The NFL was lucky on 2 fronts

[Van_phelaN1]

Actually, his first "victim" is in the process of suing him. Her suit has gone nowhere and is on hold while a judge decides whether to dismiss. You should read a bit about that "case" before you make more stupid comments.

 

There was strong evidence to convict OJ. The jury ignored it all. Jack the Ripper?

 

You post smells like the thoughts of a nut job........

 

 

How do you know what the thoughts of a nut job smell like?

[yungmack]

 

There was strong evidence to convict OJ. The jury ignored it all. Jack the Ripper?

 

Actually, there was NO real evidence upon which to convict OJ and plenty to set him free. And if you actually watched the trial, you'd know that much of what we saw in the courtroom (and the speculation and false info propounded by the media) the jury did not see or hear. They could only make their decision based upon testimony and evidence actually presented while they were in the courtroom, which was a fraction of the proceedings presented to Judge Ito.

 

Here's one small example of the sort of evidence that people came to accept as proof of his guilt: The limo driver testified that the white Bronco was NOT present when he arrived, and that no one opened the gate for quite some time, and it wasn't opened until after he saw a "large, African-American person walk across the lawn and enter the house."

 

The clear implication is that OJ wasn't yet back from murdering his ex-wife when the driver arrived (that's why the Bronco wasn't out in front of the house and why no one was around to open the gate), that he arrived later, parked on the street and walked across the lawn, went into his house and opened the gate.

 

However, here's what the driver actually said: that the Bronco wasn't in front when he arrived, no one opened the gate for several minutes, he then saw the "large African-American" outside the house (but NOT crossing the lawn) placing suitcases in the driveway and going back into the house, and that when he left the property the Bronco still was not out in front on the street (where it was found parked later on).

 

So, no Bronco when the limo driver arrives, no Bronco when the limo driver leaves, and the "African-American" NOT walking across the lawn but going in and out of the house with luggage. Quite a different story than what most people believe.

 

While this one "little" inconsistency doesn't prove OJ didn't do it, it shows how the misinformation of the media can create a scenario that is then accepted as the true version.

[Ed_Formerly_of_Roch]

I also was thinking that if you gave a 427 HP car to Big Ben, how long would it take him to wrap it aorund tree

[BuffaloWings]

I wrote this earlier on a friends Facebook comment...

 

A friend of mine commented "That was the worst Halftime Show I've ever seen, and I remember when Up With The People did the Halftime Show...so that's REALLY saying something."

 

I thought that was pretty funny...

Freaky...one of my friends said the exact same thing when I asked for Bruce Springsteen to come back.

 

Mike, is that you???

[dollars 2 donuts]

For halftime, two words for you:

 

Neil

 

Diamond

 

 

"We comin' to America...

We comin' to America, TODAY!"

[Peter]

Actually, there was NO real evidence upon which to convict OJ and plenty to set him free. And if you actually watched the trial, you'd know that much of what we saw in the courtroom (and the speculation and false info propounded by the media) the jury did not see or hear. They could only make their decision based upon testimony and evidence actually presented while they were in the courtroom, which was a fraction of the proceedings presented to Judge Ito.

 

Here's one small example of the sort of evidence that people came to accept as proof of his guilt: The limo driver testified that the white Bronco was NOT present when he arrived, and that no one opened the gate for quite some time, and it wasn't opened until after he saw a "large, African-American person walk across the lawn and enter the house."

 

The clear implication is that OJ wasn't yet back from murdering his ex-wife when the driver arrived (that's why the Bronco wasn't out in front of the house and why no one was around to open the gate), that he arrived later, parked on the street and walked across the lawn, went into his house and opened the gate.

 

However, here's what the driver actually said: that the Bronco wasn't in front when he arrived, no one opened the gate for several minutes, he then saw the "large African-American" outside the house (but NOT crossing the lawn) placing suitcases in the driveway and going back into the house, and that when he left the property the Bronco still was not out in front on the street (where it was found parked later on).

 

So, no Bronco when the limo driver arrives, no Bronco when the limo driver leaves, and the "African-American" NOT walking across the lawn but going in and out of the house with luggage. Quite a different story than what most people believe.

 

While this one "little" inconsistency doesn't prove OJ didn't do it, it shows how the misinformation of the media can create a scenario that is then accepted as the true version.

 

Good memory. I too watched more of that trial than I care to admit. To me, it was clear that the criminal jury did the correct thing under the law. Whether he did it or not is another story. Having met him several times, I prefer to think that he did not and hope that he did not although I suspect that there was some involvement.

[Mr. WEO]

Actually, there was NO real evidence upon which to convict OJ and plenty to set him free. And if you actually watched the trial, you'd know that much of what we saw in the courtroom (and the speculation and false info propounded by the media) the jury did not see or hear. They could only make their decision based upon testimony and evidence actually presented while they were in the courtroom, which was a fraction of the proceedings presented to Judge Ito.

