Hot Topics | |
---|---|
Maths Dude wrote:Just another case of the rich getting away with it. Just look at OJ Simpson! The rich are bunch of scum bags.
Maths Dude wrote:Just another case of the rich getting away with it. Just look at OJ Simpson! The rich are bunch of scum bags.
fatslug wrote:michael jackson is innocent ???
And the poor CORBY girl has to sit in a BALI jail for 20yrs !!!?!!?!?
what the fuck ?_?!?!?
maraboutslim wrote:... If the defendant is rich, maybe he can hire a few people on his side too and try to even the playing field a little...
maraboutslim wrote:I've always been puzzled when people say that a rich guy got away with something because he had a lot of money. No defendant, except maybe bill gates when he gets popped for something, has the kind of money that the government has. Think of all the hundreds of people working on the case from the governments side: the cops, the detectives, the scientists, the assistants and the DAs and all their staff. If the defendant is rich, maybe he can hire a few people on his side too and try to even the playing field a little... OJ spent way less on his lawyers than the government spent prosecuting him, and i'm sure the same goes for wacko jacko.
American Oyaji wrote:He didn't "get away" with SHIT.
The evidence was put in front of a jury. Jury let him go.
If he had paid them off to disappear, then maybe you could say that.
AssKissinger wrote: It would have been a bad day for American pop music if he was guilty.
Rob Pongi wrote:Q: What does anyone with half a brain do when they need money?
A: MOVE TO JAPAN!
Michael Jackson's money troubles
Adriatic wrote:In my opinion, he wouldn't get be accused that seriously that many times without some bit of foul play. But, in this case, there just wasn't any hard evidence and legally I suppose he's innocent.. however I think otherwise.
hakuman wrote:A couple people in this thread have stated that he is innocent, but no jury ever said that. They said he was "not guilty". That is radically different from innocent. It just means that there wasnt enough proof that he did it. Not that there was proof he didnt.
Or is this the case only for people you don't like? Or maybe only when your "gut instinct" tells you they are guilty?
So by your logic everyone who is charged and later acquitted is actually guilty?
A) I don't have it. See?
B) Yes you do, it just isn't here.
A) Well, let's look over here, shall we? See, it's not here either.
B) I don't believe you -- you just have it hidden somewhere else.
A) Well, look anywhere you want then, I don't mind.
B) You have it hidden so well that I can't find it, but I know you have it!
hakuman wrote:If it truely were innocent until proven guilty, then the verdict would not be "guilty" or "not guilty", it would be "guilty" or "innocent".
Ask a lawyer. They will tell you the same thing I am.
hakuman wrote:Thats all good and fine, except we are talking about the American legal system.
Mulboyne wrote:... The waters certainly muddy, mind you, when you have, as in the OJ Simpson case, a successful civil suit brought subsequent to a criminal acquittal ...
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 105 guests