+- MacResource (https://forums.macresource.com)
+-- Forum: My Category (https://forums.macresource.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: Tips and Deals (https://forums.macresource.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Thread: Here's a weekend rabbit hole for you: O.J was guilty, but not of the actual murders? (possibly NSFW) (/showthread.php?tid=245341)
Re: Here's a weekend rabbit hole for you: O.J was guilty, but not of the actual murders? (possibly NSFW) - Sarcany - 08-22-2020
pRICE cUBE wrote:
[quote=Sarcany]
[quote=Dennis S]
I always though the the gloves thing was bogus - If they don't fit, you must acquit. If he needed some gloves to hide the fingerprints, he would use whatever was handy, even if they were too small.
Dunno if they were too small. He was already wearing cotton gloves while trying to put skin-tight driving gloves on over them.
The prosecutors set themselves up for failure. They were focused on making good TV and securing book/movie rights rather than serving their oath and duty to the law and justice.
Is it your assertion that OJ committed the murders and the investigators/prosecution botched it?
Not both.
Just that they botched it.
So did the cops who failed to secure and document the evidence thoroughly with clear chain-of-custody, leaving them open to convincing allegations of tampering.
I agree with the outcome of the civil trial, that it's more likely than not that he committed murder.
I haven't seen evidence that -- to my mind -- is compelling "beyond a reasonable doubt."
Re: Here's a weekend rabbit hole for you: O.J was guilty, but not of the actual murders? (possibly NSFW) - MrNoBody - 08-22-2020
The prosecutors set themselves up for failure.
True. Depending on at least one racist detective from a corrupt police dept. to
take the stand & perjure himself and an inept forensics unit doomed the case.
I feel bad for the Browns and Goldmans. The police and the prosecutors sold them
on it being OJ, nobody else could have done it, we got our man, don't have to look
any further. They probably said something like "Trust us, it's a slam dunk, and
we're going to fry his %!@(7& ass."
Re: Here's a weekend rabbit hole for you: O.J was guilty, but not of the actual murders? (possibly NSFW) - wave rider - 08-22-2020
So the gloves were too small for OJ. Hmmm… Seems like I remember mention in the news of someone with tiny hands…
Re: Here's a weekend rabbit hole for you: O.J was guilty, but not of the actual murders? (possibly NSFW) - chopper - 08-22-2020
A lot of younger people like to go ghost hunting or go to places where strange things have happened. Oooooooeeeeeeeeeoooo.
The unfortunate truth of the matter is that ghosts don't really exist.
The world is FULL of monsters. And the police, as seen in the golden state killer case, and etc, are largely incompetent. Monsters walk the streets.
OJ, a monster, did it. His BS story about cutting his hand on a broken glass the same night ... his jealous rages, etc.
This stuff happens all the time. No need to go searching for ghosts, kids. You probably live two blocks from someone like :
Jacob Wetterling
Donnie Bloom
Jodi H
Re: Here's a weekend rabbit hole for you: O.J was guilty, but not of the actual murders? (possibly NSFW) - Carm - 08-23-2020
Didn’t you see/read the speculation about how the leather gloves wouldn’t fit over the latex gloves, especially if they were tight/snug fitting in the first place (golf or driving gloves).
An article: https://www.bustle.com/articles/147445-why-didnt-the-gloves-fit-oj-simpson-this-iconic-trial-moment-lives-on
Re: Here's a weekend rabbit hole for you: O.J was guilty, but not of the actual murders? (possibly NSFW) - DeusxMac - 08-23-2020
Carm wrote:
Didn’t you see/read the speculation about how the leather gloves wouldn’t fit over the latex gloves, especially if they were tight/snug fitting in the first place (golf or driving gloves).
An article: https://www.bustle.com/articles/147445-why-didnt-the-gloves-fit-oj-simpson-this-iconic-trial-moment-lives-on
What happens to fine glove leather when it get soaked and the left to dry naturally?
Re: Here's a weekend rabbit hole for you: O.J was guilty, but not of the actual murders? (possibly NSFW) - Carm - 08-23-2020
DeusxMac wrote:
[quote=Carm]
Didn’t you see/read the speculation about how the leather gloves wouldn’t fit over the latex gloves, especially if they were tight/snug fitting in the first place (golf or driving gloves).
An article: https://www.bustle.com/articles/147445-why-didnt-the-gloves-fit-oj-simpson-this-iconic-trial-moment-lives-on
What happens to fine glove leather when it get soaked and the left to dry naturally?
Was that even addressed? I don’t remember, I was in my second year in college.
Re: Here's a weekend rabbit hole for you: O.J was guilty, but not of the actual murders? (possibly NSFW) - MarkD - 08-23-2020
The interesting story is about OJ's shoes and the civil trial where he was found liable for civil damages. Pictures emerged after the criminal case, but in time for the civil case. OJ denied owning the shoes and got impeached with pictures of him in the shoes. Great story:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/2016/06/02/photos-sent-oj-simpson-spiraling/84911596/
Re: Here's a weekend rabbit hole for you: O.J was guilty, but not of the actual murders? (possibly NSFW) - deckeda - 08-23-2020
That was a good read. Not sure I agree that the criminal trial would have resulted in the same verdict, but it certainly could have.
Re: Here's a weekend rabbit hole for you: O.J was guilty, but not of the actual murders? (possibly NSFW) - davester - 08-23-2020
Sarcany wrote:
[quote=pRICE cUBE]
[quote=Sarcany]
[quote=Dennis S]
I always though the the gloves thing was bogus - If they don't fit, you must acquit. If he needed some gloves to hide the fingerprints, he would use whatever was handy, even if they were too small.
Dunno if they were too small. He was already wearing cotton gloves while trying to put skin-tight driving gloves on over them.
The prosecutors set themselves up for failure. They were focused on making good TV and securing book/movie rights rather than serving their oath and duty to the law and justice.
Is it your assertion that OJ committed the murders and the investigators/prosecution botched it?
Not both.
Just that they botched it.
So did the cops who failed to secure and document the evidence thoroughly with clear chain-of-custody, leaving them open to convincing allegations of tampering.
I agree with the outcome of the civil trial, that it's more likely than not that he committed murder.
I haven't seen evidence that -- to my mind -- is compelling "beyond a reasonable doubt."
Ditto. The not guilty verdict in the criminal trial was based on botched police work and idiotic decisions by the prosecutors. The most ridiculous thing was trying to get him to put on gloves that had shrunk due to getting soaked then dried. It was patently obvious that they were ruined. Sadly, this all led to there being a very tiny, but finite, amount of reasonable doubt. IMHO the chance that he is not a murderer are about the same as the chance that bigfoot is real.