O.J. tells how he did it.

ossobuco wrote:

See my link earlier about the LA Times article..

Thanks Osso, I hope the Goldman's end up owning his ego.

0 Replies

Welcome. (I used to like Morrison when I lived in LA.)

0 Replies

eoe wrote:

Don't wait for me to say anything more about it. It's all been said and nothing has changed since the trial. Just like there were people who believed he did it and people who believed he was innocent five, seven, ten years ago, the same hold true today.

sorry, but that's a cop out.

you can't expect to come on and drop that little tidbit and not get questions.

There are pages and pages written here, and you can't be expecting someone to go through all of them to find your posts.

I suppose the main question I have is....

Are the many people you are referring to think he's innocent because of the emotions, some of which I mentioned in a previous post here, pertaining to a feeling of long due justice?
Or do these same people feel he's innocent because of imperical evidence that has proven otherwise?

I know what the law says about reasonable doubt, but if one believes his innocence because it's a payback, that wasn't using reasonable doubt....that said, putting reasonable doubt aside, what evidence showed he could NOT have done it?

I'm not asking this to re-judge and dredge up, I honestly can recall at this late date what exactly was brought forth proving it would have been impossible. Can you give some examples of evidence?

0 Replies

Regarding the couple comments that people should boycott the book and show....we can say we will, and we can hope that others will, but I think in reality human nature will prevail; as humans we are naturally curious.
Just as we are discussing this right now. We are curious as to what he has to say about it, even if it's just to shout at the tv screen "you're as guilty as hell you f***ing a****** and we all know it!"

I do wonder though, given all the recent advances in forensics (a la CSI)
why they can't go back and determine once and for all if he was involved.
I know he can't be re-tried, but it would be nice to have a definitive answer.

0 Replies

Chai Tea wrote:

eoe wrote:
Don't wait for me to say anything more about it. It's all been said and nothing has changed since the trial. Just like there were people who believed he did it and people who believed he was innocent five, seven, ten years ago, the same hold true today.

sorry, but that's a cop out.

you can't expect to come on and drop that little tidbit and not get questions.

There are pages and pages written here, and you can't be expecting someone to go through all of them to find your posts.

I suppose the main question I have is....

Are the many people you are referring to think he's innocent because of the emotions, some of which I mentioned in a previous post here, pertaining to a feeling of long due justice?
Or do these same people feel he's innocent because of imperical evidence that has proven otherwise?

I know what the law says about reasonable doubt, but if one believes his innocence because it's a payback, that wasn't using reasonable doubt....that said, putting reasonable doubt aside, what evidence showed he could NOT have done it?

I'm not asking this to re-judge and dredge up, I honestly can recall at this late date what exactly was brought forth proving it would have been impossible. Can you give some examples of evidence?

If you insist...
My memory is kinda shaky but one thing that I recall is "if it don't fit, you must acquit." The bloody gloves Mark Fuhrman found behind his house didn't fit him. Now of course there were all kinds of reasons presented as to why the gloves no longer fit him at the time of the trial but maybe they didn't fit because they weren't his gloves to begin with?

For many, it wasn't that OJ was completely innocent (it's been said that altho' he may not have committed the actual crime, he may have engineered it) as much as it became obvious that the LAPD was so racist and so hungry to get him that they screwed up their own case.

Another thing that I recall is the big whoo the prosecution made about finding his hair and other DNA on the crime scene and then it was realized that blankets and throws from the sofa in her home were used to cover their bodies. Naturally, while visiting the kids or whatever, OJ had been all over her house and sat on that sofa numerous times.

Lastly, I recall watching videotape of the search in his bedroom for bloody socks. The tape shows that at first, there were no socks on the floor and then a few minutes later, the so-called bloody socks appear on the floor. Someone placed those socks there. The time on the video was clear.

IMO, the prosecution did not prove his guilt.

0 Replies

I agree that there is a seperation between a) whether he did it and b) whether the prosecution proved that he did it (beyond a reasonable doubt). I remember being deeply frustrated with the prosecution at the time, and with the LAPD.

happycat, I know what you're saying, but I'm not sure. By saying how disgusting it is here I'm not adding to O.J.'s coffers. I won't be watching the show; I won't be buying the book.

0 Replies

Neither will I.

0 Replies

I agree...but not being able to prove him guilty doesn't make him innocent. It just means that by law, he cannot be held accountable for the crime.

0 Replies

Bella Dea wrote:

I agree...but not being able to prove him guilty doesn't make him innocent. It just means that by law, he cannot be held accountable for the crime.

So, let's hear why so many felt that he was guilty? Based on what? Surely not the prosecutions' case.

0 Replies

Based on what? Hm, perhaps the repeated physical abuse his wife
had to endure, or maybe his non-existent alibi.

This man has no shame, no conscience and no remorse. He's an absolute
bastard in my view.

0 Replies

How about the DNA evidence? The cut finger? I refuse for a minute to think he cut himself that badly on a broken glass twice! "Just call me fumble fingers" says the three time Heisman trophy winner.

0 Replies

There are those who believed ten years ago that he was guilty, believe it to this day and vice versa.

And Nicole didn't "have to endure" anything.

0 Replies

eoe, no battered wife has to edure the abuse, yet they do. The psychological and emotional breakdown of a battered wife is pretty much
explained in every psych 101 textbook, no need to elaborate.

eoe, could it be that your bias towards OJ based on his color?

0 Replies

CalamityJane wrote:

eoe, no battered wife has to edure the abuse, yet they do. The psychological and emotional breakdown of a battered wife is pretty much
explained in every psych 101 textbook, no need to elaborate.

eoe, could it be that your bias towards OJ based on his color?

regarding color: I think OJ is as white as he can possibly be. Race never entered into it. It was all about money and power.

oh, and for the record....I think the glove fit. He just didn't try hard enough. Who hasn't had a difficult time getting a leather glove on over sweaty hands? (and I'll bet his hands were sweating plenty.)
JMHO

0 Replies

happycat, I totally agree with the glove incident, however, Johnny
Cochran certainly made this case all about race, and his ticket paid off.

0 Replies

Does anyone here see the similarity between the Rush Limbaugh/Michael Keaton thing and Orange Juices' forthcoming book?

It's all about publicity and returning to the limelight.

0 Replies

Thanks eoe, I appreciate your doing that....I really am just seeking info and trying to look at this clinically.

My memories are of course shaky too after all these years, but it's interesting to note how the same thing can be looked at to find innocence or guilt.

The gloves?
I too think they fit him...I do remember the clownish faces and grimaces he was making while "trying" to put those gloves on. Like his expressions were proof the gloves didn't fit. Looking at the gloves hanging on his hand I remember thinking..."c'mon, they're leather gloves, tug on them for real the way you really would if you were putting them on." I think I could have walked up to him, and if he held his hands out, I could have tugged those babies on him right away, without hurting him or forcing...that was all show.

As nickfun said, I don't believe he cut his hand on a glass either.

You are right though, Mark Furman is a complete jerk.

happy cat....for myself, I'm not promoting OJ anything...like soz said, I won't watch the show, or buy the book. I like reading and discussing this with my A2k buds.

well, if I do watch the show, I wouldn't admit it unless I had good reason, and that won't be putting any money in his pocket. I am only human after all.

0 Replies

I found this and read the first five pages or so, but it's just too time consuming and too depressing to read the whole thing. (As in, if it were time-consuming but less depressing, maybe; depressing but less time-consuming, maybe; both, ouch.)

http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious%5Fmurders/famous/simpson/

From what I read so far, take the gloves, just for one thing. One was found by the body. One was found in his yard. Both soaked in blood. Leather shrinks when it's wet, and also blood-soaked leather will stiffen when it dries. It's not at all surprising that he couldn't get it on his hands later on. The actual size of the gloves (as in, the tag in them) was extra-large.

I understand that some people think it was planted. That's my frustration with the LAPD -- there's no way you could say "oh, they would never do that." The LAPD has way too sordid of a history. But it holds together and makes sense to me.

Because why else were Nicole and Ron so brutally murdered? Who else murdered them? I mean this wasn't a drive-by or a robbery gone bad -- this was violent and hands-on, a crime of passion.

0 Replies

guilty or not there is no excuse for this book. He and Fox Programming should be gang raped and paraded through the town square on a rail, tarred and feathered.

0 Replies

Miller wrote:

Linkat wrote:

Boycott the lot - I say!

Why's that?

To me this isn't as much a matter of whether you feel OJ is guilty or innocent (although it was determined in civil court he was guilty), it is more the fact he is benefiting financially from his former wife's murder. As well as all those other money hungery vultures. That is why I will boycott the lot that is involved in benefiting financially from such a horrible murder.

0 Replies

O.J. tells how he did it.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know