OJ Simpson 1947-2024

[Dooneysta]

Also, the legal definitions of the words ‘exonerated’ and ‘acquitted’ are not such that they could be taken as synonyms, though perhaps the ‘street’ definition would.

The legal definition of ‘not guilty’ in the context of a verdict is simply that the judging body (be it the judge in a bench trial or a jury) did not find that the prosecution had proved the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
In plain English that means ‘we can’t prove they did it. Doesn’t mean they DIDN’T, but we can’t be sure enough to convict’.

The legal definition of ‘exoneration’ in a criminal sense (it means something slightly different to ,say ,a real estate lawyer)generally involves a person who has ALREADY been found guilty in a court of law being found innocent after the fact.
Innocent, not ‘not guilty’. Generally further evidence comes to light that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the original defendant ‘didn’t do it’, sometimes in the context of the real perpetrator’s admission or discovery.

A person can therefore be exonerated before being convicted, but what would happen is the charges would be dropped and the innocent party wouldn’t go through the rest of the process.
OJ Simpson was found not guilty. He was not exonerated of the crime. They are synonyms in casual English, but legal terms have specific, narrow meaning and again, it can be a little different to different kinds of lawyer.

In a real estate contract for example, obviously ‘exonerated’ doesn’t mean you were found not to have committed a crime. It has to do with who pays burdens on a property/etc during the disbursement of an estate.
Anyhow, the point is, there IS a difference between ‘innocent’ and ‘not guilty’.

 

[DC-Cutie]

Anyhow, the point is, there IS a difference between ‘innocent’ and ‘not guilty’.

What we do know for certain is he was found 'not guilty'... I highly doubt the 'innocent' part! Hardly!

 

[Dooneysta]

So yes, OJ was acquitted but not exonerated. It’s possible one can tell by the drastic change in legalistic tone from my handbag-related posts what my background has been. If you consult the friends with inside knowledge, they should also be able to confirm the legal difference between a finding of not guilty and an exoneration.

It IS ‘possible’ that OJ didn’t do it. The prosecution boned it and they ‘lost’ him fair and square.
I have no issue with his being paroled; it was proper in respect to what he actually got convicted for.
However, you kid yourself to imagine he’s just a great guy who used to have an occasional temper flare-up.
I say this also knowing people. There are a TON of people out of certain cities or careers who have dealt with or known OJ. He actually does have, or had, as none of them have recent experience, decent qualities.
I hope he doesn’t squander it, and I hope also that the several enemies (outside of the Brown and Goldman families) who have considered making his life outside as hellish as possible or getting him to ‘put himself back in’ are not going to do anything they shouldn’t do. OJ was rightly released in this particular case, and it would indeed be incorrect to assume it was or should have been considered punishment for the murders.

However, just because I agree he is rightfully free now and hope he can make the best of it doesn’t mean I think he has never killed anyone.

 

[prettyprincess]

But I am.
My beliefs are based off of all evidence as well as direct info from people with inside knowledge of the crime, case, and evidence. I'm not merely forming a conclusion based off a biased trial likecnany others.

Are you serious? Nicole was a known cocaine user with a considerable debt as a result. Testimony of her drug usage was barred from inclusion during the trial but it was known amongst law enforcement and the like.

I also don't deny the abuse in the relationship, it went both ways. Nicole was also cited and removed due to abuse towards him, they were toxic together.

His blood was all over that crime scene. There wasn’t one drop of blood that indicated anyone other than OJ killed those two ppl. PERIOD.
If I’m ever on trial for murder I pray you’ll be one of my jurors, I’ll have my lawyer convince you that aliens came down and commited the crimes.

 

[NLVOEWITHLV]

His blood was all over that crime scene. There wasn’t one drop of blood that indicated anyone other than OJ killed those two ppl. PERIOD.
If I’m ever on trial for murder I pray you’ll be one of my jurors, I’ll have my lawyer convince you that aliens came down and commited the crimes.

Lol! You're making up your own facts. Drops of the killers blood was found at the scene and it matched OJ's blood type as well as mine and about 5% of the worlds population. At least know some of the facts so that we can have an intelligent discussion.

 

[prettyprincess]

Lol! You're making up your own facts. Drops of the killers blood was found at the scene and it matched OJ's blood type as well as mine and about 5% of the worlds population. At least know some of the facts so that we can have an intelligent discussion.

What a remarkable, logic suspending, coincidence that his one in a million DNA, hair fibers, glove, and shoe prints were all found on the scene. Those Colombian gang members must’ve really had it out for him.
I will say, it was so gracious of OJ to lend the gang members his super rare Bruno Magli shoes to walk around in. Great guy.

 

[Dooneysta]

Lol! You're making up your own facts. Drops of the killers blood was found at the scene and it matched OJ's blood type as well as mine and about 5% of the worlds population. At least know some of the facts so that we can have an intelligent discussion.

No, your own facts are invented.

What you perhaps meant to say was ‘.5’.

Half of one percent and five percent are two different numbers. Simpson’s blood contains/ed three specific markers that would also be expected to be present in 0.0065 percent of the general population, a number which was generally rounded up to 0.5 in media for various reasons.
The decimal makes all the difference.

Additionally, what courts are looking at as blood markers and blood TYPE are not the same. You are correct, many people share Simpson’s simple blood type. However, the three characteristics that the prosecution used which did NOT only involve his blood type, again would be expected in .0065 percent of the GENERAL population. It can be racially broken down further. For African-Americans, it is an even smaller number. What .0065 means is that 65 people...CAUCASIAN people...out of 10,000 would match what was found. 65 out of 10,000 equates to 1 in 150. However, for African-Americans/blacks/etc it is one in every 500.

But honestly, the fact that blood consistent with his was found all over the scene, in his car, that blood consistent with hers was found on his property, that fibers consistent with the carpet of his car and his hair were found on Goldman, does not add up to ‘Oh, he clearly didn’t do it’.
A normal person without an agenda finds it hard to swallow that drug dealers mistook Nicole for Faye in the first place, (because despite what you are attempting to insinuate by bringing up Brown’s past drug use and her debt, it was Faye Resnick who Cochran specifically named as the person he was ‘theorizing’ was the ‘real target’), and that, having seemingly realized they had NOT killed Resnick but rather, mistakenly, Nicole Brown Simpson, that they in a short span of time were able to gather blood, hairs, and fibers consistent with OJ and his property, and plant them at multiple locations to frame him for their mistaken payback murder.

Come on. Cochran’s theory was that drug dealers put out a hit on Faye Resnick, who unfortunately had been staying with Nicole, and when the bumbling, silly hitmen found out (what tipped them off, I wonder) that they’d just spent a good amount of time murdering two completely different people by mistake, that they then were able to gather enough material to implicate OJ on the spot. Or were they prescient enough to bring an accomplice matching OJ’s blood and hair type who happened to have fibers from a Bronco on him with which to deliberately place on Goldman? What, it was just a lucky accident that one of the real killers had both matching blood type and two additional proteins, and it was further just a coincidence that her blood was all over poor OJ’s socks, etc. Has to be, right, because he was minding his business the whole time.

Come on. Are you honestly of the opinion that doesn’t sound ridiculous? Then it might be that there’s nothing to discuss, but before berating others to get their facts straight, it behooves the maker of the statement to do likewise.

 

[Dooneysta]

What a remarkable, logic suspending, coincidence that his one in a million DNA, hair fibers, glove, and shoe prints were all found on the scene. Those Colombian gang members must’ve really had it out for him.
I will say, it was so gracious of OJ to lend the gang members his super rare Bruno Magli shoes to walk around in. Great guy.

Your avatar is awesome btw. I love sharks! If you have access to gaming, I suggest the game Abzu, which released on multiple formats. If you play your cards right, you wind up with a great white to ride around.

 

[NLVOEWITHLV]

No, your own facts are invented.

