Justice

Oldguy · Post by **Oldguy** » Fri Oct 03, 2008 11:08 pm

O.J.Simpson, guilty of kidnapping and robbery, is facing life in prison.

ygmir · Post by **ygmir** » Sat Oct 04, 2008 7:03 am

although, I'm sure he'll appeal........

Hooray!!!

DVD Burner · Post by **DVD Burner** » Sat Oct 04, 2008 7:13 am

Ya actually wanted to go there huh?
Bet neither of you know anything about that Florida trial. Did either of you keep up with it?

This oughtta be good.

ygmir · Post by **ygmir** » Sat Oct 04, 2008 7:39 am

DVD Burner wrote:Ya actually wanted to go there huh?
Bet neither of you know anything about that Florida trial. Did either of you keep up with it?

This oughtta be good.

elucidate, please..........

DVD Burner · Post by **DVD Burner** » Sat Oct 04, 2008 7:47 am

Dont have to, you guys are the ones that are gloating.

What are yall gloating about since you KNOW there was a fair trial?

Did yall or did yall not follow the trial?

ygmir · Post by **ygmir** » Sat Oct 04, 2008 7:54 am

and so, my request for clarification.........I'm not sure what you refer to......
I mostly feel our system, especially with a high profile person like him, tends to less convictions.
I'd surely say it worked that way for him in L.A.

But, I would be interested in what you know.

DVD Burner · Post by **DVD Burner** » Sat Oct 04, 2008 7:56 am

I guess that's what it's all about anyway eh?

The L.A. trial.

ygmir · Post by **ygmir** » Sat Oct 04, 2008 8:00 am

Post by **Elderberry** » Sat Oct 04, 2008 11:14 am

DVD Burner wrote:I guess that's what it's all about anyway eh?

The L.A. trial.

It is for me! Finally justice was served. If you are saying that the trial was fixed in some way in Florida, I say good. I just makes up for the way justice was served in Los Angeles.

JK

gyre · Post by **gyre** » Sat Oct 04, 2008 12:15 pm

The cops threw the Simpson slasher murders by compromising the scene in a thousand ways.
Forensics experts say they could definitively prove the person involved, one way or another, if not for that.
Even a racially biased jury has trouble acquitting with that kind of evidence.
And they had it.

The use of second cases to go after people considered guilty of something else has become rampant in the federal system under bush.
Two recently were for civil rights after a plea bargain for murder with NO evidence and for minor marijuana charges turned into a federal case.
I'd feel safer with vigilantes doing the lynchings.

Consider that if the police treat high profile cases this way, imagine the forensics work when you're not famous.
And be afraid.

ygmir · Post by **ygmir** » Sat Oct 04, 2008 12:26 pm

so,
are you saying he didn't commit the crimes in Vegas?
Or, that he just shouldn't get in trouble?
Or, is it that he's had "them" out to get him for so long, it's just not fair he be prosecuted for something he did..........

My problem is with high profile people getting off because of who they are.........or, the political ramifications of them going to jail........or not......

I am always relieved when a high profile person plays by the same rules as "us"........

I was good with Milken, Keating, or whoever going to jail, too.
I'm not ok with, it seems mostly actors and sports stars, getting away with crimes due to their "status"...........But, if it's government officials, just plain "rich people", whatever. If they commit a crime, and are convicted at trail, they should pay the same price as anyone.......
IMHO........

gyre · Post by **gyre** » Sat Oct 04, 2008 12:39 pm

I'm just saying that he should be treated as anyone else in a similar case.
I have no comparison here, but generally people trying to retrieve stolen goods are given considerable slack.

I think Milliken and other white collar criminals get a slap on the wrist compared to the damage they do.
I think real penalties for their kind of crime would actually make violent criminals take the system seriously.
No reason they should now.

Some treatment of celebrities goes both ways.
It's pretty obvious sometimes when they single out someone for 'special treatment', like when they ask for life in prison for possession.

ygmir · Post by **ygmir** » Sat Oct 04, 2008 1:58 pm

yup, I agree, all treated the same.

I would disagree that violent acts, no matter if retrieving goods or not, should be taken quite seriously.

I agree, too, that Milliken et al should get maximum penalties......they've ruined lives.........
I'm not so sure it would be an example to violent criminals. I do feel violence is in a class by itself..........and even the thought processes are, IMHO, different.
But, I do believe punishment should act as a deterrent.........people should be afraid to go to prison, etc..........and, a lot come from such shitty living/societal conditions, prison is a step up, I'm sure.......but, it should still be punishment, so, perhaps the prison system needs to be harsher? I dunno........It's, to me, sometimes like punishing a seal by throwing them in cold water........

I think it's exceedingly rare a celebrity, sports star, whatever, is treated harsher than the rest.........and if so, I'd say most of the time it's monetarily.........

But,
this opinion comes from a person who rejects most celebrities, sports stars, etc as "gods" or whatever, and, sees them as no better than most of us, and, in some cases, only a fast run or good swing ,or beautiful eyes from prison, .......
Mostly coddled their entire lives, living "outside the rules" because they are talented or attractive..............

nope, not jaded, not me........

Post by **Elderberry** » Sat Oct 04, 2008 2:16 pm

ygmir wrote:yup, I agree, all treated the same.

Unfortunately, this is impossible. Those with the most money are the most equal. The evidence in the Simpson Murder Case would have been 3 times what was necessary to convict anyone that didn't have the money to pay for 'experts' to muddy the waters for a less than stellar jury to arrive at a not guilty verdict.

JK

ygmir · Post by **ygmir** » Sat Oct 04, 2008 2:42 pm

JK,
I agree that in practice, rich people get off for the reasons you describe.
I was merely saying that I think they should all be treated equal, allowed the same possibilities.

No one is saying a person can't hire a staff of lawyers.

But, if the person can't afford a staff of lawyers/experts, then, they can't do as good a job.
That is the world, and, I see no way around it.........

Not saying it's fair, just that it's what it is.

I can't see the government being required (as in other departments) to pay for a staff of people for everyone who's accused of a crime.
And, I can't see dis-allowing a person from spending whatever they want on defense..........

I think part of that is the fact that our system, flawed as it is, is aimed at allowing more guilty go than convicting innocents.
And,
although I don't know the statistics, or even if they are, or could be, kept, I'd bet way more guilty people go free than innocent are convicted.....

And, IMHO, that's how it should be, system wise.......

gyre · Post by **gyre** » Sat Oct 04, 2008 3:34 pm

I think part of that is the fact that our system, flawed as it is, is aimed at allowing more guilty go than convicting innocents.
And,
although I don't know the statistics, or even if they are, or could be, kept, I'd bet way more guilty people go free than innocent are convicted.....

How can you even guess at that?

As long as plea bargaining (or extortion as the falsely accused know it) is allowed, it seems far more likely that many, many more innocent are convicted.

An adequate defense is the law, but doesn't actually happen in most cases.
Judges conspire openly to convict with prosecutors.
Pseudo-labs and intimidation are used by police and prosecutors.
The rich can barely level the playing field against the state with unlimited resources to spend.
How much did the prosecution spend with the Simpson slasher case?
Texas is still taking the position that executing someone with an attorney who sleeps through the trial is A-okay (started under bush).

If you think you're prepared to be falsely accused, see how fast you can come up with $25,000.
From jail.

Now a few months later, the state decides to ignore the evidence, while you've been watching idiots liquidating your possessions for pennies on the dollar (unless you had the liquid assets), so now come up with a lot more.
Again, from jail.

Be prepared for an extortion offer forcing you to plead guilty or bet your entire life on winning against a stacked deck with prosecutors prepared to lie and a judge who may exclude evidence in your favor.
You can bet that evidence proving your innocence or casting doubt on your guilt will be concealed by the prosecutor's office.

The current system is hopelessly faulty.
Without a truly independent system for examining evidence and adequate money for each defense, our court system is beyond laughable.
History will look back on our society as stupid and barbaric for allowing it to exist for even a day in this form.
Are you aware that federal courts now allow you to be convicted of a conspiracy that never existed, on only paid testimony?
Double jeopardy is a specialty of federal courts now too.

It's very easy for any violent criminal to fail to take our court system seriously...since we don't.

Easy to ignore and pretend until it happens to you.
Then you're just another accused claiming innocence.
If you're lucky, it will only be seizure of your property, in one degree or another.
Just luck though.
Pretending it can't happen is raw superstition.

Another consideration is that a corrupt legal system augments and can lead to a corrupt political system.
Problem there is when you know it's too late, it's over.

Power will always be abused to the extent allowed.

Post by **Elderberry** » Sat Oct 04, 2008 3:48 pm

Not to mention a "jury of your peers". Now that's bull shit too. I think that with the sophistication of evidence being presented at trials, and the sophistication of attorney's defenses, we need to move to a professional jury system. People specially trained in evaluating evidence.

JK

ygmir · Post by **ygmir** » Sat Oct 04, 2008 6:14 pm

I still think more guilty people walk than innocent are convicted......
you see it all the time, people getting off on a "technicality".......or, not enough evidence to press charges..........neither makes one innocent, it just says either they can't prove it well enough, or, they made a mistake in printing someones name on a form...........
I don't deny innocents are convicted. I just think compared to the opposite, it's a much lower number.

I also agree with professional jurors........
No one has time or wants to be on a jury anymore, and, those that due either have a cause, or, are bored..........and, not employed or employable..........And, I'd say lower IQ's...........but, that's just my opinion........

I'm also amazed at how many things you can blame Bush for..........
I'm waiting for a scientist to blame him for mastodon extinction........
geeze, do you need to point to everything you see and don't agree with and say "Bush did it"..........
And, I'm not a W fan, but, I sure see plenty of blame for stuff to go around.......again, mostly with congress.....but also past administrations.........

gyre · Post by **gyre** » Sat Oct 04, 2008 6:26 pm

Bush= governor of Texas at the time.
Figure out a way he isn't responsible.

And don't say technicality like it doesn't really count.
A prosecutor caught in criminal misconduct in a case is a technicality too, I think.
Attorneys may want to chime in here.
Proving guilt is actually the idea.
Plea bargains are always a subversion.
It would be inexplicable if they don't result in false convictions routinely.
A true miracle really.

It is very clear that those with inadequate money for defense serve more time than those with a decent attorney, guilty or not.

ygmir · Post by **ygmir** » Sat Oct 04, 2008 6:36 pm

you may be misreading, or I'm not clear:
I have no problem with technicality, or lack of evidence (and, since I didn't 'say' it, how can you propose I said it like it doesn't count?) as a way to get off a charge..........
All I was saying is it doesn't mean your innocent, it just means it can't be proven.......I think the two are different........

I understand and applaud the idea you have to be proven guilty, not that you have to prove yourself innocent.........
I'd much rather see guilty walk than innocent pay.
And, I agree money gets you better "justice".......not trying to deny it......
I'm saying, though, there should be no limit imposed on what a person can do to defend themselves............Who would set the limit, and, how?.......to subjective IMHO.
I also agree that at times, the plea bargain is extortion, that innocents will bargain as opposed to go to trial.
I also, though, believe people that know they are guilty, and, a prosecutor that will have a hard time proving it, will also bargain.........
I just don't think it's that black and white........

wedeliver · Post by **wedeliver** » Sun Oct 05, 2008 4:59 pm

DVD Burner wrote:Ya actually wanted to go there huh?
Bet neither of you know anything about that Florida trial. Did either of you keep up with it?

This oughtta be good.

Was there some trial in Florida that we should be made aware of? Or are you wrong and mean the Vegas trial?

Post by **Elderberry** » Sun Oct 05, 2008 5:56 pm

wedeliver wrote:
DVD Burner wrote:Ya actually wanted to go there huh?
Bet neither of you know anything about that Florida trial. Did either of you keep up with it?

This oughtta be good.

Was there some trial in Florida that we should be made aware of? Or are you wrong and mean the Vegas trial?

I think maybe someone just mispoke and then everyone just continued using florida without really thinking. (I looked back at my thread, and I see I said fla too. hope I wasn't the one that first made the mistake.)

JK

DVD Burner · Post by **DVD Burner** » Sun Oct 05, 2008 7:45 pm

Yeah I meant Vegas also.

DVD Burner · Post by **DVD Burner** » Sun Oct 05, 2008 8:01 pm

I only got half way through the thread so far but I will read the rest in a moment.

Let me say one thing before going back to reading.
It's quite obvious no one here has seen anyone up close get stabbed the way Nicole did in the areas of her body the way she did.
Here is one fact, when someone gets stabbed in the area near their heart the way she did, blood gets everywhere, and I do mean EVERYWHERE. IT IS LITERALLY A BLOODY MESS, not to mention the way blood squirts out of the body in the area where was stabbed. You do not just get in your car or run from a scene, take a shower, change clothes and have no blood in the drains where you wash and only blood drops in your car. (tainted blood drops mind you). Another thing, blood does not come off easily. For someone to have stabbed her the way she was stabbed, (mind you there was more than one type of knife wound on Nicole and Ron) one would leave a trail of blood as were left at the scene with those bloody shoe prints.

I can go on and on with that case but the trial/case in vegas has 10 times the amount of bogus charges/errors as the trial in LA.

Both trails are a joke.

Most humans have never seen anyone get stabbed in a vital organ area. I have and saw the guy die. Trust me, the O.J. story is just too fishy.

DVD Burner · Post by **DVD Burner** » Sun Oct 05, 2008 8:46 pm

Simpson jury: We didn't need witnesses to convict

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iUNg ... AD93KMVK80

By LINDA DEUTSCH â€“ 1 hour ago

LAS VEGAS (AP) â€”Jurors who convicted O.J. Simpson of armed robbery and kidnapping in Las Vegas say they relied more on video and other documented evidence than on witness testimony.

Juror Michelle Lyons said Sunday that the panelists felt they "could not rely on that witness testimony."

She says jurors instead used video, audio and documented evidence to evaluate whether Simpson was guilty of each of 12 counts. She was one of seven jurors to speak to reporters.

Jury foreman Paul Connelly says it might have been a waste for prosecutors to give plea deals to several Simpson co-defendants in exchange for their testimony.

The 61-year-old Simpson was convicted Friday of charges stemming from a hotel room last year. Sentencing is set for December.

THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below.

LAS VEGAS (AP) â€” O.J. Simpson is being isolated from other prisoners for his own safety but continues to hope for a new trial and a strong bid to reverse his conviction for kidnapping and robbery, his lawyer said Sunday.

Attorney Yale Galanter told The Associated Press that Simpson will be living a lonely life, advised by his lawyers to do no media interviews and allowed to see only family members and a few friends placed on a special list at the jail.

Simpson will be held in the Clark County Detention Center until his Dec. 5 sentencing and then is expected to be moved to state prison. Galanter said he will pursue a request for Simpson to be released on bond during the appeals process.

But because of the seriousness of the charges, Simpson would probably remain in jail during an appeal. Galanter said an appeal cannot be filed until after sentencing.

"He is in isolated custody and being protected from other inmates," Galanter said aboard a plane as he prepared to return to his Miami office. "The jail is taking very special precautions to make sure he is safe."

Galanter said that will make for a difficult incarceration for the gregarious Simpson, because "it limits his contacts with other humans."

The attorney said Simpson was OK during a jail visit Saturday during which they discussed plans for the case. "He's disappointed and a bit melancholy," he said.

The 61-year-old Hall of Fame football star was convicted of kidnapping, armed robbery and 10 other charges for gathering five men a year ago and storming a room at a hotel-casino to seize Simpson sports mementos â€” including game balls, plaques and photos â€” from two collectors. Prosecutors said two of the men with him were armed; one testified Simpson had asked him to bring a gun.

Galanter said he believes Simpson has a strong argument for reversal of his conviction because of legal errors made during the trial, beginning with the jury selection process.

He said issues to be raised on appeal will include the elimination of all African-Americans from the jury and the inclusion of jurors who believed that Simpson should have been convicted at trial in Los Angeles in 1995 of murdering his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her friend Ronald Goldman.

Juror Fred Jones acknowledged to the Los Angeles Times that he thought Simpson killed his ex-wife and her friend but said he put that aside when considering the Las Vegas case.

"We went out of our way not to mention that," Jones said. "That was never, never in our thoughts."

Jury foreman Paul Connelly said the murders "really didn't come up" as the jury deliberated.

"I honestly believe in my heart of hearts that it did not" affect the verdict," Connelly told the Los Angeles Times.

Lawyers for Simpson's co-defendant, Clarence "C.J" Stewart, have said they also plan a strong appeal with focus on their claim that he was prejudiced by having to stand trial with Simpson. They had filed numerous severance motions, claiming that Simpson's notoriety would infect Stewart's case.

DVD Burner · Post by **DVD Burner** » Sun Oct 05, 2008 8:50 pm

Note none of the papers will print anything that went on with the vegas trial.
Tho, they have been printing basic dailys during the trial.
There is plenty of info on the case online, I suggest yall look it up.

DVD Burner · Post by **DVD Burner** » Sun Oct 05, 2008 8:58 pm

Simpson jury held strong views on 1995 acquittal

Updated 2h 20m ago

By William M. Welch, USA TODAY

LAS VEGAS â€” The jurors who convicted O.J. Simpson of armed robbery and kidnapping in a casino hotel had strong opinions about Simpson's acquittal in his 1995 murder trial, according to juror questionnaires.

But they swore to judge him on the facts in Sin City and disregard their opinions about Simpson's culpability in the murder of his ex-wife.

"I think he did it," juror Sherian Sue Eckart, 55, said in response to a questionnaire item on the murder of Simpson's ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and a friend, Ronald Goldman, outside her condo in the Brentwood section of Los Angeles in 1994.

"I don't believe the jury consider(ed) the facts," Ruth Ann Horschmann, 62, wrote of the Los Angeles jury.

"I disagree with the verdict. I think the police/prosecution in the case made errors," Sharon Ann Johnston, 36, wrote.
FIND MORE STORIES IN: Las Vegas | Los Angeles Times | Nicole Brown Simpson | Sin City | Ronald Goldman | Brentwood | Clark County Detention Center | Frederick Jones | Judge Jackie Glass | Mr. Stewart | Paul Connelly

The three jurors were among the nine women and three men who convicted Simpson here late Friday night after 13 hours of deliberation.

He was found guilty of all 12 counts stemming from a September 2007 confrontation in a Las Vegas casino hotel room in which Simpson was seeking the return of his own personal and sports memorabilia held by collectibles dealers. Simpson contended he didn't know that two of the men whose help he enlisted were carrying guns.

Simpson, 61, could receive up to life in prison when he is sentenced by Judge Jackie Glass on Dec. 5. Until then, he is being held at the Clark County Detention Center.

Attorney Yale Galanter said Sunday that Simpson is "obviously a little depressed, melancholy" but hopeful of chances on appeal.

On Saturday, Simpson appeared far removed from his previous celebrity as a former college and professional football star who went on to a successful career in movies and TV commercials. After the jury made its verdict public early Saturday morning. He was led out of the courtroom in handcuffs, his bid to remain free on bond while awaiting sentencing rejected by Glass.

The latest trial attracted little of the attention that his murder case did, one where detailed testimony about the grisly deaths riveted the nation and became known as "the trial of the century."

While this case wasn't directly related to that one, it was clear the previous episode cast a long shadow over Simpson's recent troubles.

'They weren't listening'

In documents released by the Clark County Court following the verdict, five of the 12 jurors disclosed during the jury-selection process that they disagreed with the 1995 verdict. The judge released redacted copies of the 27-page questionnaires filled out by the 12 jurors before being selected for the panel.

Each of the jurors said on the forms that they could put aside their feelings about Simpson and his previous troubles in considering the latest case.

Galanter accused the Las Vegas jury of convicting Simpson to make up for his murder acquittal.

"They just weren't listening, and the reason they weren't listening is they wanted to make sure this verdict was not like the verdict in the mid-1990s," he said.

"I know some of the jurors are saying it didn't enter into their decision. That's beyond belief. It just defies common logic," Galanter said.

Co-defendant Clarence "C.J." Stewart, a Simpson golf buddy, was convicted of the same charges. His attorney, Brent Bryson, said Stewart was a victim of strong public sentiment against Simpson.

"Mr. Simpson has a certain history," Bryson said. "Unfortunately, it engulfed Mr. Stewart also."

Foreman defends verdict

Jurors reached by USA TODAY declined to comment. One juror, Frederick Jones, told the Los Angeles Times that he believed Simpson was guilty of murdering his ex-wife but he and all other jurors put those thoughts aside in considering this case.

"That was never, never in our thoughts," he said.

Galanter said the jury's selection and makeup would be the focus of Simpson's appeal, which he said would be filed as soon as legally possible, after sentencing.

He said the appeal would be based in part on what he called the judge's "improper limits" placed on his questioning of prospective jurors about their attitudes toward Simpson.

He said they would also base an appeal on the racial makeup of the jury, which included no blacks.

The prosecution declined to comment on the matter.

Galanter said Simpson's actions were "stupid" and may even merit conviction of some sort, but that the charges he faced were out of proportion to the incident.

The foreman, Paul Connelly, called the Los Angeles acquittal "fair" and said the slayings "really didn't come up" in jury room discussions.

"I honestly believe in my heart of hearts that it did not" affect the verdict, Connelly, 41, a mechanical engineer, told the Times.

**burn** · Post by **burn** » Sun Oct 05, 2008 9:00 pm

Even Al Capone was never successfully convicted of racketeering or murder charges. He was indicted and convicted by the federal government for income tax evasion. Right or wrong, they were happy to get his hands on him, regardless of the charge.

.

DVD Burner · Post by **DVD Burner** » Sun Oct 05, 2008 9:03 pm

Trust me, O.J. aint no Al Capone.

ygmir · Post by **ygmir** » Sun Oct 05, 2008 9:08 pm

so, DVD, would it be safe to guess you're a O.J. fan?
Sympathetic?