far-Left media, one of the goals of which is to abolish the jury system here as they’re doing in the UK.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Francis G.
    What about O.J.'s well-documented history of domestic violence and the extreme leniency with which the police always treated it?
  245. @Brutusale
    OJ wasn't driving.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Cowlings

    It would have been a Bill/Ram/Oiler/Seahawk/49er driving a Bronco!

    It would have been a Bill/Ram/Oiler/Seahawk/49er driving a Bronco!

    BRO’S 49. Catchy name for a vehicle.

    Read More
  246. @RobRich
    OJ was innocent and targeted by the far-Left just like Cosby is because any harmonious racial figure has to go. There was also a subtext that Nicole was the victim of a drug murder of a lively local upper-class trade condoned by local police and social bureaucracy who get a rake-off. They had to divert attention somehow. That is believable to me as I lived in that area and the cops are as crooked as they come as far as that is concerned.

    Also--FAKE NEWS. As I was retired I watched the trial all day. What I noticed was the defense completely destroyed the prosecution case within days just through cross-examination. People White and Black who hung out during the day at the restaurant I used watching the OJ trial on TV agreed. The only mystery is why the trial wasn't stopped by week 2. This live TV coverage is what stay-at-homes like many housewives, minorities, and unemployed saw.

    BUT when the evening news the trial was re-cast as a continuing win for the prosecution. This is the trial most middle-class on up Whites law, facts filtered by the far-Left media. If the defense scored a big win, somehow by 6PM it became a prosecution victory. That perception is what is misleading many commenters to this day.

    I also noticed that as the trial ended we started seeing a narrative about runaway juries on the evening news and far-Left media, one of the goals of which is to abolish the jury system here as they're doing in the UK.

    What about O.J.’s well-documented history of domestic violence and the extreme leniency with which the police always treated it?

    Read More

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
A simple remedy for income stagnation
Confederate Flag Day, State Capitol, Raleigh, N.C. -- March 3, 2007
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
The evidence is clear — but often ignored