All I know is...there will be judgment day......someday.....I really try not to judge others.....but yes, I think he did it.....and just b/c he was acquitted.....as one answer you got.....does not mean he is not guilty.....
~PEACE~
2006-10-06 19:36:55
·
answer #1
·
answered by no_doubt! 5
·
1⤊
1⤋
Someone posted that O.J. was proven innocent... I have to disagree; not being found guilty is not the same as being proven innocent. I'd also suggest that beating the rap and not being convicted doesn't necessarily mean the killer got away with it... unless, of course, he's a sociopath with no sense of guilt or remorse.
Obviously the only person who knows the truth about what happened is the killer and even if the killer had been convicted, the victims still would have been dead so this is truly idle speculation. That said, my opinion is that O.J. was the killer. The evidence strongly suggested that O.J. killed Nicole because he was a jealous, possessive control freak and she had broken free of his control over her (and Ron Goldman just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time).
A non-celeb would have been convicted on much less evidence. The judge and attorneys let the trial turn into a media circus and the murder victims were almost completely forgotten as O.J. absurdly became a symbol of racial injustice in post-Rodney-King-verdict Los Angeles. Racial injustice certainly does exist but O.J. was hardly the appropriate poster boy for it. No matter what you think really happened, you have to feel sorry for O.J. and Nicole's kids.
Now I think I'll go watch "Crash".
2006-10-06 20:07:23
·
answer #2
·
answered by KaM 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
I still like the answer that Dennis Miller gave on the Jay Leno show just after the trial, I think it is the ultimate truth of the OJ situation:
"The LAPD is the ONLY Police Department in the country, SO incompetent that they couldn't even frame a guilty man...."
2006-10-06 23:16:34
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
I don't think he did it and isn't the husband/wife of the victim who always gets the finger pointed at them first when its a murder. Ever consider the fact he still took care of her even after their divorce and the fact she was a drug addict who owed alot of money to her dealer. OJ refused to pay it and that was mostly what they argued about. I believe the people she owed the money to are the ones to blame and framed OJ for the crime.
2006-10-06 19:57:57
·
answer #4
·
answered by vwolf 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
whether you threw away all the "tainted" data, there replaced into nonetheless extra effective than sufficient to locate OJ responsible for the homicide of his ex-spouse and that poor waiter. That he replaced into no longer convicted demonstrates particularly of course that the jury offered the accusations and insinuations of racism made by the protection team - and that's a terrible foundation for a decision in a criminal case. and be sure Ito permit it quite is a circus quite of an ordeal, which in basic terms facilitated this miscarriage of justice.
2016-10-15 22:35:14
·
answer #5
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
If he had been married to Rosie O'Donnell they would have given OJ a medal.
2006-10-06 19:34:38
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
He did the deed and also killed Ron Goldman.
2006-10-06 19:34:00
·
answer #7
·
answered by Monsieur Rick 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
oh he so did it. I think the question should be, "If tried today, would Oj be proven innocent or guilty?"
2006-10-06 19:39:22
·
answer #8
·
answered by Pinky385 2
·
1⤊
0⤋
Everyone......
DNA and his history of violence towards women. In my opinion... the bastard killed both of them.... the proper thing for OJ azzhole to do is: hang himself... that is what he should have done in the first place instead of killing others.... he is a turd....
2006-10-06 19:27:17
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
1⤋
I do think he killed her and Ron Goldman . He did it because if he couldnt have her then no one else would either.
2006-10-06 19:30:40
·
answer #10
·
answered by Pickels 2
·
1⤊
1⤋