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
Pardalis said:
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.

No, but it's the only thing we can all agree on.

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.
Click to expand...
We are not asked here to make a new verdict with legal consequenses, just to express an opinion. In cases where we dont know much more than the verdict, its sound to assume it's correct. In this case the facts are abundantly (is that a word?) available to all, and the verdict itself doesnt ad much or anything to our knowledge, so it's reasonable to have an independent opinion based on those facts.

Wasnt an option, but guilty as hell, thats my opinion.
 
politics? Really?

the farker was Acquitted of the murders...

Not Guilty

like it or not, he was Acquitted...even if he killed them both.
 
Brainster said:
Yep, this thread like several others is just a fishing expedition for more investigation of Lockerbie. It has nothing to do with OJ Simpson.
Click to expand...

No actually it's Cyclonic's curious response to being reminded of his lingering anger about the OJ case> That was apparently done by pipelineaudio's brilliant thread OJ was innocent (Because the court said so in his criminal trial). This in turn was apparently a direct off-shoot of my Politics (sloppily conceived and titled) forum thread dialog on Lockerie theories, where people were insisting they needn't examine a case already decided in a court. Like a ball tossed off thataway, the people ran to fetch, tripping over each other to denounce this lousy ruling and relive the details they were once motivated to learn about this oh so important event. This thread then is one of those funny trips I was amused to see. Kudos, pipey!

Both OJ threads remain in politics, the why do you believe Megrahi is guilty thread is in CT woosville now. Eh. I could just hijack this thread...

Rolfe as always is sheer genius here, and yeah, going a little over the top arguably, and me too, a little. And oh how people who really really don't want to look at hat will whine about it. But okay, enough acing like an info bully. Rolfe too, I'm not your boss but it's not nice to keep pestering and batting people you know you've got pinned down. Just let them go already. There is bigger game to be found. Rrar.
 
Last edited:
@ Rolfe:

In my personal opinion, yes, the jury let him off figuring that they couldn't do anything for Ron and Nicole, but in the extremely racially charged atmosphere of the time (especially after the Fuhrman testimony) they could prevent race riots in which who knows how many people might die and who knows how much property would be destroyed. Maybe that is a conspiracy theory, but I didn't write the OP.. ;)
 
Brainster said:
Yep, this thread like several others is just a fishing expedition for more investigation of Lockerbie. It has nothing to do with OJ Simpson.
Click to expand...

This thread has nothing to do with the 'lockerbie' thread that i have never read nor will i ever read.

This thread is about if you think oj murdered nicole simpson and ron goldman.

Pat you shouldn't post like a 911truther would.
 
Some oj supporters were man enough to admit they were wrong.

Some of Simpson's supporters changed their minds in the years following his trials, as he seemed to dodge the civil jury's verdict for the victims' families and appeared not to search for the "real killer" as he had promised to do.

OJ must have thought the 'real killer' was a golf pro living in florida, he searched every chance he had, going undercover as a lousy golfer or was that a caddy? can't remember exactly.
 
Caustic Logic said:
Both OJ threads remain in politics, the why do you believe Megrahi is guilty thread is in CT woosville now. Eh. I could just hijack this thread...
Click to expand...

Okay, and now that too has changed. History, Literature, and the arts here we come and the "Lockerbie fishing" has dissipated (metastasized?) out into thee separate subforums. Awesome, or at least amusing.

This thread has nothing to do with the 'lockerbie' thread that i have never read nor will i ever read.
Click to expand...

That's what I was sayin.' And you just keep right on not reading that thread. (ETA: while re-living ancient history, 'cause it ain't literature) You couldn't handle it anyway - It's just too hardcore.
 
Last edited:
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...

Pardalis said:
Sure, and I agree, but again, as far as the law is concerned, he is not guilty,
Click to expand...

But you're not the law, so you're allowed to have an opinion that disagrees with what the jury says.
 
Last edited:
That's hazardous. There are proposals afoot in Scotland to end the prohibition on double jeopardy, and if that happens, it will be retrospective. A similar change in the law in the US, which isn't impossible, could see that guy in court again, and convicted.

Rolfe.
 
Pardalis said:
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.

No, but it's the only thing we can all agree on.
Click to expand...
Of course we can all agree on the fact that the jury returned a verdict of "not guilty". But that seems like a point too obvious to mention. It also seems like a silly question to ask: "Do you believe the jury in the OJ trial returned a verdict of 'not guilty'?"

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.
Click to expand...
Right, but again, what is it about the law's opinion that obligates you to share it?
 
Rolfe said:
That's hazardous. There are proposals afoot in Scotland to end the prohibition on double jeopardy, and if that happens, it will be retrospective. A similar change in the law in the US, which isn't impossible, could see that guy in court again, and convicted.

Rolfe.
Click to expand...

Law? Try the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

PS. The guy, Mel Ignatow, died last year.
 
Last edited:
VINCENT BUGLIOSI VS. O.J. SIMPSON

This series consists of audio excerpts taken from a 12-hour made-for-video program that features lawyer Vincent Bugliosi, entitled "Absolutely 100% Guilty", which was produced in 1999 by Platinum Productions and released in a handsome 6-Tape VHS boxed set. (A shorter DVD version was also available for a limited time several years ago.)

"Absolutely 100% Guilty" is really a video extension of Bugliosi's 1996 best-selling book ("Outrage") on the O.J. Simpson murder case.

These YouTube audio clips contain several of the final portions of the lengthy "Absolutely" program, wherein Mr. Bugliosi goes in front of a "jury" once again (albeit a "simulated" one) to tell us why O.J. Simpson is as "guilty as sin" of murdering Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman on June 12, 1994.

Part 1 of my series begins with a video clip of the jury's preposterous "Not Guilty" verdict as it was being revealed to millions of Americans on live television at the conclusion of Simpson's Los Angeles trial on October 3, 1995.

Then Vincent T. Bugliosi takes over in 1999, and shows us what the prosecutors at Simpson's trial SHOULD have said to that jury four years earlier.

10 part playlist
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=C7FA78DE45E7D251
 
If the glove don't fit...



I remember watching this and thinking how incredibly stupid it was. OJ is obviously contorting his hand and squirming to make it look like the glove only barely went on. Also, what do you expect when you try to slide leather over latex? Leather doesn't work well with latex... umm, as people have told me.

OJ got away with murder. Oh well, worse things have happened.
 
PingOfPong said:
If the glove don't fit...



I remember watching this and thinking how incredibly stupid it was. OJ is obviously contorting his hand and squirming to make it look like the glove only barely went on. Also, what do you expect when you try to slide leather over latex? Leather doesn't work well with latex... umm, as people have told me.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom