O.J. Simpson - THE Definitive Poll

[Kodos]

This ought to settle this issue once and for all.

[MIJB#19]

Not.

[rkmsuf]

We request that the defendant try on the bra.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I had to go with "innocent", but that's stretching it a little bit.

I believe (and have pretty much always believed) that he didn't do the murders, but is actually covering up for the real killer.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

real killer.

His son?

[stevew]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I had to go with "innocent", but that's stretching it a little bit.

I believe (and have pretty much always believed) that he didn't do the murders, but is actually covering up for the real killer.

So are you a believer in the "Jason Simpson is the real killer" theory? I think OJ did it, but I suppose that is also palatable. Outside of that, the random drug hit theories never made too much sense to me. Considering OJ's actions of that night.

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I had to go with "innocent", but that's stretching it a little bit.

I believe (and have pretty much always believed) that he didn't do the murders, but is actually covering up for the real killer.

that must explain why his exhaustive search for the real killer has been unsuccessful thus far

[Pumpy Tudors]

Where is the "...is jbmagic" option?

[st.cronin]

I really believe that if one of the Goldman's walked up to OJ in public and put a round of bullets in his torso, that they would end up serving no jail time.

[M GO BLUE!!!]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I had to go with "innocent", but that's stretching it a little bit.

I believe (and have pretty much always believed) that he didn't do the murders, but is actually covering up for the real killer.

I thought he was covering for the real murderer(s) too. I thought there was likely more to the large tab she supposedly ran up with coke dealers and his supposed cutting off her funding for powder. I thought that OJ was acting very strangely for a "guilty" man in the hours after the murders... More like someone who got a call that his wife was dead and they made it look like he did it. In this case, I'd keep my mouth shut too if the rest of my family was threatened...

But it's looking more and more like he did it.

How many licks does it take to get to the center of a Tootsie Pop?

The world may never know...

[RedKingGold]

I refuse to vote due to a lack of a trout option.

[spleen1015]

There should be a "I don't know" option.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

His son?

That's one I've heard as well.

[Pumpy Tudors]

Who killer, OJ Simpson or son?

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Pumpy Tudors

Who killer, OJ Simpson or son?

Please stop causing problems for the LAPD.

[Tigercat]

I don't know if he is truly innocent, but I believe he is far less likely to have directly done it than most of the general public believes. The only thing I am certain of is that he has quite a few screws loose.

[MizzouRah]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Please stop causing problems for the LAPD.

[rkmsuf]

That Al Cowlings was a good driver.

Man, that chase was one of the most riveting things on tv I've ever seen.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

His son?

Yep.

That's been my gut since the night of the Bronco chase, and I haven't seen/heard/read anything that has shaken it yet.

[cartman]

Here's an excerpt from a book I read a while back that lays out a pretty compelling case for the killer being the son.

hxxp://www.bookmasters.com/marktplc/rr00554.htm

[Young Drachma]

He acts way too stupid for a guy that committed murder. That book deal proves he was just at wits end and decided that if everyone believed he was guilty, that he might was well right a book and make money off of it. But I think -- as with most of what he does -- that he wasn't thinking straight and surrounds himself with yes people, who probably don't sit his retarded ass and ask him what the hell he's doing.

That and I'm tired of the Goldman's schilling themselves on television. Ok, she died. People get killed all the time and don't get to talk about in the media over and over again. What about those kids.

And how old was his son who would've killed them? Or are we talking about his adult son?

I explained to a foreign friend the absurdity of a system that can make you non-guilty and yet liable for a crime and he just shook his head.

He and Kramer should go play golf.

[weegeebored]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

He acts way too stupid for a guy that committed murder.

Are you saying that only smart people commit murder?

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

That book deal proves he was just at wits end and decided that if everyone believed he was guilty, that he might was well right a book and make money off of it.

So previously he was stupid, but now he's at wit's end? Kato Kaelin, is it really you?

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

That and I'm tired of the Goldman's schilling themselves on television. Ok, she died. People get killed all the time and don't get to talk about in the media over and over again. What about those kids.

