JPF Home Page Forums OJ Gets 33 Years - This is Just WRONG in so many ways

Brian, the system is not about almost pregnant...despite public opinion...Not being able to prove guilty is what...almost guilty, almost innocent, partly guilty, should have been guilty??...no such legal concepts exist...nor does a legal difference exist between "not guilty" and "innocent".

The jury said "not guilty" in 3 hours...three hours! ...and theirs is the ONLY opinion that counts. Your opinion and mine, and the public's can be bandied about and hoist up a flagpole but means zilch.

But what did the jury see and hear?
1) the primary investigator was a proven racist and perjurer who may have planted the glove
2) there were no eyewitnesses and there was no uncontrevertable evidence tying him to the scene
3) there was contradicting testimony as to OJs actions, appearance and behaviour just after the murders
4) great video and a better tag line surrounding the infamous glove...if it does not fit, you must acquit...
5) DNA evidence that was at that time an infant science and taken from a blood sample that was mishandled.

Did this make him not guilty? Nope, but it gave the jurors reasonable doubt. Add this to a predominantly black jury who were tired of the LA police's treatment of blacks, and it pushed SOME of them over the edge...yeah, SOME, not THE jurors...were sending a message.

Did OJ kill Ron and Nicole? I do not know. He did have motive, and probably opportunity, and there was certainly evidence...but we do nor know for sure, and "I think so" carries no legal standing.

Did he get off "lightly" this time? IMO 33 years is not "lightly" but if it is what anyone else would have gotten for this crime with his "attitude" and "not guilty stance" then justice is served. If others with his "attitude" and "not guilty stance" generally get 9 years, and so does he, again, justice served.

And I'll say it again, because you don't seem to want to hear this...if he is being punished this time for what happened to Ron and Nicole, that is wrong. That is my only point.

He wrote a book about how he did it. He confessed and was overheard and recorded DOING so that he did it to Rosie Greer (did you conveniently forget that?). Innocent people don't do either of those things. When forced to testify in the civil case, he failed miserably to be remotely convincing and was found LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE for the murders. That is ALSO a legal decision. All of it is proof beyond a reasonable doubt that he did it. The jury didn't hear any of that, but WE did. The jury was guilty of bias and wasn't informed of many of the facts. That combination led to them not finding him guilty. But when someone is found not guilty in the US (it might be different in Canada) they are NOT considered proven innocent.

Brian

No he did not write a book on how he did it. He wrote a book on the topic, but it was never published by him. It was withdrawn due to public outrage. But then copyright was transfered to the Goldmans who changed the title to infer he was writing about it as if he did...and published it.

Why did he write it in the first place? You say because he was confessing his guilt...I say it was because he needed the money and there was a voracious public appetitie for anything OJ and murders.

If he confessed to Greer, why was this not admitted into evidence at trial? Greer did not have to say anything because he was supposedly a pastor, but it was supposedly overheard. By Whom? Why was this person not used by the prosecution?? He was supposed to have also confessed to others but their testimony was in books...and their authors were simply after bucks and were discredited.

Brian, it is obvious that you know beyond any reasonable doubt that he was guilty ...which is more than the courts could do...

The jury saw this as reasonable doubt

1) the primary investigator was a proven racist and perjurer who may have planted the glove
2) there were no eyewitnesses and there was no uncontrevertable evidence tying him to the scene
3) there was contradicting testimony as to OJs actions, appearance and behaviour just after the murders
4) DNA evidence that was at that time an infant science and taken from a blood sample that was mishandled.
...and 5), of course the famous glove.

still...you'd rather believe the outcome was due to a perfect storm of incompetent prosecution, an idiot judge and a biased jury....but not the reasonable doubt.

...and maybe I'm wrong, but you continue to refuse to answer my main point...and keep harping on his guilt in the murders...making it appear you advocate that people who have been found not guilty of a crime in a court of law should nonetheless pay for that crime...because the court of public opinion says he's guilty

Why is that?

And the US is the same as Canada. In the English language, and to a moral person, there is definitely a distinction between not guily and innocent. But there is not one in the legal system. In law, there is no "Guilty", "Not Guilty (but probably)", "Not Guilty (and unlikely)" and "Innocent"

They said that he was OJ's spiritual advisor and that it was inadmissable.

Where did I suggest that he have to pay for his murders? I didn't. And the entire point of this post was to suggest that he was screwed in the current trial because of that. But in truth, that's not true either. He got off easy once again. He was offered a slap on the wrist plea agreement, the same run of the mill offer they make to everyone, but he refused. When he did, it went to trial. He lost. He STILL got far less than the sentencing guidelines allowed. Most consider what he got very light in context of refusing the plea deal. Even if he'd gotten the absolute MAX.. he was found GUILTY of the crime which carried a penalty that had a range that included much more time in prison than he got. His previous history of being LEGALLY responsible for the muder of 2 people and also the crime of openly admitting on tpe he was scamming the Goldman's out of money that should have come to them based on the civil settlement (another crime in my opinion that should have been tried as well) and the taped crime itself that showed a very different person than the whining sobbing bullsh@t plea for leniency and taking NO responsibility for what he did AND refusing a very forgiving plea deal should have gotten him the higher or highest end of the sentencing. But, he still got off lightly. Which is what RICH people do.

Why be angry about cases where MONEY gets people off on murder and gets them off easy on ARMED ROBBERY and KIDNAPPING? How about some concern for protecting the public from a menace like OJ? We should all be cheering that at least for a few years, he's not likely to kill anyone else or rob them or rip off his first victims families from the money they have coming due.

You really have no ground to stand on here. You may love you some OJ.. but that's your problem. If you want to be angry.. be angry he got off of an armed Robbery so lightly due to his money and fame. Far more crimes go unsolved than are prosecuted. Of those a microfraction are cases where people are wrongly convicted. In MOST of THOSE cases it's a matter of new illegal activity (i.e. corruption, a frame job, lying witnesses etc.) rather than a simple case of facts being judged wrongly against the defendent. Things are drastically tilted in favor of criminals as they must be to protect the innocent. And that system lets a lot of murderers go. If those murderes commit new crimes, we should ALL be happy if they are finally convicted and removed from putting others in danger.

We can only hope that he dies before he gets out to harm more people.

Brian

Brian, I don't care a wit about OJ. He's a deeply flawed man who may well have killed Ron and Nicole..and gotten away with it.

But as I said, the armed robbery, forced confinement etc should stand on its own, as should the sentencing...because he was found not guilty of the murders.

As to his sentence, I still cannot find a definitive length anywhere, nor can I find anything definitive that says he got off lightly. But as I said, if it is as much as anyone else got for the same crimes, justice is served. If he got more "because he got away with murder", that's wrong. If he indeed got less, that's wrong too

John,

They've been talking about it non stop in the US media. He'll be up for Parole in 9 years. That's only 3 years longer than the best case scenario because the crime carries a mandatory 6 years no matter what. They could have made it where he never got out alive. Everyone, over and over, has said (including his OWN ATTORNEYS) that he was actually pleased with the sentencing because it was on the low end of what it could have been. If his attornies agree it's a light sentence, I don't need any other source. I saw them say it live on camera.

So he did a new crime.. was convicted and got a light sentence. Would you prefer that he be set free right away because people are happy that he's finally in jail? If not, then why are you ranting on and on? If he hadn't been offered and then refused the plea deal, he probably would have gotten the 6 years before parole sentence. But they almost ALWAYS give an extra amount of time to those who refuse plea bargins and are convicted. And I think that's a good general policy. Frankly, I think everyone who commits armed robbery should spend their lives in jail. Linda, my wife, was robbed at gun point on our front porch 4 years ago. It's totally changed her life and she's never going to be the same. A gun stuck up against the back of your head will do that to you. The guy, who was later caught ON CAMERA trying to cash MY CHECK from the book publisher or Songwriters Market for an article I wrote for them, was never pursued because the lazy useless cop on the case (and that word came from his fellow officers) couldn't be bothered to fax his request for the tape with his official letterhead. That same robber also robbed a convenience store that night and also shot a child through the door of a house a few blocks away when he tried to rob another woman and instead of giving him her purse, like Linda did, she tried to run inside her house. The thug shot at her through the door and hit the woman's little girl. And STILL the police did nothing to try and catch this guy. Now guess what? He's back trying to cash the checks that were in Linda's purse. 4 years later and he's still victimizing her. We get calls every day from collections agencies who represent the companies that this guy wrote the checks to. We contacted the police again and they told us that original deadbeat cop was finally removed. They explained he used to be the Mayor's driver and when the Mayor was ousted, they moved him into that job as a paid retirement and that he never worked any of his cases. He was very rude to Linda and made it all worse throughout the process. Now at least they are pursuing this guy and his girlfriend for check fraud, though because the first cop did nothing, they can't connect it to the armed Robbery or other shootings.

9 years is not enough for the hurt and damage that was caused by his armed robbery actions. I know this first hand and from fact. OJ, who committed the same defined crime and more, got off easy for the crime he was CONVICTED of. If they'd actually punished him for the murders, he'd have gotten the maximum. In truth, if they REALLY wanted justice, they'd put him in general population where he'd be dead very quickly. But they didn't take his murders into account. And still some folks are more concerned with the concerns and feelings of the guilty than the victims of crimes they commit.

Brian

Brian, my "rant" was based on folks saying that OJ should be punished because of what he did to Ron and Nicole...end of story. My position is that no one, not OJ, not you, not that skag who accosted Linda, should pay for a crime for which they were found not guilty

Everything else was trying to cope with "well he was guilty of the murders"....with some side trips through an imperfect judicial system that sometimes gets real ugly..

BTW, this too, is real ugly
"In truth, if they REALLY wanted justice, they'd put him in general population where he'd be dead very quickly"

If this is your concept of real justice...then 1) you are carrying over punishment for a crime for which he was acquitted AND 2) you advocate far harsher punishment for him than anyone else found guilty of the crimes he was.

Bill, when I say "American tragedy", I am not talking about how woefully tragic it is for poor OJ- I'm talking about the OJ story. And of course the most tragic part of the story was the murders. I often wonder if the people who are the most outspoken about our need to kill the bad guys would be willing to pull the trigger, drop the pellet or pull the hangman's lever and personally end the lifes of the ones who they consider the scum of the earth. And if they are willing to volunteer to do that, I would be afraid of them because once they decide who the low life vermin is- and that they deserve to die, what next? Are they going to volunteer to round up a whole host of vermin and exterminate them too? This play has been acted out before.

Frankly, I am more afraid of the righteous man with a gun who thinks mankind is fundamentally evil than I am of a man who has done an evil thing out of passion.

Sam
I will agree the OJ story is a tragic one. But it gets played out time and time again every day, But the players don't get away with murder.
IMHO OJ Simpson was nothing more than a thug that could play football better than anyone else at the time. If there is a tragedy it is that he did not go on to do good with the influence he had. Instead he turned out to be a selfish bully. I agree. That is a tragedy.
I believe mankind is fundamentally good. Evil is a word I reserve for very few in our society.

If you are asking if I would be willing to pull the trigger or drop the pellet I would have to say yes. If it was my duty. Would I volunteer? Probably not..unless Nicole or Ron was my son or Daughter.

I am a firm believer in the death penalty. I am a firm believer in harsher sentences for criminals. If it was up to me they would simply open the gate, throw them in and let them survive the best way they can. No TV, no library, Nada.
I am also a firm believer in self defense with firearms, or knives, or bow and arrow.
They used to hang horse thieves. Good law. They should bring it back for car thieves.
Heck I am no angel. I did a few things that could have landed me in some very hot water when I was younger. I was just lucky, never got caught. And if I had I would be whining just like OJ.

Are you kidding me? You know what he did, right? It was, indeed, a big deal. No matter who would have done this, they would have been charged and tried in this manner. Why do you think otherwise?

And if the length of the sentence is the issue, you know he is not going to serve all of this time. And no, he will likely not die in jail. The only thing that is even a concern to me is that his children now have no parents around. But O.J. sure took care of making sure their mom wasn't in the picture, didn't he?