Guiltyof killing Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman. With no racial animus, I have always been thoroughly convinced that he was guilty.
Guiltyof killing Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman. With no racial animus, I have always been thoroughly convinced that he was guilty.
There's another major difference - I don't believe Mia ever was filmed doing anal.OJ is the difference between the Kardashians being the Kardashians vs just a family of Mia Khalifa's.
Be careful searching that OP.
About his history with woman…His history with women and physically abusing Nicole would certainly point to a good chance he was capable of doing it. Probability is high he was involved.
His question was personal. Not according some legal definition. Do YOU .. regardless of jury and judge... think he killed his wife and Ron Goldman? Take off the lawyer lenses and answer from your heart. Oh .. do lawyers have hearts? just kidding...Is your question whether I think he was “not guilty” or whether I think he was “innocent” because those are two separate questions.
I don’t have to guess whether he was not guilty. A jury determined he was in fact not guilty.
An easy fix to our system would be to change verdicts to “proven beyond a reasonable doubt” and “not proven beyond a reasonable doubt”.
No one can defend how bad a job they did, but jurors today are admitting they nullified the verdict based on race. Just look at the reaction videos from TV - whites couldn't believe it, while AAs celebrated. There was a lot that went into that - mostly the Rodney King incident - but there is zero question that it was a case of jury nullification - the jurors are openly admitting it in interviews today.The prosecution team botched the case on a million levels, but none more than just over-trying it. By trying to preempt every possible defense, they made it nauseatingly long and invited jurors to be overwhelmed. A case study on how not to try a case.
The jury gets far too much of the blame. The prosecution deserves much more of it.
Well, this juror totally disagrees with you regarding Rodney King:I was out in Los Angeles when the crimes occurred. Nobody out there ever wanted to discuss whether he was guilty or not. And as far as the modern day re-invention of history of this was payback for Rodney King, that’s bullshit. they didn’t give a shit about Rodney King they just wanted to stick it to whitey
in a way karma kind of won out. He still served almost 10 years which is probably more than most murderers in California spend and he was shunned by decent society and his poor little ego didn’t get stroked. There are stories coming out now that US C paid off battered blonde girls during his time there.
As a sidenote a friend of mine used to frequent an Italian restaurant in the Tampa area that OJ discovered and liked to come to. After his third or fourth visit the owner came out and told him he was not welcome there please don’t come back. So for a guy like that to be shunned that was paid back.
You also can't expect people to be intellectually honest about things like that. After he came out and basically admitted he did it, was found liable in the civil trial, and time passed so that everyone knows he did it, those jurors do not want to acknowledge their complicity in being duped, so they're pointing to other things. I would heavily discount those current claims.No one can defend how bad a job they did, but jurors today are admitting they nullified the verdict based on race. Just look at the reaction videos from TV - whites couldn't believe it, while AAs celebrated. There was a lot that went into that - mostly the Rodney King incident - but there is zero question that it was a case of jury nullification - the jurors are openly admitting it in interviews today.
only because they were able to discredit one of the lead investigators as being a racist POS.....the evidence at the scene points to OJ not many gangs run around wearing Brunos...u see the same thing in DJT cases not that hes innocent but attacking the judges and prosecutorsNot proven
No doubt guilty. Our judicial system and laws can be manipulated by lawyers who wrote the laws.of killing Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman. With no racial animus, I have always been thoroughly convinced that he was guilty.
I am 100% convinced that he did it. But I can see what the jury did not convict him with the way the prosecution own witnesses messed up. The lead detective was a terrible witness and having him try on the gloves was the stupidest decision ever.If one has studied the facts of the case at all, the evidence is as iron clad as any murder case could possibly be. He’s guilty not just beyond any reasonable doubt, but beyond any doubt.
A lot or people don't believe that Trump is guilty of anything based on the level of evidence presented so far. Why is that. I am willing to wager that those same people that believe that Simpson is guilty are the ones that believe Trump is not guilty, along with believing that Jan 6 was a tourist day.Guilty. But my degree of confidence was probably only at 80% upon the verdict announcement. But OJ's behavior since then has raised my confidence to over 90%. E.g., where he subsequently (and stupidly) published the book titled "If I Did It" which is essentially a theoretical confession.
But the glove didn't fit, and the jury did acquit.
What do you expect her to say now almost 30 years later?
Wow!!!! You believe OJ was innocent?A lot or people don't believe that Trump is guilty of anything based on the level of evidence presented so far. Why is that. I am willing to wager that those same people that believe that Simpson is guilty are the ones that believe Trump is not guilty, along with believing that Jan 6 was a tourist day.
The reason is simple. At the lowest common denominator, people believe that "justice" is the outcome that benefits them the most.A lot or people don't believe that Trump is guilty of anything based on the level of evidence presented so far. Why is that. I am willing to wager that those same people that believe that Simpson is guilty are the ones that believe Trump is not guilty, along with believing that Jan 6 was a tourist day.
CYAYou also can't expect people to be intellectually honest about things like that. After he came out and basically admitted he did it, was found liable in the civil trial, and time passed so that everyone knows he did it, those jurors do not want to acknowledge their complicity in being duped, so they're pointing to other things. I would heavily discount those current claims.
GUILTY!!!of killing Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman. With no racial animus, I have always been thoroughly convinced that he was guilty.
Is this some sort of secret? That man is guilty as hell and yet these animals are proud to have killers roaming free.
of killing Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman. With no racial animus, I have always been thoroughly convinced that he was guilty.
He killed them. He was not guilty because the prosecution did a crappy job.of killing Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman. With no racial animus, I have always been thoroughly convinced that he was guilty.
I am not sure why people find this hard to believe. There was a clear divide between white and black Americans regarding this case. Rodney King had happened three years prior; race relations, especially in LA, were as low as they have ever been. Whites were stunned, while blacks celebrated.You also can't expect people to be intellectually honest about things like that. After he came out and basically admitted he did it, was found liable in the civil trial, and time passed so that everyone knows he did it, those jurors do not want to acknowledge their complicity in being duped, so they're pointing to other things. I would heavily discount those current claims.
lol, no, not to them. And I'm not denying the divide, and I witnessed it, but the manner in which the case was presented fueled the divide, and it gave more oxygen to it and allowed it to play more significant role than it otherwise would have.I am not sure why people find this hard to believe. There was a clear divide between white and black Americans regarding this case. Rodney King had happened three years prior; race relations, especially in LA, were as low as they have ever been. Whites were stunned, while blacks celebrated.
What reason would someone admit this instead of just saying that they didn't prove it beyond a reasonable doubt because the state sucked at presenting their case? They are publically saying something that is far more embarrassing than saying they were duped.
Two different topics, although they are closely related: OJ’s guilt or innocence, and the undeniable divide between white America and black America. While I would agree that the prosecution could have done a better job, I believe they did a good enough job to convict OJ with a fair and impartial jury. The evidence was undeniable to fair and impartial minds. The evidence proved that he was guilty. The not guilty verdict was rendered because the black members of the jury had an agenda…. to deny OJ’s guilt regardless of what the evidence showed. Now that the OJ hysteria has died down, many Black people are admitting that he was guilty. Stephen A. Smith on ESPN admitted OJ’s guilt just this week. The case was lost even before it started when the DA decided to try the case in downtown Los Angeles, where the make up of the jury would be greatly biased toward O.J. and against the police, instead of choosing the venue of the suburbs where the murders took place and where O.J. lived, and where a jury of OJ’s peers could be seated. The fault of the non-guilty verdict in this case lies totally with the DA’s decision of where he decided to try the case.lol, no, not to them. And I'm not denying the divide, and I witnessed it, but the manner in which the case was presented fueled the divide, and it gave more oxygen to it and allowed it to play more significant role than it otherwise would have.
Two different topics, although they are closely related: OJ’s guilt or innocence, and the undeniable divide between white America and black America. While I would agree that the prosecution could have done a better job, I believe they did a good enough job to convict OJ with a fair and impartial jury. The evidence was undeniable to fair and impartial minds. The evidenced proved that he was guilty. The not guilty verdict was rendered because the black members of the jury had an agenda…. to deny OJ’s guilt regardless of what the evidence showed. Now that the OJ hysteria has died down, many Black people are admitting that he was guilty. Stephen A. Smith on ESPN admitted OJ’s guilt just this week. The case was lost even before it started when the DA decided to try the case in downtown Los Angeles, where the make up of the jury would be greatly biased toward O.J. and against the police, instead of choosing the venue of the suburbs where the murders took place and where O.J. lived, and where a jury of OJ’s peers could be seated. The fault of the non-guilty verdict in this case lies totally with the DA’s decision of where he decided to try the case.
How did you find out Johnny Cochran, knew he was guilty?No doubt guilty. Our judicial system and laws can be manipulated by lawyers who wrote the laws.
Everyone in the world, including Johnny Cochran, knew he was guilty.
The jury never knew that OJ's lawyers asked him to stop taking his arthritis medicine before the glove fitting court event so that his hands would swell/expand and not fit,...the better question is to ask if you think he is a murderer,..because the question of innocence in a court setting is something that humans, even comprised in a group of 12,...get wrong quite a lot,.especially when the defendant has enough money and clout to investigate the team of the prosecution and engage in character assassinationsIs your question whether I think he was “not guilty” or whether I think he was “innocent” because those are two separate questions.
I don’t have to guess whether he was not guilty. A jury determined he was in fact not guilty.
An easy fix to our system would be to change verdicts to “proven beyond a reasonable doubt” and “not proven beyond a reasonable doubt”.