Talk:Reaction to the verdict in the O. J. Simpson criminal trial

POV, excessive detail
The article (obviously) suffers from excessive detail--there is so much of it that it covers up some pretty serious NPOV violations. Race seems to be the editor's hobby horse, and I have been trying to remove this "introducing race to the trial", which is stated as if it weren't there from the beginning. If Darden asks for it to be left, it was already there. Anyway, here we have that suggestive language of "introducing race", and some verbose talk about Fuhrman insisting his racist past be left out of the trial (he had a collection of Nazi memorabilia, but we don't read that here)--but this is sourced to Fuhrman himself, and he should hardly be a warrant for the section title, "questions beyond scope of direct examination". Of course he didn't want that; that's hardly worth mentioning--and it is not for Fuhrman to determine what in Wikipedia's voice is to be considered beyond the scope of direct examination. In this and subsequent edits I am removing material sourced to M. L. Rantala. Who even is that? What is their job, their expertise? Why is this book, and what is "Catfeet Press"? Google Books is the only provider of answers: Rantala is a "writer, chess player, and computer buff" who was convinced OJ did it, and there's a blurb from a molecular biologist (!) on the back cover to support that. No, this is not acceptable, and neither was the series of reverts by that started with this. There is so much more. Here I am removing the editor's personal analysis/commentary ("despite him being the one accused of murder"), and the NYT article and the cited book do NOT state that all of a sudden the defense "introduced race to the trial" after the TIME magazine cover. Here the editor is injecting some racial unfairness (if that is what it is), as if Fuhrman was being oppressed for something Black people got away with--based on a. the transcript (pure OR) and b. Fuhrman's own freaking memoirs. No, this can not stand. I don't know what the solution is: really, this whole article should be burned to ashes. At the very least the editor should be held accountable not just for their verbosity and their edit warring, but also for their obvious partiality; it's as if they are writing to rescue Fuhrman's reputation, and trying to convict OJ after the fact. Also pinging,. Drmies (talk) 00:29, 21 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Your claim that "race was already there" is not true and is your opinion. The poll that I quote proves that. The defense attorneys Shapiro and Dershowitz have also criticized Cochran for playing the "race card" as well so it is not just Fuhrman or the editors opinion, it is just stating what others already said. I never actually added any text to the section questions beyond the scope of direct examination. Another editor did. It is up to them to justify its inclusion if you remove it, not me. Fuhrman said his racism, collecting nazi medallions had nothing to do with the murders of Brown and Goldman and Toobin, Buligosi, Rantala, Petrocelli and Judge Ito agreed with him too. Being a racist is not evidence of a crime being committed.Samsongebre (talk) 08:04, 21 August 2020 (UTC)


 * OJ:Umasked is a book that was published in 1996 and meets all the criteria of WP:RS because it is a " reliable, published source that includes all majority and significant minority views". It meets WP:V standards because it is on Google Books and the citations can be fact checked immediately, and it is not a WP:NPOV because the opinion she expresses (that OJ is guilty) is also commonly held by other reputable critics such as Toobin, Buligosi and Petrocelli. This source is also used on the OJ Simpson main article as well.Samsongebre (talk) 08:04, 21 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Changing some language around so that it is more neutral is fine with me and welcome as well. It is when you remove content like what is mentioned below that is a problem with me. If you have a correctable mistake that I can fix feel free to mention it so I can fix it. The race subject is the most contentious part of the trial and is the part that most people feel so passionately about and that is why WP:RS requires several reliable sources before contentious material can be added. I feel I have have met that standard and would like to add back just the content that I included back into the article. Other editors will have to justify their own additions.


 * The editor Drmies removed this content from the main article, I would like to reinsert it with a few changes:
 * Toobin, Rantala, and Buligosi all claim the jurors misunderstood the DNA evidence in the case. Rantala based this on the claims they made in Madame Foreman. Bess wrote she thought the blood at the crime scene belonged to Simpson's children while Cooley wrote she thought the blood actually belonged to criminalist Andrea Mazzola. In Outrage, Bugliosi opined they misunderstood the defenses argument because "contamination cannot change someone's DNA into someone else's" which is what the jurors apparently believed. Toobin wrote they misunderstood the facts of the case regarding the DNA evidence. Jackson wrote she thought Simpson's blood at the crime scene was there before the murders happened. Bess also admitted to not knowing that Simpson's blood was on the glove found at his home that Fuhrman allegedly planted. Cooley admitted to discarding blood evidence without any justification at all. Samsongebre (talk) 08:04, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

For reference, the reliable sources I've used for this page that are on Google Books include:
 * The Run of His Life: The People V. O.J. Simpson by Jeffrey Toobin
 * O.J. Unmasked: The Trial, the Truth, and the Media by M.L Rantala
 * The Search for Justice: A Defense Attorney's Brief on the O.J. Simpson Case by Robert Shapiro
 * In Contempt by Christopher Darden
 * O. J. Simpson Facts and Fictions: News Rituals in the Construction of Reality by Darnell Hunt
 * Murder in Brentwood by Mark Fuhrman
 * Reasonable Doubts: The Criminal Justice System and the O.J. Simpson Case by Alan Dershowitz
 * Justice and Science: Trials and Triumphs of DNA Evidence by George "Woody" Clarke
 * Blood Evidence: How Dna Is Revolutionizing the Way We Solve Crimes by Henry Lee
 * Outrage: The Five Reasons Why O. J. Simpson Got Away with Murder by Vincent Bugliosi


 * "Race was already there" is pretty obviously true because OJ Simpson was a Black man long before anyone said anything at the trial. To claim otherwise is to disregard race in America, which is silly. And I note that the editor still maintains that somehow the books by highly involved individuals are considered reliable sources, esp. that book by Fuhrman. Drmies (talk) 19:58, 27 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Drmies I removed the NPOV tag because the I've gone through and removed any opinionated language in this article. If you think there are still some present then mention them here and we can go through and rewrite in a neutral tone but Per WP:NPOV: "As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone." The sources used in my additions to this article are also used in the main article as well so they are reliable and meet WP:RS and WP:V. If you don't have any policy violation then there is no basis for the NPOV tag to be apart of this article. I'll wait a day or two for you to identify a correctable mistake before removing the tag again.Samsongebre (talk) 20:13, 28 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Drmies May I remove the excessive detail tag as well? Because you didn't mention any policy violations that would require it I think it should be removed. I'll wait a day or two for you to identify a correctable mistake before removing it as well.Samsongebre (talk) 20:13, 28 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Drmies If you believe that race is important to the o j Simpson Case we can start a separate article for it. The emergence of the "racial gap" is the most popular subject from the trial but remember Robert Shapiro, Simpson's own lawyer, said himself that "race is not the issue here". So did Alan Dershowitz so I don't know if the article we produce will be what your hoping for.Samsongebre (talk) 20:19, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * As long as you have sentences like "Alan Dershowitz conceded that the jury was biased against the prosecution" in there, no. If you don't understand the problem with it, consider that Dershowitz was not the manager of the jury or something like that. Don't get started on "policy violations": excessive detail is a matter of editorial judgment, and this thing is excessive. And considering that you've been here since July last year, writing up this kind of content only and only on this topic, I am somewhat hesitant to accept policy arguments from you. Drmies (talk) 23:51, 28 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Drmies Im going to remove both NPOV and the excessive detail tags later today if you don't list the reasons why they are needed here on the talk page per the WP:RESPTAG. There is nothing wrong per WP:SPA about solely contributing to a single topic so long as I'm a "well-intentioned editor with a niche interest" that follows wikipedia polices. I've demonstrated that I did follow WP:RS, WP:V and did not engage in any WP:SYNTH. So far you've insulted me by calling my interest in this subject a "hobby horse" and said "this whole article should be burned to ashes" rather than improving it as I've suggested which are both violations of the WP:UNCIVIL. I also believe that you insisting these tags be left here despite not attempting to improve the article so they are not needed anymore constitutes a WP:TAGBOMB violation. Your just deleting stuff and people who support the verdict and the claims made by the defense often do this - leave the allegations but delete the refutations - so the reader of the article gets the impression that those claims were never refuted. Per WP:NPOVD I assume you are here in good faith but so far I have not seen you "clearly and exactly explain which part of the article does not seem to have a NPOV and why. Make some suggestions as to how one can improve the article. Be active and bold in improving the article" as WP:NPOVD states you should be doing. Per WP:NPOVD, if we cannot reach a WP:CONSENSUS on how to get to the point where we can remove the tags, we may have to go through dispute resolution and have an administrator review the case.Samsongebre (talk) 07:31, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Don't. You can drop all the acronyms you want, but the fact remains that we have an article full of poorly written factoids that skew the case. You are actually doing it here: "Your just deleting stuff and people who support the verdict and the claims made by the defense often do this - leave the allegations but delete the refutations - so the reader of the article gets the impression that those claims were never refuted." Where did you get the idea that I support the verdict? What claims of the defense am I agreeing with? Your accusation is a complete violation of AGF: I have no opinion on the verdict, none whatsoever, and I don't know what allegations I have left and what refutation I have removed. The allegation was he murdered a woman--I have deleted a refutation to that allegation? That's news to me. But just for clarity's sake, I plucked a paragraph from the article:"In the wrongful death civil trial, Judge Hiroshi Fujisaki's rulings were beyond reproach by Petrocelli or Baker and gave neither side any latitude.[209] He prohibited all the conspiracy claims except for those that had evidence (there were none) and only allowed Gerdes to testify to confirmed contamination in the Simpson case only (there were none). Fuhrman was not called to testify at the civil trial as he continued to invoke his Fifth Amendment rights but he ruled the evidence that Fuhrman had found as admissible because it was witnessed by the other officers present. Fujisaki prohibited Fuhrman's racism or perjury from being mentioned during the civil trial because Baker could not 'show it had anything directly to do with this case' and the perjury 'was not material to any facts in this case'. Toobin wrote in Run of his Life that Baker never criticized Fujisaki for his decisions in the civil trial, because Fujisaki's reasons for prohibiting him from arguing many of the claims the defense had made at the criminal trial were legally justified.