OJ Simpson Convicted Of Kidnapping and Robbery. Or Something.
Oct 4th, 2008 | By Bock | Category: CrimeSo that’s how it goes, is it? If you can’t nail him on one charge, you’ll get him on something else?
OJ Simpson has been convicted of robbery and kidnapping after he went to a hotel room to try and get back items he believed were stolen from him. He brought people with him, some of them armed, to confront those who were trying to sell what he believed was his property.
For this, he’s been convicted of kidnapping and could well face a life sentence.
Now look. This is bullshit. If ever there was a trumped-up charge, this was it.
Does it matter that he probably murdered his ex-wife and her lover? Not to this case, it doesn’t.
Does it matter if the prosecutor in that trial failed to convince a jury? No. Of course not.
Does it make any difference that his lawyer, Johnny Cochrane, ran what some would call a smokescreen defence? Not in this case. That murder trial had nothing whatsoever to do with the current charges.
Does it matter that he lost a civil suit and had to pay $33.5 million in damages to the families of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman? No. It does not.
Either you have an impartial system or you don’t. Either you have a presumption of innocence or not, and it seems to me that this jury, and possibly everyone else involved in the trial, had decided from the first day that they were going to nail OJ for getting away with murder, even if it meant convicting him of something else.
It seems to me that OJ Simpson could never possibly receive a fair trial, anywhere in the world, after the controversy his murder trial generated, and I think this conviction demonstrates that fact. If OJ Simpson so much as ran a red light in America, the chances were he was going to be convicted of attempted murder, because there is nobody in America, or anywhere else, who doesn’t have an opinion about him.
Right. So maybe he’s a murderer. You know what? I couldn’t really care less about OJ Simpson, but let’s blow away the hypocrisy, and acknowledge that he wasn’t convicted of kidnapping or robbery. Not really.
This was Murder Trial 33 1/3: The Final Insult.
He’s a law onto himself it seems. I saw him once on Ruby Wax and he imitated the murders going after Ruby with a banana, doing the psycho music laughing his head off. Good riddance.
Maybe so, Audrey, but do you have any view on the point made in the post?
I agree with you completely.
Mind you, they got Al Capone for tax evasion…
He has yet to pay the Browns! he has laughed in the face of the judicial system since.Posing for photo ops while out golfing raring her children like he didn’t leave her head hanging to her torso by two inches of meat.It was not impartial they would have gotten him on double dipping in a party bowl! Maybe he should not have wrote the “if I did it” book .Oh well! sucks to be him.Oh his sentence will be very pathetic, but it will be long enough for him to loose control of his estate and the browns to finally get some satisfaction.
Would you rather Hanlon’s killer walked free or was jailed for an unrelated crime?
Fact of the matter is, the law will get you. If you’re guilty, they’ll find a way and if you’re not guilty but they think you are then you can bet your ass they’ll find a way to bring you down.
I’d say half of the law enforcers of America hold a grudge for OJ’s acquittal, meaning that even the slightest charge can be blown up on technicality.
It is hypocritical, but if you cross the law and get away with it in their view, you had better keep your nose clean.
Obviously he hasn’t.
Kim — Indeed , but that’s because he did it.
Shannaboley — He’s despicable. But did he do what he was convicted of?
Gimme — I would not want Andrew Hanlon’s killer convicted of something in the wrong. That would compound the injustice and would dishonour Andrew’s memory.
Maxi — Does the court decide a person’s guilt, or is that something television determines these days? If a prosecutor fails to prove his case, should the State attempt to punish the accused by other means?
I have to agree with you here Bock.
As much as I think Kharma is working overtime on this one, it’s not justice, it’s payback.
Any society that operates under that principle is not very principled at all
That’s it, Rob. My point exactly. The courts have no business looking at anything except the facts before them and, like it or not, OJ Simpson was acquitted of murder by those very same courts.
I agree with you Bock, but the courts are made up of a jury of our peers and human, they could’nt help themselves he could not have gotten a fair trial in america .The system is very flawed, there are actual innocent people found guilty every day those I feel sorry for.
I see what you’re saying, the court should decide what is or is not guilt.
However, it’s the begrudging law enforcers who determine what makes it to the court in the first place, no?
Once a person is proven to be innocent he should be left alone, granted, but the downside is that it makes you a target for unwanted and unwarranted attention from the law if they believe you to be guilty no matter what a judge or jury has to say.
In this case, it seems to be a combination of officials and popular sentiment. They opted for retribution ahead of the presumption of innocence.
If it can happen in one case, it can happen in all.
I think it’s quite clear to everyone, OJ Simpson was ‘probably’ guilty of the previous murders. However, Bock’s point is particuarly relevant due to the blatant bias displayed here by all concerned.
This is surely a case that the late Judge Roy Bean would have been proud of?
Dead right. Surely everyone would be glad to see OJ get his comeuppance but not for a trumped up charge. Part of the justice system has to be the guilty verdict. It doesn’t matter about other crimes the important thing for the victims and their families is their particular crime.
ok – i should be posting here AFTER i read more about the case i ’spose but it seems to me that there is a presumption here that OJ WASN’T guilty of robbery and kidnapping…. a jury heard the evidence, they presided for 13 hours and found him guilty, right???
My problem is with the kidnapping conviction, which carries a life sentence. I just can’t see it.
Unlawful imprisonment, maybe, at a push.
but it seems to me that there is a presumption here that OJ WASN’T guilty of robbery and kidnapping–artyeva
Bock, I haven’t read up on the case either. But have you any reason to think he wasn’t? If there’s some glaring reason to suggest that he wasn’t guilty, then I’d agree with your post.
It seems to me that the crime he was actually guilty of he was not even charged with.
He was a black man in a group of black men and they had guns. I’m surprised he wasn’t charged with domestic terrorism and sent to Gitmo while they were at it.
On the subject of fair trials, I have been summoned for jury duty. Thought you would like to know. Some of the legal eaglets, have been promising to object to me on any jury. Apparently reading your column has marked me out as the convicting type. I also believe in proof and the presumption of innocence.
How does “this conviction demonstrate that fact [that he could not get a fair trial]“? I don’t question the issue of a fair trial, just the logic.
Have another read of it. I didn’t say this conviction demonstrated that he couldn’t get a fair trial.
Yep – I agree with you Bock. Also how coincidental that he was found guilty 13 years to the day he was found not guilty for murder of his ex-wife and her partner. Perhaps it is a coincidence but I view it more as a rubbing OJ’s nose in it. They will prob do the same to Michael Jackson within the next 5 years. Everyone knows how corrupt the US police and judicial system is – this a case in point – a test case (of the wrong kind) almost! It is astounding that they can get away with it seeing as it is so obviously a trumped up charge.
PS: It’s called being ‘fitted up’ here isn’t it?
Corruption in the American police forces?
Oh for sure! The Andrew Hanlon controversy continues to rage.
And yes, it seems as if they searched around for the most extreme charge to lay against him. You’d need to make a good stretch of your imagination to turn what he did into a kidnapping.
The rule of law is actually not there to punish, not there to offer “comeuppance”
It is there to protect us against bad people and injustice. I firmly believe that OJ was culpable in the death of his wife, that’s my belief, based on the evidence. Whatever comeuppance was deserving should have been administered on that charge…
Who knows, maybe it’s just karma.
OJ got away with murder (if, like me, you share robs view) but now it seems that he’s being sent up for something he didn’t do (if, like me, you share bocks view). Believing, as I do, that OJ was guilty of the murder of his wife, means i don’t feel very sorry at all for him. In some ways (and I suppose this reflects more on me than anything else) it couldn’t have happened to a nicer guy.
But the law is the law. And the law failed to convict the last time, so OJ should only have his karma to worry about. And while plenty like me would be happy to see OJ get some form of “comeuppanceâ€Â, it occurs to me that if they can ignore the rule of law for OJ, they can ignore it for the rest of us too…
He received an additional 13 years of freedom because of a racist jury. A black juror raises the “black fist” in support, far too obvious. Pay the Goldman’s…nope, not yet. Laughed at every law abiding citizen…yep, without a doubt. If someone stole your property, do you go with a bunch of armed friends to get it back? Of course not, but the Juice did. Now and honest jury has found him guilty and an honest judge will hopefully put that violent animal in jail until he dies…hopefully many years from now. Oh well, no loss. See ya OJ.
-seeyaoj
Would it be that incredible for a black juror to think that a black man, especially a famous one, might not recieve a fair trial in the US ?
Plenty of white people get off because of racist white jurors ? What does it change ?
Going with a bunch of armed friends to get back what you believe to have been stolen from you, still isn’t kidnapping and robbery. Just as it may seem, two wrongs don’t make a right
“seeyaoj” — Thanks. You’ve just proved my point.
In the united states if you are armed and refuse to allow a person to pass without incident its kidnapping.To be held against your wish is kidnapping . You can bet they felt like it was kidnapping. I find it interesting that he did not choose to send one of his high paid legal team over to retriew his sports memorabila bad call on his part a bit impulsive really..This man knew what he was doing was stupid and bravado.Its clear it was a message 13 days 13 hours on the 13th anniversary.
My understanding is that kidnapping involves taking somebody away. Where a person is held against their will, my understanding is that the offence is false imprisonment.
Shannaboley – perhaps not so….Mr Juice went there supposedly ‘unaware’ that his other accomplices were armed (and dangerous). Sounds like a good fit up all round. Odd too that the accomplices all turned state witness against OJ as soon as they possibly could. I am not saying he did a bad thing and can’t be blamed for it – though it appears that the legal waters run very muddy and deep here. If there was ever a more obvious case of trumped up charge this is it. Regardless of that fact that he may have been previously responsible and escaped guilty charge for the death of his ex-wife and her partner – that doesn’t mean that this can be used as evidence for a different charge on a different day for an entirely different matter. Kidnapping is holding someone against their will/imprisoning – it appears neither happened – the salesman dealers who were being harrassed by OJ and his ‘accomplices’ were shook up by the their threatening behaviour but not held or ‘imprisoned’ for any major length of time in that hotel room. Once OJ and crew got what they wanted – the salesman were free to go and raise the alarm. I wouldn’t be surprised if the main accomplice Riccio was in on the whole thing, knew the salesman and got OJ nailed for it. It’s not rocket science – he agreed to a plea deal the moment he was arrested as well as profitting from substantial media payments for selling recordings of OJ’s telephone conversations relating to the heist. The whole thing stinks. OJ’s appealing on the race card. He may well get away with it a second time….
Regarding OJSimpson and the trumped up charges – didn’t the same thing happen in Ireland? The bloke who didn’t kill Veronica Guerin (Gilligan) got thirty years for cannabis.
That’s right. He did, and everyone was delighted, because they considered him to be the vilest of the vile. He got such a long sentence because everyone believed he was involved in the murder of veronica Guerin. It’s the same thing.
Now you raise an interesting question. What should the State do to protect itself against a subversive threat such as organised criminals present?
How should the State protect itself from organised criminals ? I really don’t know, but I’m pretty sure that that underwriting their debt didn’t help.
I just found out two things I didn’t know: that apparently one black juror made a clenched-fist sign in support of Simpson during the original murder trial. And 2) that this time he had an all-white jury. (Both bits from the net. I’m assuming for now that they’re true.)
Given that lawyers can challenge during jury selection I’m wondering how they got away with an all-white jury.