Do you believe OJ Simpson was innocent? (case, murder, evidence)

[Nema98]

Is there a possibility? Yes. But I think the possibility is low and most likely he killed her. Just because someone is found innocent, does not mean they are not guilty. Likewise we hear people locked up and found guilty, who are in fact innocent. Justice system is not always perfect.

[Witchz]

Originally Posted by Cliffie

I can't believe you even wrote that. There was a trail of Nicole's blood leading down the front walk from her body to where someone drove a vehicle away from here place, and another just like it leading up his front walk into his house. The blood took the shape of his footprints in those "ugly-adze Bruno Magli shoes" we all heard so much about.

The gloves? Also covered with the blood of his victims. One half of the pair was at Nicole's house; the other half was at OJ's place. Not to mention the gory socks in his bedroom.

That is NOT 'circumstantial' evidence.

Ok so let’s review some of the testimony in the trial since we seem to have or maybe never really knew the details.
#1- Mark Furman one of the lead detectives admits to being a racists and takes the fifth when asked if he has ever planted evidence in any case he has worked on. Taking the fifth as not to incriminate himself.
#2- Blood samples were not handled properly – not stored properly and detectives and forensic dept actually took samples home for days.
#3- Head of the criminal collection division admits in court to returning 2 weeks after crime to collect blood off fence at crime scene.
#4- 1st cops to search OJs house did not find bloody glove after a 2 hour search – it was only discovered after Mark Furman arrived at home.
#5- The bloody glove, sock and blood in Bronco were found by Mark Furman.
#6- Blood expert McDonald testifies that the blood soaked through the socks all the way through proving no foot was in sock when blood was put on sock.
#7-1.5 centimeters of blood collected went missing from the 8 centimeters collected in evidence.
#8- ETA was detected in the blood samples on sock which is used to preserve blood samples.
#9-Blood soaked glove found without any blood around it or leading up to it.
#10- Cut was found on Ojs hand but neither glove had a tear in it so how could hand be cut?
#11- Knife bought by OJ and said to be thought the weapon at his home was found not to have ever been used by testing its finishing oil.
#12- There was not blood leading up to his house – nor was there any large amount of blood other than small drops very small drops like eyedropper size found at his residence.

I can go on if anyone would like to know facts or look it up yourself – these are the facts read from trial transcripts not just my opinion. People that want to say that the evidence all pointed at him are not stating the true facts as presented in trial and or investigation. I do not know if OJ did this or if Glen Rogers did as he claims – but I do know under the rules of our justice system his jury did the absolute right thing with the evidence given. And there is more than reasonable doubt in this case – so I have to go with his not being guilty and like I posted when this first started here(but was deleted) – would you be willing to give up your own freedom or a loved one if you are wrong in saying guilty? Because if you truly believe he did it it should not be a problem to consider if not then there is doubt and you can not expect to take a mans freedom and his life from him if you are not sure he is guilty. And this has been done to him as the time he is now doing does not fit the crime he did commit and everyone is ok because they think he deserves it on the first crime. This is not how our justice system is supposed to work in our country – shameful.

[LexiPrice]

I wasn't entirely sure but last year I watched that one documentary - forget the name offhand - that made a very intriguing case that OJ was covering for his son who committed the murders and that makes way more sense and there's quite a bit of hard evidence to support that theory.

At the time it was going on, I didn't pay much attention to it. I found the overall media hysteria quite disgusting and it basically exposed the general public's sociopathy and blood lust more than OJ's. I knew who he was from the Airplane! movies and car rental commercials and knew he played football but was never an attentive fan to get a feel for what sort of person he might be, so it had to be weighted on the evidence and they didn't put out any hard evidence that convinced me he was guilty. That documentary mentioned above provided a stronger case that's much more plausible and realistic.
[MOD CUT/off topic]

Anyway, as for OJ, I can't say for sure, but I think a strong case was made for OJ taking the rap to protect his son...and I'd likely do the same thing.

[hothulamaui]

OJ guilty? without a doubt.

[Huckleberry3911948]

Here is what I think
If u have a very good lawyer under our current law system
u could blow up nyc and walk away a free man

[lchoro]

Once you take the Fifth, you have to keep asserting the privilege. You can't do it selectively. The first question he declined to answer potentially had nothing to do with the case. He was asked if he had falsified anything on any police report.

[nicet4]

Originally Posted by wit-nit

No he was guilty as all get out. 98% of the country thought so too. He only got off because the all black jury wanted to back door the Police Dept.

I agree.

[CA4Now]

Originally Posted by nicet4

I agree.

"Of the 12 jurors selected, 8 are black, 2 are Hispanic, one is white, and one identified himself as half white and half American Indian. Eight are women, and four are men. They range in age from 22 to 52..."
A Jury Is Chosen to Hear The Simpson Murder Case - NYTimes.com

[Clark Fork Fantast]

Originally Posted by Witchz

Ok so let’s review some of the testimony in the trial since we seem to have or maybe never really knew the details.
#1- Mark Furman one of the lead detectives admits to being a racists and takes the fifth when asked if he has ever planted evidence in any case he has worked on. Taking the fifth as not to incriminate himself.
#2- Blood samples were not handled properly – not stored properly and detectives and forensic dept actually took samples home for days.
#3- Head of the criminal collection division admits in court to returning 2 weeks after crime to collect blood off fence at crime scene.
#4- 1st cops to search OJs house did not find bloody glove after a 2 hour search – it was only discovered after Mark Furman arrived at home.
#5- The bloody glove, sock and blood in Bronco were found by Mark Furman.
#6- Blood expert McDonald testifies that the blood soaked through the socks all the way through proving no foot was in sock when blood was put on sock.
#7-1.5 centimeters of blood collected went missing from the 8 centimeters collected in evidence.
#8- ETA was detected in the blood samples on sock which is used to preserve blood samples.
#9-Blood soaked glove found without any blood around it or leading up to it.
#10- Cut was found on Ojs hand but neither glove had a tear in it so how could hand be cut?
#11- Knife bought by OJ and said to be thought the weapon at his home was found not to have ever been used by testing its finishing oil.
#12- There was not blood leading up to his house – nor was there any large amount of blood other than small drops very small drops like eyedropper size found at his residence.

I can go on if anyone would like to know facts or look it up yourself – these are the facts read from trial transcripts not just my opinion. People that want to say that the evidence all pointed at him are not stating the true facts as presented in trial and or investigation. I do not know if OJ did this or if Glen Rogers did as he claims – but I do know under the rules of our justice system his jury did the absolute right thing with the evidence given. And there is more than reasonable doubt in this case – so I have to go with his not being guilty and like I posted when this first started here(but was deleted) – would you be willing to give up your own freedom or a loved one if you are wrong in saying guilty? Because if you truly believe he did it it should not be a problem to consider if not then there is doubt and you can not expect to take a mans freedom and his life from him if you are not sure he is guilty. And this has been done to him as the time he is now doing does not fit the crime he did commit and everyone is ok because they think he deserves it on the first crime. This is not how our justice system is supposed to work in our country – shameful.

There is so much ignorance in this post it makes my head spin.

[slingshot]

The legal truth says that he was innocent. The real truth says that he was guilty.