my friends were talking about the show this morning which I haven't watched yet but one of them thinks he didn't do it. I was too young then to really know all the details but do that many people really think he didn't do it?
Genuine question, especially with the Making a Murderer thread.
The people that don't think he did this are the same ones who believe 9/11 was a government conspiracy and Columbine never happened.
I am going to refrain from name calling but, that jury got it wrong.
Doesn't matter (I guess it does) - he is where he belongs.
He is in jail - just not for murder.
Sorry Patrick - I answered your other post before reading this one.
It's utterly implausible that anyone else committed the crime. And if a jury of OJ's actual "peers" (wealthy Brentwood residents) had heard the case instead of a jury of people who idolized him, he'd have been convicted. The fact that they deliberated for only 4 hours and came up with a not-guilty verdict tells you they didn't understand the critical facts of the case, or even try to.
I don't think anyone is saying CTE means OJ wasn't guilty.
But I do believe as we learn more and more about it and who had it there is going to be a disturbing trend of changing behavior and horrible actions.
The stuff about it shrinking in the rain is laughable.
The whole trying on the glove was stupid to do.
Thank you! I say "Oh, Baretta did that shit" all the time and no one ever gets it.
Prosecutor: Mr. Chappelle, what would it take to convince you that R. Kelly is guilty?
Dave Chappelle: Okay, I'd have to see a video of him singing "Pee On You," two forms of government ID, a police officer there to verify the whole thing, four or five of my buddies and Neal taking notes, and R. Kelly's grandma to confirm his identity.
R. Kelly's Grandma: That's my Robert, always peeing on people.
I think not.
He was guilty.
However if you have 20 facts pointing directly to guilt, finding reasonable doubt to 5 of them does not do away with the overwhelming case based on the other facts where you can only show unreasonable doubt. Reasonable doubt in one factor does not disprove that factor as wrong. You just dismiss it and look at everything else.
Sort of like saying you have a film of someone shooting someone and evidence that the weapon was bought by the shooter. Raising reasonable doubt about whether he actually bought the gun does not dismiss the film evidence.
So there were several things that led to reasonable doubt.
I think not.
Yep, Goldman had one of the most tragic "wrong place, wrong time" instances you could ever imagine. If you put any credence into OJ's "If I Did It" book, he noticed there were candles lit in the house, then a good-looking 25-year-old shows up, and he went ballistic.
Crime scene mismanaged. Strange procedural things like Detectives handling blood samples. Unprofessional conduct between DAs. Furman perjuring himself about matters unrelated to the trial.
Judge in over his head.
And, to call the jury defendant friendly is the understatement of the century. One juror attended the celebration afterwards - wtf?
He was guilty as guilty can be, but the blame can be spread around.
OJ's DNA was at the crime scene
The cut on OJ's hand
And there is so much more eveidence
I've always been fascinated by the limo driver - imagine coming to the realization that you had a double-murderer in the backseat of your car just a few minutes after he did the deed, likely with bloody clothes and maybe a murder weapon in his possession at the time?
It fits when you don't spread your fingers wide when you put it on.
Ok glove - ( New Window )
The real tragedy of this was there were no more Naked Gun movies after this, because no one was going to put OJ Simpson in a movie again.
Don't people usually kill themselves when suffering from CTE?
Usually it is a suicide not a homicide - just sayin' ; ).
OK, maybe not, but if someone can link CTE to homicidal behavior, that can't be good for the league.
And perhaps the most brilliant defense tactic (fuck the glove) was getting Robert Kardashian on the Dream Team. Not because he was such an amazing lawyer, but because it prevented him from testifying due to attorney/client privilege and therefore, prevented him from discussing how he essentially hid OJ's "luggage."
A real travesty of justice
He was proved to be a liar in an unrelated incident. To be effective as a police officer and a detective means your credibility must be substantial if not perfect. His was not.
He was proved to be a liar in an unrelated incident. To be effective as a police officer and a detective means your credibility must be substantial if not perfect. His was not.
"Here are your fucking sunglasses."
I disagree, the public has a much higher standard now in the post CSI era, an almost unrealistic standard.
Believe it did get wet, not sure it shrunk.
That being said, I want to see you put on a fur lined glove while wearing a rubber glove. Also, after OJ feigned not being able to get his hand in it, when told to take it off, he just pulls it off as if it was lubricated....what a freakin sham.
The prosecution put the limo driver on first and he should have been last. His testimony alone should have all but convicted OJ. Saw him (or "somebody") climb over the wall, run into the house and then come out 15 or 20 minutes later after taking a shower and still sweating like a pig. OJ said he overslept... Why was OJs car outside that wall and not in the garage or in the driveway??
The prosecution could not have done a worse job if it wanted to.
Another story was Oj hired serial killer Glen Rogers to do it. I still believe OJ did it but I could definitely see his mental son committing the murders
I've been told that some of the methods for cutting a throat that are taught in Basic Under Water Demolition School (BUDS) leave wounds that are very much like the ones left on Nicole (close to decapitation)but concurrently with forcing the K-Bar blade forward one forces the back of the victims head forward limiting somewhat the degree of blood spray. That was one of the things that made me think that OJ might have done it, because I thought he probably got some rudimentary SEAL training for the role he was playing, maybe he even had to go to Coronado for a while. I never bought into the whole DNA after the DA and mostly unattributed cops started saying that the DNA testing pointed to OJ way before they could have received the test results back. If that Scientist hadn't of been such a jerk that's what I think he would have testified to. Shapiro had already torn apart the DNA evidence so the defense probably thought they didn't need the scientist. Just the way Furhman carried himself for some reason kind of gave me the idea that he was sticking his thumb on the scales. The tapes shocked me but didn't surprise me. I said in another post that an NYPD detective once told me that "unless he's an idiot never try to frame a guilty man". OJ and his lawyers weren't idiots and every time they saw a piece of tampered evidence they eviscerated it. How do you know the evidence is tampered with?
I just watched FX's 'The People vs. O.J. Simpson'. Good show.