After all these years, why do people still think OJ Simpson is guilty, if he was aqquited?

Question

I was only about 8 or 9 when that trial was taking place, and I remember when the not guilty verdict came out, some people were dancing in the streets, cuz they were so happy he was innocent....but was what so blatently obvious in the case, that some people still think hes guilty, to this day?

AND, some people say it was his celebrity, but wasnt OJs career way over by 1994?

Ok, When did he admit this (BESIDES the book)

Answer 1

OJ more or less admitted to it but he cannot be tried twice.
He murdered her but his fame, money and police bungling and the way the court system worked got him away with murder.
He admitted it practically in a book.

Answer 2

i was grown at the time and watched most of the trial. oj had the best lawyers in the world and the clark was in over her head.
the trial came to hinge on if this one cop ever used the n word. if so it supported their claim that the cops planted the overwhelming evidence. after this cop had claimed that he never uses the word a tape of him doing so while playing a fictional charactor was presented.
his lawyers also had much evidence supressed.
the jurors now, knowing what we all know, say he is guilty.
it was just a battle of lawyers and the best lawyers won.
you may be too young to remember how crazy it was. everyone associated with the trial believed (usually correctly) that they were going to rich, the procecuters were having a love affiar the judge had timidly turned the court over to ojs showbiz team and the event was covered 24/7 launching whole networks like court tv.
a later cival trial where both sides were sober and good found him guilty in record time.
i think even oj would be a little surprized to think some poeple still think he is not guilty. he may not have admited it outright, but he barely denys it anymore.

Answer 3

The overwhelming evidence to O.J.’s guilt was the D.N.A samples found in his Ford Bronco. Chiefly it was blood evidence which Simpson has never been able to explain away. Evidence found was O.J.’s blood, Nicole’s blood, both of which is POSSIBLE, since they obviously knew each other, had many opportunities to ride in this vehicle etc. However, also found was Ron Goldman’s blood in the Bronco, and this was the sticking point. How did Goldman’s blood get in Simpson’s truck?

During the trial, and what swayed the jury toward Simpson’s acquittal was the prosecuting attorneys many blunders (Simpson trying on the bloody glove, found at the crime scene in court and OBVIOUSLY faking out the jurors into believing that the glove didn’t fit him, even though the glove belonged to him), the Judge Lance Ito’s total inability to keep the trial focused, under control and keeping it from becoming a circus, which it did, the jury who claimed that the DNA evidence was too difficult for them to understand and therefore for the most part they ignored it, and finally and most likely the most important reason was Simpson’s attorneys. Johnny Cochran, Simpson’s lead attorney, turned the courtroom into freak show, blaming the LAPD, calling them racists (Officer Mark Foley was their main target, he testified that he wasn’t a racist, and later in the trail a video was found with Foley using some rather colorful language, including the dreaded “N” word) calling them incompetent and accused the LAPD of planting evidence.

In the end, the jury, overwhelmed with DNA evidence they didn’t understand nor even really considered, listened to Cochran’s ridiculous theories (the main theory went something like this… Mark Foley is an LAPD Officer, LAPD officers are racists, O.J. is black, the LAPD planted evidence on O.J. because he’s black and famous, Foley most likely planted the evidence because he’s a racist and used the “N” word, therefore O.J. is innocent) and the jury who had been sequestered throughout the whole trail was just tired of the whole thing, I believe they only deliberated for about 6 or 7 hours on a trail that took approx 7 months.

A year or 2 later, Simpson was found responsible for Nicole’s and Ron Goldman’s death in a civil suit filed by the Goldman family and was ordered to pay the Goldman’s 35 million dollars, to date, Simpson hasn’t paid anything.

As far as Simpson’s “celebrity” status, he wasn’t a big star by any means, but he was very well known and had a good life going for him. Publicly, Simpson was loved by just about everyone, but during the trial America discovered who O.J. Simpson REALLY was, and most didn’t like what they saw.

Tax the poor !!!

Answer 4

"Not Guilty" and "Innocent" are two completely different things. Brush up on your basic law. You're clueless in that aspect.

People think OJ is guilty because he is guilty, the jury just didn't have good enough evidence presentation in the FIRST trial to find him "guilty". So he wasn't found guilty. He WAS found GUILTY in the SECOND trial, but since it was a civil trial there wasn't jail time.
Time has passed. Even almost all of African Americans believe (rightfully know) that OJ did it. Everybody knows it. He's guilty, the prosecution just did a really crappy job and he walked. The celebrating that happened wasn't so much that they were fighting for someone they honestly believed to be innocent, it had more to do with fighting for the chance to be handled equally and justly by the law. For that, they were willing to cheer that a guilty man walked free.

Answer 5

Well because everyone thinks he is guilty and got off only because the media made such a production out of the trial that it became a farce.

I think most people felt it was such an injustice and this latest antic with the book...my GOD how could anybody in their right mind (and I'm talking media here) possibly consider such a thing....how disrespectful to the families and how low class of all of them...big money mongrels....OJ does not deserve to make a penny from any of it...he already hid all his money so he didn't have to pay the civil case which he LOST by the way...guilty as charged...but funny no money to pay out to the victims.

Answer 6

People are divided by this case-I was working at a large corporation and people argued about it constantly. People will say it wasn't but it was racially charged. White woman married to a black guy..one of the magazines(Time or newsweek) actually darkened his picture so he appeared blacker. Dunno, but the verdict was innocent. And, personally, if you're found innocent of criminal charges, it seems wrong to find him guilty in civil court. Doesn't that mean that ANYONE found innocent of criminal charges could have relatives collect your paychecks the rest of your life?

Anyway, I don't think it was proof that mattered in the case-the people I knew(in an office of about 100) believed what they believed (guilt or innocence)at the start and at the end of the trial. By law, you're supposed to start out believing "innocent until proven guilty".

I also don't believe he wrote the book for any reason other than to annoy his ex-wife's family that watch him constantly trying to collect on the civil suit award.

Answer 7

Acquittal does not mean innocence. It means that the prosecution failed to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime. If you think a defendant "probably" committed the crime, you must vote for acquittal. In fact, two of the three criminal trial jurors who agreed to be interviewed stated that he "probably" was guilty.

Moreover, in the subsequent civil trial, in which the victims' family sued Simpson, the jurors in that case found by "clear and convincing evidence" that Simpson killed those poor souls. That is the standard used to award punitive damages - but it is still less than the "beyond a reasonable" doubt standard used in criminal cases.

Answer 8

Yes his carrer was over long before that.
He had did some minor acting but not much.

It was because the trial was on TV and more, we all saw all the evidence that the jury could not see on TV every night and hear legal experts explain all the evidence and what the tricks were being used.

The jury only had the evidence presented and basicly the trial ended up being a trial of the honestly of the police department that did the investigation. And they had a poor track record already. And remember it only takes one person on a criminal trial to find him not guilty.

And the civil trial found him guilty very easily.

Answer 9

Because there was a second trial where OJ was sued for wrongful death and the jury found that OJ did kill those 2 people. White people think that he did it, but the prosecution was not able to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, in trial 1. Black people think if OJ was white and he killed 2 black people, he would'nt have even been arrested.

Answer 10

People still think he was guilty because they have a lynch mob mentality. They call themselves the "Court Of Public Opinion." They know that their beloved LAPD planted OJ's blood at his house; they know this because there was EDTA (the blood preservative used at the police crime lab) in the blood.

Thank God that OJ had enough money to investigate the LAPD. IF he were broke he would be in Jail right now.

Answer 11

OJ was (is) guilty. I read at the time that there was more evidence against OJ, than there was against Charles Manson. The reaction to the verdict for OJ was almost entirely across racial lines. Black people, mostly, were thrilled that he wasn't convicted. White people were amazed.
Just by the way, there is no question, really, about his guiilt