Merged O.j simpson guilty or not guilty.

IS OJ SIMPSON GUILTY OR NOT GUILTY?

  • GUILTY

    Votes: 130 87.8%

  • NOT GUILTY

    Votes: 18 12.2%
  • Total voters
    148
Caustic Logic said:
Wow, something motivated some people here to learn the details of a flawed court case against a guy who killed two people. Yet no one will look closely at a case where there are serious allegations the murderers of 270 innocent people have gone Scot free (pun just now invented) while a politically convenient Libyan was gaoled in their stead. Please tell me it's not just celebrity status, media saturation, and groupthink that made you all so much more interested in OJ than Lockerbie. It's your drive for social justice, isn't it?
Click to expand...

Col. gadaffi should have been arrested and imprisoned for life and i mean until that s.o.b. died of old age.
 
cyclonic said:
Col. gadaffi should have been arrested and imprisoned for life and i mean until that s.o.b. died of old age.
Click to expand...

Yeah, well O.J. was innocent, framed by a white power structure that couldn't accept his success, and all the racists that went after him should be put in Guantanamo Bay.

BTW, the only evidence against any Libyan is that against al Megrahi and Fhimah, and some agenda-driven CIA "chatter" suggesting wider "meetings" and "linkages" they had with other Libyans. He was not covering for col. Gaddafy, if he were a fall guy. There's some confusion on that. It was actual the PFLPGC, operatives of several nations, the Iranian government, and some part by Syria, and a security breach in London that most likely blew up PA103. But yeah, col. Gaddafy will do as we already know he's ultimately responsible for the story we know NOTHING about except that Megrahi was convicted so it MUST be true.

But we know which vehicles were spattered with whose blood how they were parked in Simpson's driveway, researched leather shrinkage over time, considering local humidity, and so on.

Just sayin.'
 
cyclonic, why now? It's been a looong time, OJ is in the clink for other crimes and is likely to be an old man before he gets out...if at all. Who cares?
 
Caustic Logic said:
Yeah, well O.J. was innocent, framed by a white power structure that couldn't accept his success, and all the racists that went after him should be put in Guantanamo Bay.

Just sayin.'
Click to expand...

Success? playing a stooge in the b-grade naked gun series?

having survived football to retirement?

only a racist would bring up the race card.

red card for you.
 
SezMe said:
cyclonic, why now? It's been a looong time, OJ is in the clink for other crimes and is likely to be an old man before he gets out...if at all. Who cares?
Click to expand...

I don't like ANY man getting away with murder.

Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman are still dead.
 
Last edited:
appears to me the prosecution fabricated some stuff...which trows doubt on the rest of th evidence. I agree with the Not Guilty verdict and I think he did it.
 
Rolfe said:
I'm not at all familiar with the evidence, but the mood-music I hear suggests he's guilty.

Since I don't know, I'd be quite interested if anyone cared to summarise the evidence either way.

Funnily enough, I don't believe one can assume all court verdicts are correct, and accuse everyone who wants to discuss the possibility that a verdict was wrong of being "delusional".

Rolfe.
Click to expand...
Recommended reading:
Vincent Bugliosi
Outrage

If your are interested in this case.

DR
 
Guilty, but the prosecution dropped the ball and lost what should've been an open-and-shut case.
 
Darth Rotor said:
Recommended reading:
Vincent Bugliosi
Outrage

If your are interested in this case.

DR
Click to expand...

It sure is a good book. He shows the errors in the prosecuation and how he he would have presented the case. He is a brilliant prosecutor, and if he had led the case, I'm sure OJ would have fried.
 
fuelair said:
And because the lead detective was an idiot and a racist, the judge was a celebrity fawning rectum, the prosecution was ineffective and the jury was slime. Note that I am NOT against jury nullification BUT NOT when the defendant is clearly guilty of a crime of violence against innocent persons.
Click to expand...

Agreed, but let's add a defense which ruthlessly played the Race Card, regardless of the damage it might do to race relations in such a high profile case.
The only good thing is that you have seen damn few murder cases on Live TV since then. Live TV in a courtroom hopelessly distorts the legal process, and normal reporting and coverage fully gives the public "the right to know".
 
cyclonic said:
Overwhelming evidense pointing to his guilt but set free by a handpicked jury who let him go because the bloody leather gloves dried out and shrunk in the 2 years it took to get to trial.
Click to expand...


Actually, they didn't need to have dried out.

it is next to impossible to put a pair of snug fitting gloves on over latex gloves.
 
cyclonic said:
Remember what the police commisioner said when asked will the police search for the real killer/killers now?

correct me if im wrong, going off my memory here.

"No, we had the real killer but the jury let him go!"
Click to expand...

LOL! I don't recall his exact words, but I remember when the question was asked. It was Gil Garcceti (sp?) - he looked at the reporter like they had three heads!
 
Ian Osborne said:
Guilty, but the prosecution dropped the ball and lost what should've been an open-and-shut case.
Click to expand...

I disagree. The prosecution made it perfectly clear that OJ, and no one else, killed them.

People want to blame the prosecution when they should be blaming the jury. But the PC crowd doesn't want to do that, because 10 (IIRC) of the 12 were black. It would be racist to say they were stupid!
 
As far as the law is concerned, he's not guilty, even though it pretty much looks like he is, he also acts as if he was, but I had to choose "not guilty".
 
SezMe said:
Still does not speak to my question of why now.
Click to expand...


Possibly connected to this.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5452570#post5452570

It seems that any attempt to initiate discussion of the seriously threadbare nature of the evidence against Abdelbaset al-Megrahi elicits only passionate declarations that court verdicts cannot be wrong and anyone who questions the guilt of a convicted suspect is delusional. (Even if the possibility of a wrongful conviction has been officially acknowledged.)

Of course not everyone wants to discuss everything, but the attacks on Caustic Logic merely for raising the issue were not only ridiculous, they were prime illustrations of why he was asking the question in the first place. Why is this one issue getting the "fingers in ears and hum real loud" treatment?

However, the thread in question has been moved to CT, which is what the scoffers wanted, to keep it out of general discussion and allow the issue to be ignored once again. Yes, there are CT aspects to the case of course, but the simple question of whether the evidence was indeed strong enough to support the conviction doesn't seem to me to be one of them.

As far as OJ is concerned, I'm in the same position with that case as I was with the Megrahi case a few years ago. I wasn't familiar with the evidence, but I've read considerable commentary by people who are familiar with it, and that leads me to think the verdict was wrong.

In the Megrahi case, I became familiar with the evidence, and formed my own opinion that it actually pointed to him being innocent. In the Simpson case, I haven't studied the details so I don't know the significance of the fit of the gloves, for example. However, I note in this thread several attempts to support the "not guilty" verdict which are far more persuasive than any attempts I have encountered to support the guilty verdict against Megrahi.

Rolfe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom