Reply
Respected Contributor
Posts: 3,180
Registered: ‎01-20-2011

 It really was a combination of things that resulted in the not guilty verdict.  The jury were not interested in the truth. The prosecution definitely  made some blunders (having him try on the gloves ,for one) and the judge was so caught up with the cameras and his own brief fame.  Some jurors would never have voted guilty even if there was a security tape showing the actual murders being committed. I prosecuted that case in my mind every day it was shown,LOL. Of course I got a guilty verdict. 

Honored Contributor
Posts: 9,802
Registered: ‎03-09-2010

O.J. made such a show of trying on the "gloves".  Have you ever tried to put on a pair of properly-fitting leather gloves over those latex medical gloves (that he wore to supposedly not contaminate the "evidence")?  Unbelievable cheap ploy.  "If the gloves don't fit, you must acquit!" 

 

One woman juror said after the trial that some of them thought he was guilty but they didn't dare convict.  What kind of justice is that?  She felt guilty afterwards - what good does that do?  Two people were murdered in cold blood and the murderer got away with it.

 

I wonder how some of those people sleep at night.

Honored Contributor
Posts: 38,291
Registered: ‎08-23-2010

I think it would have made a difference in the verdict if the jury had been more racially diverse.

 

I do recall one juror interviewed briefly afterwards .... and they "thought the prosecutors were just trying to confuse them with those dumb initials:  DNA ..... "

 

I rest my case.

Honored Contributor
Posts: 38,291
Registered: ‎08-23-2010

 

Honored Contributor
Posts: 25,929
Registered: ‎03-09-2010

IMO this was just a total failure on the part of the prosecution. They had the DNA evidence needed but presented it in a manner that the jury did not understand. 

Trusted Contributor
Posts: 1,305
Registered: ‎06-15-2015

I am SO DONE with OJ. May he ROT IN PRISON.

Respected Contributor
Posts: 4,354
Registered: ‎03-09-2010

The jury pool was tainted in the sense that info about the trial was being transmitted to them, even though the jury was sequestered. They still had weekend visitations permitted by family.

Esteemed Contributor
Posts: 7,947
Registered: ‎05-13-2012

The jury did not understand the difference between blood type and DNA. Yes, I also consider that jury to be a bunch of idiots.

Trusted Contributor
Posts: 1,208
Registered: ‎04-27-2015

@colliegirls wrote:

The jury did not understand the difference between blood type and DNA. Yes, I also consider that jury to be a bunch of idiots.


It's HARD to believe that those jurors could be so ignorant. They were a bunch of MORONS!

Respected Contributor
Posts: 3,306
Registered: ‎10-01-2011

Have any of you ever sat as a juror in a murder trial?  I have.  Two weeks of intensity I had not anticipated or experienced before or after.  It is difficult and burdening to feel that the life of a defendant is in your collective and singular hands.  The evidence presented in this case was beyond reasonable doubt of guilt.  Even so after the trial several of us were sobbing after reaching a verdict and being dismissed.  I believe we would have grasped at even a shred of evidence in the defendants favor.   Based on my experience I don't blame the jurors.  The fault lies in the evidence and how it was presented.