Cept he dirty af

@@lavarball8423 And so are you .. so what’s ur point?

@@lavarball8423 going off the guy on Rogan, saying Manson was manipulative by the CIA 🤦🏻‍♂️

@@lavarball8423nah

My thoughts align perfectly with Vincent.

kzfaq.info/get/bejne/msupZLqFqaemdXU.html you would enjoy this then

Fxxk Vincent

Bryan Green 👏🏻 Classy.

@Bman Chu he was dirty af lol .....

@@lavarball8423 You jealous. Truth hurts

shmikes G he’s not black....he’s OJ! 😳😂

But they made life a lot harder for African Americans in general. In 1996, white Americans voted in favour of Proposition 206 in California, which ended affirmative action there and basically sought to exclude African Americans and many other minorities from so many areas. Basically speaking, the LGBT community, Asian Americans and othet minorities paid dearly for the actions of OJ Simpson, Johnnie Cochran and the supportive African American community, but it didn't matter for Simpson and Cochran because they were already millionnaires.

I agree lol. love his sarcasm

"Throw it out the window!..."

It’s easy to second guess. He acts like he tried the case.

Most likely, but a mistrial would have been more likely if he had been the lead prosecutor

Watch his documentary (it's on YT, about 6 hours long and shows the closing arguments he'd have given), Bugliosi addresses that exact issue and concludes no, he'd have convicted in the most convincing fashion. Oh, this comment is eight years old. Still, if you have free time it's very entertaining.

@@davidmurphy563 I’ll check it out. Thanks. If I’m not mistaken, I don’t think Bugliosi ever lost a case. It’s possible I’m thinking about Nancy Grace. She was nicknamed ‘amazing Grace’ because she lost only one case as a prosecutor.

@@MMAfighter38113 If you watch his opening and closing argument he lays bare the sheer dazzling absurdity of the not guilty verdict. His book on JFK is the best researched, most comprehensive pageturner I've read on any topic. I know little about Grace but she doubtless deserves her formidable reputation. In a way it's an indictment of the judiciary that these people didn't rise to AG or take a place on the SC. In a meritocracy free from politics they would rise to the top and the country would be the better for it.

@@davidmurphy563 I saw it recently. Best law video I ever watched.

Do some research on him. Your think differently. Ran for DA in 72 lost Ran for AG in 74 lost Ran for DA in 76 lost Wanted to use those offices for social reform, he was a left wing liberal looney. He was indicted by the DA’s office for allegedly leaking confidential info to the press in direct violation of a Court Order.

@@Solitude47152his electoral history has nothing to do with his quality as a lawyer

The Dream Team would Destroyed him

would of, would of ...would of...would of OF OF OF ...you turd.

Bugliosi, would HAVE sent OJ to San Quentin.

+Alice Scooper LOL.. He "would of" !

"Bugliosi, would of sent OJ to San Quentin." No argument. Bugliosi was a brilliant litigator.

+Number1Dougster brilliant lawyer indeed.

Legend.

Wait just a minute. “He”claimed he won 105 out of 106 trials. During the election in 76 he was asked to produce evidence that his claim was correct. He did not due it and lost in a landslide, he was a left wing liberal looney

@@Solitude47152false

Not even close, was charged by DA’s office for leaking confidential information to the press in violation of judges order

@@Solitude47152 He wouldn’t have been the first .. Still a great lawyer

I don't know about "bravest man on earth," but he is right about this. I think a few combat soldiers or cancer survivors might take issue with that. And he cashed in on it too even though he had zero involvement in the trial.

OJ was obviously guilty, and Vince was exactly right. But I don't kid myself that he's just saying all of this out of the kindness of his heart. He was an extremely effective prosecutor who succeeded in getting the death penalty for Charles Manson and his followers...although circumstances beyond his control later commuted their sentences. That was a very complicated case filled with just about every twist and turn you could imagine. If it had been Vince in that courtroom instead of Marcia Clark and Chris Darden, no way OJ would have walked.

***** excuse me mike tyson- what an unfortunate name- when that fucked up trial was going on, no one wanted to just say "he's guilty , it's as plain as day" or " the prosecutors are a pack of idiots" . Everyone was tiptoeing around OJ's fame and race. So shut up.

Rio Bravo what about telling the jury that “no one wants to do this to this man...not me”? He literally told the jury he didn’t want to convict OJ! Weak is absolutely right.

I agree. The prosecution continued to treat him like a star because they were afraid that if they didn't, it would back-fire on them.

Bugliosi was the GOAT.

Cochran never defended a murder trail before he had no experience his only experience was civil cases against police department for black defendants he was used to playing a race card.

Vince was a cherry 🍒 picker. If he thought he was going to lose he would dump the case. DA’s don’t tell you that, they can dismiss.

@@Solitude47152that's their job dummy

DJ Harris he won 105/106 cases! Amazing.

@@pommiebears First, well that has not been confirmed. Second DA’s dismiss cases they can’t win. So of course they will have a positive record

It wasn't payback for corruption, it was payback for Rodney King and other cases of brutality, and a couple of jurors even admitted that they were unsympathetic towards Nicole from the start, they called her unfaithful, a gold digger, a battered woman etc they found all kinds of excuses to justify OJ murdering Nicole. And Ron? Well, he was white too, so they didn't care.

@@TDKiller415 It's ironic if they said that it was payback for King because it means they tried to use their misplaced anger as a platform for more misjudgment. The King tapes were maliciously edited or in any case King was a giant of a man who was able to resist arrest better than 90% of men and he did resist arrest for a long time unlike other people who were in the vehicle with him. He also spat at and denigrated the police officers but only received minor injuries and died 20 years later from drowning. The police may have beaten him excessively but it had nothing to with racism but King's size, aggression and refusal to comply. The stun gun did not work and the police were rightly afraid that he could wrestle a gun away from the police and blow them away.

@@miesvaillanykyisyytta3252 Well I wasn't there, all I saw was the footage, maybe it made it look worse than it was. I don't know what came before the actual beating 🤷🏻‍♂️🤷🏻‍♂️ But yes, you make a good point.

@@TDKiller415 the footage and incident were incorrectly reported by the media intentionally.

@@jlorde8838 Wouldn't be surprised. Woke politics have existed for a long time.

Actually that wasn't OJ, he was just the killer. The ones who manipulated African Americans were Cochran, Shapiro, Scheck and Bailey. At the start, almost all African Americans said they DID NOT believe race had anything to do with the case. It was only AFTER Robert Shapiro and Johnnie Cochran brought race into it. When the case became about race, THAT was when race relations soured. Proposition 209 was passed in California the year after the trial and it still hasn't been repealed.

**the LAPD

If you wanna use Vince , should they reconsider retrying Oj , you'll have to dig him up!! In other words He is the grave..

James Kollintzas one juror said that if a tape had been played showing OJ killing them that she still wouldn’t have voted guilty, because the prosecution didn’t prove it. I don’t know what this juror wanted as proof, but she couldn’t or wouldn’t see it. Another has admitted that it was not guilty because of the Rodney King beating. At least she’s been honest.

What Johnnie Cochran said was actually semi-illegal. You can't say something like "If it doesn't fit, you MUST acquit." Thats pure manipulation and brainwashing. You can never tell a jury that they MUST acquit, the jury's duty is to make a decision of guilty or not guilty based on the evidence that is presented, not on their emotions.

Nine months.

The only attorneys with possibly with any chance to WIN would have been Nick Barkley From the " big Valley"...maybe Nick of Heath helped him..

I meant to say Jared Barkley..

Oakjazz - Vince Bugliosi has proven that he's as good as he says he is, he knows what he has accomplished in the past, and what he could have accomplished in this case (despite the tainted jury) he was a master of the law and it's nuances! In this interview he puts forth common sense reasons why the prosecution lost the case.

And he was absolutely right. There was no evidence whatsoever of evidence being planted or a “conspiracy” to “frame” OJ. In fact Fuhrman’s entire career was investigated thoroughly and no evidence of him framing or engaging in misconduct was ever discovered. Do a little research and you’ll discover that Fuhrman actually worked to get a black defendant off of charges when evidence clearing him emerged. The tapes were nonsense and were completely immaterial to the facts and circumstances of the case and should have never been allowed. But, then, the DA wanted people to believe he HAD to try the case Downtown rather than Santa Monica because it went to the grand jury. They didn’t want to win because they believed there would be another riot if OJ was convicted.

He’d not long retired..

That's a bully tactic? What ? Why ? It's bullying to repeat someone's name in the course of a conversation ? On the contrary, it's actually quite polite

Exactly

He's not arrogant but he is sometimes dishonest and he is, first and foremost, a capitalist. He cannot write a book without promoting his other books somewhere within. He is also proud of the fact that he doesn't own a computer (yes, one of _those_ old men) and it shows in his work. Only to people who have studied him and his cases, however. You'll see from other comments how many people regard him as a champion for truth when he's more accurately a champion for his bank balance (which is fine, I have no problem with that). So he's not all he seems, but is certainly an admirable prosecutor and a man of high moral standards. I like him. But like everyone, he has his greedy side :) Arrogant? No.

