Thread: OJ

Well, it looks like OJ is going to get some serious time. Even his own attorney is asking for a six year maximum. Some kind of presentencing report recommends 18 years. I'm not sure who prepares that report.

It will be decided today.

O.J. Simpson's sentencing hearing starts - CNN.com

Originally Posted by CGM

Well, it looks like OJ is going to get some serious time. Even his own attorney is asking for a six year maximum. Some kind of presentencing report recommends 18 years. I'm not sure who prepares that report.

It will be decided today.

Good. Enjoy jail OJ.

I heard on the news that the jail he is most likely to go to is home to a particularly nasty group of white supremacists. Maybe they can all kill each other and do the world 2 favors...

wow hes finally going to jail and i didnt hear about this.

does anybody else think he should have went the 1st time??

Originally Posted by kingfrnk

wow hes finally going to jail and i didnt hear about this.

does anybody else think he should have went the 1st time??

That's going to open a can of worms, but I certainly do. However, that had to be the most inept way to prosecute a case.

Anyways, I hope he enjoys the group showers. Maybe he'll finally find the real killers there, he's already checked all the sand bunkers...

Originally Posted by kingfrnk

wow hes finally going to jail and i didnt hear about this.

does anybody else think he should have went the 1st time??

I do. But he had very good lawyers, and it was a questionable jury.

Originally Posted by CFH

Originally Posted by kingfrnk

wow hes finally going to jail and i didnt hear about this.

does anybody else think he should have went the 1st time??

That's going to open a can of worms, but I certainly do. However, that had to be the most inept way to prosecute a case.

Anyways, I hope he enjoys the group showers. Maybe he'll finally find the real killers there, he's already checked all the sand bunkers...

i never actually seen the whole case. but i always hear that he should have went to jail.

its probably on youtube some where il check it out later to give a better opinion.

Originally Posted by kingfrnk

Originally Posted by CFH

Originally Posted by kingfrnk

wow hes finally going to jail and i didnt hear about this.

does anybody else think he should have went the 1st time??

That's going to open a can of worms, but I certainly do. However, that had to be the most inept way to prosecute a case.

Anyways, I hope he enjoys the group showers. Maybe he'll finally find the real killers there, he's already checked all the sand bunkers...

i never actually seen the whole case. but i always hear that he should have went to jail.

its probably on youtube some where il check it out later to give a better opinion.

Nah man, the trial went on for weeks, months. It was on TV for hours every day. Don't rely on Youtube to form an opinion, although it might be a good place to find out other's opinions.

Originally Posted by CGM

Originally Posted by kingfrnk

Originally Posted by CFH

That's going to open a can of worms, but I certainly do. However, that had to be the most inept way to prosecute a case.

Anyways, I hope he enjoys the group showers. Maybe he'll finally find the real killers there, he's already checked all the sand bunkers...

i never actually seen the whole case. but i always hear that he should have went to jail.

its probably on youtube some where il check it out later to give a better opinion.

Nah man, the trial went on for weeks, months. It was on TV for hours every day. Don't rely on Youtube to form an opinion, although it might be a good place to find out other's opinions.

youtube opinions are mostly racist. but im sure some of the trial is on there.

It wasnt the jury,it was the prosecution,they didnt check their sources,and the defense ripped them apart.
I could care less if OJ goes down for this,but in the double homicide,you just couldnt convict him. If the standard is "Beyond a reasonable doubt" and both the lead investigator,and the lead forensic investigator,both get caught lying on the witness stand,youve got your reasonable doubt

Originally Posted by kingfrnk

Originally Posted by CGM

Originally Posted by kingfrnk

i never actually seen the whole case. but i always hear that he should have went to jail.

its probably on youtube some where il check it out later to give a better opinion.

Nah man, the trial went on for weeks, months. It was on TV for hours every day. Don't rely on Youtube to form an opinion, although it might be a good place to find out other's opinions.

youtube opinions are mostly racist. but im sure some of the trial is on there.

Oh definitely. But my guess is most of what you find will be very selective, and posted mostly to further a point of view, racist or otherwise. But go ahead, you may find some stuff of value.

This web site seems to be quite informative, and impartial, at first glance. It's published by a law school.

The Trial of O. J. Simpson

No sentence yet, but here is what OJ was saying in court today.

O.J. Simpson: 'I was stupid. I'm sorry' - CNN.com

Originally Posted by Trainer Monkey

It wasnt the jury,it was the prosecution,they didnt check their sources,and the defense ripped them apart.
I could care less if OJ goes down for this,but in the double homicide,you just couldnt convict him. If the standard is "Beyond a reasonable doubt" and both the lead investigator,and the lead forensic investigator,both get caught lying on the witness stand,youve got your reasonable doubt

As for the supposed lies, I don't recall what the lies were about, I don't think they were directly related to the case, but they did cast doubt on prosecution witness credibilty. but I can't say this was a showstopper.

Definitely the prosecution was flawed. The defense team and expert witnesses were definitely higher priced and tehrefore better. But prosecution wasn't that bad, there was plenty of credible DNA evidence to go along with questionable evidence. The whole "If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit" was a crock of shit, the prosecution should have raised holy hell with that one.

The jury for the most part was not well educated, there was a lot of very technical evidence that went right over their heads. This was by design. There's some more doubt for you.

Also from the defense perspective, jury members were chosen because of their likelihood of being favorable influenced by the race card. But that's a can of worms too, isn't it? I watched post trial interviews of the jurors, it was pretty obvious.

But yeah, this one is a can of worms, go ahead and disagree with any of this, I don't have the patience for a long debate with you. Not this time anyway.

regards.

Originally Posted by CGM

Originally Posted by Trainer Monkey

It wasnt the jury,it was the prosecution,they didnt check their sources,and the defense ripped them apart.
I could care less if OJ goes down for this,but in the double homicide,you just couldnt convict him. If the standard is "Beyond a reasonable doubt" and both the lead investigator,and the lead forensic investigator,both get caught lying on the witness stand,youve got your reasonable doubt

As for the supposed lies, I don't recall what the lies were about, I don't think they were directly related to the case, but they did cast doubt on prosecution witness credibilty. but I can't say this was a showstopper.

Definitely the prosecution was flawed. The defense team and expert witnesses were definitely higher priced and tehrefore better. But prosecution wasn't that bad, there was plenty of credible DNA evidence to go along with questionable evidence. The whole "If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit" was a crock of shit, the prosecution should have raised holy hell with that one.

The jury for the most part was not well educated, there was a lot of very technical evidence that went right over their heads. This was by design. There's some more doubt for you.

Also from the defense perspective, jury members were chosen because of their likelihood of being favorable influenced by the race card. But that's a can of worms too, isn't it? I watched post trial interviews of the jurors, it was pretty obvious.

But yeah, this one is a can of worms, go ahead and disagree with any of this, I don't have the patience for a long debate with you. Not this time anyway.

regards.

It was real simple
Question to the lead detective,"Do you have any adverse views towards African Americans?"
"No"
"What do you say to this taped phone conversation where you use the N word 23 times in 5 minutes"
Boned
To the lead forensic investigator
"Do you allways follow investigative procedure?"
"Yes"
"And that would involve wearing gloves at a crime scene?"
"Yes"
"Well what do you say to this film we have of you going over evidence at the crime scene not wearing latex gloves"
Boned
They boned the case

Everybody suspects that if OJ didnt do it himself, he at least paid for it,but you just couldnt convict on compromised evidence.
Maybe it even went down the way OJ's defense team floated it,Nicole had been putting up somebody who owed drug dealers money,and they came to collect.
Still doesnt make the Juice a nice guy.

Originally Posted by Trainer Monkey

Originally Posted by CGM

Originally Posted by Trainer Monkey

It wasnt the jury,it was the prosecution,they didnt check their sources,and the defense ripped them apart.
I could care less if OJ goes down for this,but in the double homicide,you just couldnt convict him. If the standard is "Beyond a reasonable doubt" and both the lead investigator,and the lead forensic investigator,both get caught lying on the witness stand,youve got your reasonable doubt

As for the supposed lies, I don't recall what the lies were about, I don't think they were directly related to the case, but they did cast doubt on prosecution witness credibilty. but I can't say this was a showstopper.

Definitely the prosecution was flawed. The defense team and expert witnesses were definitely higher priced and tehrefore better. But prosecution wasn't that bad, there was plenty of credible DNA evidence to go along with questionable evidence. The whole "If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit" was a crock of shit, the prosecution should have raised holy hell with that one.

