The Juice is loose!
In an individual's formative years there is a list of like a dozen events that shape your life outlook above all others. Part of my cynicism comes from this:
Lol. Are there actually people ITT arguing OJ’s innocent? That’s some next level MJ apologist BS. It’s amazing the lengths some will go to to protect this idealistic image of their childhood heroes.
OJ is guilty as sin. Innocent people don’t run with a disguise and threaten to kill themselves.
Let me know again which piece of evidence points to him doing it? No physical signs of a struggle on OJ despite it being a complete massacre at the murder scene. Takes out two people with bad knees without anyone seeing it outside with neighbours all around.
And of course he would flee, they pretty much had the preconceived notion that he was guilty and accusing him of murder. I wouldn't go to prison over something I hadn't done either.
As for the apologist BS comment - that's just ignorant. Repeating what you heard others say isn't proof. Come with something better. You can even study the transcripts of the trial and then maybe you could come up with a better conclusion besides spouting dumb sheet.
No one is trying to protect some washed up football player and bit part movie actor. When I see that someone is most likely innocent, sure, I will defend them. Seems only right for other humans to try and help out other humans.
Now you wanna know who is guilty but got off? Casey Anthony! Now that c**t is someone who was let go when every sign pointed to her killing her kid.
The guy is guilty beyond all doubt.
1. The 9-1-1 call and the history of Simpson's violence directed at Nicole Brown.
2. Hair evidence: (1) hairs consistent with that of Simpson found on cap at Bundy residence, (2) hairs consistent with that of Simpson found on Ron Goldman's shirt.
3. Fiber evidence: (1) cotton fibers consistent with the carpet in the Bronco found on glove at Rockingham, (2) fibers consistent with the carpet from the Bronco found on cap at Bundy residence.
4. Blood evidence: (1) killer dropped blood near shoe prints at Bundy, (2) blood dropped at Bundy was of same type as Simpson's (about 0.5% of population would match), (3) Simpson had fresh cuts on left hand on day after murder, (4) blood found in Bronco, (5) blood found in foyer and master bedroom of Simpson home, (5) blood found on Simpson's driveway, (6) blood on socks in OJ's home matched Nicole's.
5. Glove evidence: (1) left glove found at Bundy and right glove found at Simpson residence are Aris Light gloves, size XL, (2) Nicole Brown bought pair of Aris Light XL gloves in 1990 at Bloomingdale's, (3) Simpson wore Aris Light gloves from 1990 to June, 1994.
6. Shoe evidence: (1) shoe prints found at Bundy were from a size 12 Bruno Magli shoe, (2) bloody shoe impression on Bronco carpet is consistent with a Magli shoe, (3) Simpson wore a size 12 shoe.
No evidence pointing towards him doing it? No fiber and hair evidence? No cuts on his hand? No blood in his foyer and master bedroom of his home? Or driveway? Or bloody footprints at the scene and in his car? (which he denied ever owning those "ugly ass shoes", only to be proven wrong when a photograph came out showing that he was before the murder took place)? This is not even taking into account behavior that points heavily to guilt: running afterwards, a history of beating Nicole to a pulp continually, obvious rage issues, and someone who was incredibly jealous and possessive.
Nicole was terrified of OJ and had made predictions on numerous occasions she knew her fate would be to die at his hands....and she was right. As for his knees, the man wasn't a cripple by any means. Adrenaline also negates pain, and the element of surprise gives someone an immense advantage, especially when they have a knife. He more than likely surprised and killed Ron before he even knew what hit him, then went after Nicole and ended up nearly beheading her. He left physical evidence everywhere, he ran because he knew he was ****ed, and he threatened suicide. But all of that, due to circumstances such as the power of celebrity, the proximity to the Rodney King incident and racial tensions of the time, the bungling from the prosecution, exposing officers involved in the case as racist, and finally him being able to afford the best the legal establishment had to offer to leverage and exploit all of that in his defense, he got off scott-free. Then he had the gall to put out this shit....
.....where you have to search for the "if" in the goddamn title, essentially rubbing what we all know to be true in our faces (except those too gullible who actually believe his lies). Then the braniac gets a prison sentence anyway, committing an armed robbery, probably feeling invincible after literally getting away with murder. There was even a member of his defense team (Kardashian) who came out years later and admitted he had serious doubts, precisely because of the blood evidence (a 99.5% match to the rest of the population), alongside a former friend who said that Simpson had confessed to him some period after the killings.
Seriously, how much more do you need? The only way you could think he's innocent is if he were framed due to a lack of integrity in the justice system, not because of a lack evidence. And if that's you're contention, considering the amount and variety of evidence, then you are seriously reaching. But at least it's good you can admit that Anthony is guilty.
OJ's nothing but a piece of murdering human filth, and the only "Juice" that should flowing through him is that which is coming from the electric chair.
Then he had the gall to put out this shit....
.....where you have to search for the "if" in the goddamn title, essentially rubbing what we all know to be true in our faces (except those too gullible who actually believe his lies).
To be fair, that wasn‘t the original cover of the book. This was the original cover:
When the Goldmans were awarded the rights to the book as part of their settlement from their wrongful death lawsuit, they had that cover made in order to intentionally minimize the word if and call it a confession.
Lol. Are there actually people ITT arguing OJ’s innocent? That’s some next level MJ apologist BS. It’s amazing the lengths some will go to to protect this idealistic image of their childhood heroes.
OJ is guilty as sin. Innocent people don’t run with a disguise and threaten to kill themselves.
Let me know again which piece of evidence points to him doing it? No physical signs of a struggle on OJ despite it being a complete massacre at the murder scene. Takes out two people with bad knees without anyone seeing it outside with neighbours all around.
And of course he would flee, they pretty much had the preconceived notion that he was guilty and accusing him of murder. I wouldn't go to prison over something I hadn't done either.
As for the apologist BS comment - that's just ignorant. Repeating what you heard others say isn't proof. Come with something better. You can even study the transcripts of the trial and then maybe you could come up with a better conclusion besides spouting dumb sheet.
No one is trying to protect some washed up football player and bit part movie actor. When I see that someone is most likely innocent, sure, I will defend them. Seems only right for other humans to try and help out other humans.
Now you wanna know who is guilty but got off? Casey Anthony! Now that c**t is someone who was let go when every sign pointed to her killing her kid.
The guy is guilty beyond all doubt.
1. The 9-1-1 call and the history of Simpson's violence directed at Nicole Brown.
2. Hair evidence: (1) hairs consistent with that of Simpson found on cap at Bundy residence, (2) hairs consistent with that of Simpson found on Ron Goldman's shirt.
3. Fiber evidence: (1) cotton fibers consistent with the carpet in the Bronco found on glove at Rockingham, (2) fibers consistent with the carpet from the Bronco found on cap at Bundy residence.
4. Blood evidence: (1) killer dropped blood near shoe prints at Bundy, (2) blood dropped at Bundy was of same type as Simpson's (about 0.5% of population would match), (3) Simpson had fresh cuts on left hand on day after murder, (4) blood found in Bronco, (5) blood found in foyer and master bedroom of Simpson home, (5) blood found on Simpson's driveway, (6) blood on socks in OJ's home matched Nicole's.
5. Glove evidence: (1) left glove found at Bundy and right glove found at Simpson residence are Aris Light gloves, size XL, (2) Nicole Brown bought pair of Aris Light XL gloves in 1990 at Bloomingdale's, (3) Simpson wore Aris Light gloves from 1990 to June, 1994.
6. Shoe evidence: (1) shoe prints found at Bundy were from a size 12 Bruno Magli shoe, (2) bloody shoe impression on Bronco carpet is consistent with a Magli shoe, (3) Simpson wore a size 12 shoe.
No evidence pointing towards him doing it? No fiber and hair evidence? No cuts on his hand? No blood in his foyer and master bedroom of his home? Or driveway? Or bloody footprints at the scene and in his car? (which he denied ever owning those "ugly ass shoes", only to be proven wrong when a photograph came out showing that he was before the murder took place)? This is not even taking into account behavior that points heavily to guilt: running afterwards, a history of beating Nicole to a pulp continually, obvious rage issues, and someone who was incredibly jealous and possessive.
Nicole was terrified of OJ and had made predictions on numerous occasions she knew her fate would be to die at his hands....and she was right. As for his knees, the man wasn't a cripple by any means. Adrenaline also negates pain, and the element of surprise gives someone an immense advantage, especially when they have a knife. He more than likely surprised and killed Ron before he even knew what hit him, then went after Nicole and ended up nearly beheading her. He left physical evidence everywhere, he ran because he knew he was ****ed, and he threatened suicide. But all of that, due to circumstances such as the power of celebrity, the proximity to the Rodney King incident and racial tensions of the time, the bungling from the prosecution, exposing officers involved in the case as racist, and finally him being able to afford the best the legal establishment had to offer to leverage and exploit all of that in his defense, he got off scott-free. Then he had the gall to put out this shit....
