Do you think OJ was guilty or not guilty…..
- Thread starter easychair
- Start date
Did Mark Fuhrman eff the whole thing up by trying to “frame” a guilty man? IOW, did he try to make compelling evidence (the bloody glove, if I recall correctly) even more compelling by moving it? Wasn’t one glove found at the scene and the other one found at his house? It’s been so long, I could be mixed up. But I remember not trusting Fuhrman’s racist ass and recall seeing a documentary or tv show that made me wonder if he’d screwed up by trying to manipulate the evidence.
OJ is the difference between the Kardashians being the Kardashians vs just a family of Mia Khalifa's.
Be careful searching that OP.
Be careful searching that OP.
There's another major difference - I don't believe Mia ever was filmed doing anal.
Guilt and not guilty was only racial at the time of the verdict. I worked in a place that was half and half . The verdict was right down racial lines.
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...
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.
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.
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 prosecutors
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.
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.
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.
Wow!!!! You believe OJ was innocent?
Last edited:
The reason is simple. At the lowest common denominator, people believe that "justice" is the outcome that benefits them the most.
Is this some sort of secret? That man is guilty as hell and yet these animals are proud to have killers roaming free.
He was definitely guilty.
There were several things that screwed up, what should have been an open and shut case.
First there was more than one killer and the prosecution refused to consider anything but OJ alone.
Second there was ONE piece of evidence that appeared to be manufactured. It wasn't necessary to do and contributed to the verdict.
The jury was biased. No other way to say it. They wanted to hate Marcia Clark. They wanted to hate Nicole. They wanted to hate the cops. They wanted to hate the case. The defense capitalized on their bias. They were never going to convict OJ.
The judge was a joke.
Finally, the stupid, stupid decision to let Simpson non verbally testify, by trying on the gloves. He put on a great show. The jury wanted to believe him all along.
There were several things that screwed up, what should have been an open and shut case.
First there was more than one killer and the prosecution refused to consider anything but OJ alone.
Second there was ONE piece of evidence that appeared to be manufactured. It wasn't necessary to do and contributed to the verdict.
The jury was biased. No other way to say it. They wanted to hate Marcia Clark. They wanted to hate Nicole. They wanted to hate the cops. They wanted to hate the case. The defense capitalized on their bias. They were never going to convict OJ.
The judge was a joke.
Finally, the stupid, stupid decision to let Simpson non verbally testify, by trying on the gloves. He put on a great show. The jury wanted to believe him all along.
On the idea of planting evidence.
One bloody sock was questionable. Dershowitz says it had a chemical that did not exist in human bodies. He says everything else was legit.
I've never understood how the police could plant all the evidence that was present,in such a short amount of time....and be sure that stuff matched the rest of the story.
The police found blood IMMEDIATELY when they went to OJ's, in multiple places. How did they get blood all over the Bronco, along the walk, all the way to the door, etc?
How did they get Simpson's blood, from Nicole's place, as soon as they arrived?
They would have to have the blood and the story before the murders to do all thst.
One bloody sock was questionable. Dershowitz says it had a chemical that did not exist in human bodies. He says everything else was legit.
I've never understood how the police could plant all the evidence that was present,in such a short amount of time....and be sure that stuff matched the rest of the story.
The police found blood IMMEDIATELY when they went to OJ's, in multiple places. How did they get blood all over the Bronco, along the walk, all the way to the door, etc?
How did they get Simpson's blood, from Nicole's place, as soon as they arrived?
They would have to have the blood and the story before the murders to do all thst.
He killed them. He was not guilty because the prosecution did a crappy job.
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.
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 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.
Last edited:
The jury was influenced by their own prejudices, to the point that it was ridiculous.
The thought process of the jury is just mind blowing.
One racist cop on the force doesn't mean all cops are racist
Sins of the past, don't change the facts of the present
The whole isn't rotten, because a part is
Marcia Clark's "attitude" didn't have anything to to with the evidence.
Nicole Simpson's lifestyle didn't have anything to do with the verdict
Yet jurors bought into every bit of that.
They didn't like Nicole. They hated Marcia Clark. They hated the police.
And they chose to ignore the mission, because they hated the messengers.
How did you find out 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 assassinations
Similar threads
