Reyna ♔ Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 :lmao: :lmao: + 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rock & Roll Hall of Game Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 I'm not sure if you are aware of how our court system works, but it doesn't matter what I think, you think, the prosecution thinks, the defense thinks, the court reporters think, the jurors think, the judge thinks; all that matters is what is proven beyond a reasonable doubt. +1 Unfortunately.. A lot of Americans dont know. The State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trackboy Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 Your wrong the prosecution did not do a stellar case with OJ, they introduced the concept of DNA evidence to an audience that had no idea what it meant which only weakened their case. No one just drops DNA evidence and doesn't explain it. The fact was there was no solid DNA evidence. Just so that I can strengthen you argument for future references, When people mention the OJ Simpson prosecution and it's fail, they refer to the non-objections of trying on the glove. They refer to the media circus and how they didn't maintain control of the proceedings. It has NOTHING to do with DNA evidence what so ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rock & Roll Hall of Game Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 I'm gonna go with the majority. Casey should have at least been found guilty on the 2nd or 3rd degree. But that's the judicial system for you. The prosecution was horrible and the jury was off like hell. Done da-da. Do u know the difference between 1st 2nd 3rd degree murder Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bailey Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 I know several points where during the OJ trial they dropped the ball they introduced DNA evidence which no one at that time understood, there is an example of my understanding of that trial. Secondly the prosecution took six months to present the evidence against O.J. Simpson. And when it takes you six months to make your case, the jury is going to be left with either one of two impressions: Either your evidence is overwhelming, or in point of fact it's not, and you're laboring day by day to make it appear to be better than it is. And unfortunately in this case, it was the latter impression that the jury got left with Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trackboy Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 you made a statement that suggested I did not watch the OJ trial now you want to discuss opinions, I corrected that statement as erroneous because I did follow his trial and I also gave you facts about it namely the folks that made careers off it one example Star Jones. So you mean to sya Nancy Grace and Star Jones are non factors? I mean if not for the OJ trial they would not be here, and with a Bachelor's in Science Biology Chem minor I would watch them morons you working wit, I never engage in a debate where I feel the need to call names that makes you look unintelligent. You can't argue your point counsel without resorting to name calling? What in the world will you do in the court room If this was a courtroom, then I would conduct myself as if I was in a courtroom, but since this a message board, I will respond as I do please. Moderators will do what they have to do and life will go on. Congrats on your Bachelors in Science in Biology with a Chemistry minor, I'm not sure what this means, but congratulations. And you are right, I am saying Nancy Grace and Star Jones are non-factors when discussing the OJ Simpson murder trial. Likewise, I will say they are non-factors when discussing the Casey Anthony trial. They are reporters, jurors can't even watch their reports so I don't understand your agrument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bailey Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 Do u know the difference between 1st 2nd 3rd degree murder It is quite a few differences but apparently as college educated as I am Im an idiot by Trackboy's standards which honestly amounts to nothing more than the shit a fly would piss on. Man made a statement he did not know nor could prove, saying I don't know about the OJ trial like I didn't watch it like I didn't know what came of it. Chile please some people get a little knowledge in some area and all of a fucking sudden he a legal expert, chile pass the bar first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bailey Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 If this was a courtroom, then I would conduct myself as if I was in a courtroom, but since this a message board, I will respond as I do please. Moderators will do what they have to do and life will go on. Congrats on your Bachelors in Science in Biology with a Chemistry minor, I'm not sure what this means, but congratulations. And you are right, I am saying Nancy Grace and Star Jones are non-factors when discussing the OJ Simpson murder trial. Likewise, I will say they are non-factors when discussing the Casey Anthony trial. They are reporters, jurors can't even watch their reports so I don't understand your agrument. It means im educated so don't play me like I am not first of all have you not heard of the court of public opinion? Does Nancy Grace remain a non factor there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reyna ♔ Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 Do u know the difference between 1st 2nd 3rd degree murder Why yes, love, I do. Which is why she should have been convicted. And why I'm pissed off as hell right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bailey Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 No one just drops DNA evidence and doesn't explain it. The fact was there was no solid DNA evidence. Just so that I can strengthen you argument for future references, When people mention the OJ Simpson prosecution and it's fail, they refer to the non-objections of trying on the glove. They refer to the media circus and how they didn't maintain control of the proceedings. It has NOTHING to do with DNA evidence what so ever. That is incorrect they came in and attempted to explain the science behind DNA as opposed to simply stating we have evidence that connects OJ to the crime. There's a difference. Once they tried to explain DNA that shit helped kill the case Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trackboy Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 I know several points where during the OJ trial they dropped the ball they introduced DNA evidence which no one at that time understood, there is an example of my understanding of that trial. Secondly the prosecution took six months to present the evidence against O.J. Simpson. And when it takes you six months to make your case, the jury is going to be left with either one of two impressions: Either your evidence is overwhelming, or in point of fact it's not, and you're laboring day by day to make it appear to be better than it is. And unfortunately in this case, it was the latter impression that the jury got left with Where did they drop the ball on the DNA evidence? I'm not saying they didn't, but I don't recall a dropping of the ball on the evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bailey Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 If this was a courtroom, then I would conduct myself as if I was in a courtroom, but since this a message board, I will respond as I do please. Moderators will do what they have to do and life will go on. Congrats on your Bachelors in Science in Biology with a Chemistry minor, I'm not sure what this means, but congratulations. And you are right, I am saying Nancy Grace and Star Jones are non-factors when discussing the OJ Simpson murder trial. Likewise, I will say they are non-factors when discussing the Casey Anthony trial. They are reporters, jurors can't even watch their reports so I don't understand your agrument. ohhhhh so you handle logic completely different depending on where you are? Last i checked logic was just that logic, it doesn't change with the scenery Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trackboy Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 It means im educated so don't play me like I am not first of all have you not heard of the court of public opinion? Does Nancy Grace remain a non factor there? I'm not trying to play you. If I wanted to play you, then I would drag. I have no problems doing that, but I'm not trying to play you. If you have a moronic argument, then you have a moronic argument, and you can have those with a Ph.D. in Neuroscience for all I care. And I have hard of a court of public opinion. And as I stated, it does not convict nor exonorate a person as we seen here yet again. So yes, the whole court of public opinion is a non-factor in a courtroom of law which is why this jury was sequestered for 5 weeks, with no access to news shows or newspapers or family members with their e-mails monitored. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bailey Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 Okay let's stop the heated discussion if we can't debate intelligently and civilly. yep some of us simply can't Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trackboy Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 Why yes, love, I do. Which is why she should have been convicted. And why I'm pissed off as hell right now. based off what in your opinion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trackboy Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 Okay let's stop the heated discussion if we can't debate intelligently and civilly. Oh, Angie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bailey Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 I'm not trying to play you. If I wanted to play you, then I would drag. I have no problems doing that, but I'm not trying to play you. If you have a moronic argument, then you have a moronic argument, and you can have those with a Ph.D. in Neuroscience for all I care. And I have hard of a court of public opinion. And as I stated, it does not convict nor exonorate a person as we seen here yet again. So yes, the whole court of public opinion is a non-factor in a courtroom of law which is why this jury was sequestered for 5 weeks, with no access to news shows or newspapers or family members with their e-mails monitored. yea good luck booking that dragging. Not happening...I don't suffer fools lightly so let's agree to walk away and you believe whatever you like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trackboy Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 yea good luck booking that dragging. Not happening...I don't suffer fools lightly so let's agree to walk away and you believe whatever you like. Because you can't prove where the OJ Simpson prosecution dropped the ball on presenting DNA evidence, oh okay. Have a good day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bailey Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 Because you can't prove where the OJ Simpson prosecution dropped the ball on presenting DNA evidence, oh okay. Have a good day. I already did, stated it several times maybe you can't read well because you're so busy trying to do you, once they introduced it if they could not explain it in terms the everyday man could understand it became a non factor, they had charts and graphs and shit the jury was like that shit was confusing. Where did I not show what went wrong there in this statement alone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bailey Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 Where are you going to Law School again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angela Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 And Nancy Grace and all these TV court analysts operate from a personal bias. They're not good at hiding it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bailey Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 And Nancy Grace and all these TV court analysts operate from a personal bias. They're not good at hiding it. Of course not, but would they be where they are if not for trials like this or OJ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trackboy Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 I already did, stated it several times maybe you can't read well because you're so busy trying to do you, once they introduced it if they could not explain it in terms the everyday man could understand it became a non factor, they had charts and graphs and shit the jury was like that shit was confusing. Where did I not show what went wrong there in this statement alone? Proof would be along the lines of a jury member saying it was too complicated for them to understand. Maybe that's why you are so outraged about the verdict. You forget this all revolves around proof. But I thought you were done, no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bailey Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 Proof would be along the lines of a jury member saying it was too complicated for them to understand. Maybe that's why you are so outraged about the verdict. You forget this all revolves around proof. But I thought you were done, no? You seem to only hear what you think, so have fun with that in the court room yes we're done here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aed05 Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 Reasonable doubt is very real folks. Nobody witnessed her kill the child, and I'm not sure the prosecution presented a theory as to how she did it. I could be mistaken, but I don't think they did. The prosecution has the burden of proof. The case was solid, but it wasn't air tight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.