Simpson arrested

[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 ArlJim78

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.

Or possibly the shoddy police work and the incompetent prosecution?

Our constitution provides for a fair trial and i respect the outcomes of said trials. Some of you obviously don't.

[my miss storm cat]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

Or possibly the shoddy police work and the incompetent prosecution?

Our constitution provides for a fair trial and i respect the outcomes of said trials. Some of you obviously don't.

You're right, I don't.

And I don't think it was a fair trial.

The law is the law as you say but that doesn't make it right.

The whole thing was wrong on so many levels but who knows... maybe the jury found him "charming" like you did.


Disgusting.

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by my miss storm cat

You're right, I don't.

And I don't think it was a fair trial.

The law is the law as you say but that doesn't make it right.

The whole thing was wrong on so many levels but who knows... maybe the jury found him "charming" like you did.


Disgusting.

How was it not a fair trial?

[ArlJim78]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

Or possibly the shoddy police work and the incompetent prosecution?

Our constitution provides for a fair trial and i respect the outcomes of said trials. Some of you obviously don't.

if you can say you respect the outcome of that trial with a straight face its pretty sad. it was a travesty of the highest order. the color of his skin and his wealth got him off of the murder rap. someone like me in the same circumstances would be rotting away in the pen at this point.

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

if you can say you respect the outcome of that trial with a straight face its pretty sad. it was a travesty of the highest order. the color of his skin and his wealth got him off of the murder rap. someone like me in the same circumstances would be rotting away in the pen at this point.

Its interesting that you discuss injustice in regards to our justice system and use a black man as an example of someone exploiting and benefitting from the system.

How many blacks have been tried and WRONGLY persecuted because of the color of their skin?

[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

Cheeseburgers.

Umm, money. The money that allows him to live in a mansion.

oh, you know he just has his nfl pension...

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by DaHoss9698

Cheeseburgers.

Umm, money. The money that allows him to live in a mansion.

That money is retirement. He has to live.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

That money is retirement. He has to live.

in a mansion?!

besides, he didn't care if those other two people lived. they felt they 'had to live', she had two kids to raise. poor oj, reduced to penury--he probably had to scale down from a super mansion to a regular mansion.

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by Danzig

in a mansion?!

besides, he didn't care if those other two people lived. they felt they 'had to live', she had two kids to raise. poor oj, reduced to penury--he probably had to scale down from a super mansion to a regular mansion.

The law is the law.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

The law is the law.

sure is, and the judge told him to pony up--right?

[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.