@averagejoe1said Yes. Who else would have done it?
I wonder how often the police try to 'gild the lily' by planting evidence to make someone they *know* is guilty look guiltier. The case in Wisconsin against Steven Avery and Brendan Dassey that was documented in "Making a Murderer" certainly raised that allegation.
Still, it's still hard to understand how 'the police framed him!' could be accepted as a reason to acquit without any evidence of that.
Almost like claiming, oh I don't know... like claiming 'the election was rigged!'
@suziannesaid Psychologically speaking, I believe that he was completely capable of the crime. He had the means, motive and opportunity. He probably did it, but a conviction requires evidence, and the prosecution failed on this step.
You obviously didn't follow the trial at all. The evidence was overwhelming.
He even admitted doing it in jail when talking to Rosie Greer but it was inadmissible since Greer was acting as a pastor and it was privileged information..
@cliff-mashburnsaid You obviously didn't follow the trial at all. The evidence was overwhelming.
He even admitted doing it in jail when talking to Rosie Greer but it was inadmissible since Greer was acting as a pastor and it was privileged information..
'Local control' - highly touted by the right as a cure for almost everything - can become a nightmare...
The APM podcast "In the Dark" investigates the case of Curtis Flowers: "...a black man from Winona, Mississippi, who was tried six times for the same crime. Flowers spent more than 20 years fighting for his life while a white prosecutor spent that same time trying just as hard to execute him."
Flowers was released in 2019 after over 20 years on death row in Parchman prison.
@cliff-mashburnsaid You obviously didn't follow the trial at all. The evidence was overwhelming.
He even admitted doing it in jail when talking to Rosie Greer but it was inadmissible since Greer was acting as a pastor and it was privileged information..
The evidence was overwhelming even without Greer. They found his blood and her blood in the car and her blood on his gloves. All of this was confirmed with DNA identification. His bloody Bruno Magli shoeprints were found at the scene.
Of course he did it.
The defense argument was hardly even that he didn't do it. It was to tell the mostly black jury that the LAPD are a bunch of racist hooligans.
"Who is going to police the police? You can, with this verdict." - Johnny Cochran, during closing arguments.
And that's exactly what they did. They let OJ get away with murder to send a message to the LAPD.
Even the argument that this jury nullification was justified is a better argument than that he was innocent. There's zero chance he was innocent.
@fartacussaid And that is why juries can't be trusted.
Several jurors later said that they thought he did it, but fell back on "reasonable doubt" to let him off. I believe they were fearful of reprisals by OJ fans or blacks in general if they found him guilty...and rightfully so.
I remember the day of the verdict, spontaneous demonstrations erupted all over the country by blacks, delirious with joy. They drove around with their lights on and honking and waving at each other.
Soooo glad that OJ slaughtered two white people and got away with it.
@cliff-mashburnsaid I remember the day of the verdict, spontaneous demonstrations erupted all over the country by blacks, delirious with joy. They drove around with their lights on and honking and waving at each other.
Soooo glad that OJ slaughtered two white people and got away with it.
I think it was more like a black guy finally beat the system that they felt was rigged against them and LAPD racists like Mark Fuhrman were finally exposed and punished.
But all that has nothing do with the OJ's guilt, which was clear and obvious to anyone with half a brain.
@cliff-mashburnsaid Several jurors later said that they thought he did it, but fell back on "reasonable doubt" to let him off. I believe they were fearful of reprisals by OJ fans or blacks in general if they found him guilty...and rightfully so.
They're lying. They let him off to punish the LAPD. The judge and the prosecution let the trial devolve into a circus and a trial of the LAPD rather than of OJ Simpson. As Robert Shapiro later said, they played the race card from the bottom of the deck. And it was an Ace.
@sh76said The evidence was overwhelming even without Greer. They found his blood and her blood in the car and her blood on his gloves. All of this was confirmed with DNA identification. His bloody Bruno Magli shoeprints were found at the scene.
Of course he did it.
The defense argument was hardly even that he didn't do it. It was to tell the mostly black jury that the LAPD are a b ...[text shortened]... n was justified is a better argument than that he was innocent. There's zero chance he was innocent.
It's the same principle as any other criminal, white collar especially, walking free on a technicality.
The Juice: Did He Do It?
12 Apr '24 11:08
Back to Top