Re: Was OJ Innocent of Killing His Wife and Ron Goldman?
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!
I felt OJ was more likely guilty from the start, the trial only made me believe it as fact. I didn't need his not-confession/confession book to believe it.
I'm also not an asslown with floating standards.
Originally posted by Robtard
I felt OJ was more likely guilty from the start, the trial only made me believe it as fact. I didn't need his not-confession/confession book to believe it.I'm also not an asslown with floating standards.
OJ must have greased a LOT of palms to get out of that one.
The jury alone was sketchy as hell, looking at the interviews after the fact. I mean, bias juat oozing off them.
I bet OJ lost his fortune, and went into debt borrowing money from rich friends, to stack the deck in his favor.
Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
Nope, that's completely true. People are innocent until proven guilty. And if they're found "not guilty" that doesn't necessarily mean that they're innocent.
so you're innocent until proven guilty, but if you're not proven guilty then that means you're not innocent. that makes a lot of sense 🤪
Three theories for me have always led to
1. He did it.
2. His son did it, OJ covered it up.
3. Him and his son did it conspired to do.
One of these must be true.
There is no way around him doing it unless you do the Cochran theory “if it does not fit...”
If his son did it, that’s why it didn’t fit.
Or do we even know if it was really his glove.
We will never know the full truth, however we know he was involved directly or indirectly.