2006-08-27 01:27:52 · 26 answers · asked by s21181 1 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Nope, the cops screwed up all the evidence and pretty much gauranteed him his freedom, see what happens when people aren't trained properly?!
2006-08-27 01:30:25 · answer #1 · answered by X's Mommy 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
We all have an opinion on this particular crime.
From what reading I have done of the case and from what I know of his personality / behavior profile (such as the research former FBI profiler John Douglas did), I would say that OJ is the mosty likely culprit for the crime ... and it would be ludicruous to say otherwise.
OJ did hire an effective legal team. They knew how to exploit flaws in the opposing argument to their best advantage. [And we won't even talk of the obvious "race" issue that was planted by them in the public's mind.]
The DNA evidence was clear (even with the supposed "plant") about OJ's guilt, but the prosecutors spent three whole days having experts speak in complicated language about it -- instead of having the evidence communicated in normal speech.
I've had experience with leather gloves -- I lost one in the winter once, and found a glove in my driveway when the snow melted that spring. (I lived in the rural country, so no one "visited" my parent's house and could have dropped another.) It looked exactly like the one I still had... but I was confused at first because when I tried it on, it didn't fit at all. I realized later it had simply shrunk -- leather shrinks big-time when in the wrong environment. The prosecutors really did not know how to handle the "glove" incident.
The sordid history of Mark Fuhrman of course helped discredit the case against OJ, whether or not Fuhrman was guilty of any tampering.
OJ had the money to buy an effective (even if rather shady) defense team, and they outmaneuvered the prosecutors. It's pretty much as simple as that.
Many people of his background (whether guilty or innocent) without money do not have that luxury and thus are disadvantaged by the system. Many people claim that the system work as expected, and that the civil case remedied what the criminal case failed to do.
2006-08-27 08:40:47 · answer #2 · answered by Jennywocky 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'm not sure O.J.'s lawyers were as good as they were crooked! If there was one huge moment of trickery in the trial, it was when OJ put a surgical glove on his hand; then held his hand in a claw-like fashion as he tried to put the evidence glove on. Of course it wouldn't go on easily THAT WAY! And who ever heard of a "slow speed chase"? He got special treatment because people remembered him as "the juice" and we choose heroes carelessly in America. He wasn't a hero; he was a good football player. And a wife beater. And a womanizer. And a murderer. It's the way he has pranced around since the trial that shows his true self. He's a despicable man who still has to face the biggest judge of all: GOD!
He won't have three immoral women giving him a lap dance that day!
2006-08-27 08:48:02 · answer #3 · answered by missingora 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes he got away with it. Do you think if an everyday Joe killed his wife and didn't have the money O.J had he would get off? No, he would be on death row, but if your a movie star, football player, basketball player, actress robbing fifth avenue store you can get away with things like that with a " don't do it again" I think not. An everyday Joe would find himself under the jail and not with probation and a little fine that wouldn't put a dent in their pocket book. And then there's that nice bright orange jump suit you get fitted with that they don't and a nice pair bracelets that don't come off unless you have that oh so special key. After all that who's got money for a lawyer.
2006-08-27 08:50:33 · answer #4 · answered by tracy211968 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
O.J. Simpson was aquitted because the prosecution started screwing up the evidence from the very beginning - and he had the cash for good lawyers. Not that he needed them. Anyone could have defended him and he still would have walked.
2006-08-27 08:35:19 · answer #5 · answered by Discotheque 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, but neither will you, me, your forefathers or mine. OJ...Come on. If you are worried about OJ... Take a look at your forefathers and tell me what you think.
Better Idea! Open your wallet, take out a $20, do some research on the president honored on it and tell me what his place is in causing the infamous "Trail of Tears" and how many Native Americans were X'd.
Wake up and smell the reality of our own people before you start in on OJ. Ole George W. would call OJ a *****!
But if you really want horror... Do some research into Christianity and remember... It was not the Muslims who slaughtered the Jews in Europe...
Do some reading before splashing up stupid questions!!!
2006-08-27 09:33:40 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
OJ got away with murder because he had one lawyer who knew and understood the law. Mr. Johnny Cochran. be for court TV came to be i thought everything was judged by what you as a person believed after hearing both sides i know now that laws have to be followed in order for the system to work. juries must weigh every ounce of evidence without regard to their thoughts. the people must prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. any doubt about a persons innocence must free that person. that is what a good lawyer does, plants a seed of doubt. the prosecution must erase that doubt or the person is judged innocent. OJ may have been guilty and i as a black woman believe he is but did they prove it beyond a reasonable doubt????no.no.most of the people in my community believe he got away with murder,but our cheers were not for OJ they were for Mr Cochran. Our guy had used such skill that it just made us proud as a people we all hated OJ since the old days always up in white "folks Faces" we never liked him and felt he should have gotten the death sentence for doing so horrible a thing to those people.
2006-08-27 08:46:04 · answer #7 · answered by punkin 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes he did. But all they did was use the system that was set before them. Never plea out a deal. To get 12 people to agree on anything is as hard as it gets. It is a very low success rate.
I find very few people any more who still argue that he did not do it.
b
2006-08-27 08:32:55 · answer #8 · answered by Bacchus 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Escape from? Is that what you meant? Hey, 12 ordinary people said let him walk, so he did, leave it alone. How do you know he did it? Were you there? Did you see? Then where were you during the trial, your testimony could have changed everything.
Get over it, the system worked. Well, until the poor bastard got to civil court anyway.
2006-08-27 08:38:24 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
He also had a great jury. His lawyers didn't have to do a whole lot. The trial didn't have anything to do with murder. If it did there was no way they could have found him not guilty.
2006-08-27 08:32:21 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Let us rephrase that..,
He was found innocent of all charges..., and I believe , because of,having the financial resources to hire one of the best.., BEST defense teams that money can BUY..,
Was he GUILTY..?????
I personally know of (second hand) info from one of his attorney's to another, comments made by him...,
With out getting anyone in trouble, let us just say..,
Kind of interesting that one of the members from the team stepped down!!! NOW ISN'T IT !!!!
2006-08-27 08:36:49 · answer #11 · answered by bigbill4u 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