|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 31, 2017 1:05:16 GMT
What is the significance of one of them being a moderator? is what you're taking away from this?! It's all I'm interested in here, and my question was not a statement. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2017 1:32:21 GMT
Definitely. The only reason he got off, is because of the american jury system, where anyone can be a jury member, even how stupid or uneducated they are. It's because they stupidly put Fuhrman on the stand, where he pleaded the fifth to whether or not he planted evidence. I'm 99.5% sure OJ did it, but as a juror, could I say beyond "a shadow of a doubt" after that? No. That, and the fact that the LAPD let evidence leave the chain of custody for over 16 hours. That keeps me from 100% conviction of his guilt. That whole trial was just one sh!t show after another from the prosecution. |
|
|
|
Post by kuatorises on Mar 31, 2017 13:15:33 GMT
That is what you're taking away from this?! , and my question was not a statement. I don't know why you are avoiding the issue at hand. You are going out of your way to avoid addressing him. You even went out of your way and took that part of my post out of your comment. You have done a good job at keeping this place clean, but have some blind spot with this guy. He must be a friend. If he's not, your reaction is just plain bizarre. |
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 31, 2017 17:29:03 GMT
It's all I'm interested in here, and my question was not a statement. I don't know why you are avoiding the issue at hand. It seems you and I have different issues at hand here. |
|
|
|
Post by kuatorises on Mar 31, 2017 17:39:26 GMT
I don't know why you are avoiding the issue at hand. It seems you and I have different issues at hand here. You just proved the very point I made. Again. You were even nice enough to quote it, all while selectively responding once again. You won't even mention poelzig by name. There's definitely something going on here. |
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 31, 2017 17:50:05 GMT
It seems you and I have different issues at hand here. You just proved the very point I made. Again. You were even nice enough to quote it, all while selectively responding once again. You won't even mention poelzig by name. There's definitely something going on here. For now, all I want to know is what I asked. There is nothing else "going on here." |
|
|
|
Post by deeznutz on Apr 25, 2017 3:24:27 GMT
Seriously, I think yes
|
|
|
|
Post by Waxer-n-boil on May 2, 2017 18:34:22 GMT
As for the verdict in the trial, the prosecution didn't present a strong case and Judge Ito disallowed some potential evidence that could've helped their case.
As for OJ being guilty, they proved his guilt in the civil case case. One of the particularly damning pieces of evidence was the bloody footprints of his shoes at the crime scene. The soles were from custom designer limited edition shoes. He was the only person in the state of California who owned a pair.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sir_Farty_Fartsalot on May 2, 2017 19:06:10 GMT
No, he was an oppressed black guy framed by the evil LAPD
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 3, 2017 0:04:20 GMT
As for the verdict in the trial, the prosecution didn't present a strong case and Judge Ito disallowed some potential evidence that could've helped their case. As for OJ being guilty, they proved his guilt in the civil case case. One of the particularly damning pieces of evidence was the bloody footprints of his shoes at the crime scene. The soles were from custom designer limited edition shoes. He was the only person in the state of California who owned a pair. He saw the aftermath. Doesn't mean he killed anyone. |
|
|
|
Post by Waxer-n-boil on May 3, 2017 19:43:32 GMT
As for the verdict in the trial, the prosecution didn't present a strong case and Judge Ito disallowed some potential evidence that could've helped their case. As for OJ being guilty, they proved his guilt in the civil case case. One of the particularly damning pieces of evidence was the bloody footprints of his shoes at the crime scene. The soles were from custom designer limited edition shoes. He was the only person in the state of California who owned a pair. He saw the aftermath. Doesn't mean he killed anyone. Then why weren't there other footprints that could've belonged to other suspects? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 3, 2017 23:54:24 GMT
He saw the aftermath. Doesn't mean he killed anyone. Then why weren't there other footprints that could've belonged to other suspects? It's a tile floor, where traffic would have been and the killers were behind. OJ may have even sent these thugs in. It will be revealed. All things are known. |
|
|
|
Post by darkknightofgotham on May 4, 2017 12:33:03 GMT
Of course he did it. The evidence was overwhelming. The only reason he was aquitted was because racial tensions were high at the time. Rodney King happened only a couple years prior, and they didn't want to risk any more riots.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sandman on May 4, 2017 17:08:57 GMT
Blood drops were found with Simpson's genetic markers. He had a cut on his hand. The bloody shoe prints matched a size 12. Simpson wears size 12 shoes. Gloves found at scene were same kind his wife got him. Bloody socks found at the foot of Simpson's bed had the genetic markers of Simpson and his ex-wife. Blood found on Simpson's Ford Bronco matched his wife's and Ron's.
With that being said I would bet my IRA, 401K, My house, All my savings in my bank, My new car and truck that Simpson murdered his wife and Ron Goldman. He got away with murder as did Casey Anthony.
|
|
Dana
Freshman
@dana
Posts: 54
 
|
Post by Dana on May 4, 2017 17:10:38 GMT
I don't know for certain obviously, but I don't believe that he did it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2017 22:52:55 GMT
I don't know for certain obviously, but I don't believe that he did it. Neither do I. As someone else pointed out, the prosecution came up lame. There are high racial tensions like never before now. Race was not even mentioned in the case. |
|
|
|
Post by Sandman on May 4, 2017 23:04:40 GMT
I don't know for certain obviously, but I don't believe that he did it. Come on. Common sense tells you he did it. This alone proves he did it: Blood found on Simpson's Ford Bronco matched his wife's and Ron's.Don't always agree with Geraldo Rivera but I sure did when he said this. After Simpson was found not guilty he said he would spend the rest of his life looking for whoever killed his wife. Geraldo Rivera said if you really want to find out who killed her just look in the mirror. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2017 23:53:12 GMT
LOL yeah because everyone who was at a scene was the killer. But whatever.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on May 5, 2017 10:27:03 GMT
Could be. I don't know. But his case - like those of Robert Blake and Michael Jackson - reveal a chilling fact about the justice system. Even though these three men were all found Not Guilty after lengthy trials and jail time (at least for Simpson and Blake), the assumption made by most people is that they are most certainly guilty. On the other hand, if a defendant is found guilty, the subject is considered to be closed. It is disturbing how fragile is the assumption of innocence in our society. If a person is arrested, held in jail, indicted, and put on trial then that is almost always what is considered evidence of guilt even on those rare occasions that a person is found Not Guilty. Just the legal process convicts people.Don't know whether or not Simpson, Blake, or Jackson are guilty but they were all cleared by a trial by jury. If you believe in the law and justice, then shouldn't this end any discussion of guilt or innocence?The herd will believe what they want to believe, and this is pretty much founded on their own brand of what they perceive as justice and will condemn and discriminate like the rabble in the pit that they are. Justice is about fairness and equality, and the law is full of devious and conniving double standards of corruption and hypocrisy. It feeds of the suffering of others. There is no 'real' justice served if this is the case. In regards to OJ, guilty or not, the judicial process will convict and consume even before the trial has come to it's conclusion. People get off on seeing others suffer, even when it really has nothing to do with them and they don't know all the facts. It is working in best interests of the system and to keep the status quo intact only. It hides it's true intentions behind a deceitful veil of care and concern for the people. Justice is only served for those happy with the outcome. It can go either way. |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on May 6, 2017 1:14:02 GMT
Definitely. The only reason he got off, is because of the american jury system, where anyone can be a jury member, even how stupid or uneducated they are. And it's not just the jury system in the US that is flawed. |
|
