The reasoning of a jury with all the data I think is better discerner of truth than that of a personal opinion with at most incomplete data.
2006-11-18 13:43:25 · 13 answers · asked by clamcrunchies2 2 in Entertainment & Music ➔ Polls & Surveys
Not this girl.....he soooooooooooooooooooooooooo did it!!!!
2006-11-18 13:44:46 · answer #1 · answered by C 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The original jury & while he was found innocent by the 1st jury I believe he was found to have committed the crime, but double jeopardy allows him to get away with it. He wouldn't have been found guilty in civil court if he was innocent.
"On February 4, 1997, a civil jury in Santa Monica, California found Simpson liable for the wrongful death of Ronald Goldman, battery against Ronald Goldman, and battery against Nicole Brown. The attorney for plaintiff Fred Goldman (father of Ronald Goldman) was Daniel Petrocelli. Simpson was ordered to pay $33,500,000 in damages. However, California law protects pensions from being used to satisfy judgments, so Simpson was able to continue much of his lifestyle based on his NFL pension. A 2000 Rolling Stone article reported that Simpson also still makes a significant income by signing autographs. He subsequently moved from California to Miami, Florida. In Florida, a person's residence cannot be seized to collect a debt under most circumstances."
"The prosecutorial team was confident that they presented a solid case and fully expected a conviction. In polls, a large percentage of African Americans across the nation were largely unconvinced or felt that Simpson had not committed the crime, and that to convict would be to give a green light to police misconduct. Most white Americans, in the same polls, believed that the case against Simpson was solid. Racial tensions grew through the trial and officials feared a repeat of the 1992 Los Angeles riots if Simpson received a guilty verdict.
At 10 a.m. on October 3, 1995 after only three hours of deliberation and in front of an estimated 150 million American television viewers, the jury returned a verdict of "not guilty."
2006-11-18 21:52:06 · answer #2 · answered by Mike J 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There are at least 12 other people ... unless you were on the jury that said he didn't do it.
2006-11-18 21:52:49 · answer #3 · answered by istitch2 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
you don't run if your not guilty..simple as that, the fact 12 people found him innocent does not make him innocent, it means there was not enough evidence to convict...his actions spoke louder then anything
2006-11-18 21:49:51 · answer #4 · answered by donttalkjustplay05 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If he were half a man he would have ate a bullet in the back of the bronco.
2006-11-18 21:48:10 · answer #5 · answered by cjrrock 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't believe he did. I think he's totally innocent and quite frankly, I'm tired of hearing about it.
2006-11-18 21:48:01 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I have always thought he was innocent. I think he knows who did it though.
2006-11-18 21:49:13 · answer #7 · answered by rangerwife81 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
its done over complete now hes just mocking the whole thing
and yes he did it
2006-11-18 21:45:56 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think you may be the only one, but that's just my opinion......
2006-11-18 21:49:11 · answer #9 · answered by P-Nut 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes me.
2006-11-18 21:44:50 · answer #10 · answered by Calby 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
He is guilty as sin.
2006-11-18 22:30:37 · answer #11 · answered by Celebrity girl 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