Is OJ guilty?

[Newbie 0]

i know this is old news by just over a decade, but i'm curious to know about the trial, not having followed it too much when it was happening. I just remember thinking at the time "if you were innocent, why were you in the back of a truck with a gun to your head threatening to kill yourself?".

What's the perception of OJ - that largely he killed them but got off?

If anyone has any links to a summary account of the trial itself, that would be cool. I seem to remember it coming down to something about a glove being found that didn't fit on his hand?

Thanks.

"Skydiving is a door"
Happythoughts

[Mike111 0]

Yup i feel 1000% he did it , but the fact that he was a celebrity blinded the jury.

For some reason,some people can't get it out of their head that cos he is a celebrity he is therefore a good person.

Moreover, he was seen running away from the crimescene by helicopter!!! Why do that>>>

[ReBirth 0]

Quote

Moreover, he was seen running away from the crimescene by helicopter!!! Why do that>

Actually...that was quite a while after the murders. At least a couple of days...might have actually been weeks, don't recall.

Is he guilty? No...that's a legal definition that does not fit him. Did he do it? Probably...I wouldn't be pals with him anyway.

[markd_nscr986 0]

No way!

The glove didn't fit!

Marc SCR 6046 SCS 3004

[tigra 0]

I'm pretty sure he is guilty however I also feel that the reason he was aquitted had more to do with how the police mishandled the case than his being a celebrity. This was in the early days of court TV and the coverage was unprecedented at the time. I remember over the course of the trial hearing stories about blood evidence left in a police officer's personal vehicle overnight, and the way the crime scene was trampled, that kind of thing. Those procedural errors (coupled with the Rodney King incident, verdict and riots fresh in everyone's mind) made it really easy for the defense to plant that seed of reasonable doubt in a juror's mind. And of course, having such a high priced defense team didn't hurt either!

[ReBirth 0]

If Chewbacca is a wookie from Endor...that does not make sense. If that does not make sense, you must acquit!

[Kris 0]

Ladies and gentlemen of the supposed jury, Chef's attorney would certainly want you to believe that his client wrote "Stinky Britches" ten years ago. And they make a good case. Hell, I almost felt pity myself!

But ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, I have one final thing I want you to consider: Ladies and gentlemen this [pointing to a picture of Chewbacca] is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk, but Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now, think about that. THAT DOES NOT MAKE SENSE! (Background: Damnit! What? He's using the Chewbacca defense!) Why would a Wookiee—an eight foot tall Wookiee—want to live on Endor with a bunch of two foot tall Ewoks? That does not make sense!

But more important, you have to ask yourself, what does this have to do with this case? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does not make sense!

Look at me, I'm a lawyer defending a major record company, and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca. Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense. None of this makes sense!

And so you have to remember, when you're in that jury room deliberating and conjugating the Emancipation Proclamation... does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does not make sense.

If Chewbacca lived on Endor, you must acquit! The defense rests.

Sky, Muff Bro, Rodriguez Bro, and
Bastion of Purity and Innocence!™

[Mike111 0]

Legally ok he is innocent, but did he do it - i would be 95% sure he did. Although i cannot prove it.

[ReBirth 0]

Damn...did you do that from memory?

[Kris 0]

Quote

Damn...did you do that from memory?

This is me we're talking about. Thank goodness for Wiki!

Sky, Muff Bro, Rodriguez Bro, and
Bastion of Purity and Innocence!™

[Mike111 0]

True, its amazing what money can buy.

I guess he was lucky that the polcie made foul ups (either accidental or intentional) and other strokes of luck which made it harder for the proseceution to seel a victory.

[ReBirth 0]

I think the bigger issue was the fear of a repeat of the Rodney King riots if he was convicted.

[Mike111 0]

I understand the reason, but it is justifiable?

What about the victim's family?

[ReBirth 0]

Hey...I ain't making excuses...I think it's disgusting. Just offering my observations.

[Mike111 0]

Fair enough, sorry... my apologies.

Do you think that the fatc he was celebrity ahd anything to do with it?

[Lindsey 0]

One thing that I find interesting is how we decide who is innocent and who is guilty. If one of our own, or someone we see as "on our side" is found not guilty of a crime, then we stand behind that verdict with vehemence, and in our minds they aren't guilty....nobody says it's because of the high-priced defense team or anything of that nature.

If someone who we don't associate ourselves with is found not guilty of a similar crime, then years and years later we're still arguing about whether the verdict was just and mulling over all the reasons that he may have been acquitted. Maybe he's really not guilty too...

linz

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[ReBirth 0]

Somewhat....but more than that it was what made him a celebrity...his charm. Charming defendants always have a better shot with a jury.

[Mike111 0]

I didn't look at it that way... thanks.
Well never know whether he is or isn;t unless he confesses or there is a new breakthorugh in technology which convicts him (whatever it is).

although, I could very well be wrong, the evidence was still convinving , not just enough, hence why i believe him to be qulty.

Of course that is only an opinion.

[tigra 0]

I have mixed feelings about it. I think our legal system is better than what many other countries have and that its meant to hold the people who enforce our laws to a higher standard, which is a good thing. The flip side is that a guilty person can go free over a technicality, and that sucks.

But yeah, OJ got lucky- his defense team capitalized on the police and prosecution mistakes in addition to the political/ social climate at the time. If he were tried today under the same circumstances, he might just be convicted.

[Mike111 0]

Although i agree, look at Michael Jackson.

Agreed it was fair he got off - although he wasguilty as fuck, the evidence and credibility of the witness were unreliable.

I didn't particulary agree with the jury on that at all (but i dunno all the facts), so if the jury was oneof those hafl witted dumbies that think"hes a celberity" then he could get lucky.

But yer, in the majority of cases, i think he would get done for it.

Pity he wasn't (if he was guilty)

[Andrewwhyte 1]

This is ridiculous! Of course he didn't do it; that much is obvious. I mean really, he ran for two thousand yards in one season!

[tigra 0]

I *think* that's a little different. I think in MJ's case they went ahead and prosecuted knowing they had a weak case and perhaps hoping more people would come forward as the case went on. Because of the public nature of the case, they were in a damned if they do, damned if they don't situation. (Prosecute a weak case with a weak witness or appear to be showing a celebrity favoritism by not prosecuting.) And didn't most of the jurors say they believed MJ was guilty but felt they couldn't convict because the witnesses weren't convincing enough? You've got to give MJ credit for choosing his victims so well. He picks kids who won't tell or won't be believed if they do.

[Mike111 0]

[Mike111 0]

I remember them saying about the abuse charges, but several UK commentators who had been following it said it was absurd he didnt get done for allowing alcohol consumption for a minor.

[pirana 0]

Quote

One thing that I find interesting is how we decide who is innocent and who is guilty. If one of our own, or someone we see as "on our side" is found not guilty of a crime, then we stand behind that verdict with vehemence, and in our minds they aren't guilty....nobody says it's because of the high-priced defense team or anything of that nature.

If someone who we don't associate ourselves with is found not guilty of a similar crime, then years and years later we're still arguing about whether the verdict was just and mulling over all the reasons that he may have been acquitted. Maybe he's really not guilty too...

linz

Good points. My take on our justice system is that it is almost always about telling stories. There are situations that are open and shut cases where there are so many corroborating witnesses or so much clear evidence that there is absolutely no doubt. But usually it is 2 sides telling their story and the judge and/or a jury has to decide which story they believe. Our legal system is pretty good, though from what I've read the Brit's is better. In ours, everyone is not commited to tell the truth - regardless of the words in the oath. Bottom line - whoever can do the better job of convincing the judge and/or jury their story is true, wins. The fact that more money buys better storytellers is another issue, and just the way the world works.

I've never liked the idea that the odds are he seems to have gotten away with murder, but the whole thing unfolded in a perfectly predictable manner given the workings of our system. And it appears the only people who will ever truly KNOW what happened are OJ and anyone with whom he may have fully confided. There is the possibility he has fully confided in no one. We may never KNOW for sure what happened, but we know how our system resolved the situation - and that should not be a surprise to anyone.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley