FanDuel - WFBC

August 13, 2005

OJ unplugged by 18 year old.: Hereís an interesting print and video interview of OJ. Whatís interesting about it is not OJís answers so much as it is the interviewer, Graham Bensinger who is host of "The Graham Bensinger Show" on 1380 ESPN in St. Louis and Sportsradio 620. Heís only 18 years old! Hell, heís not even old enough to drink!

posted by tommysands to football at 07:08 AM - 44 comments

This kid should have been on the OJ trial jury back in 95 when he was 8! Surely could have done a better job than that jury did.

posted by MPeter at 07:42 AM on August 13

Leave OJ alone. He's doing some CSI in a Florida sandtrap. Major breakthroughs in the Goldman-Nicole murders coming any day now. Impacting...

posted by the red terror at 08:58 AM on August 13

Bensinger's rationalization for not talking to Simpson about the murders was weak. Any journalist who agrees to interview Simpson without broaching that subject is working PR for him. If Bensinger is willing to abandon his moral scruples for a "get" like Simpson, he'll go far in the business.

posted by rcade at 09:01 AM on August 13

"So, who is the Simpson that I have come to know? "He is cordial, engaging and -- one hesitates to say this -- pleasant to be around. ... He has always been respectful and courteous to me, so I've tried to treat him the same. I view it as a test of one's character." Bravo kid. Ya just got hoodwinked, and maybe a little insight into how a guy whose name appeared buried in small bulletins in the back of sports pages for repeatedly assaulting his wife could then turn around and smile and shuck for the cameras the following Sunday afternoons on NBC. OJ Simpson is a fantastic football player, but as a lifelong Buffalo Bills fan, it pains me to say this, he's also a sociopath as a human being, and more than likely a double-murderer who got off because of high-priced legal team and technicalities.

posted by the red terror at 09:05 AM on August 13

You know, it amazes me that everyone who was not a member of the Simpson jury is automatically smarter than everyone who was on it. Did you watch every bit of the trial? Do you know the nuances of the evidence? Do you automatically think when someone the press and popular opinion says is guilty gets off that it's a travesty of justice? Where's the outrage for the hundreds of people convicted of murder and then later found innocent? You know, it's entirely possible being rich and famous got Simpson off. It's also entirely possible the prosecution completely sucked. Or maybe, just maybe, he was innocent. Christ, let it go. As for Bensinger's scruples, I'm not finding he didn't talk about the murders necessarily. Sure, it wasn't the focus of the interview, but he asks about OJ's feelings on being viewed as a murderer, which is a pretty ballsy question and is strange, as he isn't a murderer, at least not on the court records. And what's the point of talking about the murder? Are you going to find out anything more than what's already on the record? Is O.J. suddenly going to go, "You know what ... I did it. How's that for a scoop?" Isn't the reader better served by getting the chance to see what his thoughts are now about a bunch of other stuff? And if you don't care what O.J. thinks, why are you reading the piece in the first place? Are you looking to nail the reporter because you don't like seeing Simpson handled in this fashion? And I don't agree with the hoodwinked thing either. Is it Bensinger's job to report on his experience or your perceptions of the subject? In his meetings with Simpson, he's been cordial and forthcoming. He'd be doing a disservice if he didn't report it that way.

posted by wfrazerjr at 11:28 AM on August 13

.Or maybe, just maybe, he was innocent. Very well put set of comments, williefrazer. I couldn't have said it better myself. One minor distinction, however. Maybe, as you say, he was innocent. I'll go with what the court said: "not guilty".

posted by tommysands at 11:59 AM on August 13

Juries aren't infallible, Frazer. There are innocent people in jail and guilty people who roam free. The glove found at the murder scene contained the blood and hair of Simpson, his ex-wife, and Ron Goldman. A bloody footprint at the scene matched his shoes. O.J.'s blood and a bloody footprint were found in three places in his Ford Bronco. He wrote a suicide note and fled from police with a change of clothes, passport, and disguise kit. A civil jury found him responsible for the murders. He told Esquire magazine in 1998, "Even if I did this, it would have to have been because I loved her very much, right?" He had a history of domestic battery. I think the case against Simpson proved his guilt far beyond a reasonable doubt. The fact that a jury disagreed is worth considering, but it doesn't mean the rest of us should accept their decision without question. To put it another way, as much as you claim we should all let it go, would you want O.J. to date a member of your family?

