OJ Simpson "If I Did It."

[cbern]

Iam so glad someone brought this up here. I have agonized over this latest slap in the face to Nicole and Ron’s families. What an outrage! Even if you do give him the benefit of the doubt (hmm) it is still in extreme bad taste to re-create these grisly murders and make a joke out of it all. If anyone gave OJ a break before, they should consider this latest move of his and wonder how on earth he could be so insensitive to his children and their relatives! Is he really that desperate for attention/money? That is just pathetic. Every time something happens in my life that seems injust, I think of Ron and Nicole’s families. I realize that we can all align ourselves with the suffering of One who was the least deserving of the cruel injustice He received. I take great comfort in my faith that no injustice will go without Him turning it to His glory in His time.

 

[martino]

Aimee…did you read the book “5 Reasons OJ Got Away with Murder” by vincent bugliosi?

ive read several books about the trial and that was the best one. the Mark Fuhrman book was good too.

 

[martino]

I don’t know if he did it. I wasn’t there and I wasn’t on the jury.

But, he was found not guilty.

Mary…here is the thing. you dont have to be on the jury to know he did it. we all know that DNA proved he did it. it was proven beyond a reasonable doubt no matter what any jury said. you cannot say he didnt do it unless you are saying that you believe that the entire LAPD was in on a conspiracy to frame OJ. its not like the investigation went cold and so they were looking for a scapegoat…they were onto him immediately because that is were all the evidence pointed. the entire LAPD would have had to be in on it from the minute the call came in. if you can believe that then just maybe he was not guilty!

 

[aimee]

Aimee…did you read the book “5 Reasons OJ Got Away with Murder” by vincent bugliosi?

ive read several books about the trial and that was the best one. the Mark Fuhrman book was good too.

Yes, read them all even the one by one of the defense team…
well there might be one or two I didn’t read.

Bugliosi is the best…I’ve read his books on other trials as well…

 

[Ahimsa]

Originally Posted by GarryOwen

And, last I checked, Tyson and Brown were still black.

 

[maryjk]

Mary…here is the thing. you dont have to be on the jury to know he did it. we all know that DNA proved he did it. it was proven beyond a reasonable doubt no matter what any jury said. you cannot say he didnt do it unless you are saying that you believe that the entire LAPD was in on a conspiracy to frame OJ. its not like the investigation went cold and so they were looking for a scapegoat…they were onto him immediately because that is were all the evidence pointed. the entire LAPD would have had to be in on it from the minute the call came in. if you can believe that then just maybe he was not guilty!

But here is the thing, since he was found not guilty, he is not guilty. We can scream and jump up and down, but he is still not guilty. That doesn’t make him innocent, just not guilty. There is such a thing called double jeopardy, he cannot be tried again.

After being on a jury that was questioned in the media, I am tired of everyone saying things like:

I’m sure that “jury” (and, yes, I use the term loosely) had their minds made up long before they had received most of the evidence.

well i dont think it was fair…the jury thought that the entire LAPD had conspired to frame Simpson for the murder…

And other things that have been said, but not posted here.

If you are ever called for jury duty, don’t try to get out of it. It is very easy to watch a trial on TV, read a few books and come up with a different verdict. When the weight is on your shoulders, you see things in a different light.

Oh, and by the way, I don’t think he was innocent, just not guilty. There is a big difference.

 

[nancy_mom]

Alot of people don’t understand the difference between “not guilty” and “innocent”.

Mary is dead on here!

 

[nancy_mom]

Mary…here is the thing. you dont have to be on the jury to know he did it. we all know that DNA proved he did it. it was proven beyond a reasonable doubt no matter what any jury said.

Nice try…if he was proven guilty he would be in jail right now. The fact that he is free should tell you he was proven “not guilty”.

Don’t act like you know so much!

 

[nancy_mom]

the dna alone was enough to convict him…that is better evidence than an eye witness or even a video of the murder. there is no margin of error…he did it and he got away with it despite all the evidence.

you cant even come up with a reasonable explanation for the dna. its fool proof…but not jury proof!

I just notice another stupid thing you said. DNA evidence is not necessarily better than eye witness or video; DNA can be tainted VERY EASILY…and it was shown in the trial that it was tainted. Did you not see that part?

I love how everyone that watched the trial on tv is an expert all the sudden. What law school did you go to by the way?

 

[martino]

Nice try…if he was proven guilty he would be in jail right now. The fact that he is free should tell you he was proven “not guilty”.

Don’t act like you know so much!

i never said he was “found” guilty…i just said he was “proven” guilty. you dont think i know he was found not guilty???

Mary is saying that because he was found not guilty that it means he was not guilty. that would mean no guilty person has ever been found not guilty! the not guilty verdict doesnt mean he didnt do it. i am not arguing over the verdict , we all know what that was. im arguing over the truth…reality!!!

 

[nancy_mom]

i never said he was “found” guilty…i just said he was “proven” guilty. you dont think i know he was found not guilty???

No but you did say that he was proven “guilty” and I am saying that that he was not…if he had been proven guilty the verdict would have reflected that…as it was the jury found him “not guilty” which indicates that he was proven to be not guilty!

It’s not rocket science here!

 

[Liberalsaved]

No but you did say that he was proven “guilty” and I am saying that that he was not…if he had been proven guilty the verdict would have reflected that…as it was the jury found him “not guilty” which indicates that he was proven to be not guilty!

It’s not rocket science here!

The trouble is, it was a celebrity crime. OJ was a golden boy, and people like to see golden boys fall. The reasons behind this are one of the psychological studies I’ve actually seen borne out in everyday life. People don’t like it when other people appear to be better than them. Of course everyone is human and everyone has problems, and if you take yourself out of the picture a celeb becomes like anyone else. I was able to do that some time ago and now I value intelligence and talent and don’t place any value on fame for the sake of fame. But some people don’t. And some people like to see famous people take a hit.

 

[aimee]

Different rules of evidence. In a civil trial, all you need is a preponderance of the evidence. In a criminal trial you need beyond a reasonable doubt.

For me, issues like the Heperin in the blood, the size and nature of the blood drops, the fact that no blood was found in the car, the fact that the man was brilliant beyond measure in getting rid of the knife, but somehow couldn’t figure out how to spirit off the glove and sock into the same hiding place all knit together to make me believe that there was reasonable doubt. I still think he did it, but the reason we have trials is so the prosecution can deliver the goods and prove their case.

Actually there was blood in the car…

 

[aimee]

No but you did say that he was proven “guilty” and I am saying that that he was not…if he had been proven guilty the verdict would have reflected that…as it was the jury found him “not guilty” which indicates that he was proven to be not guilty!

It’s not rocket science here!

I understand what Martino means about proven guilty…he was to most people…the jury I supose wanted to find him not guilty…due to the evidence and all he should have been found guilty…As the late J. Cochran said…'give me one person and I’ll get a mis trial…something like that…anyway…those who want to overlook his guilt …did. and some still do…
bty, there was no proof of ‘tainted’ evidence…mearly the defense suggested it…

 

[Riley259]

It was a terrible thing to try to sell and it points out how far our culture has fallen. If anyone denies the power of original sin then just look at our culture and especially this example…no more doubts after looking at this stuff.

 

[sea_oat]

It was a terrible thing to try to sell and it points out how far our culture has fallen. If anyone denies the power of original sin then just look at our culture and especially this example…no more doubts after looking at this stuff.

I couldn’t agree more, Riley.