Dr. Henry Louis Gates Arrested

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

I'm going to hijack the thread and disagree with you here. I still don't think OJ killed those people, but I think he either knows who did it or he saw it when it happened.

He wrote a book outlining how it happened, carefully worded to avoid being a post hoc confession - I mean . . .

Besides this, if he "knows who did it or he saw it when it happened" then he's also, under CA law, a murderer, given his actions afterward.

[I.A.S.K.]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

I'm going to hijack the thread and disagree with you here. I still don't think OJ killed those people, but I think he either knows who did it or he saw it when it happened.

I didnt want to believe he did it either, but then I read the book. The title was "If I did it this is how I would've done it" or something like that. He definitely killed them both. He claims to have done it in a fit of rage, but still He DEFINITELY did it.

Originally Posted by KSig RC

He wrote a book outlining how it happened, carefully worded to avoid being a post hoc confession - I mean . . .

Besides this, if he "knows who did it or he saw it when it happened" then he's also, under CA law, a murderer, given his actions afterward.

Now if he hadn't done it and only knew who did it (while I comprehend that under the law he's considered a murderer) he wouldnt be considered a murderer to me.

[Munchkin03]

Really? There are people who honestly believe he didn't do it?

Wow. Just wow.

[KSUViolet06]

Originally Posted by Munchkin03

Really? There are people who honestly believe he didn't do it?

Wow. Just wow.

Yes there are.

It boggles my mind that there are well-educated and intelligent people out there who still think OJ is innocent.

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by KSUViolet06

Yes there are.

It boggles my mind that there are well-educated and intelligent people out there who still think OJ is innocent.

Really? I don't see why that would boggle your mind. Those well-educated and intelligent people who don't believe he did it perhaps looked at the facts and the evidence actually presented at trial instead of allowing emotions and media tidbits to form their opinion on the matter. I don't believe that the prosecution effectively proved their case. There were just some things that didn't add up, and it didn't help that Furhman was involved. I noticed that someone else said his son did it. I have heard that theory numerous times. Why he would have done it, I don't know. But I don't think that idea is really that farfetched.

I know many people think he flew into a rage because he saw her with another man and decided to kill her. I don't buy that because at that point it was a regular thing. The word on the street was that she was screwing several different men, including his best friend. If he didn't kill her when she slept with his best friend, then I don't see why he would suddenly kill her because he sees her talking to some random dude.

As for the book, keep in mind that he went through a whole trial where the prosecution was trying to convince the jury how he killed them. His book was written subsequent to all of that so if he seems to have a great number of details, that could simply be because he is including info from the trial.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

Really? I don't see why that would boggle your mind. Those well-educated and intelligent people who don't believe he did it perhaps looked at the facts and the evidence actually presented at trial instead of allowing emotions and media tidbits to form their opinion on the matter. I don't believe that the prosecution effectively proved their case. There were just some things that didn't add up, and it didn't help that Furhman was involved. I noticed that someone else said his son did it. I have heard that theory numerous times. Why he would have done it, I don't know. But I don't think that idea is really that farfetched.

I mean . . . there's literally no evidence to connect his son to the scene, which makes it far-fetched in the sense that it doesn't reach the "reasonable doubt" standard.

Just out of curiosity, which facts/evidence are problematic for you? What doesn't add up?

As for the book, keep in mind that he went through a whole trial where the prosecution was trying to convince the jury how he killed them. His book was written subsequent to all of that so if he seems to have a great number of details, that could simply be because he is including info from the trial.

Wait, what?

The very fact that he's writing the book is the main problem - I'm sure he's familiar with the facts of his own trial, nobody is disputing that. However, what incentive does he have to write a book outlining how he would have murdered the two in a fashion that is consistent with the evidence presented at trial? He literally connected the dots that you're uncomfortable connecting above.

[DrPhil]

OJ is a loser. That is all.

[bridge kid]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

I mean . . . there's literally no evidence to connect his son to the scene, which makes it far-fetched in the sense that it doesn't reach the "reasonable doubt" standard..

No evidence other than the Bronco, the bloody glove, his history of violence and the fact that his alibi has since recanted.

[bridge kid]

Originally Posted by I.A.S.K.

I didnt want to believe he did it either, but then I read the book. The title was "If I did it this is how I would've done it" or something like that. He definitely killed them both. He claims to have done it in a fit of rage, but still He DEFINITELY did it.



Now if he hadn't done it and only knew who did it (while I comprehend that under the law he's considered a murderer) he wouldnt be considered a murderer to me.

He was framed. If he did it then why was the bloody glove in the back of the house and the Bronco and a blood trail was also in front of the house? Mark Furman obviously planted the evidence.

[dekeguy]

Since the OJ case seems to have entered this thread I'll throw in a thought or three. To me, it doesn't really matter whether he did it or not. The prosecution failed to make their case, the evidence was grossly mishandled, there were too many irregularities, etc, etc. Remember the bit about reasonable doubt? Seems like there was a fair amount of that.
Now as to my personal opinion, I have serious doubts that he did in fact do it. However, and again just my personal opinion, I have a gut feeling that he is sheilding someone and was willing to bite the bullet for that person. That would arguably hit him with accessory after the fact and/or obstruction, etc.
But, sometimes doing the technically wrong thing can be the actually right thing.

[bridge kid]

Originally Posted by dekeguy

Since the OJ case seems to have entered this thread I'll throw in a thought or three. To me, it doesn't really matter whether he did it or not. The prosecution failed to make their case, the evidence was grossly mishandled, there were too many irregularities, etc, etc. Remember the bit about reasonable doubt? Seems like there was a fair amount of that.
Now as to my personal opinion, I have serious doubts that he did in fact do it. However, and again just my personal opinion, I have a gut feeling that he is sheilding someone and was willing to bite the bullet for that person. That would arguably hit him with accessory after the fact and/or obstruction, etc.
But, sometimes doing the technically wrong thing can be the actually right thing.

His son did it.

[SydneyK]

Originally Posted by bridge kid

OJ was framed by a racist cop.

He was framed... Mark Furman obviously planted the evidence.

His son did it.

This seems pretty inconsistent to me. If (and that's a big if) OJ's son did it, and OJ was trying to cover for his son, wouldn't OJ be the one planting the evidence (against himself) instead of the cop?

I can't believe I'm actually contributing to this thread anymore. and at myself. I should know better.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by I.A.S.K.

Now if he hadn't done it and only knew who did it (while I comprehend that under the law he's considered a murderer) he wouldnt be considered a murderer to me.

He would be partially accountable under the law.