Anyone actually still believe OJ's innocent?

Question

After all the DNA evidence, not to mention his basic "hey, I did it, and I walked!" attitude, is there anyone out there still dumb enough to believe he's innocent?

Answer 1

What kind of sicko writes a book entitled, "If I did it", then describes HOW he did it???



It doesn't help that our society has apparently chosen to interpret 'reasonable doubt' as 'a shadow of a doubt'.

Answer 2

Just remember as corrupt as the LAPD is. And not forget to mention the missing blood which I do not doubt to this day was smeared by Det. Mark Furman. And the botched evidence from The LAPD Crime Lab which was never secured. I may in fact be a minority of people suspecting Innocence, knowing that the LAPD was desperate to close a High Profile Case which at that time had not done so since the Manson Trial in 1969.

Wagered an evidence war. But my main question here has been for the whole time since the trial, why did they never suspect the son, nor did they test the son, and why would they have the blood vile at the Simpson Residence, more so who says that Furman & Vanatter did not place the blood droppings on the bronco since Furman has testified as a known racist and did not like people of color. In my law studies there must me a probable cause, I believe the LAPD forced this case. Plus Dear Ronnie Goldman was no saint, and it was a known fact in L.A. the he and Nicole were doing tons of Dope as well as sex for dope, but that information was not admissible in the case because of the hearsay clause. Why in a huge case like this was personal behavior and drug use quashed at trial. We all know the public practice in American justice. Just because 12 peers review the case on such a broad stage showmanship becomes center the center of attention. I think all information should have been allowed to come forward for a fast and speedy trial. As far as the book, ok O.J. is broke Fred Goldman wants blood. The State Trial said O.J. was innocent LAPD lacked evidence to prove guilt, I think its clearly unethical to be able to retry a person in civil court with less the burden of proof. But if we really took the time to look in the eyes of the America we live in, what seems may not be so... sorta like 9-11 where situations are doctored up in order to make what is not seem so, right Bush?? Iraq is a perfect example of a corrupt system which breeds on injustice. I know if I was broke Id write a book that people would run to the bookstore and buy. And with all this why if O.J. was so Guilty why do the Browns Never once support the position of the Goldman's?? their child had her head chopped off. they never went to civil trial, their case was to retain custody of the children, which they lost. so the children could be at least half way protected. The Bad Guy here was the American Media who pumped thins case up and turned it into a circus to divide America among racial lines

Answer 3

You ask an interesting question. When you ask if he is innocent, you pose a question of morality. The jury decided he was "not guilty," but that does not mean Mr. Simpson did not do the deed. It means that, for the jury which heard the case, the government did not prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.



One person who answered your question said we know he is guilty. While I may believe he committed the crime, I cannot say he is guilty, because the jury found him "not guilty."



Why was he found "not guilty?" It could be one or more of the following:

1) He really is not guilty.

2) The government did a poor job in presenting its case.

3) Government witnesses were not as believable as defense witnesses.

4) Research on juries tells us minorities are less likely to believe law enforcement officials than white. If a police officer and a civilian witness give contradictory testimony, whites tend to give more credibility to the police office while minorities do not give added weight to the police.

5) The defense must raise the question of reasonable doubt which it did.

Answer 4

The same innocence of a Charles Manson or Jeffrey Dahmer. It's just too bad that the LAPD and the LA District Attorney's office are so unbelievably inept. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to scan the evidence and come up with his guilt, but his lawyers were the best, especially Cochrane, and they fooled the jury into thinking corruption as opposed to physical evidence. I mean, come on, the guy was running in that white SUV with cash, clothes, etc...If that doesn't show guilt, what does???

Answer 5

I'm not sure if he comitted the crime or not, however I do believe many african americans saw the verdict as victory for all of the innocent people for color that have been wrong convicted.

Answer 6

Everyone knows he did it, even he knows he did it, he even wrote a book about what he would do "if" he did it, but he hired the right lawyers, and they just tore apart the case. It was all about money, and if the prosecutors wouldn't have screwed up, he would be in jail.

Answer 7

Anyone who thinks OJ is innocent is either a liar or a fool!

Answer 8

i don't think he was smart enough to do it, i think he had it done, and then he just had to go make sure it was done. before he left for Chicago, and Nicole's dog scared him, but the bottom line he paid to have it done so he's still guilty

Answer 9

no. he did it , bragged about etc...all evidence aside. if he wasn't a celebrity he would be in jail .

Answer 10

of course he did it. but because he had money he was able to buy out of it. if he was poor he would have been in prison.

Answer 11

Yes he is and please get over it, we got bigger issues than OJ. Maybe a war in Iraq an the biggest murderer of all- OSAMA BIN LADIN

Answer 12

We all know he is guilty.

Answer 13

I dont think he is i dont think he does either