O J is dead

[BlessedPeace]

True but irrelevant to the fact they found bloody socks at the foot of his bed. And you did not answer my questions:

I did answer your question. You don't like the answer.

1. Do you think the police chase is a sign that he is innocent?

It wasn't a sign of guilt. You don't realize the American court system found OJ Simpson not guilty.

1. And OJ failed the lie detector test. Do you suppose that is a sign he is innocent?

You're not aware polygraphs are not admissable in a criminal trial.

 

[BlessedPeace]

Yes. I suspect Goldman was taken out first.

Taken by surprise, Goldman may not have had an opportunity to deliver one martial arts kick.

Regarding the bruises on Simpsons body and Goldmans hands being bloodied and bruised, it seems you want to retry the case. If Simpson was innocent, why was he found liable for their deaths in civil court?

Because inadmissable evidence from the criminal trial was admissable in the civil.

Basically, the civil trial allowed the Brown and Goldman family to ask to be paid for the bodies assailants not OJ Simpson left dead on Nicole's property.

 

[Wrangler]

It wasn't a sign of guilt. You don't realize the American court system found OJ Simpson not guilty.

Running from the police in a car chase is not a sign of guilt?


I do realize the racist jury found OJ not guilty, yes.

You're not aware polygraphs are not admissable in a criminal trial.

LOL. I'm not talking about what is admissible. I'm talking about the facts of the matter. Clearly, you do not want to answer my question that failing a lie detector test is NOT a sign he is innocent.

Because inadmissable evidence from the criminal trial was admissable in the civil.

And the jury was not racist in favor of OJ.

 

[BlessedPeace]

Running from the police in a car chase is not a sign of guilt?
View attachment 44329

I do realize the racist jury found OJ not guilty, yes.


LOL. I'm not talking about what is admissible. I'm talking about the facts of the matter. Clearly, you do not want to answer my question that failing a lie detector test is NOT a sign he is innocent.

And the jury was not racist in favor of OJ.

I pray you are never selected for jury duty. You have zero respect for our system of justice. And zero knowledge of the law itself or actual trial facts.

11 percent of the 24 people chosen for the criminal trial jury were black. 12 jurors,12 alternate. All sequestered through the duration of the trial.

Blood found on any article of clothing with EDTA anticoagulant in it is not blood derived naturally through contusion nor abrasion of a victim or suspect.

If a witness lies after taking an oath to testify truthfully, in American courts any testimony after that lie may be presumed not credible. Because they violated their promises to tell the truth in a proceeding.

When blood evidence collected by and in the custody of a detective is discovered to contain an anticoagulant found only in blood samples derived from a laboratory,any and All subsequent evidence garnered through the acts of said detective or other detectives,is presumed suspect.

Because a detective sworn to uphold the duties of their investigative and law enforcement office and duties who is found to have planted said EDTA blood evidence , as that detective was, is no longer credible as a fair ,ethical,and impartial investigator who obeys the same laws he's charged with enforcing.

You don't have to like that OJ was found not guilty. You don't have to like or acknowledge the fact police planted evidence.

 

[Wrangler]

You don't have to like or acknowledge the fact police planted evidence.

I’ll put aside all your personal attacks. Guess what? You don’t have to be Black to be racist for Blacks.

I don’t think evidence was planted is true at all. Just because a bloody sock found at OJ’s bed was LATER contaminated changed nothing.

You don't have to like that OJ was found not guilty.

He was found guilty and liable. Liable for Nicole and Ron’s death and guilty of armed robbery, which is why he was imprisoned.

I believe it was Johnnie Cochran who said OJ defense team played the race card from the bottom of the deck.

Let me tell you something. OJ was one of my childhood hero’s. The story shook me deeply. Even his best friend, Kardashian came to realize he was guilty of murder, regardless of the jury verdict.

 

[Rella ~ I am a woman]

You are too confidant in the false narrative that OJ was framed due to racism.

A dedective did not know OJ's blood contained EDTA, which is not normally found in our blood. This is how you support the conclusion that said detective planted the blood? Guess what? They found bloody socks at the foot of this bed. Putting aside fancy analysis and EDTA anticoagulants, does bloody socks suggest innocence to you?

I never saw anyone so hung up on a pair of socks except for a cat or two.

The following link is 4 pages 2 of copy and 2 of actual evidence pictures.

