All Episodes
Previous Next
Plain Text
April 16, 2024 - Uncensored - Piers Morgan
34:27
20240416_oj-simpson-the-legacy
Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|

Time Text
Justice System On Trial 00:13:47
O.J. Simpson's murder trial divided America.
His death from cancer at the age of 76 last week has had much the same effect.
The former NFL star was notoriously acquitted of murdering his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her friend Ron Goldman.
A civil jury letter found him liable.
Many believe he was acquitted by a jury who were angry about racial disparities in the justice system and wider society.
A point controversially explained by this CNN contributor.
It was so racially charged because of what had happened just before with Rodney King, but also just how black Americans feel about policing.
It's not like O.J. Simpson was the leader of the civil rights movement of his era.
You know, he wasn't a social justice leader, but he represented something for the black community in that moment, in that trial, particularly because there were two white people who had been killed and the history around how black people have been persecuted during slavery.
There were just so many layers.
So what should O.J. Simpson's legacy be and how much of his trial paved the way for the debate still simmering today?
Well, joining me to discuss all this is academic and author Mark Lamont Hill, lawyer Alan Dershowitz, who was part of O.J.'s dream team defense, lawyer Gloria Alred, who represented the family of Nicole Brown Simpson, and Jeffrey Toobin, author of Run of His Life, on which the seminal real crime series American Nightmare, The People versus O.J. Simpson, was based.
Well, welcome to all of your stellar panel.
Let me start, first of all, if I may, with you, Alan Dershowitz, because you were part of O.J.'s team.
Do you think he did it?
I mean, he's dead now.
You can be honest.
No, I can't.
I'm a lawyer, and I go to my grave with any information he provided me.
He asserted his innocence from the very beginning.
Remember, the jury didn't find him innocent.
The jury found that the evidence did not prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
And jurors afterward were interviewed, and they said they believed that blood was planted on socks found in O.J.'s room and that the planting of the socks, and there was proof of that, there was EDTA, a chemical on the blood in the socks.
EDTA is not found in such quantity in the human body, but it's found in test tubes to preserve the test tube against coagulation.
So the jury had a doubt.
The prosecution messed the case up in every way.
I was a couple of feet away from O.J. Simpson when Chris Dordon tried to get him to try the gloves on and the gloves didn't fit.
And that's the famous line, if it doesn't fit, you must acquit.
And the prosecution made a dreadful mistake under California law.
They could have required him to try the gloves on prior to showing it to the jury to make a decision whether to use this evidence.
They didn't do this out of their arrogance, and so it backfired.
I was there.
I saw the jury looking at him.
At that point, I was able to tell him during the recess, you don't have to testify because you've already had your say in front of the jury, and you can't be cross-examined about what you just said in front of the jury.
So we didn't win the case.
The prosecution lost the case.
The jury didn't find him innocent.
They found him not guilty as a result of police tampering with the evidence.
And so people shouldn't come to the wrong conclusions about this case.
This was the American justice system working.
Remember, a criminal trial is not a search for truth.
Science is a search for truth.
A criminal trial balances the search for truth with privacy, with admissibility of evidence, with rules against tampering of evidence.
So this was the criminal justice system on trial.
And the criminal justice system was acquitted and did the right thing, even if the defendant may have actually committed the crime.
Better 10 guilty go free, then one innocent be wrongly confined, and make sure that if there's going to be a conviction, it's based on properly obtained and properly admitted evidence.
That's the way the system works.
Okay, so Jeffrey Toobin, you're not so restricted by client confidentiality.
Is there any doubt that O.J. Simpson committed these crimes?
None, zero.
It is a mathematical certainty, as far as I'm concerned, that O.J. Simpson killed Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman.
I mean, as Alan, my professor, said, I mean, the criminal justice system has other values that are at play.
I happen to think that even with the flaws in the prosecution's presentation, which were real, the jury had plenty of evidence with which to convict O.J. Simpson.
But just as a historical matter, since this is now well into history, this crime is pushing 30 years old, is that O.J. Simpson was guilty and he killed these people.
And it is tragic that he never faced accountability for that.
But that is how the system works.
I certainly respect the jury's verdict, but I think it was wrong.
Gloria Royard, you represented the family of Nicole Brown Simpson.
It was interesting watching the coverage of O.J. Simpson's death.
People trying to sort of equate celebrating his career prior to this murder with then sort of trying to obfuscate around the issue of whether he was guilty or not of the crime, because of course he walked free.
