O J Simpson

[BigAl]

Got off, why not her?

Roadkill is right, the system is broken, CSI Miami and other shows just like it have taken

common sense out of the equation.

Officer that would not go in the swamp 4 months earlier is fired for not trying harder.

The Father's character is impeached as to why a mother would do this thing.

SO why would you bring that up if not guilty.

Momma said she searched for the Chloroform on the net and was proved a liar.

Everybody covering her and now she walks what a surprise.

IF not repentant, she will be dealt with soon enough.

AL

Notice I never mention her name but you knew who I was talking about.

Common Sense, tells you who it is I am speaking of, guilty is what she is and always will be.

[Valker]

I wasn't on this jury OR the other one. I have my opinions in both cases, but I'll keep them both to myself.
Saying someone is guilty (or even innocent) when not having heard all the stuff the jury heard is like quarterbacking from your recliner.

[fiddle mike]

Fortunately, there is still the presumption of innocence in our system.  

You can't compare this case to OJ's since OJ had a blood trail to his door and this woman can't be connected to the body.  Johnny Cockroach told the public before trial that  all he needed was one black juror. Figure it out.

[x]

Fortunately, there is still the presumption of innocence in our system.

+1
 
And, having served on a number of juries I find comments that suggest juries don't know what they are doing to be ludicrous.
 
She may well have been guilty... but it couldn't be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.  We have the 'reasonable doubt' clause to prevent lynch mobs from killing people because they 'think' or 'feel' that the party is guilty.
 
Better that the guilty go free once in a while rather than have the innocent pay with prison or their lives.  This was exactly the founding fathers intent:  To ensure that an over zealous government couldn't railroad someone.
 
And, as we all know, it doesn't always work... like the Martha Stewart example.

[Smokinjoe-VRCCDS#0005]

Fortunately, there is still the presumption of innocence in our system.

 
 
 
Better that the guilty go free once in a while rather than have the innocent pay with prison or their lives.  This was exactly the founding fathers intent:  To ensure that an over zealous government couldn't railroad someone.
 

I think she did it ....I also agree with the above statement.

[czuch]

The prosecution was a little thin. During the closing statements the defence atty pulled no punches and slammed her character, but reminded the jury that was not what was on trial.
Those people have to live with what they know for a long time.
I pray for Caylee as I have all along and the final jury will make the final decision.

[The Anvil]

And, having served on a number of juries I find comments that suggest juries don't know what they are doing to be ludicrous.

I don't.

[Daniel Meyer]

Trial by soundbite. The public knows what the news media wants them to know about this case.

The jurors got to hear and see it all. It's their call. That's the way it works.

[Willow]

I guess I stand with the minority here.

The jury had the best the prosecution had to offer for proof.  A lot of people had the sensational stories the media presented.  I think she's guilty of something, but I think the people failed to prove murder.

As to OJ's guilt, we'll never know.  If you need to blame someone, blame a police detective that thought some of us are above the law and felt the system needed a helping hand.

There are a lot of guilty people walking the streets, including me and maybe you.  There are a lot of innocent people behind bars, at least innocent of the particular crime for which they were convicted.  Quite honestly, I'm not willing to trust the competing media to sort either out for me.  Although I'm certain the a "jury of the peers of the accused" makes some mistakes, I tend to trust them more than the other. 

[BigAl]

Better 10 guilty to go free than one innocent be convicted.

I know the old adage.

I agree with the principal.

I have served on two juries, one a very serious crime, in fact a felony.

Never stood trial, it would be terrible to face a jury such as she had to.

It would be terrible to be thought a killer and not be guilty.

But all who think this person is not guilty, raise your hand.

Don't think we will see many hands on this woman's behalf.

In fact it will be very doubtful she will have a normal life anywhere in the USA.

[RoadKill]

Moral of the story...Get the whole FamDamily involved and make sure the evidence is missing/deteriorating for at least 6 months. hiding a body is not murder.

[musclehead]

Fortunately, there is still the presumption of innocence in our system.

+1
 
And, having served on a number of juries I find comments that suggest juries don't know what they are doing to be ludicrous.
 
She may well have been guilty... but it couldn't be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.  We have the 'reasonable doubt' clause to prevent lynch mobs from killing people because they 'think' or 'feel' that the party is guilty.
 
Better that the guilty go free once in a while rather than have the innocent pay with prison or their lives.  This was exactly the founding fathers intent:  To ensure that an over zealous government couldn't railroad someone.
 
And, as we all know, it doesn't always work... like the Martha Stewart example.

I find myself in agreement with Mr SE, checking alignment of the stars.... not likely to happen for another blue moon 
I think she's guilty of something. I know I'd never trust a word she ever said, but being a liar isn't punishable by death. if lying WAS punisable by death we'd all start lining up politicians