• @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        243 months ago

        He was acquitted, meaning it couldn’t be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty.

      • @IphtashuFitz
        link
        English
        83 months ago

        He was proven liable in the civil trial. The additional evidence uncovered by the lawyers in that case was damning. Civil trials typically don’t require a unanimous verdict, but it was unanimous in this case.

  • davel [he/him]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    413 months ago

    The Juice is out of juice 🤷 What a waste of our collective time and attention that piece of shit was.

    • @Pretzilla
      link
      33 months ago

      Except that mistake from the prosecution is what got him acquitted

      Of fucking course blood soaked then dried and shrunken leather gloves tried on over high grip exam gloves won’t fit.

      The prosecution should have spent the $100 for a new pair in the same size, then broken them in on some big killer-sized hands before giving them to him to try on.

      Christopher Dardan got played by the defense goading him into it. Pity the fool.

  • @lemmus
    link
    263 months ago

    What a terrible headline.

    Fixed it: Murderer whose trial riveted the nation.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      63 months ago

      Person who was charged and put on trial for murder died. It’s a legal term. Journalists can get sued for defamation for blatantly calling someone who is not convicted a rapist or murderer. You can safely call OJ an armed robber and kidnapper though.

      That’s why the talking heads on tv tend to dance around the terminology and say “allegedly” and “accused of”

      • @SkyezOpen
        link
        53 months ago

        Not guilty is not the same as innocent.

          • @SkyezOpen
            link
            23 months ago

            Legally. “Found innocent” is a legal conclusion and factually incorrect.

            • @IphtashuFitz
              link
              English
              13 months ago

              Criminal trials don’t find defendants “innocent”. They find them not guilty, which is a huge difference. It means the prosecution didn’t bring forward enough evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The presence of doubt means they weren’t found guilty. Not that they were found innocent.

  • wildncrazyguy
    link
    fedilink
    163 months ago

    I really hope he donated his brain to science. The man went from world famous to villain in a single car chase. It’s rare that people fall from grace so far, so quickly. I am not excusing his heinous acts, but I will say it would make a lot more sense, in my mind, if this man’s anger and impulsivity was predicated on a TBI.

    • @kromem
      link
      English
      103 months ago

      For people out of the loop:

      One of the first studies to investigate the rates of TBI in offender populations was conducted by Slaughter, Fann, and Ehde (2003) who reported the rate to be 87% in a county jail setting. Schofield et al. (2006) then reported the TBI prevalence in all offender populations to range from 25-87% and, later, Williams et al. (2010) documented the prevalence of TBI in those settings to be 65%. In a more recent study, Ferguson, Pickelsimer, Corrigan, Bogner, and Wald (2012) found that 65% of male inmates, and 72% of female inmates, reported at least one TBI resulting in a change in consciousness. Finally, some of the current authors studied the incidence of TBI in a mental health transition unit at a county jail and found the incidence of TBI among a sample of offenders with a co-morbid mental illness to be 96% (Gafford, McMillan, Gorgens, Dettmer, & Glover, 2015).

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      23 months ago

      Why? He killed his wife in a fit of rage. There wasn’t anything special going on in his brain. A lot of pro athletes end up doing heinous crimes.

      • @Woozythebear
        link
        -243 months ago

        He was found innocent so he didn’t kill anyone.

    • @Woozythebear
      link
      -223 months ago

      Lol? What did he do to deserve dying from cancer?

      • @p5yk0t1km1r4ge
        link
        16
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        Spare me the virtue signaling pseudo higher than thou bullshit. OJ is a killer and profited off of it. He deserves worse.

      • Decoy321
        link
        83 months ago

        You keep repeating that like it’s true. It isn’t. Being acquitted of charges is nowhere near the same as being proven innocent.

        We’re talking about a motherfucker who wrote a book about how he did it and titled it “if I did it.”

        • @IphtashuFitz
          link
          English
          2
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          The book about the civil trial, Triumph of Justice, is actually a good read. Among other things it goes over the additional evidence uncovered to help prove he committed the murder. Evidence like photographs of him clearly wearing the shoes whose prints were found at the murder scene. The same shoes he described as “ugly ass” and said he would never wear. He was photographed wearing them in front of thousands of people as he walked across a football field before a game.

    • @[email protected]OP
      link
      fedilink
      12 months ago

      Well he was world famous, I’m not from the US myself but most genX and older (~40+) knew about him and his trial at least superficially