OJ Simpson is going to jail!

Discussion in 'Miscellaneous' started by Nerys Ghemor, Dec 5, 2008.

  1. Lookingglassman

    Lookingglassman Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2006
    Location:
    America
    He is stupid and I'm glad he is going to prison because:

    I believe he killed his ex and Goldman and got away with it.

    He was raking in over $20,000 a month in retirement from the NFL that the Goldman family can't touch.

    If I killed two people, got away with it and was making bank each month, I wouldnt do anything to jepordize my lifestyle.

    He deserves to go to jail for being stupid and trying to get back some trinkets. LET IT GO OJ! You had your life handed to you by a jury of retards and you screwed it up!
     
  2. RJDiogenes

    RJDiogenes Idealistic Cynic and Canon Champion Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2003
    Location:
    RJDiogenes of Boston
    Good riddance to bad rubbish. :bolian:
     
  3. DanCPA

    DanCPA Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2001
    Location:
    TrekBBS C/O 2001
    Well, I hope you never believe I did anything horrible...
     
  4. Miss Chicken

    Miss Chicken Little three legged cat with attitude Admiral

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2001
    Location:
    Howrah, Hobart, Tasmania
    I just want to comment on a small aspect of this case

    from the article

    He divorced his first wife so why would he even assume that his ex-wife's wedding ring would belong to him? When a woman divorces she gets to keep her rings to do whatever she want to with them. The only time a ring should be given back is if an engagement is broken.
     
  5. ShamelessMcBundy

    ShamelessMcBundy Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2003
    Location:
    Bursting through walls.
    Well, you voted for McCain ...
     
  6. Trekker4747

    Trekker4747 Boldly going... Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2001
    Location:
    Trekker4747
    The blood and othe Forensic evidence against him was quite incredible, not to mention the motive and OJ running from the police.

    He only got off because his high-priced slick lawyers managed to dazzle the jury with fancy talk and open their minds to possiblilites that do not fall under "reasonable doubt."

    Further considering the decade that has passed since the murders and nothing else has came up to even suggest another possibility, PLUS the guy wrote a book called "If I Did It"!

    So, yeah, I'm not prepared to eat my words any time soon.
     
  7. ShamelessMcBundy

    ShamelessMcBundy Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2003
    Location:
    Bursting through walls.
    And you can continue to having your thoughts. I feel that he did it too, but the jury found that he didn't do it. That's it, case closed.
     
  8. Trekker4747

    Trekker4747 Boldly going... Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2001
    Location:
    Trekker4747
    All the jury's decision means is that enough doubt was put in their minds that he may have not done it. And that doubt was put there by slick lawyering, slieght of hand and maybe some questionable prosecutuion and crime-solving.

    That jury was a bunch of star-struck idiots who were just dazzled with pretty lights and were probably not even paying attention to how the case was being laid out.

    I'd be very interest to know what they were thinking, what they think now, or how on earth they found the man not guilty. :rolleyes:

    I don't care what the jury said. The man did it and I that's a solid fact.

    The Defense just performed better magic.
     
  9. ShamelessMcBundy

    ShamelessMcBundy Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2003
    Location:
    Bursting through walls.
    But you don't know what the jurors were thinking, so you can't say what was going through their minds, whether or not they were "star-struck idiots who were dazzled with pretty lights and were probably not even paying attention."
     
  10. Trekker4747

    Trekker4747 Boldly going... Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2001
    Location:
    Trekker4747
    They ignored basic facts and clear forensic evidence presnted to them.

    Clearly, something went wrong in the heads of those minds.
     
  11. Miss Chicken

    Miss Chicken Little three legged cat with attitude Admiral

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2001
    Location:
    Howrah, Hobart, Tasmania
    Except the case wasn't closed after the criminal trial. There was a civil trial that brought down a judgement against OJ.
     
  12. ShamelessMcBundy

    ShamelessMcBundy Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2003
    Location:
    Bursting through walls.
    You weren't in the jury room so you don't know. It doesn't matter since he was acquitted there.
     
  13. Bears Discover Fire

    Bears Discover Fire Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2002
    Location:
    Hell-A
    There is a difference actually, and you will have it explained to you by a judge if you ever find yourself sitting on a criminal trial.

