Did anybody else see O.J. at the game?

[zow2]

Miami's got the oranges...but Buffalo still has the Juice baby!!!

[ajflutie]

Oh, I dunno, because it was a Bills game and he was the greatest Bill ever? 

 

Let people applaud for the player; I'm sure OJ the person gets enough stojan everyday.

 

Why were people clapping for that alcoholic Thurman at halftime? 

472345[/snapback]

 

Greatest Bill ever? I was at many of OJs games but I still gotta go with Kelly (not Holcomb either)

[kegtapr]

Let me know when Thurman kills a couple of people.  I'll stop cheering for him.  Alcoholism vs murder?  Yeah, roll another doobie, Einstien.

472500[/snapback]

 

A couple people? He killed the dreams of thousands by partying it up before the Superbowl. Isn't that enough!?

[fairweather fan]

He was proven not guilty

472352[/snapback]

 

He was not "proven not guilty", a jury aquitted him. Have you ever watched Court TV or actually attended a trial? Evidence may be excluded due to technical reasons, having a first class defence team who can cast doubt on evidence or testimony may sway jury members, and jury members own biases may influence case disposition (how many southern white juries acquited persons who murdered civil rights workers in the 60's.) O.J. is the first person that I know who was acquited despite positive DNA evidence against him.

[Frez]

OJ is a real killer. How else can you look at it?

 

If I ever bump into the guy I'm afraid what I would say to his face.

 

OJ= big piece of sh--!

[Beerstm]

actually he was at the goal line on the Bills side about 5 rows behind me. He certainly was trying to be noticed as he sat in the first row of the suite directly in the middle of the open window. I was a little disappointed that approx 90% of the fan reaction was positive. Not trying to start a debate, but if he is going to attend, then he should go out of his way to stay in the background. Of course, asking someone who made a pez dispenser out of the mother of his children to use a little common sense might be asking too much.

472052[/snapback]

 

 

It surprises me that TV didn't pick up on that

[nick in* england]

Well, you'd be wrong.  In a US court it is up to the prosecution to prove guilt.  If they do not prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the jury must find the defendant not guilty.  The defense does not prove "not guilty".  He was aquited because the prosecution didn't prove him guilty.

 

You are correct when you say "Technically speaking he was not guilty of the crime he was charged for".  But he wasn't "proven" not guilty...he simply was not proven guilty. so he was "found" not guilty.

 

In Civil court the standard is different.  They are not bound by "reasonable doubt" but by the preponderance of the evidence  (where's the damn spell check?).

 

I'm neither supporting nor attacking OJ.  Just wanted to help clear up your confusion with US law procedures.

473035[/snapback]

Thanks you. Much clearer.