• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

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
Neally said:
Yes, when one does something wrong, they are guilty of wrong doing. Whether they are convicted in court is a separate issue.
Click to expand...

Can someone conversely be actually innocent even though they're convicted and thus legally guilty? It would sound stupid to say no at this point. Of course it's possible.

It's not a matter of establishing it, they either did it, or didn't.
Click to expand...

The real word is out there, but how do any of us grasp it and say it's a fact? Hint - it's a deep question without an easy answer.

Legally established facts are often the best simulation of truth we can get, and usually close enough, but, as we see, it's not foolproof, especially when big motives and stakes are on the line.
 
I'm not gonna vote. It's not my concern really and I never studied it close enough. Now if he were accused of killing 270 people who weren't probably annoying celebrity types themselves, I'd be more interested.

My gut says even tho some of the hysteria over the verdict was annoying, that many people don't get so sure just based on the ol black-man-white-lady superstition. He's probably guilty then (from the very little I know or care) and something went wrong with the trial. It happens sometimes.
 
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.
 
Do we need a ist of people who were convicted in the court who were later shown on appeal to be innocent? (The opposite is more problematical because of double jeopardy legisation.)

Barry George
Sally Clark / Donna Anthony / Angela Cannings
The Guildford Six
The Maguire Seven

It goes on and on but it's past my bedtime.

Why is it that there is one case in particular where JREF members feel the need to declare posters to be delusonal because they wish to discuss the possibility of a wrongful conviction?

Rolfe.
 
Caustic Logic said:
Hmmm... Hmmmm... There can be a distinction? What a conundrum.
Click to expand...

Not really. People come to incorrect conclusions all of the time. The fact that 12 people found OJ to be not guilty does not mean my opinion will change.

How does one establish this "objective fact?"
Click to expand...

Evidence, logic, and science.

Why haven't you gone to the authorities with this fact?
Click to expand...

I'm sure they're aware. :rolleyes:

To address the underlying snarky point you are trying to make, I accept that the court system is not perfect. I would not support a second criminal trial for OJ because double jeopardy is a very bad thing.

(nothing personal, just using your words as a springboard, mate!)
Click to expand...

That's cold comfort now that you've broken me emotionally... *sob*
 
Last edited:
Rolfe said:
Since I don't know, I'd be quite interested if anyone cared to summarise the evidence either way.
Click to expand...

It was 15 years ago. Let's just say there was a mountain of evidence against him. And none to show that someone else might have done it. At least none that I recall.
 
KingMerv00 said:
There is "guilty in criminal court" and there is "guilty as an objective fact". OJ is the latter, but not the former.
Click to expand...

At least as far as the criminal homicide charges go. He's in prison right now because he was found guilty of other crimes.
 
Simply because someone is found "not guilty" in a court of law it does not mean that they did not commit the crime in question. It just means that it could not be proven within the limits of the legal system that the accused committed the crime.

-PbFoot
 
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.

remember the blood stains on the crookedly parked bronco?
remember the limo drivers testimony?
remember the bronco chase beamed around the world?
 
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.

remember the blood stains on the crookedly parked bronco?
remember the limo drivers testimony?
remember the bronco chase beamed around the world?
Click to expand...
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.
 
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...

Well said.
 
cyclonic said:
the bloody leather gloves dried out and shrunk in the 2 years it took to get to trial.
Click to expand...

And the gloves still fit on his hands. This was one of the most amazing things I have ever seen. OJ Simpson is wearing the gloves used in the crime. He's holding up his gloved hands to the jury, and his lawyers are telling the jury that the gloves that he is wearing don't fit. Let me repeat that: HE IS WEARING THE FREAKING GLOVES! THEY ARE ON HIS HANDS! And his lawyers are telling the jury that they don't fit on his hands even though the jury can clearly see that he is wearing the gloves. Unbelievable. That's like someone getting away with copping a feel by telling the woman who he just felt up that she wasn't just felt up. It's absolutely astonishing.
 
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!"
 
I was browsing the Lexicon of Stupidity in a bookstore yesterday and came across an awesome, almost OJ-like admission. This guy fires his lawyer; defending himself he was doing a good job until the convenience store clerk testified, and she identified him as the robber. This guy then loses his cool and says, "I should've blown your ****in' head off... if I was the one there." The main difference between that case and the Simpson one is that OJ didn't do it.... but if he did I'm sure it was because he loved Nicole.
 
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...

I'm going off my memory too, but didn't the guy who had the DNA evidence disappear for a bit?
 
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?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom