Am I the only person who thinks OJ might have been innocent?

[johnnie]

The guy was found not guilty in court and I really didn't see any evidence saying he did it except that he was an asshole. Is there a chance that he wasn't guilty and maybe somebody else was? Or is he no doubt guilty?

Personally, I think there was a drug connection either between OJ or Nicole Brown. that's what I think happened.

[tigereye]

1. evidently you are!

(just kidding)

I dunno. I watched some of the trial on TV - I was stuck in a hotel room at a conference, that's my excuse, and wow what an endless, bizarre scene. But such is justice, I suppose.

But, whatever happened to the folks that did it, then? There was enough investigative effort to float several battleships, right?

[johnnie]

4. If it was about heavy duty drug cartel, then I guess they could be gone

I just don't see any evidence for sure that OJ did it.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

2. My dear johnnie!

It was pretty much thought that he was guilty, and only got off because the prosecution really screwed up...

Vince Bugliosi (Former DA) wrote a scathing indictment of a book about all the mistakes...

I started to read it, and could not finish.......it was horrifying...

I just looked for it, but could not locate it here...

Yes, he is guilty! You could well be right about the drug connection...

I don't know...

[johnnie]

7. Bugliosi is a hell of an attorney, but he is also too hyped

I would like to read what he had to say, but it would be easy to put the evidence out there after the fact.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

8. It seems to me, if my memory holds, that he didn't talk

about the evidence as much as he did about the way the prosecution handled the case...

He made one hell of a case to show how badly the prosecution screwed up...

I wish I could remember the name of the book...I'll try to find it for you...

It is worth reading, IMHO...

He also wrote "And The Sea Will Tell." Another true story about murder on a distant island, out in the Pacific. Palmyra Island, I believe. I could not put it down!

:hi:

[radwriter0555]

9. "Outrage"

Brilliant book.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

11. Ah, YES! "Outrage."

I could not finish it.....it hurt waaaay too much...

Brilliant fucking book!

Thank you for remembering! :hi:

[Common Sense Party]

3. I seem to recall a whole lot of evidence--bloody gloves,

bloody footprints, cuts on his hands, etc.

It is unfathomable to me how badly the LAPD botched the investigation and how poorly the DA handled the prosecution. The Dream Team let OJ get away with murder (which is, of course, their job).

That's all my opinion, of course.

And he was also found guilty in court, BTW--in the civil case.

[johnnie]

6. The civil case was a joke

As for the other trial, the cut in the glove didn't fit the cut on OJ's hand, he was witnessed at the airport with no cuts on his hands, the massive amount of blood should have shown up in other places, but it didn't and I could go on from what I saw was no case against Simpson.

[Common Sense Party]

16. How would anyone notice that OJ DIDN'T have cuts on his hands

at the airport?

Anyway, here's a trip down memory lane as far as evidence:

1. The 9-1-1 call and the history of Simpson's violence directed at Nicole Brown.

2. Hair evidence: (1) hairs consistent with that of Simpson found on cap at Bundy residence, (2) hairs consistent with that of Simpson found on Ron Goldman's shirt.

3. Fiber evidence: (1) cotton fibers consistent with the carpet in the Bronco found on glove at Rockingham, (2) fibers consistent with the carpet from the Bronco found on cap at Bundy residence.

4. Blood evidence: (1) killer dropped blood near shoe prints at Bundy, (2) blood dropped at Bundy was of same type as Simpson's (about 0.5% of population would match), (3) Simpson had fresh cuts on left hand on day after murder, (4) blood found in Bronco, (5) blood found in foyer and master bedroom of Simpson home, (5) blood found on Simpson's driveway.

5. Glove evidence: (1) left glove found at Bundy and right glove found at Simpson residence are Aris Light gloves, size XL, (2) Nicole Brown bought pair of Aris Light XL gloves in 1990 at Bloomingdale's, (3) Simpson wore Aris Light gloves from 1990 to June, 1994.

