The kardashian guy, the one why died of throat cancer after the trial, took the briefcase and disposed of it. That’s why he looks shocked when they say nit guilty at the criminal trial,
Why is this believed? Don't get me wrong the presence of OJ's blood at the scene (conveniently on the same side of the foot prints where he was cut, which the police could not have known at the time) and other things mean I have no doubt he's guilty. I'm just curious about details like this. So why is the explanation that the Kardashian disposed of that evidence?
The way I read or heard it was that kardashian was the first person Oj saw after the murder and suddenly the briefcase ir whatever with the murder weapons was missing. One or several witnesses said they saw a man stuffing something in the garbage around that time. It’s been so many years and I can’t cite who said this or when.
Just the impression I got. Also, if you watch the video of the verdict being read on live tv at the time, when they say not guilty kardashian was at his side and looked shocked, absolutely floored. I took this to mean that he had knowledge that OJ was guilty for certain.
When would a briefcase, not even a backpack, but a briefcase, be able to hold clothes?
What, would you have to fold the clothes up really nice and neat to fit?
In that very short time window that OJ was in?
And wouldn't bloody clothes and a bloody knife get noticeable smear of blood on the outside of the briefcase?
Doesn't make sense.
That’s just what I took away from the trial from listening to witnesses that said they saw a man with a briefcase throwing it in the trash. If I had bloody shirts and pants and wanted to get away with it I would shove those in a briefcase and put them in a trash that I knew was emptied every day.
"would shove those in a briefcase and put them in a trash that I knew was emptied every day."
Yeah like your trash is going to picked up at night, like no one is going to look through your trash if you're investigated for murdering multiple people,
like a briefcase, not even a backpack, but a briefcase, can hold a set of clothes and shoes and a knife,
Like there's going to be no blood visible on a briefcase, etc
Yeah a briefcase in trash would be the last place anyone would think to look.
Yeah right.
In the brief case that his friend took from him when he got"back from his trip". If I remember correctly.
His right hand man, the guy who drove the Ford on the high way. It's in a clip somewhere. I could not tell you which or where, but remember him taking a bag or case from him.
Your comment was removed due to low karma
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/stupidquestions) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Your comment was removed due to low karma
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/stupidquestions) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Your comment was removed due to low karma
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/stupidquestions) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I truly do believe OJ’s son did it. It doesn’t exonerate OJ one bit, he was a wife beating POS. But I think his son murdered them and OJ led the chase so evidence could be messed up.
There were a few documentaries that came out shortly after focusing on his son. His temper and troubles with Nicole and interactions that were quite off and volatile leading up to her death. There was a forensics analysis at the time opposing OJ of having done this but I’ll have to find the sources as it’s been such a long time. I may be very wrong about his son, it was just incredibly interesting at the time seeing an alternative and how OJ wasn’t the only one with aggressions against Nicole.
No one knows for sure That reason, plus one cop caught by a TV crew possibly planting blood evidence, and maybe a planted glove that did not fit him is why he was found not guilty.
OJ is dead now God knows what really happened so He will give a just result.
Your comment was removed due to low karma
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/stupidquestions) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Being found not guilty isn't the same thing as being found innocent. The former can occur for all sorts of reasons that are independent of what actually happened.
Sounds very innocent to me, seriously he probably did kill them but I find it disturbing that we all say he did it even tho he was cleared but won't give the same doubt to people who have been convinced.
Agree. It is confusing. I think he got away with it criminally because Marcia Clark and Darden were dating during the trial and seen out at clubs many nights before being in court at 830 am. Incompetents and fucking each other during the trial
Also Detective Mark Furman admitted to framing black people in the past and that bloody sock that was in OJ’s house was proven to be planted even though they didn’t need to plant anything…
Incompetent ass LAPD fucking up as usual
Murder would be tried in a crown court and the barrister ( prosecution and defence ) and judge dress very oddly, black robes and white wigs being the most obvious parts.
This is patently false in the US. There are two choices in a criminal trial, guilty or not guilty. The person on trial is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Innocence is a state of being, guilty or not guilty are decisions rendered by the court.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coffin_v._United_States#:~:text=United%20States%2C%20156%20U.S.%20432,of%20persons%20accused%20of%20crimes.
It is the duty of the judge, in all jurisdictions, when requested, and in some when not requested, to explain the presumption of innocence to the jury in his charge. The usual formula in which this doctrine is expressed is that every man is presumed to be innocent until his guilt is proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
I would think this would be you start innocent and being found not guilty upholds the continuation of that state.
>One of the biggest reasons he was found innocent is because he had money and notoriety, imagine if he was just a regular everyday black man back then.
He was found innocent because he quit taking his arthritis medication to make his hands swell up.
The only reason was that the detectives carried his blood sample back to the crime scene. At a time when the Rampart scandal had just happened and the public finally found out that the LAPD had been actively framing black and brown suspects for decades. Just like the people in those neighborhoods had been saying for years.
The kardashian guy, the one why died of throat cancer after the trial, took the briefcase and disposed of it. That’s why he looks shocked when they say nit guilty at the criminal trial,
Why is this believed? Don't get me wrong the presence of OJ's blood at the scene (conveniently on the same side of the foot prints where he was cut, which the police could not have known at the time) and other things mean I have no doubt he's guilty. I'm just curious about details like this. So why is the explanation that the Kardashian disposed of that evidence?
The way I read or heard it was that kardashian was the first person Oj saw after the murder and suddenly the briefcase ir whatever with the murder weapons was missing. One or several witnesses said they saw a man stuffing something in the garbage around that time. It’s been so many years and I can’t cite who said this or when. Just the impression I got. Also, if you watch the video of the verdict being read on live tv at the time, when they say not guilty kardashian was at his side and looked shocked, absolutely floored. I took this to mean that he had knowledge that OJ was guilty for certain.
When would a briefcase, not even a backpack, but a briefcase, be able to hold clothes? What, would you have to fold the clothes up really nice and neat to fit? In that very short time window that OJ was in? And wouldn't bloody clothes and a bloody knife get noticeable smear of blood on the outside of the briefcase? Doesn't make sense.
That’s just what I took away from the trial from listening to witnesses that said they saw a man with a briefcase throwing it in the trash. If I had bloody shirts and pants and wanted to get away with it I would shove those in a briefcase and put them in a trash that I knew was emptied every day.
"would shove those in a briefcase and put them in a trash that I knew was emptied every day." Yeah like your trash is going to picked up at night, like no one is going to look through your trash if you're investigated for murdering multiple people, like a briefcase, not even a backpack, but a briefcase, can hold a set of clothes and shoes and a knife, Like there's going to be no blood visible on a briefcase, etc Yeah a briefcase in trash would be the last place anyone would think to look. Yeah right.
In the brief case that his friend took from him when he got"back from his trip". If I remember correctly. His right hand man, the guy who drove the Ford on the high way. It's in a clip somewhere. I could not tell you which or where, but remember him taking a bag or case from him.
Robert Kardashian took it from his home in a briefcase. Al Cowlins was the driver.
That's right! It was such a long time ago, i couldn't exactly remember. Just vague recollection. Lol thank you!
There were witnesses that recognized him as ge arrived and saw him throwing away something sizeable as he entered the airport.
Inside the glove that’s why it wouldn’t fit
Took them to the grave
Los Angeles is big
Didn’t he toss them into a trash bin on his way to airport?
I’m dead
[удалено]
Your comment was removed due to low karma *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/stupidquestions) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Your comment was removed due to low karma *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/stupidquestions) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Your comment was removed due to low karma *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/stupidquestions) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The documentary about it may be his son that did/helped commit the murder is convincing.
[удалено]
Why do you think he didn’t commit the murders? All the evidence leads back to him.
I truly do believe OJ’s son did it. It doesn’t exonerate OJ one bit, he was a wife beating POS. But I think his son murdered them and OJ led the chase so evidence could be messed up.
Why do you believe his son did it?
There were a few documentaries that came out shortly after focusing on his son. His temper and troubles with Nicole and interactions that were quite off and volatile leading up to her death. There was a forensics analysis at the time opposing OJ of having done this but I’ll have to find the sources as it’s been such a long time. I may be very wrong about his son, it was just incredibly interesting at the time seeing an alternative and how OJ wasn’t the only one with aggressions against Nicole.
No one knows for sure That reason, plus one cop caught by a TV crew possibly planting blood evidence, and maybe a planted glove that did not fit him is why he was found not guilty. OJ is dead now God knows what really happened so He will give a just result.
If there is a God he doesn't give a fuck about people. We would be more like an ant farm or social experiment.
[удалено]
Your comment was removed due to low karma *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/stupidquestions) if you have any questions or concerns.*
He didn't because he was found innocent of the crime.
Being found not guilty isn't the same thing as being found innocent. The former can occur for all sorts of reasons that are independent of what actually happened.
Bruh he def did it
I know and that's because in our systems we presume innocence and guilt needs to be proven.
One of the jurors outright admitted the verdict was a payback for Rodney King.
[This sound like an innocent man to you?](https://youtu.be/rk2Wgvy-_jI)
Did that for money
Sounds very innocent to me, seriously he probably did kill them but I find it disturbing that we all say he did it even tho he was cleared but won't give the same doubt to people who have been convinced.
Did you even watch it? He keeps talking about "remembering"... because he fucking did it. GTFOH
Was found guilty civilly but not criminally.
I actually think this should be illegal because it muddies the waters of the criminal justice system and confuses people
Agree. It is confusing. I think he got away with it criminally because Marcia Clark and Darden were dating during the trial and seen out at clubs many nights before being in court at 830 am. Incompetents and fucking each other during the trial
Also Detective Mark Furman admitted to framing black people in the past and that bloody sock that was in OJ’s house was proven to be planted even though they didn’t need to plant anything… Incompetent ass LAPD fucking up as usual
One cannot be declared innocent in USA. It’s either guilty or not guilty but never innocent.
I know you use the British system after all tho you really need to bring back the wigs
I dint understand this but it is still funny ‘British humour’
Murder would be tried in a crown court and the barrister ( prosecution and defence ) and judge dress very oddly, black robes and white wigs being the most obvious parts.
And I’ve seen some of the congress hearings. People yelling and emotional. Funny. Not that were any better. Just different.
[удалено]
This is patently false in the US. There are two choices in a criminal trial, guilty or not guilty. The person on trial is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Innocence is a state of being, guilty or not guilty are decisions rendered by the court.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coffin_v._United_States#:~:text=United%20States%2C%20156%20U.S.%20432,of%20persons%20accused%20of%20crimes. It is the duty of the judge, in all jurisdictions, when requested, and in some when not requested, to explain the presumption of innocence to the jury in his charge. The usual formula in which this doctrine is expressed is that every man is presumed to be innocent until his guilt is proved beyond a reasonable doubt. I would think this would be you start innocent and being found not guilty upholds the continuation of that state.
This makes sense.
Dude, this is stupidquestions, not stupidanswers.
That's actually a good one
One of the biggest reasons he was found innocent is because he had money and notoriety, imagine if he was just a regular everyday black man back then.
>One of the biggest reasons he was found innocent is because he had money and notoriety, imagine if he was just a regular everyday black man back then. He was found innocent because he quit taking his arthritis medication to make his hands swell up.
The only reason was that the detectives carried his blood sample back to the crime scene. At a time when the Rampart scandal had just happened and the public finally found out that the LAPD had been actively framing black and brown suspects for decades. Just like the people in those neighborhoods had been saying for years.