Was OJ Simpson innocent? (1 Viewer)

[Jon]

I say yes. What do you say?

He was "proved" innocent. Or do you believe that the US justice system is broken?

 

[The_Doc_Man]

OJ was as guilty as they come but got off with a shyster tricky lawyer.

Regarding the famous glove trick: "If it doesn't fit you must acquit." The problem is that the enzymes in blood shrink leather. A glove that fit when dry will no longer fit when drenched in blood and not immediately cleaned. And since the glove was in evidence, it could NOT be cleaned or otherwise touched to preserve its size. If the prosecution would have been able to find an expert tanner as a rebuttal witness, they could have totally negated the "glove" issue.

If they could have figured out where he tossed his bloody samurai sword (the probable murder weapon) and recovered it, they might have found some blood evidence. But for a while he was "off the radar" which gave him a ton of time to dump those weapons.

He was found liable for the deaths in a civil trial later. The families of Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman got a 33.5 million dollar award.

What Does O.J. Simpson's Civil Trial Verdict Mean? "Liable" Does Not Mean “Guilty”

Unless you've been living under a rock for your entire life, then you already know how Tuesday's season finale of American Crime Story: The People V. O.J. Simpson is going to end: Simpson was acquitted of all murder charges In 1995. So that's that,…

www.bustle.com

Our USA rule against double jeopardy meant that he could not be criminally tried a second time because the trial reached a point where both sides presented their cases and then "rested" (legalese for saying "I'm finished"). It was not declared a mistrial but rather went to the jury. They returned a verdict. Had the jury become deadlocked (in USA terms, a "hung jury") the trial could have been repeated. Instead they returned a "Not Guilty" verdict and that meant he was immune from further criminal prosecution on those charges. At that point, only evidence of misconduct on the part of the defense could have set aside the verdict.

However, the civil suit, based on a less strict standard, found him civilly liable and, because it did not bear criminal charges, did not violate double jeopardy rules.

 

[NauticalGent]

Not even by a little...and EVERYONE knew it. I would say true justice was served in the end however

 

[Jon]

If he was guilty, although proven innocent, why were opinions divided down racial lines? Was the wrong side, whichever that was, being racist?

My understanding is that to be convicted of a criminal offence, you need beyond reasonable doubt, which legally means approximately 95% sure. With civil cases, it is based on the preponderance of the evidence, which means above 50% sure. So, if he lost a civil case, it could be because he was marginally over the 50% line. It reminds me of Brexit in the UK. Roughly half wanted to stay in Europe, half leave. But because it was a straight vote, being slightly over tips the balance.

So, what we are really talking about here is where within the 50% to 95% probability range do you think the guilt resides. Lets take an average of that, say 72.5% likely guilty. Is that sure enough to condemn a potentially innocent man?

Edit: Enzymes may shrink gloves. But that is like me saying a lose a bit of height during the day, which is a fact, as gravity causes my spine to compress a little. Yet I don't start off 6'2" and end up a dwarf by the end of the day. So saying blood enzymes shrink leather does not mean that they shrink leather sufficiently for the glove to not fit. Where is the evidence that the gloves shrank by a certain amount? Is there any? Is it not possible that the gloves shrank slightly, but their original size was still too small?

Edit 2: Let us assume the gloves were massive before the shrinkage. How does that make OJ guilty? Why does the size of the gloves make him guilty or not guilty? If the gloves found fit OJ, why does that mean he is guilty if tight gloves don't?

It doesn't help when the investigating officer has admitted to previously falsifying evidence to further his hatred for blacks. (This last bit is from my recollection from the Netflix series.)

 

[Vassago]

We'll never really know. Even his book that didn't release had inconsistencies, intentional or not, with the actual crime. I'm not sure what was changed in the actual released version. I haven't had enough care to check.

I wouldn't say he has paid for the crime of he did it. Sure, he did a few years and lost his wealth, but he's still heavily connected to wealthy players and will not suffer for it. Last I saw he was living in a nice place owned by a friend in Vegas. He still makes plenty from royalties and pensions, probably more than us. From what I understand, most of it can't be used to pay his debt to the Brown family die to the way the judgments were set up. He's living a good life.

 

[AccessBlaster]

The look on Kardashian's face when the not guilty judgment came down tells you everything you need to know.

 

[Jon]

But does even Kardashian really know? It is all a mystery.

 

[AccessBlaster]

There is speculation Kardashian removed evidence when OJ flew back to LA. OJ handed Kardashian a bag that was never cleared.

 

[Jon]

Ah yes, the bag! I wonder what was in it?

 

[moke123]

A jury also needs to be unanimous.

 

[Isaac]

I never say "for sure" in these cases. I'm not sure he was guilty or not guilty. All we can do is employ the adversarial system to its fullest and strongest (which I strongly believe in), and hope for the best results possible.

 

[AccessBlaster]

A jury also needs to be unanimous.

Which is exactly why they changed the venue from Brentwood to downtown Los Angels. In Brentwood OJ would have been tried by a jury of his peers, which means educated white folks who would have voted to convict OJ based on the science. When it was moved to down town Los Angels the jury only saw a persecuted black man, and well the rest is history.

 

[moke123]

Which is exactly why they changed the venue from Brentwood to downtown Los Angels. In Brentwood OJ would have been tried by a jury of his peers, which means educated white folks who would have voted to convict OJ based on the science. When it was moved to down town Los Angels the jury only saw a persecuted black man, and well the rest is history.

The Brentwood OJ lived in is in Los Angeles

I dont think your interpreting jury of peers in the modern sense.

 

[Isaac]

The Brentwood OJ lived in is in Los Angeles

I dont think your interpreting jury of peers in the modern sense.

I think AB's point makes perfect sense, a venue change can result in a more sympathetic jury pool.
The point on which it would make sense to challenge is whether Brentwood vs. downtown Los Angeles actually results in a different jury pool, and on that I don't know.

 

[AccessBlaster]

The Brentwood OJ lived in is in Los Angeles

Down town Los Angeles would be your clue.

 

[AccessBlaster]

BTW, I don't blame the jury I blame DA Gil Garcetti for the change in venue as well as not trying the case himself. He appointed lower less experienced staff. This case was off the charts in terms of importance, he should have spearheaded the prosecution of OJ himself.

Now Los Angeles is dealing with Garcetti's offspring Eric who is trying to get a spot on Biden's team. These people go from one screw up to another.

 

[Pat Hartman]

why were opinions divided down racial lines?

I was always confused by that also. OJ was a very popular sports figure and an actor as well. He would have had fans of all colors. People would have wanted to find him innocent regardless of their color. I'm not even a football fan and I would have gone into that courtroom biased in his favor. So, he would have had fans in a Brentwood jury also. The reason for the change in venue is probably because the jury pool from downtown LA would have been less educated and more inclined to discount scientific evidence and that turns out to have been a good choice. You know how you remember where you were when certain events happened? I wasn't following the trial closely but you couldn't get away from it so I had heard about the "glove". The day the verdict came in i was at work. I was at Reader's Digest which was a huge facility in Pleasantville, NY. I was on the way back to my office from a meeting and I passed a room full of people who were cheering so I peeked in the door. The room was filled with black women watching a tv where they were talking about the verdict. I remember being surprised that there weren't any men in evidence.

 

[Jon]

The room was filled with black women watching a tv where they were talking about the verdict. I remember being surprised that there weren't any men in evidence.

Similar thing happened with the Oscar Pistorius trial. He had a fan club of women who used to mob him outside the court, despite the fact he blew his girlfriends brains out with his revolver.

 

[AccessBlaster]

The reason it became about race is because Johnny Cochran was the lead attorney.

 

[NauticalGent]

And now he is gone. Cant say I feel bad about it...