Ok, was oj guilty?

Pasteur30

To the first question, as somebody told me, I wasn't there, but I strongly suspect that he is guilty.
I don't have great personal experience in courts, but the fact is that the 12 people who compose the jury, as I saw on TV once, are usually a bunch of morons who could not find a valid excuse to avoid jury duty. Besides, a student of mine told me that they usually don't accept teachers or people with high levels of education in the jury, because they believe that they will manipulate the rest of the jury.
Besides, recently I saw a case of a jury that declared a pair of doctors guilty of negligence, in spite of the diagnosis having no known cause.
In this country the level of education of most people is practically illiteracy, and to practice Medicine the restrictions are very strict. How can it be that 12 people who know nothing of Medicine can make such a ruling ?
Personally, I don't assume he was guilty because he is black, but because of his behavior

dca2003311@yahoo.com

Based on the evidence GUILTY AS HELL!!!! HOW IS IT POSSIBLE TO COME TO ANY OTHER CONCLUSION !!!!!!!

sophist

He's as guilty as sin!

Susan G

I always thought that he was guilty simply because of how he behaved afterward. His behavior wasn't what I would expect from an innocent man. Now, he was tried and found not guilty of murder but he was found responsible in a civil court. I doubt seriously that we will ever know if he truly killed them.

My assumptions had absolutely nothing to do with his race but everything to do with how he acted afterward.

Blue Steel & Lace

He is guilty. His race is what got him off the hook.

There was so much evidence suppressed that the jury never got to see before making their decision.
A long history of domestic violence that preceded their marriage, threats made in front of witnesses, and a conspiracy to conceal and dispose of evidence are the more glaring indicators.

The civil trial brought many of these missing pieces to the fore, and that is why OJ was found liable.

catoesdeedee

Nope. He was guilty and the whole world knows
it. The jury, afterward, said so. But they said
that the prosecuter did not prove that he was
guilty.The lawsuit afterward proved that he was
guilty.

brenda y

Are you kidding?? His being Black has nothing to do with the fact that he was guilty of murder. How do we feel we can decide....Hello!! Court TV. The only reason that the jury let him off was they were afraid of riots!! Yes, Because he was Black!! That is very sad.

Bad M

Well...
I was not on the jury & did not see all the evidence presented.
OJ was found not guilty in the criminal murder trial. So be it.
My emotional side says he is guilty as sin - not because he is black but because he tried to escape & was near committing suicide. Have you forgotten those details?

Problem Child

OJ was found not guilty by a court which does not mean he didn't do it. It just means the jury had a reasonable doubt and could not convict. He was found guilty by a civil jury of causing the murder of his wife and Ron Goldman.
The man did it and the fact he is black is irrelevant. If you haven't figured that out by now, you are kidding yourself. I believe in due process and the evidence OVERWHELMINGLY proved he did it. Our system is not perfect. In the same way innocent people are convicted, guilty people go free. Not Guilty does not equal innocent. Robert Blake, a white man, was also found not guilty of a murder he ADMITTED to, because the prosecutor left reasonable doubt. The ironic part was he was found guilty of disposing of the head illegally. So get off the whole "black" thing and grow up. The man has all but admitted it with his book. The only reason OJ got off was decent lawyers (that the average man can't afford) and the inappropriate racial comments and perjury of Mark Furman, which put all his testimony in doubt and torpedoed the defenses case.

yes in civil court he was found guilty, in criminal court he was found innocent and we all know he was guilty.

lordkelvin

Has nothing to do with him being Black. And the courts don't declare if he did it or not... they decide if he is guilty or not guilty. And what ever the courts decide people can and will make their own judgments based on facts (sometimes) or just their feelings. In addition Juries have the ability to judge someone not guilty just they believe a law is unjust... that is the power of a Jury.

J.R.

No, he is not guilty. That is why he is out looking for the real killer on every golf course in southern Florida. He's just trying to help the cops.

Middlefinger!

NUMBER ONE:
I will never agree with the 'not guilty' verdict; but no matter how I may feel about it, OJ did receive his day in court...because that's the American way and God bless our system of justice.

NUMBER TWO:
I DO NOT agree with the verdict in the civil trial.
I feel that once the criminal court found him 'not' guilty', then the civil action should have been null and void!

NUMBER THREE:
OJ did it; her murdered Nicole!
AND...going further, I blame Nicole's family!
Why? At that time, she was 17 and he was in his mid-30's.
Regardless of this fact, her parents saw the potential for $$$$$$ and she was given to OJ as their sacrificial lamb.
Her parents knew he was beating her up and abusing her otherwise.
Her parents did nothing but sit and count the $$$$$$$ when it started rolling in from their OJ-funded, Hertz Rental Car franchise, etc.
So, after years and years of her parents turning their heads...and I believe in my heart she cried out to her parents for help...they told her to go back and to be a good wife to OJ.
Her parents did nothing to OJ and they said nothing to OJ.
OJ assumed that her parents did not care what happened to their daughter...and he was right!
In the final, they gave their daughter up to be murdered.
I remember reading the "unofficial" autopsy report; Nicole was 'almost' legally beheaded!
OJ did the deed and Nicole's parents let it happen.
You know...silence may be golden, but it also gives consent.

FÃ¶rtyTwÃ¶

A jury of his peers found him innocent of charges, so not guilty. That is the law of the land, if he had been shipped to Uzblikistam and tortured he might have confessed, would not make more the person guilty or more innocent, that was the law of this Nation, at that time ,found him to be innocent, so he is not guilty.
The case taught me something about the law, one can be found innocent of all charges for a crime, then sued for the criminal actions that they did not do. And lose.
That is kinda screwy.

VAJETA1999

i wouldn't be surprised if he rilly did do it but i could care less eather way

mattapan26

Here are the views of a prominent African American on OJ Simpson
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-yGfJROa0NM

danielpauldavis

Civilly, not criminally.

bubba bob

the glove did not fit and the judge said walk,,I think he was guilty but I will have faith that the jury knew more and better things than I did,was reading a headline about a black man convicted of rape 40 years ago just cleared by dna and released from prison, yes black could influence other people not me though

iStlYrSmileBby

Perhaps...but it doesn't matter. The court said that he was innocent. End of story. It doesn't matter anymore if he was guilty.

Enter Your Message or Comment

User Name:
User Email:
Post a comment: