- 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: Is there anyone who actually thinks that OJ is innocent?
Posted on 4/11/24 at 5:15 pm to Ten Bears
Posted on 4/11/24 at 5:15 pm to Ten Bears
quote:
I might be remembering it incorrectly, but I think the shoe print wasn't determined to be OJ's until the civil trial. Yes, they had the imprint and approximate size, and they knew it was a Bruno Magli shoe but they couldn't connect them to OJ.
It was the civil trial that found the picture of OJ wearing Bruno Magli shoes.
Again, it's been 30 years.
I think your recollection is mostly correct. Those shoes were incredibly rare. 299 total pairs sold in the US at the time and I think 9% were size 12 in that size (they were sure of the size by my recollection).
1
Posted on 4/11/24 at 9:31 pm to mdomingue
quote:
Those shoes were incredibly rare. 299 total pairs sold in the US at the time and I think 9% were size 12 in that size (they were sure of the size by my recollection).
Out of curiosity as I can’t remember anymore but how were they able to identify such a rare show by a single foot print in the 90s? Especially with how shoddy the rest of their evidence collection sad
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News