2006-06-24 09:30:29 · 16 answers · asked by Andrea B 1 in News & Events ➔ Other - News & Events
Have you been under a rock or something.
2006-06-30 01:07:46 · answer #1 · answered by CottonPatch 7 · 5⤊ 2⤋
He was totally guilty! Just like Michael Jackson, Jason Williams, and Anna Nicole Smith.
OJ Simpson - They had the bloody glove!
So, why was he found not guilty:
Because he hired the best lawyer in the world, with his money.
Michael Jackson -
The dude had a magazine full of nude little boys! I mean come on!
So, why was he found not guily:
Because he's Michael Jackson.
The Jury practically wet their pants in his presence!
Jason Williams -
He shot his Limo Driver and killed him. The blood and guts were all over the limo ,and he was still found not guilty!
Why: NBA Money
Anna Nicole Smith -
She married an old guy for money, and she still gets the money.
So, why did she win the money:
Because President Bush kissed up to her.
I guess the truth doesn't matter anymore...only money, fame, and fortune.
2006-06-24 16:55:46 · answer #2 · answered by Brain 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Simpson was definitely guilty. He was acquitted because he clearly had the best, highest paid attorneys (Dream Team) who outclassed the Prosecuting attorneys (who made some very amateuristic mistakes that undercut the mountain of evidence available to them). The result? A rich murderer gets off and the crime victims receive no justice.
2006-06-24 16:45:23 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No he was innocent. The cops planted evidence. Nicole was doing drugs and the boy was gay. The Brown family was mad at O.J. because he cut off their allowance, The house boy was a sorry actor who lied on him because he wanted a movie deal. You tell me if he was guilty why are they all doing bad and O.J. is living here with me in Florida having a good laugh at all their dumb @#$@.
2006-06-24 17:24:59 · answer #4 · answered by willyo2340 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Our system of justice presumes people to be innocent unless they are proven guilty. So, according to our system of justice and the jury's findings, the answer is "Yes, he's innocent".
But our system is also imperfect. Unless new evidence shows up that can prove otherwise, we don't really know if he actually did it or not. Until then, we have to say that he is innocent.
Obviously, people have their own opinions on this one!
2006-06-24 16:39:21 · answer #5 · answered by Joe_D 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
About the glove....I read that the cameras showed plenty of tape on how oj struggled to get the glove on, but what they didn't show was how easily he removed the glove afterwards.
2006-06-24 16:46:54 · answer #6 · answered by Irish1952 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
NO.He was guilty and he got away with it because of money.But one of these days he will meet his maker and he will know what Thou shall not kill means. And this time all the money and power in the world will not help him.
2006-06-24 22:27:13 · answer #7 · answered by honest abe 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
He was guilty as hell! To quote Axl Rose "I can't smoke a weed made by God but I can kill my wife if I'm a football player.."
2006-06-24 19:14:27 · answer #8 · answered by Led*Zep*Babe 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
he was found innocent by a jury of his "peers" the problem is they really were'nt his "peers" the rules of the court were masterfully played by his defense team. He bought his innocense
2006-06-24 16:43:34 · answer #9 · answered by Oscar F 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
no. otherwise why would a civil suit been filed against him by the goldmans and the browns.
2006-06-24 16:35:08 · answer #10 · answered by koifishlady 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. That man was guilty as hell.
2006-06-24 16:32:31 · answer #11 · answered by Guelph 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