posted by rcade at 12:15 PM on August 13

HAs anyone understood that this kid is only 18? I OJ himself had any credibility left, Why after all this time submit to an interview with an 18 year old kid who represents NO ONE. OJ is like Canseco, "hey everybody get ready for part 2"! Let him die old and alone and broke. If it was anyone of real value they would have gotten someone other than an 18 year old to interview him. Gimme a break please.

posted by volfire at 12:20 PM on August 13

OK, rcade. I can agree that all of your points are compelling and persuasive except one: A civil jury found him responsible for the murders As you know, civil juries are generally held to a lower standard of proof and they frequently are more persuaded by emotion than facts which, in my opinion, was the case with OJ's civil jury.

posted by tommysands at 12:26 PM on August 13

I never said I didn't think OJ was guilty also, rcade. I'm pointing out that the man was found "not guilty", so at what point are interviewers (and the rest of the American public) going to stop framing everything he does as, "So, OJ, how's it feel to get away with murder?" And no, juries aren't infallible ... but it's the system we use to judge guilt and innocence, and I'm more likely to believe them and their findings than the opinions people who were nowhere near the proceedings.

posted by wfrazerjr at 12:48 PM on August 13

Who's advocating for interviewers to presume his guilt? All I've suggested is that this kid shouldn't have conducted an interview with a precondition that the murders be avoided as a subject. At a minimum, he should ask Simpson for a progress report on his search for the "real killers."

posted by rcade at 02:02 PM on August 13

Get off the crack-pipe guys. If OJ was truly as innocent as some of you make him out to be, then why didn't the A-team put him on the stand to declare his innocence? And if the jury was truly as savvy and illuminated as some of you seem to think they were, then why did the A-team feel obliged to make Mark Fuhrman and the LAPD the target of their trial? O-kay, Fuhrman said the n-word a bunch of times; ergo, OJ is innocent and the whole case against Simpson was a frame-up by the LAPD, and they deliberately cut his hand before he boarded a plane to Chicago, and they PhotoShopped those "guido shoes I'd never wear" Bruno Magli's onto his feet in 30 different photos that came from the Buffalo Bills official photographer. I guess the next thing you'll have me believe is that OJ had a passport and a gun and $10,000 in cash because he really, truly was only driving to grieve at Nicole's gravesite, and you can't do that without a gun and a passport and $10,000 cash. And then I suppose you'll convince me that OJ is serious when he says his number one priority is hunting down the killer of Nicole because, hey, he only spends six days a week at a golf course in Florida, and that leaves a full day per week for OJ to find the real killer. I watched that trial every day, I listened to Buffalo radio stations every day, and you'd be lucky if you found even one-in-ten Bills fans that actually believed he was innocent by the time that trial ended, and Bills fans paid as close attention to that trial as anybody. Again, it pains me to say that someone who was heretofore my favorite all-time football player is most likely a cold blooded killer. It took a long-time to convince me because for years I'd pretended those early reports of assault couldn't be true, OJ would never do such as thing, he ran for 2003 yards and starred in The Toweering Inferno, how could he ever be capable of such a heainous crime??? Such is the blind loyalty of blathering fan-hero worship. Nevertheless, evidence is evidence, and OJ Simposn had very little explanation for any of it. Better to bring David Blaine out and entertain the rubes with a little street magic and illusion than to get OJ on the stand incriminating himself trying to explain away his bogus statements to the police. I guess it's tru that I'm only 99.9% convinced of his guilt -- the only other thing I'd need is the actual videotape -- and some of you may think, a-ha!, that other 0.1% represents "doubt," but I fail to see how any of it rises to the level of "reasonable." If Christopher Darden hadn't spontaneously combusted in a courtroom and made an unscheduled dare to put a tight glove on OJ's outstretched fingers (and overtop a latex glove underneath -- go on kids -- try to put a glove on your hand with fingers in a broad five-point star, even without the latex, and see if it fits), then the whole "If it doesn't fit, you must acquit" fake phony fraud charade that their entire concluding defense rested upon would have been irrelevant. And Johnnie Cockroach's admonition that the jury had to deliver a verdict of not guilty to send a message to the LAPD in the wake of the Rodney King beating & verdict was total cynicism that said NOTHING about the brutal murder of two human beings. Face it kids, there's a very logical reason why despite all his insistence that his priority is hunting down the supposed "real killer" of the mother of his children, OJ Simpson has no real interest actually carrying out that priority, and deep inside, you know what that reason is. OJ Simpson was not convicted because he had million dollar lawyers stretching out the longest homicide trial in American history. They used that time to play an elaborate shell game upon unsophisticated lunkheads in the jury box. The low-wage civil servant prosecution simply wasn't up to the task of defeating them any more than the Washington Generals had a chance against the Harlem Globe Trotters. It was a badly prosecuted case, true, but a "not guilty" verdict is not the same thing as innocence.

posted by the red terror at 02:11 PM on August 13

I'm not disagreeing with you, but I have to say a defendant has no obligation to take the stand and it can not be viewed as evidence of guilt in court.

posted by yerfatma at 04:40 PM on August 13

I swear, some of these comments actually sound as if they are filled with jealousy. hundreds of people get away with crime everyday. Some of you actually sound like you're more upset that it wasnt you who "got away with murder". Its like you take it personally.How about the african american male that got the chair a few years ago and then was found "innocent" not "not guilty". Then the other man who also happend to be black who spent over 25 years in jail and then "evidence" found him "innocent". You would think that a society founded on "innocent until prooven guilty" would take more offense to a criminal justice system that actualy commits murder of "innocent" people then it does to letting a guilty person go. are these people casualties of the system? And if so, what if you or a family member was wrongfully convicted of a crime and the sentence was irreversable "death".I wish everyone who has posted here would give thier true answer to the following then we would know what type of people we are dealing with. Do you find it more grotesque that a guilty man is found "not guilty" or is it more sickening that a innocent man is murdered by capital punishment and then found to be just that "innocent"?

posted by lluca brazii at 05:13 PM on August 13

"Ill gotten luca", You said it right. I assume your question is rhetorical but if it's not I'd answer the part of your two part question which comes after the penultimate part in the negative.

posted by tommysands at 05:28 PM on August 13

I believe it's in the Bible and states "Eye for and eye,Tooth for a tooth". And I also know of someone who recieved a full pardon, and was just convicted on a Federal Crime AGAIN. SO much for the second chance, seems like it can't be given away.

posted by volfire at 07:11 PM on August 13

I wonder if he was innocent, then why did he try to run from the cops? thats something I always get hung up on when I think about it.

posted by tina at 08:48 PM on August 13

I also offer my congrats to Bensinger, thats awesome to see someone strike out so young.

posted by tina at 09:02 PM on August 13

Here's my bottom line on this issue: 1. OJ was acquitted in a criminal trial. He was found "not guilty". 2. We all have our opinions, some of them well founded, but we'll probably never know for sure if he did it. 3. Mostly, Bensinger did a good job with the interview keeping in mind he's only 18 years old! AND; I also offer my congrats to Bensinger, thatís awesome to see someone strike out so young. tina, you can be as good as Bensinger if you only listen to the wisdom of the sages on this board.

posted by tommysands at 09:28 PM on August 13

Ha!! Had to rub that in didn't ya? :) Sorry sometimes I question other's "wisdom" not all, but some. And I fully intend to be very successful. Not to sound cocky......

posted by tina at 09:59 PM on August 13

For some of you who will more than likely take that the wrong way, I was joking....

posted by tina at 10:06 PM on August 13

Obviously, the "real killers" are caddies. Or very possibly starters, marshals, pro shop attendants, or even drink-cart girls.

posted by The_Black_Hand at 10:19 PM on August 13

tina, I was just joking too. You probably got more sage than most of the old farts that hang around here.

posted by tommysands at 12:22 AM on August 14

I believe it's in the Bible and states "Eye for and eye,Tooth for a tooth". Actually a scripture that mentions "eyes" states...If your right eye offends you(as in lusting or finding negative in everything you look at)then pluck it out. For it is better to enter the kingdom of Heaven with one eye then to be Damned forever(paraphrase) Since someone else went for a Bible scripture(actually "eye for an eye" is not in the Bible), i guess i'd offer one of the less popular ones,... John 8:7 He who is without sin among YOU, let him cast the first stone. I guess my piont is no matter how much we think oj got away with something,he or anyone else cannot escape the punishment for hidden sin. The Bible also states that any man may repent and be forgiven.If oj is guilty of that horrible crime and doesnt repent. He will receive swift and just punishment.He will not have gotten away with anything.) He who covereth sin will not prosper.

posted by lluca brazii at 03:02 AM on August 14

If OJ was truly as innocent as some of you make him out to be, then why didn't the A-team put him on the stand to declare his innocence? According to the law degree I'm earning through regular viewings of Law & Order repeats, if a defendant takes the stand in his own defense, he risks saying something that would allow prosecutors to ask him about prior acts. Anyone remember if Simpson's history of domestic battery come up during the trial? Some of you actually sound like you're more upset that it wasnt you who "got away with murder". You got me pegged, Lluca. Like Merv Griffin, I've always just loved to kill. I really enjoyed it. But then I got famous, and -- it's just too hard for me. And so many witnesses. I mean, everybody recognized me. I couldn't even work anymore.

posted by rcade at 09:48 AM on August 14

Ok...1st, I didn't see the interview, but I do have an opinion on the whole OJ thing... 1st of all, he was found not guilty, the reason being the prosecution made too many mistakes. All the jury needed was "reasonable" doubt, and they got it. Doesn't matter what else the evidence said. THEY screwed up, all the evidence they had was explanable..Had detectives and police just shown up on scene, done their jobs, and not tampered with the evidence, they might have convicted him. Apparently no one really paid much attention to the fact that samples of their blood was taken from scene to scene, pictures show them walking thru the scene, therefore allowing evidence to be transported from the scene to his house. Evidence that should never have been touched was taken to his house. This is NOT routine, and it allowed for the idea of tampering. There is a very real possibility that they thought he did it, and decided to make sure they had evidence to show that. Some evidence wasn't even collected til weeks later.. Most people based their opinion strictly on what was said initially. But if you actually heard all of the facts, you would have had to do the same as his jury did. Did he do it? Who knows, but there was too much evidence tainted by overzealous detectives who saw the chance for their names in lights. That is the beauty of our justice system. It isnt a court of popular opinion. If you were on trial you should only hope that jury has the balls to follow the law not just their opinions. With his jury there was too much doubt. All the evidence was easily tagged as planted. Samples were missing, blood was transported to both scenes. A hat? LOL Ya know how easy it was for someone to put it there? They went from scene to his place and back. And they had blood samples with them. Doesnt mean it was planted, but it does allow for reasonable doubt. Riddle me this batman, he has white carpet in his bedroom. He had the foresight to dispose of every piece of clothing he wears to commit these horrific crimes. Yet, OOPS he forgets one sock with blood on it on his white carpet? He planned this so well, so meticulously that nothing else is found, yet he leaves that in plain sight? And not one drop of blood on the carpet leading to bedroom..so what, he carried the sock there? No shoes there, so what he walked back in house with just that one sock? lol It is very reasonable to say, hmmm police carried samples from the scene to this house, gee lets make sure we have some evidence here...it doesnt take columbo to see that its very possible. Or do you really truly believe that no officer of the law could ever try to do something like this? Evidence collected at scenes doesn't usually travel to other locations...it's collected and tagged. Not taken to suspects house. If he did this, why was there no other evidence? He had limo coming, he didnt have oodles of time to dispose of clothes, weapon. Yet none were found. And no witnesses. Did anyone ever stop to consider the fact that Ron and Nicole were into drugs? Did anyone consider it could have been drug related? OJ LOVED his kids, no one can dispute that, yet he commits double murder with his own kids in house at the time? Risking them seeing bodies or the crime happening. If you say this was a crime of passion, that he was overcome with jealousy, well that would tend to lead me to think spontaneous crime, happens in fit of rage, not something like this, cause IF OJ did do this, it wasntspontaneous.He would have had to have planned to dispose of evidence as well as he did. As for him fleeing, wouldnt you consider it? If you were a public figure and they were targetting you as prime suspect, and you panic? I might consider running. And as for him fleeing, please,he coulda been out of the country without a trace if he really chose that route. It wasnt a high speed chase, nothing showed him trying to flee, they just chose to over dramatize it. As for suicide note, I dont recall hearing about that at all. Cash yes, gun maybe, but that isnt uncommon either, many carry guns, legally. Again let's just hope that if any of you ever stand trial, you are judged solely on evidence and NOT opinion.

posted by Gem at 10:27 AM on August 14

Why get so worked up about O.J's innocence? the interview is not about the trial.

