On June 12th, 1994 Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend Ronald Goldman were stabbed to death. O. J. Simpson a former college and professional football star was accused of murdering his ex-wife and her friend on June 17th, 1994. On the night of the stabbing, Simpson became one of the prime suspects in this murder. Instead of talking to the police about what had happened, he hid in the back of a White Bronco driven by his friend A.C. Cowlings. The police followed the Bronco for more than an hour after being told that Simpson was threatening to end his own life. This was on live television with about 95 million viewers.
On July 22nd, 1994 Simpson entered a plea of not guilty. The trial started on January 24th, 1995. Marcia Clark and Christopher Darden led the Los Angeles attorney's office. They focused on the domestic violence that happened after the divorce of Nicole Brown and O.J. Simpson. Simpsons' attorney's defense was based on the fact that the evidence had been mishandled and that many of the police who were involved were racist. One of the police Mark Fuhrman found a bloody leather glove at Simpson's home, but when he tried it on in court the glove was too small for his hand. The defense said that many other items were planted to make Simpson seem like the murderer.
This trial lasted more than eight months,150 witnesses testified, and Simpson did take the stand once. On October 3rd, 1995 the jury finally began making a decision on whether or not Simpson was the murderer. It took the jury a little less than four hours to decide but they delayed the announcement until the following day. On October 3rd it was announced that Simpson was found not guilty of the murders of Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman. Though he was found not guilty he was sued by the victim's families for wrongful death.
Do you think O.J. was the murderer?
Did he deserve to be sued by the victim's families?
Should the jury have taken into consideration all of the domestic violence evidence?
Replies
Good topic choice and well done overall Vylet! I would like to add more of your thoughts and the controversy behind this case.
I don't think that O.J. was the murderer, even though there was the grey are throughout the case. There was evidence pointing towards and away from him the whole time. I also dont think he should have been sued, because he was found not guilty. I think that the jury could have looked deeper into the domestic violence after the divorce, but I don't think it would have made much of an impact.
I believe that O.J. was not the murder, but I understand why the police thought he was. I honestly don't think he shouldn't have been sued since he was found not guilty. I do think that maybe the jury should have taken more of the domestic violence into consideration, but I don't think it would have made a huge difference in the trial.
I don't think Simpson was the murderer. I think he was in the wrong place at the wrong time, or he was just plain set up. I think while there was some evidence pointing towards him, it wasn't solid evidence, so I don't think it was fair for him to be sued, without actual evidence.
I do not think he was the murderer of the fact that he was just in a spot at a bad time which probably happens a lot more then it should in today's world and the person who committed the crime gets away with it with no consequences.
I don't think he was the murderer. I think it was a kind of wrong place wrong time scenario for him. I think when he was driving around in the Bronco saying he was going to commit suicide, it could have been because he was upset about what happened.
I don't think that O.J. Simpson was the murderer. I think he was just set up and caught in a bad deal. He got really unlucky and their should be no way that he should get sued without any actaul evidence. So overall, I don' think theres enough evidence to charge him with murder.
I think that O.J. Simpson was not the murderer I think that he was just caught in a sticky situation. O.J. was just at the wrong place and wrong time and I think that there should be no reason for the families to sue him without any genuine evidence. The Jury could have taken this into consideration but I don't believe the past of O.J. should be the reason he is accused of murder.
I agree, I feel that the jury should've looked at it a little bit but at the same time it wouldn't make sense if he did the murder because all of the evidence was basically planted.
I don't think O.J was the murderer, there was clearly objects set around his home to make him look guilty. He deserved to be sued by the families as their way of moving on. The jury did not have to review the domestic violence since they had enough evidence that they needed to prove that he was not guilty
-
1
-
2
of 2 Next