What was your perspective on this?
Well, I think it's important to remember that there was a civil trial after the criminal case acquittal.
And in that civil trial, a different jury found and decided that, in fact, O.J. Simpson was liable, responsible, for the wrongful death of Nicole Brown Simpson, may she rest in peace, and also of Ronald Goldman.
And so that's even though less proof is required, a preponderance of the evidence in a civil case versus beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal case.
Still, I think it's very important to remember that a different jury did find that he was responsible for the wrongful death of two innocent human beings.
And that seems to get lost in the discussion that we have been having and that many others also have.
Gloria, do you have any doubt at all that he did it?
I think it's clear that he did it.
I stand with the civil verdict and judgment.
And I think it's also important to remember that in the criminal case, Piers, he did invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and remain silent, did not take the witness stand to testify.
He had that right to remain silent and he exercised that right.
However, in the civil trial, because he had been acquitted in the criminal case, double jeopardy attached, meaning he couldn't be reprosecuted, and therefore he had to testify.
He was subpoenaed.
He was required to testify in the civil lawsuit.
And that jury, civil jury, listened to his testimony, listened to his cross-examination, and did not believe him.
And hence, that was a major reason for a different result in the civil case because they didn't believe him.
He sat there in the civil case, Pierce, next to a large photograph of Nicole with a big black eye on her face that he had inflicted on her.
He had pled no contest to that some years earlier, meaning he admitted it.
He admitted that he did it.
He had not been sentenced to even one minute, one day in jail as a result of his no contest plea dispousal battery, and he denied doing it.
So having said that, I agree that he is and was a killer, and that should always be part of his obituary.
Mark Lamont Hill, race played a massive part in this case.
There's no doubt about that.
And it was a predominantly black jury which acquitted O.J. Simpson of these crimes.
There was a belief by many black Americans at the time that this was one in the eye back at the justice system, which they believed had been skewed so unfairly against their people for a very long time.
What do you feel about that?
Well, I think it's a little more complicated than that.
But let me first say, this is a historic occasion.
It's the first time on television that I am completely agreeing with Alan Dershowitz, while disagreeing at least slightly with Jeffrey Tobin and Gloria Alwyt.
I think first, this was not just a black jury or majority black jury saying, hey, the criminal legal system is racist and therefore we're going to acquit.
This wasn't like a nullification moment.
Rather, they genuinely believed that the prosecution didn't make its case.
They genuinely believed that there was a good chance that evidence was planted.
Mark Fuhrman is the reason why O.J. Simpson is not in prison, as far as I'm concerned.
I mean, once that man is caught sort of lying and also effectively invokes the Fifth Amendment at a moment where the jury is now saying, did you manufacture or plant evidence?
I think any reasonable person of any race would make the determination if they're not being driven by passion and emotion, but rather what the criminal justice system demands.
I think they say that the jury, rather, that the prosecution didn't make its case.
I disagree with, and this goes back to your question, Pierce, I disagree with Jeffrey to the extent that O.J. Simpson was absolutely held accountable.
You know, if O.J. Simpson spent a considerable amount of time in prison for a crime of theft and kidnapping that no person would have done that amount of time for.
If O.J. Simpson had been caught jaywalking in Los Angeles, they would have given him 20 years if they could.
So I think there's a way that O.J. Simpson later in his career honestly got a worse outcome from the criminal legal system than he deserved.
But let me be very clear.
O.J. Simpson's a killer.
O.J. Simpson, long before he killed Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman, was an awful person.
I have no defense of O.J. Simpson.
He absolutely is the killer, but the criminal justice system is not designed, as Alan said, as a fact-finding scientific mission.
You're balancing the fact-finding with this other principle.
And you can't go around convicting people if it's clear that the prosecution and the police didn't play by the rules.
And I think for a long time, black people have seen the criminal justice system not play by the rules, and it results in black people being unlawfully incarcerated or police being exonerated, as LAPD were all the time for beating black people.
So yeah, there was a reaction to the legal system, but it wasn't a jury just saying, you know what, the system's unfair, so let's let OJ off.
It was them saying, hey, the system's unfair.
And this is an example of the prosecution making some bad moves that they probably didn't have to make.
I think if they don't plant a glove, I think if Mark Fuhrman never steps into this, he'll still be found guilty.
The evidence that Jeffrey said was voluminous, but they overplayed their hand and they put too much dip on their chip.
