This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

O.J. Simpson granted parole after 9 years in prison

Go to page : 1, 2, 3  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down  Message [Page 1 of 3]

View user profile
I agree. The cirteria if applied to John Doe would result in a 100% agreement. I listened to Nancy Grace rage on about criteria which is inapplicable and how he should finish his entire sentence in jail. That lady has some serious issues and I cannot believe she is still being put on the air after the Duke fiasco.

View user profile
They did. Thirty three years was wrong.

View user profile
So was getting away w/ murder. Slitting your ex-wife's throat and leaving her there for your kids to find in the morning.

View user profile
The Jury found him not guilty in the criminal trial. The jury found him guilty in the Civil trial. The jury found him guilty in the Las Vegas incident. The parole board was dealing with the Las Vegas incident. They made the right decision. Whether he should have been found guilty in the criminal, or not guilty in the civil, or given a shorter sentence in the Las Vegas incident are not really the criteria the parole board considers.

View user profile
Ya... given the previous verdict... I suppose it's fair.

Now disappear OJ... unless you're doing humanitarian work

View user profile
Vikingwoman wrote:So was getting away w/ murder. Slitting your ex-wife's throat and leaving her there for your kids to find in the morning.

It was....but he was acquitted.

View user profile
45 might find a position for his old pal.

View user profile
Telstar wrote:45 might find a position for his old pal.

OMG heaven forbid. And I wish he weren't talking about returning to our state.

Have to admit that justice was probably done in this case, even though emotionally I wish he were locked away forever or dead, and even though, as usual with his "not-me-I-didn't-do-it" mentality, he STILL showed NO remorse. Kept saying he was so sorry things turned out the way they did. That's a total non-apology. How about "I'M SO SORRY I DID WHAT I DID" - ?? I didn't hear one person in that hearing room call him on that point, though maybe I missed it. It was SO obvious.

Yep, Tel, you're right -- 45 might take him on, being they're kindred narcissistic spirits with nary an admitted spot on their sorry souls.

View user profile
RealLindaL wrote:
Telstar wrote:45 might find a position for his old pal.

OMG heaven forbid.   And I wish he weren't talking about returning to our state.

Have to admit that justice was probably done in this case, even though emotionally I wish he were locked away forever or dead, and even though, as usual with his "not-me-I-didn't-do-it" mentality, he STILL showed NO remorse.  Kept saying he was so sorry things turned out the way they did.  That's a total non-apology.  How about "I'M SO SORRY I DID WHAT I DID" - ??   I didn't hear one person in that hearing room call him on that point, though maybe I missed it.  It was SO obvious.

Yep, Tel,  you're right -- 45 might take him on, being they're kindred narcissistic spirits with nary an admitted spot on their sorry souls.





I remember OJ doing the psycho stab scene as a joke on some obscure show but can't find it. 45 will use OJ if he sees it will help support him.

View user profile
For the crime he was convicted for, it was more than enough time served.

For the crime he got away with, though, not nearly enough.

View user profile
OJ has been pretty quiet while serving his time. I guess Charlie Manson has as well. BTW shouldn't this topic be in the Mugshot thread? Mugshot, the longest running topic in PNJ history.. Very Happy

View user profile
This isn't the PNJ.

View user profile
OJ got lucky and was tried in South Central LA where police brutality was rampant. After the wake of the Rodney King beatings the animus was enormous. Had he been tried anywhere else he'd still be in prison. Nine Afro-Americans on a jury were willing to let him go for payback for all the racial injustice. This is what happens when both sides are at fault. Nobody can make rational decisions and all cases become racially motivated by some. Two people were slaughtered and nobody paid.

View user profile
Vikingwoman wrote:Had he been tried anywhere else he'd still be in prison.

There were and are a lot of places in the United States where the racial animus was and is off the charts, and for good reasons.

I'm not suggesting that his acquittal was justifiable, but it was certainly understandable.

View user profile
Of course, there are plenty of places that have animus but South Central LA citizens have been beaten down for years and they got away w/ it. Had he been tried in a neighboring county where the abuse was not as bad he would have been convicted.

View user profile
Maybe... probably a better chance. But he had a helluva legal team... and the prosecution was pretty bad.

View user profile
They had the evidence though. They didn't need to be that good.

View user profile
Scheck was extremely good at creating some doubt on every piece of evidence collected. Even the blood samples were cast into some doubt because he argued that they contained edta. It's an additive to the blood tube samples collected for hematology and some other lab tests... it's a very common tube to be collected. But edta also is a natural component... so he worked an angle calling a hematologist that says whatever he's paid to. Anyway... OJ had the best legal team that money can buy.

View user profile
Furman was an easy target, but despite the exposure of the interview tapes which are going to be a separate show on CNN, the blood on the bronco and how he found the glove raised reasonable doubt.  The failures of the prosecution team were epic.  The length of the trial and the mutual desire of these litigators to be on TV in my opinion no matter where the trial was held would get a jury pissed off and you would have jury nullification issues concerning the cumulative and repetitive show boating in front of the cameras.  The prosecution team needed a more experienced prosecutor whose whole duty was to challenge the cumulative evidence.

I think the fuhrman tapes are on tonight on CNN at 10pm central.

View user profile

I think televising that trial was one of the worst decisions in our judicial history. I still don't know whether he actually did it or not. I hope he didn't.

View user profile
Floridatexan wrote:I still don't know whether he actually did it or not.

SERIOUSLY, FT??

View user profile
This is how smart Oatie is.Reasonable doubt? Ron and Nicole's blood was found inside the bronco. Ferman at the crime scene would have had to decided OJ was the killer and planted both their blood in the Bronco not knowing if there was other blood evidence indicating someone else. OJ's blood was found at the crime scene.Splotches near the body and both Nicole and Ron's blood were found on OJ's socks in a splatter pattern. Not even mentioning the glove, Ferman must have been some kind of magician to get OJ's blood at the scene, in the bronco and near the bodies all w/ dozens of police and lab people and then later splatter their blood on his socks in the lab. Give me a break! That's just part of the evidence. Size 12 shoe. Cap w/ Afro American hair and Simpson's, Goldman's and Brown's blood on the glove. Are you kidding me?

View user profile
RealLindaL wrote:
Floridatexan wrote:I still don't know whether he actually did it or not.

SERIOUSLY, FT??

Oatie too. Now how smart can these people be? I'm serious. Look at what they said about May?

View user profile
Oatie too. Now how smart can these people be? I'm serious. Look at what they said about May?

Last time I checked that there were two jury decisions on the facts of this case. One had the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt, and the second had the standard of a preponderance of the evidence. One was not guilty. One was guilty. I certainly have no dispute with the first, nor a dispute with the second. Nothing is very complex or difficult to understand here. Was OJ more likely or not the murderer, my answer is a resounding yes which is why I agree that the civil trial was correct. Would a majority of a jury have reasonable doubt which is a higher standard than more likely......a poor presentation of the states case, and Fuhrman created reasonable doubt. Yes, May and Sandra are difficult for you to comprehend, as beyond a reasonable doubt is not a preponderance and one can hold two inherently opposite concepts and be correct.

View user profile

Sponsored content


View previous topic View next topic Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 3]

Go to page : 1, 2, 3  Next

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum