Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Wasn't he found guilty of armed robbery and kidnapping?
What is the usual sentence for that?
Yes he was!! For those claiming excessive sentence handed down for this armed robbery and kidnapping.. conveniently forget there's thousands in prison today for LIFE because of "Petty Crimes"~~ shoplifting can and did land someone who couldn't afford high priced lawyers.. ended up in prison for life!!
I do think tho that this goes way back to the "War on drugs" and mandatory sentencing guidelines implemented. Tho people like well known celebrities never did get such sentencing for their numerous drug offences!!
There are many other stories in the report: someone condemned to life in prison for siphoning gasoline from a truck; another for helping steal tools from a tool shed; one for trying to cash a stolen check; a woman carrying a small amount of drugs for an abusive boyfriend; a man who stole a wallet from a hotel room.
Thanks to the drug war, most of the non-violent prisoners were sentenced in the federal system. Nine states are holding prisoners that are serving life sentences without parole for violent offenses. Louisiana has the highest amount, while Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Oklahoma, and South Carolina also have high totals.
The US holds 2.3 million people in jail, the highest incarceration rate in the world. Drug offenses are an overriding factor in the American penal system.
Seventy-nine percent of the non-violent offenders serving life sentences without parole were convicted of non-violent drug crimes.
Only OJ Knows about the murders. I DID NOT watch the trial, but saw bits and pieces now and then.
There were a lot of drugs involved with Nicole and Ron and others at the Mezzaluma restaurant. There is just too much doubt. His friend Kato turned on him. Everyone was after O.J.'s fame and money.
That's why I wish he would just be honest about what happened that night. I believe he did it and there's no justification for it but there may be a lot more to the story than just a psycho ex husband going crazy.
Fred Goldman has been the thorn in his side and a great advocate for his son. However, the narrative has remained that this nice kid who was kind enough to bring some sunglasses left behind was the collateral damage of a madman. That could be completely true but it could also be that they were doing drugs in the house where his kids live. Nicole was supposed to be off drugs and him seeing them partying could have been a factor. Don't misunderstand that I think it's ok but I don't know that it's fair to unequivocally anoint Ron a saint, either. The only problem is that in order to change the perception would require OJ to be honest and I doubt that will happen.
If I was murdered, I'd love to have a parent who stood up for me like Fred does but at the same time, he's causing pain to his innocent children which is why you don't see the Browns going the same route.
It's a sad, complicated situation for everyone.
However, he should be in jail for the rest of his life, or worse. He murdered two innocent people in cold blood back in 1994, and there was a plethora of physical evidence that proved that he committed the crime. I don't care that he got off in a court of law. He's still guilty, everyone knows he's guilty, and it's one of the biggest jokes & travesties of justice that he got off on this.
I understand that the prosecution team made plenty of missteps here (putting MF on the stand; asking OJ to try on the glove when they weren't sure whether or not it would fit, etc.). However, he was obviously still guilty. The fact that he walked was ridiculous.
It's painfully obvious that our criminal justice system is biased towards those who have money, and biased against those who don't. If O.J. had been poor & under the exact same circumstances, he would have been in jail forever - or gotten the death penalty.
Scott Peterson is on death row for killing his wife & unborn child in CA. And, yes, he may be guilty of the crime too, but there was a lot less evidence against him than there was against O.J.; however, SP didn't have the $ to hire expensive lawyers that O.J. did.
And, how about the M. Morton case in TX? This man was innocent of killing his wife back in the '80's, and it was even proven that he was at work when the crime occurred. Yet, he was still convicted for the crime & went to jail for years, before he was finally freed by DNA evidence. Obviously, he didn't have the $ to hire a fancy defense lawyer:
Conversely, there a plethora of examples of those like O.J., i.e. wealthy people who killed others and got off scot-free. Do a google search & you'll be able to find plenty of other examples.
The fact that O.J. is in jail for an unrelated crime in 2007 is irrelevant. He should have been in jail since 1994.
O.J. should be in jail for the rest of his life, or worse. He murdered two innocent people in cold blood back in 1994, and there was a plethora of physical evidence that proved that he committed the crime. I don't care that he got off in a court of law. He's still guilty, everyone knows he's guilty, and it's one of the biggest jokes & travesties of justice that he got off on this.
I understand that the prosecution team made plenty of missteps here (putting MF on the stand; asking OJ to try on the glove when they weren't sure whether or not it would fit, etc.). However, he was obviously still guilty. The fact that he walked was ridiculous.
It's painfully obvious that our criminal justice system is biased towards those who have money, and biased against those who don't. If O.J. had been poor & under the exact same circumstances, he would have been in jail forever - or gotten the death penalty.
Scott Peterson is on death row for killing his wife & unborn child in CA. And, yes, he may be guilty of the crime too, but there was a lot less evidence against him than there was against O.J.; however, SP didn't have the $ to hire expensive lawyers that O.J. did.
And, how about the M. Morton case in TX? This man was innocent of killing his wife back in the '80's, and it was even proven that he was at work when the crime occurred. Yet, he was still convicted for the crime & went to jail for years, before he was finally freed by DNA evidence. Obviously, he didn't have the $ to hire a fancy defense lawyer:
Conversely, there a plethora of examples of those like O.J., i.e. wealthy people who killed others and got off scot-free. Do a google search & you'll be able to find plenty of other examples.
The fact that O.J. is in jail for an unrelated crime in 2007 is irrelevant. He should have been in jail since 1994.
Yes OJ should be in jail for the two murders but if certain people didn't act above the law and let the criminal investigation and justice system play out we would not be talking about him at all today. He fate would have been sealed long ago.
However, he should be in jail for the rest of his life, or worse. He murdered two innocent people in cold blood back in 1994, and there was a plethora of physical evidence that proved that he committed the crime. I don't care that he got off in a court of law. He's still guilty, everyone knows he's guilty, and it's one of the biggest jokes & travesties of justice that he got off on this.
I understand that the prosecution team made plenty of missteps here (putting MF on the stand; asking OJ to try on the glove when they weren't sure whether or not it would fit, etc.). However, he was obviously still guilty. The fact that he walked was ridiculous.
It's painfully obvious that our criminal justice system is biased towards those who have money, and biased against those who don't. If O.J. had been poor & under the exact same circumstances, he would have been in jail forever - or gotten the death penalty.
Scott Peterson is on death row for killing his wife & unborn child in CA. And, yes, he may be guilty of the crime too, but there was a lot less evidence against him than there was against O.J.; however, SP didn't have the $ to hire expensive lawyers that O.J. did.
And, how about the M. Morton case in TX? This man was innocent of killing his wife back in the '80's, and it was even proven that he was at work when the crime occurred. Yet, he was still convicted for the crime & went to jail for years, before he was finally freed by DNA evidence. Obviously, he didn't have the $ to hire a fancy defense lawyer:
Conversely, there a plethora of examples of those like O.J., i.e. wealthy people who killed others and got off scot-free. Do a google search & you'll be able to find plenty of other examples.
The fact that O.J. is in jail for an unrelated crime in 2007 is irrelevant. He should have been in jail since 1994.
Mark Fuhrman perjured himself on the stand and he was bragging about planting evidence in other cases on the audiotapes. Why did the cop's take a sample of blood drawn from OJ to the crime scene and in the process lose a small amount that was never accounted for?
The glove obviously didn't fit, how do you explain that? If the killer wore that glove, the killer could not have been OJ.
"The most damning new information concerns a synthetic preservative known as EDTA, found in blood on a gate at the murder scene and on a pair of socks which Mr Simpson allegedly wore there. EDTA, which does not occur naturally in the human body, is often used by detectives to conserve evidence but was found nowhere else on the gate or socks. Peter Harpur, a British crime scene expert interviewed for the programmes, said that there could not be any other explanation than that the blood had been put there.
*
Evidence may also have been planted in the white Ford Bronco that mesmerised a global television audience when Mr Simpson was pursued in it along California's freeways holding a gun to his head.
*
Bloodstains on the car's central console which police had said consisted only of Mr Simpson's blood were relisted three months later as a mixture of his and the victims' blood. The discrepancy was not highlighted at the criminal trial, which ended with the chief prosecutor, Marcia Clark, adding the Bronco bloodstains to a "pyramid" of what she said was undisputed evidence against Mr Simpson.
*
Extraordinarily, police were in a position to mix and plant the blood after the killings. The lead detective in the case requested and obtained a vial of Mr Simpson's blood, and in a violation of normal procedures obtained samples of the victims' blood from the Los Angeles Coroner's Office. Such a violation would have meant the summary dismissal of a lower-profile case, according to Donald Freed, a law professor who has written a book on the Simpson case.
*
Detectives went back to the Bronco during their investigation but whether they planted evidence there remained an open question at the criminal trial. Detective Mark Fuhrman, exposed on the witness stand as a racist, was asked if he had planted evidence but refused to answer, invoking his Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate himself. Since then the Los Angeles Police Department has been humiliated by revelations of systematic evidence planting in hundreds of other cases."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
