Dr. Henry Louis Gates Arrested

[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.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by bridge kid

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

How is the Bronco "evidence" in favor of the son?

Does the glove have his fingerprints/DNA on it?

OJ has a pretty solid history of violence, SPECIFICALLY TOWARD NICOLE BROWN.

When did the alibi recant? Why?

You're not doing a very good job of introducing doubt at all, not to mention reasonable ones.