Patterico's Pontifications

6/13/2014

20 Years Ago Today . . .

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 8:35 pm

. . . O.J. Simpson brutally murdered two people.

I wrote a series of posts about the case in 2006 — eight years ago! — and now is as good a time as any to revisit them. Long-time readers, enjoy the nostalgia. New readers, sample some moldy old Patterico posts.

The O.J. Posts — Part One: Introduction

I come at this with a perspective: I think O.J. Simpson is guilty of the murders of Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman. I think he got away with murder. Part of the object of these posts is to explore why.

. . . .

[D]espite the fact that I think Clark and Darden screwed up the case, I still think they proved it beyond a reasonable doubt. Tomorrow I’ll explain why I don’t think it made a difference to the jurors.

The O.J. Posts — Part Two: The Jury

A colleague I worked with downtown was a law clerk at the time of the O.J. trial. He was one of the first people to sound the alarm within the office, and he did it based on watching a few days of jury selection. He went to a couple of fairly high-level DAs that he was working for in the office, and told them: “We’re going down on this case.” They replied; “You’re kidding. We’ve got more evidence against this guy than we’ve ever had in a murder case. There’s no way we can lose.” My colleague replied: “I don’t care. You need to take a look at that group of jurors.”

I heard a story from Mrs. P. that directly reinforces this point. [You'll have to click the link to read the story! -- P]

The O.J. Posts — Part Three: The Timeline

Stop. Before you go any further . . . tell me how long it takes to drive from the site of Nicole Simpson’s Bundy condo to the site of O.J.’s Rockingham mansion.

I’m talking especially to those of you who believe O.J. didn’t do it. And I’m talking especially to those of you who watched large parts (or all) of the trial.

. . . .

Not many people realize this, but the drive from Nicole’s condo (the crime scene) to O.J.’s house took only five minutes. I’ve done it many times, and it always took five minutes, give or take 30 seconds or so.

The O.J. Posts — Part Four: We Really Could Have Used Bill Hodgman

I admit to a strong bias in favor of Hodgman. He’s a guy who is always thinking about strategy and has a solid understanding of people and what drives their decisionmaking. He is a quality person — a hardworking, talented, and dedicated D.A., a man with a firm sense of ethics, and a heck of a nice guy.

Hodgman periodically gives a presentation to the Sex Crimes Unit on the O.J. Simpson case. He tells stories about the case, goes through the evidence, and does a slideshow presentation at the end, essentially giving a short version of what would have been his closing argument at trial, if he had remained in a primary courtroom role on the case (he had to give up a larger role in the case due to heart trouble). The stated reason for the presentation is to instruct deputies how to handle big, high-profile media cases, but it also gives people a chance to satisfy their curiosity about the O.J. case. One year he gave the presentation when my wife was a Deputy in the Sex Crimes Unit, and I asked Bill if it would be okay for me to attend. He graciously allowed me to do so.

The O.J. Posts — Part Five: Patterico Visits the O.J. Civil Trial

I have sometimes heard the pro-O.J. crowd claim that Fred Goldman hammed it up for the cameras. Well, I can tell you this: at the civil trial, I sat two rows behind him and his daughter. When the lawyers displayed exhibits of Ron Goldman, they hugged each other, and you could see Fred Goldman shaking a little bit, apparently crying. But you couldn’t hear it. It wasn’t melodramatic, at all — and I saw no evidence that anyone else noticed (though I’m sure some did). It seemed genuine. And you know what? There were no cameras anywhere in sight.

The O.J. Posts — Part Six: Why Petrocelli Won the Civil Trial, While Clark and Darden Lost the Criminal Trial

Without meaning to take anything away from Petrocelli, he had a heck of a lot more going for him than his ability, which I agree seemed to be at a high level.

The biggest thing he had going for him, of course, was the jury pool. Trying a case like this in Santa Monica, where the criminal trial should have been held, is a far cry from trying it in downtown L.A.

Second, he had a lot of evidence that the criminal jurors didn’t have — like the photo of those “ugly-ass” Bruno Magli shoes.

But one of the biggest things he had going for him was O.J. himself. See, in the civil trial, the plaintiffs were allowed to call O.J. You can’t do that in a criminal trial.

The O.J. Posts — Part Seven: The Microscope Effect

I have a theory: put anything in life under an intense microscope — anything — and you can find questions. Especially if you want to find them, and you proceed off of incomplete information and jump to conclusions.

. . . .

I call it the Microscope Effect. If you put anything under a microscope, you can come out with the wildest theories.

The O.J. case, in my opinion, suffers from a huge case of the Microscope Effect.

I hope you click through to some of the old posts. In particular, Mrs. P’s story about the jury selection is absolutely true, and very revealing.

UPDATE: The L.A. Times today is hilarious:

Veteran prosecutors said they don’t think the jury’s racial makeup made a difference.

Name one.

43 Responses to “20 Years Ago Today . . .”

  1. Malpractice.

    MarkO (8005a1)

  2. Well he’s prolly going to die in that Vegas jail, so we got that going for us.

    Gazzer (6a76d0)

  3. I wish everybody could see the closing argument Bill Hodgman would have given. Some day he should film himself doing that, if he hasn’t already.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  4. That jury did more to harm race relations than any singular act in my lifetime (54 years). Someday, the anger and resentment of non-blacks is going to boil over. The lies we are being told by a black president may just hasten that day.

    Ed from SFV (3400a5)

  5. I think I saw a poll that said a majority of black Americans now think O.J. was guilty.

    A majority is not good enough for a conviction, however. All it takes is one juror to hang up a jury.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  6. Great cast of commenters on the “The O.J. Posts — Part One: Introduction” thread – MD has not changed a bit. That’s a compliment, doc. I liked the questions (comment #21)directed at seaPea.

    felipe (960c75)

  7. I was in New Hampshire during the trial and came home from class each day at 5 to watch the afternoon session of the trial live on satellite. From the trial I watched, I was not surprised at the verdict and even had some doubt of his guilt.

    The civil trial lawyer really established his guilt. Marcia and whatsisname were pathetic.

    Mike K (cd7278)

  8. I should add that the judge was awful. He looked like he was auditioning for Entertainment Tonight.

    Mike K (cd7278)

  9. It’s hard to believe that was 20 years ago. Especially since I had to watch the Rockets on an inset while O.J. drove around in the Bronco. Except my son was three at the time and my daughter would not be born until a month later. Man, I am old.

    Ag80 (eb6ffa)

  10. To echo felipe @6, I wonder what happened to some of the old commenters? I have only read the first installment and the original comments are great. JD is there and so is MD in Philly. Looking forward to reading all of the other stuff Patterico has on OJ.

    Ipso Fatso (10964d)

  11. We had a case here in New Zealand of a guy called David Bain, and I’d say he was a classic case of your Microscope theory.

    David arrived home after his paper run to discover his family dead (supposedly). Thing was, it was only ever him or his father in a murder-suicide. But if it was his father, there’s a whole bunch of stuff that you have to explain away – for example, why was the suicide note typed into the computer instead of written and signed; why was the silencer put away; why did David have injuries; why did he fake a seizure etc etc.

    But after he was initially convicted, a guy got on the case and kept examining the evidence until he found “holes”, and eventually convinced the Privy Council to order a retrial (sadly, it didn’t help that there were bent cops involved in a country that honestly believes it has none). And like OJ, it was a jury that just wasn’t prepared to convict. Even after they moved the trial from Dunedin to Christchurch in an attempt to get a less biased jury pool, the entire country had an opinion on the case.

    scrubone (e0a501)

  12. OJ got away with murder for the same reason Benedict Obama gets away with aiding and abetting Islamic terrorism. It’s the same reason Ted Kennedy got slapped on the wrist for killing Mary Jo Kopechne and why Bill Clinton got away with obstruction and perjury. It’s also the same reason Hillary Clinton skated on Waco and on Whitewater and on the strange death of Vincent Foster and why she hasn’t been called to account for Benghazi, and why the IRS can stonewall Congress over Lois Lerner’s emails supremely confident Eric Holder’s Justice department will look the other way every bit as quickly as the establishment media goes blind, deaf, and mute.

    Some people are above the law, contrary to our clearly established legal standards they’re just too big, too important to be allowed to fail. As individuals they’re as venal and flawed as everyone else, but as symbols of racial harmony and icons of equality they’re protected and admired, they’re shielded from exposure, exempted from responsibility, celebrated even for flaunting the rules ordinary citizens either obey or pay the price for violating. And, they’re all leftist Democrats, hypocrites, who never cease espousing high ideals and ethical standards in public and then resorting to denials, lies, blame shifting, obfuscation, stonewalling, and eventually idiot excuses like obscure videos to evade responsibility. And, they couldn’t get away with such shenanigans for 2 seconds if the print and broadcast media wasn’t in cahoots with the dirty bastards.

    ropelight (4be572)

  13. I am relieved to be too old to be called for jury duty.
    After reading of various and numerous prosecutorial shenanigans, and having a family
    member subjected to withholding of exculpatory evidence, I have a problem.
    I would have to take it as a given that any trial had a sufficient probability that the
    prosecutor withheld exculpatory evidence and/or suborned perjury that I would have to
    vote to acquit irrespective of the case presented.

    Richard Aubrey (0605ef)

  14. The absolute textbook and classic example of the “microscope effect” is the JFK assassination.

    Just spend a couple of hours at an assassination website and you’ll be amazed at what the conspiracy lunatics claim. And I do mean lunatics. Not all of the conspiracy believers are nuts; but a good 75% or more are.

    They stare and stare and stare at photographs and find all kinds of conspiracy evidence in them. It’s amazing.

    SteveMG (e7af92)

  15. Has Garcetti ever explained why he chose downtown L.A. for venue? Seemed incredibly wrong to me.

    Patricia (5fc097)

  16. OJ went in search of the real killer.
    He then spend a lot of time on golf courses.
    Obama plays a lot of golf.
    Coincidence? I don’t think so!

    (where did I put that hat, and did you find the tinfoil?)

    Celebrate Homogeneity (abb685)

  17. Here is a comment from that long ago thread.

    http://patterico.com/2006/08/26/the-oj-posts-part-seven-the-microscope-effect/#comment-69405

    The police made mistakes, as did the prosecution. The biggest mistake was assuming the jurors would automatically believe their story. Nobody thought to see if the gloves fit?

    Did anyone follow up leads to see if another might be involved? Either with Simpson, or instead of him? Or were all other leads dropped when it was decided to focus on Simpson?

    In the city of Escondido CA a 12 year old girl was murdered. A detective for the Escondido PD became convinced it had to be her brother who killed her. He suppressed evidence leading to another. Evidence later used by the state of California to convict a transient of the charge.

    Thanks to the LA PD and the LA County DA’s office O. J. Simpson may well have gotten away with murder. Because they both made assumptions and acted in a manner insulting to the general public. Treat people like crap, then give them any opportinity to hurt you, and they shall.

    The bolded text is significant, because one piece of evidence the defense presented was a permed hair, while O.J. Simpson never had a perm or other chemical treatment. this leads to at least two possible conclusions.

    1. An accomplice with permed hair wore the hat and was at the scene, whose very existence eluded the police for months.
    2. Someone at the crime lab, who had permed hair, decided to try on the hat to see if it would look good.

    Michael Ejercito (becea5)

  18. John Kennedy was assassinated by a lone nut. Martin Luther King was assassinated by a lone nut. Robert Kennedy was assassinated by a lone nut. George Wallace was paralyzed after being shot by a lone nut. The North Vietnamese attacked the USS Maddox in the Bay of Tonkin. A lone nut tried to assassinate Ronald Reagan. Hillary and Chelsea were dodging sniper fire in Bosnia. Bill Clinton never lied, not once, and he never had sexual relations with that woman. No one knows who authorized the BATF to sell AK-47s to Mexican drug cartels. The NSA isn’t recording your phone calls. A lone nut’s video caused the attack on Benghazi. There’s not a smidgen of corruption at the IRS, and Lois Lerner’s emails are inexplicably lost. And Barack Obama didn’t know nothin’ about nothin’ till he heard about it on TV.

