But seriously, did O.J. do it?

[ThaPrez]

Ain't nobody watching an hour and a half interview on this old shyt. What in there proves he did it?

bruh i was smoking and watching months ago and i dont care to watch this shyt again. dont your own research or gtfo

but if youre at all interested in the subject, there are gems on gems in this, i aint gonna spoon feed you man

 

[threattonature]

bruh i was smoking and watching months ago and i dont care to watch this shyt again. dont your own research or gtfo

but if youre at all interested in the subject, there are gems on gems in this, i aint gonna spoon feed you man

You sound stupid as fukk. You the one in here saying anybody that watched that is dumb if they aren't convinced of his guilt but now you was smoking and don't even remember what was so convincing.

 

[CreepyMcCreeperson]

He did it. We know he did it. His DNA at the scene, the way he continued to talk about her, and write that book, confirms it. That doesn’t mean the crime scene wasn’t poorly handled, and we know the LAPD, and especially Mark Fuhrman are racist. Mark Fuhrman deserves prostate cancer from his racism. But, OJ did it. He beat her, threatened to kill her. Yeah, she was a whore, yeah she cheated on him, yeah she was into cocaine, that doesn’t mean you can kill someone. He didn’t intend on killing Ron. Ron just happened to show up, at that time. Any man who walks in on that is going to try to help. He just failed. Was she smashing Ron? I mean, why would a waiter know your address? But again, no justification for murder.

Any husband or ex husband is going to be suspect number one for murder, because most people are murdered by someone they know, especially their spouse. Men have been killing their wives for centuries, and women have been hiring people to kill their husbands for centuries.

 

[Raizan]

I was actually late in responding to ur comment.
They already told u before I got to it.

So ur old enough, Ur a professor of criminology, u already know the aspects of the trial, so that means u know the issue with the blood samples from the crime scene and u still wrote that comment?

This is where I am getting confused. Are you referring to actual documented issues with sample collection, or accusations made by Simpson's defense team?

 

[mag357]

This is where I am getting confused. Are you referring to actual documented issues with sample collection, or accusations made by Simpson's defense team?

What's confusing my guy.

U just stated both issues

 

[Raizan]

What's confusing my guy.

U just stated both issues

Okay here's the problem since you are purposely being vague. The accusations made by the defense had no real basis in fact, as that was simply a theory they presented in order to justify Simpson's innocence. This is a common practice in defense cases. For whatever issues you are having with the sample collection still didn't stop the presiding judge from allowing some of it to be admitted. Simpson won a case where the evidence clearly put him at the scene... which is actually mind-boggling. This is not a case where the defense played a brilliant legal strategy as much as it was the prosecution totally dropping the ball.

 

[levitate]

the way he continued to talk about her, and write that book, confirms it

No it doesn’t.

And any blood evidence could have been planted by a racist cop who plead the 5th when asked directly does he plant evidence.

 

[bigde09]

OJ is not killing two grown adults, hide the murder weapon and bloody clothes, pack, and catch a flight in the time span police said.

He ain't Superman