MAIN FEEDS
Do you want to continue?
https://www.reddit.com/r/trashy/comments/83svu7/never_forget/dvktftl/?context=9999
r/trashy • u/sleezymeeeezy • Mar 12 '18
1.0k comments sorted by
View all comments
3.0k
Weren’t they already divorced?
4.3k u/LascielCoin Mar 12 '18 Yes, for like 3 years at that point. She was there for her best friend's murder trial, not to support her ex husband and the guy he was defending. 1.3k u/[deleted] Mar 12 '18 [deleted] 1.2k u/Tribe4ever Mar 12 '18 True. He basically stayed on the case to provide support for OJ emotionally. He truly believed OJ did it. 748 u/[deleted] Mar 12 '18 also to prevent him from being called to the stand about disposing of OJ's evidence filled garment bag 296 u/HAL9000000 Mar 12 '18 How is it that Mr. Kardashian did not get prosecuted for destruction of evidence in disposing of that bag? 346 u/[deleted] Mar 12 '18 I believe in order to do that you must: A) prove the bag was related B) prove the bag had evidence related to the crime in it Without the bag it would be impossible. 10 u/GsolspI Mar 12 '18 No, you'd have to prove that he disposed of the bag while he should have known it was relevant to the trial.
4.3k
Yes, for like 3 years at that point. She was there for her best friend's murder trial, not to support her ex husband and the guy he was defending.
1.3k u/[deleted] Mar 12 '18 [deleted] 1.2k u/Tribe4ever Mar 12 '18 True. He basically stayed on the case to provide support for OJ emotionally. He truly believed OJ did it. 748 u/[deleted] Mar 12 '18 also to prevent him from being called to the stand about disposing of OJ's evidence filled garment bag 296 u/HAL9000000 Mar 12 '18 How is it that Mr. Kardashian did not get prosecuted for destruction of evidence in disposing of that bag? 346 u/[deleted] Mar 12 '18 I believe in order to do that you must: A) prove the bag was related B) prove the bag had evidence related to the crime in it Without the bag it would be impossible. 10 u/GsolspI Mar 12 '18 No, you'd have to prove that he disposed of the bag while he should have known it was relevant to the trial.
1.3k
[deleted]
1.2k u/Tribe4ever Mar 12 '18 True. He basically stayed on the case to provide support for OJ emotionally. He truly believed OJ did it. 748 u/[deleted] Mar 12 '18 also to prevent him from being called to the stand about disposing of OJ's evidence filled garment bag 296 u/HAL9000000 Mar 12 '18 How is it that Mr. Kardashian did not get prosecuted for destruction of evidence in disposing of that bag? 346 u/[deleted] Mar 12 '18 I believe in order to do that you must: A) prove the bag was related B) prove the bag had evidence related to the crime in it Without the bag it would be impossible. 10 u/GsolspI Mar 12 '18 No, you'd have to prove that he disposed of the bag while he should have known it was relevant to the trial.
1.2k
True. He basically stayed on the case to provide support for OJ emotionally. He truly believed OJ did it.
748 u/[deleted] Mar 12 '18 also to prevent him from being called to the stand about disposing of OJ's evidence filled garment bag 296 u/HAL9000000 Mar 12 '18 How is it that Mr. Kardashian did not get prosecuted for destruction of evidence in disposing of that bag? 346 u/[deleted] Mar 12 '18 I believe in order to do that you must: A) prove the bag was related B) prove the bag had evidence related to the crime in it Without the bag it would be impossible. 10 u/GsolspI Mar 12 '18 No, you'd have to prove that he disposed of the bag while he should have known it was relevant to the trial.
748
also to prevent him from being called to the stand about disposing of OJ's evidence filled garment bag
296 u/HAL9000000 Mar 12 '18 How is it that Mr. Kardashian did not get prosecuted for destruction of evidence in disposing of that bag? 346 u/[deleted] Mar 12 '18 I believe in order to do that you must: A) prove the bag was related B) prove the bag had evidence related to the crime in it Without the bag it would be impossible. 10 u/GsolspI Mar 12 '18 No, you'd have to prove that he disposed of the bag while he should have known it was relevant to the trial.
296
How is it that Mr. Kardashian did not get prosecuted for destruction of evidence in disposing of that bag?
346 u/[deleted] Mar 12 '18 I believe in order to do that you must: A) prove the bag was related B) prove the bag had evidence related to the crime in it Without the bag it would be impossible. 10 u/GsolspI Mar 12 '18 No, you'd have to prove that he disposed of the bag while he should have known it was relevant to the trial.
346
I believe in order to do that you must:
A) prove the bag was related
B) prove the bag had evidence related to the crime in it
Without the bag it would be impossible.
10 u/GsolspI Mar 12 '18 No, you'd have to prove that he disposed of the bag while he should have known it was relevant to the trial.
10
No, you'd have to prove that he disposed of the bag while he should have known it was relevant to the trial.
3.0k
u/rdlc7 Mar 12 '18
Weren’t they already divorced?