Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
O. J. Simpson Back In Custody  
User currently offlineQueso From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (6 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 1392 times:

Apparent bail violation.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/01/11/simpson.bail/index.html

Lock him up and throw away the key.

[Edited 2008-01-11 13:12:54]

41 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineRFields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 32
Reply 1, posted (6 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 1378 times:

What is "in custody of his bail bondsman" ??

Has Dog got him in the back of the SUV?


User currently offlineLobster From Germany, joined Oct 2008, 49 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (6 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 1365 times:



Quoting Queso (Thread starter):
Lock him up and throw away the key.

Couldn't agree more.


User currently offlineLTBEWR From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13116 posts, RR: 12
Reply 3, posted (6 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 1351 times:

OJ Simpson apparently has violated a condition of his bail agreement on the charges he is facing in Las Vegas, NV. Various news outlets are reporting from the court papers filed that he may have attempted to contact via a 3rd party a witness, that is a possible act of tampering or trying to intimidate a witness in violation of his bail agreement. He will face a hearing Monday or Tuesday next week and could be detained until he goes to trial or makes a plea deal assuming these charges are believed to be true to a reasonable doubt.
Maybe finally his arrogance will lead to hopfully his going to jail for years.


User currently offlineQueso From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (6 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 1347 times:



Quoting LTBEWR (Reply 3):
Maybe finally his arrogance will lead to hopfully his going to jail for years.

I hope they make him forfeit his bail, too. I doubt that will happen though.


User currently offlineNuori5084 From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 114 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (6 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 1333 times:

What a dirt bag. How many chances can a guilty man get?


Failure to plan on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part.
User currently offlineTrekster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (6 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 1302 times:

Can someone please just loose the key this time.

Let him stay where he belongs..


User currently offlineLTU932 From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 13864 posts, RR: 50
Reply 7, posted (6 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 1297 times:



Quoting Queso (Thread starter):
O. J. Simpson Back In Custody

OJ Simpson should have never been released from custody back in 95. He should have stayed in jail.


User currently offlineQueso From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (6 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 1295 times:



Quoting LTU932 (Reply 7):
OJ Simpson should have never been released from custody back in 95. He should have stayed in jail.

Agreed, but he has had some "better than average" lawyers so legally he had to be let go.


User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26501 posts, RR: 75
Reply 9, posted (6 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 1294 times:



Quoting LTU932 (Reply 7):

OJ Simpson should have never been released from custody back in 95. He should have stayed in jail.

You can't do that. He was found not guilty.



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineLTU932 From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 13864 posts, RR: 50
Reply 10, posted (6 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 1272 times:



Quoting N1120A (Reply 9):
He was found not guilty.

Yes, I know. I'm well aware of how double jeopardy works in the US, thank you.  Yeah sure

My point is that he should have been convicted at the murder trial.


User currently offlineIADCA From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 1291 posts, RR: 8
Reply 11, posted (6 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 1263 times:



Quoting N1120A (Reply 9):
You can't do that. He was found not guilty.

Why even have trials?

Signed, John Ashcroft


User currently offlineOPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (6 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 1209 times:

Assuming that OJ didn't actually do what he was charged with in Las Vegas, wouldn't it be the ultimate irony if he was convicted and sentenced for a crime that he didn't commit versus being previously acquitted for a crime he did commit?

If so, that would have to burn, and he'd hopefully have 10-15 years to have it do so....


User currently offlineFlyDeltaJets87 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (6 years 8 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 1193 times:



Quoting N1120A (Reply 9):
You can't do that. He was found not guilty.

Captain Obvious to the rescue!
 sarcastic 

Just because he was found "not guilty" doesn't mean he should have been found "not guilty". Learn to differentiate for once.


User currently offlineBagpiper From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (6 years 8 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 1183 times:

maybe he'll stay long enough to learn his lesson this time.

And hopefully they'll loose the key.


User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26501 posts, RR: 75
Reply 15, posted (6 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 1141 times:



Quoting LTU932 (Reply 10):

My point is that he should have been convicted at the murder trial.

He wasn't.

Quoting FlyDeltaJets87 (Reply 13):
Just because he was found "not guilty" doesn't mean he should have been found "not guilty". Learn to differentiate for once.

Dude, I am well aware of how to differentiate. If you actually looked at the evidence put forward at trial, not the media circus shadow trial that went on when you were 8, there was no way a jury could be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty.



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineQueso From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (6 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 1133 times:



Quoting N1120A (Reply 15):
there was no way a jury could be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty.

The evidence looked pretty convincing to me. And if you want to talk about a circus, let's talk about the show that the clown and his trainer put on in the courtroom regarding the fit of the glove. Then there was the infamous "slow speed chase" which would have been shut down pretty quick had it been any "normal" person in the Bronco. How are you going to spin that one?


User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26501 posts, RR: 75
Reply 17, posted (6 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 1126 times:



Quoting Queso (Reply 16):
Then there was the infamous "slow speed chase" which would have been shut down pretty quick had it been any "normal" person in the Bronco. How are you going to spin that one?

No spin. Who knows what was going through his head at that point. In any case, Cowlings drove OJ home and he surrendered.

Quoting Queso (Reply 16):

The evidence looked pretty convincing to me.

You weren't on the jury, and you saw much more than they did. Further, the standard is not "pretty convincing"

Quoting Queso (Reply 16):
And if you want to talk about a circus, let's talk about the show that the clown and his trainer put on in the courtroom regarding the fit of the glove.

Hey, the prosecution asked for it and received an outcome they didn't want.



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineMDorBust From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (6 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 1126 times:



Quoting N1120A (Reply 15):
If you actually looked at the evidence put forward at trial, not the media circus shadow trial that went on when you were 8, there was no way a jury could be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty.

 redflag 

If you had actually studied the case, as you just chastised another poster to do, you would know that the evidence was overwhelming of OJs guilt but the prosecution screwed up at several key points, Judge Ito ran a shambles of a courtroom and the jury was confused by the technicalities of the DNA evidence and distracted by the Mark Fuhrman scandal. Clark & team essentially blew a case that had been gift wrapped for them.


User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26501 posts, RR: 75
Reply 19, posted (6 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 1116 times:



Quoting MDorBust (Reply 18):

If you had actually studied the case, as you just chastised another poster to do, you would know that the evidence was overwhelming of OJs guilt but the prosecution screwed up at several key points

I actually have, and the evidence actually applied to the case, and as applied by the prosecutors, was never going to get him convicted.

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 18):
Judge Ito ran a shambles of a courtroom

Ito did the best he could in that situation, and his handling of the case didn't cause the verdict anyway.

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 18):
and the jury was confused by the technicalities of the DNA evidence

And who's fault was that? The prosecution should have put on a better expert and the LAPD should have done a lot better in taking care of that evidence. That is evidenced by the radical changes in DNA handling after the case.

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 18):
and distracted by the Mark Fuhrman scandal.

Fuhrman is a racist who perjured himself on the stand. Then again, the jury wasn't getting all the news about him while serving for that trial.

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 18):
Clark & team essentially blew a case that had been gift wrapped for them.

One, then they should have done better. Two, I generally don't define gift wrapped as having a terribly compromised chain of custody, key witnesses perjuring themselves or being unable to deliver as expected and evidence of evidence tampering.



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineMDorBust From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (6 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 1109 times:



Quoting N1120A (Reply 19):
I actually have, and the evidence actually applied to the case, and as applied by the prosecutors, was never going to get him convicted.

So, you don't believe in conclusive DNA evidence either?

Quoting N1120A (Reply 19):
Ito did the best he could in that situation, and his handling of the case didn't cause the verdict anyway.

Sure sure.. that's why most legal experts say he should have recused himself..

Quoting N1120A (Reply 19):
And who's fault was that?

Whose fault it was doesn't change the nature of the evidence. You said the evidence wouldn't have convicted OJ.. not the prosecution did a crappy job. That the prosecution did a shitty job is given. That the evidence when examined independantly should have nailed OJ is also given.. at least amongst people who honestly studied the case.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 19):
Fuhrman is a racist who perjured himself on the stand.

Does anyone remember what Fuhrmans "pergury" was?

He said he hadn't used the "n" word for ten years. Turns out it was actually 9 1/2 years. Whootie F'N Doo! That's the perjury.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 19):
key witnesses perjuring themselves or being unable to deliver as expected and evidence of evidence tampering.

There were allegations of evidence tampering, not proof of it. Right back at Ito being a shitty judge. He should never have allowed the Fuhrman distraction without compelling evidence that there had been evidence tampering. You can't allow testimony to support a motive of an action that can't be demonstrated. Ito should have put an end to it unless the defense could provide support for their claim that Fuhrman planted the glove.


User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26501 posts, RR: 75
Reply 21, posted (6 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 1098 times:



Quoting MDorBust (Reply 20):

There were allegations of evidence tampering, not proof of it.

There was testimony by expert witnesses that several pieces of evidence may have been planted or altered. The truth of that evidence was weighed by the jury.

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 20):

So, you don't believe in conclusive DNA evidence either?

I do believe DNA evidence is nearly always conclusive. I also believe it can be planted.

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 20):

Sure sure.. that's why most legal experts say he should have recused himself..

How about you pull something up to that effect, and not from Faux News or some other conservative source.

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 20):
You said the evidence wouldn't have convicted OJ..

I said the evidence as presented to the jury wouldn't have convicted OJ.

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 20):
Does anyone remember what Fuhrmans "pergury" was?

He said he hadn't used the "n" word for ten years. Turns out it was actually 9 1/2 years. Whootie F'N Doo! That's the perjury.

So now you are trying to negate the fact that he committed a very serious felony and made a mockery of the justice system?

Here is the record, where he lies no fewer than 5 times on the stand.

Q. "I will rephrase it. I want you to assume that perhaps at sometime
since 1985 or 6, you addressed a member of the African American race as
a nigger. Is it possible that you have forgotten that act on your part?"

A. "No, it is not possible."

Q. "Are you therefore saying that you have not used that word in the
past ten years, Detective Fuhrman?"

A. "Yes, that is what I'm saying."

Q. "And you say under oath that you have not addressed any black person
as a nigger or spoken about black people as niggers in the past ten
years, Detective Fuhrman."

A. "That's what I'm saying, sir."

Q. "So that anyone who comes to this court and quotes you as using that
word in dealing with African Americans would be a liar, would they not,
Detective Fuhrman?"

A. "Yes, they would."

Q. "All of them, correct."

A. "All of them."



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineQueso From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (6 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 1097 times:



Quoting N1120A (Reply 21):
So now you are trying to negate the fact that he committed a very serious felony and made a mockery of the justice system?

Please, keep the thread on-topic. We're not talking about Bill Clinton's grand jury testimony here.


User currently offlineMDorBust From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (6 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 1089 times:



Quoting N1120A (Reply 21):
There was testimony by expert witnesses that several pieces of evidence may have been planted or altered.

What about this proves evidence tampering? Nothing, that's what.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 21):
I do believe DNA evidence is nearly always conclusive. I also believe it can be planted.

How would the police have ended up with large enough samples of OJs blood to plant it in the quantities found?

Quoting N1120A (Reply 21):
How about you pull something up to that effect, and not from Faux News or some other conservative source

I'm really not sure what Fox News or conservative politics have to do with this... But,

http://www.amazon.com/Murderous-Meth...UTF8&s=books&qid=1200345799&sr=8-1

This is simple jurisprudence. Fuhrman was bashing the judges wife on the tapes that Ito then allowed to be introduced into evidence despite the fact that the defense failed in any way to provide support for their claim of evidence tampering.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 21):
I said the evidence as presented to the jury wouldn't have convicted OJ.

"put forward" and "as presented" do not mean the same thing.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 21):
So now you are trying to negate the fact that he committed a very serious felony and made a mockery of the justice system?

I'm saying that making a mis-statement of 1/2 year after ten years shouldn't be considered to the level of perjury. It's an absurd technicality.


User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26501 posts, RR: 75
Reply 24, posted (6 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 1086 times:



Quoting MDorBust (Reply 23):

What about this proves evidence tampering? Nothing, that's what.

The evidence of tampering was admissible, leaving the jury to decide its weight.

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 23):

How would the police have ended up with large enough samples of OJs blood to plant it in the quantities found?

Um. They took lots of his blood.

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 23):
Fuhrman was bashing the judges wife on the tapes that Ito then allowed to be introduced into evidence despite the fact that the defense failed in any way to provide support for their claim of evidence tampering.

Both Garcetti and Clark admitted that the Judge MAY have recused himself, but had no obligation to do so. Not to mention that it would have caused a mis-trial and the very real possibility that jeopardy had attached because of the media attention.

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 23):

I'm saying that making a mis-statement of 1/2 year after ten years shouldn't be considered to the level of perjury. It's an absurd technicality.

The first question asked was specifically about the year, as I showed you. Further, I don't see how you are now defending a criminal's actions.



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
25 GDB : Chris Rock recently pointed out that Britney lost custody of her kids, but OJ kept his.......even though he killed their mother!
26 Post contains images MDorBust : Except for that one little catch... there was no evidence of tampering. Expert witness =/= evidence. Unless the LAPD has a nifty time machine you are
27 N1120A : Expert Witness gives Testimony. Testimony = Evidence. Jury weighs that evidence. And that is where chain of custody issues come into play. And where
28 MDorBust : No, testimony equals opinion. Or have you changed your mind and would now like to support issuing the death penalty based off of the testimony single
29 N1120A : No, testimony equals evidence presented at trial. The jury then weighs the credibility of that evidence and makes up their mind. Of course physical e
30 MDorBust : Really? So all testimony is weighed by the jury? Any testimony that either side wants to introduce? Are you sure you want that to be your position? A
31 N1120A : Try reading the whole post. It was both logically and legally relevant as to Fuhrman's character and the credibility of his testimony, not to mention
32 MDorBust : I did. You said the jury gets to weigh the credibility of evidence. You are skipping the portion where evidence has to be ruled admisable in the firs
33 N1120A : I didn't skip anything. I already showed you that. The issue at hand was his credibility as a witness. He showed a propensity to lie. That damaged hi
34 MDorBust : Which ,yet again, does nothing to suggest fabrication of evidence in any way. You uh, seem to have still failed to answer about the LAPD conspiracy t
35 N1120A : It doesn't have to. It suggests that Fuhrman, by lying on the witness stand, was an unreliable witness. Since he is also the guy who claimed to have
36 MDorBust : Yes, actually it does have to support the claim in order to be introduced, or as previously stated it's irrelevant. You can't just throw out anything
37 N1120A : Evidence is Relevant if it tends to make the existence of any fact of consequence to the outcome of the action more probable than it would be without
38 MDorBust : Which takes us right back to... this does nothing to suggest evidence was fabricated. Yes it is. Answer the question. Was the evidence fabricated or
39 Post contains images N1120A : Mark Fuhrman testified that he found the bloody glove at Rockingham. The same glove that didn't fit Simpson at the trial, and the guy who found it is
40 MDorBust : Which would gain traction if Mark Fuhrman was alone at Rockingham.. but, he wasn't so we are right back to the co-operative LAPD conspiracy. Actually
41 LTBEWR : As I posted previously as to the charges facing OJ Simpson in Las Vegas, I hope that their is a fair trial (for all parties), that the evidence meets
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
The UND'ers Checking Back In Thread posted Sun Aug 19 2007 00:37:03 by Graphic
Lindsey Lohan Back In Rehab posted Tue Aug 7 2007 00:37:48 by Walter747
Foot And Mouth Disease Back In The UK posted Sat Aug 4 2007 00:05:40 by 777236ER
Mafia Justice Back In Vegas? posted Mon May 7 2007 21:39:40 by Copaair737
Mom Sues Police After Son Dies In Custody posted Fri Dec 29 2006 07:49:29 by AAFLT1871
Pettitte Back In The Bronx. posted Sat Dec 9 2006 00:02:19 by NIKV69
Back In Iraq . . . . posted Mon Nov 27 2006 08:43:43 by ANCFlyer
GOP Puts Lott Back In Leadership posted Wed Nov 15 2006 23:41:55 by Falcon84
Putting The Brazza Back In Brazzaville posted Wed Oct 4 2006 17:39:31 by MaverickM11
Do You Pull In Or Back In? posted Sun Aug 27 2006 05:05:55 by CanadianNorth