OJ Simpson dead at 76

[Sweats]

58 minutes ago, Matt_In_NH said:

The phrase “not guilty” in a criminal trial is confusing and many don’t know what it actually means because those two words seems to indicate innocent.  It needs more context, specifically that you are required to assume the defendant is innocent unless the prosecution shows enough evidence to confirm they are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.   In OJs case I think the jury decided reasonable doubt was that the police were raciat and could have planted the evidence.  The evidence was damning but they were able to show blood was missing or unaccounted for and it could have been used to plant evidence.  

 

 

 

 

Recently, jurors have come out on record saying that the not guilty verdict in the OJ trial was a retaliation for the Rodney King incident.

 

So what i'm saying, is that no matter whether the prosecution has satisfied it's "burden of proof", a jury (in any trial) will side with whatever agenda it perceives and anyone who doesn't see that or still believes in honest and fair trials are severely disillusioned.

Honestly at the end of the day, jurors don't care about right or wrong, guilty or innocent......they know it's not them on trial and most just want to get the hell out of there as quick as possible knowing they are only earning $25 a day to do their civic duty.

 

So, imagine putting your life in the hands of 12 people who don't know you, don't care about you, are only making $25 a day, have to sit in one spot for sometimes 8 hours a day and really don't care about whatever happens to you because they need to get that trial over quick to get back to their jobs to pay for their homes, their bills and they have to plan what they're going to make for dinner that evening for little Sally, etc.

 

Being judged by a jury of our peers?.....a fair and honest legal system?.......no such thing.

[Captain Hindsight]

22 hours ago, DJB said:

I had no idea that TBD had so many lawyers, judges and forensic analysts that posted on here 

 

15 hours ago, Just Jack said:

 

We are also experts in stadium engineering/construction, sales techniques, and contract law. 

Not to mention the incredible gift of hindsight 

[Matt_In_NH]

4 hours ago, Sweats said:

 

 

 

 

Recently, jurors have come out on record saying that the not guilty verdict in the OJ trial was a retaliation for the Rodney King incident.

 

So what i'm saying, is that no matter whether the prosecution has satisfied it's "burden of proof", a jury (in any trial) will side with whatever agenda it perceives and anyone who doesn't see that or still believes in honest and fair trials are severely disillusioned.

Honestly at the end of the day, jurors don't care about right or wrong, guilty or innocent......they know it's not them on trial and most just want to get the hell out of there as quick as possible knowing they are only earning $25 a day to do their civic duty.

 

So, imagine putting your life in the hands of 12 people who don't know you, don't care about you, are only making $25 a day, have to sit in one spot for sometimes 8 hours a day and really don't care about whatever happens to you because they need to get that trial over quick to get back to their jobs to pay for their homes, their bills and they have to plan what they're going to make for dinner that evening for little Sally, etc.

 

Being judged by a jury of our peers?.....a fair and honest legal system?.......no such thing.

The system is definitely imperfect.  And I agree racial history with the LAPD played a role.