Posted on 11/22/2006 12:12:09 PM PST by color_tear
I need freeper's help on this matter. I heard many conservative talk show hosts believe that OJ is guilty of murder. Does it mean non of them believe our court system? OJ was found not guilty by 12 peers. It was not a mistrial. There was no appeal to the case. I understand he was found guilty in the civil case. I've never seen any company ask about civil lawsuits in their new employee questionnaire. My question: "How do those hosts know OJ is guilty?" I do not believe any one of those hosts was in that courtroom through the whole trial but those jurors were. I don't believe any one of those hosts studied the whole court record (transcribe), those 12 people did. I'm so confused . Where is the "reasonable doubt"? Where is the "defendent does not have to prove innocent?" I love our system but seems like most conservatives do not believe it. They are willing to condemn a person without thorough study. They do not believe their peers. I heard many times that people say most WHITE people believe OJ is gulity but I've never believed it. To tell the truth, I start having doubt now. Al Sharpton made a most outragious racist statement yesterday about Letterman show, come to think of it, he probably knows something I don't. My freeper friends, help me to understand.
I would like to state that minority status has less to do with race than with culture. The legal system grew out of a long-established Western legal system going back, arguably, to the Hebrew Judges 5,000 years ago, or more recently, to King Arthur in England 1,000 years ago and the system of English common law which grew out of Arthurian precepts and which formed many of the bases of our legal system.
The one thing it is politically impossible to say in this country any more is that Western civilization was more advanced than any other, and this is because of the perception that it was race, not Judeo-Christianity, which made the difference. I believe it was the latter.
I believe that Christian teachings have ultimately been responsible for leading people of all races out of ignorance; and that those teachings have yet to accomplish their full flower in this or any society. He has "started a good work in us," but isn't done with us yet.
A quick google:
The Jury By Race: 9 Blacks, 1 Hispanics, 2 Whites
The Jury By Sex: 10 Women, 2 Men
The Jury By Education: 2 College Graduates, 9 High School Graduates, 1 Without Diploma
10 Dismissed Jurors:
3 black males
2 hispanic females
2 white females
1 white male
2 black females
I totally agree, and did a graduate thesis on that assertion.
Well, just darn! It won't work for me either. I'm new at this, so I must have done something wrong.
Go to the site. Highlight the URL and copy it. Paste it into a reply, without the html tags. See if that works.
It is all a matter of semantics.
You are using the word "guilty" to mean "convicted of that crime in crimminal court". In that sense, you are correct and O.J. is "not guilty".
The talk show hosts are using the word "guilty" to mean "I believe he committed that crime" which might be sloppy use of the legal language but is their right under the First Amendment.
One thing you should keep in mind about the U.S. legal system is jury nullification which means that a jury can be shown indidputable proof of a certain crime and the jury can then totally ignore the evidence and totally ignore the law and reach a wrong verdict that even they know is wrong if they so please.
Not guilty does not necessarily mean innocent.
Yes, you are confused.
The evidence that O.J. Simpson killed Ron and Nicole could not have been any more damning than it was.
Black people in this country, and on that jury, "nullified" the obvious, evidence that clearly showed O.J. was the murderer, to let "one of their own" off the hook.
Sticking it to the man.
The later discovery during the civil trial of O.J. wearing size 11 Bruno Magli shoes, of which only one pair was sold in California, to him, with the bloody footprints all over Nicole's sidewalks and driveway were the final 100% seal of his guilt.
btw, 11 of the 12 jurors who nullified the clear, indisputable facts that O.J. is a murderer were black. The one white person suffered from the Swedish hostage neurosis.
"the 2 white ladies that initially (and correctly) voted guilty were bullied and threatened by the 9 blacks on the jury to change their vote."
*** Is it a fact or just hearsay? Any link? Thanks!
Some other facts about the final jury: (1) None regularly read a newspaper, but eight regularly watch tabloid TV shows, (2) five thought it was sometimes appropriate to use force on a family member, (3) all were Democrats, (4) five reported that they or another family member had had a negative experience with the police, (5) nine thought that Simpson was less likely to be a murderer because he was a professional athlete.
Jury makeup:
9 Blacks
1 Hispanic
2 Whites
Including:
10 women
2 men.
I did not say he is innocent. My original post I said "I don't know if he killed those two people or not." But I know he is "NOT GUILTY".
Let me be the first (I think) to applaud your candor. The verdict PURELY was racist on its face.
The jury was selected by consultants, and from the composition of the Jury, one can easily expect that a celebrity, black, prosecuted by a White lead prosecutor, would NOT be convicted no matter how overwhelming the evidence.
The jurors were making a social statement (as so many cases now become), and guilt was not an issue.
Confused of what? Please educate me. I want to learn.
Thank the Lord we now have DNA testing.
How many innocent people have been sent to death by biased jurors and, how many guilty have been set free by these jurors?
Money and fame played a great role in OJ getting off free.
I AM AN EVERYDAY JOE, AND I HAVE NOTICED IF YOU HAVE A LOT OF MONEY YOU GET ALL THE BREAKS.
You are joking, right?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.