You are all over the place. Oj said himself that he saw through a window what was going on a rang the doorbell, then confronted Nicole about it the next time he saw her. You’re literally making up facts. Oj admitted seeing them in intimate position |
making up fact’s doesn’t make them true |
A neighbor saw Oj frantic at intersection right after murders but it wasn’t allowed in court because she told a newspaper about it before the trial |
For people who have spent any time as victims or with victims of domestic violence, this case was cut and dried. OJ beat his wife and then finally killed her and Ron Goldman, who was in the wrong place.
They were victims who were then dragged through the mud by the press and all the armchair lawyers and forensic pathologists like the people on this thread. They could not speak for themselves because he stabbed them to death so other people killed them again. How the case turned out is immaterial to the fact that he did it. |
Umm this article says OJ tried to get his “dream team” to give the records over to him but they refused, which means the dream team had them. |
100 percent. It’s not even debatable. He killed them and has lied about it ever since. He even tried defaming Nicole after murders so Nicole wouldn’t garner sympathy from the public. |
Do you have a link for this? |
It was well known she sold the story to Hard Copy for $5,000, so it was inadmissible. She maintains it’s what she saw to this day. Apparently, she feels awful for selling the story. There are a tone of stories about it: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4931214/amp/Witness-saw-OJ-flee-says-moment-changed-life.html Again, I assume weren’t alive at the time. This was everywhere! |
It was admissible but prosecutors chose not to put her on the stand because they felt she would be completely discredited by the defense in part because she sold her story to Hard Copy. |
It’s not cut and dry. That’s circumstantial which can’t be used to convict . Only forensic evidence matters. There was no forensic evidence that linked Scott Peterson. He was convicted simply because he had an affair and told his AP his wife was gone . No forensics found in his home, warehouses, or boat to prove Scott had a struggle and killed his wife in those places . As for the case with OJ, the forensics here are questionable due to the EDTA found and the lead detectives racial motivations /sentiments . Also, the timeline doesn’t add up either. Catching a limo and boarding a flight 15 minutes after hacking two people to death would be impossible. He would be leaking their blood/leaning a trail everywhere he moved yet the Bronco and limo weren’t washed for blood and O.J. had wall to wall carpet in his bedroom in his home . No blood stains found there either. Nicole and Oj’s contentious divorce/relationship doesn’t prove anything about the murders. Lots of divorced couples get into fights about the kids or anything else . That doesn’t mean one killed a person. Nicole wouldn’t have told O.J. about sleeping with Marcus Allen or about her dating life if he was possessive or jealous over her. OJ wouldn’t have befriended and invited the kids’ babysitter/Nicole’s male friend Kato Kaelin (a straight man) to live in his guest house if he was a jealous guy. |
I think she was guilty . She planned it . She googled chloroform . With OJ and Scott, these weren’t crazy men. They were working guys who may have been aholes to their wives but that’s not enough to convict someone to life in jail for murder. The crime scenes have to be used but cops automatically suspect the man and nobody else. They had nothing to gain by killing their wives. No sane man would do it and think he wouldn’t get caught. Laci saw a house getting burglarized during her walk. Plenty of neighbors saw her and her dog walking that day. Cops ignored all that just because they were angry Scott had an affair. In the case of OJ, it were an unexpected “crime of passion/rage crime” , why would he bring a glove which implies planning? And why would he leave it there if he were careful enough to dispose of everything else (clothes, murder weapon, shoes)? |
[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]For people who have spent any time as victims or with victims of domestic violence, this case was cut and dried. OJ beat his wife and then finally killed her and Ron Goldman, who was in the wrong place.