    All that, and so much more. Now, don’t fret, have a nice glass of warm milk, then pull the covers up over your head and hum Kumbaya. You’ll feel better in the morning.

    ropelight (4be572)

  19. I am relieved to be too old to be called for jury duty.
    After reading of various and numerous prosecutorial shenanigans, and having a family
    member subjected to withholding of exculpatory evidence, I have a problem.
    I would have to take it as a given that any trial had a sufficient probability that the
    prosecutor withheld exculpatory evidence and/or suborned perjury that I would have to
    vote to acquit irrespective of the case presented.

    As long as you’re honest about it, that’s fine. There are also people who have read about murderers who got away with it due to technicalities, and people who have lost family members and friends to murders. There are people who would take it as a given that any trial had a sufficient probability that the judge withheld damning evidence from the jury’s consideration that they would have to vote to convict irrespective of the case presented.

    Those people could not be fair, and you could not be fair. You both have biases that would cloud your judgment, and you don’t belong on a jury.

    But there is no such thing as being too old to be called for jury duty — so be as candid with the court about your bias if you are called . . . as you have been here.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  20. The absolute textbook and classic example of the “microscope effect” is the JFK assassination.

    I argue that in my post on the subject.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  21. John Kennedy was assassinated by a lone nut. Martin Luther King was assassinated by a lone nut. Robert Kennedy was assassinated by a lone nut. George Wallace was paralyzed after being shot by a lone nut. The North Vietnamese attacked the USS Maddox in the Bay of Tonkin. A lone nut tried to assassinate Ronald Reagan. Hillary and Chelsea were dodging sniper fire in Bosnia. Bill Clinton never lied, not once, and he never had sexual relations with that woman. No one knows who authorized the BATF to sell AK-47s to Mexican drug cartels. The NSA isn’t recording your phone calls. A lone nut’s video caused the attack on Benghazi. There’s not a smidgen of corruption at the IRS, and Lois Lerner’s emails are inexplicably lost. And Barack Obama didn’t know nothin’ about nothin’ till he heard about it on TV.

    What an odd mixture of sensible and bizarre statements.

    Just because the Clintons and Obamas lied does not mean that Lee Harvey Oswald was not solely responsible for JFK’s assassination. For example.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  22. But then, ropelight, I already knew that you and I don’t see eye to eye on that, and never will.

    I still like you.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  23. D A Garcetti caved to the civil rights groups threats and announced way before the trial that he would not seek the death penalty. That sealed the case. O J was so nailed he would have cut a deal early, but once the death penalty was off , he could lose nothing by fighting. Garcetti then made himself into a hero to blacks everywhere by assigning the most incompetent pair of low I Q attorneys I have ever seen in charge of the case, Marcia Clark and Chris ,,, ( cannot remember last name ).That pair was money in the bank for O J, and for Garcetti. They could not have convicted Booth for the Lincoln assasination.

    john morrissey (0cca3d)

  24. It hardly seems possible that 20 years have passed since that day. I watched or listened to as much of the proceedings as I could and to this day feel a lot of sadness at the verdict. I remember being at work in San Ramon, CA the afternoon the verdict was announced, when a lady of Asian ancestry who worked at my end of the building rushed excitedly up to me, smiled and exclaimed, “O.J. was acquitted!”. I did not know this person and replied, “and that makes you happy?”

    Within a few months after this, I’d had a handful of colleagues – a couple of guys of Korean ancestry, a Latino, one of Asian and the only black conservative I’ve ever known personally – each tell me in separate conversations of incidents either personal or involving close family members that also involved members of the LAPD, ill treatment they’d felt had not been provoked and how racist they perceived these officers to be. Hopefully, things have improved.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  25. “I argue that in my post on the subject.”

    I thought it sounded familiar.

    And what’s funny with the poster is that believes that RFK and MLK were killed in conspiracies and that the North Vietnamese didn’t attack the Maddox in the Gulf of Tonkin.

    Hell, the Vietnamese celebrate the attack as a great naval victory. They attacked the Maddox that day. It’s a fact.

    Now, the second day? No, there was no attacks but we thought they did due to radar error.

    SteveMG (e7af92)

  26. THat glove did fit. But it’s shocking that they attempted to have him try it on, how foolish and greedy it was to attempt. I’m sure their confidence in his guilt is as high as mine ever was, which is not only beyond a reasonable doubt but to a moral certainty; they just assumed of course it would fit and the visual would be priceless.

