Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 11/21/2006 9:29:18 PM PST by RWR8189
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-30 next last
To: RWR8189
The attention and money Simpson (and Fox) would have garnered from the deal are not half as outrageous as the fact that every day he walks free.

[::Nodding::] Yup. Yup. And yup.

2 posted on 11/21/2006 9:31:25 PM PST by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle ("On 11/07/06, 'true' conservatives and 'rat traitors joined forces to bring Sharia law to America.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: RWR8189

Once again Charles the K has hit the nail on the head.


3 posted on 11/21/2006 9:33:26 PM PST by Utah Binger (Southern Utah, where a Ruger Auto 10/22 makes the rules.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: RWR8189

Krauthammer is probably right. The idea that we would have then been subjected to months of OJ is disturbing and tiring, but the number of people who believe he is innocent is also disturbing.


5 posted on 11/21/2006 9:36:38 PM PST by sageb1 (This is the Final Crusade. There are only 2 sides. Pick one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: RWR8189

Great writing! I saw this as a crass book promotion, but maybe Charlie is right.


6 posted on 11/21/2006 9:39:05 PM PST by La Enchiladita (I will chill out when I'm dead . . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: RWR8189

Wrong, what's next, cooking with John Wayne Gacey?


7 posted on 11/21/2006 9:40:37 PM PST by John Lenin (The most dangerous place for a child in America is indeed in its mother's womb)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: RWR8189

If OJ had admitted his guilt and said he killed her because she was playing the whore with all of california in front of his kids, I would have had sympathy for him. He still would've been jailed for murder, but at least I would have understood.

He's never said that, so my guess is that it wasn't the case.

Krauthammer's right. OJ doing this "if" thing is conclusive about his guilt.


8 posted on 11/21/2006 9:40:51 PM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and proud of it! Supporting our troops means praying for them to WIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: RWR8189

OJ still can speak - let him put a video up on YouTube.


10 posted on 11/21/2006 9:43:31 PM PST by glorgau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: RWR8189

The jurors came to the correct verdict. It's become rather obvious that the blood evidence was tainted and that establishes reasonable doubt. He could be guilty as sin but it's very hard to prove that using tampered blood.

The jury may have not have reached the correct verdict with the correct reasoning but they did, nonetheless. get the verdict right.

FWIW, the civil jury got it right too. There are separate standards for the two types of law. In the civil case, the prosecutors just needs to prove a preponderance of the evidence while a criminal trial requires guilt be on a reasonable doubt. The civil jury also heard about the Bruno Magli shoes which the criminal jury did not hear.

Don't blame the jurors. They did their jobs correctly. Instead, blame the LAPD who, in their rush to nab O.J. Simpson, planted his blood at the crime scene in order to throw the case their way and were caught (pardon the pun) red-handed.


11 posted on 11/21/2006 9:44:38 PM PST by Tall_Texan (NO McCain, Rudy, Romney, Hillary, Kerry, Obama or Gore in 2008!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: RWR8189

bttt


12 posted on 11/21/2006 9:45:09 PM PST by perfect stranger (Tagline tomorrow, tagline yesterday, but no tagline today.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: RWR8189
Here's the television I really will miss now: the cameras taken into the homes of every one of those twelve willful jurists who sprung O.J. free 12 years ago and made a mockery of the law by trying to turn a brutal murderer of two into a racial victim/hero. I wanted to see their faces as the man they declared innocent described to the world how he would have taken—nonsense: how he did take—the knife to Nicole's throat.

This is silly. Does Krauthammer expect them to show remorse, regret, embarrassment? Sorry to burst your bubble, Charles, but all you'd see on the faces of these "willful jurists" is a laugh-in-your-face leer. Simpson is a hero to these folks because they know he's guilty and they got him off, not because he's innocent and they protected him from an unjust conviction. The applause was for sticking it in The Man's eye, and the applause will be even louder when OJ himself tells the world it's true.

20 posted on 11/21/2006 9:51:20 PM PST by Steely Tom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: RWR8189

I don't want to hear another word about OJ until somebody cuts his head off.


25 posted on 11/21/2006 10:19:30 PM PST by ozzymandus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: RWR8189
Why are blacks so deluded? 97% think that OJ is innocent. Are they completely detached from reality?

Interestingly, nearly the same percentage of blacks vote Democrat.
27 posted on 11/21/2006 10:22:47 PM PST by TeenagedConservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: RWR8189

What Krauthammer doesn't seem to realize is that the best prosecutor on Earth couldn't have won that case, not after Garcetti allowed change of venue to downtown LA. Can't have rioting over a Simpson conviction, now can we?


32 posted on 11/21/2006 10:49:53 PM PST by Bonaparte
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: RWR8189

God what a great article.


35 posted on 11/21/2006 10:56:34 PM PST by jporcus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: RWR8189

It depends on what's in the interview, and thats something only Fox and Judith Regan would know. I agree though, if it is in some way a 'confession', then it should have aired. If its not, and its just OJ trying to cast blame somewhere else then it shouldnt. I think its more likely that it was the later, and thats the real reason Fox caved. They knew what kind of reaction they were going to get after people realised they'd been had.

I do think thought theres a good case to be made that it should just have been aired in the interest of 'free speech' itself. I dont want moral arbiters like Bill O'Reilly deciding what should or shouldnt be shown on television. I dont mind a boycott, but Id like to be able to decide for myself whether I watch it or not. I think there may be a backlash against the 'culture warriors' over this.


38 posted on 11/21/2006 11:09:57 PM PST by OmegaMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: RWR8189
O.J. is a narcissist and he wouldn't have admitted a darn thing in the interview. He needs the publicity, he needs to know people are still interested in seeing him. He's been out of the lime light too long & it eats him up.

Remember, he still has kids and he wouldn't have admitted a thing!

41 posted on 11/21/2006 11:21:23 PM PST by blondee123
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: RWR8189

I cannot bear to see O.J's face for more than a few seconds. I could not watch it. But Krauthammer once again brings a unique perspective to current events.


42 posted on 11/21/2006 11:23:24 PM PST by Northern Alliance
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: RWR8189

I was thinking the same thing myself.


44 posted on 11/21/2006 11:54:33 PM PST by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: RWR8189
Vincent Bugliosi's book "Outrage" laid out the slam-dunk case that could have been made against Simpson by competent prosecutors. Anyone who looked at that evidence with an open mind already knows that he is guilty. People who haven't looked at the evidence but still insist that Simpson is innocent are fools.

He will be a pariah until he dies, and that is at least some punishment.

I don't want to hear any more from him or about him.

45 posted on 11/22/2006 12:01:22 AM PST by TChad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: RWR8189
Agreed.

I wanted to see their faces as the man they declared innocent described to the world how he would have taken—nonsense: how he did take—the knife to Nicole's throat.

I believe that a number of those jurors would maintain that their verdict was right even if OJ is truly the murderer because, well, it works out to white people have more money than black people.

49 posted on 11/22/2006 3:17:58 AM PST by arthurus (Better to fight them over THERE than over HERE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-30 next last

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson