O.j simpson guilty or not guilty.

[pipelineaudio]

Because the court said so in his criminal trial

[Redtail]

Popcorn smiley isn't good enough... We got a ribs smiley?

ETA:

http://images.cheezburger.com/completestore/2009/12/27/129064284248543805.jpg

[LibraryLady]

No, the court said he was not guilty.

[casebro]

No, it was the jury that said "not guilty".

Later, a civil court did find him guilty.

[Thunder]

Jury nullification clearly took place at the criminal OJ trial.

if the trial took place 20 years later, I suspect a different outcome would have occured.

[Ladewig]

Because the court said so in his criminal trial

Is there some political aspect of his case that I am not aware of?

[Arcade22]

Is there some political aspect of his case that I am not aware of?

See this thread:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=163182

[cyclonic]

Innocent men don't put guns to their own head and order his friend to give every police car in LA a tour of the freeway system.

Before he was arrested didn't his lawyer leave the OJ mansion with a bag of unknown contents? (bloody clothes?)

[TexasJack]

No, they said he was guilty (http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/10/04/oj.simpson.verdict/index.html).

[cyclonic]

Guilty or not guilty of double homicide?


Please feel free to comment on why you think OJ is guilty or not guilty of murdering Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman or even why you cannot decide.

[KingMerv00]

There is "guilty in criminal court" and there is "guilty as an objective fact". OJ is the latter, but not the former.

[Caustic Logic]

There is "guilty in criminal court" and there is "guilty as an objective fact". OJ is the latter, but not the former.

Hmmm... Hmmmm... There can be a distinction? What a conundrum. How does one establish this "objective fact?" Why haven't you gone to the authorities with this fact?

(nothing personal, just using your words as a springboard, mate!)

[Redtail]

Guilty, but I believe the prosecutors and investigating officers blew the case.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Guilt or not guilty of what?


Even though I don't know, I voted guilty nonetheless.

[Neally]

Hmmm... Hmmmm... There can be a distinction?
Yes, when one does something wrong, they are guilty of wrong doing. Whether they are convicted in court is a separate issue.
How does one establish this "objective fact?" It's not a matter of establishing it, they either did it, or didn't.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Because the court said so in his criminal trial

Wrong: http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/10/04/oj.simpson.verdict/index.html

[cyclonic]

Guilt or not guilty of what?


Even though I don't know, I voted guilty nonetheless.

Sorry about that, i fixed it.

[Ladewig]

See this thread:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=163182

What does a thread involving three different governments and the actions they have taken have to do with this thread?

[hgc]

No, it was the jury that said "not guilty".

Later, a civil court did find him guilty.


Civil courts deal with matters of liability, not of guilt.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

My vote stands

[Caustic Logic]

Yes, when one does something wrong, they are guilty of wrong doing. Whether they are convicted in court is a separate issue.


Can someone conversely be actually innocent even though they're convicted and thus legally guilty? It would sound stupid to say no at this point. Of course it's possible.

It's not a matter of establishing it, they either did it, or didn't.

The real word is out there, but how do any of us grasp it and say it's a fact? Hint - it's a deep question without an easy answer.

Legally established facts are often the best simulation of truth we can get, and usually close enough, but, as we see, it's not foolproof, especially when big motives and stakes are on the line.

[Caustic Logic]

I'm not gonna vote. It's not my concern really and I never studied it close enough. Now if he were accused of killing 270 people who weren't probably annoying celebrity types themselves, I'd be more interested.

My gut says even tho some of the hysteria over the verdict was annoying, that many people don't get so sure just based on the ol black-man-white-lady superstition. He's probably guilty then (from the very little I know or care) and something went wrong with the trial. It happens sometimes.

[Rolfe]

I'm not at all familiar with the evidence, but the mood-music I hear suggests he's guilty.

Since I don't know, I'd be quite interested if anyone cared to summarise the evidence either way.

Funnily enough, I don't believe one can assume all court verdicts are correct, and accuse everyone who wants to discuss the possibility that a verdict was wrong of being "delusional".

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

Do we need a ist of people who were convicted in the court who were later shown on appeal to be innocent? (The opposite is more problematical because of double jeopardy legisation.)

Barry George
Sally Clark / Donna Anthony / Angela Cannings
The Guildford Six
The Maguire Seven

It goes on and on but it's past my bedtime.

Why is it that there is one case in particular where JREF members feel the need to declare posters to be delusonal because they wish to discuss the possibility of a wrongful conviction?

Rolfe.

[KingMerv00]

Hmmm... Hmmmm... There can be a distinction? What a conundrum.

Not really. People come to incorrect conclusions all of the time. The fact that 12 people found OJ to be not guilty does not mean my opinion will change.

How does one establish this "objective fact?"

Evidence, logic, and science.

Why haven't you gone to the authorities with this fact?

I'm sure they're aware. :rolleyes:

To address the underlying snarky point you are trying to make, I accept that the court system is not perfect. I would not support a second criminal trial for OJ because double jeopardy is a very bad thing.

(nothing personal, just using your words as a springboard, mate!)

That's cold comfort now that you've broken me emotionally... *sob*

[KingMerv00]

Why is it that there is one case in particular where JREF members feel the need to declare posters to be delusonal because they wish to discuss the possibility of a wrongful conviction?

Rolfe.

Is that what this is about?

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Since I don't know, I'd be quite interested if anyone cared to summarise the evidence either way.

It was 15 years ago. Let's just say there was a mountain of evidence against him. And none to show that someone else might have done it. At least none that I recall.

[pipelineaudio]

looks like the trigger happy mods took the fun out of it

[JoeTheJuggler]

There is "guilty in criminal court" and there is "guilty as an objective fact". OJ is the latter, but not the former.

At least as far as the criminal homicide charges go. He's in prison right now because he was found guilty of other crimes.

[PbFoot]

Simply because someone is found "not guilty" in a court of law it does not mean that they did not commit the crime in question. It just means that it could not be proven within the limits of the legal system that the accused committed the crime.

-PbFoot

[cyclonic]

Overwhelming evidense pointing to his guilt but set free by a handpicked jury who let him go because the bloody leather gloves dried out and shrunk in the 2 years it took to get to trial.

remember the blood stains on the crookedly parked bronco?
remember the limo drivers testimony?
remember the bronco chase beamed around the world?

