OJ trial

I don't know whether he was guilty or innocent (I was there to see it, so I don't know), but what I found most troubling is the disparate reactions from the verdict, which seemed to be divided right down "race" lines.

I saw a news-cast live of two different college lounges, one predominantly white, one predominantly black. And the difference in reactions was like the difference between, well, black and white. The black college kids all let out a big cheer, jumping up and down in excitement. The white college kids all let out groans of disappointment.

We have a long way to go.

I had this typed out:  "Great idea for a thread!  Could you come tap on the back of my head with a ball peen hammer for a couple of hours so I can come back and read this thread and it won't seem so painful?"  Then I thought about some of the jackazz threads I've started and realized I've got no room to take shots at anyone else.

But seriously, doesn't it seem like the joke that his life has become will have to substitute as the prison sentence most people think he should be serving?

Yeah...I'm pretty sure I was in the white minority thinking that, while he probably was guilty, the prosecution screwed the case up enough so that the "reasonable doubt" was pretty sufficient.

Well, then there are two different questions aren't there? 

1.  Do you think OJ did it?

2.  Did the jury come to right decision based on the case as it was presented to them and using the standard of reasonable doubt.

Just because you think OJ should be in prison for the crime doesn't mean you think the jury came to the wrong decision.

I actually thought he was guilty until about a year after the trail a couple of small independant papers had a small series about his son and the troubles the son has had. After that I really think his son did it and OJ didn't want to say anything.

I think he probably did it, but he very easilly could have been set up. I think the jury came to the right decision. Remember that in that case (and every case, really), the jury doesn't hear everything the public does. And trully, the prosecution team and Mark Furman toally f*cked up.

I agree. But WHY-O-WHY does this man STILL deserve our attention? WHY is he still in the news?? His current charge of armed robbery may have been news worthy for 5 seconds but the continued coverage of his trial, his behavior in the last 13 years, yada, yada, yada, just feed into the mans ego. He's getting what he wants....more attention. I've had to turn the news off b/c I refuse to listen to any thing more about him.

/rant off

Obviously he thought the killer was hiding in his old stuff.

Being a California Native, I sure cannot help but wonder how this whole thing could have gotten so screwed up.

Regardless of your feelings about guilt or innocence, you have to agree that the investigators and prosecutors of this case made blunder after blunder that ultimately led to the debacle that we have today. (Of course, you have to ignore the personal gain that almost everyone involved in the trial on both sides enjoyed)

If he was guilty, they let a guilty man go free. If he was innocent, they still let a guilty someone go free and either way, wasted millions of taxpayer $$$ persuing what turned out to be a hopeless case.

In the end, there are two dead bodies, lots of heartache and tears, no one to account for it, and a pretty big ding in our crimimal justice system.

At least everyone but the janitor at Parker Center got their shot at a book deal, a spot on  the talkshow circuit and a few moments of fame.

I even saw Cato Recently and he seems none the worse for wear