|
|
Post by takilasunrise on Sept 21, 2007 13:46:29 GMT -5
At least, it's taken the heat off of Britney and Paris for now..................
|
|
181lizard
Cave Dweller 
Still lurking :)
Member since December 2005
Posts: 2,171
|
Post by 181lizard on Sept 22, 2007 11:29:05 GMT -5
so much for Britney. As of Sat., she's on weekly drug/alcohol testing.
|
|
|
|
Post by invisibleuser on Sept 22, 2007 11:42:41 GMT -5
Seems very unlikely, I expect that even the dream team can't help OJ this time. Also, since he is not as rich as he once was, he is going to have trouble scraping up the kind of money it takes for a first class defense. OJ will definitely do some hard time. I doubt a jury will buy his defense that he was pulling a sting operation to get his memorobilia back; especially since any proceeds from this would go to the Goldmans by virtue of his losing all his assets in the civil case. The armed robbery part is most troubling since it could carry a thirty five year sentence. I do not expect him to get that sentence but 2-5 years would not surprise me. csroc Of course he'll get away with it. People with money always get away with everything and I'm sure he's got plenty stashed away. Look at what happened with the Phil Spector case. This isn't a murder case so it won't cost nearly as much. The invisibleuser |
|
chassroc
Cave Dweller
Rocks are abundant when you have rocktumblinghobby pals
Member since January 2005
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by chassroc on Sept 23, 2007 15:30:36 GMT -5
Yes Invisibleuser,
It always helps to have the best representation in court and money does buy good legal help and research. Trials, like most things in life are usually fairer and better for those who have the money. I'm sure that there is economic bias in trials but it is not the only factor. OJ is vilified by most and that is working against him or any defendant who seems to be above the law.
However, in the end, the jury, not the judge, and not the lawyers decide how justice is best served. The jury must act on the facts and not bias or a feeling of guilt or innocence. The evidence as presented in court is weighed by the jurors. They must decide if there is reasonable doubt in the charges. Not just doubt, or some doubt, or I wasn't there so I'm not really sure exactly what happened doubt, but reasonable doubt. The jury is made up of ones peers. So, in the end, WE decide who is guilty and who is innocent. Preconceived notions of guilt or innocence have no place in a courtroom. The judge and the lawyers question the jurors and remove those who they feel would not give their trial or their side a fair shake.
I believe he does have a chance to get off because the case smells fishy! Why would anyone risk their freedom for a thousand dollars or two worth of memorabilia? It seem like entrapment. It seems like a setup. Why are there recordings of the crime?
Still, the man will be seen by reasonable people as one in dire need of anger management and a menace to society. Some of the jury will be fighting to ignore the fact that justice was not served in his Murder trial and this is a chance for all good vigilantes to make it right.
I'd take 10-1 odds on a conviction of at least one of the counts this time around.....but, we do not know all the facts of the case...we don't know if a "Mark Furman" will materialize. We don't know if a bloody glove will surface at the trail (If the glove don't fit, you must acquit). That's why you want the very best legal representation.
csroc
|
|
|
|
Post by invisibleuser on Sept 27, 2007 12:10:38 GMT -5
A person of lessor means who can't afford a pricey defense team
like Blake-Simpson-Jackson-Spector were able to- has a much,much higher chance of being guilty.
We all know Clarkson didn't commit suicide... Another Hollywood celebrity gets off again.. for the time being....
Invisibleuser
|
|
