Quote:
Originally Posted by dino7c
OJ was also found not guilty
|
Is that that fall back.... that's almost paramount to Godwin’s Law - it's not really a good way to argue your point - it sort of kills the debate.
BUT....
I watched the OJ case.... I always thought there was something not quite right on both sides of that case, something was extremely fishy - let me explain. First let me say.... I always thought that OJ did it back then, but also thought since they planted evidence - beyond a reasonable doubt (the high bar) was not reached and the jury needed to acquit.
1) Why did OJ do what he did after he was charged, to me, it almost seemed like either he did it... or he was protecting someone that did, and why would he protect someone at an extremely high cost to him - this pointed to his guilt to me since I couldn't figure out why he'd protect someone unless he hired them to do it.
2) Why was the evidence tampered with by the police and prosecution... why would they need to go to this level if he was guilty. There was clearly blood preservative in some of the blood found at the crime scene. The crime scene wasn't exactly a clean crime scene either, there was tons of evidence and even finger prints (a thumb print I think) and even a watch style cap left behind by the killer - the cap was later found to contain hair evidence including dog hairs.
Now.... I thought OJ did it... but there has been more evidence recently that has come to light that has made me reconsider my assumptions and beliefs and I now suspect he didn't and was only protecting the true culprit who he and his lawyers knew the identity of (and was hired by him - so lawyer/client privilege all around). I also don't think OJ ordered the killing - which would have made him just as guilty as if he did it himself. I think it's fun to go back and look at the case again - if you do it honestly, I think you may come to the same outcome I did. I would certainly like to see justice in this case, even if OJ and his lawyers want to protect that individual - there is no statute of limitations on murder.
Anyhow.... back to the topic... I don't know him, I respect what N-E-B said about his character, he could be a creepy guy, and maybe that's a good enough reason for a team not to hire him, and I think that is valid, character is something you should look at when hiring someone... But he was found not guilty in a court of law and it is not the leagues or its teams job to judge that - it was a jury and judge's job to do so, and they got to see all the evidence and made the call - I must trust that. Many (guilty) people do get off... but many others are also falsely accused and we are not in the position to judge either way.