SO is O.j. guilty or innocent, what is your opinion?

37 responses total.

WHO CARES?!?!?!?!  (I know I don't)

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.... 

 Greg, I made an OJ item in Worldnews, I could link it from there, but
do we *really* need 2 OJ items?

This response has been erased.

shouldn't the OJ item be here instead?

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...)

        I agree with #0.

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.

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?

  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!

I agree with omni in #3. I don't like to follow two threads on the same 
subject.

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...  :-)

 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 ;)

 done,

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.

 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?

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.

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.

  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?"

  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).

        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.

 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.

 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!

  One area where I could see your logic plane intersecting with omni's
is in agreeing that your respective logics are on different planes. :)

 Tim, I am a sensible person, and I do deserve all the respect I give you.

 We have a diffce of opinion, and that, in the words of Mark Twain
is what makes horse races.

I believe Tim gives you all of the respect you give him....

re #21:  That is neither true nor fair.

  No, but I bet vegas bookies would give lots better odds of a death
row verdict with public defenders :).  Out of curiosity, if OJ had
opted for a public defender, would he have gotten a big team of
attorneys, the way the defense and prosecution now operate, or would
he only have gotten one attorney?  And would a public defender have
some cash to spend on things like advertising for witnesses, jury
consultants, and so on?  I'd think they'd be fairly bare-bones, but
the prosecution doesn't seem to be sparing any expenses (they're
nearing $3 million on investigation and prosecution), so who knows?

 O.J. himself is a major celebrity.  I think the case & trial are getting
a lot of media attention, and extra efforts by the prosecution because of
the fact that the defendant is a black celebrity (my use of the black label
is deliberate), and not just because some murder suspect happens to have a
lot of seasoned, high-profile attorneys.

Btw, I heard LA wants to sell an authorized set of OJ trial tapes to
recoup some expenses.  Gee, why don't they just take the coverage to
pay-per-view?  Prosecution for profit!  They're also trying to stick
the state with some of their bills.  I don't think that'll fly.

exit
bbs
[A

He's guilty!!!!!.

From: George "VideoSwitch" Moffat 
Newsgroups: net.misc
Subject: Tit-Bits

Some earth-shattering facts picked up over the weekend:

>From daughter:   If you add up the following numbers, what do you get?
0 6 1 2 1 9 9 4.     Answer =32, the number of OJ's jersey.    Look
again at the numbers:  06/12/1994 - lo' the date the heinous crime was
committed.

        If the DNA evidence links him to the crime scene --->

                then he's guilty

        don't believe the s--- that those f---ing lawyers will tell
        about how it had to have been screwed up because that's all

                                CRAP!!!

      

  They didn't say it *had* to have been screwed up; they're trying to get
across that it *could* have been screwed up, or the evidence planted.  It
sounds unlikely to me, but it's the best way I can think of to free OJ,
and that's what his attoroneys are paid to do.

DNA evidence can be, and has been, wrong.

Of course, given the number of labs involved in the testing, and the
number of samples tested, this isn't likely to be true in OJ's case.

  But if the blood was planted, then the labs will concur.  It sounds
*really* unlikely to me, but I still think it's OJ's best defense.  Also,
I'd imagine that in a jury of average joes & janes, at least a couple of
them will have doubts about the science behind DNA testing.

   You couldn't have said it better Rob!

Response not possible - You must register and login before posting.

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss