He's innocent and didn't kill Nicole or Ron

This message has been deleted by an administrator

Because O.J. did it, that's why.

I'm a totally bitchin' bio writer from Mars!

Yes, we know that O.J. really did do it, but as far as the law is concerned, he didn't....so if he didn't do it, then someone else did do it. So why THE F#($K are they not looking for the killer and letting him or her get away scott free?
Because he's entitled to the presumption of innocence as much as anyone else. And because, unless they find new evidence that convinces a judge that there's a likelihood of a different outcome from a new criminal trial, they can't try him for the same crimes of which he's already been acquitted.

I'm not convinced he's guilty anyway. Yeah, he was found liable in a civil trial, where the burden of proof is a lot lower and the finding didn't need to be beyond reasonable doubt, but that alone doesn't make him guilty. (Neither does the usual wave of name-calling on the Internet.) Too much of the significant evidence was "cooked" by Fuhrman.



You might very well think that. I couldn't possibly comment.

He's entitled to a presumption of innocence at trial, and for legal purposes only. Obviously, in other venues anyone can hold whatever opinion of him they wish. He's not "entitled" to a presumption of innocence in anything other a legal proceeding.

He cannot be re-tried even if prosecutors find new evidence that might lead to a different trial outcome. They don't get a second bite at the apple. Finality of acquittal is absolute, unless there is evidence that a defendant tampered with the judge or jury.

Actually, Mark Fuhrman didn't "cook" any evidence, nor is there any proof that he did. What did Fuhrman in was his character and seemingly racist statements, which were used to discredit him and call his findings into question, not on their merits, but on the basis of his (admittedly questionable) persona.

Evidence was brought out at the civil trial that was not available in the mishandled criminal trial. The DNA from the blood found on his car, for example, which O.J. tried to dismiss because the sample was so "tiny" -- as if its size made a difference in extracting and identifying DNA. The boots at the scene he was found to have owned previously. True, the burden of proof at a civil trial is lower than at a criminal trial, but that doesn't mean that the findings of the civil trial were wrong or somehow less reliable or definite.

Many factors go into a jury's verdict, and a verdict may be legally correct but still not accurate (i.e., a guilty person going free or an innocent one convicted). In the murder trial the case put forth by the inept prosecution not unnaturally resulted in the jury finding O.J. not guilty (not "innocent", which is a different thing), even allowing for the pro-O.J. bias of some jurors. The civil trial heard evidence that was unknown to the prosecutors in the criminal proceeding, which at least some jurors in the first trial subsequently said would have led them to convict had they known of it.

It's clear by any reasonable standard that O.J. Simpson committed two murders.

As to why the state isn't out "looking for the 'real' murderer", whatever happened to O.J.'s promise to "spend the rest of [his] life looking for" him, so loudly and repeatedly proclaimed for a couple of weeks after his acquittal? Yes, he's in prison now, but he had well over a decade to enagage in his exhaustive search for the truth.

Yes, they did find tiny amounts of blood in the Bronco and they did find a bloody shoe print not belonging to either victim. But they did not find any blood from a bloody shoe on the Bronco pedals or carpet. That seems strange. Please explain.

Maybe he took them off before getting into the Bronco. The presence of the blood on the vehicle turned up the DNA. The "tiny" argument is ridiculous. Size of sample has nothing to do with retrival or identification of DNA.

What do you think happened?

Of course, PCR technology allows even the tiniest amount of blood to be used for DNA typing. The point was that, as the defense contended, the sparcity of the quanities of blood in the blood trail was more consistent with being planted than than with the circumstances of the crime. Following is a link to the defense's rebuttal of the DNA evidence.

http://phobos.ramapo.edu/~jweiss/laws131/unit3/simpson.htm

So, there seems to be considerable support for reasonable doubt by the jury. That is all that is needed for a verdict of Not Guilty in a criminal case and it should be respected. What has happened in Las Vegas is a perversion of justice. OJ was overcharged and his sentence was excessive. Obviously, the judge was prejudiced by the outcome of the previous case which was unethical and probably illegal, if provable.

As for what really happened, unfortunately, since the "investigation" began and ended with OJ, at this point, what really happened is can only be pure speculation. I have my suspicions but don't really want to share them in an open forum.

I don't want to relitigate this and add yet more speculation to this controversy, but if one was going to plant blood evidence you'd do something more convincing that a tiny drop. In fact, to me that seems more like evidence inadvertently left by a guilty party.

In any case, with all the insinuations and accusations about evidence tampering, none has ever been found or proven. Unless someone has proof that evidence was manufactured or tainted, they should stop saying it. One can't simply dismiss evidence with rumors, statements like "it's obvious" or "it's possible", and personal attacks on Mark Furhman. It's also unfortunate that the murder trial became a racial touchstone. It was something that should have been unconnected with race.

I think the verdict of the murder trial was technically "correct" -- in that the jury reached a legally correct decision based on the evidence and testimony presented, in a case that was botched by the prosecution. I also think some jurors had a predisposition to acquit O.J. regardless of the evidence, but that's my opinion. Legally, O.J. is not guilty -- which, to state it again, is not the same as being "innocent". It's a different thing from saying he did not commit the crime.

The civil trial, presented with more evidence than was available to the criminal trial, found him responsible for the murders -- i.e., that he was guilty of them. Granted the lower threshold of evidence civilly, some of the jurors in the criminal trial stated that had they had the evidence presented at the civil trial, they would have voted to convict.

As to the Vegas trial, I agree, I think the sentence is unduly harsh for what he did, though it's not a slap-on-the-wrist offense either. But it was also within the law. Since O.J. benefitted from the technicalities of the law in 1995, he has to live with those technicalities in 2013.