2006-11-08 10:04:40 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
I'm certain he is guilty. What kind of innocent person would lead the cops to chase after him for a long time after he lied and told them he would turn himself in? There were no other suspects that the police could find, and guilty people are let free a lot. The problem seems to be the amendment in the Consitution that says that a person can't be tried twice (double jeopardy), even if substatial evidence amounts against that person. I have heard a lot of rumors that a murder weapon was found, but that eveidence is now usless thanks to that amendment. Rich people like him can afford the best of lawyers, and his lawyer certainly was no amateur. He helped many other famous people walk free, and your lawyer runs most of the show at a trial. He knows all of the loopholes and how to bring his client out of a hole.
2006-11-08 10:09:03 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
For anybody to answer that question from our third party perspective, is like being the armchair quarterback. None of us were there and so none of us knows what really happened. What we do know is what was presented to us in the media and from the court transcripts. The verdict of the criminal trial was "not guilty". The verdict of the civil trial was "yes", responsible for the deaths of his wife and the guy from the bar. That means that on a burden of proof of preponderance of the evidence (greater than 50% probable) he was found responsible for the deaths. On a burden of proof of beyond reasonable doubt, they could not say that he was guilty, therefore acquited. It would seem that most people believe that he was responsible for the two deaths but they were unable to prove it beyond reasonable doubt. All his attorney had to do was to raise some doubt in the minds of the jurors, which he did, in order to get an acquittal.
Beyond that, you can speculate forever and no one will ever know for sure.
2006-11-08 18:13:03 · answer #2 · answered by rac 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Guilty.
2006-11-08 18:07:59 · answer #3 · answered by k. Osle 2 · 3⤊ 0⤋
O.J. was found innocent, and in this country that's all that matters. As for my personal belief, it doesn't really hold any relevance because I wasn't sitting on that jury, but the notion of "reasonable doubt" would prevent me from being able to say with 100% confidence that he did despite many things that would make me doubt his innocence as well.
2006-11-08 18:14:07 · answer #4 · answered by Daniel T 2 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Anyone else would have been convicted with one of the pieces of evidence they had against O J . Money talks and O J walks . GUILTY
2006-11-08 18:25:31 · answer #5 · answered by Az rastaman 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
haha, guilty just not int he court of law
2006-11-08 18:07:39 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
personally i think he is guilty but the juror said he wasnt so what do you do . all i know is two people is dead and somebody got away with it !!!!!
2006-11-08 18:08:45 · answer #7 · answered by mz.thang 4 · 3⤊ 0⤋
If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit.
The cops botched it, the prosecution fumbled it, and the jury got it wrong.
Guilty... as... sin.
2006-11-08 18:07:45 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
guilty-guilty-guilty.
2006-11-08 18:10:13 · answer #9 · answered by plp474 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
asdfgasdfasfghjik
you have left me speechless
2006-11-08 18:06:39 · answer #10 · answered by ken y 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