OJ Simpson is going to jail!

[Lookingglassman]

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!

 

[RJDiogenes]

Good riddance to bad rubbish.

 

[DanCPA]

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

Well, I hope you never believe I did anything horrible...

 

[Miss Chicken]

I just want to comment on a small aspect of this case

from the article

He said he thought he was taking advantage of an opportunity to retrieve mementos that were rightfully his, including sports memorabilia and his first wife's wedding ring, when he burst into a Las Vegas hotel room on Sept. 13, 2007.

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.

 

[ShamelessMcBundy]

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

Well, I hope you never believe I did anything horrible...

Well, you voted for McCain ...

 

[Trekker4747]

I know we're all supposed to think that OJ killed Nicole and Ron. I never followed the original trial that closely, so I don't know. But think of this: What if - bear with me here - he really *didn't* do it? What would happen if there came some new, actual, real, conclusive proof that he was innocent? Would we all be willing to eat that much crow? Or would people refuse to accept any new evidence that proved him not guilty, no matter how reliable it might have been?

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.

 

[ShamelessMcBundy]

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.

 

[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.

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.

 

[ShamelessMcBundy]

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."

 

[Trekker4747]

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."

They ignored basic facts and clear forensic evidence presnted to them.

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

 

[Miss Chicken]

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.

Except the case wasn't closed after the criminal trial. There was a civil trial that brought down a judgement against OJ.

 

[ShamelessMcBundy]

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."

They ignored basic facts and clear forensic evidence presnted to them.

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

You weren't in the jury room so you don't know. It doesn't matter since he was acquitted there.

 

[Bears Discover Fire]

He was not found Innocent, he was found Not Guilty. There is a difference.

Not in our legal system!

Indeed.

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".

 

[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.

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

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.

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.

 

[DanCPA]

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."

Are you tellin me that aliens came and did it doesn't lead to a reasonable doubt?

 

[Cutter John]

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

 

[DanCPA]

Not in our legal system!

Indeed.

There is a difference actually...

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

And since DOUBLE JEOPARDY doesn't exist... not guilty is equal to innocent for all intents and purposes

OJ is not innocent. No way no how. No one who is innocent runs

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!

or writes a book telling how he MIGHT have commited a crime he was accused of.

That's still not proof. It's bad taste... But not proof he did it

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

He was found liable, not guilty.

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.

I ask for proof... And more importantly, if you can prove it, why couldn't Marcia Cross prove it 13 years ago

Blood evidence, alone, shows that.

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.

 

[Miss Chicken]

He was found liable, not guilty.

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.

 

[DanCPA]

He was found liable, not guilty.

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.

but not criminally