6. Shoe evidence: (1) shoe prints found at Bundy were from a size 12 Bruno Magli shoe, (2) bloody shoe impression on Bronco carpet is consistent with a Magli shoe, (3) Simpson wore a size 12 shoe.


Timeline:

9:36 P.M. Simpson, wearing a dark sweat suit, is seen by Kato Kaelin.

9:30-9:45 Charles Cale, walking his dog by Simpson's Rockingham residence, does not see Bronco.

10:02 Simpson attempts to call Paula Barbieri on the cell phone from his Bronco.

10:15 (prosecution)-10:40 (defense) Period during which murders took place.

10:22-10:30 Limo driver Allan Park, scheduled to take Simpson to airport, does not see Bronco on Rockingham.

10:40, 10:43, 10:49 Allan Park buzzes Simpson's intercom, but gets no response.

10:50 White or light bronco observed at the intersection of Bundy and Dorothy.

10:51 or 10:52 Kato Kaelin hears three thumps on the wall outside his room.

10:54 Allan Park sees a man wearing dark clothes, about 6-feet tall and 200 pounds, walk across the driveway of the Simpson residence.

10:55 Simpson lies to Allan Park.


It's also interesting to note that Nicole's blood was on the Bronco steering wheel and the driver's side carpet:

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/Simpson/Dna.htm



But, hey, believe what you wanna believe.

[radwriter0555]

12. The gloves were THE evidence.. What HUMAN doesn't know that leather shrinks

when it gets wet? How stupid and ignorant does someone with HOW many years of college and having passed the CA bar exam have to be to NOT know that fine leather gloves, when saturated in blood, would shrink?

Cochran was BRILLIANT to have pounced on that.

What common crook is going to use fine leather gloves to kill TWO people?

A common crook uses latex gloves from a pharmacy or discount store, if he's smart enough to do that.

Bloody socks? IN his bedroom...

MOTIVE. Past behavior.. intent.

[johnnie]

14. But the cut in the glove didn't match any cuts on OJ's hands

Shrinkage or not, it didn't add up.

[Common Sense Party]

17. Where was the cut in the glove? Which glove, left or right?

Where were the cuts on OJ's hand? Left or right?

As far as I know, neither Nicole nor Goldman fought back with a knife of their own, so where would a cut in the glove have come from?

[Common Sense Party]

18. There was no cut in the left glove, which was left at the crime

scene. Did he possiby remove it when it was too bloody and slick, and then cut his finger?

Much more plausible than: "I cut it when I was running around trying to get ready. Then I cut it again (in the exact same spot) when I broke a glass in the hotel sink in Chicago."

[crim son]

5. I admit that I can't right now, remember much of went on at the trial.

What I do remember however is that at the time when I was following it, I was convinced that justice had not been served. There was something about evidence thrown out that was pretty well damning... but it's speculation on my part, now. This stuff just doesn't stay in my head.

[Skittles]

10. I really f***ing hope so

:puke:

[johnnie]

13. You would

x(


:hi:

[trackfan]

15. I think he MIGHT have been innocent - though I tend to think he

probably did do it. However, I believe the jury reached the decision it had to based on the case presented - what other conclusion can there be? They, after all, were the jury that heard the case.
If he did do it, he managed to execute a nearly perfect timeline that really challenged the prosecution. (They should have stayed away from that, and just stuck with the DNA, which, alone, would have probably gotten a conviction). I have always, however, had a problem with the Hansel and Gretel aspect of the 2 gloves. Nobody would leave that evidence in the manner we were told it was left.

[grace0418]

19. I'm not sure, myself. I guess only OJ knows for sure. My problem with the book

is that, either way, guilty or innocent, it's a disgusting move to make. If he's innocent, why the hell would he want to pick at that wound? Even if he didnt care how the victims families (including his own children) felt, why would he want to put himself through the turmoil of spelling all that out? And if he's indeed guilty, well that's just lower than low to thumb your nose at everyone and say "HA HA! I got away with it!"

[peekaloo]

20. I dunno. I just remember the look on the Dream Team's face when the

verdict was read, including his friend Bob Kardashian(sp?), even they look stunned the jury had bought his defense.