posted by mediken at 01:58 PM on August 14

Not that i really care because on this subject people have made up their minds over his innocence or guilt , but you left out a few details GEM . 1. Orenthal had a flight all set for Chicago coincidently on the same night his ex wife was murdered . He was packed with a limo set to pick him up so he didn't necessarily have to had gone into his bedroom with the white rug to change clothes . Yet may of changed his clothes in another room , bathroom maybe , and then after lost the bloody sock he was to dispose of . Seeing how he was late for the limo and likely nervous , he may not of seen it drop . 2. He was invited that night to see his daughter's dance recital at school but after arriving was told he couldn't sit with the family . He ended up pissed off sitting in a steel chair in the back of the auditorium . Most likely he went to confront her about this afterwards which could have been at her condo . After arriving there he saw Nicole and Ron together further enraging him . He had a 911 call phoned in against him in the past for domestic violence after kicking in a door to the house . He had gotten upset after seeing a photo album she had filled with pictures of her and former boyfriends , so he had a severe jealousy streak . 3. And last was the bloody glove . This never should have been allowed to be used . The leather glove had been soaked in blood . Once dried out the glove would have shrunk . Plus he tried to put it on over a rubber glove . Even if the glove was much bigger than his hand , putting it on over a rubber glove would be tough . A shrunken glove would be impossible . " If it dont fit , you must acquit " was a crock of shit .

posted by evil empire at 03:52 PM on August 14

You know, celebrity trials are the USA's true national sport. Long after the NFL, NBA, NHL, MLB, NCAA and all the others crumble to dust, there will forever be another MJ/OJ/Robert Blake/Martha Stewart/Bobby Brown/Robert Downey Jr./whoever to follow with gleeful schadenfreude. It's the one lasting aspect of American Culture. There have been other celebrity trials elsewhere & in the past, but the USA has raised them to the level of self-perpetuating high art. America, fuck yeah!

posted by chicobangs at 04:19 PM on August 14

You know, it amazes me that everyone who was not a member of the Simpson jury is automatically smarter than everyone who was on it. Did you watch every bit of the trial? Do you know the nuances of the evidence? After hearing comments from the O.J. jury and other high profile cases (michael jackson etc....ex. "he didn't look guilty") I have about zero confidence in competent individuals being chosen. I did watch the trial, and every detail has come out over the years. There is no "nuance" left unturned. There's nothing the jury saw that I haven't. Where's the outrage for the hundreds of people convicted of murder and then later found innocent? I'm outraged. I was also outraged that O.J. walked. One doesn't have to do with the other, and the article was about O.J. As you know, civil juries are generally held to a lower standard of proof and they frequently are more persuaded by emotion than facts which, in my opinion, was the case with OJ's civil jury. Really? Have any proof they are "frequently persuaded by emtion"? The difference is the standard of proof, as you correctly stated. There is just as much chance emotion played a part in the first trial than in the civil trial. The civil trial resulted in a guilty verdict because it was a slam dunk case. The proof needed is low enough that the jury would have had to be a bunch of morons not to find O.J. guilty. I swear, some of these comments actually sound as if they are filled with jealousy. hundreds of people get away with crime everyday. Some of you actually sound like you're more upset that it wasnt you who "got away with murder". What the hell are you talking about? I wish everyone who has posted here would give thier true answer to the following then we would know what type of people we are dealing with. Do you find it more grotesque that a guilty man is found "not guilty" or is it more sickening that a innocent man is murdered by capital punishment and then found to be just that "innocent"? The second of course, which proves nothing. The interview was with simpson. You're reading way too much into people's opinions on his innocence or guilt. 1. OJ was acquitted in a criminal trial. He was found "not guilty". Which means nothing in the court of public opinon, which is what sportsfilter is. 2. We all have our opinions, some of them well founded, but we'll probably never know for sure if he did it. We'll never know he did it? How would we 'really know' anyone killed anyone without seeing it ourselves? You could say that about almost anyone on death row. Look, the trial was lost with an incompetent prosecution and a jury that took a racist cop and a few questions and threw everything out. Nothing Gem said comes close to changing my opinion that O.J. was/is guilty. Read "Outrage : The Five Reasons Why O.J. Simpson Got Away With Murder" by Bugliosi (a pretty good lawyer...you might have heard of him) and tell me O.J. is innocent. But, luckily for O.J. he got away with it. Not guilty. Fine, that's the way our jury system works. I can live with it. But to interview O.J. and leave out the murders seems comical, especially when you spend the first page explaining why you're not asking him about it.

posted by justgary at 09:07 PM on August 14

Worst thread ever.

posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 09:35 PM on August 14

I just wanna know, did Snape really kill Dumbledore.

