Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  >      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 31
view profile
History
What if O.J. didn’t do it?Page 2 of 5    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5)
I didn't spend as much time as you might think. I didn't need to, as the airwaves were saturated with it, radio and TV alike. I was a bit more aware than many people at the time, that there was a huge difference between what the public was seeing, and what the jurors were seeing. That was simply because I've always read tons of books, and I paid attention to lots of crime investigations (addicts to problem solving, get hooked on ALL kinds of it), so I noted that the jury was sequestered for the duration of the trial, and were only allowed to see the performance of the two sets of lawyers, prosecution and defense. I was therefore not at all surprised at the Not Guilty verdict, because I'd noticed the prosecution mistakes and missteps and outright incompetence from day one.

As to the very true fact that innocent people do get convicted by mistake, based on misinterpreted circumstantial evidence, and even more commonly because the local justice system is riddled with prejudiced people in power... yeah, that happens. It's why every person who has to go to court for any reason is told to dress their best, and to behave respectfully towards the judge at all times.

But watch out too, for the periodic stories you'll see in the news, including the one that triggered this thread, where some "journalist" publishes a "shocking expose" of a miscarriage of justice. Sometimes the stories are quite true, and the journalists efforts serve to cause a second look, and the justice system is forced to try to correct itself, but it's also often the case that the reporter is just trying to stir things up, for personal recognition. I've many times found that the real reason the story came to light, was that on appeal the case against the person was reversed for exactly the sorts of reasons you describe. There are also plenty of cases where a smooth-talking manipulative sociopath manages periodically to hypnotize a new sucker, and the same old case gets rehashed in the news again and again. I think that this very case might well be one of those examples.

Oh, but I AM 100% on your side, when it comes to being fastidious about what is and isn't hard evidence. What I was noting in your response to Match, was that the quote you had boxed, appeared to be different from the exact words I saw in Matches post. Perhaps he edited his post after you copy-pasted his words into yours.
 TAWT
Joined: 10/10/2012
Msg: 32
What if O.J. didn’t do it?
Posted: 11/29/2012 6:15:21 AM
Really, that's all very subjective. The evidence is the only thing to look at. I am not interested in rehashing the whole trial. I am saying that certain behaviors or a certain demeanor is not evidence of guilt of anything. A case in point: West Memphis Three, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Memphis_Three. Three innocent men tried and convicted because of their behavior before and after a crime and their demeanor during the trail.


If that was your case in point, you picked a bad example. Those kids copped an Alford plea, which is basically a plea bargain, but it revolves around the core premise that there's sufficient EVIDENCE to secure a conviction beyond a resonable doubt.

NOBODY gets convicted in criminal court in this country based on "demeanor", although "demeanor" may be entered into evidence.
 TAWT
Joined: 10/10/2012
Msg: 34
What if O.J. didn’t do it?
Posted: 11/29/2012 6:53:41 AM
I see where you're going with it, but I wouldn't conclude that they were convicted based on their "demeanor". That case was badly botched at multiple levels. The initial confession was coerced from a kid with an IQ of 78. Along the way, evidence was tainted, lost and destroyed. I can see why the Alford pleas made sense based on the circumstances because it allowed them to at least resolve the case.

Are you suggesting that OJ is innocent for the same reasons? That trial was badly botched as well. The courts don't decide "innocence" though. They decide "guilty" or "not guilty". There's a world of difference. OJ got off on the criminal conviction because they couldn't establish guilt beyond a resonable doubt. In other words, they couldn't meet the prosecutorial standard because they screwed up the case. "Not guilty" isn't the same as "innocent".
 Aristotle_Amadopolis
Joined: 12/8/2011
Msg: 36
What if O.J. didn’t do it?
Posted: 11/29/2012 3:43:47 PM

What if O.J. didn’t do it?

Then I will file it with all the other sh*t that does not matter.
 Just___Jim
Joined: 10/21/2012
Msg: 37
What if O.J. didn’t do it?
Posted: 11/29/2012 4:55:07 PM

I think there is room for conjecture than in the OJ case and the Robert Blake case, famous people, sports hero's and movies stars and the like tend to 'get away with murder.' Especially when the jury is a Southern California jury, as regards to movie stars


Or anyone with a lot money, who gets the best lawyers in the country & get a jury trial your chances are better getting away with murder. Not all,but if he or she is guilt as sin, but unless the jury is unanimous,they walk or the government request a appeal & a new trial.
I never liked the unanimous thing,as the jury,the LA prosecution is in this case was star struck with all the hoop- la. And the hung jury prevailed because of it.

Just glad her brother new he did it,from all the evidence,& went after him in the civil suit which found him guilt as charged on all counts
 Aristotle_Amadopolis
Joined: 12/8/2011
Msg: 38
What if O.J. didn’t do it?
Posted: 11/29/2012 5:08:36 PM

Or anyone with a lot money, who gets the best lawyers in the country & get a jury trial your chances are better getting away with murder...

Why do people make these types of statements but leave out all the extra effort and dollars spent by the prosecution team?

Was OJ treated like just any other murder suspect, or did the LA prosecutors office spend extra dollars and increased efforts to convict him?
 hplazerjet
Joined: 11/1/2012
Msg: 39
What if O.J. didn’t do it?
Posted: 11/29/2012 5:41:22 PM
OJ definitely did it.
I just spent some time going over it again.
The civil case was a slam dunk. The shoes did him in.
 skoochie
Joined: 4/29/2008
Msg: 40
view profile
History
What if O.J. didn’t do it?
Posted: 12/2/2012 10:04:51 AM
What if the jury in the criminal case knew about the Bronco chase? They would have seen a guilty, desperate man on the run from the law who would rather shoot himself than talk to the police. Innocent people don't do that. People's behavior after a murder is often used against people such as inheritance money being collected and how it's spent or when suddenly the man is on a vacation with another woman is also suspicious. Behavior after a murder is very telling.

I think the jury got an overdose of DNA science. Expert after expert came in to tell them about something that was foreign to them only to leave them the idea that one vial of blood could be used to contaminate a sock, form a trail of blood at the Simpson home and at the crime scene.

The glove was another joke. A representative from Isotoner testified that the size glove admitted into evidence is the same size that he would put on OJ's hand. But, the only thing the jury remembered is that OJ didn't pull the glove down over his hand.

The shoes are what the civil case capitalized on and nailed to the cross by showing a bunch of pictures with OJ wearing the rare Italian shoes that matched the foot impressions taken from the crime scene.
 MrCorBoaz
Joined: 8/22/2012
Msg: 41
What if O.J. didn’t do it?
Posted: 12/15/2012 5:35:57 PM

What are your thoughts on this?


Of course it is entirely possible. It could also be a hoax. There was a jury that sat in the trail and observed and took notes day in and out while the rest of the world went about their normal lives while catching tv snippets and gossip. That jury found him not guilty. Of course there are those who are so close minded so as to think beyond a doubt the jury was wrong....then again there are still people insisting the moon landing was a hoax, Sadaam was responsible for 911, that there are 4 human races, Iraq had WMDs and that president Obama is a Kenyan born in Kenya.

People will not back away from beliefs even if proven foolish because the mother of all mental defenses: Denial. It is too big, and too powerful, to discuss comprehensively but denial is a cornerstone of any irrational belief. Denial is rooted in the need to preserve your own self-identity and sense of the world to avoid the panic that would come from realizing things are not as you believed.

Just remember; The people who threw ancient Christians to the lions to be eaten alive in front of crowds actually thought they were right.
The people who opposed allowing women to own property and vote actually thought they were right.
The people who fought against slaves being freed actually thought they were right.
Modern-day Islamic suicide bombers who destroy lives and murder innocent by-standers actually think they are right.
The guy who shot the doctor inside of a church because he believed he performed abortions actually thought he was right...and there are people who support him
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 42
view profile
History
What if O.J. didn’t do it?
Posted: 12/15/2012 7:15:04 PM
I am convinced that the jury got it wrong in the first trial, not because I am closed minded, but because I am not. As I said, I paid attention to what was going on in that courtroom.

The judge got caught up in grandstanding and in playing to the TV cameras. The Prosecutors did the same, and tried to pretend they were all variations on Perry Mason, without bothering to actually do the basic investigation, planning, and careful preparation work that makes all real top notch legal authorities win. They failed to present all the evidence they had, and what they did present, they presented in a very poorly organized manner. They put a known racist on the stand as their star witness.

Even before the trial, the authorities mishandled the scene of the evidence, including allowing Simpson the freedom to dispose of evidence, possibly right in front of them (I'll bet the "expose" didn't note the bags Simpson was seen on TV, handing off to a friend, which were never seen again).

