Did Oj Do It?

Did OJ do it?

  • Yes, no doubt!

    Votes: 7 77.8%
  • No, my brother is innocent!

    Votes: 2 22.2%

  • Total voters
    9

Etagloc

Superstar
Joined
Mar 26, 2017
Messages
5,291
Well I think you're pretty special, many of your posts are well thought out and show you have a lot knowledge and wisdom. You should really look into a career in this field, I can see you teaching young people in a school or college
Thank you :)

People have told me things like... my friend who went to Berkeley and found me in a little corner of the ghetto talking about this stuff told me I was a "true hood scholar" and some older dudes in the bood called me Wizology. Another told me I'm a professor.

Eh... what is the point of me wanting to read and "talk white" as people have accused me of doing... I hardly even get to talk about my ideas and I am not in school and am terrified of school. I hope that one day God finds a way for me to put this stuff to some sort of use.

I can't picture myself as a teacher but as an idiot...: but perhaps one day God will put me to use in these areas.
 

Haich

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
6,650
Thank you :)

People have told me things like... my friend who went to Berkeley and found me in a little corner of the ghetto talking about this stuff told me I was a "true hood scholar" and some older dudes in the bood called me Wizology. Another told me I'm a professor.

Eh... what is the point of me wanting to read and "talk white" as people have accused me of doing... I hardly even get to talk about my ideas and I am not in school and am terrified of school. I hope that one day God finds a way for me to put this stuff to some sort of use.

I can't picture myself as a teacher but as an idiot...: but perhaps one day God will put me to use in these areas.
Trust me you're better than you think, you could make a difference to a lot of kids in your area

Maybe start a blog? Write a book?
 

Etagloc

Superstar
Joined
Mar 26, 2017
Messages
5,291
You know E you remind me of a really respected guy here called Akala. He too gets his knowledge from just books and left school at 15. You should search up his content, he's a social commentator but speaks for the little man like you and me
That sounds great, I will look him up after I get home insha'allah
 

Etagloc

Superstar
Joined
Mar 26, 2017
Messages
5,291
Trust me you're better than you think, you could make a difference to a lot of kids in your area

Maybe start a blog? Write a book?
I don't think I'm ready to try to write a book. I actually have books in mind and I have a sort of idea of what I want to write about but I am doing research and I have stacks of research that will take me years before I can feel I'm ready. I don't mind, as I am not in a rush.
 

Haich

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
6,650
I don't think I'm ready to try to write a book. I actually have books in mind and I have a sort of idea of what I want to write about but I am doing research and I have stacks of research that will take me years before I can feel I'm ready. I don't mind, as I am not in a rush.
I'd like to write a book but I just don't have the time to brainstorm tbh. Maybe write your ideas in a journal
 
Joined
Mar 17, 2017
Messages
2,342
The so called glove that was found didn't fit his hand and had a slit in one finger of the glove yet he hisself had no slit in his own finger.

Then the way the victims were killed were with slices to the neck which is how cartels kill their victims. If people run with media driven narratives, hearsay and armchair psychological assessments then yea anybody could be guilty. If we go by the total evidence than I don't see what other conclusion there is to come to than not guilty. Ron Goldman was a drug dealer who got killed for it. And so did his associates in a similar manner that he did
 

Haich

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
6,650
With regards to the gloves:

One dark leather glove was found at the crime scene, its match found near Kato Kaelin's guest house behind Simpson's Rockingham Drive estate.[10] Kaelin testified that he had heard "thumps in the night" in the same area around the guest house the night of the murder.[10] Brown had bought Simpson two pairs of this type of glove in 1990.[10] Both gloves, according to the prosecution, contained DNA evidence from Simpson, Brown and Goldman, with the glove at Simpson's house also containing a long strand of blonde hair similar to Brown's.[10]

On June 15, 1995, defense attorney Johnnie Cochran goaded assistant prosecutor Christopher Darden into asking Simpson to put on the leather glove that was found at the scene of the crime. The prosecution had earlier decided against asking Simpson to try on the gloves because the glove had been soaked in blood (according to prosecutors) from Simpson, Brown and Goldman,[15] and frozen and unfrozen several times. Darden was advised by Clark and other prosecutors not to ask Simpson to try on the glove,[citation needed] but to argue through experts that in better condition, the glove would fit. Instead, Darden decided to have Simpson try on the glove.

The leather glove seemed too tight for Simpson to put on easily, especially over the latex gloves he wore underneath.[10] Uelmen came up with and Cochran repeated a quip he had used several times in relation to other points in his closing arguments, "If it doesn't fit, you must acquit." On June 22, 1995, assistant prosecutor Christopher Darden told Judge Lance Ito of his concerns that Simpson "has arthritis and we looked at the medication he takes and some of it is anti-inflammatory and we are told he has not taken the stuff for a day and it caused swelling in the joints and inflammation in his hands." The prosecution also stated their belief that the glove shrank from having been soaked in blood and later testing.[10] A photo was presented during the trial showing Simpson wearing the same type of glove that was found at the crime scene.


https://www.quora.com/Assuming-O-J-was-guilty-why-did-the-gloves-not-fit-Whats-the-argument-against-Johnny-Cochrans-famous-argument-If-the-gloves-dont-fit-you-must-acquit
 

Haich

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
6,650
It's not about believing the media narrative, the evidence is overwhelmingly against him and proves he was there and we know he had s motive

Not to mention his actions after the trial, how many times has he been in prison? Why write a book about the case titled 'If I did it?'

He's clearly a career criminal
 
Joined
Mar 17, 2017
Messages
2,342
With regards to the gloves:

One dark leather glove was found at the crime scene, its match found near Kato Kaelin's guest house behind Simpson's Rockingham Drive estate.[10] Kaelin testified that he had heard "thumps in the night" in the same area around the guest house the night of the murder.[10] Brown had bought Simpson two pairs of this type of glove in 1990.[10] Both gloves, according to the prosecution, contained DNA evidence from Simpson, Brown and Goldman, with the glove at Simpson's house also containing a long strand of blonde hair similar to Brown's.[10]

On June 15, 1995, defense attorney Johnnie Cochran goaded assistant prosecutor Christopher Darden into asking Simpson to put on the leather glove that was found at the scene of the crime. The prosecution had earlier decided against asking Simpson to try on the gloves because the glove had been soaked in blood (according to prosecutors) from Simpson, Brown and Goldman,[15] and frozen and unfrozen several times. Darden was advised by Clark and other prosecutors not to ask Simpson to try on the glove,[citation needed] but to argue through experts that in better condition, the glove would fit. Instead, Darden decided to have Simpson try on the glove.

The leather glove seemed too tight for Simpson to put on easily, especially over the latex gloves he wore underneath.[10] Uelmen came up with and Cochran repeated a quip he had used several times in relation to other points in his closing arguments, "If it doesn't fit, you must acquit." On June 22, 1995, assistant prosecutor Christopher Darden told Judge Lance Ito of his concerns that Simpson "has arthritis and we looked at the medication he takes and some of it is anti-inflammatory and we are told he has not taken the stuff for a day and it caused swelling in the joints and inflammation in his hands." The prosecution also stated their belief that the glove shrank from having been soaked in blood and later testing.[10] A photo was presented during the trial showing Simpson wearing the same type of glove that was found at the crime scene.


https://www.quora.com/Assuming-O-J-was-guilty-why-did-the-gloves-not-fit-Whats-the-argument-against-Johnny-Cochrans-famous-argument-If-the-gloves-dont-fit-you-must-acquit
He had numerous cuts on his finger
Did you read the prosecutor making excuses? "Well, uhh... It didnt fit because Simpson has arthritis and his hands sometimes swell".. "Wait, no! Its because over time the glove shrank so now it doesnt fit his hand anymore". Neither of these are compelling arguments as to why he wore a glove that did not fit. Maybe he was a mastermind who did that to throw people off, but since that wasnt an argument used we cant go by that. And the problem is that the cuts that OJ had were not present in the alleged "gloves" he was supposed to have been wearing during the murders. The glove didnt fit and the cuts that OJ had on his hands did not show on the glove he was supposed to have been wearing. How is this proof of anything?

It's not about believing the media narrative, the evidence is overwhelmingly against him and proves he was there and we know he had s motive

Not to mention his actions after the trial, how many times has he been in prison? Why write a book about the case titled 'If I did it?'

