Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

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


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!

https://media.giphy.com/media/srTYyZ1BjBtGU/giphy.gif

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.

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.

Originally posted by Surtur
You're a science denier.




Like I haven't heard that one before lol. Usually, it comes from idiots on the left though.

I see we've already derailed. I guess you don't want to confront the question?

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
I see we've already derailed. I guess you don't want to confront the question?

This not going the way you wanted?

Awful.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae


Like I haven't heard that one before lol. Usually, it comes from idiots on the left though. durwank

Originally posted by Surtur
This not going the way you wanted?

Awful. Originally posted by Bashar Teg
I see we've already derailed. I guess you don't want to confront the question?

Didn't he beat the criminal case but lost a civil one?

Originally posted by Bashar Teg


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


No, they're not.

Originally posted by cdtm
Didn't he beat the criminal case but lost a civil one?

the civil suit was not based on a murder charge

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
No, they're not.

"Innocent until proven guilty" was a figment of my imagination? and here I thought it was the foundation of due process in the u.s.

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 Bashar Teg
"Innocent until proven guilty" was a figment of my imagination?


Nope, that's completely true. People are assumed to be innocent until proven guilty. And if they're found "not guilty" that doesn't necessarily mean that they're innocent.

Question is..why kill her?

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

I'm so sorry nobody could prove racism in the Arbery case.

Awful.

No. He wasn't.

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
No. He wasn't.

So who killed them?

There have been theories about OJ's son...

I forgot to add

4. He hired someone

Originally posted by BrolyBlack
So who killed them?


OJ.

Originally posted by Surtur
Question is..why kill her?


Ugh... I don't really care to reconsider the OJ case all over again and endlessly ponder questions like that. It's over and done with. Who the hell knows why he killed her, if he in fact did, which I still think he did.

Don't know, don't care anymore. But I do remember that the case against him was very strong. I think he got away with double murder but I'm certainly not gonna start riots over it. The jury has spoken so it's finished. He can't be criminally tried again for their murders as it would be double jeopardy and that is against the law.

In the end, he will face God though so if he did actually do it he will be paying for it then.

Originally posted by Surtur
I'm so sorry nobody could prove racism in the Arbery case.

Awful.

at least you were more careful with your wording this time.

the lack of a hate crime charge means that the prosecutor likely decided that there might be reasonable doubt. since that lead you to previously assert that there was factually no racial bias, why do you suggest that OJ 'did it'?

Originally posted by BrolyBlack
So who killed them?

I was answering the thread title.

OJ did it.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
Ugh... I don't really care to reconsider the OJ case all over again and endlessly ponder questions like that. It's over and done with. Who the hell knows why he killed her, if he in fact did, which I still think he did.

Don't know, don't care anymore. But I do remember that the case against him was very strong. I think he got away with double murder but I'm certainly not gonna start riots over it. The jury has spoken so it's finished. He can't be criminally tried again for their murders as it would be double jeopardy and that is against the law.

In the end, he will face God though so if he did actually do it he will be paying for it then. durwank

Did OJ ever do a polygraph? Not that they are reliable, just curious.

Nope

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
I was answering the thread title.

OJ did it.

Originally posted by Surtur
Did OJ ever do a polygraph? Not that they are reliable, just curious.

He actually did according to Kardashian. His defense team hired an expert just to see if he would pass. He failed miserably so he never submitted to one for the state.

OJ is involved

Originally posted by Stringer
I think the only thing he got right was his name lol

The Juice

Yes, he was a great ball player but that doesn't change the fact that he is probably a murdering p-o-s.

but he was found not guilty of murder. innocent until proven guilty, right?

Where was Robtard on the night of these killings?

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


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?

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?


https://i.imgur.com/hM0luni.gif
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

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 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.
first time you read the first sentence of the thread topic? not surprising since you are a lazy time-waster troll

Originally posted by Bashar Teg


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.

Originally posted by Surtur
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.

And there's the completion of the time waster troll loop.

I already stated my case and you copped out

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
And there's the completion of the time waster troll loop.

I already stated my case and you copped out

You didn't prove racial motivation on the McMichaels. You even said this before in the other thread that it makes English look like he had racial motivations for his selective calls.

This doesn't show racial motivation on the McMichaels part.

surt: you have no evidence of racial bias *pretend-victory lap*

pvs: mcmichaels obviously singled out the black guy among the white trespassers

surt: *makes empty claim about mcmichaels having previous knowledge of arbery in particular*

pvs: that claim is baseless unless you have evidence to back it up

surt: you have no evidence of racial bias *pretend-victory lap*

rinse and repeat

You have no evidence they singled out the black guys. You never presented any evidence English made them aware of white trespassers too.

You lost. Get over it.

Originally posted by Surtur
You have no evidence they singled out the black guys. You never presented any evidence English made them aware of white trespassers too.

You lost. Get over it.

there were other black guys? new evidence? let's see it

as far as the public information goes, there was only one black trespassers and several white trespassers, you lying time waster troll

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
there were other black guys? new evidence? let's see it

as far as the public information goes, there was only one black trespassers and several white trespassers, you lying time waster troll

Do you have evidence English made them aware of non-black trespassers yes or no? Present it.

Originally posted by Surtur
Do you have evidence English made them aware of non-black trespassers yes or no? Present it.

no evidence is needed, since that is an irrelevant red herring. mcmichaels acted on what he witnessed, as he was actively monitoring the property. the evidence is self-apparent in that he never bothered to attempt apprehension on any of the white trespassers and chased down arbery, you time waster troll

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
no evidence is needed, since that is an irrelevant red herring. mcmichaels acted on what he witnessed, as he was actively monitoring the property. the evidence is self-apparent in that he never bothered to attempt apprehension on any of the white trespassers and chased down arbery, you time waster troll

Okay so you have no evidence the McMichaels went after black people but chose not to go after white people. All you have is that English seemed more bothered by the black guy on his property than he did white people.

That doesn't prove racial motivation for the shooters.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
mcmichaels acted on what he witnessed, as he was actively monitoring the property. the evidence is self-apparent in that he never bothered to attempt apprehension on any of the white trespassers and chased down arbery, you time waster troll

So you have no evidence he witnessed white trespassers and did nothing.

Jesus this is getting old. Come back with more evidence if you get it. As of now there is no evidence of racial motivation.

Deal with it. Now celebrate a pretend win, call me a time waster troll, have your cheer leader come in and agree. I'll allow it all

I'm not going to requote myself again. It's a fact that he was actively monitoring the property. if you want assert that he happened to go take a shit just before every white trespasser arrived, then have fun with that buffoonery. the evidence was already stated and you ignored it like a cowardly time waster troll

Okay dude, your opinion is noted

and your time waster troll tomfoolery, empty claims, and ignoring of evidence has been noted, many times

Originally posted by Surtur
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.

About that...

He said he didn't notify them.

So...his phone records would clearly indicate he did if he lied. He was 2 hours away when Arbery broke into his house to try and rob him.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Arbery broke into his house to try and rob him.

any proof of this? eat

Originally posted by dadudemon
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?


I didn't forget but haven't had the time. I'm going out of town for awhile so I think this link will maybe help. Its unfortunate but imo, he killed both Nicole Simpson and Ronald Goldman.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1995/05/18/dna-analyst-links-blood-in-auto-to-simpson-victims/4c39d2bc-0a36-40bf-874c-2c60bb0b1b6a/

Originally posted by Stringer
I didn't forget but haven't had the time. I'm going out of town for awhile so I think this link will maybe help. Its unfortunate but imo, he killed both Nicole Simpson and Ronald Goldman.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1995/05/18/dna-analyst-links-blood-in-auto-to-simpson-victims/4c39d2bc-0a36-40bf-874c-2c60bb0b1b6a/

Thanks for this.




The article talks about OJ's blood being consistent with the story that OJ cut himself during the murder. That makes more sense than the nails into his skin argument. OJ claimed it was a glass at a hotel but found nothing on the glass. That claim was fail when they looked.

Also, the defense made the same argument about the police conspiracy to frame OJ to get out of these DNA allegations and the Jury bought it.


Enjoy your trip.

I heard somewhere that OJ's son's friend was the first copper on the scene, can't remember where I heard it, but I listened to a Michael Moore podcast about 8 or so years ago where he discussed the case so it may have been that. I suppose the implication is that he was involved in mishandling of evidence or something to that effect.

The killings happened a couple of years after the L.A. riots and a friend of mine has long held the belief that the system was unwilling to send down a prominent black figure at that time. That's a bit cynical even for me TBH. Did he genuinely have that big of a status in the States?

He was a shit Nordberg, the original guy was much better.

Originally posted by samhain
I heard somewhere that OJ's son's friend was the first copper on the scene, can't remember where I heard it, but I listened to a Michael Moore podcast about 8 or so years ago where he discussed the case so it may have been that. I suppose the implication is that he was involved in mishandling of evidence or something to that effect.

The killings happened a couple of years after the L.A. riots and a friend of mine has long held the belief that the system was unwilling to send down a prominent black figure at that time. That's a bit cynical even for me TBH. Did he genuinely have that big of a status in the States?

He was a shit Nordberg, the original guy was much better. Yes, he was massive there Sam, think George Best or Gazza.

Originally posted by samhain
I heard somewhere that OJ's son's friend was the first copper on the scene, can't remember where I heard it, but I listened to a Michael Moore podcast about 8 or so years ago where he discussed the case so it may have been that. I suppose the implication is that he was involved in mishandling of evidence or something to that effect.

The killings happened a couple of years after the L.A. riots and a friend of mine has long held the belief that the system was unwilling to send down a prominent black figure at that time. That's a bit cynical even for me TBH. Did he genuinely have that big of a status in the States?

He was a shit Nordberg, the original guy was much better.


Never thought about the L.A. riot connection.


That was probably on their minds, but doubt they'd sweep evidence under the rug out of that fear. The danger of rioting is kind of overstated anyways, worst that usually happens is some property damage and a lot o angry voices, hardly a blood bath.