Was OJ Innocent of Killing His Wife and Ron Goldman?

Originally posted by LordofBrooklyn
Where was Robtard on the night of these killings?

Originally posted by LordofBrooklyn
Where was Robtard on the night of these killings?

Eating some lobster

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.

Oh man, who said that? Quote that person. I want to see what they said about the Arbery case, in context, to understand who asserted that acquittal = factual innocence.

As far as whether or not OJ Simpson was innocent, don't know. I've read over the case from multiple sources and it is still ambiguous.

"Not Guilty" requirements for the two types of cases:

1. Criminal Cases: beyond a reasonable doubt
2. Civil Cases: lack of preponderance of evidence

The latter requires less evidential power than the former.

Anyone willing to make the case that OJ was guilty with an argument?

DNA evidence alone linked him to both murders. This science was new at the time and the jury seemed not to understand it.

“Over nine weeks of testimony in the O. J. Simpson murder case, 108 exhibits of DNA evidence, including 61 drops of blood, were presented at trial allegedly linking O. J. Simpson to the crime. With no witnesses to the murders, the prosecution was dependent on DNA as the only physical evidence linking Simpson to the crime. Testing was cross-checked and validated at three separate labs using different tests with no discrepancies found. The prosecution offered the defense access to the evidence samples to conduct their own testing, but they declined.”

It’s wiki but accurate according to the docs I’ve watched and court tv through the years.

Any fbi profiler will tell you this was a crime of passion.

“
Police found Brown and Goldman’s bodies just after midnight on June 13. Their bodies lay in the narrow passageway that stretched between Brown’s front steps and the front gate. Brown was stabbed a total of 12 times, with the fatal wound nearly severing her neck, while Goldman received 20 blows altogether. The medical examiner’s report notes that these wounds were consistent with an attack by a strong, large, man.”

I know some differ on the amount of stab wounds but let’s just says it wasn’t a robbery.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Oh man, who said that? Quote that person. I want to see what they said about the Arbery case, in context, to understand who asserted that acquittal = factual innocence.

As far as whether or not OJ Simpson was innocent, don't know. I've read over the case from multiple sources and it is still ambiguous.

"Not Guilty" requirements for the two types of cases:

1. Criminal Cases: beyond a reasonable doubt
2. Civil Cases: lack of preponderance of evidence

The latter requires less evidential power than the former.

Anyone willing to make the case that OJ was guilty with an argument?

waste someone else's time with your obvious gaslighting 👇

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
if I took the bait, and searched/posted all the quotes about how no hate crime charges is proof of zero racial bias, you will no doubt dodge and play silly games. I'm not going to play your silly games

waste someone else's time with your obvious gaslighting 👇

Didn't Surtur get banned for doing what you just did?

You made a claim that some KMC posters said something. Who? And can you link it?

Just wondering who is dumb enough to think acquittal = innocent?

Come on, don't dodge. You made the claim about something someone said on KMC. I've done my due-care and already searched the thread: no one said that.

Perhaps my searching powers fail me.

Who is this KMC Poster you spoke of in your opening post?

you should probably report me then, time waster troll

Originally posted by Stringer
DNA evidence alone linked him to both murders. This science was new at the time and the jury seemed not to understand it.

“Over nine weeks of testimony in the O. J. Simpson murder case, 108 exhibits of DNA evidence, including 61 drops of blood, were presented at trial allegedly linking O. J. Simpson to the crime. With no witnesses to the murders, the prosecution was dependent on DNA as the only physical evidence linking Simpson to the crime. Testing was cross-checked and validated at three separate labs using different tests with no discrepancies found. The prosecution offered the defense access to the evidence samples to conduct their own testing, but they declined.”

It’s wiki but accurate according to the docs I’ve watched and court tv through the years.

Any fbi profiler will tell you this was a crime of passion.

“
Police found Brown and Goldman’s bodies just after midnight on June 13. Their bodies lay in the narrow passageway that stretched between Brown’s front steps and the front gate. Brown was stabbed a total of 12 times, with the fatal wound nearly severing her neck, while Goldman received 20 blows altogether. The medical examiner’s report notes that these wounds were consistent with an attack by a strong, large, man.”

I know some differ on the amount of stab wounds but let’s just says it wasn’t a robbery.

Thanks for taking the time to outline one of the prosecutor's arguments from the court case.

What I didn't understand about the DNA angle is: where did OJ's blood come from? Where was he injured? They talked about injury on his left third knuckle (I really wish I could see that photo). One expert witness said the injuries looked like finger nails. So OJ's DNA should have been under Goldman's or Nicole's finger nails, right? I didn't read about that in the case, though. I didn't read about that coming from the prosecutor's in one of their arguments.

OJ was caught very soon after the murder and a wound that could leave that much blood would have been very terrible. Should have been quite obvious.

Over 80 drops of blood from a nail scratch? That's tough to believe. Which is also part of why the argument didn't gain much traction with the jury. But OJ's defense against all his blood at the crime scene was that it was put there. WTF? Where did they get OJ's blood to do that?

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
you should probably report me then, time waster troll

Nothing would happen, but why not just admit nobody said what you said? I never said that. Nor do I recall anyone else saying it. If I'm wrong prove it.

you implied it plenty of times surt 👇

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
you implied it plenty of times surt 👇

Ah I see, unfortunate. This is the same thing you guys always do. Moving on.

why did you wait for ddm's empty accusation of slander before you started acting like you were slandered?

First time I saw it.

Originally posted by Surtur
First time I saw it.

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!

Lol it's the first time I saw it being discussed by people in this thread.

And I'm not saying lack of hate crime charges proves no racial motivation. I'm saying there is no evidence of racial motivation.

So see you call people time waster trolls, but you don't give a shit about OJ nor are you actually interested in discussing OJ. You got your panties in a twist over the Arbery thread because it didn't go well for you. You got triggered and made this passive aggressive thread. Just admit you never would have made this thread had that thread not existed.

singling out the black trespasser among other white traspassers is obvious racial bias. now lie again about it was all english's fault; and predictably disappear or deflect like a coward when I point out once again that there is no evidence that he had prior knowledge of English's 911 call or arbery's supposed criminal record (the existence which also remains to be proven)

same loop, over and over, because you are a time waster troll

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
singling out the black trespasser among other white traspassers is obvious racial bias. now lie again about it was all english's fault; and predictably disappear or deflect like a coward when I point out once again that there is no evidence that he had prior knowledge of English's 911 call or arbery's supposed criminal record (the existence which also remains to be proven)

same loop, over and over, because you are a time waster troll

Lol, but English is the one who selectively informed McMichael and you know it. You try to point out valid arguments people will bring up in advance as if it negates them.

Kiddo, it doesn't. Now celebrate the pretend win.

Originally posted by Surtur
Lol, but English is the one who selectively informed McMichael and you know it.

and now comes the part where you have no evidence to support your empty claim, and shift the burden of proof, or perhaps wait for daddy to return and post an empty word salad for you to quote and cheerlead 👇

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
and now comes the part where you have no evidence to support your empty claim, and shift the burden of proof, or perhaps wait for daddy to return and post an empty word salad for you to quote and cheerlead 👇

You have to prove racial motivation on the McMichaels part and you can't.

And you got so upset over it you made this thread.