    "Not guilty" means that the prosecution, either through incompetence or lack of evidence (in the Simpson murder trial, the former), was unable to prove beyond reasonable doubt that a person committed a crime. "Not guilty" can also mean that a person was definitely connected with a crime, but not in the way the specific charged brought against them describe it. A "guilty" or "not guilty" judgement in court is very precise. I remember jury interviews from the OJ trial where they believed he was definitely a party in the brown-simpson/goldman murder but the way the charges and prosecution framed the case they were unable to convict OJ of the specific charges brought against him.

    "Innocent" is the immutable truth that a person did not commit a crime, a truth that does not change due to the limitations of the US legal system. Innocence also presumes that a person had nothing to do with a crime.

    No one can be found "Innocent" in a court of law. They can only be found "not guilty".
     
  14. Trekker4747

    Trekker4747 Boldly going... Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2001
    Location:
    Trekker4747
    I'd argue that "innocence" is possible, but it's in very rare cases and has no "official" ruling.

    If, say, someone was put on trial for a murder only to have the evidence in the court not be strong enough/exsist or it's simply found to me a case of mistaken identity. I'd argue cases where the Prosecution has to drop a case due to insufficent evidence or a judge throws a case out during Summary Judgement due to lack of evidence is pretty close to someone being found "innocent."

    A Jury of Your Peers finding you Not Guilty in case with a mountain of forensic evidence against you? Isn't you being found innocent. It's you being found fortuante and pretty damn lucky to have been prosecuted by incompetence in either law enforcement or the DA's office or even more rarely a Prosecution/DA being too ambitious and trying to get more for you than is reasonable.

    The evidence against OJ is staggering. STAGGERING. Even BEFORE he wrote a book called "If I Did It" the Prosecution just failed to make a good case and there were mistakes made by law enforcement that cast some "doubt" into the case. Apparently enough doubt and enough incompentence built up to turn the jury.

    I dunno.

    OJ is not innocent. No way no how. No one who is innocent runs or writes a book telling how he MIGHT have commited a crime he was accused of.

    Recall, also, that OJ was found guilty in civil court which should stand for something.

    OJ did it. It's painfully obvious. That a jury found him "not guilt" only means something or someone failed somewhere along the way. Doesn't mean he didn't do it. Because he did.

    Blood evidence, alone, shows that.
     
  15. Nerys Ghemor

    Nerys Ghemor Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2008
    Location:
    Cardăsa Terăm--Nerys Ghemor
    For me, that case is one of the reasons I am not as confident in the jury system as I should be. There are times I am inclined to think I'd be more likely to get a fair trial before a judge, who knows what the hell they're doing, instead of in front of twelve of my "peers". Look at the stuff that gets people excluded from jury duty, and you'll see that what's left is a pretty scary bunch.
     
  16. DanCPA

    DanCPA Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2001
    Location:
    TrekBBS C/O 2001
    Are you tellin me that aliens came and did it doesn't lead to a reasonable doubt? :D
     
  17. Cutter John

    Cutter John Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    I just want him to go away so we'll never, ever have to have this discussion again. Is that so wrong?! *sob*
     
  18. DanCPA

    DanCPA Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2001
    Location:
    TrekBBS C/O 2001
    And since DOUBLE JEOPARDY doesn't exist... not guilty is equal to innocent for all intents and purposes

    That's not true... There are people that are innocent of those crimes that might be hiding something else, or just want to stay away from law enforcement. Maybe they don't want to rat out a friend... THere are plenty of reasons to keep your yap shut!
    That's still not proof. It's bad taste... But not proof he did it
    He was found liable, not guilty.
    I ask for proof... And more importantly, if you can prove it, why couldn't Marcia Cross prove it 13 years ago
    Does it? When why was he free? Obviously something wasn't quite right.


    Look, do I think he did it? Absolutely. But the man was found innocent and we need to respect our justice system.
     
  19. Miss Chicken

    Miss Chicken Little three legged cat with attitude Admiral

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2001
    Location:
    Howrah, Hobart, Tasmania
    And he was found liable because the jury found that there was
    a preponderance of evidence that Simpson willfully and wrongfully caused the death of Ronald Goldman.
     
  20. DanCPA

    DanCPA Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2001
    Location:
    TrekBBS C/O 2001
    but not criminally