O J Simpson

6 Oct 2008

Quote by kentswingers777
Well looks like time has finally run out for this guy.
13 years ago now he was aquitted of murder, when almost everyone knew he was guilty, apart from the jury.
Now he has been found guilty and will possibly spend the rest of his life in prison. Is it a case of " what goes around comes around " ?.
I thought he was guilty last time around but he got away with it, for many reasons. Has this guy now finally got what he deserves?

assumptions doesnt apply in the court of law
Obviously not.
fortunately!!!!
Its bad enough that someones previous character/offending can be used against them as evidence of guilt...
Looks like someone here (Kent)would also like to use evidence of someones previous innocence against them too...OJ was found not guilty of the Murders of Nicole and Ron..
You would have been burning people at the stake for witchcraft in the Dark ages using your logic....
Dont be such a silly billy. lol

He was aquited on the basis that a glove did not fit his hand, even though a glove soaked in blood would shrink a glove.
It is my opinion and that of lots of others that he was guilty but...a jury cleared him. I cannot argue with that as a trial and then a jury found him not guilty, and we obviously have to respect that decision but....he has now been found guilty and will spend years in jail. So as was my original point " is what goes around comes around ".
It has no bearing on my life as to whether he is guilty or not. It was a subject that was open to discussion and with that comes opinions....no? You do not agree with me and thats fine, and I respect YOUR opinion of course. 8-)
wow wow how appropriate the verdict came on excatly 13yrs to the day he was acquitted,what a sensation,drama,headline grabbing and a dream for low life journalism,thus pure evidence his previous dealings with the courts influenced this case..what is justice?i bet some unknowns have walked free or with less jail terms on similar chargers

6 Oct 2008

Quote by kentswingers777
Well looks like time has finally run out for this guy.
13 years ago now he was aquitted of murder, when almost everyone knew he was guilty, apart from the jury.
Now he has been found guilty and will possibly spend the rest of his life in prison. Is it a case of " what goes around comes around " ?.
I thought he was guilty last time around but he got away with it, for many reasons. Has this guy now finally got what he deserves?

assumptions doesnt apply in the court of law
Obviously not.
fortunately!!!!
Its bad enough that someones previous character/offending can be used against them as evidence of guilt...
Looks like someone here (Kent)would also like to use evidence of someones previous innocence against them too...OJ was found not guilty of the Murders of Nicole and Ron..
You would have been burning people at the stake for witchcraft in the Dark ages using your logic....
Dont be such a silly billy. lol

He was aquited on the basis that a glove did not fit his hand, even though a glove soaked in blood would shrink a glove.
It is my opinion and that of lots of others that he was guilty but...a jury cleared him. I cannot argue with that as a trial and then a jury found him not guilty, and we obviously have to respect that decision but....he has now been found guilty and will spend years in jail. So as was my original point " is what goes around comes around ".
It has no bearing on my life as to whether he is guilty or not. It was a subject that was open to discussion and with that comes opinions....no? You do not agree with me and thats fine, and I respect YOUR opinion of course. 8-)
Ha...
if i had the time to waste/spare to snip your post and flame it to shreds i would... however i think that it stands alone as one of the most ridiculous things i have heard in ages.....
Are you any relation to Alf Garnett?
:P
I would like you to clarify what you mean by that comment. Alf Garnet was a racist bigot,hope your not implying in anyway that is what you are saying? dunno

Beware the AUP though.
Aye....dont want anyone else getting banned do we? wink

6 Oct 2008

No we certainly do not. I like everyone on here Hel, just opinions differ from time to time, and nothing wrong with that.

6 Oct 2008

Quote by flower411
Seems everybody is trying to play the race card on this thread !!
Lets all be honest OJ was not gonna get a "fair" trial under the jury system .......everybody has a view and the predominant one is that he is guilty !!
But, let`s face it .... maybe he was guilty this time !!
His legal team are lodging an appeal so the process will continue ....but ....if he gets off on some kinda legal technicality, it won`t matter what colour he is ....it`s just a different justice when ya can pay for it !!

true the race of the jury is irrelevant but its definately not a fair trial

6 Oct 2008

I plead the fifth ammendment
lol

:lol: :lol: :lol:

6 Oct 2008

Quote by Phuckers
Seems everybody is trying to play the race card on this thread !!
Lets all be honest OJ was not gonna get a "fair" trial under the jury system .......everybody has a view and the predominant one is that he is guilty !!
But, let`s face it .... maybe he was guilty this time !!
His legal team are lodging an appeal so the process will continue ....but ....if he gets off on some kinda legal technicality, it won`t matter what colour he is ....it`s just a different justice when ya can pay for it !!

true the race of the jury is irrelevant but its definately not a fair trial
Very true. OJ was always going to find it hard to get a fair hearing no matter what he was accused of. Everyone must have followed the first trial. But even though you cannot mention any thing from previous years, the jury must have known about his first trial. It is very difficult for a jury to disregard anything they may have heard.

6 Oct 2008

Quote by kentswingers777
OJ was always going to find it hard to get a fair hearing no matter what he was accused of. Everyone must have followed the first trial. But even though you cannot mention any thing from previous years, the jury must have known about his first trial. It is very difficult for a jury to disregard anything they may have heard.

It must of been kind of difficult to disregard the CCTV footage of him nicking the sports memorabilia too! :giggle:
Sam xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

6 Oct 2008

Quote by blonde
OJ was always going to find it hard to get a fair hearing no matter what he was accused of. Everyone must have followed the first trial. But even though you cannot mention any thing from previous years, the jury must have known about his first trial. It is very difficult for a jury to disregard anything they may have heard.

It must of been kind of difficult to disregard the CCTV footage of him nicking the sports memorabilia too! :giggle:
Sam xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To be honest it is amazing watching things unfold before your eyes on tv. Over here it is all done behind closed doors, but over in the USA it is on national tv.
I dont know if that is a good idea to be honest. It makes for good telly I suppose.

6 Oct 2008

Quote by blonde
OJ was always going to find it hard to get a fair hearing no matter what he was accused of. Everyone must have followed the first trial. But even though you cannot mention any thing from previous years, the jury must have known about his first trial. It is very difficult for a jury to disregard anything they may have heard.

It must of been kind of difficult to disregard the CCTV footage of him nicking the sports memorabilia too! :giggle:
Sam xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
am sure all that was presented in court but on cases like this British Law is the best,his chargers could have not been made public and the jury not told who the defendant is...just like the case of the unidentified Royal who was accused of a crime which cant be named!

7 Oct 2008

Quote by Phuckers
OJ was always going to find it hard to get a fair hearing no matter what he was accused of. Everyone must have followed the first trial. But even though you cannot mention any thing from previous years, the jury must have known about his first trial. It is very difficult for a jury to disregard anything they may have heard.

It must of been kind of difficult to disregard the CCTV footage of him nicking the sports memorabilia too! :giggle:
Sam xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
am sure all that was presented in court but on cases like this British Law is the best,his chargers could have not been made public and the jury not told who the defendant is...just like the case of the unidentified Royal who was accused of a crime which cant be named!
i think you might be a little confused Phuckers fella
In England, previous convictions ( subject to conditions) can be used against a Defendant....it goes to attack character...
also reporting names of defendants is also possible...sometimes conditions of no reporting are standard ( if the defendant is a minor) or in special circumstances ( i think the Royal blackmail case was one of these... because of the nature of the offence and the detail) so the detail was only made public at the conclusion of the case.
Physical Evidence is the strongest of all evidence... so CCTV footage of the suspect committing the crime is pretty unarguable... and often produces a guilty plea-- even if this is late in the day.
IMO many posters havn't grasped the numerous reasons OJ was found not guilty of the murders. I will summarise them as i see them.... Note that many of them do not relate to physical evidence... and why the selection process for the jury in that trial took so long... and why tactically, after managing to select the Jurors they did, the Defence were able to capitalise on the sensasionalist type of argumennts they brought into the court, and used to secure an aquittal.
1) OJ's celebrity status
2) His well documented rise from rags to riches in a white orientated America of the time
3) gaps in the forensic evidence
4) alternative forensic analysis
5) Jury selection
6) The track record of LAPD
7) the personality of the lawyers... Prosecution Versus Defence
8) the competence of the lawyers Oj paid for.
9) the media buying stories ,before trial, of the main prosecution witnesses
10) the Firman race card issue.
11) The results of Defence led investigations... to discredit the prosecution witnesses.
12) the judge...appointments in California are political.
13) Public support for OJ- even if misguided
14) media speculation about and coverageof legal argument that didnt take place in front of the jury.
The prosecution were so bent on convicting OJ... they forgot to keep an open-mind on who the killer might have were gaps... and the defence did what they were paid to do.. and created "REASONABLE DOUBT" for the jury to decide
AFTER the event... you always get lay people who speculate...The people who maintain he was really guilty... those that hold his innocence against him... and who rant based on their attitude to most things and even worse under the momentum of their prejudices
but you cant get past the fact that after a massive trial OJ walked.
The hard fact is... and i am bound by this too... it doesnt matter whether i or anyone else thinks he DID IT... we were not on the jury or involved and we should respect the decision the jury made at the time, based on the evidenve they actually heard ( don't forget point 14 above).
Just to clarify, i didnt get this out of thin air, the Sun or down the pub...there was a detailed series of all the litigation on "Discovery"...it might be on "youTube" .The footage lasted for months and is truly enlightening if you watch it these days.

7 Oct 2008

oops

7 Oct 2008

Deecee thanks for that eye opening speech but can you please explain why Ian Huntley's previous chargers were not made public during the double murder trial?

7 Oct 2008

Quote by Phuckers
Deecee thanks for that eye opening speech but can you please explain why Ian Huntley's previous chargers were not made public during the double murder trial?

Yep

7 Oct 2008

Quote by Zeddies
Deecee thanks for that eye opening speech but can you please explain why Ian Huntley's previous chargers were not made public during the double murder trial?

Yep
If i'm right the reason is its because Its only a recent law...

7 Oct 2008

Quote by DeeCee
Deecee thanks for that eye opening speech but can you please explain why Ian Huntley's previous chargers were not made public during the double murder trial?

Yep
If i'm right the reason is its because Its only a recent law...
thanks Deecee,lets discuss this another day not in the frame of mind at the moment,thanks again buddy!

8 Oct 2008

Correct me if I am wrong but I was under the impression that a persons previous convictions, could only be disclosed AFTER that person has been found guilty, and not before?
If a jury is allowed to hear a persons past crimes,before they go out to deliberate surely that would sway the jury in its deliberation on his current offence?
Maybe I have it wrong? dunno

8 Oct 2008

Quote by kentswingers777
Correct me if I am wrong but I was under the impression that a persons previous convictions, could only be disclosed AFTER that person has been found guilty, and not before?
If a jury is allowed to hear a persons past crimes,before they go out to deliberate surely that would sway the jury in its deliberation on his current offence?
Maybe I have it wrong?

d
thats sounds sensible kent but mind you OJ was not found guilty,so you've probably just contradicted your intial statement and also to prove that there is alot of flaws on this last case!

8 Oct 2008

Quote by Phuckers
Correct me if I am wrong but I was under the impression that a persons previous convictions, could only be disclosed AFTER that person has been found guilty, and not before?
If a jury is allowed to hear a persons past crimes,before they go out to deliberate surely that would sway the jury in its deliberation on his current offence?
Maybe I have it wrong?

d
thats sounds sensible kent but mind you OJ was not found guilty,so you've probably just contradicted your intial statement and also to prove that there is alot of flaws on this last case!
I probably have Phuckers m8. lol

In his first case I do not know if he had any previous convictions. The second case that has just finished, the jury at least knew of the last case. So I wonder knowing that, if the jury were swayed by what they knew about him from the first case? I would think it would be very difficult not too if honest.

8 Oct 2008

Quote by kentswingers777
Correct me if I am wrong but I was under the impression that a persons previous convictions, could only be disclosed AFTER that person has been found guilty, and not before?
If a jury is allowed to hear a persons past crimes,before they go out to deliberate surely that would sway the jury in its deliberation on his current offence?
Maybe I have it wrong?

d
thats sounds sensible kent but mind you OJ was not found guilty,so you've probably just contradicted your intial statement and also to prove that there is alot of flaws on this last case!
I probably have Phuckers m8. lol

In his first case I do not know if he had any previous convictions. The second case that has just finished, the jury at least knew of the last case. So I wonder knowing that, if the jury were swayed by what they knew about him from the first case? I would think it would be very difficult not too if honest.
Maybe you support the notion that some crimes (or criminals) shouldn't be jury tried at all...
bolt

8 Oct 2008

Quote by GnV
Correct me if I am wrong but I was under the impression that a persons previous convictions, could only be disclosed AFTER that person has been found guilty, and not before?
If a jury is allowed to hear a persons past crimes,before they go out to deliberate surely that would sway the jury in its deliberation on his current offence?
Maybe I have it wrong?

d
thats sounds sensible kent but mind you OJ was not found guilty,so you've probably just contradicted your intial statement and also to prove that there is alot of flaws on this last case!
I probably have Phuckers m8. lol

In his first case I do not know if he had any previous convictions. The second case that has just finished, the jury at least knew of the last case. So I wonder knowing that, if the jury were swayed by what they knew about him from the first case? I would think it would be very difficult not too if honest.
Maybe you support the notion that some crimes (or criminals) shouldn't be jury tried at all...
bolt

good point,come back lets discuss how such people can be tried without their rights being violated

8 Oct 2008

Quote by Phuckers
good point,come back lets discuss how such people can be tried without their rights being violated

Is it vaguely possible to have such a trial without someone's rights being violated? dunno

Are there juries in war crime trials for example.. was Saddam butchered by the coalition in an attempt to appease other factions for the common good?
Touchy ground I know, and maybe worth a new topic so as not to hijack this one..

8 Oct 2008

I would just like to point out, if it helps, that OJ was and is in the US. As much as we may be similar we do have different laws and rights over here.

8 Oct 2008

Quote by splendid_
I would just like to point out, if it helps, that OJ was and is in the US. As much as we may be similar we do have different laws and rights over here.

but with a common Western Civil Society objective, no less

8 Oct 2008

Quote by GnV
I would just like to point out, if it helps, that OJ was and is in the US. As much as we may be similar we do have different laws and rights over here.

but with a common Western Civil Society objective, no less
not when a civilized society like america detains people for over seven years without being charged

8 Oct 2008

Quote by GnV
Correct me if I am wrong but I was under the impression that a persons previous convictions, could only be disclosed AFTER that person has been found guilty, and not before?
If a jury is allowed to hear a persons past crimes,before they go out to deliberate surely that would sway the jury in its deliberation on his current offence?
Maybe I have it wrong?

d
thats sounds sensible kent but mind you OJ was not found guilty,so you've probably just contradicted your intial statement and also to prove that there is alot of flaws on this last case!
I probably have Phuckers m8. lol

In his first case I do not know if he had any previous convictions. The second case that has just finished, the jury at least knew of the last case. So I wonder knowing that, if the jury were swayed by what they knew about him from the first case? I would think it would be very difficult not too if honest.
Maybe you support the notion that some crimes (or criminals) shouldn't be jury tried at all...
bolt

Not all GNV. Whilst the justice system over here is not perfect, it is all we have.
I think the only trials that should maybe not have a jury are the very complicated fraud trials, that go on for months. :dunno: Also maybe the ones where juries are allowed to award the compensation.
Other than that 12 men and women true, is about as good as it gets.

8 Oct 2008

Quote by Phuckers
I would just like to point out, if it helps, that OJ was and is in the US. As much as we may be similar we do have different laws and rights over here.

but with a common Western Civil Society objective, no less
not when a civilized society like america detains people for over seven years without being charged
I didn't say it was right! wink

8 Oct 2008

Quote by kentswingers777
Correct me if I am wrong but I was under the impression that a persons previous convictions, could only be disclosed AFTER that person has been found guilty, and not before?
If a jury is allowed to hear a persons past crimes,before they go out to deliberate surely that would sway the jury in its deliberation on his current offence?
Maybe I have it wrong?

d
thats sounds sensible kent but mind you OJ was not found guilty,so you've probably just contradicted your intial statement and also to prove that there is alot of flaws on this last case!
I probably have Phuckers m8. lol

In his first case I do not know if he had any previous convictions. The second case that has just finished, the jury at least knew of the last case. So I wonder knowing that, if the jury were swayed by what they knew about him from the first case? I would think it would be very difficult not too if honest.
Maybe you support the notion that some crimes (or criminals) shouldn't be jury tried at all...
bolt

Not all GNV. Whilst the justice system over here is not perfect, it is all we have.
I think the only trials that should maybe not have a jury are the very complicated fraud trials, that go on for months. :dunno: Also maybe the ones where juries are allowed to award the compensation.
Other than that 12 men and women true, is about as good as it gets.
And jury knobling?

8 Oct 2008

Quote by GnV
Correct me if I am wrong but I was under the impression that a persons previous convictions, could only be disclosed AFTER that person has been found guilty, and not before?
If a jury is allowed to hear a persons past crimes,before they go out to deliberate surely that would sway the jury in its deliberation on his current offence?
Maybe I have it wrong?

d
thats sounds sensible kent but mind you OJ was not found guilty,so you've probably just contradicted your intial statement and also to prove that there is alot of flaws on this last case!
I probably have Phuckers m8. lol

In his first case I do not know if he had any previous convictions. The second case that has just finished, the jury at least knew of the last case. So I wonder knowing that, if the jury were swayed by what they knew about him from the first case? I would think it would be very difficult not too if honest.
Maybe you support the notion that some crimes (or criminals) shouldn't be jury tried at all...
bolt

Not all GNV. Whilst the justice system over here is not perfect, it is all we have.
I think the only trials that should maybe not have a jury are the very complicated fraud trials, that go on for months. :dunno: Also maybe the ones where juries are allowed to award the compensation.
Other than that 12 men and women true, is about as good as it gets.
And jury knobling?
Your such a cynic. :lol:
Its all that French fresh air...its no good for you, I tell ya. :lol:

8 Oct 2008

Quote by kentswingers777
Correct me if I am wrong but I was under the impression that a persons previous convictions, could only be disclosed AFTER that person has been found guilty, and not before?
If a jury is allowed to hear a persons past crimes,before they go out to deliberate surely that would sway the jury in its deliberation on his current offence?
Maybe I have it wrong?

d
thats sounds sensible kent but mind you OJ was not found guilty,so you've probably just contradicted your intial statement and also to prove that there is alot of flaws on this last case!
I probably have Phuckers m8. lol

In his first case I do not know if he had any previous convictions. The second case that has just finished, the jury at least knew of the last case. So I wonder knowing that, if the jury were swayed by what they knew about him from the first case? I would think it would be very difficult not too if honest.
Maybe you support the notion that some crimes (or criminals) shouldn't be jury tried at all...
bolt

Not all GNV. Whilst the justice system over here is not perfect, it is all we have.
I think the only trials that should maybe not have a jury are the very complicated fraud trials, that go on for months. :dunno: Also maybe the ones where juries are allowed to award the compensation.
Other than that 12 men and women true, is about as good as it gets.
And jury knobling?
Your such a cynic. :lol:
Its all that French fresh air...its no good for you, I tell ya. :lol:
It's doing me a power of good!

8 Oct 2008

Quote by GnV
I would just like to point out, if it helps, that OJ was and is in the US. As much as we may be similar we do have different laws and rights over here.

but with a common Western Civil Society objective, no less
with a what? rolleyes