[213]" First of all, that first sentence is grammatically garbled--I suppose you meant "held beyond reproach"? But even then--why does it matter that the lawyer in the civil case held the judge beyond reproach? And who is Baker? And note 209, http://www.cnn.com/US/9609/16/simpson.case/, that's dead. "He" in the next sentence is Fujisaki, I suppose--but "he prohibited all the conspiracy claims except for those that had evidence (there were none)" is nonsensical: first of all, who establishes which claims "had evidence" and which didn't? And who is the authority for "there were none"? And saying "he only allowed claims with evidence but there weren't any"--what is the point of that? More sloppy writing in the next sentence, that starts "Fuhrman said", where the "he" in the middle refers to Fujisaka, right? instead of to the closest name, Fuhrman's--and mentioning his "racism" as if that is an objective fact is very odd too. And then in the last sentence it is posited that all the defense claims for legally justified: maybe that is Toobin's opinion (hard to figure out because NO PAGE NUMBER IS GIVEN), but it's stated as a fact, and what it is supposed to mean is still unclear, because who is Baker? Never mind that we are led to believe that all of that garbled material following the dead link to the CNN page is supposed to be verified by Toobin's book? But what does all of this have to do with Judge Ito, who is accused in the bold title "Failure to control the courtroom", as if that were a fact? (You couldn't write "alleged failure"?) Seems like a clear suggestion synthesized by you--or perhaps by, again, the dead CNN link--but whether that link could ever verify the general "Critics often compare his stewardship" remains to be seen. But this is an enormous time sink. You are presenting here a huge amount of text that lacks copy editing, with statements that lack proper attribution and are stated in Wikipedia's voice, with dead links and questionable references in important places that have BLP relevance as well, and you couch it in what I can only see as a personal attack: that I somehow have an opinion on the verdict and that that guides my editing. So no, you cannot remove those tags. Feel free to seek dispute resolution, but this dispute will only be resolved if you start by writing things up more carefully--a necessary but not sufficient condition. Drmies (talk) 20:35, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Removal of the POV tag for this article.
I've gone through and removed any opinionated language in this article. Per WP:NPOV: "As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone." This is what I've done. I've also removed specific criticism of the participants and instead rephrased the language so it meets WP:NPOV guidelines. No original research is present. All facts sourced are reliable as the sources are listed in the above section.Samsongebre (talk) 18:30, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Removal of the overly detailed tag to this article.
I believe this article is now balanced and summarized sufficiently that his tag can be removed. There are four sections: criticism of the jury, prosecution, defense and the court. The main arguments supporting those claims are presented only as well as their proponents responses. Only the significant criticisms are presented here, minor or trivial claims mentioned in sources are omitted. Sections were eliminated suction as "technical presentation of DNA evidence to comply with the "overly detailed tag" and make the article more concise.Samsongebre (talk) 18:35, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Removal of notability tag for this article
I believe this article meets Notability guidelines because the three factors that determine notability are met: "Significant coverage", "Reliable", and "Independent of the subject".
 * Significant coverage - The main article states that "The trial became historically significant because of the reaction to the verdict. The nation observed the same evidence presented at trial but a division along racial lines emerged in observers opinion of the verdict, which the media dubbed the "racial gap"." The editors for the main article however felt that it was already too long and that a separate article was warranted for this information. The trial and its aftermath received much media attention but it was the racial gap that still facinates the public and every time a new poll comes out it revives public interest in the trial which is why this information is needed. The article can't be merged with the main article, there is no other article on wikipedia with this info so it can't be redirected and deleting it would deprive wikipedia readers of important information.
 * Reliable - all of the sources (mainly books) are listed in the above section on "POV, excessive detail" section on the talk page. All of them can be found on google books for verficaiton. The sources included books by prosecutors, defense attorneys, witnesses and pundits from the trial providing for a balance source of information for this article.
 * Independent of the subject - Most the sources used for this article are books written by the participants. The "Racial gap" is consistently mentioned in history books as demonstrating the racial divided in America, the distrust of African Americans for the police, the need for accreditation programs for police forensic labs, and the dawn of reality TV and criticisms of profit motivated biased media coverage as court room trials were now being considered as a form of mass entertainment rather than a legal proceeding.Samsongebre (talk) 19:10, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

