Jump to content

Talk:O. J. Simpson

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 98.176.234.126 (talk) at 02:17, 7 June 2010 (→A question). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Peer review O. J. Simpson has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
Archive
Archives
  1. Before June 2007
  2. June 2007 - June 2008

OJ's daily life today

This may seem a strange comment, but I noticed there's nothing in the article about where OJ lives today and what his daily life consists of. Do people see him on the streets and treat him like just a regular guy? Unless he lives in a gated mansion under constant protection and never goes out in public, I'm surprised someone hasnt tried to kill him yet. Haplolology Talk/Contributions 22:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It says he lives in Miami. read it again. 68.123.140.96 20:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"In Todays Associated Press, it stated, he lives outside of Miami"... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.141.187.24 (talk) 21:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The picture of OJ says it was taken in Iraq in 1990!

US forces were not in Iraq in 1990 - they were in Saudi Arabia or other Middle Eastern allies. Iraq was not even attacked by the USAF until 1991, and no US forces occupied the country after the DESERT STORM victory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.253.37.249 (talk) 10:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The picture itself looks fake to me. OJ is not in the same focus as the rest of the picture. To me it looks like an overlay. Was OJ with US troops in Iraq or Saudi Arabia or wherever they were in 1990? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.154.16.69 (talk) 03:23, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Not gulity" but only the word "guilty" is linked

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oj_simpson#Las_Vegas_robbery

that ain't right. 207.237.228.71 (talk) 03:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorted. — Realist2 (Who's Bad?) 00:37, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

awesome thx 207.237.33.37 (talk) 03:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a NPOV setup

Let me preface this by saying I believe OJ to be guilty as sin... however... It seems to me that the intro to the criminal section being "In 1989, Simpson pled no contest to a domestic violence charge and was separated from Nicole Brown, to whom he was paying child support." is very NPOV. It kind of feels like someone is setting the reader up to believe in his guilt of the accusations that follow. These facts obviously have a place in the article but their prominence at the beginning of that section seem overly apparent. Comments? 220.70.250.184 (talk) 11:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, I just made a minor edit to remove the word "murderer" from the first line....Seriously, who put that in? Umma Kynes 09:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ummakynes (talk • contribs)

Need photo of Bronco chase

Need photo of iconic Bronco slow-speed car chase. Badagnani (talk) 08:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My 1984 Bronco is white and looks just like OJ's, would that suffice? Kidshare (talk) 21:44, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alleged confession ?

how about alleged denial? keep to the facts.


i agree. Should be deleted. Zaleneke (talk) 03:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He's in the slammer, and that's a fact, Jack. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 06:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...he was found directly responsible 4 in civil section

I think in other words he was found directly responsible for their murders should be removed from the "civil trial" section.
Is that factual? If it is pls source it. 70.108.133.72 (talk) 14:55, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Found guilty

He was found guilty of all counts. http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/10/04/oj.simpson.verdict/index.html and http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2008/10/04/sot.oj.verdict.ap and http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27010657/ October 4 2:48 AM (CST)

Read the article. Tvoz/talk 08:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Democrat?

Anyone else notice that he's listed as a Democrat?

I can find no evidence of this and frankly it looks like race baiting bull. --71.143.0.146 (talk) 22:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is his political affiliation sourced anywhere? I don't see it referred to anywhere else on the page. Dayewalker (talk) 22:14, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The word "Democrat" only appears at the category. Nowhere else in the text. It should go. Dr.K. (talk) 22:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I concur... and so I have removed the category. Vantelimus (talk) 22:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Great. Thanks. Dr.K. (talk) 22:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jury nullification

Is it not possible that the most recent judgement against Mr. Simpson was the result of jury nullification? Let's discuss this. It has certainly been a factor in previous verdicts (including, some would say, Mr. Simpson's trial in California). This RIGHT of juries is infrequently exercised, but has been known to be a factor. Having not been on that jury, I can't know the facts beyond what was reported in the press. And I won't presume to know Mr. Simpson's guilt or innocence. But this factor should be considered in any discussion of his conviction.

69.209.98.180 (talk) 01:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's don't discuss this. This page is for discussing improvements to the Wikipedia article, not about OJ Simpson or our opinions regarding his life. This isn't a forum, general discussion format or bulletin board. Actually, that factor should not be considered in this article, unless it is written about and published in a verifiable, third party reliable source. It is beyond the scope of a Wikipedia article to examine factors that would enter into jury deliberation or effect an outcome. All we can consider is what has been reported in the press or other sources. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2001 trial

Is there a good reason why the page does not mention the second time that Simpson was tried on criminal charges and acquitted, in Florida for an alleged "road rage" assault in 2000? I figure it's worth a sentence or two somewhere, but I would also have expected it to bein there already.

