Do you believe that OJ Simpson killed Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman?

[Very_Boring_Name]

[LynneSin]

1. either he killed them or he was involved with their murder

that's where I'm not 100% sure.

[one_voice]

37. Agree...

I watched that trial everyday..and I've always thought his son was involved. Either way he's guilty.

[Mira]

2. This is a trick question? Yes, I believe he did this. n/t

[immoderate]

3. I wasn't there.

--imm

[NoGOPZone]

4. Is it June already? nt

[arbusto_baboso]

5. That case was proof of the flaws in a jury system.

And how shitty prosecutors can fuck up even an open-and-shut case with ironclad DNA evidence.

[Solomon]

14. Bullshit. The jury did it's job.

The case was proof of an out of control media. Everyday they reported "evidence" that didn't exist. Kept calling it "mountains of evidence" while the jury kept squinting their eyes through microscopes trying to find it.

Doesn't mean he didn't do it. A lot of times the cops will frame a guilty man. I had to undergo surgery so I watched every bit of that trial. The jury was correct with their verdict. The police and the prosecution screwed it up.

[WinkyDink]

18. You jest. The jury took about 30 minutes. They were incapable of grasping the DNA proof.

[RaleighNCDUer]

They grasped it all right - they simply doubted its legitimacy.

What with the racist cop taking the supect's blood and carrying it around for a day and a half as he was looking at the places where, surpirse suprise, the suspect's blood was found.

That alone presented 'reasonable doubt'.

[Politicalboi]

46. Mark Ferman didn't have the blood

And besides, it would mean the death penalty for any cop to tamper with evidence like that. There wasn't any evidence tampering. The detectives who handled the case would have faced the death penalty if they did that. And they were up for retirement soon. And with all the reporters around so early I really doubt that happened. OJ had a cut on his finger and had multiple alibi's. He was sleeping, hitting golf balls, taking a shower. Pick one. He did it, and I hope he gets his karma.

[hifiguy]

51. Ummm. There is no "death penalty" for

tampering with evidence. :eyes: And tampering with evidence is quite common. Ever heard of "salting the scene" by planting a weapon on an unarmed person gunned down by police. Common as muck.

And Furman left the force to go write true-crime books shortly after the trial.

[Politicalboi]

58. That's what I heard from that time

That the lead detectives would face the death penalty for spilling blood at the crime scene. Granted I know cops have planted evidence before. Cops were OJ's friends before he murdered. He was an old football player who beat the shit out of his wife on occasion, and they would come over and be in awe of OJ and his house. And the next thing you knew, Nicole was better, and not going to file charges against the pig after all. The cops were his friends.

[hifiguy]

62. Until you can show me a California statute that makes

tampering with evidence a capital crime, I cannot take anything you are saying seriously.

[RaleighNCDUer]

93. Except, of course, for the racist ones who hated him for fucking a white woman. nt

[Rebubula]

101. LOLZ

OK...seriously....death penalty for tampering with evidence???

Really....reallyyyyyy????



Did you know the Gullible is not in the dictionary?

[alfredo]

47. The glove stunt was total BS. The gloves had shrunk from

getting wet and then drying, were tight even new, and the rubber gloves effectively made OJ's hands even larger. No wonder they didn't fit. Did the jury even understand that?

[RaleighNCDUer]

97. I didn't mention the gloves, but since you brought it up,

have you ever worn latex exam gloves? They DON"T make your hands larger - if anything they squeeze them to be smaller. Most are 'powdered', to make them easier to put on and take off, and keep the hands from sweating too much while wearing them - that powder winds up on the outside of the gloves and would make it EASIER to put on another pair of gloves over them.

But you are correct about the leather gloves possibly shrinking. It was a nice bit of theater, but didn't prove anything one way or the other.

[alfredo]

107. We don't know how the jury responded to that.

[arbusto_baboso]

The DNa evidence showed it was 8 BILLION to 1 one odds that someone other than OJ was at the murder

scene.

That's more people than were even on the planet at the time.

So just how does Mark Fuhrman's obvious racism negate that?

And did I say anything about the jury? I said the prosecutors did a terrible job.

You might want to try actually READING my posts.

[Politicalboi]

42. No they didn't

They had nine months of evidence to go over, and they we too eager to go to Vegas and start their media tour (So they thought). Judge Ito should have called a mistrial. It took them only 2 hours to come to their conclusion. the lead juror Brenda Moran (Real name) said "We was deliberated". They were the worst jury ever. I watched that trial and listened everyday at work. I thought since the verdict was quick, it was guilty. Then the defense pulled a fast one and had the one juror who would never have acquitted OJ ousted. The whole thing was a disgrace. I'm glad OJ ended up in jail after all. I just hope another inmate wants to be famous some day and give him the Jeffery Dahmer treatment.

[IScreamSundays]

54. You and I will disagree

Had a new baby and watched as well. The scientific DNA evidence was so on and on and on and on and on, and confusing as hell, even to someone that is of above average intelligence. The circumstantial evidence was overwhelming the glove, the blood on the outside and in the bronco, the limo driver's testimony ect, ect. the testimony indicated that OJ went to McDonalds at 10PM with Kato, When the limo driver came to pick OJ up he did not answer the gate, the Limo driver saw a tall person cross the property and enter the residence, after this OJ answered the gate box, OJ had 4 bags and clubs, when he returned he had 3 bags, on and on and on.

This jury after 1 fugging year of testimony and evidence, returns a verdict after 4 HOURS!!!!!!!! This was about a jury that was PISSED OFF at being sequestered for all of that time PLUS it the defense made the case about racism and it worked with THAT jury.

Mind you, at the time and for many years since I have been very disturbed about the verdict, I know believe that James Orenthal Simpson was covering up for his son Jason. Now, I cannot say what OJ's involvement was at this time because that whole revelation has had me rethink my entire stance. But, that trial was a fugging Circus and should go down in hall of shame of justice.

[jaysunb]

126. You are the first person I've ever heard

(outside black cicles) actually figure out what really happened. Jason and his missing knives and lack of an alibi as to where he was, has competely fallen off the radar. His anger at her for not attending his graduation and the whispers about his big crush on her seem to have been completely overlooked.

OJ has never killed anybody, unless they died laughing at his assholery.

:evilfrown:

[Zoeisright]

86. FAIL. Jury nullification was NOT their job.

The evidence was overwhelming. Simpson was famous and got off because of it.

[Ex Lurker]

90. The cops framed a guilty man, who the Jury found Not Guilty by reason of Celebrity

that case was more fucked up than a football bat, all the way around.

[arbusto_baboso]

94. !

:applause: Best explanation I've ever heard of it.

And "football bat"? :rofl:

[hifiguy]

105. "more fucked up than a football bat"

OMG, you can be SURE I will be stealing that one.

:rofl::rofl::rofl:

[Pool Hall Ace]

122. As my young co-workers would say,

your post has all kinds of win. :applause:

[hamsterjill]

104. I agree with you 100%!

I watched the trial, not the media stories. If I'd been sitting on that jury, I would have voted the exact same way.

I'm not saying that Simpson is or is not guilty. I'm saying that the jury voted correctly as the case was presented to them.

[Enthusiast]

112. The DNA evidence was irrefutable.

OJ was guilty. Now, I don't think the prosecution adequately explained the significance of the DNA evidence to the jury.

[sabrina 1]

131. I agree. They were sequestered and did not see the media

frenzy and focused only on the evidence. Whether he was guilty or not, the Prosecution absolutely failed to prove its case and it would have been a wrong decision, based on the evidence, to find him guilty.

[HopeHoops]

6. I didn't give a fucking rats ass back then and I still don't give a fucking rats ass.

The only thing dumber the media has done is pay attention to Palin.

[DrDan]

9. hmmmm- you opened this thread and took the time to reply

[HopeHoops]

19. Yeah, but only because I'm in a bitchy mood. Fucking insurance company forcing me to use mail-order

to get my drugs. Whine moan bitch complain.

[DrDan]

21. I hear you - mine was the same way until they signed a deal

with CVS. I do check each time to sure I still get the mail prices however. And CVS then went with the 90 nday prescriptions - so seems to have worked out.

Good luck with your provider.

(and, even though I am a USC alum, the sob is as guilty as sin.)

[WinkyDink]

20. Sorry if trials bore you.

[HopeHoops]

26. Celebrity trials are stupid to begin with. People lived their lives glued to the tube for that one.

Get a damn hobby or something!

[seabeyond]

96. you dont care when people are murdered? nt

[HopeHoops]

98. You know better than that. I don't give a fuck about show trials - and that's all it was.

It was a media orgy and nothing more. Now they've got Palin to chase after. Same shit, different day.

[seabeyond]

100. thanks for the clarification. i figured. but hey....

no problem asking.

[HipChick]

7. Only he and God knows for sure

[InvisibleTouch]

8. Yes, but why dredge it up now? n/t

[JVS]

12. 1994 called, it wants its question back.

Oops, meant to post to the OP

[hifiguy]

10. Unsure

I am trained as a lawyer and followed the trial fairly closely. Looking at the evidence in toto this was nothing like the slam-dunk case that it was presented to be in the media. There were numerous holes in the timeline propounded by the prosecution, and as Henry Lee, the renowned forensic scientist pointed out, the blood found in the vehicle was miniscule when taken in the context of the carnage of the crime scene. Lee also shot holes in much of the rest of the forensic evidence, and he was and is no Joe Schmo but one of the world's leading forensic scientists.

I was working for a judge at the time of the verdict and we were in trial. The judge next door had set up a tv in her jury room and there was a lot of speculation about what the verdict would be once it was announced. Everyone said "guilty" except for myself and one of the trial attorneys, for the reasons set forth above.

He may well have been involved, but had I a vote, I would opt for what our UK cousins call a "Scotch verdict": not proven (as to murder).

[Pab Sungenis]

11. ...and who cares?

It's over. He's paid even though he was acquitted.

[Hutzpa]

13. From the responses here

it is clear to see why most Americans fail on logical thinking.

How sad.


:argh:

[ProdigalJunkMail]

16. How so? n/t

[Taverner]

81. The verdict was correct - the cops salted the scene

But that has nothing to do with whether OJ did it or not

Seems very likely he did

But that dumbass oaf Furman salted the scene, thus ruining their chance of a conviction

[Hutzpa]

99. Did the gloves fit?

the gloves that they claimed was used for the murder, did they fit?

[Taverner]

103. Well, considering they were leather and had shrunk due to the blood...

So at the time, no - and that was the prosecution's BIGGEST mistake - letting that event take place

I swear, the LAPD made the Keystone Cops look professional in comparison

[Hutzpa]

111. One thing I'll say though is that we can all look through the same lens

but have a different perspective as to the result of our viewing.

I can also say this to you, one thing I did not do during the trial was to listen to
our opinionated media reporting to me from their standpoint instead of giving me all the facts.

I was able to watch the full blown trial, listen to all the facts presented and came to a conclusive decision
that he was not guilty just as Justice Lance Ito whom was attacked and threaten at the time, we can focus on all the
technicalities involved but according to the law, O.J was NOT GUILTY.

People can carry their personal vendetta toward him based on what the media fed them at the time, the
fact still remains, he was found not guilty.

[Taverner]

113. "...according to the law, O.J was NOT GUILTY" Agreed

Our system states that when evidence is compromised, altered or changed, it is inadmissible.

