Good Taste Is Timeless (Mr. Simpson and Planned FOX Interview)

[PiKA2001]

So is he looking back and telling people how he should have killed ron & nicole. maybe try to cover up some of the overwhelming evidence that pointed straight to him? He shouldn't have worn his bruno mali shoes and he shouldn't have dropped his glove. what is he trying to prove? anybody with any kind of sense knows he killed those two. And what about his kids? I feel so bad for them, it's bad enough their father killed their mom, but know dad has to write a book about it...come on.

[kstar]

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

So is he looking back and telling people how he should have killed ron & nicole. maybe try to cover up some of the overwhelming evidence that pointed straight to him? He shouldn't have worn his bruno mali shoes and he shouldn't have dropped his glove. what is he trying to prove? anybody with any kind of sense knows he killed those two. And what about his kids? I feel so bad for them, it's bad enough their father killed their mom, but know dad has to write a book about it...come on.

His glove? It didn't even fit! And the problem with the Simpson trial was that there was NOT "overwhelming evidence that pointed straight to him," most of the evidence that supported him as the killer was circumstancial at best.

I don't think the guy is totally innocent, but then again, I don't think the prosecutors should have gone to trial without good evidence.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by kstar

And the problem with the Simpson trial was that there was NOT "overwhelming evidence that pointed straight to him," most of the evidence that supported him as the killer was circumstancial at best.

Most evidence in most criminal trials is circumstantial. "I saw him stab her" or the like is direct evidence -- pretty much everything else is circumstantial.

TV and movies notwithstanding, plenty of people have been convicted on circumstantial evidence alone.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by kstar

His glove? It didn't even fit! And the problem with the Simpson trial was that there was NOT "overwhelming evidence that pointed straight to him," most of the evidence that supported him as the killer was circumstancial at best.

I don't think the guy is totally innocent, but then again, I don't think the prosecutors should have gone to trial without good evidence.

I dunno whether the glove would have fit or not, but you can make a glove, particularly a leather one, not fit on your hand if you hold your hand right.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by kstar

His glove? It didn't even fit! And the problem with the Simpson trial was that there was NOT "overwhelming evidence that pointed straight to him," most of the evidence that supported him as the killer was circumstancial at best.

I don't think the guy is totally innocent, but then again, I don't think the prosecutors should have gone to trial without good evidence.

Yeah . . . circumstantial evidence is perfectly valid in a court of law, as MysticCat noted - evidence can really only be direct or circumstantial, and it's hard to have direct - but you've just exhibited a fantastic example of the "Law & Order Effect," which is one reason why people like me have a job (it actually may be the main reason).

It's also one of the key strategies they used to get him off - "So the DNA match is one in 1.5 million? So there are all of TEN other people in the LA area that might match? OMG ACQUIT" . . . never mind that the actual figure was 99.99998% match, not "1 in 1.5mil will match." Pretty impressive swap, actually - God bless cognitive dissonance.

We've kind of bastardized the term "reasonable doubt" - thank God we've stopped using "beyond a shadow of a doubt" on any shows . . . ugh

[macallan25]

Originally Posted by kstar

His glove? It didn't even fit! And the problem with the Simpson trial was that there was NOT "overwhelming evidence that pointed straight to him," most of the evidence that supported him as the killer was circumstancial at best.

I don't think the guy is totally innocent, but then again, I don't think the prosecutors should have gone to trial without good evidence.

How are you not "totally innocent" in a trial like that? Do you think he "kind of" murdered Ron Goldman and nearly cut his wife's head off? When that piece of shit was arrested he had a gun on him, thousands of dollars in cash, fake beards and mustaches, and a passport. Boy, that sure doesn't make him look guilty or anything. Too bad that was never put into evidence though..and neither was his note that he wrote before fleeing in the Bronco.

The OJ Simpson trial was lost because Christopher Darden and Marcia Clark did a crappy job of prosecuting. They left out key evidence, left out taped statements made by Simpson which were extremely incriminating, and they did a bad job of studying juror statistics during the selection process. The evidence that they did have was pretty damn strong......but I don't think the utilized it at all.

You should read Vincent Bugliosi's book on the case.......its a good one.

[AGDee]

He also tried to put the glove on over a latex glove. Try that sometime and tell me how it works.

The jurors who were interviewed after the fact said that the DNA evidence was too complicated so they just ignored that. There was more physical evidence for OJ killing those two than there was for Scott Peterson killing Lacy.

[AKA_Monet]

I was on I-10 near Sepuldeva when OJ went buckwild on the freeway...

Traffic totally sucked that day...

[sdsuchelle]

Uggghhh can we please not argue "Is OJ guilty or not" AGAIN.. those were bad 90's memories

[RU OX Alum]

yeah, that was in the 8th grade for that trial, I didn't think anybody still had an opinion

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by sdsuchelle

Uggghhh can we please not argue "Is OJ guilty or not" AGAIN.. those were bad 90's memories

It seems to me that he is inviting it.

This reminds me of how Ted Bundy gave a third person account of his serial killings just before his execution, without ever really saying he did it. It's a very sociopathic type thing to do.