NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm aware it's a bit random, it's been more than a decade since the murder trial, and even that pointless media storm from a few weeks ago has died down, but it's something I've been wondering about for a few months now: What if OJ Simpson actually didn't kill his ex-wife?

I'm not saying I think he really is innocent (Nor am I saying I think he is guilty), I'm simply positing a hypothetical, and one which people don't often look at, but I want you to think about it for a moment. Regardless of the actual verdict, most people I know take it as a given that he was guilty. Nobody I know is anywhere close to passion on the subject, my own age group was too young at the time, and they don't really care, either, but they still take it for granted that he made with the slashing. It's part of common knowledge, something we've accepted on an unconcious level, but that doesn't necessarily make it true (Afterall, how often has "common knowledge" been proved to be just over the line of pure stupidity?). So, take a moment and seriously consider, what if he really was innocent?


Okay, now that you've taken that moment, we can go back to pies and whatnot, since this is a conversation with no real relevence to anything, and a random hypothetical is small change compared to quality pastries.

Yes, what if he didn't do it?

What if, shockingly, a trial of his peers did really work?

What then, hmmm? Perhaps the evidence wasn't nearly as convincing as the media led us to believe hmmm?

OJ Simpson, is, sadly, a victim of the media; I'm not saying that, he did or did not do any of these crimes, but his fame, both as a foot-ball star, and as 'teh murderer' means he'll never get a fair trial, less they bring in people from norway or something.

He was found 'Not Guilty'.

so what are you saying. if someone else came forward and said "I killed those two"?

wouldn't change my opinion of him.

but would that then open the door for a counter suit against the Goldman family who successfully slapped a 'wrongful death' suite on him?

Wait, Klonor is not an alter ego of Lunatic Goofballs, right? The theme of this thread is absurd enough, but still... it doesn't exactly taste like Lunatic Goofballs.

Then water is dry and the sky is down.

What if the sky was neon green? The point is irrelevant--the sky is not neon green, and OJ is not innocent.

if he was innocent then a different murderer has been walking freely amonst us for the past 14 years.

What if the sky was neon green? The point is irrelevant--the sky is not neon green, and OJ is not innocent.

Basically that's the sumation of it. If he didn't do it then I guess that 1 in what 50 billion DNA difference actually did happen. I think we'll see the Mets go 162 - 0 before that happens.

The only way it could be more obvious that he did it is if he stabbed himself too and wrote 'OJ woz ere' in his own blood at the murder scene.

Then water is dry and the sky is down.

And George W. Bush is the Greatest President in the history of the United States.

He didn't do it, it was his alter ego John Mirra

I don't want to get into an argument about this and I know my opinion will be ridiculed, but I'm saying it anyway.

When most of the Simpson murder trial occurred I was (1) awaiting the start of law school and (2) laid up with a back injury. Thus, I watched most of the trial live and (once law school started) recorded and watched most of what I didn't see live.

Having seen almost all of the witnesses, the cross-examination, and the evidence as presented to the jury, I firmly believed and still believe the jury came back with a correct verdict of Not Guilty.

I am less familiar with the wrongful death suit that followed, but it contained some different evidence and I have no real problem with the verdict finding Mr. Simpson liable for the deaths of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman.

I am NOT saying I think Mr. Simpson was innocent. I do wonder for those that are convinced he is guilty on what they base this opinion other than vague notions floating around the media like a "mountain of DNA" that was shredded at trial.

I also wonder how one explains the timeline of when the murders were committed versus when Mr. Simpson had ironclad alibis. Depending on when the murders occurred Mr. Simpson could NOT have committed the crimes personally. That is not to say that there are not possible timelines in which Mr. Simpson could have committed the murders, only that the evidence to support such timelines is sketchy at best.

Before typing this I googled the case a bit to see what information about the trial is on the internet. I didn't find a good source, but did find lots of one's that are flatly inaccurate in their description of the evidence presented at trial.

OK, attack away. :)

I don't want to get into an argument about this and I know my opinion will be ridiculed, but I'm saying it anyway.

When most of the Simpson murder trial occurred I was (1) awaiting the start of law school and (2) laid up with a back injury. Thus, I watched most of the trial live and (once law school started) recorded and watched most of what I didn't see live.

Having seen almost all of the witnesses, the cross-examination, and the evidence as presented to the jury, I firmly believed and still believe the jury came back with a correct verdict of Not Guilty.

I am less familiar with the wrongful death suit that followed, but it contained some different evidence and I have no real problem with the verdict finding Mr. Simpson liable for the deaths of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman.

I am NOT saying I think Mr. Simpson was innocent. I do wonder for those that are convinced he is guilty on what they base this opinion other than vague notions floating around the media like a "mountain of DNA" that was shredded at trial.

I also wonder how one explains the timeline of when the murders were committed versus when Mr. Simpson had ironclad alibis. Depending on when the murders occurred Mr. Simpson could NOT have committed the crimes personally. That is not to say that there are not possible timelines in which Mr. Simpson could have committed the murders, only that the evidence to support such timelines is sketchy at best.

Before typing this I googled the case a bit to see what information about the trial is on the internet. I didn't find a good source, but did find lots of one's that are flatly inaccurate in their description of the evidence presented at trial.

OK, attack away. :)
*nods*
I believe alot of the DNA evidence was shown to be contaminated by poor evidence handling (I think one sample was left in a car over the weekend... in the hot sun.)

whether or not OJ did do it, the cops and investigators messed up the case and the prosecution had to work with what they got.

but my question to you TCT (or any other NSG lawyers)...
suppose a guy makes a deathbed confession to the killing of Nicole and Ron stating things not made known to the public and fits the evidence and admits that OJ was not part of the killings in any way shape or form. what effect would that have with the wrongful death lawsuit slapped on OJ? would he be able to sue to get his money back?

It is a well documented fact that too much Orange Juice can kill you.

I don't want to get into an argument about this and I know my opinion will be ridiculed, but I'm saying it anyway.

When most of the Simpson murder trial occurred I was (1) awaiting the start of law school and (2) laid up with a back injury. Thus, I watched most of the trial live and (once law school started) recorded and watched most of what I didn't see live.

Having seen almost all of the witnesses, the cross-examination, and the evidence as presented to the jury, I firmly believed and still believe the jury came back with a correct verdict of Not Guilty.

I am less familiar with the wrongful death suit that followed, but it contained some different evidence and I have no real problem with the verdict finding Mr. Simpson liable for the deaths of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman.

I am NOT saying I think Mr. Simpson was innocent. I do wonder for those that are convinced he is guilty on what they base this opinion other than vague notions floating around the media like a "mountain of DNA" that was shredded at trial.

I also wonder how one explains the timeline of when the murders were committed versus when Mr. Simpson had ironclad alibis. Depending on when the murders occurred Mr. Simpson could NOT have committed the crimes personally. That is not to say that there are not possible timelines in which Mr. Simpson could have committed the murders, only that the evidence to support such timelines is sketchy at best.

Before typing this I googled the case a bit to see what information about the trial is on the internet. I didn't find a good source, but did find lots of one's that are flatly inaccurate in their description of the evidence presented at trial.

OK, attack away. :)
i watched it almost every day too and also agreed with the jury.

i found that the end-of-each-day news analysis didnt correspond with how i thought the daily testimony went. i attribute this to why more people felt that he was obviously guilty.

not that he probably didnt do it but i felt that they did not prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

What if the sky was neon green? The point is irrelevant--the sky is not neon green, and OJ is not innocent.

Except, of course, that he ACTUALLY IS. He has the automatic assumption of innocence until such time as he is proven guilty; and since he was found NOT guilty by the jury, and double jeopardy applies, that can never happen.

Of course, I'm talking about the original trial. I haven't followed the new one (well, I didn't follow the old one either, but I know how it ended).

He was found not guilty of the murders years ago.

I certainly haven't spent the last 14 years either gnashing my teeth over the injustice of his being found thusly, or cheering that justice was done in finding him not guilty.

Except, of course, that he ACTUALLY IS. He has the automatic assumption of innocence until such time as he is proven guilty; and since he was found NOT guilty by the jury, and double jeopardy applies, that can never happen.

Not guilty isn't the same as being found innocent. He might not be able to be convicted of that crime again, but that does not mean he was innocent. Rather, the jury did not feel there was enough evidence to convict him (which was bullshit, but that's a whole other subject) and so decided he was not guilty. Now, that's not to say he isn't "innocent until proven guilty", but they have different meanings and I'd think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone found innocent that believes a not guilty conviction is on the same level.

That being said, he was found guilty in civil court, but that was a different jury with a different, lower standard of evidence necessary to convict.

i was talking with my grandma today. and in our conversations the old OJ trial came up. she was telling that there was a friend of his who Oj was talking to before the trial. he said that OJ had arthritus and was talkoing medication for it cuz if he didnt hos fingers would swell up really bad.

so anyways OJ was talking to his friend and he said that they jury was gonna make him try on the gloves. so OJ's friend suggested that he not take his medication, say "to hell with the pain" and let his fingers swell up. that way his hands cou'dnt fit in the gloves.

just figured that would be an interesting fact.

Not guilty isn't the same as being found innocent. He might not be able to be convicted of that crime again, but that does not mean he was innocent. Rather, the jury did not feel there was enough evidence to convict him (which was bullshit, but that's a whole other subject) and so decided he was not guilty. Now, that's not to say he isn't "innocent until proven guilty", but they have different meanings and I'd think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone found innocent that believes a not guilty conviction is on the same level.

That being said, he was found guilty in civil court, but that was a different jury with a different, lower standard of evidence necessary to convict.

Um. Although there may local procedures (or foreign ones) with which I am not familiar, juries in the United States generally don't find anyone innocent. Only guilty or not guilty. Factual innocence isn't within their purview.

So Dododecapod is essentially right. You start with a presumption of innocence. If the government can't prove your guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, you remain innocent.

You are correct, however, that a not guilty verdict does not prevent one from being held liable in civil court. But that isn't a finding of criminal guilty, but only of liability.

i was talking with my grandma today. and in our conversations the old OJ trial came up. she was telling that there was a friend of his who Oj was talking to before the trial. he said that OJ had arthritus and was talkoing medication for it cuz if he didnt hos fingers would swell up really bad.

so anyways OJ was talking to his friend and he said that they jury was gonna make him try on the gloves. so OJ's friend suggested that he not take his medication, say "to hell with the pain" and let his fingers swell up. that way his hands cou'dnt fit in the gloves.

just figured that would be an interesting fact.

So a friend of a friend of your gradma allegedly talked to OJ and he (1) anticipated the prosecution making him try on the gloves, (2) he anticipated when the prosecution would make him try on the gloves, and (3) merely by not taking his medicine at the right time made the gloves not fit, when they would have otherwise?

There are good reasons why hearsay--let alone triple or quadruple hearsay isn't considered good evidence.

Nonetheless, you bring up a good point about Mr. Simpson's arthritis. There was ample testimony at trial that he suffered from such severe arthritis and other physical limitations that he could not have carried out the murders as they allegedly occurred. I'm not sure I buy that 100%, but it was another point of reasonable doubt.

I don't want to get into an argument about this and I know my opinion will be ridiculed, but I'm saying it anyway.

When most of the Simpson murder trial occurred I was (1) awaiting the start of law school and (2) laid up with a back injury. Thus, I watched most of the trial live and (once law school started) recorded and watched most of what I didn't see live.

Having seen almost all of the witnesses, the cross-examination, and the evidence as presented to the jury, I firmly believed and still believe the jury came back with a correct verdict of Not Guilty.

I am less familiar with the wrongful death suit that followed, but it contained some different evidence and I have no real problem with the verdict finding Mr. Simpson liable for the deaths of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman.

I am NOT saying I think Mr. Simpson was innocent. I do wonder for those that are convinced he is guilty on what they base this opinion other than vague notions floating around the media like a "mountain of DNA" that was shredded at trial.

I also wonder how one explains the timeline of when the murders were committed versus when Mr. Simpson had ironclad alibis. Depending on when the murders occurred Mr. Simpson could NOT have committed the crimes personally. That is not to say that there are not possible timelines in which Mr. Simpson could have committed the murders, only that the evidence to support such timelines is sketchy at best.

Before typing this I googled the case a bit to see what information about the trial is on the internet. I didn't find a good source, but did find lots of one's that are flatly inaccurate in their description of the evidence presented at trial.

OK, attack away. :)
Yeah, see, this is why I honestly don't get this collective convinced feelings on the matter. As far as I'm concerned, unless a lawyer friend/whatever, that is, an expert, says a trial was not conducted properly, then I will accept the verdict rendered as the truth.

So a friend of a friend of your gradma allegedly talked to OJ and he (1) anticipated the prosecution making him try on the gloves, (2) he anticipated when the prosecution would make him try on the gloves, and (3) merely by not taking his medicine at the right time made the gloves not fit, when they would have otherwise?

There are good reasons why hearsay--let alone triple or quadruple hearsay isn't considered good evidence.

Nonetheless, you bring up a good point about Mr. Simpson's arthritis. There was ample testimony at trial that he suffered from such severe arthritis and other physical limitations that he could not have carried out the murders as they allegedly occurred. I'm not sure I buy that 100%, but it was another point of reasonable doubt.

no sorry i should have made that clearer. my grandma heard that on the radio.

no sorry i should have made that clearer. my grandma heard that on the radio.

Is that supposed to make this story less reliable or more reliable? :wink:

no sorry i should have made that clearer. my grandma heard that on the radio.
the radio is as bad a source for info like that as the internet is.

What if the sky was neon green? The point is irrelevant--the sky is not neon green, and OJ is not innocent.

While I doubt that he is, the fact is also that he was found innocent according to the laws of his country, and we should not hastily throw out the notion of "innocent until proven guilty."

So, take a moment and seriously consider, what if he really was innocent?

I'LL eat my dog.

Then it's good he didn't get prison time.

What if:

Those stupid bastards on the LAPD has decided to NOT plant eveidence?

The OJ trial should have been a wake up call around the country. If you plant eveidence in a crime, then you should be charged and prosecuted as an accessory to that crime. If it's a murder trial then life or even the the death penalty should be a possibility.

I don't want to get into an argument about this and I know my opinion will be ridiculed, but I'm saying it anyway.

When most of the Simpson murder trial occurred I was (1) awaiting the start of law school and (2) laid up with a back injury. Thus, I watched most of the trial live and (once law school started) recorded and watched most of what I didn't see live.

Having seen almost all of the witnesses, the cross-examination, and the evidence as presented to the jury, I firmly believed and still believe the jury came back with a correct verdict of Not Guilty.

I am less familiar with the wrongful death suit that followed, but it contained some different evidence and I have no real problem with the verdict finding Mr. Simpson liable for the deaths of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman.

I am NOT saying I think Mr. Simpson was innocent. I do wonder for those that are convinced he is guilty on what they base this opinion other than vague notions floating around the media like a "mountain of DNA" that was shredded at trial.

I also wonder how one explains the timeline of when the murders were committed versus when Mr. Simpson had ironclad alibis. Depending on when the murders occurred Mr. Simpson could NOT have committed the crimes personally. That is not to say that there are not possible timelines in which Mr. Simpson could have committed the murders, only that the evidence to support such timelines is sketchy at best.

Before typing this I googled the case a bit to see what information about the trial is on the internet. I didn't find a good source, but did find lots of one's that are flatly inaccurate in their description of the evidence presented at trial.

OK, attack away. :)

No attacks coming from me, anyway. I was a kid at the time of the trial, but I followed the case enough to be pretty darn convinced that the prosecution had done a piss-poor job of proving anything beyond a reasonable doubt. I still remember my classmates' utter astonishment that I was "defending" him or that I "thought he was innocent," and how I kept having to explain that I quite definitely thought OJ was a jerk and considered it pretty likely that he was a murderer as well, but that our legal system wasn't supposed to be convicting people on the basis of "pretty likely." It sticks in my memory because even at age 12 or 13 or 14 or whatever I was, I was quite genuinely baffled as to how my peers could live in a society and not understand the basics of how its laws worked.

No attacks coming from me, anyway. I was a kid at the time of the trial, but I followed the case enough to be pretty darn convinced that the prosecution had done a piss-poor job of proving anything beyond a reasonable doubt. I still remember my classmates' utter astonishment that I was "defending" him or that I "thought he was innocent," and how I kept having to explain that I quite definitely thought OJ was a jerk and considered it pretty likely that he was a murderer as well, but that our legal system wasn't supposed to be convicting people on the basis of "pretty likely." It sticks in my memory because even at age 12 or 13 or 14 or whatever I was, I was quite genuinely baffled as to how my peers could live in a society and not understand the basics of how its laws worked.

Because they aren't taught how it works. Actually I have some recollection of it myself I was only 9 but I remember our teacher asked us about it and wanted people to split up into three groups; those who thought he was guilty, those who thought he was innocent and those who did not know. I went into the did not know group mainly because I knew i hadn't seen or heard any evidence on the case and so I was unable to determine whether he was guilty or innocent. Those in my group were told that we were wise and then the teacher proceeded to have a class on evidence and the need for it in order to prove someones guilt in a crime.

but would that then open the door for a counter suit against the Goldman family who successfully slapped a 'wrongful death' suite on him?

no, it won't.

Because they aren't taught how it works. Actually I have some recollection of it myself I was only 9 but I remember our teacher asked us about it and wanted people to split up into three groups; those who thought he was guilty, those who thought he was innocent and those who did not know. I went into the did not know group mainly because I knew i hadn't seen or heard any evidence on the case and so I was unable to determine whether he was guilty or innocent. Those in my group were told that we were wise and then the teacher proceeded to have a class on evidence and the need for it in order to prove someones guilt in a crime.

Heh, yeah, I remember one of my classes did something similar on the morning before the jury reached their verdict, except we divided into "guilty" and "not guilty." I was the only person in the latter group. Seeing as this was an honors class at a top-notch private school, I still can't quite grasp how none of my classmates had been well enough educated to understand that "not guilty" did NOT mean "innocent."

no, it won't.

Agreed.

As usual.

Boring.

Why don't you say something totally wrong, so I can jump all over it? :wink:

Heh, yeah, I remember one of my classes did something similar on the morning before the jury reached their verdict, except we divided into "guilty" and "not guilty." I was the only person in the latter group. Seeing as this was an honors class at a top-notch private school, I still can't quite grasp how none of my classmates had been well enough educated to understand that "not guilty" did NOT mean "innocent."

That's OK, we had a similar discussion during law school in which the vast, vast majority of students (1L-3L) were not only convinced Simpson was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, but were outraged at those of us (including the Prof leading the discussion) that weren't so convinced.

EDIT: I'm not sure I'm happy to hear how old you were at the time I was in law school. I'm an old, old man. A dirty, old man.

SeXy!! Especially since I know you are a smart ass red head .. /swoon.







*I'll be disciplined or ignored*

Ignore me :P

That's OK, we had a similar discussion during law school in which the vast, vast majority of students (1L-3L) were not only convinced Simpson was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, but were outraged at those of us (including the Prof leading the discussion) that weren't so convinced.

Oh, dear, that is rather unfortunate.

EDIT: I'm not sure I'm happy to hear how old you were at the time I was in law school. I'm an old, old man. A dirty, old man.

Heh, well, aging happens to the best of us. I expect I'll get around to being old at some point, too. ;) (And, hey, maybe in ten years or so I'll stop getting carded at R movies! *sigh* :p )

All I remember from the OJ trial, was the commercials showing his bad ass receptions/runs?.

The one where he literally fell down on his ass, magically flew back up on two feet and kept running. Since his hands? never hit .. it was legal. or some shit.

Heh, yeah, I remember one of my classes did something similar on the morning before the jury reached their verdict, except we divided into "guilty" and "not guilty." I was the only person in the latter group. Seeing as this was an honors class at a top-notch private school, I still can't quite grasp how none of my classmates had been well enough educated to understand that "not guilty" did NOT mean "innocent."

Yes it is quite funny, I suppose it was all the media hype. IIRC they were against Simpson and was saying he was guilty.

A similar thing happened here a few years back, some Australian woman got arrested for smuggling dope into Indonesia, and she was put on trial the media went on here side saying how innocent she was blah blah blah, lo and behold many people thought she was innocent without knowing any of the facts and seeing any evidence. The local paper had pages and pages on it everyday of her trail and on the day the verdict was to be announced they had Yr11 law students saying how innocent she was and how she didn't do it. I was laughing and shaking my head at the same time at this, she was found guilty, I don't know if she was or not but she was found guilty in the end, but yeah the amount of people who just took a certain side straight away basically cause the media presented it like that was amazing.

Yes it is quite funny, I suppose it was all the media hype. IIRC they were against Simpson and was saying he was guilty.

A similar thing happened here a few years back, some Australian woman got arrested for smuggling dope into Indonesia, and she was put on trial the media went on here side saying how innocent she was blah blah blah, lo and behold many people thought she was innocent without knowing any of the facts and seeing any evidence. The local paper had pages and pages on it everyday of her trail and on the day the verdict was to be announced they had Yr11 law students saying how innocent she was and how she didn't do it. I was laughing and shaking my head at the same time at this, she was found guilty, I don't know if she was or not but she was found guilty in the end, but yeah the amount of people who just took a certain side straight away basically cause the media presented it like that was amazing.

That was such a classic case. I loved how seriously fucked up her family was. The more they were shown on TV, the less likely the idea that she wasn't anything but guilty became.

I thought with the OJ case, his lawyers turned it around and made it a case against the LAPD, which was part of the reason they won. The LAPD had become little more than an armed force (and not a police force) during the '80s, answerable to no-one. All OJ's lawyers did was bring focus onto just how casual they were with regards to the law themselves. That in itself was enough to show reasonable doubt.

What if OJ Simpson actually didn't kill his ex-wife?
It would completely crush my belief on the peer based American justice system.

:D

That was such a classic case. I loved how seriously fucked up her family was. The more they were shown on TV, the less likely the idea that she wasn't anything but guilty became.

I thought with the OJ case, his lawyers turned it around and made it a case against the LAPD, which was part of the reason they won. The LAPD had become little more than an armed force (and not a police force) during the '80s, answerable to no-one. All OJ's lawyers did was bring focus onto just how casual they were with regards to the law themselves. That in itself was enough to show reasonable doubt.

I'm just sick and tired of the media still going on about her, let her live out her 20 years without telling me about it.

Well I don't know much about the OJ case (I was only 9) so you maybe right about that.

I'm just sick and tired of the media still going on about her, let her live out her 20 years without telling me about it.
tell me about it. It was only the jokes about her that got me through it.

tell me about it. It was only the jokes about her that got me through it.

Jokes? I missed these jokes, please tell me a couple.

Jokes? I missed these jokes, please tell me a couple.
Lucky for you I don't del all my emails. Here the ones I was sent. Some are funny, others not so. Well lame to tell the truth.

New fragrance for women, smells like a Bali jail. It's called Shapelle No. 5

Apparently there is a new sign the front window of Shapelle's Beauty Parlor. It says "Back in 20"

Have you heard the new motto for her Beauty Salon: "For women who have lost their appeal"

Victa have just released a range of Shappelle Corby lawn mowers: The catcher holds 4.1 kg of grass and it's guaranteed for 20 years.

Heard about Shapelle's Beauty Salon's new herbal treatment? Guaranteed to take 20 years off your life!

What's Shapelle Corby's favourite song? Blame it on the Boogie.

He may not have killed her, but any man who writes a book on how he would have done it is most certainly a douche.

What if OJ Simpson actually didn't kill his ex-wife?


That's just crazy talk!

*snip*

LOL, nice I liked the last three especially cheers.

I certainly hope he didn't do it, what with him being found not guilty. I'd like to think that people who actually committed the crime they're accused of are only rarely found not guilty.

no, it won't.

ah, thanks, I was wondering about that.