Fake: O.J. Simpson Reportedly Beaten, Injured In Prison

[brblx]

OJ's an angry black man that stabbed some people. MJ was an adult with the intellect of a child, and if he didn't touch little boys, he was still way fucking creepier than should be reasonably allowed around children.

don't act like a fucking rube just because you hold a falsely idealistic view of the US court system.

edit: not that i disagree with the principle letting a few of guilty go if it means imprisoning none of the innocent. this is just a silly situation to argue with, though, come the fuck on, even the jury surely knows OJ did it (just didn't find out 'till after the trial).

 

[guyver01]

don't act like a fucking rube just because you hold a falsely idealistic view of the US court system.

don't act like a fucking puppet believing every rumor you hear.

learn to think for yourself .. learn to parse information.. learn to make an informed decision.

stop believing everything that "hard copy" or "entertainment tonight" or "fox news" tells you to.

 

[brblx]

wow, you're an idiot. kindly go fornicate yourself with a pointy metal stick.

anyone with half a fucking brain can 'parse information' well enough to figure out that OJ stabbed some people. would you like to share with everyone where you got the information to make your 'informed decision?'

 

[guyver01]

would you like to share with everyone where you got the information to make your 'informed decision?'

sure.. it's called tainted evidence. how about the fact that their "star witness" was a lying, racist cop who planted evidence? or that one of their main witnesses was an incompetent who couldn't sound credible if you had him reading a script?

the defense attorneys did their job well enough that there was plenty of doubt that anything the prosecution presented was legit.

 

[ShawnD1]

don't worry about OJ , i sent him this before he went to the big house

Are you one of those guys who hears a story of a woman being raped after doing something silly then making some stupid comment like LOL STUPID BITCH DESERVED IT

LOL STUPID OJ DESERVED IT. I CONDONE RAPE.

 

[alrocky]

I suspect he's working on the sequel.

Sequel to the book or to the murders?

---

These other guys are getting hot. Good thing you can't kill thru the internet yet.

 

[zinfamous]

i'm sorry..

so you were present when the acts were committed and have first hand account of what is "truth" and what is not?

WHY DIDNT YOU SAY ANYTHING!

you know.. you could be held guilty of witholding evidence in a legal matter.

i'd delete your post now if i were you, to prevent incriminating yourself further.

I'm of the opinion that the DNA evidence convicted him outright.

The particular jury in that trial did not agree. They are also famously uneducated.

Also, we weren't around for the moment that the earth was smashed by a big-ass rock, the debris creating our moon, but we can "observe" it, and we know that it happened.

science rocks.

 

[ShawnD1]

I'm of the opinion that the DNA evidence convicted him outright.

The particular jury in that trial did not agree. They are also famously uneducated.

Also, we weren't around for the moment that the earth was smashed by a big-ass rock, the debris creating our moon, but we can "observe" it, and we know that it happened.

science rocks.

One of my favorite youtube videos is a parody of the argument that it isn't science if you can't see it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=inN_MfgnPWc

 

[guyver01]

I'm of the opinion that the DNA evidence convicted him outright.

science rocks.

unfortunately, the DNA evidence was highly tainted. Incompetent police make for alot of holes in the case.

It came to light that the prosecution and the Los Angeles Police Department had made serious mistakes in the handling of the DNA evidence during the early hours of the investigation. These included sending a trainee to collect blood samples; she had never before had primary responsibility for collecting blood evidence from a crime scene. Even more damning was the fact that LAPD Detective Vannatter carried around O.J. Simpson's blood in a vial in an unsealed envelope for three hours and went for a cup of coffee before booking it. Trial evidence allowed the defense to argue that 1.5 cc's of blood could not be accounted for by the prosecution. The defense suggested that this blood was planted by Vannatter, since the blood on the gate at the crime scene was not found during the initial investigation.

This created a strong doubt in the minds of the jurors. In addition, under cross examination, LAPD criminalist Dennis Fung conceded to a litany of procedural errors.

 

[zinfamous]

unfortunately, the DNA evidence was highly tainted. Incompetent police make for alot of holes in the case.

