Steve Sailer writes: For crimethinkers, however, the O.J. case offered a cornucopia of insights:
– If blacks get themselves all worked up over the putative racist injustices of a particular case, it will probably turn out to be a factual fiasco, just as conspiracy theorists are right a lot less often than conspiracies actually exist.
– One of the more interesting figures in the case was OJ’s attorney Robert Shapiro (played by John Travolta in the show), who by the end, was deeply disturbed that he had facilitated a black man getting a way with murdering a Jew with impunity by bringing on Cochran to play what Shapiro called “the race card.”
– As a feminist, civil servant prosecutor Marcia Clark thought that female jurors would side with the murdered woman. As a highly successful racialist lawyer, Johnnie Cochran thought that black jurors would side with the black murderer. So they effectively agreed to pack the jury with black women.
– Black women turned out to be more racist than feminist, just as Cochran assumed.
– Black women feel that white women who steal their men have it coming to them.
– People who can’t get out of jury duty, especially black people who can’t get out of jury duty, aren’t all that bright on average. They are easily bored and baffled by technical testimony, so Cochran’s nursery rhyme was more effective than all the egghead DNA stuff.
– DA Gil Garcetti, the father of the current mayor, pretty much threw the case at the outset by moving the trial from the local courthouse in Santa Monica, where the jury pool would have been mostly bright white liberals, to downtown, which allowed Cochran & Clark to pack the jury with blacks from South-Central.
– The rioters’ threat to the justice system had a lot to do with Garcetti’s decision.
COMMENTS:
* It’s interesting to note all the members of Simpson’s supposed ‘Dream team’ who have completely disappeared from public view, excepting the dead one. If they were so great…
* Basically jury deliberations in a racialized trial like this are just waiting games until the holdouts cave, and blacks tend to be less willing to spend days sitting in a room in defense of moral principle than whites are.
* At my place of work in Florida, black employees cheered and clapped when the jury announced its not guilty verdict. Whether this meant they believed Simpson to be innocent, or were just expressing racial solidarity, I was never sure. After the event one or two explained to me that Simpson might actually have killed the two victims, but the prosecution had failed to prove its case “beyond reasonable doubt”.
Of course in the civil trial that followed, the standard of proof was lower and a jury found that Simpson WAS responsible. It has always seemed to me that the subsequent sentencing of Simpson to 33 years in prison for what sounded like a relatively minor act of criminality in recuperating some of his memorabilia which was of disputed ownership and no one was injured was really an act of retaliation by the judiciary.
As I recall there were no riots or mass protestations of innocence at the time of the verdict by an all-white jury or at his sentencing. In his defense Simpson had argued ” I thought what happens in Las Vegas stays in Las Vegas”, but the jury apparently thought not.
* I confess I felt sorry for Robert Kardashian. My take was that he knew that O.J. was guilty and was surprised when O.J. decided to brazen it out, but wanted him to have a fair trial. As things progressed, Kardashian got more and more horrified but didn’t know how to extricate himself, and when the verdict came down…if you look at Kardashian in the videotape, it seems clear that he is saying to himself, “Holy fuck, I helped this bastard get away with murder!”
I have no such sympathy for Robert Shapiro, who knew what he was getting into.
* Blacks don’t trend towards objectivity, you can’t really expect them to put aside feelings and evaluate the particulars of anything. They are who/whom to the nth degree.
Then and now, the only real issue to them was “do I want to see another brother go to jail”.
* I remember seeing Marcia Clark in a interview years after the trial and she sounded totally stupid. Feminist and brain-dead, as often happens. A clear case of affirmative action at work. Same for the Japanese judge, Ito, who looked both bored and out of place.
OJ spent the whole trial making his best impression of “dindu nuffin”.
As for Mark Fuhrman.. Whatever happened to him? He was the only likable person in that grotesque trial, yet convicted of felony because he once said the dreaded N-word, somewhere, sometime. Not that it had anything to do with the case.
* So I was working in a bank trading room when this happened: it, of course has wall to wall TV.
All of the support staff came in from their domain to hear the verdict.
All the blacks applauded, the whites were astonished.
It was the first time I’d seriously smelled a race war.
* It wasn’t just the not guilty verdict, it was that blacks were so gleeful about it and defended it using a perverse logic.. “We’ll talk about OJ when you talk about Emmit Till”.
* So Shapiro was upset by the death of the Jew but not the beheading of the shiksa?
According to Torah both were committing deep sin.
The loverboy Goldman is the least pitiable in the whole sordid mess. But the media made him a victim! Like he was an innocent bystander. He injected himself into that volatile situation. Pun intended. But now Wiki page claims he and the shiksa were “just friends” …wut?!
In LA and NYC there are a zillion of these young guys ready and willing to schtupp other men’s wives.
* Two reasons:
(1) Kardashian’s name recognition is based on her father, whose Q rating shot up due to his involvement in this trial. Heck, every lawyer’s name on the defense spiked in the national consciousness. For example, for years afterwards, the standard jokes by every black character on every sitcom whenever he encountered the police was “Watch out! I’ll get Johnny Cochran” and “If the glove don’t fit, you must acquit”.