The jury for the most part was not well educated, there was a lot of very technical evidence that went right over their heads. This was by design. There's some more doubt for you.

Also from the defense perspective, jury members were chosen because of their likelihood of being favorable influenced by the race card. But that's a can of worms too, isn't it? I watched post trial interviews of the jurors, it was pretty obvious.

But yeah, this one is a can of worms, go ahead and disagree with any of this, I don't have the patience for a long debate with you. Not this time anyway.

regards.

It was real simple
Question to the lead detective,"Do you have any adverse views towards African Americans?"
"No"
"What do you say to this taped phone conversation where you use the N word 23 times in 5 minutes"
Boned
To the lead forensic investigator
"Do you allways follow investigative procedure?"
"Yes"
"And that would involve wearing gloves at a crime scene?"
"Yes"
"Well what do you say to this film we have of you going over evidence at the crime scene not wearing latex gloves"
Boned
They boned the case

Everybody suspects that if OJ didnt do it himself, he at least paid for it,but you just couldnt convict on compromised evidence.
Maybe it even went down the way OJ's defense team floated it,Nicole had been putting up somebody who owed drug dealers money,and they came to collect.
Still doesnt make the Juice a nice guy.

Yeah I remember after the trial F Lee Bailey saying it had to be the Columbian Drug Dealers. I wouldn't have expected drug dealers who wanted to kill someone to go nuts with a knife, creating a bloodbath in the driveway, I'd of thought it'd be a little neater than that. And it's not clear what someone has to gain by murdering someone who owes you money, and then keeping it quet. But anything is possible I guess.

Originally Posted by CGM

Originally Posted by Trainer Monkey

Originally Posted by CGM

As for the supposed lies, I don't recall what the lies were about, I don't think they were directly related to the case, but they did cast doubt on prosecution witness credibilty. but I can't say this was a showstopper.

Definitely the prosecution was flawed. The defense team and expert witnesses were definitely higher priced and tehrefore better. But prosecution wasn't that bad, there was plenty of credible DNA evidence to go along with questionable evidence. The whole "If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit" was a crock of shit, the prosecution should have raised holy hell with that one.

The jury for the most part was not well educated, there was a lot of very technical evidence that went right over their heads. This was by design. There's some more doubt for you.

Also from the defense perspective, jury members were chosen because of their likelihood of being favorable influenced by the race card. But that's a can of worms too, isn't it? I watched post trial interviews of the jurors, it was pretty obvious.

But yeah, this one is a can of worms, go ahead and disagree with any of this, I don't have the patience for a long debate with you. Not this time anyway.

regards.

It was real simple
Question to the lead detective,"Do you have any adverse views towards African Americans?"
"No"
"What do you say to this taped phone conversation where you use the N word 23 times in 5 minutes"
Boned
To the lead forensic investigator
"Do you allways follow investigative procedure?"
"Yes"
"And that would involve wearing gloves at a crime scene?"
"Yes"
"Well what do you say to this film we have of you going over evidence at the crime scene not wearing latex gloves"
Boned
They boned the case

Everybody suspects that if OJ didnt do it himself, he at least paid for it,but you just couldnt convict on compromised evidence.
Maybe it even went down the way OJ's defense team floated it,Nicole had been putting up somebody who owed drug dealers money,and they came to collect.
Still doesnt make the Juice a nice guy.

Yeah I remember after the trial F Lee Bailey saying it had to be the Columbian Drug Dealers. I wouldn't have expected drug dealers who wanted to kill someone to go nuts with a knife, creating a bloodbath in the driveway, I'd of thought it'd be a little neater than that. And it's not clear what someone has to gain by murdering someone who owes you money, and then keeping it quet. But anything is possible I guess.

I could see it actually,most message killings are pretty ugly affairs,you cant get the one you want,you take out the roomate to suggest quite strongly,you owe us some money little lady.
What strikes me as curious, is why does anyone really care?
Lets face it,the guy hasnt scored a touchdown in 20 years. His acting if you were being charitable could be described as crushingly mediocre. But something about this case,grinds peoples gears.
I mean people get tagged for murder 1 all the time,and unless your a court tv junkie you wouldnt know half the time