OJ Simpson to Confess?

Search

Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2006
Messages
16,073
Tokens
There's no such thing as being found "innocent" in the United States. There's a difference between innocent and not guilty. The jury members in his case didn't have a collective IQ of 100 from what I've seen of them.
 

Honey Badger Don't Give A Shit
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
46,540
Tokens
Actually, OJ and his Bruno Benini's were convicted in a later civil trial.

A civil court does not demand the same standard (level) of evidence as does a criminal trial.
 

New member
Joined
Apr 4, 2005
Messages
4,615
Tokens
In a civil case a jury only has to be 51% sure.

If a jury thought you were 49% likely to be innocent of murder, would you want them to convict you?
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
7,948
Tokens
I think the joke of it is....the glove that "didn't fit" should have never been allowed into evidence. When Fuhrman took the other detectives to OJ's house and saw his Bronco parked escew, it never was if you saw the pictures, he climbed over the wall. They then found the glove in back of the guest house.

If the judge ruled it was an illegal search and seizure...like she should have.....the glove would have never been admitted into evidence.
 

Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2004
Messages
28,799
Tokens
A civil court does not demand the same standard (level) of evidence as does a criminal trial.
I know, I've been a juror in a civil trial. The main difference is the jury just has to deterim the defendent is 50.1% responsible for their crime to be found guilty. Nevertheless in this case the evidence that came out in the civil trial that didn't or should have come out in the first trial is what hung O.J. Probably the most damning being the lie detector test that O.J. failed right after commiting the murders, and was allowed to be used in the civil trial. Your also not allowed to invoke the 5th amendment in a civil trail. So OJ also had to testify. And he didn't do a very good job of it. Also, I don't know if it was ever introduced in the civil trial, but the 15 inch stilleto knife that O.J. purchased just prior to the murders wouldn't have helped his case if it had been introduced as evidence in the first trial. Oh well, chalk one up for Johhny Cochran, who also did a good job of making a racial issue out of it when race had nothing to do with it.
 

Member
Joined
May 27, 2007
Messages
39,461
Tokens
I think the joke of it is....the glove that "didn't fit" should have never been allowed into evidence. When Fuhrman took the other detectives to OJ's house and saw his Bronco parked escew, it never was if you saw the pictures, he climbed over the wall. They then found the glove in back of the guest house.

If the judge ruled it was an illegal search and seizure...like she should have.....the glove would have never been admitted into evidence.

Why was the search and seizure illegal in your opinion? Cops get called, see a bronco parked funny with blood on it. Every reason to believe someone was injured. Jump on over and see if you can save someone's life.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,109,892
Messages
13,463,926
Members
99,498
Latest member
casatundraokw
The RX is the sports betting industry's leading information portal for bonuses, picks, and sportsbook reviews. Find the best deals offered by a sportsbook in your state and browse our free picks section.FacebookTwitterInstagramContact Usforum@therx.com