I just invested a few hours watching old O.J. Simpson stuff... and it is really interesting to listen to him regarding his first trial and his parole hearing a few months back.

Here my impressions:

Old Simpson case

Before listening to him I really was undecided about if he killed his wife and another guy or not. But what he tells and how he tells it, is really convincing... He is surely not a stupid guy and knows how to speak and make money. For a football player I think this is really not bad. I think his story is logical and there are really inconsistencies in the trial which have you doubt that he did it. Nobody could have him convicted with a clear conscience, although it looked really bad for him when he was fleeing from the police in his Bronco...
If it was not proven that he did it in a trial and he was ruled to be not guilty, how can it be possible to be liable for the death of somebody and having to pay 55 million USD to the victims of a crime you were not guilty of? Perhaps someone from the U.S. can explain that to me? Because I do not get it... I think there is no other place on earth that would rule like this...

The 33 year conviction with release on parole after 9 years for getting his stuff back

I think he acted out of anger the wrong way in that case, but nobody got hurt and he surely only wanted his personal belongings back... To convict him for robbery and kidnapping because he said that nobody leaves the room, while he saw that his personal pictures and stuff was spread out in the room I think was just an unfortunate natural reaction, so that nobody could stop him packing his personal stuff in a box and leaving. Going there with armed people, even though he had been told that there were dangerous people was also wrong. He should not have done any of this, but as a football player is this very male reaction not somehow understandable?
What I do not understand is how it can be possible that he does not talk to his friend who had these things from Simpson, which he admits, and he admits that he had stuff that Simpson belonged in the Parole hearing and that Simpson did not point a gun at anybody and that he considered him a friend. Also, why go with armed man to a friend to recover your stuff? Do you have friends who require visiting them with armed guys to recover stuff that belongs to you??

All in all very interesting, but I would not have given him for this incident 33 years or even 1 year for doing that last thing... 6 Months would have been enough in my eyes. Even the victim suggested only 1-3 years to the prosecutor ... if you behave fine you would get out after 50% served, which would be 6-18 months...

What is your opinion?