They were victims who were then dragged through the mud by the press and all the armchair lawyers and forensic pathologists like the people on this thread. They could not speak for themselves because he stabbed them to death so other people killed them again. How the case turned out is immaterial to the fact that he did it. [/quote] It’s not cut and dry. That’s circumstantial which can’t be used to convict . Only forensic evidence matters. There was no forensic evidence that linked Scott Peterson. He was convicted simply because he had an affair and told his AP his wife was gone . No forensics found in his home, warehouses, or boat to prove Scott had a struggle and killed his wife in those places . As for the case with OJ, the forensics here are questionable due to the EDTA found and the lead detectives racial motivations /sentiments . Also, the timeline doesn’t add up either. Catching a limo and boarding a flight 15 minutes after hacking two people to death would be impossible. He would be leaking their blood/leaning a trail everywhere he moved yet the Bronco and limo weren’t washed for blood and O.J. had wall to wall carpet in his bedroom in his home . No blood stains found there either. Nicole and Oj’s contentious divorce/relationship doesn’t prove anything about the murders. Lots of divorced couples get into fights about the kids or anything else . That doesn’t mean one killed a person. Nicole wouldn’t have told O.J. about sleeping with Marcus Allen or about her dating life if he was possessive or jealous over her. OJ wouldn’t have befriended and invited the kids’ babysitter/Nicole’s male friend Kato Kaelin (a straight man) to live in his guest house if he was a jealous guy. [/quote] Circumstantial evidence can be used to convict. If the evidence is admissible, whether it’s direct or circumstantial, you can use it to convict. They had lengthy pre-trial hearings in this case about the admissibility of the prior DV incidents. There is case law about being able to use such evidence to establish motive. People don’t need a law degree to have an opinion on this case but you’re presenting things as facts when you are actually taking out of your @ss. |
This was in 2000. His defense team wasn’t representing him anymore so they couldn’t summon for it. They didn’t have phone records because during the criminal trial, they were sealed . Nobody has seen them. I don’t know why they are sealed . It’s biased to use a 1989 911 call but not Nicole’s phone records from that night. Who called her before she opened the door? |
[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]For people who have spent any time as victims or with victims of domestic violence, this case was cut and dried. OJ beat his wife and then finally killed her and Ron Goldman, who was in the wrong place.
They were victims who were then dragged through the mud by the press and all the armchair lawyers and forensic pathologists like the people on this thread. They could not speak for themselves because he stabbed them to death so other people killed them again. How the case turned out is immaterial to the fact that he did it. [/quote] It’s not cut and dry. That’s circumstantial which can’t be used to convict . Only forensic evidence matters. There was no forensic evidence that linked Scott Peterson. He was convicted simply because he had an affair and told his AP his wife was gone . No forensics found in his home, warehouses, or boat to prove Scott had a struggle and killed his wife in those places . As for the case with OJ, the forensics here are questionable due to the EDTA found and the lead detectives racial motivations /sentiments . Also, the timeline doesn’t add up either. Catching a limo and boarding a flight 15 minutes after hacking two people to death would be impossible. He would be leaking their blood/leaning a trail everywhere he moved yet the Bronco and limo weren’t washed for blood and O.J. had wall to wall carpet in his bedroom in his home . No blood stains found there either. Nicole and Oj’s contentious divorce/relationship doesn’t prove anything about the murders. Lots of divorced couples get into fights about the kids or anything else . That doesn’t mean one killed a person. Nicole wouldn’t have told O.J. about sleeping with Marcus Allen or about her dating life if he was possessive or jealous over her. OJ wouldn’t have befriended and invited the kids’ babysitter/Nicole’s male friend Kato Kaelin (a straight man) to live in his guest house if he was a jealous guy. [/quote] Circumstantial evidence can be used to convict. If the evidence is admissible, whether it’s direct or circumstantial, you can use it to convict. They had lengthy pre-trial hearings in this case about the admissibility of the prior DV incidents. There is case law about being able to use such evidence to establish motive. People don’t need a law degree to have an opinion on this case but you’re presenting things as facts when you are actually taking out of your @ss. [/quote] Circumstantial evidence cannot be used by a responsible jury of one’s peers to convict someone beyond reasonable doubt. If someone you disliked died, should you automatically become a suspect because of your history or does it matter what happened that actual day/night? The cops ignored the neighbors who reported hearing males arguing after 11pm at the Bundy residence . Anything that didn’t fit with OJ as suspect (because he had an alibi/ was on a flight) was completely ignored. If Nicole was on the phone at 11pm and the neighbors were right about hearing noise around midnight, that means they both died later than the 10:15/10:30pm presumed by the state |
OJ also says he told his family and his team to not cheer or smile or celebrate and just be straight faced /subdued during the verdict out of respect for the dead because he knew it would be twisted by the media if he celebrated . This idea of Robert Kardashian or his team being mad or stunned isn’t true. He said his team all celebrated later on privately |