General Discussion

JDPriestly

(57,936 posts)

42. OJ was not guilty because the jury found that the prosecutors did not prove beyond a reasonable

Tue Dec 2, 2014, 03:47 AM

Dec 2014

doubt that OJ was guilty.

No other suspect has been indicted for the murder, however, so we don't know who did it.

A lot of evidence suggested that OJ was the murderer, but the evidence was not conclusive enough for the jury.

In our system of justice, the jury verdict is guilty or not guilty. OJ's jury decided he was not guilty. That's the last word.

How many who answered this poll one way or the other has reviewed all the evidence presented at trial. As I understand it, the jury found that the time scheme the prosecutors presented could not have been possible in their view. Also, there was a question about Fuhrman as a witness and the chain of custody on the blood samples was not carefully enough recorded. Making sure the evidence and crime scene were protected from contamination was not properly done.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

153 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Your feeling on the OJ Simpson murder case verdict? [View all] Nye Bevan Dec 2014 OP

The Fur Man's Presence Taints the "Evidence" Beyond Repair AndyTiedye Dec 2014 #1

That is how I saw it too. FarPoint Dec 2014 #56

Add the timelines that didn't add up and hifiguy Dec 2014 #70

From the standpoint of an analytical chemist-- eridani Dec 2014 #2

+1 nt Live and Learn Dec 2014 #44

Agreed. mnhtnbb Dec 2014 #93

He is probably guilty, but I respect the verdict. Travis_0004 Dec 2014 #3

Next we need a poll on whether he was a total psycho. BootinUp Dec 2014 #4

He's working with the police to find the real killer bluestateguy Dec 2014 #5

He's in the slammer in Nevada IIRC for the next 10-15 years. hifiguy Dec 2014 #71

Probably guilty. At least involved. bigwillq Dec 2014 #6

I watched every minute of that trial on TV. Mr.Bill Dec 2014 #7

I was in shock at how the evening news completely misreported the days events. bananas Dec 2014 #40

+1 uponit7771 Dec 2014 #50

Totally guilty but I'm wondering about the question, why now and also just why?!1 n/t UTUSN Dec 2014 #8

Why the questions? Conservatives illustrating that TBF Dec 2014 #13

I agree. i think the son did it. Solomon Dec 2014 #55

OJ had a big cut on his hand Politicalboi Dec 2014 #98

OJ wasn't feeling right fadedrose Dec 2014 #112

The glove might have fit his son ... nt TBF Dec 2014 #122

I read a book about the son fadedrose Dec 2014 #137

Interesting - TBF Dec 2014 #141

Hope you're never, ever on a jury. phil89 Dec 2014 #151

I almost was fadedrose Dec 2014 #152

If you believed he cut his hand while murdering his victims JonLP24 Dec 2014 #114

He cut his finger/thumb in his bathroom fadedrose Dec 2014 #138

You know why NoJusticeNoPeace Dec 2014 #78

I think he is 100% guilty Terra Alta Dec 2014 #9

Voted "B" but it was more than Furhman. Gidney N Cloyd Dec 2014 #10

+1 nt Live and Learn Dec 2014 #45

+1 n/t ManiacJoe Dec 2014 #109

Was at UCLA at the time. I am ashamed to admit backed the verdict. Anansi1171 Dec 2014 #11

^^this^^ Freddie Dec 2014 #15

+1. nt tblue37 Dec 2014 #46

So it was black people who were Immature and had nothing to do with Furman who was convicted uponit7771 Dec 2014 #52

No, Erich Bloodaxe BSN Dec 2014 #58

No, you are correct. I absolutely recognize the racism of... Anansi1171 Dec 2014 #65

When did Furman get convicted of tampering with evidence in OJ trial? Politicalboi Dec 2014 #96

Link uponit7771 Dec 2014 #128

The evidence security and tainting issues are a reasonable doubt generator of epic scale. TheKentuckian Dec 2014 #12

+1, ++++POLICE TAMPERING WITH EVIDENCE++++++ uponit7771 Dec 2014 #53

Absolutely guilty. BillZBubb Dec 2014 #14

The glove evidence drove me crazy. Staph Dec 2014 #37

Exactly. Plus if you've ever tried to put gloves on a reluctant kid, BillZBubb Dec 2014 #59

My exact thoughts Politicalboi Dec 2014 #95

It was more funny than anything, does it drive you crazy there are thousands of AfAm NoJusticeNoPeace Dec 2014 #79

They had him try on a new pair of the same gloves which did fit JonLP24 Dec 2014 #104

It's Easy to Come Up With "Compelling" Evidence by Tampering AndyTiedye Dec 2014 #68

It would have been next to impossible in this case. BillZBubb Dec 2014 #89

He was alone in several key moments based on his own testimony JonLP24 Dec 2014 #113

So, you have to resort to a conspiracy theory to explain the blood evidence? BillZBubb Dec 2014 #121

How else do you explain the lost blood and walking around with it for several hours? JonLP24 Dec 2014 #153

Another case where the prosecution screwed up royally... Spazito Dec 2014 #16

I if the jury had seen a video of him killing his wife they still wouldn't have convicted him. demosincebirth Dec 2014 #17

I wouldn't go that far... BillZBubb Dec 2014 #60

I stand by my statement. nt demosincebirth Dec 2014 #73

The jury tossed 9 months of evidence out the window Politicalboi Dec 2014 #100

Damn minorities, might have gotten away with ONE. NoJusticeNoPeace Dec 2014 #81

I think he was guilty and a combination of a bad prosecution and the best lawyers OJ could buy davidpdx Dec 2014 #18

What I want to know is who killed JFK? Comrade Grumpy Dec 2014 #19

That's easy, Lee Harvey Oswald! Nt Logical Dec 2014 #22

LOL NoJusticeNoPeace Dec 2014 #82

Why are you asking this? Particularly now? Number23 Dec 2014 #20

Post removed Post removed Dec 2014 #21

You really are not lying. Number23 Dec 2014 #23

We know, but would love to hear the OP explain it. bettyellen Dec 2014 #67

I saw Mark Furhman commenting on the Michael Brown case Nye Bevan Dec 2014 #126

yup, nt seabeyond Dec 2014 #119

I saw Mark Furhman commenting on the Michael Brown case Nye Bevan Dec 2014 #124

LOL! Number23 Dec 2014 #140

He was guilty as fuck, Furman being a racist and Simpson's guilt aren't mutually exclusive rufus dog Dec 2014 #24

Institutionalized racism. lonestarnot Dec 2014 #25

The police framed a guilty man. - n/t lapfog_1 Dec 2014 #26

Oh please .. who else would have motive? He was a wife beater .. may he rot in hell. YOHABLO Dec 2014 #27

Do you think Zimmerman should have been found guilty? JDPriestly Dec 2014 #43

He was ( is) probably guilty but Furhman's bias plus sloppy evidence collection... Smarmie Doofus Dec 2014 #28

too few choices - it wasn't Furman jberryhill Dec 2014 #29

Why are you bringing this up now? OJ is guilty! akbacchus_BC Dec 2014 #30

I took a CJ class from a former police officer. Drunken Irishman Dec 2014 #31

Mr. DI, I like you and your conversation but sometimes you are biased! akbacchus_BC Dec 2014 #33

I...don't even think I mentioned Obama once in my post? Drunken Irishman Dec 2014 #38

I selected your second option but actually the first two are both true tularetom Dec 2014 #32

how about Robert Blake JI7 Dec 2014 #34

Guilty Politicalboi Dec 2014 #110

It was the absolutey correct verdict based on the evidence. KMOD Dec 2014 #35

. Guy Whitey Corngood Dec 2014 #36

I laughed out loud! KMOD Dec 2014 #39

I believe he was guilty but think the verdict was correct. nt Raine Dec 2014 #41

OJ was not guilty because the jury found that the prosecutors did not prove beyond a reasonable JDPriestly Dec 2014 #42

A serial killer performed the act, OJ was there Ichingcarpenter Dec 2014 #47

The question is why did he kill her if he did? SummerSnow Dec 2014 #48

It's been a long time now, and I've forgotten much of that trial which happened KingCharlemagne Dec 2014 #64

I think you meant to say "Ron Goldman." You wrote "Ron Brown." (eom) StevieM Dec 2014 #115

You are absolutely 100% correct. Thanks for the correction\annotation! - nt KingCharlemagne Dec 2014 #116

Not working out the way you hoped, eh? RandiFan1290 Dec 2014 #49

To be honest I expected it to sink fairly quickly. Nye Bevan Dec 2014 #123

I would change the first option to the actual legal standard: beyond a reasonable doubt. pnwmom Dec 2014 #51

johnny cochran was amazing. remember DesertFlower Dec 2014 #54

He was referring to evidence JonLP24 Dec 2014 #91

I wasn't one of those who watched every minute of the trial. NaturalHigh Dec 2014 #57

