Paris if a free woman again...

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

LOL! I don't see the hypocracy in my points of view though...in Hancock, I was agruing that folks are indeed responsible for their actions...in Hilton, I'm saying exactly the same thing, Ms Hilton AND the judge are both responsible for their respective actions. I simply don't believe the story here is Hilton (although the media has certainly made it all about her and the public swallows the bait), I believe this is an example of a judge deciding to make an example out of someone and then getting into a "pissing contest" with the sheriff using Ms Hilton (and the public outcry against her) to go beyond his jurisdiction and impose his will on the sheriff...we'll see what the appeals court says.

By the way, I would probably have voted "not guilty" in the OJ trial so you are probably justified in never wanting to serve on a jury with me! This is hard work...debating this topic with several folks and conducting a fantasy baseball draft at the same time...who says I'm too old to multi-task?

[ninetoone]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

By the way, I would probably have voted "not guilty" in the OJ trial so you are probably justified in never wanting to serve on a jury with me! This is hard work...debating this topic with several folks and conducting a fantasy baseball draft at the same time...who says I'm too old to multi-task?

Thank you. I was about 99.9 percent sure anyway. Now I can finally go to sleep knowing 100% that it's not me!

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by ninetoone

Thank you. I was about 99.9 percent sure anyway. Now I can finally go to sleep knowing 100% that it's not me!

You didn't have a problem with that case?

[ninetoone]

I'm not getting into this one with you, believe me! Let's just say I'm not surprised that you would have voted "not guilty". You do know that he did it though right? I can already predict all of your posts regarding this, so lets just kill this thread (pardon the pun), and save ourselves a few hours & get some rest.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by ninetoone

I'm not getting into this one with you, believe me! Let's just say I'm not surprised that you would have voted "not guilty". You do know that he did it though right? I can already predict all of your posts regarding this, so lets just kill this thread (pardon the pun), and save ourselves a few hours & get some rest.

I don't "know" if he did it or not, I know what I think but I won't say it here because he was found "not guilty" so I have no right to say what I think (it should be obvious from that though). Thing is...the rule of law says "innocent until proven guilty"...there were many problems with the prosecution's case (certainly they were over matched...I mean F Lee Bailey, one of the foremost defense attorneys in this generation, was what...third or fourth chair?). A timeline that didn't match up, a glove that didn't fit but most of all...how do you say, "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" with Mark Furman handling key evidence??

[ninetoone]

That's exactly what I thought you'd say & I've heard it a million times before. I'm glad to hear that you at least realize what really happenned & nobody's gonna make you say it. Have a good night.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by ninetoone

That's exactly what I thought you'd say & I've heard it a million times before. I'm glad to hear that you at least realize what really happenned & nobody's gonna make you say it. Have a good night.

You too...I doubt there are a million folks who agree with me though, afterall Furman went on to host his own TV show I believe...

[ArlJim78]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

I don't "know" if he did it or not, I know what I think but I won't say it here because he was found "not guilty" so I have no right to say what I think (it should be obvious from that though). Thing is...the rule of law says "innocent until proven guilty"...there were many problems with the prosecution's case (certainly they were over matched...I mean F Lee Bailey, one of the foremost defense attorneys in this generation, was what...third or fourth chair?). A timeline that didn't match up, a glove that didn't fit but most of all...how do you say, "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" with Mark Furman handling key evidence??

that's easy for me, because it was clear that he was guilty, and because there was no problem with Furman. Great defense tactic to turn the case into one of race, but what a huge farce that this guilty man gets to walk free.
Might have been a different decision if the Paris Hilton judge had been one the OJ trial.

[ddthetide]

what i find wrong with this situation, paris hilton is in jail and a pieces of crap like pacman jones and michael vick walk the streets.
don't get me wrong , hilton deserves it and should have to serve the entire sentence.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

that's easy for me, because it was clear that he was guilty, and because there was no problem with Furman. Great defense tactic to turn the case into one of race, but what a huge farce that this guilty man gets to walk free.
Might have been a different decision if the Paris Hilton judge had been one the OJ trial.

No problem with Furman? Did you hear the tapes where he admitted being a racist and bragged that he would gladly plant evidence on a black man "messing" with a white woman...in fact there was a thinly veiled admission on the tapes that he had in fact done so. This guy handled critical evidence in the case and you don't think that's a problem! Almost everywhere in this nation, juries are advised by the judge that it doesn't matter what they think they "know", all that matters is what has been proven in court beyond a reasonable doubt. Who the judge was would not have effected the outcome of that trial.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by Bababooyee

Oh jeez...from Paris to OJ.

Mommy, make the bad men stop!!!!!!!!111111111

I'm nothing if not inclusive!