Simpson killed ron Godman and Nicolle . That is clear. The only issue is: how can the American legal system justify toturing jurors for 6 plus months? Why couldn’t atime limit have been set 9day 3 weeks) for eacj side to present its case? Forcing people to sit on a jury for such a long time is inhumane.
This, in every respect.
Except I’m not named Joe.
27 white female. Guilty, but rich enough to get away with it.
I have to admit, that’s a fantastic question if it was phrased like that. That’s like saying “Have you ever broken a speed limit or run over a group of orphans?” Entirely possible to have broken the law in part one without ever having done so in part two. But the question is phrased in that if he wanted to avoid self-incrimination in either of the questions, he has to forego denying his guilt in the other.
This is not to say he was guilty of only one or both. I’m just talking about the semantics.
If it was phrased like that, wouldn’t the prosecution say “Objection, compound question,” though?
I’m guessing that it was two separate questions.
They were asked as separate questions, not as one question.
What should be kept in mind is that Fuhrman was never alone at the murder scene until after other policemen had shown him evidence, including a glove and cap. There was plenty of forensic evidence collected at the murder scene that linked Simpson with the murder, even if the evidence Fuhrman found at Simpson’s home is excluded.
Ah, okay, I was wondering about that. Thanks for the info.
- White Male. Innocent.
Not required, certainly, but if I had a good idea of who did it, and some evidence, you bet I’d put that into my defense strategy.
32, white female. So guilty is burns.
31 year old white female, and I think he’s guilty.
And to all those folks who, like brickbacon, think that white people only get annoyed by his acquittal because he was black and she was white, I did not actually know Nicole Simpson was white until long after the case was over. Somehow I never saw a photograph of her during the trial, and I never heard any discussion of the race issues in the case. Prior to his arrest I only knew OJ from the Naked Gun movies and, as I’d liked him in those, I had a positive opinion of him (I think “Oh no! Not Nordberg!” was the sentiment my brother and I both expressed when we heard he was accused of murder). I just haven’t heard anything since that points to his innocence.
Japan was behind the US by at least a year or two on the Internet. When I was living in a town of 500,000+ in 1996, there were only one or two providers to choose from. By 1998, there were closer to a hundred.
I was out of the country when it happened, so I’m pretty out of the loop as far as the “all you whites were pissed off” thing goes. I’m just trying to get by in a country where the man is trying to keep me down.
Because of that and a VCR, I saw +95% of the trial.
I wish you had made what informs the opinions about OJ’s trial a part of this thread.
To the question of a frame-up, I give you this,
Det. Vannatter was walking around with a vial of OJ’s blood for an indeterminate amount of time. There was testimony that he had access to the evidence collected at both crime scenes and in the LAPD Evidence Control Unit. Thano Peratis, the police nurse who drew blood from Simpson, said in deposition that he drew 8 milliliters of blood, but only 6.5 milliliters of blood could be accounted for.
For me the only nail needed to close the coffin of the prosecution’s case was the testimony of Mazzola. If her initials are not on the evidence envelopes (as she claims they were) when the evidence was unsealed at trial, without explanation, you can no longer show a uninterrupted chain of evidence.
Either Mazzola lied about how the evidence was collected or the evidence was tampered with.
There’s a fairly standard rule about the credibility of witnesses, if you (a juror) find that a witness has lied about a material fact during their testimony, you may disregard ALL of their testimony.
There’s another that basically says if you find two (or more) explanations for a given piece of evidence to both be credible, you must adopt the explanation that favors the defendant (that’s one of the cornerstones of reasonable doubt).
Exactly, but I prefer not proven to not guilty.
White, male, 43.
CMC fnord!
CourtTV! Bottom half of the page.
All of the above pertains to evidence from Simpson’s home. Even if all of that evidence were thrown out, the evidence collected at the murder scene alone connected Simpson to the crime.
Why should you trust this evidence when all the other evidence reeks of shenanigans?
At what point can you concede that the prosecution’s side was riddled with too many lies, doubts, incompetencies, and tomfooleries for them to have adequately proven their case?
White male, 56, checking in. Guilty.
Problem is, as **crowmanyclouds ** pointed out in great detail, the LAPD and DA’s office blew the case through their complete lack of professionalism. How Mark Fuhrman was even allowed to touch the case is utterly beyond comprehension.
I don’t know for certain if he did it or not. Though it certainly seems as if he did. Given the LAPD’s atrocious record in their treatment of African Americans and other persons of color, and the incompetence of the prosecutorial team, from what I know of the case (not very much, admittedly) I don’t know if I would trust anything that Fuhrman and his pals said or did.
I agree that OJ is a jerk and a cretin, and certainly hasn’t done much to persuade folks that he isn’t a jerk and a cretin, or a murderer, for that matter. And that whole “at least one Black guy in American history got away with murder, there is some justice in this country” meme? I bought it for a little while, but OJ sure didn’t worry about race much until this went down.
Black male, 35.
Nope, read my cite again,
CMC fnord!
Forgot I had this, CNN’sO.J. Simpson Trial Transcripts and found this.
…or during, or after AFAICT.
I remember discussing the case in (of all things) calculus class, because the teacher just had to bring it up. Only black person in the class to say that he was guilty. I sure got a lot of strange looks from my black classmates at the time, though I think that this may simply have been the fact that I would be impolitic enough to say so when all the white students were saying ‘guilty’. But it’s not as if OJ was some great crusader for civil rights, or even had so much as given a dollar (of which I am aware) to the NAACP, UNCF, or any organization to better the lot of black people in this country.
Black male, 30. He did it, and wrote a book about it to boot.
The implication being that if he had donated to the NAACP etc., he should be given a pass to commit double murder?
To me, how much a person gives to charity or crusades for this cause or that should play no part in the question of whether he is guilty of murder.