What about Stellar Dec 2014 #61

My father has an interesting take on this, and had it long before a book came out about it. ScreamingMeemie Dec 2014 #62

Tom, Bert or William? LanternWaste Dec 2014 #63

A bellwether for the LAPD. Orsino Dec 2014 #66

I watched a lot of the trial hifiguy Dec 2014 #69

He was guilty - but the police made tons of mistakes aint_no_life_nowhere Dec 2014 #72

The chain of custody was horrible JonLP24 Dec 2014 #74

One of my husband's legal liberalhistorian Dec 2014 #75

"Some" people will NEVER get over the fact that an AfAm male MAY have gotten NoJusticeNoPeace Dec 2014 #76

Not that he got away with murder... BronxBoy Dec 2014 #87

Possibly guilty, likely guilty, but the shittiest sloppiest prosecution and police work imaginable CBGLuthier Dec 2014 #77

He got off because he was rich. cwydro Dec 2014 #107

my feeling: OJ wasn't a cop noiretextatique Dec 2014 #80

It was like 20 years ago JustAnotherGen Dec 2014 #83

It was a botched prosecution DefenseLawyer Dec 2014 #84

Case was decided when Johnny removed 1 juror... Mike Nelson Dec 2014 #85

I remember his eyes when the verdict was read. That's when I know for sure he did it. Auggie Dec 2014 #86

i don't understand why some people take this case as a personal affront noiretextatique Dec 2014 #88

Well - I'd like to remind people noire that well . . . JustAnotherGen Dec 2014 #142

that...and noiretextatique Dec 2014 #143

30 years? JustAnotherGen Dec 2014 #145

... noiretextatique Dec 2014 #146

That case reminded me never to follow a "media circus" dubbed "trial of the century" LeftInTX Dec 2014 #90

100% agree Politicalboi Dec 2014 #94

I remember the verdict Politicalboi Dec 2014 #92

The handling of the evidence was at-the-very least "sloppy" JonLP24 Dec 2014 #99

Why would there be blood in Cato's yard? Politicalboi Dec 2014 #105

Sloppy handling & the combination of the detectives being in position to mix and plant JonLP24 Dec 2014 #106

Far out stories IMO Politicalboi Dec 2014 #108

Which is far out? JonLP24 Dec 2014 #111

I thought the evidence was overwhelming. tavernier Dec 2014 #97

I'm gonna go with... bobclark86 Dec 2014 #101

One thing I thought was impossible... fadedrose Dec 2014 #102

I don't think the cops proved exactly what happened. They need to follow the rules to make things brewens Dec 2014 #103

I was appalled at how much press this case received. LeftinOH Dec 2014 #117

He was probably guilty, but they botched the investigation big time. As they did in the Darren Erose999 Dec 2014 #118

One of those mixed pipi_k Dec 2014 #120

OJ was a private citizen and not part of our government. Hence, this conflation of OJ and Wilson La Lioness Priyanka Dec 2014 #125

Wait... someone conflated OJ and Wilson? Nye Bevan Dec 2014 #127

someone is conflating one racially based verdict with another La Lioness Priyanka Dec 2014 #129

Who? (nt) Nye Bevan Dec 2014 #130

are we not discussing OJ here because of the Wilson trial? La Lioness Priyanka Dec 2014 #131

I saw Mark Furhman commenting on the Brown case and that reminded me of the OJ Simpson case, Nye Bevan Dec 2014 #132

i think a lot of people, and i am not necessarily saying this is true of you, are La Lioness Priyanka Dec 2014 #133

Don't worry, we got OJ Capt. Obvious Dec 2014 #134

LOL (nt) Nye Bevan Dec 2014 #136

I strongly suspect that Simpson commited both murders Derek V Dec 2014 #135

Not sure. moondust Dec 2014 #139

There was an indictment and a trial. Hard to compare that to Ferguson or Eric Garner stevenleser Dec 2014 #144

+1000 eom noiretextatique Dec 2014 #150

Your feeling on the Medgar Evers murder case verdict? noiretextatique Dec 2014 #147

I assume you mean "Medgar" Evers? Nye Bevan Dec 2014 #148

yep...I meant Medgar noiretextatique Dec 2014 #149