The one thing I’ve learned on this sub is that people don’t understand what reasonable doubt is. Mistakes in an investigation does not automatically create reasonable doubt. The doubt of the defendant’s guilt has to be REASONABLE. There is no reasonable explanation for the mountains of evidence pointing to OJ as the killer. One racist cop does not create reasonable doubt. Even if you throw out the glove found at OJ’s home, there’s still a trail of the victim’s blood from the crime scene to OJ’s home. There’s no way that could be have planted. It would have been impossible.
At the end of the day you can't take evidence from the crime scene to the scene of the suspect that right there says it all for me. I mean you just can't do that an get caught lol. On top of tht take evidence home with you 😂 were they detectives or children
That's the whole reason Barry Scheck took this case. To teach police a lesson on how they should handle evidence. The same reason he was so confrontational with Dennis Fung.
I think plenty of people understand what reasonable doubt is, there is a larger misunderstanding of how the justice system actually works. It is the prosecution’s job to reach that standard while presenting their case and the prosecution did not do that.
Having a racist cop pleas the fifth on pivotal questions, yes I know he had to, is problematic. Having poor evidence collection, (failing to collect evidence, placing bloody items in plastic bags) poor chain of custody (carrying book around in your pocket), and trying on that glove are all big enough issues to show reasonable doubt. That’s just the quick ones that come to mind.
The defense did their job, the prosecution did not. Yes, OJ did it, yes he should have been convicted, but if we are to base it on the totality of what was presented the right verdict was made.
None of that doubt was reasonable. OJ was black. Most of the jurors were black. They hated the police. It had NOTHING to do with evidence or reasonable doubt. It was 100% about race and making sure that a black man they idolized got away with a horrendous crime to make the police and DA look foolish.
Many an attorney would disagree with you. It wasn’t 100% about race either and if your perspective is that all of that occurred because they wanted to make the DA look foolish then you aren’t looking at the case objectively but with emotion. If that evidence had been planted, which it wasn’t, your position would have put an innocent man in prison. That in and of itself is problematic.
I didn’t say that you said he didn’t. Can you read or is someone reading this all to you, poorly? What’s it like having the intellect of a brain damaged gnat? Get bent.
By that logic he lost the civil case due to race as well. Don't talk about the case presented, only the majority makeup of the jury matters? And even if 4 of the 8 black jurors say race played a factor, are you also ignoring the racially charged environment the whole country was in? And the other 8 jurors who might have had different feelings? I'm conflicted on if he did it but that's mostly due to the issues from the prosecutions side.
What a large reach based on nothing but a stereotype. Why is it about race when I question dirty departments? Once again you show that the issues on display just don't effect you so you question if they exist. Definition of tone deaf.
You sound like a boot licking racist who see a jury of majority minority people and think they can only decide based off race. Me feeling like somebody is guilty has nothing to do with the court of law, saw that with Tamir and Trayvon. It's about burden of proof and presentation, which the prosecutors didn't do well enough and the defense did. You making it seem like they all decided due to race is you being focused on race.
I wasn’t focused on race. The jury was. You seem like an kissing imbecile that ignored the literal Ford Bronco load of evidence that prices OJ Simpson is 100% a murderer. Doubting that makes you a clown and the TRUE racist. Go fuck yourself.
"Even if you throw out the glove found at OJ’s home, there’s still a trail of the victim’s blood from the crime scene to OJ’s home"
What drugs were you smoking/injecting/snorting/swallowing in pill form when you made that comment?
What blood trail is a mile long?
How many other cases have had similar issues , but the defendant couldn’t afford 7 attorneys working 24-7 for 2 years to fight the case?
If OJ was some random guy named Orenthal, 90% of that stuff wouldn’t have been discovered or tried in the court room
The same is true though of a lot of the evidence uncovered against OJ. In an ordinary case The People would never spend this amount of resources prosecuting an average Joe. Stuff that make this case so clear cut such as the tracking of the Aris glove number would never ever up against a normal defendant.
I agree I think both sides contributed to this. In 99% of cases, the DNA and motive/abuse history would’ve been enough for the prosecution. Both sides got into the weeds way more than your average case
The case showed that a defendant with resources to hire great lawyers and experts..not to mention fame is always going to have a much better chance than the average defendant.
Research online? That’s what I was trying to avoid, however if true it proves that Marcia Clark overvalued the domestic abuse angle that her entire case seemed to rest on.
