grhqofb5 Posted May 24, 2011 Share Posted May 24, 2011 Simple question. Despite the jury's acquittal of OJ Simpson in the criminal side of this matter, in your opinion, is OJ actually the killer of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman? Yes or No, or "need more evidence to make up mind." Feel free to justify your response with analysis of (1) evidence, (2) the judicial process in general, (3) specific procedureal observations relating to the criminal trial, and (4) media coverage, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted May 24, 2011 Share Posted May 24, 2011 I do not like you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ixcuincle Posted May 24, 2011 Share Posted May 24, 2011 Of course he did Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
88Comrade2000 Posted May 24, 2011 Share Posted May 24, 2011 I remember the day of the chase and the verdict announcement- which was on my b-day. OJ got away with it because he had money and was able to plant doubt and also his team used race as a factor, which played a part. The prosecution really did a ****ty job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted May 24, 2011 Share Posted May 24, 2011 Sure he did. The prosecution was totally incompetent, and the judge was camera struck. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deejaydana Posted May 24, 2011 Share Posted May 24, 2011 I remember hearing that, on his deathbed, Robert Kardashian, (he of the brood of hot daughters) told those close to him he couldn't forgive himself for representing OJ as one of his defense lawyers. Hmmm, that leads me to believe he mighta been guily. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan T. Posted May 24, 2011 Share Posted May 24, 2011 Irony alert. The jury, sequestered during the nine month trial, spent more time in confinement for the crime than O.J. did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimmySmith Posted May 24, 2011 Share Posted May 24, 2011 Of course not. He tirelessly searched for the killer at golf courses and memorabilia shows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grhqofb5 Posted May 24, 2011 Author Share Posted May 24, 2011 Ok, true story, as relayed to me (so its hearsay). My former "friend" has (had) a law partner named Mark Patridge. Mr. Partridge was the individual who sat on the airplane next to OJ when he flew from back from Chicago to LA shortly after the murders. He indicates that OJ "all but confessed to the murders" but stopped short because Partridge (as a lawyer) advised OJ to seek the advice of counsel. When OJ got off the plane in Chicago, he did just that, and was in touch with his attorneys. Google "Mark Partridge" and "OJ Simpson". You will see that he did, in fact, sit next to OJ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted May 24, 2011 Share Posted May 24, 2011 Sure he did.The prosecution was totally incompetent, and the judge was camera struck. ~Bang That is what I believe as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted May 24, 2011 Share Posted May 24, 2011 The Glove did not fit so they had to Acquit. There was a fair amount of Hoodrats, chickenheads and the whiteguilt demographic that were happy with verdict not because they thought he was innocent but because his acquittal was seen as retribution for all of the times minorities were on the wrong end of verdicts when Caucasians got away with atrocities in court, though a 100 wrongs do not make it right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tdigle Posted May 24, 2011 Share Posted May 24, 2011 Is the Pope Catholic? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sticksboi05 Posted May 24, 2011 Share Posted May 24, 2011 If the glove don't fit, you must acquit....he was guilty. I don't remember the 94 trial, I was 4 but all the research/law class stuff I've done while bored over the years leads me to believe he was guilty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GhostofSparta Posted May 24, 2011 Share Posted May 24, 2011 Ladies and Gentlemen of this supposed jury, if Chewbacca does not make sense you must acquit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Busch1724 Posted May 24, 2011 Share Posted May 24, 2011 I voted third option for the following reason...we think we saw all evidence and watched the trial. However, those jurors had reason to have reasonable doubt in their minds. I do feel he was guilty, but maybe one more piece of evidence would have eliminated reasonable doubt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrypticVillain Posted May 24, 2011 Share Posted May 24, 2011 Anytime somebody writes a book titled "If I Did It" I am pretty sure they did. On top of that, am I the only person who thinks that glove did fit his hands? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted May 24, 2011 Share Posted May 24, 2011 I voted third option for the following reason...we think we saw all evidence and watched the trial. However, those jurors had reason to have reasonable doubt in their minds. I do feel he was guilty, but maybe one more piece of evidence would have eliminated reasonable doubt. Yes, but that is a different question. I don't think what the jury did was so ridiculous, from their point of view. They had very limited information. But that is because the prosecution was completely incompetent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimmySmith Posted May 24, 2011 Share Posted May 24, 2011 his acquittal was seen as retribution for all of the times minorities were on the wrong end of verdicts when Caucasians got away with atrocities in court, though a 100 wrongs do not make it right.I remember seeing the reaction from Howard University Student union and you would have thought they all just won the lottery. The OJ verdict was pretty much proof that justice is/was NOT divided along racial lines, but rather economic lines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chump Bailey Posted May 24, 2011 Share Posted May 24, 2011 OJ is as guilty as hell. You're delusional if you feel otherwise period. Prosecution bungling notwithstanding, ample evidence was presented proving motive and guilt. He's a free man solely because of an ignorant, racist jury who would not have convicted the man even if there was a video of him committing the act. ---------- Post added May-24th-2011 at 12:29 PM ---------- Yes, but that is a different question. I don't think what the jury did was so ridiculous, from their point of view. They had very limited information. But that is because the prosecution was completely incompetent. That's insane Predicto. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted May 24, 2011 Share Posted May 24, 2011 It's impossible for me to know if he did or not especially being that he was acquitted by a jury that got to hear all the evidence. What I know of the case, however, makes it seem pretty clear that he did do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan T. Posted May 24, 2011 Share Posted May 24, 2011 Oh he did it. No doubt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IONTOP Posted May 24, 2011 Share Posted May 24, 2011 This is shaping up to be one of the most lopsided polls in history... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted May 24, 2011 Share Posted May 24, 2011 I think this statement cannot be debated: If the OJ Trial took place in a post CSI, post-NCIS, post Bones world, the trial would have been months shorter and the verdict would have been guilty in record time. The prosecution had built a thoroughly modern case and did not know how to present it in the face of a vigorous defense. I can't imagine the arguments over DNA evidence taking place in 2011. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted May 24, 2011 Share Posted May 24, 2011 OJ is as guilty as hell. You're delusional if you feel otherwise period. Prosecution bungling notwithstanding, ample evidence was presented proving motive and guilt. He's a free man solely because of an ignorant, racist jury who would not have convicted the man even if there was a video of him committing the act.---------- Post added May-24th-2011 at 12:29 PM ---------- That's insane Predicto. Why is that insane? The jury was sequestered for months. They did not see all of the endless CNN analysis and stuff that all of us saw. They saw very limited evidence, and the prosecution mangled the evidence that they did present. The jury was definitely ignorant, but I'm not willing to assume that it was racist. ---------- Post added May-24th-2011 at 10:01 AM ---------- I think this statement cannot be debated:If the OJ Trial took place in a post CSI' date=' post-NCIS, post Bones world, the trial would have been months shorter and the verdict would have been guilty in record time. The prosecution had built a thoroughly modern case and did not know how to present it in the face of a vigorous defense. I can't imagine the arguments over DNA evidence taking place in 2011.[/quote'] Absolutely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted May 24, 2011 Share Posted May 24, 2011 I want a fourth option for the rest of the world. Who the **** is OJ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.