Date: Tue, 12 Sep 1995 07:38:45 -0600
From: Dan Shultz <70004.3551@compuserve.com>
Subject: Guilty
any other human being on the face of the
earth would have been convicted months
ago, given the same evidence.
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 1995 22:27:18 -0600
From: bob whalen <bwhalen@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Guilty
I never liked the Buffalo Bills
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 1995 22:05:52 -0600
From: bob culp <cbmsmail!rjcu@att.com>
Subject: Guilty
If he didn't do it he paid to have it done!!!! I think he was there for the initial face slashing of
Nicole, but the murder wasn't to happen til he was chitown bound and the assassin did her in at about
11:20PM when Goldman showed up and tried to stop it!
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 1995 19:55:32 -0600
From: Mark Bailey <markba@bconnex.net>
Subject: Not Guilty
The prosicution has not proven their case
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 1995 14:32:11 -0600
From: A. D. T. <right>
Subject: Guilty
Even if furman is corrupt as hell... he obviously doesnt' have the intelligence to pull the con
ver up that everyone is making this frame-up to be.
OJ is a murderer and only his schizter lawyers have kept him out of jail this long.
If it were you or me up there, we would have been on death row by now.
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 1995 14:05:33 -0600
From: pam <pam.r.jenkins@conoco.dupont.com>
Subject: Undecided
I think the prosecution have not proved their case. All they have is a lot of circumstantial evidence
. One day it looks like he may be guilty and the next it seems like he isn't. It's very confusing.
I really don't care if he is or isn't. If he did it and only he and God knows, then justice should be
served. However, if he's innocent, he may know who did it and is afraid to come forward, then he is
a fool, but he should not have to pay for someone else's crime. His wife was a total drug head and sl
ut -- as was he. She did not deserve to be killed.
Date: Sun, 10 Sep 1995 19:44:43 -0600
From: Arturo Mocha <unknown>
Subject: Not Guilty
Missing blood that could have been planted. Socks & golve are in locations that make no sense. F
urman had been to OJ's house 10 years prior and a few times after for Ms. Simpson's calls. As a cop w
ho did not like interracial couples, having said that he would plant evidence, my experience watching
cops beat up kids, commit premeditated murder, steal from property rooms, be in charge of theft rings,
take drugs and money from people they did not then arrest, etc. I feel that there is more than enoug
h room for doubt that by law I must find him not gilty. I really think he did it, with help and that
the cops tried to help out the case by planting more evidence. According to a cop friend of mine that
has taken training courses with LA cops this is their method of operation.
Date: Sat, 9 Sep 1995 20:10:37 -0600
From: william <whiskey@telepath.com>
Subject: Guilty
the evidence, clearly proves his guilt
Date: Sat, 9 Sep 1995 17:05:27 -0600
From: Jim <jimc@netaccess.on.ca>
Subject: Not Guilty
If he had done it, there would have been blood all over him and the bronco and it couldn't have been m
issed by anyone.
Date: Sat, 9 Sep 1995 15:08:20 -0600
From: Jeff <KnJ Sapper@aol.com>
Subject: Guilty
His blood is all over the place, the DNA results say it's his blood, and he has no alibi.
Date: Sat, 9 Sep 1995 14:02:51 -0600
From: Walter Lide <pla@usa.net>
Subject: Not Guilty
He probably did it, but with what I know
(that the jury doesn't) is that Furman is
a jerk and might well have faked and manufactored
evidence. I would be unable to convict
him because of Mark Furman's attitude
about blacks and his past behavior.
Date: Sat, 9 Sep 1995 13:31:29 -0600
From: Marsha <pinetar@interpac.net>
Subject: Undecided
I agree there was just to much blood for him not
get hurt and bloody, and I hate Mark Fuhrman,
will someone e-mail me and tell me why they can't
put him on the stand? I don't understand that part
of the law. C. Darwin is a baby!
Date: Fri, 8 Sep 1995 23:19:53 -0600
From: c. stewart <snogull@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Not Guilty
fuhrman set him up
Date: Fri, 8 Sep 1995 22:20:14 -0600
From: Rob Ward <rdward@indiana.edu>
Subject: Not Guilty
Just Becuase.
Date: Fri, 8 Sep 1995 19:01:34 -0600
From: Susan Moore <buddy@maui.net>
Subject: Guilty
Because he did it
Date: Fri, 8 Sep 1995 12:39:34 -0600
From: stephens.6@osu.edu <guilty of something>
Subject: Not Guilty
corrupt police practices will free OJ
Date: Fri, 8 Sep 1995 05:21:18 -0600
From: Joe Kueser <jkueser@ncsc.dni.us>
Subject: Undecided
We know a lot more than the jury does, but if I were a jury, I'd have to let him off based on reasonab
le doubt.
The possibility exists that OJ was indeed set up. Maybe by Mark Vermon, maybe by someone else. Maybe
by a group of
officers. If Fermon has done it before, why couldn't he do it again. It seems unbelievable, but we h
ad a case here
(in Newport News, Virginia) not too long ago that an officer planted bombs! Live bombs! in a local m
all, as well as the courthouse. He did this
specifically to set someone up. So...it could happen! (Reasonable doubt!)
Date: Fri, 8 Sep 1995 00:12:37 -0600
From: Joe Bob <bmartin@azstarnet.com>
Subject: Guilty
because of a testosterone-induced rage
Date: Thu, 7 Sep 1995 22:22:38 -0600
From: Donald LaMonda <Dlamon42@maine.maine.edu>
Subject: Not Guilty
More than one person killed them; one person could not have done that much damage without drawing some
sort of attention to themselves. It also seems to me that the way they were killed meant that those
individuals knew what they were doing--could be professionals. The story that the LAPD provided also
seems to me to be the "quick-fix" type thing because the job done on Nicole and her friend was so well
done. Framing O. J. was also a professional setup which could very well have involved the police. T
here isn't enough information for me to think that O. J. was capable of committing such a violent act
and have to fight his way through it to finish without coming out of it slightly battered. Mr. Goldst
ein fought his butt off before he died; O. J. had a scratched finger?!?! Right!!!!!
Date: Thu, 7 Sep 1995 21:19:34 -0600
From: Methos <jmcginty@winternet.com>
Subject: Not Guilty
Furmon did it.
Date: Thu, 7 Sep 1995 15:33:59 -0600
From: Steven Rush <nlion@gate.net>
Subject: Not Guilty
I suppose if he wanted Nicole
dead he could have said "Hey A.C. go
kill Nicole". Something on the spur of
the moment would have made him kill them
and I think OJ has/had more self control
then that. I also know he is not
guilty because Jimmy Hoffa killed
Nicole and that other guy AND is the
father of Kato Kalin.
-Steve
Date: Thu, 7 Sep 1995 14:44:53 -0600
From: Clown Overlord <bworley@acpub.duke.edu>
Subject: Not Guilty
Elvis and Jimmy Hoffa were in a conspiracy
to kill Nicole, their favorite prostitute.
Date: Thu, 7 Sep 1995 12:01:45 -0600
From: JENNIFER <TORRES.EDU>
Subject: Guilty
HIS HAIR & BLOOD ARE EVERYWHERE! THE EVIDENCE IS OVERWHELMING. AND IF HE DIDN'T DO IT HE KNOWS WHO DI
D; HE KNOWS SOMETHING!
Date: Thu, 7 Sep 1995 09:29:12 -0600
From: Dwayne <dwayne@dc.ilsi.org>
Subject: Guilty
the evidence is overwhelming and those that seem to believe he is innocent are BLIND. By the way, OJ
isn't that bright to cover his tracks that well.
Date: Thu, 7 Sep 1995 02:44:02 -0600
From: Niel O'Brien <nielo@interpac.net>
Subject: Undecided
It seems to me the case hinges on Mr. Furman and he's obviously a wonderful guy.
It's not out of the realm of possibility that the LAPD "knew" they had their man
but didn't have the proof, so they helped the case along with a little evidence they
had laying around. I've lived in LA and I've known cops there. I was on a jury once
where they obviously had the wrong guy so we aquitted. When the jury asked why the case
ever came to trial, the answer was "well, maybe he isn't guilty of this crime, but
we know he's a burgler and we thought we might get him on this one." Great attitude.
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 1995 17:54:45 -0600
From: James Buff <nsbuf9889@alpha.nsula.edu>
Subject: Not Guilty
he pleaded Not Guilty, and only a stupid
person would plead "Not Guilty" if they
knew the prosecution had enough evidence
to put him/her under.
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 1995 14:43:21 -0600
From: Dave Purl <dpurl@slonet.org>
Subject: Not Guilty
His son did it !!!!
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 1995 13:39:33 -0600
From: Eli D. Taylor <teli@okstate.edu>
Subject: Guilty
but, I think he should go free.
After all, he lost his wife.
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 1995 11:34:13 -0600
From: Steven A. Jessen <jessen@redoak@otp.com>
Subject: Guilty
There is no doubt in my mind that the murder suspect is OJ, himself. There is too mu
ch evidence to not convict him. He did a wrongful act and he should be punished for his crime.
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 1995 09:53:04 -0600
From: Louise <cerrone@scsu.ctstateu.edu>
Subject: Guilty
It is not about black or white
it is about rich vs. poor. If he was
poor his a** would have been in jail
already. It makes me sick to see him
sit there so smug when he knows he'll
walk.
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 1995 20:18:42 -0600
From: mark younggren <marky001@spacestar.com>
Subject: Guilty
cinfpops in l.a aren't smart enough to plant
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 1995 20:02:36 -0600
From: Raymond Myers <rmyers@mail.coin.missouri.edu>
Subject: Guilty
O.J.'s blood was on the murder seen
Date: Mon, 4 Sep 1995 18:54:18 -0600
From: virginiawolff <berniekoelzer@uniserve.com>
Subject: Guilty
i think o,j, is not guilty. and i also believe that if the jury were all white that ito buritto would
have let the tapes come in. he is the only judge who sucks around M.clark the pit bull.and is pro pros
cution. he is predgious.i hate him...
Date: Mon, 4 Sep 1995 14:58:23 -0600
From: Kielan Marie Thomas <kmthomas@chaph.usc.edu>
Subject: Not Guilty
all you need is reasonable doubt and I have *more* than enough of those what with Fuhrman and the like
lihood of his having tampered with evidence. Thanks
Date: Mon, 4 Sep 1995 09:05:51 -0600
From: Michael Jennings <jamaken@aol.com>
Subject: Guilty
It is just is. He must be if the trial is this long!
Date: Mon, 4 Sep 1995 07:18:53 -0600
From: Michael Acklin <eacklin@animal.blarg.net>
Subject: Undecided
Impossible to determine validity of
evidence due to recent LAPD developments
Date: Mon, 4 Sep 1995 04:31:42 -0600
From: ned fagan <nedfagan@rival.com>
Subject: Not Guilty
No motive, no time, history of good relations, bad history on the part of police, obvious criminality
of detectives.
Date: Sun, 3 Sep 1995 17:02:14 -0600
From: William R. Collins <Wcollins1@aol.com>
Subject: Guilty
Quite clearly the evidence points to him as the guilty party. I am not following the "Beyond reasona
lble doubt" premise, because I'm not a jury member. I think this case helps to demonstrate that our c
urrent legal system is not working. Also, we are dealing with real life, not a police drama, or a mov
ie. Face it. He is guilty!!!!!!
Date: Sun, 3 Sep 1995 07:23:39 -0600
From: Denise <DeniseMB27.aol>
Subject: Guilty
Juice or no Juice he is guilty as sin even his defense team thinks he's guilty inside source.
Date: Sat, 2 Sep 1995 17:19:02 -0600
From: eric schmidbauer <?>
Subject: Guilty
For some reason OJ is the only person DNA analysis dosn't apply to!!!No other indication of any other
person who could have committed the crime exists
Date: Sat, 2 Sep 1995 15:24:25 -0600
From: dave raygor <raygord@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Not Guilty
he was not only framed, the L.A.P.D. is
corrupt and the L.A.D.A.'s office will
do anything, say anything to win a case.
They don't care to hear about anything
that points away from their agenda. By
the way, Ito is in bed with the D.A.!
Date: Sat, 2 Sep 1995 13:35:31 -0600
From: JT Fondren <JTFazz@aol.com>
Subject: Guilty
No other reasonable explanation and a whole lot of scientific evidence mounting against him. Hard to d
ispute some of the numbers thrown up by Clark, et al.
Date: Fri, 1 Sep 1995 22:05:58 -0600
From: lee white <whitel@3rddoor.com>
Subject: Guilty
enough evidence
Date: Fri, 1 Sep 1995 15:24:30 -0600
From: Jill Mariee <jillgery@ici.net>
Subject: Not Guilty
Because Furhman is a racist, Marcia Clark is a snob
and neither one of them wants O.J. to walk. All of
their evidence is purely circumstantial. And,because
I have a lot of faith in O.J. He didn't have enough
time. I think it was a psychopath named Kaboloz who
killed Nicole and Goldman.
Date: Fri, 1 Sep 1995 12:27:04 -0600
From: K.S.BREWER <ksbrewer@whale.st.usm.edu>
Subject: Guilty
95% of the evidence points towards him.
Its too co-incedental that he was rushing to leave
town on that very night at that very time. PLUS, there
is proof of him beating and harrassing Nicole in the past.
On tape and by testimonies of friends.
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 1995 19:45:22 -0600
From: Nitin Walia <dwalia@glen-net.ca>
Subject: Not Guilty
Because of the evidence! HA! HA! HA:!
HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! IN YOUR
FACE PROSECUTION! A! HA! HA! HA! HA!
Judge ITO... EAT MY BURRITO!
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 1995 15:37:47 -0600
From: Tom Whitfield <twhitfield@fullerton.edu>
Subject: Guilty
who else could have done it!!!
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 1995 10:05:40 -0600
From: Karst <Karstk@dds.nl>
Subject: Guilty
The DNA-results proved his guilt!!!!
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 1995 01:58:45 -0600
From: StillBogey <StillBogey@aol.com>
Subject: Guilty
Blood, DNA, fibers, evidence of some planning (dome light removed from interior of Bronco). Defense s
trats with nothing but bad witnesses. Now they are triing Fuhrman.
Just the way these people were killed. Something that violent is motivated by real passion.
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 1995 21:39:23 -0600
From: Roberta Symbouras <Roberta.Symbouras@Morebbs.com>
Subject: Guilty
Come on, the guy is guilty
as sin...and everyone knows it!!!!!
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 1995 21:10:48 -0600
From: Paul <PK_MULA_INT@msn.com>
Subject: Guilty
could there possibly be any doubt
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 1995 19:01:16 -0600
From: Steve Polich <chairman@moa.com>
Subject: Guilty
OJ, formerly master of his universe, thought he could get away with the
murders. Unfortunately, he was unaware of how much blood is contained in
the human body...Kato might have helped him...
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 1995 13:51:10 -0600
From: Ken Proch <PROCHK2@EPO.GOV.ON.CA>
Subject: Undecided
IT ALL DEPENDS ON WHAT DAY IT IS AND WHO IS TALKING - SOMETIMES HE LOOKS GUILTY AS SIN AT OTHERS INNOC
ENT AS A NEW BORN BABY
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 1995 13:34:40 -0600
From: Donte Harris <www.siu.edu>
Subject: Not Guilty
The prosecution has not proven that OJ committed the murders.
No weapon!
No witness!
No motive!
Comtaminated evidence!
Dishonest Police Officers!
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 1995 13:29:13 -0600
From: bob young <bob17@netvoyage.net>
Subject: Guilty
its obvious
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 1995 10:58:02 -0600
From: K. A. Stancliff <stancliff.k.a%wec@dialcom.tymnet.com>
Subject: Guilty
Who had a better motive?
What about DNA?
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 1995 07:31:26 -0600
From: Timthetoolmantaylor <123 easy street anywhere USA 12345>
Subject: Guilty
Guilty as charged. Fry the sucka.
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 1995 16:20:23 -0600
From: Tahnda Bailey <tahnda@water.ca.gov>
Subject: Not Guilty
In the words of Dr. Lee, the evidence just doesnt add up.
Blood on socks that seeped thru to other side, not possible if they were on a body.
Blood on gate weeks later, not reasonable given that they knew OJ was going to put on a major defense.
Ron Goldman saw his killer and didn't put up much of a fight, not reasonable, since he was fighting fo
r his life.
OJs blood everywhere, from that tiny cut? You'd expect the whole finger to be missing.
Bruno Magli shoes, He wore his best shoes to kill people, why not a cheap pair of nikes?
Is Furhman capable of planting evidence? You betcha!
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 1995 14:49:14 -0600
From: A.Smoke <ASO16547@UNCVX1.OIT.UNC.EDU>
Subject: Not Guilty
There is too much reasonable doubt. I am convinced
that the LAPD is capable of anything, including the
prosecution. They seem to believe that it's
okay to destroy someone's life as long as they look
good in the process. We've turned into a country of
I, I, I, instead of We the People.
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 1995 14:32:01 -0600
From: Scott Burgy <sburgy@csubak.edu>
Subject: Not Guilty
This crime required more than just one individual to pull off. I feel that O.J. knows who did it and
may have had a hand in the actual murders, but he alone did not kill Nicole...
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 1995 13:29:52 -0600
From: kim lundin <klundin@rockford.gannett.com>
Subject: Guilty
he killed them
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 1995 08:33:58 -0600
From: Richard <Richard.stettner@atlantaga.attgis.com>
Subject: Not Guilty
The law says "Guilty beyond a reasonable
doubt". I have seen enough to have
reasonable doubt!
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 1995 21:25:02 -0600
From: WILLIAM HYMES <ABORALIS@IX.NETCOM.COM>
Subject: Guilty
tO MANY LITTLE THINGS POINT TO HIM
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 1995 16:00:08 -0600
From: kquinn <kquinn@www.bozell.com>
Subject: Not Guilty
couldnt have done it in that short time span.
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 1995 07:23:53 -0600
From: Jack Van Tol <jvantol@dallas.net>
Subject: Guilty
He DID it! Plain and simple...like his
trial...
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 1995 04:00:09 -0600
From: Francisco Vega <FRVega@kbbsnet.com>
Subject: Not Guilty
I don't think any body is able to kill
two persons, leave a pool of blood all
over and come out with out a scratch.
I think some other people did it, just
happen that O.J. is the prime suspect
and he is Black, If he wasn't black thinks
were handle diferent.
I think at the end every body who thinks
he was guilty will think about it and
say how they were about to put a man in jail
for life for something he did not do.
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 1995 17:40:30 -0600
From: O.J. Simpson <tjlin@primenet.com>
Subject: Not Guilty
He just didn't do it.
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 1995 04:10:41 -0600
From: Adrian Madlener <madlener@ucla.edu>
Subject: Guilty
Because I heard Mr. Higgins on ABC News with peter jennings say that OJ looked sc
ared.
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 1995 16:43:32 -0600
From: Palmer <baer@tcd.net>
Subject: Guilty
No one could look so damn aloof at the trial to determine the guilt of his ex-wif
e's murderer in any situation
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 1995 16:04:00 -0600
From: Neil Uspal <ngu101@psu.edu>
Subject: Not Guilty
AC, Jimmy "The Greek", Marcus Allen, &
the LAPD are all in on the conspiracy to
nail OJ!
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 1995 07:53:29 -0600
From: Stephen Wiseman <wiseman@net.access.on.ca>
Subject: Not Guilty
Still reasonable doubt in my mind. Prosecution's case is circumstantial; too man
y loose ends; I'm not sure that evidence wasn't tamperred with by LA cops.
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 1995 05:44:43 -0600
From: Tom Crauwels <crau@innet.be>
Subject: Guilty
Evidence
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 1995 18:14:06 -0600
From: Dave Robertson <dave.robertson@servtech.tor250.org>
Subject: Guilty
Boy you shure have the options lop sided
guilty or inocent... how about weird spin off therirys
See ya,
Dave
dave.robertson@servtech.tor250.org
or
dave.robertson@ablelink.org
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 1995 15:41:28 -0600
From: Brent Thomson <bthomson@imap2.asu.edu>
Subject: Guilty
Thinking...
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 1995 10:36:17 -0600
From: Jim Morrison <Jars@mail.utexas.edu>
Subject: Not Guilty
He's the Juice..
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 1995 00:13:44 -0600
From: J. O'Connell <joconnell@ids2.idsonline.com>
Subject: Undecided
Wait until all evidence is in--the
fair way!
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 1995 22:14:39 -0600
From: james devine <jdevine@supernet.ab.ca>
Subject: Guilty
he did it
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 1995 22:14:12 -0600
From: Beth Collison <ecolliso@uhmtravel.tim.hawaii.edu>
Subject: Guilty
but will get off.
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 1995 18:47:37 -0600
From: Leigh Koven <compulov@aol.com>
Subject: Guilty
He ran.
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 1995 18:21:57 -0600
From: Eric Lloyd <hoser@uclink4.berkeley.edu>
Subject: Guilty
the genetic evidence against him is overwhelming and he is an acknowledged wife b
eater.
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 1995 11:39:12 -0600
From: Susan Midtdal <smidtdal@direct.ca>
Subject: Guilty
Who else did it?
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 1995 11:23:59 -0600
From: Jennifer <jbh@med.unc.edu>
Subject: Guilty
He killed Nicole in a jealous rage. He let his emotions take over before he thoug
ht all the way through what was happening. OJ is guilty of killing in a moment of
jealously.
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 1995 20:53:23 -0600
From: JA Sellers <ASellers@hsc.usc.edu>
Subject: Guilty
The cut on his left hand, his lack of an alibi, the carpet fibers, the DNA,
EVERYTHING
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 1995 20:12:59 -0600
From: Mary <mspiersw@extro.ucc.so.OZ.AU>
Subject: Guilty
GUILTY GUILTY GUILTY as all hell
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 1995 12:19:50 -0600
From: courtney <courtney.e.stanton@fmr.com>
Subject: Not Guilty
I'm from LA and I know just how racist the cops are.
Many of my friends have been
set up by them. Both Nicole and
O.J. were heavy drug users as well
(probably goldman too), so I wouldn't
be surprised if it was a drug deal
gone bad or something similar.
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 1995 11:23:05 -0600
From: Ed Massey <alex1@expert.cc.purdue.edu>
Subject: Not Guilty
I feel he might know something about
who did it or possibly contracted it
to be done. Whoever did this would
undoubtedly be covered in blood and OJ
did not have the kind of time it would
take to clean himself up and still catch
his flight.
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 1995 07:44:52 -0600
From: Kelly Carnes <khcarnes@gsvms2.cc.gasou.edu>
Subject: Not Guilty
The prosecution hasn't presented a "beyond
a reasonable doubt" case. It's too coincidental
that the glove was "found" in the dark in
a rarely travelled alley -- It's too coincidental
that blood drops lead directly to O.J.'s front
door -- It's too coincidental that the blood
in and on the Bronco "grew" as time passed --
It's too coincidental that blood appeared after
weeks on the socks -- and finally, it's too
coincidental that undegraded blood appeared
two weeks after the murder on the back gate.
Sounds to me like the case was helped along
to get a conviction...
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 1995 00:27:57 -0600
From: Franklin Villamor <artfrank@aol.com>
Subject: Guilty
Just because
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 1995 19:41:48 -0600
From: Tracy Blevins <gsbs1183@utsph.sph.uth.tmc.edu>
Subject: Guilty
Seriously. The defense claims that
the incompetent investigators and police
are the same ones who could frame OJ and
cover it up? Impossible and illogical.
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 1995 17:32:39 -0600
From: scott <neurotic@winternet.com>
Subject: Guilty
He scares me.
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 1995 16:28:38 -0600
From: Susan Blanchard <HKSue@nwrain.net>
Subject: Guilty
It's a bit obvious
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 1995 10:05:41 -0600
From: spencer burke <burke6@wit.edu>
Subject: Guilty
The fact that there is his boold at the
crime scene and when will the defense
stop flip-flopping on scientific
evidence. Science is what built this
country, knowledge is power!! O.J.
should get the chair. If fuhrman is a
racist's remove him from the force,
don't blame him for O.J.'s actions.
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 1995 00:52:35 -0600
From: Gary Blunk <gary.blunk@sandiegoca.attgis.com>
Subject: Guilty
You have to ask?
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 1995 21:06:22 -0600
From: Scott <sskks@primenet.com>
Subject: Guilty
He did it!!!!!!!!
Return-Path: <jonas.bergman@moderat.se>
Reply-To: jonas.bergman@moderat.se
To: beckman@purplecow.com
Subject: Guilty
Date: 21 Aug 1995 14:30:11 GMT
Organization: Moderata Samlingspartiet
Of course he is guilty. The evidence is enormously strong against O.J.
But I guess that«s no guarantee, for the jury to find O.J. guilty, since the
US juridicial system depends on the emotional feelings the jury has for the
victims and the defendant.
If the jury is black, the defendant is black and the victims are white, then
the defendant is not guilty (and the other way around).
Strange!!
Jonas Bergman
Stockholm, Sweden
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 1995 13:12:51 -0600
From: Libby <LibbbyBell@aol.com>
Subject: Guilty
It's obvious ! The man was my hero before this.... Just goes to show what happen
s when you think you are a God because people treat you like a God.
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 1995 11:39:55 -0600
From: Brian Estelle <estellePA@aol.com>
Subject: Guilty
overwhelming physical evidence (i.e. DNA, blood drops, etc.)
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 1995 10:51:39 -0600
From: Dan McCollum <mccollum@wharton.upenn.edu>
Subject: Guilty
The DNA, Blood spots, and his history of violence.
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 1995 00:41:22 -0600
From: duane mohney <dmohney@bright.net>
Subject: Guilty
but not of murder, conspiracy to commit murder is more likely
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 1995 18:01:23 -0600
From: Ellen Blackmun <EBlackmun@microsoft.com>
Subject: Not Guilty
It's obvious..
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 1995 14:50:10 -0600
From: Tuomas Viskari <Tuomas@Viskari.hitech.fi>
Subject: Not Guilty
I think he is not guilty!!!!
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 1995 12:57:42 -0600
From: Dave Craig <dc@passport.ca>
Subject: Not Guilty
The prosecution seems too biased. They're not making any attempt to seek
the truth. The scary thing is , if Marcia Clark knows of any police
misconduct she would not reveal it. She seems to be taking this trial so
personally that it's scary. If I got the feeling that the prosecution was
simply doing their job in an impartial manner and they were simply doing
their job and presenting truthfull evidence for the jury to decide, I might
be inclined to vote guilty. If I was the prosecution and the remainder of
someone's life was in my hands and there was some evidence that a police
officer might have planted ev idence, I would be the first one to launch an
investigation into those allegations. I wouldn't get ups et and flustered
at the mere thought that this defendant might not have done it. I would
seek the trut h and once I am satisfied that this is truthfull evidence
then and only then would I try to put him aw ay.
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 1995 04:42:47 -0600
From: Tom Gordon <squaw@ibm.net>
Subject: Guilty
It's so obvious!
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 1995 01:05:30 -0600
From: Brigette Freeman <fsbaf@aurora.alaska.edu>
Subject: Guilty
OJ beat his wife, he was already close to killing her.
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 1995 22:38:16 -0600
From: Noah Lamy <noahlamy@dorsai.org>
Subject: Guilty
Even without Furman or the glove the prosecution has a very good case while
the defense floats one uns upportable theory after another along with
sideshow items like dragging the judge's wife into it. If there was a
scintilla of evidence for an actual frameup/coverup or some other possible
killer or if OJ had a decent alibi you know we would have heard about it by
now, but we haven't.
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 1995 21:45:12 -0600
From: Bill Halvorsen <billh@cais.com>
Subject: Guilty
I thought there WAS a rush to
judgement... and then watching the
trial when I can, it became obvious
that the dream team is blowing
bulldust into the wind of reason at
every opportunity; the prosecution's
case is, sadly, circumstantial; but the
defense's case has turned out to
be insulting to everyone and made
of whole cloth.
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 1995 13:04:06 -0600
From: Thomas Grinnell <sertec1@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Guilty
blood in car, driveway, home; different stories for
alibi (none acceptable); limo driver's testimony
seeing someone enter house and THEN OJ answers call;
history of beating wife and other violence; too small a
space for more than 1 attacker; DNA; shoe prints;
gloves seem to be his.
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 1995 12:34:52 -0600
From: f.h. cromer <fcromer@ria-emh2.army.mil>
Subject: Guilty
o.j.'s body language and facial
contortions give him away...
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 1995 11:17:30 -0600
From: steve adler <s.adler@bull.com>
Subject: Guilty
Evidence is overwhelming despite attempts to difuse the issues with Mark
Fuhrman.
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 1995 11:13:53 -0600
From: Adam <akira@nin.com>
Subject: Guilty
he is to obvious, just sits there .. he just doesn't
care about it, he just stares into the void.
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 1995 22:27:40 -0600
From: Alastair Bor <bor@world.std.com>
Subject: Not Guilty
Innocent until proven guilty
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 1995 16:06:58 -0600
From: Leslie & Laura Miles <don't know>
Subject: Not Guilty
Glove didn't fit, thumps on Guest House
were to get attention, glove found on
Simpson grounds had no bloody trail to it,
too much blood from crime scene and they
only found bloody socks?!
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 1995 16:06:49 -0600
From: Kevin <kbrint@winternet.com>
Subject: Guilty
the voices, man.
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 1995 15:55:59 -0600
From: Bill Cairns <cairnsd@isueh1.agw.bt.co.uk>
Subject: Undecided
I'm a mental!
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 1995 09:05:00 -0600
From: Georges Hudon <r22630@er.uqam.ca>
Subject: Guilty
The theory that detective Furman planted the bloody glove at OJ's house is
not very plausible. Before placing the glove, Furman must have known that
OJ did not have an alibi. Also, how could he have known that Kato heard
sounds coming from the spot where Furman would have placed the glove? If
Furman did plant the glove, he should open his own psychic line, he would
make a fortune.
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 1995 23:41:56 -0600
From: m austin <yukon@sky.net>
Subject: Guilty
evidence
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 1995 23:00:26 -0600
From: Ross Woody <woooody@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Not Guilty
Fuherman is a BIG LIAR!!!
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 1995 22:45:26 -0600
From: nancy brosnan <awcohen@pacbell.com>
Subject: Guilty
Theres blood everywhere !
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 1995 22:44:46 -0600
From: Jim Berry <jberry@unix.asb.com>
Subject: Guilty
Overwelming evidence! Motive, opportunity.
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 1995 21:43:17 -0600
From: jhornsby@cadvision.com <GUILTY.GUILTY.GUILTY>
Subject: Guilty
At the risk of sounding warped I hope OJ Simpson is suffering the hell he
put his wife through during their marriage. I saw the Goldman family on TV
today and my heart goes out to them. Mr Goldman coine d the phrase that
his son, Ron and Nicole Brown were butchered and how right he is. Ron's
sister had some words to say and I can sympathize with her disgust of the
High-priced Defence Team - Cochrane, Sh apiro and Douglas have all made
statements outside the Courthouse. Bailey has been on CNN. Don't tel l me
they're not getting paid for and enjoying the publicity. That Cochrane is
a pompous little nobod y who struts around like he's somebody. The
pictures of Nicole being battered told the story and comp ounded with all
the other evidence that OJ Simpson should be lead to the gallows and
executed in the p ublic square. I don't care how popular he was he had no
right to kill those two beautiful people.
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 1995 17:51:21 -0600
From: Betsy Wolfe <FFRT53a@Prodigy.com>
Subject: Guilty
From the trial evidence I have heard so far, being that everyday this here
hillbilly is glued to CNN.
...I have no life ya know...:)
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 1995 14:14:27 -0600
From: Ibrahim Sei <sei@eng.umd.edu>
Subject: Not Guilty
He can't kill TWOOOOOOO people,get rid of everything else except the planted gloves.
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 1995 19:07:17 -0600
From: scott <wsbroad@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Guilty
all evidence points to oj, defense provides
no real defense as to what oj was doing
at the time or proof of non-involvement.
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 1995 18:49:08 -0600
From: elizabeth arnesen <elizabeth_arnesen@blyth.com>
Subject: Guilty
why else would he try to run, write suicide letters etc.
And the DNA is his! And he had motive, being a jealous (x)husband.
Furthermore he had a violent history against Nicole.
He was probably on drugs, and it only took one quick stab to kill her, then
go after Ron.
Return-Path: <KASILL@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 13 Aug 1995 23:51:58 -0400
Subject: oj
GUILTY
Return-Path: <magicman@teleport.com>
Date: Sat, 5 Aug 1995 02:05:58 -0700
Subject: o.j.
Judge Ito and the prosecurtion are working feverishly to convict o.j. its
not fair a trial can be so one sided. o.j. is innocent and deserves to get
out of the hell hole he has lived in for over a year. (at least before
something horrible happens to his sweet lilttle mom)
Return-Path: <meals@dickinson.edu>
Date: Fri, 4 Aug 1995 14:40:39 -0400
Subject: oj simpson
I support whatever decision the jury makes. It is their job to decide this
case and I appreciate their sacrifice to achieve their purpose.
Return-Path: <sallyh@primenet.com>
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 95 00:19:36 -0700
Subject: OJ is guilty!!!
He is guilty and this taxpayer trial is a real travesty of justice for all
of America. If it were you or me, we'd have been tried AND hung by now -
but because he is a celebrity, we have to put up with it. Personally, I
think it was a crime of passion and I feel very badly for him but murder is
murder. Your status should not determine your sentence. This should send
out a message to all of the "lovers" in America that it takes years to
build a relationship and a few minutes can end it. This "crime of passion"
is more relevant than most people think and really needs to be looked at.
People call it domestic violence, jealously, etc.....all the same thing.
Anyway - he did the crime, he should pay the price. Hopefully some will
learn from it.
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 95 10:59:53 -2400
From: Sue D'Angelo <sudangelo@vaxsar.vassar.edu>
Subject: http://www.cs.hope.edu/~beckman/oj/ojmail.html
OJ is guity. But I feel with his expert lawyers he will get off, or a
hung jury. Mayeb he will be found guilty. I think he did it. He was
extremely jealous of his ex-wife. He did follow her a lot. I wish she
said on one of those 911 calls, that someday this man is going to kill
me.
The blood was found all over the place, on the glove, on his socks, on
his bronco, on his driveway, in his house.
He did do it and I feel sorry for his children, they don't have there
mother anymore.
Why did she move 15 minutes away from him, she should of moved far far
away.
Sue
Return-Path: <dwlcml@wolfe.net>
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 95 15:15:12 -0700
I think he is guilty,that's OJ, because if you take the date nicole died
it adds up to 32 which is Oj's number.
Return-Path: <magicman@teleport.com>
Date: Sat, 8 Jul 1995 02:34:50 -0700
Subject: o.j.simpson
o.j. simpson is not guilty so if the shoes fit wear them and if they fit like
a glove then take a stab at it!!!!!!!!
Return-Path: <marlene@ece.cmu.edu>
Date: Fri, 07 Jul 95 15:51:34 0000
Organization: Carnegie Mellon University
Subject: Best think twice
The fact of the matter is that we may nevr know just whether or not OJ
did commit this hanous crime, just as, at least for myself, may never
know truely whether or not Mike Tyson is a rapist (convicted or not).
We all placed our virdict upon this case last summer and I don't think
the jurors are any different. I would personally have a very hard time
placing OJ in jail for the remainder of his life if I were a juror. I
felt that the Los Angeles DA was quick in arresting OJ and in turn has
set it self up for another PR desaster like the Manendez trial. The way
I see it, there are those of us who do not believe he did it because
their is not enough evidence to prove he did, and those who believe OJ
is guilty because they feel the evidence is quite encriminating. But
there are too many people out there who feel OJ is or is not guilty
because of emotion. Who wants to put an American hero in jail, but then
again who wants to see another rich or even a rich black man aquitted.
I can't look at this from either of those two final perspectives.
Unfortunately, this case has become not one of right or wrong, guilty or
not guilty; it has rather become a trial of manipulation, backstabbing,
racism, and money. Granted this case would have been settled a long
time ago where we talking about Orenthal James Simpson rather than "The
Juice", Heisman Trophy winner, the first man to rush for 2,000 yards in
a single season, and American Star. Hopefully with the Defense about to
prove its case these things will change and the correct verdict will be
issued, but hope can run thin. ^?Wrong and Right is not Black and White.
The best Offense is a strong Defense.
OJ acquitted
Dave
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 1995 13:49:39 -0600
From: A Person <rdowers@xroads.com>
Subject: I think OJ is...
so *unbelievably* guilty. The thing that really gets to me
is that if this was Joe Schmoe off the street, and he killed
his wife and another man, this case would be wrapped up
before you could say Justice. Just goes to show how the rich can
get away with (literally) murder. Sad, really.
Return-Path: <oms93sjd@ccs.ehche.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 95 19:27:30 -0700
Organization: Edge Hill College of Higher Education
Subject: OJ IS INNOCENT???
Hello, I'm Sarah,
I think OJ has been set up because it would have been difficult to tackle 2 peop
le. Also, the
last drop of blood to be found had huge amounts of DNA.... The glove doesn't fi
t....... The
detective in chargge may have a grudge against succesful black people. He was i
nvolved with the
beating of that man, and then he failed in jailing Micheal Jackson....
Who has ever heard of a top dectective taking a blood sample home and keeeping
it in his
refidgerator over night...????? Very strange I must say.
Sarah
PS. Your background is good, but it makes it difficult to read your text.
WACKO's eyes aren't hurting: Sorry dear, but I haven't found anything
more appropriate.
From: Barbara Fulp <bfulp@pinn.net>
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 95 09:41:42 -700
Subject: O J's Gloves
Any woman who owned a pair of leather gloves in the 40's or earlier had
to wash them at home. We all knew they shrank unless they were put on
a glove stretcher while drying. No question in my mind as to why the
gloves didn't fit. Barbara Fulp
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 1995 15:15:10 -0600
From: Denise Warren <Washington, D.C.>
Subject: I think OJ is...not GUILTY!!
I think it is very unfair of the media and the world to have judged him and
convicted him in their own mind without even hearing his side. How can you
honestly say that this man is guilty and you have only heard one side.
Before I decide on his guilt or innocence I want to hear everything and
only then will I be able to render a clear and honest verdict. I would
like to the this happen in the United States where we are supposed to be
innocent until proven guilty, not guilty and proven innocent! How would
you feel if it were your son on trial for a murder he did not commit and
the world had judged him without hearing his side? Would you be so eager
to say Guilty then as you are now?
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 1995 14:19:10 EST
Subject: Re: Simpson case
Return-Receipt-To: (DEVGREGO@amber.indstate.edu)
My name is Trey Gregory. I think O.J. Simpson is guity! Because there is
so much evidence that he did it. But he didn't do it alone there was no
way he could have done it by himself.
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 1995 12:43:36 -0600
From: Raf <Raphaelf@harper.stanford.edu>
Subject: I think OJ is...
innocent. I believe the conspiracy theory. Marsha Clark loves celebrity
cases because she gets to be on the news and promote her career.
If she is searching for the truth, as she says she is, the
real truth is that there isn't enough evidence to prove, beyond
a reasonable doubt that he is guilty. It is about time for the
prosecution to stop wasting taxpayer money on this circus trial.
As for the prosecution's so called "domestic violence" evidence -
it is ridiculous to suggest that a wealthy, career-oriented man, a
self-made millionaire, would kill his wife and risk his millions,
even if he did beat her.
And if Nicole Simpson really thought OJ would kill her, would she
live 15 minutes away from him?
Besides the questionable blood evidence, there is absolutely
nothing concrete that can tie Mr. Simpson with the crime. That is,
unless you ask the Goldman family, who have filed a wrongful death
suit, which is a civil suit in which they demand an undisclosed sum
of money (that's right, money) be payed to them because their son
died. What about the Brown family, who previously so piously stated their
concern for the children of Simpson and Brown, now trying to desparately
cash in so that no money whatsoever is left for these children, who
have had their family destroyed. I suppose Faye Resnick is a reliable
source of information, or Kato Katlin, who have both published books
and need to add sensationalist details that a canniballizing public,
searching for gory details wants to hear.
Is this America, where a man accused is guilty because we let
some uneducated, illiterate anchorpeople (who need the ratings)
tell us he is so? It is disturbing that becuase of OJ's celebrity
status and the public's search for scandal we must brand him
guilty, and encourage unfair, damaging remarks and rumors to flow
freely, to cripple his hard-earned career and to destroy his
reputation before a jury, who is the real authority in judging
his guilt or innocence can make a decision.
WACKO Note: Ever realize the people who think he's innocent explain
themselves in GREAT detail? And those who think he's guilty just say
so? Hmmmmmm... Kinda makes you wonder.
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 1995 00:56:34 -0600
From: Leslie <sassy@magi.com>
Subject: I think OJ is...
Absolutely 100% guilty!
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 1995 02:48:39 -0600
From: cyreno <cyreno@primenet.com>
Subject: I think OJ is...
Innocent, Reasons: He killed 2 people without one sound,
gloves don't fit him , dna evidevce is so that anybody black could have done it.
gimmie a break how can you think otherwise???
Return-Path: <RobertJ260@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 17 Jun 1995 17:42:23 -0400
Subject: GUILTY as HELL
Is there really any doubt? Blows me away when people can ignore the mountain
of evidence, the blood, the motive, the history of the marriage, the
opportunity,, the DNA, and the fact that, nobody else was ever a suspect.
Nobody but OJ could have done this. And this is from someone who used to
idolize the guy. The 80% of black Americans who say OJ is innocent are all
racist idiots with their heads in the ground.
Guilty as hell. So obvious you would have had to had your brain removed secretly
from your skull while asleep and replaced with a large jicama to think otherwise.
Date: Sat, 17 Jun 1995 09:49:06 -0600
From: Ralph Arnold <arnold@epoch.geol.sc.edu>
Subject: I think OJ is...
guilty as hell, and has a hell of a production crew.
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 1995 13:43:54 -0600
From: BMcD <Monterey, Califorina>
Subject: I think OJ is...GUILTY!!!!!!!!
Guiltier than shit!!!!! DNA dont lie, and his was everywhere
that it should not have been. If a poor hillbilly poacher can
be convicted of illeagly taking a deer off of Clint Eastwoods
ranch in Northern Calif by matching DNA. Then why should OJ's shyster lawyers
be able to claim that DNA is an unreliable indicator of guilt.
Fry in hell OJ, you truly deserve it!!!!!!! Just wait til the Boys in the big h
ouse get
a hold of you. So you better brush up on your broken field running
tecnique, and dont forget the KY Jelly!
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 1995 12:30:07 -0600
From: lwhite <.edu busu>
Subject: I think OJ is...
I think OJ is guilty as the day is long.
WACKO has had a short day: So does this mean he's innocent?
Return-Path: <ubrd040@br8c.okladot.state.ok.us>
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 1995 09:41:13 -0500
Subject: guilty as charged!
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 1995 11:43:28 -0600
From: Dena M. Melloncamp <dmmellon@prairie.org>
Subject: I think OJ is...
...GUILTY, GUILTY, GUILTY!! (and I personally have always liked him
as a celebrity) But even though I have always liked him
let's face it...the evidence, motive, previous actions, etc,
are all pretty damning. Those who blindly think he is
innocent are either too hung-up on his "celebrity-ness",
his public image, or the "race thing". He committed these acts in a fit of blin
d rage. He may very well not remember doing it, but it doesn't mean he is innoc
ent!
Unfortunately, the media & his money & lawyers will probably succeed in making a
mockery of the "system". And
what a shame, at the loss of two lives.
Return-Path: <102024.2402@compuserve.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 1995 08:14:21 -0400
Guilty. Very Guilty and in denial!
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 1995 16:05:37 -0600
From: Cancelled Czech <fernald@czecher.ultranet.com >
Subject: I think OJ is...
definately in big trouble but he will walk. But probably not
until the year 2001, that's when that bitch Clark will give
up. Next to Judge Ito she is the biggest dipshit on that TV
funny farm.
Date: Fri, 9 Jun 1995 17:15:19 -0600
From: Dave Polo <PoloD@Docker.com >
Subject: I think OJ is...
I think without a doubt that O.J. is guilty. He had a motive and he
said on numerous ocations that, "he was going to kill her if he caught
her with another man." O.J. is a very controlling person and could
not stand when she really did finally break away from him. I think
Simpson knew it was the final end of their relationship. He decided
that if he couldn't have her, nobody could and killed her.
Date: Thu, 8 Jun 1995 16:33:41 -0600
From: rich kolden <rjk@argonne>
Subject: I think OJ is...
guiltier than hell (part of my new book - funnier than hell)
Date: Thu, 8 Jun 1995 16:29:21 -0600
From: rich <rjk@argonne>
Subject: I think OJ is...
he is an animal and should be treated like one.
Return-Path: <kprodger@in50207.cc.nps.navy.mil>
Date: Wed, 07 Jun 95 09:06:55 -0700
Sender: kprodger@in50207.cc.nps.navy.mil
Subject: Crime Re-creation
Does anyone know where to find the computer generated re-creation of the
Goldman-Simpson murder(if it's available on the net)?
YES!!! It's here! The OJ MURDER MPEG!
(Ummm, click the words above to get it, ok?)
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 1995 08:35:15 -0600
From: jonna <222 suck butt!!!!>
Subject: I think OJ is...
has the biggest p-------- I never seen!!!!
oh not guilty!!!!!!
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 1995 13:05:34 -0600
From: dora <Bldg. 4443>
Subject: I think OJ is...
innocent until proven guilty but you know marsha clark thinks
he is the Big Bad Black Son of a B---- but what she should
be doing is getting Bill Hodgmen to come and take he place
because she is loosing it.
