you know he did it
2006-08-31 17:20:09 · 42 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Other - Society & Culture
yes, there was more evidence against him than scott peterson and look where peterson is sitting. I think the jury didnt want to be responsible for the city being burned to the ground
PS I think peterson is guilty too
usually when someone gets almost get decapitated like nicole. crime of passion is the reason
2006-08-31 17:22:57 · answer #1 · answered by wilowdreams 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Yes,
as far as the glove situation- if it got wet the glove would shrink a little and anyone could fake putting a glove on look at the film and see how he had his hand stretched out wide.
as far as the tainted blood- most blood in tubes will cloth in a matter of 5-10 min. if that officer had planted evidence He would have had to use something to stop the blood from clotting. Nothing like that was found in evidence.
For the idiot that said there would be blood all over the place- They had their throats slashed blood would not pool for a while he was long gone before they actually died. Did you see any evidence of any footprints in blood.
Guilty as charges- acquitted murderer- only GOD and OJ will know.
2006-09-08 04:02:04 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yeah, and there was WMD in Iraqi right before the bombs dropped. But then Saddam rubbed the magic lamp and the genie came out and made them all go away.
Do any of you ever watch ANY forensic shows? the real ones on cable not CSI? Blood is one of the most hardest elements to get rid of. even when you have time to scrub and bleach. You hardly EVER get rid of it. Now. Lets look at that court yard at Rockingham. I do not know what pics you all were seeing but there was blood EVERYWHERE. Even if he managed not to get any splashed on him(OJ)he would surely not have gotten out of there with out STEPPING IN IT. And therefor it would have been ALL OVER THE FLOOR OF THE BRONCO! Hello!?!? Where was it? Even if he had time to scrub the hell out of it, he would have left blood. same as in that pristine white carpet of his. Forget the fricken glove. The blood transfer didn't support it. Better go watch some cable forensic shows and get educated.
2006-09-05 16:19:05 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Of COURSE he did it. High powered lawyers played the race card, and the wuss woman prosecutor did not have the backbone to plow throught that and convict the slime ball.
In addition, I lost ALL respect for Rosie Greer- hiding behind that fact that he is a "minister" and could not comment on OJ CONFESSING it to him!
2006-09-08 08:59:20 · answer #4 · answered by Mike R 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Actually it was OJ's son. When the son asked OJ if he can borrow the car, OJ told hom to " Aks yo mamma"
2006-09-04 16:09:59 · answer #5 · answered by earnest dubois 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Yes
2006-09-08 15:41:56 · answer #6 · answered by J.Z. 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
he may be guilty, but not in the eyes of the courts in california.
i was recovering from surgery at home during the trail,watched alot of it, the prosecution did not prove to me beyond a resonable doubt that he did it. if the" gloves don't fit you must aquit"
2006-09-08 17:12:29 · answer #7 · answered by jon p 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I would say yes...the problem is that the prosecution and their team didnt acquire the evidence according to procedure so, most of it was inadmisible or subject to scrutiny.
2006-09-08 03:51:00 · answer #8 · answered by White 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No doubt in my mind, just had good lawyers and not enough evidence to convict him. If i were a juror i would have voted not quilty based on that, but deep down inside, he did it.
2006-09-06 07:31:55 · answer #9 · answered by vivib 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes he did. And he got away. Fu*ck the justice system. I am packing my bags to Singapore. They can even control IMF protesters there.
2006-09-08 16:39:40 · answer #10 · answered by Baby_Apocalypse 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