If I were OJ Simpson

If I were OJ, I would sue every motor-mouth talk show host and ranting commentator who calls me a murderer or a killer.  GET A CLUE!  This is America. The man was found NOT GUILTY.  Period.  Case closed.
Not_guilty
The prosecution FAILED to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The Jury acquited him. NOT GUILTY.  Two important words, folks. NOT GUILTY.
If you were charged with murder, insisted you didn’t do it, and (thank God) the jury agreed and found you NOT GUILTY, you would be pretty damn irked that millions of people talk about you as if you were guilty. 
I’m surprised OJ has put up with this crap as well as he has.  Plus, he has to deal with the family of Ron Goldman going after him in CIVIL court, where no one has to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt. Civil court is NOT criminal court.
The man is NOT a criminal. He is not a convicted felon. He was exhonerated 100%.
I think whomever is handling his career is doing a poor job — he should have been back in the movies and back in TV right away…if he could get the gigs.
Ask yourself this:  Is Robert Blake going through the same hell as OJ? Robert Blake was found not guilty of killing his wife.  From everything I’ve read about her, I’m surpised that he didn’t kill her….any man would be hard pressed to control himself in the face of her horrid behaviour.
Had Blake allowed a book entitled "I WISH I HAD KILLED THE BITCH" to be ghostwritten, would there be this same outrage? If not, why not?
Gee, do you think it has anything to do with…..

RACE????

10 Responses to “If I were OJ Simpson”

  1. Mike Barer

    He was not found inocent. He was found “not guilty” because his attorneys were able to create reasonable doubt. We should be more worried about innocent poor people who cannot afford the bevy of legal council that Mr. Simpson was able to assemble.
    Mr Simpson has had a pretty good life. He has his children, his cars and plays on golf courses that I could only dream about.

    Reply
  2. Danny Barer

    Although Simpson was acquitted, I respectfully disagree that he was exonerated. A person is exonerated if he is freed of responsibility. A civil jury found by a preponderance of the evidence that Simpson killed Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman “willfully and wrongfully, with oppression and malice.” An appellate court upheld that decision (in a fairly long opinion), and rejected Simpson’s arguments of juror misconduct and evidentiary error. (Rufo v. Simpson (2001)86 Cal.App.4th 573.) True, preponderance of the evidence — i.e., more evidence for than against — is a far easier burden of proof than that in criminal courts. But still, not every plaintiff wins in civil court. The law defers to a civil jury’s finding of fact as it does to a criminal jury’s.

    Reply
  3. burl barer

    An attorney does not create reasonable doubt. Either it exists or it does not. We begin with the presumption that the accused is innocent. The prosecution must PROVE guilt beyond reasonable doubt. We begin by doubting guilty. The burdon is on the prosecution to eliminate any reasonable doubt.
    You mention he has his kids. Do you think they would have anything to do with him if they believed he killed their mommy?

    Reply
  4. burl barer

    Danny while you are correct in the definition, I don’t think the civil case outcome should wash back onto the criminal case verdict. In the criminal charges against him, he was exonerated. The civil case is another matter. Had the civil case come first, followed by criminal case and a not guilty verdict, i wonder if the civil case decision could have been reversed? Is there a precedent for that in US Law? I know of a case where the civil case was brought first in a homicide, and criminal charges were not filed until after the civil verdict.
    This is interesting stuff.

    Reply
  5. Mike Barer

    How about the Police officers in the Rodney King case? Was that double jeopardy for being tried again. Sure they were discusting racists. But the Constitution does not say that rights can be denied to white racist cops.

    Reply
  6. Burl Barer

    Mike — people tend to forget that King didnt file his civil case in response to the “not guilty” verdict in the Simi Valley trial.
    King filed a civil lawsuit against the police officers and the city of Los Angeles. AFTER two of the LAPD officers were found GUILTY in FEDERAL COURT of violating King’s civil rights, and sentenced to prison.
    Folks tend to forget that a Federal Grand Jury indicted four cops on civil rights violations charges.
    These criminal charges were distinct from the charges against the cops in the first case, and two of the four cops were found guilty.

    Reply
  7. DogsDontPurr

    I think part of the reason OJ gets more attention than Robert Blake is because OJ allegedly murdered two good looking, upstanding Beverly Hills types, while Blake allegedly murdered an over the hill, scamming, down and out, loser type.
    Plus, OJ was rocketed to fame by that riveting car chase scene, and continues to hold the spotlight by making bone head moves like writing about about how he might have done it.
    So, my opinion is that race may be only a small factor here.

    Reply
  8. Danny Barer

    “Had the civil case come first, followed by criminal case and a not guilty verdict, I wonder if the civil case decision could have been reversed?”
    Probably not.
    “It is a general rule that judgments in criminal prosecutions are neither bars to subsequent civil proceedings founded upon the same facts nor proof of anything in such civil proceedings, 50 C.J.S. Judgments, § 754, P. 269, and that even where the same acts or transactions constitute a crime and also give a right of action in a civil proceeding the acquittal of the defendant when tried for the criminal offense is no bar to the prosecution of the civil action against him nor evidence of his innocence in such action. 50 C.J.S., Judgments, § 754, P. 272. The reasons generally given are that the parties to the proceedings are not the same and that with respect to the rule on acquittal the degree of proof required in the criminal proceeding, due to the doctrine of reasonable doubt, is so different from that required in the civil proceeding that no reason exists for a rule that the acquittal in the criminal proceeding should be a bar in the civil proceeding or should establish the fact of innocence.” (Ex parte Anderson (1951) 107 Cal.App.2d 670, 671-672.)
    This is only a general discussion of the law, and should not be relied upon by any readers.

    Reply
  9. Mike Barer

    Danny,
    What your saying is basically that if OJ had gotten a Super Bowl ring and had picked better movies than the Naked Gun, he wouldn’t be in this mess.

    Reply
  10. Levi

    What a bunch of left wing, pro criminal, anti victim, liberal nonsense.
    O.J.’s blood was found at the scene of the crime, the victims blood was found in the bronco. And Nicole even wrote in her diary that she thinks that O.J. Simpson will kill her.
    He is guilty, and the only reason he was let off, was because: 1) The jury was dumb. And 2) they listened to idiots and race pimps like Jesse Jackson who paraded around the court house and made complete jack asses out of themselves.
    The fact is, I don’t need a jury to think for me. I can have an opinion and so can people on TV, reality is most people that have COMMON SENSE and aren’t soft on crime, criminal apologists think he is guilty.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

  • (will not be published)

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>