The sooner someone shanks this guy in prison the better

Well, sure. If what he maintains is true, he's going to blame them at some point.

If you were in the position he alleges, you'd be cursing them to hell and back. And you'd likely add a few "fuck you"s to the parents who spawned the little brats (again, being devil's advocate).

 

nothing to do with macho, more to do with my total lack of respect for the the guy, what he has been proven to have done and the way he trys to come off the victim.

 

"This isn't one person coming forward..."

On one hand (and on the one end) you have one victim's mother for whom it was enough that Jerry not shower with her son anymore, on the other end of it you have complete strangers willing to kill or have him killed.


Hmmm.

 

The Jury's verdict is a bit too convenient and circular for your position. I mean, no one is disputing that the verdict was guilty. But that's not proof in any objective sense...or perhaps you're certain of O.J. Simpson's innocence (?).

 

it is good to be wary of our "justice" system first off...

but it is fair to say, he is very very VERY likely a sadistic monster of a pedophile, and deserves to pay the price for his actions

i really dont know how you could argue that

 

I agree. Our prison system has zero credibility and it's refusal to operate as it should guarantees it's obvious and continual failure as a solution to crime. Abuse and torture of prisoners is both allowed and condoned by those in charge and these dirtbag wardens and directoprs of corrections deserve a cell of their own.

Any competent manager of a prison should have no problem preventing physical assaults among prisoners, drugs being smuggled in, crimes being plotted and directed from inside prisons...

Until the DOJ cleans house on a massive scale our corrections system will remain a joke as far as being a supposed rehabilitator.

When I worked for the feds I toured Sheridan Correctional Institute which is a medium security prison. Not only do the inmates run the asylum there but they do so because the prison officials deliberately allow them to. They seemed almost proud of the fact as they explained how they appease the prisoners and gangs in every way imaginable in order to "preserve the peace". I came away thoroughly disgusted that these cowards were drawing a taxpayer funded paycheck.

 

No jury ever found OJ Simpson innocent.

A jury did find, after hearing evidence from both sides, beyond a reasonable doubt that Sandusky sexually abused multiple children.

 

"A jury did find, after hearing evidence from both sides, beyond a reasonable doubt that Sandusky sexually abused multiple children."

Yeah, thanks. But, umm, no one is disputing knowledge of the Sandusky verdict.

 

No problem.

Since you "slaughtered" the OJ analogy so bad, I didn't know if you understood exactly what happens in a courtroom.

 

Simpson was later found guilty in a civil court, and has pretty much admitted his guilt in a book.

 

"it is good to be wary of our "justice" system first off..."

It's not just that. We have to be wary of our fellow man. Look around the forum.

"but it is fair to say, he is very very VERY likely a sadistic monster of a pedophile, and deserves to pay the price for his actions"

Nah, sorry, that's reasoning backwards. The GJ report is not that long. You ought to read it.

This forum is like Twelve Angry Men ... in the beginning.

 

"Simpson was later found guilty in a civil court, and has pretty much admitted his guilt in a book."

Yes, OJ was later found guilty ... of robbery.

Mislead much?

 

Not at all.

Civil trial
The parents of Ron Goldman, Fred Goldman and Sharon Rufo, brought suit against Simpson for wrongful death, and Brown's estate, represented by her father Lou Brown,[26] brought suit against Simpson in a "survivor suit", in a trial that took place over four months in Santa Monica and was not televised (by judge's order).[51][52] The Goldman family was represented by Daniel Petrocelli, with Simpson represented by Bob Baker.[52] Attorneys for both sides were given high marks by observing lawyers.[52] Simpson's defense in the trial was estimated to cost $1 million and was paid for by an insurance policy on his company, Orenthal Enterprises.[26]

At one point, Baker made a mistake that allowed Petrocelli to introduce evidence regarding Simpson's failure of a lie detector test about the murders.[4] Fuhrman was not called to testify, and Simpson was subpoenaed to testify on his own behalf.[4][11] In addition, a photo of O.J., taken while he was attending a Buffalo Bills game in 1993 was produced and showed him wearing Bruno Magli shoes,[53] the same type of shoes which investigators stated the killer of Goldman and Brown was wearing when the murders were committed.[54] The photo was then presented as evidence against him,[54] as O.J. had previously denied ever wearing such shoes.[54] The jury in the civil trial awarded Brown and Simpson's children, Sydney and Justin, $12.6 million from their father as recipients of their mother's estate.[4] The victims' families were awarded $33.5 million in compensatory and punitive damages.[55]


[Apparent confessions
In September 1994, Jennifer Peace,[58] an adult actress who performed under the name "Devon Shire", came forward claiming that she was Al Cowlings' girlfriend, and that Cowlings had told her that Simpson had confessed his guilt. Peace was subpoenaed to testify before a Grand Jury by Clark and Hodgman, and later said that Cowlings had told her that Simpson was guilty of both murders, and that the weapon "sleeps with the fishes."[59] Peace sold her story to Star Magazine and American Journal for a reported mid six-figure sum, an action that discredited her and led to her not being called as a witness during the larger trial. Speculation at the time was that the prosecution was using Peace to try to put pressure on Cowlings to "flip" on Simpson and testify against him. When that strategy failed to work, the Grand Jury was dismissed and the case proceeded to trial.

In the February 1998 issue of Esquire, Simpson was quoted as saying, "Let's say I committed this crime… Even if I did this, it would have to have been because I loved her very much, right?" Simpson said that he would look for the real murderer, whom he said he believed was a hitman.

In November 2006, ReganBooks announced a book by Simpson, titled If I Did It, an account that the publisher pronounced a hypothetical confession. The book's release was planned to coincide with a Fox special featuring Simpson. "This is a historic case, and I consider this his confession," publisher Judith Regan told The Associated Press.[60] On November 20, News Corporation, parent company of ReganBooks and Fox, canceled both the book and the TV interview due to a high level of public criticism. CEO Rupert Murdoch, speaking at a press conference, stated: "I and senior management agree with the American public that this was an ill-considered project."[61] Regan was fired in December 2006 for apparently unrelated reasons.

In June 2007, a federal judge ruled that Fred Goldman, Ron Goldman's father, could pursue the publishing rights to Simpson's book.[62] In July 2007, a federal bankruptcy judge awarded the rights to the book to the Goldman family to help satisfy the $38 million wrongful death civil suit judgment against Simpson.[63] After Goldman had won the rights to the book, he arranged to publish it under the new title If I Did It: Confessions of the Killer.[64]

The book was ghostwritten by Pablo Fenjves.[65] Fenjves stated in interviews that Simpson actively collaborated on the book, and that he "knew" him to be the murderer.[66]

Fox Television was to air a related interview with Simpson in late November 2006, in which Simpson would allegedly describe how he would have committed the 1994 slayings of his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her friend Ronald Goldman, "if he were the one responsible."[67]

In May 2008, Mike Gilbert released his book How I Helped O.J. Get Away with Murder,[68] which details O. J. confessing to the killings to Gilbert.[69] Gilbert, a memorabilia dealer, is a former agent and friend of Simpson. He states that Simpson had smoked marijuana, taken a sleeping pill and was drinking beer when he confided at his Brentwood home weeks after his trial what happened the night of the murders. Simpson allegedly said, "If she hadn't opened that door with a knife in her hand... she'd still be alive." This, Gilbert said, confirmed his belief that Simpson had confessed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O._J._Simpson_murder_case

 

Sure. No problem. I understand that people are ignorant about a lot of things, take language for example. You have the odd belief that because I used the word innocent to refer to a person a jury had ruled "not guilty" that somehow my comparison is has been "slaughtered" (your quotations).

I simply referenced the meaning carelessly, using the term we often use for those who maintain their innocence and then are found not guilty.

The example (what you called an analogy) maintains however, and the fact is you don't need any particular case; unless you live beneath a rock you're well aware that people, juries, and judges are wrong with some regularity.

This isn't meant to suggest that because some are innocent all are innocent, rather it's simply pointing out the fact that these mistakes directly undermine the quality of the professed "certainty."

 

Yes, at all. And you're doing it again. OJ was not convicted of murder or found guilty of murder nor did he do any time for murder. He was found liable for some damages and had to pay them money. Yep, misleading.

But anyway, you dwell on that. The point was and is simply that juries, judges and people make too many errors for anyone to claim certainty based on nothing but the conclusions they reach on imperfect evidence. The OJ Murder case is but one example, but a very good example.

 

"A court will never find a person "innocent." just "not guilty."

Of course they won't. It's just that in conversation some of us mistakenly refer to the verdict of not guilty by what it means to the innocent who go free. But that's hardly the point. And Maris still has it wrong, as OJ was not "found guilty" but rather liable for some damages. That's simply not a murder conviction. It was someone else who was quibbling about nomenclature.

 

You may want to read the quote again too. I don't say the jury found him innocent, I specifically refer to their verdict as not guilty; I use 'innocent' when I ask you about your belief about OJ.


Did you really not get that?