Conference back40::soapbox

Not guilty - 6-Oct-95

    
    	Not guilty, 10/13/95, 09:40 AM.
    

  pretty tasteless topic

    Not quilty, 10/27/95, 6:00pm 
    
    (although I think it might be overly optimistic to believe that this 
    thing could be over by then)
    
    How about your predictions for when the first Made-for-TV movie will be
    on?

    Hung jury 10/15/95. Remanded into custody for retrial.

    
    Kidnapped by space aliens, 25-OCT-1995, early morning.
    

    Not guilty, 31-Oct-1995, 3:00 PM PST.
    

    
    Guilty, Oct. 1
    
    Yes, I do believe this jury will convict.

    This is quite fitting actually Di.  The whole affair is tasteless.  Why
    not have a pool?  The blathering on by the media, the circus atmosphere
    no sense in missing out on the fun.  
    
    11:25 AM, 11/22/95 - N.G. for O.J.

    Hung Jury - 6-Oct-95, 18:00 GMT

   .10 to each his own, Bri.  i don't think it's "fitting" at all.

    .4
    
    Hey! I already got that date. Go git yerself another one.

    
    DGAS 03-03-2010
    

    hung jury 10/25/95 4:45 PM calif time
    

    Mistrial
    
    9-27-95

    Guilty, 10-09-95 
    

    Not guilty due to reasonable doubt -  10-09-95

.10

>11:25 AM, 11/22/95 - N.G. for O.J.

Would that be Texas time?

    PST

    not guilty - Oct. 17 (my anniversary)

    Guilty - Oct. 13
    

    
    re: .20
    
    >PST
    
    
    What?? Speak up boy!!! You don't have to whisper!!!
    

    that would pdt not pst, time falls back on 10/29

    hung jury  01/15/97 

    Guilty, 10/20/95
    
    Dan

    Guilty, 10/6/95

	Hung Jury, 12-Oct-95

    Hung Jury    10/20/1995

    Hung Jury  10/18/95

    
    Since state laws vary, would you in California please refresh my memory
    : What constitues guilt ? Unanimous jury ? Majority ? 10 outta 12 ?
      What is a hung jury in California ?

    
    
    I believe the jury vote must be unanimous.  If they can
    not come to a joint decision, then it's a hung jury.
    
    
    HTH
    
    Terrie
    

    
    Hung jury Nov-11-95 16:48 and 20 seconds PST.

    Mistrial, two jury members come to blows. Ito stops the trial to
    prevent possible blood-shed in the jury room.
    
    October 12, 1995

    Hung Jury..(placed in Custody for re-trial) Verdict: Oct 15 13oo hrs
    PST
    
    
    Sin-te-da

    
    
    so far.
    6 for guilty
    8 for not guilty
    11 for hung jury.
    
    

    Well hung jury.

re .38

Turn your head when you say that.

/john

    hung jury, 10/10 

    
    Hung Jury October 5th 15:20

    Hung Jury  Oct. 3rd  15:42

    It' PST regardless of which side of dst you are on.  

    
    Guilty 10/10/95 3:30 PST
    
    Riots in LA 10/10 through 10/12

    Ven monsters is loose, doors must be tight.
    
    Oops, wrong string.

    Let us take this opportunity to welcome Ms. Olen to our Soapbox
    community!
    
    Please tell us about yourself!

    
    
    
    Oct 3 1600 guilty
    

    
    <-------
    
    > Oct 3 1600 guilty
    
    
     You're kinda late...no?
    
     Besides, back then, they woulda convicted him of being a warlock...
    

    
    
    .48
    
    1600 was the time and 95 is the unspoken year.
    Although, I do believe that the defense has tried everything but
    blame Time-Travellers for framing O.J.
    

    
      Hung 11/8/95  bb
    

    >Jury, that is.
    
     Whew! I thought you were bragging.

    State v. Simpson, hung, 10/30/95.      
    
    Goldman v. Simpson, for the plaintiffs, 1996.
    
    Federal government indicts Simpson for "violating the civil rights" of
    Simpson and Goldman or some such charge, 1996.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    OJ implicated in Alien Autopsy Film Hoax 10/31/95 13:13 EDT.

    Walking man 11/01/95. Dead man 11/02/95 by crazed and distrought
    surviors of dead family member.

    not guitly 00/01/01 00:01:01 EST.

    
        Guilty    Nov. 7th, 1995

    Not guilty 4 hours after it is handed to the jury.

    
    	No relative time stamps ... you have to be specific.
    

    >No relative time stamps ... you have to be specific.
    
     Which I why I'm not interested in putting in a guess until it's clear
    when the case will be in the jury's hands.

    aw go on doc, live a little...

    2.12

>    2.12

don't think that's widely understood here, matey.  Just say what
you think (BOLLOCKS!!!)

Chris.

    CODLINGS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

    1230 THURSDAY OCT 5.
    
                                 STEVE J.

    
    <---- yabbut yabbut guilty or not?
    

    1230 Thursday Oct 5.
    
                              Steve J.

    re .61
    
    That kinda talk is only used in girlie conf, where people are afraid to
    repeat things. Here we just come right out and say it. Bollox.

    BOLLOCKS TO THAT!!!!!

BBBBBB    OOOOOO   LL      LL       OOOOOO    CCCCCC   KK     KK    SSSSSS
BB   BB  OO    OO  LL      LL      OO    OO  CC    CC  KK    KK    SS    SS
BB   BB  OO    OO  LL      LL      OO    OO  CC        KK   KK     SS
BB   BB  OO    OO  LL      LL      OO    OO  CC        KK  KK      SS
BB   BB  OO    OO  LL      LL      OO    OO  CC        KK KK       SS
BBBBBB   OO    OO  LL      LL      OO    OO  CC        KKKK         SSSSSS
BB   BB  OO    OO  LL      LL      OO    OO  CC        KK KK             SS
BB   BB  OO    OO  LL      LL      OO    OO  CC        KK  KK            SS
BB   BB  OO    OO  LL      LL      OO    OO  CC        KK   KK           SS
BB   BB  OO    OO  LL      LL      OO    OO  CC    CC  KK    KK    SS    SS
BBBBBB    OOOOOO   LLLLLL  LLLLLL   OOOOOO    CCCCCC   KK     KK    SSSSSS

    
    Take it to Topic 209!!
    

    
    	Do you mind if I extract that and print it?
    
    
    
    	I have a runny nose and could really use something like that.
    

    re .68
    
    he learns pretty fast this guy.

       the verdict trip-wire;;;
    
        guilty =  L.A. riots
    
      not guilty =  militias  from  pockets all over the U.S. start war
                   against the Gov.
    
      
     

    verdict: guilty
    
    when: Oct 3, 15:30 PDT

    I would suspect that it will be necessary for the mods to lock this
    topic when the case goes to the jury, in order to diminish the risk of
    tampering.  A real hacker won't be bothered, but at least it'll keep
    the honest people honest.

    
    
    what's the process for designating that a jury is officially
    hung (as opposed to still deliberating with a potential for
    a unanimous verdict?)
      

2 counts 2nd degree murder
2:30 pm, Oct 23, 1995 (to be sure)

    notes in which the title gives any relevant information like time
    or verdict are void since they can be changed with altering the
    timestamp.

    
    OK, then...
    
    Guilty both counts, 2nd degree murder
    
    Saturday, October 7, 6:25 PM, Pacific Standard Time.
    
    -b

                       <<< Note 545.77 by BROKE::PARTS >>>

>    what's the process for designating that a jury is officially
>    hung (as opposed to still deliberating with a potential for
>    a unanimous verdict?)
 
	The jury makes the determination that they are deadlocked. First
	the Foreperson must agree. Then it goes to the judge and he must
	agree.

	Then the judge declares a mistrial.

	And we start over again.

	;-)

Jim

     

 Guilty

 October 3, 17:00

    Mistrial. Oct. 5, 15:00 PST.
    
    

    AQUITTED
    
    OCTOBER 7,1995.
    
     

    In spite of the fact that this topic got started (and thus, many
    of us made our predictions) before this whole "second degree murder"
    thing became a possibility, not to mention before it was clear that
    things were finally wrapping up here (I figured they'd keep blabbing
    until mid-October), I'll reluctantly stick with my original take. :-)
    
    At least the verdict part will be right (not guilty).  Even if they
    had a video of Simpson performing the murders in full view of the
    camera, he'd still be acquitted, due to the "I've seen him on TV,
    I know him, he wouldn't do this of his own will, there must be
    something wrong with the poor guy, or he was driven to it" effect
    that I've droned on about in the past.
    
    Chris

    whatever the verdict, i would not want to be anywhere near l.a. when
    the jury makes it's decision. 

    
    Guilty 2 counts of 2nd degree murder.
    
    Tuesday Oct 10th 3:10 p.m. CST

  
    Guilty 1 count of 1'st  degree murder.
    
    Guilty 1 count of 2'cnd degree murder.
    
    Tuesday Oct 18th  high noon.

    guilty 2 counts 2nd degree murder
    
    Wed. Oct. 11th 3:30pm PST

    The score thus far; still time to change your guess!
    
    
MARKO::MCKENZIE		Not guilty - 6-Oct-95

BUSY::SLABOUNTY		Not guilty, 10/13/95, 09:40 AM.
    
TROOA::BUTKOVICH	Not quilty, 10/27/95, 6:00pm 
    
MAIL2::CRANE		Hung jury 10/15/95. 

TROOA::COLLINS		Kidnapped by space aliens, 25-OCT-95, early am.
    
DECWIN::RALTO		Not guilty, 31-Oct-1995, 3:00 PM PST.
    
EST::RANDOLPH		Yawn. Does anyone still care?

WECARE::GRIFFIN		Guilty, Oct. 1
    
CONSLT::MCBRIDE		11:25 AM PST, 11/22/95 - N.G. for O.J.

VAIL::MUTH		Hung Jury - 6-Oct-95, 18:00 GMT

MPGS::MARKEY		DGAS 03-03-2010
    
CSSREG::BROWN		hung jury 10/25/95 4:45 PM calif time
    
CSC32::M_EVANS		Mistrial 9-27-95

SMURF::MSCANLON		Guilty, 10-09-95 
    
MKOTS3::JMARTIN		Not guilty due to reasonable doubt - 10-09-95

WMOIS::GIROUARD_C	not guilty - Oct. 17

SHRCTR::ESALMON		Guilty - Oct. 13
    
CSOA1::LEECH		hung jury  01/15/97
 
ODIXIE::ZOGRAN		Guilty, 10/20/95
    
DASHER::RALSTON		Guilty, 10/6/95

COVERT::COVERT		Hung Jury, 12-Oct-95

AIMHI::OLEN		Hung Jury    10/20/1995

SCAS01::SODERSTROM	Hung Jury  10/18/95

SCCAT::SHERRILL		Hung jury Nov-11-95 16:48 and 20 seconds PST.

SWAM1::SDOGUS::DUTTA	Mistrial, October 12, 1995

CSC32::SCHIMPF		Hung Jury: Oct 15 13oo hrs PST
    
POLAR::RICHARDSON	Well hung jury.

POWDML::HANGGELI	{cough}

DELNI::SHOOK		hung jury, 10/10
 
IB002::BREADIE		Hung Jury October 5th 15:20

FABSIX::J_RILEY		Hung Jury  Oct. 3rd  15:42

NEMAIL::HULBERT		Guilty 10/10/95 3:30 PST
    
MIMS::WILBUR_D		Oct 3 1600 guilty
    
GAAS::BRAUCHER		Hung Jury 11/8/95

RUSURE::EDP		State v. Simpson, hung, 10/30/95.      
    
CSSREG::BROWN		implicated in Alien Autopsy Film Hoax 10/31/95 13:13 EDT

MKOTS3::RAUH		Walking man 11/01/95.  Dead man 11/02/95.

POLAR::WILSONC		not guitly 00/01/01 00:01:01 EST.

BIGQ::MARCHAND		Guilty    Nov. 7th, 1995

SCAS01::TERPENING	Not guilty 4 hours after it is handed to the jury.

NCMAIL::JAMESS		not guilty 1230 THURSDAY OCT 5.
    
MILKWY::JACQUES		October 3. Guilty of 2 counts 2nd degree murder.
 
WAHOO::LEVESQUE		verdict: guilty,  when: Oct 3, 15:30 PDT

HBAHBA::HAAS		2 counts 2nd degree murder, 2:30 pm, Oct 23, 1995

MPGS::MARKEY		Guilty both counts, 2nd degree, October 7, 6:25 PM, PST

CSLALL::HENDERSON	Guilty  October 3, 17:00

DPDMAI::EDITEX::MOORE	Mistrial. Oct. 5, 15:00 PST.
    
ABACUS::MINICHINO	AQUITTED  OCTOBER 7,1995.
     
ACIS02::BATTIS		Guilty 2 counts of 2nd degree, Oct 10th 3:10 p.m. CST

BRITE::FYFE		Guilty 1 count of 1st degree, guilty 1 count of 2nd 
			degree murder.  Oct 18th  high noon.

MKOTS1::BUTLER		guilty 2 counts 2nd degree,  Oct. 11th 3:30pm PST

I still say that the verdict will be "not guilty", however will
revise my date and time to October 6th, 6:00pm (California time)

>    Scott,
>    
>    Read .80
>    
>    ;^)
    
this better?

Not guilty, 10/6/95, 5pm EST

/scott

I don't know or care, but I'll say Friday the 13th of October at about
2PM 'cuz that's when I'll be winging my way to Teterboro, NJ for fresh
White Castles. Somehow it would be fitting for the jury to finish their
business as I start partaking of sliders.

    Guilty of 1 count of Murder in the 1st, 1 count of Murder in the 2nd,
    verdict to be delivered November 20th or thenabouts.
    
    DougO

	Folks who said 'Guilty', have merely  said what they would do if they 
were in this Jury.

	Those who said 'not-guilty/hung', have said what this Jury would do.

    ok, i'll revise my prediction. 
    
    not guilty, 10/4 5:00pm, pacific
    
    

>                           -< with riots at 5:01... >-

Can you expand on that thought?

       
       re .100:
       
       Maybe he figures white people are going to rampage down Rodeo Drive.

    <-- Yes, the grid lock at Rodeo and Sunset would be a sight to see!

>EDSCLU::JAYAKUMAR
>	Those who said 'not-guilty/hung', have said what this Jury would do.

Pretty presumptuous. It's easy to choose one way or the other when you are not
one of the 12 people with the wieght of responsibility on their hands.

In the end, the jury will have to explore in detail the wieght of the evidence,
the positions of defense and prosecution, and ask themselves if the defense
provided any real evidence of a conspiracy. 

In the end, although they may not like it, they will see through the defensive 
smokescreen to the truth. It won't be easy for them.

Doug.

    re .100
    
    my thoughts on this are that it does not take much for some people to
    start a riot, regardless of the news, good or bad. for instance,
    frenzied fans of a home team that has won a major sporting event. if
    the verdict is guilty, i think a riot will be very likely. if it's a 
    not guilty verdict, it's still an unfortunate possibility.  
    
    

>>    start a riot, regardless of the news, good or bad. for instance,
>>    frenzied fans of a home team that has won a major sporting event. if

.. in fact it just happened yesterday in some college football event in
some university... don't remember the names of the teams though

    
    	Somewhat related:
    
    	A National League Team fan ran out onto the field and tried to
    	attack a pitcher for giving up a game-tying home run the other
    	night.
    

    
    that would be the hapless Cubs fan, what an idjit. Had to many beers
    and then was flattened by Randy Myers the pitcher he attacked.
    
    To bad it didn't loosen half of his teeth.

    
    	Apparently Randy is a blackbelt in one of them Asian defense
    	thingies [karate/karaoke/tae-kwon-do] and would have pummeled
    	the guy if he so desired.
    

    
    A blackbelt in Karaoke. Oh my. I've heard that some people
    can be quite dangerous with a few Mai Tais in them.
    
    

    
    <-- oh, oh, I'm weeing myself 8^).
    
    

The Judge had a blackbelt in Karaoke.

He could literally destroy people.

I remember just how painful it was.

    My guess is 10:15 AM, PST, on October 3rd, Guilty.
    
    -- Jim

    
    I guess this topic is closed to guesses now.  Verdict will be announced
    at 13:00 Eastern time tomorrow.
    

    
MIMS::WILBUR_D		Oct 3 1600 guilty
    
WAHOO::LEVESQUE		verdict: guilty,  when: Oct 3, 15:30 PDT

CSLALL::HENDERSON	Guilty  October 3, 17:00

DELNI::SHOOK 		not guilty, 10/4 5:00pm, pacific
    
    

 Looks like he's the man..I thought I had it there for a bit, til I realized
 we're talking Pacific Time, rather than Eastern.



 Jim

	Just wanted to check if this topic has been really write locked.. -):

    
    My wife sez she told me it would be early in the week, but I either
    forgot or she's a liar.
    

    
    She made me write a note about this, so I typed it in real fast.
    

    Not Guilty:		Tuesday, October 10 at 10:00 California time.

    RE: Previous reply.
    
    I meant Tuesday, October 3rd - not 10th!!
    

    
    Guilty - of course today at 1:00 PM Eastern time
    

    
      Well, I guess all of us who said they'd wind up hung now have to
     explain why our prediction was so wrong.  Apparently, these jurors
     considered this a no-brainer.  I confess, I didn't follow enough
     of the trial to get that sense.
    
      I've made no bones about my opinion that the trial could have been
     done in one month instead of nine or ten, so in that sense I feel
     vindicated.  Part of the trouble with out horrific "justice" system
     is that it's just too complex.  So whichever way the jury went, I
     personally applaud the fast verdict.  It puts the proper perspective
     back.  This is only one trial, in a country which incarcerates a
     million people.  Sometimes, simplest is best.
    
      bb

    
    Congrats Doctah, don't know how you knew a short deliberation
    period, but you're looking good.

    
    The two runners up shoulda specified Eastern time.   ;^)
    

>      Well, I guess all of us who said they'd wind up hung now have to
>     explain why our prediction was so wrong.


No, no. Please don't. It's really unnecessary.

    
    
    
    For not even knowing when the trial was going to end when
    my prediction was turned in, if feel very lucky.
    
    

    
    OMIGAWD, I missed that!!  Appy-polly-logies!!!!
    

    OK, Who did it ????

    .131
    
    Nobody did it.  It was obviously a suicide pact.  Worst case of
    multiple suicide the LAPD's ever seen.

         Are the LAPD prepared in case the whites in LA decide to riot to
    protest this travesty?
    
    	Mike

    As I always suspected.  I believe it was the Columbian Cartel.  I know
    of very few that would kill in the way they were killed.
    
    -Jack

    I hope one of the female jurors is OJ's next girlfriend...
    

    
    The winner is:  Norris Shook!!!
    

    
    	Will we ever find out the reasoning behind the verdict?
    
    	What was the general concensus behind all the jurors' decisions?
    

    .137
    
    > Will we ever find out the reasoning behind the verdict?
    
    Yes.  Read the books.  There will probably be 12 of them.

    Obviously this was orchestrated by the Trilateral Commission to be a
    big smokescreen so that they could continue their activities with
    impunity.

 It's that monster cable I tell ya..

    I know, Clinton had it done as a diversion!
    
    Chris

    re. 136
    
    actually, i wish that i had been wrong about the verdict

    Speaking as an Englishman, I think this is sad.
    
    I will never again be able to keep a straight face when I hear the
    words American and Justice mentioned in the same sentence.
    
    
    CHARLEY

    
    	There was reasonable doubt Charley and he was acquitted by a jury
    of his peers. The police bungled this one, racial tension was high,
    Simpson is well liked by the public, etc etc etc....with all those
    things combined together I find it hard to believe he would have been
    convicted in any country.
    
    	So stuff yer sadness where the sun don't shine....
    
    
    jim

    But he was guilty.
    