Juries do get things wrong, especially when the case presented to them is ineptly carried across. I don't blame the jury. I blame the prosecutors office, and the entire California legal system, for ignoring racism in it's ranks for decades at least, and for putting people in charge of the prosecution who's primary interests, were self-promotion, and not justice.
 deetristate
Joined: 12/4/2014
Msg: 43
What if O.J. didn’t do it?
Posted: 9/30/2017 4:13:09 AM
""LAS VEGAS (AP) — O.J. Simpson will live in Florida after he is released on parole from a Nevada prison where he has been held for the past nine years for a robbery conviction, his lawyer said Friday.

Attorney Malcolm LaVergne didn't specify where the former sports and movie star would live, although Tom Scotto, a close friend who lives in Naples, Florida, has offered his home. Scotto didn't respond to messages seeking comment.

"He's going to Florida," LaVergne said. "There's no doubt he's going to Florida."

However, the state attorney general doesn't want Simpson to come back. Attorney General Pam Bondi sent a letter Friday to the Florida Department of Corrections, urging it to tell Nevada officials that Florida objects to Simpson serving his parole in the southern state."""



Why do people not accept jury verdicts or that people have served their debt to society?
Same with that woman they charged with killing her child, who was acquitted.

Then they wonder why they enter a life of crime to survive.
 gtomustang
Joined: 6/16/2007
Msg: 44
he's goin' to Disney World!
Posted: 9/30/2017 5:37:24 AM
I could be snarky and repeat, "if you love them so much, why not let them live with you?" :) but the question is, why do people believe what they see on TV, and don't think independently? We don't give people a break when they need one, and force them to do something criminal.
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 45
view profile
History
What if O.J. didn’t do it?
Posted: 9/30/2017 5:38:29 AM
I don't think you could have picked a more inapplicable platitude to use on O.J. Simpson than "people have served their debt to society."

Simpson has served his time for the ARMED ROBBERY he committed. Nothing else.
 deetristate
Joined: 12/4/2014
Msg: 46
What if O.J. didn’t do it?
Posted: 9/30/2017 6:16:58 AM
Both of you

made very creative statements.


They have no meaning at all what so ever to me.

^^^^^Could you explain more of what you mean? ^^^^^^


He served his time. Let it go.


Both he and Casey Anderson were acquitted.

Let it go.


That is how the system works.


Both of them could live with me.
They are Americans and here legally.
I actually have two extra rooms.


The only problem I see is that people like you two would probably protest in front of my house or egg it or harass me and threaten me and my kids if I did.

 poppata
Joined: 8/6/2017
Msg: 47
What if O.J. didn’t do it?
Posted: 9/30/2017 6:29:25 AM
"Why do people not accept jury verdicts or that people have served their debt to society?
Same with that woman they charged with killing her child, who was acquitted."

Because some people are independent, critical thinkers. Not guilty does not equal innocent. But I know you don't get that. So sad.
 Kj521
Joined: 11/16/2016
Msg: 48
What if O.J. didn’t do it?
Posted: 9/30/2017 6:37:31 AM
"Both he and Casey Anderson were acquitted."

Casey Anthony.


"Both of them could live with me.
They are Americans and here legally.
I actually have two extra rooms. "


If they were lying on the side of the road....I would stop to help...but I wouldn't tote them home with me. My kindness has limits. More power to you, Ms. Dee.

What about Anthony Weiner? Would you take him after he serves his time?
 daynadaze
Joined: 2/11/2008
Msg: 49
view profile
History
What if O.J. didn’t do it?
Posted: 9/30/2017 11:37:24 AM
Oh brother what tripe, you know damn good and well why no one wants a murderer living by them. And no, if she would answer honestly (ha!) she would not want ole wiener boy any where near. Grow up with this crap, he did do it, as did Casey, just because your attorney gets you, dose not make you innocent. As for living with you LOL yeah right, why haven't you contacted them with this offer? And please make sure you show proof of doing this, but don't get your hopes up, they both have much better offers.
 deetristate
Joined: 12/4/2014
Msg: 50
What if O.J. didn’t do it?
Posted: 9/30/2017 2:29:38 PM
Missed you snark "Dayna"

Thanks for proving my point Dayna.

He was acquitted of murder.

What is the purpose of a trial?

May as well be indicted and hung, I guess.

Was Anthony Weiner acquitted of his lewd behavior? When?


On the ACTUAL CONVICTION, OJ was seeking to get HIS including sports memorabilia, his 1968 Heisman trophy and golf clubs.

Now, his friends- Nah.

To each his reach. - Parliament
 poppata
Joined: 8/6/2017
Msg: 51
What if O.J. didn’t do it?
Posted: 9/30/2017 3:15:06 PM

He was acquitted of murder.

What is the purpose of a trial?


Honestly, I've never been quite sure if your level of stupidity is feigned or not... are you pretending to just not get it.

For my response below, I will assume you really are that ignorant and simply do not get it, so let me tell you how it works in a legal sense.

1) There was probable cause to believe OJ committed murder.
2) He was indicted for the Crime.
3) He was tried.
4) A black Jury decided there was not enough "proof" beyond a reasonable doubt he was guilty of the crime.
5) A white jury may well have decided differently.... that's the way cases are often decided in the US, like it or not.
6) An acquittal does not mean innocence. In fact a Civil Jury found him guilty of the crime of murder, which required a finding only he committed murder more likely than not.
7) We know since than that OJ has virtually admitted his crime in a book he authored suggesting very strongly he in fact committed the murder.
8) 25 years later or so, and no other suspect has ever been found, nor did OJ look for one.
9) All we have heard after the fact suggests beyond a reasonable doubt he was guilty.
10) It is highly likely OJ is guilty of murder.
11) In OJ's favor though, he may well be suffering from brain damage, which turned him into a murderer... so we can not necessarily look at him as an evil man... just a brain damaged man.

That being said, you can feel free to take him in... but if you would subject your children to such a risk makes you a terrible mother in my view...inviting a wild card like OJ into your house is a no-no.

As for Casey Anthony.... she simply put up a better case than the prosecution team, and the Jury felt the case was not proved. Everything we know about the defendant "George" since than also tends to indicate he was guilty of murder, his acquittal notwithstanding.

Once again..voluntarily taking such a man into your home where you have children at risk makes you a terrible mother.

Very sad.
 cobster11030
Joined: 7/2/2017
Msg: 52
What if O.J. didn’t do it?
Posted: 9/30/2017 6:29:17 PM
OJ, of course, killed those two.
It was a crime of passion. She drove him crazy. That's not an excuse to kill or harm a woman or anybody.
She used and abused that guy though. You push, push, push, push, and push a guy, and sooner or later he is going to snap.
There is a huge double standard in this society when it comes to these things. Nicole Brown was no angel. He still killed 2 people and that just can't be tolerated.
With regards to VEgas, I think it was a set-up. IF he would of been a little smarter in the way he handled it all, he wouldn't of spent the last however many years in prison.

I don't feel OJ is a threat to anybody though. If I had to be around him, I'd be perfectly comfortable in his presence.
 Kj521
Joined: 11/16/2016
Msg: 53
What if O.J. didn’t do it?
Posted: 9/30/2017 6:35:02 PM
Respectfully, Mr. Cobster.....going to have to disagree with your assessments above.

I understand your reasoning...but it is incorrect, imo.
 Doremi_Fasolatido
Joined: 2/14/2009
Msg: 54
view profile
History
What if O.J. didn’t do it?
Posted: 9/30/2017 7:14:44 PM
If OJ didn't do it, I wonder who did?

Since he was proven innocent is there still an open investigation?? I'm not a legal eagle and I am asking from my laypersons viewpoint in an earnest manner.
 cobster11030
Joined: 7/2/2017
Msg: 55
What if O.J. didn’t do it?
Posted: 9/30/2017 7:14:57 PM
Okay.

The guy should be in prison. It's a colossal joke that he isn't.
I don't feel though he is a threat to society nor do I fear him.
 poppata
Joined: 8/6/2017
Msg: 56
What if O.J. didn’t do it?
Posted: 9/30/2017 7:45:39 PM
""Since he was proven innocent....I'm not a legal eagle ""

Holy cow, that's for damn sure...and if you bothered reading some of the posts, you might have the answer you sought, though you are starting from a huge deficit.
 Doremi_Fasolatido
Joined: 2/14/2009
Msg: 57
view profile
History
What if O.J. didn’t do it?
Posted: 9/30/2017 8:01:18 PM
56^^^ I see you ARE well versed in legalese as you failed to answer the question..... And I read the proceeding posts and that is what spurred the previous query. I'll repeat...

If OJ didn't do it who did??? How bout' a straight answer you high flying eagle you.
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  >