Was OJ Guilty?

[Glavinsolo]

Double Jeopardy: The double jeopardy provisions of the United States and Texas Constitutions protect against: (1) a second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal; (2) a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction; and (3) multiple punishments for the same offense. However, the same criminal act which violates both federal and state law may be prosecuted in both federal and state courts; the reasoning is that by violating the law of two separate sovereigns, a defendant commits two separate offenses.

That means they can't charge him again, right? I am half asleep and read half of it.

 

[SlitheryDee]

Originally posted by: ed21x
it's so weird... the OJ trial happened at a time when many of us were in elementary/Junior high, so at that time, many of us were more sympathetic and rooting for OJ to be innocent. In reptrospect, he was obviously guilty, and I was such a stupid kid back then.

I was in junior high and our classroom televisions were tuned in when the verdict was announced. Everyone in my school seemed to be rooting for OJ too. The black kids were more enthusiastic about it I suppose but I also saw ALOT of the white kids celebrating when the verdict was given. To put this in perspective I live in Central Louisiana, while I'm not going to make some blanket statement about everyone here being racist, I see it enough to realize that it's still here. Maybe the fact that I went to JH in a pretty devout football town has something to do with it.

 

[ValkyrieofHouston]

Originally posted by: Janet Reno

Originally posted by: Chadder007

Originally posted by: clamum
If the glove does not fit, you must acquit!

Even if you put on another pair of gloves in the first place, and the ones you are putting on used to be skin tight and sat out a while in the moist air causing them to shrink a tad also???

That and the fact that they were drenched in blood. That'll probably shrink them slightly...

So, he ran from the cops for who knows why. They haven't found any other trace of a suspect(at least I don't think).

Who else could it have been?

Concering the gloves...
Well if you remember, OJ did a little play acting in the courtroom while putting on the glove... to make it look as if he couldn't get it on.

 

[Taggart]

Originally posted by: ValkyrieofHouston

Originally posted by: Janet Reno

Originally posted by: Chadder007

Originally posted by: clamum
If the glove does not fit, you must acquit!

Even if you put on another pair of gloves in the first place, and the ones you are putting on used to be skin tight and sat out a while in the moist air causing them to shrink a tad also???

That and the fact that they were drenched in blood. That'll probably shrink them slightly...

So, he ran from the cops for who knows why. They haven't found any other trace of a suspect(at least I don't think).

Who else could it have been?

Concering the gloves...
Well if you remember, OJ did a little play acting in the courtroom while putting on the glove... to make it look as if he couldn't get it on.

Didn't he stop taking blood pressure medication and his hands were 'bigger' than usual?

 

[JulesMaximus]

Let's see...he had a motive, he had no alibi, he had a well documented history of domestic violence against his wife, and there was physical evidence linking him to the crime scene.

Yet he walked free...:roll:

I honestly have no idea why ANYONE would believe he didn't kill his wife and her BF.

WTF is wrong with you people? :|

 

[Vette73]

Originally posted by: Glavinsolo
Double Jeopardy: The double jeopardy provisions of the United States and Texas Constitutions protect against: (1) a second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal; (2) a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction; and (3) multiple punishments for the same offense. However, the same criminal act which violates both federal and state law may be prosecuted in both federal and state courts; the reasoning is that by violating the law of two separate sovereigns, a defendant commits two separate offenses.

That means they can't charge him again, right? I am half asleep and read half of it.

Yep he could still be charged. He was charged in state court the first time. Federal court could have gone after him if they wanted. Same thing for the cops in the R.King case. Cops were found not guility but then tried and convicted in federal court. They just rename the charges, even though it is for the same offense, and there ya go.

Oh and hell yea he did it.

 

[Pacfanweb]

Originally posted by: Kenny
Just wondering, are they still looking into finding out who the "real killer" was? Or did they just totally give up on the case?

That was OJ who was supposed to be finding the "real" killers. The police found him already. Their job is done.

 

[Pacfanweb]

Originally posted by: CaptainGoodnight
Might I inject something here: he was not found "innocent", he was acquitted. Big difference.

He was found "Not Guilty".

 

[Pacfanweb]

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: Kanalua
OJ is not guilty of killing his wife or her boyfriend.

You're retarded and a racist if you believe that.

More like just plain stupid.

Let's see what I can remember:

The gloves found outside OJ's place with the victim's blood.

OJ's Bruno Magli (is that right?) expensive shoe footprint in blood at the scene.

OJ seen returning to his residence shortly after the murders.

The victim's blood inside OJ's Bronco.

That right there should get him the death penalty, and don't even count him running from the police and all the other ridiculous stuff and physical evidence.

Money, plain and simple, bought OJ freedom. That and an idiot jury.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Marlin1975

Originally posted by: Glavinsolo
Double Jeopardy: The double jeopardy provisions of the United States and Texas Constitutions protect against: (1) a second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal; (2) a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction; and (3) multiple punishments for the same offense. However, the same criminal act which violates both federal and state law may be prosecuted in both federal and state courts; the reasoning is that by violating the law of two separate sovereigns, a defendant commits two separate offenses.

That means they can't charge him again, right? I am half asleep and read half of it.

Yep he could still be charged. He was charged in state court the first time. Federal court could have gone after him if they wanted. Same thing for the cops in the R.King case. Cops were found not guility but then tried and convicted in federal court. They just rename the charges, even though it is for the same offense, and there ya go.

Oh and hell yea he did it.

Only if he broke a federal law, which he probably didn't.

 

[6000SUX]

Originally posted by: mugs
Only if he broke a federal law, which he probably didn't.

Sure he did. A citizen's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness begins with the Constitution and is supported by many federal statutes. There's even a federal death penalty which can be applied in murder cases. However, the federal government generally only prosecutes murder cases under special circumstances.

 

[StormRider]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
Let's see...he had a motive, he had no alibi, he had a well documented history of domestic violence against his wife, and there was physical evidence linking him to the crime scene.

Yet he walked free...:roll:

I honestly have no idea why ANYONE would believe he didn't kill his wife and her BF.

WTF is wrong with you people? :|

It was his suicide letter than convinced me of his guilt. When they read his letter, my heart sank -- I knew he was guilty. He said things like, "Please don't remember me like this. Please remember me from my past. If I had done anything wrong, it was that I had loved Nicole too much....." or something to that affect. He seemed like a man who couldn't admit to himself what he had done.

 

[Vette73]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: Marlin1975

Originally posted by: Glavinsolo
Double Jeopardy: The double jeopardy provisions of the United States and Texas Constitutions protect against: (1) a second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal; (2) a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction; and (3) multiple punishments for the same offense. However, the same criminal act which violates both federal and state law may be prosecuted in both federal and state courts; the reasoning is that by violating the law of two separate sovereigns, a defendant commits two separate offenses.

That means they can't charge him again, right? I am half asleep and read half of it.

Yep he could still be charged. He was charged in state court the first time. Federal court could have gone after him if they wanted. Same thing for the cops in the R.King case. Cops were found not guility but then tried and convicted in federal court. They just rename the charges, even though it is for the same offense, and there ya go.

Oh and hell yea he did it.

Only if he broke a federal law, which he probably didn't.

He violated their civil rights. I think that is what they used against the cops in LA for the R.King charges.
I think the feds even looked into charging him but did not.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb

Originally posted by: CaptainGoodnight
Might I inject something here: he was not found "innocent", he was acquitted. Big difference.

He was found "Not Guilty".

Which has nothing whatsoever to do with the overwhelming evidence that says he DID kill his ex-wife and her BF.

Whether he was found "not guilty" by a bunch of idiots doesn't change the fact that he murdered two people. Not for me anyway.

 

[Ornery]

1. 8.02% of ATOT are guilty of living in denial!

 

[compuwiz1]

Well, I guess not. The jury found him not guilty and he walked, so if our great legal system found him innocent, he must be.

 

[Conky]

That Chewbacca defense is unbeatable.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: Kanalua
OJ is not guilty of killing his wife or her boyfriend.

You're retarded and a racist if you believe that.

well i think you might want to rethink that.

he is not guilty of killing his wife and her boyfrien that is fact and really can't be denied.

 

[eits]

are you frigging kidding me?

anyone who votes no is doing it out of spite or to be a smartass.

 

[Taggart]

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: Kanalua
OJ is not guilty of killing his wife or her boyfriend.

You're retarded and a racist if you believe that.

well i think you might want to rethink that.

he is not guilty of killing his wife and her boyfrien that is fact and really can't be denied.

but do you think he KILLED them. not what the jury decided. given the evidence do you think he is a murderer?

(the correct answer is YES, he is a murderer)

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: Taggart

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: Kanalua
OJ is not guilty of killing his wife or her boyfriend.

You're retarded and a racist if you believe that.

well i think you might want to rethink that.

he is not guilty of killing his wife and her boyfrien that is fact and really can't be denied.

but do you think he KILLED them. not what the jury decided. given the evidence do you think he is a murderer?

(the correct answer is YES, he is a murderer)

oh i agree. i think he killed them.

just pointing out to 600sux that he may want to re-think who he calls a retard when he is wrong. OJ is NOT guilty of killing his wife and her boyfriend.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: Taggart

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: Kanalua
OJ is not guilty of killing his wife or her boyfriend.

You're retarded and a racist if you believe that.

well i think you might want to rethink that.

he is not guilty of killing his wife and her boyfrien that is fact and really can't be denied.

but do you think he KILLED them. not what the jury decided. given the evidence do you think he is a murderer?

(the correct answer is YES, he is a murderer)

oh i agree. i think he killed them.

just pointing out to 600sux that he may want to re-think who he calls a retard when he is wrong. OJ is NOT guilty of killing his wife and her boyfriend.

To be more accurate, he was found not guilty of killing his ex-wife and her BF. To say he is not guilty isn't really accurate.

 

[CarlKillerMiller]

What? Yes.

Seriously, is this even a question? It's like asking if Lucky Charms have marshmallows in them.

 

[6000SUX]

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: Kanalua
OJ is not guilty of killing his wife or her boyfriend.

You're retarded and a racist if you believe that.

well i think you might want to rethink that.

he is not guilty of killing his wife and her boyfrien that is fact and really can't be denied.

Sure it can. Just because he was acquitted by a jury doesn't change reality. Just because words have a certain meaning in a specific legal context doesn't mean that their meaning changes in general, either. When a defendant is declared "not guilty" in a court of law, he or she can of course still be guilty of committing the crime in reality.

Why would I need to rethink that?

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: Taggart

Originally posted by: SampSon

Originally posted by: Taggart

Originally posted by: SampSon
no.

Are you serious? You really need to have your head examined if you think he isn't a murderer.

Prove it, hotshot.

the evidence speaks for itself

:thumbsup: