On Sun, 05 Oct 2008 19:24:08 +0000, Christopher Tidy
wrote:

Steve Lusardi wrote:
OJ was stupid in doing what he did and stupid does have its just rewards,
but in this case OJ did have legitimate rights and he could have requested
the police to investigate. He didn't and he will regret this for a very long
time, but I am very concerned about the fairness of the court, the judge,
the police and the system. OJ was very clearly set up. There is no other
explanation of either the guns or the recorders. You just don't happen to
have these in place. Everybody knew what was going down except OJ and it is
so obvious, it never should have gone to court. This is just another example
of a corrupt, unjust system and is deserving of a public investigation. As
an American, it scares me to death. This could happen to anyone.
Steve

Steve, you've hit the nail on the head. It scares me too. I don't think
the state should be allowed to bear grudges.

Best wishes,

Chris

Bringing a case to court is certainly not predjucial. Not bring one
to case is predjudicial. Judges preside over courts, you see.

A jury of one's peers is not the state.

Don Foreman wrote:
On Sun, 05 Oct 2008 19:24:08 +0000, Christopher Tidy
wrote:


Steve Lusardi wrote:

OJ was stupid in doing what he did and stupid does have its just rewards,
but in this case OJ did have legitimate rights and he could have requested
the police to investigate. He didn't and he will regret this for a very long
time, but I am very concerned about the fairness of the court, the judge,
the police and the system. OJ was very clearly set up. There is no other
explanation of either the guns or the recorders. You just don't happen to
have these in place. Everybody knew what was going down except OJ and it is
so obvious, it never should have gone to court. This is just another example
of a corrupt, unjust system and is deserving of a public investigation. As
an American, it scares me to death. This could happen to anyone.
Steve

Steve, you've hit the nail on the head. It scares me too. I don't think
the state should be allowed to bear grudges.

Best wishes,

Chris


Bringing a case to court is certainly not predjucial. Not bring one
to case is predjudicial. Judges preside over courts, you see.

A jury of one's peers is not the state.

Perhaps I should have made a clearer distinction here. I think that:

(i) The DA pressed too many charges, given that this looked like a set
up. This is the action of the state.

(ii) Given what I know about the case, I am not convinced that I would
have reached the same decision as those twelve jurors, had I been on the
jury. I don't think is remarkable; after all, there are plenty of people
who say that they would have voted to convict O.J. in the murder trial,
had they been on the jury. I am concerned that perhaps the murder trial
influenced the outcome of this recent trial, although this is not the
action of the state.

Best wishes,

Chris