Did OJ Kill Nicole Brown?

Solid Scarecrow

CAGiversary!
Feedback
22 (100%)
I know this is a really old topic but one thing I love to do is watch a good documentary. I just watched OJ Simpson Monster or Myth on Netflix and now Im not so sure if I think he is guilty. If anyone has seen the movie I think youll agree at least a little that maybe he was innocent
 
If not, I would think that he should have found the killers by now (since he vowed to look for them)... oops, forgot he was in jail for another violent felony.
 
what other violent felony? The one where he was invited up to a hotel room and wanted some of his stuff back(that was blown up by the media). Suddenly he is suppose to find the killers all by himself. How about the crooked cops that tried to frame him? cant they look for the real killer?
 
[quote name='camoor']OP, are you one of those people who watches documentaries about aliens who built pyramids and rednecks who spotted bigfoot?[/QUOTE]


no I watch actual documentaries that put insight on interesting topics. I find it funny as in the documentary they say must people who think he is guilty are the ones who just saw the tidbits from the nightly news, but anyone who actually followed the whole case saw why he shouldnt be found guilty aka the white and black jurors. And if you want to debate a topic try to do it in an intelligant fashion, because a lame sentence that has no relevance to the topic doesnt further the fact on your point of view or discredit my ideas
 
and I think I would rather watch a documentary on bigfoot or aliens building pyramids then watch a michael moore movie, but lets save that for another day.
 
[quote name='Solid Scarecrow']no I watch actual documentaries that put insight on interesting topics. I find it funny as in the documentary they say must people who think he is guilty are the ones who just saw the tidbits from the nightly news, but anyone who actually followed the whole case saw why he shouldnt be found guilty aka the white and black jurors. And if you want to debate a topic try to do it in an intelligant fashion, because a lame sentence that has no relevance to the topic doesnt further the fact on your point of view or discredit my ideas[/QUOTE]

Eh - I followed it back in the day (which I'm sure is before your time) Convict beyond a reasonable doubt. Not beyond all doubt. Reasonable.

Prosecutors were outmatched, judge was a kook, and defense team were some of the best lawyers around. Add in a gullible jury and Mr "ifIdidit" walks.

That trial was a travesty of justice. Don't forget that two people died in a brutally violent fashion.
 
What proof says he did it? The tainted evidence, that was not allowed to be used because it came clear that it was planted? The testimony from the one police officer who then was charged with perjury, dismissing him from the trial? Or the myth that he had Nicole Browns blood on his clothes? The gullible lawyers, you mean the ones who heard the whole trial and saw evidence on both sides. Or the gullible people who come to an outcome of guilt by 10 minute news updates everynight? Ohh yeah I was actually old enough to remember this.
 
I will write my theory when I get back home tonight from seeing Apollo 13, and read about this new Nintendo Ultra 64 that's coming out next year in my Game Pro Magazine.
 
[quote name='Solid Scarecrow']What proof says he did it? The tainted evidence, that was not allowed to be used because it came clear that it was planted? The testimony from the one police officer who then was charged with perjury, dismissing him from the trial? Or the myth that he had Nicole Browns blood on his clothes? The gullible lawyers, you mean the ones who heard the whole trial and saw evidence on both sides. Or the gullible people who come to an outcome of guilt by 10 minute news updates everynight? Ohh yeah I was actually old enough to remember this.[/QUOTE]

I said gullible jury, not gullible lawyers.

OJ was no Moriarty, there was blood DNA evidence everywhere.

If you don't want to believe it, fine, but he was guilty as hell. Enjoy your shitty-ass documentaries - I expect to see many more fine posts from you about how Paul is dead and Chupacabra was seen in the parking lot of a New Mexico Denny's.
 
[quote name='TheBigAndy']I will write my theory when I get back home tonight from seeing Apollo 13, and read about this new Nintendo Ultra 64 that's coming out next year in my Game Pro Magazine.[/QUOTE]

:rofl:
 
[quote name='camoor']I said gullible jury, not gullible lawyers.

OJ was no Moriarty, there was blood DNA evidence everywhere.