Now, O.J. Simpson is guilty or found that guilty, excuse me.
Well, that's a really interesting point.
I saw Alan Dershowitz agreeing with that.
I mean, it's interesting.
Furman, who is one of the lead detectives in this case, obviously was corrupt, and he obviously did try to fit up O.J. Simpson with false evidence.
But notwithstanding that, had he not done that at all?
Do you think anyway, I need to interrupt.
That wasn't proven, but there did.
Well, hang on, let me get my ducks in a row.
Jeffrey, am I wrong on facts there?
Well, the issue of whether Mark Fuhrman lied about whether he had used the N-word, and I was the reporter who uncovered the fact that he applied for a pension from the Los Angeles Police Department on the grounds that he hated black people so much that he couldn't function as a police officer.
And the LAPD rejected that request and sent him back out on the street.
He was certainly a racist, but the issue of whether he planted evidence in this Simpson case is highly disputed.
I don't think he planted evidence.
But the LAPD, Jeffrey, paid the prosecution.
Yes, you do, Jeffrey.
Paid the price for years of terrible conduct.
The Rodney King case was only the most famous example of the LAPD's terrible treatment of black people.
That was something that the defense quite correctly, quite understandably, played on with the jury.
But whether Mark Fuhrman planted evidence is, I think, not a person's court right now, but I do want to add one thing.
Okay, Gloria, I know you have to go.
So, Gloria, if you have your final say before we let you go, yeah.
The EDTA Evidence Mystery 00:08:57
Yeah, my final say, because I'm going to another case, the Rust case, where someone is being sentenced, Hannah Gucherroz, and that is that, you know, the system failed women who are victims of violence by their spouses or significant others.
The system, in my opinion, is still failing victims of violence.
And yes, it's important to consider, you know, what law enforcement does, what the police do.
But let's not forget there are many men who are killing their wives, their significant others, and there is still not justice for victims of violence.
And it is shown in this case in a big way, but still 30 years later, the system has a long way to go.
Thank you very much, Pierce, for Gloria.
Thank you very much.
I know you have to go, so thank you very much indeed for taking the time to join us.
Alan Dershowitz, let me come to you.
Yeah.
Yeah, I think we can probably all agree about it.
Yeah, to what your former pupil said, Jeffrey, Alan Dushwis, you wanted to counter what he said.
Yeah, I want to challenge him.
I want to ask him how he can explain the fact that there was a chemical, EDTA, a blood thinner, which if it appeared in the human body would be enough to bleed somebody to death, and that the EDTA was found on the glove, on the sock.
The blood splatter evidence proved conclusively that the blood had been poured on the sock when flat.
And the jurors afterward who were interviewed, some of them by you were interviewed, said that the reason they acquitted was not necessarily because they found that he didn't do it, but they found that at least one piece of evidence, perhaps two, had been tampered with.
And I actually did an experiment with hundreds of people.
Every time I spoke about it, I would ask him the following question.
What would you vote if you were on a jury and you concluded the person did it?
That there was enough evidence to convict that he did it, enough reasonable evidence to convict that he did it, but you also believe that the police deliberately planted evidence against him in order to enhance the possibility of convicting.
And white jurors, black jurors, people all over, I asked that question to everybody, to my class, to everybody I could ask it to.
And the vast majority of people, white and black, said they would not convict under those circumstances.
So, Jeffrey, how do you explain the presence of EDTA, a blood thinner found in test tubes, but not found in the human body, on the sock that was used as evidence against him?
How do you explain it?
Why do you think that the evidence wasn't tampered with?
That scientific evidence was disputed at the trial and remains disputed to this day.
In order to believe...
Give us the dispute.
Give us the dispute.
You want an answer, Alan?
This is like law school.
This is like law school class again.
I'm enjoying this.
In order to plant that evidence at the murder took place at Bundy, and OJ lived at Rockingham, a few miles away.
When Mark Fuhrman went from Bundy to Rockingham for that first time when he allegedly planted evidence, he didn't know if O.J. Simpson was even in the United States at the time of the murder.
So it would have been insane for him to try to plant evidence on someone else.
It's not when he planted the evidence.
Jeffrey, you're missing my point.
It's not when he planted the evidence.
It was weeks later.
I went to the lab.
I got the socks.
I saw the socks.
It was only weeks later that the blood was poured by Officer Van Ader, who took the blood home with him.
