Last Word: Presumed guilty

Let's assume he was innocent in the murder of Nicole and Ron. His life and the lives of his children were turned upside down. He is charged with murder, endures a long trial. He was sued in civil court and lost. Most of America believes he is guilty. I sure wouldn't want law enforcement involved in my life again. But we are talking about a narcissistic sociopath here, and not a rational person Once again, his arrogance has landed him in hot water. I think the verdict here will echo the sentiments of the public from the first trial, is it fair? No, but neither was the murder of two innocent people, one being the mother of two small children.

True, but I’m not on the jury. I don’t have to presume anyone innocent.

Oddly enough, O.J. is the only person involved in this alleged theft who is not a convicted felon. However, the general opinion is that O.J. got away with murder and here is the chance to play catch-up. I agree with you that the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" is problematic for celebrities, just as it is with you and I if we receive a traffic citation. I personally think that Robert Blake might actually be innocent. O.J.,benefited from the finest legal team that money could buy. As for Michael Jackson, lets just say that I wouldn't let him babysit my children, would you?

OJ wasn't "proven innocent" in his criminal trial, all the jurors told us was that they couldn't declare him guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt.

OJ's own actions before, during & after the trial sealed his fate with the public's low opinion of him

Then you better share these comments with Nancy disGrace.

Maybe you’re using the wrong outlet to vent your opinions Jamie? I know you probably didn’t ask the question yourself but have you noticed that on the front of the Crime page the 13th Juror questions almost always ask the public for their opinion on weather we think someone is guilty or not before the trial…including today’s?

“Are Mullins and Phillips guilty of second-degree murder”
http://www.cnn.com/CRIME/

Kudos to Jami Floyd. She always seems to have one of the only unbaised opinions on TruTv.

Jami,
I am so tired of hearing, "I am not on the jury so I can call them guilty".
That is why there are so many wrongful convictions happening in this country. People will continue to have that mindset until they are the ones on trial.

O.J. was obviously acquitted for the murder of Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman. Most people would love to see O.J. in jail because of the fact, most think he was guilty, and got away with cold blooded murder. Do I think he will get away with these new charges? No, simply because of the acquittal he got before. Just my opinion, I think we would all love to see this man thrown in jail.

Since a lot of people cant get over OJ being found not guilty of Ron and Nicholes murder,I cant get over the image of a hobbling ex-athlete trying to over power 2 young adults,with a pocket knife,one of whom was a healthy softball stud...

I think possibly many people are making an assumption that Simpson was taking his STUFF. One must first determine if this STUFF was still his or if he had given, sold, forfeited his ownership away.

i thought oj had to sell all his things to pay the goldman's..therefore they nolonger belonged to him, would'nt this mean this was a theft?

By law OJ is prsumed inocident until proven guilty. I whole heartedly believe that. Can he get a fair trial? Absolutly no. It is because he is one that is either loved or hated. I am not sure there is an in between.

Oh for Pete's sake!

Our court system does not prove people innocent. Only not guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

Is there really such a thing as presumption of innocence? Maybe we should presume that all defendants are guilty, after all if someone is indicted there must have been enough evidence to bring charges against them. Maybe, the burden of "proof" should lie with the defense. We jurors know that the constitution prevents law enforcement from storming into someones home and arresting them without cause...so the presumption of innocence is out the window already. We also know that not all the evidence makes it to the jury....I wonder if the jurors that aquitted O.J. wouldn't like a do-over themselves or the lone holdout on the Specter jury now that he's had a chance to hear ALL of the evidence that wasn't allowed in.

Proven innocent? I think not. Acquittals do not mean you've been proven innocent. I would hope a lawyer would know that. A cornerstone theory of our system is that it's better for a thousand guilty criminals go free than one innocent defendant go to jail.

Who even cares whether your point is valid when you say such foolish things? I don't hear it. I hear you begin by spouting nonsense and dismiss your entire commentary.

O.J will not have a fair trial. This is just what the public was waiting for, a chance to get to the man. Tell me, can he possibly get a fair jury – NO. There is not a place in the world that does not know about oj. This is a witch hunt – leave the man alone.

No one was mores surprised about the non-guilty verdict than OJ himself. Remember seeing his double-take upon hearing the verdict?

Any way, a guilty verdict requires proof "beyond a reasonable doubt." Not a "shadow of a doubt" nor "not guilty by reasonable doubt." And, don't forget, there can be doubt of guilt, but that doubt must be reasonable.

Attorney with CA license.

A lot of people don't understand the difference between criminal court and civil court. In criminal court, you must be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt - which means there should be no doubt in the jury's mind, based on irrefutable evidence, that the accused committed the crime. I'm no lawyer, but you don't have to be one to understand this concept.

In civil court, you are guilty based upon the preponderance of evidence. Essentially this means the judge or jury only needs to believe with 51% certainty that the person did it. This is why O.J. was found innocent in criminal court, but guilty in civil court. I consider this to be a big hole in our judicial system, because logically how can you find a person both guilty and innocent at the same time? It happens all the time.

I think it's funny that everybody still thinks O.J. did it, even though the gloves clearly didn't fit his hand, and no forensic evidence was ever found that linked him to the murders. On those facts alone, he also should not have been found guilty in civil court. It seems the logic behind it is that because the murders happened on his property, he was responsible. That makes me feel really good. I guess if some stranger murders my wife on my property and the police can't solve the crime, I can be held liable for her death. The truth is that the case was political, and the powers that be needed to show the public that the "perpetrator" was caught and is paying for it. This to me is a sick miscarriage of justice, that is just one of many examples occurring in our country.

There is a difference between "not guilty" and "innocent" in the legal system. Not guilty ONLY means that the jury (or the judge) considers the evidence insufficient for a guilty verdict. That's the difference in our system of laws.

Allen: Yes, I did see O.J.'s double-take. I can also see how an innocent man could be surprised at a not guilty verdict, when he lives in a society where discrimination is still prevalent. It appears you went to school for a long time to get a degree in double-talk. My point remains unrefuted.

Kim: You'd change your tune if you ever found yourself arrested for a crime you didn't commit. Oh yeah! You're female and probably white, so that's not likely. Very few minorities would make such a comment, because so many of us do know what it feels like, including me. Call it the "race card" all you want, but the numbers don't lie. Just do a little research on the number of convicted criminals that were later exonerated by DNA evidence - and most weren't compensated for the fact that the government destroyed their lives. In fact, they'd be lucky if they even got an apology from their friendly neighborhood prosecutor after the fact.

Our Constitution was designed to protect the innocent for a reason. If you take that away, then we become the very police state we are supposedly against.

"Leave the man alone?" Er... sorry, but... The man allegedly took armed men and removed items which did not belong from him from their owners. Now, whether he believed some of said items were actually his or not, according to the reports I've read, at least some of the items taken were not "OJ" items and never belonged to him.

Armed robbery is a crime. Waving a gun around and holding people with the threat of violence is a crime. Taking stuff that doesn't belong to you is a crime. Conspiracy to commit all of the above is a crime.

Now, maybe he WAS innocent of the murders. I have my doubts on that count, personally, but it wasn't proven. If he was innocent of actually committing the murders, justice was done. Being dragged through a trial and found innocent is NOT permission to go and commit other crimes. It is not a "free pass" to run rampant over the laws. If they have evidence that he's committed this crime, he needs to answer the charges and stand trial.

someone testified that oj said put that gun away while during the confrontation in the room, its strange that i don't recall hearing that command on the tape that was in the room. If a gun is being waved around it's just human nature for somebdy to say say something about a gun, put that thing down, or, don't point tjhat thing at me, or, hey there's no need for a gun.