OJ Simpson found guilty

[peggys-dad]

The reportage is here


About time

[chelle7272]

I agree
The link didn't work for me however?

[THECORBYLOON]

You have posted a link to the question....

[scotgal]

What goes around comes around. I think justice has now been done.

[Ethel]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/arti cle-1068189/Guilty-OJ-Simpson-finally-facing-l ife-jail-convicted-armed-robbery.html

[chelle7272]

Thanks Ethel. Lets hope for a long sentence.

[scotgal]

I've just watched footage of this on the BBC news and can't believe the arrogance of the man. I mean after getting off the charge of killing his wife 20 years ago you would have thought he would've kept his head down but to go on to commit another crime and be caught on CCTV doing it shows arrogance beyond belief. As I said before justice has finally been done

[jno]

presumably people are sure he committed murder in the past, though the jury who actually studied the crime thought otherwise (not least because the supposed murderer's glove didn't fit him); so they're keen to see him put away for something?

[andy-hughes]

I find it worrying that a section of society will feel that Simpson 'finally got what he deserved'.

This is patently wrong, since he was tried in accordance with the law for the murder of his ex-wife, and aquitted - and that is the way society works, innocent until proven (and in this case not proven) guilty.

If Simpson was guitly of hubris, as appears, and has gone on to offend and be convicted, then so be it, the law is served once again.

On what basis does anyone not directly involved in the case assume Simspon was guilty of murder? We heard no evidence, saw no unedited proceedings, and made judgements based on media speculation. Fortunately the law does not take this matter into account.

So peggys-dad - what do you mean by "About time"?

[zzxxee]

i here they are not passing sentance till monday anyone no the max you can get in the us?

[rov1200]

But Simpson was found guilty of murder in the civil court which takes account of the probabilities rather than 100% proof.

[jno]

but is not good enough for an actual murder trial, rov

[Twenty20]

Who's OJ Simpson and who cares anyway? Why is it a big deal over here?

[jno]

andy hughes, me, and the jury that actually heard the case.

[anotheoldgit]

Number 13 was unlucky for O.J.

Took the jury 13 hours of continous deliberations, to find him guilty of a crime committed on September 13, and 13 years to the day after he was cleared of his wife's murder.

I heard it will be December before he is sentenced.

[peggys-dad]

Most people are convinced that Mr Simpson's defence team played the 'race card' to get him off at his original trial for killing his ex wife, and \her lover. Remember, it was a double murder trial.

[jno]

the cards they played had to do with the evidence. The glove found at the scene didn't fit Simpson. The DNA evidence was badly mishandled, so anyone could have got at it - such as the racist detective Mark Fuhrman, who gave evidence. The prosecution made a mess of the case. Simpson was found not guilty because the prosecution had not proved that he did it, which is what trials are for.

[andy-hughes]

Wromg Doc Spock, I don't think OJ Simpson killed his wife and her friend, or that he didn't, I wasn't there.

I do know he had a legal trial and was aquitted, and what I, or you, or anyone else thinks is irrelevent after that.

What does worry me is the notion that because he was guilty in the eyes of some people, but 'got away with it', then jusrtice has been served this time around.

That is simply not how it works.

This time, Simpson was found guilty, not because of the previous case, but because of the trail proceedure on this one.

That is how the law in a demoacracy works.

It's not faultless, but it beats the "He got away with it, but 'we' got him this time ...' approach any day.

[ludwig]

Courts and Jurys get things wrong. If people want to express doubt about a verdict they should be able to do so, as long as it's legal.

That works both ways. There are plenty of people campaigning against miscarriages of justice where a guilty verdict was incorrectly given in their opinion. Are we to tell them all to shut up and not have the affrontery to question the court's decision?

[andy-hughes]

I totally agree ludwig. It's not the notion of taking issue with the Simpson murder trail verdict that is at issue here - that I have no problem in accepting.

It's those two little words that peggys-dad added at the end of his question - and he has yet to reply to my challenge on it - what exactly does 'about time' mean?

I think it is fundamentaly wrong to see a legal judgement as 'getting it right this time, when they got it wrong last time'.

Yes, it's human nature, but that doesn't make it right.