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
Yep, this thread like several others is just a fishing expedition for more investigation of Lockerbie. It has nothing to do with OJ Simpson.
 
Read the book American Tragedy if you have any scintilla of doubt that OJ is guilty of double homicide. There's simply no doubt of his guilt, none whatsoever.

That being said, I've always thought that the jury probably figured that, if they had brought back a guilty verdict in such a racially charged case, Los Angeles would have burned for days and Nicole and Ron would still be dead. Better to acquit him and prevent the riots.
 
Pardalis said:
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".
Click to expand...
Out of curiosity, why did you have to choose "not guilty"?

You're not bound by law to agree with the jury's decision, are you?

Juries aren't infallible. And we're not required to adopt an agnostic, one-size-fits all policy, whereby we refrain from disagreeing with the courts in every case. It's entirely possible to agree with the courts in some cases, and disagree in others.

Just because I think the court system is better than the lynch mob system, and therefore I refrain from lynching OJ just because I think he's guilty, that doesn't mean I have to agree with the findings of the court.
 
cyclonic said:
I have not even read that thread.

I saw the other thread about oj and thought a poll on his guilt would be intresting so here we are.
Click to expand...


Yes, but that's still the connection. The answer to "why now".

If anyone would care to post a short synposis of the salient points of the evidence, I'd be very interested, since I don't have the recommended book to hand right now. What's the point about the gloves, for example?

Rolfe.
 
Key points in the evidence:

1. Ron Goldman's blood was found in Simpson's Bronco. Simpson and Goldman never met.

2. A hair sample was found on a knit cap at the scene that matched Simpson's hair.

3. Footprints in the blood were found to have been made by a pair of Bruno Magli shoes. Simpson denied ever having owned a pair of such shoes. During the civil trial, pictures of Simpson wearing Bruno Magli shoes were entered into evidence (the criminal prosecution never contacted NBC to see if they had pics of Simpson's shoes)

There are many, many other points, but those are the ones I remember off the top of my head.
 
Thanks. Do you really think the jury let him off to avoid race riots?









And if that's the case, isn't that a conspiracy theory? :boxedin:

Rolfe.
 
Critical pieces of evidence in the Simpson trial are a pair of bloody gloves. The left-handed glove was found outside the residence of Nicole Brown Simpson, and the right-handed glove was recovered from O.J. Simpson's estate. During the June 15, 1995 court session, Simpson put on the gloves and they appeared to be too small. The prosecution contends that the gloves, once drenched in blood, have shrunk. The defense believes that if the glove doesn't fit, Simpson is not the killer.

"If it doesn't fit, you must acquit"





Of course the gloves wont fit over the latex gloves, as alferd packer has already pointed out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O._J._Simpson_murder_case
 
cyclonic said:
Isn't 'not guilty' the same as 'innocent'?
Click to expand...

No, not guilty just means there wasn't enough evidence, according to the jury, to convict him. He could have still done the deed. Innocent means he didn't do it.
 
jhunter1163 said:
3. Footprints in the blood were found to have been made by a pair of Bruno Magli shoes. Simpson denied ever having owned a pair of such shoes. During the civil trial, pictures of Simpson wearing Bruno Magli shoes were entered into evidence (the criminal prosecution never contacted NBC to see if they had pics of Simpson's shoes)

There are many, many other points, but those are the ones I remember off the top of my head.
Click to expand...

No, this was introduced in the criminal trial, and they did show pictures of him wearing them at a football game. The key to this testimony was that this model was not a popular shoe. It was just another piece of evidence the jury ignored.
 
cyclonic said:
Guilty or not guilty of double homicide?
Click to expand...

Did you miss the verdict back in '95?

Not Guilty

Now, had you simply asked if he killed them...I'd say yes, and I lived in LA at that time. The Rodney King story played well into the hands of Johnie Cochran, as he lead the jury on a tale of racist and lying cops. It was a tit for tat.

why is this in "Politics"?
 
I have not seen this ever commented on, but as an owner of many dogs, has always been telling. They owned an Akita, raised by both of them, OJ & Nicole. It's prints were all over the crime scene. An unknown assailant would have been mauled by that dog. Sadly, it was probably used to seeing him bounce her around a bit.


My .02

ETA: Guilty!
 
Last edited:
Dog Town said:
I have not seen this ever commented on, but as an owner of many dogs, has always been telling. They owned an Akita, raised by both of them, OJ & Nicole. It's prints were all over the crime scene. An unknown assailant would have been mauled by that dog. Sadly, it was probably used to seeing him bounce her around a bit.


My .02

ETA: Guilty!
Click to expand...

Excellent observation!
 
theprestige said:
Out of curiosity, why did you have to choose "not guilty"?
Click to expand...

I just gave the explanation in my post. We can speculate all day about him being guilty (and he probably is), but the law is the only thing we can all agree on. Not guilty was the verdict.

You're not bound by law to agree with the jury's decision, are you?
Click to expand...
No, but it's the only thing we can all agree on.

Just because I think the court system is better than the lynch mob system, and therefore I refrain from lynching OJ just because I think he's guilty, that doesn't mean I have to agree with the findings of the court.
Click to expand...
Sure, and I agree, but again, as far as the law is concerned, he is not guilty, and forever will be, since he can't be prosecuted twice for the same crime.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom