- 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: Watched the OJ 30 for 30: Can anyone possibly believe he didn't do it after that
Posted on 2/23/17 at 9:37 am to Marciano1
Posted on 2/23/17 at 9:37 am to Marciano1
What blew my mind was that the prosecution team didn't explain that of course a leather glove is going to shrink a lot once it has gotten wet. It's like they didn't even try to explain that or demonstrate that. Were they so lacking in common sense?
4
Posted on 2/23/17 at 9:42 am to boxcar willie
Of course to this jury how could anything be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. They were like the Flat Earth Society. You couldn't prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that the Earth is not flat because from where they're standing it does appear to be flat and anything to disprove it is just fakery by the man
Posted on 2/23/17 at 9:48 am to McCaigBro69
quote:
I don't think anyone really thinks he didn't do it.
Isn't there a theory and it has been somewhat proved that it was Jason and OJ not just OJ?
Posted on 2/23/17 at 9:48 am to boxcar willie
Even if the prosecution had presented a slam dunk case there was still a good chance O.J. would have gotten off because at least one juror was going to hold out.
Posted on 2/23/17 at 9:49 am to boxcar willie
quote:
leather glove
They also had OJ off his anti-inflammatories for a bit, so his hands swelled up.
Posted on 2/23/17 at 10:29 am to boxcar willie
quote:
What blew my mind was that the prosecution team didn't explain that of course a leather glove is going to shrink a lot once it has gotten wet. It's like they didn't even try to explain that or demonstrate that. Were they so lacking in common sense?
Or the fact that for Furhman to plant the glove, he had to have known at the time for a concrete fact that OJ did not have an alibi. He wasn't in a woman's bed, at a bar, at a restaurant, on a plane, at a neighbor's house, that his daughter wasn't visiting him in his house, or making any financial transaction whatsoever. If Furhman didn't know that, then he's heavily risking himself getting felony charges and going to prison for a while.
This post was edited on 2/23/17 at 10:34 am
Posted on 2/23/17 at 10:33 am to sms151t
quote:
Isn't there a theory and it has been somewhat proved that it was Jason and OJ not just OJ?
No. Watch the documentary. There's no way in hell Jason did it or that there was another person at the scene of the crime. There's no evidence whatsoever that he was involved, and hundreds of pieces of evidence that it was OJ. Nicole wasn't screaming to multiple people that Jason was going to kill her.
To be honest after watching the documentary, that theory has become quite insulting to me.
Posted on 2/23/17 at 10:42 am to OMLandshark
So the 30 for 30 is the end all be all? That is very dangerous to only take one source. A director/producer can easily manipulate the feeling of a "documentary".
This post was edited on 2/23/17 at 10:43 am
Posted on 2/23/17 at 10:50 am to sms151t
quote:
So the 30 for 30 is the end all be all? That is very dangerous to only take one source. A director/producer can easily manipulate the feeling of a "documentary".
Yeah. It's incredibly thorough. One of the jurors point blank says that she knows he did it, but they were going to let him off regardless due to Rodney King. The only people in that documentary out of 80 people interviewed who thinks that OJ is still innocent are F Lee Bailey (who is totally full of shite and lying) and one of his childhood friends.
And how Bill Hodgman paints the night of the murders, it's hard to deny that is in all likelihood what happened. There was so much blood and it was so fricking violent that there's no way that there wouldn't be further evidence of another person being on the scene.
Watch this scene. It's about an hour in. Warning, it's highly, highly graphic and NSFW: LINK
This post was edited on 2/23/17 at 10:54 am
Posted on 2/23/17 at 10:50 am to TigerNavyDoc
quote:
but they effed it up by allowing people like Mark Furman on the stand.
He was first at the scene, first at Rockingham, and found one of the key pieces of physical evidence. There was no way he wasn't going to end up on the stand.
Posted on 2/23/17 at 10:52 am to boxcar willie
quote:
What blew my mind was that the prosecution team didn't explain that of course a leather glove is going to shrink a lot once it has gotten wet. It's like they didn't even try to explain that or demonstrate that. Were they so lacking in common sense?
They actually did in the rebuttal case. The problem is, of course, that once you have to explain why the glove you insisted OJ tried on didn't fit, you've already lost. The jury is thinking, if you knew it was going to shrink, why did you insist he put it on. It was a huge botch. They should have focused on the shoes. That's what destroyed OJ in the civil case along with his incredibly tone deaf deposition.
Posted on 2/23/17 at 10:54 am to OMLandshark
I have already seen it. I have watched multiple documentaries on this case and read multiple studies about the case.
Posted on 2/23/17 at 10:56 am to sms151t
quote:
I have already seen it. I have watched multiple documentaries on this case and read multiple studies about the case.
Then how would there be no evidence of him being there and why would OJ have left the glove behind?
Posted on 2/23/17 at 11:28 am to OMLandshark
There is evidence in the blood evidence. The blood evidence is unreliable though as it was mixed with all of the people at the scene. There is also evidence by OJ saying I couldn't do this myself. There's been statements also by Jason that seem cryptic. I am in no way, shape, or form saying OJ is innocent, I just do not believe it was just him. There was someone else involved.
ETA: The dumbest theory out there was the drug angle. The people who use that theory are really reaching.
ETA: The dumbest theory out there was the drug angle. The people who use that theory are really reaching.
This post was edited on 2/23/17 at 11:31 am
Posted on 2/23/17 at 11:34 am to lsutigers1992
quote:
And Darden did that for them when he allowed him to try on the glove.
"If the glove don't fit, you must acquit" might sound stupid, but that's all he needed to say.
Gross incompetence.
You don't allow a hostile witness to perform a demonstration with the evidence in front of the jury.
Posted on 2/23/17 at 11:35 am to Goldrush25
quote:
You don't allow a hostile witness to perform a demonstration with the evidence in front of the jury.
ESPECIALLY one you can't compel to testify, and you know will not testify at trial.
Posted on 2/23/17 at 11:40 am to therick711
Darden got his ego hurt and tried to fight against Cochran. Just made himself look stupid and ended up ruining his reputation
Posted on 2/23/17 at 12:49 pm to sms151t
quote:
The dumbest theory out there was the drug angle. The people who use that theory are really reaching.
Colombian neck tie?
Posted on 2/23/17 at 12:57 pm to finchmeister08
ive been trying to figure out what the biggest frick up was for the prosecution. its between:
a) letting the trial take place where it took place and because of that
b) having the jury that they had
c) marsha clark having her head so far up her arse that she thought she could relate to african american women when it was so clear that she couldnt
d) letting the jury take a walk through OJs house
e) basing their case on the crime scene and not vetting the first officer on the scene who ends up having a recording of him saying some horrible, disgusting, vile shite
f) the glove
i mean what a truly remarkable study in what not to do. they literally lost an unlosable trial
a) letting the trial take place where it took place and because of that
b) having the jury that they had
c) marsha clark having her head so far up her arse that she thought she could relate to african american women when it was so clear that she couldnt
d) letting the jury take a walk through OJs house
e) basing their case on the crime scene and not vetting the first officer on the scene who ends up having a recording of him saying some horrible, disgusting, vile shite
f) the glove
i mean what a truly remarkable study in what not to do. they literally lost an unlosable trial
This post was edited on 2/23/17 at 12:59 pm
Posted on 2/23/17 at 1:14 pm to OMLandshark
I'M NOT BLACK!
I'M O.J.!!!!!!!!!!!
I'M O.J.!!!!!!!!!!!
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News