    Well, it was, but it wasn’t what they were expecting, was it. How blinded by your own wishes do you have to be not to consider that blood and moisture stiffen leather, but would also shrink the natural-fiber lining, which THEY KNEW was torn. And how greedy much you be to agree to it even when for obvious reasons the defendent will be wearing another glove underneath? And not a slick or lubricated vinyl, but a think latex examination glove which grabs fabric? That was pure idiocy and it gave everyone of those jurors a rationsl hook to hang their bias.

    SarahW (267b14)

  27. It hardly seems possible that 20 years have passed since that day. I watched or listened to as much of the proceedings as I could and to this day feel a lot of sadness at the verdict. I remember being at work in San Ramon, CA the afternoon the verdict was announced, when a lady of Asian ancestry who worked at my end of the building rushed excitedly up to me, smiled and exclaimed, “O.J. was acquitted!”. I did not know this person and replied, “and that makes you happy?”

    Within a few months after this, I’d had a handful of colleagues – a couple of guys of Korean ancestry, a Latino, one of Asian and the only black conservative I’ve ever known personally – each tell me in separate conversations of incidents either personal or involving close family members that also involved members of the LAPD, ill treatment they’d felt had not been provoked and how racist they perceived these officers to be. Hopefully, things have improved.

    About two to three years later, the Rampart scandal was blown wide open.

    But that was not the last.

    we had the prosecution scandal involving the case against U.S. Senator Ted Stevens.

    we had Connick v. Thompson.
    We had Ken Anderson.

    we had Annie Dookhan.

    The Dream Team cast doubt of the integrity of our criminal justice system, and it appears that law enforcement is doing everything in their power to reinforce those doubts.

    Michael Ejercito (becea5)

  28. Well, it was, but it wasn’t what they were expecting, was it. How blinded by your own wishes do you have to be not to consider that blood and moisture stiffen leather, but would also shrink the natural-fiber lining, which THEY KNEW was torn.

    Of course, that would have been a simple matter of measuring the glove at the time it was first retrieved versus measuring the present state of the glove.

    Michael Ejercito (becea5)

  29. From the US Naval Institute (usni.org), Naval History Magazine, February 2008, Volume 22, Number 1.
    By Lieutenant Commander P. Paterson, USN, Special Operations Command

    The Truth About Tonkin

    Questions about the Gulf of Tonkin incidents have persisted for more than 40 years. But once-classified documents and tapes released in the past several years, combined with previously uncovered facts, make clear that high government officials distorted facts and deceived the American public about events that led to full U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War…

    ropelight (4be572)

  30. The LA Coroner found the shot that killed Robert Kennedy entered his head from behind his right ear at an upward angle and was fired from very close range, the stippling indicated a distance of about 2 inches or less. Sirhan Sirhan was in front of RFK with a serving table between them. His Iver-Johnson Cadet .22 caliber revolver held 8 rounds.

    From Wikipedia: (emphasis added)

    In 2007, analysis of an audio tape recording of the shooting made by freelance reporter Stanislaw Pruszynski appeared to indicate, according to forensic expert Philip Van Praag, that thirteen shots were fired, even though Sirhan’s gun held only eight rounds. Van Praag states that the recording also reveals at least two cases where the timing between shots was shorter than physically possible. The presence of more than eight shots on the tape was corroborated by forensic audio specialists Wes Dooley and Paul Pegas of Audio Engineering Associates in Pasadena, California, forensic audio and ballistics expert Eddy B. Brixen in Copenhagen, Denmark, and audio specialist Phil Spencer Whitehead of the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta, Georgia. Some other acoustic experts, however, have stated that no more than eight shots were recorded on the audio tape.

    On February 22, 2012, Sirhan’s lawyers, William Pepper and Laurie Dusek, filed a court brief in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles claiming that a second gunman fired the shots that killed Kennedy. It was the fourth and final in a series of federal briefs filed under the writ of habeas corpus by Pepper and Dusek beginning in October 2010. A ruling is now pending in the Sirhan federal case.

    ropelight (4be572)

  31. From NewsOne, January 20,2014, by Kriston West Savali

    Did You Know: The US Gov’t Found Guilty in Conspiracy to Assassinate Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

    After four weeks of testimony and over 70 witnesses in a civil trial in Memphis, Tennessee, twelve jurors reached a swift unanimous verdict on December 8, 1999 that Dr. King was assassinated as a result of a conspiracy, the NY Times reported at the time…

    King’s widow, Coretta Scott-King, expressed her gratitude to the jury and called on media to get the truth to the public:

    There is abundant evidence of a major high level conspiracy in the assassination of my husband, Martin Luther King, Jr. And the civil court’s unanimous verdict has validated our belief. I wholeheartedly applaud the verdict of the jury and I feel that justice has been well served in their deliberations…The jury also affirmed overwhelming evidence that identified someone else, not James Earl Ray, as the shooter, and that Mr. Ray was set up to take the blame. I want to make it clear that my family has no interest in retribution. Instead, our sole concern has been that the full truth of the assassination has been revealed and adjudicated in a court of law. As we pursued this case, some wondered why we would spend the time and energy addressing such a painful part of the past. For both our family and the nation, the short answer is that we had to get involved because the system did not work. Those who are responsible for the assassination were not held to account for their involvement.

    This verdict, therefore, is a great victory for justice and truth. It has been a difficult and painful experience to revisit this tragedy, but we felt we had an obligation to do everything in our power to seek the truth. Not only for the peace of mind of our family but to also bring closure and healing to the nation. We have done what we can to reveal the truth, and we now urge you as members of the media, and we call upon elected officials, and other persons of influence to do what they can to share the revelation of this case to the widest possible audience.

    ropelight (4be572)

  32. “Questions about the Gulf of Tonkin incidents have persisted for more than 40 years. But once-classified documents and tapes released in the past several years, combined with previously uncovered facts, make clear that high government officials distorted facts and deceived the American public about events that led to full U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War…”

    That statement – with no attribution – has nothing to do with whether the North Vietnamese attacked the USS Maddox in the Gulf of Tonkin.

    Which they did.

    From Wikipedia, which uses the Pentagon Papers as their source.

    “On the afternoon of August 2, Maddox radioed she was under attack from three North Vietnamese Navy P-4 torpedo boats, closing to within 10 nautical miles (19 km; 12 mi), while located 28 nautical miles (52 km; 32 mi) away from the North Vietnamese coast in international waters.[14]Maddox stated she had evaded a torpedo attack and opened fire with its five-inch (127 mm) guns, forcing the torpedo boats away. Two of the torpedo boats had come as close as 5 nautical miles (9.3 km; 5.8 mi), released one torpedo each, but neither one was effective, coming no closer than about 100 yards (91 m) after the Maddox evaded them. Another P-4 received a direct hit of a 5-inch shell from Maddox; its torpedo malfunctioned at launch. Four USN F-8 Crusader jets launched from the aircraft carrier USS Ticonderoga (CVA-14) and attacked the retiring P-4s, claiming one was sunk and one heavily damaged. Maddox suffered only minor damage from a single 57-caliber (14.5 mm) bullet from a P-4′s KPV heavy machine gun into her superstructure. Retiring to South Vietnamese waters, Maddox was joined by the destroyer USS Turner Joy. The North Vietnamese claimed that Maddox was hit by one torpedo, and one of the American aircraft had been shot down.”

    Fact: The NV attacked the USS Mattox on August 2, 1964.

    SteveMG (e7af92)

  33. Patterico:
    WRT being candid about my beliefs: If I’m quizzed–I was once in a pool but not called–and I say what I believe in front of the rest of the pool….
    Or do I request to speak to one or the other attorney privately.

    Richard Aubrey (0605ef)

  34. You’re not likely to get a lawyer voir direing you. You’ll have a questionaire that you fill out. The judge will ask you questions. You only talk to him. If you jump up and say, “All cops are liars, judges are on the take, and I hate black people”, that’s the judge’s lookout. He’ll probably say “Thank you for coming, Mr. Aubrey, you are excused.”

    nk (dbc370)

  35. SteveMG, I wrote what I wrote and had I specified it was the second attack I was mocking, you’d have to find some other point to quibble over, but you probably knew that. As for the attribution, it appears in the first two lines, and the referenced quote indicates the Gulf of Tonkin incident was a fabrication, at least in the second part and almost certainly a planned provocation in the first part. Contrary to the report, the Maddox was operating close to NV territorial waters supporting a covert Special Ops provocation mission (Plan 34-A) and the NV P-4s came out on 8/2/64 in response.

