Did Mr. OJ Simpson truly do it?
Did the white bronco have higher ratings than any aired Superbowl?
Did Mr. OJ Simpson truly do it?
Posts
Total:
41
-->
@Mall
All I know is he died. Who he is I have no clue.
-->
@JoeBob
Only old people know who he is.
Wow I'm among the elders on here.
-->
@FLRW
Who?
-->
@Mall
Did Mr. OJ Simpson truly do it?
Of course he did. His acquital was entirely an emotional backlash against the LAPD and justice system for it's handling of race relations as well as sympathy towards a popular and charismatic celebrity.
Yes the LAPD screwed up in many of the ways they handled this (putting Mark Furman on the stand, bungling the handling of some of the evidence) but those instances were overblown because of the above. There was and still is no reasonable doubt regarding his guilt.
-->
@Double_R
"putting Mark Furman on the stand, bungling the handling of some of the evidence)"
How was the evidence bungled through the hands of this person?
Did the person fail to keep it intact?
Was it found inadmissible somehow through incorrect legal channels?
Was there plain just no evidence and the phone recording just sways those emotionally so in that there's no way this man could not do a pure fair lady wrong?
-->
@Mall
One of the investigators took some of the evidence home, calling into serious question whether the chain of custody was broken. The Mark Furman issue was huge as well because he found the glove but was later discovered on tape calling black people N*ggers and talking about how he and others would frame evidence when they feared there wouldn't be enough for a conviction.
These instances made up a very small portion of the case, but they fed into a larger narrative that a sympathetic jury pool was more than willing to hear based on recent (at the time) incidents. Essentially the strategy of the defense wasn't to question the evidence but to question the credibility of the LAPD itself thereby tainting every piece of evidence against him regardless of whether it was produced by the LAPD or not.
Just a few pieces of evidence literally off the top of my head;
- OJ had multiple previous domestic violence incidents where he beat Nicole to a pulp and threatened to kill her
- around the time of the murders he broke his finger. He was asked about how this happened multiple times and had a different answer each time
- A witness claimed she almost got into an accident with his Bronco just after the time of the murders when OJ was allegedly sleeping
- Blood from murders was found on OJ's Bronco parked at his house
- When informed of his wife's murder never even asked what happened
And then there is the fact that there has never been another suspect. There's more but that's just what I can immediately recall. To doubt he did it is not reasonable.
-->
@zedvictor4
@Mall
Alledgedly, O.J. commented, that, he was glad to hear, that, his wife's killer had finally died.
-->
@zedvictor4
Who?
You know, from the Buffalo Bills, Heisman trophy, winner, bad acting, Hertz commercials...Hertz asked him if he would do another commercial and he said "I don't know, I'll have to axe my wife first".
That guy.
-->
@ebuc
I don't believe the public accepts anybody else but the "Juice". They've settled on nailing him to the wall.
You know, bias of being the closest (spouse) to the victim.
I won't even mention anything about discrimination on physical appearances, being a man, being not of Caucasian persuasion, etc.
-->
@Double_R
Long story short , not guilty.
R.I.P. the "juice"
-->
@Mall
They've settled on nailing him to the wall.
You know what they say, if the glove fits, wear it.
Or was that a shoe. Actually, in his case, I think it was that, if the civil-suit fits, pay it.
-->
@ebuc
Even that was too weak so he was found not guilty.
Those that wanted him to be the perpetuator don't care about what actually happened but just what it looks like.
You know I don't know if anybody is guilty or not without testing the evidence myself. Otherwise I'm just taking the word of media .
That's all the public is doing. The part of the public that's not at that crime scene, not analyzing the physical evidence for themselves and certainly not among those in a courtroom.
-->
@Mall
Long story short , not guilty.
And whose story is that?
-->
@Mall
I won't even mention anything about discrimination on physical appearances, being a man, being not of Caucasian persuasion, etc.
And you shouldn't because you're talking about the only black man in US history to get off of a conviction because he was black.
-->
@Double_R
God bless him. That's payment for all the "whites" that got off that evidently were guilty of lynchings.
Either that or Mr. Simpson was actually innocent.
-->
@Double_R
"And whose story is that?"
The jury that voted the not guilty verdict.
-->
@Mall
Even that was too weak so he was found not guilty.
The civil trial did conclude that he killed them, and ordered him to pay $25 million in punitive damages (of which they collected this far <$125 thousand). He lost any appeals, and due to interest his estate owes them over 100 million (but it'll probably dodge paying anything).
-->
@Mall
"And whose story is that?"The jury that voted the not guilty verdict.
You started of this thread asking whether he really did it. Why ask the question if you have no interest in considering the evidence and reaching your own conclusion?
God bless him. That's payment for all the "whites" that got off that evidently were guilty of lynchings.
Payment to who? How are the victims of lynchings better off because some black guy in Brentwood gets away with murdering two innocent people?
-->
@Double_R
"You started of this thread asking whether he really did it. Why ask the question if you have no interest in considering the evidence and reaching your own conclusion?"
First off I don't know what is meant by "consider the evidence ". Is that just reading about what I read online about the case?
"Payment to who? "
The so called black race.
"How are the victims of lynchings better off because some black guy in Brentwood gets away with murdering two innocent people?"
I don't know about"better off". More so balancing out, more heading towards that. As they say, there's a long ways to go.
-->
@Barney
Wait a minute, so Mr. Simpson was found guilty of murder and the penalty was a fine?
-->
@Mall
First off I don't know what is meant by "consider the evidence ". Is that just reading about what I read online about the case?
It means the same thing it would mean in any other situation. Have you never formed your own conclusion about an event before? Earlier you talked about lynchings, how do you know they actually happened?
"How are the victims of lynchings better off because some black guy in Brentwood gets away with murdering two innocent people?"I don't know about"better off". More so balancing out, more heading towards that. As they say, there's a long ways to go.
So what we need is a few thousand more black murderers to get away with killing innocent white people, and this will achieve our ultimate goal of "balance"? Is that right?
-->
@Mall
Wait a minute, so Mr. Simpson was found guilty of murder and the penalty was a fine?
More or less.
A civil trial has a somewhat lower burden of proof, but is limited to monetary compensation for damages.
-->
@Barney
What is more or less?
This should be a yes or no.
Was he found a guilty to pay a dime for murder?
Was he found not a guilty for murder but paid a fine in relation to that chase in the Ford Bronco?
-->
@Double_R
"It means the same thing it would mean in any other situation. Have you never formed your own conclusion about an event before? "
Yes sure. Although the way I form a conclusion about this would be different from something else. According you it is the same.
"Earlier you talked about lynchings, how do you know they actually happened?"
I don't know. I don't know anything outside of witnessing it for myself like the sun I can see for myself. What I have not witnessed I don't know of.
"So what we need is a few thousand more black murderers to get away with killing innocent white people, and this will achieve our ultimate goal of "balance"? Is that right?"
Ohh I don't know. We have to think about the history of slavery. Somebody maybe, an historian, researcher, can get you exact numbers accumulated, aggregate over centuries of injustice, I guess you'll have a figure on that scale.
-->
@Mall
In criminal trials there must be guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If a lawyer is able to confuse the jury, they must acquit (or be a hung jury, but they get talked out of that) https://youtu.be/aV6NoNkDGsU?si=xvhqFMcNNBq6s0tA
In civil trials a preponderance of the evidence is enough to prove guilt.
Charging someone money is less severe than putting them on death row (as was an option in this case).
-->
@Mall
"Earlier you talked about lynchings, how do you know they actually happened?"I don't know. I don't know anything outside of witnessing it for myself like the sun I can see for myself. What I have not witnessed I don't know of.
You don't know if lynchings happened? Why bother starting this thread if you won't accept any evidence you didn't see with you're own eyes?
"So what we need is a few thousand more black murderers to get away with killing innocent white people, and this will achieve our ultimate goal of "balance"? Is that right?"Ohh I don't know. We have to think about the history of slavery. Somebody maybe, an historian, researcher, can get you exact numbers accumulated, aggregate over centuries of injustice, I guess you'll have a figure on that scale.
I wasn't asking about numbers. I was asking you whether you really believe two wrongs make a right. But that's fine, you don't seem interested in a serious conversation so I'll leave you be.
-->
@Barney
Ok found guilty of murder, just had to a pay fine. A new one on me.
-->
@Barney
I think he was found liable, not guilty.