I read in a recent posting that more than 70% of African Americans believe OJ was innocent of the crime of murder. I have always believed him guilty as well as many of my friends. The problem I had with the trial was that much of the prosecution's case was manufactured or missing. In fact, there was a doctor interviewed on MSNBC last week who said that when he was questioned prior to the trial the prosecution neglected to ask the right questions, or use logical follow-ups.

-- Anonymous, June 07, 2004

Answers

My point of view was simple - I had a reasonable doubt based on the evidence that was presented. In a civil case, one only has to be 50% +1 convinced of guilt, and with that standard I might have opted for "guilty" if I were a juror.

In the criminal case, however, my doubts stemmed from:

- No murder weapon, bloody clothes or defensive wounds on OJ (except for the plausible cut from "breaking a glass,"

- Tight time table for him to commit murder, come back, clean up, dump evidence and not leave bloody tracks all over his house,

- If OJ acted alone, was he SMART ENOUGH to commit a double homicide (slashing the victims and leaving a ton of blood) without leaving more evidence? [That's my biggest question mark - the Juice never struck me as a criminal genius].

My belief - as is the belief of many people that I know - is that OJ did not commit the murder, but knows who did and is covering up to protect that person.

-- Anonymous, June 07, 2004

Everyone in the trial, the prosecutors, the judge, and the jury was so enamoured with O.J.'s celebrity status: The prosecutors put on a horrible case so I really don't know whata to believe. If he did it, it was incredibly stupid considering what he had to lose; or in a fit of rage. The police tried to frame him to make sure he was convicted; what might have been framing a guilty person.

-- Anonymous, June 07, 2004

Quite frankly, when I learned that one LAPD detective collected a blood sample from OJ and turned it into the lab 24 hours later, I became very doubtful of the integrity of the chain of custody for collecting evidence. Furthermore, you must also remember that the " rule of law" is not based on logic, it is based on chicanery.

-- Anonymous, June 07, 2004

Dear Sister I followed the presentation of evidence in the trial very carefully. The criminal case showed that the crime scene collection of blood evidence was done wrong. This was admitted by the Prosecutions witness under cross examination by Attorney Barry Scheck. The time- line and no weapon found (evn ten years later) is most disturbing. The glove did not fit. DNA evidence from this case was so badly done that other cases have changed on appeal around the world.

Sadly the presentation of evidence in the criminal case against O J Simpson was awful. The sensationalism and racial histeria against simpson was higher and therefore the ease of conviction in the civil case.

Race relations in the U.S seem to come to the surface with cases like this. As long as we are seen doing the right thing in the right places then we have no problem. OJ was already convicted the night those two poor individuals were murdered. Will we ever find the truth? I have my doubts. Marsha Clarke, Christopher Darden and Lance Ito sealed that fate, Not OJ Simpson.

One persons opinion

-- Anonymous, June 08, 2004

Do you remember how the media (I think it was Time magazine) retouched O.J.'s photo to make him look more menacing; they made it darker, aded eye shadom, etc. But they were caught red-handed and that planted the seed that OJ was being framed, no doubt helping to convince the jury to release him. He dodged a bullet regardless of his guilt or innocent.

-- Anonymous, June 08, 2004

Jazzman opines -

"Furthermore, you must also remember that the " rule of law" is not based on logic, it is based on chicanery."

Now that's a Stanley Crouch-type commentary :-) I'm torn between whether I should laugh or cry at this poingant observation. Ten years after the famous "fugitive" Bronco chase along the Santa Monica Fwy and interuppting my leisure activity of watching the NBA Finals between the NY Knicks & the Houston Rockets, I'm still mad at Orenthal James Simpton. In my own Cochranesqe perspective - If the DNA does fit, you must convict. QED

-- Anonymous, June 08, 2004

I haven't a clue about his guilt or innocence, but I do recall him saying he'd mount an endless search for the real killer. How is his progress? Last I heard he was tirelessly searching the golf courses of America.

-- Anonymous, June 08, 2004

The economic impact should also be considered. J Cochran has a nationwide law firm, the prosecuters are millioniares, LA County benefited, almost everyone connected made money except OJ.

-- Anonymous, June 09, 2004

Parson Paris -

Is the much-maligned (at least by the OJ-supporters) ex-prosecutor Christopher Darden a millionaire as well? Last I heard he decided to quit the practice of law. Darden was unmercifully criticized as being a pawn of the LA District Attorney's Office by an overwhelming majority of black folks in this country. I suppose this is the price you pay when you simply do your job. QED

-- Anonymous, June 09, 2004

Kato Caelin was on TV this morning. He was able to purchase his own home after being OJ's famous house guest.

-- Anonymous, June 09, 2004

Actually Bill, Darden did not do his job. Neither did Marsha Clark and the rest of the prosecution. They overlooked many chances to get OJ. They were too busy pandering to the media. In fact, Darden is a millionaire as well. The only thing Darden did to set me off was to cry at the end of the trial. I like to see a brother be a man. I have no problems with tears, sadness nor regret, but it just bothered me when he stood there sniveling like a whipped puppy.

-- Anonymous, June 09, 2004

In my opinion the verdict of the jury still stands - innocent.

-- Anonymous, June 09, 2004

The jury never said "innocent." They said "not guilty."

-- Anonymous, June 09, 2004

The verdict of the jury for the criminal trial was indeed "not guilty". Despite my concerns about jury nullification I wasn't a member of the jury so I accept the verdict. However, the verdict for the civil trial was "guilty" and the same acceptance applies here as well. This is not to suggest juries don't make mistakes. This is why the Emmitt Till case is being re-opened by the Justice Department forty years later. The jury verdict in Rodney King I (Simi Valley) erred. The jury verdict in the case of the white truck driver assualted with a brick in the riot aftermath was wrong. That point being made, how does a weeping Chris Darden at the conclusion of the criminal trial translate into him "not doing his job"? Did Darden have a priori knowledge that the "star" witness for the prosecution, Mark Furhman, would turn out to be their own comeuppance? Did he know that the infamous "glove" would not fit or that OJ hated those ugly (expletive deleted) Bruno Magli size 13 shoes? Darden did what every competent and capable prosecutor is supposed to do and that is present a factual case of the defendant's guilt beyond reasonaable doubt. The jury thought otherwise and in the end the criminal justice system showed, despite its flaws, the system works. QED

-- Anonymous, June 09, 2004

Brother Dickens, agreed. Sister Mary - I stand corrected - Not Guilty.

-- Anonymous, June 09, 2004

Darden did not do his job, nor Marsha Clark or the rest of the prosecution. An example I spoke of earlier was noted by one of the doctors on the case. He said he was contacted by the prosecution. As he could not volunteer information he could only hope that they would ask the appropriate questions, which they did not. The doctor stated that OJ limped into his office following the killings. He also noted small cuts on OJ's hands. It was this doctor's belief that medication OJ was taking at the time (supposedly some type of steroid) could cause rage to the point of murder. He was hoping the prosecution -not just Darden- to ask follow-up questions. They never did. He said he can see why the defense won the case. As for Darden crying, I still think it was pitiful, but at least now he is weeping for joy at the bank...so...........

-- Anonymous, June 10, 2004

And yes Bill, despite what I believe of OJ, I believe the verdict was correct.

-- Anonymous, June 10, 2004

What is the difference in "Not Guilty" and "Innocent"? I think the jury can only find a person Guilty or Not Guilty.

-- Anonymous, June 10, 2004

Isn't the saying innocent until proven guilty. So if one is proven not guilty in a court of law the accused is innocent.

-- Anonymous, June 24, 2004