Reply With Quote
nicole was hot
Did you hear that OJ Simpson is getting re-married???
Yep, he has decided to take another stab at it!!!
Sorry Ladies, O.J. Simpson Is Off The Market
"Imprisoned sports star turned actor OJ Simpson has fallen in love with a pen pal and is set to marry her behind bars according to US report. The naked gun star will be marrying the pen pal who he has never met physically; the actor has fallen in love over a series of letters that the duo exchanged with each other and he has proposed her for marriage, she will now be his third wife. The pen pal called Anna is a young blonde; she had sent her picture to Simpson who flipped after looking at the picture and is believed to be a spitting image of his late wife Nicole. The former football star had been acquitted of her murder in 1995."
http://www.crunktastical.net/2010/07...-blonde-woman/
OJ Simpson, who is truly innocent of the 1994 murders, should be out on appeal soon, and then we'll have the 5th OJ Simpson trial!
nicole was hot
Why are they calling OJ an actor in this story? I'm pretty sure he's more reknowned for his football skills.
Maybe because he was a bad actor?
OJ is innocent! Free the Juice!!
you've been duped by the mass media:
O.J. Simpson: Guilty, But Not of Murder?
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewr...ves/58743.html
"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them."
Ayn Rand
"If a man accuses another man of murder, and the charge is not proven, then the accuser shall be put to death!"
Hammurabi
So, you're a 9/11 nutter who thinks OJ is innocent?
Ok, everything makes sense now.
you are a nutjob. The jury found OJ innocent.
I think he is innocent also. Too much cir stantial and tainted evidence. I think he was framed.
The jury found OJ not guilty; it didn't find him innocent.
Minor technicality since an innocent ruling is extremely rare.
It's not a technicality. It's the law.
The not guilty finding could -- and I think does -- mean that the jury found that there was substantial evidence that OJ murdered Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman but that the State had not proven his involvement in the murders beyond a reasonable doubt. In that cir stance -- a highly plausible one to me -- there would be plenty of evidence that OJ played a role in the murders but not enough evidence to convict him of murder. He wouldn't be innocent, since there would be evidence of his involvement in the crime, but not enough evidence to convict him under the controlling standard of proof.
Given everything that occurred during that trial, there's zero chance that the jury found him innocent. That jury concluded that the State didn't carry it's burden to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Think about it. The instructions for the verdict are almost always only two options. Guilty, or not guilty.
Ever been on a jury? Ever have a judge allow an innocent verdict?
Like I said, it's very rare.
Again, the fact that he's been found not guilty still doesn't mean that he's innocent. If there's some evidence against him, he's not innocent.
For someone who's universally concerned with word parsing, you sure are using a liberal standard with this one.
There is no valid evidence against him. If there was, he would have been found guilty.
lol
Sure there's valid evidence against him. Just not enough to remove ALL doubts from the jury, which is the bar set by criminal justice in order to hand a guilty verdict.
Ok, there was no solid evidence that wasn't subject to interpretation. It's hard to win a case with just cir stantial evidence, isn't it.
I stand corrected.
You do realize you are arguing with an attorney, right?
I'd also tell you that the reason we only instruct juries to find guilty or not guilty is that there are other procedural mechanisms for resolving the case if there's no evidence of the Defendant's guilt. If there is no evidence of the Defendant's guilt, the case shouldn't go to the jury and, accordingly, the jury would never be in a position to determine that the accused is wholly innocent -- only that he's not been proven guilty.
Then he should know this already.
This is what his defense "dream" team argued and their argument was enough to convince a jury, and apparently you. If the prosecutors weren't so incompetent, a lot of this argument could have been much less compelling. And handing OJ the gloves? Pure stupidity.
If it doesn't fit you must aquit!
I must admit, that guy was pretty smooth.
I remember seeing Vincent Bugliosi on TV, basically saying that Marcia Clark and Chris Darden were re ed.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