If you don't want to believe it, fine, but he was guilty as hell. Enjoy your shitty-ass documentaries - I expect to see many more fine posts from you about how Paul is dead and Chupacabra was seen in the parking lot of a New Mexico Denny's.[/QUOTE]


The blood that had EDTA in it? That showed either tampering or half ass police investigation? That blood?;)
 
[quote name='TheBigAndy']I will write my theory when I get back home tonight from seeing Apollo 13, and read about this new Nintendo Ultra 64 that's coming out next year in my Game Pro Magazine.[/QUOTE]


again people that cant respond. well you can write your theory but Ill list the facts. Question when does a theory become a fact? Fact besides people saying there was blood DNA everywhere? OJ's? what are you talking about? know what you are talking about and stop typing a sentence with vague responses. Apparently you dont realize OJ's blood wasnt everywhere?
 
[quote name='Solid Scarecrow']again people that cant respond. well you can write your theory but Ill list the facts. Question when does a theory become a fact? Fact besides people saying there was blood DNA everywhere? OJ's? what are you talking about? know what you are talking about and stop typing a sentence with vague responses. Apparently you dont realize OJ's blood wasnt everywhere?[/QUOTE]

Maybe I just don't care.

You do realize that a documentary is filmed/edited by someone who wants you to agree with their point of view, right?
 
[quote name='Solid Scarecrow']again people that cant respond. well you can write your theory but Ill list the facts. Question when does a theory become a fact? Fact besides people saying there was blood DNA everywhere? OJ's? what are you talking about? know what you are talking about and stop typing a sentence with vague responses. Apparently you dont realize OJ's blood wasnt everywhere?[/QUOTE]
...

Jesus Christ.
 
Seriously....he's in JAIL right now... sure...it's not for the charge the Brown's wanted him for.......but still he's in there for a LONG TIME and no one cares anymore about him.

I feel bad for his kids though.
 
DNA analysis of bloody socks found in Simpson's bedroom proved this was Brown's blood. The blood made a similar pattern on both sides of the socks. Defense medical expert Dr. Henry Lee of the Connecticut State Police Forensic Science Laboratory testified that the only way such a pattern could appear was if Simpson had a "hole" in his ankle, or a drop of blood was placed on the sock while it was not being worn. Lee testified the collection procedure of the socks could have caused contamination
Much of the incriminating evidence: bloody glove, bloody socks, blood in and on the Bronco, was discovered by Los Angeles Police Detective Mark Fuhrman. He was later charged with perjury for falsely claiming during the trial that he had not used the word "$$$$er" within ten years of the trial. During the trial he pleaded the Fifth Amendment against self-incrimination to avoid further questioning after his integrity was challenged on this point
 
I know what a documentary is, but for the last couple days Ive been really drawn to this and its keeping me reading. I just find this stuff interesting and for trolling I think if I wanted to troll I would do it with more flair then this. Like I said Im not saying he is innocent but after watching the movie and reading online you can see why he was found not guilty and for the movie it had marcia clark and It was leading to ojs side but with any news or info you have to take it with a grain of salt
 
Solid Scarecrow sounds like that guy who tried to kill that nice lady in Arizona.

The general consensus among legal scholars on the OJ Simpson case is that police attempted to frame a guilty man.
 
frame a guilty guy doesnt make any sense. Thats what happens when you try to have a serious arguement on a video game web site. Its like talking about puberty to a 5th grader
 
By probability, it was likely OJ or at least someone whom Nicole knew... it took place in a nice neighborhood, so it was unlikely to be a random act... plus, people usually don't kill others with knives in random acts... too personal...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
random act is no doubt out of the question,

Then the prosecution turned to the events of the evening of June 12, 1994, where Karen Lee Crawford, who was the manager of the Mezzaluna restaurant where Nicole ate that Sunday night, was called to testify where she recounted that Mrs. Simpson's mother phoned the restaurant at 9:37 pm about her daughter's lost eyeglasses, and how Ms. Crawford found them, put them in a white envelope, and how waiter Ron Goldman departed from the restaurant after his shift was over to drop them off at Nicole's house at 9:50 pm. Nicole's neighbor, Pablo Fenives, testified about hearing a "very distinctive barking" and "plaintive wail" of a dog at around 10 to 15 minutes after 10 pm while he was at home watching the 10 o'clock news on his TV set. Eva Stein, another neighbor, testified about a very loud and persistent barking sound also at around 10:15 pm that kept her from going back to sleep. Neighbor Steven Schwab testified that while he was walking his dog in the area near Nicole's house at around 10:30 pm, he noticed a wandering and agitated Akita dog trailing its leash with bloody paws, which after examining, found the dog uninjured. Schwab told about taking the dog to another neighbor friend of his, Sukru Boztepe, who testified that he took the Akita dog into his home where the dog became more agitated. Boztepe took the dog for a walk at approximately 11:00 pm and testified that the dog tugged on its leash and led him to Nicole's house. There he discovered Nicole Simpson's dead body. Minutes later, Boztepe flagged down a passing patrol car.

Whos dog was it? this is all from the wiki web site by the way
 
I have not watched the documentary that you cite... I'll have to check it out, but I have seen Bill Dear's Documentary, OJ GUILTY BUT NOT OF MURDER.
Here's a link I found: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7905933759946122795#

The issue now, since we're not in a court is to come up with the theory of who was more likely the OJ to kill Nicole and Ron... who had sufficient motive and means? I suspect that no matter who killed them, OJ is probably involved in one way or another (either as part of the planning or the coverup)... Bill Dear makes an argument for Simpson's son, Jason, being the killer... it's interesting, but, then again, I love mysteries and conspiracies...
 
[quote name='Solid Scarecrow']frame a guilty guy doesnt make any sense.[/QUOTE]
The quote comes from professor Ronald J. Allen. The exact quote is, "The Los Angeles police were so corrupt that they botched the job of framing a guilty person."

A good paper on why the jury might have acquitted him is here: http://cogsci.uwaterloo.ca/Articles/Pages/oj.html

Even if the police were not trying to frame the guy, they were so unbelievably awful at their job that there was really no way to convict Simpson. Police can fuck up the prosecution all the time, though I've heard they are more careful these days.
 
[quote name='Spokker']The quote comes from professor Ronald J. Allen. The exact quote is, "The Los Angeles police were so corrupt that they botched the job of framing a guilty person."[/QUOTE]

There is some truth in that statement.
 
[quote name='Spokker']The quote comes from professor Ronald J. Allen. The exact quote is, "The Los Angeles police were so corrupt that they botched the job of framing a guilty person."

A good paper on why the jury might have acquitted him is here: http://cogsci.uwaterloo.ca/Articles/Pages/oj.html

Even if the police were not trying to frame the guy, they were so unbelievably awful at their job that there was really no way to convict Simpson. Police can fuck up the prosecution all the time, though I've heard they are more careful these days.[/QUOTE]

I agree, they were corrupt but why call mark furhman or whatever to the stand? Its like they tried to be complete idiots. Its like a dulled down version of sleepers
 
[quote name='BigT']I have not watched the documentary that you cite... I'll have to check it out, but I have seen Bill Dear's Documentary, OJ GUILTY BUT NOT OF MURDER.
Here's a link I found: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7905933759946122795#

The issue now, since we're not in a court is to come up with the theory of who was more likely the OJ to kill Nicole and Ron... who had sufficient motive and means? I suspect that no matter who killed them, OJ is probably involved in one way or another (either as part of the planning or the coverup)... Bill Dear makes an argument for Simpson's son, Jason, being the killer... it's interesting, but, then again, I love mysteries and conspiracies...[/QUOTE]

I love conspiracies and such also, such as JFKand thats all im trying to do have people voice there views and thoughts
thanks for the link
 
I watched the oj guilty but not of murder, pretty intruging. Like I said just because you see something on the news or in a text book doesnt make it all that true or accurate, look at poor Israel Bissell. We are all fed on what people want us to here.
 
[quote name='Solid Scarecrow']I watched the oj guilty but not of murder, pretty intruging. Like I said just because you see something on the news or in a text book doesnt make it all that true or accurate, look at poor Israel Bissell. We are all fed on what people want us to here.[/QUOTE]

Just like watching a documentary doesn't make it true either.
 
[quote name='Solid Scarecrow']again people that cant respond. well you can write your theory but Ill list the facts. Question when does a theory become a fact? Fact besides people saying there was blood DNA everywhere? OJ's? what are you talking about? know what you are talking about and stop typing a sentence with vague responses. Apparently you dont realize OJ's blood wasnt everywhere?[/QUOTE]

Oh God. Oh God, my head.
 
[quote name='Solid Scarecrow']never said it was[/QUOTE]

So you're saying nothing. Thanks for that, way to not take a stand on an issue noone gives a fuck about.
 
oh yeah, he did that shit.
I realize that legally it's the duty to prove guilt, but logically his innocence has never been proven. All of his actions point to guilt and if the LAPD hadn't been so insanely stupid this would have been over ages ago.
 
bread's done
Back
Top