You know that.
He took the blood home with him.
He had it for several hours.
Anise Ashenbach, the juror, acquitted because she couldn't understand how a police officer would take the blood home with him.
They planted the evidence weeks afterward, after he was indicted.
How do you explain that?
You know, you didn't write about it in your book because it wasn't consistent with your narrative.
You didn't write about it in your book.
That was bad journalism.
Alan, the idea that Van Adder, who was a lummocks of a detective, had the energy and intelligence to plant evidence on DNA where he barely even understood the process.
It is.
It wasn't DNA.
It was pouring blood on a sock.
Jeffrey, you're misleading the people.
It's a genius to pour blood on a sock.
The blood, and he poured it on the sock.
It had nothing to do with DNA.
There is no direct evidence of that.
No one saw him do it.
There is direct evidence of that.
There's not direct evidence.
Read my book, Reasonable Doubts, in which I put this in, and I quote the jurors, and I quote the evidence, and I quote the scientists.
You're not giving us the straight poop.
Tell us what the contradictory evidence was.
How do you dispute the fact that there was EDTA on the sock?
It was.
They admitted it.
That there were other people in the lab, none of whom saw Van Adder do this.
Van Adder had no idea.
It wasn't in the lab.
It was at his home.
It was at his home.
Let me just jump for one second, guys.
What I'm hearing from Jeffrey, though, is an interesting point, which is that there's no direct evidence that there's no incontrovertible evidence that it was Van Adder who did the tampering.
But Alan's point is still a strong one, which is there is considerable evidence, overwhelming evidence, that the evidence was tampered with and that someone poured blood on a sock.
Let's say it's not Van Adder.
The point still is that the science is...
It was Van Adder.
I'm not saying it wasn't.
My point, though, is even if I accepted Jeffrey's point that it wasn't him, the point to me, and as a juror, if I'm watching this, I don't care which person planted it.
I don't care who put the chemical on it.
I just know that the evidence was planted weeks after the arrest.
And that raises more than reasonable doubt.
I don't think this is a tough case here.
Why didn't you write about it in your book, Jeffrey?
Why didn't you write about it in your book?
I don't remember why I didn't write about it in my book afterwards.
I do remember.
I do remember why you didn't remember writing about it in your book, because you didn't want to present evidence that undercut your own thesis of guilt.
You weren't a fair writer when it came to describing the facts.
At least write about it.
Put the evidence forward.
Put the evidence forward that you think is contradictory.
You're saying it's contradictory.
You haven't given us one bit of evidence.
Tell me the name of the person, the expert, who testified that there wasn't EDTA.
There were none.
They all admitted.
This is a case of domestic violence homicide where a man with a cut on his left index, his left middle finger, walked away from the crime.
I was disputing that.
He was bleeding and bled at the corner.
I'm disputing that.
I'm disputing your concerns.
Bruno Magli's shoes that he was photographed in.
I'm not disputing any of that.
You're missing the point.
I want to know what your evidence is that there wasn't evidence tampering.
With all due respect, Jeffrey, it does seem like you're redirecting us here.
You're pointing to all the strong evidence that's compelling.
And I think you're right.
There is strong and compelling evidence.
Remember, I think he did it.
I agree.
But there's also evidence here that there was tampering.
And it's likely that the police were involved in this tampering.
And so both things can be true.
It seems to me that, and I haven't heard you respond to the EDTA point here.
On what basis would we believe that that chemical could be there other than through tampering?
You know what?
I did not go back on my research on EDTA before this appearance about a case that's 30 years old.
This was disputed.
Go back now.
Go back now.
Well, I okay, I'll do that, Alan.
But the idea that we are sitting here fixated on one piece of evidence when there was so much evidence against OJ Simpson that it is.
But Jeffrey, Jeffrey, if I may jump in.
Let me Apart from all the others, I find this fascinating.
It's like being back in the courtroom at the time, honestly.
But I think, Jeffrey, the key point here, surely, is if we accept, as Alan has forcefully presented, if we accept that the police did literally fit up the blood on the sock evidence, as Mark and Alan have both said, that was probably a major factor in this jury deciding not to find him guilty.
Blame and Police Trust 00:10:24
So it was a crucial point.
I mean, maybe the most crucial point.
It could well be.
But I mean, this is also a philosophical debate about the criminal justice system that, you know, is it a method for policing for disciplining and punishing police misconduct, or is it a search for the truth?
