- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: In your opinion, did OJ kill Brown and Goldman?
Posted on 2/14/17 at 1:03 pm to MegaTiger3
Posted on 2/14/17 at 1:03 pm to MegaTiger3
Without question. I'm as sure he's a murderer as I'm certain the sun will rise tomorrow.
0
Posted on 2/14/17 at 1:03 pm to MegaTiger3
Yes
Posted on 2/14/17 at 1:06 pm to MegaTiger3
Posted on 2/14/17 at 1:06 pm to Wtodd
quote:
shite I'm not a prosecutor but I could have won this case
quote:
You assume having a jury that is actually using the facts to come to a decision
Fair point but the prosecution team allowed the trial to become a smoke & mirror show
Judge Lance Ito was more to blame for that. The judge is responsible for keeping things in line, the judge decides what evidence can legally be admitted, and the judge has the power to stop all of the speculation and hearsay. Ito was caught up in the celebrity of it all.
Posted on 2/14/17 at 1:09 pm to MegaTiger3
The fact that he was without a doubt framed by the LAPD makes judging his guilt or innocence very difficult. Yeah he probably did it but there's reasonable doubt.
Posted on 2/14/17 at 1:09 pm to MegaTiger3
Of course he did.
Posted on 2/14/17 at 1:14 pm to AZBadgerFan
Not trying to clown on you are anything. But I take anything Fuhrman has to say with a grain on salt.
Posted on 2/14/17 at 1:18 pm to Roll Tide Ravens
As a soon-to-be law student, I'll use my still limited legal knowledge, and say that I blame the prosecution's failure on two things (other than racial views within the jury):
1) The glove. Chris Darden should have never asked him to try on the gloves. The problem was that due to the blood soaking the gloves, they had drawn up; the gloves had been kept cold to preserve evidence (cold wasn't good for the leather); OJ had to wear latex gloves to avoid harming the evidence on the gloves. These factors made it likely that the gloves would have had no chance of fitting, and the prosecution should have known this. I think Darden thought the gloves could be their big moment, but it back fired.
2) Putting Mark Fuhrman on the stand. The defense employed a racism narrative to raise the possibility that Fuhrman (who found the glove at OJ's house) had planted the glove there and thus, raise reasonable doubt. Fuhrman then testified that he never used the "N word", which was debunked by the tapes of him saying that word. This worked out perfectly for the defense, as it made it clear that Fuhrman was a racist and helped the narrative that he could have planted the glove because of racist motivations.
However, Lead Prosecutor, Marcia Clark, has since raised a good point which is that she had no choice but to put him on the stand. Because he found the glove that was at OJ's house, having other investigators testify instead of him would have raised suspicion that the prosecution was hiding something.
1) The glove. Chris Darden should have never asked him to try on the gloves. The problem was that due to the blood soaking the gloves, they had drawn up; the gloves had been kept cold to preserve evidence (cold wasn't good for the leather); OJ had to wear latex gloves to avoid harming the evidence on the gloves. These factors made it likely that the gloves would have had no chance of fitting, and the prosecution should have known this. I think Darden thought the gloves could be their big moment, but it back fired.
2) Putting Mark Fuhrman on the stand. The defense employed a racism narrative to raise the possibility that Fuhrman (who found the glove at OJ's house) had planted the glove there and thus, raise reasonable doubt. Fuhrman then testified that he never used the "N word", which was debunked by the tapes of him saying that word. This worked out perfectly for the defense, as it made it clear that Fuhrman was a racist and helped the narrative that he could have planted the glove because of racist motivations.
However, Lead Prosecutor, Marcia Clark, has since raised a good point which is that she had no choice but to put him on the stand. Because he found the glove that was at OJ's house, having other investigators testify instead of him would have raised suspicion that the prosecution was hiding something.
This post was edited on 2/14/17 at 1:19 pm
Posted on 2/14/17 at 1:26 pm to MegaTiger3
I believed, based on the evidence, that he killed them.
What, for me, completely confirmed that belief:
His "That's a lie!" outburst, complete with pointed finger, when a detective testified that the shower drain in his bathroom wasn't damaged during evidence collection.
During presentation of gory evidence and testimony that he did this/that during the murder, he didn't utter a peep, just doodled or joked with his attorneys or looked bored.
Posted on 2/14/17 at 1:27 pm to MegaTiger3
Hell yes. He needs to be in pine oil heaven.
Posted on 2/14/17 at 1:29 pm to MegaTiger3
yes
Posted on 2/14/17 at 1:33 pm to Vacherie Saint
quote:
Plus, he was ruled responsible in the civil trial - which was basically the criminal trial minus the race baiting, theatrics, all black jury, and incompetent judge.
Big difference was they got to cross-examine his lying arse in the civil trial.
Posted on 2/14/17 at 2:12 pm to MegaTiger3
Yeah
Posted on 2/14/17 at 2:19 pm to JohnDeere
quote:
Yes I'm sure he killed them but don't think he meant to. I don't think he really was meaning to cut Nichole's throat. I think he was really just trying to cut Ron's dick off.
Are you implying that his dick was in her throat at the time?
Posted on 2/14/17 at 2:30 pm to Teddy Ruxpin
quote:
You assume having a jury that is actually using the facts to come to a decision.
As well as a judge with any remote competency and whose every step was only focused on how he can get more famous. Ito's license to practice law should have been revoked after that shite show of a trial. I have no idea how he had the balls to continue being a judge after that.
Posted on 2/14/17 at 2:34 pm to MegaTiger3
Didn't he write a book admitting to it? 
Posted on 2/14/17 at 2:42 pm to lsuwontonwrap
I think he was guilty, but had help. Goldman was in the prime of his life and a 3rd degree black belt.
Posted on 2/14/17 at 2:44 pm to MegaTiger3
Yeah, why else would he run?
Posted on 2/14/17 at 2:46 pm to TrapperJohn
Yup. The way he was able to get both of them has me puzzled..... not sure how he did it....
Posted on 2/14/17 at 2:47 pm to Easy
quote:
The fact that he was without a doubt framed by the LAPD makes judging his guilt or innocence very difficult. Yeah he probably did it but there's reasonable doubt.
What a fool you are!
a) while there were some less than perfect methods, there was no "framing" by LAPD. The police flaws amount to, essentially nothing, when weighed against the evidence of guilt. You need a dictionary.
b) there is a difference between "reasonable doubt" and an absolute rock-solid "caught on video" scenario. You do not have a good comprehension of reasonable doubt. Again, you need a dictionary.
Page 4 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News