OJ SIMPSON sez: "IF I did it...Here's how I would have done it..."

by Rabbit 41 Replies latest social current

  • heathen
    heathen
    Why did the jury only take 3 hours to deliberate a case that took months?

    dude the trial took a year . I think after that it would be a done deal to get a verdict one way or the other . I do agree the state handled the material evidence wrecklessly but they did find OJ guilty in a civil suit . They never proved anybody framed OJ with a bloody glove or by smearing blood in his bronco either . All they had to do was raise a reasonable doubt and they did but still doesn't make him innocent in my mind . The preponderance of evidence was enough for a guilty verdict.

  • hambeak
    hambeak

    LOL I hope you and I never serve on a Jury together if we didn't agree and we were sequestered. LMAO I have enjoyed our lively debate we are hopelessly deadlocked.

  • Berean
    Berean

    O.J. doesn't know when to keep his STUPID mouth shut. The guy got away with murder and just can't keep from bragging about it.

  • willyloman
    willyloman

    While I agree OJ is pond scum, I am really appalled that the Fox network would stoop so low. I mean, are there no f@#$%ing standards left?

  • Berean
    Berean

    willyloman I agree with what you said. I watched the vast majority of the televised trial and do not think that the prosecution proved guilt beyond a “reasonable doubt”; however, I think he did commit the crime. I could be wrong about thinking he is guilty, but I honestly think he is guilty. Sometimes the guilty are found innocent in the courts. Unfortunately, that sometimes happens in order to protect the innocent. I served as a juror on a trial where the accused was guilty, and everyone knew it. But, according to the existing laws of the state, he could not be found guilty. I was an alternate and was not required to deliberate on the verdict, the jury could not agree on a verdict during that trial. The person was tried again and he was found guilty. The jury that I was on was the second trial for the same crime… he was found guilty during the first trial. The third jury also found him guilty. I don’t know if new evidence was presented during the third trial. Trials in the US are not perfect, but it is the best we have at this time.

  • Mary
    Mary
    I honestly don't know if he is guilty or not I didn't watch much of it. I only got a few blurbs on the news.

    Then you really don't know what went on. The evidence was overwhelming hambeak. The bastard's blood was found at the scene of the crime, Nicole's blood was found on OJ's socks in his bedroom, one of his gloves had her blood found all over it and he had a mysterious cut on his finger coincidentally on the same night his ex-wife is found murdered. And by the way, contamination cannot change someone's DNA from one person to another. O.J. was a violent wife beater who had beaten Nicole many times before and had threatened to kill her. He had the means, motive and opportunity. He has no alibi for the time they were murdered and the limo driver saw OJ entering his house shortly after the murders took place where he lied his face off and said "I overslept". And if you watched the Civil Trial (where he was found responsible for the murders), you would know that the footprint at the scene of the crime of the "ugly assed shoes" that OJ denied owning, was later found to match a pair that he did own. And lo and behold it was the same size. And there were less than 100 pair of those shoes made. Kinda coincidental that OJ owned a pair that were identical to what was found at the murder scene eh?

    Why did the jury only take 3 hours to deliberate a case that took months?

    A combination of reasons. First, thanks to Johnny Cockroach, this went from being about domestic violence to a Race trial. This wasn't that long after the Rodney King incident where a bunch of white cops were initially found 'not guilty' of excessive violence, even though it was caught on tape. I'm sure you remember the riots that ensued. I don't live in the States, but from what I gather, race relations between whites and blacks in LA can be extremely tense. The jury was made up of almost all black people, mostly women. There was no way in hell they had any intention of finding him guilty, partly because of the race card, but partly because he was also a good looking celebrity.

    The preliminary studies before the trial even started indicated that black women who were potential jurors, did not like Marcia Clark, referring to her as a "bitch", so it was incredibly stupid of her to fill the jury box with people who didn't like her from day one. Plus, DNA was in it's infancy during the trial and it went on for so long that much of it was simply lost on the jurors. The prosecutors were not really very competent and Judge Ito was a fool who let so much crap go on in the court room, it wasn't even funny.

    All the evidence points to the fact that OJ Simpson indeed killed Ron and Nicole. There isn't the slightest bit of evidence that points anywhere else but at him. He is the lowest form of scum and I'm amazed someone hasn't taken him out long before now.

  • purplesofa
    purplesofa
    I am really appalled that the Fox network would stoop so low. I mean, are there no f@#$%ing standards left?

    my sentiments as well

    Who would go on TV and tell how they would have killed someone..........let alone someone broadcast it.

    I hope NO ONE watches it.

    purps

  • hambeak
    hambeak

    OK folks Mary convinced me! Through reasoning on facts I was unaware of instead of name calling and diatribe thanks Mary I stand corrected.

    As I have stated I was never a fan of OJ.

  • Mary
    Mary
    OK folks Mary convinced me! Through reasoning on facts I was unaware of instead of name calling and diatribe thanks Mary I stand corrected.

    No problem. This is one case where, even 10 years later, we all tend to get jumpy whenever someone says "maybe he didn't do it". What's really horrible, is that even if the SOB admitted on national television that he did murder them, he couldn't be charged with anything thanks to the 'double jeapordy' law which forbids someone being tried twice for the same crime.

    BigTex said: hambeak I would encourage you to read "Outrage" by Vincent Bugliosi.

    Thanks BigTex, I forgot to mention that.....I read that book and was 'outraged' all over again. Too bad OJ hadn't have shot himself during the Bronco chase....would have saved alot of time, money and grief.

  • Big Tex
    Big Tex

    hambeak I would encourage you to read "Outrage" by Vincent Bugliosi. Here's a link:

    http://www.amazon.com/Outrage-Five-Reasons-Simpson-Murder/dp/0440223822/sr=1-2/qid=1163687829/ref=sr_1_2/002-4977175-4580831?ie=UTF8&s=books

    Fascinating book about the circus that was the trial and he makes an overwhelming case for Simpson's guilt. If he had been the DA, Simpson would be in prison for life now.

    I'm taking this book by Simpson as his confession, in his own sick, twisted way. I've never doubted for an instant he was guilty and that the trial was as much about L.A. police and racism as it was the murder of two people says more about the skill of a lawyer to divert attention than it does Simpson's innocence.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit