/dev/null Posted April 3, 2016 Posted April 3, 2016 There's an Esquire Network!?! About two or three months ago I started seeing commercials for a new show called Beowulf on Esquire network. So I had to Google®, yes there really is an Esquire network, DirecTV 235. Judging from the commercials I catch during Beowulf, there's not much of anything on that channel other than Beowulf (which is itself a GoT/Vikings/Last Kingdom wannabe)
bbb Posted April 3, 2016 Posted April 3, 2016 I think we may have reached our saturation point with all these networks! A network that shows nothing but Beowulf and then a marathon of a real life trail - haha
mrags Posted April 4, 2016 Posted April 4, 2016 I can't wait for the finale this week. I can't wait to see what happens. I hope he is found innocent. He was always one of my favorite Bills.
bbb Posted April 4, 2016 Posted April 4, 2016 I can't wait for the finale this week. I can't wait to see what happens. I hope he is found innocent. He was always one of my favorite Bills. I'm with you - but all that DNA evidence and blood. There's no way a jury is going to let him go with all that.
Buffalo Barbarian Posted April 4, 2016 Posted April 4, 2016 I think we may have reached our saturation point with all these networks! A network that shows nothing but Beowulf and then a marathon of a real life trail - haha ? About two or three months ago I started seeing commercials for a new show called Beowulf on Esquire network. So I had to Google®, yes there really is an Esquire network, DirecTV 235. Judging from the commercials I catch during Beowulf, there's not much of anything on that channel other than Beowulf (which is itself a GoT/Vikings/Last Kingdom wannabe) Beowulf was pretty bad looked liked it was filmed and acted in the 80s
Philly McButterpants Posted April 4, 2016 Posted April 4, 2016 No matter what happened in LA, that he's currently serving a 33 year sentence for attempting to recover his own stolen property is a complete travesty of justice, not to mention an enormous waste of tax payer money Ummm, he was was trying to stop items from being sold for profit to the Goldman family (per the civil trial judgement), that's why the sentence was so harsh.
Canadian Bills Fan Posted April 4, 2016 Posted April 4, 2016 On a slightly unrelated topic, I hate how a victim can sue a criminal defendant when that person was acquitted. I understand it's a different burden of proof and all of that, but I feel like the rule should be that absent a criminal conviction or guilty plea, the victim cannot sue civilly. Otherwise, to be fair, maybe A criminal defendant should be able to sue the state to get his costs of defense back after an acquittal. In civil court they just have to prove that that specific person was responsible for the death, not necessarily the person who actually commited the murder. Plus in civil court is where they are allowed to seek monetary damages CBF
PastaJoe Posted April 4, 2016 Posted April 4, 2016 Beowulf was pretty bad looked liked it was filmed and acted in the 80s The original series with Jan-Michael Viincent and Ernest Borgnine was in the '80s. That was a kick-ass helicopter.
Buffalo Barbarian Posted April 6, 2016 Posted April 6, 2016 The original series with Jan-Michael Viincent and Ernest Borgnine was in the '80s. That was a kick-ass helicopter. wasn't that Airwolf?
Justice Posted April 6, 2016 Posted April 6, 2016 On a slightly unrelated topic, I hate how a victim can sue a criminal defendant when that person was acquitted. I understand it's a different burden of proof and all of that, but I feel like the rule should be that absent a criminal conviction or guilty plea, the victim cannot sue civilly. Otherwise, to be fair, maybe A criminal defendant should be able to sue the state to get his costs of defense back after an acquittal. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the defendant in a civil trial cannot plead the 5th. I believe it should be that way in a criminal trial as well.
boyst Posted April 6, 2016 Posted April 6, 2016 Correct me if I'm wrong, but the defendant in a civil trial cannot plead the 5th. I believe it should be that way in a criminal trial as well.you have absolutely no concept of the Constitution, huhM
/dev/null Posted April 7, 2016 Posted April 7, 2016 Correct me if I'm wrong, but the defendant in a civil trial cannot plead the 5th. I believe it should be that way in a criminal trial as well. You are wrong https://apps.americanbar.org/buslaw/blt/blt00may-shield.html I believe it should be that way in a criminal trial as well. You are very wrong
CountryCletus Posted April 7, 2016 Author Posted April 7, 2016 you have absolutely no concept of the Constitution, huhM JB, his username is Justice for crying out loud! And for the record.... I'm shocked that he was found not guilty again!!! I mean for crying out loud, the prosecution had over 20 years to try and get it right!!!! Man has OJ changed a lot!!
Justice Posted April 7, 2016 Posted April 7, 2016 (edited) I obviously wasn't sure about what I said. That's why I said correct me if I'm wrong. As far as the second statement I made, I can't be wrong. It's an opinion. Edited April 7, 2016 by Justice
Buffalo Barbarian Posted April 8, 2016 Posted April 8, 2016 referring to the actual case, it is easy to see why the jury said not guilty; with Furman saying he planted evidence before he could not be trusted that he didn't in this case either, frankly I think all of his cases should have been be reviewed.
bbb Posted April 8, 2016 Posted April 8, 2016 referring to the actual case, it is easy to see why the jury said not guilty; with Furman saying he planted evidence before he could not be trusted that he didn't in this case either, frankly I think all of his cases should have been be reviewed. The jury never heard that, though.
Buffalo Barbarian Posted April 9, 2016 Posted April 9, 2016 The jury never heard that, though. Yes but like Darden said they got that info through conjugal visits. Also with Furman taking the 5th on whether or not he planted evidence against OJ was the Death knell for the prosecution. If I'm in the jury there is no way I can trust Furman.
bbb Posted April 9, 2016 Posted April 9, 2016 Yes but like Darden said they got that info through conjugal visits. Also with Furman taking the 5th on whether or not he planted evidence against OJ was the Death knell for the prosecution. If I'm in the jury there is no way I can trust Furman. I wonder how much of those Fuhrman tapes made it into the public. My only memory - and it seems a lot of people - was of the perjury part. I remember thinking come on, the guy was caught once saying the n word and that is what is getting OJ off.............After seeing this show, there was a lot more than just those two sentences allowed in court!
Recommended Posts