[fuelair]

Overwhelming evidense pointing to his guilt but set free by a handpicked jury who let him go because the bloody leather gloves dried out and shrunk in the 2 years it took to get to trial.

remember the blood stains on the crookedly parked bronco?
remember the limo drivers testimony?
remember the bronco chase beamed around the world?And because the lead detective was an idiot and a racist, the judge was a celebrity fawning rectum, the prosecution was ineffective and the jury was slime. Note that I am NOT against jury nullification BUT NOT when the defendant is clearly guilty of a crime of violence against innocent persons.

[cyclonic]

And because the lead detective was an idiot and a racist, the judge was a celebrity fawning rectum, the prosecution was ineffective and the jury was slime. Note that I am NOT against jury nullification BUT NOT when the defendant is clearly guilty of a crime of violence against innocent persons.

Well said.

[EventHorizon]

the bloody leather gloves dried out and shrunk in the 2 years it took to get to trial.


And the gloves still fit on his hands. This was one of the most amazing things I have ever seen. OJ Simpson is wearing the gloves used in the crime. He's holding up his gloved hands to the jury, and his lawyers are telling the jury that the gloves that he is wearing don't fit. Let me repeat that: HE IS WEARING THE FREAKING GLOVES! THEY ARE ON HIS HANDS! And his lawyers are telling the jury that they don't fit on his hands even though the jury can clearly see that he is wearing the gloves. Unbelievable. That's like someone getting away with copping a feel by telling the woman who he just felt up that she wasn't just felt up. It's absolutely astonishing.

[Redtail]

Daaaaamn.... I guess Hindsight is 20/10...

[TexasJack]

And because the lead detective was an idiot and a racist

The thing is, Fuhrman wasn't even the lead detective in that case, Philip Vannatter was.

[cyclonic]

Remember what the police commisioner said when asked will the police search for the real killer/killers now?

correct me if im wrong, going off my memory here.

"No, we had the real killer but the jury let him go!"

[Cain]

I was browsing the Lexicon of Stupidity in a bookstore yesterday and came across an awesome, almost OJ-like admission. This guy fires his lawyer; defending himself he was doing a good job until the convenience store clerk testified, and she identified him as the robber. This guy then loses his cool and says, "I should've blown your ****in' head off... if I was the one there." The main difference between that case and the Simpson one is that OJ didn't do it.... but if he did I'm sure it was because he loved Nicole.

[Redtail]

Remember what the police commisioner said when asked will the police search for the real killer/killers now?

correct me if im wrong, going off my memory here.

"No, we had the real killer but the jury let him go!"

I'm going off my memory too, but didn't the guy who had the DNA evidence disappear for a bit?

[Caustic Logic]

Wow, something motivated some people here to learn the details of a flawed court case against a guy who killed two people. Yet no one will look closely at a case where there are serious allegations the murderers of 270 innocent people have gone Scot free (pun just now invented) while a politically convenient Libyan was gaoled in their stead. Please tell me it's not just celebrity status, media saturation, and groupthink that made you all so much more interested in OJ than Lockerbie. It's your drive for social justice, isn't it?

[cyclonic]

Wow, something motivated some people here to learn the details of a flawed court case against a guy who killed two people. Yet no one will look closely at a case where there are serious allegations the murderers of 270 innocent people have gone Scot free (pun just now invented) while a politically convenient Libyan was gaoled in their stead. Please tell me it's not just celebrity status, media saturation, and groupthink that made you all so much more interested in OJ than Lockerbie. It's your drive for social justice, isn't it?

Col. gadaffi should have been arrested and imprisoned for life and i mean until that s.o.b. died of old age.

[Caustic Logic]

Col. gadaffi should have been arrested and imprisoned for life and i mean until that s.o.b. died of old age.

Yeah, well O.J. was innocent, framed by a white power structure that couldn't accept his success, and all the racists that went after him should be put in Guantanamo Bay.

BTW, the only evidence against any Libyan is that against al Megrahi and Fhimah, and some agenda-driven CIA "chatter" suggesting wider "meetings" and "linkages" they had with other Libyans. He was not covering for col. Gaddafy, if he were a fall guy. There's some confusion on that. It was actual the PFLPGC, operatives of several nations, the Iranian government, and some part by Syria, and a security breach in London that most likely blew up PA103. But yeah, col. Gaddafy will do as we already know he's ultimately responsible for the story we know NOTHING about except that Megrahi was convicted so it MUST be true.

But we know which vehicles were spattered with whose blood how they were parked in Simpson's driveway, researched leather shrinkage over time, considering local humidity, and so on.

Just sayin.'

[SezMe]

cyclonic, why now? It's been a looong time, OJ is in the clink for other crimes and is likely to be an old man before he gets out...if at all. Who cares?

[cyclonic]

Yeah, well O.J. was innocent, framed by a white power structure that couldn't accept his success, and all the racists that went after him should be put in Guantanamo Bay.

Just sayin.'

Success? playing a stooge in the b-grade naked gun series?

having survived football to retirement?

only a racist would bring up the race card.

red card for you.

[cyclonic]

cyclonic, why now? It's been a looong time, OJ is in the clink for other crimes and is likely to be an old man before he gets out...if at all. Who cares?

I don't like ANY man getting away with murder.

Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman are still dead.

[SezMe]

I don't like ANY man getting away with murder.

Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman are still dead.
Still does not speak to my question of why now.

[The Fool]

appears to me the prosecution fabricated some stuff...which trows doubt on the rest of th evidence. I agree with the Not Guilty verdict and I think he did it.

[Darth Rotor]

I'm not at all familiar with the evidence, but the mood-music I hear suggests he's guilty.

Since I don't know, I'd be quite interested if anyone cared to summarise the evidence either way.

Funnily enough, I don't believe one can assume all court verdicts are correct, and accuse everyone who wants to discuss the possibility that a verdict was wrong of being "delusional".

Rolfe.
Recommended reading:
Vincent Bugliosi
Outrage

If your are interested in this case.

DR

[Darth Rotor]

Guilty, but I believe the prosecutors and investigating officers blew the case.
I suspect that Clark blew Darden, but that's probably OT.

DR

[Alt+F4]

Now if he were accused of killing 270 people who weren't probably annoying celebrity types themselves, I'd be more interested.

Ron Goldman was a waiter.

[Ian Osborne]

Guilty, but the prosecution dropped the ball and lost what should've been an open-and-shut case.

[TexasJack]

Recommended reading:
Vincent Bugliosi
Outrage

If your are interested in this case.

DR

It sure is a good book. He shows the errors in the prosecuation and how he he would have presented the case. He is a brilliant prosecutor, and if he had led the case, I'm sure OJ would have fried.

[dudalb]

And because the lead detective was an idiot and a racist, the judge was a celebrity fawning rectum, the prosecution was ineffective and the jury was slime. Note that I am NOT against jury nullification BUT NOT when the defendant is clearly guilty of a crime of violence against innocent persons.

Agreed, but let's add a defense which ruthlessly played the Race Card, regardless of the damage it might do to race relations in such a high profile case.
The only good thing is that you have seen damn few murder cases on Live TV since then. Live TV in a courtroom hopelessly distorts the legal process, and normal reporting and coverage fully gives the public "the right to know".

[Alferd_Packer]

Overwhelming evidense pointing to his guilt but set free by a handpicked jury who let him go because the bloody leather gloves dried out and shrunk in the 2 years it took to get to trial.




Actually, they didn't need to have dried out.

it is next to impossible to put a pair of snug fitting gloves on over latex gloves.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Remember what the police commisioner said when asked will the police search for the real killer/killers now?

correct me if im wrong, going off my memory here.

"No, we had the real killer but the jury let him go!"

LOL! I don't recall his exact words, but I remember when the question was asked. It was Gil Garcceti (sp?) - he looked at the reporter like they had three heads!

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Agreed, but let's add a defense which ruthlessly played the Race Card, regardless of the damage it might do to race relations in such a high profile case.

Let's also add 12 stupid jurors.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Guilty, but the prosecution dropped the ball and lost what should've been an open-and-shut case.

I disagree. The prosecution made it perfectly clear that OJ, and no one else, killed them.

People want to blame the prosecution when they should be blaming the jury. But the PC crowd doesn't want to do that, because 10 (IIRC) of the 12 were black. It would be racist to say they were stupid!

[Pardalis]

As far as the law is concerned, he's not guilty, even though it pretty much looks like he is, he also acts as if he was, but I had to choose "not guilty".

[Rolfe]

Still does not speak to my question of why now.


Possibly connected to this.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5452570#post5452570

It seems that any attempt to initiate discussion of the seriously threadbare nature of the evidence against Abdelbaset al-Megrahi elicits only passionate declarations that court verdicts cannot be wrong and anyone who questions the guilt of a convicted suspect is delusional. (Even if the possibility of a wrongful conviction has been officially acknowledged.)

Of course not everyone wants to discuss everything, but the attacks on Caustic Logic merely for raising the issue were not only ridiculous, they were prime illustrations of why he was asking the question in the first place. Why is this one issue getting the "fingers in ears and hum real loud" treatment?

However, the thread in question has been moved to CT, which is what the scoffers wanted, to keep it out of general discussion and allow the issue to be ignored once again. Yes, there are CT aspects to the case of course, but the simple question of whether the evidence was indeed strong enough to support the conviction doesn't seem to me to be one of them.

As far as OJ is concerned, I'm in the same position with that case as I was with the Megrahi case a few years ago. I wasn't familiar with the evidence, but I've read considerable commentary by people who are familiar with it, and that leads me to think the verdict was wrong.

In the Megrahi case, I became familiar with the evidence, and formed my own opinion that it actually pointed to him being innocent. In the Simpson case, I haven't studied the details so I don't know the significance of the fit of the gloves, for example. However, I note in this thread several attempts to support the "not guilty" verdict which are far more persuasive than any attempts I have encountered to support the guilty verdict against Megrahi.

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

Oh yes, and where's the Planet X option?

Rolfe.

[Brainster]

Yep, this thread like several others is just a fishing expedition for more investigation of Lockerbie. It has nothing to do with OJ Simpson.

[jhunter1163]

Read the book American Tragedy if you have any scintilla of doubt that OJ is guilty of double homicide. There's simply no doubt of his guilt, none whatsoever.

That being said, I've always thought that the jury probably figured that, if they had brought back a guilty verdict in such a racially charged case, Los Angeles would have burned for days and Nicole and Ron would still be dead. Better to acquit him and prevent the riots.

[theprestige]

As far as the law is concerned, he's not guilty, even though it pretty much looks like he is, he also acts as if he was, but I had to choose "not guilty".
Out of curiosity, why did you have to choose "not guilty"?

You're not bound by law to agree with the jury's decision, are you?

Juries aren't infallible. And we're not required to adopt an agnostic, one-size-fits all policy, whereby we refrain from disagreeing with the courts in every case. It's entirely possible to agree with the courts in some cases, and disagree in others.

Just because I think the court system is better than the lynch mob system, and therefore I refrain from lynching OJ just because I think he's guilty, that doesn't mean I have to agree with the findings of the court.

[TexasJack]

Perhaps the other option should have been "innocent"

[cyclonic]

Possibly connected to this.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5452570#post5452570

Rolfe.

I have not even read that thread.

I saw the other thread about oj and thought a poll on his guilt would be intresting so here we are.

[cyclonic]

Perhaps the other option should have been "innocent"

Isn't 'not guilty' the same as 'innocent'?

[Rolfe]

I have not even read that thread.

I saw the other thread about oj and thought a poll on his guilt would be intresting so here we are.


Yes, but that's still the connection. The answer to "why now".

If anyone would care to post a short synposis of the salient points of the evidence, I'd be very interested, since I don't have the recommended book to hand right now. What's the point about the gloves, for example?

Rolfe.

[jhunter1163]

Key points in the evidence:

1. Ron Goldman's blood was found in Simpson's Bronco. Simpson and Goldman never met.

2. A hair sample was found on a knit cap at the scene that matched Simpson's hair.

3. Footprints in the blood were found to have been made by a pair of Bruno Magli shoes. Simpson denied ever having owned a pair of such shoes. During the civil trial, pictures of Simpson wearing Bruno Magli shoes were entered into evidence (the criminal prosecution never contacted NBC to see if they had pics of Simpson's shoes)

There are many, many other points, but those are the ones I remember off the top of my head.

[Rolfe]

Thanks. Do you really think the jury let him off to avoid race riots?









And if that's the case, isn't that a conspiracy theory? :boxedin:

Rolfe.

[cyclonic]

Critical pieces of evidence in the Simpson trial are a pair of bloody gloves. The left-handed glove was found outside the residence of Nicole Brown Simpson, and the right-handed glove was recovered from O.J. Simpson's estate. During the June 15, 1995 court session, Simpson put on the gloves and they appeared to be too small. The prosecution contends that the gloves, once drenched in blood, have shrunk. The defense believes that if the glove doesn't fit, Simpson is not the killer.

"If it doesn't fit, you must acquit"


S2YbY9eYmdM


Of course the gloves wont fit over the latex gloves, as alferd packer has already pointed out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O._J._Simpson_murder_case

[Rolfe]

Thanks, I should have thought of trying Wiki. Looks interesting.

Rolfe.

[TexasJack]

Isn't 'not guilty' the same as 'innocent'?

No, not guilty just means there wasn't enough evidence, according to the jury, to convict him. He could have still done the deed. Innocent means he didn't do it.

[TexasJack]

3. Footprints in the blood were found to have been made by a pair of Bruno Magli shoes. Simpson denied ever having owned a pair of such shoes. During the civil trial, pictures of Simpson wearing Bruno Magli shoes were entered into evidence (the criminal prosecution never contacted NBC to see if they had pics of Simpson's shoes)

There are many, many other points, but those are the ones I remember off the top of my head.

No, this was introduced in the criminal trial, and they did show pictures of him wearing them at a football game (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruno_Magli). The key to this testimony was that this model was not a popular shoe. It was just another piece of evidence the jury ignored.

[XBoxWarrior]

Guilty or not guilty of double homicide?

Did you miss the verdict back in '95?

Not Guilty

Now, had you simply asked if he killed them...I'd say yes, and I lived in LA at that time. The Rodney King story played well into the hands of Johnie Cochran, as he lead the jury on a tale of racist and lying cops. It was a tit for tat.

why is this in "Politics"?

[Dog Town]

I have not seen this ever commented on, but as an owner of many dogs, has always been telling. They owned an Akita, raised by both of them, OJ & Nicole. It's prints were all over the crime scene. An unknown assailant would have been mauled by that dog. Sadly, it was probably used to seeing him bounce her around a bit.


My .02

ETA: Guilty!

[cyclonic]

I have not seen this ever commented on, but as an owner of many dogs, has always been telling. They owned an Akita, raised by both of them, OJ & Nicole. It's prints were all over the crime scene. An unknown assailant would have been mauled by that dog. Sadly, it was probably used to seeing him bounce her around a bit.


My .02

ETA: Guilty!

Excellent observation!

[MattusMaximus]

Who cares? And why the hell is this in the Politics subforum?

[Pardalis]

Out of curiosity, why did you have to choose "not guilty"?

I just gave the explanation in my post. We can speculate all day about him being guilty (and he probably is), but the law is the only thing we can all agree on. Not guilty was the verdict.

You're not bound by law to agree with the jury's decision, are you?
No, but it's the only thing we can all agree on.

Just because I think the court system is better than the lynch mob system, and therefore I refrain from lynching OJ just because I think he's guilty, that doesn't mean I have to agree with the findings of the court.Sure, and I agree, but again, as far as the law is concerned, he is not guilty, and forever will be, since he can't be prosecuted twice for the same crime.

[Drudgewire]

Absolutely 100% not guilty. He said so himself. Why would he lie? :D

[daenku32]

Not guilty. The glove didn't fit and I loved the Naked Gun series.

[Thunder]

Guilty, but I believe the prosecutors and investigating officers blew the case.

yuppers

[scratchy]

I just gave the explanation in my post. We can speculate all day about him being guilty (and he probably is), but the law is the only thing we can all agree on. Not guilty was the verdict.

No, but it's the only thing we can all agree on.

Sure, and I agree, but again, as far as the law is concerned, he is not guilty, and forever will be, since he can't be prosecuted twice for the same crime.
We are not asked here to make a new verdict with legal consequenses, just to express an opinion. In cases where we dont know much more than the verdict, its sound to assume it's correct. In this case the facts are abundantly (is that a word?) available to all, and the verdict itself doesnt ad much or anything to our knowledge, so it's reasonable to have an independent opinion based on those facts.

Wasnt an option, but guilty as hell, thats my opinion.

[XBoxWarrior]

politics? Really?

the farker was Acquitted of the murders...

Not Guilty

like it or not, he was Acquitted...even if he killed them both.

[Caustic Logic]

Yep, this thread like several others is just a fishing expedition for more investigation of Lockerbie. It has nothing to do with OJ Simpson.

No actually it's Cyclonic's curious response to being reminded of his lingering anger about the OJ case> That was apparently done by pipelineaudio's brilliant thread OJ was innocent (Because the court said so in his criminal trial) (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=163259). This in turn was apparently a direct off-shoot of my Politics (sloppily conceived and titled) forum thread dialog on Lockerie theories (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=163182), where people were insisting they needn't examine a case already decided in a court. Like a ball tossed off thataway, the people ran to fetch, tripping over each other to denounce this lousy ruling and relive the details they were once motivated to learn about this oh so important event. This thread then is one of those funny trips I was amused to see. Kudos, pipey!

Both OJ threads remain in politics, the why do you believe Megrahi is guilty thread is in CT woosville now. Eh. I could just hijack this thread...

Rolfe as always is sheer genius here, and yeah, going a little over the top arguably, and me too, a little. And oh how people who really really don't want to look at hat will whine about it. But okay, enough acing like an info bully. Rolfe too, I'm not your boss but it's not nice to keep pestering and batting people you know you've got pinned down. Just let them go already. There is bigger game to be found. Rrar.

[Caustic Logic]

Thanks. Do you really think the jury let him off to avoid race riots?









And if that's the case, isn't that a conspiracy theory? :boxedin:

Rolfe.







Ba-da-BOOOM!

[jhunter1163]

@ Rolfe:

In my personal opinion, yes, the jury let him off figuring that they couldn't do anything for Ron and Nicole, but in the extremely racially charged atmosphere of the time (especially after the Fuhrman testimony) they could prevent race riots in which who knows how many people might die and who knows how much property would be destroyed. Maybe that is a conspiracy theory, but I didn't write the OP.. ;)

[cyclonic]

Yep, this thread like several others is just a fishing expedition for more investigation of Lockerbie. It has nothing to do with OJ Simpson.

This thread has nothing to do with the 'lockerbie' thread that i have never read nor will i ever read.

This thread is about if you think oj murdered nicole simpson and ron goldman.

Pat you shouldn't post like a 911truther would.

[cyclonic]

Some oj supporters were man enough to admit they were wrong.

Some of Simpson's supporters changed their minds in the years following his trials, as he seemed to dodge the civil jury's verdict for the victims' families and appeared not to search for the "real killer" as he had promised to do.

OJ must have thought the 'real killer' was a golf pro living in florida, he searched every chance he had, going undercover as a lousy golfer or was that a caddy? can't remember exactly.

[Caustic Logic]

Both OJ threads remain in politics, the why do you believe Megrahi is guilty thread is in CT woosville now. Eh. I could just hijack this thread...

Okay, and now that too has changed. History, Literature, and the arts here we come and the "Lockerbie fishing" has dissipated (metastasized?) out into thee separate subforums. Awesome, or at least amusing.

This thread has nothing to do with the 'lockerbie' thread that i have never read nor will i ever read.

That's what I was sayin.' And you just keep right on not reading that thread. (ETA: while re-living ancient history, 'cause it ain't literature) You couldn't handle it anyway - It's just too hardcore.

[Bob Klase]

As far as the law is concerned, he's not guilty, even though it pretty much looks like he is, he also acts as if he was, but I had to choose "not guilty".

Sure, and I agree, but again, as far as the law is concerned, he is not guilty,

But you're not the law, so you're allowed to have an opinion that disagrees with what the jury says.

[daenku32]

This is how you get away with it:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/01/25/48hours/murder/main325643.shtml

[Rolfe]

That's hazardous. There are proposals afoot in Scotland to end the prohibition on double jeopardy, and if that happens, it will be retrospective. A similar change in the law in the US, which isn't impossible, could see that guy in court again, and convicted.

Rolfe.

[I Ratant]

politics? Really?

the farker was Acquitted of the murders...

Not Guilty

like it or not, he was Acquitted...even though he killed them both.
.
Fixt that fer ya.

[dudalb]

Let's also add 12 stupid jurors.


I won't argue there.

[theprestige]

I just gave the explanation in my post. We can speculate all day about him being guilty (and he probably is), but the law is the only thing we can all agree on. Not guilty was the verdict.

No, but it's the only thing we can all agree on.
Of course we can all agree on the fact that the jury returned a verdict of "not guilty". But that seems like a point too obvious to mention. It also seems like a silly question to ask: "Do you believe the jury in the OJ trial returned a verdict of 'not guilty'?"

Sure, and I agree, but again, as far as the law is concerned, he is not guilty, and forever will be, since he can't be prosecuted twice for the same crime.
Right, but again, what is it about the law's opinion that obligates you to share it?

[Rolfe]

Right, but again, what is it about the law's opinion that obligates you to share it?


Isn't that kind of where we came in? Srsly?

Rolfe.

[daenku32]

That's hazardous. There are proposals afoot in Scotland to end the prohibition on double jeopardy, and if that happens, it will be retrospective. A similar change in the law in the US, which isn't impossible, could see that guy in court again, and convicted.

Rolfe.

Law? Try the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

PS. The guy, Mel Ignatow, died last year.

[cyclonic]

VINCENT BUGLIOSI VS. O.J. SIMPSON

This series consists of audio excerpts taken from a 12-hour made-for-video program that features lawyer Vincent Bugliosi, entitled "Absolutely 100% Guilty", which was produced in 1999 by Platinum Productions and released in a handsome 6-Tape VHS boxed set. (A shorter DVD version was also available for a limited time several years ago.)

"Absolutely 100% Guilty" is really a video extension of Bugliosi's 1996 best-selling book ("Outrage") on the O.J. Simpson murder case.

These YouTube audio clips contain several of the final portions of the lengthy "Absolutely" program, wherein Mr. Bugliosi goes in front of a "jury" once again (albeit a "simulated" one) to tell us why O.J. Simpson is as "guilty as sin" of murdering Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman on June 12, 1994.

Part 1 of my series begins with a video clip of the jury's preposterous "Not Guilty" verdict as it was being revealed to millions of Americans on live television at the conclusion of Simpson's Los Angeles trial on October 3, 1995.

Then Vincent T. Bugliosi takes over in 1999, and shows us what the prosecutors at Simpson's trial SHOULD have said to that jury four years earlier.

10 part playlist
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=C7FA78DE45E7D251

[PingOfPong]

If the glove don't fit...

S2YbY9eYmdM

I remember watching this and thinking how incredibly stupid it was. OJ is obviously contorting his hand and squirming to make it look like the glove only barely went on. Also, what do you expect when you try to slide leather over latex? Leather doesn't work well with latex... umm, as people have told me.

OJ got away with murder. Oh well, worse things have happened.

[kookbreaker]

If the glove don't fit...

S2YbY9eYmdM

I remember watching this and thinking how incredibly stupid it was. OJ is obviously contorting his hand and squirming to make it look like the glove only barely went on. Also, what do you expect when you try to slide leather over latex? Leather doesn't work well with latex... umm, as people have told me.


The thing about the glove is: If they are OJ's gloves or not, those gloves are without a doubt the gloves of the killer.

Now I know as a good skeptic the silliness of imparting an emotional state to an inanimate object such as a pair of gloves. Think of Wiseman's experiments about a sweater he claims belonged to a serial killer.

But here is OJ, hardly a skeptic, about to put on the gloves of the person who killed his wife. The same wife he said he would take a bullet for.

What is OJ doing when putting on these killer's gloves? Laughing, joking, he's having a ball not putting on those gloves.

[TexasJack]

What is OJ doing when putting on these killer's gloves? Laughing, joking, he's having a ball not putting on those gloves.

An interesting side note from this failed experiment was the admission by OJ's former agent that he was told not to take his arthritic medication. Hence, his hands swelled up, making the fit impossible.

[I Ratant]

The thing about the glove is: If they are OJ's gloves or not, those gloves are without a doubt the gloves of the killer.

Now I know as a good skeptic the silliness of imparting an emotional state to an inanimate object such as a pair of gloves. Think of Wiseman's experiments about a sweater he claims belonged to a serial killer.

But here is OJ, hardly a skeptic, about to put on the gloves of the person who killed his wife. The same wife he said he would take a bullet for.

