No defence of OJ but the reverse is also true. "Just because the "System" does not find a person guilty does not mean he did the crime. The court of public opinion think they have reviewed the evidence(which by the way they have not) then they pronounce the person guilty based on their limited knowledge. Yeah I agree the system may be infallible, but human nature and their feelings will always trumph common sense.

__________________
"What you hear in a great jazz band is the sound of democracy. “The jazz band works best when participation is shaped by intelligent communication.”
Harmony happens whenever different parts get to form a whole by means of congruity, concord, symetry, consistency, conformity, correspondence, agreement, accord, unity, consonance…….

If you don't follow the assumed results of the judicial systems and routinely make your own determination (be them right or wrong) and act on them (harassing the other party) then there really is no point to the judicial system. And with that, then a judicial system should not decided guilt or innocents, but punishment.

__________________

An unwavering defender of those I see worth protecting.

"promote the general welfare, not provide the general welfare"

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The civil suit found him guilty.

Yes it is to a lower standard but he is guilty!

__________________
Loving my BMW

Wrong, try reading..it is fundamental.

__________________

An unwavering defender of those I see worth protecting.

"promote the general welfare, not provide the general welfare"

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Not everything is Black or White, Right or Wrong. The "System" is necessary and will never be perfect because we as humans are not perfect and designed the system.

OJ Simpson is a free man because he encountered the imperfections in the system and hype of the media circus. His was not the typical trial and the major evidence of the case was put on stage for all to see. Sure there were things happening behind closed doors we did not see at the time but eventually most of that came to light as well.

Secondly, you and Quicksilver seem to suggest that OJ having gone through the process of the "System" has earned his right to go on through life free from all scrutiny because the "System" has redeemed him. If that is indeed the case then answer this...

What of the man (guilty by admission) who brutally rapes and murders a child who is then cut loose by the "System" by a technicality in the law which renders a mis-trial? Should we as society accept him back into the graces of humanity because the "System" gave him a pass?

Remember, there are two dead innocent people left behind by OJ Simpson.

Michael

Based on a conversation I had with one of the executive producers at CNN about 10 years ago, I'd have to say that I think he was innocent. Let's just say that there was quite a bit of information CNN's investigative reporters found that was never shown to the public.

You may ask why OJ's defnese team never used this same information to show his innocence. Let's just say that the information would have ruined his reputation just as bad as a guilty verdict would have, and at the time he was hoping to escape this trial with his reputation (which was on par with Michael Jordan before this whole ordeal) undamanged.

Let's just say that while I don't think he killed his wife, he was not 100% completely innocent and very likely had knowledge of who did.

Again, my opinion on this is based on a long conversation I had with a CNN exec a few years back. If you remember, during the trial 75% of CNN's programming was about this.

__________________


my experience on X5world when I spend too much
time posting in political threads in the lounge...

From USA Today.

List of the evidence in the O.J. Simpson double-murder trial:


Key evidence and testimony in the O.J. Simpson murder trial, with explanations of how the prosecution has used it against Simpson thus far and how the defense has challenged it:

Crime scene blood:


Blood drops were found alongside bloody shoe prints leading away from the bodies of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman; blood was found on a gate at the back of the murder scene condominium; blood from both places contained Simpson's genetic markers. Simpson had a cut on his left middle finger when interviewed by police the day after the killings.
Prosecution: one of the most important parts of the case, claiming it placed Simpson at the crime scene; said Simpson dripped blood after wounding his finger with a knife during the murders; said scientific controls and testing by different labs thwarted any possibility of contamination or tampering.
Defense: mounted vigorous counterattack, alleging samples were sloppily collected and poorly handled, rendering DNA results unreliable; raised possibility that blood was planted by someone who took it from a police crime lab vial that contained Simpson's blood and a blood preservative; most compelling evidence was bloodstains on paper wrapping that was supposed to be holding dry blood samples; wound on Simpson's left hand was only a minor one he suffered in his house - not enough to drip as much blood as prosecutors found - and that Simpson re-injured the finger when he cut it on a glass in a Chicago hotel room the morning after killings, before police interviewed him.

Bloody shoe prints:


The bloody shoe prints matched a size 12 Bruno Magli shoe, a relatively rare Italian-made model. Simpson wears size 12 shoes.
Prosecution: tried to place Simpson at the murder scene by showing that Bloomingdale's in New York, where Simpson sometimes shopped, carried such shoes.
Defense: Thousands of people bought such shoes; noted that no murder shoes were ever recovered and that the prosecution had no evidence that Simpson ever purchased such shoes; raised the possibility that unexplained "imprints'' that didn't match the Bruno Magli sole also were at the crime scene.

Also to add...Simpson testified in the civil trial that he never owned Bruno Magli shoes because they were ''ugly.'' However, there are several photographs of public appearences he made with him wearing this brand shoe.

Crime scene hairs and fibers:


Hairs found in a dark knit cap were similar to Simpson's hairs; fibers on a cap were similar to those in the carpeting of Simpson's Ford Bronco; dark blue cotton fibers were found on Goldman.
Prosecution: Evidence places Simpson at the crime scene; noted that a witness said Simpson wore a dark sweat suit the night of the murders.
Defense: Hairs mean nothing more than assailant may have been black, as is roughly 10 percent of Los Angeles' population; also pointed to hairs that appeared to contain no dandruff, while Simpson's hair sample had some dandruff; no dark blue sweat suit was ever found; evidence could have been cast about the scene when a detective unfurled a blanket from Ms. Simpson's home to cover her body.

Bloody gloves:


One dark, cashmere-lined Aris Light leather glove, size extra large, was found at the murder scene, another behind Simpson's guest house, near where Brian "Kato'' Kaelin heard bumps in the night. Ms. Simpson bought Simpson two pair of such gloves in 1990. DNA tests showed blood on glove found on Simpson's property appeared to contain genetic markers of Simpson and both victims; a long strand of blond hair similar to Ms. Simpson's also was found on that glove.
Prosecution: Simpson lost the left glove at his ex-wife's home during the struggle and, in a rush, inadvertently dropped the right glove while trying to hide it; explained that evidence gloves didn't fit Simpson in a courtroom demonstration because the gloves shrunk from being soaked in blood and Simpson had rubber gloves on underneath.
Defense: glove behind guest house was planted by Detective Mark Fuhrman, a racist cop trying to frame Simpson; blood on glove may have been planted by police; gloated that evidence gloves didn't fit; hair analysis isn't sophisticated enough to be trusted.

Bloody socks:


Pair of dark, crumpled socks found at the foot of Simpson's bed; DNA tests found the genetic markers of Simpson and his ex-wife.
Prosecution: contended this directly linked a victim to Simpson.
Defense: suggested socks were planted at house by police, then blood was put on socks later at the police lab to frame Simpson; most compelling evidence of tampering is that some blood soaked all the way through one sock to other side, which it shouldn't have done if a foot was in it.

Bloody Bronco:


Small spot of blood found near driver's outside door handle of Simpson's Ford Bronco; other blood found smeared inside on console, door, steering wheel and carpeting; DNA tests showed some of the blood apparently a mixture with genetic markers of Simpson and the victims.
Prosecution: said Simpson drove Bronco to and from crime scene.
Defense: challenged interpretation of DNA tests, particularly those suggesting a genetic match to Goldman in a mixture; noted that the genetic material of an unknown person was found in the steering wheel blood; suggested police planted some of the blood; elicited testimony that the Bronco was entered at least twice by unauthorized people while it sat in a police impound yard.

Timeline:


Murders occurred between 10:15 p.m. and 10:40 p.m., based on testimony from prosecution and defense witnesses who heard barking from the area of the crime scene. Ms. Simpson's blood-covered pet Akita was found shortly before 11 p.m.
Prosecution: Simpson lacked an alibi or even plausible story for what he was doing alone during this period; pointed to testimony of a neighbor who saw a vehicle similar to a Bronco racing away from the crime scene at 10:35 p.m.; suggested that Simpson would still have had time to make the approximately five-minute drive home in time for Kaelin to hear bumps behind guest house at about 10:40 p.m.; suggested that the shadowy figure seen by a waiting limousine driver slipping into Simpson's house just before 11 p.m. was Simpson returning from the murders.
Defense: Simpson didn't have enough time from when he was last seen by Kaelin about 9:40 p.m. to drive to Ms. Simpson's home, kill two people, hide bloody clothing and murder weapon, drive home, drop glove behind guest house and clean up before greeting the limo driver about 11 p.m.; told jurors during opening statements that Simpson was home practicing his golf swing at the hour of the murders.

Violent past:


Through 911 calls to police and testimony, prosecutors allege a history of Simpson hitting, degrading and stalking Ms. Simpson.
Prosecution: pointed to motive, showing Simpson was prone to jealous rages and capable of hurting his ex-wife; suggested Goldman died because he was in the wrong place at the wrong time, and Simpson may have seen him as a potential suitor. Defense: irrelevant, isolated events that were poorly supported by what little evidence the prosecution presented.

I followed the entire trial to a T, I guess the refresher is for others. I'm not debating is he guilty or innocent, I'm saying according to OUR judicial system..he is innocent. Whether he got off or not is another debate that can't be answered by anyone on this board.

And my point is that the media should stop pushing their bullshit on someone who was deemed innocent. If there is such a problem with it, remove double-jeopardy and try him again

Other then that, maybe we should alter this thread to debate the innocents or guilt of a man that was deemed innocent by our chosen system.

And I thank GOD I live in a country where that type of bullshit trial OJ was in, did not deem him guilty. Lance Ito did all but HUMP Marcia Clark, and the whole 'glove' thing was hilarious. I'd like to hear from the lawyers on this board, if we have any trial lawyers, on what they would have done about the 'gloves' had they been the prosecution in that case.

BTW: what is the Ms. Simpson crap? It is Ms. Brown or Mrs. Simpson....

__________________

An unwavering defender of those I see worth protecting.

"promote the general welfare, not provide the general welfare"

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Wagner, I kind of muddied up the debate with the OJ evidence and going back to discuss his guilt of innocence is not really a discussion I'm prepared to get back into. It was over played as I expect we can all agree.

That said back to my original point. I'm curious as to how you address the last part of this comment.

Secondly, you and Quicksilver seem to suggest that OJ having gone through the process of the "System" has earned his right to go on through life free from all scrutiny because the "System" has redeemed him. If that is indeed the case then answer this...

What of the man (guilty by admission) who brutally rapes and murders a child who is then cut loose by the "System" by a technicality in the law which renders a mis-trial? Should we as society accept him back into the graces of humanity because the "System" gave him a pass?

Remember, there are two dead innocent people left behind by OJ Simpson.