Why is it far fetched to think that OJ Simpson is innocent when the LAPD used the same logic as Hwang woo Suk?

Question

In Febuary 2004, Hwang woo Suk and his research team announced to the world that they cloned 30 embryo's and created a line of stem cells. It was published in the journal Science which was the most rigorous journal in the world. The praised by scientists everywhere in the world.

Hwang wasn't finished, he again published another article in the 2005 claiming to create 11 stem cell lines along with 30 cloned embryo's. DNA samples showed that they were clones. Also like the first project there were photographs of the cloned embyro's. At this point, Hwang woo Suk was called a pioneer of cloning.

He later resigned for unethical egg donations but his supporters said this did not dispute his work until a week later...

One of his researchers noticed that the photographs were duplicated and that Hwang took two samples from the same source of DNA. His 2004 papers and 2005 papers were retracted after an investigation tested his samples to be fakes. The world was SHOCKED at the magnitude of the fraud.

This is a cloning project but it is still involved with DNA

Now lets look at the LAPD and OJ. The LAPD claimed that reputable scientists claimed that OJ Simspons DNA mathed and that it was far fetched or impossible to fake DNA. Hwang woo Suk claimed that science was self-correcting and that is why he wouldn't of faked his research. The LAPD claimed that they wouldn't frame OJ because of the risk of the death penalty. Hwnag woo Suk supporters used emotional arguments that people calling him a fraud didn't want to help the disabled. Fred Goldman uses emoitional arugments about allowing a "killer to go free".
Hwang woo Suk supporters thought it would be impossible to fake two papers of such a magnitude and the LAPD claims that because OJ is in jail for robbery, that proves his guilt of the murders.



Hwang woo Suk claimed that his ethical issues concerning the egg donations have nothing to do with his research, only his crediibility.

Mark Fuhrman claims that just becuase he lied uder oath about using the "N word", doesn't mean he planted evidence.

So how is it far fetched for OJ to be innocent when it wasn't far fetched for Hwang woo Suk to fake all of his research on such a magnitude?

Answer 1

Because for the sake of self-preservation, and for the continued safety of others around us, it would seem highly advisable that in circumstances such as those surrounding the case of OJ, his late wife and her friend, you lock up the obvious culprit.



Logic is a useful tool in academic discussions, but can misused by the unwary to the detriment of their personal safety.

Answer 2

Cause your giving us proof that this dude did fake it. There is no proof that the LAPD faked anything is there? Just get over it: he was guilty, they got him off, and he was dumb enough to push his luck and is now serving a sentence that was probably swayed by his wrong doings.



Plus if you were innocent why in the hell would you add fuel to the flame by writing a book on IF you did it HOW you'd do it... complete bogus.



* No actually i used it in the exact same context. You still failed to answer why an innocent man who was found to be not guilty would go out of his way to write this book. It makes a lot more sense for a guilty person to write it in a fetal attempt to convince the vast majority who still saw/ see him as guilty.

Answer 3

If you had been around or paying attention during his trial you would have known the evidence against him wa overwhelming. No one was more surprised at the not guilty verdict than his lawyers. The only thing that kept him from being convicted was the jurors fear for their own personal safety.

Answer 4

He was guilty. He murdered someone & got away with it. It happens from time to time.