What is OJ doing when putting on these killer's gloves? Laughing, joking, he's having a ball not putting on those gloves.
.
My thoughts too!
I wouldn't have touched those gloves with your hands, in that situation.

[theprestige]

Isn't that kind of where we came in? Srsly?

Rolfe.
I'm still waiting for a coherent answer, though.

[jayman]

Vincent Bugliosi said something like,

If O.J. is innocent then these two people (Nicole Brown & Ron Goldman) are still alive.

O.J.'s fresh blood was found at the murder scene. The victim's blood was found inside O.J.'s car and home.

I guess I'll have to read Bugliosi's book (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0393330834/ref=s9_simp_gw_s0_p14_i3?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=center-2&pf_rd_r=103CKCKSS1T7HSQCXF7M&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=470938631&pf_rd_i=507846).

Bugliosi appeared on Geraldo Rivera's show back in 1995:

Part 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eWhP7Jq2J-Y&feature=related)

Part 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vd-NtRbbYB0&NR=1)

[cyclonic]

Vincent Bugliosi said something like,



O.J.'s fresh blood was found at the murder scene. The victim's blood was found inside O.J.'s car and home.

I guess I'll have to read Bugliosi's book (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0393330834/ref=s9_simp_gw_s0_p14_i3?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=center-2&pf_rd_r=103CKCKSS1T7HSQCXF7M&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=470938631&pf_rd_i=507846).

Bugliosi appeared on Geraldo Rivera's show back in 1995:

Part 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eWhP7Jq2J-Y&feature=related)

Part 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vd-NtRbbYB0&NR=1)

Here is part 3 of that interview.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jtCSlMWT7to


In California the penalty for a cop who frames someone in a murder case is DEATH

[Skeptic Ginger]

The poll doesn't ask what was decided in court. It asks what the pollee thinks. I saw enough of the trial to draw the reasonable conclusion he was guilty.

[luchog]

Not Guilty By Reason of Celebrity.

[Ikarus]

Oh yes, and where's the Planet X option?

Rolfe.
Exactly! :mad:

[Vortigern99]

The evidence is overwhelming:

OJ's blood is found at the murder scene, and the victims' blood in OJ's car.

OJ's hair in a cap found at the murder scene.

One bloody glove found at the murder scene, one at OJ's house.

A deep cut on OJ's knuckle, to the cause of which he claims ignorance.

A shoe-print found in a pool of blood at the murder scene matches a brand of rare shoes, which OJ claims never to have owned or worn, but of which there exist pictures on OJ's feet in public.

OJ's behavior throughout his attempted flight (with a disguise, passport and $8750 in cash); at his arrest, OJ's apology to the police for fleeing (rather than protestations of false arrest); during the trial (laughing and joking when the gloves don't fit); and following the trial (reneging on his promise to bring the "killers" to justice).

The only possible defense to this cascading mountain of evidence against OJ, and the tact which the defense team successfully took, was that the evidence might have been planted by the "racist" LAPD.

Without further examining Mark Fuhrman's job history (which reveals a man interested in civil and human rights irrespective of race or ethnicity), a jury of mainly black men and women -- some or all of whom probably suffered some degree of racist persecution in their lifetimes, possibly even from the police -- decided that reasonable doubt had been sufficiently cast on the case.

I cannot say I blame the jury or find them at fault; reasonable doubt is a subtle concept, and here the prosecution dropped the ball by not devoting more time and effort to countering the charges of racism by the defense team. These charges were of course absurd; OJ was a friend and fund-raiser for the LAPD, a beloved sports figure and comedic actor -- not a target of racial victimization. The prosecution erred by letting these claims lie, misunderstanding the emotional effect they would have on a jury predisposed by a shared ethnicity to sympathize with the accused's (invented) plight.

[cyclonic]

Oh yes, and where's the Planet X option?

Rolfe.

What is the planet X option?

[Ikarus]

What is the planet X option?

A couple of options from the top of my head: The fact that we are too far away to have a proper opinion and that it doesn't matter; that we're informed through media which have other concerns besides the truth, so we can't know enough of what there is to know; that this thread is speculative and it's poll has no purpose in that and if it has, it is to set a tone; that guilt, ultimately, isn't a matter of popular opinion, even if you're a celebrity; or that some people don't care enough to read, but still like to vote.

That is not the whole content of the planet X option, but those are pretty decent reasons to have had one.

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

Innocent men don't put guns to their own head and order his friend to give every police car in LA a tour of the freeway system.




Incorrect. Innocent people about to be arrested for crimes they didn't do absolutely do run from the police. Or do very desperate and bizarre things, including seriously contemplating suicide or threatening it (whether the threat is serious or not.)

OJ, however, is not one of them. He is (in all probability) guilty- but based on the evidence against him in the original crime.

Judging alleged criminals by their behavior after the crime is a prejudiced and simplistic way of thinking and one you should almost always avoid.

[cyclonic]

A couple of options from the top of my head: The fact that we are too far away to have a proper opinion and that it doesn't matter; that we're informed through media which have other concerns besides the truth, so we can't know enough of what there is to know; that this thread is speculative and it's poll has no purpose in that and if it has, it is to set a tone; that guilt, ultimately, isn't a matter of popular opinion, even if you're a celebrity; or that some people don't care enough to read, but still like to vote.

That is not the whole content of the planet X option, but those are pretty decent reasons to have had one.

OK, thanks.

Anyone can join just about any forum and try become whoever they want to be .

[cyclonic]

Incorrect. Innocent people about to be arrested for crimes they didn't do absolutely do run from the police. Or do very desperate and bizarre things, including seriously contemplating suicide or threatening it (whether the threat is serious or not.)
I am sure you are right, but i think its rare.
can you please link me to 3 cases where innocent people were told they were going to be arrested for a crime they didn't commit.

OJ, however, is not one of them. He is (in all probability) guilty- but based on the evidence against him in the original crime.
guilty as hell.

Judging alleged criminals by their behavior after the crime is a prejudiced and simplistic way of thinking and one you should almost always avoid.
i totally disagree with you on that point.

[Pardalis]

Right, but again, what is it about the law's opinion that obligates you to share it?

I just think opinions are ultimately meaningless, the law is what has practical bearing on reality, the only thing that binds us, even if it's wrong.

Why do we even have them then?

[cyclonic]

I just think opinions are ultimately meaningless, the law is what has practical bearing on reality, the only thing that binds us, even if it's wrong.

Why do we even have them then?

But it was the opinions of 12 jurors that let OJ go free.
What made those jurors think he was innocent?
something none of us had to put up with:hours and hours,days and days,weeks and weeks of johnnie telling them the lapd is corrupt, furnham framed OJ,cops are racist, they planted it. right in their faces! for all practical purposes, cochran brainwashed them.
Tell a lie enough times and it becomes true.

[HumanityBlues]

I gotta say. Even though OJ was clearly guilty (we all know this), I'm not sure I would have found him guilty simply because I've actually listened to the Mark Fuhrman tapes. The guy goes on and on about n-word this, n-word that, and then boasts about framing black people for crimes they had nothing to do with. As a juror, that might put enough doubt into my mind having been properly sequestered. Given the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard, I don't think I could've said guilty, even though I'd be almost positive.

But the guy clearly did it. C'mon.

With respect to this quote from EeneyMinnieMoe: "Judging alleged criminals by their behavior after the crime is a prejudiced and simplistic way of thinking and one you should almost always avoid."

I think this really depends on how strong the actions indicate guilt versus how strong our suspicion of guilt may cloud our view in making a judgment on one's actions, if that makes any sense. For instance, take the Casey Anthony case where the mother's child was missing and she didn't do anything for a month. That strikes me as pretty damning circumstantial evidence. However, in less extreme cases, I do see a tendency for people to enforce the "well I would have done this" standard on other people, which is very dangerous.

The problem is, in the OJ Simpson case, it wasn't a very circumstantial case. There was a shiz ton of direct evidence.

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

I am sure you are right, but i think its rare.
can you please link me to 3 cases where innocent people were told they were going to be arrested for a crime they didn't commit.



These may not be the strongest cases but-

Man runs from cops when he is falsely accused of a robbery he did not commit, tragedy ensues:

http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2009/05/24/mistaken-identity-excessive-force-puts-innocent-man-in-coma/

Innocent mans runs away when told he is wanted for questioning, tragedy ensues:

http://www.timeslive.co.za/news/article176052.ece

Man is mistaken for a suicide bomber, is approached by 20 cops and runs from them after they ID themselves as the police, tragedy ensues:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4712061.stm

[cyclonic]

These may not be the strongest cases but-

Man runs from cops when he is falsely accused of a robbery he did not commit, tragedy ensues:

http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2009/05/24/mistaken-identity-excessive-force-puts-innocent-man-in-coma/

Innocent mans runs away when told he is wanted for questioning, tragedy ensues:

http://www.timeslive.co.za/news/article176052.ece

Man is mistaken for a suicide bomber, is approached by 20 cops and runs from them after they ID themselves as the police, tragedy ensues:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4712061.stm

You really think these 3 cases are similar to the oj bronco chase?

Spur of the moment run from the cops is not what oj did.
those 3 guys might have committed other crimes.

[hgc]

I just think opinions are ultimately meaningless, the law is what has practical bearing on reality, the only thing that binds us, even if it's wrong.

Why do we even have them then?


Why do we have what? Laws, or opinions?

We have opinions because we take a look around at the world, and .. you know .. form opinions about it. It's pretty hard to imagine that of all the people who followed the extremely public events of the OJ murder trial would, at the end, turn around and say, "No opinion here. Whatever the jury says is all I need to think about what happened."

The law has practical bearing on the disposition of the case. It's not definitive of reality transpired.

[Rolfe]

Man is mistaken for a suicide bomber, is approached by 20 cops and runs from them after they ID themselves as the police, tragedy ensues:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4712061.stm


Just a quick correction here. de Menezes didn't "run from 20 cops after they IDed themselves as police". That was false reporting, and absolutely proved not to be the case by subsequent enquiries. This is probably the #1 example of why "eye-witness testimony" should be regarded with a very critical eye.

de Menezes was sitting in his seat on the train when the armed police entered it. The armed police were entirely unidentified and not at that point waving guns. When he realised that another "passenger" (one of the plain-clothes surveillance squad) was pointing him out to these newcomers, he looked up from his newspaper, and then, as he was approached, he stood up.

One of the policemen grasped him round the torso and upper arms and forced him back into his seat. In that position he was shot seven (I think) times in the head at point-blank range.

It's unfortunate that the fantasy version concocted by an imaginative bystander was half way round the world before the truth was figured out. I'm just posting this to set the record straight.

Rolfe.

[cyclonic]

Just a quick correction here. de Menezes didn't "run from 20 cops after they IDed themselves as police". That was false reporting, and absolutely proved not to be the case by subsequent enquiries. This is probably the #1 example of why "eye-witness testimony" should be regarded with a very critical eye.

de Menezes was sitting in his seat on the train when the armed police entered it. The armed police were entirely unidentified and not at that point waving guns. When he realised that another "passenger" (one of the plain-clothes surveillance squad) was pointing him out to these newcomers, he looked up from his newspaper, and then, as he was approached, he stood up.

One of the policemen grasped him round the torso and upper arms and forced him back into his seat. In that position he was shot seven (I think) times in the head at point-blank range.

It's unfortunate that the fantasy version concocted by an imaginative bystander was half way round the world before the truth was figured out. I'm just posting this to set the record straight.

Rolfe.

Thats really bad.

[Rolfe]

Yeah, it was indeed very, very bad. However, it turned out that nobody was at fault and the commander in charge of the operation just got a gong in the recent New Year's honours list.

Sigh.

Rolfe.

[Belz...]

There is "guilty in criminal court" and there is "guilty as an objective fact". OJ is the latter, but not the former.

Although I know it's true in a lot of cases, I hope you don't ignore court decisions on a regular basis. Otherwise any accused declared innocent would be as good as guilty, anyway.

[cyclonic]

Yeah, it was indeed very, very bad. However, it turned out that nobody was at fault and the commander in charge of the operation just got a gong in the recent New Year's honours list.

Sigh.

Rolfe.

Holy $%&@! "NOBODY WAS AT FAULT! thats hard to believe.
How many fired the seven bullets?
Did the victim have his hands in his bag?

[cyclonic]

Judging alleged criminals by their behavior after the crime is a prejudiced and simplistic way of thinking and one you should almost always avoid.