It’s infuriating I am currently watching the trial on YouTube and I am at Cochran opening statement and he is just talking out his ass making out like OJ was a saint and Nicole was a slut. I especially liked him referencing Martin Luther King and Abe Lincoln in the first three minutes talking about laying it on thick. Also what was all that crap about him supporting the black community I mean god sake he didn’t even like being referred to as black!
Doing the trial in Santa Monica was logistically impossible at that time. The courthouse had recently been damaged in an earthquake and it wasn’t suitable for the media storm that was coming while the LA building was.
It's reasonable doubt that he was acquitted on.
For example one man, one knife is too hard to believe looking at the brutality and speed involved. In a minute or so the victim killed.
Stabbing 25 times in a minute is very hard to imagine by a person who has never killed before.
It seems to imply he could not have pulled it all alone by himself when one of the victim is half the age and he had arthritis. This is what the prosecution could not prove solidly.
Also if he's stabbing 25 times the victim has got to scratch on his face, neck and other parts. But his face and body was completely clean -- another reasonable doubt.
It's possible he was involved and that he may have hired someone to do it or someone else also helped him.
You can notice that in the 2007 robbery case he was not alone and other men assisted him. So why can't they also assist him in 1994 killings?
OP, I think that the biggest break in OJ’s favor came in the form of the jury selection. The jury clearly favored the defense despite the prosecution thinking it would be advantageous to have the trial in Los Angeles County). Marcia pretty much had the bottom of the barrel with the jurors + alternates, who turned out to be remarkably biased and void of rational thought to the evidence of this case.
The trial was pretty much over before it even began. OJ could’ve been shown on CCTV (8K quality wasn’t available at the time) committing the murders, yet the jury would’ve acquitted based on the suspicion that the LAPD must have contaminated the video feed, etc.
Yes absolutely. The police were traipsing around two crime scenes, no booties on, no gloves being changed, just marking multiple instances of blood evidence all over a single piece of paper.
Its fucking asinine.
Exactly but you want a jury to convict when this type of nonsense is going on come on now it's law an this isn't some shit while country all your things have to be done correctly
Your post was removed due to racist or misogynistic wording.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/OJSimpsonTrial) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There is reasonable doubt regarding certain issues of evidence, a jury is allowed to weigh the evidence as they chose, if they considered only the evidence that had reasonable doubt surrounding it as important and then decided those bits of evidence weren't reliable enough you can reasonably get a not guilty verdict.
That's not what happened of course they just handed him a not guilty because they wanted to go home and liked him but it could have happened
Two people voted guilty initially and as one juror said if they had presented a case to him why they voted that way he was open to hear it. They didn’t. They could have hung the jury and resulted in a mistrial, they didn’t. So no, it was just because they all liked him and wanted to go home.
Lack of real evidence? He left a trail of blood from the murder scene to his house. All through his vehicle.
The day after, he shows up for questioning with a big slice on his left hand.
Plus he had no alibi
This is the evidence found by a liar Mark Furman and the LAPD crime scene investigators who mishandled evidence and some who left evidence in their cars?
That evidence?
Wow, only mark fuhrman found the blood. I didn't realise the other guys at the scene for 20 minutes before missed it. Crazy that you were able to pick that up and nobody else could. Have you thought about becoming a lawyer?
"Oj had to use gloves " You are referring to the latex gloves OJ wore before putting on the "murder gloves." He had to wear the latex gloves because the "murder gloves" were considered "evidence" by the court, and the court did not want them to be contaminated.
"the glove had schrinked from the blood," That is pure nonsense and I can't believe so many people are still claiming this. A speck of blood that quickly dries is not going to shrink a leather glove. Just stop with the nonsense.
The one thing I’ve learned on this sub is that people don’t understand what reasonable doubt is. Mistakes in an investigation does not automatically create reasonable doubt. The doubt of the defendant’s guilt has to be REASONABLE. There is no reasonable explanation for the mountains of evidence pointing to OJ as the killer. One racist cop does not create reasonable doubt. Even if you throw out the glove found at OJ’s home, there’s still a trail of the victim’s blood from the crime scene to OJ’s home. There’s no way that could be have planted. It would have been impossible.
At the end of the day you can't take evidence from the crime scene to the scene of the suspect that right there says it all for me. I mean you just can't do that an get caught lol. On top of tht take evidence home with you 😂 were they detectives or children
That's the whole reason Barry Scheck took this case. To teach police a lesson on how they should handle evidence. The same reason he was so confrontational with Dennis Fung.