It came to light that the prosecution and the Los Angeles Police Department had made serious mistakes in the handling of the DNA evidence during the early hours of the investigation. These included sending a trainee to collect blood samples; she had never before had primary responsibility for collecting blood evidence from a crime scene. Even more damning was the fact that LAPD Detective Vannatter carried around O.J. Simpson's blood in a vial in an unsealed envelope for three hours and went for a cup of coffee before booking it. Trial evidence allowed the defense to argue that 1.5 cc's of blood could not be accounted for by the prosecution. The defense suggested that this blood was planted by Vannatter, since the blood on the gate at the crime scene was not found during the initial investigation.

This created a strong doubt in the minds of the jurors. In addition, under cross examination, LAPD criminalist Dennis Fung conceded to a litany of procedural errors.

where else did they get OJ's blood, then? is it from the secret repository of "all black people's blood" that the police keep locked away? Did Furman just take out a pint of OJ's and dump it all over the crime scene the night before the investigation?

You know this kind of shit plays on in juror's minds, and they're already convinced that such is possible. Faulty protocol is one thing, and I can accept that if you don't play by the rules in the court's eye, then you can't have a fair trial.

But, like I said, I'm convinced that the DNA evidence was solid--because it fucking was. DNA is damn stable. there really is no way to improperly collect it and "assume it gets tainted, or goes bad: fucking hogwash, because I do that shit for a living.

Yeah, I know you can convince a jury of doubt, but I also know that the DNA evidence absolutely proves his guilt.

I also know that if you want to get out of jury duty, the easiest way is not to say anything about prejudices, but to tell them you have a PhD.

 

[guyver01]

Did Furman just take out a pint of OJ's and dump it all over the crime scene the night before the investigation?

when you're missing 1.5mL of blood, and it all of a sudden turns up where it wasnt previously, you will get people going HMMMMMMMMM...

especially when a detective just for the hell of it decides to drive around and get coffee and not follow evidence collection procedures.

incompetent collection of evidence taints whatever truth it may contain. the DNA may be solid, but the people handling it werent. that was their downfall.

 

[zinfamous]

when you're missing 1.5mL of blood, and it all of a sudden turns up where it wasnt previously, you will get people going HMMMMMMMMM...

especially when a detective just for the hell of it decides to drive around and get coffee and not follow evidence collection procedures.

incompetent collection of evidence taints whatever truth it may contain. the DNA may be solid, but the people handling it werent. that was their downfall.

I know, and I agreed with all of that in the post.--but the tainting is in the rules of the court; it certainly wasn't in the DNA. believe me. There was nothing inherently wrong with the DNA--doesn't excuse the mishandling--but to say he's innocent simply because the court claims protocol wasn't followed is retarded. We release dozens of deathrow inmates these days based on 20 year-old DNA evidence--are you going to tell me that we can trust a police precinct to properly maintain such evidence for decades, intact?

If it's good enough to release the innocent from prison, why isn't it good enough to send proven murderers away?

The purity of the DNA was not compromised--the science was fine, it was his DNA, it was where it was, he fucking murdered his wife and her boyfriend, only the court's rules were compromised. Again--I GET IT--just doesn't change the reality that it absolutely was his DNA, and it was at the crime scene.

 

[guyver01]

just doesn't change the reality that it absolutely was his DNA, and it was at the crime scene.

yes.. it was his dna at the crime scene.. but the mishandling of the evidence puts into DOUBT how it got there.

Did it get there by him dripping it there?
or
Did it get there because a racist detective dabbed it there?

The DNA doesn't tell you that... and the incompetent handling puts into DOUBT which one is fact.

 

[destrekor]

yes.. it was his dna at the crime scene.. but the mishandling of the evidence puts into DOUBT how it got there.

Did it get there by him dripping it there?
or
Did it get there because a racist detective dabbed it there?

The DNA doesn't tell you that... and the incompetent handling puts into DOUBT which one is fact.

Where did they get his blood if he was not there? HmmmMMMM?

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

Prison life not all lolipops and candy canes news at 11.