Talk:O. J. Simpson murder case
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
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. | |
| ??? | 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. | |
 |
This article was nominated for deletion on 28 December 2006. The result of the discussion was speedy keep. |
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 69.138.194.105 05:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Racist
This article is generally quite racist. I think that the race related discussions should be relegated to a section of their own. Clearly this became a symbolic issue around various race mythologies. What about the widely reported time(or another?) magazine darkening the skin tone of simpson for their front cover? The racialised stories about a black/white issue are repeated in this article without skepticism. NPOV should rule. These stories should be reported as such and not presented as fact. (EG 'blacks' celebrate, 'whites' unhappy)
What a racist country America is! But the media playing this up and making it seem like fact should not go unquestioned on wikipedia.
I fear the lack of good writing on this topic is because sensible people shy away from such an absurd celebrity spectacle.
[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 not 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).
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!
[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.
- Ting!
You think people crying and getting angry over a case that has nothing to do with them is neutral and normal?
[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)
[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)
[edit] Two cases
The two cases make this article hard. He was found not guilty 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.
[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).
[edit] Jason Simpson
Does anyone have a citation for the report that Jason Simpson was murdered on December 28, 2006 in Malibu, CA