.....where you have to search for the "if" in the goddamn title, essentially rubbing what we all know to be true in our faces (except those too gullible who actually believe his lies). Then the braniac gets a prison sentence anyway, committing an armed robbery, probably feeling invincible after literally getting away with murder. There was even a member of his defense team (Kardashian) who came out years later and admitted he had serious doubts, precisely because of the blood evidence (a 99.5% match to the rest of the population), alongside a former friend who said that Simpson had confessed to him some period after the killings.
Seriously, how much more do you need? The only way you could think he's innocent is if he were framed due to a lack of integrity in the justice system, not because of a lack evidence. And if that's you're contention, considering the amount and variety of evidence, then you are seriously reaching. But at least it's good you can admit that Anthony is guilty.
OJ's nothing but a piece of murdering human filth, and the only "Juice" that should flowing through him is that which is coming from the electric chair.
Zero chance of guilt.
I don't have much time to waste before work so I'll try to be brief, all points you tried to make were dismissed in court and you obviously didn't fact check any of it.
Barry Scheck proved the DNA evidence was tainted, contaminated, planted. The EDTA in the blood proved it was planted. Johnny Conchran gets credit for the win with his rhetoric, but Scheck literally proved OJ was framed, with science.
The murder scene shoe prints were too small, only 11 1/2 inches long, while OJ’s feet were a full 12 inches without socks or shoes. They weren't his shoes.
Next the autopsy also shows bruises on Ron’s knuckles where he fought desperately for his life. But there’s no corresponding marks on OJ where Ron would have hit him.
The prosecution made a big deal out of the cut on OJ’s hand as if he had cut himself while knifing Nicole & Ron. Yet there is no cut or hole in the gloves corresponding to the cut in OJ’s hand.
He was not even in LA when Nicole & Ron were killed. Marcia Clark concealed the phone records showing Nicole was talking to her mother when OJ was already on a flight to Chicago.
A witness who never testified, same name as one of the police, Tom Lange, was an expert on car models and was present when the killers left in another car, that was not a Bronco.
Passengers on OJ’s flight to Chicago said they looked at OJ’s hands trying to find a super bowl ring (he never had one), and saw no blood or cut in his hands.
Even Mark Furhman took the 5th when asked if he framed OJ.
Can't believe people are still this gullible to think he did it lol.
Then he had the gall to put out this shit....
.....where you have to search for the "if" in the goddamn title, essentially rubbing what we all know to be true in our faces (except those too gullible who actually believe his lies).
To be fair, that wasn‘t the original cover of the book. This was the original cover:
When the Goldmans were awarded the rights to the book as part of their settlement from their wrongful death lawsuit, they had that cover made in order to intentionally minimize the word if and call it a confession.
Even still, the three words "I DID IT" being in all bright red kind of begs the question as to why "IF" wasn't. What's the reason for that aside to isolate, through color, a statement to be able to make a blatant admission? If there is one, I'd love to hear it. Better marketing? More sensationalism? Punctuation, such as a period, is used to separate ideas and statements. Which is exactly what's going on here, the only difference is color is utilized instead.
Then he had the gall to put out this shit....
.....where you have to search for the "if" in the goddamn title, essentially rubbing what we all know to be true in our faces (except those too gullible who actually believe his lies).
To be fair, that wasn‘t the original cover of the book. This was the original cover:
When the Goldmans were awarded the rights to the book as part of their settlement from their wrongful death lawsuit, they had that cover made in order to intentionally minimize the word if and call it a confession.
Even still, the three words "I DID IT" being in all bright red kind of begs the question as to why "IF" wasn't. What's the reason for that aside to isolate, through color, a statement to be able to make a blatant admission? If there is one, I'd love to hear it. Better marketing? More sensationalism? Punctuation, such as a period, is used to separate ideas and statements. Which is exactly what's going on here, the only difference is color is utilized instead.
A fictitious and hypothetical book that he got paid handsomely for despite not writing it.
Yes, it's sensationalism and you apparently bought into it.
Log in to comment