They got it right. why??? because of the blood they allegidly found on the glove and on his socks. the blood was tainted with a substance that preserves blood. which is not naturally found in blood. and this substance is only authorized to be used by the forensics. yeah he was set up. so there. the jury got it right the first time.
2007-09-22 00:23:30 · 11 answers · asked by Bidasha 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
reasonable doubt vs preponderence of evidence.. there have been a substantial number of innocent people convicted, incarcerated and even executed becuz "most of the evidence" seems to point to their guilt.. I suppose that it's assumed that guilty people who get off end up paying for their crime in the end but how do you restore the life of an innocent person that gets convicted? How would you feel if you were responsible for such an injustice? Personally I believe that OJ is probably punished everyday in many ways although he appears to have no conscience.. However, until you are in his "ugly a*s" shoes, you probably couldn't conceive in your small mind that maybe he felt his golddigging ex was getting what she deserved? Murder is generally a crime of passion not logic.. I could hardly imagine the pressure on the jury if they even had an inkling of a potential race riot which might have broken out as a result of convicting one of the most famous black athletes in history.. Were police a tad over-exuberant in "helping" in the prosecution of a high-profile suspect? Was forensics a bit LAx?
2007-09-22 01:05:30 · answer #1 · answered by Hjalmar 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Several developments fell into play that saved O.J.'s freedom during the trial:
1) Lay jurors didn't understand the power of DNA evidence, for it was a very new police forensic tool.
2) Successful done "circus tricks" from Johnny Cochran ( i.e. the glove trick) gave smoke and mirrors appearance of O.J.'s innocence.
3) Successful efforts made by racial support groups for O.J., allowing loud whispers that L.A. itself may burn and riots spanning city-wide would erupt if O.J. were found innocent.
4) Judge "Idiot" Ito--who allowed irreverent testimony and defense strategy to blur and lose focus of exactly what was the central point of the trial--a clever trick by the defense that wore down the prosecution to near exhaustion by trial's end.
Brazenly enough, the evidence was all there to show O.J. acted out of raw, banal rage in killing Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman--and today, jurors on that panel now feel they made a huge mistake finding Simpson innocent.
In hindsight, had O.J. made a savvy plea deal, he could have served prison time and be out well by now--and NEVER face a civil lawsuit. You can't sue a prison inmate who becomes "indigent" upon his release.
2007-09-24 02:09:33 · answer #2 · answered by Mr. Wizard 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Oh please! I don't know of any innocent people who lead the police on a car chase on national television. Are you going to tell me that it wasn't really him but someone else driving that white bronco to set him up? Give me a break. The man (if you can call him that) wrote a book trying to profit off of that heinous crime. "if I did it"...you've got to be kidding me! If he were innocent he would stray as far from the past (especially 12-13 years ago) as much as he possibly could. He knows people hate him, so why is he going to talk about that? Is he that stupid, or does he think we're that stupid?
2007-09-22 07:38:12 · answer #3 · answered by Randy C 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
OJ got off because "if the glove does not fit, you cannot convict" (I believe this was how Johnny Cohran put it) and the stupid prosecution that tried to put that glove that had shrunk on his hands. The prosecution blew the case although admittedly OJ had one of the best defense councils probably anyone accused of a crime ever had.
Good Luck!!!
2007-09-22 07:30:19 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I feel sorry for the Brown and Goldman families...but the LAPD had to lose this case.
Of course OJ did it, but the Police, fabricating evidence, needed a not guilty verdict to correct a massive injustice..
2007-09-22 07:33:05 · answer #5 · answered by gcbtrading 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
O K one more time. The rich never go to jail in the USofA no matter what crimes they commit; only if they are tried then convicted for income tax evasion, then it's off to one of those country club resorts as in Vice President Agnew.
2007-09-22 07:32:28 · answer #6 · answered by Mezmarelda 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Actually no.
If you take away all the police conspiracy/incompetence jibber jabber...you are still left with his seriously wounded left hand...when the murderer had a seriously wounded left-hand.
The police never had anything to do with O.J.s left hand. So what are the odds you seriously injure your left hand the exact night the murderer of your ex-wife seriously injures his left hand???
Please.
-Aztec276
2007-09-22 07:28:31 · answer #7 · answered by Aztec276 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The jury in his murder trial didn't decide his guilt or non guilt (note that I didn't say innocence, because he was not by any means Innocent) by the evidence.
2007-09-22 07:30:16 · answer #8 · answered by remowlms 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
How many convictions have overturned? Why is it a colored man no matter what, is guilty when accused.
2007-09-22 09:22:08 · answer #9 · answered by Mephisto 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
sure and what about his stupid slow speed chase
and going to kill his self what was that all about?
You need to wake up from your dream world and come back down to earth.
2007-09-22 07:34:33 · answer #10 · answered by ULTRA150 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