    I’ll grant there are official accounts on both sides of a lively encounter on 8/2 featuring the Maddox’s 5″ mounts, multiple torpedo launches, and marauding F-8s from the Ticonderoga. Damage reports differ however, the Wikipedia entry you reproduce says the Maddox suffered only superficial damage from a single 57-caliber round which is rather strange since it also says the attacking NV P-4s supposedly never got any closer than 5 miles. Problem is the effective range of the KPV is only 3000 meters on the horizontal. The P-4s had to be much closer if the Maddox took a hit, even an inconsequential one. Additionally, the Maddox’s Wikipedia entry tells much the same story but adds a few additional but significant details:

    The combination of fire from the Maddox and the F-8s severely damaged all three boats, and forced them to retreat to the bases from which they came. Several NVN sailors were wounded, and four were killed. No US sailors were killed or wounded, and the Maddox did not sustain serious damage; one of the four Crusaders sustained some 14.5 mm machinegun fire hits, as a large portion of his left wing was “missing”, but managed to limp back to his carrier.

    It was the incident of 8/4/64 originally reported as a second sea battle, which was rather quickly revealed to be little more than false radar images at best and not another NV attack at all. Yet, Lyndon Johnson used the two incidents to ask Congress for the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution which granted him authority to send US combat forces to South East Asia. It was a trumped up pretext for a dirty war that ripped the nation apart, squandered our wealth, killed over 50,000 Americans and wounded several times that many. And, it was based on a lie. Like James Bond said, “Governments change, but the lies stay the same.”

    Incidentally, if you’re interested, the Maddox was decommissioned in ’69 (25 years active), was later transferred to the Republic of China, and subsequently scrapped after over 10 years additional service with the ROC Navy, but you can visit the Turner Joy today, the old tin can has been spiffed up and moored in Bremerton serving as a museum ship.

    ropelight (4be572)

  36. Not many people realize this, but the drive from Nicole’s condo (the crime scene) to O.J.’s house took only five minutes. I’ve done it many times, and it always took five minutes, give or take 30 seconds or so.

    This clarifies things. It establishes that O.J. did not drive directly home, which we know, but explains why it is so plausible. I did not know that. I would have estimated the time at 15 minutes at least.

    The murders took place at some point around 10 – NOT 10:30, as some of the witnesses the defense tried to foist on the prosecution had it – and it was quite some time till Kato saw him walking into the premises.

    My theory has been that, besides changing clothes and packing the bloody clothes, and maybe the knife, he parked the car some distance away for Robert Kardashian (probably) to take to a car wash.

    Also, he arrived later than planned. Kardashian found the glove, maybe at Bundy, or maybe in the street where the Bronco had been parked, and drove into Rockingham and parked his car – that wasn’t there the next morning – and thought O.J. was back, saw there was a place with light on, and thinking O.J. was in the room where Kato actually was alone, knocked on the wall, and left the glove outside.

    A bit later, he met O.J. still walking to the house, and told him about the glove but OJ, with Kato around, could not retrieve it before flying to Chicago. Neither of the two realized a second glove had also been left at Bundy.

    When Allan Park, the limo driver, drove O.J. to the airport, he did not see the Bronco, because it wasn’t there yet!

    It was parked outside the next morning because Kato had locked the gates and Robert Kardashian couldn’t get in, and was parked hastily because Kardashian was terrified of being spotted and didn’t want anyone to see him.

    Sammy Finkelman (97c2e3)

  37. 34.You’re not likely to get a lawyer voir direing you. You’ll have a questionaire that you fill out. The judge will ask you questions. You only talk to him. If you jump up and say, “All cops are liars, judges are on the take, and I hate black people”, that’s the judge’s lookout. He’ll probably say “Thank you for coming, Mr. Aubrey, you are excused.”
    nk (dbc370) — 6/14/2014 @ 6:06 pm

    That may be where you are, sir. but in Texas, you will be voir dired by a lawyer while a judge observes the proceedings.

    felipe (960c75)

  38. The lesson about forensic evidence is that it’s only as good as the competence and ontegrity ofthe people doing the testing.