What you perhaps meant to say was ‘.5’.

Half of one percent and five percent are two different numbers. Simpson’s blood contains/ed three specific markers that would also be expected to be present in 0.0065 percent of the general population, a number which was generally rounded up to 0.5 in media for various reasons.
The decimal makes all the difference.

Additionally, what courts are looking at as blood markers and blood TYPE are not the same. You are correct, many people share Simpson’s simple blood type. However, the three characteristics that the prosecution used which did NOT only involve his blood type, again would be expected in .0065 percent of the GENERAL population. It can be racially broken down further. For African-Americans, it is an even smaller number. What .0065 means is that 65 people...CAUCASIAN people...out of 10,000 would match what was found. 65 out of 10,000 equates to 1 in 150. However, for African-Americans/blacks/etc it is one in every 500.

But honestly, the fact that blood consistent with his was found all over the scene, in his car, that blood consistent with hers was found on his property, that fibers consistent with the carpet of his car and his hair were found on Goldman, does not add up to ‘Oh, he clearly didn’t do it’.
A normal person without an agenda finds it hard to swallow that drug dealers mistook Nicole for Faye in the first place, (because despite what you are attempting to insinuate by bringing up Brown’s past drug use and her debt, it was Faye Resnick who Cochran specifically named as the person he was ‘theorizing’ was the ‘real target’), and that, having seemingly realized they had NOT killed Resnick but rather, mistakenly, Nicole Brown Simpson, that they in a short span of time were able to gather blood, hairs, and fibers consistent with OJ and his property, and plant them at multiple locations to frame him for their mistaken payback murder.

Come on. Cochran’s theory was that drug dealers put out a hit on Faye Resnick, who unfortunately had been staying with Nicole, and when the bumbling, silly hitmen found out (what tipped them off, I wonder) that they’d just spent a good amount of time murdering two completely different people by mistake, that they then were able to gather enough material to implicate OJ on the spot. Or were they prescient enough to bring an accomplice matching OJ’s blood and hair type who happened to have fibers from a Bronco on him with which to deliberately place on Goldman? What, it was just a lucky accident that one of the real killers had both matching blood type and two additional proteins, and it was further just a coincidence that her blood was all over poor OJ’s socks, etc. Has to be, right, because he was minding his business the whole time.

Come on. Are you honestly of the opinion that doesn’t sound ridiculous? Then it might be that there’s nothing to discuss, but before berating others to get their facts straight, it behooves the maker of the statement to do likewise.

The previous poster stated that his blood was "all over the scene" that is a made up fact. If you feel that it isn't feel free to post evidence stating that OJ's blood was all over the scene (you won't find any because it wasn't). Through the gathering of DNA evidence, it couldn't even be proven conclusively that it was his blood at the scene.

As far as all the conjecture of Cochran's theory, I never said anything about that. I don't think OJ was set up, I simply think Nichole was targeted and Ron may have just been in the wrong place at the wrong time. IMO her drug usage played a significant role in her death, but I do not believe OJ was responsible.

One thing I do believe is that with the level of arthritis and medical conditions OJ had it would've been near impossible for him to fight and kill two gym rats, and if he did he should've had significant injuries. The bloody gloves found that were worn by the killer wouldn't even go over OJ's hands.

We can speculate until the cows come home but the fact of the matter is that a jury who heard and had privy to all the evidence found him not guilty.

Sad that in this country even when acquitted many will still slander your name and convict you based on nothing more than personal opinion.

 

[NLVOEWITHLV]

First of all, the ‘Colombian necklace’ simply means ‘having your throat cut’. People have been cutting other people’s throats since WAY before South American drug dealers decided to give it a special nickname.
The ‘Colombian necklace’ is not anatomically possible the way it is done on tv shows. You cannot reach into someone’s neck and pull their tongue backwards. Sorry. That is an urban legend.

