| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| TitanPa |
Posted - 09/17/2007 : 08:04:23
Rest In Prison
Oj has finnaly hit rock bottom. HE is getting what he deserves. HE has been charged with armed robbery and lots more. He wont be able to get out of this one. Someones gonna stick it to him!
OJ squeezed
Simpson does a Doh!
If he did it?
Searching Prison for killer
|
| 15 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Downtown |
Posted - 09/20/2007 : 14:51:51
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
Which of course begs the question, how can someone like him ever get a truly fair trial if practically everyone already has an opinion about it?
That's what they said the last time. |
| ChocolateLady |
Posted - 09/20/2007 : 07:24:46
Which of course begs the question, how can someone like him ever get a truly fair trial if practically everyone already has an opinion about it? |
| Airbolt |
Posted - 09/20/2007 : 00:05:35
I don't think this will change anyone's opinion of OJ . Those who think he is guilty will continue to do so and this will only " confirm" their opinion. Those who think he is innocent will never change their mind either.
|
| Downtown |
Posted - 09/19/2007 : 17:20:41
quote:
Originally posted by Stalean
There are implications now that it was a setup. If there's a chance this is true, that would be a real shame.  Why would this be a shame, you may ask. He would become the "victim" then, and this would elicit sympathy from some sectors of society. This man deserves NO sympathy--his wife and children and Ron Goldman and his family deserve sympathy.
On the other hand, one may think "So what if he's innocent of this crime, let him go to jail anyway, he deserves it for the other crime." This would be a tainted victory, though, and show just how perverse our system of justice can be at times. On the other, other hand, some will say "So what" to that, also. "It's about time he became the victim."
There are also suggestions that the system is being especially hard on him, especially by denying bail. But I reject that notion out of hand...we ARE talking about someone who evaded police and led them on a freeway pursuit. He's run before, there's every reason to believe he'll do it again. |
| duh |
Posted - 09/19/2007 : 07:54:15
I agree with DT about the incompetence that was exhibited by Marcia Clark.
I recall one scene where Cochran moved around behind her in the courtroom and as he did so, he placed a hand on each of Clark's elbows and sort of set her aside. That was something that she should have made an issue of.
As for the glove not fitting...well duh! [url+"http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/famous/simpson/hairs_14.html"]Blood would have made the glove shrink[/url], and the wearing of a latex glove would definitely have made it more difficult to get the leather glove on.
I read 'Outrage' by Vincent Bugliosi and he said that even with that jury, the prosecution should have been able to get a conviction.
|
| ChocolateLady |
Posted - 09/19/2007 : 07:06:18
But that's wrong. That isn't how the system is supposed to work. If OJ was aquitted of the murder, then even if he's actually guilty of that murder but not of this crime, he shouldn't be convicted of this one unless the prosecution can convince the jury to find him guilty. Just because justice may have been blind before, it shouldn't hold a grudge for this crime.
The biggest problem is all the tricks and loopholes that lawyers use to help get their clients off, just to see if they can. That's the bigger crime in my eyes.
(Tell me, has the TV series Shark shown in the UK?)
|
| GHcool |
Posted - 09/19/2007 : 05:08:52
quote:
Originally posted by Stalean
On the other hand, one may think "So what if he's innocent of this crime, let him go to jail anyway, he deserves it for the other crime." This would be a tainted victory, though, and show just how perverse our system of justice can be at times. On the other, other hand, some will say "So what" to that, also. "It's about time he became the victim."
Yeah. I was thinking more or less the same thing. If I was a juror in the murder trial, it wouldn't have been too difficult for me to presume innocence and be an impartial juror. I don't think that anybody born after the murder trial could possibly be impartial and presume innocence this time around. |
| Stalean |
Posted - 09/18/2007 : 20:05:18
There are implications now that it was a setup. If there's a chance this is true, that would be a real shame. Why would this be a shame, you may ask. He would become the "victim" then, and this would elicit sympathy from some sectors of society. This man deserves NO sympathy--his wife and children and Ron Goldman and his family deserve sympathy.
On the other hand, one may think "So what if he's innocent of this crime, let him go to jail anyway, he deserves it for the other crime." This would be a tainted victory, though, and show just how perverse our system of justice can be at times. On the other, other hand, some will say "So what" to that, also. "It's about time he became the victim." |
| GHcool |
Posted - 09/18/2007 : 17:53:10
I was about 10 years old at the time of the OJ Simpson trial. I'm not sure I truly understood everything about it, but I do remember it having shaped me a little bit. The alleged murder occurred only two houses down from where a childhood friend of mine lived in Brentwood. I remember learning new concepts like "reasonable doubt" and "evidence." I also remember endless conversations in my family and in other adults about it. I would rank the OJ Simpson trial as the second most affecting news event of my childhood. First place would probably go to the 1992 presidential election in which Bill Clinton beat George Bush, Sr. |
| Downtown |
Posted - 09/18/2007 : 15:04:33
quote:
Originally posted by Stalean
You win.  I had forgotten about Fuhrman. I have really tried to forget that trial, but O.J. keeps rearing his ugly head(lines). What a fiasco was that whole trial.
I share your frustration. I probably should have mentioned at some point that I think he's guilty as sin. That's what's so sad about the whole thing...the case was practically a slam dunk, it took some darn good (and expensive) lawyers to capitalize on the prosecution's mistakes, but there were a LOT of those mistakes and they were really bad ones.
You should see what Alan Dershowitz has to say about the case. I haven't been able to find it, but at one point there was a website with an essay by him "How Martha Clark Blew the OJ Simpson Case." He's since written a whole book about the trial, including those mistakes. |
| Downtown |
Posted - 09/18/2007 : 13:44:15
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
OJ is INNOCENT!
This is a conspiracy by the White Establishment to smear a successful African-American role model.
This persecution must stop! 
I understand that Black people in the USA think of OJ as white. Seriously. What they mean by this is that he's no longer "one of them", and hasn't been for a very long time.
Which highlights what a complete dead end Identity Politics really are. |
| ChocolateLady |
Posted - 09/18/2007 : 07:20:22
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
OJ is INNOCENT!
This is a conspiracy by the White Establishment to smear a successful African-American role model.
This persecution must stop!
I understand that Black people in the USA think of OJ as white. Seriously. What they mean by this is that he's no longer "one of them", and hasn't been for a very long time.
|
| Stalean |
Posted - 09/17/2007 : 23:11:42
quote:
Originally posted by Downtown
quote:
Did anyone in the world think he wasn't guilty, except diehard fanboys, his mother, and the jury?
It doesn't matter, StaLean. They didn't prove it. They put a cop with a terrible track record on the stand, exposing him up to cross examination which kicked the door wide open to establish reasonable doubt. The fact that the first officers on the scene botched the evidence gathering certainly didn't help, but the deathblow was Officer Fuhrman's testimony. Why was he even in the courtroom? There was no reason to put him on the stand in the first place, and considering the legal team they were up against they should have predicted that OJ's "dream team" was going to "dig up the dirt" on Fuhrman and discredit him. They either didn't do their homework on the man they were putting up as a witness, or they underestimated their opposition. Either way, they blew the case right there.
And don't even get me started on the gloves. Just like with Fuhrman, that move was completely unnecessary. If the gloves had fit, it wouldn't have really helped their case anyway. They had nothing to gain by that and everything to lose...and they lost.
And your point about the jury really bolsters my argument. That's why both sides are involved in the jury selection process. The defense took advantage of that process while the prosecution just went along for the ride, and the result was a jury that was stacked in the defense's favor. That's sheer incompetence on behalf of the prosecution.
You win. I had forgotten about Fuhrman. I have really tried to forget that trial, but O.J. keeps rearing his ugly head(lines). What a fiasco was that whole trial. |
| Downtown |
Posted - 09/17/2007 : 16:46:56
quote:
Did anyone in the world think he wasn't guilty, except diehard fanboys, his mother, and the jury?
It doesn't matter, StaLean. They didn't prove it. They put a cop with a terrible track record on the stand, exposing him up to cross examination which kicked the door wide open to establish reasonable doubt. The fact that the first officers on the scene botched the evidence gathering certainly didn't help, but the deathblow was Officer Fuhrman's testimony. Why was he even in the courtroom? There was no reason to put him on the stand in the first place, and considering the legal team they were up against they should have predicted that OJ's "dream team" was going to "dig up the dirt" on Fuhrman and discredit him. They either didn't do their homework on the man they were putting up as a witness, or they underestimated their opposition. Either way, they blew the case right there.
And don't even get me started on the gloves. Just like with Fuhrman, that move was completely unnecessary. If the gloves had fit, it wouldn't have really helped their case anyway. They had nothing to gain by that and everything to lose...and they lost.
And your point about the jury really bolsters my argument. That's why both sides are involved in the jury selection process. The defense took advantage of that process while the prosecution just went along for the ride, and the result was a jury that was stacked in the defense's favor. That's sheer incompetence on behalf of the prosecution. |
| Stalean |
Posted - 09/17/2007 : 16:25:18
quote:
Originally posted by Downtown
quote:
He wont be able to get out of this one
That's true, but only because he's broke this time...and also because nobody could be as incompetent as Martha Clarke was. She shouldn't even be practicing law anymore after the way she blew the case the last time.
In my opinion, I think the jury members were just as incompetent. Did anyone in the world think he wasn't guilty, except diehard fanboys, his mother, and the jury? Honestly! "if the glove doesn't fit, don't convict..." P-lease, give me a break!! 
Some facts about the final jury: (1) None regularly read a newspaper, but eight regularly watched tabloid TV shows, (2) five thought it was sometimes appropriate to use force on a family member, (3) all were Democrats, (4) five reported that they or another family member had had a negative experience with the police, (5) nine thought that Simpson was less likely to be a murderer because he was a professional athlete.
I rest my case.  (nerd smiley looks a little like Johnnie Cochran, don't ya think)  |
|
|
