The Truth has been spoken. Only reason their family is famous is because Robert Kardashian’s role in the case.
At least with Paris Hilton and Nicole Richie cleaned up their acts and started to become responsible.
The Kardashians did shit to earn or keep their fame other than some good marketing and that Robert Kardashian made some powerful friends.
There is no speculation when the defense asks the lead detective if he planted evidence in THIS CASE, and he firmly replies “I plead the 5th”
…
I very rarely agree with Dime on anything, but yeah, as soon as Fuhrman plead the 5th on that essential question, the case was over for the prosecution–they had lost. It’s a bit audacious to pretend that all of the evidence was tampered with, but Dime does have a point that Fuhrman pleading the 5th did bring up the issue that any of the evidence could have been tampered with, especially since we know for a fact that some of it was tampered with due to that idiot who took the evidence off-scene and home with him. So it doesn’t matter if more of the evidence actually was tampered with or not, the doubt was there after he said that.
Again, it hardly proves that OJ was “innocent” (ha), but as far as the actually court case goes, OJ getting “not guilty” back makes sense based just on that occurrence even after you excise the racial biases and the other things that prosecution and LAPD fucked up.
Honestly, given how little I know of Robert Kardashian or the Kardashians in general, completely intentionally since they aren’t worth attention, I still have to ultimately blame RJ’s sex tape thing for giving them exposure–pun intended.
Again, though, OJ’s trial doubtless did help them in some capacity. I just don’t think that he’s solely to blame like the theory implies or at least seems to imply.
(Also, to be fair to Paris Hilton and Nicole Richie, they were never as dumb as they acted.)
Couldn’t tell you how, but the why is because they won the civil case. The system got OJ out of a double murder conviction, but it didn’t get him out of a civil case.
The Goldmans won’t be seeing any more money from O.J.
A friend of OJ’s said he intentionally avoids making money, so that the goldmans get nothing.
He’s got plenty of money coming in from his two pensions, so he’s not hurting for cash.
(Yeah. That’s probably the only reason we’ll be spared from an OJ reality show at this point.)
O.J. dodging paying the majority of money through loopholes is about the only reason I can understand people not directly involved being still mad enough at him to be so interested in giving him attention even if everyone involved seems like assholes–rightfully grieving assholes, but still assholes nonetheless. After all, unlike the murders, it’s something you can definitely prove that he’s doing rather easily, especially since he lost the civil case almost as publicly.
Shrug. Personally I hope he just stays in anonymity for the rest of his life after he’s released, which in theory should be easy so long as he stays away from gold-diggers that he might kill in a rage; then again, fewer gold-diggers on the planet is always a good thing, so I’m conflicted…
Im slow but i just realize he owed 33million from civil case & when he got sentence by the judge she sentence him to 33years…
She also sentenced him on the 13 year anniversary of the double murder verdict.
Whoa, wait a minute. Who are you comparing our justice system too first before I get you thorough reply? If you are comparing it to some Taliban or Middle East legal system, of course, we are way ahead them.
I really wonder if OJ has CTE. It’s definitely a possibility.
Actually the family was barely mentioned during the case. Kim…er Ray J got the family famous lol
@MarcOfTheBeast - Well…yeah. Why would I leave them out when making a blanket statement like that? As flawed as the American justice system is, we’re still sadly better than the majority of the world’s justice systems even if some reason you excluded the Middle East as a whole. We’re still better than the majority of Africa and at least the majority of Asia, including goddamn China and Russia, and given how much of the world that just those two continents make up in terms of both landmass and population…yeah.
Does that clarify things enough for you?
Facts my dude
I low key think all 4(OJ, Rob, Kris and Nicole) had an Orgy lol
Yo Bruce with that Ryu impression, good job man!
Okay, fair enough. But how does our justice system compare to developed countries? I’m still trying to figure why are you comparing our comparison legal system to developing or under developed countries. It just doesn’t seem to be a good measurement in judging how effective our legal system is. And I don’t know how landmass and population has anything to do with deciding how good legal system is either. I could be wrong though, maybe you have insightful response or experience with these topics that I don’t. I’m willing to hear you out on this, I’m just not seeing your rationalization.
I said it plenty of times on this board but our legal system is extremely outdated and highly inefficient.
How would you revamp our legal system? Make it easier to convict defendants? Make it harder to convict them?
Change how evidence is looked at and judged? “Beyond a reasonable doubt” going a bit to far? Circumstantial evidence being stronger than it is currently? Hearsay being admissible? Mor ejudges than just one for trials? Different selection of juries than what is currently being used? Change the laws?
I mean you can say our legal system is outdated and inefficient, and I’d even agree with you to a certain extent, but it’s spitting in the wind if you have no insights on what the problems are and how those problems can be fixed to make a better less redundant legal system that convicts criminals and lets the innocent go free at a better rate than what is currently seen.
Lol, well that’s a lot of questions to answer.
I will try my best to answer them in further posts instead of squeezing into one long ass article. First, I would eliminate juries. This is one of the most wasteful resources used in the American legal system. And please don’t give me some appeal to some patriotic nonsense. Research has shown how ineffective juries are judging someone’s character, when someone is lying, and interpreting the law. The research is exhaustive on this topic. Judges should be the sole discretionary outcome of all types of cases. Because of their expertise, experience, and duty. Furthermore, there needs to be a committee of judges that oversee their fellow judge’s decision pertaining to each case. This can be broken down to the federal level to state level. That committee monitors and overrules decisions that are inconsistent with the law or a judge’s wrongful interpretation of the law. Some people might be afraid to hand over this much power to judges and appeal to some implicit bias nonsense in their rulings. These are fanciful theories that become almost nonexistent when you look at the evidence. Second, I would eliminate mandatory minimums, judges should decide the sentence, not a law that was passed in legislature.
Judges are just human as well, and in the states they are lawyers who werent good enough to make successful practises of their own for the most part. Hand them all the power and then on top of that let them determine fate at will. Ok.
:tdown:
