O.J. Simpson's fate and liberty now rests with nine women and three men from Clark County.
The 12-member jury will on Friday morning begin deliberating the 12 robbery, weapons and kidnapping charges faced by Simpson and his alleged co-conspirator, Clarence "C.J." Stewart.
One fascinating coincidence is that today is the anniversary of his famous aquittal in 1995.
I give O.J. the benefit of the doubt in this one. I think it's completely plausible that the stuff was his and that he went there to retrieve it. Arranging to be escorted by a couple tough guys with guns, which I know he denies, makes perfect sense to me. I'm not convinced that would even constitute a crime.
So, if we see a conviction in this case, I believe it'll be another miscarriage of justice. Whether he got away with murder 13 years ago or not, should have nothing to do with today's deliberations.
Here's what the spin doctors over at CNN have to say about it. The picture of O.J. is enough to understand their opinion.
What's your opinion?
He killed two people in cold blood and got away with it. He then bragged about what he did.
ReplyDeleteI won't be happy unless justice fails again...this time to the severe...and I'm sad it comes to this.
The US justice system needs to be re-worked, sez I!
I think you got your wish, Weer'd. That's one news item I did see over the weekend.
ReplyDeleteHe hasn't been sentenced yet. All the Jury did was find him Guilty (and the evidence brought forward sounds like it wasn't a hard case to judge)
ReplyDeleteBut its not my wish, my wish is that we don't need to be having discussions about murders walking free and how long a list of convictions the latest murderer on the street had at the time of his LATEST murder.
When intelligent bloggers can't seem to stop sympathizing with beast that has done nothing but abuse, kill, and threaten, and then abuse the system to walk free for DECADES....but man don't we feel bad for him that he's FINALLY been convicted of ONE of the crimes he's committed.
A very sad world.
weerd, he was not found guilty of the first two murders, even after being tried by a court of law. he may have actually committed those murders, but once the judge and jury acquit him, it's not really up to us to so certainly declare him guilty any more; double jeopardy, and all that, even in the court of public opinion.
ReplyDeleteyeah, he may be one of those ten guilty men it's better to let go free than to convict the one innocent, but he's been let free of that crime after the due process had its full procedure with him. much as we may disagree with the outcome, that should be the end of it. (you and i know it really means he'll never get an unbiased jury again, and certainly didn't get one this time around, but that's life. ideally he should have got that too.)
I think it's disingenuous to assume that the first jury in the murder trial was "fair", but no jury after that can be. How can you be so sure that the first jury found him not guilty based solely on a preponderance of the evidence (as opposed to his celeb status)and the 2nd jury found him guilty out of spite?
ReplyDeleteAs I said on the other post on this topic, if the judge thought the jury's decision was based on prejudice rather than evidence, she could've overruled the verdict.