lover but he didn't do it. He was sentenced to jail for life and with his own ingenuity he broke out of prison and fled to Mexico to live free. O.J. Simpson was a wealthy (former) sports athlete who (many say) did kill his wife and Ron Goldman (possible a lover). O.J. was not convicted of this crime and went on to live as a free man. Do you see any paradox in this?
2007-01-14 16:23:15 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in News & Events ➔ Other - News & Events
Shawshank Redemption was one of the best Stephen King stories, The Stand being the best {my opinion, I've read all his books} Total fiction. Entertainment. Mr. Murder { I like that lol } did in fact kill Nicole and Ron Goldman { not her lover }. Common sense tells us that a leather glove saturated in blood and stored that way for months will indeed shrink. 12 people were just plain sick and tiered of being couped up for so long and they were star struck, or idiot struck, and just wanted it over with. Mr. Murder will indeed face the ultimate judge one day. There is no comparison in those stories. One fiction, the other fact. I just feel very bad for his kids.
2007-01-15 06:05:17 · answer #1 · answered by lucysmom 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I must beg to differ her about who killed the kid that Andy helped get his GED....the warden was the one behind the whole thing. There were a lot of corrupt people in that fictional prison.
As for Mr. Murder...if you want to know the truth then read "American Tragedy" by Lawrence Schiller (written from a behind the scenes from an objective point of view)...and then read Daniel Petrocelli's "Triumph of Justice." (Also written from an objective point of view.)
All the evidence & behind the scenes details you'll ever need are in those two books.
Frankly, I wouldn't even compare Shawshank to the Simpson saga. To compare a beautiful story like Shawshank to Simpson is like...well, it's like blasphemy. It IS blasphemy.
Mr. Murder knows what he did and sooner or laer it will catch up with him. It's already starting to catch up now.
2007-01-14 18:20:30 · answer #2 · answered by smfoycdsh 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
See here's the difference:
Movies most often portray events that didn't happen in real life. Like in the movie, everyone believed that he DID commit the crime, even though he didn't. And the prision gaurd (total jerk off) killed the only man who could have proved Andy's innocence.
In real life, OJ DID commit a crime and everything was covered up to make it look like he didn't.
That's why movies are based on fiction...because in real life, famous people like OJ don't go to jail for the crimes they commit.....
2007-01-14 17:03:29 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes he was, if you watch the movies it clearly states that sometimes the sisters raped him, and sometimes he fought them off. Red states that this was Andy's routine for a few years. Great movie btw.
2016-05-24 03:51:23 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
If there was real evidence against OJ then I believe it would be known by now. A jury didn't have anything solid then - nor do we now.
Motive - YES.
Physical evidence - NO.
If anyone of us were to be brought up on charges of any kind, we would insist on having hard evidence against us....
2007-01-14 17:23:26 · answer #5 · answered by ___ 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I suppose.....Love the movie, watch it every time it comes on tv, even though I have seen it a lot......
2007-01-14 16:33:40 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not really - one was fiction.
2007-01-15 00:49:57 · answer #7 · answered by LongJohns 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