wmw999 2,588 #1 September 3, 2009 The courts acquitted him. Wendy P.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BillyVance 35 #2 September 3, 2009 It's just me, but I fully believe OJ murdered his wife and the other guy. He got off because of the greatest defense team ever assembled, and because the level of evidence needed to convict him... well I don't know what the jury thought, but there it is... He was found liable in the civil case, which has a lower standard of evidence or however you call it... easier to find him responsible."Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tigra 0 #3 September 3, 2009 I believe he did it. From watching the coverage during the trial, I also believe the police screwed up the investgation from the start. I believe they mishandled the evidence badly enough to create that "shadow of a doubt" which was all that was technically needed for an acquittal. Not to mention, he had one of the best legal teams money could buy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jimmytavino 16 #4 September 3, 2009 right.... Who Else would have been skulking around back there... HE was jealous as hell and had ALready LOst her in his life.. The severity of the injuries, led some to think,,,'hunting knife' large blade.... But as mark Furman TRIED to indicate.. he did them in with one or two.. Victorinox Swiss Army Knives,,,,, held in leather gloved hands.... and I beleive that... Furman found the empty box(es) in which those knives are sold, IN O J's bathroom.. BUt since he could not answer ONE crucial question honestly, and say, " Yes... I HAVE used the word "Nigger", and so have YOU, Mr. counselor and so has the defendant, and so have 75 % of the other people in this courtroom"!!!..... since he could not do THAT,, He was discredited, and his testimony rendered suspect...what a great defense strategy.... I have owned and carried those pocket knives for decades,,,,and let me assure You,, they ARE Damn sharp, especially when new.... and they Can do severe damage when misused. One model has a 3 inch Blade, AND a 3 inch WOOD Saw....... a wood saw for Gods' Sake... and the teeth on THAT bad boy,,, WILL tear Up... skin and flesh..believe it!!!! They open accross from one another and can both be Open simultaneously.. held in a hand which is pummelling someone,, or in TWO hands,, and they ARE deadly... 3 inches worth,, sticking out of each side of a fist...EASY to dump afterwards,,, near impossible to # 1 find ... and #2 correlate to ANY crime,,, since the SEEM so innocent... anyway Furman WAS on the right track, and the jury shoullda been concentrating NOT on the glove itself,, but on what the glove(s) was/were holding... he did it... jmy Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tigra 0 #5 September 3, 2009 Read my post. I also believe he did it and not once did I mention Mark Furman. Mark Furman did not help, but the police made several errors at the crime scene and with the evidence collected. Mark Furman was just the scapegoat who took the fall for the acquittal. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #6 September 3, 2009 Your reference to the other thread is too subtle for people around here nowadays. OJ is innocent, but he also killed them both. Just like the guy in Texas was guilty, but he probably didn't kill his kids. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #7 September 3, 2009 I actually believe that he was. I don't think that I can sit here, reading popular reporting, and second guess people in a court of law who were examining real evidence and forming decisions based on it. If I were on the jury, would I have found the same thing? I don't know. But I wasn't, so I don't have access to the same facts they based their decision on.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #8 September 3, 2009 Quote Not to mention, he had one of the best legal teams money could buy. More importantly, it was against the LA DA's office, which blew just about every major case in that decade. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ryoder 1,590 #9 September 3, 2009 QuoteI actually believe that he was. I don't think that I can sit here, reading popular reporting, and second guess people in a court of law who were examining real evidence and forming decisions based on it. If I were on the jury, would I have found the same thing? I don't know. But I wasn't, so I don't have access to the same facts they based their decision on. A jury trial is a poker game. - On one side was a seasoned team of master professionals. - On the other side was a pair of rookies. Evidence had little to do with it."There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #10 September 3, 2009 QuoteA jury trial is a poker game. - On one side was a seasoned team of master professionals. - On the other side was a pair of rookies. Evidence had little to do with it. Indeed. That's part of it. The fact that the defense successfully focused in on minor things was its best effort. Scheck cross examining that forensics guy for over a week was something, too. Most importantly, OJ didn't say a word. Not one. My thoughts? He was not innocent. But the prosecution did not prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #11 September 3, 2009 Since he wasn't sentenced with the death penalty, he is therefore guilty. We can always change it later if we find out to the contrary. However, if he had been given the death penalty, then we would have to deem him innocent, because we couldn't take the chance that we'd execute him as guilty in case he was later proved to actually be innocent. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #12 September 3, 2009 The government did it. They blew up OJ's wife with thermite explosives, and let OJ take the blame. Wake up, sheeple!! Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #13 September 3, 2009 He may have had something to do with it but did not commit it himself. I was laid up on the couch and watched every day of that trial, talk about buffoons! Taking his blood sample from the PD back out to the crime scene and then the blood found at the scene had traces of EDTH in it. hmmmmmmm, they cannot even frame someone well.That was so screwed up they may never know how many crimes were comitted by OJ, whoever killed the victims, or how many laws the police violated. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterrig 1 #14 September 4, 2009 One part of the trial that I still question was all the theatrics surrounding 'the glove'. That blood soaked, dried and shriveled glove that did not fit O.J.'s hand. Of course it didn't fit! It shrunk-up from being soaked in blood then it dried. I think, the entire trial was just one big circus and everyone knew they were on camera. The prosecution was over-confident and blew it. Judge Ito seemed to be overcome with publicity and appeared like this was the first case he ever presided over. Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jimmytavino 16 #15 September 4, 2009 yes... I DID read your post, and i AGREE with you.... i just went a bit further along in my post,,,,, with the reasons WHY i am on the same page, as you... Ineptitude..... VERY difficult to accept.... and it was rampant, on the part of the L A P D and the prosecutors office...j Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Beachbum 0 #16 September 4, 2009 I'm another who saw a large part of the trial. I personally believe he did it, but also think the jury did the correct thing within the constraints of our legal system. The prosecution didn't prove their case, plain and simple.As long as you are happy with yourself ... who cares what the rest of the world thinks? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 897 #17 September 4, 2009 Same here...while bearing in mind the jury did not see the same "evidence" the public did. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
grimmie 186 #18 September 4, 2009 It wasn't all the prosecution's screw ups nor the defense team's brilliance. Judge Ito was horribly inefficient and the jury had a collective IQ of 130... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TankBuster 0 #19 September 5, 2009 QuoteOf course it didn't fit! It shrunk-up from being soaked in blood then it dried. And don't forget - he had rubber gloves on when he tried them on for the jury. Ever tried to put a leather glove on over a rubber one? His theatrics while trying them on were pretty comical.The forecast is mostly sunny with occasional beer. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #20 September 5, 2009 I think he did it. Everything else is just noise among the signal. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterrig 1 #21 September 5, 2009 QuoteQuoteOf course it didn't fit! It shrunk-up from being soaked in blood then it dried. And don't forget - he had rubber gloves on when he tried them on for the jury. Ever tried to put a leather glove on over a rubber one? His theatrics while trying them on were pretty comical. I don't recall that he had a rubber glove on but you're right. It's almost impossible to put that type glove on while wearing a rubber glove. I believe, he killed those two people. The police and prosecution both, thought they had an air-tight case and failed miserably to prove it. I believe too, the fact that the media had such a huge presence that too many involved were too 'taken' with the cameras. It was Hollywood at it's best. I guess, you heard... O.J. stays in jail while he appeals his latest case? Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billeisele 130 #22 September 5, 2009 yes I think he did it just a social observation: I was in the concourse at Charlotte airport when the verdict was announced, the professional business folks, well dressed, male, female, black, white, asian, etc. were shaking their heads and talking about the verdict - they obviously disagreed the other folks were screaming, jumping around, and generally acting like idiots making comments like - she deserved it, go OJ, about time a black guy got away with something, etc. again just an observation but it does tell us something about societyGive one city to the thugs so they can all live together. I vote for Chicago where they have strict gun laws. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
robskydiv 0 #23 September 5, 2009 The court acquitted him. But they got it wrong. I can't believe there are people who actually think that he didn't do it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #24 September 5, 2009 Interesting question Wendy, why do I get the feeling that you're laying the foundation for a wider point?When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riddler 0 #25 September 6, 2009 QuoteThe courts acquitted him. IIRC, the criminal court acquitted him of murder, but the civil trial found him liable for wrongful death.Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
