1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
Liono4ka [1.6K]
2 years ago
10

Did OJ Simpson commit the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman? Justify your answer by using compelling evidence from

the case.​
Law
2 answers:
julsineya [31]2 years ago
8 0

Answer:

If you read his book, he almost confesses. He was in a bad relationship with Nicole. John Cochrane used the words: If the glove does not fit, you must acquit."

Explanation:

He was found not guilty of the June 13 crime (1994)

He ran and a lengthy car chase was found to be incriminating evidence.

There has been no jury to convict him of these murders.
DNA - lots of blood found in, around, car and home of OJ that belonged to Goldman. Some blood was found inside OJs car that was a mixture of Goldman and his own. The chase lasted for 4 hours. Why run if you are not guilty? Try to include a lot about how he changed his alibi - was he really asleep, did Rosa the housekeeper really see him or did she see his car? She confessed on the stand that she could not be sure whether his car was there or not. Just because Simpson had jealous rages against Nicole and Goldman, Nicole had a taped 911 call where she was calling because he was trying to harm her. He supposedly hit her, stalked her, degraded her, and it was know he was capable of murder. There is a book that describes his hypothetical reasoning behind if he did it or not. He mocked the fact that the gloves did not fit and joked about how he would have used gloves that fit and they would have been his "good" gloves. He called his gloves his lucky gloves and if he was going to stab someone like his wife, then he would have used his lucky gloves.

He also told Nicole that he would kill her one day and get away with it. This is something that Caitlyn Jenner (aka Bruce Jenner) stated. Jenner reacted as if OJ was guilty. If you get the chance to see the video one day of him attempting to escape in his bronco - it is worth the watch.

His defense attorneys said he was wrongly accused.
He was a controlling husband, but the prosecutors pointed to the fact that blood from the crime scene was in OJ's car and home. Duh!
The gloves did not fit, therefore, they determined that he could not be found guilty.

Just so you understand that a verdict of being acquitted does not mean he did not do it, it just means that it could not be proven that he did do it. He was found guilty by a civil jury for wrongful death and ended up paying the brown and Goldman families a boat load of money. Later you will see that he was arrested and sent to prison for kidnapping and armed robbery. He broke the law and his behaviors that were displayed fit the profile of someone who could commit murder. I work in the system and the system is broken, but we are all working to make it better. We cannot fix it, but we can attempt to make changes that need to be made. Simpson apologized for the kidnapping and all that, but the fact that he brought a gun with him, is an identifier of the behavior of what he could have intended to do. Was there intent when he brought a gun? Sure.

dlinn [17]2 years ago
7 0

Explanation:

The matching bloody gloves found at the murder scene and outside Simpson's home

9:36 P.M. Simpson, wearing a dark sweat suit, is seen by Kato Kaelin.

9:30-9:45 Charles Cale, walking his dog by Simpson's Rockingham residence, does not see Bronco.

10:02 Simpson attempts to call Paula Barbieri on the cell phone from his Bronco.

10:15 (prosecution)-10:40 (defense) Period during which murders took place.

10:22-10:30 Limo driver Allan Park, scheduled to take Simpson to airport, does not see Bronco on Rockingham.

10:40, 10:43, 10:49 Allan Park buzzes Simpson's intercom, but gets no response.

10:50 White or light bronco observed at the intersection of Bundy and Dorothy.

10:51 or 10:52 Kato Kaelin hears three thumps on the wall outside his room.

10:54 Allan Park sees a man wearing dark clothes, about 6-feet tall and 200 pounds, walk across the driveway of the Simpson residence.

10:55 Simpson lies to Allan Park.

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.

7. Other evidence: (1) flight in Bronco, (2) strange reaction to phone call informing him of Nicole Brown's death, etc.

1. Simpson did not testify at his criminal trial. Defense attorneys will almost always call as a witness an articulate client that they believe to be innocent.

2. Subsequent to the trial defense attorneys talking about the trial have been careful to say "the jury did the right thing," while not stating that Simpson was in fact innocent.

3. Subsequent to the trial, Simpson has devoted no real effort to tracking down the "real killer," nor has any significant evidence surfaced suggesting that the killer was anyone other than Simpson.

4. The jury was not allowed to hear testimony concerning Simpson's rumored jailhouse confession to Rosie Grier.

5. Subsequent to the criminal trial other evidence of Simpson's guilt surfaced. The most significant of the new evidence may have been photographs of Simpson wearing Bruno Magli shoes. The new evidence, together with much of the evidence considered in the criminal trial, convinced a civil jury that Simpson murdered Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman.

6. In his 2007 book, If I Did It, Simpson (for all intents and purposes) confessed. The book describes in detail events leading up to the moment of the murders

You might be interested in
K9's on occasion have been used to get people out of their cars.
Law Incorporation [45]

Answer:

it takes a lot of training

Explanation:

4 0
3 years ago
What should officers identify and remove while on patrol?
3241004551 [841]

Answer:

Answer:

Explanation:

florida laws suck

3 0
3 years ago
A small city has decided that members of a group must register in order to approach people asking for signatures against the bui
iogann1982 [59]

Answer:

Federal District Court

Explanation:

The first case would likely start in the Federal District Court and could be appealed to the State Supreme Court and United States Supreme Court. As seen in <em>Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L. </em>the school district which suspended a girl for vulgar speech off school grounds started their case in the federal court of Middle District of Pennsylvania and eventually appealed all the way to the Supreme Court.

Edit: <em>Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L. </em>did not appeal to the State Supreme Court likely because the First Amendment is a federal law and not state law.

5 0
2 years ago
BIDEN IS MIGHT WIN THE ELCTION LETS GOOOOO BIDNE 2020
STatiana [176]

Answer: yep

Explanation: <u>hehe</u>

5 0
2 years ago
Which of the following is NOT one of the dominant political parties in the U.S.?
Lilit [14]

Hi there! Hopefully this helps!

Answer: B.

5 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Other questions:
  • True or false?
    15·1 answer
  • The most dangerous time to be on the road is between
    6·1 answer
  • Ribbons are worn _____
    12·1 answer
  • What is development ​
    15·1 answer
  • The term ethics refers to accepted principles of right or wrong that govern the conduct of a person
    11·1 answer
  • What is sacred heard?
    14·1 answer
  • What is Conciseness and provide a real-life example of law enforcement using conciseness when implementing technical writing?
    9·1 answer
  • What is it known as when both the federal government and state government share a particular power?
    7·1 answer
  • In a country with limited power
    12·1 answer
  • Name the high courts from highest to lowest in their orders​
    14·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!