OJ Simpson's guilty verdicts

[almaty 19]

What is racist is the fact that at the time of his murder trial, the black community cheered on the acquittal of a killer because he is black. That is a freakin disgrace.

no, they were cheering because LA too so much freakin effort that they made it look more like a personal thing rather than a neutral court.. they spent millions of dollars trying to prosecute OJ..

agreed...the DAs office had a right in jury selection..same as the defense////he was found innocent by a jury ..that was chosen by the DA and defense....that ia america justice system/./.of course, he was guilty

I don't understand what you're saying. Everyone that goes through the system is guilty, or just that he was guilty, or you don't believe in the system?

By the way, he wasn't found innocent, he was found "not-guilty". There's a huge difference there.

he was found not guilty..which is some courts is innocent...not being from la..i have no clue if it registered as the same.....example..is when you see the arrest/conviction records..some states label the person as not guilty..or not convicted..or innocent

he was found "not guilty" by a jury..case over....no, everyone is precieved as ' not guilty" ..by usa legal standards

Edited October 7, 2008 by almaty

[Completely 3]

The fact that, as far as I can tell, there has been nothing posted here in OT about yesterday's armed robbery verdicts really shows just how much of a nonstory this man has become.

Thirteen years ago, I was one of the millions watching his murder trial and acquittal on TV. I agreed with those verdicts, not so much because I believed he didn't do it as that I didn't think the prosecution proved it beyond a reasonable doubt. I thought the prosecution really dropped the ball, and he had an outstanding defense team. Since then, we've seen this man thumb his nose at verdicts in civil suits and even write a book about how he "could have" committed the murders. He has carried around this Teflon attitude. And now he may be going away for life, but there's barely a ripple of discussion about it; probably as it should be.

I am curious, though, about who he turned to the left and glared at when the verdicts were read yesterday. The jury? The press?

At long last ..

[Ling Ling 22]

What is racist is the fact that at the time of his murder trial, the black community cheered on the acquittal of a killer because he is black. That is a freakin disgrace.

no, they were cheering because LA too so much freakin effort that they made it look more like a personal thing rather than a neutral court.. they spent millions of dollars trying to prosecute OJ..

agreed...the DAs office had a right in jury selection..same as the defense////he was found innocent by a jury ..that was chosen by the DA and defense....that ia america justice system/./.of course, he was guilty

I don't understand what you're saying. Everyone that goes through the system is guilty, or just that he was guilty, or you don't believe in the system?

By the way, he wasn't found innocent, he was found "not-guilty". There's a huge difference there.

he was found not guilty..which is some courts is innocent...not being from la..i have no clue if it registered as the same.....example..is when you see the arrest/conviction records..some states label the person as not guilty..or not convicted..or innocent

he was found "not guilty" by a jury..case over....no, everyone is precieved as ' not guilty" ..by usa legal standards

Sorry...you're wrong. There's a difference between "not guilty" and "Innocent".

Rather than try to explain it...here's an excerpt from a lawyer in Texas...yes Texas.

"I don't care if your innocent. I care if you are "Not Guilty". So what is the difference? If you are innocent, you are absolutely without fault in all aspects. You are a victim of a terrible injustice and everyone should give you their pity. Congratulations you have it! But you still face all the consequences of being charged with a criminal offense. If you are not guilty, you perhaps did not do the crime, there was no crime, they arrested the wrong person, they could not prove their case, any one or combination of the above can produce the not guilty verdict.

In a criminal case you are either "guilty" or "not guilty". When the jury returns with it's verdict it will be one or the other. This is not much ado about nothing. My goal in a criminal trial is to get the jury to say at the end "not guilty" not "we find you innocent". The reason of course is that the law places the burden of proving someone guilty beyond a reasonable doubt on the government. You don't have to prove your innocence. (like you could even do that). The person accused has no burden of proof at all. In fact the trial starts with one fact absolutely established, that the defendant is presumed "not guilty". The government must prove guilt to the highest standard the law allows and if they don't the jury has no choice but to find the defendant "not guilty".

A criminal trial is not about what you as the defendant can prove. It is about what the government can prove. It has been my experience that I have won many more trials when I put on no witnesses or evidence. Instead I shot holes in the government's case and pointed out how weak or how little evidence they produced. Often by putting on witnesses and evidence for the defense, the jury gets confused that the trial is not a battle of who has the most or best evidence. They think, "well we believed that the state's evidence was better or they had more evidence than the defense". We will lose that battle every time. When no evidence is produced by the accused, the law about who bears the burden of proof is underlined for the jury. The court will tell the jury that the law does not impose any burden on the defendant to produce any testimony or evidence. The judge instructs the jury that they must accept that as the law before they begin their deliberations.

So why is this distinction not well known? If you listen to the news media's coverage of a trial, you will hear them talk of innocence. They will say a jury found someone "innocent" in court today. No they did not! They found someone "not guilty". If you are concerned about innocence, then see a priest, rabbi, or clergyman. If you have been charged by the government with a crime and they seek to take away your liberty, you should be concerned about being found "Not Guilty" and see a criminal defense lawyer!"

