Jump to content

O.J. Innocent or Guilty ?


Funseeker 22
This topic is 6745 days old and is no longer open for new replies.  Replies are automatically disabled after two years of inactivity.  Please create a new topic instead of posting here.  

Recommended Posts

Guest rohale

O.J without a shadow of a doubt was and still remains guilty to this day. The biggest mistake that was made during 1995 was allowing that cockroach Johnny Cochran to wear that black mask and made a complete mockery of the judicial stystem. To a lesser extent the defense team ruined the career of then detective Mark Furhman. He didn't help his own case when he admitted that he planted evidence to save himself time for doing a more thorough investigative job. Cochran and his henchman helped ruin the already tarnished reputation of the Los Angeles Police Department. The biggest fallout came after the verdict when defense lawyer #2, Mr Robert Shapiro suddenly felt that O.J did indeed do the killings after he probably found out that O.J was bankrupt. Incidently didn't O.J promise to find the killers. I guess the media forgot that the killer moved to Florida so that the Brown family couldn't end up being the legal guardian of their slained daughter's children. It seems such a long time ago now.

 

Rohale

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course he is innocent

 

and

 

Rick and Derek are really the Olsen twins

 

Hooboy is the Pope

 

I'm really Jason Adonis just wearing a mask and body suit so that I don'r get molested all day long

 

I can't beleive that you could ask that question

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's been a decade since the crime happened and the verdict rendered!

Give it a rest!

 

I, too, watched much of the interview last evening, and as I watched, I kept questioning why is this interview taking place, and why am I forcing myself to watch it! I didn't like many of the questions that Ms. C... asked Mr. Simpson, nor did I like his responses. I know I could have gone to another channel, but something unknowingly kept me there until the end.

 

Who was that cute man who sat next to Mr. Simpson's left?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest bakuboy

The issue is now as it was then: if the cops frame a guilty man, should he be found guilty by a jury or not. White Americans largely said yes. Black Americans largely said no. It is as simple as that. Convicting OJ would have given license to hire racist lying cops. Acquitting him, did otherwise. Folks who don't like the verdict now have an incentive not to hire racist lying cops. Vivre OJ libre!

 

As for the fanilies, who can take seriously Nicole's family that grew fat and rich while OJ allegedly beat their beloved sister and daughter, but only voiced their outrage after she was killed. PLEEEEAASSEE! As for the Goldman family, they lost my sympathies with the endless rants comparing OJ to Hitler. For Christ sake, it was a crime of passion. He killed a cheating wife. He did not bake her in an oven. Faced with the families of the victims, I remaim entirely in OJ's corner and am happy that the laws of Florida keep his pension out of the reach of those snakes. Golf on, Juice! Don't work for those greedy bastards!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Tomcal_

He didn't kill a cheating wife, they were divorced! And what do the families of the victims have to do with the fact that he killed two people?? Your post was one of the more moronic ones I have seen posted on any topic!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

johnny cochran was a brilliant advocate for his client.

not at all fair to blame an attorney for sins of the client.

in my opinion...guilty as sin...but a duly charged jury said..."not guilty"...so ergo...he is not guilty.

 

the law is never wrong...it can never be allowed to be "wrong".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest bakuboy

... so you prefer lying racist cops? Yes, indeed, you occupy the moral high ground ... in your dreams!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>... so you prefer lying racist cops? Yes, indeed, you occupy

>the moral high ground ... in your dreams!

....so you prefer murder to racism? Neither can be said to occupy a moral high ground. ....in your dreams maybe you aren't a fuckin idiot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest bakuboy

So much venom from such a small flower ...!

 

The issue I repeat, is now as it was then, if lying racist cops try to frame a guilty man, should he go free. There is only one possible answer if you are a democrat who believes in the rule of law. He must go free, even if it causes your flower to wilt!

 

After ten years, re-direct your anger into something useful, and work to see that no lying, racist cops are hired in America.

 

Golf on, Juice! Don't give the greedy bastards even one hair off your ass!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still vote guilty. The issue of racist cops was the very issue that Johnny Cochran used to create jury nullification. The issue before the jury was whether or not OJ Simpson murdered his ex-wife and Goldman, not whether or not the cops who investigated the crime had racist inclinations. Cochran made the case about the latter, and the rest is history.

 

One of the truly goofy moments for the prosecution was when they had OJ try on the gloves. It didn't fit (probably because he was also wearing the latex gloves) yet Christopher Darden never seemed to consider that fact and raise an issue. The incompetence of Darden gave Johnny his rhyming line: If it doesn't fit, you must acquit.

 

Bottom line, OJ skated free because he had the money to pay for a first-rate defense team. Had he been an average L.A. gang-banger, his ass would have been fried by now. OJ's money afforded him is freedom, but it doesn't change the fact that he's murdering scum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest laboheme

>The issue before the jury was whether or not OJ Simpson

>murdered his ex-wife and Goldman, not whether or not the cops

>who investigated the crime had racist inclinations. Cochran

>made the case about the latter, and the rest is history.

 

The issue before the jury was whether to credit the prosecution's evidence. It was foolish to ask a predominantly Black jury to credit the testimony of lying, racist cops. The prosecurtion had a choice. They goofed and the rest was history ....! Get over it, already!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>It was foolish to ask a predominantly

>Black jury to credit the testimony of lying, racist cops.

 

Speaking of racism, LaBoheme, has it ever occurred to you just how racist your statement above appears to be? It clearly implies that you can't expect Black folks to decide on the evidence presented vs. their ethnicity. It appears to me that you're saying when it comes down to a choice between truth and race, Blacks will choose race.

 

No argument from me that Mark Fuhrman's past history was fair game for consideration as ONE element for deliberation. There were many other elements to be considered in this case, which were obviously ignored and trumped by Cochran's focus on the fact that Mark Fuhrman had used the "N" word in the past. I don't fault Cochran for using the tactic he did; he was being paid to get a not guilty verdict for his client, which he did,and that's the way the adversarial system works. I do think the notion of a "grand conspiracy on the part of the police" to "get OJ because he was Black" defies logic, in light of other evidence presented, particularly in light of some "small" details like "opportunity" and "motive" and "OJ's prior history of spousal abuse".

 

During the early 1970's I served on an all white jury in Texas hearing a case of an African American accused of assault with intent to kill another African American as a result of a shooting in a bar. If you wanted to see racism, you should have been in that jury room. We had a couple of jurors who initially concluded that since these kinds of shootings happen frequently in "Black bars", then the defendant must be guilty. The "real" facts of the case made it evident that the prosecution and police had done a lousy job of providing even the most elementary evidence to dispute the defendant's claim of self-defense. The fact that four jurors (two of us were college students) held our ground for a not guilty verdict finally resulted in an acquittal. Did we feel like justice had been done? Not totally. At least some of us wished we could have had additional evidence (something as simple as a photograph of the crime scene) which would have made it possible to decide if the defendant was truthful in his account of what happened. Based on the evidence we had, at least we didn't convict a man who may have been merely defending himself.

 

In the OJ case, lack of evidence was not the problem. There was a mountain of evidence that pointed to OJ's guilt. Sadly, the jury chose to use the history of racism in America (a truly horrible history) instead of what was properly in evidence. Was justice served? Only if you believe it is more important to, in Cochran's words, "send a message", rather than to render a verdict on the real charges before the jury.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest laboheme

>It clearly

>implies that you can't expect Black folks to decide on the

>evidence presented vs. their ethnicity. It appears to me that

>you're saying when it comes down to a choice between truth and

>race, Blacks will choose race.

 

Who said that the jury did not decide on the evidence presented? The evidence presented came from aracist cop. Rejecting that evidence was both the intelligent and rational thing to do. To do otherwise, woulds only encourage the hiring of more racist cops. (There is a jury instruction to do with credibility that tells them to do what theyt did. Are you now blaming Black pewople for writing the jury instruction? Nobody forced the prosecuition to put the racist on the stand? By the way, neither Johnnie Cochran or F.Lee Bailey did that. It was that ugly cunt, Marsha Clark who chose to do that.)

 

It continues to amuse me that white guys like you still don't understand that. However, it does not matter. The message was sent, and the continuing ranting and whining from some white folks it seems to me is because they want to have their cake and eat it too. You want to live with a racist justice system, and you want Blacks to help you keep it going. In the OJ case, they said no. You see not everyone is as stupid as Colin and Condi who are sending young Blacks to die for a racist foreign power and apartheid state!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>Who said that the jury did not decide on the evidence

>presented? The evidence presented came from aracist cop.

>Rejecting that evidence was both the intelligent and rational

>thing to do.

 

ALL of the evidence came from a racist cop? Did you sleep through this trial, or did you even bother to watch it at all? What about the fact that OJ had beaten his ex-wife on various occasions? That was a matter of legal record. Do you think that irrelevant? Do you remember the photos of Nicole showing the aftermath of his beatings?

 

Do I believe Mark Fuhrman was/is a racist? Yes, as are many cops. Was any evidence presented to show that he framed OJ? None whatsoever. If you subscribe to the idea that only white people can be racist, as is popular in some academic circles, then following that logic, every jury should acquit every Black defendant if any arresting officer happened to be white.

 

If I were the insipid racist you seem to think I am, I would have voted to convict the Black man I mentioned in the trial I mentioned in my earlier post. On the contrary, I insisted that the prosecution failed to provide the evidence necessary for me to conclude that he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Three other jurors shared my view, and we turned around a jury that initially voted 7-5 to convict on piss poor evidence.

 

I have to say your line of reasoning is not very impressive. The fact that Mark Fuhrman was a racist doesn't mean that OJ was innocent. Has that thought ever crossed your mind? Or is it that fact that Mark Fuhrman was a racist somehow makes murder by OJ excusable?

 

As to why Fuhrman was called to the stand, that would be pretty obvious to most thinking people. He was an investigating officer, hence he would be called. Don't you think it would have been strange if the prosecution hadn't called him? Rest assured that if that had been the case, Cochran and Bailey would have called him for the purpose of playing the race card.

 

 

 

>It continues to amuse me that white guys like you still don't

>understand that. However, it does not matter. The message was

>sent, and the continuing ranting and whining from some white

>folks it seems to me is because they want to have their cake

>and eat it too. You want to live with a racist justice

>system, and you want Blacks to help you keep it going. In the

>OJ case, they said no. You see not everyone is as stupid as

>Colin and Condi who are sending young Blacks to die for a

>racist foreign power and apartheid state!

 

How can questioning the validity of a verdict be a matter of wanting to have your cake and eating it too? And where do you get off saying I want to live with a racist justice system? Are you clairvoyant or something? If you knew me, which you don't, you would realize how utterly absurd such an accusation is. Since you've chosen to base your arguments on emotion and not logic, I'm not surprised.

 

Unlike you, I wouldn't characterize Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice as stupid. Powell just lacks the backbone to tell Bush to fuck off, and Condi is most likely just evil.

>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest laboheme

One minute you complain about a predominantly Black jury following a jury instruction with respect to the credibility of a lying racist cop. Next minute you blame Johnnie Cohcran and F.Lee Bailey for playing the race card. You say that there was a mountain of other evidence to convict OJ other than from the lying, racist cop. Then you say it would have looked funny if the prosecution did not put the lying, racist cop on the stand. In dong so, you nust admit that there was no mountain of evidence because it was tainted by the lying, racist investigating cop. So get over it. OJ was freed because LA hired and maintained lying, racist cops and lying, racist prosecutors, and in that case a predominantly Black jury did the right thing and said "no, not this time!" Direct your anger at something useful. Let OJ golf in peace, and work to rid your community of lying, racist cops and prosecutors!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>One minute you complain about a predominantly Black jury

>following a jury instruction with respect to the credibility

>of a lying racist cop.

 

Did I say this? I don't think so. Now you're just making shit up. The issue is that they didn't follow the jury instruction in its totality. And of course, as I fully expected, you never addressed the issue as to whether or not OJ killed Nicole and Goldman, but it is blatantly clear that you don't care. Now why would that be? Could it possibly be that the victims were caucasian?

 

 

Next minute you blame Johnnie Cohcran

>and F.Lee Bailey for playing the race card.

 

Moron, if you could read, you would see that I actually said such a ploy was legitimate in terms of their responsibility to their client. Was it ethical? That is certainly open to question. It was clearly legal, though.

 

 

 

You say that

>there was a mountain of other evidence to convict OJ other

>than from the lying, racist cop. Then you say it would have

>looked funny if the prosecution did not put the lying, racist

>cop on the stand. In dong so, you nust admit that there was

>no mountain of evidence because it was tainted by the lying,

>racist investigating cop. So get over it.

 

You are clearly delusional. I don't have to admit any such thing, because your reasoning (or the lack thereof) is utterly ridiculous. I cited some specific evidence in my earlier post, namely OJ's history of spousal abuse, but of course you chose to ignore that. Tell us all how that evidence was tainted? You won't because you can't.

 

 

OJ was freed

>because LA hired and maintained lying, racist cops and lying,

>racist prosecutors, and in that case a predominantly Black

>jury did the right thing and said "no, not this time!" Direct

>your anger at something useful. Let OJ golf in peace, and

>work to rid your community of lying, racist cops and

>prosecutors!

 

The jury rendered a verdict on past injustices to Blacks, not on the innocence of OJ Simpson, who got away with murder. You get over it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest laboheme

>Moron, if you could read, you would see that I actually said

>such a ploy was legitimate in terms of their responsibility to

>their client. Was it ethical? That is certainly open to

>question. It was clearly legal, though.

 

Any lawyer who knew that the principal evidence against his client came from a lying, racist cop who perjured himself on the witness stand and who did not put that to the jury would be guilty of professional mal-practice.

 

>You are clearly delusional. I don't have to admit any such

>thing, because your reasoning (or the lack thereof) is utterly

>ridiculous. I cited some specific evidence in my earlier

>post, namely OJ's history of spousal abuse, but of course you

>chose to ignore that. Tell us all how that evidence was

>tainted? You won't because you can't.

 

Evidence of past spousal abuse is not evidence of murder. As I pointed out, it was not OJ's lawyers who put the lying, racist cop forward, it was the prosecutors. And as you indicated previously, they needed to do that because hre was linked to the state's "best" evidence. The only problem was he was the weakest link, and a predominantly Black jury following a jury instruction not written by Black people refused to convict OJ on the strength of evidence tainted by that lying, racist cop. If the state had evidence that was not linked to him, they should have put it forward, and they should not have asked a predominantly Black jury to credit the testimony of a lying, racust cop.

 

>The jury rendered a verdict on past injustices to Blacks, not

>on the innocence of OJ Simpson, who got away with murder. You

>get over it.

 

I ain't the one complaining so I have nothing to get over. And I was not aware the injustices against Blacks in America was a past, not present matter. Be that as it may, the jury did not think the injustices were in the past and therefore made a rational decision to send a message to their community not to hire lying, racist cops and prosecutors. Whether you choose to draw the appropriate lesson or not is up to you, but if you choose not to then the deaths of those two poor souls is on your head not those of the jury. Go Juice Go!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really must go on the record here.

 

If you ask most people, black or white. "Did he do the crime, Yes or no?" they will say yes he did the crime.

 

However, legally and technically should he have been found guilty, the answer is no. To be found guilty, it must be beyond resonable doubt. There many factors which raised reasonable doubt.

 

1) That Mark Furman, a well known racist was the lead detective on the case.

 

2) That OJ's shoes were taken home over night by one of the detectives before submitting them to the lab for investigation the next morning.

 

3) That OJ's blood sample was taken in a car to the crime scene by Mark Furman before turning that in to the lab.

 

4) I find it hard to believe that only faint droplets were found in OJ's driveway and car. You can not rule out tamperring.

 

5) Nobody ever found the bloodied clothes or the weapon.

 

What White America doesn't realize is that there are many, many flaws in our judicial process. It is biased in favor of the haves verus the have-nots.

 

No one complained or were greatly offended when a rich Kennedy kid got away with rape with the use of expensive lawyers. Most people assumed that if he was found not guilty, it must be true.

 

Our system favors those with the means to higher good legal representation. The average Public defender is only allocated about $800.00 per fellony case. The prosecution only has to out spend them to win in most cases.

 

In the United States, the vast majority of crimes are committed by White Americans. It's a fact. Yet the majority of people who end up in jail are minorities. It is because the majority of minorities can not afford a good lawyer.

 

I am not saying the system is racist, am saying it is biased towards those with the means to get good lawyers.

 

Blacks and other minorities applauded the ruling, not because they thought he didn't do the crime. They were happy that people finally got to see that people with money are favored in the system. They were also happy because the alleged myth about unethical practices of some law enforcement officers towards minorities had finally come out of the closset.

 

Our legal and justice system is very, very flawed and biased. One of my favorite episodes of Law And Order was when the new female Head Prosecuter found it so hard to charge a white, blond haired blue eyed teen as an adult and ask for the death penalty for a malicious and horrible crime. One of the lawyers said to her, you have to charge him as an adult and ask for the death penalty, otherwise you will catch hell when you do it to a minority.

 

In that episode, it showed that humans are biased by nature. How the prosecutors decide to charge people can be colored by race or appearance, what a cop decides to let slide even before it get to the courts and what a jurry sees when a young hip hop kid is before them for a verdict. Do they see an inocent kid or a hardenned criminal based on his appearance? Too many times decisions are made for the wrong reasons.

 

We learned valuable lessons here from this case.

 

And if you think I am wrong, answer this question. How upset and outraged are the people you know about the case surrounding Robert Blake? Are they as concerned about how it will go? Will there be hundreds of people picketting his case? When he is found not guilty, will you still be writing threads about him 10 years later????

 

It was such an outrage because a black man killed his blue eyed, blond white wife. Robert Blake killed his wife just recently, how many threads are there about that here????

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest ReturnOfS

To quote Rodney King,

 

"Can't we all just get along?!"

 

LOL I loved it when they did that skit on In Living Color. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

In order to post in the Political Issues forum, all members are required to acknowledge that their post is in compliance with our Community Guidelines.  In addition, you acknowledge that it meets the following requirements: 

  • No personal attacks: Attack the issue not the person
  • No hijacking: Stay on the subject of the thread 

  • No bullying, hate speech or offensive terms/expressions

In addition, if the moderators feel someone is reporting content simply because if it’s political stance (such as but not limited to reporting it as off topic but not other off topic replies by those that agree with your stance), the reporting person may receive a warning as well.

Content that does not comply with the above requirements will be removed.  Multiple violations may result in a loss of access to this forum.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...