Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > What if O.J. didn’t do it?      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 gcdeb
Joined: 4/25/2011
Msg: 2
What if O.J. didn’t do it?Page 1 of 5    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5)

What are your thoughts on this?
That man never walked on the moon and Elvis is still alive.
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 3
view profile
History
What if O.J. didn’t do it?
Posted: 11/20/2012 3:01:13 AM
We'll see. This sort of thing has happened before, where a dweeby sociopathic criminal wanted to boost their status amongst the rest of the prison folks, and so they claimed to have been the perp for a famous crime they had nothing to do with.

There was substantial evidence that who ever did commit the murders, cut their own hand during the crimes, and left a trail of blood and some pieces of clothing (the gloves) leading directly to OJ's house. This "serial killer" would have to have dribbled his blood trail there, planted the gloves and the bloody socks found next to OJ's bed, and timed it carefully so that when OJ arrived late for his limo, that he would be seen sneaking onto his own house by the driver. The Serial killer would have had to arrange further for OJ to break a glass as soon as he reached his hotel, and cut his own hand in exactly the same way that the killer had cut his. Then the serial killer would have needed to somehow persuade OJ to pack a bag, grab his passport, and make a multi-hour attempt to flee the country, instead of hiring a lawyer and answering the questions being asked by the police.

I'd have to suspect that this serial killer must actually be a wealthy cheap dramatic film producer, who had tremendous influence over both OJ, and over his friend Cowling.
 TAWT
Joined: 10/10/2012
Msg: 4
What if O.J. didn’t do it?
Posted: 11/20/2012 5:26:12 AM
An explosive new documentary suggests

Explosive as in diarrhea? Somebody has a book or two and a new documentary to sell.
"OMG we've been heckling the wrong man."
Look out!
 motown_cowgirl
Joined: 12/22/2011
Msg: 5
What if O.J. didn’t do it?
Posted: 11/20/2012 7:20:27 AM
^^^^ lol. when do we get to see the explosive new documentary about how OJ really didn't break into that hotel room to steal his own sports memorabilia at gunpoint??
 phoenix_55
Joined: 7/25/2012
Msg: 6
What if O.J. didn’t do it?
Posted: 11/20/2012 10:46:01 AM
I saw a quote on another site and I agree with it: "Could Glen Rogers afford a pair of $1,000 Bruno Magli loafers"?

We all know who could.
 Molly Maude
Joined: 9/11/2008
Msg: 7
view profile
History
What if O.J. didn’t do it?
Posted: 11/20/2012 11:52:45 AM
my first thought on seeing the headline, "What if O.J. didn't do it?" ... first thought was ...
"wow ... that NEVER occurred to me!" because, truthfully, it never did occur to me that
O.J. hadn't done it ... not seriously ... I think that was because O.J. did everything a
guilty man would have done ... he had the ego to have killed two living beings ... and did
nothing an innocent man would have done ...
 hplazerjet
Joined: 11/1/2012
Msg: 8
What if O.J. didn’t do it?
Posted: 11/20/2012 12:01:47 PM
The overwhelming evidence suggests that OJ did it.
 Tah,
Joined: 11/18/2008
Msg: 9
What if O.J. didn’t do it?
Posted: 11/20/2012 3:43:10 PM
thank god for racism, otherwise an innocent man would of been convicted.
 RushLuv
Joined: 4/16/2009
Msg: 10
What if O.J. didn’t do it?
Posted: 11/20/2012 6:07:00 PM

The overwhelming evidence suggests that OJ did it.


Rofl...what overwhelming evidence? You mean like planting blood from the victims where it DIDN'T belong?
 AnAustralianWoman
Joined: 4/26/2012
Msg: 11
What if O.J. didn’t do it?
Posted: 11/21/2012 8:30:06 AM
There is alway's that "What if it didn't happen like that".
People voice their opinion, the Media get's excited BUT only the killer know's the truth.
We all have our "What if they didn't do it cases"...Here in Australia it's the 'Azaria Chainberlain' case and in America it is the 'OJ Simpson' case.
Truth is nobody really know's. We can make assumptions and, go with our gut or listen to the media voicing their opinion.
So many innocent people have been put to death YET other's who are guilty get to continue on with their lives. Jury's have sent innocent people to die.
There have been cases where a jurer did not think a person committed a crime YET felt under pressure by other jurer's so went with the flow.
The same scene can be put in reverse where one jurer may think the guy/gal is guilty BUT doesn't speak up due to peer pressure.
If you asked me? Yes I think he is guilty and I also think that a Dingo did not take Azaria...Based on what I have heard from the media.
 phoenix_55
Joined: 7/25/2012
Msg: 12
What if O.J. didn’t do it?
Posted: 11/21/2012 11:54:09 AM
"You mean like planting blood from the victims where it DIDN'T belong?"

Wow ... you can't possibly think the prosecutors or cops scooped up gloppy blood from the murders and smeared it on O.J.'s socks and in his car?

I've heard some dumb-ass theories, but this is really out there. O.J.'s no choir boy. We all know that.
 raxarsr
Joined: 7/10/2008
Msg: 13
view profile
History
What if O.J. didn’t do it?
Posted: 11/21/2012 12:20:48 PM
oj did it....beyond doubt

that being said.......i also gotta admit that the jury came back with the right verdict........because there was definately reasonable doubt.................sad thing is..the cops and the prosicution are the ones who supplied the reasonable doubt

the blood evidence rush is talking about is one of the things they screwed up.............they drew blood for dna......used 1/3.....then "lost" the rest........suddenly.......there that exact amount of oj's blood found?........definatly reasonable doubt...............but oj is still as guilty as sin
 Peppermint_Petunias
Joined: 3/30/2012
Msg: 14
view profile
History
What if O.J. didn’t do it?
Posted: 11/21/2012 2:05:35 PM
He was found not guilty, It was not NOT an "OJ is innocent" verdict.

The suggestion that the other killer did it is just someone wanting to get paid to write about something...


OJ wrote a book suggesting he did.
His Bronco "ride" and other exploits / actions suggested he was guilty.
They didn't prove it.

Most first year law students could have done better preparations for a prosecution.
They were c0cky.
Blood evidence lost could have been overcome possibly but add that to Mark Furhman?
Most people have known cops like that and are rightfully terrified of them.


Who the hell writes a book about the murder of his children's mother and about how he WOULD have done it if he did do it after being tried and found not guilty? A sociopath does.


More women in the USA are killed by a BF or husband each year..Over 11,000 Thats more deaths than American solders in Iraq and Afghanistan have been.

My thoughts?
Taco bell is Mexican food if OJ didn't.
 OMG!WTF!
Joined: 12/3/2007
Msg: 15
view profile
History
What if O.J. didn’t do it?
Posted: 11/21/2012 2:23:39 PM
He was found guilty in the civil suit. Different burden of proof but he didn't clear that hurdle by any stretch.
 Just___Jim
Joined: 10/21/2012
Msg: 16
What if O.J. didn’t do it?
Posted: 11/21/2012 3:56:14 PM
Message:
He was found guilty in the civil suit. Different burden of proof but he didn't clear that hurdle by any stretch.


True,true true.
He was guilty as crap!
Yet,on the first round, these hot shot lawyers who wanted to get more public attention cuz he was OJ thought if they took on this person they could get free advertizing & get other low life's or other defendants who had money, to seek their help too.
imo, these lawyers who charged no fee to OJ are blanks in my book too! Evil is real here. jmo

Bottom line,if you can get the best lawyers, & request a jury trial,it's a good chance you can get away with murder.

Yet, I'm happy the court in the Civil suit found him guilty without a question of a doubt! As all the hot shot Lawyers in his first round where no where to be found in round two.......
 Kings_Knight
Joined: 1/20/2009
Msg: 18
What if O.J. didn’t do it?
Posted: 11/22/2012 6:32:17 AM

" ... What are your thoughts on this? ... "


Who cares ... ? What if Ted Kaczynski didn't really mail all those letter bombs.

What if Charles Manson really didn't kill Sharon Tate?

What if Mark Chapman really didn't shoot and kill John Lennon ... ?

Let's say you may even be right. How does being right materially change anything ... ?

Thing is, you're not right. Even if you were, O. J. is still takin' a dirt nap.
 LennyPane
Joined: 2/2/2011
Msg: 19
view profile
History
What if O.J. didn’t do it?
Posted: 11/22/2012 7:01:15 AM
^^ Point taken, but Charles Manson didn't kill Sharon Tate or anyone else for that matter.
 Peppermint_Petunias
Joined: 3/30/2012
Msg: 21
view profile
History
What if O.J. didn’t do it?
Posted: 11/22/2012 12:28:00 PM

^^ Point taken, but Charles Manson didn't kill Sharon Tate or anyone else for that matter.

^^^^^^^^^^^^


He told the people who shot and stabbed the "Tate victims and La Bianca's" what to do and wrote down the address of Sharon Tate as he had been to that address before when Doris Days son Terry Melcher would not help him in the music industry after Dennis Wilson of the beach boys introduced them.

The next night he personally looked in windows of homes and told them to go into the La Bianca residence because a couple of others had pics of kids in the home.
He said make it less noisy and messy.

That's murder in my state.

He also ordered the killing of Gary Hinman who was a music teacher and a movie extra named Shorty was said to be by his own hands at Spahn's movie ranch in the desert as told by his followers and probably killed or ordered more.
 LennyPane
Joined: 2/2/2011
Msg: 22
view profile
History
What if O.J. didn’t do it?
Posted: 11/22/2012 12:38:09 PM
Yeah I know the story. The man was responsible for
some murders but he never actually committed murder. I pointed it out because Kings Knight had him
listed amongst actual murderers. The question "What if
Charles Manson didn't kill Sharon Tate" is fallacious.
"What if (actual murderers name here) didn't kill
Sharon Tate" is the correct question.
 Double Cabin
Joined: 11/29/2004
Msg: 23
view profile
History
What if O.J. didn’t do it?
Posted: 11/24/2012 3:36:31 PM
OJ was a great running back, leave him alone. Does anyone know if Ben & Jerry's causes dementia? does anyone know if Marcia Clark is on PO
F?
 gcdeb
Joined: 4/25/2011
Msg: 24
What if O.J. didn’t do it?
Posted: 11/24/2012 3:54:48 PM

OJ was a great running back, leave him alone.
I agree. It's so rude, isn't it, that people don't understand that great sports stars can do whatever the heck they like and should never be held accountable? Their contribution to their sport should grant them lifetime amnesty from all crimes. *rolls eyes*
 sporty16
Joined: 9/17/2012
Msg: 25
What if O.J. didn’t do it?
Posted: 11/27/2012 4:39:38 AM
Marcia Clark presented 2 or 3 lines of proof evidence...all scientifically valid. The only reason he got off is because Johnny Cochrane selected a racist jury who would never convict their hero even if it was all on film.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 26
view profile
History
What if O.J. didn’t do it?
Posted: 11/27/2012 6:40:36 PM
Vincent Bugliosi prosecuted the Manson murderers. I remember hearing him say that the evidence against Simpson was so overwhelming he would have been embarrassed to try to defend him. He was scoffing at all the lawyers who were vying for that doubtful honor. I remember he mentioned Simpson's behavior afterwards--the phony suicide note, the attempted escape in his friend's car, the vow to find the real murderer--as unmistakable signs of guilt.

Orenthal was a thug from his early days in San Francisco, where he hung out with gang types and once stabbed a man. Sticking a knife into someone was nothing new to him. If he hadn't happened to have great athletic talent, he would never have been anything but just another hoodlum. He was clever enough to cultivate a civilized, friendly veneer while he was making lots of money playing and broadcasting and appearing in ads and movies, but the vicious ape was there all along. Let him rot in jail, and no one remember him except as an especially brutal murderer.
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 29
view profile
History
What if O.J. didn’t do it?
Posted: 11/28/2012 10:21:52 PM
Though match and I often disagree, I have to point out that you are wildly misquoting him here. He did NOT say what you posted in the quote box.

Match didn't say that that was legal evidence, he didn't even say that Bugliosi claimed it was legal evidence. Match reported that Bugliosi saw all of that as indications to him (Bugliosi) of guilty behavior, which bugliosi had lots of experience dealing with as a state prosecutor.

When we combine the actual legal evidence WITH that extremely suspicious behavior, the total picture is overwhelmingly convincing, to all but a few fanatics (at least one of whom posted here, I think).

As for me, I think that he very much SHOULD be judged according to ALL of the evidence, and that DOES include how he behaved after the crime. It is very common that a person's irregular behavior during an investigation, will trigger investigators to look more deeply into their situation, and often that leads to the discovery of actionable evidence or proof. But though people often scoff at the phrase "circumstantial evidence," because it is so often misused in badly written TV legal dramas, it is a legitimate form of legal evidence.

I myself first suspected OJ, as the earliest news reports came in, and said that right after the murders were reported to OJ by phone, that he came to the front desk at the hotel he was freshly checked into, angrily and loudly complaining that he had cut his hand on a glass, which broke when he slammed it down upon getting the news of the murders. Filing a complaint against the hotel, because HE broke a glass, makes no sense for anyone. I immediately thought he was ostentatiously trying to establish a cover story for why his hand (which had been gloved upon his arrival) was sliced open, right at the time his wife and her friend had been stabbed and slashed to death.

Very much "circumstantial," but nevertheless pertinent. Even if there were no fingerprints, no blood trail, no cab driver witness, and on and on, if enough circumstantial evidence (means, motive, circumstances) is collected together, it is plenty enough to reliably convict someone. Neither a confession, nor a complete unbroken chain of hard and direct evidence is required.

OJ got off, because the prosecution was a collection of incompetent grandstanders, who failed to vet the jury rationally, failed to present the evidence accurately, assumed things without checking first (the whole failed thing about making OJ put the murder gloves on, without both checking to see what his glove size was first, AND failing to look at or present the MANY instances on national TV, where Simpson was seen wearing gloves of the same too small size, and style as the murder gloves (Simpson has large enough hands, that getting a good fitting glove off the shelf is difficult for him), and failed to attend to the problem of the lead detectives published racist rants. They essentially built the case for the defense without the defense having to do anything but wait for the defense-stacked jury to return a verdict of Not Guilty.

...

"Looking or appearing guilty" was ALSO not what Bugliosi was talking about, and what Match quoted. "Looking guilty" is a personal perception by an onlooker, and is not evidence about the person observed, you are correct. But that is NOT what was discussed. What was discussed, was actual behaviors of OJ himself. That IS real evidence. Only what someone such as myself THINKS about the behaviors is NOT evidence.

 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 31
view profile
History
What if O.J. didn’t do it?
Posted: 11/29/2012 6:00:23 AM
I didn't spend as much time as you might think. I didn't need to, as the airwaves were saturated with it, radio and TV alike. I was a bit more aware than many people at the time, that there was a huge difference between what the public was seeing, and what the jurors were seeing. That was simply because I've always read tons of books, and I paid attention to lots of crime investigations (addicts to problem solving, get hooked on ALL kinds of it), so I noted that the jury was sequestered for the duration of the trial, and were only allowed to see the performance of the two sets of lawyers, prosecution and defense. I was therefore not at all surprised at the Not Guilty verdict, because I'd noticed the prosecution mistakes and missteps and outright incompetence from day one.

As to the very true fact that innocent people do get convicted by mistake, based on misinterpreted circumstantial evidence, and even more commonly because the local justice system is riddled with prejudiced people in power... yeah, that happens. It's why every person who has to go to court for any reason is told to dress their best, and to behave respectfully towards the judge at all times.

But watch out too, for the periodic stories you'll see in the news, including the one that triggered this thread, where some "journalist" publishes a "shocking expose" of a miscarriage of justice. Sometimes the stories are quite true, and the journalists efforts serve to cause a second look, and the justice system is forced to try to correct itself, but it's also often the case that the reporter is just trying to stir things up, for personal recognition. I've many times found that the real reason the story came to light, was that on appeal the case against the person was reversed for exactly the sorts of reasons you describe. There are also plenty of cases where a smooth-talking manipulative sociopath manages periodically to hypnotize a new sucker, and the same old case gets rehashed in the news again and again. I think that this very case might well be one of those examples.

Oh, but I AM 100% on your side, when it comes to being fastidious about what is and isn't hard evidence. What I was noting in your response to Match, was that the quote you had boxed, appeared to be different from the exact words I saw in Matches post. Perhaps he edited his post after you copy-pasted his words into yours.
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > What if O.J. didn’t do it?