 

Here's one small example of the sort of evidence that people came to accept as proof of his guilt: The limo driver testified that the white Bronco was NOT present when he arrived, and that no one opened the gate for quite some time, and it wasn't opened until after he saw a "large, African-American person walk across the lawn and enter the house."

 

The clear implication is that OJ wasn't yet back from murdering his ex-wife when the driver arrived (that's why the Bronco wasn't out in front of the house and why no one was around to open the gate), that he arrived later, parked on the street and walked across the lawn, went into his house and opened the gate.

 

However, here's what the driver actually said: that the Bronco wasn't in front when he arrived, no one opened the gate for several minutes, he then saw the "large African-American" outside the house (but NOT crossing the lawn) placing suitcases in the driveway and going back into the house, and that when he left the property the Bronco still was not out in front on the street (where it was found parked later on).

 

So, no Bronco when the limo driver arrives, no Bronco when the limo driver leaves, and the "African-American" NOT walking across the lawn but going in and out of the house with luggage. Quite a different story than what most people believe.

 

While this one "little" inconsistency doesn't prove OJ didn't do it, it shows how the misinformation of the media can create a scenario that is then accepted as the true version.

 

That jury heard nine months of testimony, much of it quite detailed and technical. They deliberated for 4 hours. This is called jury nullification. They didn't bother reviewing the evidence--not in 4 hours. They were looking for a way to let him go and bungling policework ("a frameup") and idiotic prosecution gave them plenty of comfort in letting this obviously guilty man go free.

 

You should read "Outrage...." by Vincent Bugliosi (the guy who put Manson away). It will set your head straight. And make you weep.

[Ralonzo]

Where is it written that you must be convicted to be guilty?

 

If I had to guess, I'd say United States Code, Section 1.

[yungmack]

That jury heard nine months of testimony, much of it quite detailed and technical. They deliberated for 4 hours. This is called jury nullification. They didn't bother reviewing the evidence--not in 4 hours. They were looking for a way to let him go and bungling policework ("a frameup") and idiotic prosecution gave them plenty of comfort in letting this obviously guilty man go free.

 

You should read "Outrage...." by Vincent Bugliosi (the guy who put Manson away). It will set your head straight. And make you weep.

The jury did not hear nine months of testimony. I'd be surprised if the total amount of actual testimony they were present for in the courtroom exceeded a week or two. There were complete days when it was all arguing attorneys trying to get evidence before the jury, then more days while the judge ruminated, then after a decision the jury was finally permitted back into the courtroom where they'd hear a couple of hours of presentation, punctuated with objections, sidebars and recesses.

 

And Bugliosi is hardly the gold standard of "fair and balanced" anything.

[ieatcrayonz]

Good memory. I too watched more of that trial than I care to admit. To me, it was clear that the criminal jury did the correct thing under the law. Whether he did it or not is another story. Having met him several times, I prefer to think that he did not and hope that he did not although I suspect that there was some involvement.

I suspect the sun has some involvement with daylight although I prefer to think it is mostly derived from Beerboy's personality.

[CosmicBills]

Actually, there was NO real evidence upon which to convict OJ and plenty to set him free. And if you actually watched the trial, you'd know that much of what we saw in the courtroom (and the speculation and false info propounded by the media) the jury did not see or hear. They could only make their decision based upon testimony and evidence actually presented while they were in the courtroom, which was a fraction of the proceedings presented to Judge Ito.

 

Here's one small example of the sort of evidence that people came to accept as proof of his guilt: The limo driver testified that the white Bronco was NOT present when he arrived, and that no one opened the gate for quite some time, and it wasn't opened until after he saw a "large, African-American person walk across the lawn and enter the house."

 

The clear implication is that OJ wasn't yet back from murdering his ex-wife when the driver arrived (that's why the Bronco wasn't out in front of the house and why no one was around to open the gate), that he arrived later, parked on the street and walked across the lawn, went into his house and opened the gate.

 

However, here's what the driver actually said: that the Bronco wasn't in front when he arrived, no one opened the gate for several minutes, he then saw the "large African-American" outside the house (but NOT crossing the lawn) placing suitcases in the driveway and going back into the house, and that when he left the property the Bronco still was not out in front on the street (where it was found parked later on).

 

So, no Bronco when the limo driver arrives, no Bronco when the limo driver leaves, and the "African-American" NOT walking across the lawn but going in and out of the house with luggage. Quite a different story than what most people believe.

 

While this one "little" inconsistency doesn't prove OJ didn't do it, it shows how the misinformation of the media can create a scenario that is then accepted as the true version.

And yet, deep down you know he did it. Everyone does. No one runs when they're innocent -- not in the fashion that he did. The rest was all fancy legal tricks and mumbo jumbo. It had nothing to do with race. It was about fame. If OJ wasn't famous, he'd be doing life.

 

To paraphrase Chris Rock: "If that was Jerry Seinfeld and the cop who found the glove just happened to be in the nation of Islam, he'd be home today eating his cereal."

 

Legally did the jury do what's correct? Maybe. But there's no way any rational human being can look at all the evidence, actual and circumstantial, and think anything other than he murdered those two people.