O.J. Simpson found GUILTY on all 12 charges

[Charles_Main]

I love how a guilty verdict in a case where OJ was clearly Guilty is labeled as Racism by some.

Pathetic

 

[Contessa_Sharra]

The Bass never accepted his not guilty verdict 13 years ago and this isn't poetic justice and or karma if the jury convicted based on something that happened 13 years ago, it would be another case of bungled justice. Some people have twisted views on justice that they would never apply to themselves but place on others.

You are, unfortunately, arguing at brick walls here.


Laws should be laws, and personalities out of it, but it just isn't the world we live in.


This really does say it all:

Some people have twisted views on justice that they would never apply to themselves but place on others.

​

That attitude is a great loss for all of us, but it is not appreciated fully until it is a loved one or relative in the dock. By then, the unfair habit is carved in stone.

 

[Contessa_Sharra]

Disagree. One is not supposed to have to prove one's innocence. It is up to the prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Too often nowadays, the media decides these cases before they're ever heard.

I firmly believe that psychopath Nancy Grace was more responsible for Peterrson's guilty verdict than any evidence. I was working nights at the time and they showed the trial on Court TV with Ms. "Hang 'Em High" doing the commentary. It bordered on absurd.

I would like to see N. Grace in jail a few months. Minimum! Is the reason she is no longer a lawyer/prosecutor because she couldn't cut it in that job.

Her voice and the tone are enough to vote not guilty, just out of aggravation for being forced to listen to HER!

On peterson, I had my doubts at the time. His behavior since brings up serious questions!

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

The issue here is 1st Amendment Rights (freedom of speech) vs the Rights of the accused. The media has successfully argued that not not allowing it full and free access to all available facts, and the freedom to present to the public those facts, editorialized or not is an infringement on the 1st Amendment.

I deally, I agree. It IS an infringement on the 1st Amendement to restrict access.

However, as cliche as it sounds, I firmly believe in the old axiom that there are just some things "the people" don't need to know.

As it pertains to a case such as this one, or OJ's original trial or Peterson's trial, where do the Rights of the accused begin and the media's and/or public's rights to free and unfettered acces to information end?

It is my opinion that the Rights of the accused be paramount. In OJ's first trial and in Peterson's trial, these men were on trial for their very lives. Hardly low-risk stakes. The media convinced the public of their guilt before trials ever began. To claim they found an unbiased jury would mean they would have to drag 12 people out of caves on deserted islands.

Since it obviously can and has influnenced juries, the media should not be allowed ANY information other than the name of the accused and the charges against them, IMO, until the trial has concluded.

This thread itself is a perfect example of "why not." Invariably, if OJs name comes up, the knuckleheads come out of the woodwork to claim he got away with murder. Most that I have run into cannot say "how" thought. They just parrot the media, but have no substance to their accusations.

Then there are idiots like the (B)Ass who want to squeal discrimination when the fact is, in this case, OJ is guilty as supported by the facts and a jury found him guilty. IMO, OJ is doubly stupid for pulling a stunt like this KNOWING that the vast majority believed he got away with murder and ANY excuse to nail his ass to the wall would be good enough. He was dumb enough to give them that excuse.

Guns...

At the time of the first aquittal, I was drawn to tears when the Jury declared him 'not guilty. But, like most folks, I thought that the evidence was overwhelming that he did murder those folks, but it was also overwhelming that the LA County's prosecutor and the investigation of the Juice was corrupt and unapologetically so... so the verdict was a relief that the highly corrupt system, had their ass handed to them and that was a good thing for all of us.

But the simple fact is that just because the Jury decided to slam the prosecutor and deny them the conviction because of their chronic audacity to convict a man without the benefit of the trial; to screw with evidence; to provide a job as an investigator... to a vile racist and so on... this in no way relieves OJ of the burden that I believe HE FELT, knowing the truth...

Thus his decade long drive to push it...

The fact is that the evidence from the first case does not point to anyone other than the Juice and while it's possible that those two people were slaughtered on the steps of Mrs. Simpsons home, for no reason beyond they were in the wrong place at the wrong time... the evidence does not, in my mind leave one with a reasonable doubt that it was anyone other than the Juice.

OJ could have done a thousand things over the years that could have possibly given one reason to believe that he didn't murder the Mother of his children and young Goldman, in a viscious, premeditated attack... but he didn't.

 

[Contessa_Sharra]

surely you are not saying now that OJ should be permitted to break any law he wishes and go free because there is the possibility that a jury might hold 13 years ago against him. I don't think the events of 13 years ago were allowed to enter in to this trial.

Some on Simpson jury disagreed with 1995 acquittal

The Associated Press
Article Launched: 10/04/2008 0619 PM PDT


LAS VEGAS—Several jurors in O.J. Simpson's Las Vegas trial say they disagreed with his murder acquittal 13 years ago.

According to jury questionnaires released Saturday, five of the 12 jurors in Simpson's armed robbery-kidnapping case wrote that they disagreed with the 1995 verdict that cleared Simpson in the murders of his ex-wife and her friend. Most others claimed to be uncertain or did not answer the question.

All jurors said they could set aside their feelings. Redacted versions of the questionnaires were released by Clark County District Court Judge Jackie Glass. Simpson was convicted late Friday on all counts related to a botched hotel-room heist a year ago.
http://www.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_10639589

________________________________________________​

I figure this will go all the way to the Supremes! As much as I dislike him and his generally ugly ways, the justice system needs to be above this, and "we the people' need to force that issue.

Well, all I can say is that "we the people" have a lot to work on, but on the other hand, at least his mother was not here to see this one!

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

[Well, all I can say is that "we the people" have a lot to work on, but on the other hand, at least his mother was not here to see this one!

Well said...

 

[Gunny]

I would like to see N. Grace in jail a few months. Minimum! Is the reason she is no longer a lawyer/prosecutor because she couldn't cut it in that job.

Her voice and the tone are enough to vote not guilty, just out of aggravation for being forced to listen to HER!

On peterson, I had my doubts at the time. His behavior since brings up serious questions!

I have issues with handing out the death penalty based on circumstantial evidence, no direct evidence, no witnesses and no confession. The guy's an arrogant SOB. I agree totally with that. That, however, is not against the law.

I don't know why Nancy Grace quit or retired as a prosecutor. I DO know that, IIRC, one of her children was murdered and she went off the deep end as far as I'm concerned.

Regardless, I don't think she should be commentating on court proceedings if she can't be impartial, or at LEAST keep her rhetoric to a minimum.

Apparently, somebody likes her.

 

[Gunny]

Guns...

At the time of the first aquittal, I was drawn to tears when the Jury declared him 'not guilty. But, like most folks, I thought that the evidence was overwhelming that he did murder those folks, but it was also overwhelming that the LA County's prosecutor and the investigation of the Juice was corrupt and unapologetically so... so the verdict was a relief that the highly corrupt system, had their ass handed to them and that was a good thing for all of us.

But the simple fact is that just because the Jury decided to slam the prosecutor and deny them the conviction because of their chronic audacity to convict a man without the benefit of the trial; to screw with evidence; to provide a job as an investigator... to a vile racist and so on... this in no way relieves OJ of the burden that I believe HE FELT, knowing the truth...

Thus his decade long drive to push it...

The fact is that the evidence from the first case does not point to anyone other than the Juice and while it's possible that those two people were slaughtered on the steps of Mrs. Simpsons home, for no reason beyond they were in the wrong place at the wrong time... the evidence does not, in my mind leave one with a reasonable doubt that it was anyone other than the Juice.

OJ could have done a thousand things over the years that could have possibly given one reason to believe that he didn't murder the Mother of his children and young Goldman, in a viscious, premeditated attack... but he didn't.

Why? Because you think he should have? He was acquitted of the crime. He needn't say nor explain anything.

He was found guilty this time of a completely unrelated crime and I find it rather ridiculous that people are crying "justice finally served" when he was STILL not convicted of killing Brown and Goldman.

Forensic science being what it was even the early 90s, I can't really imagine that if he was in fact guilty, that so little evidence existed.

Be that as it may, he committed a crime and got busted with enough evidence to convict. Anyone crying discrimination isn't interested in fact or truth. Just crying discrimination.

 

[Luissa]

My problem is both verdicts have been on my birthday and I have been screwed ever since with bad luck around my birthday! Prime example, I totalled my car last week!I got my first speeding ticket on birthday and my last one! And A few other things I will not go into.
Personally I think he got set up this time but I believe he had it coming!

 

[WillowTree]

You are, unfortunately, arguing at brick walls here.


Laws should be laws, and personalities out of it, but it just isn't the world we live in.


This really does say it all:

Some people have twisted views on justice that they would never apply to themselves but place on others.

​

That attitude is a great loss for all of us, but it is not appreciated fully until it is a loved one or relative in the dock. By then, the unfair habit is carved in stone.

bottom line. here is what is sad. 1995 jury decision accepted, for whatever reason it was accepted. Now jury is racist.. this is sad.

 

[DiveCon]

My problem is both verdicts have been on my birthday and I have been screwed ever since with bad luck around my birthday! Prime example, I totalled my car last week!I got my first speeding ticket on birthday and my last one! And A few other things I will not go into.
Personally I think he got set up this time but I believe he had it coming!

sounds to me like someone needs to hire a driver

 

[Luissa]

Disagree. One is not supposed to have to prove one's innocence. It is up to the prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Too often nowadays, the media decides these cases before they're ever heard.

I firmly believe that psychopath Nancy Grace was more responsible for Peterrson's guilty verdict than any evidence. I was working nights at the time and they showed the trial on Court TV with Ms. "Hang 'Em High" doing the commentary. It bordered on absurd.

They did establish reasonable doubt in OJ's first trial mostly do to Mark Furman! And now goo 'ole' Mark has a radio show in northern Idaho and eastern Washington!

 

[Luissa]

sounds to me like someone needs to hire a driver

Yeah! I had alittle speeding problem a few years ago but I also had a red Acura which didn't help! That sort of thing isn't the only thing that ever happened on my birthday since then, I just didn't want to go into those!
And I do have to have a driver now called the bus until I fix my car!