He's clearly a career criminal
So we ignore that Ron Goldman was a drug dealer (allegedly) and Nicole was a drug user (allegedly)? We ignore the fact that several of Ron Goldman's associates died/went missing around the same time he died? We ignore the fact that there were no lacerations on the glove that matched the laceration(s) on OJ's hand(s)? We ignore the fact that the glove didnt even fit his hand? Do we ignore that the first cop on the scene was a racist cop who was caught on tape spilling his feelings on "n-words" (Mark Fuhrman)? Do we ignore how there was "missing blood" from supposed evidence they collected? I see these things as things that have to do with his case. His past or future crimes from that time period should have no bearing on that particular case unless the crimes came out to having a similar outcome for a victim. Since that didnt happen before or after the case, the only things that matters are things relevant to the case. I dont see how one can see all these things and still conclude that he should have been found guilty but again, narratives.... Imo of course..
 

Haich

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
6,650
Well the defence did a pretty crap job in utilising the evidence. He could have easily used the gloves to dispose of the bodies, he may not have been wearing gloves at the exact moment he killed them, hence the deep gash on his finger which could suggest that the victims were struggling.

For me the drug story doesn't wash, so what if he was an alleged drug dealer and who cares if Nicole was a coke head. The only person with a real cause for killing them was OJ. Enraged husband kills wife and lover in a moment of madness seems to be the narrative that I find probable. His own best friend Robert kardashian had doubts as his demeanour was so odd for a man who'd just lost his wife. Even the phone call the police made to notify him of his wife's murder was odd. He just didn't show much emotion at all and fled when he thought the police were going to come after him. Did he not have a gun to his head when he was on the motorway escaping police pursuit?

His actions don't tell me he was innocent. He either killed them himself or was involved in their demise. The issue is the race card was played and the media sensationalised the trial causing the defence to lose their credibility (their own fault really) and for people to focus on OJ's fame as opposed to the fact that his blood was found in multiple questionable areas
 
Joined
Mar 17, 2017
Messages
2,342
Well the defence did a pretty crap job in utilising the evidence. He could have easily used the gloves to dispose of the bodies, he may not have been wearing gloves at the exact moment he killed them, hence the deep gash on his finger which could suggest that the victims were struggling.

For me the drug story doesn't wash, so what if he was an alleged drug dealer and who cares if Nicole was a coke head. The only person with a real cause for killing them was OJ. Enraged husband kills wife and lover in a moment of madness seems to be the narrative that I find probable. His own best friend Robert kardashian had doubts as his demeanour was so odd for a man who'd just lost his wife. Even the phone call the police made to notify him of his wife's murder was odd. He just didn't show much emotion at all and fled when he thought the police were going to come after him. Did he not have a gun to his head when he was on the motorway escaping police pursuit?

His actions don't tell me he was innocent. He either killed them himself or was involved in their demise. The issue is the race card was played and the media sensationalised the trial causing the defence to lose their credibility (their own fault really) and for people to focus on OJ's fame as opposed to the fact that his blood was found in multiple questionable areas
How doesnt the drug story wash when several of their associates died or went missing around the same time? We just ignore that? We ignore that the first cop on the scene was an admitted (well, on tape) racist? Where did the missing blood evidence go? If the glove didnt fit and didnt have lacerations in the same place his hands did then why did the prosecutor/investigators say he was wearing the glove (with another glove under it mind you) when he killed them? Why didnt the prosecutors/investigators of the crime give your answer (he didnt wear the gloves) instead of giving the incredibly lame excuses of "blood shrinks leather" or "OJ has athritis that causes his hands to swell?" These are things that lend doubt to how the crime was investigated, and the supposed "evidence" there actually was that OJ did it. As well, I dont think him running away or not showing the emotion people think he should have shown means he should be convicted crime. It can lend suspicion to it, but you cant base a conviction on it. And imo that is what you're basing your judgement on because even with the blood found, there was talk that it was planted. I just dont see the evidence for him doing it. But yea maybe you're right that he was there or involved in one way or another. Or maybe even knew it was bound/going to happen. The problem is that they tried to charge him with the act, and with that theres no proof of him committing any act.

And Im not some type of OJ fan or apologist. Im just speaking on the case. And theres question marks with everything that they brought as supposed "evidence".
 

Daciple

Star
Joined
Apr 25, 2017
Messages
1,157
OJ indeed without a doubt murdered them both, and really you are pointing to the glove dont fit must acquit nonsense? That glove DID fit its not very hard to make a glove NOT fit when you are wearing latex gloves and spreading your hand as far apart as possible. Absolutely everything screams OJ did it, I mean just look at his reaction! What not guilty man randomly goes insane and threatens to kill himself and basically kidnaps someone right when he is about to be brought in for questioning?

We do realize he was found GUILTY in Civil Court correct? How do you think he wasnt guilty but found guilty in Civil Court? He was let go in the Criminal Trial because he had money, point blank peroid. He was able to hire the most expensive trial team probably in history and they turned the case into a Race Relations story instead of a Criminal Trial. Where you alive during the Trial? I was, I was 14-15 and the biggest impression left on me was this is insane television and it split the nation down the middle over Race. If OJ was either poor or white he would have been thrown in jail because the evidence was blatantly stacked against him.

I do admit the Police and State did some stupid thing in collection of evidence, regardless I can not see how anyone who is rational and NOT bent on the Race thing NOT say he isnt guilty.

I don't understand how black people at the time could blindly support a man who had a ton of questionable evidence stacked against him and had little to no affiliation with the black community
I fully understand why the Black Community supported him, I do not truly believe many black people (regardless of what they say) really thought he was innocent, but they wanted to see one of their own who was completely guilty finally have the system fall in his favor. Many times due mainly imo to class, aka poor, the Black Community gets screwed in the Justice System, but finally they had one of their own, guilty as all get out, pull one over on the System and get off. 10-15 years later most black people will outright admit they knew OJ murdered them both, but during the trial none of them would admit it, it would be like snitching.

I am torn as to how I feel about it, because I truly know he murdered them without a doubt and I believe he ought to pay for the crimes but at the same time I can sympathize with the ideology of my Race or those in my Culture continually being screwed over by the System for whatever reasons and wanting to see them finally get one over on the corrupt System. Makes sense.

Regardless OJ is a murderer and he will meet his maker and be found guilty, I hope for his sake he repents and comes to Christ. At least in this life his actions caught up with him and hes behind bars where he belongs... However just fact checking and it looks like he could get out this fall lol I hope not, he ought to stay there for at least another decade or two to make up for screwing up his very blatant murder...
 
Joined
Mar 17, 2017
Messages
2,342
OJ indeed without a doubt murdered them both, and really you are pointing to the glove dont fit must acquit nonsense? That glove DID fit its not very hard to make a glove NOT fit when you are wearing latex gloves and spreading your hand as far apart as possible. Absolutely everything screams OJ did it, I mean just look at his reaction! What not guilty man randomly goes insane and threatens to kill himself and basically kidnaps someone right when he is about to be brought in for questioning?

We do realize he was found GUILTY in Civil Court correct? How do you think he wasnt guilty but found guilty in Civil Court? He was let go in the Criminal Trial because he had money, point blank peroid. He was able to hire the most expensive trial team probably in history and they turned the case into a Race Relations story instead of a Criminal Trial. Where you alive during the Trial? I was, I was 14-15 and the biggest impression left on me was this is insane television and it split the nation down the middle over Race. If OJ was either poor or white he would have been thrown in jail because the evidence was blatantly stacked against him.

I do admit the Police and State did some stupid thing in collection of evidence, regardless I can not see how anyone who is rational and NOT bent on the Race thing NOT say he isnt guilty.
Essentially you're saying he's guilty because of how he acted afterwards and not because of any evidence supporting him actually committing the act. Anybody can watch the video and see where in front of everyone he tried on the glove and it didnt fit. The prosecution's argument wasnt that he "spread his fingers" as if that makes a glove suddenly not fit. Their argument was that he had "arthritis that sometimes caused his hands to swell" and that " blood shrinks leather". Two laughable arguments. And not only did it not fit, but it didnt have a laceration where OJ had a laceration on his hand. When the argument was that he was WEARING the gloves during the murder. It just doesnt fit, so they had to acquit. You cant say "everything screams OJ did it" yet only bring how he acted afterwards as proof he committed a crime. Thats not enough for a conviction..

Also Civil Court is completely different than criminal court which should go without saying.
 

Haich

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
6,650
How doesnt the drug story wash when several of their associates died or went missing around the same time? We just ignore that? We ignore that the first cop on the scene was an admitted (well, on tape) racist? Where did the missing blood evidence go? If the glove didnt fit and didnt have lacerations in the same place his hands did then why did the prosecutor/investigators say he was wearing the glove (with another glove under it mind you) when he killed them? Why didnt the prosecutors/investigators of the crime give your answer (he didnt wear the gloves) instead of giving the incredibly lame excuses of "blood shrinks leather" or "OJ has athritis that causes his hands to swell?" These are things that lend doubt to how the crime was investigated, and the supposed "evidence" there actually was that OJ did it. As well, I dont think him running away or not showing the emotion people think he should have shown means he should be convicted crime. It can lend suspicion to it, but you cant base a conviction on it. And imo that is what you're basing your judgement on because even with the blood found, there was talk that it was planted. I just dont see the evidence for him doing it. But yea maybe you're right that he was there or involved in one way or another. Or maybe even knew it was bound/going to happen. The problem is that they tried to charge him with the act, and with that theres no proof of him committing any act.

And Im not some type of OJ fan or apologist. Im just speaking on the case. And theres question marks with everything that they brought as supposed "evidence".
That's fine you just sound like you need more concrete and evidence to come to a conclusion but unfortunately that can't happen.

Well firstly, I don't think the criminal history of Goldman has any bearing on what happened. It's another theory and the other murders you're referencing could be coincidental in terms of the time they occurred. We can't really link the two...

The racist cop again doesn't have any bearing on proving whether OJ did it. It's just speculation in my opinion and OJ's lawyers brought up a previous unrelated case where the cop slurred racist phrases. I don't condone racism at all and inbelieve he clearly was a nasty piece of work but it's only suspicion on our part to assume he was conspiring to nail OJ.

I agree the defence were pathetic. They tried to muster up a lot of excuses with regards to the gloves but he was wearing plastics gloves whilst trying them on too, he could've easily acted up and pretended the gloves didn't fit. There was no real effort to make them fit and this was apparent by OJ's theatrical demonstration. He was so over the top with the gloves, anyone accused of murder asked to try on a glove or a shoe would struggle and wriggle. It was a weak move from Marcia's team. However OJ's behaviour was odd.

It's not emotion people would expect, it's his lack of emotion. His wife has been brutally murdered and he just says 'Oh no, Nicole!'.

He then proceeds to flee and try kill himself, he knew something and that's clear.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Mar 17, 2017
Messages
2,342
It's just that on one hand you wanted to use OJ's crimes against him but now want to ignore Goldmans. It's more likely that his death was tied to those of his associated than him simply dying in a moments fit of rage and then SEVERAL of his associates die randomly around a similar time in mysterious ways.

I think to convict someone of taking the life of another you do need concrete evidence. And him not reacting in a way we'd want, expect or accept is not concrete evidence that he committed a crime. Nor is him running away from cops who thought he murdered someone concrete evidence. Coupled with the shaky things from the investigation(missing blood from evidence, glove didn't fit/didn't have lacerations that matched OJ's, openly racist investigator, blood being placed not splattered on the scene etc..) than those are the only things you're basing him doing it on. Unless there's other evidence I'm missing. Anyways It is what is.
 
Joined
Mar 30, 2017
Messages
3,578
View attachment 969
I recently watched The People V OJ again, starring Cuba Gooding Jr as OJ Simpson.

I wasn't around at the time of this trial but it was interesting to see just how much controversy it caused and it still divides people to this day.

Although some of the acting was dry (David Schwimmer) I learnt a lot about how the trial and have come to conclude that OJ DID IT!

What do you guys think?
I honestly don’t know. What I do know is what most of what’s been posted is the way I remember it, sensationalized and tabloid fodder for months on end. It’s been 22 years and I was too busy loathing my professors and dying to get out of university..

One thing I do remember is the prosecution presented a very weak case. I remember they called a neighbour to the stand that was pretty precise about his schedule (watch I Love Lucy or Mary Tyler Moore at a particular time, walked his dog afterwards... something to that affect), and he said he was outside when he heard a male’s voice say “Hey! Hey! Hey!” (as in c’mon, easy there tone) The prosecution was implying that it was Ron Goldman who said that and shortly after was murdered. I remember thinking at the time, if that’s the case, and the prosecution’s story was Ron tried to stop Nicole’s murder, wouldn't you say more than “Hey! Hey! Hey!”? Would you not get help or run the other way if you saw someone being murdered? I even remember CNN had an animated reenactment of the same thing, and to me, it just didn't make sense. Wouldn't it stand to reason that Ron confronted the assailant while he was in front of Nicole and fought with whoever did the killing(s)? This documentary seems to think so:


Regarding the blood evidence, according to the above documentary, the blood on OJ’s socks and on the back gate of Nicole’s house had EDTA in it. It’s a chemical found in test tubes and is not produced by the body, which means it was likely planted.

All that said, I guess we’ll all be left guessing, if it’s something someone ponders.
 
Last edited:
Top