Nothing new, there was a study done that showed 80% of black people would vote not guilty if the perpetrator was black, even if they believed they were guilty.
Larry Elder retried the case with the same jury and he couldn’t have made it any clearer that he was guilty but they still voted not guilty. It was a mock trial of course. At the time I wanted him to be innocent but when you look at the evidence at the very least he was there and paid someone or he had help. Shouldn’t have used Furhman because defense made it all about him. Plenty of other evidence.
His son had a rage disorder where if he wasn't on medicine the smallest offense could trigger explosive, totally out of proportion violence. From memory, apparently he wasn't taking the drugs at the time because they zonked him out, Ron and Nicole had slighted him by refusing an invitation or something like that, and his whereabouts were unaccounted for during the murder window.
Not enough evidence to believe his son did do it, but enough to believe he could have. You'd have to also believe OJ would cover for his son, would have to explain the boots and the gloves, and so on. So still 99% OJ did it.
I found this interesting as maybe the first time I saw the media actively cover up information to push their beliefs. They finally showed an interview with his medicated son and said look at this calm normal dude he couldn't possible kill anyone #conspiracytheory and suppressed the true story about his son's problems and whereabouts.
I think I'd heard maybe once before that OJ's son might have committed the murders. Funny enough, if there is enough evidence to reasonably suggest his son did it, then a "Not Guilty" verdict would be legally correct (reasonable doubt. Though he'd certainly still be guilty of other crimes if he had knowledge that his son murdered two people and then covered it up.)
Nothing new, there was a study done that showed 80% of black people would vote not guilty if the perpetrator was black, even if they believed they were guilty.
Larry Elder retried the case with the same jury and he couldn’t have made it any clearer that he was guilty but they still voted not guilty. It was a mock trial of course. At the time I wanted him to be innocent but when you look at the evidence at the very least he was there and paid someone or he had help. Shouldn’t have used Furhman because defense made it all about him. Plenty of other evidence.
Yeah, to be honest this is a very old issue.
That being said, the LAPD really did shit the case. If OJ didn't do it, he knows who did, and it was probably his son.
His son had a rage disorder where if he wasn't on medicine the smallest offense could trigger explosive, totally out of proportion violence. From memory, apparently he wasn't taking the drugs at the time because they zonked him out, Ron and Nicole had slighted him by refusing an invitation or something like that, and his whereabouts were unaccounted for during the murder window.
Not enough evidence to believe his son did do it, but enough to believe he could have. You'd have to also believe OJ would cover for his son, would have to explain the boots and the gloves, and so on. So still 99% OJ did it.
I found this interesting as maybe the first time I saw the media actively cover up information to push their beliefs. They finally showed an interview with his medicated son and said look at this calm normal dude he couldn't possible kill anyone #conspiracytheory and suppressed the true story about his son's problems and whereabouts.
I think I'd heard maybe once before that OJ's son might have committed the murders. Funny enough, if there is enough evidence to reasonably suggest his son did it, then a "Not Guilty" verdict would be legally correct (reasonable doubt. Though he'd certainly still be guilty of other crimes if he had knowledge that his son murdered two people and then covered it up.)