Was OJ Innocent of Killing His Wife and Ron Goldman?

[Inspired by the assertions that lack of filed hate-crime charges against Arbery's killers was proof that there was no racial motivation; as well as other topics in which this logical discord occurs]

Just curious if certain posters' logic of "aquittal=factual innocence" applies to everyone, or if it only applies to the privileged.

the reasoning goes as such: Innocence is presumed if the law cannot prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, therefore the presence of reasonable doubt equates to complete and factual innocence & exoneration, not just in the eyes of the law, but as an indesputable reality.

According to this logic, since OJ was aquitted, he factually did not kill Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman, and there is a murderer still on the loose who got away with these murders and framed poor OJ. Do you agree that OJ was done wrong and deserves recompense for the miscarriage of justice committed upon him?

I look forward to reading the opinions of the "reasonable doubt=exoneration" folks, who will no doubt address the question with much intellectual honesty and loads of maturity, with not even a hint of cowardice/deflection/personal attacks/talking about their feelings/attributing feelings to others, etc

and heeeere weeeee GO!

I think OJ was a bad man. I also cannot believe he is 72...

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
[Inspired by the assertions that lack of filed hate-crime charges against Arbery's killers was proof that there was no racial motivation; as well as other topics in which this logical discord occurs]

Just curious if certain posters' logic of "aquittal=factual innocence" applies to everyone, or if it only applies to the privileged.

the reasoning goes as such: Innocence is presumed if the law cannot prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, therefore the presence of reasonable doubt equates to complete and factual innocence & exoneration, not just in the eyes of the law, but as an indesputable reality.

According to this logic, since OJ was aquitted, he factually did not kill Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman, and there is a murderer still on the loose who got away with these murders and framed poor OJ. Do you agree that OJ was done wrong and deserves recompense for the miscarriage of justice committed upon him?

I look forward to reading the opinions of the "reasonable doubt=exoneration" folks, who will no doubt address the question with much intellectual honesty and loads of maturity, with not even a hint of cowardice/deflection/personal attacks/talking about their feelings/attributing feelings to others, etc

and heeeere weeeee GO!

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
I think OJ was a bad man. I also cannot believe he is 72...

He's innocent. Not like he wrote a book describing how he'd commit the murders *if* he did it.

Originally posted by Surtur
Coping.gif

how exactly is it bait, my son?

Like Surt said, he pretty much admitted to it in that book.

Read the leaked edition, chilling stuff. Way too detailed to be fabricated imo.

Originally posted by cdtm
He pretty much admitted to it in that book.

Read the leaked edition, chilling stuff. Way too detailed to be fabricated imo.

*stabs*

You been Juiced!

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
I think OJ was a bad man. I also cannot believe he is 72...

I do as well, but then again I don't subscribe to "aquittal=exoneration".

And the naked gun films just arent the same

Originally posted by cdtm
Like Surt said, he pretty much admitted to it in that book.

Read the leaked edition, chilling stuff. Way too detailed to be fabricated imo.

my reply to that depends on whether or not you believe aquittal=exoneration. I will either agree wholeheartedly, or ask you another related question

Originally posted by Surtur
He's innocent. Not like he wrote a book describing how he'd commit the murders *if* he did it.

You actually believe that he's truly innocent? You're being sarcastic, right? Just forgot to use the sarcasm emoji, maybe?

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
my reply to that depends on whether or not you believe aquittal=exoneration. I will either agree wholeheartedly, or ask you another related question

No, I think there's a world of difference between "Catch me if you can" and exonerated.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
You actually believe that he's truly innocent? You're being sarcastic, right? Just forgot to use the sarcasm emoji, maybe?

Nobody who was guilty would release a detailed book describing how they'd commit the crime.

That's just science.

It wasn’t a hate crime so it wasn’t a real crime.

Originally posted by Surtur
Nobody who was guilty would release a detailed book describing how they'd commit the crime.

That's just science.

Honestly, I think that's flawed logic.

Originally posted by Surtur
Nobody who was guilty would release a detailed book describing how they'd commit the crime.

That's just science.

the court found reasonable doubt and aquitted him. therefore he was innocent of the crime. just going by your logic concerning racial bias in the abery case. why is this different?

U guys think Nicole was banging Goldman though?

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
Honestly, I think that's flawed logic.

You're a science denier.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
the court found reasonable doubt and aquitted him. therefore he was innocent of the crime. just going by your logic concerning racial bias in the abery case. why is this different?

The legal term is actually "not guilty", not "innocent."

Yes, he was found legally not guilty. But that doesn't mean he didn't actually do it. LOL@ you thinking this somehow proves something about the Arbery case though.

"not guilty" and "innocent" are the same in the eyes of the law.