Or are you saying guilty because you think he must be?
The trial I watched clearly proved the case was a frame job from the word go.
2006-11-17 16:21:38 · 10 answers · asked by dakota29575 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Law Enforcement & Police
Every piece of forensic evidence provided by the prosecution was proven to be unreliable or tainted. The only DNA expert was Dr Lee and he said OJ was innocent.
"People don't bleed preservatives."
2006-11-17 16:32:12 · update #1
I was 25 years old and working at a newspaper in the newsroom when this trial was happening. I remember sitting, stunned when the verdict was read, and everyone around me exploding in disbelief! The more time that elapses since the trial, the harder it may be for some to remember the massive amounts of evidence that were presented, and that the only reason this trial ended in acquittal was because the police screwed up quite a bit.
BTW, I know Henry Lee is a very well-respected forensic scientist, but I think he's so self-promoting that he would do anything and say anything to get on television, including (but not limited to) saying what the people who are paying him want to hear!!
2006-11-17 16:32:20 · answer #1 · answered by Rebecca 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋
I am 19, so i was young during this trial. But I do remember seeing a few sceens on the TV but i couldn't tell you what was going on or anything. As far as me deciding if he was guilty or not, i didn't see enough evidence or a decent amount of trial to decide, And had i saw any amount, like i was saying i was too young to decide guilty or innocent.
2006-11-17 16:27:29 · answer #2 · answered by That 1 Guy 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Actually i remember quite vividly the Exact time and location of the trial because I was defending Macbeth in a mock trial which of course he was acquited on. Less there be a preponderance of a doubt or qualm of conscience. I was actually quite astounded that he did I mean what innocent man doesnt go for a three + hour tour of on the free way in a white bronco when the world is watching and of course the jury was unable to take into consideration. This always posed a dilemma for me. anyways out damn spot out i say.
2006-11-17 16:27:15 · answer #3 · answered by GAMEBREAKER 2 · 4⤊ 1⤋
I watched it from beginning to end, the man is guilty. His defense team got a gift from Mark Furman when he lied about using the *N* word. From then on it was all about race. I can't believe there is actually someone out there who still believes he is innocent. You must have great faith in humanity.
2006-11-17 16:33:10 · answer #4 · answered by Cinner 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Do you honestly think if OJ was innocent he would of went on TV this week and said how he would of done it???
I think the limelight he received from the double murder was wearing off and no one was paying him any attention, so he had to come up with his latest stunt.
Perhaps guilt drove him to rehash the double murder of two innocent people... Think about it...
2006-11-17 16:52:51 · answer #5 · answered by Cat 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Unbelievable. You must have watched a different trial than I did.
2006-11-17 16:24:53 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 1⤋
i saw it he is guilty as hell the only reason he got off was because he is a famous black guy and black people would never find him guilty and if they did the rest of the black community would burn down LA like with Rodney King but it would of been worse
2006-11-17 17:04:27 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
Have to agree with lucky. So I suppose DNA means nothing to you.
2006-11-17 16:26:28 · answer #8 · answered by Gettin_by 3 · 5⤊ 1⤋
whos this o.j simpson everyones talkin bout
2006-11-18 01:46:43 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
I watched every bit of it. He did it!! Did you watch?
2006-11-17 16:26:49 · answer #10 · answered by howdigethere 5 · 5⤊ 1⤋