Oj simpson death

[angry anderson]

There’s so much more to this case if you look into it more. We may never know for sure what happened. I do fully believe when looking at at story or case that it’s important to see as many sides to it, as there’s always more than one side to a story. There’s just so much evidence to point at OJ being involved in some way with this murder.

Actually there's not. Pretty cut and dried. Excuse the pun. Vince Bugliosi, who prosecuted the Manson case said at the time he had never seen such a clear cut case where you had a trail of blood of the two victims leading from the crime scene to the Bronco to OJ's house with a bloody sock on the floor with Goldman and Nicole's blood on it.
There again, as you say. There's many sides to it. Did Germany really invade Poland? Did a mob attack the Capitol building on Jan 6th 2020? I guess if left up to you, we will never know. We will just have to speculate with the sparse evidence that could really point either way. Until we get conclusive evidence at some point.

 

[oldshark]

I agree with you 100 percent!
One side of me thinking "he did it!!"
Then the cop took fifth when asked if he tempered or planted evidence against OJ!

I once worked with a cop who left policing. I asked him what he would do if he thought someone was guilty. He said he would make sure they were found guilty. I asked, even in planting evidence. He said yes. So I can see how a overly zealous policeman actually spoiled the case. And by the way, I have had the same conversation with 2 other policemen and they both admitted something similar. So since then I don't entirely trust the police!

 

[Goldj]

I once worked with a cop who left policing. I asked him what he would do if he thought someone was guilty. He said he would make sure they were found guilty. I asked, even in planting evidence. He said yes. So I can see how a overly zealous policeman actually spoiled the case. And by the way, I have had the same conversation with 2 other policemen and they both admitted something similar. So since then I don't entirely trust the police!

I am sad but not surprised

 

[westwoody]

Fuhrman isn’t automatically lying just because he’s a jerk.
Presenting badly doesn’t make evidence false.

 

[Cock Throppled]

He was guilty. Marcia Clark and Christopher Darden did books.
Even OJ wrote a book saying how he did it.

 

[kelcaine]

Actually there's not. Pretty cut and dried. Excuse the pun. Vince Bugliosi, who prosecuted the Manson case said at the time he had never seen such a clear cut case where you had a trail of blood of the two victims leading from the crime scene to the Bronco to OJ's house with a bloody sock on the floor with Goldman and Nicole's blood on it.
There again, as you say. There's many sides to it. Did Germany really invade Poland? Did a mob attack the Capitol building on Jan 6th 2020? I guess if left up to you, we will never know. We will just have to speculate with the sparse evidence that could really point either way. Until we get conclusive evidence at some point.

There are always multiple sides to a case, for example, the accused, who committed the crime (of other than the accused or an accomplice ), the DNA evidence, eyewitnesses if any, first responders on scene, law enforcement, any other evidence, character references, the history of the victims and the accused, etc etc etc. Also the victims. There is a lot to look over, lots of sides to what happened. That is what I meant. Also the evidence was quite a lot, not sparse imo.

 

[MRGREEN]

With today's DNA technology it would never have gone to trial. Of course he did it with or without assistance.

 

[angry anderson]

There are always multiple sides to a case, for example, the accused, who committed the crime (of other than the accused or an accomplice ), the DNA evidence, eyewitnesses if any, first responders on scene, law enforcement, any other evidence, character references, the history of the victims and the accused, etc etc etc. Also the victims. There is a lot to look over, lots of sides to what happened. That is what I meant. Also the evidence was quite a lot, not sparse imo.

Well, there are plenty like you who still have trouble puzzling it out. In this case though there aren't multiple sides. Only one. The mountain of evidence against bewildered head scratchers, who are in the same category as flat earth believers and holocaust deniers.

 

[frisky business]

.
.
.

Gerdes only contested the incriminating matches to the victims blood in the Bronco and claimed those results were due to cross-contamination from the reference vials.

.
.
.
When this was revealed, O.J.'s lawyers, his "Dream Team" led by Johnny Cochran, called in O.J. for a meeting:

Cochran: "O.J., some of the prosecution's primary evidence may have been contaminated and we think that Judge Ito might declare a mistrial."

O.J.: "What!? What does that mean?"

Cochran: "Well, it means the evidence can't be trusted and we'll have to start again right from the very beginning."

O.J.: "Wait, what? You mean I gotta go out and kill two more guys?"
.
.
.

 

[kelcaine]

Well, there are plenty like you who still have trouble puzzling it out. In this case though there aren't multiple sides. Only one. The mountain of evidence against bewildered head scratchers, who are in the same category as flat earth believers and holocaust deniers.

There’s never one side to any legal case. Also you are entitled to have a different viewpoint and opinion, but there is no reason to be rude, and your reply doesn’t make sense.

 

[angry anderson]

There’s never one side to any legal case. Also you are entitled to have a different viewpoint and opinion, but there is no reason to be rude, and your reply doesn’t make sense.

You are right. there are two sides. Guilty and Not guilty. Sorry if that offends you.

 

[angry anderson]

and he was declared not guilty

By a jury who afterwards in interviews declared that they knew he was guilty but they decided to declare him not guilty in response largely to the Rodney King police acquittal.

 

[angry anderson]

yes. sorry if that offends you

It doesn't. Quite understandable. What offends me is the stupidity of not being able to puzzle out that he was guilty. The jury at least recognized he was.

 

[westwoody]

yes. sorry if that offends you

It is offensive.
The King verdict should not decide any other case.
If they thought he was guilty but voted otherwise they did not do their duty. Saying it publicly should have been grounds for a retrial.