i think so
2006-08-17 06:39:46 · 31 answers · asked by Anonymous in News & Events ➔ Media & Journalism
I dont think he acutally did it, but I think he knows who did it. I think he wanted it done.
2006-08-17 06:43:29 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
We all have out gut instincts about the OJ case and that's a good thing. As a human race we all react and our individualism is most prominently expressed in our vocal opinions. The public saw more than the Jury did. However, presentation of the public evidence was clearly tainted by media spin and unscientific debate. The Jury received filtered information pertaining to only the verifiable facts of the case. I believe that OJ was put under scrutiny and scrubbed with a fine tooth comb by the media and the authorities. They couldn't prove he did it and the glove didn't fit and you know the rest. I believe that by the laws of our land OJ Simpson was proven not guilty in the court of law. I also believe that until the actual killer of Nicole Brown Simpson is brought to justice then the public will continue to look at OJ as the most likely suspect related to the death of his estranged wife. America is obsessed with drama. The rage of a sports icon with a cheating wife is just the ticket. Throw in the race card and watch everyone scramble to the screen to see the white SUV fly. Innocent or guilty, no matter how we view it, we simply do. It was a great diversion from the war and genocide the media replaced with the OJ saga.
2006-08-17 07:04:08 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
The evidencepointed to the facts that OJ was guilty. But clever high price lawyers and jury who belived the defense let killer go free.
2006-08-17 07:04:39 · answer #3 · answered by murraystate69 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
OJ definitely is guilty. He was there and I think that he did the cutting, but he wasn't alone. He was taking the entire rap for someone else. Who is that someone else? I really think it's his son.
2006-08-17 06:50:41 · answer #4 · answered by JuJitsu_Fan 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't think he was innocent. There was evidence that showed that he was guilty, he was only found innocent because he had high-powered lawyers; and (a rarity in a trial against a black man) a jury with mostly minority members.
2006-08-17 06:44:48 · answer #5 · answered by Joy M 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No.
I think OJ killed his ex-wife.
I think Michael screwed little boys.
I think R Kelly peed on that little girl (saw the video...yeah that's him)
LOL, sorry I'm sleeping and beginning to get goofy.
2006-08-17 06:45:00 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
OJ was found not guilty...doesn't necessarily mean he was innocent.
I hope for his sake he is innocent......
2006-08-17 06:44:36 · answer #7 · answered by Natural_Woman 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Is this a trick question? Innocent??? HA!
The blood/DNA on his Bronco...in his bedroom. The matching shoe prints. The low-speed chase with a wig, passport, gun and $10,000 cash???
2006-08-17 06:44:58 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
According to the law, one is innocent until proven guilty beyond any doubts.
2006-08-17 08:24:56 · answer #9 · answered by Avner Eliyahu R 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
His lawyer said , pre jury selection, "All I need is one African American juror". Everyone except you knows that OJ is a killer.
2006-08-17 07:02:02 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
According to 12 idiots in LA, yes.
2006-08-17 06:45:59 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