OJ Interview

[turbocarrera]

Wouldn't it have been great if, halfway through the interview, Katie just said, "Sorry to cut you off, OJ, but everyone knows you murdered the mother of your children." *cut to a commercial for a battered woman's help-line*

or something..

[singpilot]

Everyone treated Hitler like royalty and adored him too.

[azasadny]

"I am counting on there being one more judge (no jury) that will pass sentance on OJ. The penalty he receives will be worse than life without parole. Count on it."

I agree with Singpilot 100%. OJ will get his and the punishment will be much worse than anything we could do to him. The day he was acquitted was the day I lost all confidence in our criminal justice system!

[Hugh R]

Originally posted by Moses
He might have just been watching very closely. That would explain OJ's blood at the crime scene and the victims blood in OJ's car, on his socks, in his house. I'm sure it was just an amazing coincidence.

And what's the fuss about this DNA stuff all about? It's not like a fingerprint, right?

I believe one of the criminal case jurors actually said something like "Hey, once you throw out the blood and DNA, what else did they have?"

[Moses]

Originally posted by Hugh R
I believe on of the criminal case jurors actually said something like "Hey, once you throw out the blood and DNA, what else did they have?"

No kidding? Classic.

[singpilot]

This is an interview with Nicole's sister. The sicko OJ took his kids to Benihana to celebrate their mom's birthday. You know, the place with knives aplenty.

http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20040608140109990006

[speeder]

Originally posted by Hugh R
I believe on of the criminal case jurors actually said something like "Hey, once you throw out the blood and DNA, what else did they have?"

The police somehow lost 10cc(?) of the blood that they drew from OJ several hours after the murders. Sad to say, but this would have caused any jury doing its job to "throw out the blood and the DNA". When your entire case is based on blood evidence, (no witnesses/weapon/etc.), and the police "lose" some of the accused person's blood, you have no case.

I am angry that OJ got away w/ murder, it sucks, but people get away w/ murder every day. The astonishing thing about this case is the depth of the general public's ignorance about the case itself and what it takes to convict someone of a crime like murder. It is not enough to dislike the defendant, or have a gut feeling that "he/she did it" when sitting on a jury, you need evidence.

All anger about that verdict should be directed at the world's most inept investigation and prosecution, not the jury. OJ's lawyers were not even that good, for the most part. There have been murder cases won by the defense w/ much stronger evidence than the OJ trial.

Once again, for anyone who is a little slow: when your entire case is built on a shaky "timeline" and blood evidence, and the dip***** cops "lose" some of the defendant's blood, that is what defense lawyers call a "can't lose" case. In other words, you could not lose it if you were trying. And OJ's lawyers almost did, that's how inept they were.