If you would have been on the OJ Simpson jury, would you have found him guilty or not?

I just finally got around to watching the OJ Simpson tapes, which is just a bunch of never released audio and video interviews with him and the police. I learned a lot, like his best friend Robert Kardashian after hearing and seeing a bunch of things was convinced of his guilt. OJ Simpson is a piece of work, I thought Drew Peterson was bad but this guy ain't no peach himself.

Anyway, seeing that inspired this question. So, if you could have been on that jury (granted you were old enough in that time), would you have found him guilty or not guilty? And, what would be the reason for your choice in verdict?


0|0
1|7

Most Helpful Guy

  • Guilty as fuck. I hate those rich people.

    Plus, you know, he actually did it.

    0|0
    0|0

Most Helpful Girl

  • Dont know the case well enough to judge...

    0|0
    0|0

What Guys Said 6

  • GUILTY! You have to be an idiot to think that the police were capable of and had race as a motive to frame him.

    1. Size 12 bloody footprints
    2. Knit cap with 20+ hairs that match OJs DNA
    3. OJ's blood on the body of Nicole, as well as leading away from the crime scene right to his bedroom with a cut on his left hand (left glove left at Bundy scene) that he couldn't REMEMBER how he got it? How does someone cut their finger nearly to the bone and not know how? Could have been from chipping golf balls? I've never cut myself playing golf!
    4. OJs gloves. One left at scene, one left at his house. Both with blood and hair of the victims as well as OJs blood
    5. Both victims blood in the bronco that mysteriously showed up after the limo showed up at his house.
    6. Nicole's blood on OJs socks
    7. An empty Swiss army knife box in his bathroom (which the prosecution did not zero in on DUH)
    8. He told the limo driver he overslept, but he told his lawyers he was chipping golf balls in his yard (in the dark?)
    9. He nearly got into a car accident on his way from the murders back home (again the prosecution left this out DUh!)
    10. He was seen at the airport putting something in a garbage can and mysteriously had less bags returning from Chicago than he left with.

    0|0
    0|0
  • You have to go by the evidence. They found his DNA at the crime scene but the defense was able to prove the scene was contaminated. It was shoddy police work that got him off. I'd have voted not guilty but I'm convinced he killed them

    0|0
    0|0
    • Errr what? You are convinced he did it but you would have voted bot guilty? You would have let a man you believed to be a murderer go? Why? To punish the police?

    • Show All
    • Ummm I never said anything about making up your mind before. It was beyond a reasonable doubt because of a mountain of evidence. The dna evidence was not really proved to be all useless and that still doesn't discount everything else. Reasonable doubt would imply that was the only evidence. It wasn't. He's actually in jail now but the fact is he was free for a time wheb he never should have to begin with.

    • @Doofey look the jury spoke. The glove was planted the DNA was compromised. All 12 jurors had reasonable doubt. Juries usually get it right if they have all the evidence. It's the judges that decide if a piece of evidence is admissible or not. He had a miserable life after he was found not guilty watching all of his possessions be auctioned off and people everywhere hating his guts. It's like Casey Anthony. She can't go anywhere and has to live secluded because of all the death threats. She's still a prisoner. So is he

  • The evidence was overwhelming as well as his motives. I think most of the things the defence proved was "not true" were in fact true and accurate. His laywers actually had him stop taking his allergy medication so his hands would swell up so the glove wouldn't fit.

    0|0
    0|0
  • I would definitely find him guilty. He had no alibi, and his blood was found at the crime scene and a glove with the victims blood on it was found at his house

    0|0
    0|0
  • 20 years later.. he is GUILY.

    0|0
    0|0
  • Definitely guilty. That court case was handled ridiculously.

    0|0
    0|0

What Girls Said 0

The only opinion from girls was selected the Most Helpful Opinion!

Loading...