steppinthrax
Diamond Member
This is a discussion/debate thread
So it's been 22 years since OJ was found NG for the murder of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman. When this case started I was 12 years old, I really had no interest, my father watched and kept track of this trail. Finally on Netflix I found and watched the entire 1st season of "The people v.s. OJ simpson". Afterwards I did lots of research on key people within the trial (witnesses/judge/prosecutor/defense). Here is my take on it....
Did OJ Simpson do it: Hell Yes
Should he have been found Guilty: No, The prosecution did a piss poor job of presenting evidence in a convincing manner. It seemed both Marcia Clark and Christopher Darden had personal problems that seemed to affect their ability to defend the state. Marcia, the head prosecutor seemed to make several mistakes (allowing Mark Furman on the stand, glove etc..). OJ likely did it, he had all of the behaviors/past and DNA evidence pointed towards OJ. However the trail did more to hurt the LAPD, indicating how poor their evidence collecting practices were and racism within the LAPD system. The Defense did a good job diverting the jury's concentration and making the case about other issues other than murder. Judge Tito didn't control the trail well, he seemed to just let everything slide. He was more concerned with how he was perceived under the camera.
So while he might have done it, from within the constraints of the court, he didn't...
So it's been 22 years since OJ was found NG for the murder of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman. When this case started I was 12 years old, I really had no interest, my father watched and kept track of this trail. Finally on Netflix I found and watched the entire 1st season of "The people v.s. OJ simpson". Afterwards I did lots of research on key people within the trial (witnesses/judge/prosecutor/defense). Here is my take on it....
Did OJ Simpson do it: Hell Yes
Should he have been found Guilty: No, The prosecution did a piss poor job of presenting evidence in a convincing manner. It seemed both Marcia Clark and Christopher Darden had personal problems that seemed to affect their ability to defend the state. Marcia, the head prosecutor seemed to make several mistakes (allowing Mark Furman on the stand, glove etc..). OJ likely did it, he had all of the behaviors/past and DNA evidence pointed towards OJ. However the trail did more to hurt the LAPD, indicating how poor their evidence collecting practices were and racism within the LAPD system. The Defense did a good job diverting the jury's concentration and making the case about other issues other than murder. Judge Tito didn't control the trail well, he seemed to just let everything slide. He was more concerned with how he was perceived under the camera.
So while he might have done it, from within the constraints of the court, he didn't...