And, you know, I think even if the jury thought the evidence was tampered with, which I don't think it was, but even if they thought that, the idea that you would let O.J. Simpson go is wrong.
And I don't think in light of all the evidence that he was guilty of his guilt, I don't think you punish society and you punish the victims and their victims' families by acquitting him, even if you have questions.
You're against the Constitution.
The Constitution provides for an excuse.
Don't talk over each other.
The Constitution says, The Constitution says you acquit the guilty if the evidence was improperly obtained.
Jeffrey, rewrite the Constitution.
Undo MAP versus Ohio.
But the law is clear.
If the evidence was illegally obtained, the defendant can't be convicted based on that evidence, even if the defendant is guilty.
This is a philosophical dispute that was resolved in MAP versus Ohio in 1962.
You don't like it, but that's the law.
I read MAP versus Ohio, which provides only for the exclusion of improperly obtained evidence.
It does not say that you have to acquit people if all the other evidence finds that they're guilty.
You know that.
There's a few points here I want to make.
One, Jeffrey, I disagree respectfully with the characterization that the jury is punishing the family and letting OJ go.
Again, the prosecution didn't make its case, and they bungled the case in such a way that they could have made it and didn't because of their arrogance and because likely of police misconduct.
So you can't put that blame on the jury.
I think the second piece of this is you're right.
It is ultimately a philosophical question about how we think the law should function.
But in terms of legal precedent, it's not that questionable.
The illegally obtained evidence cannot be used to prosecute somebody.
I hear you loud and clear though, Jeffrey.
You're saying, but if there's other evidence that stands aside from that illegally obtained evidence, you absolutely can use that.
And all evidence isn't therefore exculpatory.
The problem is, if I begin from the place that the police have planted evidence and that the police have lied and that the police are racist, then why am I to believe that any other piece of evidence in this case, also obtained by that very same police force, is now somehow trustworthy and plausible?
I think as a juror, I have an absolutely reasonable stance if I say I have reasonable doubt.
Not no doubt, but again, what does, to invoke Oliver Winter Holmes here, what does the reasonable man say under these circumstances?
And I think that to me is quite, quite clear.
Mark, let me ask.
Hang on, let me ask Alan a question.
I want to ask you all this question.
And I'll start with Alan.
Please.
Alan, do you think if it had been a situation where the majority of the jurors had been white at that time, the O.J. Simpson would have been convicted?
And what do you think would have happened had it been tried today?
Well, here, here's the answer to the question.
The jury was picked by the prosecution.
They could have tried this case in a suburban area with a predominantly white jury.
They decided to try it in downtown.
They decided that there should be nine black women on the jury.
Race played a role.
Why did race play a role?
Because the jurors, the nine jurors, were willing to believe that the police planted evidence.
They had seen cases where, for example, the police shoot somebody and suddenly a Saturday night special ends up in the pocket of the person who was shot.
We know their cases and we know everybody in the African-American community has heard about cases where the police plant a gun on somebody who they shoot, where the police plant evidence.
And yes, we wanted black jurors.
And our jury expert said that black women, they were mostly black women, would emphasize their race over their gender.
Whereas Marsha Clark's expert said, no, they would emphasize their gender over race.
So yes, race was a factor because the prosecution made it a factor, because the prosecution used Furman.
He didn't have to use Furman because the prosecution was told, Marsha Clark was told by her, by another person in the office, don't use Furman.
He's a racist.
They're going to find out about it.
She was arrogant.
She put Furman on.
Darden tried on the sock.
They made their bed.
They lie in it.
And if you don't like the verdict in the case, don't blame the defense team.
We did our job under the Constitution.
Blame the prosecution.
And if you think...
No, blame the prosecution for having messed up the case and blame Jeffrey Toobin for having written a book which didn't include the exculpatory evidence, which didn't include evidence.
I think we just enough blame on Jeffrey.
Which did not present a fair picture of the case.
Yeah.
Okay, Jeffrey, let me ask Jeffrey.
The same two questions, really.
One is, had it been predominantly a white jury, do you think they would have convicted OJ at the time?
And what do you think would have happened now?
In other words, how has the system changed if it has?
You know, Piers, I don't know.
You know, I mean, those are the three words you're never supposed to say on television.
I don't know, but I don't know what would have happened with a different jury.
I mean, we do know that, as Gloria was saying, that in the civil case, which was held in Santa Monica with more white people on the jury, they found Simpson liable for the crime.
It was obviously a whole different standard of proof, different case.
OJ testified.
What would happen today?
You know, sadly, a lot of the racial issues between African Americans and the police continue to this day.
After all, the George Floyd case was long after O.J. Simpson, and it reflected a lot of the same problems that police have created in terms of their relationship with African Americans.
So sadly, I mean, obviously that case was in Minnesota.
It wasn't in California, but it shows that the poisonous relationship between African Americans and the police is sadly not that different today than it was in the mid-90s.
And we could certainly expect the same kind of defense.
Whether it would work, I don't know.
Mark, I mean, it's an interesting point Jeffrey makes there, but of course, ultimately, George Floyd's killer was brought to justice emphatically.
Do you think the justice system has improved in terms of how black Americans are treated?
No, not at all.
And I think that the data would bear that out.
I think what's changed, though, is our perception of the criminal justice system and the criminal legal system.
I think back then, it was even harder to get people to believe that a police officer would plant evidence.
If you remember how hard it was to get people to accept police brutality in Los Angeles until the Rodney King tape comes out, and then it's like, oh, wait, this is what you were talking about.
The George Floyd moment, I think, is a powerful one because all of America during a pandemic was forced to watch, we had nothing else to do.
We were forced to watch this awful video of this black man killed in front of our eyes.
It's absolutely devastating.
And many white people, many white liberals, many white conservatives, people from across the aisle were saying, wait a minute, this is wrong.
And maybe we have a systemic problem here.
I think the jury is more likely in 2024 to exonerate on that basis because before there's the question of, you know, well, we have to give police the benefit of the doubt, but now there's less doubt.
You know, we believe that police do this kinds of stuff, these kinds of things.
And so I actually think it's easier to get an exoneration or an acquittal at this moment than before.
I just want to end by asking all of you to sum up in one sentence O.J. Simpson, Alan Dershowitz.
I have no brief for O.J. Simpson, the person.
I think his case contributed positively to seeing police corruption in Los Angeles, to exposing the racial divide in America, and to explaining to jurors how the system worked.
People who watched the trial every day were not surprised with the verdict.
People who read about it through the prism of journalists with a bias were very surprised at the verdict.
And I see some of the same thing going on today as we begin the trial of Donald Trump.
That trial is not on television.
And everybody will read about it through the prism of CNN and the New York Times, and they'll get their judgments about the case, not live, not direct.
And I think that that's a shame that in America, every trial ought to be televised.
We ought to see the way our system works.
We ought to see the flaws in our system.
And I think the fact that the TV showed the O.J. Simpson case helped improve American civic knowledge enormously.
I don't think, however, it was helped by the publication of Jeffrey Toobin's book and other books, which presented the case in a narrative that was just self-serving and didn't present all the issues.
Yeah.
And I wish you could go back and look at his book and make a judgment about that and then look at my book and see the difference between how the cases were presented.
It's as if we were looking at the book.
Well, actually, I want to go back and read both your books.
Please, it's as if you're presenting two different cases.
I think you've made your point about Jeffrey's book.
I intend reading it as a matter of urgency after this.
Jeffrey, how would you sum up O.J. Simpson?
He should have died in prison.
Wow.
Simpson's Awful Legacy 00:01:17
Emphatically put.
Mark?
O.J. Simpson was an awful, awful human being.
He was a liar.
He was an abuser.
He was a killer.
He is somebody, as a black person, I can tell you, who abandoned his African-American community.
Long before he jumped in that Bronco ran from the police, he was using white vehicles to escape black realities.
He never wanted to be part of us.
And so I have no regard for O.J. Simpson.
And it's unfortunate that he became a symbol of the flaws and the fractures in America's criminal legal system.
It's unfortunate that the prosecution made such an awful series of errors that allowed for his acquittal to happen.
But let's be very clear.
His acquittal was right.
It was fair.
It was just.
It was necessary.
It was American law.
You let 10 guilty people go rather than let one innocent person be caged.
That's just what it says.
And it's unfortunate that only when it's OJ do we see this outrage about that principle.
So I hate that it was OJ, but it still had to be OJ.
That's just the reality of it.
Right.
Right.
Martin Lamon Hill, Anandoshowitz, Jeffrey Toobin.
A brilliant debate.
Thank you all very much indeed.
Much appreciate it.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Cheers.
Export Selection