2007-10-07 13:27:37 · 16 answers · asked by thrillerisnumberone 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
OJ is too Stupid to be guilty
2007-10-07 13:30:02 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Guilty of murder and the "robbery". Even if it was his stuff, what he did was against the law. Even if he was set up, it was against the law. There's a tape, eye witnesses, and co-conspirators who will probably cave and testify against him. It's kind of a case of "gotcha" and a revenge conviction by the media, but he did do the crime. As for the murder, he's practically come out and confessed to it with his book...
It's just impossible for an L.A. jury to convict a celebrity. You'd have to have all 12 members there, watching the crime, while the killer held up three forms of picture ID for them to convict. O.J., Phil Spector, Robert Blake... it's getting kind of ridiculous.
To those saying he had been found not guilty... have you forgotten the civil case? He was found guilty.
2007-10-07 13:35:40 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
i think of he became into in charge. The bloody shoeprints stumbled on on the scene adventure his shoe length and belonged to an fairly costly and intensely veryy uncommon style of shoe that there are photographs of Simpson wearing. Her blood became into stumbled on on his socks. The glove had a mix of OJ Simpson's blood besides as Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman's blood on it. It additionally contained fibers from Simpson's vehicle. The glove will possibly no longer have in advantageous condition during the trial with the aid of shrinking interior the way that it became into dried out, or with the aid of swelling of Simpson's joints... he has arthritis. the two way, there became into relatively some actual looking doubt. The police and prosecution did no longer continually save on with protocol whilst engaged on the case and that screwed up the trial vast time. as a effect, he became into acquitted. yet once I had to wager, definite, i could say he did it.
2016-10-10 12:15:54 · answer #3 · answered by hagensee 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
My opinion? Innocent until proven guilty. My suspicion? Which is all it can possibly be unless I have full access to all the facts and evidence as well as an impartial sense of judgement, would be guilty.
2007-10-07 13:34:10 · answer #4 · answered by Harry Bastid 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
O.J. Simpson was guilty but he was able to influence the justice system to rule in his favor. Money talks according to many of the critics that has knowledge of his case.
2007-10-07 13:32:42 · answer #5 · answered by FRAGINAL, JTM 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Well, the man has been found not guilty by the court have he not? And since we don't get to see everything that the judges see, and we DO have the principle called "innocent until proven guilty", then I just have to say NOT GUILTY!
2007-10-07 14:52:38 · answer #6 · answered by Marc Foster 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Just look at the history of domestic violence he had against her and you will see more clearly how the Simpsons were.
2007-10-07 13:35:40 · answer #7 · answered by Bobby K 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
oj simpson asked himself that question one day, so he went walking in a park and was looking at the water in the pond and he had seen a "reflection"--then he blurted out--"i know you did it " !
GUILTY !
2007-10-07 13:38:15 · answer #8 · answered by gimarine1964 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
guilty as hell,all pro athletes hace a dual side
2007-10-07 14:20:55 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
For which crime? (he is guilty of both)
DNA does not lie.
He KILLED his wife and her friend. That much is fact.
I don't give a crap about him stealing the stupid sports stuff at the hotel.
2007-10-07 13:31:53 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Guilty...
Come on.. blood of both victims was found in his car and house.
2007-10-11 12:12:45 · answer #11 · answered by BeachBum 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