how do we know that oj is guilty?

Question

EXCHANGE, because i never had a interest and i just found out about OJ blab bla bla cause i was busy livin

Answer 1

A few points: OJ, a black man was investigated and tried in a court of law for the murder of two caucasions. A jury evaluated all the evidence (only circumstantial) and found him "not guilty". After leaving the crime scene (OJs ex-wife home) a caucasion investigator went to the defendant's house and claimed that he found a glove/w blood - this investigator was found to have made recorded tapes making statements highly derogatory about blacks - he later committed perjury in court. Another caucasion investigator testified in court that he took a vial sample of OJ's blood from the police lab and carried it a distance of 26 miles to take it INTO the crime scene.
OJ has always maintained his innocence of this deed and recently wrote a theoretical book (which does not contain a confession). Money not narcissism 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 extreme 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 (wrong size).
- 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 controls the general content and even the title of a book which an author must agree to if he needs the contract.

Answer 2

Had Mark Fuhrman followed the rules and not contaminated the evidence, he'd have been found guilty. But once that variable was introduced (a corrupt investigator), the trial was over: you cannot say, beyond reasonable doubt, that a man is guilty after the cop in charge of the investigation has admitted to altering the evidence.

Answer 3

He's not. They just haven't caught the real killer yet because there was no-one else within 200 yards of the house!

The jury said not guilty. The private lawsuit judge awarded damages and costs against OJ. He brings out a book because he either doesn't know when to keep his head down or he has convinced himself he is both innocent and above the law.

Here we go again......

Answer 4

CSI: Los Angeles

Answer 5

That pesky evidence.

If you'd like to read a great book about the trial, and how the prosecution completely screwed it up, read Vincent Bugliosi's "Rage."

Answer 6

old news
why not get on with your life instead of living a few years behind the rest of the world?

Answer 7

we may judge from all the evidence presented if we saw it, since the trial was televised. Odd the jury didnt.

Answer 8

We don't know for sure, only God knows for sure. All we have is what we were told about the case and who are we to keep judging him when he was acquitted. I say, let God handle him.

Answer 9

His blood, clothing, hair, foot prints, was observed at home when he claimed he was in Chicago, and he confessed to a friend named R.G.

Answer 10

We dont know if he did it or not. Only he does but I can go by gut feel and I dont think he did it but I do think he paid someone too.