If you know, please summarize the strongest evidence that OJ was guilty in the deaths of his wife and Mr. Goldman.
I tried looking this up on the web, but there are only very detailed reports.
What was the evidence the defence brought up to try to demonstrate his inocence?
Is there any chance he’s really not guilty?
Yes, and that chance is 100%. He is not guilty. That’s what the jury said, and that’s what counts.
Did you mean to ask if there was any chance he didn’t do it?
No, I meant is there any chance he isn’t really guilty. Not whether or not he is legally guilty.
For me it was the limo driver and the footprints.Secondarily the bump heard by Kato on his wall.
The defense argument semed to me to be “If it doesn’t fit,you must acquit”,tho the wags insist “If you do acquit,you’re full of shit”
Looking back on the years,Simpson’s most glaring mistake was the "I’m going to spend the reat of my life looking for the real killer"statement.
Most people with a deepseated conviction of being wronged in a like situation would hardly be looking on golf courses.
The best evidence that he did it is that a separate jury found him responsible for the deaths. Because that was a civil trial and not a criminal trial, the terms guilty and not guilty do not apply. To get back to your original questions:
IIRC, DNA was found at the scene that matched his, and DNA was found in his car and in his home that matched the victims’.
Try searching back-issues of Time and Newsweek at your local public library. They gave very good, easy to understand accounts of all the evidence and how it fit together.
Again, IIRC, nothing was done to demonstrate his innocence. Weak alibis were floated, but when it came down to it, the defense consisted of attacking the prosecution witnesses, confusing the jury about DNA, and rhyming catch phrases about men’s fashion accessories.
You can read about the case here:
Crime Library
The strongest evidence that the prosecution had (IMHO) was the DNA evidence: blood in OJ Simpson’s car that had genetic markers from Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson; blood on OJ Simpson’s socks (retrieved from his house) that had genetic markers from Nicole Brown Simpson.
Spy Magazine had a pretty good rundown on the evidence against Simpson and also on why it just wasn’t possible, let alone likely, that the police had framed the killing sob.
There were the deep cut wounds on his hands when he was arrested,
the BLOODY SOCKS in his bedroom (Nicole’s blood, explain THAT),
the bizarre OJ and AC desperation Bronco parade,
the documented history of violent domestic quarrels,
the video of OJ wearing the identical gloves that were found… while on an NFL broadcast (before the murders),
the proof of purchase of a pair of identical Bruno Magli shoes whose tread prints were found at the scene, and which have disappeared into the aether.
That’s just off the top of my head, with no searching and no DNA cites whatsoever.
Sad… OJ and Pete Rose were my idols when I was growing up.
Oh, and to revive a long-lost Dennis Miller running joke:
You’re a bad, bad man, O.J.
Upon submission:
Arnold beat me to the socks, and I’m not afraid to admit that I actually agree with Monty!
When I saw O.J. try on the glove, I was stunned. It was just like as if I tried on one of my wifes gloves. And given the constant evidence of police corruption in America and the particular racism evident in one cop and the missing or unaccounted blood drawn from O.J., there was enough doubt to acquit. Oh and not to forget the poor lab practices that could easily have cross-contaminated evidence.
stockton, it was the Bruna Magli shoes he said he did not have that surfaced on the film of him at Rich Stadium in Buffalo. I was at that game, and six rows from the box he and Nicole were in.
He did it.
UncleBill (and I HAVE an Uncle Bill, so this is weird)…
We’re both right. From this site, I find the shoe ref AND this tidbit:
“On December 20th, 1990, Nicole Brown Simpson had purchased two pairs of these gloves for $110. The gloves had a distinctive stitching and V pattern in the palm and were very identifiable. The prosecution assembled press photographs and videotapes of O.J.Simpson wearing this type of leather gloves during football game telecasts in 1993 and 1994.”
http://www.crimelibrary.com/classics4/oj/14.htm
The shoes are there too. Only 300 pairs sold in the USA.
From Crime Library (see the link in my first post):
Oh, this is the next paragraph after the one quoted above:
“On April 3rd, the prosecution produced evidence that the glove found behind the bungalow on Simpson’s Rockingham estate had a mixture of blood from Nicole, Goldman and Simpson.”
It was probably an honest mistake…
Sorry, Arnold, you’re just too damn quick for me! I was referring to MY post, not Arnolds.
The whole glove thing infuriated me. Wasn’t it painfully obvious to everyone that you can’t put on a pair of tight leather gloves overtop of a pair of latex gloves?! That’s without even considering shrinkage.
For me, OJ’s low speed chase was as good as a signed confession. If he was innocent there is absolutely no reason he would have done that.
Getting him to try on the gloves was an incredibly stupid mistake. The guy was a professional actor, so he could easily grimace and struggle and moan while putting the gloves on, whether they fit or not.
A much better choice would be to have a glovemaker get some objective measurements of Simpson’s hands and testify what sizes of gloves would fit. In true Hollywood courtoom drama style (i.e. complete hooey), I was mildly hoping one of the male jurors would call Simpson over, compare his own hands to Simpson’s, then try on the gloves himself and conclude that, yes, they would have fit okay, though tightly.
The jury was afraid their would be a race riot and alot of people would die. They were right to let him go. It saved lives
Oh please! The OP’s intent wasn’t to ask whether Simpson was guilty according to the law, because we all know that he ultimately wasn’t. That his legal team was able to raise enough questions about the police and crime lab procedures doesn’t mean that he didn’t actually do it. Do you really think that O.J. Simpson is innocent of the crime and someone else killed his ex-wife and her companion that night?
Do you really assign that much importance to an ill-fitting glove? It’s pretty ridiculous to think that a leather glove that had been left out to the elements getting wet, and then allowed to dry and thus shrink, would fit on the rubber-gloved hand of a man VERY motivated to make sure that it looked like his hand couldn’t possibly fit. The prosecution was incredibly stupid for pulling that one.
Should Simpson have been acquitted considering the presumption of innocence and the prosecution’s burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt? Probably. Maybe. I wasn’t there in the jury, so I can’t say for sure.
Would anyone else, without Simpson’s vast resources, have been able to escape a guilty verdict of some sort? Probably not.
Did anyone else, including the police, have any motive to kill two people in order to frame O.J. Simpson? I highly doubt it. As far as I know, there was no robbery or material motive for the killings.
Did Simpson act in a strange manner for an innocent person during and after the killings? YES, WITHOUT A DOUBT. The limo driver noticed his strange behavior at the time of the killings. He fled the area immediately after the killings. He led the police on the bizzare Bronco parade we all saw. IANAL, but I’m pretty sure that a suspect’s actions, specificly fleeing, can be considered as evidence that a crime was committed.
After the fact, is Simpson still a strange person who can’t seem to control his impulses and stay out of trouble? YES. YES. YES. I don’t know how frequently his hijinx make the national news, but I have the misfortune to live in the same general area that he chose to make his new home and he sure gets into an inordinate amount of trouble for a rational law-abiding person.
Is this an IMHO post in the GQ forum? Yes, but I couldn’t help it.