Ryan S Totally backwards, Bugliosi is one of the most arrogant people I've ever seen although, as you say, he is heavily principled and obviously believes what he writes. And it's awesome to watch him in action in the courtroom (albeit on youtube). The guy took 20 years to write one book for god's sake - he can't be that bothered about his bank balance!

As he goes on to concede during every interview in which he mentions that twenty-years-to-write-Reclaiming-History anecdote, "I don't mean I sat for twenty years writing it; I worked and wrote books in between." So that's not really evidence against him being a capitalist. I once heard him scold an interviewer who didn't mention the subtitle of Reclaiming History. Why? Because how will anyone find and purchase his book if they don't know the full title? In his longer interviews, too, he not only plugs the book he's there to officially plug, but he also wherever possible plugs his other books. As I say, there's nothing wrong with it, but I'm not going to accept it when you say he's _not_ a capitalist. I'll also be rejecting your assertion that he's arrogant unless you can cite at least a couple of examples. I wonder actually if you can even cite _one,_ because I know all about Vincent Bugliosi, and I honestly cannot recall a single instance when my reaction to something he said was "Well, that was arrogant." Okay. One example comes to mind actually. In the Part Two of the video series "OJ Simpson: Absolutely 100% Guilty" he does say (to the mock jury) "I'm disappointed in Johnnie Cochran. He's a bright fellow but..." That was one occasion on which I can say he showed arrogance. Name another and I'll give you a cookie.

I guess you could argue that what he says doesn't count as arrogance because he IS that good, and I suppose that would be difficult to disagree with to some extent. But he spends a lot of time talking about how he's not trying to boast, comparing himself to Churchill, quoting reviews of his book and putting down dissenters. And he loves the sounds of his own voice (lots of flowery, poetic metaphors). He's like the Richard Dawkins of the legal/conspiracy world, although not as bad (just to clarify, I think Bugliosi's absolutely awesome). On the other point he says himself that he spent 100 hours a week on Reclaiming History during the last 6 or 7 years that he was writing it. He could have sold a lot of books in that time but his aim was to write the definitive JFK book 'for the ages'. I don't think you include 10,000+ citations purely to make money. I think he plugs his other books because he thinks they're awesome and that everyone should read them (which is probably true, but also underlines the previous point)

Hahaha. Well, I won't deny that he's full of himself and he's convincing, too, because a lot of people see him as some paragon and even I was under his spell when I first came across him. And he is good, just not as good as he says or thinks he is. And familiarising myself with him and his work, written and spoken, from the OJ stuff to the "21-hour docu-trial" of Lee Harvey Oswald, I find that he is convincing because he is extremely assertive. Whether he's right or wrong, he'll assert himself til the cows come home. But he is flawed. Look for his interview on the Simpson murder trial, where Dershowitz wipes the floor with him. It's almost pitiful to hear Vincent so easily defeated, and so stressed about it. "Wait a while. Wait a while." So, put him up against a man of equal intelligence and/or oratory ability and you see the real man behind the masked god. He also refuses to use a computer, preferring his antiquated yellow pad, which is nice and quaint but, at the end of the day, doing him a great disservice. In his _OJ Simpson: 100% guilty_ series, there's a part where he talks about a portion of Marcia Clark's testimony which "isn't on tape" because (and this part is true) Judge Ito discontinued the television coverage. Well, Vincent, I'm sorry to say that the entire closing argument is right here on KZfaq and that portion you read out from the transcript *IS INDEED ON TAPE*. And therefore, his old-man pride in not using a computer is actually holding him back.

+Alex Tome Yeah, I'm sure showing up at a crime scene that was crawling with cops (none of whom he knew personally) hours later would have given him the opportunity to discover the bloody right-hand glove that nobody else noticed...and without anyone else noticing that he took it.

+Alex Tome He arrived before his partner did.

+Alex Tome He could have used the N word 5,000 times...it doesn't change the immutable laws of time and space.

+Alex Tome Pick it up from where? Where did the right-hand glove come from? There were tons of cops on the scene at Bundy for hours before Fuhrman got there, and none of them saw a right-hand glove. Only a left-hand glove.

+Alex Tome Also, so what if the dog didn't start barking until 10:30? What does that prove? OJ ran a red light, nearly running into Jill Shively 10-15 minutes after that.