FX series
Is there anyone else here who has a problem with the section about the contents of the American Crime Story section regarding the first season that covered the trial and the racist attacks on Nicole and the Goldmans? The user Sundayclose has reverted it twice and has now made a personal attack against me on my talk page by accusing me of "assuming ownership" of the article even though I offered to have a discussion about it on this talk page here. I've given him a warning to stop attacking me and get a consensus here before he reverts it again otherwise I will report him for vandalism and personal attacks. Jienum (talk) 11:55, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Tags restored, and opening quotes for sections
First of all, the tags have been restored, as there was no consensus that the issues had been resolved, in fact there are some issues (including at least one BLP violation) which suggest that the issues absolutely have not been resolved.

Second, the quotes which open several sections are entirely inappropriate and more suitable for a book or documentary than an encyclopedia. They are also a violation of WP:UNDUE, as they place one quote at a higher level than the rest of the section, and "set the tone" for the whole section. Hence, they are going to be gone very shortly. Anyone is welcome to incorporate their content into the article in a neutral, balanced, encyclopedic fashion.

Mako001 (C) (T)  🇺🇦 09:29, 18 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Mako001Regarding the quotes that I added and you deleted, I will incorporated them into the body paragraphs of the text so they don’t have too much prominence and that should resolve the WP:UNDUE dispute. The other quotes i didn’t add will have to be addressed by the editors who added them in.
 * Regarding the tag issue, I’ve already had a lengthy discussion with a different editor about them and she called it a “time sink” and left. Since the dispute became dormant, the tags were removed but that was after I made a sincere effort to remedy the issue. Editors who post those tags on this subjects pages are possibly doing a WP:TAGBOMB because they are concerned with just “deleting” and not “fixing” or intend to just leave the tags there permanently which is not what we are suppose to do. Please list individually which parts of this article meet which TAG definitions in the sections above so we are reharshing the same issues and we can fix the issue.Samsongebre (talk) 08:59, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Mako001 I've gone through and restored all of the quotes deleted and then went through and deleted the unnecessary ones and incorprated the essentialy ones into the paragraphs themselves like you recommended to get rid of the WP:UNDUE issue. I also removed some language that could be considered an [WP:NPOV]] violation so now I think the article is ready to have the tags removed unless you have some other suggestions. The tags are not meant to be permanently here. If you have any other objections please ad them to the talk page talking points in the sections above. Thank you.Samsongebre (talk) 10:09, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * None of the sections should open with a quote. Whilst that is appropriate and typical in a book or documentary film it is not encyclopedic. I have no objection to the quotes being used, but they just shouldn't be at the start of a section. I won't comment on the other stuff as I'm trying to focus on other stuff at the moment, but if you think the issues have been resolved, then I am not going to stop you removing them. Mako001 (C) (T)  🇺🇦 11:24, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Are there any sources on "converse" opinions back in 1994/1995?
In footage of the reaction to the verdict that can be found, there are notably some white people celebrating the verdict; in this case, there had to be some whites who had doubts about OJ,s guilt or at the very least, willing to give him the benefit of the doubt at the time, much like how vice versa, some African Americans believed in his guilt and were clearly upset over the verdict. From articles, it seems the media did not deduct this at the time. Could there be any sources to be find on this, to show how complex the reaction was, as if to show how some blacks felt OJ was guilty, some white people actually believed he was innocent (or even felt he was covering for someone)? 92.17.198.220 (talk) 19:26, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Add Sheila Woods interview which tells the truth
https://www.vulture.com/2016/04/oj-juror-people-v-oj-simpson-right-and-wrong.html

I guess maybe black people cheering was less about O.J. and more about the politics of the LAPD at the time, police brutality. A lot of their catharsis was bigger than O.J. I can understand that. But at the end of the day, two people were murdered.

I think most people thought we based our decision on race. Race never came up in the topic of our deliberation, or even how the LAPD treated black people.

Like, regarding Fuhrman, none of his comments really …

The thing with Fuhrman was once his credibility was shot, you really could discount anything he said. He was definitely a liar — he lied on the stand — and when he came back to the court, he took the fifth on everything. Why would you trust anything he said? He was the detective that found all this evidence: the blood on the Bronco, on the back fence, on the glove … all of that created reasonable doubt.

Was there a moment in particular during the trial that really swayed your decision towards reasonable doubt?

Yeah, when they started talking about the blood evidence. There was, like, a milliliter of blood they couldn’t account for. And they found blood on the back fence of Nicole’s condo, and that particular blood also had the additive in there. That additive is only found in [a test tube of blood], so why would the blood sample on that back fence contain that additive unless somebody took the blood from the test tube and placed it there?

Do you think O.J. was framed?

I don’t know if he was necessarily framed. I think O.J. may know something about what happened, but I just don’t think he did it. I think it was more than one person, just because of the way she was killed. I don’t know how he could have just left that bloody scene — because it was bloody — and got back into his Bronco and not have it filled with blood. And then go back home and go in the front door, up the stairs to his bedroom … That carpet was snow white in his house. He should have blood all over him or bruises because Ron Goldman was definitely fighting for his life. He had defensive cuts on his shoes and on his hands.

O.J. only had that little cut on his finger. If [Goldman] was kicking to death, you would think that the killer would have gotten some bruises on his body. They showed us photos of O.J. with just his underwear just two days after, and he had no bruises or anything on his body. 2601:152:4E00:9030:B1FA:56F7:C423:68A3 (talk) 00:04, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Add Yolanda Crawford’s interview which tells the truth
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWW0RTEUAYo 2601:152:4E00:9030:B1FA:56F7:C423:68A3 (talk) 00:05, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Add David Aldana’s interview which tells the truth
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOsc7An-Cco 2601:152:4E00:9030:B1FA:56F7:C423:68A3 (talk) 00:06, 30 June 2024 (UTC)