| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
JBL
Joined: 03 Jan 2008
Posts: 9
|
 Posted: Fri Jan 11, 2008 11:08 pm Post subject: Re: ROFL |
 |
|
| JBL wrote: | | SaberGal wrote: | | Well, well, well....seems this saga is never ending with the surprises. So, OJ's headed back to jail having had his bail revoked. I'm interested to know the details on this one... |
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080111/ap_on_re_us/oj_simpson;_ylt=Au7ergnBltn4e9cpb4FPZhWs0NUE
Who knew my FREE OJ T-shirt would get so much wear LOL So much for it being a Novelty Item
(I really don't have one heh heh)
Maybe I can market "FREE MIGUEL" T'S |
Looks like this article got who "Miguel" was wrong. Glad I didn't start those T's on mass production  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Tam5115
Joined: 14 Dec 2007
Posts: 46
Location: Wisconsin
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 14, 2008 10:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I can't believe how he continues to behave as though the laws were for other people and not him.
Apparently, he went to the Bahamas over the holidays too!  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SaberGal
Joined: 12 Dec 2007
Posts: 349
Location: Oregon
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 18, 2008 10:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Tam5115 wrote: | I can't believe how he continues to behave as though the laws were for other people and not him.
Apparently, he went to the Bahamas over the holidays too! |
Is the Bahama trip confirmed? I've heard that he went and then I heard he didn't go....
_________________
"Evil triumphs when good men do nothing."
- E. Burke
__________________________________________
That's OK. I wasn't using my civil liberties anyway. (Insert rolly eye emoticon here) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
martin II
Joined: 19 Jan 2008
Posts: 1
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 19, 2008 1:17 pm Post subject: Re: The whole truth? |
|
|
| NoJustice_NoPeace wrote: | | SaberGal wrote: | | It is my humble opinion that the prosecution presented half truths to the jury and the country during the murder trial and that is why OJ was acquitted in 1995 for the murders of Ron and Nicole. Anyone else see it this way? |
I see the verdict more as a payback. But what do you mean by half truths? |
I believe that people from certain communities in la that have had or heard of negative experiences involving lapd are more inclined to examine prosecution /lapd witnesses testimony more closely than those
from cummunities that this negative behavior by lapd is not common.
I believe that the defense was able to accurately identify instances where prosecution witnesses testimony did not prove their points beyond a reasonable doubt. The accumulation of these instances during the trial and the conflicting testimoniy of some witnesses was what created reasonable doubt for the jury.
Black women as jury members are on juries that send black men to prison
on a regular basis as evident by the large number of conviction obtained by juries in LA. imo
I don't think it had anything to do with ojs or the victims color. It was simply Clarke and Darden did not have the air tight case they talked about before the trial.
martin II |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JUSTICE1st
Joined: 13 Dec 2007
Posts: 715
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 19, 2008 3:44 pm Post subject: Re: The whole truth? |
|
|
| martin II wrote: | | NoJustice_NoPeace wrote: | | SaberGal wrote: | | It is my humble opinion that the prosecution presented half truths to the jury and the country during the murder trial and that is why OJ was acquitted in 1995 for the murders of Ron and Nicole. Anyone else see it this way? |
I see the verdict more as a payback. But what do you mean by half truths? |
I believe that people from certain communities in la that have had or heard of negative experiences involving lapd are more inclined to examine prosecution /lapd witnesses testimony more closely than those
from cummunities that this negative behavior by lapd is not common.
I believe that the defense was able to accurately identify instances where prosecution witnesses testimony did not prove their points beyond a reasonable doubt. The accumulation of these instances during the trial and the conflicting testimoniy of some witnesses was what created reasonable doubt for the jury.
Black women as jury members are on juries that send black men to prison
on a regular basis as evident by the large number of conviction obtained by juries in LA. imo
I don't think it had anything to do with ojs or the victims color. It was simply Clarke and Darden did not have the air tight case they talked about before the trial.
martin II |
Agreed. I think that if the prosecution had done a much better job of presenting their case than they actually did, they would have gotten their conviction. They made a number of mistakes, especially putting on Det. Mark Fuhrman as a witness. The whole "n word" issue destroyed his credibility, not to mention planting the glove. I may be off base on some of the details, since I didn't follow the 1995 murder trial, but that is what I remember. 
J 
_________________
"We must remember, always, that accusation is not proof, and conviction depends on evidence and due process of law."
EDWARD R. MURROW, 1954 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JBL
Joined: 03 Jan 2008
Posts: 9
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 8:08 pm Post subject: Re: The whole truth? |
|
|
| martin II wrote: | | NoJustice_NoPeace wrote: | | SaberGal wrote: | | It is my humble opinion that the prosecution presented half truths to the jury and the country during the murder trial and that is why OJ was acquitted in 1995 for the murders of Ron and Nicole. Anyone else see it this way? |
I see the verdict more as a payback. But what do you mean by half truths? |
I believe that people from certain communities in la that have had or heard of negative experiences involving lapd are more inclined to examine prosecution /lapd witnesses testimony more closely than those
from cummunities that this negative behavior by lapd is not common.
I believe that the defense was able to accurately identify instances where prosecution witnesses testimony did not prove their points beyond a reasonable doubt. The accumulation of these instances during the trial and the conflicting testimoniy of some witnesses was what created reasonable doubt for the jury.
Black women as jury members are on juries that send black men to prison
on a regular basis as evident by the large number of conviction obtained by juries in LA. imo
I don't think it had anything to do with ojs or the victims color. It was simply Clarke and Darden did not have the air tight case they talked about before the trial.
martin II |
The prosecution blew it. They had the ducks but didn't put them in a row.
IMO it wasn't the verdict so much as the time spent reaching the verdict that made it look like a payback message of racism. Because of this I would't rule this out. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SaberGal
Joined: 12 Dec 2007
Posts: 349
Location: Oregon
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 21, 2008 9:38 pm Post subject: Re: The whole truth? |
|
|
| JBL wrote: |
The prosecution blew it. They had the ducks but didn't put them in a row.
IMO it wasn't the verdict so much as the time spent reaching the verdict that made it look like a payback message of racism. Because of this I would't rule this out. |
I gotta say that if I'm a jury member who has sat through a 9 month trial and there were valid questions raised about the credibility of the evidence, I'm not sure I'm gonna spend too much time taking it into consideration. The prosecutions biggest mistake was putting Mark Fuhrman on the stand, IMO.
_________________
"Evil triumphs when good men do nothing."
- E. Burke
__________________________________________
That's OK. I wasn't using my civil liberties anyway. (Insert rolly eye emoticon here) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SaberGal
Joined: 12 Dec 2007
Posts: 349
Location: Oregon
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 21, 2008 9:42 pm Post subject: Re: The whole truth? |
|
|
| martin II wrote: | | NoJustice_NoPeace wrote: | | SaberGal wrote: | | It is my humble opinion that the prosecution presented half truths to the jury and the country during the murder trial and that is why OJ was acquitted in 1995 for the murders of Ron and Nicole. Anyone else see it this way? |
I see the verdict more as a payback. But what do you mean by half truths? |
I believe that people from certain communities in la that have had or heard of negative experiences involving lapd are more inclined to examine prosecution /lapd witnesses testimony more closely than those
from cummunities that this negative behavior by lapd is not common.
I believe that the defense was able to accurately identify instances where prosecution witnesses testimony did not prove their points beyond a reasonable doubt. The accumulation of these instances during the trial and the conflicting testimoniy of some witnesses was what created reasonable doubt for the jury.
Black women as jury members are on juries that send black men to prison
on a regular basis as evident by the large number of conviction obtained by juries in LA. imo
I don't think it had anything to do with ojs or the victims color. It was simply Clarke and Darden did not have the air tight case they talked about before the trial.
martin II |
I agree Martin. I think the LAPD's history of racism absolutely played a huge part in creating RD. What the LAPD did not consider when they "looked the other way" when rogue, racist cops acted out was that they were tainting their own potential future juries.
_________________
"Evil triumphs when good men do nothing."
- E. Burke
__________________________________________
That's OK. I wasn't using my civil liberties anyway. (Insert rolly eye emoticon here) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pistol pete
Joined: 07 Jan 2008
Posts: 5
Location: lost in space
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 04, 2008 1:19 am Post subject: Re: The whole truth? |
|
|
| SaberGal wrote: | | It is my humble opinion that the prosecution presented half truths to the jury and the country during the murder trial and that is why OJ was acquitted in 1995 for the murders of Ron and Nicole. Anyone else see it this way? |
You know that I see it this way. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pia
Joined: 12 Dec 2007
Posts: 208
Location: www.freecynthia.com
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 04, 2008 11:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
If the murders of Ron and Nicole had not happened, how do you think we, the general public and the media would be treating this Vegas incident?
Take into account that one of the "victims" does not blame OJ and if I heard correctly the other day, he is suing the Riccio sleaze ball that set the whole thing up.
If that was all that was happening with OJ, don't you think we would be a little outraged at it?
I have always believed that OJ was guilty of the murders; I do however support that verdict, if that makes any sense. I was so angry when that verdict came in. I had sat up all night to watch it, I lived in Japan at the time and I cried the rest of the day. I later found out more info and I understood why the jury made the decision that they did. They LEGALLY had no choice.
Now I look at this latest CRAP as the setup that it was. I personally hope that Riccio chokes on the $500,000 he got for those tapes and any other money that he gained from all of this.
If OJ is guilty of Ron and Nicole's murder, I have no doubt he will one day pay for it. Maybe not on this earth, but he will pay. This trying to get him on every little thing possible ONLY because of those murders, is outrageous.
_________________
Justice is conscience, not a personal conscience but the conscience of the whole of humanity. Those who clearly recognize the voice of their own conscience usually recognize also the voice of justice.
Alexander Solzhenitsyn |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pistol pete
Joined: 07 Jan 2008
Posts: 5
Location: lost in space
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 6:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Pia wrote: | If the murders of Ron and Nicole had not happened, how do you think we, the general public and the media would be treating this Vegas incident?
Take into account that one of the "victims" does not blame OJ and if I heard correctly the other day, he is suing the Riccio sleaze ball that set the whole thing up.
If that was all that was happening with OJ, don't you think we would be a little outraged at it?
I have always believed that OJ was guilty of the murders; I do however support that verdict, if that makes any sense. I was so angry when that verdict came in. I had sat up all night to watch it, I lived in Japan at the time and I cried the rest of the day. I later found out more info and I understood why the jury made the decision that they did. They LEGALLY had no choice.
Now I look at this latest CRAP as the setup that it was. I personally hope that Riccio chokes on the $500,000 he got for those tapes and any other money that he gained from all of this.
If OJ is guilty of Ron and Nicole's murder, I have no doubt he will one day pay for it. Maybe not on this earth, but he will pay. This trying to get him on every little thing possible ONLY because of those murders, is outrageous. |
I agree that the jury had no other legal choice and I believe the verdict was correct. I honestly believe that race was not the issue or, better said, not as dominant a factor, as some want to believe, in the jury's decision. I do believe that culure played a part. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SaberGal
Joined: 12 Dec 2007
Posts: 349
Location: Oregon
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 08, 2008 7:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
I too believe that the jury had no choice in reaching the verdict that they did. Especially given the subsequent LAPD Rampart scandal - it is not unreasonable to assume that this jury was very familiar with the racist elements within the LAPD long before it became public. I think it was very "reasonable" for them to have "reasonable doubt" about the credibility of the evidence presented in the case and it only was a race issue because of the racism of cops like Mark Furhman. I do not believe that the jury set out to acquit OJ from day one simply because of the color of OJ's skin.
People that disagree with my view of the jury often bring up the deliberation time as an indication that this jury was going to acquit OJ no matter what. My answer to that is that if I am on a jury and I believe that the evidence can't be trusted, I'm not going to spend too much time deliberating it.
Do I believe OJ is innocent? No. Do I believe he should have been acquitted in the case that the prosecution presented against him? Yes. I know my view is unpopular with many people and once upon a time, I would have disagreed with myself...lol....but with an better understanding of the case and of the law, the jury had no choice IMO.
_________________
"Evil triumphs when good men do nothing."
- E. Burke
__________________________________________
That's OK. I wasn't using my civil liberties anyway. (Insert rolly eye emoticon here) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pistol pete
Joined: 07 Jan 2008
Posts: 5
Location: lost in space
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 08, 2008 5:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SaberGal wrote: | I too believe that the jury had no choice in reaching the verdict that they did. Especially given the subsequent LAPD Rampart scandal - it is not unreasonable to assume that this jury was very familiar with the racist elements within the LAPD long before it became public. I think it was very "reasonable" for them to have "reasonable doubt" about the credibility of the evidence presented in the case and it only was a race issue because of the racism of cops like Mark Furhman. I do not believe that the jury set out to acquit OJ from day one simply because of the color of OJ's skin.
People that disagree with my view of the jury often bring up the deliberation time as an indication that this jury was going to acquit OJ no matter what. My answer to that is that if I am on a jury and I believe that the evidence can't be trusted, I'm not going to spend too much time deliberating it.
Do I believe OJ is innocent? No. Do I believe he should have been acquitted in the case that the prosecution presented against him? Yes. I know my view is unpopular with many people and once upon a time, I would have disagreed with myself...lol....but with an better understanding of the case and of the law, the jury had no choice IMO. |
I agree with your post and I think that the verdict reflects the experiences of the jurors, who lived in the inner city or the familiarity the jury had with the experiences of those they knew who live in the inner city. I do not believe that the jury voted that way, because of the color of their skin, but , because the evidence was untrustworthy and the commonality of their awareness of law enforcement's tactics. In this case, if you can't trust the messenger, you can not trust the message. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