There was a lot of that during the trial

[Hutzpa]

118. Then why propagate

compromised, altered or changed is caused by negligence, maybe there was not sufficient evidence to prosecute
but for the fact that he was a well known individual, that might have played a part in tampering with the evidence
which leads to inadmissibility.

[Taverner]

120. Because there is a difference between what happened, and punitive reaction

I would rather a serial killer go free than an innocent man guilty of murder

Simply put

[Hutzpa]

121. "I would rather a serial killer go free than an innocent man guilty of murder"

really? if the evidence is there that both did the crime then they both should be punished fully according to the law,
they are both innocent until proven guilty, that scenario is flawed in my opinion.

I must also add that I own a leather glove and it doesn't matter how wet or soak they are they still fit my hands as
I bought them for my size, so that crap that the prosecution sold us about being soaked in blood was just BS imo, if
those gloves were his it would have fit him regardless.

[Taverner]

124. OJ is guilty via Occam's Razor

But Occam's Razor should not be the sole determiner of guilt in a legal sense

When the police plant evidence to tighten up their case, it puts all of their convictions into doubt

That does not mean everyone before this person was innocent

[pipi_k]

109. I can make my own gloves not fit....

Especially if they're lined, which the ones the Prosecution presented as evidence appeared to be.

[Taverner]

114. The prosecution made many mistakes, but the biggest by far was the gloves

That is, having OJ try them on.

The OJ trial was glaring insight into the LAPD and the way it does business - and they were caught trying to frame a guilty man

[pipi_k]

130. I wonder if instead of having him try them on...

they could have gotten some DNA from the inside of the glove.

Sweat...skin cells....something that would have linked him to the gloves.

I don't know much about DNA testing, so maybe there are reasons it couldn't have been done...

[Taverner]

133. That's what I would have thought

But they didn't

Now you know what I mean by 'Keystone Cops'

They did everything wrong you can do in a murder case

How do you fuck up that badly?

If they tested the DNA on the gloves, they probably would have found that the DNA in no way matches Simpson's

Think about it - would you leave your golfing gloves at the site? If you had just murdered two people? No - you'd use someone else's.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

15. Do you believe I can get a faster dial up internet connection somewhere?

Do you believe if I become rich, I'll have a mobile phone too?

Do you believe NBC's Thursday Night Lineup is truly Must See TV?

Do you believe Independence Day had the best special effects of any science fiction movie ever?

Do you believe Siamese Dream is the quintessential album of the decade?

(The answer to that last question is an empathic yes, and anyone who says otherwise can GO TO HELL!)

[Manifestor_of_Light]

17. Fairly overwhelming circumstantial evidence.

Circumstantial evidence does not lie. It follows the rules of physics and chemistry.

Johnny Cochran screaming "If the glove does not fit, you must acquit!" sounded like a complete jackass.

I do not think the prosecution messed up enough to destroy their case.

And yes, I am a lawyer although I do not play one on TV. :D

There are three key words as to tying the defendant to the crime: MEANS, MOTIVE, OPPORTUNITY.

[Staph]

30. The glove evidence drove me crazy!

Anyone from a cold (and damp) climate knows that if a leather glove gets wet, when it dries, it shrinks. Those gloves were drenched in blood. They shrank. Then O.J. was asked to put on those gloves, while wearing a pair of latex gloves (adding an additional layer around his hands and making the gloves harder to put on and take off).

Southern Californians probably wouldn't know about shrinking leather. But I was told as a kid, if your gloves get wet, leave them on and dry your gloved hands thoroughly with a towel. Your hands will act on the gloves like a shoe tree on shoes.

[Politicalboi]

49. Not only that

But if it were me, and I was innocent, I wouldn't even want to touch the gloves that were worn that killed my loved one. He just picked them up without even thinking and when you watch him try and put it on, he keeps his thumb locked. Chris Darden should have helped him.

[ohheckyeah]

22. Yes, I think he did it

but I don't think the prosecution proved it beyond reasonable doubt.

[DevonRex]

25. Exactly. Nt

[The Second Stone]

23. As a historical matter I believe he did it

But as an observer of the legal system, the prosecutors and police screwed up the prosecution royally. A criminal case has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt and when the defendant can get lawyers who are competent and skilled and don't have their attention divided by other cases it is usually possible to expose all the prosecution case's weaknesses and call them reasonable doubt. That is what happened here.

[hifiguy]

28. You hit the nail on the head

I spent three years clerking for trial judges and saw a number of significant trials, including two for murder and one for manslaughter. Public defenders have few resources and enormous caseloads. When a top-shelf defense lawyer with real resources behind him or her represents a defendant the odds of acquittal skyrocket for just the reasons you set out.

"Reasonable doubt" isn't isn't established by arguing over a piece or two of evidence, it is constructed like a mosaic - out of many tiny pieces fitting into place to undermine the prosecution case. Raise enough valid and material points about prosecution evidence and you can get an acquittal. But it takes talent, resources and time to do that.

[joeybee12]

38. And they had the money to do so...nt

[DevonRex]

24. All I know is that I would have voted not guilty on the evidence presented.

I think he probably did it. But the reasonable doubt threshold was met at trial.

[pipi_k]

29. Actually, that's the premise of the book

written by Gerry Spence: "O J: The Last Word".


Despite believing OJ was guilty, after I read the book I had to admit that Spence had some pretty good points. One of them being that the legal system worked exactly as it was meant to.

It didn't make me happy, but it was a thought-provoking read.

IMO.

[DevonRex]

45. Sounds like a good read. I'll get that. Nt

[TheKentuckian]

27. Not proven guilty. Too many shenanigans with the evidence.

My sister is an Evidence Tech, she says they all would have been fired, union or not had they botched a case to such an extent.

[DevonRex]

117. That was the crux of the matter.

Had the evidence been handled correctly then the Fuhrman situation could have been mitigated. But there was no way the jury could have convicted with both investigative arms compromised like that.

I'm not sure why anybody is absolutely certain of his guilt when neither the evidence nor the investigator can be trusted. I was in law enforcement and I cannot give them the benefit of the doubt. I agree with your sister.

[damntexdem]

31. We can never know because racist cops screwed up the crime scene and the whole investigation.

We can strongly suspect, but we cannot know because the evidence was effectively destroyed.

[cliffordu]

32. Yep - I think Furman fucked it up by trying to frame a guilty man.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

34. nicely put... n/t

[DevonRex]

39. And the crime scene tech actually lied.

Found no blood on the gate the first day. Found a large smudge of it the second day. Was asked if he took a vial of OJ's blood to the scene on the second day. Said no. Then pictures of him with the vial of blood at the scene show up and when it gets to the lab it's actualy minus some ml that had been recorded as having been drawn.

That's all the reasonable doubt any fair person would need.

[NoGOPZone]

41. Fuhrman also lied, and now has a perjury conviction. I'm not sure

if the jury was present when he was recalled to the stand and took the Fifth Amendment.

[DevonRex]

44. Ugh. That man is disgusting. To me it was a slam dunk acquittal.

Racist, perjuror cop. Lying, incompetent CSI tech and a grandstanding prosecutorial team. What it makes me worry about is that innocent people without money are convicted. Adequate representation is vital and public defenders simply don't have the time and money to do their jobs

[NoGOPZone]

50. Yes, and who hires the racist perjurer Fuhrman? Fox News, of course!

The same organization that hired another convicted felon, Gordon Liddy. Fair and balanced, my ass!

[DevonRex]

59. G.Gordon told people to fire at

me center mass and then changed it to the head since Feds might be wearing body armor. I despise that man.

[jaysunb]

127. Bingo !

But don't bother to try and convince the mob. :shrug:

[pitohui]

33. no but what difference does it make now?

they got him on something else, at the end of the day, if you want to put a fairly stupid and emotional person in prison, you'll put em in prison for something because you keep hitting em, you'll crack em

i strongly suspect a drug hit, we had a nearly identical case in new orleans, at about the same time, and it was proven that the saints player's ex wife and child was killed by a 4 man drug gang

of course, football player kills wife is a lot better teevee than drug dealers kill drug user so ... what the fuck ever, people are gonna believe what they're gonna believe

it does bother me that unpopular people are sent to prison and set up essentially for being unpopular, this seems unamerican, yet i suppose it is in fact VERY american, a flaw in our system, the "mob" element of democracy

[Manifestor_of_Light]

43. Where was the drug gang's DNA at the crime scene?

They did not admit the shoe print evidence. OJ was wearing Bruno Magli shoes that were a limited edition. Only a few hundred pairs with that sole pattern were made. They had pictures of him wearing them while broadcasting at a football game before that.

Bloody footprints from the Bruno Magli shoes that were proven to be owned by O.J.

[madinmaryland]

35. ...

[rateyes]

36. I was ticked at the beginning of that trial that the death penalty was taken of the table...

Mind you, I am opposed to the death penalty...however, since then, the death penalty has been sought for others who have supposedly committed less heinous crimes.

What I was angry about, and still angry about, is that there is a different "justice" for the rich and famous than for everyone else.

I think every lawyer in L.A. who is defending a client against the death penalty should bring up the fact that the prosecutors announced they would not seek it in the Simpson case, and therefore have no right to seek it in any other case.

[IcyPeas]

40. a juror being interviewed afterwards said:

"we got deliberated". I'll never forget that.

tell me she understood the complexities of this case.

[IScreamSundays]

48. I used to vehemently believe in his guilt until....

I watched a video maybe six months back that convinced me OJ's son Jason Simpson was the actual killer. I did a cursory google search and I could not find it. But, I became convinced that OJ covered for his son.

I want you to know that I sat on the floor and cried when the verdict was read. The day after OJ was arrested my youngest child was born. I sat every day and watch the excruciatingly for the most part boring ass trial. And was from the day of the bronco chase convinced that OJ did it. Yes, I rushed to judgement. The blood evidence cemented it for me. Having said all of this, after viewing the video of an investigators 4-5 year investigation into the case, I have come to believe that OJ was covering for his son Jason, and it was Jason that committed the murders.

If someone has or knows about the video of which I am speaking please post the link. I have check my bookmarks and it is not there.

[Bluenorthwest]

52. I have seen no such video, but I happen to agree with the theory

and always held to it, during the trial and forward.

[IScreamSundays]

68. FOUND THE VIDEOS THE ARE A MUST WATCH!!!!!!

PART 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVtToEWG640&feature=related

PART 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JbIj3RBYYX4&feature=related

PART3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=orPSUfh2Aa4&feature=related

PART4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcNhdRf7ZYY&feature=related

PART5
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lmg3bZIe0No&feature=related

PART6
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzzZBWmy4Wg&feature=related

[IScreamSundays]

69. IF YOU BELIEVE THE OJ IS GUILTY YOU MUST WATCH THESE VIDEOS!!!

I know I am yelling but they are THAT important.

Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVtToEWG640&feature=related

Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JbIj3RBYYX4&feature=related

Part3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=orPSUfh2Aa4&feature=related

Part 4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcNhdRf7ZYY&feature=related

Part 5
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lmg3bZIe0No&feature=related

Part 6
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzzZBWmy4Wg&feature=related

[IScreamSundays]

70. damnit, i didn't mean to post this here.

i hate that

[IScreamSundays]

71. nt

[Politicalboi]

53. OJ was found guilty in the Civil case

His son wasn't there. It was all OJ. An innocent man doesn't run like he did. When he ran, he had $10,000 in cash a gun, and a disguise and heading for Mexico. That doesn't sound like an innocent man to me. Sounds more like Scott Peterson. And the DNA was his. Yes the lab may have had a few mishaps, but the jury IMO didn't understand the evidence. And the shoes were introduced in the civil trial. No other footprints were at the scene. I didn't see the video you speak of, but I watched the trial everyday and followed it.

[IScreamSundays]

56. You know, I believed the exact same thing and have

rigorously defended that stance for years. If I can find the video I will post in this thread. I am bookmarking this thread for that purpose. The video will rock your world. It did mine.

Furthermore, a civil case is a hell of a lot easier to win than a criminal one, just fyi

[Very_Boring_Name]

61. I think OJ was guilty, but I don't necessarily agree that an innocent man doesn't run

If you are truly, 100% innocent, but all of the evidence still points to you and you are facing life in prison, or even the death penalty, it's not such a stretch that you'll just try and make a run for it.

[hifiguy]

63. I am splitting legal hairs here

but that's what I was trained to do.

OJ was found "liable" in the civil trial. One cannot be found "guilty" in a civil trial.

There is a difference, and there are also VERY DIFFERENT standards of proof. In a criminal trial a defendant must be found "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" whereas in a civil trial the party with the preponderance of the evidence prevails. The preponderance of the evidence standard is, in many states, 50% plus 1 atom.

[blondeatlast]

74. Yep. Not even really a subtle difference from a legal standpoint. nt

[zalinda]

60. Here's the video link

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7905933759946122795#

[brooklynite]

55. Do you believe that Brutus killed Julius Caesar?

Just about as timely and relevant...

[Cid_B]

57. I always think of this when the Bradley Manning folks come out...

"He hasn't had a trial yet! How can you proclaim him guilty?"

Jared Loughner hasn't had one and I am fairly confident that he did it.

OJ had one and was declared innocent and I think he did it too. One aspect of our legal system does not require me to shut off the logic part of my brain.

[Very_Boring_Name]

64. But "guilt" means more than just whether you did it or not

It means whether you are culpable or not. Nobody is questioning whether Jared Loughner DID IT, they're questioning whether or not you can hold somebody who is cripplingly mentally ill responsible. Nobody is questioning whether or not Bradley Manning DID IT, they're questioning whether or not you can be held criminally responsible for blowing the whistle on possible military abuses.

[Cid_B]

79. Maybe you've been reading different threads than I have...

... I've seen many (several?) that basically say that the conversation can't move forward until he has been convicted and shown to be "guilty."

[blondeatlast]

65. Yes, but do to the massive police screw-ups and the rightfully

withheld evidence, the verdict was as it should have been.

[dsc]

66. I think he played a role

he may have even been at the scene but I don't think he did it by himself as the prosecution case said.

[Mosby]

67. is the sky blue? is the grass green?

Are you too young to have watched the trial? Granted it was a complete mess but OJ is guilty as sin.

[IScreamSundays]

72. IF YOU BELIEVE THE OJ IS GUILTY YOU MUST WATCH THESE VIDEOS!!!

Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVtToEWG640&feature=related

Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JbIj3RBYYX4&feature=related

Part 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=orPSUfh2Aa4&feature=related

Part 4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcNhdRf7ZYY&feature=related

Part 5
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lmg3bZIe0No&feature=related

Part 6
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzzZBWmy4Wg&feature=related

[AndyTiedye]

73. We Will Never Know

With Officer Furman on the case, the 'evidence' always made the black man appear guilty.

[Shagbark Hickory]

75. The glove didn't fit.

[Very_Boring_Name]

77. It didn't fit because they made him wear a latex glove underneath to prevent damage to the evidence

Try putting on a latex glove and then wearing a leather glove (which are supposed to be tight fitting) over the latex, it wont fit you either.

[Shagbark Hickory]

83. I do it all the time. You can wear gloves on top of latex gloves.

[Very_Boring_Name]

84. Not if the glove is tight fitting

And why on earth do you wear latex gloves underneath leather gloves "all the time"?

[Shagbark Hickory]

85. I put on tight fitting vinyl chemical resistant gloves for work, over 1 or sometimes even 2 latex

exam gloves so as to protect the inside of the chemical gloves and also as an extra layer of protection.

[Scout]

91. yes ... and you WANT the outer gloves to fit, to go on over the latex....

if you purposely did NOT want the glove to fit, wouldn't be too hard to make it so.

[Very_Boring_Name]

92. Plus, his defense team told him not to take his arthritis medicine that day

so his joints would swell up. That came out after the trial.

[dorkulon]

76. "If I did it" confirmed his guilt to me.

An innocent man doesn't write that book.

[IScreamSundays]

78. Watch the videos in my post #72

You will find the book came out right when that investigator was going public.

[Taverner]

80. Look - just because the cops "salted the scene" doesn't mean he didn't do it

Never try to frame a guilty man

[MrSlayer]

82. Of course he did it.

It's ludicrous to believe otherwise.

[mitchtv]

87. They framed the right guy

Cops will be cops

[Zoeisright]

88. Of course he did. The evidence was overwhelming. And the excuse that it was a drug deal

was ridiculous; Columbian drug lords use guns, not knives. The DNA evidence, the bloody glove, the cut on his hand, the timeline - he's as guilty as sin. And I am SO glad he's in jail. Hope he dies there.

[DefenseLawyer]

89. I certainly don't think the State proved the case.

Which, I grant you, is a completely different question than the one you asked.

[Fire Walk With Me]

95. He doesn't seem to act like an innocent man.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If_I_Did_It

:shrug:

[HipChick]

102. I think Robert Blake killed his wife

same crime,different treatment. I wonder why?

[Whisp]

106. he's acted guilty - doesn't mean he was.

I don't know, and don't care. :)

[Cali_Democrat]

108. LOL

I can't believe there is a DU poll on this, June 3rd, 2011!!!!!

[Electric Monk]

110. Reliable way to start a fight, er, discussion.

[Iggo]

115. Yep.

[Raine]

116. ABSOLUTELY Yes ... but the cops blew it by trying to frame the person who was actually guilty. nt

[JSK]

119. Doesn't anyone remember the civil trial?

And the photos of him wearing the Bruno Magli shoes?

[JuniperLea]

123. "Apparently OJ just killed my sister"

That's all I needed to hear.

[center rising]

125. I've believed it since day 1 of the trial.

I'll go to my grave thinking Simpson got away with murder.

[moondust]

128. I have doubts.

LA cops were corrupt and/or incompetent and apparently didn't even look at any other possibilities. Crime scene was apparently a bloody mess which would imply a lot of hard-to-remove blood evidence on the perpetrator and his/her belongings, yet there was little to none linking to OJ and that could have easily been planted by a corrupt cop. And the glove didn't fit. But I didn't follow it closely. :shrug:

Edit to add: The M$M had OJ convicted on day one and that's the bias Americans heard day after day for months. Also, I'd venture to guess that Mark Fuhrman may be a Teabagger today; imagine what a Teabagger might do if he got a chance to take down an uppity black guy.

[Blasphemer]

129. Yep... and I believe his friend Kardashian helped him cover it up

I will never forget the look on Kardashian's face when the verdict was read - it was a combination of shock and guilt. I never doubted OJ's guilt but that look sealed it for me.

[Union Scribe]

132. Kim? I knew I didn't like her...

[Blasphemer]

135. Hah.... I believe she was 13 then and was actually in the courtroom

While her father stood with O.J. and the rest of his legal team. Apparently the trial contributed to her parent's divorce as her mother was very close to Nicole. Also interestingly (and suspiciously, IMO) Robert Kardashian and O.J. had a falling out and ceased being friends immediately after the trial.

[The Unawriter]

134. Yes, BUT

had I been on that jury, I would have voted "not guilty," due to the utterly horrid excuse for a case presented by the prosecution.