Date: Mon, 5 Jun 1995 07:49:24 -0600
From: ANONYMOUS in Neuropsychology <UAB>
Subject: I think OJ is GUILTY GUILTY GUILTY
I think he should quit wasting the tax payers money to try his case and go ahead
and enter a plea of guilty by reason of temporary insanity like all the other g
uilty criminals do in order to make sure they never have to serve a day in priso
n. Just like Nicole Simpson told her friends and family, "OJ is going to kill m
e and he will get away with it. He will OJ his way out of it."
Date: Sun, 4 Jun 1995 22:07:41 -0600
From: Michael Farquharson <bassplyr@astral.magic.ca>
Subject: I think OJ is...
undoubtedly guilty. I read some of these feeble reasons
explaining why OJ is innocent, and I have to shake my
head in utter disbelief. How anyone can expect someone who
commits such a brutal act of violence to react in a calm
manner afterwards is utterly ridiculous. This was a crime
of unbridled rage, perpetrated by a jealous, controlling,
vicious, violent WIFE-BEATER!!!! The evidence is
overwhelming. Those of you who believe he is innocent must
be out of your minds, and your vain attempts to explain why
he could not have committed these murders are a sad attempt
to run from the fact that even the "rich and famous" commit
heinous crimes.
As a Canadian, I must say that this trial is showing what a
farce the American/Californian legal system is. Between the
media circus and OJ's high profile lawyers, there is still a
chance that this vicious murderer will walk the streets
again after killing his children's mother, and an innocent
young man in the wrong place at the wrong time.
In Canada, he would now be behind bars for the rest of his
life where he belongs, with no chance for parole.
Why don't you Americans do it like we Canadians and British
do? When he is arrested, keep all details and evidence from
the public, and allow an IMPARTIAL jury to decide the
defendant's fate, fairly and honestly based on the evidence
heard for the first time during the trial.
I must also say in closing that I am sure that OJ's lawyers
know he is guilty, and if he is aquitted (god forbid), that
they are satisfied that they lined their pockets with blood
money earned by "defending" the brutal murderer of two
innocent young people.
Date: 02 Aug 1995 08:26:54 -0700
From: Denise Forbes
Subject: Reply to M. Farquharson's response
Michael Farquharson wrote:
<"Why don't you Americans do it like we Canadians and British do?
Return-Path: <dj_finn@postoffice.utas.edu.au>
Date: Sun, 04 Jun 95 09:49:12 -0700
Organization: Uni of Tas
Subject: OJ AND THE CHAMBER AWAITING.
I just have to say i think it's getting pretty obviuos that O.J's guilty
as sin, but hey, who cares? Let him walk, it's not like he can run
anymore....
we've all gotta die someday, even O.J, and just think..if he comes out
innocent i just have to see what happens next. this is the perfect end to
this century! FREE OJ AND JAIL JUDGE EITO FOR THE TRY-HARD GOATEE!
ps. i think if O.J. has to hit the stand, that will be the big indicator.
plus, he sure knows how to look cool under pressure 2. Another
good reason to let him go, i say. Everyone says his movie career's over
if he gets out anyway but i doubt it! OJ CAN DO IT!
SO FREE OJ FREE OJ TODAY! AND CMON NAKED WEAPON 4 & 1/4!!!
regards, dave.
Date: Fri, 2 Jun 1995 11:44:11 -0600
From: Teenager <Nova Scotia>
Subject: I think OJ is...guilty
O.J has problems and I think is very messed up. I also think some of his family
need to get a life, they are using the whole thing for a joke and for money. He
should be executed or put to prison for life with pictures of his wife and Ronal
d hanging around him, maybe he would feel guilty.
Date: Thu, 1 Jun 1995 22:57:29 -0600
From: Mister E <pobox 17684>
Subject: I think OJ is...
The lad went over to the womans house, saw her with another
guy and went nuts.
He doooodddddit!
guilty as charged
Date: Thu, 1 Jun 1995 16:34:31 -0600
From: Bugsy Lombardo <rsl6@pge.com>
Subject: I think OJ is...
Proof that if you have the $$$$ you can get away with Murder or any othe
r thing you want to do.
Date: Wed, 31 May 1995 15:49:11 -0600
From: fpeck <arco.com>
Subject: I think OJ is...
Guilty as sin.
Date: Wed, 31 May 1995 14:59:15 -0600
From: Bob Holt <106 37th st nw>
Subject: I think OJ is...
Dear OJ,
I think you are neat. I hope you get out so you can kill more people.
I think you should burn your next victim .
Date: Tue, 30 May 1995 03:53:04 -0600
From: Kevin.Weaver <@TCF.COM>
Subject: I think OJ is...
Not Guilty
Date: Mon, 29 May 1995 19:32:03 -0600
From: cp
Subject: I think OJ is...
definately NOT guilty. It has to be proven that he is and when he is found not
guilty, all those whom responded that he is will be beyond aa shadow of a doubt
GUILTY.
Date: Mon, 29 May 1995 18:33:33 -0600
From: bill
Subject: I think OJ is...
Guilty....by the way...did you know that if you add up the numbers in th
e dates they were killed it adds up to 32?
They were killed on 6/12/1994. 6+1+2+1+9+9+4 = 32! What a coincidence!
WACKO Note: 32 was OJ's jersey number.
Date: Fri, 26 May 1995 23:22:47 -0700
From: mike wacksman
NOT GUILTY Someone or people framed OJ. OJ's lawyers will prove to the
people that their client, OJ is innocent. He will be a free man soon.. I
can't wait until he testifies, so he can tell the whole world that he's
100% not guilty. EVeryone watch !!i t will happen..i guarantee it!!! OJ
will be back !! OJ is 100% not guilty. There is no physical evidence, no
murder weapon. NOTHING to convict OJ Simpson. He has been guilty by the
media,itself. They convicted him when he was arrested. There will be
acquittal. OJ will take the stand and testify that he didn't commit the
murders. HE was set up. Someone wanted this star to face charges of
murder. The lawyers on this case will prove the PEOPLE that their client,
OJ didn't commit the murders...
Return-Path:
Date: Fri, 26 May 1995 14:40:15 -0700
Subject: AIR Mosaic Feedback Mail
Mail sent from AIR Mosaic (16-bit) version 3.07.04.02
He's guilty for all the reasons William Bugliosi articulates so well; he's the f
ormer LA proscecutor who put Manson away; I've seen him on CNBC with Geraldo and
that other guy...? OJ is guilty because he had the motive, means, opportunity,
left blood everwhere, behaved suspiciously, lied to the limo driver, admitted to
the cops that he was dripping blood everywhere, had gone into crazed rages befo
re, etc., etc. His lawyers have made up aliblis for him that contradict what he
told the police in his statement; chipping golf balls my @#*$%!!! If he walks it
'll be a damn shame. To me it will be as disgusting as it was when the first tri
al of the cops who wailed on Rodney King were found innocent. But things don't l
ook so good for OJ right now, especially with this new book of interviews with K
ato. So we'll see...if the jury lasts!!-Jim
Return-Path:
Date: Fri, 26 May 95 13:42 EDT
Subject: www counter
Your page
http://www.cs.hope.edu/~beckman/oj/oj.html
is getting too many hits to continue using my counter.
Please read
http://www-mae.engr.ucf.edu/~ssd/counter.html
Steve
Hee hee hee COOL!
Date: Thu, 25 May 1995 10:21:31 -0600
>From: Gino Agostinelli
Subject: I think OJ is...absolutely, 100% GUILTY
He was a cowardly wife-beater who went over the edge. How
can anybody with half a brain think he is not guilty. There
is a trail of blood that has been specifically identified.
Come on, there can not be a shadow of a doubt that he did
it. That is not to say he will be found guilty. He has the
best legal team ever assembled and I think he will be acquitted
Basically because the jury seems to be a bunch of idiots who
can't think straight and don't know when they're being lied
to. Jeanette Harris said she had doubts about his guilt.
How? What did the defense provide that raises doubt? That
the entire LAPD, three labs, and a littany of others were
all in on the conspiracy. We all know that neither the
government nor any public offices (LAPD and one of the crime
labs) can plan that effectively. Especially a conspiracy of
the scope that the defense purports. Let us not have our
collective intelligence insulted any longer. Innocent until
proven guilty is correct, but how much proof do we need?
I think OJ provided enough proof on June 12, 1994. Realize
that his lawyers are paid to do a job and they don't think
he's innocent. They are far more intelligent than any of
you and they deal in this kind of think everyday. They've seen it
many times. It is foolhardy to think that someone who attended
law school, and has been practicing law successfully for a
number of years would reach a conclusion other than guilt.
All of their contentions seem to be immaterial; a smoke
screen. However, it is not their fault. It is OJ's fault.
He gave them nothing to work with. He should have just scrawled
his autograph in Nicole's fresh blood across the Bundy sidewalk.
His lawyers are damn good. Johnnie Cochran hypnotizes.
Barry Scheck, although completely rude and disrespectful of
anybody in the courtroom, seems to be the perfect embodiment
of our perceptions of a lawyer. He is agressive and brash
as he chips away at each witness. His tone and choice
of words often have more effect than the actual substance of
the question or answer. Had this been any other African-
American man he would be rotting in jail awaiting his death.
But with his legal team. He will be rotting in Maui awaiting
his Mai-Tai.
WACKO WOW!!!: Man, I never thought we'd get novels here!!!
