O J Simpson at last goes to jail

[CCIP]

Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl

Links plz?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7652206.stm
http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/10/04/...ict/index.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27010657/

[UnderseaLcpl]

Students react to the 1995 judgement in The People vs. Orenthal James Simpson



I love this picture. It's so full of truth.

Sad truth, but truth nonetheless. We still have racism issues to deal with that all the PC BS in the world won't solve.


btw, thanks for the links CCIP

[kranz]

as far as I remember he could not put on the leather glove which made him innocent.So what happened later?

[Tchocky]

Chewbacca is a wookie.

[NealT]

Sounds like he did not hire a good attorney this time...just as he did for his civil trial...

Oh well...what a shame...

[Von Tonner]

Originally Posted by NealT

Sounds like he did not hire a good attorney this time

yep, no cheque book justice this time around.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by kranz

as far as I remember he could not put on the leather glove which made him innocent.So what happened later?

He couldn't put on the glove because it was planted by the police, who were convinced of his guilt but wanted more evidence. The jury decided there was insufficient evidence.

On the other hand, while circumstantial evidence leads a lot of people to conclude his guilt, I have little respect for those who say "Of course he did it!" You know this for a fact? How? I stick with the jury's decision.

Likewise, this jury could have been reacting to the previous decision, but I don't know that, and neither does anyone else. They decided, and unless evidence is shown to warrant a retrial I'll stand by their decision.

[Task Force]

Ya know this picture tells me something.

blacks= happy

whites= shocked.

[Koondawg]

Im waving by-by....

[Task Force]

Yes, finaly a murder is put in jail.

[1480]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

He couldn't put on the glove because it was planted by the police, who were convinced of his guilt but wanted more evidence. The jury decided there was insufficient evidence.

On the other hand, while circumstantial evidence leads a lot of people to conclude his guilt, I have little respect for those who say "Of course he did it!" You know this for a fact? How? I stick with the jury's decision.

Likewise, this jury could have been reacting to the previous decision, but I don't know that, and neither does anyone else. They decided, and unless evidence is shown to warrant a retrial I'll stand by their decision.

SS you know I respect the heck out of you and I will give you the shirt off my back if you would ever need it. The only thing I find a bit troubling is the assertion of "planting" evidence. I must have missed the the federal civil rights trial against the members of the LAPD that participated in the conspiracy to frame Orenthal James Simpson of a mass murder. Why didn't the Dream Team go after the city of Los Angeles in a civil trial for framing OJ? It was not as cut and dry and many mistakes were made in both the investigation and the presentation of the case. All OJ's attorneys had to do was plant a seed of doubt in the juror's mind. Which I submit, was easy in the totality of the circumstances.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by 1480

I must have missed the the federal civil rights trial against the members of the LAPD that participated in the conspiracy to frame Orenthal James Simpson of a mass murder. Why didn't the Dream Team go after the city of Los Angeles in a civil trial for framing OJ? It was not as cut and dry and many mistakes were made in both the investigation and the presentation of the case. All OJ's attorneys had to do was plant a seed of doubt in the juror's mind. Which I submit, was easy in the totality of the circumstances.

You're right there, AND I APOLOGIZE (not meaning to shout, or make a point; I just wanted to make sure nobody missed it). I did state it as a fact, which I have no more knowledge of than I have knowledge of whether he's innocent or guilty. It's not a fact, it's a conclusion drawn by the defense, and it's true they didn't go after the LAPD, but the opposite is also true - nobody accused the defense of slandering Fuhrman's "good name"; at least as far as I'm aware. But that doesn't matter - I shouldn't be stating insinuation as fact, especially in a post complaining about people doing that very thing. I've been wrong before, and I'll be wrong again. So again, I apologize for making an unproven accusation.

However, Alan Dershowitz was so convinced it was true that he takes it for a fact, even while also admitting that he thinks OJ was probably guilty, even if he couldn't say so.

A fascinating read:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...ershowitz.html

[moose1am]

Fuhrman and the other police messed up when they scaled the Fence and Gate surrounding OJ's home without obtaining a search warrant. The entire case should have died right there.

Why police think that they can break the law and ignore the US Constitution is beyond me!

Other than that I think that OJ did murder Nicole and Ron.

The fact that police went to the murder scene and then took blood to OJ home without first taking the blood to the lab is another mistake. It just looks bad.

Fuhrman found the glove in the dark in a off the path area. I thought he said he was afraid for OJ's life when they saw the tiny blood spots on OJ's car , which was parked out on the street.

I was able to watch the entire trial from start to the very end. I watched it every day and every hour it was on CNN. You might say I got to watch the trial of the Century along with all the other retired folks.

OJ would have been found guilty if the Jury was not composed of mostly blacks. If they had held the trial in the White section of LA and used an all white jury OJ would have been in jail for the last 13 years or would have been executed by now.

For the record: I am not saying that OJ didn't do it. I am saying that some of the police screwed up big time IMHO. But everyone is human and we all make mistakes. A murder investigation is not usually dissected and shown on TV like the OJ case was. Fuhrman lied and they caught him in his lie. They caught OJ in this robbery case the very same way. Using a tape recorder to record what was said.

I do think it was ironic that they convicted OJ on the 13 th anniversary and after 13 hours of deliberations. Now that's strange.

-----

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

You're right there, AND I APOLOGIZE (not meaning to shout, or make a point; I just wanted to make sure nobody missed it). I did state it as a fact, which I have no more knowledge of than I have knowledge of whether he's innocent or guilty. It's not a fact, it's a conclusion drawn by the defense, and it's true they didn't go after the LAPD, but the opposite is also true - nobody accused the defense of slandering Fuhrman's "good name"; at least as far as I'm aware. But that doesn't matter - I shouldn't be stating insinuation as fact, especially in a post complaining about people doing that very thing. I've been wrong before, and I'll be wrong again. So again, I apologize for making an unproven accusation.

However, Alan Dershowitz was so convinced it was true that he takes it for a fact, even while also admitting that he thinks OJ was probably guilty, even if he couldn't say so.

A fascinating read:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...ershowitz.html