Can you imagine if LetsRun existed during this trial? The thread would have probably garnered at least a few hundred posts every day throughout the trial. Probably would have had been 100,000 posts before the trial was over. If Twitter would have existed, the internet would have broken.
Other forums were around and did have the long threads on this subject. Some informative, some comical, some racist, etc.
Yeah, I remember that. Armstrong should do some research before posting more uninformed, legally inaccurate information.
That was the whole "he looks like Tarzan, but he's really Tarzan's grandfather" theme that the defense ran. Saying his arthritis and old football injuries rendered Simpson incapable of even walking fast, much less committing this double murder. The defense raised this multiple times. Armstrong's claim that Simpson's physical condition was not an issue raised by the defense is balls-out wrong (as usual).
So you bought it - or you would have dismissed the claim in the thread that he was physically incapable of overwhelming his victims. Or do you simply come here to wax on (as your user name suggests) about what "liberals" and black people think, while also rehearsing details that fail to establish Simpson's innocence?
Come on Waxworth and Kate's Alter Ego, is Simpson a murderer or not?
9 minutes without a reply and you are already crying for attention. What a lonely old man you are, poor thing.
Not with you here, although I doubt anyone would seek your company. But I guess you are among those who can't or won't answer the question posed by the thread. Too hard.
No. No, it is not. The standard is the standard, not some other standard. You got the basic standard wrong. Now you are disassembling like some irrational actor.
He didn't get an out. Criminal trials in the US are not an "out" for anything.
And your racist ideas are noted for the record. Black people are just as capable of rendering an objective verdict based on the evidence as white people. Those jurors took an oath that required them to be impartial. They were required to base their decision on facts and law as presented to them in the courtroom. They were not to be influenced by mere sentiment, conjecture, sympathy, passion, prejudice, public opinion, or public feeling. For you to come in here now saying black people are incapable of following those instructions and their oath is reprehensible.
No, it didn't. Different trial, significantly different evidence, different legal standards, different evidentiary standards. You can't infer anything between the two trials. If you knew anything about law, you'd know that.
You start with falsehoods and end up with a strawman. Very weak. Very weak posting. Your pedantry and strawman is nothing but an attempt to cover up your weak posting. Strawboy. Strawface. Strawass.
Your observation about the impartiality of the criminal jury is hogwash. Their verdict shocked many, because the evidence overwhelming suggested Simpson's guilt. The case had clearly become a racial cause celebre in the US. The subsequent civil case showed that a more impartial reading of the evidence against Simpson easily led to a verdict against him.
Yes, we understand. You believe black people are incapable of being jurors and abiding by their oath. You've made that clear several times now.
That then leaves us with the rubbish that this thread is based on, that Simpson couldn't have overpowered his victims. Neither trial used that as a defense argument - because it is nonsense. If it was in any way credible it would have been used in his defense. It wasn't. In your pompous drivel, in which you fixate on irrelevancies, you fail to address this point, either because you can't see it or are unable to construct a credible argument to explain why Simpson's defense didn't try it.
On this very page, the poster SDSU provided you a link where the defense did indeed raise the defense that Simpson could not have physically committed these murders. It was literally provided to you specifically to educate you as to what happened at the Simpson murder trial, because you appear to be ignorant of it. Incredibly, you are here again disputing that the Simpson defense raised it, as if you have dyslexia or something. There is nothing else that can be said if you don't believe that testimony was not provided by Simpson's defense. It was. You are wrong, not matter how many times you convince yourself you are right. Whackjob.
====================
"DR. HUIZENGA: On the day I saw him he had significantly limited mobility because of the knee and actually another ankle problem that we haven't discussed, and I think would be significantly limited in terms of fast walking, certainly in terms of slow jogging, it would be very difficult, if not impossible, that day."
In a TV special that aired March 11, 2018 on Fox called "O.J. Simpson: The Lost Confession?" the disgraced former NFL star described a "hypothetical" account...
Your observation about the impartiality of the criminal jury is hogwash. Their verdict shocked many, because the evidence overwhelming suggested Simpson's guilt. The case had clearly become a racial cause celebre in the US. The subsequent civil case showed that a more impartial reading of the evidence against Simpson easily led to a verdict against him.
Yes, we understand. You believe black people are incapable of being jurors and abiding by their oath. You've made that clear several times now.
That then leaves us with the rubbish that this thread is based on, that Simpson couldn't have overpowered his victims. Neither trial used that as a defense argument - because it is nonsense. If it was in any way credible it would have been used in his defense. It wasn't. In your pompous drivel, in which you fixate on irrelevancies, you fail to address this point, either because you can't see it or are unable to construct a credible argument to explain why Simpson's defense didn't try it.
On this very page, the poster SDSU provided you a link where the defense did indeed raise the defense that Simpson could not have physically committed these murders. It was literally provided to you specifically to educate you as to what happened at the Simpson murder trial, because you appear to be ignorant of it. Incredibly, you are here again disputing that the Simpson defense raised it, as if you have dyslexia or something. There is nothing else that can be said if you don't believe that testimony was not provided by Simpson's defense. It was. You are wrong, not matter how many times you convince yourself you are right. Whackjob.
====================
"DR. HUIZENGA: On the day I saw him he had significantly limited mobility because of the knee and actually another ankle problem that we haven't discussed, and I think would be significantly limited in terms of fast walking, certainly in terms of slow jogging, it would be very difficult, if not impossible, that day."
So you can't answer the question I asked, of whether Simpson is a murderer (given the claim in the thread that he couldn't have killed his victims because he couldn't have physically overpowered them). Instead, you offer a smokescreen of pedantry and intellectual posturing about what the criminal trial said or didn't say (but not the civil trial, that found him liable).
I also didn't say a black jury couldn't be impartial, I am saying that particular jury wasn't, but you aren't bright enough to understand the difference.
It's a futile task to pose the question again, but I will ask it, because it is what the thread raises and is the only issue that matters here: is Simpson a killer? If you can't directly answer that question your waxing on is irrelevant. But we know that already.
Yes, we understand. You believe black people are incapable of being jurors and abiding by their oath. You've made that clear several times now.
On this very page, the poster SDSU provided you a link where the defense did indeed raise the defense that Simpson could not have physically committed these murders. It was literally provided to you specifically to educate you as to what happened at the Simpson murder trial, because you appear to be ignorant of it. Incredibly, you are here again disputing that the Simpson defense raised it, as if you have dyslexia or something. There is nothing else that can be said if you don't believe that testimony was not provided by Simpson's defense. It was. You are wrong, not matter how many times you convince yourself you are right. Whackjob.
====================
"DR. HUIZENGA: On the day I saw him he had significantly limited mobility because of the knee and actually another ankle problem that we haven't discussed, and I think would be significantly limited in terms of fast walking, certainly in terms of slow jogging, it would be very difficult, if not impossible, that day."
So you can't answer the question I asked, of whether Simpson is a murderer (given the claim in the thread that he couldn't have killed his victims because he couldn't have physically overpowered them). Instead, you offer a smokescreen of pedantry and intellectual posturing about what the criminal trial said or didn't say (but not the civil trial, that found him liable).
I also didn't say a black jury couldn't be impartial, I am saying that particular jury wasn't, but you aren't bright enough to understand the difference.
It's a futile task to pose the question again, but I will ask it, because it is what the thread raises and is the only issue that matters here: is Simpson a killer? If you can't directly answer that question your waxing on is irrelevant. But we know that already.
O.J. Simpson — who became one of the most infamous figures in the US during his murder trial in the ’90s — has died after a cancer battle. The former NFL star died Wednesday in La…
