OJ: did he do it?

[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/proj.../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. [img]/images/graemlins/mad.gif[/img]

[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.