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

That's certainly a change of heart for you regarding Simpson's guilt. We've had this conversation before and your analysis was you didn't know and there was reasonable doubt. That's certainly telling about your thinking skills. The blood evidence was overwhelming regardless of whether Ferhman used the "N" word. The logistics and absurdity of Ferhman being able to pull off a stunt like that really doesn't take a high IQ. You just have to have the ability to judge the facts of a case individually w/o injecting bias. You lack that skill.

So a person who believes that the civil jury was correct and the criminal jury was correct is injecting bias? You really should not take your anger about dropping out of school in high school and getting a GED not on me, but channel the same constructively. Your conceptual skills simply need massive reading to fill huge voids in your comprehension and logic. You continue to try to kill the messenger, but I would suggest you start taking some courses in retirement just for the fun of it. Maybe you could then feel less threatened when you are consistently shown to be wrong about something, and actually make contributions which comport with our constitution and statutes. There are classes which you could take which would allow you to contribute on the forum with actual knowledge and it is right in your backyard.
http://catalog.uwf.edu/undergraduate/politicalscience/#abmprelawtext

I think that anyone saying the criminal verdict was correct is lacking in IQ points or certainly suffers from an inability to analyze facts. Of course, someone like me must be a high school drop out to think like that. I mean you figured that out, didn't you Einstein?

Oh and so now the criminal jury was correct because Furhman said the "N" word and that wipes out all the blood evidence? I mean I can't even address that kind of logic because it is beyond comprehension.

Oh and so now the criminal jury was correct because Furhman said the "N" word and that wipes out all the blood evidence? I mean I can't even address that kind of logic because it is beyond comprehension.


You like to debate yourself so you get a sense that your position is correct. You regularly ascribe something to another which because you cannot fully understand conceptually that person's position, you distill it down to terms you can understand. I think reasonable doubt was raised by the veracity of the witness. He lied on the stand and was caught in those lies. Kinda like what happens around here when one person attempts to lie about their positions and what other people have written. I am not surprised you cannot even address your own logic because you are correct, it is beyond comprehension.

That's what you said, Oatie. The criminal verdict was right because Furman lied on the stand and all the forensics and evidence is wiped out, right? Isn't that what you're saying? A police officer denies he said the "N" word and that is so egregious it totally obliterates everything,right?

That's what you said, Oatie. The criminal verdict was right because Furman lied on the stand and all the forensics and evidence is wiped out, right? Isn't that what you're saying? A police officer denies he said the "N" word and that is so egregious it totally obliterates everything,right?


Again, you are debating yourself.  My position is simple conceptually, but evidently beyond your comprehension.   The criminal jury had reasonable doubt based on the evidence, and a large part of that reasonable doubt was the veracity of witnesses.  There is not right or wrong about a jurors reasonable doubt, and when all 12 find the same, the American Jury system works.   The state failed to remove that reasonable doubt from the jury which is their primary job.   A different prosecution team, and a different presentation of the evidence might have brought a conviction, but monday quarterbacks will not change the verdict which was not guilty.  The civil trial allows a jury to weigh the evidence and 51% of the evidence in favor of the Plaintiff allows them to find guilt.  Now go debate yourself some more, but it does not change these realities or concepts about how our system works.

I'm not debating myself. I'm debating you. You said the jury was correct. So again are you saying the forensics and blood evidence is wiped out because Furman said the "N" word?

I'm not debating myself. I'm debating you. You said the jury was correct. So again are you saying the forensics and blood evidence is wiped out because Furman said the "N" word?


You now have a perfect opportunity to prove that you do not debate yourself. Please show me where I used the words "the jury was correct". I would submit that you made those words up as you always do and then ascribed that position to me. There are only about ten posts. Please find where I said the words "the jury was correct", and this is not just one more example of where not understanding a conceptual point you distill a higher level concept down to your interpretation. You said I said the "jury was correct", and you have an excellent opportunity to make a fool out of me. Please find those words and reference the same.

I have given you a perfect opportunity to prove me wrong.....because I did say that both juries can be correct and both can be right. Now the question is whether you understand why the use of correct is different in the context I have used. They both have different standards. They correctly followed those standards, and I have told you that OJ more likely than not using the civil standard committed this murder. I did not say that OJ simpson did not do the murder, only that they were correct in having reasonable doubt.....do you get it.

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

Do you honestly not comprehend this concept?

LOL! You hurried up and posted what you said because you knew it was coming. You know you don't make a damn bit of sense saying" where did I say the jury was correct" and then saying there was reasonable doubt and you don't have any problem w/ the verdict. How much clearer do you think it is that you threw out the blood evidence because Furman said the "N" word? I mean come on man you're nothing but double talk and backtracking. Do you really think people are that stupid? I mean you been going on about lack of conceptual thinking, Ged's and low intelligence and then try to pull this number? I'm not even going to say what an idiot you are because that's evident.

Joanimaroni wrote:This isn't the PNJ.

Hard to tell when the author of the longest running thread in PNJ history started the same thread on this forum.

Ged's and low intelligence

No you are right.....you are the exception. The jury system in America however works just fine. Even when I may have a different opinion. Heck Abe Lincoln did not even have a GED, but he did read.

Telstar wrote:

Joanimaroni wrote:This isn't the PNJ.

Hard to tell when the author of the longest running thread in PNJ history started the same thread on this forum.

Really? Who started the thread on the PNJ, years and years ago Mr. I am from New York...all up in the shit about a town thousands of miles away.

2seaoat wrote:Ged's and low intelligence

No you are right.....you are the exception.  The jury system in America however works just fine.  Even when I may have a different opinion.  Heck Abe Lincoln did not even have a GED, but he did read.

Oh yeah another brilliant statement the jury system works fine except when it throws out blood evidence in a double murder because someone said the "N"word. The jury system works fine when it acquits cops of abusing and killing black people like Rodney King and the female cop in Ok and the dozen of other black cop killings. You contradict yourself at every turn,don't you? Even OJ's best friend Kardashian couldn't get past the blood evidence and he was terribly biased but old Oatie here says the jury was correct. Just goes to show you even people w/ supposedly high educations don't have the ability to weigh evidence. It's just not limited to people w/ GED's.

They had reasonable doubt, and you do not have enough sense to understand why they had reasonable doubt, or why the issue of Presidential Pardons which "we" have decided is settled, or why the police officer would be fired, indicted for perjury, and banned from being a police officer ever again......Because "we" did not agree and called anybody who disagreed crazy.....like the jury on the criminal trial of oj........yep

Martin Sheen Hopes His New O.J. Is Innocent Docuseries Will Find Nicole Simpson’s Real Killer

Sheen hopes to crack the 20 year-old case wide open.

http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2016/03/oj-simson-innocent-martin-sheen-documentary#intcid=dt-recirc-cral2_1

Why do you keep referring back to the jury? I know why the jury acquited OJ. I'm talking about you and your opinion the jury was correct. You keep trying to deflect. Do you think the jury was correct in ignoring the blood evidence?

Floridatexan wrote:
Martin Sheen Hopes His New O.J. Is Innocent Docuseries Will Find Nicole Simpson’s Real Killer

Sheen hopes to crack the 20 year-old case wide open.

http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2016/03/oj-simson-innocent-martin-sheen-documentary#intcid=dt-recirc-cral2_1

Nothing will change OJ Simpson's blood at the crime scene or anywhere else. The evidence was overwhelming.

The evidence was overwhelming.

For a Civil Guilty verdict. 51% is all that is needed.

OJ Simpson's blood was at the scene of the crime dripped all the way to his house before Furman ever set foot on the crime scene. No amount of doubt was reasonable after that.

Oh and Oatie I'll take that GED I got after quitting high school in the 9th grade and then going straight on to college and grad school. Being #1 in my police academy class was pretty easy for me. You went those 4 years and it still didn't help you to figure out some pretty simple evidence in a murder case. I suspect you pretty much struggled in your HS and college years and it shows.

Joanimaroni wrote:

Telstar wrote:

Joanimaroni wrote:This isn't the PNJ.

Hard to tell when the author of the longest running thread in PNJ history started the same thread on this forum.

Really? Who started the thread on the PNJ, years and years ago Mr. I am from New York...all up in the shit about a town thousands of miles away.

Don't know who started it but you re created here. I'm not up in anything. Why do you always sound so frustrated and bitter? Your life seems so empty. Must hurt to know you are no longer in charge of life and death situations. At least someone is in charge to correct your mistakes here.

I too thought OJ was guilty but since I've been posting on this forum I see how some backward types can get a silly and wrong notion in their head and run with it. I really don't know if he is guilty but the court said he was innocent.