What if O.J. Simpson is innocent? - Page 18

SydneyH · ‎03-10-2010

@Tinkrbl44 wrote:
Going back to when the murders happened, my sister was absolutely convinced that Jason was the culprit, not his dad.

Her comments on this, most of which I didn't know:

"Jason had almost killed an ex-girlfriend with a knife, assaulted another girlfriend and came after his boss with a kitchen knife.

He was trained in hand-to-hand combat as well as field knife training while attending the Army and Navy Academy.

Jason had been diagnosed with intermittent rage disorder which is commonly known as jekyll and hyde syndrome. He had been known to blackout, hear voices and just go crazy at any time. He had been committed to the hospital several times. He was given medication to keep it under control, but had stop taking it months before the murders.

And OJ hired a criminal defense lawyer for Jason four days after the murder, when OJ at the time was the only suspect."

I didn't know he was that ill, I do believe he may have been present that night. There are allegations that he detested Nicole.

hyacinth003 · ‎03-12-2010

@Hetshepshut wrote:
@QueenDanceALot wrote:
@Jordan2 wrote:
Well, a jury of his "peers" found him innocent, I never bought it. After watching just about every show on the JonBenet Ramsey murder and not coming to any concrete resolution, I'm not wasting my time on this. Oh yeah, karma is a you know what, he's not doing time for murder but is still sitting in prison! I wonder if he watched The People v. O.J. Simpson!?
No, they found him Not Guilty. That's not the same as Innocent.

Thank you. There is a difference between "factual guilt” and “legal innocence." Just because someone is found “not guilty” doesn’t mean that individual is “innocent.” Not guilty means that a jury could not find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. O.J. Simpson was found not guilty for the murders of his ex-wife and Ron Goldman because they believed that the prosecution had not met their burden. However, it does not mean he was innocent by any stretch of the imagination.

As someone who watched most of the trial (why did I do that?), I believe they met their burden of proof 1000 times over. Most people are found guilty on so much less evidence.

However, you are correct about a verdict. "Not guilty" in a legal sense does NOT mean INNOCENT. Many juries say they thought a defendant was guilty, but that the state didn't meet the burden of "beyond a reasonable doubt." For me, the state met it and exceeded it many times over.

Hyacinth

TY · ‎03-10-2010

He's not innocent of killing his ex wife Nicole or her friend Ron Goldman. He did it.

Pook · ‎03-20-2010

@mousiegirl Jason's blood wasn't found because the LAPD didn't test and mishandled a lot of potential evidence. Had they taken samples and checked the blood on the keys of the car Goldman was using that night and was holding in his hands, they might have found either OJ's which would have been almost proof positive who did it or Jason's which would have shown he did it or even neither of their blood but blood other than Goldman's or Nicole's which could have exonerated both of them.

Don't forget Jason had violent tendencies and used knives in fights as verified by police reports and had just recently been arrested for assaulting his boss. It didn't matter if he liked Nicole if he went into one of his angry rages it wouldn't matter! Goldman was said to have been a black belt in some type of martial art so he more than likely would have got some good licks in at some point since he had so many defensive wounds.

After seeing this, it didn't clearly prove anything. Jason's knife had the blood of at least 4 others on it but not enough preserved to match DNA. Then there was the testimony of the PI who passed a polygraph test showing OJ and Jason there at the time but then again he was slow to answer with controlled breathing so he could have been lying.

Then the missing blood from the mishandled vial they had taken from OJ seems awful suspicious!! Also, the appearance of the preservative in the tested DNA that even though a minute bit is present in blood there was too much showing after testing.

The bottom line is that had the LAPD and the prosecution not been so inept OJ would have been convicted.

MacDUFF · ‎05-29-2015

I, too, watched almost all of this media and legal circus and, for me, even with all its faults, incompetence, and insanity, the burden of proof was met. He murdered two people in a rage (which trait he apparently passed on to his son) as Nicole said he would. OJ is a star in some quarters and, therefore, was given a pass...the "burden of proof was not met" is the fall-back position for his fans. It was jury nullification in my book. I'm glad the families received some justice in the civil trial. I'm glad he's in prison, even if it's unrelated to the murders he committed. May he rot.

~~~ I call dibs on the popcorn concession!! ~~~

mousiegirl · ‎03-09-2010

@Pook wrote:
@mousiegirl Jason's blood wasn't found because the LAPD didn't test and mishandled a lot of potential evidence. Had they taken samples and checked the blood on the keys of the car Goldman was using that night and was holding in his hands, they might have found either OJ's which would have been almost proof positive who did it or Jason's which would have shown he did it or even neither of their blood but blood other than Goldman's or Nicole's which could have exonerated both of them.
Don't forget Jason had violent tendencies and used knives in fights as verified by police reports and had just recently been arrested for assaulting his boss. It didn't matter if he liked Nicole if he went into one of his angry rages it wouldn't matter! Goldman was said to have been a black belt in some type of martial art so he more than likely would have got some good licks in at some point since he had so many defensive wounds.
After seeing this, it didn't clearly prove anything. Jason's knife had the blood of at least 4 others on it but not enough preserved to match DNA. Then there was the testimony of the PI who passed a polygraph test showing OJ and Jason there at the time but then again he was slow to answer with controlled breathing so he could have been lying.
Then the missing blood from the mishandled vial they had taken from OJ seems awful suspicious!! Also, the appearance of the preservative in the tested DNA that even though a minute bit is present in blood there was too much showing after testing.
The bottom line is that had the LAPD and the prosecution not been so inept OJ would have been convicted.

@Pook I have no doubt that Simpson did it, he told Nicole he would, and kept his promise. I doubt there has ever been so much evidence against a murderer as there was in this case aside from a camera capturing the acts.

Since Simpson was so popular, why would LAPD frame him, absurd! If this case had been tried by a jury of his peers, Simpson would be on death row now.

I feel sorry for Jason having a Father like his. No wonder he had anger issues. This poor guy is innocent, and this lousy series has liabled him in my opinion, and if he sues, I hope he wins big time, but I would think that the producers would have looked into this before airing the series.

Even if the so called witness last night did see Jason in the Bronco, and I don't believe him, he said that Jason stayed in the Bronco, and Simpson went into the alley to Nicole's, and returned in boxer shorts.

This series is garbage, and has no credibility in my opinion.

Pook · ‎03-20-2010

@mousiegirl Did you ever think that maybe some LAPD purposely messed up to get OJ off because he was so popular. Back then they were not known for their corruption. I just think they could not have been more inept - the same for the prosecution and that is why he got off?? I have been saying this all along. I never said he was innocent but that series gave me something to think about and now nothing is really cleared up - just more confusing. Whether there were 2 there and whether one was Jason or whether OJ acted alone or whether someone else did is not 100% clear and I still think if the LAPD had done their jobs properly nothing would have been left to even question as the results of proper testing would have ensured a conviction.

mousiegirl · ‎03-09-2010

@Pook wrote:
@mousiegirl Did you ever think that maybe some LAPD purposely messed up to get OJ off because he was so popular. Back then they were not known for their corruption. I just think they could not have been more inept - the same for the prosecution and that is why he got off?? I have been saying this all along. I never said he was innocent but that series gave me something to think about and now nothing is really cleared up - just more confusing. Whether there were 2 there and whether one was Jason or whether OJ acted alone or whether someone else did is not 100% clear and I still think if the LAPD had done their jobs properly nothing would have been left to even question as the results of proper testing would have ensured a conviction.

@Pook The reason Simpson was not convicted is because he was not tried by a jury of his peers, i.e., should have been tried in the area he lived in, not downtown, because Ito let this one trial veer off into several others, so to speak, and because the jury wanted payback. There were jurors who would have voted guilty as we learned after they were dismissed.

Mistakes are made every day in law enforcement all over, but I think LAPD did what they were supposed to do under the guidelines in place at the time. The prosecution made mistakes also, but at least they were honest unlike the defense team. This trial enlightened law enforcement to just how corrupt defense atrorneys are, in my opinion, and I am sure caused them to improve procedures that were perfectly fine up until this case.

SydneyH · ‎03-10-2010

@mousiegirl wrote:
@Pook wrote:
@mousiegirl Did you ever think that maybe some LAPD purposely messed up to get OJ off because he was so popular. Back then they were not known for their corruption. I just think they could not have been more inept - the same for the prosecution and that is why he got off?? I have been saying this all along. I never said he was innocent but that series gave me something to think about and now nothing is really cleared up - just more confusing. Whether there were 2 there and whether one was Jason or whether OJ acted alone or whether someone else did is not 100% clear and I still think if the LAPD had done their jobs properly nothing would have been left to even question as the results of proper testing would have ensured a conviction.

@Pook The reason simpson was not convicted is because he was not tried by a jury of his peers, i.e., should have been tried in the area he lived in, not downtown, because Ito let this one trial veer off into several others, so to speak, and because the jury wanted payback. There were jurors who would have voted guilty as we learned after they were dismissed.

Mistakes are made every day in law enforcement all over, but I think LAPD did what they were supposed to do under the guidelines in place at the time. The prosecution made mistakes also, but at least they were honest unlike the defense team. This trial enlightened law enforcement to just how corrupt defense atrorneys are, in my opinion, and I am sure caused them to improve procedudres that were perfectly fine up until this case.

The prosecution was honest?

ladyroxanne · ‎03-09-2010

yes, the prosection was honest. they did make some mistakes, but they did nothing illegal or untoward. if anyone disagrees, then show me the proof. please provide a link that verifies what you are saying..

i think there is a lot of guessing and speculation going on. if people would read the true facts, there would be no doubt who committed these crimes.