• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Was OJ Guilty?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: Superself

I think he did it.

But for the life of me I don't know how he could stab one person....and STILL get to the other one (while they were watching) so fast and knife them down too!! That must have been one hell of a killing!
Click to expand...

DOMINATING!
 
Originally posted by: Printer Bandit
Originally posted by: CaptainGoodnight
Might I inject something here: he was not found "innocent", he was acquitted. Big difference.
Click to expand...

COURT CLERK: In the matter of the people of the State of California versus Orenthal James Simpson, case number BA097211, we the jury in the above entitled action find the defendant, Orenthal James Simpson, not guilty of the crime of murder?

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/oj/etc/script.html
Click to expand...

You do know legally speaking that "not guilty" is not the same as "innocent".
 
From the evidence I've seen, I think OJ is guilty. Of course, I haven't seen all the evidence, so I really shouldn't say anything.
Originally posted by: Superself
I think he did it.

But for the life of me I don't know how he could stab one person....and STILL get to the other one (while they were watching) so fast and knife them down too!! That must have been one hell of a killing!
Click to expand...
Hmm, a stud professional athelete having enough speed to kill two people paralyzed in fear. Wow, that must have been very difficult. :roll:

Background story: My grandparents (they were not elderly at the time) on my mom's side were murdered with a knife by one person. Hmm, two people killed with one knife, it never happens.
 
Originally posted by: Printer Bandit
Originally posted by: CaptainGoodnight
Might I inject something here: he was not found "innocent", he was acquitted. Big difference.
Click to expand...

COURT CLERK: In the matter of the people of the State of California versus Orenthal James Simpson, case number BA097211, we the jury in the above entitled action find the defendant, Orenthal James Simpson, not guilty of the crime of murder?

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/oj/etc/script.html
Click to expand...

You missed his point. There's a big gap between "not guilty" and "innocent." Not guilty means he either WAS innocent or they just didn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty. Or they did and the jury didn't care. He's not guilty in the eyes of the law, but he was not necessarily innocent of the crimes he was acused of committing.
 
There was blood from the victims all over his car and house. He could not account for where he was at the time. There was a TON of evidence. He basically convinced the jury that the police planted all this evidence at his house.

I think that is EXTREMELY unlikely, although stranger things have happened.
 
By this time you would think he could get a better job than selling Ginsu Kinives door to door,
after all he has a killer resume . . .
 
Originally posted by: Kenny
Just wondering, are they still looking into finding out who the "real killer" was? Or did they just totally give up on the case?
Click to expand...

They found the real killer. His legal team got him off.

Interestingly, OJ vowed to find the "real killer" after the trial. I guess he hasn't looked in the mirror since.

Edit: Read up.
 
i dont know if he is guilty or not..i hwasnt there and havent seen all the evidence...but damn if he didnt act guilty as hell!
 
Originally posted by: boomerang

Interestingly, OJ vowed to find the "real killer" after the trial. I guess he hasn't looked in the mirror since.
Click to expand...

He's checked every golf course and strip club in the country...so far no luck! :laugh:
 
"The glove does not fit you must acquit" I dont think he did it himself. I think he hired a hitman so i voted no.
 
I don't see how any rational person that heard 1/2 the evidence doesn't know he did the crime (I have 0 doubt). His defense team did a great job in fielding a jury that respected his celeb status, and had great disdain for the LA PD. I hope every one of those asshat jurors gets mugged in a dark alley, they were a party to one of the worst cases of misjustice in this country
 
I think he's guilty or involved in some way. However, IMHO the prosecutions ineptitude in arguing taht he did it all by himself resulted in a "not guilty" verdict.

Ron Silverman (or whatever the other victum's name was) clearly showed signs of putting up a vigorous fight. I saw no evidence of such a fight on OJ. Might OJ have stabbed Nichol while another accomplice took care of Ron? Unfortunately we'll prolly never know.

Note that OJ was not the athlete he once was. Many professional football players can barey walk after playing the game for several years. OJ also has pretty serious arthritis etc in his hands.
 
Originally posted by: Cooler
"The glove does not fit you must acquit" I dont think he did it himself. I think he hired a hitman so i voted no.
Click to expand...
The fact that he routinely wore the same size gloves doesn't matter to you? The fact that during a long difficult investigation you might swell doesn't matter to you? The fact that his attorney probably planned this trick well in advance and told OJ to increase fluids before trying on the glove doesn't matter?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top