2007-11-30 04:38:20 · 5 answers · asked by In the memory of Tupac Shakur 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
There is far too much forensic and testimonial evidence to reasonably arrive at any other conclusion. The standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt." There is no reasonable doubt in Mr. Simpson's murder case.
The jury has spoken, however, and Mr. Simpson remains, as do all citizens not found guilty, presumed to be innocent.
2007-11-30 04:49:28 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes he is guilty the civil suit proves this. The glove was wet with blood. Then leather shrinks there is no way with latex gloves on you could ever put this shrunken glove on. Charles Manson is in prison for life, on far less circumstantial evidence than OJ. He is a killer and should not be free to commit more crimes.
2007-11-30 22:48:24 · answer #2 · answered by lonetraveler 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
He was guilty for sure. The evidence was way more then circumstantial. He had the victims blood in his Bronco. There were footprints in the blood in the house that could be traced to expensive shoes that OJ purchased. He has done nothing to find his wifes killer and there are no other suspects.
2007-11-30 12:43:23 · answer #3 · answered by Devdude 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
He's as guilty as sin.
The trial was a travesty. HORRIBLE rulings by Ito, incompetent prosecution by the State, and a brilliant - but ethically very borderline "Chewbacca defense" by Cochrane.
Had he been anyone but OJ, it would have a been a one week trial, tops, and off to the big house.
Richard
2007-11-30 12:49:18 · answer #4 · answered by rickinnocal 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I believe he was GUILTY!!!!!
--- mostly because they revealed that his e-mail password was "Slash, Slash, Back-Slash, Escape"
2007-11-30 12:46:06 · answer #5 · answered by Go Blue 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