I was reading about the evidence in the case on Wikipedia and I'm convinced he did it. What do you think?
2006-10-25 12:53:58 · 17 answers · asked by NoDoubt 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Totally.
2006-10-25 12:55:19 · answer #1 · answered by Daniella 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No question, he did it. The prosecutors tried, but they were no "dream team" such as the defense had. F Lee Bailey, Johnny Cochran, and the shrimp, whats-his-name, Barry Shrek, and Alan Dershowitz, straight from teaching at Harvard Law School.
The bungling cops, headed by the Fuhrer, Mark Furman, handed Simpson the trial on a silver platter.
Remember the quote from Dickens, "If the law thinks that, then the law is a @ss, sir! The law is a @ss!" Sorry if I remembered wrong. David Copperfield, I think.
That trial proved, once and for all, that the law is an @ss.
2006-10-25 15:04:58 · answer #2 · answered by KALEL 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There was far too much of his blood at the crime scene for it to be there naturally (he had just one small cut on his hand). The argument is that police planted the first set of blood samples they took from him and so sunk their case.
Here's another theory you should really consider. O. J.'s oldest son may have been the murderer and not O. J.
He could have covered up for his son. He could have stood trial to protect his son. That would also explain why he is no closer to finding out who did it.
The last theory is one no one has really investigated. The friend with Nicole had drug problems and gambling problems. It may be that he was the target all along and Nicole was just a potential witness.
If the police had REALLY investigated the murder with an open mind instead of trying to hang it on OJ from the beginning, they might have uncovered the truth. They botched it.
2006-10-25 13:01:42 · answer #3 · answered by loryntoo 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I believe that he is guilty. I also believe that the media made such a 3 ring circus out of the case that the jury was tainted from the beginning.
2006-10-25 13:02:42 · answer #4 · answered by BetteBoop 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I wouldn't say he got away. He was found liable in the civil case, and has since been trying to avoid paying out the judgment to the Goldman family.
It's certainly true that he's been markedly unsuccessful in turning in the real killer(s) in Florida.
2006-10-25 13:04:59 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Of course he did and Johnny Cochren has some explaining to do in front of his Maker because DNA doesn't lie.
"Behold, the whirlwind of the LORD goeth forth with fury, a continuing whirlwind: it shall fall with pain upon the head of the wicked."--Jer.30:23
2006-10-25 13:11:47 · answer #6 · answered by soulguy85 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I watched that trial on my old C Band Satellite live, I taped it when I was not home, I was so into this trial.. 100's of hours of watching and sometimes just listing to it. And I learned, Nothing....
Hell yes he got away with it.
2006-10-25 12:59:41 · answer #7 · answered by IOU101 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Absolutely!
2006-10-25 12:55:50 · answer #8 · answered by Barbara H 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
YES. and he is not paying a dime in his civil case that he lost i guess. I think if it was not for the LA riots. He would be guilty. Period.
2006-10-25 13:00:13 · answer #9 · answered by ? 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
according to the Cival trial he did it...(period)
the Criminal trial was a joke, LAPD screwed that one up, it should have been declared a mis-trial - if it was, then he most surely would have been found guilty. Wether he did it or not.
2006-10-25 13:06:46 · answer #10 · answered by nunofyobiznit 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