What?! There are no golf courses in prison?

To think he "was" a hero at my favorite college....

He could have gotten 33 years but his sentances run concurrently thus he got 15 years, the least amount of time he could serve is 9 years. I don't think he will be too popular with other prisoners. He'd better watch his back. As for his other trial , that was ridiculous. the judge was star struck, the prosecution was incompetent and the jury couldn't get across the streeet with a green light.

He should have stayed FAR AWAY from trouble when he got off the FIRST time (which wasn't fair).

Some people's stupidity never ceases to amaze me. After he wrote that book I knew he was BEYOND dumb.

I was in the 5th grade when they said he got off for the killings of Nicole & Ron. I knew as a little kid that he was guilty!! And now..all I can say is that karma has finally kicked him in the butt!!! Justice has been served!!!

I'm thinking that it wasn't a specific sentence, but rather a range, because I keep hearing different things on the news. I've heard that he was sentenced TO 33 years, that he could spend up to 33 years, or that he will spend at least 15.

It's actually kind of a sad statement on the media that they can't get it straight - I mean a court reporter should know how their local system works (and maybe they do and it's reporters in other areas screwing it up, but still it shouldn't be that hard to explain or get right. What are the fact checkers getting paid for?).


In the original trial, I think that Mark Fuhrman's testimony and the glove that "didn't fit" were the main reasons the trial ended in acquittal. I think if Furhman would have admitted to saying the "N" word, and had said "and I deeply regret being such a jerk," it would have gone a long way towards making him not look like a cop willing to do anything to get a conviction, including planting evidence. Also, the prosecution should have gotten a person with hands as big as OJ's to try on the glove (to show that leather gloves have to be "shimmied" onto a hand to fit, and anyone can make such a glove look like it doesn't fit). Or shown that a glove left out in the elements for as long as it was believed the glove was, could have shrunk.

Even a couple mishandled bits of evidence can make a jury find "reasonable doubt," or a judge declare a mistrial. The important thing about that is to realize that when a jury finds a person "not guilty," it doesn't mean they think the person is innocent. I think the jury all suspected and even were pretty sure he did it, but that all of the red herrings in the evidence made them feel uncomfortable with finding him guilty. In trials of non-celebs this happens too, because juries don't want to convict folks of murder if there's even a shadow of a doubt (which isn't the legal standard - but rather a reasonable doubt, but with juries natural tendencies to want to be really sure in a murder trial AND the media on them, I think it made the jury even more afraid to make the harshest decision).

I watch a lot of real crime shows like Snapped, Forensic Files.... and it always amazes me how much evidence that the prosecuters' offices need to convict. In so many of the cases, to me, the evidence presented as the prosecution having known "so far" seems overwhelming to me, but they'll decide there isn't enough evidence to prosecute (and sometimes that's the end) or, they'll consider the case ready to continue after finding one more bit of evidence that (again to me) doesn't seem like such a big deal compared to what they already have. Was it a straw that broke the camels back, or is it something that prosecutors know will help tremendously (for some unknown reason to me), with juries in general, or juries in their area specifically.

I know some of it is regional. For example, I remember watching one in which the prosecutor was inteviewed and he said that there had never been a conviction in his state in which a person was convicted of murder without a body. Even though a foot of the murder victim was found, they were concerned about prosecuting, because a person could live without a foot, and the jury might not convict (ok, that sounds completely ridiculous - I mean who survives a foot being amputated without being admitted to a nearby hospital VERY quickly?)

Well, I'm one of those VERY unpopular people that think OJ didn't do it (the murder part, that is) Absolutely NONE of it made any sense to me at all. First, not to say bad things about someone that has died, but Nicole and OJ had a rocky relationship, at best, that was riddled with infidelity on, I assume, both sides...certainly on Nicole's part. Now, this is not saying that she deserved it, if that's what you think I'm saying. Not in the least. What I'm saying is that if OJ had it in him to kill her in a jealous rage, you would have thought he would have done it on the many times he'd caught her cheating on him. Her murder took place well after their divorce, while both were dating other people and were relatively civil towards one another...so why would he have snapped on this night? They had just attended their daughter's dance recital and he was off on a flight to Chicago later on. All of a sudden, BAM, she's dead. From what I remember, she was involved in drugs or at least hung out with some sleazy people...could a drug dealer or someone that she owed money to have had something to do with it? And why on EARTH would he have thrown that bloody glove in his own back yard? What happened to the other glove? So much of the evidence just seemed planted to me. Just a drop or two of her blood was in his car? Wouldn't it seem like it should have been smeared all over it? Those murders were gruesome and very bloody. More than just a drop or two would have been in his car... It would have taken nothing for the guilty party to plant evidence and make him look guilty...tossing the bloody glove in his backyard, dripping a bit of the blood in his car...especially knowing that, as someone else mentioned, that the first person looked at in one of these murders is the ex-husband or boyfriend. Is it possible that he did it? Sure it is...I've just always been on the OJ didn't do it side. The evidence they found and with NO motivation (in my eyes) just didn't make sense to me. Also, OJ has another ex-wife and she was on his side, as well, from what I remember. She didn't make him out to be a violent person. At least not murderous.

I don't know...it was a long time ago. Certainly, that creepy book he put out has put some doubt in my mind, but it still doesn't make any sense to me.

As for this latest thing, the entire world has been on a witch hunt for OJ since his acquittal, just waiting for him to slip up. From what I understand, this person was selling material that belonged to OJ and OJ decided to take the law into his own hands to get it back. Not the right thing to do, but in a world that thinks OJ has been free on borrowed time, do you really think the law would help OJ get his things back?

Sorry, maybe its the Bills fan in me that remembers The Juice running in touchdown after touchdown during the 70's and throwing snow into the camera on Thanksgiving Day and saying, "There, that's for all you turkeys sitting at home in your nice warm homes watching the game!" and laughing into the camera as he walks away. I think its a shame that Ron and Nicole were murdered, I think its a shame that OJ was framed for it and I am sorry for him that he felt the need to take the law into his own hands to get his stuff back.

JMHO...don't hate me for it. Someone had to be the black sheep! BAHHH!!

What really convinced me he had done it wasn't his "If I Did It" book, it was an interview I saw him do talking about the book. I think it was Barbara Walters, but I'm not sure, but in the interview he said something to the effect, of "If I had done it, wouldn't it prove how much I did love her?" or "If I had done it, it could only have proven how much I loved her, right?"

That's the logic that only a domestic batterer who has committed murder or realizes they have the potential woud say. The batterer who hasn't killed says "I would never really hurt her (no matter how badly he did)." Generally, even if they come close to killing their partner, they say "I would never kill her." Nonbatterers and even the majority of batterers do not see killing as being a sign or reflection of love. Only a domestic batterer who HAS killed or has considered it would ever see murder as a potential consequence of love.


Before that I was "pretty sure" OJ had done it, because of evidence like the photos of Nicole Simpson (severely bruised, I believe with a split lip) during domestic battery incidents during their marriage, and the 911 tape (of a prior incident) of her begging police to come as OJ as banging on the door to get in and you hear the door being broken down, and her screaming.

During the marriage, I believe there'd been at least 8 domestic violence calls to police (but in the 80's domestic violence calls still rarely resulted in anyone going to jail or even charges being filed with a ticket to appear).

My husband and I were recently had to go to court (even as a probation officer, this was my first official Subpoena). I had to call the police on the upstairs neighbor who broke down the door to get at his ex-girlfriend (he was still living with, after flaunting the "new" girlfriend in her face).

While waiting in the hall to testify, the ex-girlfriend came out after having testified and was incredibly angry that I had called the police - that her "sweet" ex who "wouldn't hurt a fly" (despite throwing her across the room so many times it sounded like elephants were dancing overhead) was now going to prison for a long time (on parole for a sexual assault charge - his story to us and probably to the ex was that it was a statutory rape charge because of 16 year old girlfriend - but we later learned the charge included battery and unlawful restraint). "We didn't understand," that this guy "wasn't violent," he "just had problems," (yeah, he had a problem with hitting women).

As a probation officer, I am biased - because I never met a domestic batterer whose wives, girlfriends, and even often exes, didn't say what a non-violent guy he was, who would "never hurt anyone," until he did. Or how many times, I'd hear "He'd never REALLY hurt me," this from women who'd had broken ribs and internal injuries. Once from a woman who'd lost most of her front teeth and had come so close to death, my brain went numb trying to imagine what "really hurting" her would mean.