Tweet
I'm highly impressed by all the psychics in here who are comfortable in their knowledge about who killed who. Hell, Alison Dubois doesn't have that sort of confidence and she actually SEES what went down in her dreams. lol.
I'm also glad to see all these true descendents of those inspired founding fathers; all you folk who have such belief in the American system, that someone is actually innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
This is all a bit funny considering that I never hear a peep from people about our glorious president's absolute certainty that a miscarriage of justice is just plain impossible in Texas when it comes to all those people on death row (the ones still alive, that is).
As for that enlightened fellow who brought up the civil trial, uh, gee, where do I start. As Pastorak or whatever his name is (Patler, yes, I know, but ole redneck Fargo talkin' Rastak gets me confused) pointed out recently, the burden of proof is very different in a civil case. All I can say is God help you if you ever get snared by some circumstantial evidence and you have to face a jury of 12 people exactly like you.
You know, the funny thing is, OJ probably DID do it, but that's not the point. The point is that the word "probably" didn't enter into a single post in this thread that refererenced OJ. Well, shame on the lot of you. The prosecution put up a bad, bad case and believe me, you do NOT want courts convicting people in this country on bad cases. You need to study the Sam Shepard case, if you want to really see injustice - in THAT case, the prosecution had NO case, but the jury convicted. (Oh yeah, that case was the real life inspiration for The Fugitive, btw.) At the time Dorothy Kilgallen wrote that she had no idea if Sam Shepard had bludgeoned his wife to death or not, but that that jury could bring in a guilty case after a completely empty presentation by the prosecution was a travesty of the most enormous proportions.
I'm also glad to see all these true descendents of those inspired founding fathers; all you folk who have such belief in the American system, that someone is actually innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
This is all a bit funny considering that I never hear a peep from people about our glorious president's absolute certainty that a miscarriage of justice is just plain impossible in Texas when it comes to all those people on death row (the ones still alive, that is).
As for that enlightened fellow who brought up the civil trial, uh, gee, where do I start. As Pastorak or whatever his name is (Patler, yes, I know, but ole redneck Fargo talkin' Rastak gets me confused) pointed out recently, the burden of proof is very different in a civil case. All I can say is God help you if you ever get snared by some circumstantial evidence and you have to face a jury of 12 people exactly like you.
You know, the funny thing is, OJ probably DID do it, but that's not the point. The point is that the word "probably" didn't enter into a single post in this thread that refererenced OJ. Well, shame on the lot of you. The prosecution put up a bad, bad case and believe me, you do NOT want courts convicting people in this country on bad cases. You need to study the Sam Shepard case, if you want to really see injustice - in THAT case, the prosecution had NO case, but the jury convicted. (Oh yeah, that case was the real life inspiration for The Fugitive, btw.) At the time Dorothy Kilgallen wrote that she had no idea if Sam Shepard had bludgeoned his wife to death or not, but that that jury could bring in a guilty case after a completely empty presentation by the prosecution was a travesty of the most enormous proportions.
Comment