OJ: did he do it?

[Dead]

I say no. What say you?

[bholdr]

YES.



duh.

[zaxx19]

Of course not...

Black people = GOOD

White people = BAD

Dont you understand the idiot liberal ideology DEAD aheres to??

Remember all things can be broken down into- Good/Bad,

Colonial/Indigenous, Black/White, Liberal/Nazi....

It is really quite simple.

[Warchant88]

This really isn't a political issue, but it ended up becoming that way for the most part.

I think he did it, but I was in elementary school when it happened, so my guess isn't worth much.

[player24]

The evidence against OJ was overwhelming. Guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

[Broken Glass Can]

Let me say the same thing as I did in the OOT thread on OJ:

A guilty verdict means:
/images/graemlins/diamond.gifHe did it

A not guilty verdict means:
/images/graemlins/diamond.gifHe almost certainly did it just short of reasonable doubt -or-
/images/graemlins/diamond.gifHe probably did it -or-
/images/graemlins/diamond.gifHe likely did it more often than not -or-
/images/graemlins/diamond.gifHe might have done it -or-
/images/graemlins/diamond.gifHe could very well have done it -or-
/images/graemlins/diamond.gifHe's innocent -or-
/images/graemlins/diamond.gifWe the Jury are too lazy to figure it out -or-
/images/graemlins/diamond.gifJury nullification rules! -or-
/images/graemlins/diamond.gifDamn, I'll be a media star if I let Him off -or-
/images/graemlins/diamond.gifInsert reason here.


His not guilty verdict does not mean he is truly innocent. There are a lot more reasons to get to not guilty than to get to guilty, and most of them still lead you to the likelihood that OJ did it.

[bholdr]

[ QUOTE ]
Black people = GOOD

White people = BAD

Dont you understand the idiot liberal ideology DEAD aheres to??


[/ QUOTE ]


wtf does this have to do with anything?

[jesusarenque]

[ QUOTE ]
Let me say the same thing as I did in the OOT thread on OJ:

A guilty verdict means:
/images/graemlins/diamond.gifHe did it


[/ QUOTE ]

Not necessarily

[BCPVP]

I say how can you think he didn't?
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/Simpson/Jurypage.html

[Dead]

Prosecution's fault. Most whites assumed he was guilty because he was black.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
Most whites assumed he was guilty because he was black.

[/ QUOTE ]
Most blacks assumed he was innocent because he was black.

[Dead]

Most blacks assumed he was being railroaded because he was black.

Do you think that that dumbass bigot Fuhrman planted the glove?

They couldn't have had a very strong case if they had to plant [censored] around his house.

[BCPVP]

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/Simpson/Evidence.html

[Dead]

According to the law, a person is guilty if proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. But according to the evidence there are too many pieces left open, which creates reasonable doubt, such as:

OJ had a cut on his hand. The bloody glove found did not have a cut to match. Nor did the glove fit.


Ron Goldman was in the peak of his prime physically. OJ is old and has arthritis. Ron Goldman has alot of bruises and cuts. This indicates that there was a long struggle. If there was a long struggle, then OJ would have had bruises as well.

OJ had 0 bruises.

[Cyrus]

"Outrage : The Five Reasons Why O.J. Simpson Got Away With Murder" by VINCENT BUGLIOSI (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0440223822/qid=1113692543/sr=1-3/ref=sr_1_3/102-1510409-7104939?v=glance&s=books)

"...the famed prosecutor of Charles Manson goes to the heart of the trial that divided the country and made a mockery of justice. Vincent Bugliosi, who never lost a murder case, outlines the five reasons why O.J. Simpson got away with murder: the worst possible jury, a sloppy and incomplete prosecution, a fatal change of venue, judicial error that allowed the defense to play the race card, and a weak summation and rebuttal that barely addressed the defense's frame-up and conspiracy theories."

[Dead]

I expected better from you, Cyrus. Really.

[ QUOTE ]
I expected better from you, Cyrus. Really.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe you ought to post a little less and help OJ find the "real killer".

I'll bet it's a Zionist.

[Dead]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I expected better from you, Cyrus. Really.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe you ought to post a little less and help OJ find the "real killer".

I'll bet it's a Zionist.

[/ QUOTE ]

OJ doesn't need to find the real killer. I can't imagine how he must feel, waking up every day without his lovely wife. He must feel horrible, but thankfully he has golf to occupy his time. I think that OJ is a great person.

And I don't think that it was a Zionist. A Zionist probably wouldn't have killed a Jew, Ron Goldman.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I expected better from you, Cyrus. Really.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe you ought to post a little less and help OJ find the "real killer".

I'll bet it's a Zionist.

[/ QUOTE ]

OJ doesn't need to find the real killer. I can't imagine how he must feel, waking up every day without his lovely wife. He must feel horrible, but thankfully he has golf to occupy his time. I think that OJ is a great person.

And I don't think that it was a Zionist. A Zionist probably wouldn't have killed a Jew, Ron Goldman.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think I'm catching on. You're funny. You sure this one isn't your gimmick account?

[Dead]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I expected better from you, Cyrus. Really.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe you ought to post a little less and help OJ find the "real killer".

I'll bet it's a Zionist.

[/ QUOTE ]

OJ doesn't need to find the real killer. I can't imagine how he must feel, waking up every day without his lovely wife. He must feel horrible, but thankfully he has golf to occupy his time. I think that OJ is a great person.

And I don't think that it was a Zionist. A Zionist probably wouldn't have killed a Jew, Ron Goldman.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think I'm catching on. You're funny. You sure this one isn't your gimmick account?

[/ QUOTE ]

You think I'm joking, don't you? See, niss, I don't automatically assume that someone is guilty just because they are black. That's just not my style. You savvy?

[jack spade23]

No opinion on whether or not hes guilty, was too young to really remember, but the fact remains that it is a system. that is the way it works. Not guilty means not guilty in the courts POV. Some with Schiavo, laws are laws. (Plus I dont like the gov't invading state laws.)

[thatpfunk]

You should study something before spouting off about something you obviously have no clue about.

There are many better racial topics you could have addressed.

Are you jaxmike's alter ego?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I expected better from you, Cyrus. Really.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe you ought to post a little less and help OJ find the "real killer".

I'll bet it's a Zionist.

[/ QUOTE ]

OJ doesn't need to find the real killer. I can't imagine how he must feel, waking up every day without his lovely wife. He must feel horrible, but thankfully he has golf to occupy his time. I think that OJ is a great person.

And I don't think that it was a Zionist. A Zionist probably wouldn't have killed a Jew, Ron Goldman.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think I'm catching on. You're funny. You sure this one isn't your gimmick account?

[/ QUOTE ]

You think I'm joking, don't you? See, niss, I don't automatically assume that someone is guilty just because they are black. That's just not my style. You savvy?

[/ QUOTE ]

How old were you when he was tried? 7? Did you just read about this case in your social studies textbook? If you followed the case at all at the time -- which I doubt you did -- there was no doubt.

It's got nothing to do with race. It's got to do with the fact that THE EVIDENCE OVERWHELMINGLY ESTABLISHED THAT HE MURDERED HIS WIFE AND RON GOLDMAN.

But don't take it from me. You think I don't like the guy because he's black. Whatever. Take it from just about anyone with half a brain -- no, make that a quarter of a brain -- that has written about the case. Take it from Dominick Dunne (you do know who he is, don't you) who was at the trial every day and wrote about it contemporaneously.

[Dead]

I was joking about the black thing with you because you were being ridiculous. So, I thought I would be ridiculous as well.

How come OJ had no bruises on him?

How come the glove didn't fit? Was he wearing another glove underneath?

And I was 10 when the case was tried. I remember being in art class when word came that he acquitted. The whole class was happy.

[ QUOTE ]
I was joking about the black thing with you because you were being ridiculous. So, I thought I would be ridiculous as well.

How come OJ had no bruises on him?

How come the glove didn't fit? Was he wearing another glove underneath?

And I was 10 when the case was tried. I remember being in art class when word came that he acquitted. The whole class was happy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you aware that, in a civil trial, he was found liable for the deaths? Or is that a pesky detail that ought to be ignored?

[MelchyBeau]

[ QUOTE ]
How come OJ had no bruises on him?

[/ QUOTE ]
he had cuts on his hand

[ QUOTE ]
How come the glove didn't fit? Was he wearing another glove underneath?


[/ QUOTE ]

Actually yes, He had to wear a latex glove underneath while trying on the glove

[ QUOTE ]
And I was 10 when the case was tried. I remember being in art class when word came that he acquitted. The whole class was happy.

[/ QUOTE ]

somehow a class of 10 year olds doesn't sway my opinion on something

Melch

[Dead]

How come there was no hole in the glove?
Wouldn't there be a hole in the glove if there were cuts on his hand from Ron/Nicole?

The glove still didn't fit.

[Vince Young]

[ QUOTE ]
Richard Rubin was the former general manager and vice president of Aris and an expert on the gloves. Rubin was prepared to say positively that the gloves found at the murder scene and at Rockingham were the same type as those Simpson wore in the photos. Rubin had been on the stand when Chris Darden had Simpson try on the murder gloves during the criminal trial. Rubin explained to us that those gloves had been sitting in evidence for a year and a half, they hadn't been stretched, they hadn't been warmed or worn.

Simpson, he said, had an extra-wide palm but not long fingers. It was easy for a person with such a hand to make a glove look like it didn't fit, just stretching out the palm and fingers would make putting them on very difficult. "Imagine trying to put a pair of pants on a crying infant," he told us. That, combined with the drag created by the latex gloves Simpson had been wearing, make it almost impossible.

"The gloves will fit him. There's no question they fit at the criminal trial. It's not a perfect fit, it might not even be a good fit now, because of the shrinkage. It's the quality of the fit that's in question, but the gloves fit." The problem was the big show Simpson had put on, the mugging and the grunting.

[/ QUOTE ]
Other Answers (http://www.bobaugust.com/answers.htm#no13)

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
How come OJ had no bruises on him? How come the glove didn't fit? Was he wearing another glove underneath? How come there was no hole in the glove? Wouldn't there be a hole in the glove if there were cuts on his hand from Ron/Nicole?

[/ QUOTE ]

Read the goddamn book (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0440223822/qid=1113692543/sr=1-3/ref=sr_1_3/102-1510409-7104939?v=glance&s=books).

[SpearsBritney]

How is he any more likely than any other possible perpetrator to have commited this crime(I mean, as far as we the viewers are concerned).
Oh yeah, the television told us he did it. The truth is, we havn't got a fukkin clue who did it. How is it any less likely that a manipulated case was built around him because he was the most likely suspect. It happens all the time. Oh yeah, the media and that circus for a courtroom told us he did it, and we're mindless sheep who believe any fukkin bullshit that's shoved down our throats aslong as it's in print, instead of simply deciding to be undecided because we weren't there.

[Jim T]

My wife practically watched the whole trial, and was convinced that he was guilty due to the testimony of the limo driver.

From what I saw at the time, I thought that he was guilty. I also believe that he was framed. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Even though I believe he did it, I don't know if I could have returned a guilty verdict. Without seeing all the evidence, I don't know if it was enough to surmount the doubt raised by the actions of the police.

PS Did the contents of the mystery envelope ever come public?

[caretaker1]

I'm no Republican, but I voted yes.

Also, you mean like the "idiot Republican ideology"
Good/Bad:
Pro-War/Anti-American, Conservative/Communist, Pro-life/Murderers, etc.

See how easy it is. Not sure how useful it is though.

[David Steele]

I saw a lot of the trial and there are some things that make me uncertain of his guilt.

a few examples:

The video of him mingling with the inlaws the same day was compelling that he did not seem the least bit angry as the prosecution claimed.

I find it very odd that as a parent, he would kill his childrens mother while they are at home, and then leave the children alone to find the dead mother. It would make more sense to do it when they were not there.

I also agree with the poster who suggested that even if he did it, it looked like he was framed to get a slam dunk conviction.

D.

[EricOF]

[ QUOTE ]
Prosecution's fault. Most whites assumed he was guilty because he was black.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, all that blood had nothing at all to do with it.

Not only did the prosecution have blood, hair, footprint samples that matched those of O.J. but there was no other type of blood, hair, footprint to be found at the crime scene, other than the victims of course. IE, EXACTLY three types of blood were found. There was no mystery fourth type. EXACTLY three types of hair were found. Etc etc. So if O.J. is innocent, we are not only dealing with the frame up of the century, but the cover up of the century as well.

I think a case like this serves as a good proxy for an IQ test. If you think he was innocent after perusing the evidence, you are very likely a dumb person. Certainly the jury was full of them.

[EricOF]

[ QUOTE ]
How is he any more likely than any other possible perpetrator to have commited this crime(I mean, as far as we the viewers are concerned).
Oh yeah, the television told us he did it. The truth is, we havn't got a fukkin clue who did it. How is it any less likely that a manipulated case was built around him because he was the most likely suspect. It happens all the time. Oh yeah, the media and that circus for a courtroom told us he did it, and we're mindless sheep who believe any fukkin bullshit that's shoved down our throats aslong as it's in print, instead of simply deciding to be undecided because we weren't there.

[/ QUOTE ]

What brand of stupidity is this? Are you saying the media conspired to lie about the evidence? We had AT LEAST as much evidence to work with as the jury and could watch the whole trial as it happened. It's just that the jury happened to be full of blacks with a likely IQ of 85 (the average IQ for American blacks). One of the jurors actually said after the trial that she didn't trust the DNA evidence because she once took a pregnancy test and the result was false. Dumb jury = dumb verdict. The technical nature of the evidence went completely over their heads.

[BCPVP]

"The Jury By Education: 2 College Graduates, 9 High School Graduates, 1 Without Diploma

Some other facts about the final jury: (1) None regularly read a newspaper, but eight regularly watch tabloid TV shows, (2) five thought it was sometimes appropriate to use force on a family member, (3) all were Democrats, (4) five reported that they or another family member had had a negative experience with the police, (5) nine thought that Simpson was less likely to be a murderer because he was a professional athlete.

The racial composition of the initial jury pool differed considerably from the racial compostion of the final jury. The pool was 40% white, 28% black, 17% Hispanic, and 15% Asian. "
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/Simpson/Jurypage.html

[CORed]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't automatically assume that someone is guilty just because they are black.

[/ QUOTE ]

Neither do I. But I do tend to assume someone is guilty when he tracks his victims' blood all over his car and his house.

[lastchance]

Hey, you can't assume that. Guilty = beyond a reasonable doubt.

But let's face it, the standard for this poll is not reasonable doubt. The fact that Dead is using his philosphy about racism and disbelief in evidence makes me believe that he is a poster to be ignored.

[AnyTwoCanLose]

Its ridiculous to believe that he was framed. Everyone loved O.J. If the police really did want to frame someone (and why would they?) why would it be O.J.?

CA's filled with nuts and idiots. Its a state that regularly gets what it deserves. /images/graemlins/mad.gif

[MCS]

Well, I'm a pretty liberal guy, I care a lot about racial issues in this country, and I think OJ is pretty clearly guilty. I don't think it's a liberal/conservative issue, but it's striking how the case was so sharply divided among racial lines.

In the words of Barry Saunders, "When's the last time you saw OJ with a black woman who wasn't his mama?"

It's dangerous to imply anyone thinking OJ is guilty must be guilty of prejudice. If you really care about helping people to understand white privilege in America, then you need to pick your battles appropriately.

[Daliman]

[ QUOTE ]
I say no. What say you?

[/ QUOTE ]

I say I didn't know you were black.

[Daliman]

Are you saying the gloves HE bought, which there was a reciept forin the largest size made, gloves that fit a man 4 inches taller than OJ, did not fit him?

I can make a glove WAY bigger than my hand not go on my hand If I cramp up my hand. ESPECIALLY if it's dried up.

[Daliman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How come OJ had no bruises on him? How come the glove didn't fit? Was he wearing another glove underneath? How come there was no hole in the glove? Wouldn't there be a hole in the glove if there were cuts on his hand from Ron/Nicole?

[/ QUOTE ]

Read the goddamn book (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0440223822/qid=1113692543/sr=1-3/ref=sr_1_3/102-1510409-7104939?v=glance&s=books).

[/ QUOTE ]

Bugliosi is the NIZZUTS!

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think it's a liberal/conservative issue...

[/ QUOTE ]
As is clear by the poll results as of now which show that over 90% that've voted think he's guilty.

Dead's just off his rocker again and there are few libs backing him up....

[thatpfunk]

Don't lump liberals with Dead. He is the liberal jaxmike.

[BCPVP]

I wasn't, hence quoting the "it's not a liberal/conservative" issue. I don't believe it is and the evidence is the poll results.

[SpearsBritney]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How is he any more likely than any other possible perpetrator to have commited this crime(I mean, as far as we the viewers are concerned).
Oh yeah, the television told us he did it. The truth is, we havn't got a fukkin clue who did it. How is it any less likely that a manipulated case was built around him because he was the most likely suspect. It happens all the time. Oh yeah, the media and that circus for a courtroom told us he did it, and we're mindless sheep who believe any fukkin bullshit that's shoved down our throats aslong as it's in print, instead of simply deciding to be undecided because we weren't there.

[/ QUOTE ]

What brand of stupidity is this? Are you saying the media conspired to lie about the evidence? We had AT LEAST as much evidence to work with as the jury and could watch the whole trial as it happened. It's just that the jury happened to be full of blacks with a likely IQ of 85 (the average IQ for American blacks). One of the jurors actually said after the trial that she didn't trust the DNA evidence because she once took a pregnancy test and the result was false. Dumb jury = dumb verdict. The technical nature of the evidence went completely over their heads.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I am not saying the media 'conspired' to lie. I am simply saying that unless you were there, you havn't got a fukkin clue what realy happened that day, no matter what you think you 'know' about the case. I have absolutely no opinion as to wether or not O.J. commited that crime, simply because the only information I (or any other viewer)have about the case has been handled, filtered, and channeled. Why do you feel so strongly that you need to the 'truth' anyway?