OJ going to jail but......

Is he going for what he did before rather than the case before the judge today?

The lawyer who worked for the families of the murdered couple in his last case has said " Justice has been delayed but not denied"…and , it seems four of the jury (chosen from 500 possibles) thought he was guilty of the murders in the last case.:wink:

Grounds for appeal maybe, but can this guy ever get a “fair and unbiased jury”? I doubt it, and this case seems to be blown out of all proportion in order to bang him up for years …:unsure:

lucky there was no riot in USA this time…

if they had done the job the firdt time he woud’nt have been free to offend again.He didn’t get a fair trial the first time, he got the best justice his money could buy, I have no sympathy for him .

I wonder if he’s still feels so smart about writing the “if I had done it” book.

I’m glad you decided to post this as it proves my point…you think he was guilty last time so it’s ok to railroad him this time.

There should , and can be no prejudice in a trial and this one clearly has it in buckets…Why didn’t his money buy him out this time?

As far as I can see ,there’s a mile of difference between double murder and going to a hotel to get your own kit back (no matter how they dress it up that’s what he did)…

I think he will appeal and possibly win…:wink:

At last.

Can any individual with such a high profile who has been found guilty of murder (albeit in a bizzare civil suit) be given totally unbiased judgments…? not sure…but what I am sure about is this…It does not mean we let him get away with more crimes if we think he is guilty, …do we say sorry you cant get a fair trial so go and commit more crimes as we cant find a totally unbiased jury to try you…No way, the jury system works, for better or for worse it works and in most cases it works for the defendant more than it works for the prosecution… Bleating on about a fair trial in this case in my opinion, says a lot about our individual prejudices and not so much about the failings in the court system, but its a great topic for debate…

well pardon me for having an opinion contrary to yours, a large majority of Americans thought he got off due to good legal representation last time, he couldn’t afford it this time, perhaps you might want to start a whip-round for the retrial?

Handbags at dawn ladies?:w00t:

Absolutely not… but why do “we” think he is guilty?? ( I know nothing of the case in detail and i am using it purely as an example) This point goes way beyond this particular case and needs addressing.:hehe:The Civil case is cr+p and should carry no weight. IMHO:D

you presume whistler, if a jury finds him guilty he is guilty…I show no personal position on the matter just state a generic fact…juries work, sometimes for the good sometimes for the bad but rarely do they convict where the facts aren’t clear…

OJ Simpson has been tried for an offence and found guilty full stop…

Juries work…

I’m with 2strokes on this. Well, sort of.

The jury system aint perfect, but what is? I could cite a shed load of iffy cases where people got sent down on flimsier evidence.

The bottom line is that O.J. may, or may not, have been guilty of (both) crimes, but do I give a sh*t?

If that were the worst “injustice” that happened in the world yesterday, I’d worry. But it probably aint, so sod it. An American problem.

Why are we debating it?

Good point :D:D

because we can…and whistler wanted to make his point and I put another point (note I did not say my point), all topics are fun to debate in my eyes, no matter how topical…

This time has was caught on camera going in there.

Did he know that the other guys had guns. He reckons he didn’t but in my mind that’s bull.

The guy was an idiot to go in with people with guns. He in not skint, so why try and get the stuff back.

Or you could say

Last time he had a black jury - this time it was white.