10 years later - OJ: Guilty Or Innocent?

GalvestonDuck · #1 Postby **GalvestonDuck** » Fri Jun 04, 2004 10:54 am

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,121770,00.html

What do you think? Did he do it?

And what's with taking the kids (who I suppose are teenagers by now) to a "Benihana-type restaurant" and toasting to Nicole? Has anyone seen the knives they use in Japanese restaurants?? :eek:

(I know -- it's really irrelevant, but as much as I love Japanese food, I couldn't help but think about the blades while reading this.)

Skywatch_NC · #2 Postby **Skywatch_NC** » Fri Jun 04, 2004 11:00 am

YES, I'll always think that OJ committed those murders...who else would have?? :eek:

His marriage was on the ROCKS for a long time with Nichole...and being a high-profiled celeb he just wanted her OUT of his life!!

Gotta hand it to his peanut gallery attorneys and the whacked jury for the prepostorous verdict! :roll:

Eric

WEATHER53 · #3 Postby **WEATHER53** » Fri Jun 04, 2004 11:22 am

It was a poster child trial for payback to the LAPD and possibly even some larger scale paybacks. One of my fee income works is expert testimony regarding real estate actions. The jury selection process has become one not so much a jury of one's peers but rather a jury of more/most likely to acquit. The prosecution is hamstrung in that if they offer too much opposition it furthers the difficulties in even bringing about a trial

#4 Postby **Pburgh** » Fri Jun 04, 2004 11:30 am

The psychology of jury selection. Yes it is a science.

Derek Ortt · #5 Postby **Derek Ortt** » Fri Jun 04, 2004 11:34 am

Possibily guilty, but could never convict due to the moronic LAPD. All they had to do was tell the truth, but by them comitting perjury, ALL of their testimony could have been DISREGARDED by California law; thus, leaving the prosecution with no case at all

Lindaloo · #6 Postby **Lindaloo** » Fri Jun 04, 2004 11:39 am

WEATHER53 wrote:It was a poster child trial for payback to the LAPD and possibly even some larger scale paybacks. One of my fee income works is expert testimony regarding real estate actions. The jury selection process has become one not so much a jury of one's peers but rather a jury of more/most likely to acquit. The prosecution is hamstrung in that if they offer too much opposition it furthers the difficulties in even bringing about a trial

I agree.

#7 Postby **bfez1** » Fri Jun 04, 2004 12:05 pm

Guilty as sin!!! JMO!!!

Lindaloo · #8 Postby **Lindaloo** » Fri Jun 04, 2004 12:42 pm

I believe he had her killed. None of that was brought up at the trial. If the prosecution would have went after him for that then he would have at least gone to jail for solicitation of murder. All the evidence pointed to that.

I also believe that is the way the lawyers went in the wrongful death lawsuit. They won it.

Guest · #9 Postby **Guest** » Fri Jun 04, 2004 4:13 pm

10 years ago??? Wow, time sure has flown by. I always thought he was guilty and still do. I still remember listening to the not guilty verdict and being completely flabbergasted....
...Jennifer...

rainstorm · #10 Postby **rainstorm** » Fri Jun 04, 2004 5:14 pm

guilty. the brutality of the crime indicated it was a crime of passion. what happened to nicole was the same thing that happened to berg. the evidence was overwhelming

#11 Postby **Pburgh** » Fri Jun 04, 2004 5:26 pm

I believe he was guilty. The weird thing that cinched it for me was the glove. Remember "If it does not fit, you must aquit!!!!" Well have any of you worn leather gloves and they got soaking wet? Well, I have. They were really good gloves and I wore them and got them sopping wet playing in the snow. Those glove shrunk like you wouldn't believe. OJ's leather gloves were soaked with blood - they shrunk!!!! He did it.

chadtm80 · #12 Postby **chadtm80** » Fri Jun 04, 2004 5:52 pm

Guilty, Guilty, Guilty

Guest · #13 Postby **Guest** » Fri Jun 04, 2004 5:56 pm

He did it. No doubt.

Lance Ito screwed it up big time as well as the LAPD.

sunnyday · #14 Postby **sunnyday** » Fri Jun 04, 2004 5:56 pm

Guilty, and how does he live with himself?

rainstorm · #15 Postby **rainstorm** » Fri Jun 04, 2004 6:24 pm

sunnyday wrote:Guilty, and how does he live with himself?

rationalization. either he now believes it was nicloes fault and she deserved to be killed, or he actually thinks someone else did it.

Bunch · #16 Postby **Bunch** » Fri Jun 04, 2004 6:39 pm

Guilty. Whether he did it himself, or had somebody do it, as Linda postulated above, it's his fault all the way.

weatherluvr · #17 Postby **weatherluvr** » Fri Jun 04, 2004 7:17 pm

zwyts wrote:He did it. No doubt.

Lance Ito screwed it up big time as well as the LAPD.

Lots of screwups from them for sure, but IMO Cochran & Co. didn't win the case, Clark & Darden lost it. Not just the glove fiasco, but mainly subjecting a jury that was already squirming to hours upon hours of mind-numbing DNA testimony that quickly got undermined by the defense and just served to p*ss them off even more for keeping them there longer.

Josephine96 · #18 Postby **Josephine96** » Fri Jun 04, 2004 7:44 pm

Guess I'm part of the minority.. Not guilty.. JMHO

{but I do think Michael Jackson, Kobe Bryant and Martha Stewart are all guilty}

#19 Postby **abajan** » Fri Jun 04, 2004 9:07 pm

He probably did it. If he didn't, he really has nothing to worry about. But if he did, he'll pay for it. He may have got away from paying in this life but he'll pay on the other side of the pause we call death.

Isn't it funny how some of us deceive ourselves into believing that we won't eventually have to come face to face with what we've done?

Guest · #20 Postby **Guest** » Fri Jun 04, 2004 9:22 pm

He did it, and he knows it! O.J must have some kind of straight emotions because I thought he might of broken down and let the truth fly.

10 years later - OJ: Guilty Or Innocent?

10 years later - OJ: Guilty Or Innocent?

OJ

Re: OJ

Who is online