Question:
After all these years, why do people still think OJ Simpson is guilty, if he was aqquited?
woah
2006-12-23 18:53:57 UTC
I was only about 8 or 9 when that trial was taking place, and I remember when the not guilty verdict came out, some people were dancing in the streets, cuz they were so happy he was innocent....but was what so blatently obvious in the case, that some people still think hes guilty, to this day?

AND, some people say it was his celebrity, but wasnt OJs career way over by 1994?
33 answers:
2006-12-23 18:55:04 UTC
OJ more or less admitted to it but he cannot be tried twice.

He murdered her but his fame, money and police bungling and the way the court system worked got him away with murder.

He admitted it practically in a book.
karl k
2006-12-24 05:36:24 UTC
i was grown at the time and watched most of the trial. oj had the best lawyers in the world and the clark was in over her head.

the trial came to hinge on if this one cop ever used the n word. if so it supported their claim that the cops planted the overwhelming evidence. after this cop had claimed that he never uses the word a tape of him doing so while playing a fictional charactor was presented.

his lawyers also had much evidence supressed.

the jurors now, knowing what we all know, say he is guilty.

it was just a battle of lawyers and the best lawyers won.

you may be too young to remember how crazy it was. everyone associated with the trial believed (usually correctly) that they were going to rich, the procecuters were having a love affiar the judge had timidly turned the court over to ojs showbiz team and the event was covered 24/7 launching whole networks like court tv.

a later cival trial where both sides were sober and good found him guilty in record time.

i think even oj would be a little surprized to think some poeple still think he is not guilty. he may not have admited it outright, but he barely denys it anymore.
Scorpius
2006-12-23 19:31:08 UTC
The overwhelming evidence to O.J.’s guilt was the D.N.A samples found in his Ford Bronco. Chiefly it was blood evidence which Simpson has never been able to explain away. Evidence found was O.J.’s blood, Nicole’s blood, both of which is POSSIBLE, since they obviously knew each other, had many opportunities to ride in this vehicle etc. However, also found was Ron Goldman’s blood in the Bronco, and this was the sticking point. How did Goldman’s blood get in Simpson’s truck?



During the trial, and what swayed the jury toward Simpson’s acquittal was the prosecuting attorneys many blunders (Simpson trying on the bloody glove, found at the crime scene in court and OBVIOUSLY faking out the jurors into believing that the glove didn’t fit him, even though the glove belonged to him), the Judge Lance Ito’s total inability to keep the trial focused, under control and keeping it from becoming a circus, which it did, the jury who claimed that the DNA evidence was too difficult for them to understand and therefore for the most part they ignored it, and finally and most likely the most important reason was Simpson’s attorneys. Johnny Cochran, Simpson’s lead attorney, turned the courtroom into freak show, blaming the LAPD, calling them racists (Officer Mark Foley was their main target, he testified that he wasn’t a racist, and later in the trail a video was found with Foley using some rather colorful language, including the dreaded “N” word) calling them incompetent and accused the LAPD of planting evidence.



In the end, the jury, overwhelmed with DNA evidence they didn’t understand nor even really considered, listened to Cochran’s ridiculous theories (the main theory went something like this… Mark Foley is an LAPD Officer, LAPD officers are racists, O.J. is black, the LAPD planted evidence on O.J. because he’s black and famous, Foley most likely planted the evidence because he’s a racist and used the “N” word, therefore O.J. is innocent) and the jury who had been sequestered throughout the whole trail was just tired of the whole thing, I believe they only deliberated for about 6 or 7 hours on a trail that took approx 7 months.



A year or 2 later, Simpson was found responsible for Nicole’s and Ron Goldman’s death in a civil suit filed by the Goldman family and was ordered to pay the Goldman’s 35 million dollars, to date, Simpson hasn’t paid anything.



As far as Simpson’s “celebrity” status, he wasn’t a big star by any means, but he was very well known and had a good life going for him. Publicly, Simpson was loved by just about everyone, but during the trial America discovered who O.J. Simpson REALLY was, and most didn’t like what they saw.



Tax the poor !!!
2006-12-23 19:06:19 UTC
"Not Guilty" and "Innocent" are two completely different things. Brush up on your basic law. You're clueless in that aspect.



People think OJ is guilty because he is guilty, the jury just didn't have good enough evidence presentation in the FIRST trial to find him "guilty". So he wasn't found guilty. He WAS found GUILTY in the SECOND trial, but since it was a civil trial there wasn't jail time.

