Harvard wrote: It seems the legal system can put away anybody that cannot afford a lawyer (and is assigned legal aid) but has problems proving a case that can afford a lawyer. It like, "how much justice can one afford?"
You can always see the issue from different directions.
IMHO if the law enforcement would do a good job and spend the time to find real evidence, instead of picking up easy targets, the court circus might not exist.
* This post was
edited 10/05/08 05:46pm by Kajtek1 *
Pessimist sees dark tunnel, optimist sees a light at the end, realist sees lights of coming train.Engineer sees 3 idiots on the tracks.
Mandrake wrote: ....I'm not advocating for OJ, nor am I questioning his guilt. But....I don't want the system perverted...AGAIN. Having jurors admit to being swayed by what most of us believe to be his past guilt is wrong. Our system of justice has been under attack for years, especially by financial capabilities of defendants. Does tainting the process to the other side of the line help? No. If you advocate justice, then advocate ALL justice........that is what separates our constitution, our legal system, and thus our country from many others. Men have died defending this system, us, so WE must demand fairness. I don't care how gulity he, or anyone else is. I want to see fair trials...period.
And as for finding some delight in this outcome, I maybe understand the visceral reaction. But the whole mess from his original crime, the original outcome, and the original cast of characters......to this whole sleazy mess, I find simply pathetic. A trail of damaged people, an abused system, and a cast of hundreds of slimey people....sorry, there is no joy in Mudville, though mighty OJ has struck out.
The jurors did not admit to that.
2004 National Tropi-Cal T-350, Class A, Triple slide, 330 HP Cat DP. 2006 Dodge Dakota 4x4 or
2002 Harley FLSTF Fat Boy on a Trailer or
2004 Polaris Quad on the Trailer
Harvard wrote: It seems the legal system can put away anybody that cannot afford a lawyer (and is assigned legal aid) but has problems proving a case that can afford a lawyer. It like, "how much justice can one afford?"
Mark Geragos is a very expensive lawyer but that hasn't helped many of his clients.
Mandrake wrote: ....I'm not advocating for OJ, nor am I questioning his guilt. But....I don't want the system perverted...AGAIN. Having jurors admit to being swayed by what most of us believe to be his past guilt is wrong. Our system of justice has been under attack for years, especially by financial capabilities of defendants. Does tainting the process to the other side of the line help? No. If you advocate justice, then advocate ALL justice........that is what separates our constitution, our legal system, and thus our country from many others. Men have died defending this system, us, so WE must demand fairness. I don't care how gulity he, or anyone else is. I want to see fair trials...period.
And as for finding some delight in this outcome, I maybe understand the visceral reaction. But the whole mess from his original crime, the original outcome, and the original cast of characters......to this whole sleazy mess, I find simply pathetic. A trail of damaged people, an abused system, and a cast of hundreds of slimey people....sorry, there is no joy in Mudville, though mighty OJ has struck out.
The jurors did not admit to that.
I read an article early this am, where a couple of jurors were quoted as saying they couldn't get the previous trial out of their minds. There could be problems in Las Vegas.
I think many of you are forgetting that OJ was also tried in a civil suit - and found guilty. He owes the Goldman family millions of dollars - and this apparently had been brought up in the Vegas trial, to explain why Simpson was so adamant about getting his "stuff" back. He needed money.
So jurors who referred to the "previous trial" *may* have been referring to the civil suit?? I'd like to think they would have been fair.
Mandrake wrote: ....I'm not advocating for OJ, nor am I questioning his guilt. But....I don't want the system perverted...AGAIN. Having jurors admit to being swayed by what most of us believe to be his past guilt is wrong. Our system of justice has been under attack for years, especially by financial capabilities of defendants. Does tainting the process to the other side of the line help? No. If you advocate justice, then advocate ALL justice........that is what separates our constitution, our legal system, and thus our country from many others. Men have died defending this system, us, so WE must demand fairness. I don't care how gulity he, or anyone else is. I want to see fair trials...period.
And as for finding some delight in this outcome, I maybe understand the visceral reaction. But the whole mess from his original crime, the original outcome, and the original cast of characters......to this whole sleazy mess, I find simply pathetic. A trail of damaged people, an abused system, and a cast of hundreds of slimey people....sorry, there is no joy in Mudville, though mighty OJ has struck out.
The jurors did not admit to that.
I read an article early this am, where a couple of jurors were quoted as saying they couldn't get the previous trial out of their minds. There could be problems in Las Vegas.
We'll have to wait and see as that admission does not amount to anything.
Being serious, we all know what Craig is saying and I agree. Nothing should have played into the decision the jurors made besides the case in front of them
Harvard wrote: It seems the legal system can put away anybody that cannot afford a lawyer (and is assigned legal aid) but has problems proving a case that can afford a lawyer. It like, "how much justice can one afford?"
You can always see the issue from different directions.
IMHO if the law enforcement would do a good job and spend the time to find real evidence, instead of picking up easy targets, the court circus might not exist.
IMHO some judges were not such idiots once becoming judges and make such decisions, ommisions and neg. rulings which in turn ties the hands of law enforcement even with good evidence. and i guess we just let all the easy targets have a free ride like murders like this scum and let them do whatever they want.
Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in
a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside,
thoroughly used up, totally worn out, loudly proclaiming---WOW WHAT A
RIDE!!!
tonkatoys wrote: doesn't matter much how he got there as LONG AS HE IS THERE, thats the main thing. and even if he appeals at least he will be there for years to come.
TV: Mint 1972 Ford F-250 XLT
TT: 1969 19' Excel; entertains 6, feeds 4, sleeps 2 You don't shoot to kill, you shoot to stay alive.
I don't carry because I have to, I carry because I get to. I like new things-
- when they're 40 years old! My pictures
Offline
