O J Simpson

5 Oct 2008

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? cool

5 Oct 2008

:shock: :shock: :shock:
that links not from the SUN....WTF????? :giggle:

5 Oct 2008

Quote by Bonedigger
:shock: :shock: :shock:
that links not from the SUN....WTF????? :giggle:

It's the Suns Sister paper. lol

:lol: :lol:
Mind you think you will find this story even in the Times today....do they still sell that paper? dunno

5 Oct 2008

i wouldnt be surprised if a deal is done and OJ gets out in 5 years.
He is a fool for getting in trouble again after the luck he had before.
Some people just dont learn

5 Oct 2008

Quote by tyracer
i wouldnt be surprised if a deal is done and OJ gets out in 5 years.
He is a fool for getting in trouble again after the luck he had before.
Some people just dont learn

Bit like Michael Jackson then. dunno

5 Oct 2008

:rotflmao: :rotflmao:
News of the Screws
Sorry bolt

5 Oct 2008

Any one else find the N.O.T.W reporting on this slightly disturbing with racist undertones ?
On the new case ...
" .... the all-white jury returned its verdict of guilty on all charges ... "
On the origial case ...
" ... The verdict by a predominantly black Los Angeles jury in what was dubbed the “trial of the century” shocked the world."
Couldn't believe that`s what was actually printed, or maybe its me reading too much between the lines

5 Oct 2008

Quote by Suede-head
Any one else find the N.O.T.W reporting on this slightly disturbing with racist undertones ?
On the new case ...
" .... the all-white jury returned its verdict of guilty on all charges ... "
On the origial case ...
" ... The verdict by a predominantly black Los Angeles jury in what was dubbed the “trial of the century” shocked the world."
Couldn't believe that`s what was actually printed, or maybe its me reading too much between the lines

I def think you are. My opinion.

5 Oct 2008

So why do they mention the colour of the jury at all ? I can see people reading it and jumping to the conclusion that he was only found not guilty in the original trial because it was a predominantly black jury.
Lazy journalism or an attempt to direct readers thoughts .. you decide !

5 Oct 2008

Quote by Suede-head
Any one else find the N.O.T.W reporting on this slightly disturbing with racist undertones ?
On the new case ...
" .... the all-white jury returned its verdict of guilty on all charges ... "
On the origial case ...
" ... The verdict by a predominantly black Los Angeles jury in what was dubbed the “trial of the century” shocked the world."
Couldn't believe that`s what was actually printed, or maybe its me reading too much between the lines

Sensationalism. It sells rags!

5 Oct 2008

Quote by Suede-head
So why do they mention the colour of the jury at all ? I can see people reading it and jumping to the conclusion that he was only found not guilty in the original trial because it was a predominantly black jury.

I agree, actually - and the inferenc is that the white jury found him guilty because he's black.. Bit naughty that.

5 Oct 2008

Quote by Suede-head
So why do they mention the colour of the jury at all ? I can see people reading it and jumping to the conclusion that he was only found not guilty in the original trial because it was a predominantly black jury.
Lazy journalism or an attempt to direct readers thoughts .. you decide !

Because from what I have read his defence team are going to appeal the sentence, because the jury was all white.
So it seems his lawyers are bringing it up, and not anybody else. Though did not see them saying anything when the jury was picked. Read into that what you will. lol

5 Oct 2008

Quote by Suede-head
So why do they mention the colour of the jury at all ? I can see people reading it and jumping to the conclusion that he was only found not guilty in the original trial because it was a predominantly black jury.
Lazy journalism or an attempt to direct readers thoughts .. you decide !

Yep you got it! News of the Screws bin sued loads and its amazing how many people still buy this rag

5 Oct 2008

Quote by Suede-head
So why do they mention the colour of the jury at all ? I can see people reading it and jumping to the conclusion that he was only found not guilty in the original trial because it was a predominantly black jury.
Lazy journalism or an attempt to direct readers thoughts .. you decide !

Yep you got it! News of the Screws bin sued loads and its amazing how many people still buy this rag

5 Oct 2008

Quote by helnheaven
So why do they mention the colour of the jury at all ? I can see people reading it and jumping to the conclusion that he was only found not guilty in the original trial because it was a predominantly black jury.
Lazy journalism or an attempt to direct readers thoughts .. you decide !

Yep you got it! News of the Screws bin sued loads and its amazing how many people still buy this rag
Well I took this from the Observer today as well. Now is this a rag too? lol

x

5 Oct 2008

Quote by kentswingers777
So why do they mention the colour of the jury at all ? I can see people reading it and jumping to the conclusion that he was only found not guilty in the original trial because it was a predominantly black jury.
Lazy journalism or an attempt to direct readers thoughts .. you decide !

Yep you got it! News of the Screws bin sued loads and its amazing how many people still buy this rag
Well I took this from the Observer today as well. Now is this a rag too? lol

x

no, its Sunday, they bin lazy n copied it :lol:

5 Oct 2008

Quote by Freckledbird
So why do they mention the colour of the jury at all ? I can see people reading it and jumping to the conclusion that he was only found not guilty in the original trial because it was a predominantly black jury.

I agree, actually - and the inferenc is that the white jury found him guilty because he's black.. Bit naughty that.
i have to agree, therei s a slight tone there.. sort of implying that OJ only got off the first time, due to the Colour of the skin of the jury, and not anything else.

5 Oct 2008

There is no mention of the fact that the "white jury" will be the defence stand point in the article.
I stand by my original point that people reading this with a closed mind will see the reason he was found guilty was the colour of the jury.
Why has the News of the World failed to point out the reason behind their description of the jury ? As Hel states .. it sells rags.

5 Oct 2008

Or what about the Times? lol

5 Oct 2008

Quote by Suede-head
There is no mention of the fact that the "white jury" will be the defence stand point in the article.
I stand by my original point that people reading this with a closed mind will see the reason he was found guilty was the colour of the jury.
Why has the News of the World failed to point out the reason behind their description of the jury ? As Hel states .. it sells rags.

A lot of people at the time said, the only reason he got off with the murder was the jury was mainly black. I am not saying that, it is what was said at the time he was aquitted.

5 Oct 2008

Quote by kentswingers777
i wouldnt be surprised if a deal is done and OJ gets out in 5 years.
He is a fool for getting in trouble again after the luck he had before.
Some people just dont learn

Bit like Michael Jackson then. dunno

if you are going to use the race/gender... in the michael jackson trail it was 9 women and 3 men on the jury... so what does that say........
the inference of race has always been there.... in the rodney king trial in LA where it was an all white jury, they even had all the video evidence and the cops got off......
It was that vedict that lead to the LA riots.......
so it does work both way

5 Oct 2008

Quote by kentswingers777
There is no mention of the fact that the "white jury" will be the defence stand point in the article.
I stand by my original point that people reading this with a closed mind will see the reason he was found guilty was the colour of the jury.
Why has the News of the World failed to point out the reason behind their description of the jury ? As Hel states .. it sells rags.

A lot of people at the time said, the only reason he got off with the murder was the jury was mainly black. I am not saying that, it is what was said at the time he was aquitted.
That sounds really bad confused

5 Oct 2008

Quote by fabio
i wouldnt be surprised if a deal is done and OJ gets out in 5 years.
He is a fool for getting in trouble again after the luck he had before.
Some people just dont learn

Bit like Michael Jackson then. dunno

if you are going to use the race/gender... in the michael jackson trail it was 9 women and 3 men on the jury... so what does that say........
the inference of race has always been there.... in the rodney king trial in LA where it was an all white jury, they even had all the video evidence and the cops got off......
It was that vedict that lead to the LA riots.......
so it does work both way
That was absolutly disgusting. We all saw that guy get beaten up. That was racism at its worst. The police were as guilty as hell, and should have gone to prison.

5 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

5 Oct 2008

I don't think the colour of the jury had anything to do with it, especially in the first case. The fact that it gets mentioned in a paper, doesn't mean it was a factor.
We studied it on my forensics course, and it didn't mater what colour the jury was, the prosecution screwed up the whole thing. I don't think ANY jury could have convicted him after that debacle. The prosecution actually fell for (ie didn't refute) "this couldn't be his glove, it's too small" when it had been soaked in blood and allowed to dry. That would shrink any leather glove to baby-sized.
And since he admitted the offences in the second trial, conviction is hardly unexpected. Mind you he claimed locking someone up and threatening to kill them while waving a gun at them was not illegal so I reckon he deserves to be locked up for his idiocy.

6 Oct 2008

Quote by Phuckers
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.

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....

6 Oct 2008

Quote by DeeCee
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-)

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

6 Oct 2008

Quote by DeeCee
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.