Time has passed. Even almost all of African Americans believe (rightfully know) that OJ did it. Everybody knows it. He's guilty, the prosecution just did a really crappy job and he walked. The celebrating that happened wasn't so much that they were fighting for someone they honestly believed to be innocent, it had more to do with fighting for the chance to be handled equally and justly by the law. For that, they were willing to cheer that a guilty man walked free.
2006-12-23 19:01:02 UTC
Well because everyone thinks he is guilty and got off only because the media made such a production out of the trial that it became a farce.



I think most people felt it was such an injustice and this latest antic with the book...my GOD how could anybody in their right mind (and I'm talking media here) possibly consider such a thing....how disrespectful to the families and how low class of all of them...big money mongrels....OJ does not deserve to make a penny from any of it...he already hid all his money so he didn't have to pay the civil case which he LOST by the way...guilty as charged...but funny no money to pay out to the victims.
Middleclassandnotquiet
2006-12-23 19:20:25 UTC
People are divided by this case-I was working at a large corporation and people argued about it constantly. People will say it wasn't but it was racially charged. White woman married to a black guy..one of the magazines(Time or newsweek) actually darkened his picture so he appeared blacker. Dunno, but the verdict was innocent. And, personally, if you're found innocent of criminal charges, it seems wrong to find him guilty in civil court. Doesn't that mean that ANYONE found innocent of criminal charges could have relatives collect your paychecks the rest of your life?



Anyway, I don't think it was proof that mattered in the case-the people I knew(in an office of about 100) believed what they believed (guilt or innocence)at the start and at the end of the trial. By law, you're supposed to start out believing "innocent until proven guilty".



I also don't believe he wrote the book for any reason other than to annoy his ex-wife's family that watch him constantly trying to collect on the civil suit award.
mikerwells@verizon.net
2006-12-23 21:20:45 UTC
Acquittal does not mean innocence. It means that the prosecution failed to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime. If you think a defendant "probably" committed the crime, you must vote for acquittal. In fact, two of the three criminal trial jurors who agreed to be interviewed stated that he "probably" was guilty.



Moreover, in the subsequent civil trial, in which the victims' family sued Simpson, the jurors in that case found by "clear and convincing evidence" that Simpson killed those poor souls. That is the standard used to award punitive damages - but it is still less than the "beyond a reasonable" doubt standard used in criminal cases.
2006-12-23 20:17:38 UTC
Yes his carrer was over long before that.

He had did some minor acting but not much.



It was because the trial was on TV and more, we all saw all the evidence that the jury could not see on TV every night and hear legal experts explain all the evidence and what the tricks were being used.



The jury only had the evidence presented and basicly the trial ended up being a trial of the honestly of the police department that did the investigation. And they had a poor track record already. And remember it only takes one person on a criminal trial to find him not guilty.



And the civil trial found him guilty very easily.
2006-12-23 19:21:35 UTC
Because there was a second trial where OJ was sued for wrongful death and the jury found that OJ did kill those 2 people. White people think that he did it, but the prosecution was not able to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, in trial 1. Black people think if OJ was white and he killed 2 black people, he would'nt have even been arrested.
2006-12-23 19:33:50 UTC
People still think he was guilty because they have a lynch mob mentality. They call themselves the "Court Of Public Opinion." They know that their beloved LAPD planted OJ's blood at his house; they know this because there was EDTA (the blood preservative used at the police crime lab) in the blood.



Thank God that OJ had enough money to investigate the LAPD. IF he were broke he would be in Jail right now.
huduuluv
2006-12-23 19:11:28 UTC
OJ was (is) guilty. I read at the time that there was more evidence against OJ, than there was against Charles Manson. The reaction to the verdict for OJ was almost entirely across racial lines. Black people, mostly, were thrilled that he wasn't convicted. White people were amazed.

Just by the way, there is no question, really, about his guiilt
2006-12-23 18:59:52 UTC
The bloody glove with his blood on it and he had got a knife months before and he never hunted or fished a day in his life. You really think a police officer would risk his job and plant a glove there. Also if he was guilty why would he run from the police he's rich he can pay a traffic ticket anyday with that kind of money.
Steve-o
2006-12-23 18:59:19 UTC
The dancing people were gangsters, happy that a 'brother' finally got away with murder! He so obviously did it! Remember, he was prooven guilty later in a civil battle! What about that B.S book, How I would have done it my a$$; more like how I DID it... I only WISH I had a copy of that book, with the recall, probably worth a whole lot of money right about now...
2006-12-23 19:04:09 UTC
it was a combination of things.evidence,testimony and circumstances.

in short the prosecution failed to make it's case.

if i had been on the jury i couldn't have voted to convict.i just can't see how he could have attacked and killed 2 people at once.

i have been trained to do such a thing when i was young but couldn't do it now. i don't see how an overaged jock with the football injuries could have done it alone to a man that appeared to be in such good physical shape.

i think he did it whether alone or with someone or he hired someone.

also the amount of blood at the scene and there was only a couple of drops in his car.

didn't make sense to me at the time and still doesn't.
fade_this_rally
2006-12-23 18:58:23 UTC
OJ had the best lawyers money can buy for this case. Even with ALL evidence pointing to HIM as the murderer, he got off because of his attorneys'. It is sad and unfortunetly he is still free. He got off by hiring a team of the best to beat a mediocre team of prosecutors..Cut and dry, imo!
andyblair18
2006-12-23 19:01:41 UTC
Because just because a jury says a man is guilty or not guilty it doesnt make it true. and the fact that he was guilty in his civil trial didnt help.
Professor Maddie
2006-12-23 19:02:43 UTC
I guess you didn't watch the slow motion car chase like I did. He ACTED like a guilty person so that's why he was treated as a suspect and held accountable in the public eye.
Cyrus H
2014-03-31 10:00:20 UTC
this is for all you lynch mod idiots

Maybe you turned a blind ear towards

2-6 issues in the case ?

1. WHY THE Gloves Didn't FiiiiiiiT

2.The LA police had the remaining evidence washed

away 36hrs later that had evidence pointing away Oj

as the murder

3. Det Vannader took the blood home with him

4.EDTA was in all the blood samples

5.the soaks the bronco

6 NO Bruises related to struggle

I classify your mind set as Blind in one eye

and refuse to see out the other ,even if you have

knowledge he was innocent you wouldn't release

guilt
2006-12-23 18:56:19 UTC
Oh dear. He cut two peoples heads off and got away with it. Anyone with an I.Q. over 80 knows that he did it. May he rot in hell.
shermynewstart
2006-12-23 19:11:49 UTC
Maybe because he moved to FL where the families could not touch his money, even after they won the civil suit. maybe because their daughter was so messed up that she gained all that weight, maybe because he wrote a book about it!!!!!!!
2006-12-23 18:58:08 UTC
it's simple fact. OJ is guilty as hell and shows no remorse. i believe he prides himself in it, actually.
2006-12-23 18:57:28 UTC
The evidence against him would have convicted most people, but his money and fame got him acquitted.
nneka_anyanwu
2006-12-23 18:55:27 UTC
because he was writing a book on how he could have KILLED the victims- they cancelled the publishing a couple of months ago
2006-12-23 19:01:05 UTC
he was found to be responsible for the murders in civil court, he has to reimburse the families for their loss financially, also he wrote a book about how he did it, pay attention
cassiepiehoney
2006-12-23 18:56:50 UTC
because he was violent and over protective-found out she was with another guy-no one has any other suspects and why did he try to run at first?
jack w
2006-12-23 18:56:38 UTC
Why did he lose the Wrongful Death lawsuit brought by her parents?
2006-12-23 18:58:26 UTC
He practiaclly admitted that he killed her after he was found innocent...stupid double jeapordy.
sushimaven
2006-12-23 19:20:55 UTC
oh yes it's remembered very vividly. His exwife had pictures of herself after he beat her up in her safedeposit box. he's as guilty as hell.
Smith Jerrod
2006-12-23 18:55:54 UTC
an aquittal is not a not guilty verdict.
WonderWoman
2006-12-23 18:55:34 UTC
Just because he was acquitted does NOT mean he was innocent.
Patty♥
2006-12-23 21:31:39 UTC
because of bias.

black man+dead white woman=black man did it..

:)
notre1842dame
2006-12-23 18:56:37 UTC
i dont think he did it but i think he hired someone to do it.
2006-12-23 18:57:29 UTC
I find you "guilty" for bad spelling!! a-q-u-i-t-e-d b-e-c-a-u-s-e


This content was originally posted on Y! Answers, a Q&A website that shut down in 2021.
Loading...