He’s since been paroled, so he is enjoying (probationary) freedom.
Nicole Brown Simpsons and Ronald Goldman are still dead. And the double murder is still (officially) unsolved.
I was once discussing this with a guy who said (and I quote) “A woman in Florida was killed in the same exact way Nicole was. That proves OJ didn’t do it.” Never underestimate human stupidity.
To me it doesnt matter. The dead are dead. Oj’s reputation and finances are ruined. Not guilty does not mean innocent.
Ultimately I feel we must all someday stand before God and he will be the judge.
Why would it have had to involve lots of people? One or two crooked cops couldn’t have moved evidence around?
Because more than a dozen cops were already on the scene when the allegedly crooked cops (namely, Mark Furhman) arrived. So, in order for one or two crooked cops to pick up and move evidence around, everybody else would have to tacitly be in on it by not going, “hey, I haven’t tagged and bagged that yet. What the fuck do you think you’re doing?”
Not talked about a lot but it was in the Toobin book - OJ tried to hire a lot of different big name LA lawyers before Cochran/Shapiro. All of them said no because they knew it was a “loser case” and they did not want to lose such a high profile case. Yes I think he did it but not sure I would have voted guilty.
Some of the evidence isn’t susceptible to being planted, like the bloody Bruno Magli shoe prints in OJ’s size, of which only 29 pairs were sold in the US, and which it was later established that OJ lied about wearing.
Or the blood on the paws of Nicole Brown’s dog, which a neighbor discovered before the body was discovered. That neighbor then gave the dog to a different neighbor, who took it for a walk around midnight, and the dog led him back to Nicole’s house where the bodies were discovered. The neighbor who discovered the bodies then flagged down a passing patrol car. The officer in that car, a Robert Riske, testified that he found one bloody glove. IOW the first officer the neighbor found was racist enough to falsify evidence by saying there was one glove, not two, on ten minutes’ notice.
So apparently the neighbors were in on it, because they either planted the blood on the dog’s paws, or lied about finding it, and so was the first officer on the scene, and so were the 16 other officers on the scene, and so was Fuhrman and so was the other detective, and so were the DNA techs. And they could travel thru time to plant blood evidence that hadn’t been collected yet.
Or else OJ Simpson was guilty as Cain.
Regards,
Shodan
the stat professor DNA expert who made a minor mistake and testified in the trial was a guy from here at NC State. He’s now at U. of Washington. He was one of the first DNA experts in the US and testified at many trials. His minor mistake was jumped all over by the defense so that did not help the case.
If you argue that there was reasonable doubt in the Simpson case then you’re basically saying that nobody should ever be convicted.
Simpson’s defense acknowledged that there was evidence that would prove his guilt. Their argument was that the evidence should be ignored because it had been fabricated by the police. As far as I know, they didn’t offer any evidence that it actually had been fabricated; they just argued that it was possible that it had been fabricated.
If you accept the argument that the possibility that evidence is fabricated constitutes reasonable doubt, then give me an example of a trial where such reasonable doubt doesn’t exist. Is there any trial where somebody can be found guilty if you discount the evidence?
they pretty much had to say the evidence was faked , that was their only good way to argue against it.
Is the Pope Catholic?
Not trying to single you out Bijou Drains but WHY THE F NOT???
What more do you need?
Her blood in his car (including DNA).
His blood at the scene (including DNA).
His shoe prints at the scene.
I history of violence to her
The glove.
No alibi.
The letter which is a virtual confession.
I hear a similar comment from some friends. Would ANYTHING have made you want to convict?
Because we just get to see the highlights. You certainly didnt sit on the jury and I highly doubt you read all the thousands and thousands of pages of transcripts.
I have great faith in the Jury system, and I have faith they voted correct. No matter what you think, based upon a youtube video, some Tv and whatever else, they sat there thru the trial and *they had reasonable doubt. *
No doubt, the defense team was better- but the DA’s office didnt even bother to put in their A team.
I am about 95% sure I would have voted guilty.
Best thing I heard about the trial , not sure who said it - “jury sat there for 9 months , went to their hotel and packed up and dropped off a verdict on their way home” Clearly they did not deliberate enough , they had their minds made up. BTW around 8 of the original jurors were removed so most of the alternates were the people who found him not guilty. Maybe it would have been different if the original 12 had been there to the end.
I think they had reasonable doubt because they very much wanted to find any issue that would allow them to claim reasonable doubt. I see no logical reason for them to have reasonable doubt.
I don’t have great faith in the jury system. I don’t have great faith that the average American that sits on a jury has the reasoning and logic to make the right call. And I don’t think that they did in this case.
You seem to be saying that because they voted not guilty that by definition it was correct. I have a question for you. The jury in the Emmett Till trial deliberated for 67 minutes before coming back with a not guilty verdict. They had reasonable doubt too. Do you think that verdict was correct, using the same logic you used for the OJ trial?
Ok, order and read the full transcript and we will see.
I *want *the “average american” on a jury.
Oh come on now, 1955, in the South? Whataboutism? :rolleyes:
since the trial was on TV there were people sitting at home who saw all of it. That’s not the same as sitting in the jury box but it’s pretty close. I wonder how those people would have voted.
And Robert Kardashian bailed on him.
Remember the Bronco chase? Simpson had written a letter expressing a desire to commit suicide before that event.
Heh, you’re the one arguing that because they acquitted, they had reasonable doubt, so by definition it was the correct verdict. I’m asking you if you believe that the a verdict is ever wrong then?
You discount the Till verdict as something so far removed or wrong that it shouldn’t be discussed. But in a documentary “OJ: Made in America” Carrie Bess, one of the jurors stated that 90% of the O.J. verdict was payback for the Rodney King verdict:
Interviewer: Do you think there are members of the jury that voted to acquit OJ because of Rodney King?
Bess: Yes.
Interviewer: You do?
Bess: Yes.
Interviewer: How many of you do you think felt that way?
Bess: Oh, probably 90 percent of them.
Interviewer: 90 percent. Did you feel that way?
Bess: Yes.
Interviewer: That was payback.
Bess: Uh-huh.
Do you still think that the O. J. jury was incapable of giving the an incorrect finding?
Nope, I am not saying that. I am saying that several of the jurors stated exactly that and also we didnt sit through all the testimony they got, thus you are second guessing them from a position of less information.