 

[Bass v 2.0]

The issue here is 1st Amendment Rights (freedom of speech) vs the Rights of the accused. The media has successfully argued that not not allowing it full and free access to all available facts, and the freedom to present to the public those facts, editorialized or not is an infringement on the 1st Amendment.

I deally, I agree. It IS an infringement on the 1st Amendement to restrict access.

However, as cliche as it sounds, I firmly believe in the old axiom that there are just some things "the people" don't need to know.

As it pertains to a case such as this one, or OJ's original trial or Peterson's trial, where do the Rights of the accused begin and the media's and/or public's rights to free and unfettered acces to information end?

It is my opinion that the Rights of the accused be paramount. In OJ's first trial and in Peterson's trial, these men were on trial for their very lives. Hardly low-risk stakes. The media convinced the public of their guilt before trials ever began. To claim they found an unbiased jury would mean they would have to drag 12 people out of caves on deserted islands.

Since it obviously can and has influnenced juries, the media should not be allowed ANY information other than the name of the accused and the charges against them, IMO, until the trial has concluded.

This thread itself is a perfect example of "why not." Invariably, if OJs name comes up, the knuckleheads come out of the woodwork to claim he got away with murder. Most that I have run into cannot say "how" thought. They just parrot the media, but have no substance to their accusations.

Then there are idiots like the (B)Ass who want to squeal discrimination when the fact is, in this case, OJ is guilty as supported by the facts and a jury found him guilty. IMO, OJ is doubly stupid for pulling a stunt like this KNOWING that the vast majority believed he got away with murder and ANY excuse to nail his ass to the wall would be good enough. He was dumb enough to give them that excuse.

Gunny you are pathetic moron for even suggesting the Bass said discrimination had anything to do with the verdict so don't put words nor thought in the Bass mouth and mind. The Bass only said that *IF* OJ was convicted of this crime because of feeling about what happened 13 years ago justice was not served, when did the Bass even accuse the jury of discriminating against OJ racially? The only one who suggested such a thing was 53nd Street, not the Bass. All black folk don't think alike nor look alike so next time get your facts straight.

 

[Gunny]

They did establish reasonable doubt in OJ's first trial mostly do to Mark Furman! And now goo 'ole' Mark has a radio show in northern Idaho and eastern Washington!

Furman was the tip of the iceberg. The procedural errors committed by the police were incompetent, and fabricating evidence criminal.

Van Adder disappears with OJ's and blood and mysteriously the next day a pair of blood stained OJ socks appear. Only problem with them was OJ would have had to have bled THROUGH his ankle. The dolt poured the blood on the socks while still folded.

Never heard a word of anyone being charged or prosecuted for that.

 

[Gunny]

Gunny you are pathetic moron for even suggesting the Bass said discrimination had anything to do with the verdict so don't put words nor thought in the Bass mouth and mind. The Bass only said that *IF* OJ was convicted of this crime because of feeling about what happened 13 years ago justice was not served, when did the Bass even accuse the jury of discriminating against OJ racially? The only one who suggested such a thing was 53nd Street, not the Bass. All black folk don't think alike nor look alike so next time get your facts straight.

Y'know, I stand corrected. My bad. I mistook you for that other raving moron 52nd Street.

Can't imagine how THAT could have happened.

 

[DiveCon]

Furman was the tip of the iceberg. The procedural errors committed by the police were incompetent, and fabricating evidence criminal.

Van Adder disappears with OJ's and blood and mysteriously the next day a pair of blood stained OJ socks appear. Only problem with them was OJ would have had to have bled THROUGH his ankle. The dolt poured the blood on the socks while still folded.

Never heard a word of anyone being charged or prosecuted for that.

in an otherwise spotless bedroom
and the blood stains went through bother sides of the socks
they were CLEARLY planted

 

[Gunny]

in an otherwise spotless bedroom
and the blood stains went through bother sides of the socks
they were CLEARLY planted

Oh, I agree. I think the police trying to fabricate a case in fact screwed up the actual case they DID have.

 

[DiveCon]

Oh, I agree. I think the police trying to fabricate a case in fact screwed up the actual case they DID have.

the prosecution also botched it
the gloves thing was a stupid move
then the cops claiming OJ wasnt a suspect when they jumped over his wall without a warrent, when everyone knows, when a woman is killed, the ex, the husband, the boyfriend is ALWAYS a suspect till they rule him out

 

[Luissa]

Furman was the tip of the iceberg. The procedural errors committed by the police were incompetent, and fabricating evidence criminal.

Van Adder disappears with OJ's and blood and mysteriously the next day a pair of blood stained OJ socks appear. Only problem with them was OJ would have had to have bled THROUGH his ankle. The dolt poured the blood on the socks while still folded.

Never heard a word of anyone being charged or prosecuted for that.

I think I remember hearing about that! I still think he did it. For one they say the way it was performed it was a crime of passion!
I should ask my Grandmother more, she watched the trial everyday and taped if she had to go out!