[Ling Ling 22]

The fact that, as far as I can tell, there has been nothing posted here in OT about yesterday's armed robbery verdicts really shows just how much of a nonstory this man has become.

Thirteen years ago, I was one of the millions watching his murder trial and acquittal on TV. I agreed with those verdicts, not so much because I believed he didn't do it as that I didn't think the prosecution proved it beyond a reasonable doubt. I thought the prosecution really dropped the ball, and he had an outstanding defense team. Since then, we've seen this man thumb his nose at verdicts in civil suits and even write a book about how he "could have" committed the murders. He has carried around this Teflon attitude. And now he may be going away for life, but there's barely a ripple of discussion about it; probably as it should be.

I am curious, though, about who he turned to the left and glared at when the verdicts were read yesterday. The jury? The press?

At long last ..

At long last what? This trial didn't take nearly as long as many other trials...or are you saying this trial is punishment for past deeds?

Again...I think he's far from innocent, but I'm sensing an attitude of happiness from your post, that's a little disturbing.

[Fandango 1,439]

I read that book 'His Name Was Ron' and there was a lot of info in there about the trial that we didn't get to see....supposedly, there was tons of evidence that Ito didn't allow....of course, take it all with a grain of salt, but I remember being astounded at some of the claims in the book.

[Completely 3]

The fact that, as far as I can tell, there has been nothing posted here in OT about yesterday's armed robbery verdicts really shows just how much of a nonstory this man has become.

Thirteen years ago, I was one of the millions watching his murder trial and acquittal on TV. I agreed with those verdicts, not so much because I believed he didn't do it as that I didn't think the prosecution proved it beyond a reasonable doubt. I thought the prosecution really dropped the ball, and he had an outstanding defense team. Since then, we've seen this man thumb his nose at verdicts in civil suits and even write a book about how he "could have" committed the murders. He has carried around this Teflon attitude. And now he may be going away for life, but there's barely a ripple of discussion about it; probably as it should be.

I am curious, though, about who he turned to the left and glared at when the verdicts were read yesterday. The jury? The press?

At long last ..

At long last what? This trial didn't take nearly as long as many other trials...or are you saying this trial is punishment for past deeds?

Again...I think he's far from innocent, but I'm sensing an attitude of happiness from your post, that's a little disturbing.

Its up for me to put something next to the phrase Ive made..as the trial will continue on December..

How do you know that he was innocent? Did I put any comment in my recent post for you to say something??

We are all entitled with our own opinion, (even I did not put any opinion at all in this post)....

If I am happy or the other poster are happy it is none of your business...

Edited October 7, 2008 by Completely

[Ling Ling 22]

The fact that, as far as I can tell, there has been nothing posted here in OT about yesterday's armed robbery verdicts really shows just how much of a nonstory this man has become.

Thirteen years ago, I was one of the millions watching his murder trial and acquittal on TV. I agreed with those verdicts, not so much because I believed he didn't do it as that I didn't think the prosecution proved it beyond a reasonable doubt. I thought the prosecution really dropped the ball, and he had an outstanding defense team. Since then, we've seen this man thumb his nose at verdicts in civil suits and even write a book about how he "could have" committed the murders. He has carried around this Teflon attitude. And now he may be going away for life, but there's barely a ripple of discussion about it; probably as it should be.

I am curious, though, about who he turned to the left and glared at when the verdicts were read yesterday. The jury? The press?

At long last ..

At long last what? This trial didn't take nearly as long as many other trials...or are you saying this trial is punishment for past deeds?

Again...I think he's far from innocent, but I'm sensing an attitude of happiness from your post, that's a little disturbing.

Its up for me to put something next to the phrase Ive made..as the trial will continue on December..

How do you know that he was innocent? Did I put any comment in my recent post for you to say something??

We are all entitled with our own opinion, (even I did not put any opinion at all in this post)....

If I am happy or the other poster are happy it is none of your business...

Hmmmm first of all, I can't believe you've been around this long and don't understand how these threads work.

You post something, somebody else posts something. They might post an agreement, a disagreement, a question, or something that has nothing to do with what you said at all.

Second, I asked a question....which you went to great lengths to avoid answering.

Third, if you take the time to read again, I said I believe he's "far from innocent".

So if you don't have an opinion, why the heck are you so happy, and why did you post at all?

Is there a sign for I smell BS?

Back to topic??? There's a reason this is in the Off Topic forum in the first place.

[pedroh 21]

oh ling ling.. you're not the only one bother wit that 'at last' attitude, not only from VJ but from a lot of people..

it's disturbing that this is more of a revenge thing rather than a conviction from this crime....

maybe we'll never know what happened maybe he was guilty, maybe not.. but he wasn't innocent, he was found not-guilty which indeed is way different from innocent..

but whatever happens in the past, is a different story from the crime he's being convicted now.. and people with the 'he deserved it for what happened 20 years ago' don't seem bothered at all that they're rather celebrating it in a classic witchhunt style..

[Completely 3]

The fact that, as far as I can tell, there has been nothing posted here in OT about yesterday's armed robbery verdicts really shows just how much of a nonstory this man has become.

Thirteen years ago, I was one of the millions watching his murder trial and acquittal on TV. I agreed with those verdicts, not so much because I believed he didn't do it as that I didn't think the prosecution proved it beyond a reasonable doubt. I thought the prosecution really dropped the ball, and he had an outstanding defense team. Since then, we've seen this man thumb his nose at verdicts in civil suits and even write a book about how he "could have" committed the murders. He has carried around this Teflon attitude. And now he may be going away for life, but there's barely a ripple of discussion about it; probably as it should be.

I am curious, though, about who he turned to the left and glared at when the verdicts were read yesterday. The jury? The press?

At long last ..

At long last what? This trial didn't take nearly as long as many other trials...or are you saying this trial is punishment for past deeds?

Again...I think he's far from innocent, but I'm sensing an attitude of happiness from your post, that's a little disturbing.

Its up for me to put something next to the phrase Ive made..as the trial will continue on December..

How do you know that he was innocent? Did I put any comment in my recent post for you to say something??

We are all entitled with our own opinion, (even I did not put any opinion at all in this post)....

If I am happy or the other poster are happy it is none of your business...

Hmmmm first of all, I can't believe you've been around this long and don't understand how these threads work.

You post something, somebody else posts something. They might post an agreement, a disagreement, a question, or something that has nothing to do with what you said at all.

Second, I asked a question....which you went to great lengths to avoid answering.

Third, if you take the time to read again, I said I believe he's "far from innocent".

So if you don't have an opinion, why the heck are you so happy, and why did you post at all?

Is there a sign for I smell BS?

Back to topic??? There's a reason this is in the Off Topic forum in the first place.

hmmm and why are you so affected? Hey if I dont understand how this thread works, why are you paying attention at all?

I did not even added anything but a simple phrase "at long last"..

[Ling Ling 22]

oh ling ling.. you're not the only one bother wit that 'at last' attitude, not only from VJ but from a lot of people..

it's disturbing that this is more of a revenge thing rather than a conviction from this crime....

maybe we'll never know what happened maybe he was guilty, maybe not.. but he wasn't innocent, he was found not-guilty which indeed is way different from innocent..

but whatever happens in the past, is a different story from the crime he's being convicted now.. and people with the 'he deserved it for what happened 20 years ago' don't seem bothered at all that they're rather celebrating it in a classic witchhunt style..

Thanks for that Pedroh....for a minute I thought it was just me.

[Ling Ling 22]

hmmm and why are you so affected? Hey if I dont understand how this thread works, why are you paying attention at all?

I did not even added anything but a simple phrase "at long last"..

I guess you just like putting up cute little emoticons on threads...and posting words that mean absolutely nothing?

Well, that either makes you not very smart, or not capable of telling the truth about your intentions.

...like I said. BS.

As for what gives me the right to respond...it's the same right that gave you the ability to respond in the first place, and the same right that gives you

the right to not respond. It's this thing called freedom combined with this thing called being a member of this community.

Pedroh...why am I wasting my time? WHY?

[pedroh 21]

OJ still has the ability to divide the country, and to make a court look like a jerry springer show.. impressive

but it's saddening that people are claiming blood, instead of being objective for the actual crime, and not from a grudge from the past.. because 'everybody thinks he's guilty' even the freakin court stated not guilty..

oh ling ling.. you're not the only one bother wit that 'at last' attitude, not only from VJ but from a lot of people..

it's disturbing that this is more of a revenge thing rather than a conviction from this crime....

maybe we'll never know what happened maybe he was guilty, maybe not.. but he wasn't innocent, he was found not-guilty which indeed is way different from innocent..

but whatever happens in the past, is a different story from the crime he's being convicted now.. and people with the 'he deserved it for what happened 20 years ago' don't seem bothered at all that they're rather celebrating it in a classic witchhunt style..

Thanks for that Pedroh....for a minute I thought it was just me.

[Ling Ling 22]

OJ still has the ability to divide the country, and to make a court look like a jerry springer show.. impressive

but it's saddening that people are claiming blood, instead of being objective for the actual crime, and not from a grudge from the past.. because 'everybody thinks he's guilty' even the freakin court stated not guilty..

True, True....but would there's the question of, would there have been any big press or fiasco about the trial if the victims were Black?

This country has a lot of heeling to do...a lot. They're still suffering from the mental chains of slavery....and the ignorance of racism.

[pedroh 21]

it could have been someone else.. but OJ lol.. people still hold a grudge against him for what happened wayy long ago

[Cassie 8]

Do I think he was guilty of the first crime? Yes. However, he was pronounced not guilty by a jury of his peers, and I have to accept that. I may not be happy about it, but I have to accept it as the way the justice system works.

Do I think he was guilty of the second crime? Yes.

Did he deserve to be convicted on the second crime, based on the fact he "got away" with the first crime? No, but he deserved to convicted of the second crime because he was guilty of the second crime.