Posted on 07/18/2007 7:02:03 AM PDT by gridlock
July 18, 2007 -- O.J. Simpson has been hitting the bottle since he was tricked into semi-confessing to double-murder last year with his "If I Did It" book project. Simpson was at The Ivy in Aventura, Fla., the other night "falling all over himself and couldn't stand up, even though he tried several times," said our disgusted spy.
(snip)
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
If O.J.’s drinking away the pain...
...his ex-wife he must have slain.
I congratulate you and wish I could have joined in!
Nasty Ol' Cochran has gone on to meet his final judgement.
I alway's thought about that when they talked about the "rush to judgment" being unfair to O.J.
My initial "rush to judgment" was to say "Poor O.J. It must be terrible for him hearing about this in Chicago. He's such a nice guy."
Later, when it became obvious to anyone with half a brain that he was patently guilty of the double murder, it was clear just how mistaken my "rush to judgment" was.
I think his drunken anger might also be due to the fact that he played this game of “ha-ha-can’t-get’me,” and he didn’t win. He thinks being so tricky that he doesn’t have to fulfill the civil judgment means that he wins. When he was forced to give the rights of his confession book to the families, he lost. He didn't beat the system, and he isn't so smart. That eats at his evil self.
I find myself one of the few who defend Cochrane.
The guy did his job. And if anyone of us had their butt on the line, we all would have wanted a lawyer like Johnny Cochrane on our side.
My beef is with the jurors, and terrible job the prosecution did.
If he’s hitting the juice, next step is the noose...
Old OJ might wind up hurting himself if he’s feeling this guilty...
I think OJ was stupid enough to think that he could do that book for a payday. Somebody probably told him that as long as he didn’t out-and-out confess, he would be able to keep the proceeds from the book.
Well, that didn’t work out to good...
You might also want to add the incompetent, celebrity-infatuated, camera-hungry Judge Ito to that list.
I agree about the jurors; but not about Cochran. I understand about the law; but, personally, I cannot abide people who lie for a living.
Actually, I don't have a problem with the jurors. The police and the prosecution blew it. If I were on that jury, I probably would have voted to aquit.
If the prosecution "blew it" it was because they operated under the assumption that they were dealing with a jury that had at least two functioning brain cells among them.
Proof? All the proof I needed was provided by one of the jurors immediately after the jury was allowed to leave.One of them,while standing in front of the courthouse,made mention of the fact that she had "got deliberated in the back room" (that's an *exact* quote).
I put it to you that the jury had a collective IQ of 50 and that that piece of excrement Johnny Chocrane knew it and intended it to be that way.
One should never assume a jury is going to be particularly intelligent. But I don’t think their verdict was particularly stupid.
The problem is that the actions of the police gave Cochrane all the doubt he needed. The circumstances under which the second bloody glove was found were too cute by half. And the fact that Detective Van Atter brought OJ’s blood sample back to the crime scene after his blood was conspicously not found on the initial search, but before his blood was found on a subsequent search, just makes it look like a set-up.
Not to say that OJ wasn’t guilty. But that is not the question, is it? The question is whether or not there is reasonable doubt. Cochrane introduced reasonable doubt on these two key pieces of evidence, and after that, the jury really did not have any choice but to acquit.
Do you remember the picture of OJ in the Bruno Magli shoes? The ones he called "ugly a$$ shoes" that he said he would never wear? The jurors never saw that, because it only surfaced after acquittal. In Marcia Clark's book she included that picture with the caption "If we'd had this picture, we might have won". All I could think of was "well why the hell didn't you have that picture?". It was in a newspaper that anyone could have gotten their hands on. I agree that the prosecution deserves most of the blame for OJ going free.
I agree about wanting a someone like Cochrane on your side. He knew how to make Lady Justice work for his client and that was his job. The jury brought back the verdict his client paid well for.
My role in our justice system is to be on-call when I am called to jury service. Twice I wasn't selected to serve, yet I'm ready, willing and able at the moment. I'm sad that my fellow Americans were swayed by this mans magnificent lawyering! (hats off to Defense Lawyers, hope I never need you! lol)
And I'm mad that a man, OJ, who was 'the good guy' was foolin' us the whole time.
Yet all my sadness, anger and disappoint don't even approach the pain and suffering brought upon Ron and Nichole's families. Unless it would somehow ease their pain for me to read a word of what OJ has to say, I have no use for that book.
whew...felt good to get that off my chest!
I guess the murder vision nightmares are taking their toll.
I've seen too many people destroy themselves using alcohol.
Make that “a male subject by the name of Ito....”
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.