"Is O.J. Innocent?" (case, criminal, evidence, lawyer)

[Austin023]

I have always thought he did it, though I do wonder if perhaps there was an accomplice.

[Irishiis49]

Originally Posted by Austin023

I have always thought he did it, though I do wonder if perhaps there was an accomplice.

I don't think before or during the murders but definitely after such as Robert Kardashian and AC Cowlings...

[Fat Freddy]

O.J. is still guilty.

Jon Benet Ramsey is still dead.

And D.B. Cooper is still missing.

[Nov3]

That's okay. I "always" thought oj was not guilty of the charges. And the verdict affirmed this.

So speculate til doomsday.

Still think the civil courts need to be more in alignment with criminal law

Can someone explain how divorced ppl are responsible for the safety of the ex after the dissolution? That civil case makes no sense ...

[Mathguy]

If you take celebrity and race out of the equation, which horribly bias people. You're left with a dead ex and lover, killed in what is clearly a crime of passion while the family dog which is huge stands down.

Oh, and the ex-hubby has a history of abuse.

If this were John and Jane Doe we'd all pretty much have moved on long ago.

The problem is that people made up their minds early and refuse to let go no matter how irrational their views are in the face of evidence.

*shrug*

[Mathguy]

Originally Posted by Nov3

That's okay. I "always" thought oj was not guilty of the charges. And the verdict affirmed this.

So speculate til doomsday.

Still think the civil courts need to be more in alignment with criminal law

Can someone explain how divorced ppl are responsible for the safety of the ex after the dissolution? That civil case makes no sense ...

LMAO....that's a gross mistatement of the civil case.

Basically, it's REALLY likely OJ did it so they won the civil case.

However, it's not beyond a shadow of a doubt to at least 1 juror so thats the criminal case.

Besides, OJ still has a 100k+ football pension that is untouchable in civil litigation fyi.

[johnnie mae]

Originally Posted by Mathguy

LMAO....that's a gross mistatement of the civil case.

Basically, it's REALLY likely OJ did it so they won the civil case.

However, it's not beyond a shadow of a doubt to at least 1 juror so thats the criminal case.

Besides, OJ still has a 100k+ football pension that is untouchable in civil litigation fyi.

The pension is S25,000 a month.

[Irishiis49]

Originally Posted by Mathguy

If you take celebrity and race out of the equation, which horribly bias people. You're left with a dead ex and lover, killed in what is clearly a crime of passion while the family dog which is huge stands down.

Oh, and the ex-hubby has a history of abuse.

If this were John and Jane Doe we'd all pretty much have moved on long ago.

The problem is that people made up their minds early and refuse to let go no matter how irrational their views are in the face of evidence.

*shrug*

Agree except Ron Goldman was not Nicole's lover...the defense did a pretty good job making her out to be a *****...but poor RG was in the wrong place at the wrong time...

[RcHydro]

How often do you find somebody guilty, held liable for a victim's wrongful death in a civil trial. But found innocent in the criminal trial. If you really are actually innocent of the crime. Not too often.

[Bernie20]

Originally Posted by Irishiis49

Agree except Ron Goldman was not Nicole's lover...the defense did a pretty good job making her out to be a *****...but poor RG was in the wrong place at the wrong time...

Yes poor Ron was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. He was returning Nicole's mother's sunglasses that had been left behind at the restaurant where he worked. They did know each other and had coffee together but they weren't lovers. They had only known each other for 6 weeks before the murders. The police stated their relationship was platonic.