Here's a link, which I must break syntactically to post it anonymously from a text-only connection: http: //www.courttv.com/trials/ojroadrage/acquittal.html

--208.76.104.133 (talk) 14:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A question

Simpson was found guilty thirteen years to the day he was found not guilty. Was this somehow planned? I asked a friend who told me that their is no way it could have been planned. But I'd like a second oppinion. As such a thing is a HUGE coincidence.

Groucho2 10:05 11 November 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.245.122.118 (talk) 06:06, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Could have been planned if the jury were all in agreement about the verdict, but held off on purpose in order to read the verdict on the anniversary date. Was the jury in deliberation for more than one day before the verdict was read? This scenario is very unlikely, unless all 12 people came to the verdict, then made a decision to hold off the reading until until the anniversary date, and kept this a secret from the Courts and public. It was probably just a coincidence.98.176.234.126 (talk) 02:17, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actual sentence

will someone please change the sentence to a minimum of 9 years, not 8 years. 9 years is the min the judge gave. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.232.119.146 (talk) 18:38, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it was 9 years Robert Beck (talk) 18:47, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Watching it on TruTV now and reading up-to-date news articles online, so I agree. Perhaps adding that after he apologized, the judge rejected it and stated that "It was much more than stupidity". His sentence wasn't reduced, and he isn't eligible for parole (hearing) until after 9 years (minimum) but his sentence is as much as 33 years. It's hopeful he will have a minimum of 6 years if appealed. 2legit2quit2 (talk) 18:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, now they've announce OJ may go before the parole board after the first 6 year sentence, and then finish two 18 month sentences after that (on top of that back-to-back). As early as 6 years, possibly not until 9 years. I guess waiting until this is all "old news" would be best for collecting accurate details. (smile) 2legit2quit2 (talk) 19:16, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

mere seconds ago, the NYT issued a breaking news email stating "minimum of 9 years." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.232.119.146 (talk) 19:25, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly there is confusion on the part of the media about the expectation of when he might be eligible for parole - I agree with 2legit's point that we should wait for a definitive report. Tvoz/talk 19:28, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And now we know. (smile) 2legit2quit2 (talk) 15:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please include the full list of sentences as follows in a table format:

Count Crime Fixed Min Max Concurrent Count Consecutive Count Parole Eligibility Consecutive Term Jail Comments count 1 conspiracy to commit crime 1 yr county jail count 2 conspiracy to commit kidnapping 12 months 48 months count 1 nv dept of corrections count 3 conspiracy to commit robbery 12 months 48 months count 2 nv dept of corrections count 4 burglary while in possession of deadly weapon 26 months 120 months count 3 nv dept of corrections count 5 1st degree kidnapping with use of a deadly weapon 15 years count 4 5 years 12-72 (not specified) count 6 1st degree kidnapping with use of a deadly weapon 15 years count 5 5 years 12-72 (not specified) count 7 robbery with use of a deadly weapon 60 months 180 months count 6 12-72 nv dept of corrections enhancement count 8 robbery with use of a deadly weapon 60 months 180 months count 7 12-72 nv dept of corrections count 9 assault with a deadly weapon 18 months 72 months count 8 nv dept of corrections count 10 assault with a deadly weapon 18 months 72 months count 9 nv dept of corrections —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.169.30.171 (talk) 20:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redundancy/format in sentencing date

the sentencing date is shown in this paragraph as 2008-12-05

Simpson and his co-defendant were found guilty of all charges on October 3, 2008.[5] Sentencing for Simpson and Stewart was set for December 5, 2008 at 9:00 a.m. PST.[35] The kidnapping charge carries a possible life sentence with parole, and the robbery convictions carry mandatory prison time.[36] Despite the possibility of serving a life sentence, Simpson was ultimately sentenced to 15 years imprisonment on 2008-12-05.

then in a paragraph following shortly after it is stated again

On December 5, 2008, Simpson was sentenced to at least fifteen years in prison on these charges, with the possibility of parole after six years.[40] [6]

recommend these two be merged into one paragraph Mt1955 (talk) 19:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought he got 33, with parole in 9 ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.255.107.88 (talk) 20:04, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See section immediately above this one. Tvoz/talk 20:56, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recentism

Murder trial: one paragraph. Robbery trial: eight. Let's maintain historical perspective here. Skomorokh 00:30, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that's true, but it's not because of recentism: the result of the robbery trial is having a major impact on his life, and therefore his bio - arguably at least as big an impact as the murder trial, as he's going to prison for a long time, assuming his appeals are unsuccessful. Tvoz/talk 00:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistent tense?

