quote:

ORIGINAL: Aneirin

I wonders about all this, I do not know your justice system, but OJ being a public figure and all, is it likely he got panned big time because he is a public figure ? What would a non public figure get in a similar position ?

I can't help but feel there is a lot of his last trial in this, he got away whether he was guilty or not, but that is not his fault, but the fault of the prosecution, if he did the murders, the prosecution failed, he was found innocent. Innocent in a court of law, as to what everyone else thinks, is immaterial, the justice system you all believe in found OJ innocent, but thirteen years ago, that was a different trial for a differenet offence.

So this latest court appearance, trial and sentencing, I hear retribution, as if it was another go at  OJ, because the last trial was a failure in people's eyes, so in reality, was OJ in a sense being retried for the prosecution's failings thirteen years ago ?

Is this sentence typical  of any other, non public, non notorious defendant in a similar position ?

quote:

Did OJ ever find the "real killer?" I think he did. The very next morning, when he got up to shave and looked in the mirror.

quote:

ORIGINAL: winterlight

Now He won't be able to find Nicole and Rons killer...

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

Consider, but for his celebrity the LAPD and District Attorney might not have been so quick to arrest and put him on trial.

quote:

Let's see, a divorced wife is murdered along with her young male "friend". The ex-husband has a history of being short-tempered, there have been domestic violence charges against him, he has a shaky alibi, and there is physical evidence linking him to the crime.

Yeah, you're probably right, it was just his celebrity status.

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

It was.  For an average shmoe they would have taken their time and built a proper case.  Instead, everyone were blinded by the camera lights and rushed the whole fiasco into the courtroom before the case was ready.

Celebrity or no, the prosecution's case was leakier than the Titanic post-collision.  For all the "mountain" of evidence, they didn't have a cogent theory of the crime to make that evidence hang together.  The jury realized that and did the right thing--they acquitted.

quote:

The only thing the jury realized was how to ignore, as you put it, the mountain of evidence because all they saw was the football rushing records, the comic movie roles, and the Hertz commercials.

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2111

Bullshit, horseshit, legal shit, total shit.

I followed that trial fairly closely (it fascinated me and still does).  The forensic evidence did not match the prosecution's theory of the case.  Even where it could be made to fit, their presentation of the evidence was so amatuerish as to be negligent--the fiasco of the gloves was something any newly-minted member of the state bar should have seen coming.  The prosecution routinely ignored the first rule of trials--don't ask questions to which you don't already have the answers, and don't put witnesses on the stand about whom you don't know every blessed thing.

• DNA showed that blood found at the scene of Brown's murder was likely O.J. Simpson's. The odds it could have come from anyone but Simpson were about one in 170 million.[14]
  
• DNA analysis of blood found on a pair of Simpson's socks found in his bedroom identified it as Nicole Brown's.[7] The blood had DNA characteristics matched by approximately only one in 9.7 billion, with odds soaring to one out of 21 billion when compiling results of testing done at the two separate DNA laboratories.[14][7] Each sock had about 20 stains of blood.[7]
  
• DNA analysis of the blood found in, on, and near Simpson's Bronco revealed traces of Simpson's, Brown's, and Goldman's blood.[15]
  
• 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. Lee testified the collection procedure of the socks could have caused contamination.[16]
  
• Simpson's hair was found on Goldman's shirt.[15]
  
• Several coins were found along with fresh blood drops behind Nicole's condo, in the area where the cars were parked.
  
• DNA analysis of blood on the left-hand glove, found outside Brown's home, was proven to be a mixture of Simpson's, Brown's, and Goldman's. Although the glove was soaked in blood, there were no blood drops leading up to, or away from the glove. No other blood was found in the area of the glove except on the glove.[15]
  
• The gloves contained particles of Goldman's hair and a cap contained carpet fibers from Simpson's Bronco.[3] A knit cap at the crime scene contained hairs matching Simpson's.[3] Dark blue cotton fibers were found on Goldman, and the prosecution presented a witness who said Simpson wore a similarly-colored sweat suit that night.[3]
  
• The left-hand glove found at Nicole Brown's home and the right-hand glove found at Simpson's home proved to be a match.[17]
  
• The gloves were proven to be Simpson's size. Although Simpson testified under oath that he did not own a pair of Aris Isotoner gloves, several media pictures emerged showing Simpson wearing the exact gloves.

quote:

While I don't view Wikipedia as an authoritative source, they do provide a nice summarry here:

quote:

He was just too "nice" a guy to have done what the prosecution claimed, so they were willing to buy into the ridiculous theories the defense offered in spite of hard evidence to the contrary.