PDA

View Full Version : OJ is INNOCENT!!



Anonymous
06-09-2004, 09:25 PM
At least that's what he believes. I just watched part of that Katie Couric interview. I'm convinced that he's now convinced that he is truly innocent. Unbelieveable

And I'm the Pope.

jenfrog81
06-09-2004, 09:26 PM
Well I think he did it . just like the petersons case ,. scott may have not killed her but I think He payed someone to do it .

Girlie
06-09-2004, 09:41 PM
I'm convinced that OJ's convinced that we're a bunch of dummies.
He whacked Nicole and her friend. I've never believed otherwise.

BigGunz
06-09-2004, 09:43 PM
court said OJ was innocent...my opinion?...I think he had something to do with it...hands on?...no....... knowledge?...YESSSSSSSSSSSS! And Scott Peterson my own gut tells me he did it....we will see what the courts decide!

Rhiannon
06-09-2004, 09:54 PM
I watched the whole circus act (trial) on court tv. I hope helives a miserable existance.

CuriousGal
06-09-2004, 10:05 PM
At least that's what he believes. I just watched part of that Katie Couric interview. I'm convinced that he's now convinced that he is truly innocent. Unbelieveable

And I'm the Pope.

Yeah, time can help a person convince himself of things. I don't think that there is a doubt. OJ was the slasher but he wants to push that out of his memory. I saw an interview with Diane Sawyer, I believe, (could be wrong) and he LAUGHED about the whole thing. When asked what he regretted, he said that he regretted NOT staying in New York that day. I can't remember him being in New York at all. I thought it was Chicago. Anyway, he laughed about the whole thing. He's a brutal killer who got off and I think that is wrong.

CG

Girlie
06-09-2004, 10:08 PM
He sickened me in his interview with Katie Couric .... he basically said people still flock to him, he's still popular, and his friends like hanging out with him because they get into restaurants faster .... I watched his eyes in that interview and they shifted a lot ... I don't like that in a person.

Miss Mally
06-09-2004, 11:15 PM
I pretty much believe in inocent till proven guilty. He was not proven guilty.

I really haven't gotten a clue...so...i will not condemn a man that a jury says is inocent.

OJ isn't perfect....but then no one is. Just because I don't care for his personality...gives me no justification for condemning him for murder.

The media said he did it....the media also says Bush is Bad and Kerry is great. So much for what you learn on the news. I would have had to set in the jury box and read ALL the evidence...not just watched it on TV.

pamela
06-10-2004, 05:50 AM
Mally, the people who watched court T V got to see(the trial) & a lot more than the jury did...(stupid laws you know prevented the jury from hearing certain details ie:you know like when a guy is caught "red handed" and because they didn't file a report right,(crossed a T wrong) even though he's positively guilty evidence can't be entered), and I used to like O J before this, I was astounded by the whole fiasco, and I think he did it...
and you are RIGHT about how our media twists things to the general masses...and there are those out there who thinks bill&hill tell the truth! :roll:

Docmom
06-10-2004, 06:04 AM
Guilty

june
06-10-2004, 06:46 AM
O. J. had a better law team than the State of California...Prior to being elected to be First Lady, Hillary Clinton was rated in the nation's top best 100 lawyers...WHAT A GAL!

Rhiannon
06-10-2004, 07:21 AM
O. J. had a better law team than the State of California...Prior to being elected to be First Lady, Hillary Clinton was rated in the nation's top best 100 lawyers...WHAT A GAL!

If I was on trial for murder I would want someone like Hillary to represent me! A good defense lawyer needs to be a shark, the best lawers are convincing lyars.

Gearldean
06-10-2004, 07:31 AM
O. J. had a better law team than the State of California...Prior to being elected to be First Lady, Hillary Clinton was rated in the nation's top best 100 lawyers...WHAT A GAL!
That's not necessarily so, June. The prosecution has to prove their side beyond reasonable doubt. The defense only has to plant doubt.

