Paul V McNutt
Banned
I would like the five people who said OJ didn't do it to please explain why they think that.
Manson is mentally ill, pretty clearly. That's why he'll never be paroled. I doubt Simpson would be paroled either, because of the high profile nature of the crime (see also: Chapman, Sirhan).
Chapman and Sirhan are nobodies and losers. I could imagine around 2030, when OJ is in his 80s, and if Fred Goldman is no longer with us, the Parole Board deciding to let him out to die a free man. I could be wrong. In OTL, I hope he stays locked up for that long. Not that he really deserved any jail time for what happened in Vegas, as far as I am concerned, he's on the inside for the 2 murders. Karma's a bitch, ain't it?
My point was that Sirhan and Chapman wont be paroled because of who they killed. If instead of Robert Kennedy and John Lennon theyd have killed some random state level politician and a locally famous lounge singer theyd be out by how.
They said early on that they were not going to ask for the death penalty. Which was a mistake. If you eliminate jurors who are opposed to the death penalty, you have a whiter moe male jury that is more sympathetic to the proscution.
The biggest damage Judge Ito may have done was not allowing a statement OJ made into evidence. A Deputy Sherif who supervised a visitation area reported that while talking to Rosie Greer, who as a minister was counseling O J, slammed down the phone, they were talking through phones separated by a glass wall, and shouted an incriminating statement. When the hearing was held, he did not say what O J said. The law was clear. if during a private conversation you say something someone who is not eavesdropping can hear, you have given up your right of privacy. Yet Ito ruled that while OJ had waived his right of privacy, he had an expectation of privacy. That defies logic. If you are shouting and there is a Deputy Sheriff ten feet away, you should have no expectation of privacy.
The Deputy Sheriff later told a tabloid for a $ 10,000 fee that OJ said I didn't mean to do it. If that is true, the tabloid and the fee cast doubt, and he had testified to that in court.
That could have meant a guilty verdict or at least a hung jury. If there was a hung jury, the prosecutors could have talked to jurors and discovered their mistakes. The best result would be the second OJ trail is delayed until after the OJ lawsuit. The prosecutors could have watched the excellent lawyering of the lawsuit attorneys and learned.
Chapman and Sirhan are nobodies and losers. I could imagine around 2030, when OJ is in his 80s, and if Fred Goldman is no longer with us, the Parole Board deciding to let him out to die a free man. I could be wrong. In OTL, I hope he stays locked up for that long. Not that he really deserved any jail time for what happened in Vegas, as far as I am concerned, he's on the inside for the 2 murders. Karma's a bitch, ain't it?
If there had been a competent prosecution and the public had heard about OJ's passport,disguise, $8000 and watched the police statement there would have been no riots.
usertron2020 said:A guilty verdict was never in the cards. Not with the three jurors who perjured themselves on their testimony to give a fair judgement of the case.
If the jury knew the facts, there would have been a guilty verdict. Minority dominated juries in Downtown Los Angeles frequently convict Black Men.
Not for Black Celebrities playing the Race Card. And playing it over and over and over again. And flipping the bird to The Man was a big issue in Black America after the acquittal of the four LA cops following the Rodney King Beating.
If there was no glove demonstration and the jury knew the damming evidence, there would have been a guilty verdict.
usertron2020 said:The Defense could also argue that the Deputy Sheriff's testimony had mercenary motives and therefore should be inadmissible. They'd be right.
Paul V McNutt said:If Judge Ito had allowed him to testify, I think being a Deputy Sheriff, he would have obeyed the prosecutor and not talked to the press.
Truth be Told, OJs punishment after the trial from being found guilty in civil court now is probably a worse punishment than prison.
Let's face it, OJ had a dream team but if he had been found guilty with the (1) tampered evidence there'd be doubt after the fact.
However since his not guilty he's been defamed
and destroyed every way,
all that's left is bodily damage
NOT WITH THOSE THREE JURORS. A HUNG jury, yes. But no matter WHAT the evidence, the best the prosecution could have ever gotten was a 9-3 to convict. Those three jurors were determined on jury nullification before they were ever sworn in. You had just as much a chance of seeing the Staten Island DA making a sincere attempt to secure indictments against the policeman who chokeheld to death Eric Garner.
If the prosecutors use the damming evidence and don't do the glove demonstration and still get a hung jury, they can talk to the jurors and learn the mistakes the would still have made. OTL the prosecutors did not use all of their challenges. In the second OJ trail they could have asked for the death penalty and gotten a Whiter, more male pro prosecution jury.