O.J. Simpson - 10 years later, MSNBC. Flamefest: he didn't do it.

Watching Deborah Norville now, she's devoting the entire hour.

I tell you, I watched the whole damn thing O.J. from the night of the Bronco "chase", through all of the trial.

I think O.J is an egotistical asshole.
I think the police planted evidence like crazy.
I think O.J's son or someone else killed Nicole and Ron Goldman.
I don't think O.J. did it - nor did the jurors or anyone else who watched the trial.

Come out swinging.

Can I get your email address?

I was most amused by people like Victoria Toensing and her husband, Joe DiGenova, who would come on tv every night and "analyze" the trial. It was so apparent THEY HAD NO CLUE WHAT HAD BEEN PRESENTED IN THE COURTROOM. They were just parroting their "talking points".

The O.J. trial was the first time I started to really understand the corporate media. I watched the trial every day. Then I watched what was presented on the news every night.

where the rules of evidence are relaxed and competent counsel represented the plaintiff.
For instance with like 100 photos of shoes he said he never owned, and on and on and on.

how he hopped the fence without getting a drop of blood on it...

Remember - he was alleged to be dripping blood, he climbs over the fence and hits the wall of the guest house, catching the attention of Brian "Kato" Kaelin, and here he drops the bloody glove.

So how can he get over the fence without getting a drop of blood on it. Did he hurdle it?

.

that you couldn't trust anything you saw on TV. I'd look at the recaps and think to myself, "Are they even talking about the same trial I watched today?" I won't say he is innocent, but I will say I understand why he was acquitted.

The timeline they gave didn't make any sense and having that glove show up in his backyard didn't help either.

I still think he did it or payed someone to do it, but the verdict in the case was correct. Too much reasonable doubt.

It's in deepest West Texas, great farm land, very....um.....arid, yeah that's it, arid, and lovely. Only $35,000 an acre!

Look, I'm exposing myself to 3rd degree burns here. Spit it out.

That's my NSHO, anyway.

The cuts on his hands, the blood evidence, the shoes. I was in college at the time, and I remember seeing the trial on TV and listening on the radio. "All OJ, all the time." It was between classes and I was listening to the radio and dreading the outcome, because I knew he was guilty as hell and I also knew that, with that hand picked jury, there was no way on God's green earth that they were going to find him guilty. And, to my horror, I was right.

:grr: :mad:

Later,

if he had deep cuts on his hands, then were there cuts in the gloves in the same place. I think it would be pretty easy to match up. Any news about that?

At the time of that trial I had a writing job. I'd write at night and watch the trial during the day.

There was no way a jury (in the criminal trial) could convict, white or black, if they followed instructions. You had key witnesses lying, and some evidence planted. When witnesses lie, the jury is instructed that they can disregard all their testimony (and the evidence they say they "found"). When some evidence is doctored, you have to consider that other evidence could be doctored.

And no, the cuts on ths hands were not matched with cuts on the gloves, so the police said he must have taken the gloves off, or had them pulled off, before the cuts.

Now, the civil trial was another matter. I read the transcript of that. When OJ took the stand, he made an idiot of himself and was such a liar that a preponderance of the evidence (lighter standard than beyond a reasonable doubt) had to find him guilty.

My two cents.

Bev Harris

His youth in gangs, where violence is a way of life... Also, listen to those 911 recordings of Nicole, look at the track record. This is a violent man, possessive, full of rage, and like the culture of celebrity athletes attests, no accountability when many will cover for him.

He is an abusive asshole, had the motive, and with his massive cult of celebrity, had the opportunity.

The LAPD is just as bad, with their racist cops and incompetence, as well as the failure of the prosecution to execute an open-and-shut case.

It's ugly all the way around.

But the stupidity and racism of the LAPD and prosecution aside, the man was guilty as all shit.

I won't flame you because I don't flame naive people or people in denial. I will say the 'son' angle is new to me. Where the fuck was his DNA in all of this? Cut on a drinking glass, indeed.

Fuck OJ and his accomplices both private and among the cheering masses who enable his miserable being to this day.

Kardahsian never spoke to OJ again after that trial. Remember him taking the garment bag out of the house?

... replying by saying it is not worth a reply.

and I'm always accused of being pro-OJ because of it.

However, I don't think his son is the murderer.

I think he hired someone to do it, and watched it take place.

But I don't think he did the deeds himself.

a distinction without a difference.

He did it, and the jury knew he did it. They just handed out a small dose of the bullshit they've been getting all their lives.

I was angry, but upon reflection I don't blame them a bit.

and watching them being stabbed.

there's also a big difference in stabbing someone to death, and paying for someone to do it.

I, too, watched the trial from day one.

And I'm still convinced that he did not do it.

Just MHO.

Plus, that smirk when he was let go. An innocent man would have broke down in tears of joy. He smirked like Streak swallowed matcom's fish.

It's one person's gut against the other's. Some of you say "I know he didn't do it", and others are saying "I know he did".

I have DNA, his life history, and motive on my side. I'll match my gut against anyone's any day.

The OJ obsession was a sickness anyway. I hate jocks, hate celebrity-worship, and felt it was nauseatingly over-covered.

from neither his football days or his acting days.

I'm just using common sense.

I know nothing about smirks and promises.

I just know that the prosecution did not convince me that he was guilty.

If you think they failed, you are correct there! And I also blame Ito for allowing the circus atmosphere to triumph.

Forget about what you saw on TV and your gut. Look into his LIFE, and you will see a man who has murder on his mind.

Let's face it, if he could watch someone do it, he could do it himself. It makes him no less guilty.

I am not saying you are a fan, that being said, all the alternative theories have even BIGGER holes than the ones the LAPD and the prosecution left in!

He is guilty by virtue of all other theories falling short of even the prosecution's incompetence (and keep in mind the jury didn't even have half the evidence TV viewers did - crucial DNA evidence - so if I served on that jury, I probably would have acquitted him too).

I'm more of a Letterman fan myself. ;-) (and when you see how Leno props up Bush and Arnie, I am vindicated as usual)

One thing I loved about Letterman, is that he refused to do any OJ jokes simply because he felt there was nothing funny about a double murder. That is a view I think anyone can respect, regardless of one's views of who did or did not do the crime.

That is the one thing we can ALL agree on. A HORRIBLE slaying took place. Kids lost their mother, parents lost their children, siblings lost siblings... friends lost friends.

And so regardless of whether OJ did it or not, the killer is FREE, and justice has been denied.

On that conciliatory note, I am exiting this thread. :-)

... I'm likely to disagree with you.

If you pay someone to murder, you are a murderer, equally culpable in my opinion and *almost* equally in the opinion of the law.

He didn't cut himself up shaving. The jury nullified for two good reasons, incompetent prosecution being one of them :)

difference in paying someone to kill for you or doing the deed yourself.

In both cases you're the cause of another person's death, in fact hiring a killer is actually worse because you're involving another party in your treachery due to your own cowardice.

Sorta like chimpie using our military to do what he would never have the courage to do himself.

I always thought it was OJ. Wasn't it his DNA?

who got off playing the race card.

Johnny Cochran's an asshole (albeit not a double murdering one, just a wife beating one) too.

Which would make OJ just as guilty as hell. But I strongly believe, based on the evidence presented at the trial - both trials - and all the information I was able to collect - OJ did NOT do it.

I do not have any links, but I have read some books that point to Jason, the son, as the one who HATED Nicole, and offed her. I also find the drug connections compelling.

Did OJ pay someone? I don't know. I do know that he did not physically commit the acts.

Is it a hunch or do you have actual proof that he did NOT do it?

It was swept under the rug at the time, but that man is VIOLENT and threatened to kill Nicole MANY times, and beat her senseless when he wasn't just terrifying her. His whole background, before football saved his life in college, was one of violence as the ultimate way of life, the solution to his problems. The way he treated her like chattel was disgusting (grabbing her crotch in public places and saying it belonged to him).

OJ is scum. I have always regarded athlete worship one of the worst diseases to befall the nation. At his core, he is an arrogant jock with serious rage problems and practices domestic abusiveness as an art. He is an even better wife beater than he was a running back.

Anyway, if he did just 'watch', that makes him no less culpable as an accomplice to TWO brutal first-degree murders. Might as well skip that extra step you're inserting there and declare him guiltier than a cat in a fish hatchery of the whole shebang.

I do not condone violence in any form. But it was known, among these people that OJ and Nicole had a very "physical" relationship. That Nicole"went for bad", as we say. According to these accounts, Nicole frequently started shit with OJ, then, if he responded, she jumped on the phone to 911.

I am not saying what OJ did was right. But I don't believe Nicole was an innocent. These 2 were stuck in a serious love/hate relationship. When I listened to the 911 tapes, it didn't sound to me like Nicole was in any real danger. I have experienced domestic violence - and Nicole was very much in control of the situation.

flame on. I know it's completely un-pc. Just sharing my version of the truth.

if you listen in the background to OJ, he's going off on her for giving her boyfriend a blowjob with the curtains to the window wide open.

His main concern was the children coming downstairs...........

That was just one, and one of the milder ones. You can read transcripts of them going back some span of time, where she was fearing for her life. She was pissed that the dispatchers were lax because he was who he was. The really bad calls never got airplay - you can only read the transcripts. Horrifying shit.

She exhibited all the classic signs of a battered wife, even when she engaged in tit-for-tat emotional games - that is a natural byproduct to take some semblance of power when you have none.

Most of the printed transcripts were avalible in lieu of tapes, but blame the whore media and its selective editing practices. Look no further than selective Abu Ghraib coverage to see THAT in play.

More than that, there was no way to stay on top of ALL the coverage. No matter ho wmuch you watched, you couldn't see it all. Just becvause you didn't see, read, or hear the worst tapes, doesn't mean they weren't there. I heard many of them.

So afraid of his kids seeing Nicole in a sex act, but not worried about them finding her mutilated, bleeding body and that of Ron. He is a murderer, plain and simple. I will leave this thread with one question. Why in the hell would the police, who seemingly all liked him and never arrested him for abusing Nicole because of his celebrity, plant evidence? This is a no-brainer. Gotta go, this thread is disgusting.

Maybe I should flame you, but I will not break the DU rules just to beat my head against a brick wall.

but she could have found other people to fuck besides his friends.

Again, IMHO.

I find that reprehensible.

" But I don't believe Nicole was an innocent."

that she got murdered?

Or are you saying that killed Ron, and then comitted suicide by nearly sawing off her own head?

OMG. Let me get my hip boots on..

OJ did it. And he will burn in hell for it.

Only, I wouldn't even entertain the possibilty he only watched. Orenthal the knife murder cut two people's throats.

did.. there was a private investigator who made a pretty good case for that theory.
He hired an attorney for his son the next day... before one for himself ... and more ...
Have to try to look it up, unless someone else knows??

I was at a place in my life where I was able to stay home...and I was actively involved in a "crime" group that analyzed trials and such. All of those in my group, to a one, believe he was guilty.
So, your statement that anyone who watched the trial thought he was not guilty is wrong.

He did it.

OJ's house? To the thud heard from someone climbing the fence? The prosecution never bothered to explain how OJ supposedly jumped over the fence, but then also came through the front walkway dripping little splatters of blood along the way?

That and MANY other inconsistencies.

Ah, the police. The criminal justice system. The corporate media. This was the perfect effing storm.

after it was drawn. Drove around with it for hours. Then it was revealed that some of the blood was missing.

I remember that woman prosecutor (Marsha something?) saying this.

Words out of her mouth. Maybe not exact quote but damned close.

In a murder case, the spouse is ALWAYS a suspect, aren't they?

Prosecution seemed almost inept to me.

Maybe the state purposely had a less than stellar prosecutor on his case. After all, they covered up his repeated wife beating.

But I watched very little of the trial and tried to avoid news coverage like the plague.

scandals cast even more doubt on LAPD. I doubt that Ramparts was hermetically sealed off from the rest of LAPD with regard to corruption. As in Abu Ghraib, it wasn't just 6 or 7 bad apples in the barrel.

And all the cops standing around watching Rodney King take a beating were part of the same small, closely knit unit gone astray. Uh-huh.

OJ did it.

The police planted the evidence anyway.

It was a fucking mess from the git-go. Ironically, the believed his cult status as jock and his popularity would get him off the hook, so they tried embellishing what didn't need it. That drives me nuts to this day. Even a rookie KNOWS the damage wrought by even accidental evidence tampering, let alone this fiasco.

Personally, I would like Fuhrman and OJ to be locked for the rest of their lives together in a 10x10 cell.

Crime scene was a bloodbath. Whoever left it had traces of blood in the cracks and seams of EVERYTHING they went near. With all due respect for his athletic abilities, OJ just ain't smart enough or nimble enough to pull it off.

I stabbed myself in the hand during that time, and blood spurted everywhere.

I cleaned it up, but the next morning there was still a lot of blood.

And this from my hand.

Opposed to the blood from two human adults............... the prosecutions picture just did not add up.

People need to use logic and stop thinking with their biases here.

:snort:

really did bungle the evidence and I could not have convicted him

blatant attempts to shift focus off Bush, Iraq, Plamegate etc. It is a crime to spend one minute on what was always media hyped event. What angers me is that Americans love wealth so much that they deify those who possess it. If OJ was a poor nobody noone would give a fuck. If you're so convinced of his innocence, why aren't you and OJ spending each spare minute working with Project Innnocence to free the truly falsely accused?

or even asian to satisfy his yellow fever

1. Do you think he did it?

2. do you think the jury should have found him guilty?

In the former, I do think he probably did it, but for the latter, I agree with the jury based on how much I saw of the trial. I did not see every minute of it but I did not see proof beyond a reasonable doubt during the 90% or so that I did watch.

Unfortunately, once Furman got caught lying about using the "N" word and when it was shown how he used it I had to discount pretty much any piece of evidence that he touched.

In any case, whether he did it or not it is not exactly then end of the world that he got off.

I always stick by the notion that it would be better for a few guilty to go free than for even one innocent to be wrongly convicted.

The guilt was written in his face, no joke. Especially when he was acquitted, his expression said it all.

And if you look at him now, it is a sorry sight, he looks like he is in a living hell of his own making.

The police framed him and the media sold the frame, but I'm not convinced either way. I think the cops were so convinced that it was him they planted bloody gloves and socks. The media was at its absolute worst in this case, printing everything the cops said as fact, even when the cops were caught lying, or when the evidence made no sense.

And the DNA expert who invented the technique used to trace OJ's blood to the crime scene said there was no way it was OJ's blood, and demonstrated that the testing was giving false positives.

Add to the mix that this same police department was busted a couple of years later planting evidence and framing innocent suspects, often resulting in their convictions, and I don't see how people think they know what happened.

None of that means OJ is innocent, only that the cops were guilty and the prosecution incompetent.

There were weird coincidences, too, that weren't really explained. Like, OJ's friend and fellow witness in a drug trial being stabbed to death at the same time as Nicole in a different part of the city.

I can easily see OJ covering for his son, or OJ being threatened by the drug dealers he was supposed to testify against. Say he knew they had killed Nicole. Say they grabbed him, brought him to the crime scene, made him watch them kill her, then told him his son was next if he testified. OJ could try to get free, using whatever legal tricks he could, but he couldn't tell what he actually saw. I could see that happening.

I can just as easily see OJ having done it.

What I can't see is how anyone who has watched our media shred Bill Clinton and prop up W Bush and Reagan could make a decision that OJ was guilty based on what the media decided to tell them. The trial proved nothing except that LA DAs are incompetent, and that LA crime labs couldn't handle DNA evidence.

drug scenario is pretty far out. I've never heard anything about that. Do you have any links?
What you're talking about is blackmail. Big Time.

Your scenario is convoluted and absurd. The simplest explanation, that covers ALL the facts in the case, is that O.J. did it. I watched the trial myself (I was in school at the time and had little else to do during the day.) That guy was as guilty as anyone has ever been.

Guilty without a doubt!

Please bring lots of money!

and I'm a damned good poker player. Bring your wallet.

:D

no wonder I find you irresistible :)
and a worhty adversary at the same time ...
poker has honor ..

Love the game.

I think PartyPoker allows private games.

The OJ trial was to justice as the Bush administration is to government.

...and in my mind I thought O.J. was guilty of the murder of Nicole and Ron Goldman.

I rooted for O.J. in college and in the pros. At first I didn't want O.J. to be guilty, but half way through the trial it was obvious! I had cut O.J. way too much slack.

O.J. told two people the truth. Robert Shapiro and Roosevelt Grear. The two persons that helped O.J. were Robert Kardashian and A.C. Cowlings, and perhaps his son.

The trial was a sham. The civil trial proved to the world that O.J. had lied about many issues concerning the death of Nicole.

Not a doubt in my mind about this man's guilt.

And I came to the following conclusions:

1/ OJ did it or was directly involved, including being at the scene.

2/ The police planted evidence designed to make it a slam dunk and instead, they cast doubts that would free OJ.

3/ The prosecution was inexperienced and/or incompetent.

4/ The jury, based on the evidence, including the fact that the police planted some of it, and with the errors in handling of blood and the "hail mary" of returning to the scene and "finding" more "overlooked" blood created a situation where there was reasonable doubt.

I weighed all that together and I came to the conclusion that OJ did the crime, but he was not proven to be guilty beyond reasonable doubt and that resonable doubt was introduced by the Los Angeles police department. The jury was correct, the case was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.

However, OJ still did the crime, he just didn't have to do the time because of "legal technicalities", as happens not infrequently with serious crimes.

BLAME BUSH FIRST!

Click here for "BLAME BUSH FIRST", and other fair and balanced yet stunning buttons, magnets and stickers

but the crimes of the LAPD could not be ignored. Convicting O.J. would set a precedent that it's o.k. for the cops to pull this kind of crap as long as you can show that the guy actually did it. To me, it was more important that the jury not let the cops get away with it, even if it meant O.J. would get away with murder. Even if O.J. did it, it would be highly unlikely that he would be compelled to murder someone else in the future. But if the cops got away with what they did, it would send a signal to the LAPD that it was o.k. to violate an individual's rights if you needed to do so. You'll still get the conviction.

This is a pretty well established principle. Even if a guy is guilty, if the prosecution manufactures evidence and lies, the conviction gets thrown out -- if not by the judge, then by the jury.

And by the way -- HOW many white guys who lynched or beat black guys to death or torched little black girls in churches got off scott free?

That's right. I think we can put that figure in the hundreds. So OJ comes along, folks know the police cheated, prosecution has dirty hands and since the case was flawed anyway, it may have been used also to balance the scales of justice for all those klansmen who got away with it.

By the way, if you saw some of the manuevering out of the jury's presence, there was a whole subtext involving Marcia Clark's visit to the crime scene the next day, and another subtext involving the judge's wife's handling of the evidence chain, that dirtied up the prosecution's hands even more.

Bev

I watched the trial and came to the conclusion that OJ did not commit those murders. If I had been a juror I would have voted not guilty also. I wonder why this case is still being discussed. It's been ten years since the crime was committed and during that period many people have been cleared of murder and that was the end of it. In Texas, Robert Durst admitted killing and dismembering his neighbor and was acquitted. Many people were surprised at the verdict but I saw none of the rage that continues to be directed at Simpson who was also acquitted. I did not hear anyone making negative comments about the jurors. Durst is also suspected of killing his wife and her friend yet his case is no longer being discussed in the media.

I think Simpson is the object of so much hatred because his alleged victims were white. In this country, people get outraged if it is perceived that a black person as gotten away with harming a white person. Are we going to hear about this case every year on the anniversary of the murders? When black people talk about crimes committed against them, they are told to forget the past, to move on.Oh well, as usual, different rules for black folks.

And good night.

the 87% that believes he is guilty will sooner go their graves believing that he is guilty based on supposedly evidence and blatant media hype than admit they might just be wrong, but of course they don't care if they are right/wrong because that is not the issue here and will never be. Oh, they'll protest vehemently and stay in denial of course but they know it I know it and by God he knows it.

as a matter of fact, the reason I watched the trial was because I couldn't imagine that he was even going to put on a defense, make a long story short, by the end of the trial, the only thing I was convinced of beyond a reasonable doubt, was that the evidence was planted. I watched the entire trial and there is no way they would have had to plant evidence if he was guilty.

Now seeing how manipulating the press is, I can see why so many people think he did it.

Hmm.. I think most any of us, when faced with the murder of our estranged wife would have a disguise, thousands in cash, and head for Mexico. THAT sounds pretty reasonable. I take you you weren't around for whole trial, etc. He did it.

You don't know he did it, and nobody here knows that he did it. There is plenty of evidence to support both sides. It's rediculous to call impossible the theory that a couple of police officers, one of whom was a vicious racist, could have planted evidence to ensure the conviction of a suspect they probably believed was guilty.

and the murderer just happened to wear the same exact, ultra-expensive Italian loafers. Crime must really pay. You just couldn't have lived in L.A. when this happened, otherwise you'd know that he had a history of abusing Nicole, and that she had even put information away in the event of her death, implicating O.J. Or perhaps you forgot his training for the Navy Seal movie, that basically went along with what he did to Ron and Nicole.

I can't fucking believe I'd see people on DU believing a wife abuser who murdered his wife. How many women have to be murdered EVERY DAY by estranged husbands and boyfriends? Is Robert Blake innocent, too?

There were droplets on the dashboard of his locked vehicle that were a mixture of his blood and Ron Goldman's.

Jury selection for the criminal trial was predicated on one NEVER HAVING HAD THE EQUIVALENT OF A HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE CLASS. "Tainted" evidence can still be shown to have the DNA that's statistically 1 out of 6 billion, and chorusing "tainted" "tainted" "tainted" doesn't negate science. If samples are left in a pocket for a while before being refrigerated, it doesn't change the DNA. You can put 'em in a damned oven for awhile and still be able to confirm the genetic information.

Regardless of what a skunk Furman is, regardless of anything, Simpson's blood was found mingled with someone's whom he'd never met. Photos show it partially dried there before the sample was taken; the photos were taken upon opening the vehicle, and there were other people there. Someone would have had to go to his house, jump the fence, open the vehicle, sprinkle droplets of a mixture of Simpson's and Goldman's blood, and then lock the car and leave. This would have had to be done very quickly after the murder, and left to evaporate until it was "found".


The other thing is the bloody shoe print at the scene. The Bruno Maglis were a very rare item, ya know.

So he took Kato out for burgers, and then was hitting some golf balls in the shower while talking on the phone and taking a nap, which is why the limo driver had to wait. (Yes, folks, he used each of those four excuses...)

In the famous words of Garry Trudeau's Zonker Harris: "That's Guilty guilty guilty!"

about where he was, possibilly because he did find her body.

I don't see him as having the motive necessary. Physically abusing someone in the heat of an argument does not prove that person is capable of a premeditaded gutting of two people.

And thing is, I'm not even saying he didn't do it, I'm saying I think there's as much of a possibility he didn't than he did. I think something very few people talk about is the fact that the Goldman family including Ron himself does have what looks to be a serious connection to high level drug dealers and organized criminals. And the revenge murder for those things hits me as at least as compelling a motive than OJ out of the blue murdering his ex-wife who there is no evidence he had any physical violence towards for 6 years.

I don't know if O.J. did it or not, but the cops were after him right from the beginning. If I remember correctly, after they found Nicole dead they went to notify O.J. They sent four detectives, who then hopped the fence to his property late at night, supposedly just to notify him of his wife's death.

He takes the prosecution to task for the abysmal job they did on the case. Absolutely incompetent. Judge Ito takes some hits, too.

Coupled with the bullshit excuse for the cut on his finger. Everything else is window dresssing(except for motive, means, lack of an alibi, blood evidence, the consciousness-of-guilt Bronco ride and did I mention motive? and the Bronco Express? and the blood evidence? And the sole evidence for planting evidence was the use of the word "nigger" in a script and the subsequent denial--the quintessential "look over there" defense)



Did I mention motive, means, lack of an alibi and blood evidence?

Oh, and the Bruno Magli's that he denied owning.

Oh, and his hysterical struggle with the gloves..."They don't fit...see your honor?!?"

Oh, oh, oh, Mr. Kotter.

k? :thumbsup:

btdt btw

No problem.

and I would appreciate the same in a similar situation.

large man entering his residence that night, just before he told the limo driver that he'd just woke up ...

...or at least did not act alone, and I remember thinking "hmmmm you've got a point there". Like that would provide a shadow of a doubt. But I forgot it.

He's convinced himself that it's *Nicoles* fault she's dead. And, I think he's convinced a few others of his innocence as well.

I watched the entire trial, I think he's guilty.

...come on! You know you didn't watch the whole trial! :)

trial. I also watched every show, read every article about it I could get my hands on.

But, I kept an open mind ...

I say he's guilty.

I am going to have to look up that PI's report. He did it on his own dime. He thought from the beginning that it was OJ, then became convinced it was his son.
I wish someone else would look it up for me.. but ohwell.. I have to do everything myself .. <HUGE sigh>

beyond a reasonable doubt.

The DNA evidence was tampered with. The lead investigator was a racist and perjured himself on the stand.

That alone makes all the other evidence suspect, and provides a more than reasonable doubt. Regardless of how many Jay Leno monologues say otherwise.

If anybody belongs in jail it's Mark Fuhrman. But instead he gets his own TV show.

It's 10 years later and still all he expresses is anger - at HER. Not anger at the "real killer" and grief at the cutting off of her young life. Not anger and grief for his kids, who lost their mother so early and so traumatically. Anger AT NICOLE. That is a dead giveaway. After TEN SOLID YEARS he is still seething with anger - at her.

He's a murderer, plain and simple. You won't be able to change my mind on that.

There were morons on the jury.

whats the deal with his somewhat new reality show Juiced? does he really think he has the entertainment value people are looking for?

I don't think he did it either. I was cheering when the verdict came in.

too richly in any direction.

I think either his guilt or his innocence are possible and can make a damn good case either way.

I also think his trial and it's subsequent furor have taught us something about celebrity and justice in contemporary America. And maybe it's not a good thing we've found out.

and he got away with murder because of mistakes made in gathering evidence which the defense team exploited.

Mistakes collecting evidence is leaving DNA in a sweltering car for hours, which they did.

Faking it is taking some drops and putting them on a fence to take a picture (not realizing, apparently, that an earlier photo shows they weren't there). Or dripping blood laced with the preservative used in the lab onto a sock.

Big difference. Mistakes collecting evidence might not have produced the not guilty verdict, but faking parts of the evidence -- that's another story.

If it was faked by the police
You must release.

blood on the rear gate and the Bronco console on the first sweep and this gave the defense an opening to argue that blood on both the console and the rear gate had been "planted" presumably using blood drawn from Simpson the day he was questioned by police. This was refuted since photos taken of the Bronco on the morning of June 14 and again on September 1 showed stains on the console in exactly the same places.

Photos of the the rear gate taken the morning after the murders were taken about fifteen feet away and one of the bloodstains was clearly visible under magnification. Detective Lange testified that he saw the blood on the gate the morning after the murders. Two other officers also saw the blood.

The defense's contention that Nicole's blood had been planted on the socks found at the foot of the bed was debunked during trial. Greg Matheson. forensic chemist from SID explained the notation "none obvious," meant that no blood was observable under ordinary light on June 29. The blood was there all along but just wasn't detected until a presumptive test was done a few weeks later. The cops assumed the blood belonged to O.J. Simpson and they were amazed to learn it was Nicole's.

There were blood droplets leading up the walkway at Bundy, away from the bodies. No way could they have been planted. They'd been collected during the early-morning hours of June 13, before O.J. had been questioned and before any of his blood had been drawn.

In murder trials the prosecutors have to convince the jury of the defendent's guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt." The burden is on the prosecution and if the jury has any doubts about the evidence they will acquit -- and they did. The defense did their job well.

O.J., however, was found to be responsible for Nicole Simpson's and Ron Goldman's death in a civil trial a few months later because all they had to do was show Simpson guilty because of a "preponderance of the evidence" and they had no difficulty doing that.

Wasn't there like a Nazi or racist allegation about his past?

And how did he become a friend of the VRWC through this whole thing, eventually delivering the tarring of Kennedys through Michael Skakel?

Bizarre...

At the time, I thought they were convicting OJ in the media to make black guys look bad.

How come Führman was never charged for planting the glove?

trial was the unmelted ice cream. That gave a time line that wasn't explored nearly enough. I always had my doubts because of the ice cream.

I watched every single bit of it too :crazy: the cops were inept and racist, the prosecuters stunk, the DNA was a joke but I still believe he did it. :shrug:

If I had been on the jury though I would have voted him not guilty because I think the trial was a joke and the evidence wasn't strong enough for a guilty verdict. x(

:shrug:

it wasn't just that OJ was guilty - he was SO F***ING GUILTY. You think the police, who REVERED OJ to the point of asking for his autograph when they were called after he beat his wife - suddenly decided to plant evidence? You are in fairy land.

domestic abuse and the homicide investigation. Yeah, you really slam dunked the whole case on that one. It didn't need to be a vast conspiracy to plant evidence and partially frame him. All it would take is a few cops at most who already believed themselves that he was guilty and wanted to garentee a conviction.

they arrived on the scene and immediately decided to plant evidence against a football hero. It didn't make sense then, it doesn't make sense now. Read Bugliosi's book - he slam-dunked the guilty bastard AND explained how shoddy prosecution lost the case.

here is a link http://www.canoe.ca/JamBooksReviewsO/outrage_bugliosi.html

with OJ's blood sample and "lost" 20 percent of it in the process.

he concedes there was sloppy handling of evidence but that the TOTATLY of ALL THE EVIDENCE proved BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT that OJ was GUILTY AS SIN.

sad subject? Do we just need to relive the preemption of the NBAA Playoff, to relive the dramatic drive down the freeway of the Bronco with a suicidal OJ in the back seat?...

I'm just really curious, is this the best we can do today? And tomorrow? What is the point in focusing on this poor drama today and where is it going to get any of us tomorrow?

and I bet he "carved" it himself :evilgrin:

End of story.

Most people posting on this board probably did not even carefully follow the trial, yet they "know" OJ did it. The main detective was a RACIST. Do you think that jury was unfamiliar with how LA cops conducted business? To blame the jury is simply ludicrous. Where is the outrage over the cops who got off after killing Amadou Diallo, or the thousands of other black men who were shot "in self defense" by the police?

One commented that she didn't see why OJ's history of wife beating was relevant to the case. 'Nuff said.