But you're not all that tired of O.J. and his ugly mug?

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

He and Kramer should go play golf.

Maybe you should join them. Bring Robert Blake along, why doncha.

[Joe Canadian]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

I explained to a foreign friend the absurdity of a system that can make you non-guilty and yet liable for a crime and he just shook his head.

I've never understood this either. You'd think being not-guilty of a crime would be a nice bit of evidence...

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Joe Canadian

I've never understood this either. You'd think being not-guilty of a crime would be a nice bit of evidence...

I think this was explained earlier in this thread (maybe it was another), that there are two different court systems in play here. One is the criminal court system (the kind where you go to jail/prison as punishment) and the other is civil court system (the kind where you get fined as the punishment). The level of guilt in the criminal system is "beyond a reasonable doubt", which basically means that there has to be overwhelming proof that you are the one responsible. The level of guilt in the civil system is "preponderance of evidence", which basically means that there has to be a more than 50/50 level of proof that you are responsible.

[Joe Canadian]

Originally Posted by cartman

I think this was explained earlier in this thread (maybe it was another), that there are two different court systems in play here. One is the criminal court system (the kind where you go to jail/prison as punishment) and the other is civil court system (the kind where you get fined as the punishment). The level of guilt in the criminal system is "beyond a reasonable doubt", which basically means that there has to be overwhelming proof that you are the one responsible. The level of guilt in the civil system is "preponderance of evidence", which basically means that there has to be a more than 50/50 level of proof that you are responsible.

Yeah I know all that... I just don't understand why those civil trials are allowed to exist. IMO, they are a back door way of getting around double jeopardy rules.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

Or are we talking about his adult son?

That's the one I meant (and I assume everyone else was talking about too).
He was 24 at the time of the murders.

[cartman]

Double Jeopardy is just there to prevent being tried two or more times in the criminal court system. Being found "guilty" in civil court isn't considered being convicted of a misdemeanor or felony, so there isn't any kind of social or legal stigma involved. The civil system is a way for aggrieved parties to seek financial compensation for a loss.

[Joe Canadian]

Originally Posted by cartman

Double Jeopardy is just there to prevent being tried two or more times in the criminal court system. Being found "guilty" in civil court isn't considered being convicted of a misdemeanor or felony, so there isn't any kind of social or legal stigma involved.

In the sense of punishment, I mean.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Joe Canadian

In the sense of punishment, I mean.

Well considering the Goldmans and Browns haven't seen much at all of the judgment they were awarded, it hasn't been too big of a punishment to O.J.

[Joe Canadian]

Originally Posted by cartman

Well considering the Goldmans and Browns haven't seen much at all of the judgment they were awarded, it hasn't been too big of a punishment to O.J.

Well he lost pretty much everything, didn't he?

[SirFozzie]

Originally Posted by Joe Canadian

Well he lost pretty much everything, didn't he?

Nope, his NFL pension is untouchable, he moved to a state where you can't attach the house, and is using various shenanigans to prevent paying more then a pittance

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Joe Canadian

Well he lost pretty much everything, didn't he?

That was before the civil trial. He spent just about all of his money on the "Dream Team" to get him acquitted at the murder trial. That is why he had to sell his house and a lot of his possessions.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

That and I'm tired of the Goldman's schilling themselves on television.

Word.

[weegeebored]

Originally Posted by Joe Canadian

Well he lost pretty much everything, didn't he?

He's still breathing, isn't he?

[Antmeister]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I had to go with "innocent", but that's stretching it a little bit.

I believe (and have pretty much always believed) that he didn't do the murders, but is actually covering up for the real killer.

What the...I never thought that you would be in agreement with my usually most disregarded opinion on what happened in this matter. I have always believed that he didn't do it, but was pretty much aware of who did. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if he was there to witness part or all of it.

[Greyroofoo]

To me, a "trout in rectum" option has never been more needed.

[PSUColonel]

The question itself is flawed..it should read: Do you think he murdered Nicole and Ron or not?

[Buccaneer]

Yet another viewpoint or interpretation: 'roid rage

Yesterday, FOX Broadcasting cancelled all its O.J. projects including his book, called "If I Did It," and his TV interview with Judith Regan.

That’s fine. Everyone’s mad at Regan, which is also fine. But let’s get back to the real story here: O.J. did indeed “do it.” He killed two people in cold blood on June 12, 1994. One of them was the mother of two of his children. Yes, he was acquitted by a jury in the criminal matter. But he was also found responsible for the murders by a more sensible civil jury in 1996.

I covered the O.J. Simpson trial for New York magazine and broke a lot of the stories surrounding that circus. For six months, from the day of the murder until the pretrial hearings kicked into gear, I followed every possible lead that would prove Simpson innocent. These included Nicole’s horrible little friend Faye Resnick, as well as many other similar murders in L.A. around that time.

And this is what came up: No one but O.J. Simpson could have killed Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman. His friends may have helped cover it up, but in the end, it was all O.J.

There were a lot of theories about how he did it and lived with himself afterward. Apparently, in the unpublished book he says he had a "black out" period — if he did it.

One theory that I came to subscribe to was supplied by a freelance writer and his brother, who was a Harvard forensic psychiatrist. To this day it makes the most sense: Simpson was having steroid rage. This wasn’t from being on steroids, but from getting off of them. He’d been addicted to them for years when he took a pounding in football and stuck with them later for rheumatoid arthritis.

A lot of different details added up to this conclusion. For weeks, Resnick’s boyfriend, Christian Reichardt, had been weaning Simpson off the steroids with a fruit drink that Simpson promoted in a TV infomercial.

Reichardt told me this had begun in late March, early April 1994. By June 12, Simpson was probably not feeling too well. Erratic outbursts, extreme emotions — these were indications that his withdrawal was not a success.
In the infomercial, made March 31, 1994, which was entered into evidence but never pursued, Simpson recalls "They had me on — you name it — Naprosyn, Indocin, Motrin, I, I had so much Motrin you couldn't believe it, you know.”

Then he talks about the miraculous turn around in his life from drinking Juice Plus: “And then before I knew it, I just start skippin' the Naprosyn and skippin the Indocin and skippin the pain pills, uh, the Advil. I mean I was one of these guys who was on six or seven Advils a day, you know, until today when I don't have to take anything.”

For some reason, no one bothered to ask the doctor what the effect would be of no longer taking all those drugs. And no one asked Dr. Robert Huizenga — a doctor whose specialty was steroids and athletes — one word on that subject as well.

Simpson, I learned from the FBI lab in Washington, had been tested for eight different kinds of drugs but not for steroids when he was arrested.
My sources’ claims, they say, were further emphasized by the Bronco “chase.” Al Cowlings, who’d been in the car with Simpson, described to a writer he’d hired for a book proposal that Simpson had been sweating like crazy in the car. His face had turned “golden,” Cowlings recalled. Sweat poured from him. Simpson was so incoherent that he let Cowlings do the talking for him.

The chase was on June 15. Three days earlier, Simpson had returned to L.A. from a visit to Chicago. Howard Weitzman had been his lawyer. Dr. Bertram Maltz , now deceased, had been his long-term physician.
When Weitzman handed over the reigns to Robert Shapiro, the first thing Shapiro did was get rid of Maltz and bring in Dr. Huizenga. Huizenga had just published a book on the subject, as physician for the L.A. Rams.

In his testimony at the criminal trial, Huizenga said that Simpson had given him “a one-month history of drenching night sweats so severe that he would have to get out of bed, towel himself off and go back and sleep in the dry portion of the bed.”

But nothing more was asked in this area by either side, and the words “steroid” or “rage” or “withdrawal” never again came up either in direct or cross-examination.

As I wrote then: “What was most alarming, Huizenga told me, was how prosecutors treated him. His direct questioning by the state was from Deputy District Attorney Brian Kelberg, who worked for Marcia Clark.
"I told them that Simpson appeared to be limping when he came into my office. Instead of asking me about that, they said, 'He wasn't limping, you're lying, we have tape of him from two months before.' It's odd that the prosecutors didn't even bother to ask about the sequelae," he said, tossing some much-needed Latin into our conversation. In other words: Clark's team never asked why Simpson had been limping, or what would have brought him to that point.”

Indeed, Clark and Chris Darden , who went on to have fame and make little fortunes off their horrendous loss in court, didn’t do a lot of things right.

It’s easy to blame Judith Regan for what’s gone wrong now, but Clark and Darden are the real culprits here, and the reason why O.J. Simpson is still walking around and causing trouble.

[kingfc22]

I voted guilty and just wanted to post to see if this part of the forum got counted. :P

[vtbub]

Guilty, but earnedacquittal due to horrible prosecution.

[Grammaticus]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

That and I'm tired of the Goldman's schilling themselves on television. Ok, she died. People get killed all the time and don't get to talk about in the media over and over again. What about those kids.

You do realize the Goldman's lost their son, right?

[timmae]

Originally Posted by weegeebored

He's still breathing, isn't he?

Denise?? Is that you???

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I had to go with "innocent", but that's stretching it a little bit.

I believe (and have pretty much always believed) that he didn't do the murders, but is actually covering up for the real killer.

I'll have to abstain because whiel I would choose a "not guilty" option, I'm not sure I can pull the trigger on innocent either.

Without retrying the whole case and getting into the EDTA or any other such nonsense, while there's a ton of circumstantial evidence to suggest he did it, there are a couple of huge question marks that have always left me wondering. I have generally fallen into the same camp as Jon -- that OJ may not have done it, but he likely knows who did.

However, his behavior over the years hasn't made you feel sorry for him. I completely understand that he is unable to live the life he was accustomed to for so many years and that must be difficult, but there is something to be said for just laying low and staying out of the way.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

That and I'm tired of the Goldman's schilling themselves on television. Ok, she died. People get killed all the time and don't get to talk about in the media over and over again. What about those kids.
.

The only times I have heard him talking on tv are...

1. When a man was on trial for murdering his son.
2. When the man who murdered his son was found not-guilty via "black justice"
3. When the man who murdered his son planned to write a book and have a television interview about how he hyothetically murdered his son.

I dont have kids and can understand this man's rage. I think I would have done a little more than this.

[panerd]

And for all of you who say "His Son did it". You do realize modern science has explained that a person's DNA is unique to themselves and even differs from their own children. Or did the quick thinking/racist LAPD know the son committed the murder, but decided to put OJ's blood at the scene to frame him instead. (They just hate some black people more than others and are willing to all go to jail for years to frame an innocent football star)

Wow, you guys really amaze me sometimes.

[Kodos]

And would any sane person whose wife had been murdered later write a book about "If I Did It" if they were innocent?

[cartman]

Originally Posted by panerd

And for all of you who say "His Son did it". You do realize modern science has explained that a person's DNA is unique to themselves and even differs from their own children. Or did the quick thinking/racist LAPD know the son committed the murder, but decided to put OJ's blood at the scene to frame him instead. (They just hate some black people more than others and are willing to all go to jail for years to frame an innocent football star)

Wow, you guys really amaze me sometimes.

The line of thought on how to explain it goes like this:

The son was already in the act of killing them or had just killed them. O.J. had gotten a message or some sort of communication that his son was going to lash out, so he heads over to his ex-wife's house. That's how his shoeprints get there. He gets the cut on his hand and blood at the scene when he takes the knife away from his son.

That's the Reader's Digest super-abridged version. The book I mentioned above goes into a lot greater detail and lays out a pretty compelling alternate version of how the crime occurred.

[Joe Canadian]

Originally Posted by panerd

2. When the man who murdered his son was found not-guilty via "black justice"

The god awful prosecution had absolutely nothing to do with it...

[Kodos]

So the theory behind writing the book would be that they can't try O.J. again, so he'll protect his son by making everyone think that O.J. did do it?

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Kodos

So the theory behind writing the book would be that they can't try O.J. again, so he'll protect his son by making everyone think that O.J. did do it?

That could be one possible reason. And the $3.5 million was supposedly not going to O.J., but into a trust fund for his kids to access.