I KNOW... I KNOW... he was found not guilty...
He wasn't found innocent... but not guilty.
I am white and I would have found him not guilty with the evidence provided (even though I know he did it)
2007-07-28 16:34:37 · 25 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
No of corse I don't thin hes a murdeerer I think he is a DOUBLE muderer. Not only did he do it he wrote a book on how he wold have done it if he did. I didn't read the book personally but I have 2 very good friends that are in the publishing business and actually saw a few limited excerpt from the book.. Not only did he reveal things only the police at the crime scene would ave known and never made public, but one of my Friend actually both of them said that it was so gruesome that they couldn't rad the few pages they had got their ands on. Now both of them have seen and read everything imaginable including the autopsy reports of the Black Dahlia so they are no wimps. Even before they Told me this I felt that he did it and I am African American. Due to his case and others to come the judicial system may need to look into the Double Jeopardy la and see if there is a way to make exceptions. Unfortunately OJ will continue to walk the street as a free man, but weather you believe in god, the after life or just plain old karma, he will pay for his sins eventually and he will pay hard.
2007-07-28 16:50:19 · answer #1 · answered by nyc2caligal 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'm sure he did it. What convinced me is the tiny droplets of blood next to the bloody footprints at the crime scene. OJ had a cut on his finger that would drop blood in the same manner. He claims he cut his finger because he broke a glass at the hotel when he got the call telling him that Nicole had been killed. The cut was on the TOP side of his hand, not the palm side. Anyway, who breaks a glass when they hear some one close to them has been killed? And another thing, the type of shoes those foot prints were made by--- VERY EXPENSIVE shoes that only someone like OJ could afford, not a burglar or hit-man. He was very angry at her and he did what all abusive men eventually do if allowed. He may have gotten away with it in court in this life time, but he still has another Judge to face, and this is THE Judge... you can't get away with lying to Him!
2007-07-29 00:09:31 · answer #2 · answered by Edith Piaf 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Your "he wasn't found innocent" argument holds no weight whatsoever. Juries never find defendants "innocent". The only verdicts given are either "guilty" or "not guilty". The American justice system is not perfect but it's the best there is, and it states that a defendant is innocent until proven guilty, and the jury (the only people whose opinions mattered) found him not guilty. So the bottom line is that it doesn't matter what any of us think.
2007-07-28 23:49:49 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
If he had not been famous he would be in prison right now. How can he be found liable in a civil court and owe money to the families yet be found not guilty in criminal court. He is famous and got away with it because of it. Paris Hilton did not drive under the influence. She was set up by O.J.
2007-07-28 23:40:29 · answer #4 · answered by friendly advice from maine 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You can not be on both sides of the fence.. Either you think he did it or he didn't.
I'd probally say not guilty. From what I have seen now. There is to much doubt in my mind. You have to be sure with out a REASONABLE doubt! Mr.Cochran created doubt which got him off the hook!
2007-07-28 23:44:51 · answer #5 · answered by lilbitt_637 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
He did it. No question about it for me. I would have had to find not guilty if I served on the jury, BUT that doesn't mean he didn't do it. Look at the burden of proof required to convict; Beyond a Reasonable Doubt. Do some research on that burden.
2007-07-28 23:38:03 · answer #6 · answered by cyanne2ak 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Yes.
His being found not guilty is further proof that money talks and BS walks when it comes to our court system.
2007-07-28 23:41:48 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, I think that he is guilty. But I also think that he could have conceivably been set up by the LAPD. I didn't think so in 1994, but I have learned a lot about US police departments since then...
2007-07-28 23:39:43 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
He lost his civil suit so he's 1 for 1. Anybody who tries to write a book about how he would kill someone if he did it, obviously, did it. He's guilty and should shot in the face.
2007-07-28 23:38:05 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
In the words of Oliver Wendell Holmes, "It's not what you can prove in court that matters. All that matters is what you can convince a jury is true."
2007-07-29 00:33:20 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