Who thinks O.J. is going to walk?

[Evel KMego]

I'm betting he's on his way outta the country by tomoorow! Can you say flight risk?

[txteach]

I Care Dangit! I loves me some OJ! I also like pie.

[Chris DVM]

Hey,

WHO
FREAKIN'
CARES!!!

Sorry, but I am so over this idiot and every other celebrity idiot out there. I don't care what Lohan does, don't care who Paris sleeps with, don't care if Brad leaves Angilina for Jennifer. I have a life, a wife, three kids, three cats, and a ton of friends that mean a heck of a lot more than anything these people do or say.
Personally, my philosophy of life has become very simple. Two rules:
1) Try to practice the Golden Rule to the best of your ability
2) Karrma is a real B**CH - eventually all the bad stuff you do will catch up to you, and then you will really be sorry!!
Chris DVM

[Comic Book Geek]

He burst into that hotel room with an armed possey... NOT to take back stolen memorabilia. he thought he'd found the real killers at last!

[RG]

If the law doesn't get him, I hope he ends up getting some ol' fashioned Vegas justice.

[toys2cool]

Looks like the juice is loose again and headed to South Florida D'oh!!!

[Adam West]

Well I guess I'm not disgusted enough yet to say who cares. This does concern the flaws of the American Justice system.

The 1st OJ trial was like an airplane crash. The saying goes many thing have to go wrong for a plane to crash to occur-not just one thing. In that original trial many upon many things certainly went wrong. What is beyond me is how nobody stepped in to say, wait, we must fix this. The judge should have re-cused himself, many witnesses used camera time on the stand to promote themselves and crack jokes, ( Kato Kailin), and the state should have had better prosecutors because they never even put him on the stand or analyzed the Bronco chase for the jury, ( clearly the motivation of a guilty person).

As for this situation where are they going to get an un-baised jury pool? Any black person getting on the jury might have already decided he is innocent and they consider it their duty to vote not guilty, ( jury nullification). They couldn't prevent that in the last case-they can't prevent it now. the only thing not in his favor is Johnny Cochrane is dead.

Under the law, the prosecution is not allowed to force the defendant to take the stand Under the 5th Amendment which is basically the law of self-incrimination. Now if the defense calls the defendant to take the stand, the prosecution is allowed to cross-examine in which case the defendant essentially revoked his/her 5th amendment rights. I don't know if the Bronco chase was allowed or not allowed as evidence (you'd be surprised at what is and isn't allowed to be testified) and the Bronco chase could simply be explained away by the defense as an irrational act by a man who just found out that his wife was murdered and wasn't thinking clearly. They probably would have also added that because the LAPD discriminates, O.J. was afraid that his life was in danger.

[Adam West]

I haven't forgotten that, and frankly believe that he probably was guilty. But, in the eyes of the law, none of that should matter in this case because he wasn't found criminally culpable. That's all I'm saying.

Let's say, for instance, you were charged with grand larceny, but later found not guilty. (and in fact you were innocent) Later, you were arrested for shoplifting. (I know you wouldn't do this, it's just an example.) Would it be fair for the prosecution to bring up the past crime that you were accused of but found not guilty? No, it wouldn't. And, legally, I don't think they can reference a civil suit in a criminal case either, especially an unrelated one.

Sometimes the system fails, like it (probably) did in the original O.J. case. But it's the only system we have, and we can't pick and choose which parts to embrace and which parts to ignore.

That's my only point.

It will be interesting to see how it plays out. No doubt that the criminal case will not be able to be used as a basis for the case but I'm sure the prosecution will try to use evidence from the Civil Case to show that there is a pattern of violence with him and that this yet another case that shows he is a danger to society. Whether or not it will be admitted will be argued about I'm sure.

[johnmiic]

Well I guess I'm not disgusted enough yet to say who cares. This does concern the flaws of the American Justice system.

The 1st OJ trial was like an airplane crash. The saying goes many thing have to go wrong for a plane to crash to occur-not just one thing. In that original trial many upon many things certainly went wrong. What is beyond me is how nobody stepped in to say, wait, we must fix this. The judge should have re-cused himself, many witnesses used camera time on the stand to promote themselves and crack jokes, ( Kato Kailin), and the state should have had better prosecutors because they never even put him on the stand or analyzed the Bronco chase for the jury, ( clearly the motivation of a guilty person).

As for this situation where are they going to get an un-baised jury pool? Any black person getting on the jury might have already decided he is innocent and they consider it their duty to vote not guilty, ( jury nullification). They couldn't prevent that in the last case-they can't prevent it now. the only thing not in his favor is Johnny Cochrane is dead.

[JDeRouen]

I haven't forgotten that, and frankly believe that he probably was guilty. But, in the eyes of the law, none of that should matter in this case because he wasn't found criminally culpable. That's all I'm saying.

Let's say, for instance, you were charged with grand larceny, but later found not guilty. (and in fact you were innocent) Later, you were arrested for shoplifting. (I know you wouldn't do this, it's just an example.) Would it be fair for the prosecution to bring up the past crime that you were accused of but found not guilty? No, it wouldn't. And, legally, I don't think they can reference a civil suit in a criminal case either, especially an unrelated one.

Sometimes the system fails, like it (probably) did in the original O.J. case. But it's the only system we have, and we can't pick and choose which parts to embrace and which parts to ignore.

That's my only point.

He wasn't found criminally guilty (and I believe it was due to some good lawyers, a racially biased jury, as well as a racially biased case). To me the clincher evidence were those fancy shoes with bloody footprints, exact same size, and a picture of him wearing the exact shoes before a football game (maybe the Super Bowl).

He was however found guilty in Civil Court which people tend to forget. The Goldmans would not have won that suit if it was truly believed that he was innocent in this.

[Adam West]

According to the law, he was found not guilty of the double homicide, and thus that should be irrelevant in this case. But I suspect the judge and jury will "make up for" him getting off the original charges and throw the book at him.

O.J. Simpson is not a super villain, and he's certainly no Lex Luthor. The guy isn't nearly smart - or rich - enough!

He wasn't found criminally guilty (and I believe it was due to some good lawyers, a racially biased jury, as well as a racially biased case). To me the clincher evidence were those fancy shoes with bloody footprints, exact same size, and a picture of him wearing the exact shoes before a football game (maybe the Super Bowl).

He was however found guilty in Civil Court which people tend to forget. The Goldmans would not have won that suit if it was truly believed that he was innocent in this.

[Cosmicman]

The first appearance of General Juice

A better question would be Does anyone even care ?

You are probably right.

This just gave me a killer idea for a villain I need in this new story I am writing.

Ladies and gentlemen, meet General Juice!

A murdering social path with money that makes him untouchable.

Can he be touched or can he really do anything he wants?

I like it!! I must goto work now! Ideas brewing in my head!

[megocrazy]

They're actually trying to push a kidnapping with a dangerous weapon charge also. If you threaten someone with a weapon while trying to kidnap them I believe it's possession with intent to endanger or kill. I believe they're saying on the news that could carry a possible life term. There's also several other charges associated with the robbery that were stated to carry 8-10 years each. Even if he gets off light at 5 years each, 6 charges would be 30 years plus the kidnapping. Served consecutively, he never sees the outside of a prison until they carry him to the cemetery. Al Capone killed tons of people and in the end they ended up getting him on tax evasion. He died in jail. This could finally result in justice though not for the worst crime he's commited. But, does it really matter?

[Cosmicman]

I guess I don't really care what the law says. The guy murdered 2 people and got away with it. If that isn't supervillan enough I don't know what is.

Thank you. That is what I was getting at.

If some ordinary schmo like me came into someone's home with a katana and chopped them all up. I would be sitting in prison right now.

O.J. Simpson don't fall to far behind Lex Luthor as far as getting away with murder and having lots of money. He might not be a super genius but he falls in the same bracket.
The only difference, Lex Luthor is a comic character and OJ Simpson is a real person.
What I was getting at. If we have super villains in real life, OJ Simpson is definitely on that list of the top baddies.

I see a custom mego in the making. Who will dare? LOL

[txteach]

I guess I don't really care what the law says. The guy murdered 2 people and got away with it. If that isn't supervillan enough I don't know what is.