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
kookbreaker said:
What is OJ doing when putting on these killer's gloves? Laughing, joking, he's having a ball not putting on those gloves.
Click to expand...

An interesting side note from this failed experiment was the admission by OJ's former agent that he was told not to take his arthritic medication. Hence, his hands swelled up, making the fit impossible.
 
kookbreaker said:
The thing about the glove is: If they are OJ's gloves or not, those gloves are without a doubt the gloves of the killer.

Now I know as a good skeptic the silliness of imparting an emotional state to an inanimate object such as a pair of gloves. Think of Wiseman's experiments about a sweater he claims belonged to a serial killer.

But here is OJ, hardly a skeptic, about to put on the gloves of the person who killed his wife. The same wife he said he would take a bullet for.

What is OJ doing when putting on these killer's gloves? Laughing, joking, he's having a ball not putting on those gloves.
Click to expand...
.
My thoughts too!
I wouldn't have touched those gloves with your hands, in that situation.
 
Vincent Bugliosi said something like,

If O.J. is innocent then these two people (Nicole Brown & Ron Goldman) are still alive.
Click to expand...

O.J.'s fresh blood was found at the murder scene. The victim's blood was found inside O.J.'s car and home.

I guess I'll have to read Bugliosi's book.

Bugliosi appeared on Geraldo Rivera's show back in 1995:

Part 1

Part 2
 
The poll doesn't ask what was decided in court. It asks what the pollee thinks. I saw enough of the trial to draw the reasonable conclusion he was guilty.
 
The evidence is overwhelming:

OJ's blood is found at the murder scene, and the victims' blood in OJ's car.

OJ's hair in a cap found at the murder scene.

One bloody glove found at the murder scene, one at OJ's house.

A deep cut on OJ's knuckle, to the cause of which he claims ignorance.

A shoe-print found in a pool of blood at the murder scene matches a brand of rare shoes, which OJ claims never to have owned or worn, but of which there exist pictures on OJ's feet in public.

OJ's behavior throughout his attempted flight (with a disguise, passport and $8750 in cash); at his arrest, OJ's apology to the police for fleeing (rather than protestations of false arrest); during the trial (laughing and joking when the gloves don't fit); and following the trial (reneging on his promise to bring the "killers" to justice).

The only possible defense to this cascading mountain of evidence against OJ, and the tact which the defense team successfully took, was that the evidence might have been planted by the "racist" LAPD.

Without further examining Mark Fuhrman's job history (which reveals a man interested in civil and human rights irrespective of race or ethnicity), a jury of mainly black men and women -- some or all of whom probably suffered some degree of racist persecution in their lifetimes, possibly even from the police -- decided that reasonable doubt had been sufficiently cast on the case.

I cannot say I blame the jury or find them at fault; reasonable doubt is a subtle concept, and here the prosecution dropped the ball by not devoting more time and effort to countering the charges of racism by the defense team. These charges were of course absurd; OJ was a friend and fund-raiser for the LAPD, a beloved sports figure and comedic actor -- not a target of racial victimization. The prosecution erred by letting these claims lie, misunderstanding the emotional effect they would have on a jury predisposed by a shared ethnicity to sympathize with the accused's (invented) plight.
 
cyclonic said:
What is the planet X option?
Click to expand...

A couple of options from the top of my head: The fact that we are too far away to have a proper opinion and that it doesn't matter; that we're informed through media which have other concerns besides the truth, so we can't know enough of what there is to know; that this thread is speculative and it's poll has no purpose in that and if it has, it is to set a tone; that guilt, ultimately, isn't a matter of popular opinion, even if you're a celebrity; or that some people don't care enough to read, but still like to vote.

That is not the whole content of the planet X option, but those are pretty decent reasons to have had one.
 
Last edited:
cyclonic said:
Innocent men don't put guns to their own head and order his friend to give every police car in LA a tour of the freeway system.
Click to expand...


Incorrect. Innocent people about to be arrested for crimes they didn't do absolutely do run from the police. Or do very desperate and bizarre things, including seriously contemplating suicide or threatening it (whether the threat is serious or not.)

OJ, however, is not one of them. He is (in all probability) guilty- but based on the evidence against him in the original crime.

Judging alleged criminals by their behavior after the crime is a prejudiced and simplistic way of thinking and one you should almost always avoid.
 
Last edited:
Ikarus said:
A couple of options from the top of my head: The fact that we are too far away to have a proper opinion and that it doesn't matter; that we're informed through media which have other concerns besides the truth, so we can't know enough of what there is to know; that this thread is speculative and it's poll has no purpose in that and if it has, it is to set a tone; that guilt, ultimately, isn't a matter of popular opinion, even if you're a celebrity; or that some people don't care enough to read, but still like to vote.

That is not the whole content of the planet X option, but those are pretty decent reasons to have had one.
Click to expand...

OK, thanks.

Anyone can join just about any forum and try become whoever they want to be .
 
EeneyMinnieMoe said:
Incorrect. Innocent people about to be arrested for crimes they didn't do absolutely do run from the police. Or do very desperate and bizarre things, including seriously contemplating suicide or threatening it (whether the threat is serious or not.)
Click to expand...
I am sure you are right, but i think its rare.
can you please link me to 3 cases where innocent people were told they were going to be arrested for a crime they didn't commit.

OJ, however, is not one of them. He is (in all probability) guilty- but based on the evidence against him in the original crime
Click to expand...
.
guilty as hell.

Judging alleged criminals by their behavior after the crime is a prejudiced and simplistic way of thinking and one you should almost always avoid.
Click to expand...
i totally disagree with you on that point.
 
theprestige said:
Right, but again, what is it about the law's opinion that obligates you to share it?
Click to expand...

I just think opinions are ultimately meaningless, the law is what has practical bearing on reality, the only thing that binds us, even if it's wrong.

Why do we even have them then?
 
Last edited:
Pardalis said:
I just think opinions are ultimately meaningless, the law is what has practical bearing on reality, the only thing that binds us, even if it's wrong.

Why do we even have them then?
Click to expand...

But it was the opinions of 12 jurors that let OJ go free.
What made those jurors think he was innocent?
something none of us had to put up with:hours and hours,days and days,weeks and weeks of johnnie telling them the lapd is corrupt, furnham framed OJ,cops are racist, they planted it. right in their faces! for all practical purposes, cochran brainwashed them.
Tell a lie enough times and it becomes true.
 
I gotta say. Even though OJ was clearly guilty (we all know this), I'm not sure I would have found him guilty simply because I've actually listened to the Mark Fuhrman tapes. The guy goes on and on about n-word this, n-word that, and then boasts about framing black people for crimes they had nothing to do with. As a juror, that might put enough doubt into my mind having been properly sequestered. Given the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard, I don't think I could've said guilty, even though I'd be almost positive.

But the guy clearly did it. C'mon.

With respect to this quote from EeneyMinnieMoe: "Judging alleged criminals by their behavior after the crime is a prejudiced and simplistic way of thinking and one you should almost always avoid."

I think this really depends on how strong the actions indicate guilt versus how strong our suspicion of guilt may cloud our view in making a judgment on one's actions, if that makes any sense. For instance, take the Casey Anthony case where the mother's child was missing and she didn't do anything for a month. That strikes me as pretty damning circumstantial evidence. However, in less extreme cases, I do see a tendency for people to enforce the "well I would have done this" standard on other people, which is very dangerous.

The problem is, in the OJ Simpson case, it wasn't a very circumstantial case. There was a shiz ton of direct evidence.
 
Last edited:
cyclonic said:
I am sure you are right, but i think its rare.
can you please link me to 3 cases where innocent people were told they were going to be arrested for a crime they didn't commit.
Click to expand...

These may not be the strongest cases but-

Man runs from cops when he is falsely accused of a robbery he did not commit, tragedy ensues:

http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2009/05/24/mistaken-identity-excessive-force-puts-innocent-man-in-coma/

Innocent mans runs away when told he is wanted for questioning, tragedy ensues:

http://www.timeslive.co.za/news/article176052.ece

Man is mistaken for a suicide bomber, is approached by 20 cops and runs from them after they ID themselves as the police, tragedy ensues:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4712061.stm
 
EeneyMinnieMoe said:
These may not be the strongest cases but-

Man runs from cops when he is falsely accused of a robbery he did not commit, tragedy ensues:

http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2009/05/24/mistaken-identity-excessive-force-puts-innocent-man-in-coma/

Innocent mans runs away when told he is wanted for questioning, tragedy ensues:

http://www.timeslive.co.za/news/article176052.ece

Man is mistaken for a suicide bomber, is approached by 20 cops and runs from them after they ID themselves as the police, tragedy ensues:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4712061.stm
Click to expand...

You really think these 3 cases are similar to the oj bronco chase?

Spur of the moment run from the cops is not what oj did.
those 3 guys might have committed other crimes.
 
Pardalis said:
I just think opinions are ultimately meaningless, the law is what has practical bearing on reality, the only thing that binds us, even if it's wrong.

Why do we even have them then?
Click to expand...


Why do we have what? Laws, or opinions?

We have opinions because we take a look around at the world, and .. you know .. form opinions about it. It's pretty hard to imagine that of all the people who followed the extremely public events of the OJ murder trial would, at the end, turn around and say, "No opinion here. Whatever the jury says is all I need to think about what happened."

The law has practical bearing on the disposition of the case. It's not definitive of reality transpired.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom