|
|
| Author |
Message |
canis
|
|
Guilty, or Innocent....
| 
Mar 1 07:22 UTC 1995 |
SO is O.j. guilty or innocent, what is your opinion?
|
| 37 responses total. |
spartan
|
|
response 1 of 37:
|
Mar 1 18:02 UTC 1995 |
WHO CARES?!?!?!?! (I know I don't)
|
canis
|
|
response 2 of 37:
|
Mar 1 20:00 UTC 1995 |
Well I thought it would be good to hear peoples ideas now that the
trial is underway... I must admit I was sick of the thing before it
began.. but I am interested in what is being presented for the legal
standpoint....
|
omni
|
|
response 3 of 37:
|
Mar 1 21:56 UTC 1995 |
Greg, I made an OJ item in Worldnews, I could link it from there, but
do we *really* need 2 OJ items?
|
carson
|
|
response 4 of 37:
|
Mar 1 23:53 UTC 1995 |
This response has been erased.
|
carson
|
|
response 5 of 37:
|
Mar 2 00:05 UTC 1995 |
shouldn't the OJ item be here instead?
|
canis
|
|
response 6 of 37:
|
Mar 2 00:57 UTC 1995 |
Well the one from before has served it's purpose.. It taked about everything
from before the trial... now that the trial is underway... Shouldn't we
have another about what is going on in the trial? (I guess it isn't as if
everyone hasn't heard the details about the trial...)
|
jep
|
|
response 7 of 37:
|
Mar 2 05:12 UTC 1995 |
I agree with #0.
|
spartan
|
|
response 8 of 37:
|
Mar 2 23:37 UTC 1995 |
OK, I agree. Sorry about being so harsh in #1. I guess I'm just sick of all
the hype. On the other hand, I guess it would be good to have an item
where we can discuss what's going on in the trial itself.
|
regnar
|
|
response 9 of 37:
|
Mar 3 03:42 UTC 1995 |
I think that it is a great idea, to have an item about the OJ trial. I saw
some news bits today and I don't think that Rosa Lopez was very helpful for the
defense. I think that the prosacution will probably show the tape if the
defense decides not to. What do you think or do you care? What about the story
about people seeing him behind the hotel in Chicago?
|
omni
|
|
response 10 of 37:
|
Mar 3 06:02 UTC 1995 |
I think that this trial will go on for at least 5-10 yrs, because of
all the posturing by both the prosecution and the defense. I don't think
we can expect a clear verdict, and OJ will never be completly aquitted
or convicted. Think you're tired of it now? Just wait a few years!
|
srw
|
|
response 11 of 37:
|
Mar 3 19:07 UTC 1995 |
I agree with omni in #3. I don't like to follow two threads on the same
subject.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 12 of 37:
|
Mar 4 06:31 UTC 1995 |
In any event, the OJ trial has nothing to do with sports. Yes, OJ's celebrity
stems from his sports past. But if he were a famous recording artist
instead, that would have no bearing on the issues in the trial.
Unless you consider a public trial of a celebrity a sporting even... :-)
|
omni
|
|
response 13 of 37:
|
Mar 4 08:11 UTC 1995 |
So what I'll do, is link this item to worldnews, and kill the current
item that's in world. Since I am the F-w of both confs, I don't need your
approval ;)
|
omni
|
|
response 14 of 37:
|
Mar 4 08:23 UTC 1995 |
done,
|
buzzard
|
|
response 15 of 37:
|
Mar 4 19:21 UTC 1995 |
Well my self I am tyered of the trial my self. Even though he was One of
my ideals when I played football in high school, I think he did it how can
you say he didn't, his blood was found at the sene of the crime, and why
would yo0u want to kell your self or try to leave the cournty if you didn't
do anything. My personal opion is that he should fry, because it would give
America the idea that just because you a propler and importent you can get
the death pentaly to.
|
omni
|
|
response 16 of 37:
|
Mar 4 22:02 UTC 1995 |
Ahh, but there's the difference in societal justice, Thems with the
money can afford to hire the best. In comparison, Susan Smith will fry
and she committed essentially the same act as you purport OJ did. Susan
Smith will be defended by the public defender, while OJ has Johnnie
Cochran and F.Lee Bailey. Guess who walks?
|
srw
|
|
response 17 of 37:
|
Mar 5 06:52 UTC 1995 |
I am impressed by the amount of time that this gets on TV, but not surprised.
I hereby predict that both OJ and Susan Smith will be found guilty.
If I am right, those expensive lawyers will turn out not to have been enough.
I also happen to believe OJ did it, but I can hardly prove it -
this is a gut feel. I *know* Smith is guilty.
It will be trickier to predict the sentences.
OK, I'll predict that neither one gets the death sentence.
I'm on shaky ground with Susan Smith, because the community is of a mind
to see her executed. Judges are affected by the prevailing attitude.
If I had both sentences to hand out, I would hand out a harsher one to OJ
than Susan Smith, because I think he's potentially quite dangerous to others.
I think Smith is unbalanced, but is not a danger to anyone.
Of course my criteria are not the ones the court will use.
|
aaron
|
|
response 18 of 37:
|
Mar 5 06:57 UTC 1995 |
re #16: Regarding smith, as she is pleading guilty one hardly expects
her to walk....
OJ is *not* getting his money's worth. His attorneys have made
some world-class errors.
|
tnt
|
|
response 19 of 37:
|
Mar 6 06:47 UTC 1995 |
As much as I hope OJ is found guilty & killed (or spend a lifetime in
prison guarding his ass), I think it is pretty dumb to compare his trial
to that of a woman who confessed to murdering her two young children.
The circumstances of the crimes were much different, Susie Smith has
the opportunity to claim insanity, etc. whereas with O.J. (especially
having co-authored that book now) he's espousing his "absolutely 100%"
innocence.
Does hiring well-known, expensive lawyers really mean anything to
your average jury member? When you think about how juries are picked
(individuals with little or no advance knowledge about the case & who
haven't thought about it enough to make an opinion, etc.), I doubt most
jurors would put too much weight into how well-known the defense team is.
But if they do, it would be just as easy for them to think "If this
defendent is really innocent, why did he go all-out & spend a lot of $$$ on
this legal "dream team?"
|
ajax
|
|
response 20 of 37:
|
Mar 6 07:08 UTC 1995 |
Do you think he hired the lawyers for the impact of their being
well known, or because of their quality? OJ might have just hired
them because they were well known to *him*.
I read a quote from F Lee Baily (one of OJ's attorneys) recently
concerning how he feels about helping free people he knows are
guilty: it was something like "my fee is their punishment." :)
I also read that this trial has cost LA $2.5 million so far. It
makes me think, at some point, doesn't the cost to society to prosecute
a person outweigh the cost of just setting them free? It seems like
if a case is more clear-cut, it will cost less, so maybe some iffy
cases like this one should be dropped. (Maybe not this case in particular,
but say if a case cost $25 million to prosecute a single first-time
murderer, who seems unlikely to commit another crime).
|
jep
|
|
response 21 of 37:
|
Mar 6 13:55 UTC 1995 |
O.J. would be on death row right now if he were left to the care of a
public defender. He's getting his money's worth from his lawyers.
|
omni
|
|
response 22 of 37:
|
Mar 7 06:46 UTC 1995 |
Susan Smith might have confessed to the crime, but she is also expousing
the fact that she indeed was molested at a young age. Therefore it is
logical to assume that she is trying to explain her actions *because*
she was molested. A confession is hardly a plea of guilty. If she did
plead guilty, Sc could have marched her sorry butt to the death house
a long time ago.
Please align your logic, Mr Tyler.
|
tnt
|
|
response 23 of 37:
|
Mar 8 04:28 UTC 1995 |
I'm convinced that your 'logic' & my 'logic' are on two different planes
which will never intersect, so I won't waste time with your request, but
if a sensible person disagrees with my other response, I'll try to clarify!
|
ajax
|
|
response 24 of 37:
|
Mar 8 05:26 UTC 1995 |
One area where I could see your logic plane intersecting with omni's
is in agreeing that your respective logics are on different planes. :)
|
