Please help me out on this one. Many people do argue he’s guilty but many people also argue he’s innocent such as Larry King and Johnny Cochran, especially since the latter argued that the glove didn’t OJ’s hand. Also for those who think he’s guilty, I can certainly respect that point of view, but that does of course beg one question. If he’s guilty, then how did he get away with it? I do happen to be very neutral on this issue and I am not trying to start an opinion war or anything. Just trying to put forth an open mind on the issue. And all opinions will be respected.
I think the only GQ answer is that Simpson is “not guilty”. That’s what the jury found. A jury never fins “innocent”. Now civil court found against him, but that was not a guilty finding, and it was a different standard of proof.
Anything anyone else says will be an opinion. It is my opinion that he was guilty, but then I didn’t see all the evidence.
I think the whole thing has been discussed so many times that there’s nothing more you could possibly learn that isn’t already out there. If you have studied it all and you still have an open mind on the topic, I think you’re just not very interested in it and might as well give up and move on.
There have been lots of threads here, review some of them:
You know OJ paid him to say that, right?
That made me laugh out loud.
Yeah, OJ’s guilty. The evidence is pretty overwhelming. Just off the top of my head…his blood was found at the crime scene, the victims’ blood was found in his car and on his sock. A hat with one of his hairs was found on the scene. One of the gloves was at the scene, and the other was across town at his house. A woman witnessed him racing from the scene in a frantic hurry right after the killing. He has no alibi. He had a substantial cut on his finger the day after, and didn’t have a consistent story as to how it happened (did he open it up and bleed in his car or did he break a glass when he heard that Nicole died?). His footprints were at the scene. The shoes and gloves were tied to OJ, via receipts and pictures. He was late (and gave conflicting accounts as to why) getting picked up by his limo driver after the killing. His houseguest heard him coming home. His car was parked haphazard, he was sweating profusely, and he insisted on carrying a bag which later went missing.
Oh, and he confessed to Rosie Greer while in jail, which a guard overheard.
Did I miss anything?
…IMHO OJ was guilty.
Also IMHO, if I was on the jury I would have probably voted “not guilty” purely based on what was presented in court.
The gloves clearly did fit, so had I been on the jury it might have mattered.
A lot of people don’t understand that there is a vast difference between knowing something, and being able to prove it in court.
I’ve heard this sentiment before, but why? What was not presented in court that was an absolute slam dunk of guilt? I’m not talking about reasonable doubt, I’m talking ANY doubt.
If I had a client in O.J.'s position, I would tell him he was absolutely insane for wanting to take it to trial if we could work out some sort of deal. 100 out of 100 clients of mine would be convicted based on half the evidence they had against him. Racial tensions, his celebrity status, and lucking into the Fuhrman tapes (and having Ito allow them in) are what saved him.
Marcia Clark, is that you?
Watch OJ: Made in America. Then, make up your mind.
My opinion? He got away with murder. Plain and simple.
Really? Are you visiting us from a past decade? The last people I heard argue about this used beepers and had Myspace pages.
…you obviously are talking about a different trial.
The OJ Simpson case I’m talking about spanned 11 months. In involved a prosecution case and a defense. And the defense did a very good job of defending their client.
If your conclusion is what “was presented in court that was an absolute slam dunk of guilt” then you obviously only listened and believed the prosecution case and ignored/turned off when the defense showed up.
OJ must count himself as very fortunate that he didn’t hire you to defend him.
Yes, people have been convicted on less evidence than was presented in the OJ murder trial. They have been acquitted on more evidence.
Lots of cases seem sure shot at first and turn out to be less so when actually tried. There were several notable gaps in evidence in the prosecution case. A half decent prosecutor would have filled those but the two Counsels did not.
The gloves were an obvious landmine and they walked right over it.
Lessons for prosecutors from the OJ case: tell your witnesses not to lie on the stand, and if they’re asked if they planted evidence tell them not to plead the fifth.
I read that there were 2 bloody gloves. Meaning that the detective (and prosecution)'s theory was the murderer killed someone. Then, with his gloves soaked in blood, he choose to leave 1 glove behind at the crime scene and carry the other back to his own house. Then leave it in plain sight in the alley behind his own house.
This second, rather convenient glove was what allowed the police to obtain a warrant to search OJ’s house in the first place as it gave them probable cause.
To me this sounds like blatant planting of evidence by the detectives. Now, to be fair, most of the evidence probably was real. Evidence obtained after the police planted evidence. As I understand it, had there been a video camera proving the evidence was planted, the doctrine of “fruit of the poisoned tree” would have most likely caused the judge to dismiss enough evidence to prevent this trial from ever happening at all.
So it creates an ethical dilemma. Do you let the police get their man after they tried to frame a most likely guilty man? Society loses if the accused commits another crime, but it also loses if the police get away with their crime.
Remember, the LAPD are these guys : https://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2011/10/consent_decree_leaves_los_ange.html
This, basically. There’s been enough information provided before, during and after the trial to convince me that OJ almost certainly did it, but the prosecution case at the trial was a mess.
I rather doubt that was the prosecution’s theory at any point. Rather, that the murderer accidentally left the gloves where they were found because he was nervous and/or inexperienced and/or stupid.
Legally guilty? No, he was found not guilty in a court of law.
Did he commit the murders he was accused of? Yes, I believe he did. The evidence that he did is overwhelming.