truth on hold Posted November 17, 2006 Author Share Posted November 17, 2006 I am not sure how this relates to what I posted, but as that article at least alludes to, the fact that he calls this all hypothetical is fairly irrelevant for a number of reasons: the accuracy of his description and consistency with any non-public information about the murder scene, inferences that a jury can make about what OJ is actually saying despite language to the contrary, and how this lines up with all the other terribly incriminating evidence we already know about. What keeps OJ from being prosecuted for anything having to do with the murders again exist with or without this near-confession. Double-jeopardy stands in the way of another murder trial and alternative laws on the basis of which there could be federal prosecution (i.e. civil rights charges) are difficult to apply to the facts of the case. 840247[/snapback] at some bizarre level i think OJ wouldn't really mind going on trial again anyway. i think he loves the attention. at this point for him, i think life is boring when he's not on trial. i'm not saying he'd rather be on trial i'm just saying it's not all downside for him either. limping around on a golf course with no friends, no way to start another career, no woman and no invites to celeb/sports events is not such a great life. at least when he's on trial he gets to be the center of attention again and it represents a challenge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marv Levy Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 Bigger Freak: OJ or Michael Jackson??! This whole thing is disgusting and a waste of time. You know OJ, that !@#$er is so guilty! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 Bigger Freak: OJ or Michael Jackson??! This whole thing is disgusting and a waste of time. You know OJ, that !@#$er is so guilty! 840290[/snapback] Definitely OJ. He killed two people. Michael Jackson is so screwed up that I could envision him not molesting the kids he keeps around. Like he wants to be 8 years old so bad that he actually acts like an 8 year old at an 8 year old's slumber party or whatever. If any other man in the world is going out of his way to sleep in bed with random little boys, common sense tells you he's a pedophile. Michael Jackson is so completely screwed up that common sense doesn't even apply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daquixers_is_back Posted November 18, 2006 Share Posted November 18, 2006 I am not sure how this relates to what I posted, but as that article at least alludes to, the fact that he calls this all hypothetical is fairly irrelevant for a number of reasons: the accuracy of his description and consistency with any non-public information about the murder scene, inferences that a jury can make about what OJ is actually saying despite language to the contrary, and how this lines up with all the other terribly incriminating evidence we already know about. What keeps OJ from being prosecuted for anything having to do with the murders again exist with or without this near-confession. Double-jeopardy stands in the way of another murder trial and alternative laws on the basis of which there could be federal prosecution (i.e. civil rights charges) are difficult to apply to the facts of the case. 840247[/snapback] It relates to your post because if it is all hypothetical he wont be charged... usually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted November 18, 2006 Share Posted November 18, 2006 Bigger Freak: OJ or Michael Jackson??! This whole thing is disgusting and a waste of time. You know OJ, that !@#$er is so guilty! 840290[/snapback] Michael. OJ's just a normal, average, everyday celebrity murderer. I wouldn't be afraid of being around him, because he's basically predictable. Michael Jackson, on the other hand, is just !@#$ing weird. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts