Is it like 100%?
Is it like 100%?
I would say its about 98% certain that OJ killed Nicole and Ron.
ssggsgsgs wrote:
Is it like 100%?
0% chance he killed his wife, because they were divorced at the time.
100% chance he killed Nicole and Ron.
Shamus wrote:
I would say its about 98% certain that OJ killed Nicole and Ron.
Based on what exactly?
The Super wrote:
ssggsgsgs wrote:Is it like 100%?
0% chance he killed his wife, because they were divorced at the time.
100% chance he killed Nicole and Ron.
/thread
or as they say in newfoundland, 'tread
It's not. It's obvious that Mark Fuhrman planted evidence and orchestrated one massive cover-up with inter-departmental agencies, and that of the 100+ people, at least, needed to pull this off, not one of them would've leaked information. Moreover, OJ wrote a book, "If I Did It," which described how he would've committed the murder if, in fact, he did do it, which, of course, means he didn't. Even though he was convicted in the civil case, which has a slightly lower bar for conviction, he was acquitted in the criminal case because everyone knows Americans are just a bunch of racists stuck in the 1850s who focus on the color of a person's skin rather than the content of a person's character.
The gloves did not fit. (i.. he did not do it.)
I would say its about 98% certain that OJ killed Nicole and Ron.[/quote]
Based on what exactly?[/quote]
Based on this:
. The 9-1-1 call and the history of Simpson's violence directed at Nicole Brown.
2. Hair evidence: (1) hairs consistent with that of Simpson found on cap at Bundy residence, (2) hairs consistent with that of Simpson found on Ron Goldman's shirt.
3. Fiber evidence: (1) cotton fibers consistent with the carpet in the Bronco found on glove at Rockingham, (2) fibers consistent with the carpet from the Bronco found on cap at Bundy residence.
4. Blood evidence: (1) killer dropped blood near shoe prints at Bundy, (2) blood dropped at Bundy was of same type as Simpson's (about 0.5% of population would match), (3) Simpson had fresh cuts on left hand on day after murder, (4) blood found in Bronco, (5) blood found in foyer and master bedroom of Simpson home, (5) blood found on Simpson's driveway, (6) blood on socks in OJ's home matched Nicole's.
5. Glove evidence: (1) left glove found at Bundy and right glove found at Simpson residence are Aris Light gloves, size XL, (2) Nicole Brown bought pair of Aris Light XL gloves in 1990 at Bloomingdale's, (3) Simpson wore Aris Light gloves from 1990 to June, 1994.
6. Shoe evidence: (1) shoe prints found at Bundy were from a size 12 Bruno Magli shoe, (2) bloody shoe impression on Bronco carpet is consistent with a Magli shoe, (3) Simpson wore a size 12 shoe.
7. Other evidence: (1) flight in Bronco, (2) strange reaction to phone call informing him of Nicole Brown's death, etc.
1. Simpson did not testify at his criminal trial. Defense attorneys will almost always call as a witness an articulate client that they believe to be innocent.
2. Subsequent to the trial defense attorneys talking about the trial have been careful to say "the jury did the right thing," while not stating that Simpson was in fact innocent.
3. Subsequent to the trial, Simpson has devoted no real effort to tracking down the "real killer," nor has any significant evidence surfaced suggesting that the killer was anyone other than Simpson.
4. The jury was not allowed to hear testimony concerning Simpson's rumored jailhouse confession to Rosie Grier.
5. Subsequent to the criminal trial other evidence of Simpson's guilt surfaced. The most significant of the new evidence may have been photographs of Simpson wearing Bruno Magli shoes. The new evidence, together with much of the evidence considered in the criminal trial, convinced a civil jury that Simpson murdered Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman.
6. In his 2007 book, If I Did It, Simpson (for all intents and purposes) confessed. The book describes in detail events leading up to the moment of the murders.
0%, found not guilty by a jury of his peers.
Shamus wrote:
I would say its about 98% certain that OJ killed Nicole and Ron.
Based on what exactly?[/quote]
Based on this:
. The 9-1-1 call and the history of Simpson's violence directed at Nicole Brown.
2. Hair evidence: (1) hairs consistent with that of Simpson found on cap at Bundy residence, (2) hairs consistent with that of Simpson found on Ron Goldman's shirt.
3. Fiber evidence: (1) cotton fibers consistent with the carpet in the Bronco found on glove at Rockingham, (2) fibers consistent with the carpet from the Bronco found on cap at Bundy residence.
4. Blood evidence: (1) killer dropped blood near shoe prints at Bundy, (2) blood dropped at Bundy was of same type as Simpson's (about 0.5% of population would match), (3) Simpson had fresh cuts on left hand on day after murder, (4) blood found in Bronco, (5) blood found in foyer and master bedroom of Simpson home, (5) blood found on Simpson's driveway, (6) blood on socks in OJ's home matched Nicole's.
5. Glove evidence: (1) left glove found at Bundy and right glove found at Simpson residence are Aris Light gloves, size XL, (2) Nicole Brown bought pair of Aris Light XL gloves in 1990 at Bloomingdale's, (3) Simpson wore Aris Light gloves from 1990 to June, 1994.
6. Shoe evidence: (1) shoe prints found at Bundy were from a size 12 Bruno Magli shoe, (2) bloody shoe impression on Bronco carpet is consistent with a Magli shoe, (3) Simpson wore a size 12 shoe.
7. Other evidence: (1) flight in Bronco, (2) strange reaction to phone call informing him of Nicole Brown's death, etc.
1. Simpson did not testify at his criminal trial. Defense attorneys will almost always call as a witness an articulate client that they believe to be innocent.
2. Subsequent to the trial defense attorneys talking about the trial have been careful to say "the jury did the right thing," while not stating that Simpson was in fact innocent.
3. Subsequent to the trial, Simpson has devoted no real effort to tracking down the "real killer," nor has any significant evidence surfaced suggesting that the killer was anyone other than Simpson.
4. The jury was not allowed to hear testimony concerning Simpson's rumored jailhouse confession to Rosie Grier.
5. Subsequent to the criminal trial other evidence of Simpson's guilt surfaced. The most significant of the new evidence may have been photographs of Simpson wearing Bruno Magli shoes. The new evidence, together with much of the evidence considered in the criminal trial, convinced a civil jury that Simpson murdered Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman.
6. In his 2007 book, If I Did It, Simpson (for all intents and purposes) confessed. The book describes in detail events leading up to the moment of the murders.[/quote]
Is that all it takes to convince you of someone's guilt? I hope you never have to do jury duty
Nice try, Dennis Reynolds, but the question was not "Was OJ found guilty of murder?" The question was: "Did OJ murder his wife?" Two different answers. Technically Nicole was not his wife at the time of murder.
vvvb wrote:
Shamus wrote:I would say its about 98% certain that OJ killed Nicole and Ron.
Based on what exactly?
Based on this:
[Tons o' stuff...]
Is that all it takes to convince you of someone's guilt? I hope you never have to do jury duty[/quote]
Where did s/he say that s/he was "convinced of his guilt"? I thought the figure was 98%. Two points:
1) The standard in a criminal trial is "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt"--not beyond any doubt, but beyond a reasonable one. The criminal jury, probably properly, found that there was a reasonable doubt about the prosecution's case.
2) A civil jury (standard is "preponderance of evidence") found him liable for the two victims' deaths. From comments I've seen since, the civil jury considered it open-and-shut.
Having spent some time on this case before, during, and after law school (i.e. before, during, and after the case itself), I think 98% is about the right figure, though I might go a little higher.
As with other felons, all I want is that OJ not be able to hurt the general population or reproduce himself, and his current prison gig seems to be taking care of both.
It was Jason.
No, not that one, Simpson's son.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QG5CPhGoT3M
The case against Simpson would never reached the courts under the British Criminal system.
Interesting documentary, if you have the time.
Can you imagine being attacked by OJ with a shank?
We're talking a about a guy who knows how to move on his feet while dodging head tackles and cement forearms.
Those two never had a chance against him.
Hell, he could have played them at the same time like a two hamsters in a corner.
God, that must have been scary when that dude realized he was toast.
Picture a gorilla escaped from zoo looking for some fun.
Marsha something wrote:
We're talking a about a guy who knows how to move on his feet while dodging head tackles and cement forearms.
Poor tackling form. These would be easy to dodge.
OJ also had motive. Chris Rock lays it out in this comedy skit. Its hilarious, but I also think very near the mark.
Where be da white wimmen?
I don't understand the question
1 post was removed from this page.