Miss Mally
06-10-2004, 08:15 AM
Mally, the people who watched court T V got to see(the trial) & a lot more than the jury did...(stupid laws you know prevented the jury from hearing certain details ie:you know like when a guy is caught "red handed" and because they didn't file a report right,(crossed a T wrong) even though he's positively guilty evidence can't be entered), and I used to like O J before this, I was astounded by the whole fiasco, and I think he did it...
and you are RIGHT about how our media twists things to the general masses...and there are those out there who thinks bill&hill tell the truth! :roll:

But Pam...OJ was not caught red handed. I watched the TV court...and thought the whole thing a fiasco. If they are going to put a camera in a courtroom....it should only be allowed to see what the jury sees.

It is not justice for a man to be aquitted in a courtroom by a jury of his peers...and because he was famous and someone let the media make a circus out of it...he is determined guilty by the rest of the world.

The wife was worthless...she had men in and out of her house...used drugs...there is really no telling who killed her...it could have been a number of people...and police could have very well left details out and not reported things to the DA and the media...they don't investigate every lead sometimes...just the ones they feel strongly about.

Naw...I will not condemn a man that the jury said was inocent of murder. Not every jerk murders his wife.

Anonymous
06-10-2004, 08:36 AM
dont forget, oj WAS convicted by a civil jury that heard the same evidence.

Miss Mally
06-10-2004, 08:42 AM
you don't have to be inocent beyond a reasonable doubt in Civil Court.

Anonymous
06-10-2004, 08:58 AM
you don't have to be inocent beyond a reasonable doubt in Civil Court.


and your point is????? He is still guilty!!!!!!!!!!! :lol: :idea: :shock:

Girlie
06-10-2004, 09:15 AM
OJ was not found "not guilty" in a civil court ... this was a criminal court trial. Murder is a crime, not a civil matter.

Anonymous
06-10-2004, 09:20 AM
OJ was not found "not guilty" in a civil court ... this was a criminal court trial. Murder is a crime, not a civil matter.

He was found "not guilty" in criminal court. Then he was brought to civil court to be tried and if convicted pay restitution to the family. In this court he WAS found GUILTY :!: :!: He has not payed a dime!!

Rhiannon
06-10-2004, 09:25 AM
Kerry's taking the week off for campaigning. They need some BS to fill the airtime.

jenfrog81
06-10-2004, 09:56 AM
WELL ONLY GOD AND HIM KNOW THE TRUTH !

kay
06-10-2004, 10:46 AM
Mally, the people who watched court T V got to see(the trial) & a lot more than the jury did...(stupid laws you know prevented the jury from hearing certain details ie:you know like when a guy is caught "red handed" and because they didn't file a report right,(crossed a T wrong) even though he's positively guilty evidence can't be entered), and I used to like O J before this, I was astounded by the whole fiasco, and I think he did it...
and you are RIGHT about how our media twists things to the general masses...and there are those out there who thinks bill&hill tell the truth! :roll:

But Pam...OJ was not caught red handed. I watched the TV court...and thought the whole thing a fiasco. If they are going to put a camera in a courtroom....it should only be allowed to see what the jury sees.

It is not justice for a man to be aquitted in a courtroom by a jury of his peers...and because he was famous and someone let the media make a circus out of it...he is determined guilty by the rest of the world.

The wife was worthless...she had men in and out of her house...used drugs...there is really no telling who killed her...it could have been a number of people...and police could have very well left details out and not reported things to the DA and the media...they don't investigate every lead sometimes...just the ones they feel strongly about.

Naw...I will not condemn a man that the jury said was inocent of murder. Not every jerk murders his wife.

Mally, what are you smoking?

Miss Mally
06-10-2004, 02:01 PM
OJ was not found "not guilty" in a civil court ... this was a criminal court trial. Murder is a crime, not a civil matter.

He was found "not guilty" in criminal court. Then he was brought to civil court to be tried and if convicted pay restitution to the family. In this court he WAS found GUILTY :!: :!: He has not payed a dime!!

Yeah....and a similar jury found McDonalds guilty to the tune of over 3 million for their coffee being hot. I ain't to much impressed with Civil Court Juries of late.....are you?

Anonymous
06-10-2004, 03:34 PM
OJ was not found "not guilty" in a civil court ... this was a criminal court trial. Murder is a crime, not a civil matter.

He was found "not guilty" in criminal court. Then he was brought to civil court to be tried and if convicted pay restitution to the family. In this court he WAS found GUILTY :!: :!: He has not payed a dime!!

Yeah....and a similar jury found McDonalds guilty to the tune of over 3 million for their coffee being hot. I ain't to much impressed with Civil Court Juries of late.....are you?


Some I am, and some I am not.All can make a mistake such as the oj criminal jury or the mccdonald jury(if thats the fact) I bet the coffee thing, if correct, got overturned. Look that coffee thing up and show me the final outcome. :lol:

Miss Mally
06-10-2004, 04:06 PM
There were accually two parts to the McDonalds coffee lawsuit. The first part was for compensatory damages...and was for 200 thousand....reduced by 20% for her own fault in the accident of spilling the coffee herself....total award 160 thousand for the compensatory side of the trial (during this phase of the trial...the jury was not able to hear testamony about other similar cases that McDonalds had settled). The there is the punitive side of the trial. In this phase of the trial....the jury awarded her 2.9 million. The judge on appeals lowered the amount to around 500 thousand.

Yes...a judge lowered the amount of the award....that still doesn't take away the culpability of the jury. The point here...was...that civil juries do not have the same standards as a criminal juries.

here is just one of the many web sights that tell about McDonalds lawsuit.

http://www.vanfirm.com/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit.htm

Gearldean
06-10-2004, 04:24 PM
I agree with ya, Mally! Had I been on O.J.'s jury, I could not have said I was convinced beyond a reasonable doubt. On the Civil Court suit, I might have been convinced by a preponderance of the evidence. In my opinion, he was probably guilty but ya can't take a person's life because you think he's probably guilty!

In the McDonalds case, I woudn't have given the woman a thin dime! In my opinion, she was trying to blame someone else for her own stup...errr...neglect.

Miss Mally
06-10-2004, 04:55 PM
I have no idea whether he is guilty or not...and while watching the trial...me hubby was jumping up and down for the death penalty....but as I watched the evidence unfold....I could never say that he was guilty.

jenfrog81
06-10-2004, 05:09 PM
I have no idea whether he is guilty or not...and while watching the trial...me hubby was jumping up and down for the death penalty....but as I watched the evidence unfold....I could never say that he was guilty. I thought you did not have a TV ?

Miss Mally
06-10-2004, 05:21 PM
I have no idea whether he is guilty or not...and while watching the trial...me hubby was jumping up and down for the death penalty....but as I watched the evidence unfold....I could never say that he was guilty. I thought you did not have a TV ?

We have several...lol...just no cable anymore. We used to though. I just wasn't to happy with the "inappropriate language" on the cartoon network here several months ago...and decided it was best to have it off.

CuriousGal
06-10-2004, 08:57 PM
I have no idea whether he is guilty or not...and while watching the trial...me hubby was jumping up and down for the death penalty....but as I watched the evidence unfold....I could never say that he was guilty.

I happened to be in a position that allowed me to watch the entire trial and I have to agree. If I'd been on the jury, I couldn't have voted guilty even though I knew in my heart that he was as guilty as a person can be. Trials don't allow for gut feelings. One must adhere to the law and that was the case for that jury. OJ got off because of lack of evidence. I still think that that was a travesty.

The authorities messed up because I can't believe that they didn't have the evidence to convict.

CG

Miss Mally
06-10-2004, 10:35 PM
I have no idea whether he is guilty or not...and while watching the trial...me hubby was jumping up and down for the death penalty....but as I watched the evidence unfold....I could never say that he was guilty.

I happened to be in a position that allowed me to watch the entire trial and I have to agree. If I'd been on the jury, I couldn't have voted guilty even though I knew in my heart that he was as guilty as a person can be. Trials don't allow for gut feelings. One must adhere to the law and that was the case for that jury. OJ got off because of lack of evidence. I still think that that was a travesty.

The authorities messed up because I can't believe that they didn't have the evidence to convict.

CG

if there isn't enough evidence to convict a man...then how can you know in your heart he murdered her? Just because you don't like the man? Because you think he is the type?

I have no more feeling in my gut that he murdered her...than the feeling that she just could have been involved with a bad crowd or a drug deal gone bad.

