Replies

You should have watched the trial. It would have been a great help to knowing what you are talking about. I have yet to meet a person who actually watched the trial and thought the jury got it wrong. OJ might be guilty, but the prosecution proved almost nothing at the trial.

O.J. owned the damned gloves.

And they did not fit. Nobody made Darden make a fool of himself, but he just had to go there.

Nobody made them put Furhman on the stand, but F. Lee Bailey reduced him to taking the 5th Amendment on the stand.

O.J. owned the damned shoes.

And nobody can prove the shoes were at the crime scene. There were over 20 different manufacturers that used the same sole.

He wasn’t home when the limo driver arrived to pick him up. Where was he?

You mean you do not know? That sure is some evidence.

Kato Kaelin heard him running behind the guest house after he came back from the crime scene.

That is the worst make-belioeve evidence fairy tale I have heard. Kaelin heard a noise. He did not see anything. He did not know if it was a person who made the noise. He definitely could not identify any person who made the noise. It is just your vivid imagination that Kaelin heard a person returning fromm the crime scene.

The man cut his hand at the crime scene, and failed the lie detector.

What man cut his hand at the crime scene? Who testified to that? You identify the witness and time of the testimony and I will provide the testimony from the transcript.

Nobody testified about a lie detector. Lie detector results are not admissible as evidence in court because they are not reliable.

O.J. was a violent bum who for years beat the crap out of Nicole who predicted that he would kill her and get away with it.

If only there was proof that he killed Nicole, you would be dwelling on that and not this.

There was no conspiracy to “frame him” by planting blood at the scene or by doing anything else.

They were caught red-handed with EDTA in the blood samples, and it did njot get there by itself. They were caught red-handed with tampered with bindles. Dr. Henry Lee showed tampered bindles beyond a reasonable doubt.

As I said, you should have watched the trial. Then you mjight actually know what happened at the trial.

I notice you made no attempt to rebut the evidence I presented about the shoeprints from the textbook. Nor do you make any effort whatever to explain the EDTA that was found in the blood samples.

And let us not forget the blood stan on the socks. It went right through the ankle area from one side to the other. A miracle if there were a foot in the sock.

Unless you’re just trolling, what can I say? There’s a sucker born every minute, and sadly that’s you.

You could always say you did not watch the trial. That would be a good start. The jury decided whether the prosecutor proved O.J. Simpson guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The verdict was 12-0 in the negative. It is not a question of whether he could have done it. When a piece of evidence has more than one reasonable interpretation, one or more tending toward innocence, that one tending toward innocence must be adopted by the jury.

What can I say? You didn't watch the trial but you know all about it. Well, except for the actual evidence part. That you got from TV talking heads or a movie or maybe a losing prosecutor's book. The prosecution was a disaster. Who can ever forget saving the burning baby?