ForumGarden

OJ Simpson has been found guilty of kidnapping and armed robbery by a court in Las Vegas.

Read more HERE

Bloodyhell!

OJ........Guilty.......Never:p

Should have gone down years ago

I'm not getting excited over him being found guilty until I see what the punishment is. Probably a slap on the wrist. :-5

Guilty now........................and guilty then. IMO

thank god, he faces up to life in prison..:-5...perhaps they will do it right this time!

all wowen jury.......nice!......they hate him!:sneaky:



he should have been hung when he killed the Mrs.!:-5

scouse;1007704 wrote: OJ Simpson has been found guilty of kidnapping and armed robbery by a court in Las Vegas.



Read more HERE


I was up and watching.

I examined his face and eyes as the verdict was read. He appeared emotionless but he wasnt.

Taking into account his megalomaniacal personality disorder he was probably thinking "how could they have found me guilty, it was my stuff"

One of the emotions I felt to my surprise was sadness.

Maybe it was pity Im not sure, pity that he probably really couldnt help himself.

Finally OJ is convicted for kidnapping, burglary, etc. Faces life in prison. It's about time.:wah:

Justice has been served.

scouse;1007704 wrote: OJ Simpson has been found guilty of kidnapping and armed robbery by a court in Las Vegas.

Read more HERE


Scouse, see if we can merge these two threads. I started one too. Whoops!:wah:

along-for-the-ride;1007800 wrote: Guilty now........................and guilty then. IMOTotally agree;)

SuzyB;1007733 wrote: Should have gone down years ago


We are just finding out ourselves. Hubs is estastic! The arse deserves it and finally we will get to see that selfish smug wiped off his face. I'm sure he will appeal it.

scouse started a thread ducks.

Odie;1007877 wrote: scouse started a thread ducks.


Yes but I hadn't noticed it. We will have to get it merged.

Odie;1007877 wrote: scouse started a thread ducks.




Yea ducks ! Scouse started one already.

God !

to this day I am just dumb-founded with the thought that he got away with 2 murders!

obviously the jury was paid big - time, but didn't the judge know the facts.....or was he paid off also?:-5:-5

qsducks;1007881 wrote: Yes but I hadn't noticed it. We will have to get it merged.


Done!

AMEN!! Justice has finally been served!

He deserves the max when sentenced in December!



(Now, lets just hope that he doesn't get it overturned on appeal!)

Nomad;1007957 wrote:


For once he looks surprised.:wah:

qsducks;1007966 wrote: For once he looks surprised.:wah:


I dont think hes capable of generally normal human emotions. I think he sees the world as revolving around him and anything that gets in the way of that is a nuisance and trite.

His ego is far too cumbersome to accept anything but that he is the victim here.

I think.

Nomad;1007976 wrote: I dont think hes capable of generally normal human emotions. I think he sees the world as revolving around him and anything that gets in the way of that is a nuisance and trite.

His ego is far too cumbersome to accept anything but that he is the victim here.

I think.


He just disgusts me as a human being. He ran to Florida to get out of paying the Brown/Goldman families. A selfish human with no regard to anybody but himself and his loved ones. But that's it.

qsducks;1007966 wrote: For once he looks surprised.:wah:


and........unhappy!:guitarist

Woo Hoo! It's about time!

qsducks;1007859 wrote: Finally OJ is convicted for kidnapping, burglary, etc. Faces life in prison. It's about time.:wah:


Just because he faces life in prison, doesn't mean he will actually get life in prison. I just don't have much faith in our judicial system.

Peg;1008091 wrote: Just because he faces life in prison, doesn't mean he will actually get life in prison. I just don't have much faith in our judicial system.


About time........what goes around comes around:mad:

I don't for a moment thing it was remotely possible for him to get a fair trial in the USA. Had I been in his position I'd have left a decade ago and never gone back.

Yeah but the pompous ass that OJ is didn't leave as he always saw himself as above the law. He is narcissistic sociopath.



Well sorry OJ this time your going to JAIL and I hope its for a very long time. :D Just was served 13 years to the day after he was acquitted of the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman.

CARLA;1008151 wrote: Yeah but the pompous ass that OJ is didn't leave as he always saw himself as above the law. He is narcissistic sociopath.



