Simpson arrested

Originally Posted by dalakhani

I am american...i believe in our justice system.

He was found not guilty in the criminal case.
That does not mean he is innocent,
this is a very different outcome.

The guy cut up two people in a rage.
This is my assessment. I believe the probability
that I am correct is very high having watched the
trial and looking at the complete distortion of evidence
and the crappy job done by the prosecution.
Slick lawyers duped a frightened jury in a racially charged case.

I sorta have a hard time believing they charged him with
anything in Vegas though. Evidence, witnesses...
all lacking and very suspect based on what I
have read and seen.

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by pgardn

He was found not guilty in the criminal case.
That does not mean he is innocent,
this is a very different outcome.

The guy cut up two people in a rage.
This is my assessment. I believe the probability
that I am correct is very high having watched the
trial and looking at the complete distortion of evidence
and the crappy job done by the prosecution.
Slick lawyers duped a frightened jury in a racially charged case.

I sorta have a hard time believing they charged him with
anything in Vegas though. Evidence, witnesses...
all lacking and very suspect based on what I
have read and seen.

Very fair. Very well said.

[Crown@club]

Whoopie! NEXT!

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by pgardn

He was found not guilty in the criminal case.
That does not mean he is innocent,
this is a very different outcome.

The guy cut up two people in a rage.
This is my assessment. I believe the probability
that I am correct is very high having watched the
trial and looking at the complete distortion of evidence
and the crappy job done by the prosecution.
Slick lawyers duped a frightened jury in a racially charged case.

I sorta have a hard time believing they charged him with
anything in Vegas though. Evidence, witnesses...
all lacking and very suspect based on what I
have read and seen.

Glad u posted this. One crime committed, allegedly, doesn't have anything to do with the other. U wouldn't take a guy that's been charged with tax evasion, gotten off, and then say that because u think he was guilty of that, he should not be treated fairly in any subsequent cases. Whether or not u think he was guilty in the murders is beside the point. He didn't do anything that any of us wouldn't have done in the same situation. He had the money and the ability to hire the best lawyers out there and it was them that got OJ off. OJ didn't get himself off. Most important to me is that he should get the same rights any other citizen would get under the constitution. He was tried in a court and found not guilty. Making him guilty in this case to make him pay for the last one is not right.

Sometimes I'm amazed by the things I read on here. One of the things that make this country great is our constitution. So many people have fought and died for us to have the rights and freedoms we have now. It's amazing to me the little amount of respect it gets these days.

[Mortimer]

Hang 'im.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

Glad u posted this. One crime committed, allegedly, doesn't have anything to do with the other. U wouldn't take a guy that's been charged with tax evasion, gotten off, and then say that because u think he was guilty of that, he should not be treated fairly in any subsequent cases. Whether or not u think he was guilty in the murders is beside the point. He didn't do anything that any of us wouldn't have done in the same situation. He had the money and the ability to hire the best lawyers out there and it was them that got OJ off. OJ didn't get himself off. Most important to me is that he should get the same rights any other citizen would get under the constitution. He was tried in a court and found not guilty. Making him guilty in this case to make him pay for the last one is not right.Sometimes I'm amazed by the things I read on here. One of the things that make this country great is our constitution. So many people have fought and died for us to have the rights and freedoms we have now. It's amazing to me the little amount of respect it gets these days.

that's true!!

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by DaHoss9698

I don't think anyone here is saying he's guilty in this case for some sort of revenge in the last case. That's ridiculous. However, his being guilty of committing those murders should be part of this discussion. It's a little more serious than tax evasion. I realize you were trying to be comparitive, but the murder of 2 people and they horrific way it was done does stick out and will for the rest of that piece of sh*t's life.

The guy was found guilty in the civil trial and paid virtually no restitution to the families that lost their loved ones. He did however co write a book entitled "If I did It". When he found out that if he made money from the book, he would have to give some to the Goldman's or Brown's, he tried to stop it from being published. Nice.

Sometimes I'm amazed at the lengths you will go to to defend scumbags. Dog killers, murderers they have a voice with you. Makes me sick.

Just as in the Vick case, I'm being accused of defending someone when I'm not defending him at all. Did I say at any point that he's not guilty? No. I am only speaking to the fact that everyone deserves the same rights and protections, whether it's you, me, or OJ. You also might notice that I didn't chime in on my feelings about the murder and whether I think he's guilty or innocent there. Why should I? Look at what you said, "his being guilty of committing those murders should be part of this discussion." That's fine except for one important thing.........he was tried in a court of law and found not guilty. Whether or not you believe that was the wrong decision is irrelevant now. According to the records, by him being found not guilty, it would be absolutely wrong to use that past crime to establish any kind of pattern of behavior for him. In my opinion, that makes the murders a non-issue here. This case should only be about whether or not he committed THIS crime and this crime only.

