Paris if a free woman again...

[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...

[ninetoone]

What really happenned = OJ did it!

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by ninetoone

What really happenned = OJ did it!

I wish I had your clarity...all I know is that it wasn't proven, at least to me and the jury, beyond a reasonable doubt.

[Danzig]

thing is....paris was caught for a dui. given a sentence which she then violated. so how can the judge be the 'bad guy' if she went right out and broke a rule of her probation, which brought her right back to the courtroom? sounds like a repeat offender to me!

from what i heard, there was a huge party planned at the hilton joint last night--she may have been unable to leave her house, but evidently that wasn't going to keep her from partying like it was 1999. doesn't sound like the actions of someone who needs medical attention--but maybe that's just me.

also, perhaps the judge wouldn't have gone to such lengths had she not been paris.
but maybe the sheriff wouldn't have given a rats behind had it not been her either--had she been jane smith, she would not have gotten the release to house arrest.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by Danzig

thing is....paris was caught for a dui. given a sentence which she then violated. so how can the judge be the 'bad guy' if she went right out and broke a rule of her probation, which brought her right back to the courtroom? sounds like a repeat offender to me!

from what i heard, there was a huge party planned at the hilton joint last night--she may have been unable to leave her house, but evidently that wasn't going to keep her from partying like it was 1999. doesn't sound like the actions of someone who needs medical attention--but maybe that's just me.

also, perhaps the judge wouldn't have gone to such lengths had she not been paris.
but maybe the sheriff wouldn't have given a rats behind had it not been her either--had she been jane smith, she would not have gotten the release to house arrest.

I'm not a close personal friend of the Hiltons so I don't know about their social life; you say it "doesn't sound like the actions of someone who needs medical attention" so tell me, what does it say in your rule book of human behavior about how people must act during periods of distress? Then you admit, "perhaps the judge wouldn't have gone to such lengths had she not been Paris"...Bingo! This is the point I've been arguing since the beginning...I've ALWAYS said that Paris broke the law and is responsible for her behavior, my issue is the judge's actions! To me, he is "the bad guy" if he misused his position to (a) impose a sentence disproportionate to the norm to "make an example" out of Paris...for decades, poor people in this country have been treated unfairly by the system, given harsher sentences, if you want the extreme...the KKK was "making an example" when they lynched folks without a trial. There is no moral justification for treating someone harshly to "make an example"...and if I'm gonna stand and speak out when it happens to poor folks, how can I be silent when it happens to a rich person?? Wrong is wrong, we don't need "examples" we need fairness and equal treatment. (b) the judge is the "bad guy" to me when he gets into an obvious power struggle with the local sheriff (and the sheriff himself spoke to this in a news conference yesterday) and uses Ms Hilton as a pawn...ordering her picked up in a marked car and brought to him in handcuffs to flex his "muscles". (c) the judge is the "bad guy" to me when he refuses to consider Ms Hilton's alleged medical condition or any details pertaining to the decision by the Sheriff and prison authorities to release her to house arrest because, in his own words, it was their responsibility to send him the information and he hadn't received it. Wouldn't you want that information BEFORE you sent her back to jail? Why didn't he demand same and review it...what was the big hurry???

[ninetoone]

Originally Posted by DaHoss9698

All excellent points and I agree. How this is somehow turned into a pity party for Paris Hilton is frankly sickeneing. It is she who has made a mockery of this entire thing from trying to use her "celebrity" to be pardoned, to going to an awards show the night before she was imprisoned. Like someone said earlier, think it was Baba, she'll never kill herself, she's too self consumed. I see this as the judge trying to set a standard saying you cannot do whatever you want and get special treatment because of your name or status in society. I applaude him and yes, I slept well last night with my decision.

Don't worry, you are right, along with (most) everyone else. Someone either can't see the forest for the trees, or is just a plain contrarian who can't stand the idea of going along with the pack...ever. Sometimes though, the pack is right. Oh well. Don't worry, you can say the sky is blue, and there's always someone around who's going to say...."Actually....it's not...let me enlighten you on what you actually don't see here..."

[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 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.

Well, Paris has been found guilty of DUI and then violated her probation with two counts of driving during suspension...she's had her day in court regardless of my feelings on how she was treated, she will have a notice of appeal filed on Monday and will be out on bail pending decision by appeals court. Jones has not been convicted of any crime according to reports and Vick has yet to be charged so...

[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.

[ArlJim78]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

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.

no problem with furman, he wasn't on trial. I don't know the truth about those tapes, but what I've seen about the guy after the trial is very likeable and bright and passionate about putting away the scum that would try to get away with murder.
and yes I do feel the the judge makes a huge difference and can effect the outcome of a trial, no doubt about it.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

no problem with furman, he wasn't on trial. I don't know the truth about those tapes, but what I've seen about the guy after the trial is very likeable and bright and passionate about putting away the scum that would try to get away with murder.
and yes I do feel the the judge makes a huge difference and can effect the outcome of a trial, no doubt about it.

I don't know how old you are or what your interests are/were so maybe you didn't watch the trial on TV (it was a unique experience to be sure), Furman's words were recorded on tape by this lady (can't recall why she had interviewed him...book deal maybe?) and he was very up front regarding his views. There was no room for doubt that he had a hatred for black men who were involved with white women and he at the very least suggested a willingness to "plant" evidence against such folks. Add that to the fact that he was close with many of the investigating officers (and yes, there was some indication that at least some shared his views) and he handled important evidence. Of course there was the other officer who locked vital blood samples in the trunk of his vehicle for a day or so instead of maintaining chain of custody as required, the bloody glove that didn't fit, problems with the DNA evidence, a timeline that never really worked...the investigation was unbelievably unprofessional and the prosecution team was in way over their heads...everyone in America had already convicted the guy...but they blew it.