Your verdict, guilty or not guilty?
Please, no commentary, just reply with "guilty" or "not guilty"
To begin:
Guilty
"All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy."
Absolutely Guilty
share
MovieChat Forums > O.J.: Made in America (2016) Discussion > Your verdict, guilty or not guilty?
Absolutely 100% Guilty
shareWeabanal dowt
shareGuilty
shareGuilty.
shareguilty
share5-1 guilty so far.
Anyone else?
"All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy."
Guilty. At the time, I didn't think he killed them, but I was a teenager and he is a sociopath who is very good at acting human. Now as an adult, I definitely think the evidence at the scene and the history of family violence show beyond a reasonable doubt that he did it.
I don't patronize bunny rabbits!share
I agree with this ^^ AT the time I thought he HIRED someone to kill her. Didn't believe he could commit the murder at 10:30 and then meet the limousine at 11:30 for a flight to Chicago. The time between the killing and his flight was too tight.
I read in someone's research article that he was taking cortizone shots and that it could cause rage. I also think he was a social coke user.
Well, Nevada got him now.
Not guilty.
shareI think he is guilty. If I was a juror I would have voted not guilty. The prosecution failed to prove it beyond a doubt.
edit I am white male
8-2 guilty.
"All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy."
Guilty. I have 0% doubt he did this. The judge let this trial turn into a circus. The whole Mark Furhman thing never should have happened. It became about race and not about two people who were killed. The part where Marcia Clark said what is the forbidden N word and she said Nicole, that was spot on.
shareThe prosecution failed to prove it beyond a doubt.
How do you define doubt? Reasonable? Is it reasonable to believe there was a massive conspiracy to plant evidence at multiple sites by the LAPD, which would have had to involve several others besides Fuhrman.
I don't think that's reasonable at all. By this logic, there should never be a suspect convicted by DNA evidence, because there's always a possibility that evidence was planted.
I would say that the prosecution failed to make the point that a large evidence planting conspiracy was practically impossible. Ten again, the jury was poison from the get go, so the prosecution never really had a chance.
The outcome of this case was determined in jury selection. share
I think he is guilty. If I was a juror I would have voted not guilty. The prosecution failed to prove it beyond a doubt.
edit I am white male
This, exactly. I think that he did it, but if I had been a juror at his trial I would not have been able to convict after hearing about how the fresh blood drawn from OJ by the cops at Parker Center was then hand-delivered, by the detective in charge, directly to the forensic tech working the crime scene on Bundy.
In short, OJ's blood was taken from LAPD headquarters back to the crime scene while the crime scene was still being forensically processed and blood evidence being gathered.
When the detective was questioned about this on the stand, about how frequently he had taken any suspect's blood from Parker Center to a crime scene, he hemmed and hawed and then said he didn't really know, that that [OJ] might have been the first time he had ever done it. His attitude was 100% "So what?" like there was nothing at all wrong with that.
And then there's the question of the EDTA. Sure, there's EDTA in everything, but after that, the possibility of preservative in the blood would have been the cherry on top for me. That's not unreasonable doubt, that's glaringly unusual procedure.
No way could I overcome that. I would have had to acquit, even though my belief is that he's guilty, because that to me is more than enough reasonable doubt. I'm sure others may differ, but that's my view. I'm a white woman, if that makes any difference. share
Guilty. But at the same time if I were on the jury it would have been a hard vote....
share