Talk:Murder trial of O. J. Simpson

Shapiro's book

Quote from the book: "I want you to walk in front of the jury, put the glove on, try as hard as you can to get it on—because believe me, it ’s not going to fit"

Quote from the article before my edit: "After the trial, Cochran revealed that Bailey had goaded Darden into asking Simpson to try on the gloves and that Shapiro had told Simpson in advance how to give the appearance that they did not fit."

Where in the book does Shapiro told Simpson "how to give the appearance that they did not fit"? Don't get me wrong, Simpson is most probably guilty and this was a blunder from the prosecution, but misquoting the source in such a blatant WP:NPOV manner raises questions about the whole article. Alcyon007 (talk) 08:10, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Shapiro also says "and then hold your hand up in front of them like you're carrying the Olympic torch" which is exactly what Simpson did at the trial. So Shapiro told Simpson to struggle to put on the gloves and then hold them up and then he repeated what Shapiro said: "these gloves don't fit me". So it is not an NPOV concern, its just a paraphrase. If you want, we can just insert the quote verbatim from the book and that should solve any concerns but I prefer just paraphrasing what was said. Samsongebre (talk) 08:28, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Shaprio's language choice of "try as hard as you can" to put on the gloves is also suggestive that he wanted Simpson to give the appearance that he was struggling to put on the gloves just as the article said because Shapiro already knew before hand that the gloves would not fit him even though a brand new pair of those gloves did. Samsongebre (talk) 08:41, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

I am sorry, but "suggestive" is a POV, and when they tried the gloves they didn't know that a new pair would fit. Also "how to give the appearance" (the part I deleted from the article), unless I am misunderstanding the sentence (this is always a possibility, I am not an english native speaker), means that this is just an appearance but not real; and that Shapiro gave advices to create this illusion.

Alcyon007 (talk) 09:07, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

"Thousands encouraged him to flee and were sympathetic to his feelings of guilt."

This appears at the end of the Bronco chase section. I see no such assertions in the cited CNN source (archive). I don't even know what it means for someone to be "sympathetic to his feelings of guilt." 2601:642:4600:D3B0:7148:A428:7894:646B (talk) 05:06, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Removed. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 06:12, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

References

Are there any sources on "converse" opinions back in 1994/1995?

This talk discussion has been put on the talk page for "Reaction to the verdict in the O. J. Simpson criminal trial" article, so it probably fits better there already, but in footage of the reaction to the verdict that can be found, there are notably some white people celebrating the verdict; in this case, there had to be some whites who had doubts about OJ's guilt or at the very least, willing to give him the benefit of the doubt at the time, much like how vice versa, some African Americans believed in his guilt and were clearly upset over the verdict. From articles, it seems the media did not deduct this at the time. Could there be any sources to be find on this, to show how complex the reaction to the verdict varied, as if to indicate how some blacks felt OJ was guilty, some whites actually believed he was innocent (or even felt he was "covering for someone")? I'm not defending any "fringe theories" regarding the Simpson case. As a matter of fact I am pretty sure that Simpson committed the murders, and that it is likely he had no accomplices but if we're going to have to divide how people reacted to the verdict, in varying ways, it only makes sense that we should have articles detailing how people felt about the verdict and their own takes on it. 92.17.198.220 (talk) 92.17.198.220 (talk) 19:31, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Too long?

The article was tagged with {{Very long}} as "may be too long to read and navigate comfortably”. Prosesize reports its readable prose size as 6,712 words, well below the 8,000 to 10,000 levels for "may need to be divided or trimmed", "probably should be" and "almost certainly should be" of WP:SIZERULE. It's clearly broken into sections, subsections and paragraphs, and largely in plain English appropriate to the sensitivity of the subject. It may have accumulated some trivia, the article shoule be fixed to avoid near major WP:SIZERULE problems. 92.17.198.220 (talk) 16:55, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Bronco chase

I’m surprised, given its notability, there is no image used of the Bronco chase. Is there any images of the pursuit that have a license compatible with Wikipedia? 92.17.198.220 (talk) 17:18, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Split

This article is over 15000 words long, at which point it should "almost certainly be divided or trimmed" according to WP:SIZE. As anecdotal evidence this article is extremely difficult to edit on my computer, and trying to open it on my phone it crashed twice. Reducing this article's size is fundamentally unsolvable without a split, as this article is trying to be two things - the killings of these two people and its immediate aftermath (bronco chase etc), and the trial. These are interconnected but separate, and given the amount of sources two separate articles can be sustained. As Simpson is now dead, this is no longer a BLP minefield.

I suggest killings instead of murder per WP:DEATHS. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:13, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Oppose unless there's a suggestion for a more reasonable split. While I agree the article is too long (I'm getting around 17,000 words), the "Murder" section is only a small portion (around 700 words). And I'm afraid I don't see the logic in combining the "Murder" section and Simpson's pre-trial actions, and moving those to a new article. It would have to be called something like "Background of..."

The bulk of the article is made up of the trial proper (around 10,000 words). Perhaps an argument could be made for spinning off multiple sections into separate articles. ArguedOyster (talk) 12:01, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

@ArguedOyster The murder article would logically contain the immediate aftermath of the murder, from murders to the initial investigation and arrest section, as I said. In comparison, their relevance to a court case is somewhat dubious. That's a much larger portion of the page. It wouldn't be suitable as a background section from how crime articles are titled, since it is well, a crime. Crime articles are supposed to contain that information, so it's not out of place. It would still be a bit long without it, but it wouldn't be way over our splitting recommendations, and it's the most able to stand on its own of any aspect of this case. The problem with your proposed solution is I honestly don't see anything else where the splits are notable articles. If we don't split it like this I see no option besides aggressive trimming - not every sub detail of the trial will be notable on its own. The murder itself very much passes NEVENT and GNG. PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:33, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

@PARAKANYAA My friend, I never said I disagreed with splitting the Murders section by itself into its own article. (This section contains all of the investigation that doesn't involve Simpson.) And I agree the [Initial investigation and arrest] section should also be moved to the proposed new article. These are a combined 1,500 words out of this 17,000 word article.

My opposition is to removing any other section and attaching it to the new "Murders" article. Other sections in question being: Simpson–Brown marriage, Frogmen, Flight to Chicago, Suicide note, Bronco chase. (The Bronco chase was specifically mentioned in your original proposal.)

In comparison, their relevance to a court case is somewhat dubious.

They are Simpson's background and actions before his trial. This information about Simpson seems to belong in an article on his criminal trial, rather than an article focused on the crime. Also the arrest of the defendant is obviously relevant in an article on their criminal trial.

If the article has to be split, I would suggest moving all of those sections to a new article titled Background of the Murder trial of O. J. Simpson. Rather than to an article focused on the murders.

ArguedOyster (talk) 16:32, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

@ArguedOyster A "background" article is non-standard and I see no point in it existing, and if it existed I would nominate it for deletion. It's a very unclean way to do a split, especially with a crime; the only other articles we have similar articles for is for massive wars, and this case is a lot of things but it is not that. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:41, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

@PARAKANYAA Perhaps I made a bad suggestion. But other than the Murders section and the opening paragraphs of the [Initial investigation and arrest] section, I think it's unreasonable to move anything else to an article focused on the crime.

ArguedOyster (talk) 16:57, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

@ArguedOyster Well I don't think we should delete it, and something has to go. I've read and written a lot of articles about crimes, and it seems a pretty usual treatment. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:02, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

@PARAKANYAA A suggestion is to combine Murder trial of O. J. Simpson#In popular culture with O. J. Simpson#In popular culture for a new article. ArguedOyster (talk) 17:23, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

@ArguedOyster That would also work, but that doesn't even get close to fixing the size problem. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:25, 18 November 2024 (UTC)