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.
LOL!!
We are saying it's not perfect.
Are you serious?
FWIW-
What otherwise uninhabited isle have you dwelt upon these last years?
The concept of "innocent until proven guilty" binds the courts.
It does not in any way affect public opinion, personal opinion, or common sense.
Or transform reality.
Around the time the OJ verdict came down I remember there was a whole group of trials around the country that seemed to indicate that no jury with a black member would ever again convict a black defendant of anything, even heinous crimes against other blacks. Fortunately that trend seems to have evaporated over the following year.
"What do you mean by "stunt"?"
The 'stunt' was Marcia Clark's smarmy smile which quickly turned to crap, when, because she didn't do her homework, discovered a well known fact...leather shrinks when drying.
Haven't you ever put on leather work gloves, gotten them wet and tried to put them on again. They are smaller. Good leather shrinks even more.
"...and guilt was not an issue."
When the jury was polled after the decision, a couple said they had decided to vote "Not Guilty" when chosen. Let a white person make that statement in the reverse situation and you have RODNEY KING!!!
So the state should have the power to "taint" somebody, even if they can't prove the case?
Are you so silly that you think the law and justice are the same thing?
Now THERE'S a gem...."we don't like the verdict, so we're gonna burn the town"...and they did! They burnt down East L.A., and police stood back and let it happen. Very few arrests, and the Reginald Denny assault was white-washed, and never prosecuted as a hate crime.
So long as this country allows Blacks to use the "racist" defense for everything from purse-snatching to murder, we have NO Justice System.
I have indeed; see post 62. I guess I misread your remarks. You and I agree that the prosecution failed critically on Marcia Clark's inept handling of the glove evidence.
And unless you share what you think I think, we wont know...
Please educate me. Thanks!
Civil court jury:
1 Asian, black mixed male
5 white females
3 white males
1 Middle Eastern male
1 Hispanic female
So those black jurors were intimitated by rest of jurors to vote "GUILTY"? Is that the case? anybody has the insight?
Many of you have the insight of criminal court why not civil court?
Sorry friends, I'm still have questions.
I don't think the law and justice are the same. I just have questions how come people without examing the defence arguments closely can condemn the defendent.
What I believe is Jurors had to look into the defence's arguments very closely but most of us, watched it on TV did not.
Mark Simone asked one of his audience "How do you explain the blood on OJ's socks, etc...?" This is the most ridiculous question I've ever heard. I think that's what happen here. How can we answer that? The answer is in defence arguments but we don't want to study it.
Sorry sir, I've questions. Please educate me.
OJ had no more chance of being convicted by that jury in that jurisdiction, than a Mississippi Sheriff in the 50's had after shooting a black share cropper.
The jury let OJ off the hook to keep the gangs and others of their ilk from rioting and burning LA to the ground.
There was an obvious appeal to race.
There were perhaps millions of people that laid "claim" to this wrong-headed "read" of the law...and the moronic single piece of evidence "If the glove don't fit, you can't convict" baloney.
FWIW-
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.