O.J. Simpson

[Kane]

Originally Posted by BlueGalexy

I had no idea Bugliosi had passed away, Kane.

He died on June 6, 2015, two years ago.

[Tighthead]

Originally Posted by BlueGalexy

I had no idea Bugliosi had passed away, Kane. That upsets me as much as when Robert Stack and Dominick Dunne passed away respectively! Actually Bugliosi authored one of my favorite true crime novels titled And the Sea Will Tell. If you're a fan of his, you may want to check it out.

That's a great book and a crazy story. I always liked Bugliosi but I thought his belief in his client's innocence was a bit of a stretch.

[BlueGalexy]

Originally Posted by Tighthead

That's a great book and a crazy story. I always liked Bugliosi but I thought his belief in his client's innocence was a bit of a stretch.

Oh yeah, lol! I'd forgotten that aspect of the book. It's been quite a few years since I've read it. Yeah, I guess I never really understood that either. I too always wondered where his total belief in Stearns's innocence came from. I've personally always believed that she was just as guilty as Walker. But as my mama always says, if opinions were nickels, and all that...

[Tighthead]

Originally Posted by BlueGalexy

Oh yeah, lol! I'd forgotten that aspect of the book. It's been quite a few years since I've read it. Yeah, I guess I never really understood that either. I too always wondered where his total belief in Stearns's innocence came from. I've personally always believed that she was just as guilty as Walker. But as my mama always says, if opinions were nickels, and all that...

I'm a lawyer, and I have no issue with lawyers defending guilty people. I respect it. But saying you only act for innocent people is Matlockian.

[Schmo]

Originally Posted by Kane

Agreed. The prosecutors made numerous mistakes, more than enough to guarantee an acquittal. Not only did they leave out some of the most important pieces of evidence, but they had the trial in Los Angeles instead of Santa Monica. Vincent Bugliosi knew it was a big mistake because it resulted in a biased jury - biased against the prosecution and biased in OJ Simpson's favor. Also, their closing arguments were ill-prepared, and they failed to challenge both damaging defense testimony and the abuses of Judge Lance Ito.

I think there was a conspiracy to acquit Simpson. Remember there were riots in Los Angeles in 1992 as a result of cops being acquitted of beating Rodney King. I think then-LA County District Attorney Gil Garcetti feared the same would happen if Simpson was convicted. So the prosecution took a dive.

[Kane]

Originally Posted by Schmo

I think there was a conspiracy to acquit Simpson. Remember there were riots in Los Angeles in 1992 as a result of cops being acquitted of beating Rodney King. I think then-LA County District Attorney Gil Garcetti feared the same would happen if Simpson was convicted. So the prosecution took a dive.

It's too bad Bugliosi was no longer a prosecutor by the time of the murders and trial. He would have handled the case differently and OJ Simpson would most likely have been convicted. Simpson may have won an acquittal, but there's no denying that it was a Pyrrhic victory for him.