    
    CHARLEY

>    But he was guilty.


Well, since you were obviously an eye witness, where was your testimony?

    But it couldn't be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

    Lots of guilty people have gotten away with things, so?

    Had this crime taken place 100 years ago, OJ would have been swinging
    from the nearest tree.

    Lots of innocent people died that way.

    -1 they had DNA tests a hundred years ago? a hundred years ago
       he never would've made it to trial.
    
       for someone to say the jury had found reasonable doubt in their
       minds is foolishness. even if they had found him guilty it
       wouldn't have worked with the amount of time they took to
       arrive at the decision.
    
       this was simply a message. clearly there is a pact among the jurors
       not to talk. someone will sooner or later. one of them will fold
       for the almight dollar. i think they're probably waiting to see
       just how high the anti gets. 

    -1 they had DNA tests a hundred years ago? a hundred years ago
           he never would've made it to trial.
    
    
    Didn't I already say this? Did they usually execute convicted criminals
    by looking for the nearest tree?

    I believe if the average 'merican would have been tried for the same
    crimes as OJ, he would have been occupying real small accomadations
    a long time ago.  Bottom line, guilty or not, OJ was able to afford the
    best.  In the final analysis, combined with the bungling of the LA
    Police, this is why OJ is a free man. 

    
    >    for someone to say the jury had found reasonable doubt in their
    >    minds is foolishness. even if they had found him guilty it
    >    wouldn't have worked with the amount of time they took to
    >    arrive at the decision.
    
    >    this was simply a message.
    
    I must disagree with you.  I also would have voted to aquit.  And
    probably just as quickly.  The only message I would have been sending
    was that the state didn't do it's job right.  They didn't supply
    sufficient evidence to remove resaonable doubt.  IMNHO YMMV
    

    .151
    
    I agree with you. I am not so sure that I would have been able to bring
    a guilty verdict either. I would have had to aquit. I think because the 
    burden of proof was in the procecutions hands,they were obligated to
    get all the doubt removed. In my NSHO, if OJ is THAT guilty, maybe more
    than microscopic evidence should have been presented. If OJ isn't
    really guilty, we should all thank the judicial system, because God
    forbid one of us doesn't have an alibi for the hour we spent by
    ourselves and one of our not so close aquaintances dies mysteriously.
    WE'd want a jury of our peers to aquit us. We REALLY don't know what
    the jury saw and what the jury read...we all though that the police
    beat Rodney King within an inch of his life...the jury didn't!!
    
    I think the race card should have been anticipated, that was the
    procecutions down fall. They shouldn't have put Furhman on the
    stand..that was their key witness...he give a reasonable doubt, Marcia
    and CO. should have expected it...and prepared for it!!
    
    Just my HO
    me
    

    People need to start wearing alibi cams.

    You're wearing abalone clams?  That's very shellfish of you.

    .153
    
    Not if you have lotsa $$$. OJ showed us that.

    So an alibi cam can save millions in the long run.

        We obviously need to create a new tax for a fund to give free alibi
        cams to poor people.
    

       Money talks......Justice walks.
    
    

    well Dan, then you would not have fulfilled your obligation as a
    juror because there is no way in hell you can convince me that
    a responsible review of the case had taken place inside 4 hrs.
    
    a case that ran 9 months.
    
    you disagree with me? gee what shock. oh ya, i'm wounded.

    
    > you disagree with me? gee what shock. oh ya, i'm wounded.
    
    huh?  What's that about?
    

    gee Dan, i guess it would be in response to .151...
    
    if you're questioning my being wounded it's simply tied to the numerous
    times we've missed each other's logic... at any rate, i'm still
    wounded...

    
    > if you're questioning my being wounded it's simply tied to the numerous
    > times we've missed each other's logic... at any rate, i'm still
    > wounded...
    
    Gee, I didn't mean to do that.... :-(
    
    At least not this time :-)
    

    
    
    After the prelim. AND after the jury selection, I told my SO that OJ 
    is guilty but will walk because:
    
    * this is America, money talks volumes! It can buy you the best
      of attorneys, slimes like Cochran included.
    
    * the jury was predominantly black and overall all 12 and alternates
      were not highly educated. Anyone with  any inclination toward
      science was rejected. I never did understand the games that was
      actually played out that resulted in such a bias jury ie why the
      prosecution didn't strike down more.
    
    * re .144, if you think this was a jury of OJ's peers, think again!
      The only commonality with 9 out of 12 was their race. Truly his
      peers should have been those living in the Brentwood zipcode
      and preferably rich whites! All his life he tried to distance
      himeself from the blacks. Don't flame, just check out the facts.
    
    * I believe one BIG miscalculation on the DAs' parts was to not
      understand the inherent protectiveness of female blacks of the
      males; this could be a legacy of days past when black males were
      very scarce and extremely prosecuted (slavery etc). Even though
      IMO that does not apply today, it is CULTURALLY ingrained. The
      DAs miscalculated that the female black jurors would be more
      sympathetic and empatized with domestic violence. Instead that
      group I believe went ahead with protecting another black male.
      Hey, Darden could have explained this to the DAs but maybe it
      was too late; the jury was already seated.
    
    	Bottom line --- OJ got away with two murders.
        This is beyond sad or pathetic...
    

    Money wasn't the biggest thing in this trial that got him the marching
    orders. It was the bloody media, I reckon that, had there been no
    cameras allowed in the court room, plus all the other hipe, the verdict
    may have been different. I just have this feeling that the jurers let
    him off for their own safety.... from the public masses who felt the
    man was not guilty.
    
    I also think that it was OJ's fame that got him off.

    
    
    The reason OJ went free is that there were no eye witnesses and there
    was no murder weapon found.  It is very difficult to prove murder with
    out at least one of the above.  
    
    
    Mike

    -1 but not impossible Mike.

    
    As I said, very difficult.

    .166
    
    Mike,
    
    Quite agreed...no weapon, no witnesses, no sentence.
    
    DNA evidence will surely take a beating after this trial.
    
    

    Just when you thought it couldn't get worse.................
    
    
    One of my peers just brought in one of the tabloids and it has crime
    scene pictures of Nicole and Ron Goldman.  Sick stuff..............

    
    	Do people really buy those papers to see things like that?
    
    	And more importantly, do people really buy those papers?
    

    >One of my peers just brought in one of the tabloids and it has crime
    >scene pictures of Nicole and Ron Goldman.  Sick stuff..............
    
     I was wondering how long it would take for those to come out. I've
    gotta admit it, I'm curious to see it. (Reminds me of the pictures I
    saw of Mussolini after his, er, fall from grace...)

    
    I don't want to see the pictures.  There was a part of me that wanted
    to when I first heard of them, but after thinking about it a minute, I
    don't because of the exploitation factor as well as examining the
    reason why I wanted to see them.  I have no need or use to see them.
    
    Mike

    
    I did glance at the pitchers in the Globe in the checkout stand.  I now
    wish I did not look.  The pitcers are horrible, and it made me more
    angry that OJ walked.  (yes, I feel he did it, but I also feel that the
    police (all police) are bad, and that they screwed up and they planted
    evidence - but he still did it and I wish they could of caught him.
    
    I also felt like I help exploit Nichole and Ron by looking at the
    pitchers.   For that I'm sorry and it wont happen again.
    
    Lkp

    
    >I did glance at the pitchers in the Globe in the checkout stand.  I now
    >wish I did not look.  The pitcers are horrible
    
    Well granted, but they did win the AL East.
    
    -b

    I'd heard The Globe had published autopsy photos; I thought "how
    goulish".....and now to hear every copy sold out :-(  The videos
    of the crime scene picked up by the TV stations were gruesome 
    enough, but autopsy photos?
    
    Mikey,
    
    Finding all evidence isn't always required to win a circumstantial
    case.  Remember the guy from Rhode Island who put his wife through
    the wood chipper?  All they found was one of her teeth (but her
    dentist identified it because of a crown).  The first trial was
    hung, but they nailed him in the second trial.
    

    
    	"The Globe" isn't "The Boston Globe", correct?
    
    	Just making sure.
    

    re: pictures of the deceased.
    
    Hey that's just stupid. There should be a law against that kinda thing.
    

    Ooooooo, aye! T'was just eh weeee fart eh?

    
    I am still confused with the attitude of some folks.  This is a serious
    question.  Why, when the cops from the LAPD were found not guilty was
    it racism and when OJ was found not guilty it was the system working?
    
    
    Mike

Not sure what 'attitude' you're talking about. I don't know anything
about the King case. I do know that in the Simpson case, IMO it's
pretty obvious that guilt wasn't proven so a verdict of guilty wasn't
returned.

Ergo, the system worked.

    
    The attitude when the cops were found not guilty was that the system
    didn't work.  Maybe opinion is a better word, but I didn't put attitude
    in parenthesis, I don't know why you did.
    
    
    Mike

No hidden meaning behind quoting the word -- nothing more than
attribution.

Given what I saw on the King tapes (and this *must* be covered
elsewhere), I'd have to agree offhand that something broke in that
case.

I don't see any problem believing that in one case the system didn't
work and in another it did.

Pete

    
    A jury found the cops not guilty.  Reasonable doubt must have been
    there if the jury unanimously found them not guilty.
    
    I'm glad you didn't mean anything by the quotes, I was afraid that you
    though I had an agenda using the word attitude.  I don't.  If the folks
    in the Simpson case had reasonable doubt, I'm glad he's free.  I don't
    want to see any innocent person behind bars.
    
    Mike 

    It occurs to me that outrage over the Rodney King verdict was less
    clearly along racial lines than in the Simpson case.

    
    
    That is true, what were the charges against the cops again?

    .186
    
    Very good point.

    >> It occurs to me that outrage over the Rodney King verdict was less
    >> clearly along racial lines than in the Simpson case.
    
    That's quite true.  Many whites were willing to put race-favoritism
    aside and consider that the white cops should have been found guilty
    based on what appeared to be overwhelming evidence.
    
    Chris

    I think Chris hit it on the head.....how could anyone with a 
    conscious watch the King video and acquit the cops?
    
    What disturbs me equally is the Reginald Denny case.  Here we have
    a TV skycopter capture the beating on tape and the jury acquits
    the offenders.  It's my understanding that Denny said he forgave
    his attackers, but my gosh the perps were caught on film beating
    the man's head with a brick; even if Denny was willing to forgive
    that doesn't mean the jury *had* to acquit!!
    
    

    
    
    That's why I was curious as to what the charges were, Karen.
    
    
    Mike

 >  I think Chris hit it on the head.....how could anyone with a 
 >   conscious watch the King video and acquit the cops?
 
 That tape did not contain the whole story. Hell, the entire tape
 was never put on TV, just the last few moments.

 While the behaviour of the officers on the tape was wrong, it was not 
 unprovoked and I suspect that any white man of similar size,stature, and
 behaviour would have received similar treatment by these same cops.

 Doug.
 

RE: 545.192 by BRITE::FYFE

The whole tape was shown on PBS.  Or is that not TV?


Phil

    .192  I dunno Doug; when that tape first aired, it didn't seem to
    be a short episode and it did show a lot of cops standing around
    doing nothing to prevent the beating.  And remember, the guy who
    taped it wasn't just standing on his patio, video in hand, waiting
    for the action to start.  He saw the beating, saw nothing was being
    done, went into his apartment and got his videocam to tape it.  
    Seems to me the cops must have been beating the crap out of King
    for more than just a minute or two.
    
    I'm not a fan of Rodney King's but I think the charges were a 
    possible DUI and fleeing the police.  Don't you think the end result
    was a a bit more than cops "just being cautious" with a suspect that
    was resisting arrest?  I know some of the police claimed that they
    thought he was on PCP, but I don't know that claim was ever proven.
    
    I don't care what the cops "thought" or what happened beforehand; I
    saw the tape over and over and it always looked like over-kill to me.
    

Topic 34, folks.  Topic 34.

    
    > The whole tape was shown on PBS.  Or is that not TV?
    
    Bingo!  You got it Phil !    
    ;-)