M
matt1985
Guest
I’m glad they cancled it. If he admited what he did and offered the famalies money than I’d forgive him. But it seems that he can’t admit the mistakes he made so he shouldn’t get any attention.
- Status
L
Lion
Guest
Good one…
can i use that line?
R
Rebecca_New
Guest
I wouldn’t have watched the program, but I am very glad they cancelled.
M
martino
Guest
i dont know if anyone mentioned it but the book deal was canceled too!
there is no doubt that race played a role in the outcome of that trial but maria is right, there were many other factors that played into it as well. it just seemed like everything was going his way, like the perfect storm of events that would set him free. i felt he was going to get off and it seems there was no way to stop it from happening.
Vincent Bugliosi wrote and excellent book about why OJ got off, he blamed the judge, the jury, the defense and the prosecution. his fifth reason was that he said it was “in the air” that he would get away with it. he said he could just feel it from the beginning, there was something in the air and everyone could sense it.
there is no doubt that race played a role in the outcome of that trial but maria is right, there were many other factors that played into it as well. it just seemed like everything was going his way, like the perfect storm of events that would set him free. i felt he was going to get off and it seems there was no way to stop it from happening.
Vincent Bugliosi wrote and excellent book about why OJ got off, he blamed the judge, the jury, the defense and the prosecution. his fifth reason was that he said it was “in the air” that he would get away with it. he said he could just feel it from the beginning, there was something in the air and everyone could sense it.
M
martino
Guest
not exactly…his blood was found at the crime scene, the victims blood was found in his house and in his car. his foot print was found at the crime scene.one of the bloody gloves was found in his yard. that is only the tip of the iceburg.
the dna alone was enough to convict him…that is better evidence than an eye witness or even a video of the murder. there is no margin of error…he did it and he got away with it despite all the evidence.
you cant even come up with a reasonable explanation for the dna. its fool proof…but not jury proof!
L
Liberalsaved
Guest
I don’t know enough to form an opinion either way. All I really know is one other thing that can’t be denied; he was convicted in the press, like I said, because it gave people something to do. I chose to mostly ignore the whole circus, and I choose to go on doing that most of the time.
To be honest I find this book deal to have been more darkly humorous than anything. Sounds like something Christopher Guest would write.
M
martino
Guest
well i agree he was convicted in the press but think about it…there is no way to keep all that bloody evidence out of the press…what are they supposed to say about it? just reporting the facts they way they happened would sound like an indictment on him because they were so damning…then he goes off on that low speed car chase! in this case i dont think the media could have presented a neutral news cast, they would have to bend the truth in his favor to even hint at neutrality.
and its true that there wasnt a fair trial…but it wasnt unfair towards OJ, it was unfair towards the people of California…doesnt the state deserve a fair trial also?
L
Liberalsaved
Guest
It was a fair trial. It just didn’t reach the conclusion the popular opinion wanted it to reach. And really, if he was guilty and was found innocent, it was still a fair trial. That’s the risk we take in the hope that the screw-ups out-balance the bad stuff.
M
martino
Guest
well i dont think it was fair…the jury thought that the entire LAPD had conspired to frame Simpson for the murder…despite the fact that there was not one piece of evidence to support that idea. the truth is even the LAPD gave him preferential treatment because of his celebrity status. The judge allowed the defense to present all kinds of rediculous testimony to prejudice the jury.
M
mystified
Guest
I followed the criminal trial, and am certainly glad I was not on the jury. He was found not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The civil suit is all about m-o-n-e-y.
As for the new book, etc., I agree that Murdoch people did the right thing, even though it took a lot of concerned Christians of many churches to convince them. I, for one, would not have purchased the book, and have no TV set so he could have talked his head off all night and made no impression on me.
We have too many exploitations to take him seriously anymore, if we ever did.
As for the new book, etc., I agree that Murdoch people did the right thing, even though it took a lot of concerned Christians of many churches to convince them. I, for one, would not have purchased the book, and have no TV set so he could have talked his head off all night and made no impression on me.
We have too many exploitations to take him seriously anymore, if we ever did.
M
martino
Guest
do you remember what the reasonable doubt was? that the entire LAPD was in on a conspiracy to frame OJ for some unknown reason by planting large amounts of his blood at the crime scene and large amounts of the victims blood in his car and house…is that a reasonable scenario?
is it reasonable to think mark fuhrman took a glove from the crime scene and planted it at OJ’s house when there were at least 14 police officers at the crime scene before Fuhrman got there and they all said theyonly saw the one glove…were they all in on it.
none of this is very reasonable.
A
a_cermak
Guest
Different rules of evidence. In a civil trial, all you need is a preponderance of the evidence. In a criminal trial you need beyond a reasonable doubt.
For me, issues like the Heperin in the blood, the size and nature of the blood drops, the fact that no blood was found in the car, the fact that the man was brilliant beyond measure in getting rid of the knife, but somehow couldn’t figure out how to spirit off the glove and sock into the same hiding place all knit together to make me believe that there was reasonable doubt. I still think he did it, but the reason we have trials is so the prosecution can deliver the goods and prove their case.
C
Catholic_Dude
Guest
OJ was innocent.
As for his book, he didnt really write it some no name person was paid to write it and he couldnt have come up with anything much different than a episode of CSI.
As for his book, he didnt really write it some no name person was paid to write it and he couldnt have come up with anything much different than a episode of CSI.
D
dessert
Guest
I feel sorry for the children and all the family members gone through this whole thing. God will be the judge of it all. Pray for them.return from the desert
J
JezuUfamTobie
Guest
The thing is (statistically speaking) when a woman who has suffered domestic violence ends up murdered, the murderer is almost always the batterer. And conversely, men who have beaten their wives are much more likely to commit murder in the future than other men. Batterers are even more likely to kill their ex-wives once the ex-wife has a serious boyfriend or spouse. In our court system a man is innocent until proven guilty, but when a batterer is taken to court for the murder of his ex-wife, the chance of such a man actually being innocent is incredibly small.
M
maryjk
Guest
I don’t know if he did it. I wasn’t there and I wasn’t on the jury.
But, he was found not guilty.
Then the civil trail. Yep, more about money than anything else.
Now, he has no way to make a living. So he writes a book. It gets ditched. I am sure everyone is glad, since he did it right? But, remember, he was found not guilty.
Although I wasn’t on his jury, I have been on a jury. A murder trial, sequestered and came to a not guilty verdict. There were articles in the newspaper about how we made up our mind before the trial. About how since the accused was a woman, she got off. About all the evidence that we must not have listened to. About how wrong we all were.
Guess what, the newspapers were not in the jury room deciding. They were not there deliberating. They did not hear the conversations taking place for either trial. They were not part of that process.
They weren’t part of that process any more then we (the general public) were part of that process for the OJ trial. It is very easy to sit in your home watching TV and decide that someone is guilty. It is not so easy in the jury room.
But, he was found not guilty.
Then the civil trail. Yep, more about money than anything else.
Now, he has no way to make a living. So he writes a book. It gets ditched. I am sure everyone is glad, since he did it right? But, remember, he was found not guilty.
Although I wasn’t on his jury, I have been on a jury. A murder trial, sequestered and came to a not guilty verdict. There were articles in the newspaper about how we made up our mind before the trial. About how since the accused was a woman, she got off. About all the evidence that we must not have listened to. About how wrong we all were.
Guess what, the newspapers were not in the jury room deciding. They were not there deliberating. They did not hear the conversations taking place for either trial. They were not part of that process.
They weren’t part of that process any more then we (the general public) were part of that process for the OJ trial. It is very easy to sit in your home watching TV and decide that someone is guilty. It is not so easy in the jury room.
A
aimee
Guest
Yes I am glad he didn’t make any money on it…although I’m not so sure…
I am aware he was found not guilty but… by jury nullification…
I did more than watch the MSN on this trial…I watched court tv and read just about any book there was on it…
You are right its not so easy to sit in jury room…:yup:
W
wcknight
Guest
The radio says he got 3 million anyway, and it is not subject to be turned over (to the Browns or Goldmans). It’s in trust for his kids education, after which he gets the remainder.
The whole OJ thing is a sorry mess from all sides. The movie and book are sick ideas. The less said the OJ case the better.
The whole OJ thing is a sorry mess from all sides. The movie and book are sick ideas. The less said the OJ case the better.
A
aimee
Guest
I must agree:thumbsup:
V
Valke2
Guest
Off the top of my head. Martha Stewart, Mike Tyson, James Brown
- Status