I think OJ is an idiot but I don't get why people get so outraged about his murder case. I came to this opinion because there wasn't this type of outrage (from whites) when Emmitt Till was killed.
He was a 13 year old black child killed by 3 white men for whistling at a white woman. The 3 white men were found NOT guilty. After the trial they met with LIFE Magazine explaining how they killed him (btw, it wasn't how they would have done it if they did it...THEY ADMITTED DOING IT!)
When OJ was found not guilty I thot it would die away because there is no racism in this country and so therefore the outrage would be equal. For example the 3 white men were treated as heroes in their community...no one wanting to go after their money, not give them meals, etc.
Now, if a 13 year old white girl were murdered by 3 black men & they're found Not Guilty the outrage would have been exactly the same as for Emmitt Till because, frankly there is equality in this country, correct?
2006-12-10 15:43:14 · 5 answers · asked by Ted Jordan 5 in Entertainment & Music ➔ Polls & Surveys
O.J. was a celebrity and his trial was nationally televised. I've never even heard of Emmitt Till until today.
2006-12-10 15:46:00 · answer #1 · answered by Carl 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
You have made an excellent point concerning Emmitt.
OJ has always maintained his innocence and a great portion of his recent book is probably defending himself against false allegations. Here's a few things from the trial that the jury may have considered:
-The investigator who found the glove later was heard on tapes played in court making extreme racist statements about blacks and then committed PERJURY regarding his racist comments
- Another investigator admitted in court that he took a vial sample of OJ's blood from the lab and carried it INTO the crime scenes.
- 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 the rumored large blood trail.
- There were no witnesses to the actual crime.
Likely the jury found him "not guilty" because there was a LACK of real evidence to convict.
Some may disagree with the verdict but it's unfair for to say with absolute certainty that this man is guilty.
Read this:
http://members.aol.com/CntrbndMag/oj.html
One of the World's top forensics scientists Dr. Henry Lee who worked on the case during the trial and saw the evidence, wrote a very good book "Cracking Cases" and makes some interesting scientific points about OJ not being the one who did this unfortunate crime.
2006-12-11 01:41:53 · answer #2 · answered by sunshine25 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
OJ is nowhere NEAR the outrage of poor Emmitt Till, who may have had a lisp and never even whistled at the woman.
And how they killed Emmitt is just depraved
2006-12-10 23:49:53 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I see your point, but I think this question is too deep for some.
2006-12-10 23:46:08 · answer #4 · answered by Phoenix Rising 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
You have a point.
2006-12-10 23:50:09 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