Just doesn't seem right, "faced" and then "carry".

Simpson faced a possible life sentence with parole on the kidnapping charge, and the robbery convictions carry mandatory prison time.

Maybe; "While Simpson faced a possible life sentence with parole on the kidnapping charge, and the robbery convictions carried mandatory prison time." Mt1955 (talk) 03:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OJ the robber?

The robbery section is very long compared to the rest of the article. Ipromise (talk) 02:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

= OJ Simpson's info

Born: July 9 1947 Played: 1969-1979 College: Soutern Cal. Drafted to Green Bay in: 1969 Number: 27

Got elected to Hall Of Fame in 1970 with Danny Bay Fields leading him there with their record:15-0-1.

Then Fields through a butiful pass to Simpson whitch coused the Packers to have 1 tied game in the career of 

   OJ Simpson.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.31.149.70 (talk) 23:27, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"O.J. Bowl"

What was the actual score of the "O.J. Bowl"? The information given at 1968 Pittsburgh Steelers season (that the Steelers won 6-3) does not correspond to what is written in this article, which is that "The Eagles won 12–0 (on 4 field goals by Sam Baker)". 1967 and 1969 Eagles–Steelers games similarly did not have 12-0 scores, so the problem isn't simply an error of being a year off, either. Robert K S (talk) 06:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recentism tag

How is it possible that the discussion of the Las Vegas robbery case is several times longer than the discussion of the murder trial? Perhaps okay to summarize the first in just a paragraph, but then the more recent event doesn't merit more than a paragraph, either. THF (talk) 17:26, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Minor Edit to Page

{{editprotected}} Under the heading "Other legal problems" which appears close to the bottom of the page, I would like to recommend that "Simpson" be made possessive to read "Simpson's". So instead of reading "Simpson three other" it would read "Simpson's three other" which would be grammatically correct. --Better4uBetter4me (talk) 05:45, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:05, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prosecutor responds to OJ Simpson’s appeal

http://www.bostonherald.com/track/celebrity/view.bg?articleid=1197020

BostonHerald.com reports that a prosecutor has finally responded to the Simpson appeal of his sentence for robbery and kidnapping, as of September 12, 2009.--141.156.217.7 (talk) 11:09, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tried for murder in civil court - how???

I've never heard of anyone being tried for murder in civil court before. Murder is a criminal offence. If this was the case, then why wouldn't *every* murderer be taken to civil court by the victim's family?Davez621 (talk) 06:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not murder but wrongful death. And it happens frequently. Robert K S (talk) 06:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
More so, presumably, with those who have the theoretical means to pay a judgment. No point in suing someone who has no money. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just FYI, I believe the ability to sue somebody for a criminal action, even if they've been acquitted in criminal court of said action, is largely unique to U.S. law. Our European friends tend to be confused by this. Not sure where (or if) this is covered generically in Wikipedia but perhaps we could link to it in the article.—Chowbok ☠ 01:04, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request

{{editsemiprotected}}

Picture caption "Simpson with daughter, Sydney Brooke, 1987" has the wrong date. Photo was taken Feb, 1986.

128.178.105.28 (talk) 18:10, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed; checked on flickr.  Chzz  ►  18:34, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done

O.J. Simpson had another arrest in Miami-Dade County, Florida on July 4, 2002. Articles can be found pertaining to this on the internet AND it can be found on the Miami-Dade County Clerk of Court Criminal website search engine. He was put under arrest after Law Enforcement stopped him for speeding through a Manatee Zone with his boat. His boat also had an expired registration. If convicted, he faced up to 60 days in jail. I posted this arrest earlier in this article and someone else idiotically removed it, saying that " Speeding in a boat is not a legal problem". As a future attorney, I can tell you that it IS an arrest AND a legal problem and needs to be at least mentioned and cited in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluestreak147 (talk • contribs) 23:35, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:O._J._Simpson&oldid=366477587"