It certainly didn't help lindy chamberlain when the australian public fed by the media in a feeding frenzy, convicted her and hung her out to dry on the 6.00 news. shameful australian history.

So maybe we should leave judging to professionals..... wait, what about de menezes?

Ok, i get your point now EeneyMinnieMoe, i agree with you.

[Rolfe]

Holy $%&@! "NOBODY WAS AT FAULT! thats hard to believe.
How many fired the seven bullets?
Did the victim have his hands in his bag?


I think it was two people who fired the bullets, just off the top of my head.

The victim didn't have a bag. He wasn't carrying anything at all, having left his toolbox at the house where he was returning to finish a job (he was an electrician). He picked up the free newspaper on his way into the station, used his season ticket to get past the barrier, went slowly down the escalator, sprinted the last few yards when he saw the train was already in the station with its doors open (but it turned out it wasn't actually about to depart, which is a pity considering what happened next), got on the train, looked around to select which seat he was going to choose, then sat down to read the newspaper.

He was wearing a white t-shirt, denim jeans and a short denim jacket which was flapping loose (not buttoned). It should have been obvious he had no suicide belt or rucksack. He had originally been (correctly) identified as Caucasian whereas the suspect was Asian. However, hyped-up armed policemen who were genuinely in fear of their lives believed they had been told to kill the man, so they did.

And this is a complete derail, and the full details can be found in older threads about the case. I just wanted to set the record straight when someone linked to an early and entirely wrong account of what happened. (And to appease Luciana, who was very upset about it when it happened because the victim was Brazilian.)

Rolfe.

[Ian Osborne]

It's unfortunate that the fantasy version concocted by an imaginative bystander was half way round the world before the truth was figured out. I'm just posting this to set the record straight.

If memory serves, the eyewitness misidentified the first chasing policeman as the suspect, which is why she spoke about him leaping the turnstiles (de Menezes did nothing of the sort) and said he was wearing a heavy padded coat (de Menezes wore a lightweight denim jacket, but the lead copper wore a heftier coat).

[cyclonic]

I think it was two people who fired the bullets, just off the top of my head.

The victim didn't have a bag. He wasn't carrying anything at all, having left his toolbox at the house where he was returning to finish a job (he was an electrician). He picked up the free newspaper on his way into the station, used his season ticket to get past the barrier, went slowly down the escalator, sprinted the last few yards when he saw the train was already in the station with its doors open (but it turned out it wasn't actually about to depart, which is a pity considering what happened next), got on the train, looked around to select which seat he was going to choose, then sat down to read the newspaper.

He was wearing a white t-shirt, denim jeans and a short denim jacket which was flapping loose (not buttoned). It should have been obvious he had no suicide belt or rucksack. He had originally been (correctly) identified as Caucasian whereas the suspect was Asian. However, hyped-up armed policemen who were genuinely in fear of their lives believed they had been told to kill the man, so they did.

And this is a complete derail, and the full details can be found in older threads about the case. I just wanted to set the record straight when someone linked to an early and entirely wrong account of what happened. (And to appease Luciana, who was very upset about it when it happened because the victim was Brazilian.)

Rolfe.

What about all the other people on that carriage who witnessed the shooting they would be far from ok.

[Rolfe]

If memory serves, the eyewitness misidentified the first chasing policeman as the suspect, which is why she spoke about him leaping the turnstiles (de Menezes did nothing of the sort) and said he was wearing a heavy padded coat (de Menezes wore a lightweight denim jacket, but the lead copper wore a heftier coat).


The eyewitness you're talking about was simply mistaken, as you point out. Nobody noticed de Menezes going down the escalator because he was entirely unremarkable. The first anyone noticed was the pursuit squad in heavy flak jackets leaping the turnstiles.

However there was another "eyewitness" who presented a complete taradiddle to the press, about a man running along the platform pursued by armed men, "looking like a hunted fox" as he glanced back at his pursuers, then tripping at the entrance to the train and falling, upon which the pursuers fell on him and shot him five times.

When the true story came out, pieced together from some security cameras (some weren't working or maybe the footage was "lost") and the accounts of the real eyewitnesses, this guy was traced and asked for his comments. He refused to give another interview at that stage.

It's an absolute object lesson on the reliability of eyewitness accounts as told to the press in the initial hours of an incident.

Rolfe.

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

It certainly didn't help lindy chamberlain when the australian public fed by the media in a feeding frenzy, convicted her and hung her out to dry on the 6.00 news. shameful australian history.

So maybe we should leave judging to professionals..... wait, what about de menezes?

Ok, i get your point now EeneyMinnieMoe, i agree with you.

Thanks :P.

For what it is worth, I did try finding cases where a long term murder investigation was underway and the prime suspect fled to avoid a miscarriage of justice but was later proved to have been innocent. As you said, something to parallel OJ but in reverse. I didn't find a single one I could point to (aside from Alfred Hitchcock movies starring Jimmy Stewart or Cary Grant). All the suspect-makes-a-run-for-it cases were cases where the suspect (or suspects) actually were guilty.

And I actually have a very good knowledge of crime stories, too, as I've read a lot on the subject and watched a lot of Court TV and Dominick Dunne. And I couldn't think of one from my store of knowledge.

When it comes to bizarre behavior on the part of most likely innocent defendants, however, I can point to Jesse Friedman (wrongly convicted for mass child molestation in a then notorious mass molestation case in the 1980s that took place in Long Island) dancing on the steps of the courthouse and clowning around with his brothers as he was about to be sentenced to 13-18 years in prison and Amanda Knox turning a cartwheel in a police station. Both were interpreted as coldness and callousness when they were the reverse- evidence of how scared and overwhelmed the young defendant was.

[Galileo]

OJ Simpson is innocent. He proved at his trial that evidence was planted by the police. F. Lee Bailey proved that the time window to allow enough time for OJ to do it. And the state did not present a believable motive.

Jason Simpson was the real killer.

[cyclonic]

OJ Simpson is innocent.

ROFLMAO! everyone is innocent in your world.

He proved at his trial that evidence was planted by the police.
Why were the 'proven guilty' police not charged then?
In California the penalty for a cop who frames someone in a murder case is DEATH.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jtCSlMWT7to


And the state did not present a believable motive.

"IF I CAN'T HAVE HER , NO ONE CAN!' is not a believable motive?

Jason Simpson was the real killer.

Friday the 13 movie was like the matrix, nothing to do with REALITY.