Girlie
06-10-2004, 10:48 PM
I might be remembering this wrong and in no way am I in the mood to go looking this stuff up, but I thought there WAS evidence against him like ... the glove being a perfect fit, same kind he owned, etc ... and his DNA matching that of the blood found at the scene ... I could be wrong, this was almost ten years ago, of course ... but I thought he got off on technicalities/formalities ?! The whole case, in my opinion, got turned into a racial suit instead.

I agree Mally that not every jerk murders their wife ... but look at the evidence of domestic violence in the past ... no matter what his wife did (drugs, running around on him) no one ever deserves to be beaten and whipped up on. I feel like it is more likely that a jerk who beats on his wife is more likely to kill her in the end than one who is just a mouthy jerk.

Miss Mally
06-10-2004, 10:59 PM
I might be remembering this wrong and in no way am I in the mood to go looking this stuff up, but I thought there WAS evidence against him like ... the glove being a perfect fit, same kind he owned, etc ... and his DNA matching that of the blood found at the scene ... I could be wrong, this was almost ten years ago, of course ... but I thought he got off on technicalities/formalities ?! The whole case, in my opinion, got turned into a racial suit instead.

I agree Mally that not every jerk murders their wife ... but look at the evidence of domestic violence in the past ... no matter what his wife did (drugs, running around on him) no one ever deserves to be beaten and whipped up on. I feel like it is more likely that a jerk who beats on his wife is more likely to kill her in the end than one who is just a mouthy jerk.

He didn't get off on tec. There just wasn't enough proof.

and not every man that beats his wife kills her. She beat him up too. I mean...I might hit someone if they were hitting me with a baseball bat. and she did hit him with a baseball bat.

BigGunz
06-11-2004, 12:23 AM
well there ya go...she hit him with a baseball bat and he cut her with a knife! One bad turn deserves another eh? I agree that with out evidence to prove beyond any reasonable doubt you cannot convict you have to accquit. But There are times that you just know something is wrong with the picture and those feelings come from within your heart/gut feeling. But then again like it has been stated justice does not run that way. I still believe that he had knowledge of it all.

Miss Mally
06-11-2004, 08:08 AM
well there ya go...she hit him with a baseball bat and he cut her with a knife! One bad turn deserves another eh? I agree that with out evidence to prove beyond any reasonable doubt you cannot convict you have to accquit. But There are times that you just know something is wrong with the picture and those feelings come from within your heart/gut feeling. But then again like it has been stated justice does not run that way. I still believe that he had knowledge of it all.

I didn't say a word about cutting with a knife...said I didn't blame him for hitting her back. If someone was hitting me with a baseball bat .......I would would hit them back....wouldn't you?

Anonymous
06-11-2004, 09:08 AM
[quote="Miss Mally"]There were accually two parts to the McDonalds coffee lawsuit.


here is a 3rd part.
Post-verdict investigation found that the temperature of coffee at the local Albuquerque McDonalds had dropped to 158 degrees fahrenheit. The trial court subsequently reduced the punitive award :lol: No one will ever know the final ending to this case. The parties eventually entered into a secret settlement which has never been revealed to the public

BigGunz
06-11-2004, 10:01 AM
well there ya go...she hit him with a baseball bat and he cut her with a knife! One bad turn deserves another eh? I agree that with out evidence to prove beyond any reasonable doubt you cannot convict you have to accquit. But There are times that you just know something is wrong with the picture and those feelings come from within your heart/gut feeling. But then again like it has been stated justice does not run that way. I still believe that he had knowledge of it all.

I didn't say a word about cutting with a knife...said I didn't blame him for hitting her back. If someone was hitting me with a baseball bat .......I would would hit them back....wouldn't you?

I know you didnt Mally...Im saying that is his motive?....who knows...was just raising specualtions is all.

Anonymous
06-11-2004, 11:59 AM
Innocent until proven guilty. Has he killed again. No! So I think he is innocent. I will continue to think that till their is proof other wise.

Girlie
06-11-2004, 01:00 PM
Innocent until proven guilty. Has he killed again. No! So I think he is innocent. I will continue to think that till their is proof other wise.

has he killed again, you ask? Who knows ... he got away with it the first time.

I've read some of the evidence this morning and I'm still convinced that he did it. If I had been on the jury, I would not had any doubts.