Author Topic: Hey Johnnie (Read 1579 times)

ASTAC · « **Reply #30 on:** March 29, 2005, 09:30:34 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Steve
This is amazing to me.
Such ignorance... just amazing.

Call it what you want..I've looked at it from both sides...and that is my opinion.

Steve · « **Reply #31 on:** March 29, 2005, 10:02:01 PM »

Wulfe, if Cochran had done some kind of dishonest or underhanded thing, used some sort of lame technicality, I'd be with you even though it would be the wrong opinion to have. (all I mean here is that I think everyone is entitled to due process)

Cochran didn't do anything magical, or evil. The prosecutors bungled the case, they are the ones who should be most held in our contempt.

I understand the need to find a villian for the gross injustice of OJ's acquittal. It's just not Cochran... he merely upheld our constitution, albeit for money.

I'm left shaking my head too that someone could represent a monster, but the constitution states:

Quote

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, .... nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law....

Unfortunately, this clearly applies to ALL peoples of our US, even monsters.

Steve · « **Reply #32 on:** March 29, 2005, 10:03:31 PM »

Quote

A person who helps someone commit a crime is called an associate

If you mean accessory, I understand your point here.

Sandman · « **Reply #33 on:** March 29, 2005, 10:05:19 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Steve
We must have adequate representation for accused criminals. Without it, our justice system would fail miserably. Do not blame Johnny for doing his job well and thus getting OJ acquitted. Rather, blame the absolute clowns who prosecuted OJ.

Footnote: No, I do not think OJ is innocent.

Spot on.

Steve · « **Reply #34 on:** March 29, 2005, 10:08:57 PM »

ASTAC, I apologize. My comment was out of line. I will edit it.

AKS\/\/ulfe · « **Reply #35 on:** March 29, 2005, 10:13:07 PM »

He willingly chose to defend OJ. Its not about the constitution, or the right to have a lawyer, or to have a fair trial, its that he willingly went on that case for the defense.

Any lawyer that did that defended evil, or a monster, and in the end it won't be good that came of it.

Every decision has a consequence, he made the wrong choice defending the wrong person.

As far as what I meant with associate. An associate is the same as accomplice, someone who is needed and helps willingly. An accessory helps, but is not needed.
-SW

Airhead · « **Reply #36 on:** March 29, 2005, 10:28:54 PM »

OJ was innocent. And that Argentenian football player never hit that ball with his hand.

Jackal1 · « **Reply #37 on:** March 29, 2005, 10:31:44 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Steve
Wulfe, if Cochran had done some kind of dishonest or underhanded thing, used some sort of lame technicality, I'd be with you even though it would be the wrong opinion to have. (all I mean here is that I think everyone is entitled to due process)

Cochran didn't do anything magical, or evil. The prosecutors bungled the case, they are the ones who should be most held in our contempt.

Cochran was just a paid bystander. A figure head that sold out for cash.
The prosecuters bungled nothing.
Influence and cold , hard cash is what made the difference. The only friggen difference.
All Cochran did was sell to the highest bidder. Justice had absolutely nothing to do with this case and many others.'
The decision and outcome were in the works before the trial even started. All that needed working out was how much to who.
While this fiasco was going on I heard hundreds if not even thousands comment on the outcome. I probably hear 2, 3 , 5 people max state they were unsure of the outcome. The rest said he would walk. Ex- sports star, actor, lots of cash and friends in high places who had made it public to buddy up to him. Was no other outcome .

Gunslinger · « **Reply #38 on:** March 29, 2005, 10:38:24 PM »

man pissin on a man's grave and he aint even in the ground yet!

The Chewbaca Defense was allways my favorite:)

Steve · « **Reply #39 on:** March 29, 2005, 10:40:39 PM »

Quote

The prosecuters bungled nothing.

You have a lot of research to do.

Steve · « **Reply #40 on:** March 29, 2005, 10:41:28 PM »

Quote

The Chewbaca Defense was allways my favorite

It does not make sense!

Look at the monkey, look at the silly monkey.

Creamo · « **Reply #41 on:** March 29, 2005, 10:42:58 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by midnight Target
He was the Michael Jordan of defense attorneys. Even Creamo would have hired him if he was guilty and had the bucks.

You no nothing about me. You show up in any thread that stinks color like you know. What you don't know is I laugh at you. Piss off.

Jackal1 · « **Reply #42 on:** March 29, 2005, 10:46:37 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Steve
You have a lot of research to do.

I have absolutely no research to do. It doesn`t make a rats **** in hell how big of an idiot the investigators or the prosecution was. They were just actors in a prescripted, very predictable play. Cash and fame cinched the deal. The rest was just an embarrassing public display and mockery.

Sandman · « **Reply #43 on:** March 29, 2005, 11:11:43 PM »

I tell ya... the world is a much more entertaining place with conspiracy theorists.

research

Rino · « **Reply #44 on:** March 29, 2005, 11:31:43 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Steve
So, does that mean you think he should have had a trial, with legal representation?

Forgive me, I do not understand people on tilt very well.

Maybe I missed something during the "OJ" trial, it looked to
me as if he was never tried at all, more like the LAPD was on
trial. Sure is a good thing OJ is going to find the people who
committed the crime himself. I mean I suppose it's possible
the fiend could be a golf course grounds keeper.