[Danzig]

speaking of vick...that one tested positive for marijuana earlier this month. oops.

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by DaHoss9698

Please. You are so transparent.

transparent only that he respects the constitution and our justice system. If a man is found "not guilty" in a criminal court of law on one crime, why should that be even considered when judging him on a totally seperate matter?

How does that make logical sense?

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by DaHoss9698

Again, please. This is a guy, who you yourself said, based on the evidence he probably did it. Yet you speak about what a charming person he is. Charming as long as he's not slicing your throat.

I said, one crime has nothing to do with the other, obviously. However, knowing what he was tried for, and that most people with a brain think he did it, it doesn't speak well that he would get involved in something else like this. Or the book, which you have avoided making a comment on. Wonder why......Let me guess, you defended Vick blindly also.

But that is not how the justice system works. If I were tried (and acquitted) for robbing a bank ten years ago why should it have that anything to do with say a manslaughter charge 12 years later? What if i were wrongly charged for the first crime?

I can only speak to what i know. Do i think he probably killed those people? Yes, I do. Do i know for sure? No i dont. Neither do you! There is reasonable doubt you, me and everyone else might be wrong...but it still has nothing to do with this case.

Look at the facts for this case as what they are. Check out the witnesses. A little shaky huh?

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by DaHoss9698

I need to know, do you keep avoiding the book deal and the fact that he has made little to no restitution to the families who lost loved ones, because you have no defense? I understand not having a defense for those things, but at the same time I would have a hard time defending a guy who killed 2 people....EVER on any subject.

He claims that he doesnt owe the restitution because he didnt commit the crimes. Why would anyone pay if they claim they were innocent? Wouldnt that be dumb?

As for the book deal, it is FICTIONAL. It was always supposed to be.

And who is defending anyone? More than anything, I am defending the constitution.

[ArlJim78]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

He claims that he doesnt owe the restitution because he didnt commit the crimes. Why would anyone pay if they claim they were innocent? Wouldnt that be dumb?

As for the book deal, it is FICTIONAL. It was always supposed to be.

And who is defending anyone? More than anything, I am defending the constitution.

how are you defending the constitution? what does the constitution have to do with you or I coming to the obvious conclusion that this scum killed those two people? it makes me sick the lengths people go to in order to coddle and enable violent lawbreakers. there is a reason you think he probably did it, because its plainly obvious that he did. what got him off in the first place was this kind of fuzzy thinking and the weakminded jurors they scrounged up.

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by DaHoss9698

He can claim he doesn't owe it, but, as you say, a court found him guilty and he was ordered to pay the Goldman and Brown family. He hasn't. You can't have it both ways.

He can also claim it's fictional. But what kind of a person goes on trial for the murder of 2 people, somehow is found innocent, and then decides it would be a good idea to co write a book about how he "would" have done it. Has he no shame? Again, I find it repulsive to defend this man. He murdered the mother of his children. And as you say, co wrote a "fictional" book about how he did it. And I thought I had a sh itty father....

Ordered to pay with what?

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by DaHoss9698

He can claim he doesn't owe it, but, as you say, a court found him guilty and he was ordered to pay the Goldman and Brown family. He hasn't. You can't have it both ways.

He can also claim it's fictional. But what kind of a person goes on trial for the murder of 2 people, somehow is found innocent, and then decides it would be a good idea to co write a book about how he "would" have done it. Has he no shame? Again, I find it repulsive to defend this man. He murdered the mother of his children. And as you say, co wrote a "fictional" book about how he did it. And I thought I had a sh itty father....

i wonder if he doesn't pay, can he be found guilty of contempt? can they put you in jail for that for a civil trial case? seems like they should be able to.

and he wasn't found innocent, he was found not guilty--there is a difference...how he was found not guilty is beyond me--i guess the same way blake was found not guilty, and the same way the spector case has been 'hung'--hero worship gone wild.
as for the one having nothing to do with the other--that isn't necessarily so, as twice now oj has resorted to violence as a means to an end. altho not found guilty in the criminal proceedings, he was found responsible in the civil matter--he isn't pure as the driven snow here. when part of a jury, you are told to consider all the evidence, as well as your common sense. common sense tells me oj is
an idiot
violent
repeatedly takes actions that indicates he feels he is above the law

[my miss storm cat]

Originally Posted by DaHoss9698

but at the same time I would have a hard time defending a guy who killed 2 people....EVER on any subject.

Same here.