Talk:O. J. Simpson murder case

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

⚖
Law Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
??? This article has not yet received a quality rating on the assessment scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance assessment on the assessment scale.
It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality.
The Free Image Search Tool (FIST) may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 28 December 2006. The result of the discussion was speedy keep.
Criminal justice Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Crime, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide on true crime and criminology-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.
WikiProject Crime To-do:

Note: some talk about the trials is on the Talk:O. J. Simpson page. -- Pinktulip 12:00, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Word wrap

Can someone help out and fix the word wrapping on this page? I don't know how to because i am stupid 69.138.194.105 05:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] POV

The majority of this article seems to written from the POV that Simpson was guilty. Most egressious is the lengthy citation-free section called "Evidence," which is a misnomer in that it is highly selective, neglecting to mention a single piece of exculpatory evidence that came out in the trial. That section is over the top POV and uncited as well. 63.166.224.67 19:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I'm going to slap a POV tag on this section until it's fixed.-PassionoftheDamon 04:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
And I second. I've never heard, "Police discovered that the dome light in the Bronco had been removed...Police on stakeouts routinely remove the dome lights from their vehicles to avoid detection when the car doors are opened," even in the media. Furthermore I doubt that police do this as (american) automobiles allow one to completeley turn off the dome light, even if the door is open. 24.93.170.190 15:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

The majority of the evidence section of this article is copied from the website http://www.altereddimensions.net/crime/OJSimpsonMurders.htm, which argues strenuously in favor of O.J. Simpson's guilt. --Sheaingram 07:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I also believe that this article is neutral enough. Regardless of people's emotions about the case, the man was tried in a court of law and aquitted. There is a substantive, historical way of looking at this and I don't believe that this article fits that description. For example, the paragraph in "Alternative Murder Theories" that attacks the theorems stated there is misplaced and should be moved or deleted (since it just restates what the prosecutors alleged anyways).


I see problems leaning the other way - what does this -

7. LA Police Detective Phillip Vanatter also could not give a reasonable explanation why after taking Simpsons blood, and before recording the mountain of evidence why he walked around for hours with OJ Simpsons' blood on his person. Every police department in the civilized world requires that evidence custody logs be kept and that no one officer and detective hold evidence of this type on their person for any extended period of time.

- have to do with the criminal trial evidence? The evidence is what was presented - not someone's theories about why what was presented may or may not be suspect. LAEsquire 01:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)LAEsquire


The section on "Reaction to the verdict" is unsubstantiated in critical areas. For instance: (1)"Some social commentators have stated that the celebration in the black community over the Simpson verdict was a "social payback" for the acquital of the white police officers involved in the Rodney King beating trial..." (2)" It has been suggested that the O.J. Simpson trial ended a 25-year pandering/political correctness to African Americans by white society, ending the "guilt reaction" begun after the Civil Rights Movement and associated white-on-black violence of the 1960's." In the absence of citations identifying the authors of these statements or the basis for the presumed consensus (e.g. a poll) they must be considered solely the point of view of the author, and not a faithful, third-person recording of public reaction.Michigan22 05:54, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Media Reaction

I reverted the entire section "Public reaction to the Verdict" because it violaterd WP:OR. What didn't violate WP:OR was redundant to the opening paragraphs of Media Reaction to the Verdice, so I incorporated the sections into each other and formed just one section "Reaction to the Verdict." Ramsquire 01:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Biased text

Quote: Most white Americans, in the same polls, recognized that the case against Simpson was solid. Racial tensions grew through the trial and officials feared a repeat of the 1992 civil unrest in Los Angeles if Simpson received a guilty verdict. (Emphasis mine) Excuse me? That makes it sound like the blacks were all fooled and that only the whites saw "the truth"... I'm changing it to "felt that". Wikipedia is not the place to pass judgment.65.94.229.25 18:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Somehow that made its way back into the article. Removing it again. 66.116.19.7 05:50, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
The thing is, though, he was guilty. So. All right, edit it again, I guess :confused: Also OJ has a castle on the moon!
Whether you think he was guilty or not is not the point of this article. It is there to explain the facts from a neutral standpoint and that is all.
But... it is a fact that he was guilty. It belongs in the article. Xizer 05:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Wrong answer. He was found not guilty. If I see that text appear, then I will take it back out, too. It is not an unbiased statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.169.167.212 (talk) 01:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

He WAS guilty. The fact that the jury in this case only deliberated for 3 hours, and then found him not guilty, has no bearing on whether or not he was actually guilty. There was no dispositive evidence in this case. He was found responsible by a civil jury, and during that civil trial, additional evidence was uncovered, including the fact that he had worn those same "ugly" Bruno Malgi (sp?) shoes months before the killings. This article should approach this issue from the factual point of view that he was guilty. Certainly this article should include that he was found not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, but that does not change his guilt! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.79.10.135 (talk) 23:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

>>>He was guilty. The verdict was 'payback' (from African American jurors) for perceived racism in America. ARE YOU CRAZY THERE IS RACISM IN AMERICA WHATS AMAZING BY THIS STATEMENT IS THAT THEIR DECISION TO FIND REASONABLE DOUBT IS SEEN AS RACIST WHEN THE TRUTH IS THE PERSECUTION DROPPED THE BALL BY ALLOWING THE CREDIBILITY OF ITS WITNESSES TO BE UNDERMINED BY THERI PROVEN RACISM. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.67.104.4 (talk) 19:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

We don't know if he was guilty or not. Either you provide enough evidence (which the prosecutors failed to do), or don't pretend that you know everything about this case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.2.246.110 (talk) 01:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Itobo (talk) 05:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)Wikipedia entries cannot be held to the same standard of evidence as a criminal trial, where the freedom of an individual is at stake. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" works as a standard in such instances, but "preponderance of evidence" is a sufficient standard for assessing this individual's guilt or innocence in an encyclopedic entry about him. We should be able to declare that he was found not guilty from the criminal courts perspective, but he was equally found guilty in the civil process. There was evidently enough evidence for that finding, which is a legal finding of fact. His not guilty verdict was not. The difference between the two is important. A not guilty verdict is a legal finding that the prosecutor has not met its burden of proof, whereas a civil court judgment is a legal finding of fact.

Although the lede includes reference to the guilty verdict and finding of fact in the civil trial,the trial itself isn't covered in the article. It shouldn't be in the lede if the article is not goign to cover it. Given what happened at the second trial and since, with Simpson's quasi confessions, there is a place for coverage of the civil trial. --Parkwells (talk) 19:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reaction to the media

Highly biased - written to only highlight the black reaction as if the white reaction was neutral/normal. Also written with the assumption that the verdict was incorrect and the white reaction was correct and justified. I balanced it out.

I noticed a similar bias issue on the world-is-round page.

[edit] Pled the Fifth

In the middle of the "Criminal Trial" section there is a red link to "pled the fifth". I'm not American, but I'm guessing this means that one pleads the Fifth Amendment, more specifically this part. Is this correct? If so, would it be appropriate to change the sentence to the following?

"Fuhrman was recalled to the stand in September, but pled the Fifth." Amelia Pound 14:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pre-Trial

I would think that there should be some more information about the pre-trial of this case. There had been a new law passed in California that had something to do with the need of Grand Jury. But most important if Judge Ito had ruled that the where exigent circumstances for the police to enter Mr. Simpson's home. Then Mark Fehrman would not not have testified and there would have not been a bloody glove or the statement "If it does not fit -- you must aquite". Gam3

englich is herd 2 rite

[edit] ==removing spam paragraph==

The same paragraph content appeared in the Time Magazine and photo manipulation articles. It seems to promote Matt Mahurin's photo manipulation skills. The article photo manipulation is being reviewed for copyright infringement.

After Simpson was arrested, multiple publications carried his image. Notably, TIME magazine published an edition featuring an altered mugshot, darkening the image and reducing the size of the prisoner ID number. This appeared on newsstands right next to an unaltered picture by Newsweek. Outcry from minority rights groups followed. The image was altered by TIME illustrator Matt Mahurin, who later stated that the darkening of Simpson's skin was to "make it more artful, more compelling."

Magazine staff edits photograph, news at 11.

[edit] When the book comes out

When the book comes out, should we add how the murder was committed to this article? Or should we consider it in the hypothetical?StayinAnon 17:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Put it in the Alternative murder theories article. 4:16pm 26 November 2007. By MCR —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.243.188.80 (talk) 22:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Appeal

Was the judgement ever appealed? If not, was there a reason it wasn't appealed? I'd like to know more about that. I would think that the appeals process is the natural recourse when there is a (perceived) miscarriage of justice. Shameer 06:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Never mind. I found the answer here: http://law.freeadvice.com/litigation/appeals/criminal_cases_appeal.htm Shameer 06:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes handy thing that Bill of Rights ;-) Daniel Freeman 13:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Two cases, two trials

The two cases make this article hard. He was found not guilty(by reasonable doubt) through a criminal case but the opposite in a civil case. The makeup of this article should reflect both sides, not offering favoritism of one or the other.

Yes, it would be useful if there were more thorough coverage of the civil court trial.--Parkwells (talk) 21:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Key figures

How is Geraldo Rivera key if he isn't mentioned in this article and his own (extensive) article doesn't even mention the OJ trial? The same can be said of Dunne, van Susteren and Toobin. They aren't key by any stretch of the imagination. How about a "Media" heading? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.125.35.54 (talk) 08:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC).


[edit] Evidence

The evidence listed in the article is incorrect, there was no DNA evidence found on the vehicles -- the blood discovered in the vehicles was AB type which OJ Simpson and Nicole Brown Simpson shared. There was evidence not included in the article -- defensive wounds on Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson, B type blood found at the murder scene, OJ Simpson's full body pictures which show that he had no injuries from a struggle, Ron Goldman's Martial Arts records, number of entry wounds from the knife, splash patterns which show the walkway saturated with blood, how the police used a blanket from inside the house to cover the bodies, how the coroner adjusted teh estimated time of death to fit the OJ theory, how the police left the murder scene unattended for hours while going to investigate OJ Simpson, lots of biased speculation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Paime77 (talk • contribs) 17:36, 24 December 2006 (UTC).

I agree. Furthermore, the "Criminal Trial Evidence" section lists only evidence for the prosecution. It lists nothing for the defense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.169.167.212 (talk) 01:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Also, line 19 from the "Evidence" section is not evidence: "Following his testimony, Fung was greeted with handshakes and hugs from the defense table where he was viewed as a hero" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.202.218.38 (talk) 18:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
It would be a sign of thoroughness to see some reference to the housekeeper who disappeared within a week after the defense told the LAPD they were going to call her as a witness. It would be a sign of acknowledgement of media bias to reference the hundreds of editorial cartoons that used a variant of the "does I gets to keep de watermelon" joke after OJ was found innocent.4.246.0.187 (talk) 03:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jason Simpson

Does anyone have a citation for the report that Jason Simpson was murdered on December 28, 2006 in Malibu, CAff

Arshadm 06:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

This is impossible as he is currently playing for the Arkansas Twisters in the AF2. This is a televised & publically viewed sport, making any information of his death non plausible.

That is a different Jason Simpson. The one we are referring to was born in 1970. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.75.36.195 (talk) 04:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

He's not listed in the Social Security Death Index. Intelius connects a 37-year-old "Jason L. Simpson" to Brentwood, Clovis, and Los Angeles, California (that doesn't indicate a death or anything though).--Tim Thomason 19:14, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References

I realise there are some books referenced, but there is very little/no in-text referencing, so it impossible to know what parts of the article are actually "true" or not. Citations would be fantastic if anyone ever gets bored. I wouldn't know where to start. Cheers, Rothery 02:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. See Virginia Tech massacre for the types of sources this should have. From what little I remember, there was MUCH more coverage of the OJ simpson trial than VT (consider VT only happened a few months ago, and it's already left the public's interest), I wouldn't mind digging through some old newspapers at the local library if I can find some on microfilm or something, but I'd need a laptop to take notes, and I've been short on cash lately... this should be easily to find sources for, though --Lucid 14:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

Starting a new section, past discussion is dated. Parts come off like a storybook, with subjective remarks of people's thoughts etc. Needs footnotes of sources where that information is coming from. NPOV can be achieved by conforming to content in good sources.Sciallo 17:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


This article is hopelessly biased. "Only two jurors had a college education" !!!! What elitist claptrap. Who wrote that drivel? 90.11.230.159 17:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

It's actually true. When the prosecution showed DNA evidence, the jury was talking about how some people have the same blood type. They clearly didn't understand the difference between blood type and DNA. After I studied the OJ case in school, I was actually pleasantly surprised at the neutrality of the article. I was expecting lots of bias, but it is quite neutral. There's probably lots that we don't know about the case, but there's one point that I didn't see there: Not to be subjective, but if the defense's case is true, then the whole of LAPD must have conspired against OJ. It's unlikely that everyone on the force was that passionate about football. I'm just saying... ForestAngel 22:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree that it's surprisingly NPOV. What parts are in need of a rewrite, in your opinion? —AldeBaer 14:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Hmm... in my opinion? I think that what I just said should be added. I saw it in a documentary about it once in law class. I think it was done by either A&E or History Channel, so that would be the source. Where I would FIND that source is a whole other story. ForestAngel 08:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
There are many sources (not yet included, but a Google search brings up several usable items) where the conspiracy allegations are thoroughly ridiculed and officials are quoted with statements to that effect. —AldeBaer 22:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, the over all tone of this article is that OJ got away with A double murder. For one thing the list of evidence given is incomplete. Also the reference to the jury"s lack of education may be true, but that is not all that unusual There is no education requirement for jury duty. I watched that trial on a daily basis but my own opinion(s) would violate the wiki no original research rule so what I am going to do is go to the library and dig up some material you might find quite interesting. Our city workers are on strike right now and I am fairly busy but little by little I will provide you with documentable and reliable sources that should serve to make you even more neutral than you already are. This is my first visit to this article and I think it does a pretty good job regurgitating the crap that the media tried to stuff down the general publics throat. I think OJ may well be guilty but I know for a fact that the prosecution failed to prove its case and proceeded to place the blame for its loss on the jury and the defense attorneys. The so called mountain of evidence had been tainted so badly that only an all white jury would have been able to convict him. I did not place the pov tag on this article and I don't care if it stays or goes. I am however looking forward to having an on going discussion about these matters. I think it could prove to be a lot of fun. Albion moonlight 11:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

First and foremost, how does something become MORE neutral? If you're so dead-set to provide evidence to prove OJ's case, then wouldn't that be making it biased?
Evidence-wise, the judgment was fair. But truth-wise, it wasn't. The problem was with the prosecution's case. They organized the evidence badly, showed their cards early, and left out crucial information with which could have gotten OJ a guilty verdict. If DNA is tainted like the defense claimed, then the DNA would be impossible to read.
I've heard some people say that OJ did it with an accomplice. Again, I really don't think race had anything to do with the prosecution. If it did, then LAPD would have had to have an agenda to go to every single black football player's house in the area and frame them for murder. I think the crucial turning point was when they switched where they were holding the case. Stupid, stupid, stupid. ForestAngel 00:50, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't think people are necessarily suggesting the LAPD in general or even the people involved wanted to frame every single black football player. Rather I think the suggestion is, accurate or not, that some of the people (or at least one of the people) involved planted evidence to frame Simpson who they may very well have believed was guilty of the murder especially perhaps since he was black and she was white. Note that the defense could have and I'm sure did present multiple theories about who could have done what. This doesn't mean they are claiming everyone did everything. The defense doesn't have to present a consistent story of what happened. All they have to do is to provide resonable doubt to the jury which I think is often best done by poking multiple holes in the story and suggesting multiple people could have done things such as planted evidence which will provide resonable doubt. The jury doesn't have to decide what actually happened. All they have to do is to decide whether the prosecution case is proven beyond resonable doubt and if one of the possibilities presented by the defense is credible enough to provide resonable doubt then they must acquit (as Chrocaine I believe liked to say) Nil Einne (talk) 14:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes . The term more neutral is misleading . I should have said closer to neutrality than it already is. This is a pretty good article . The articles list of evidence and the article itself is missing key information that you may not even know about. Most of it will have nothing to do with race. Albion moonlight 02:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rename it

It should probably be the "O. J. Simpson's murder trial," or "Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman murder case" 171.71.37.207 18:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree it should be renamed.--Parkwells (talk) 17:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps it should be called "OJ Simpson Trials", because there were two.--Parkwells (talk) 19:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Some online references that could come in handy

—AldeBaer 23:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a whole section on the jury is warranted. It is very interesting. I am not sure how we can add it and still be neutral but there probably is a way. The balance may need to come from additions to other sections. Albion moonlight 06:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I too was surprised how many sources seem to specifically deal with the jury. —AldeBaer 00:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Killing Time (Donald Freed, Raymond P. Briggs,

The above mentioned book is the most unbiased account of the OJ case I have ever come across. It was wriiten in 1996. It examines all the evidence and draws no conclusion as to OJ's guilt or innocence. And it does not make the subjective and spurious conclusion that the whole LAPD police force would have had to been involved in order for the defenses version to be true. Marsha Clark was perhaps the first to make of making that claim to the media but the defense quickly pointed out that that just simply isn't so. Albion moonlight 07:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jail Time

It really needs to be included in the article that he was jailed between June 1994 and the day of the verdict ==John celona 00:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Detective Philip L. Vannatter

The defense attorneys impeached Vannatter effectively. Maybe Vannatter's impeachment should be included in the section after Mark Fuhrman's. Having discredited two key state witnesses was important, IMHO. AaronCBurke 21:41, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Weasel Words

This article is full of weasel words. For example:

  • "Some who opposed the verdict blamed the jurors..."
  • "Those that did mention the DNA evidence showed what critics purport to be a lack of understanding of it."

It lends an impression that the person who wrote those sections is biased in favor of the prosecution and against the defense. Such areas should be cleaned up and rewritten. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.169.167.212 (talk) 03:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tendentious

Somebody sure loves the word 'tendentious.' This article needs a lot of work. It reads like someone's school project, not like an encyclopedia entry. I know nothing about the trial, so I will try to contribute by fixing up grammar and styleDiggyG 00:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm moving the Pop Culture section to this talk page. It isn't encyclopedic material, but maybe someone disagrees, so I will leave it here:DiggyG 01:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pop culture

As an extremely controversial case, the O.J. Simpson murder trial, and its after-effects have been lampooned in American culture.

  • As a cutaway gag from Family Guy, Brian expresses shock and anger over the verdict of Simpson's case, while his roommate, a black man, expresses joy. After a standoff, Brian suggests they find different roommates.
  • In an episode of The Simpsons, Bart and Milhouse are watching an episode of South Park, where Simpson kills an auditorium full of people before declaring that he's going to find the real killer.
  • An episode of Seinfeld parodied the "glove-fitting" when Cosmo Kramer brought a case against a woman for wearing a bra as a top, leading to his distraction and, as a result, a car accident. During the trial, Kramer demanded the woman try on the bra over a leotard, but when it doesn't fit, she is acquitted. Kramer's lawyer responds to this by saying, "She's trying it on over a leotard.. of course a bra's not gonna fit on over a leotard. A bra's gotta fit right up against a person's skin...like a glove!"
  • In an episode of South Park Butters mother (Mrs. Stotch) goes insane and in an attempt to kill Butters, which she believes to be successful, blames 'Some Puerto Rican Guy'. A club whose loved ones also are murdered by 'Some Puerto Rican Guy' contacts the Stotch's and one of the members are O.J Simpson. At the end of the episode Butters finds his parents, and when they tell everyone in town about what's happened they show Simpson every time Mr.Stotch say 'murderer' or 'got away with MURDER'.
  • The last verse of the song "Stronger" by Kanye West contains the lyrics, "like O.J. had Isotoners," referring to the Aris Isotoner gloves that O.J. denied owning but was seen in various photos wearing them.

[edit] No ending to the chase

Is there any reason why the article doesn't describe how the slow-speed chase ended? AceHarding 15:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] About the Legitimacy

Yeah I am currently a senior in High School and I don't think that articles like this be taken down...I'm in a Forensics class and I am using this case for a report and for that matter why take it down? Honestly, if you can't handle not being politically correct that is your problem not mine. Besides, this being up here isn't hurting anyone. It's very educational too, because before reading this I had no idea what happened in the case I just assumed him guilty without knowing the facts (I still think he was guilty but I do agree with the jury because there was not enough evidence in the first place and most of the evidence was tampered with). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.196.30.222 (talk) 02:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This article needs a lot of improvement

Unfortunately this article is missing a lot of information and is a bit of a disappointment. The trial lasted for nine months and all the article has to show for it is a few pages. There is no information for example on what the prosection said was the motive. There is no information on what transpired in the civil trial. Because of the recent media hype, people are trying to brush up on the nitty gritty of the case, one would expect wikipedia to be a good source. Muntuwandi 05:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Racial Bias in the Article

There is the following line:

"Another reason seems to stem from the fact that the jury included mostly African-Americans, suggesting that race also played a part in the decision."

I suspect that a white person wrote at least this section. The reason is that, while there is discussion of criticism of "mostly African-Americans" on the jury, the article does not point out the fact that there was virtually no criticism of "mostly women" on that same jury. That needs to be pointed out in the article, as it is still to this day bandied about the idea that "the black jury let him walk." Just yesterday I had this conversation with someone (a white woman), and she commented on "the black jury." I mentioned to her, "what about the ten women on that same jury?" She answered, "so what, they're still black." It didn't seem to matter at all to her that there were ten women, only that there were "mostly blacks." This was back in 1995, and still is today in 2007, quite common, especially among white women. That point should be discussed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.169.167.212 (talk) 05:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

If you can find a secondary source that talks about the impact that the female jurors had, then by all means include it (personally, I doubt there are many good sources for that one because neither the crime nor the theories of the case dealt much with gender). As far as the racial stuff, there's tons of sources on it, which is why this article focuses on it. 70.21.103.75 (talk) 05:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I recently saw a documentary (The Final Report - O.J. Simpson Trial) which mentions the gender issue of the jury. Stephenchou0722 (talk) 20:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality Discussion

THere is a NPOV tag on the article, however there is no section discussing where the article violateds NPOV. Please have the discussion here. If there is no issue of NPOV, then the tag needs to be removed. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 21:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I will remove it and see what happens. The article is far from being either accurate or neutral but as far as I can tell the only way to fix that is add to it and or edit it. I do not see a dispute in progress. : Albion moonlight 09:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Given the controversy of this case, I think this article is pretty close to being neutral. The only thing that's missing is a section listing out the defense's evidence. 70.21.103.75 (talk) 05:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DNA test

Does anyone know if Jason Simpson's DNA was tested against the alleged murder's DNA? It seems to me to be textbook forensic science that it would have been Nil Einne (talk) 14:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What to do with a vandal?

The user 204.102.1.223 added, "This trial is full of s***!", to the criminal trial evidence. I deleted it and just thought it should be dealt with, I ain't an admin or anything. Sutjo-18005 (talk) 21:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

You did exactly the right thing, thanks. Any user can make edits and undo acts of vandalsim, remember the mantra at Wikipedia is "Be Bold." Admins can step in and handle more peskier vandals and place blocks on them. Jacksinterweb (talk) 21:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)