|
Post by CrazySting on Jul 19, 2009 9:42:06 GMT -5
When he originally signed the book deal, with reaganbooks, it was going to be called "I did it". The only reason it was changed to "If I did it" was because his lawyer's thought it would be a bad idea and leave him open to perjury charges.
That tells you everything you need to know.
|
|
|
Post by Back to being Cenanuff on Jul 19, 2009 11:53:29 GMT -5
He was found to be liable for their deaths in the civil case, which was litigated by a much more competent, privately hired attorney. He had motive, opportunity, and the DNA evidence placing him at the scene. He did it.
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Jul 19, 2009 12:27:34 GMT -5
My mom was wayyy into the trial back then so she got the Marsha Clark book afterwards. Clark spent the book defending her poor handeling of the case and attacking OJ's lawyers for doing their jobs. Which apparently that did better than she did hers. And yes OJ had more money then the average defendent but keep in mind the State always has money and usually more than the defendent. Exactly. Money can't buy you anything more than lawyers that can stall or mesmerize a jury, but if you have solid evidence, it's not exactly insurmountable. States may have more money, but unless California is different from everywhere else I've seen, states can't use that to hire prosecuting attorneys, they have to use their DA's, who may or may not be competent, as they're elected. Further, if a defense's counsel seriously screws up, it's grounds for an appeal. If a prosecutor does, the defendant walks. Yeah, having better lawyers really does make a big difference.
|
|
Mozenrath
FANatic
Foppery and Whim
Speedy Speed Boy
Posts: 121,204
Member is Online
|
Post by Mozenrath on Jul 19, 2009 12:33:58 GMT -5
Exactly. Money can't buy you anything more than lawyers that can stall or mesmerize a jury, but if you have solid evidence, it's not exactly insurmountable. States may have more money, but unless California is different from everywhere else I've seen, states can't use that to hire prosecuting attorneys, they have to use their DA's, who may or may not be competent, as they're elected. Further, if a defense's counsel seriously screws up, it's grounds for an appeal. If a prosecutor does, the defendant walks. Yeah, having better lawyers really does make a big difference. It DOES, but if anyone would have a good DA, it'd be LA.
|
|
The OP
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
changed his name
Posts: 15,785
|
Post by The OP on Jul 19, 2009 12:38:52 GMT -5
I always assumed he paid someone else to kill his ex wife and that other guy. All the evidence pointed to him doing it himself. In addition to the book and everything else, another damning thing is this...are there even any other suspects? I don't think the police would just close the case after an embarassing public trial if there were any evidence that it could've been someone else.
|
|
Dean-o
Grimlock
Haha we're having fun Maggle!
Posts: 13,865
|
Post by Dean-o on Jul 19, 2009 13:15:37 GMT -5
Even as a kid in the 6th grade, I knew this entire trial was complete bullshit. The only reason it was blown up so big was because it was a BLACK man killing WHITE people.
Oh yea, he was guilty.
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Jul 19, 2009 13:33:40 GMT -5
States may have more money, but unless California is different from everywhere else I've seen, states can't use that to hire prosecuting attorneys, they have to use their DA's, who may or may not be competent, as they're elected. Further, if a defense's counsel seriously screws up, it's grounds for an appeal. If a prosecutor does, the defendant walks. Yeah, having better lawyers really does make a big difference. It DOES, but if anyone would have a good DA, it'd be LA. I'd imagine if anyone would have a bigger disparity between high priced super lawyers and public officials, it'd be LA. Think about it, one of the wealthier clientele bases possible, the top lawyers aren't going to likely take a pay cut and increased work load to be a public official.
|
|
Mozenrath
FANatic
Foppery and Whim
Speedy Speed Boy
Posts: 121,204
Member is Online
|
Post by Mozenrath on Jul 19, 2009 13:48:54 GMT -5
It DOES, but if anyone would have a good DA, it'd be LA. I'd imagine if anyone would have a bigger disparity between high priced super lawyers and public officials, it'd be LA. Think about it, one of the wealthier clientele bases possible, the top lawyers aren't going to likely take a pay cut and increased work load to be a public official. Good point, but they'd also be making a name for themselves. I guess it's hard to say.
|
|
|
Post by S-Chrome on Jul 19, 2009 14:03:08 GMT -5
Completely and totally innocent.
|
|
|
Post by "Handsome" Whitey Fats on Jul 19, 2009 14:08:02 GMT -5
Completely and totally innocent. Only if you lack the ability to apply critical thinking.
|
|
|
Post by The Karaoke King on Jul 19, 2009 15:28:28 GMT -5
Guilty of making me laugh as Officer Nordberg. He was hilarious in that role.
This is what we're talking about, right?
|
|
|
Post by S-Chrome on Jul 20, 2009 2:43:02 GMT -5
Completely and totally innocent. Only if you lack the ability to apply critical thinking. Why, no, I don't have that ability.
|
|
|
Post by Solid Stryk-Dizzle on Jul 20, 2009 2:53:31 GMT -5
He was found not guilty. Good enough for me. The people who defend Michael Jackson shouldn't really talk about how OJ is a no good mur-diddly-urdler, Fact of the matter is that most of us will probably never know the whole story.
But whatever. Double Standards are awesome!
|
|
sloride
Unicron
Doesn't Suck Up. Or Does She?
The Greatest Entertainer to have ever Lived
Posts: 3,196
|
Post by sloride on Jul 20, 2009 2:59:03 GMT -5
He was found not guilty. Good enough for me. The people who defend Michael Jackson shouldn't really talk about how OJ is a no good mur-diddly-urdler. As stated for the millioneth time there is a huge difference. OJ was convicted in a civil court for the murders. And Jackson was lucky in a sense that it is very rare for a child molestation trial to go in favour of the accused.
|
|
|
Post by odysseus on Jul 20, 2009 3:00:52 GMT -5
I find it hilarious that there are people in this thread who condemn OJ Simpson when he was found innocent, yet are the first to rush to Michael Jackson's defense. Both cases were handled poorly, and both will always be guilty in my books.
|
|
|
Post by FrankGotch on Jul 20, 2009 3:29:55 GMT -5
The only reason it was blown up so big was because it was a BLACK man killing WHITE people. No it was blown up the way it was because believe it, or not before the murders OJ was almost universally beloved by everyone. Sports fans saw him as one of the greatest football players of all time, many others loved him as an actor, and those who watched the NFL on NBC saw OJ play the goofy lovable member of the broadcast team much like Terry Bradshaw does for FOX. After the murders I think it was very hard for everyone to accept that OJ who up until that point seemed to be one of the nicest people on earth, had killed his wife and another man in such a brutal fashion.
|
|
|
Post by The Summer of Muskrat XVII on Jul 20, 2009 3:54:59 GMT -5
The only reason it was blown up so big was because it was a BLACK man killing WHITE people. No it was blown up the way it was because believe it, or not before the murders OJ was almost universally beloved by everyone. Sports fans saw him as one of the greatest football players of all time, many others loved him as an actor, and those who watched the NFL on NBC saw OJ play the goofy lovable member of the broadcast team much like Terry Bradshaw does for FOX. After the murders I think it was very hard for everyone to accept that OJ who up until that point seemed to be one of the nicest people on earth, had killed his wife and another man in such a brutal fashion. Ya, it would be like if Peyton Manning committed a similar crime now. People looked at him as this "Aw Shucks" next door neighbour sort of guy, it was pretty crazy to hear. Still remember watchin' the famous white Bronco chase at my grandma's house after a hockey game, and my mum explaining what was goin on, it was like "the dude from Naked Gun?!? really?" And then the whole trial kinda destroyed that image of OJ, leaving us with what we think of today. Oh, and I totally think he did it. The book kinda sealed the deal on that one for me, there was some doubt until that debacle
|
|
Mozenrath
FANatic
Foppery and Whim
Speedy Speed Boy
Posts: 121,204
Member is Online
|
Post by Mozenrath on Jul 20, 2009 4:44:47 GMT -5
The only reason it was blown up so big was because it was a BLACK man killing WHITE people. No it was blown up the way it was because believe it, or not before the murders OJ was almost universally beloved by everyone. Sports fans saw him as one of the greatest football players of all time, many others loved him as an actor, and those who watched the NFL on NBC saw OJ play the goofy lovable member of the broadcast team much like Terry Bradshaw does for FOX. After the murders I think it was very hard for everyone to accept that OJ who up until that point seemed to be one of the nicest people on earth, had killed his wife and another man in such a brutal fashion. Exactly. OJ was a big star, being in the Naked Gun films, also.
|
|
|
Post by Back to being Cenanuff on Jul 20, 2009 6:43:11 GMT -5
I find it hilarious that there are people in this thread who condemn OJ Simpson when he was found innocent, yet are the first to rush to Michael Jackson's defense. Both cases were handled poorly, and both will always be guilty in my books. It really wrankles me when people say this, and the part about being convicted in civil court. Not guilty does not mean innocent. It simply means the prosecution failed to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury. It is equally probable that the defendant in the case is guilty, but just covered their tracks. An innocent verdict completely absolves the defendant, saying that not only did the prosecution fail to prove their case, the defense proved their case beyond a reasonable doubt. OJ was found not guilty. He wasn't found innocent. You can't be convicted in civil court. The judge can find in favor of either the plaintiff, or the respondent, and in this case, the judge ruled in favor of the plaintiff, finding OJ liable for the deaths of his ex wife and her boyfriend, opening the door for a mountain of financial liability. Conviction only happens in criminal court. And I never rushed to Michael Jackson's defense. I thought he was a pedo, and the parents of those kids ought to have their heads examined for letting them stay at his house.
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Jul 20, 2009 8:24:34 GMT -5
He was found not guilty. Good enough for me. The people who defend Michael Jackson shouldn't really talk about how OJ is a no good mur-diddly-urdler, Fact of the matter is that most of us will probably never know the whole story. But whatever. Double Standards are awesome! Yes, because those two cases are intricately linked and are exactly the same thing I'm not a defender of Michael Jackson in his charges, I think the dude was so screwed up by his childhood that it's perfectly likely that he was guilty. But the two cases are completely and entirely unrelated, to try to criticize people for how they think about the two cases is asinine. It'd be like saying you can't have an opinion on Bernie Madoff because of how you look at the Timothy McVeigh case.
|
|