O J Simpson....Vote here...Guilty or not? You decide.?

Answer 1

I've been an attorney since 1993. O.J. Simpson was found not guilty in the criminal case and was found liable in the civil case. Those are verdicts that we have to live with. The terms "guilty" and "not guilty" have narrow legal meanings. A verdict of "not guilty" is not a declaration of innocence...it only means the jury felt that the prosecution failed to to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty.

There is no question that OJ murdered those two people. His blood was and the crime seen and there blood was at his house. There is simply no way that the police could have planted this evidence.

I highly recommend a book called Outrage: The Five Reasons Why O.J. Simpson Got Away With Murder. It covers of great detail the mistakes made by the prosecution in this case.

And by the way, Johnnie Cochrane was a very average lawyer in my opinion.

Answer 2

Guilty

Answer 3

Guilty

Answer 4

Guilty.

Answer 5

He was found not guilty by a jury, but civilly liable for their deaths.

That is because a criminal trial requires beyond a reasonable doubt and a civil trial is the preponderance of the evidence (51% or more). That means he is responsible for their deaths but there was not enough evidence to convict in a criminal trial. There was enough evidence to convict several times over but if you take the three best lawyers in the United States there is a good chance you can get away with murder.

The DNA evidence was not handled properly (Fung did not use gloves while collecting evidence). Would that have changed the DNA in any way? NO!!!

Blood on the truck, blood on the gloves, blood in his sink drain, all belonging to the victims.....coincidence? I think not.

He was found not guilty by a jury. Did he kill them? No doubt.

Answer 6

I don't know much about it. I heard that the murder was in '94 and that the trial was in '95. I turned 3 in December of '94 so there's really no way for me to remember that, of all things. I have no memory before my fourth birthday party.

However, I have heard people talk about it. Mostly, my family, I mean. I heard that he was acquitted because of stupidity. Like, something about the gloves not fitting correctly (apparently his hand fit in there, but not correctly!!... I've put on gloves too small and too big for me before... they may be annoying, but they still work... so that's just dumb) and that someone didn't handle DNA samples correctly or something. Apparently, he also had really good lawyers. So, even though it was obvious that he did it, he was found not guilty.

In his new book "If I Did It...", he talks about how he would've done it if he had. People are calling it his confession. Because of double jeopardy (the fifth amendment to the U.S. Constitution), even though it is being called a confession, he cannot be tried again.

Anyway, the opinion of everyone in my family is that he did it. Even though I don't know the facts, I have heard things from them and it sounds like he did to me, too. Since it is one-sided, though, that is not my final opinion. I'll get back to you in a few years when I research it. OK?

Answer 7

He may have been found "not guilty" in a court of law. But, if I had been on the jury, I would have voted "guilty". I feel there was DEFINITELY a "reasonable doubt"!!!!

Answer 8

Guilty as Charged

Answer 9

This book will not change my mind...

He was guilty 11 years ago and he's still guilty. Now he is going to us what he got away with to make money.

Answer 10

He was guilty then, and this book should be called "How I Killed my Wife and got away with it" he did get acquitted, so can never be tried again, this is just a way to make money is sooo much a farce, just like him. I wonder how his children look at him doing something like this. ??