    I don’t think the jury was biased because of the jury pool. The defense got the jury they wanted because of their very long questionaiire, plus focus group testing, so they knew what answers were good for them. They wanted, for instance, people who got their news from the National Enquirer, which at the time was arguing O.J. was innocent. Right after the verdict, the National Enquirer turned on a dime and argued O.J. was guilty, but had acted alone

    The conspirators actually wanted the Ron Goldman family to win their case and have it be over.

    And on top of all of that, they contrived the excusing of one or two jurors. You know that was very suspicious. They were probably in contact wih one or more of the jurors, and I think also the verdict was delayed probably so that somebody could place a bet or for some other criminal reason.

    Sammy Finkelman (97c2e3)

  39. I think also the verdict was delayed probably so that somebody could place a bet or for some other criminal reason

    OMG. Now I know why the caged Sammy sings. (No offense to M.A.)

    felipe (960c75)

  40. Ropelight: You specifically denied in your original post that an attack took place. Nothing about the second day or attack.

    Here’s your exact words: “The North Vietnamese attacked the USS Maddox in the Bay of Tonkin”.

    You listed that as a claim, along with numerous others, e.g., the JFK/RFK/MLK assassinations, et cetera, that you believe were false.

    You then cut this from an article:
    “Questions about the Gulf of Tonkin incidents have persisted for more than 40 years. But once-classified documents and tapes released in the past several years, combined with previously uncovered facts, make clear that high government officials distorted facts and deceived the American public about events that led to full U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War…”

    Nothing there about the second day.

    Fact: the NV attacked the US Maddox in the Gulf on August 2, 1964 (I had my date wrong in an previous post).

    In any case, I think this issue is frankly meaningless. Whether it was this engagement or another, the US and the North Vietnamese were headed for war.

    SteveMG (c895dc)

  41. “I think also the verdict was delayed probably so that somebody could place a bet or for some other criminal reason.”

    felipe (960c75) — 6/14/2014 @ 10:27 pm OMG. Now I know why the caged Sammy sings. (No offense to M.A.)

    The jury actually voted to acquit almost right away. Then the ringleader suggested they should wait till the next day. They reheard some testimony of Allan Park. That was evidence O.J. had arrived back in Rockingham late.

    Sammy Finkelman (97c2e3)

  42. Alright SteveMG, I’ll put an edge on the issue that’s so sharply drawn even you can’t fail to grasp it, or twist it into irrelevance. The NV didn’t attack the Maddox, they acted to defend against a coordinated US and South Vietnamese assault on their sovereign territory designed to provoke an armed response which could be used as a pretext for war. The US committed a naked act of aggression approved in Washington DC by Lyndon Johnson and the Joint Chiefs of Staff to bamboozle the Congress and the public into granting the president what became known as The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. It resulted in US combat forces being deployed to South East Asia along with a series of subsequent escalations.

    An accurate statement about the events of August 2, 1964 is that the Maddox was engaged in ongoing electronic information collections (DESOTO) along the coast of NV and simultaneously supporting aggressive military operations (OPLAN-34A) against NV coastal installations. P-4s acting in defense of NV engaged the Maddox in an effort to drive her off.

    ropelight (af89aa)

  43. Re: #6 on this thread
    I still lurk around here every once in a while. What was so good about the post you praise? The person did not address what my post was saying at all, in fact it ignored what I wrote.
    To repeat: it would not be my job as a juror to “believe” but to be convinced by the prosecution arguments and presentation. Marcia Clark et al , did a lousy job of that. In addition to that there was police procedural misconduct and there I had the argument with Mr Patterico about jury nullification.
    That being written, I still recall being shocked when Mr Patterico informed us that the houses were only 5 minutes apart. Yet another example of prosecutors bungling.
    BTW: the jury pool – the prosecution loved it! All those black women on a jury to judge a black man who dated only white women.

    seeRpea (23bca2)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.2288 secs.