posted by lil_brown_bat at 09:52 PM on August 14

Godfather/lluca brazii, I've read your response 3 times and I still have no clue what you're getting at. Way too witty for me. Perhaps you can dumb it down for me. Here, basically, is what I said: "I think without doubt he was guilty. Even with the tainted evidence thrown out, there was enough to convict in my opinion. That said, it's the best system we have. That doesn't mean I can't disagree with the jury." With what part of that do you disagree? Honestly, I'd love to hear what made you so angry. Also, I agree it's old news. If a thread bores you, you're always free to skip it.

posted by justgary at 02:23 AM on August 15

If a thread bores you, you're always free to skip it. Nah, it's much more fun to repeat stuff ad nauseam. How else are ancient grudges created?

posted by lil_brown_bat at 05:30 AM on August 15

Just curious. Whats your opinion of the man mentioned that was found innocent AFTER he got the chair? This may sound crazy but,it seems like some americans are willing to sacrifice a few innocent people to make sure we get all the "guilty". Of course this is wrong and a shame but i see no connection between someone being executed that was innocent and someone set free that was guilty . Both are wrong and both are the result of people not doing their job correctly . The justice system has been screwed up by too many technicalities , letting people off over little things that shouldn't matter . But also the system is set up to let the rich man get away with a crime whereas the poor man can rot in prison , unable to get his appeals heard . This is why Michael " the Molester " Jackson , Robert " Beretta to your head " Blake and O.J. " Double Murderer " Simpson walk the streets today free and proclaimed innocent by a jury of their **cough , cough ** " peers ."

posted by evil empire at 08:18 AM on August 15

Of course this is wrong and a shame but i see no connection between someone being executed that was innocent and someone set free that was guilty . Both are wrong and both are the result of people not doing their job correctly . In one sentence, you say that you see no connection; in the next sentence, you explicitly state a connection. Which is it?

posted by lil_brown_bat at 08:24 AM on August 15

People being found not guilty that have in fact committed a crime is not a flaw in the system. The system is designed to prevent innocent people from being convicted. And, if, as a result, some guilty people are freed that is a bargain that our founding fathers were willing to make. That is what happened with OJ. He had a team of lawyers that were able to cast reasonable doubt on the whole entire case. Just because people don't agree with the result, that does not mean that there was an injustice committed.

posted by bperk at 08:27 AM on August 15

OOPS , your right lbl I meant to say I see no difference in the two , not that i see no connection . Damn coffee hasn't kicked in yet .

posted by evil empire at 08:34 AM on August 15

oops again ... lbb not lbl . tough morning so far .

posted by evil empire at 08:37 AM on August 15

Forget the mug, ee -- use a spigot!

posted by lil_brown_bat at 09:00 AM on August 15

He also had a big cut on his hand, which he supposedly got from a broken glass in his hotel room. I think he did it, but I think the verdict was correct. The prosecution did a crappy job. The glove not fitting was the most dramatic and probably most important factor in his getting off. The prosecution said he wore those gloves when he did the killings, and they didn't fit. There are reasons that they may have not fit, but it's still a powerful image. There were a couple of other things that stood out to me. The glove they found on the property wasn't along the path of blood from the Bronco into the house and bedroom, which has always seemed strange to me. Marh Fuhrman was a disaster for the prosectution, and in an environment where LAPD has a history of racial problems, it would have been easy to believe he planted evidence. I'm also not convinced that they didn't frame a guily person.

posted by kirkaracha at 10:03 AM on August 15

why can't you holier than thou types just leave OJ the hell alone! He was found not guilty! In fact, I beleive HE DID NOT do it. Maybe his son did it and he is covering it up for him, or maybe it was a drug deal gone bad.. I met OJ several times at Griffith Park golf course here in Los angeles and he was ALWAYS cool. He and I discussed the Super Bowl the day before the Rams won in 99(which he correctly predicted the winner). Just because most of you OJ bashers are white and he is black and alledgedly killed 2 white people, doesn't mean he is guilty. Maybe you are racist???

posted by bluekarma at 02:38 AM on August 16

why you think you so smart lil brown dingbat?

posted by bluekarma at 02:45 AM on August 16

It would have been interesting to have seen what Howard Cosell thought of the O.J. case . He always thought of him as a godly image as a player and while they worked together on MNF . Having been a lawyer before becoming a *cough* sports analyst , i'd love to hear his opinion . Although i'd need a dictionary to figure out some of the words he was saying .

posted by evil empire at 07:54 AM on August 16

You're not logged in. Please log in or register.