Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

OJ Simpson Granted Parole


rashore

Recommended Posts

20 hours ago, regi said:

The point was, you said "found innocent" and there's no such thing. The prosecution either proves it's case to the jury or it doesn't, and a Not Guilty verdict only means that the jury didn't think that the prosecution proved it's case, not that the defendant was actually innocent.

So much for innocent until proven guilty.

Lets recap what went wrong in his original murder trial. The lead police officer was personally transporting forensic evidence to the lab, and get this, back to the murder scene. Not only does all of that break set rules for police professional conduct but there were claims the officer in question was a racist. A claim later proven when he was taped giving it N this and N that.

The defence argued he was trying to setup OJ Simpson with his motivation being racism. And when we got to the key piece of evidence which the police say they recovered from the crime scene it didnt even fit OJ. And guess what? The police officer in question admitted during the trial to personally transporting back and forth evidence and the gloves were on the list.

That could in no way shape or form could ever amount to a safe conviction. It is too suspicious. In the end it turned out there was not one single piece of evidence (there was only one to begin with which in itself is odd). None of OJs skin under Nicole`s nails, no bruising or evidence of a struggle on OJ`s body, no blood stains on his clothes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
1 hour ago, RabidMongoose said:

So much for innocent until proven guilty.

Lets recap what went wrong in his original murder trial. The lead police officer was personally transporting forensic evidence to the lab, and get this, back to the murder scene. Not only does all of that break set rules for police professional conduct but there were claims the officer in question was a racist. A claim later proven when he was taped giving it N this and N that.

The defence argued he was trying to setup OJ Simpson with his motivation being racism. And when we got to the key piece of evidence which the police say they recovered from the crime scene it didnt even fit OJ. And guess what? The police officer in question admitted during the trial to personally transporting back and forth evidence and the gloves were on the list.

That could in no way shape or form could ever amount to a safe conviction. It is too suspicious. In the end it turned out there was not one single piece of evidence (there was only one to begin with which in itself is odd). None of OJs skin under Nicole`s nails, no bruising or evidence of a struggle on OJ`s body, no blood stains on his clothes.

The criminal jury didn't find the case guilty beyond all reasonable doubt, and so not guilty. Not guilty isn't the same as found guiltless, or innocent. There's filing for factual innocence, which didn't happen. There's exoneration, which is more like being found innocent, but that more commonly comes after a conviction, and he wasn't convicted. He was found liable for the murders in the civil case. That jury to the majority thought he was guilty- but those cases don't come with jail time. So he was found not guilty and liable.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, RabidMongoose said:

Lets recap what went wrong in his original murder trial. The lead police officer was personally transporting forensic evidence to the lab, and get this, back to the murder scene. Not only does all of that break set rules for police professional conduct but there were claims the officer in question was a racist. A claim later proven when he was taped giving it N this and N that.

The defence argued he was trying to setup OJ Simpson with his motivation being racism. And when we got to the key piece of evidence which the police say they recovered from the crime scene it didnt even fit OJ. And guess what? The police officer in question admitted during the trial to personally transporting back and forth evidence and the gloves were on the list.

Racist police officer, fluffing evidence and breaking the rules or not, still does not prove him innocent. Incompetence on the part of the police, yes, but certainly not proof of innocence of the accused.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, regi said:

The point was, you said "found innocent" and there's no such thing. 

yes, you are right, he should have said remaines innocent 

Edited by aztek
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.