The Kardashian spawn would not have gotten their initial television show without Kardashian’s spike in household name recognition thanks to his involvement.. After that, they just did “shocking” things one after another to maintain fame, culminating in Jenner pretending to change his gender.
(2) it demonstrated how a tawdry 24-hour reality-TV show cycle-formula could be profitable.
Video “real” people + some name recognition + make them due “shocking” things and you get a cheap, reliable ratings machine. Thrown in inter-racial sex + violence (as was the case in OJ) and ratings spike more (how many reality shows now have scenes where characters get drunk and get into fights at bars? it’s about every 3rd commercial for them that I see).
This is why the Kardashians are such a big hit—they are just recreating the OJ trial formula, minus the murder.
N.B.: During the trial it became gossip that the white Clark and Christopher Darden, the other prosecutor (who is black), had dated for a while. That helped contribute to the atmosphere of viewers watching, and you can bet Ryan Seacrest (who is the producer of the Kardashians) has seen that black men + white women=ratings. I’m sure he’s got that written down somewhere.
* [Mark Fuhrman] occasionally appears on Fox News. When I saw them giving him air time (at least a decade ago), I knew Fox portended meaningful change in the media landscape.
* Keeping in mind that striking jurors for race, or any other protected class membership, is a cardinal no-no in legal ethics. It happens, obviously, but a prosecutor can’t be obvious about it. Also, you only get to strike 3 jurors, so rigging is harder than it may appear. Venue, on the other hand, has a tremendous effect on jury composition.
* The prosecution was going to go for as many women on the jury as they could as the putative target of the murder was a woman. The defense wouldn’t be carrying out their ethical responsibility to offer the best defense for their client if they didn’t go for as many black persons on the jury as their client is black.
They ended up with a jury of a large number of black women, which was not only the worst demographic to have sympathy for the estranged white wife of a black man, but also the demographic with the greatest deal of skepticism about the domestic violence narrative.
The idea was that Mr. Simpson was a beloved celebrity so the prosecution’s job was to portray him as a monster so as to break down this affection for him? So “they”, and especially Marcia Clark played the male-domestic-abuser-turned-murder card.
I am speculating that the black woman jurors may have had more life experience with abuse in relationships or knew first hand people with such life experience and had a more nuanced view. Is the man an abuser from the outset or is he acting that way in response to outside stress or provocation within the relationship? Can a woman be the abuser in a relationship? If the man is the abuser can there be, in car insurance jargon, proportional fault of the parties?
Any of those views are crime-think in the white-female-SJW world, so much so that Marcia Clark couldn’t even entertain the thought that her jurors could have possibly been thinking that way.
If the prosecution had stuck with the blood and the DNA evidence, the smoke and mirrors offered by defense experts notwithstanding, ” Mr. Simpson is popular public figure, but something must have pushed him over the edge because his blood is found comingled with that of the two victims” I think they could have won over the skeptical jurors. This hammering at Mr. Simpson being an abuser and therefore you should conclude he is a murderer rubbed those jurors the wrong way.
Backup for my theory are the public comments of jurors regarding the use of the N-word. The reasoning was along the lines of “As black people we know that every person, white or black, has uttered the N-word sometime during their lifetime, as black people we don’t like that but we are realists and know that word gets uttered. How stupid does a police officer think we are to defiantly claim that he has never, ever used such language, and if he is lying about this what other lies is he telling?”
* Come on, don’t make it any more difficult: Race trumps gender. PERIOD.
For the jury members, the fact that OJ was also charged with killing a Jewish person only added a bit to the periphery. Not a deal maker but definitely in the background. As in “I sure ain’t sidin’ with someone who’s ancestors helped enslave our people during slavery times.” Let’s not pretend that blacks aren’t anti-semitic, because they very much are. But that was incidental to the larger narrative of Race trumps gender. Darden of all people should’ve been more aware and alerted the Garcetti to this fact.
Remember what Cochran said to Darden post-trial. “Don’t worry. One day we’ll let you back into the community.” As in, “the man made you his house slave and you had to do what you had to do, we get that. It’s gonna take time, but one day you will be allowed back into the community again.”
Kim better watch her back. OJ is just determined to mean what he says.
* -Ito really lost that trial. He allowed TV cameras (a big no no), and then, when it was obvious that the cameras were causing the circus, he refused to get rid of them.
The first thing a judge needs is command of the courtroom. Ito let the cameras in and lost control, and the defense took control. He never regained it.
-As to Clark, she became an Entertainment Tonight “reporter.” I’m not kidding about that, either. That pretty much shows you her level of intelligence and ability.
Feminists, it should be noted, always way over-estimate the amount of female solidarity that really exists, mostly because they are extrapolating from the very small number of feminists they know, who are either man-hating, extremely masculine lesbians or brittle career gals who think if they just do a few more things in their career, women will all converge and hug them for their work and bow down to them. Both of these categories of women rarely swoon in front of sexy confident men—because they aren’t around such men all that often, for various reasons (choice, career, agoraphobia, etc.)—and so can’t imagine how one confident male leader can overcome female solidarity.
-Give Johnny Cochran credit: he knew a Billy Flynn-Chicago-style circus would be best for O.J., he created it, he fed it, and he appeared as the ringmaster to the jury.
