Do you think O.J. Simpson was guilty of killing Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson?

[GentlemanJim]

Personally, I think the prosecutors did a poor job by going for too aggressive a conviction.

They tried to present this as a premeditated act, and I just don't think he went over there that day with intent to kill anyone.

I believe he went over there that day with the intent to raise some heII with the ex...and things escalated...turned into a heat of the moment thing.

Did he kill them? I believe he did. But did he go over there PLANNING on killing anyone? I don't believe he did.

So, the prosecution screwed up by having too big a balls, if they would have gone after a conviction more in line with those circumstances, then I think the jury would have rewarded them with a conviction.

[Labonte18]

Originally Posted by GentlemanJim

Personally, I think the prosecutors did a poor job by going for too aggressive a conviction.

They tried to present this as a premeditated act, and I just don't think he went over there that day with intent to kill anyone.

I believe he went over there that day with the intent to raise some heII with the ex...and things escalated...turned into a heat of the moment thing.

Did he kill them? I believe he did. But did he go over there PLANNING on killing anyone? I don't believe he did.

So, the prosecution screwed up by having too big a balls, if they would have gone after a conviction more in line with those circumstances, then I think the jury would have rewarded them with a conviction.

You don't go to someone's house with a hunting knife, ski mask and gloves in LA with good intentions.

Would they have had a better chance of getting him for Murder 2 vs Murder 1? I doubt it. While the prosecution was certainly highly flawed... There were a whole lot of other variables that came into play. the LA Riots, the circus atmosphere.. Those things, along with others, were played beautifully by the defense and awfully by the prosecution.

I just don't know if they had crystal clear video of him committing the murders that they would have gotten a conviction.

honestly, the trial should have had a change of venue out of the LA area.. But.. Let's be honest, could they have gone anywhere and found people who hadn't heard of the case?

[BlueGalexy]

Originally Posted by Labonte18

You don't go to someone's house with a hunting knife, ski mask and gloves in LA with good intentions.

Would they have had a better chance of getting him for Murder 2 vs Murder 1? I doubt it. While the prosecution was certainly highly flawed... There were a whole lot of other variables that came into play. the LA Riots, the circus atmosphere.. Those things, along with others, were played beautifully by the defense and awfully by the prosecution.

I just don't know if they had crystal clear video of him committing the murders that they would have gotten a conviction.

honestly, the trial should have had a change of venue out of the LA area.. But.. Let's be honest, could they have gone anywhere and found people who hadn't heard of the case?

I absolutely agree with you on this one Labonte. Though I believe Jim could very well be correct in his assessment up thread of how the crime occurred, ultimately I just can't help feeling that in the end it makes little difference. The verdict was never about Simpson's guilt or innocence IMO, but instead it was about all those variables you cited in your post. The jury had a point to make IMO, and they drove it home clear as a bell.

[Labonte18]

Originally Posted by BlueGalexy

I absolutely agree with you on this one Labonte. Though I believe Jim could very well be correct in his assessment up thread of how the crime occurred, ultimately I just can't help feeling that in the end it makes little difference. The verdict was never about Simpson's guilt or innocence IMO, but instead it was about all those variables you cited in your post. The jury had a point to make IMO, and they drove it home clear as a bell.

Let me be clear about this.. I don't blame the jury for a not guilty verdict. The case was so piss-poorly done by the prosecution.. Even though looking at it from the outside, we all know he was guilty.. They were restricted to considering what they heard in court. And based on THAT.. They did reach the right verdict.

now.. Would their verdict have changed if they saw everything everyone else did? Can't say for sure. Gut tells me.. Probably not. That yes, you are right, there was going to be a statement made. But, based on what happened in the court and not what we THINK would have happened.. They.. Sadly got it right.

[BlueGalexy]

Originally Posted by Labonte18

Let me be clear about this.. I don't blame the jury for a not guilty verdict. The case was so piss-poorly done by the prosecution.. Even though looking at it from the outside, we all know he was guilty.. They were restricted to considering what they heard in court. And based on THAT.. They did reach the right verdict.

now.. Would their verdict have changed if they saw everything everyone else did? Can't say for sure. Gut tells me.. Probably not. That yes, you are right, there was going to be a statement made. But, based on what happened in the court and not what we THINK would have happened.. They.. Sadly got it right.

You make a good point Labonte about juries being restricted to only that evidence which is presented during trial. While I understand that in some cases this can cause complications for the prosecution, I never really believed it to be an issue in the Simpson case to be honest.

I guess I always thought that Simpson and his "dream team" put on a show for the jury and the viewing public which was consumed voraciously. Of course it certainly didn't help matters that the prosecution stepped right into the numerous piles of @#$& laid down by the defense, the glove moment being chief among them IMO. I actually felt that the state had a pretty good case against Simpson, but the timing just wasn't right. For example, DNA was still a fairly new concept in the justice system at the time IIRC, and it made up some of the state's best pieces of evidence. Also problematic for the prosecution IMO was the fact that the crime occurred right on the heels of the Rodney King beating, the subsequent acquittal of the police officers involved, and the race riots which occurred as a result. And because of the aforementioned events, it was also the very worst time for the prosecution to be saddled with someone like Detective Mark Fuhrman as their star witness.

Of course this is just my impression of the situation. I'm certainly not any kind of legal scholar or expert on jury trials...just someone who has an opinion on just about everything, lol!

[Labonte18]

Originally Posted by BlueGalexy

You make a good point Labonte about juries being restricted to only that evidence which is presented during trial. While I understand that in some cases this can cause complications for the prosecution, I never really believed it to be an issue in the Simpson case to be honest.

I guess I always thought that Simpson and his "dream team" put on a show for the jury and the viewing public which was consumed voraciously. Of course it certainly didn't help matters that the prosecution stepped right into the numerous piles of @#$& laid down by the defense, the glove moment being chief among them IMO. I actually felt that the state had a pretty good case against Simpson, but the timing just wasn't right. For example, DNA was still a fairly new concept in the justice system at the time IIRC, and it made up some of the state's best pieces of evidence. Also problematic for the prosecution IMO was the fact that the crime occurred right on the heels of the Rodney King beating, the subsequent acquittal of the police officers involved, and the race riots which occurred as a result. And because of the aforementioned events, it was also the very worst time for the prosecution to be saddled with someone like Detective Mark Fuhrman as their star witness.

Of course this is just my impression of the situation. I'm certainly not any kind of legal scholar or expert on jury trials...just someone who has an opinion on just about everything, lol!

The case itself wasn't bad. The presentation sucked. And, there were things that.. Fuhrman.. They couldn't NOT put him on the stand. But, putting him on the stand was a case killer as well. That was just.. out of their control.

So, while the prosecution was pretty bad. In some ways, they weren't to blame, either. The LAPD didn't do them any damn favors, that's for sure.

DNA evidence was kinda new as well at the time. This case taught prosecutors quite a bit about how to rebut the doubts that a defense could put into a jurors mind.

[ghosthouse]

I really don't understand the "prosecution did a horrible job" argument. This was a slam dunk case. They had his and theirs DNA everywhere and they showed that.

This case was lost because:

A) racial tensions

B) the defense exposed what had been up to that point a poor method of collecting and processing DNA

Now I don't think they framed OJ or racism had an affect on their investigation...but a combination of "this is how we always did things" and perhaps a misunderstanding of DNA in the early days of using it in prosecutions definitely had an affect and the defense used that to the fullest.

[AMackII]

Never Say Never

[zack007attack]

After reading William Dear's book OJ is Innocent and I Can Prove It, I am more than convinced that there is more than reasonable doubt about his apparent guilt. Main reason is because of so many stones left unturned by the LAPD, combined with their obvious mishandling of the crime scene and the entire investigation. As much as I hate to say it, of all the LE agencies in the country with a history of incompetence or ineptness, LAPD is at or near the top of the list. Dear's book also lists a suspect that the police never considered, and somebody who based on their psychological profile, seems much more likely to have committed the murders: Jason Lamar Simpson.

I would say based on the little evidence that was properly handled, OJ may be guilty of accessory after the fact. Unfortunately we will never know because of this high profile case being mishandled by the detectives and DAs who were looking to bolster their records from this case.

[GentlemanJim]

Originally Posted by Labonte18

You don't go to someone's house with a hunting knife, ski mask and gloves in LA with good intentions.

Yeah, I know...everybody likes to heap as much blame as possible on the wrong doers. I don't necessarily buy the "you went there with malice, therefore you will be prosecuted to the highest degree possible" frame of reference.

Just like if you are helping 2 guys rob a bank, you are sitting out in the get away car, and the guys who go inside end up shooting somebody, the law permits them to prosecute you for murder just as if you pulled the trigger.

I really disagree with that. It's wrong, IMO to contrive guilt in that matter. It might make a good deterrent, but to me that is "malicious prosecution". The guy may have premeditated robbing a bank, but that doesn't mean he planned to kill.

And that's what they tried to do with OJ, and that's why I think it blew up in their faces. the prosecutors had too bigga balls for their own good, the facts would not support the accusations.

I'm not "pro crime", but at the same time I'm not one of those people who just "bend over" for law and order.
There has got to be a material link between the crime committed and the charges prosecuted.

I was living in LA at the time of the crime and the trial. The moment was tense, but I think the danger (threatened riots) was exaggerated

[BlueGalexy]

Originally Posted by GentlemanJim

Yeah, I know...everybody likes to heap as much blame as possible on the wrong doers. I don't necessarily buy the "you went there with malice, therefore you will be prosecuted to the highest degree possible" frame of reference.

Just like if you are helping 2 guys rob a bank, you are sitting out in the get away car, and the guys who go inside end up shooting somebody, the law permits them to prosecute you for murder just as if you pulled the trigger.

I really disagree with that. It's wrong, IMO to contrive guilt in that matter. It might make a good deterrent, but to me that is "malicious prosecution". The guy may have premeditated robbing a bank, but that doesn't mean he planned to kill.

And that's what they tried to do with OJ, and that's why I think it blew up in their faces. the prosecutors had too bigga balls for their own good, the facts would not support the accusations.

I'm not "pro crime", but at the same time I'm not one of those people who just "bend over" for law and order.
There has got to be a material link between the crime committed and the charges prosecuted.

I was living in LA at the time of the crime and the trial. The moment was tense, but I think the danger (threatened riots) was exaggerated

While I definitely understand your point GJ, I guess I just don't see this situation the same way. OJ wasn't just the poor dope who was outside keeping the car running while an accomplice was inside murdering his ex-wife IMO...he was the abusive SOB who invaded her home uninvited, began to physically assault her (yet again), and became so uncontrollably violent that he literally almost cut her head off. And when he was finished murdering his ex-wife, OJ went to work on the poor waiter who was only there because he was returning a pair of reading glasses that Nicole Brown left behind at the restaurant he worked for (again strictly IMO).
Regardless of his intentions (whatever those may have been), and regardless of how one might feel about the felony murder doctrine, there's just no getting away from the fact that OJ Simpson committed two cold blooded murders, and deserved the highest charges the state could possibly throw his way. But again, that's all just my opinion.

[Labonte18]

Originally Posted by zack007attack

Dear's book also lists a suspect that the police never considered, and somebody who based on their psychological profile, seems much more likely to have committed the murders: Jason Lamar Simpson.

Why do I get the feeling you feel that Burke Ramsey killed JonBenet as well?

Originally Posted by GentlemanJim

Yeah, I know...everybody likes to heap as much blame as possible on the wrong doers. I don't necessarily buy the "you went there with malice, therefore you will be prosecuted to the highest degree possible" frame of reference.

Just like if you are helping 2 guys rob a bank, you are sitting out in the get away car, and the guys who go inside end up shooting somebody, the law permits them to prosecute you for murder just as if you pulled the trigger.

I really disagree with that. It's wrong, IMO to contrive guilt in that matter. It might make a good deterrent, but to me that is "malicious prosecution". The guy may have premeditated robbing a bank, but that doesn't mean he planned to kill.

And that's what they tried to do with OJ, and that's why I think it blew up in their faces. the prosecutors had too bigga balls for their own good, the facts would not support the accusations.

I'm not "pro crime", but at the same time I'm not one of those people who just "bend over" for law and order.
There has got to be a material link between the crime committed and the charges prosecuted.

I was living in LA at the time of the crime and the trial. The moment was tense, but I think the danger (threatened riots) was exaggerated

In ways you're right. I have problems with a few things as well. They talked about nailing Hinkley with murder charges after James Brady died a few years back. Some 30+ years after he was shot.

That crap isn't right.

But. There is something to be said for enhancements for certain aspects of crimes. I don't buy into 'hate crimes', but just like robbing a bank with a note gets you less time than robbing a bank with a gun.. There are times it makes sense.

I will agree, however, that just because you were involved in one aspect of a crime doesn't mean you're guilty of all aspects of it. That being said, if your actions lead to or enable a crime.. Fair game. If your getaway driver is driving the car that someone leans out the window and shoots a cop during the getaway and kills him. Yes, you're just as guilty as he is.

[Clockwork]

Yes he's guilty. No doubt.

So many things play into it here. And yes I love the "Made in America" documentary about O.J. It tells the story just about how you would want to hear it, and how it happened too.

This should have been a slam dunk case, he led the police on a car chase and that alone should have sealed it. Even in the documentary you see O.J.'s defense team - Carl Douglas - openly admit that when the jury came to O.J.'s house to tour around that they put up a bunch of black art and such around his home. He states that if it wasn't a black jury but a Mexican jury he'd have done the same thing but with Mexican memorabilia. These guys have no conscience. Johnny Cochrane, F. Lee Bailey, Barry Scheck, Robert Shapiro, etc. Robert Kardashian I personally believe since he was good friends with O.J. may have thought he was innocent in the beginning but obviously came to the realization he wasn't eventually.

Just look at the reaction of Kardashian when the verdict is read. That alone should show you O.J.'s guilt. When the "not guilty" verdict is read you can see this "Oh NO.................." look on Kardashian's face as if he said "What did we do?" I personally think he stayed on the case assuming OJ would be guilty and when he was he could at least fall back on the whole "Everyone needs a defense team" argument. But when he got off...............yeah, that was bad. It backfired.

Knowing the tactics they tried even with the glove. That was not the prosecution's idea, it was the defense's idea. OJ didn't take his arthritis medication for two weeks and it had his hands swell up. That and the fact he clearly wasn't even trying to put the glove on his hand.

The blood in his Bronco, the testimonies against him, etc. It all should have been a lock, even with the prosecution making some mistakes. It doesn't make me like Marcia Clark very much, but I am not sure if I blame her. OJ was getting off from the beginning. They played the 911 calls Nicole made to the police when she was being abused and there was zero reaction from the jury. Clark knew she was in trouble then.

Even in the documentary one of the jurors admitted this was revenge for Rodney King. So if there was any error, it was the location of the trial. Probably should have been in Santa Monica just like the Civil trial was in which OJ got ripped to shreds. But I guess they didn't want to stack the deck, so they kept it downtown. Bad idea. There was a lot of hate for the LAPD on that jury, and it showed.

OJ is a very fortunate man.

[jets4life]

OJ murdered Nicole, IMHO. Everything points to him being guilty. I still believe, to this day, the trail was such a circus that OJ was going to get off, since the prosecution did such a poor job, combined with possible political ramifications (LA Riots happened 3 years prior, and the city was worried about more riots if OJ was found guilty).


His behaviour after the trail makes me 100% certain he murdered Nicole.

First off, he never made any kind of effort to prove his innocence, or hire private investigators to find more evidence pointing away from him. An innocent man would be shouting at the top of rooftops to clear his name, and the money OJ had would ahve made this very easy.

The book OJ wrote "If I did it." This alone is what makes me absolutely certain that he did it. If he was truly innocent, why would he write a book detailing how the murders went down, even in a hypothetical way.

Finally, the history of domestic violence, cuts to his hand, etc. all point to him as the killer. His 2008 conviction for false imprisonment, robbery, etc. did not help matters.

[jets4life]

I saw an article about polls released around the time of the trial, then compared them to the same polls asking the American public whether OJ was guilty or innocent at different points, up until 2015.

In 1995, there was a clear racial divide, as most White Americans believed OJ to be guilty. Most Black Americans believed him to be innocent. However, that began to change as time passed. The percentage of White people who thought of OJ guilty increased slightly, while the number of Black Americans who believe OJ to be guilty more than doubled as of 2015, and now most Black people also believe OJ to be guilty. I assume if they asked the question again today, even more people would say OJ was guilty.