Also, there is no actual evidence that even if someone DID actually have the time to sit there long enough to cut their tongues out through the mouth and then place them into the throat, which is what would have had to happen for your assertion to be factual, that either victim actually had that done to them.

Cochran never actually claimed that had happened. He ASKED a witness IF they had ever HEARD of the ‘Colombian necklace/necktie’. That is NOT the same as saying it happened, it’s shifty lawyer tricks. And it wasn’t used as an actual theory in court. So. Please produce any evidence you have that the victims had their tongues removed and staged deliberately. As this would be entirely new evidence that the defense never produced, you would probably get pretty famous.
People cutting others’ throats in anger is not new. Drug dealers didn’t invent it.
And, as others pointed out, it doesn’t seem that Colombian hit men would coincidentally have had access to OJ’s blood in order to leave it at the scene and would have had the time to seek out OJ’s house to sneak onto the property and plant HER blood at HIS place, in his car.
A drug hit, they don’t care about pinning it on someone else, they’re not out to set someone up. They just do it and walk away.

It’s one thing to say ‘I think he didn’t do it’. Okay. But ‘drug dealers did it’ is not supportable. Cochran spread a rumor with no actual evidence. Anywhere else, people just call that gossip.

Semantics can be argued in this case but in the police reports Nicole has a Columbian Necklace while Ron had a Columbian Necktie. Ito chose to bar this information as well as drug usage from the trial because he believed it would bias the jury.

 

[NLVOEWITHLV]

Also, the legal definitions of the words ‘exonerated’ and ‘acquitted’ are not such that they could be taken as synonyms, though perhaps the ‘street’ definition would.

The legal definition of ‘not guilty’ in the context of a verdict is simply that the judging body (be it the judge in a bench trial or a jury) did not find that the prosecution had proved the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
In plain English that means ‘we can’t prove they did it. Doesn’t mean they DIDN’T, but we can’t be sure enough to convict’.

The legal definition of ‘exoneration’ in a criminal sense (it means something slightly different to ,say ,a real estate lawyer)generally involves a person who has ALREADY been found guilty in a court of law being found innocent after the fact.
Innocent, not ‘not guilty’. Generally further evidence comes to light that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the original defendant ‘didn’t do it’, sometimes in the context of the real perpetrator’s admission or discovery.

A person can therefore be exonerated before being convicted, but what would happen is the charges would be dropped and the innocent party wouldn’t go through the rest of the process.
OJ Simpson was found not guilty. He was not exonerated of the crime. They are synonyms in casual English, but legal terms have specific, narrow meaning and again, it can be a little different to different kinds of lawyer.

In a real estate contract for example, obviously ‘exonerated’ doesn’t mean you were found not to have committed a crime. It has to do with who pays burdens on a property/etc during the disbursement of an estate.
Anyhow, the point is, there IS a difference between ‘innocent’ and ‘not guilty’.

Thank you for the additional info, law has always been interesting to me, I was pre-law in undergrad and although I started law school I didn't complete it, I instead chose to get my MEd. I am aware that layman definitions and legal definitions can be vastly different, I was merely using them as laymans terms: exonerated meaning cleared from blame and acquitted meaning discharged from accusation.

 

[Dooneysta]

Once again, I’m going to assume you are being deliberately dodgy and not merely ignorant of fact.
I said that blood ‘consistent with his’, hairs ‘consistent with his’ and fibers ‘consistent with’ his property were found at the scene. I’m sorry, but they were. Should you choose to deny this, you are NOT operating on the plane of reality. I did not say they were his. I specifically said they were consistent with being his.
Since you act as though you are some manner of forensic expert, despite not knowing where decimal markers go or that simple blood type is not all that the prosecution was referring to by arguing that you share Simpson’s type and implying this therefore somehow should go onto the list of reasons he didn’t do it, then you of COURSE know that DNA evidence is not the end all be all of guilt. You cannot take a drop of blood and say ‘no other person except Julie Green has this blood’. You CAN categorically exclude her; ‘exonerate’ her, to use another word you were mistaken about the definition of. You can also use it to make a point about the PROBABILITY of her guilt. You can say, statistically there are only likely to be eleven people in the United States(or wherever) that would have the same profile.
When a jury knows that okay, there are eleven people in the country who could have bled at this scene, is it reasonable, knowing what ELSE the prosecution has presented (crappy alibi full of holes, a good motive, an eyewitness, a survivor, a list in your handwriting they found of murder supplies, WHATEVER...) how likely is it that one of those ten other people did it and not this one.

That is the use of DNA/blood evidence. You are simply being ‘tricksy’, as they say, to exclaim ‘well they couldn’t prove it was his’ as though that is meaningful. Again, you can’t say that about ANYONE’S blood. So you are apparently arguing that forensic typing is useless and everyone who gets convicted with its use is getting the shaft. Please.

You can use it to include the suspect in the pool of people who could have been there, and then you can establish the size of the pool. You are simply deluding yourself if you think ‘they weren’t able to prove it was his’ is proof of innocence. He IS one of the possible ‘donors’ of blood that WAS in fact found.

The fact that you want to deflect by saying ‘oh, well, it was hardly ALL OVER’ is...I suppose reasonable people may disagree about what ‘all over’ consists of, but theoretically it shouldn’t have been ‘anywhere’ there, should it.

So as I said, the fact that there was biological evidence consistent with him there coupled with the fact that biological evidence consistent with the victims’ was found at his home coupled with demonstrable motive is all you NORMALLY have. If you choose to argue that a prosecutor can categorically say ‘this blood cannot have come from any person on the span of the globe other than Barney Fife’, and if they CAN’T say that, it means ‘innocent’, then you watch too much TV.

The forensic evidence was there. The prosecution boned it up in plenty of ways, high, as I said, is fair and square. You SHOULD not convict someone when the State made a s$&#%y case. They were not able to do their job, which is to say, this DNA puts the suspect pool at X number of people, and of X people, it is unreasonable to suspect anyone other than John because we ALSO know a,b,and c.

Please stop laboring under the delusion that since they were unable to pick one person as the source of a blood sample, it indicates innocence/prosecutorial shenanigans/whatever. That’s half your mistake right there.
I notice I specifically said it was possible that he is innocent. I also notice you specifically chose not to address any of the errors you made, but so it goes.

 

[Dooneysta]

As a final thought, it is also disingenuous to be shocked or upset at the treatment of persons accused of crimes by private citizens.
I said that the prosecution lost fair and square, meaning OJ won fair and square. It would not be right for the State to punish him after the fact, such as by imposing a much longer sentence than provided for by what he did get convicted of in order to ‘also’ punish him for murder.
It’s totally fair that he is out. However, it’s also totally fair for the public to embrace him OR shun him. There is no legal or constitutional provision for how a person is treated by the citizenry, only by the State. The government must treat him as innocent unless/until convicted. You and I do not.
If you find out the guy two houses down from you has been accused of fondling two girls on the softball team, uh, you don’t have to let your daughter keep hanging out at his house until the State PROVES he did it or else you are morally wronging him.
If Casey Anthony were to move across the street from you next month, you may befriend her if she’ll have you, you may ignore her, or when she comes over to ask to borrow your lawnmower, you can tell her to shove off and why.
I have no recommendation on WHICH of these things to do, only that the citizenry is not obligated to shun and berate OJ everywhere he goes, but neither are they obliged to treat him as though nothing happened. If they do, that’s well. Was I to find myself next to him on a plane or something, I would not choose to rebuke him unless he were to specifically ask what I think of him. In any other circumstance of conversation I would treat him as though I did not know who he was. However, he’s not ‘entitled’ to any particular embracement on the part of the public.
I hope he is able to make the most of his life at this point, but I also believe he SHOULD be paying the civil judgement that was also levied fair and square under the law.

 

[sdkitty]

I think just about everyone understands OJ had a very good legal team and a jury (not of his peers but more fans) that was biased in his favor.

 

[NLVOEWITHLV]

Once again, I’m going to assume you are being deliberately dodgy and not merely ignorant of fact.
I said that blood ‘consistent with his’, hairs ‘consistent with his’ and fibers ‘consistent with’ his property were found at the scene. I’m sorry, but they were. Should you choose to deny this, you are NOT operating on the plane of reality. I did not say they were his. I specifically said they were consistent with being his.
Since you act as though you are some manner of forensic expert, despite not knowing where decimal markers go or that simple blood type is not all that the prosecution was referring to by arguing that you share Simpson’s type and implying this therefore somehow should go onto the list of reasons he didn’t do it, then you of COURSE know that DNA evidence is not the end all be all of guilt. You cannot take a drop of blood and say ‘no other person except Julie Green has this blood’. You CAN categorically exclude her; ‘exonerate’ her, to use another word you were mistaken about the definition of. You can also use it to make a point about the PROBABILITY of her guilt. You can say, statistically there are only likely to be eleven people in the United States(or wherever) that would have the same profile.
When a jury knows that okay, there are eleven people in the country who could have bled at this scene, is it reasonable, knowing what ELSE the prosecution has presented (crappy alibi full of holes, a good motive, an eyewitness, a survivor, a list in your handwriting they found of murder supplies, WHATEVER...) how likely is it that one of those ten other people did it and not this one.

That is the use of DNA/blood evidence. You are simply being ‘tricksy’, as they say, to exclaim ‘well they couldn’t prove it was his’ as though that is meaningful. Again, you can’t say that about ANYONE’S blood. So you are apparently arguing that forensic typing is useless and everyone who gets convicted with its use is getting the shaft. Please.

You can use it to include the suspect in the pool of people who could have been there, and then you can establish the size of the pool. You are simply deluding yourself if you think ‘they weren’t able to prove it was his’ is proof of innocence. He IS one of the possible ‘donors’ of blood that WAS in fact found.

The fact that you want to deflect by saying ‘oh, well, it was hardly ALL OVER’ is...I suppose reasonable people may disagree about what ‘all over’ consists of, but theoretically it shouldn’t have been ‘anywhere’ there, should it.

So as I said, the fact that there was biological evidence consistent with him there coupled with the fact that biological evidence consistent with the victims’ was found at his home coupled with demonstrable motive is all you NORMALLY have. If you choose to argue that a prosecutor can categorically say ‘this blood cannot have come from any person on the span of the globe other than Barney Fife’, and if they CAN’T say that, it means ‘innocent’, then you watch too much TV.

The forensic evidence was there. The prosecution boned it up in plenty of ways, high, as I said, is fair and square. You SHOULD not convict someone when the State made a s$&#%y case. They were not able to do their job, which is to say, this DNA puts the suspect pool at X number of people, and of X people, it is unreasonable to suspect anyone other than John because we ALSO know a,b,and c.

Please stop laboring under the delusion that since they were unable to pick one person as the source of a blood sample, it indicates innocence/prosecutorial shenanigans/whatever. That’s half your mistake right there.
I notice I specifically said it was possible that he is innocent. I also notice you specifically chose not to address any of the errors you made, but so it goes.

So that was a whole mouthful that I only had the time to skim. If you would ever so kindly QUOTE like most here do I would know half of what you're accusing me of.

First of all, I mentioned blood specifically to the person I quoted because she claimed OJ's blood was "all over the crime scene" I merely explained why based on the evidence that simply wasn't true. But let's ignore that.

Furthermore, I am not foolish enough to think that typing is the only way blood is identifiable, I'm also intelligent enough to know that forensic science specifically dealing with blood has come a long way since this trial.

Geez! Crucify me because I forgot a decimal point while I was typing on my phone and multi tasking.

You can argue about the evidence as I stated previously until the cows come home but it's not going to change the verdict, the outcome, or my opinion.

Perhaps when I have the time to log onto my computer I'll take the time to post actual evidence but unfortunately from my phone I just do not have the time.