Interesting how a lefty is calling a civil verdict proof of criminal guilt, when they always lecture us that unlawful presence (illegal immigration) is merely a civil violation.
You insinuated long sleeves will protect you, with this statement you just proved you have never been in a physical fight.
Why don't you corner someone or something in a corner and see if you would come out with no marks.
Plus wasn't Goldman a martial arts expert? Surely, he would have left marks on OJ. When someone or something is in a life and death situation fight or flight takes over. And since you said they were cornered they just wimped out and let OJ kill them. How about the fact no one person could do this much damage unless they were a trained assassin, or they did not act alone.
You insinuated long sleeves will protect you, with this statement you just proved you have never been in a physical fight.
Why don't you corner someone or something in a corner and see if you would come out with no marks.
Plus wasn't Goldman a martial arts expert? Surely, he would have left marks on OJ. When someone or something is in a life and death situation fight or flight takes over. And since you said they were cornered they just wimped out and let OJ kill them. How about the fact no one person could do this much damage unless they were a trained assassin, or they did not act alone.
Possession of a knife gave O.J. A huge advantage so it wasn’t a typical physical fight. Sleeves and gloves wouldn’t have protected him, but would have prevented him from being scratched. Many people have been killed with a knife and it doesn’t take a trained assassin to accomplish it.
Goldman’s sister, Kim, said that Ron did not study any martial arts, but did play softball and she has no idea where the black belt story came from. Even if he did, he was 5’9” compared to the 6’1” Simpson, had at least a 50lb disadvantage, and Simpson had a knife.
It would have been impossible for O.J. to find someone to help him butcher Ron and Nicole and there were no footprints from a 4th person at the scene.
This post was edited 8 minutes after it was posted.
Your view of "inconsistencies" about Oswald have never altered the official finding that he killed JFK. So he murdered JFK.
The OJ civil trial based its findings on the evidence before it that OJ killed his ex wife and lover. Their deaths were not accident or the result of negligence; they were intentionally killed - stabbed - and so that is what he was found liable for. We can say then that he murdered them and the court's decision enables that conclusion. It doesn't require a criminal conviction to arrive at that.
Regarding Oswald, I'd need to see all of the facts, and not just a summary finding.
Regarding OJ, "We can say" a lot of things. But the question here is what did the courts say?
The civil trial concluded on the evidence before it that he killed his ex wife and her lover. You can use whatever word you like for that. It doesn't change it.
Your comment about Oswald is garbage. His role has been investigated over several decades. No one else has been found to have played a part in Kennedy's assassination.
Regarding Oswald, I'd need to see all of the facts, and not just a summary finding.
Regarding OJ, "We can say" a lot of things. But the question here is what did the courts say?
The civil trial concluded on the evidence before it that he killed his ex wife and her lover. You can use whatever word you like for that. It doesn't change it.
Your comment about Oswald is garbage. His role has been investigated over several decades. No one else has been found to have played a part in Kennedy's assassination.
But we aren't talking about my words or your words. You said a civil court said he committed crimes. What did the courts really say?
Regarding Oswald, once again, I would need to see all the facts, rather than take your word.
The civil trial concluded on the evidence before it that he killed his ex wife and her lover. You can use whatever word you like for that. It doesn't change it.
Your comment about Oswald is garbage. His role has been investigated over several decades. No one else has been found to have played a part in Kennedy's assassination.
But we aren't talking about my words or your words. You said a civil court said he committed crimes. What did the courts really say?
Regarding Oswald, once again, I would need to see all the facts, rather than take your word.
Conspiracy theories are the opposite of being facts.
The civil trial concluded on the evidence before it that he killed his ex wife and her lover. You can use whatever word you like for that. It doesn't change it.
Your comment about Oswald is garbage. His role has been investigated over several decades. No one else has been found to have played a part in Kennedy's assassination.
But we aren't talking about my words or your words. You said a civil court said he committed crimes. What did the courts really say?
Regarding Oswald, once again, I would need to see all the facts, rather than take your word.
They said he killed his ex and her lover. That is how he was found liable for their deaths. To the uninitiated such as yourself intentionally killing someone is murder. It wasn't a criminal trial but for a court to say he committed a wrongful killing is to say he committed murder, just like a civil court said Trump committed a rape.
The facts about Oswald have been out for more than 60 years. You don't have to take my word. You never stop showing how unbelievably ignorant you are.
But we aren't talking about my words or your words. You said a civil court said he committed crimes. What did the courts really say?
Regarding Oswald, once again, I would need to see all the facts, rather than take your word.
They said he killed his ex and her lover. That is how he was found liable for their deaths. To the uninitiated such as yourself intentionally killing someone is murder. It wasn't a criminal trial but for a court to say he committed a wrongful killing is to say he committed murder, just like a civil court said Trump committed a rape.
The facts about Oswald have been out for more than 60 years. You don't have to take my word. You never stop showing how unbelievably ignorant you are.
I don't need nor want to take your words. Yet you keep putting your words in the courts' mouths. The court in Trump's case said yes to "sexual assault" and said no to "rape".
Not all the facts were out more than 60 years ago. As late as July 2025, they were still releasing documents to the public.
They said he killed his ex and her lover. That is how he was found liable for their deaths. To the uninitiated such as yourself intentionally killing someone is murder. It wasn't a criminal trial but for a court to say he committed a wrongful killing is to say he committed murder, just like a civil court said Trump committed a rape.
The facts about Oswald have been out for more than 60 years. You don't have to take my word. You never stop showing how unbelievably ignorant you are.
I don't need nor want to take your words. Yet you keep putting your words in the courts' mouths. The court in Trump's case said yes to "sexual assault" and said no to "rape".
Not all the facts were out more than 60 years ago. As late as July 2025, they were still releasing documents to the public.
Wrong again. The judge in the defamation case said the sexual assault finding against Trump amounted to "rape" as it is generally understood. But that leaves you out. Understanding isn't one of your strong points.
None of the recently released facts about Oswald changed the official finding he alone murdered JFK. But I'm sure you will find reason to believe a burrito was involved.
This post was edited 59 seconds after it was posted.
OJ swore he would find the killer. He didn't much effort in.
And then he wrote the "If I did it" book.
He had a history of spousal abuse, he was jealous and controlling. She finally left him and he couldn't handle.
He ran when the cops wanted to arrest him.
His DNA was found at the scene. He was lucky that DNA testing was in its infancy in court trails and the jury had to have it explained to them. These days they'd know it's enough.
His lawyer said they wouldn't play the race card to prove his innocence. They played the race card.
Or look at it the other way. If OJ didn't do it, who did? And what was their motive?
Two random rich people killed. There were no further killings of this type in the area. There wasn't a serial killer around. There was no theft or robbery involved.
Meanwhile OJ has motive, no alibi, has a track record of violence towards one of the deceased and evidence is found of him at the crime scene.
It's a slam dunk case. The only mystery is how the prosecution failed to get a conviction.
I don't need nor want to take your words. Yet you keep putting your words in the courts' mouths. The court in Trump's case said yes to "sexual assault" and said no to "rape".
Not all the facts were out more than 60 years ago. As late as July 2025, they were still releasing documents to the public.
Wrong again. The judge in the defamation case said the sexual assault finding against Trump amounted to "rape" as it is generally understood. But that leaves you out. Understanding isn't one of your strong points.
None of the recently released facts about Oswald changed the official finding he alone murdered JFK. But I'm sure you will find reason to believe a burrito was involved.
Maybe in other jurisdictions, but in New York, the New York court is bound by local New York definitions, and when directly asked to decide the question of rape, the jurors said no.
Regarding Oswald, the official findings weren't released with all the facts. Once I've had the opportunity to review all the facts, I'll let you know my opinion about any remaining doubts about a second shooter, a magic bullet, a larger conspiracy, etc.
The 90% down votes proves your point. She was a coke head, which is no reason for her to be killed, but sheds light on a more seedier side to the case. Evidence was planted, many other things. Yes racism is alive and well, just look at every post about African runners smdh.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.