Date: Wed, 24 May 1995 12:43:36 -0600
From: Marsha dreier <dreirm.civ.lib>
Subject: I think OJ is...innocent
Realistically, it would be impossible for a cartoon
character to murder anyone. Oh wait, that's Bart Simpson
Nevermind.
Date: Tue, 23 May 1995 16:46:54 -0600
From: Joels <joels@adirondack.net>
Subject: I think OJ is...GUILTY
Why else would he smirk in court!!
Return-Path: <kearns_brian@scooby.Nswses.Navy.Mil>
Date: Tue, 23 May 95 12:38:51 -0700
Subject: o.j. guilty or innocent
WITH THE AMOUNT OF EVIDENCE BEING PRESENTED IN COURT RIGHT NOW, I I FEEL IT IS
OBVIOUS THAT OJ IS
GUILY OF THE MURDERS. TOO MANY PEOPLE WERE INVOLVED FOR IT TO BE A POLICE CONSP
IRPIRACY, AND OJS
LAWYERS SEEM TO BE JUST GRASPING AT STRAWS.
Date: Tue, 23 May 1995 13:20:22 -0600
From: Frank Boateng <boat@afb.yale.edu>
Subject: I think OJ is...Not guilty
I think O.J. might know the person or persons who commited
this crime. What I want to know is that after he killed
Nichole, what was Ron doing? waiting for his turn? come on!
Again, I think that little cut on OJ's finger is just too
small to be dripping all over the place especially if he
has a glove on. Think about it, all the police officers
gave inconsistant statements and everyone knows very well
that Furman did something as far the glove and some other
evidence in this case are concern.
O.J. is innocent so let him go.
Date: Tue, 23 May 1995 09:30:54 -0600
From: john doee doe <uiuc.edu>
Subject: I think OJ is guitly...
Noose the juice
Date: Mon, 22 May 1995 12:56:15 -0600
From: Jim Gilliland <James_Gilliland>
Subject: I think OJ is...
OJ:
You are so guilty it makes me want to buy nectarines.
WACKO BLECH!: That's pretty sick there Jim.
From: "F.KASOLO" <F.KASOLO@lshtm.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 22 May 95 13:05:48 -700
Subject: Not guilty
I think O.j is not guilty.The ought to have been more than one person to kill both person.
Date: Fri, 19 May 1995 14:00:19 -0600
From: vada <Hartland@ganet.net>
Subject: I think OJ is...
Guilty as a West Virgian par-taking in incest.
Date: Fri, 19 May 1995 08:08:40 -0600
From: sherlock IV <crime solver AVE.>
Subject: I think OJ is...
innocent, Me and a friend of mine sat at work and talked about
the OJ case and we concluded that OJ's son did the killings.
I vaguely remember in the beginning they mentioned something about his son
disliking Nicole. If I am correct i think they had an affair.
That would explain why OJ was so distraught on the plane ride.
His son had just killed his ex-wife. OJ is more likely to get off
than his son would be therefore that's why he's going to trial.
If it was known to this day that his son did this we all know that
this thing would have been over in 6 to 8 months. The son went and told
Kato also what he had done as well as telling him about the glove he
had thrown behind the fence. They went and told OJ and the three of them
searced for the glove. Kato going to get a flashlight then heard the
limo driver ringing the door bell. That is why no one was quick to get
the door because they were searching for the glove so that OJ
could dispose of it with the rest of the evidence. Kato and OJ
know who did this terrible thing but they aren't saying a word.
Some people will go way out for their children and that's what
OJ is doing.By the way his son was the one who drove the Bronco that
night. He did that because he knew that OJ would have an alibi
Think about it why would a man that already has been dating someone
go and screw his life around and be so careless.
Date: Wed, 17 May 1995 10:05:28 -0600
From: confused <somewhere, TX......>
Subject: I think OJ is...
innocent.I haven't been able to keep up with the trial on a
daily basis but the dissapearance of the blood samples has me
a bit thrown off. This has made it very obvious that OJ has been
set up. I think that someone in the Police Dept. is a fraud and they
were probably scared that OJ would give up there cover. That person
knowing how obsessed and on June 12 how upset he was with Nicole
took that moment as a priviledge to save their own ass and hang
OJ. The truth will never be know. I'm praying for OJ. I hope
he knows who his savior his. When God steps in no man can defeat
him. MAY BOD BE WITH YOU OJ!!! JUST BELIEVE with all your heart
and all your soul and God will deliver you.
Return-Path: <lynx2@linux1.virginia.lib.mn.us>
Date: Tue, 16 May 1995 15:52:02 -0500
From: 23.EAST.PARKWAY.STREET.VIRGINIA.MN.55792@linux1.virginia.lib.mn.us
Subject: OJ
OJ IS INNOCENT. THAT Marcia Clark bitch should go to hell!!!!
besides, that slut nicole definetly deserved it!!
OJ's defense should be that he wasn't trying to kill Goldman, he was just trying
to cut off that bastard's f###ing d!@k!!
Everything Below here is mail up to May 16th.
Everything before this is after May 16th. Got it?
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 1995 13:58:42 -0700
From: F.Lee Baliley (f.lee.bailey@oj.com)
Subject: I think OJ is...
DAMN GUILTY!
WACKO Note: This is so utterly fake -- check the spelling of 'Bailey'!
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 1995 13:10:35 -0700
From: Rob Malda (malda@cs.hope.edu)
Subject: I think OJ is...
Guiltier than the Manson bros. Worse than Hitler.
More evil than Rush. MORE BORING THAN FULL HOUSE!
WACKO Note: Got this one off of HotWired.Com...
From: Steven R. Meyers
Subject: The new one...
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 95
Just got this...
What's OJ Simpson's www address?...
http:////////////////
(Read aloud..." H-T-T-P colon slash slash slash...")
- Steve
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 1995 22:22:02 -0600
From: Jane Doe-Doe (Very very private!!!!!) WACKO Comment: Geez, I wish I knew her address!
Subject: I think OJ is...
giving an award winning preformance! BEST ACTOR OF 1995!!!
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 1995 19:09:03 -0600
From: Jerry O'Neil (Pulaski, NY)
Subject: I think OJ is...
probably guilty; the prosecution, however is nowhere near proving it beyond reas
onable doubt. Every expert witness the prosecution calls, the defense leaves in
ashes on the courtroom floor.
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 1995 11:05:13 -0600
From: Shannon (@ucs.indiana.edu)
Subject: I think OJ is...
Well-known
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 1995 14:23:17 -0600
From: Trena (T_Diggs@lac.jci.tju.edu)
Subject: I think OJ is...
I believe once we get to the DNA evidence it will show that without a doubt, O.J. is guilty!
Date: Mon, 17 Apr 1995 12:27:57 -0600
From: thy bun (tbun@ousd.k12.ca.us)
Subject: I think OJ is...
How did OJ kill two persons without a word from the victims?
I gave him five stars....Best killer in the 95.
Date: Mon, 17 Apr 1995 17:21:12 -0600
From: pam (pammcc@cccd.edu)
Subject: I think OJ is...
absolutely 100% GUILTY!!!!
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 1995 06:52:50 -0600
From: sherri taylor (http://i3125top.atl.hp.com)
Subject: I think OJ is...
50% not guilty...I think OJ played a part in what happened or
he knows who is responsible for what happened...but how can a
one person with arthritis kill two people..one of whom is a
black belt and no one heard any noise or screaming except for
a dog barking...come on people let's be realistic.
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 1995 01:19:22 EDT
Return-Path: (TJFY67B@mail.prodigy.com)
OJ is guilty, but he did not do it alone. It was either with his is
son (the older one, duh) or Robert Kardashian.
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 1995 18:00:44 -0600
From: Alysia Maschak (jmaschak@cln.etc.bc.ca)
Subject: I think OJ is...
really weird. What kind of person would write a book
declaring his innocence unless he felt a need to prove that?
I mean, yeah, right he's innocent! Hey OJ, try explaining
Nicole's 911 call, complaining about YOU!!
;-) Alysia Maschak ;-)
WACKO Question: Does she mean ME? Or OJ?
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 1995 12:03:31 -0600
From: student (springhill high N.S. Canada)
Subject: I think OJ is...
100% guilty but will probably get off because of who he is. He should be
hung for taking those poor kids mother away from them!
From: (bruce@nix.com)
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 95 10:22:20 -400
Subject: Simpson Trial
Personally, I gave O.J. the benefit of doubt un-
til the DNA evidence came back. Persons have
been sent to jail and the gas chamber for decades
from fingerprint evidence, and DNA fingerprinting
is 1000 times more reliable than that.
Return-Path: (tmaddox@kalama.doe.Hawaii.Edu)
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 1995 21:55:38 +1000
X-Personal_Name: tlm guilty!
Subject: oj's guilty!
OJ's guilty as sin!
From: Matt Gitchell (gi6075ma@meteor.uscolo.edu)
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 95 09:31:30 -2400
I think that OJ is very guilty and that he is going to walk away a free
man in the end.
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 1995 14:35:53 -0600
From: O.J. Simpson (oj@statepen.com)
Subject: I think *I* am...
am innocent. And I'm sick of this media overexposure.
I was framed. I'm not a fool! I would have cleaned
the blood up! How can I be evil! I was in a movie
with Leslie Neilson...
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 95 13:11:09 -0700
From: John Morris (jmorris@awinc.com)
Subject: OJ
You asked for Email telling you whether or not one thinks OJ is guilty
and why. You can pencil me in as one who does indeed think he is guilty.
I won't bother talking about the obvious - all the circumstantial
evidence that points straight to him - but my belief is based solely on
his being what we might call an "asshole." No kidding.
I can remember a conversation my wife and I had when he was arrested for
beating Nicole back in 1989. I just had a real bad feeling about the guy
- like I do about anybody who smiles all the time - and I told my wife,
"this is the real OJ we're seeing now - not that apparently swell guy who
is always smiling."
There's no way anyone will ever prove OJ killed his wife, because the
evidence is all circumstantial - even if there is a perfect DNA match -
but I know he did it anyhow. Because he's an asshole.
WACKO Vote of Gratitude: Thanks for the soliloquy. Tell yer wife that I said "Shuzbutt."
Date: Mon, 01 May 95 16:28:54 -0500
From: James Felix Black (spcfelix@otto.spc.uchicago.edu)
Subject: The OJ site -
Dear Heart -
Just a quick note to tell you that the Wacko OJ site is unquestionably
the ugliest thing I've ever seen. Keep up the good work and don't
ever let anybody tell you that background images aren't a great idea.
JFB
James Black email:j-black@uchicago.edu
From: OMSI Visitor (OMSI.Visitor@omsi.edu)
Date: Tue, 02 May 95 12:40:57 -700
Subject: O.J. trial
I think he was set up by someone,
WACKO Thought: Gee, Thanks so much for taking the time.
From: Darlene Waddington (boots@PrimeNet.Com)
Date: Wed, 03 May 95 17:37:34 -700
Subject: I think OJ is...
guilty of a lot more than he's even on trial for.
And even if the evidence doesn't hold up, he should be
imprisoned for making all those goofy faces in court.
And has anyone noticed how he and Shapiro are starting to
look the same?
And that Johnny Cochran looks like a grumpy Hostess
cupcake?
Date: Wed, 3 May 1995 11:58:17 -0600
From: Kim LaBoda (kllaboda@mailbox.syr.edu)
Subject: I think OJ is...
Guilty as hell. Why does he keep making those
horrendousfacial gestures? He's such a psycho......
Date: Wed, 3 May 1995 12:53:28 -0600
From: dede (phs)
Subject: I think OJ is...
I think the man is innocent. If anyone can, explain to me how can one man kill
to people. Why do are there only blood drops that they are finding. If you kill
two people you are not going to have blood drops you are going to have a pool o
f blood on you. Where is the murder weapon. If he is this careless enough to l
eave this blood drops, so where is the murder weapon.
Date: Thu, 4 May 1995 14:34:28 -0600
From: Kevin Delgadillo (Not)
Subject: I think OJ is...
Guilty. Unfortunately, this trial has become more about
which lawyers have the biggest dicks (sorry for Ms.
Clark) and not about whether he indeed killed Nicole.
The whole trial is one long, bad, and expensive joke.
I predict that it will result in a mistrial and he
will walk. How can the jurors arrive at a decision with
all the long, drawn out, boring, and confusing
testimony? Snoooore.
Kevin
Date: Thu, 4 May 1995 16:19:41 -0600
From: J. Bennett (bennettj@intellinet.com)
Subject: I think OJ is...
Guilty, ignorant, waster of tax payers money.
The situation can be resolved in 10 minutes in Tuscaloosa,
Alabama.
Date: Fri, 5 May 1995 10:59:21 -0600
From: Rachel Randall (86-51 Midland PKWY Queens N.Y. 11432)
Subject: I think OJ is...a f###ing a##hole
I think O.J. is obviosly guilty.He had the means and the
motive, the place and the time.He acted like all the other
bastards that get jeolous of their wfves or in his case
ex-wife. He is one of those types that wants all or nothing.
WACKO Censorship: This girl is a definite New Yorker! :-)
Date: Fri, 5 May 1995 11:25:17 -0600
From: TONY LOFDAHL (218 GERALD LAFAYETTE LA 70503) {=-WRITE HIM!
Subject: I think OJ is...GUILTY
A GOOD PLAYER BUT A MANIAC
Date: Fri, 5 May 1995 11:27:29 -0600
From: Joey Mattison (217 Waterford Lafayette LA 70503)
Subject: I think OJ is... Guilty
If O.J. did do it he did a stupid murder.
Date: Sat, 6 May 1995 15:21:04 -0600
From: alfonse j'boutie (yogie@jellystone.com)
Subject: I think OJ is...
is guilty of beating his wife but there is not enough evidence to be
jailed for murder. Though he has served his time for battering
nicole brown-simpson.
Date: Tue, 9 May 1995 10:26:51 -0600
From: Chet Schroeder (1421 Gardenia )
Subject: I think OJ is...GUILTY AS SIN
I think that O.J. should be considered for capitol punishment, in public
if he is found guilty.
he has comitted a terrible atrocity and should be put to the stake and burned.
He is just a rotten carton of juice.
Return-Path: (kb637791@oak.cats.ohiou.edu)
Date: Wed, 10 May 1995 13:35:54 -0400
X-Personal_Name: jen
From: kb637791@oak.cats.ohiou.edu
Subject:I love OJ
I Watch every day. I am 23 and Out of work right now, so that's why I watch. I
don't think he did it. I don't believe the Racist detective Furhman planted
the glove, but Think about this... the prosecution needs OJ's bronco to be out
there on the street at 10:40 or so because Kato supposedly heard Bumps in the
night. Supposedly OJ jumping the fence. Well, his bronco wasn't seen by the
prosecution's witness at that time. Will someone tell me how Oj was supposedly
Jumping over the fence and dropping the glove when his car wasn't even
there.And don't tell me he parked down the street, walked thru the neighbor's
yard, jumped the fence, dropped the glove, walked back to the car, drove to the
front of his house, walked up, and then the limo driver saw a Black figure
walking up the yard... at what time? 1045? How totally ridiculous is that. Come
on. It's grasping at straws.
WACKO Cry-For-Help: PLEASE!! Someone hire this guy! He's too
obscessed with the OJ Case!!! :-)
Date: Wed, 10 May 1995 16:59:09 -0600
From: Eaglin (sreaglin@ucdavis.edu)
Subject: I think OJ is...
NOT GUILTY! I think this b/c of these questions: Why was the socks moved? Why
wasn't his car taped off? Why did they take a blanket from OJ's car and place
it over Nicole to cover her? Where did this strength to kill two people ( in th
e fashion that they were murdered)? If he loved his childeren so much, why woul
d he kill their mother knowing that they are in the house? If he did kill them,
Why would he keep the socks? He could have gotten rid of them just like the cl
othing and the murder weapon (neither have been found)? Why is an X amount of O
J's blood (that he offered to give) missing? Why is there blood on the OUTSIDE
of the blood vile, it wasn't there when OJ gave his blood?
These are just a few of the many questions that I continue to hold b/c the DA ha
s failed to answer them. I watch CourtTV every day and than I watch the differe
nt highlights on the news, I believe that I am a well informed viewer.
I also believe that the only way OJ will be found innocent is if the real murder
ers are found, but I don't think that this will happen b/c they are long gone.
I do believe that it was rush to judgement.
One last note (for now at least): I don't think nor do I believe that OJ commit
ted this crime. But I DO BELIEVE THAT HE KNOWS WHO DID! In the fast life that
OJ, Nicole and Goldman lead it is dangerous and if you screw with the wrong peop
le you WILL GET HURT. My theory is: it was "these people" (if you will) that d
id the killings and OJ is trying to protect his childern and family by allowing
his lawyers to prove him NOT-GUILTY.
WACKO Ponderance: Do people really follow the OJ case this much? I run this page and I have
NO CLUE what's going on in the case, other than the fact that the jury is pissed and Ito
doesn't want a mistrial. That was in Time. :-) [End WACKO soliloquy]
Date: Thu, 11 May 1995 13:24:25 -0600
From: Bartman @ bellevue (3412 169 Ave N.E. BELLEVUE , WA. 98008)
Subject: I think OJ is...
Innoscent , but this damn trial is blown so out of proportion that people forget
what it is all about . Murders, for crying outloud !Because of that I make fun
of it on my radio show on mondays . Like spoofs of the JUDGE , in ''AIR ITO'S ''
shows it is now a hell of a lot more entertaining than those damn Menendez brot
hers !!!!!!!!!
Thank - You who ever you are who killed Ronald and Nicole ,now practica
lly the nation is tuned in on the O.J. trial !!!!!! In case you did not guess ,
or are not smart enough to figure out sarcasism when you here it , that was a sa
rcastic remark , THANK-YOU very much
Barton Goldman Treece III
Date: Sun, 14 May 1995 17:33:25 -0600
From: Derek Wuenschirs - Toronto, Ontario
Subject: I think OJ is Kato Kaelin's lover
'Nuff Said. :-)
WACKO Sexual Orientation: Hmmm, is this the view of ALL Canadians?
Date: Tue, 16 May 1995 11:46:22 -0600
From: shirley pitts (houston,texas)
Subject: I think OJ is...
innocent of the actual killing but I do believe that he had
something to do with it as well as kato and al. No matter what
the verdict may be he shouldn't be sentenced to death.They will
however reap what they sow as well the person that puts him to
death if that is the outcome.Also people are joking about this
life is not a joke you know.
beckman@purplecow.com