If not, why?
If so, why?
2006-07-06 10:15:47 · 26 answers · asked by Primrose 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
I definitely think he did it.
It chaps my hide that he's walking around a free man.
2006-07-06 10:51:59 · update #1
Absolutely. In the actual murder trial, the state felt, incorrectly, that it had enough evidence for a slam dunk. They failed to follow through on every possible piece of evidence they could find. It is easy, with hindsight to see this, so I can't really fault the prosecutor. There was additional evidence brought to light in the wrongfull death suit, such as the Bruno Mali (sp) shoes.
You also had a jury that was either composed of some idiots, anti white racists, or people just concerned about the fallout in general of a guilty verdict against OJ.
I still remember the scene of OJ parading around the courtroom saying the glove doesn't fit..but wait a minute, was he not wearing the glove at the time??? DUH!
2006-07-06 10:23:04 · answer #1 · answered by SteveA8 6 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Its sad, so I not confirm, nor deny the guilt of O.J. in the case, he was absolved by the Jurors in a Criminal trail, but was sentenced to paid for the punitive damages at the Civil trail. So maybe, if the Nicole Simpson family had the chance and appointed a private prosecutor in the Criminal trail, other story were made.
2006-07-06 11:28:55 · answer #2 · answered by cyberlawyerccs 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Remember the long ride down the expressway that OJ took? Why wasn't he driving back home? None of the expressway drive was included in the trial. Nobody ever asked him under oath about his destination in that SUV on the day the police were trying to question him. Draw your own conclusions.
2006-07-08 02:35:23 · answer #3 · answered by Maldives 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, OJ killed them...and I believe that the Jury found him not guilty, out of anger at the LA Police Dept. and the DA's Office.
The LA Police Dept. has a very bad reputation as far as Brutality against their citizens.
2006-07-06 11:51:18 · answer #4 · answered by MSJP 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
He's guilty, he had motive, and he had means to carry out the murder. He was smart enough to think ahead and buy gloves that were way too small that he could plant knowing the prosecution would try to use them as evidence.
2006-07-06 10:19:34 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes
2006-07-06 11:15:31 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
G"If the glove don't fit...you must acquit..." Give me a break! The jury knew he was guilty, but at the same time knew that if they did find him guilty riots would break out in LA like they had a few years before.
2006-07-06 10:18:50 · answer #7 · answered by Cali Dude 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes, because once the evidence in the civil suit was released to the public... there is just no denying his guilt based on the forensics alone.
2006-07-06 10:19:28 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
He had a hand transplant 4 days before the whole "Glove" incidence.
I found this out from a Doctor friend of mine.
2006-07-06 10:19:10 · answer #9 · answered by Scotty Wrotem 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Hell to the yes.
I think just about everyone on the planet unanimously came to this conclusion about 11 years ago.
Where were you?
2006-07-06 10:18:21 · answer #10 · answered by jessica_lanelle 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