Well sorry OJ this time your going to JAIL and I hope its for a very long time. :D Just was served 13 years to the day after he was acquitted of the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman.
Bet theres some cheers coming from above;)

CARLA;1008151 wrote: Yeah but the pompous ass that OJ is didn't leave as he always saw himself as above the law. He is narcissistic sociopath.That general opinion - and I'm sure it's general - is why it was never remotely possible for him to get a fair trial in the USA. I'm continually amazed that opinions are regarded by the people who hold them with anything but the deepest doubt and suspicion, and yet they carry rock-solid conviction. It baffles me why that should be so.

It is very simple Spot the man killed two people and got away with it. He laughed at the legal system here in the US and guess what this time he was found GUILTY, GUILTY, GUILTY BY THE VERY SAME LEGAL SYSTEM.. !! I couldn't be happier if only for the fact that this time his fame didn't get him any where.

It has been reported that OJ told a friend that if Nicole Brown hadn't opened they door that night with a knife in her hand she would be alive today. Makes my stomach turn.

ROT IN JAIL O.J.

CARLA;1008156 wrote: It is very simple Spot the man killed two people and got away with it.Do you at least accept that this is your opinion and not necessarily a fact? Or does it qualify as fact in your eyes?

Spot yes for me it is fact he did it. There was more than enough to convict him of their murders. He was acquitted of the crimes, doesn't mean he didn't do it. Its one of those cases that sparks anger in most of here in the US.

[QUOTE]Do you at least accept that this is your opinion and not necessarily a fact? Or does it qualify as fact in your eyes?[/QUOTE]

CARLA;1008163 wrote: Spot yes for me it is fact he did it. There was more than enough to convict him of their murders. He was acquitted of the crimes, doesn't mean he didn't do it. Its one of those cases that sparks anger in most of here in the US.So why do you think it was possible for him to get a fair trial in the US?

This time his fame has faded. This time they had him dead to rights on camera, recorded his voice, with him in the pictures. In my opinion the Jury had no other choice than guilty, he was guilty, he made it simple for them.

Not my fault he is a pompous ass who always thinks he can take the law and matters into his own hands. There were legal way he could have gotten his memorable stuff back. No he went in with guns, and intent to hurt people to get the stuff back. BYE BYE O.J. HOPE YOU LIKE CHRISTMAS IN JAIL.

[QUOTE]So why do you think it was possible for him to get a fair trial in the US?[/QUOTE]

i think it's kinda funny. lmao:rolleyes:

YAY!!! :yh_party:yh_party:yh_party

JAB;1008130 wrote: He faces a minimum of 5 years up to life. And predictably, his attorney is appealing.


I am not an expert by far on legalities of the US. If he appeals, then under your laws, does he not have to produce new evidence for the defence? I read in my paper here that an appeal would not be granted as he has nothing new to offer.

The reason he got off murdering his wife was due to slick money minded greedy lawyers who don't care about the victem, only the money.

spot;1008139 wrote: I don't for a moment thing it was remotely possible for him to get a fair trial in the USA. Had I been in his position I'd have left a decade ago and never gone back.


I have to agree with this. Press intrusion can some-times make it impossible.

They can be governed by public opinion.

I'd have thought the standard rules for appeal apply - that the judge was related to at least three of the witnesses, that he played on his Nintendo while most of the evidence was presented and the prosecution team all spent at least one night in bed with the foreman of the jury. New evidence is as rare as gold dust on a dry claim.

spot;1008870 wrote: I'd have thought the standard rules for appeal apply - that the judge was related to at least three of the witnesses, that he played on his Nintendo while most of the evidence was presented and the prosecution team all spent at least one night in bed with the foreman of the jury. New evidence is as rare as gold dust on a dry claim.


Quite right Spot. The judge could have stared at the clock bored silly for four days, including taking one afternoon off, probably to see a rent boy.

The prosecution could have called for an afternoon recess to go to a funeral of a relative at Westerliegh Crem, and the defendant, family and witnesses could have all of sat around at the cost of the tax payer, drinking ***** coffee. :sneaky:

oscar;1008877 wrote: Quite right Spot. The judge could have stared at the clock bored silly for four days, including taking one afternoon off, probably to see a rent boy.

The prosecution could have called for an afternoon recess to go to a funeral of a relative at Westerliegh Crem, and the defendant, family and witnesses could have all of sat around at the cost of the tax payer, drinking ***** coffee. :sneaky:


The test applied by the appeal court would find all those aspects immaterial. What they say to themselves is yes, that's not right, that's a breach of perfection and then they ask themselves, so if it hadn't happened like that, would the jury probably have come to a different decision, and they'd say no not really they're not such big deals that the jury's likely to have considered the difference to overwhelm the other aspects they took into account, at which point the appeals panel reaches for its well-worn "Rejected" rubber stamp and thumps it from the inkpad to the paperwork.

Of course if there's no jury they might consider the judge's lack of attention rather more of a bummer. How you'd go about persuading the appeal tribunal it was crucial (short of having the original judge throw his hands in the air and say it's true, I spent three days balancing my stock portfolio, I only listened when the prosecution thumped the tabletop as a warning that they were about to make a significant point and I'd made my mind up in the first hour anyhow) I'm not sure.

spot;1008897 wrote:

Of course if there's no jury they might consider the judge's lack of attention rather more of a bummer. How you'd go about persuading the appeal tribunal it was crucial (short of having the original judge throw his hands in the air and say it's true, I spent three days balancing my stock portfolio, I only listened when the prosecution thumped the tabletop as a warning that they were about to make a significant point and I'd made my mind up in the first hour anyhow) I'm not sure.


At times Spot, you are Utterly Utterly Brilliant.

If by some miracle, he got an appeal, would he be out on parole? To Flee the country?

If he doesn't get an appeal and gets sentenced, what is he likely to get. The Papers say 5 years. Is that all? For kidnap and robbery? Or is that the British penalty they are talking about?

oscar;1008924 wrote: If by some miracle, he got an appeal, would he be out on parole? To Flee the country?

If he doesn't get an appeal and gets sentenced, what is he likely to get. The Papers say 5 years. Is that all? For kidnap and robbery? Or is that the British penalty they are talking about?


Nobody has argued that the properties in the hotel room weren't things which had been stolen from OJ and which, if he had them in his possession again, could never be taken back from him by a court. He needed possession of them to enforce his ownership.

To refer to what happened as kidnap is just a twist of legal argument. He went into the room with enough muscle to retrieve his own goods. That entailed preventing the occupants from leaving. Call it kidnap if you want to.

Similarly, to describe taking back his own property into his own hands as robbery is the sort of thing that gives courts a bad name. Robbery is taking something that doesn't belong to you.

This entire case was set up to do justice in the same way that a lynch party does justice. What was on trial wasn't the hotel room incident, it was an expression of America's righteous indignation at the not guilty verdict 13 years before. The drivel in this thread about "he was obviously guilty of those murders" is what he's being sent to jail for.

Who on earth would want to live in a country run on those lines?

spot;1008940 wrote: Nobody has argued that the properties in the hotel room weren't things which had been stolen from OJ and which, if he had them in his possession again, could never be taken back from him by a court. He needed possession of them to enforce his ownership.

To refer to what happened as kidnap is just a twist of legal argument. He went into the room with enough muscle to retrieve his own goods. That entailed preventing the occupants from leaving. Call it kidnap if you want to.

Similarly, to describe taking back his own property into his own hands as robbery is the sort of thing that gives courts a bad name. Robbery is taking something that doesn't belong to you.

This entire case was set up to do justice in the same way that a lynch party does justice. What was on trial wasn't the hotel room incident, it was an expression of America's righteous indignation at the not guilty verdict 13 years before. The drivel in this thread about "he was obviously guilty of those murders" is what he's being sent to jail for.

Who on earth would want to live in a country run on those lines?


I'm sticking my neck out here but i agree with Spot.

The murder of his wife was different IMHO

I believe Spot, that even in our own farcical police and justice system, this would have been different.

IMHO here, as it is not in question that the goods belonged to him, maybe "Intimidation" Charges. There again, court bailiffs do the same thing. Maybe not with guns but the intimidation to retrieve property is still there surely?

Here, Maybe detaining the people in the room, would it be a charge of "Forced Imprisonment"?