O.J.Simpson did NOT commit those murders...but, my hubby and I don't discuss this aloud...it isn't a popular vote...but, what do you think? DO you think that it might actually be possible that somebody else did this,and that the police screwed up,and wrecked the evidence...and that the whole court case was a complete waste of time...and not to mention a "sham"?!!!? in so many ways?
Yes or no,,and why or why not?
2007-03-17
02:55:08
·
14 answers
·
asked by
Anne99
2
in
Politics & Government
➔ Law & Ethics
My spouse more than once brought up the facts that Nicole, was a "player" and liked partying it up, probably (and this part is my opinion...doing some drugs now and then) and also she may have had an affair with O.J.'s older son...of whom, my spouse thinks...(did he have an older son? I didn't know this...but, my spouse thinks that this is true..and he would have been the one to have to fit this glove...as it didn't really fit, O.J. contrary to what some people think!
2007-03-17
03:16:22 ·
update #1
Yes, i am totally convinced that the entire LAPD conspired to frame OJ and that he accidentally cut his hand in Chicago and that the thumping on the wall that Kato Kaelin heard was actually a raccoon and that OJ bought a knife like the murder weapon a week earlier was a coincidence.
Why cant the rest of the world see this?
2007-03-17 03:04:21
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
1⤋
We had an a elective class in law school that examined the whole case, including over 250 prosecution exhibits, and many many more than were not allowed in by Judge Ito.
I would stake on anything you wanted to bet that there is no way in the world anyone other than OJ committed those murders. If OJ was white, he would have been found murder of 2nd degree or voluntary manslaughter. NOw call me racist if you want, that is exactly how OJ got off. But the reality is there is no way another person could have committed the crime.
If you saw all the facts as I did, including the evidentiary hearings otuside of the camera views or that were reported by the media, you would not think he was not guilty.
I think that is the key as well. Not guilty does not mean innocent.
2007-03-17 11:01:34
·
answer #2
·
answered by lawbrum319 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
I'm probably going to alienate both sides here.
You can believe what you want to believe. O.J.'s actions then and since does not really scream, "I'm innocent." Yes, it's possible he did not do it. It's also possible that Jessica Alba will show up in my doorstep naked in two minutes.
The most ironic thing is, I believe O.J. was guilty of the murder, but I do not believe he should have been convicted. Call me crazy, but in our justice system, we either have to convict someone the right way - without planting evidence and beyond a reasonable doubt - or they should be free. The price of letting someone like O.J. free is worth the sacrifice to minimize the likelihood that someone innocent will be wrongfully jailed or killed.
Finally, it is entirely unfair that you're "blaming the victim." I'm sure she's a player. She probably kicked kittens when she was a kid. But did she deserve that fate?
2007-03-25 01:44:06
·
answer #3
·
answered by boaltlaw88 2
·
1⤊
0⤋
Please don't waste your time and energy thinking how O.J. is "not guilty." At the very least, the man does not deserve 'reasonable doubt' in the court of public opinion, especially after he almost made millions off of that hideous book "If I Did It."
If someone come's up with convincing evidence conclusively absolving O.J. of suspicion, I'm willing listen. But trust me, that is highly improbable.
Nobody is ever going to find the real killer, because the law had him, O.J., and they let him go scott free. Am I wrong to believe that? You can argue that, but I won't loose any sleep over it.
I won't feel the least bit troubled about believing that O.J. Simpson is another rich celebrity who got away with murder.
2007-03-25 02:03:34
·
answer #4
·
answered by Roland 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
Does it matter? He was found innocent by a jury of his peers. He got away with it and double jeopardy says he can. Of course he was found guilty in the civil suit, but he'll never pay the money. but yeah I disagree with you. he did it. but like i said, my opinion doesn't count for squat. So the glove didn't fit!! I've seen all kinds of people where cloths that are too small for them. So who's to say OJ doesn't either. And that book he wanted to publish. What the crap? It's like he's throwing it in everybodies face. HA HA I did and got away with it. Now I can make money from it. It's sick and he is to.
2007-03-17 10:48:31
·
answer #5
·
answered by summer love 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
Of course OJ didn't do it...
and Bush organized the entire 9/11 attack himself...
and the entire administration is on Haliburtons payroll...
and that tall bearded guy roping cattle on Bushs' Crawford Ranch is really Bin Laden. Bush has been hiding him there for years.
And Rosie is really a brainwashed Arab terrorist waiting for the perfect moment to assassinate our president (okay, that one may be true)
2007-03-17 10:17:29
·
answer #6
·
answered by Garrett S 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
I can't imagine anyone else being so angry at Nicole to nearly sever her head.
And the glove did fit rather nicely once he got it on. He had latex gloves on in the first place is why it wouldn't go on easily. Those kind of gloves don't go on easily even normally, they are supposed to be tight.
2007-03-17 10:06:47
·
answer #7
·
answered by Vernon 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
Sorry, I have to disagree. I think the defense did a stellar job of making it appear that it was all screwed up. It wasn't as was shown in the civil trial. OJ should have been injected.
2007-03-17 10:02:46
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
i think he did. oj is whack. did you hear the report last week, he was joking around AGAIN, but he said that he thinks he may be the father of Anna Nicole's baby. uh yeah whatever -- his jokes are never funny. he's got some real problems. his kids have some real problems. something's just not right with him. all signs point to yes, he did it. god will deal with him when it comes time, if he did indeed do it.
2007-03-17 10:02:30
·
answer #9
·
answered by curious_One 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
He didnt do it himself but I think he paid for it and watched it happen. The whole court case was a show and a farce.
2007-03-17 10:01:57
·
answer #10
·
answered by mnwomen 7
·
2⤊
0⤋