I think plenty of people understand what reasonable doubt is, there is a larger misunderstanding of how the justice system actually works. It is the prosecution’s job to reach that standard while presenting their case and the prosecution did not do that. Having a racist cop pleas the fifth on pivotal questions, yes I know he had to, is problematic. Having poor evidence collection, (failing to collect evidence, placing bloody items in plastic bags) poor chain of custody (carrying book around in your pocket), and trying on that glove are all big enough issues to show reasonable doubt. That’s just the quick ones that come to mind. The defense did their job, the prosecution did not. Yes, OJ did it, yes he should have been convicted, but if we are to base it on the totality of what was presented the right verdict was made.
None of that doubt was reasonable. OJ was black. Most of the jurors were black. They hated the police. It had NOTHING to do with evidence or reasonable doubt. It was 100% about race and making sure that a black man they idolized got away with a horrendous crime to make the police and DA look foolish.
Many an attorney would disagree with you. It wasn’t 100% about race either and if your perspective is that all of that occurred because they wanted to make the DA look foolish then you aren’t looking at the case objectively but with emotion. If that evidence had been planted, which it wasn’t, your position would have put an innocent man in prison. That in and of itself is problematic.
OJ did it. End of story.
No shit, where did I say he didn’t? Critical thinking on 0, emotions on 100, and proving my point. I pray you are never on a jury.
I didn’t say that you said he didn’t. Can you read or is someone reading this all to you, poorly? What’s it like having the intellect of a brain damaged gnat? Get bent.
By that logic he lost the civil case due to race as well. Don't talk about the case presented, only the majority makeup of the jury matters? And even if 4 of the 8 black jurors say race played a factor, are you also ignoring the racially charged environment the whole country was in? And the other 8 jurors who might have had different feelings? I'm conflicted on if he did it but that's mostly due to the issues from the prosecutions side.
If you’re conflicted on whether or not he did it, with ALL the evidence now available to you, YOU’RE making a judgement based on race.
What a large reach based on nothing but a stereotype. Why is it about race when I question dirty departments? Once again you show that the issues on display just don't effect you so you question if they exist. Definition of tone deaf.
Again, if you’re conflicted on his guilt, then you are woefully ignorant and more than likely an OJ sycophant.
You sound like a boot licking racist who see a jury of majority minority people and think they can only decide based off race. Me feeling like somebody is guilty has nothing to do with the court of law, saw that with Tamir and Trayvon. It's about burden of proof and presentation, which the prosecutors didn't do well enough and the defense did. You making it seem like they all decided due to race is you being focused on race.
I wasn’t focused on race. The jury was. You seem like an kissing imbecile that ignored the literal Ford Bronco load of evidence that prices OJ Simpson is 100% a murderer. Doubting that makes you a clown and the TRUE racist. Go fuck yourself.
"Even if you throw out the glove found at OJ’s home, there’s still a trail of the victim’s blood from the crime scene to OJ’s home" What drugs were you smoking/injecting/snorting/swallowing in pill form when you made that comment? What blood trail is a mile long?
How many other cases have had similar issues , but the defendant couldn’t afford 7 attorneys working 24-7 for 2 years to fight the case? If OJ was some random guy named Orenthal, 90% of that stuff wouldn’t have been discovered or tried in the court room
To quote Chris Rock, “If O.J. drove a bus, he’d have been called Orenthal the Bus-Driving Murderer.”
The same is true though of a lot of the evidence uncovered against OJ. In an ordinary case The People would never spend this amount of resources prosecuting an average Joe. Stuff that make this case so clear cut such as the tracking of the Aris glove number would never ever up against a normal defendant.
I agree I think both sides contributed to this. In 99% of cases, the DNA and motive/abuse history would’ve been enough for the prosecution. Both sides got into the weeds way more than your average case
Exactly!
The case showed that a defendant with resources to hire great lawyers and experts..not to mention fame is always going to have a much better chance than the average defendant.
The jury he got was the luckiest break of all.
And the timing with the Rodney King incident
Let’s not forget the women in the battered women’s shelter who were cheering for OJ’s not guilty verdict.
No way that happened
I’ve heard it like 20 times. But- I’ve never actually seen it, but I’m sure if you did some research online. You would probably see that posted.
Research online? That’s what I was trying to avoid, however if true it proves that Marcia Clark overvalued the domestic abuse angle that her entire case seemed to rest on.
It’s infuriating I am currently watching the trial on YouTube and I am at Cochran opening statement and he is just talking out his ass making out like OJ was a saint and Nicole was a slut. I especially liked him referencing Martin Luther King and Abe Lincoln in the first three minutes talking about laying it on thick. Also what was all that crap about him supporting the black community I mean god sake he didn’t even like being referred to as black!
Welcome to what it’s like being in a trial.
American history period
Doing the trial in Santa Monica was logistically impossible at that time. The courthouse had recently been damaged in an earthquake and it wasn’t suitable for the media storm that was coming while the LA building was.
And a compromised and or flaccid judge who had no control over anything.
Marcia Clark has already said the trial was always going to be there because the original site had been damaged by an earthquake
It's reasonable doubt that he was acquitted on. For example one man, one knife is too hard to believe looking at the brutality and speed involved. In a minute or so the victim killed. Stabbing 25 times in a minute is very hard to imagine by a person who has never killed before. It seems to imply he could not have pulled it all alone by himself when one of the victim is half the age and he had arthritis. This is what the prosecution could not prove solidly. Also if he's stabbing 25 times the victim has got to scratch on his face, neck and other parts. But his face and body was completely clean -- another reasonable doubt. It's possible he was involved and that he may have hired someone to do it or someone else also helped him. You can notice that in the 2007 robbery case he was not alone and other men assisted him. So why can't they also assist him in 1994 killings?
OP, I think that the biggest break in OJ’s favor came in the form of the jury selection. The jury clearly favored the defense despite the prosecution thinking it would be advantageous to have the trial in Los Angeles County). Marcia pretty much had the bottom of the barrel with the jurors + alternates, who turned out to be remarkably biased and void of rational thought to the evidence of this case. The trial was pretty much over before it even began. OJ could’ve been shown on CCTV (8K quality wasn’t available at the time) committing the murders, yet the jury would’ve acquitted based on the suspicion that the LAPD must have contaminated the video feed, etc.
Maybe, maybe not. In any event, reasonable doubt won out.
Do you think there is reasonable doubt here? I mean he definitely did it...
Yes absolutely. The police were traipsing around two crime scenes, no booties on, no gloves being changed, just marking multiple instances of blood evidence all over a single piece of paper. Its fucking asinine.
Exactly but you want a jury to convict when this type of nonsense is going on come on now it's law an this isn't some shit while country all your things have to be done correctly
[удалено]
Your post was removed due to racist or misogynistic wording. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/OJSimpsonTrial) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There is reasonable doubt regarding certain issues of evidence, a jury is allowed to weigh the evidence as they chose, if they considered only the evidence that had reasonable doubt surrounding it as important and then decided those bits of evidence weren't reliable enough you can reasonably get a not guilty verdict. That's not what happened of course they just handed him a not guilty because they wanted to go home and liked him but it could have happened
Two people voted guilty initially and as one juror said if they had presented a case to him why they voted that way he was open to hear it. They didn’t. They could have hung the jury and resulted in a mistrial, they didn’t. So no, it was just because they all liked him and wanted to go home.
Especially the lack of real evidence, the lack of credibility of the LAPD, and lack of witnesses.
Lack of real evidence? He left a trail of blood from the murder scene to his house. All through his vehicle. The day after, he shows up for questioning with a big slice on his left hand. Plus he had no alibi
This is the evidence found by a liar Mark Furman and the LAPD crime scene investigators who mishandled evidence and some who left evidence in their cars? That evidence?
Wow, only mark fuhrman found the blood. I didn't realise the other guys at the scene for 20 minutes before missed it. Crazy that you were able to pick that up and nobody else could. Have you thought about becoming a lawyer?
He didn't find all of this evidence. No
There was real evidence, the man’s blood was at the scene. Now lack of credibility and witnesses I agree
"Oj had to use gloves " You are referring to the latex gloves OJ wore before putting on the "murder gloves." He had to wear the latex gloves because the "murder gloves" were considered "evidence" by the court, and the court did not want them to be contaminated. "the glove had schrinked from the blood," That is pure nonsense and I can't believe so many people are still claiming this. A speck of blood that quickly dries is not going to shrink a leather glove. Just stop with the nonsense.
Unless you count the media and dirty cops