:shrug:

[jarab]

24. The "look on their faces" was the final act ...

since it was concluded that word had been leaked to the defense team hours before the official verdict was read.
...O...

[peekaloo]

27. "If you think we're full of shit, then you must acquit".

:-(

[ScreamingMeemie]

21. My father believes his son (Nicole's stepson) did it.

And that O.J. took the fall knowing he could perhaps buy his way out of it.

[Midlodemocrat]

22. LOL. We used to kid my dad that he was the only person on the planet

who believed that OJ was innocent.

[cwydro]

23. Guilty. /nt.

[Pale Blue Dot]

25. If you were innocent of a crime, would you write a book about how

you (might have) done it? You would have to be completely cold and heartless to do that to your kids.

Same profile as a murderer, IMO.

I think OJ was guilty as hell AND the LA Police tried to frame him. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

[philosophie_en_rose]

26. His book isn't about his innocence.

:bounce:

I didn't do it, but - if I did do it - here is exactly how I did it, which only coincidentally coincides with the evidence.

Frankly, the hypothetical aspect of it is designed to give it an appearance of fiction, so that Judith Regan and Newscorp (aka Fox News' parent company) can justify publishing it.

[leftofthedial]

28. there might be one other

[electron_blue]

29. would your last name be Cochran by any chance?

imo, innocent people do not drive for Mexico with the police on their heels. Ditto what others said about the prosecution screwing up, plus OJ's latest confessional book.

[brook]

30. I dunno but

I do know some of his former acquaintances - and they all think he's guilty.

One thing that always bothered me is that OJ -on TV - returned from Chicago with a garment bag. His friend takes it from him. Nobody could ever find it later. What was in it? Bloody clothes? A knife?

[Phillycat]

31. Yes.

[noonwitch]

32. I think OJ did it, but I have reasonable doubt about Scott Peterson

Although with OJ, I strongly believe that if the LAPD wants to get convictions of black people from mostly-black juries, they need to start treating black people at large better and purge the department of racist cops.

I have serious reasonable doubt about Scott Peterson. I think a good part of why he got convicted was due to his demeanor, because there really wasn't much direct evidence involved.

[azmouse]

34. I not only think Peterson killed his wife

I think he was about to kill his mistress. After he found out she was talking to the police, he was stopped on the way to her house with plastic sheeting and a shovel in his car. She (I forget her name) said she firmly believes he was planning to kill her too and bury her body!

[ileus]

33. OJ's Okay....

[S n o w b a l l]

35. Guilty

I was living in LA at the time & was on a medical leave from work so was able to watch the trial every day. I became obsessed with it. I was an OJ fan & I wanted to believe he wasn't guilty. I think I read almost every book published...Bugliosi, Christoper Dardin, Daniel Petrocelli, Larry Schiller, Sheila Weller, Paula Barbieri, the detective's, a couple from the jurors, OJ's niece & well, a few more. LOL...told you I was obsessed. Aren't I a brave person for admitting it? :) When you lived in LA, it was hard not to. The whole city was nuts over it.

So considering myself pretty well informed, I have to say there's no doubt in my mind that he did it. The DNA evidence alone would have convicted anyone else but, there was other overwhelming evidence. I seriously don't see how any rational person that looked at all the evidence and followed the trial could think otherwise.

[johnnie]

36. I've never been one to be accused of being rational

Maybe that's been my problem all these years..LOL

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

37. No.

In fact, it was basically split after the trial. It was only after years of Jay Leno monologues most people really started thinking he did it, and then got angry about it.

[nini]

38. perhaps

I gave him the benefit of the doubt until the DNA evidence hit. I wasn't fooled by the Defense's twisting of what all of it meant.


he did it.

[Giant Robot]

39. I doubt it

As I recall many people were celebrating the verdict, although I am not sure if that was because they believed in his innocence or if it was a stick to the system reaction.

It certainly is possible he is not guilty of the crime, but I do not imagine it is probable. From what I recall of my impressions at the time, I felt there was way too much circumstantial evidence for it to be likely that he was innocent.