Well our buddy OJ is back in the news, this time for robbing a guy in a hotel room in Vegas. Sooo, since we're on the topic anyway, lets Poll for the age old question, Did OJ Simpson get away with murder????
O.J Simpson - Did he do it?
- Thread starter Scuba-Jay
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
Hemlon
Contributor
An emphatic yes!
- Messages
- 22,171
- Reaction score
- 2,789
- # of dives
- 5000 - ∞
In one time space continuum or another, each and every one of us (including OJ) did it. THe question is did he do it in this one?
Yup, I think he's clearly guilty. I still remember watching when the verdict was read. My jaw just hit the ground. He played the game, hired the best and got away with murder. Very, very sad indeed.
He actually didn't hire the very best - none of his defense team had any trial experience in murder cases, and between all of them, very little criminal trial experience. The case was lost be the prosecution.
For those interested, check out the book Outrage - The Five Reasons OJ Simpson Got Away with Murder, by Vincent Bugliosi. You will be suprised how bad the defense was, and how much worse the prosecution was.
deeper thoughts
Contributor
- Messages
- 6,942
- Reaction score
- 2,890
- # of dives
- 500 - 999
OJ lied and people died
Charlie99
Contributor
- Messages
- 7,966
- Reaction score
- 166
- # of dives
- 500 - 999
My bet is that the current case will not result in a conviction of OJ either. It was just a misunderstanding and when OJ's buddies pulled out their guns and said "hand over the memorabilia" there were just making a polite request. Beside, OJ didn't realize that any of his buddies that he brought along for the unscheduled meeting were going to do that.
There's a big difference between knowing that someone has done something and being able to prove it beyond reasonable doubt. That's why there can be the strange situation of OJ being found not guilty of murder but then being found civilly liable in the wrongful death lawsuit. Perhaps rather than "not guilty", the proper phrase is that he "was not found guilty".
There's a big difference between knowing that someone has done something and being able to prove it beyond reasonable doubt. That's why there can be the strange situation of OJ being found not guilty of murder but then being found civilly liable in the wrongful death lawsuit. Perhaps rather than "not guilty", the proper phrase is that he "was not found guilty".
nereas
Contributor
- Messages
- 2,735
- Reaction score
- 6
- # of dives
- 500 - 999
"... how much worse the prosecution was."
Indeed that was the salient issue. I watched the trial, having been between jobs at the time, back in 1994. It was the perfect entertainment, which kept your mind off everything else, which is precisely what TV is supposed to do.
Marcia Clark came across as such a man-hating harpy that only equally man-hating jurors could have possibly related to her. Just maybe she was not the right person for that case?
And Christopher Darden's role as Uncle Tom trying to plead with the largely African-American jury to see things his way, that "he [Simpson] really did it ..." was equally pathetic to Clark's performance.
If either or both of these two public servants could have feigned intelligence, then a logical presentation to the jury might have given rise to a dilemma, such as do you set free a person who likely (beyond reasonable doubt) killed (for whatever reason) 2 people?
Instead, the prosecution performance was so bad, and the speculation by the defence about the vial of OJ's blood so creative, that a not-guilty verdict was all but certain.
In deference to the jury's decision, about letting OJ go free, he has indeed not killed anyone again since.
But it is and forever will be in doubt whether the criteria for murder in the first degree were actually met by the alleged actions of the now notorious defendant. The verdict of the jury should be respected however, since our Constitution warrants jury trials. And in the USA, unlike in France and in Mexico, you are not "guilty until proven innocent."
Worthy of Simpson's consideration is the fact that he had to spend millions of dollars upon his 2 trials and for the civil court assessment, when instead he could have easily found a professional hit man that would have cost less than 1/10th of that and without a trace. People with lots of money have tremendous power at their beck and call.
