When Mark Fuhrman was exposed. That ruined the credibility of the evidence.
2006-11-17 12:29:50
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
Well,you asked so here's my opinon.
.I believe the trial had many flaws to begin with.....
.First, Cochoran,Bailey and Shapiro are well known and very "seasoned" attorneys.They were the true "dream team" among atorneys.And anyone facing murder charges would want the best they could afford;and OJ could afford the best !They had considerable experience and funding to get things done for their client.
Darden and Clark were less experienced at prosecuting murder trials at least of this calibur.However, they did a good job prosecuting OJ.
State and county attorneys have less funds for the obtain a conviction.They are both good attorneys just had a much more limited budget and less experience..
Juries seem to hold celebrities to a different standard when it comes to trial cases.We all have our"heroes" and we want to believe in them so much sometimes or perception becomes clouded.In this case, I think this is what happpened.
Judge Ito was under a LOT of pressure from both sides plus the media was watching his constant rulings.So in a strange way, his rulings were being scrutinized.
I don't know for a fact who killed Nicole and Ron but whom ever did was possessed in a fit of rage .In my opinon driven by either jealousy or the side effects of drugs.or both.
The media played a part in every aspect of the trial.People were watching it everyday .It was headline news the entire trial.It was like a soap opera.It was after the trial that several court tv shows appeared on prime time Tv networks.
The justice sysytem was forever changed by the results of the OJ Simpson trial.It led to prosecuters and defense attorneys becoming more interested in demagraphics than whether or not justice was truly being served.
The question of planted evidence was mainly raised because of the manner in which the evidence was collected,preserved and obtained.Had proper procedures been followed there would not have been a question about planted evidence.Since that time, forensics evidence collection and preservtion have improved.I dont know if evidence was planted but it seems to me it would take many people to conspire and plant evidence in this case.
Some of Mr Simpson's actions had a tendency to incriminate him.And this recent book about " what if I did " has only made people speculate if he is making a ? confession.
The glove? I think that it was an actor demonstrating his craft.
I do know that one the day of the murders; two young wonderful lives were taken much too soon!
2006-11-16 20:40:45
·
answer #2
·
answered by prettycoolchick38 4
·
3⤊
0⤋
1st of all i think this was the easest trial oj defense team ever have had and heres why-----it lasted 8 months to drain oj's money they knew he had money and the team wanted it,2nd the jury that was selected was a bunch of uneducated people that could not understand the evidence,noone wanted to convict a celeberity not even the judical system because it would cause more problems with the uneducated blacks in this country so why not present enough evidence to let the public decide who is gulity and let him get tried in civil court so the victums families can get a piece of the pie-------now heres the kicker and a no brainer when F Lee baily asj Mark Furhmond if he had ever used the "N" word he knew bfore he ask that question that he had used it bedcause everyone has even many blacks .. And the tapes hearing him say no were made after the trial got started and there were no intentions to convict oj from the start but the edivence was so overwhelming that the judcial knew that the trial being publized wold let the general public know that oj killed these people beyond a shadow of a doubt.. Now the glove oj wasn't evn try to put the glove on.. You have to remember oj did not really get away with it he just had to go to prison for the crime but he has suffered from this and will continue to suffer the rest of his life by being ostersized by the citizens of the country,how would you like that every where you went people laugh at your idiot status and dispise you?? Hes trying to acheive a celeberity but hes not getting the kind of status he wants and its his fault// He's just been tried in the "People's Court ( us) we have spoken out loud & they actually heard us & trembled ------- THANKS TO EVERYONE !!! Fox has with drawn their offer to let show air..oj is an idiot,no i wont use upper case for his name,its not a typeo!!
2006-11-20 09:08:33
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
If OJ didn't kill them, why write a book on IF I did it. That is so absurd. To think, the children are finally healing after going through so much and 'rippppp', there goes the bandage that will let the wounds flow. The truth is, we all know that trial was a farse. As soon as there was any notion of evidence tampering, the jury had no choice but to follow the lines of the law no matter how blurred they had become. They should make a mandatory rule on sales of the book. They should say let the public decide. Upon purchase of the book, have a legally publicized vote - if you want the money to go to the families of the victims or OJ. Lines are so blurred on reality in general - truth is no longer an option on anything anymore...I don't wanna go there again and he can't make me - let's all go get MARGARITA'S :-))))))
2006-11-17 09:52:59
·
answer #4
·
answered by Nay 1
·
1⤊
0⤋
The O.J. case was a gross miscarriage of justice, to say the least. There was so much dna evidence that proved he slaughtered those innocent people. One being the mother of 2 of his children. Yet the defense played the "race" card (the one they initially said they wouldn't use) when race had nothing whatsoever to do with the murders. There's no way anyone planted any evidence, there simply was enough time. O. J. did a sloppy job. That fact that Mark Furhman used a racial slur in his past & misled the public about it, doesn't make him a racist & doesn't make O.J. innocent. Who hasn't said the word. I've used a lot of words I'm not proud of, but it doesn't make me a bigot. Beside the fact O.J. has remained utterly arrogant through out this whole ordeal. He has shown no sympathy, empathy, or any remorse for the brutal slaughter of his children's mother & her friend. Instead he's slandered the victims & their families & consistantly throws the murders in their faces as if he's rubbing salt in their wounds. There are many people in this country that are sadden & grief stricken over what happen to these people & have sincere sympathy for their families, who don't even know them personally & have never met them. Yet O.J. continues to revel in the exposure he gets from that tragedy. Has he forgotten that, one of those victims is the mother of his children. He should at least have some compassion for those children who have had to suffer the loss of their mother in such an evil & vile way, yet he prances in the spotlight like he's something special. He's absoutely inhumane. I think he & Michael Jackson deserve the hottest spot in hell in which to rot away for the crimes they've comitted & gloated over getting by with.
2006-11-19 04:01:34
·
answer #5
·
answered by 2D 7
·
3⤊
1⤋
I think the main thing he had going for him was that he is a very likeable unassuming American hero, first at sport, then in the movies, so he started way ahead.
I don't know if he was guilty or not but either way the trial should have been the end of it. People always hypothesise about if he was really guilty but doesn't anyone ever think how tortured the man must have been all these years if he was in fact innocent but still accused and believed to be a murderer even after being tried and found not guilty.
2006-11-16 17:28:20
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
1⤋
The prosecution blew it before it even got started when they elected to have the trial downtown. It was their own bad decision, they could have held the trial in OJ's pricey neighborhood and thus get a less gullible jury. The LA courtroom is closer to the prosecutors office, so it was purely a matter of convience on their part.
2006-11-16 19:33:21
·
answer #7
·
answered by michinoku2001 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
IF the police planted evidence, maybe they did so because they expected it to be hard to convict him due to his celebrity "hero" status. Maybe they felt they needed to "solidify" OJ being found guilty. I'm not saying it's right, but a possibility.
I do think he's guilty, but I also think the police may have been guilty of some misconduct and/or just plain sloppy police work. But, just because the police may be guilty of a few things, that doesn't mean OJ isn't guilty also.
2006-11-17 04:17:56
·
answer #8
·
answered by Red 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
The case always looked to me like a put-up job by somebody, but I would not accuse the police of doing the fakery. There was some evidence in the case (glove behind a shed comes to mind) which no credible theory of the case ever accounted for. Simpson has recently said more about the case, but I have not heard the details.
2006-11-16 17:24:54
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
2⤋
Casey Anthony is an eye-catching youthful white woman with great breasts. which ability she's in simple terms like the strippers that Hannity sees each night on his way homestead from paintings. O.J. Simpson is a extensive black guy, this ability that Hannity is fearful of him.
2016-10-22 05:51:49
·
answer #10
·
answered by janski 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
He is going to keep it up until the goldmans go nuts and hire people to kill oj.The goldmans had there own radio show all they need to do is start raising money for the kill oj fund and then do it.oj was at the kentucky derby in the spring as though he had not a care in the world.
2006-11-17 05:08:22
·
answer #11
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