The paragraph says it all. I challenged you to read the entire thing

https://booksite.elsevier.com/9781455731381/Resources/O.J._Simpson_Sock_Evidence.pdf

The O.J. Simpson Case: The Sock Evidence Reconstructed In the case of People v. Simpson in 1994, O.J. Simpson was charged with the murder of his ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend, Ronald Goldman. The pair of socks allegedly found in the O.J. Simpson bedroom was an important piece of evidence in this case. When defense lawyers studied the two sets of images (video and photographic) made by the Los Angeles Police Department, they noted that in the video set (taken to protect the LAPD against damaged property claims), there were no socks to be seen at the foot of the defendant’s bed. Yet, in the photographic set (taken to record the crime scene), a pair of socks appears.

The defense made further inquiry, studying the documentary evidence specifically with regard to time; that is, when did the criminalist examine the socks in the bedroom, and when was the video made? Their conclusion was that the video was taken before the criminalist examined the socks. The fact that they were not to be seen in the video was significant: it allowed the defense to assert that they were planted, and supported the theory that their defendant was being framed. Thus, for crime scene reconstruction purposes, pinpointing the exact time of certain actions or events can be crucial.

Blood dries quickly, especially the small quantity present here. Accordingly, the transfer to side 3 could not have occurred after the sock was worn for more than a few minutes, since travel time from the homicide scene to Simpson’s home was sufficient for the crime scene blood to dry. The shiny red balls (Color Figure D), coupled with the partial transfer of blood (limited to the top surface of the woven fibers—see Color Figure C), allowed MacDonell to testify that the sock was lying on a flat surface when the reddish liquid was applied by means of a swiping, lateral motion. Some liquid penetrated the outside of the left panel (side 1 of Color Figure B) to the inside surface of the left panel (side 2 of Color Figure B), with some liquid passing through to the inside of the right panel (side 3 of Color Figure B). A portion of the left panel was cut out subsequently for DNA testing: no blood was present on the outside of the right panel (side 4 of Color Fig

 

[BlessedPeace]

I’ll put aside all your personal attacks.

Recognizing you don't know the facts of the actual case file or trial isn't a personal attack. Recognizing you repeatedly demonstrate having no respect for the criminal justice system because it found OJ Simpson not guilty by a preponderance of tainted evidence, as we should pray happens for every framed defendant facing criminal prosecution,is not a personal attack.

Levying that false charge does not invalidate in any way the facts of this case that you know nothing about.

A civil trial jury verdict is arrived at by the preponderance of the evidence.
Whereas in a criminal trial a jury weighs the evidence and arrives at a verdict beyond a reasonable doubt applied to consideration of said evidence.

It was proven in the criminal part that the detective planted the evidence. It was proven evidence was mishandled. It was proven detectives worked this case to make Simpson appear guilty. And at least one detective on the case was a racist.

It was proven the gloves claimed to be used in the murder and saturated with blood could not fit OJ Simpsons large hands. Even after the blood dried and shrank the leather.

It is known the shoes alleged to be left as prints in the victims blood were the same style the manufacturer gave OJ Simpson. However multiple pairs and styles and sizes were given him. And he gifted those to his son.

It was proven when Nicole's body,hours later,arrived at the coroners office that it was not swabbed for fluid evidence. Rather,it was washed clean before autopsy.


A civil trial does not condemn a person by verdict criminally.

And the robbery verdict was a juries way of getting latent justice for Nicole and Ron. And the judge in the case who sentenced Simpson to more than 30 year made history in her district with that sentence.

Even prosecutors said that was extreme given the facts. The judge was later disciplined. And Simpson was released on parole after serving less than 10 years. And was later released from parole.

The robbery verdict has nothing to do with the murder acquittal.
The case is closed. Simpson was found not guilty of double homicide charges. And now he's dead due to a cancer doctors say is not often discussed as one of the primary cancer that impact black men in America.


That's not a personal attack either. That's reality.

If you claim personal attacks against yourself when discussing topics here that you know little about but pursue none the less, you're going to have a very stressful experience.

That's all I have to say to you in this thread.

 

[Rella ~ I am a woman]

I just wonder if Ron Goldmans sister is still crying, uncontrollably?

She did for the criminal trial and she did for the civil trial and she did on interterviews long after

 

[amigo de christo]

If I recall it was an interesting trial and I guess it is the first thing that comes to mind when you hear his name. Not sure it will hit the news over here that much. I do hate it when someone famous or Royal dies as they just go over and over that same thing for days sometimes - excuse the pun, but it is often overkill !

And its rather odd that many often preach death unto the masses . and not LIFE and LIFE eternal .
this world focus on death and tragedy
yet so few will POINT TO CHRIST JESUS . talk about tragedy . that is the real tragedy .
cause if one believes in HIM , they will NEVER DIE . oh sure the body does but not the soul .
NOW RAISE THEM HANDS SISTER . IT BE TIME AGAIN to praise and to thank the glorious LORD .

 

[Wrangler]

It was proven evidence was mishandled.

You know that doesn’t make OJ innocent, right?

 

[Wrangler]

Recognizing you repeatedly demonstrate having no respect for the criminal justice system

If only people respected the Dred Scott case, the War of Northern Aggression could have been avoided.

 

[Wrangler]

If you claim personal attacks against yourself when discussing topics here that you know little about but pursue none the less, you're going to have a very stressful experience.

lol. I’m not stressed at all. Am quite confident in my in-depth knowledge of the case. And enjoying your tirades immensely.

 

[Wrangler]

I just wonder if Ron Goldmans sister is still crying, uncontrollably?

She did for the criminal trial and she did for the civil trial and she did on interterviews long after

You have a lot of sympathy for her brother being brutally murdered, do you?

 

[Rella ~ I am a woman]

You have a lot of sympathy for her brother being brutally murdered, do you?

For him yes, She just seemed so unhealty in attachment.

 

[Wrangler]

For him yes, She just seemed so unhealty in attachment.

Some people have no coping skills.

OJ was one of my childhood heroes. The whole thing shook me. What a shame. Few reach his highs or lows.

 

[Rita]

For him yes, She just seemed so unhealty in attachment.

Hi Rella,
Just quoting your post to see if I can reply to you - mainly seeing if the problem is between you and me, or just you that can’t respond to my posts

 

[Dan Clarkston]

OJ failed the lie detector test. Do you suppose that is a sign he is innocent?

Lie detector tests are a non issue since they have been proven to not be reliable which of course is exactly why results of lie detector testing is not admissible in court.

 

[Wrangler]

Lie detector tests are a non issue since they have been proven to not be reliable which of course is exactly why results of lie detector testing is not admissible in court.

You got it backwards. A lie may NOT be detected by the test but one that fails the test is not evidence the person is telling the truth.

From Do Lie Detector Tests Really Work?

So, does the polygraph actually work? Are the results accurate? It does work much of the time. Typically, when someone is lying, a well-trained polygraph examiner can tell. It is not 100% accurate though. The American Polygraph Association is the world's leading association dedicated to the use of evidence-based scientific methods for credibility assessment. It is an organization whose members are largely polygraph examiners. They estimate the accuracy of the polygraph to be 87%. That is, in 87 out of 100 cases, the polygraph can accurately determine if someone is lying or telling the truth.​

 

[BlessedPeace]

You got it backwards. A lie may NOT be detected by the test but one that fails the test is not evidence the person is telling the truth.

From Do Lie Detector Tests Really Work?

So, does the polygraph actually work? Are the results accurate? It does work much of the time. Typically, when someone is lying, a well-trained polygraph examiner can tell. It is not 100% accurate though. The American Polygraph Association is the world's leading association dedicated to the use of evidence-based scientific methods for credibility assessment. It is an organization whose members are largely polygraph examiners. They estimate the accuracy of the polygraph to be 87%. That is, in 87 out of 100 cases, the polygraph can accurately determine if someone is lying or telling the truth.​

What you do not understand and not accept, besides a not guilty verdict,is that someone can fail a polygraph by having guilty knowledge about something they were asked about.

If OJ's son killed them,or if OJ had arrived by the backway of Brown's property in time to see the last strikes of their murders,he very well would fail when asked about the murders.

There was zero physical evidence OJ killed Ron and Nicole. None.

Even the planted glove bore no evidence.

The state tried to say a tiny cut on one of OJ's fingers was caused by his murdering Ron and Nicole with a knife that was never found .

The problem with that theory is that there was not a matching cut on the too small for his hands bloody glove.

OJ didn't do it. Ron put up a hell of a fight. But they killed him. OJ bore no marks showing any such encounter with a black belt at least 30 years his junior.

 

[Wrangler]

What you do not understand and not accept, besides a not guilty verdict,is that someone can fail a polygraph by having guilty knowledge about something they were asked about.

There are people who are guilty that the system does not find so. You do not understand or accept that.