I MEAN with all that evidence???? how could he have killed them. i want to know. i mean they should have let the show on fox air. i mean he should have freedom of speach. if the book had been published i bet america would turn on him and f him up.
yeah he only wrote the book to get fricken 3 million bucks. its gotta be a good scam. get away with it because he got a good lawyer wait 10 years...maybe the family will be over it by now. get 3 million bucks. he is sick freak! that sucks for the brown family. they have to be reminded about a horible thing that happened to them. sad...
2006-11-23 18:26:28 · 8 answers · asked by Popeye 1 in News & Events ➔ Media & Journalism
Simple. Because there were idiots on the jury who let him go because he's black and famous. That's it.
2006-11-23 18:29:00 · answer #1 · answered by Dianne 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
OJ is a man who was thoroughly investigated, was tried in a court of law that was presided over by a fair judge and had the evidence evaluated by a jury who found him innocent of murder. He has always maintained his innocence of this deed and he wrote a theoretical book (which does not contain a confession). Money was probably the motivation in writing the book as there is a civil suit debt and a need to provide an inheritance for his children etc. The trial attorney's Cochran, Marcia and Darden wrote their own books and received millions.
A few things that the jury may have considered:
-The investigator who found the glove later committed PERJURY regarding his racist comments.
- Another investigator took a vial sample of OJ's blood from the lab and carried it INTO the crime scene.
- The glove DID NOT fit OJ's hand.
- There never was the amount of blood on OJ's body, clothes, house or car CONSISTENT with someone who had committed that crime in person..
- The murder weapon was NEVER connected to him or found.
- The jury was taken to visit OJ's house and DID NOT see a large blood trail.
- There were no witnesses to the actual crime.
- Likely the jury found him innocent because there was a LACK of real evidence to convict.
Some may disagree with the verdict but it's unfair for them to blatantly say with a certainty that this man is guilty.
At times a publisher controlls the general content and even the title of a book which an author must agree to if he needs the contract.
2006-11-25 00:38:30 · answer #2 · answered by sunshine25 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
He is very lucky. He did it for sure. He knows it we know it. The book is like one last stab to the family members. They should sue if they can. I really , really wish there was a law that could re try certain people.
Why would a non guilty person even make a book like that. Even if your greedy and were wrongfully accused and nobody likes you or believes you why take a chance to make it worse or reopen wounds for yourself. And if the police framed him why would he poke into it more I would not want to stir anything up with corrupt cops around.
He is 100% guilty and that book is like icing on the cake well extra icing that cake is already loaded , I mean did you see all the evidence my god. I think he got hit by lighting and won the lottery just by being found not guilty.
---edited---
What did the jury want? The ghost of Nicole to appear during trial and partake as a witness. Even then they will be like the police paid the ghost to lie.
2006-11-23 18:34:14 · answer #3 · answered by SummerRain Girl 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Prosecution should have excluded bloody glove in trial. That bloody glove brought in detective who was accused of racism and whole race issue into the trial and got OJ 'reasonable doubt.' If that bloody glove was excluded accusation about planting evidence would have gone away, prosecution still had mountain of good evidences and OJ would have been found guilty. Defense took that glove and turned it into a symbol of racism that struck nerve with juries and any blacks who have experience real injustices. It's real bad case of criminal benefiting from suffering of real people who have been mistreated police and discriminated in daily lives.
2006-11-23 21:16:00 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Just take a look at the jury of his peers and check their IQ's
Also, How come all the White's never rioted?
2006-11-27 11:53:37 · answer #5 · answered by yahoooo reject 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i think justice such as it is was served -- he walked free and owed the familys millions of dollars in private actions. perhaps if this country was a little less likely to point every finger at a minority then justice could be better served.
2006-11-23 21:10:09 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think that he could have done it. he just wants the money to pay the family the money he stills owes them from the civil lawsuit that they won. and yeah i wanted to see the interview too... i mean
i want to know "HOW HE WOULD HAVE DONE IT" as if he didnt.....
2006-11-23 18:37:26 · answer #7 · answered by netta823 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's called racism
2006-11-24 00:16:33 · answer #8 · answered by Mike F 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