Jury finds O.J Simpson GUILTY on ALL charges!

[Scud]

The lawyers went through a pool of over 500 people to find the 12 jurors and 6 alternates. You'd think they could have found ONE black person for the jury. I hope he gets life for all 12 counts, but he probably won't do more than 5.

[pro2625]

I just dont understand thishe got away with murder....Youd think he would try to keep his cool and fly under the radar....What an idiot

[Blueface]

Was just watching some of the reaction from the jurors.
Seems they did not believe any of the folks that testified.
All 7 were discredited.
Seems what they relied on totally was the taped evidence.
OJ's fine attorneys may no doubt find some loophole for an appeal but even so, it would mean a re-trial.
Seems all they need for a conviction is the tapes based on this jury.

[macjoe53]

Originally Posted by krisko

I don't see why he would be, and I doubt any inmates would shank him or anything. He's probably a hero to hard criminals everywhere. On the other hand, it would be awesome to be able to say you made love to OJ Simpson!

I really think he'll get off altogether in an appeal or spend only a few years at Club Fed.

Ewwwwwww!

[macjoe53]

Originally Posted by icehog3

You mean they couldn't find 12 ruthless murderers to put on the jury?

I think he wanted 12 Football Hall of Famers but then he found out they would have voted for the death penalty...

[Funkalicious]

Originally Posted by Scud

I hope he gets life for all 12 counts, but he probably won't do more than 5.

The kidnapping charge carries a minimum of 15 years.

[guy g]

Acruce, they didnt find blood ON OJ as was stated. I just read about the case on `tru TV` formerly Court TV. After reading for about an hour, it was obvious some of the evidence may have been good, some wasnt, but it was (as I said above) mishandled.In California, all that is needed is reasonable doubt. The prosecutor screwed the pooch.

[Blueface]

Originally Posted by guy g

Acruce, they didnt find blood ON OJ as was stated. I just read about the case on `tru TV` formerly Court TV. After reading for about an hour, it was obvious some of the evidence may have been good, some wasnt, but it was (as I said above) mishandled.In California, all that is needed is reasonable doubt. The prosecutor screwed the pooch.

You may have read it but I vividly remember following the actual trial.
The entire thing was televised.
It wasn't about reasonable doubt at all.
It was about unreasonable doubt to be correct.
The man was guilty and got away with murder.
The blood evidence was overwhelming.
The mistake came when they didn't consider gloves shrink and people's hands swell/change.
That was the downfall.
Remember, he was in fact found guilty in the civil case.
He also wrote "if I did it" with accounts only the murderer would know.

[Funkalicious]

Originally Posted by Blueface

Remember, he was in fact found guilty in the civil case.

That's not really a strong argument in your favor as there is a completely different (highly reduced) burden of proof in a wrongful death civil action.

[replicant_argent]

Originally Posted by Blueface

You may have read it but I vividly remember following the actual trial.
The entire thing was televised.
It wasn't about reasonable doubt at all.
It was about unreasonable doubt to be correct.
The man was guilty and got away with murder.
The blood evidence was overwhelming.
The mistake came when they didn't consider gloves shrink and people's hands swell/change.
That was the downfall.
Remember, he was in fact found guilty in the civil case.
He also wrote "if I did it" with accounts only the murderer would know.

Wanna play a fun game?
Give me one of my own leather dress gloves and watch me as I magically make it look impossible to put on. I may have been a theater geek in high school, but it doesn't take an Oscar winner to make that simple farce believable, or is it "unbelieveable"? (or is it incredibible, or remarkalicious?)


Dang.. made my own head hurt again.
I blame MCS and the poor tinfoil hat prototype design.

[Blueface]

Originally Posted by Funkalicious

That's not really a strong argument in your favor as there is a completely different (highly reduced) burden of proof in a wrongful death civil action.

Are you kidding?
Sure there is a lesser burden of proof in a civil case but you still have to convince a jury with preponderance of evidence to show more likely that it happened than not.
It apparently was successfully done.
So...here is a fact, as the civil case goes, he is a murderer.

[icehog3]

Originally Posted by guy g

Acruce, they didnt find blood ON OJ as was stated.

But they did find Ron Goldman's blood in OJ's Bronco. Explain that away.

[BigVito]

Originally Posted by icehog3

But they did find Ron Goldman's blood in OJ's Bronco. Explain that away.

he gave Ron a ride and Ron cut himself on the seat?

[ResIpsa]

Originally Posted by Funkalicious

That's not really a strong argument in your favor as there is a completely different (highly reduced) burden of proof in a wrongful death civil action.

The burden in civil trials is different, however it is not "highly reduced"

[icehog3]

Originally Posted by BigVito

he gave Ron a ride and Ron cut himself on the seat?

He didn't know Goldman....and that's from his lips.