2007-06-20 10:04:35 · 11 answers · asked by X 3 in News & Events ➔ Other - News & Events
I wasn't there so I can't tell you if he did it or not. I can tell you, that given the evidence, the probability that he's innocent is right up there with the probability that I'll win the lottery tonight. DNA evidence, footprints, a split up pair of gloves, his flight from arrest--the evidence is astounding.
Why did he get off?
1.) The jury was chock full of impressionable idiots who fell victim to expensive lawyers.
2.) The prosecution was too ambitious They went for first degree murder when they should have settled on second degree.
3.) The "n" word.
That trial was a miscarriage of justice. It was absolutely embarrassing how many black people *knew* he did it but didn't care that he walked. "A black man got away with killing a white woman" somehow holds cultural weight in some (definitely not all) black communities.
2007-06-20 10:12:31 · answer #1 · answered by Peter D 7 · 5⤊ 0⤋
OJ got off because there was just the shoadow of a doubt that he didnt do it. There was so much evidence against hi, no one in LA thought he had a prayer. The defense did a good job of defaming the police and discounting a lot of the evidence. From my viewpoint, I was glad he got off because at the time I was riding the buses through Compton at night and I remembered the riots after the Rodney King verdict. I very much feared the same thing happening. Everyone knew he was guilty and to prove that-he lost in the civil matter. Look what's happened to him since then. Is there one person who doesnt know he killed 2 people? There's also the issue of-if he didnt do it-has anyone-including OJ gone out looking for him or her?
2007-06-20 17:27:57 · answer #2 · answered by phlada64 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes he did it. Who else had motive? Why would anyone else hack them up they way he did? They weren't robbed. He got off because the jury was all black and they protect their own. Even though OJ married a white woman and associated with white affluent people.
2007-06-20 17:14:48 · answer #3 · answered by Ronin 4 · 4⤊ 0⤋
I do think that OJ did it and he is a famous celebrity and
he had money and fame like
with Michael Jackson or Martha Stewart as well if you got
the money and good Lawyers is why
2007-06-20 19:14:39 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
He did. He got off because he had the money to afford the best attorney. If that would happen today with Johnny Cochran no longer with us I'm afraid the result would have been much different.
2007-06-20 17:25:13 · answer #5 · answered by ohioguy4jc 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
He was not convicted because of all of the evidence that the Moronic Judge Ito would not allow, it became the Ito show. Most of the jurors had Rodney King fresh in their memories and they wanted to believe O.J. was innocent, after the trial after seeing all of the evidence most of the jurors said they would have voted for conviction.
2007-06-20 17:40:41 · answer #6 · answered by old man 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Actually Cochrane said, "If the glove doesn't fit--you must aquit".
I thought at the time OJ wasn't guilty----but I have changed my mind.
2007-06-20 18:43:13 · answer #7 · answered by felix8462 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
He was famous, and we cant forget Cochrin. "If the glove does not fit you cant convict."
I think the prosecution just was not up to the same standard as Oj's Lawyer.
2007-06-20 17:11:13 · answer #8 · answered by trigunmarksman 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
OJ IS INNOCENT! He is hot on the trail of the "real killers" right now!
He thinks that they might be golfers, so he's playing every course in Florida till he finds them!
2007-06-20 17:17:36 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 2⤋
Because the jury was made up of black females, and they figured the white women got what she deserved for taking away another black man from a black women
2007-06-20 17:10:28 · answer #10 · answered by Ibredd 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