Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
Lol, keep on going kid, yer on a roll.Still lying huh.[
Your attempt at intellectualism is noted and dismissed. You are twisting things to make them mean stuff I didn't say.
This is known as lying, and is a conservative staple.
Dismissed? By who, you?
Boi with 35 IQ dismisses the intellect of a man with 4 times his intelligence.
Did I overstate your IQ creep?
That wouldn't be a lie, just a mistake.
Black juries increasingly refuse to convict when the victim is white.
The OJ jury was racist so stupidity was moot.
In my recent jury duty, I had to explain to my fellow jurors that testimony is evidence. They thought only video and audio recordings were actual real evidence. There were 3 assimilated white people on that jury. The defendant was segregationist black so the peer element was covered.
Evidence is evidence. Video can be doctored or edited out of context and testimony can be perjury. That’s why juries deliberate. But for jurors to not realize that testimony is evidence is very troubling.The OJ jury was racist so stupidity was moot.
Only if you ignore all the screwups of the LAPD in that case.
In my recent jury duty, I had to explain to my fellow jurors that testimony is evidence. They thought only video and audio recordings were actual real evidence. There were 3 assimilated white people on that jury. The defendant was segregationist black so the peer element was covered.
You do realize that video has a lot more weight than testimony, right?
The prosecution was lame but the case was so cut and dried that only a biased jury could have acquitted.The OJ jury was racist so stupidity was moot.
Only if you ignore all the screwups of the LAPD in that case.
In my recent jury duty, I had to explain to my fellow jurors that testimony is evidence. They thought only video and audio recordings were actual real evidence. There were 3 assimilated white people on that jury. The defendant was segregationist black so the peer element was covered.
You do realize that video has a lot more weight than testimony, right?
Evidence is evidence. Video can be doctored or edited out of context and testimony can be perjury. That’s why juries deliberate. But for jurors to not realize that testimony is evidence is very troubling.
The prosecution was lame but the case was so cut and dried that only a biased jury could have acquitted.
This is why jurors need to be more properly vetted.Evidence is evidence. Video can be doctored or edited out of context and testimony can be perjury. That’s why juries deliberate. But for jurors to not realize that testimony is evidence is very troubling.
Only to you... Maybe they just didn't consider the testimony to be credible.
The prosecution was lame but the case was so cut and dried that only a biased jury could have acquitted.
Was it.
Let's review.
All the really incriminating evidence was found by Fuhrman, an avowed racist who admitted to planting evidence in the past . The key bit of evidence was a pair of bloody gloves that didn't fit OJ's hands.
the Crime lab claimed only Mr. Fung collected evidence, which was contradicted by video of his assistant collected it.
So at the end of the day, it came down to, did the jury really believe the same LAPD that had been brutalizing their community for years, when they were caught in such blatant misconduct.
And the standard is "Reasonable doubt". If "Furhman planted the evidence" was just as plausible as "OJ Did it", then you have to acquit.
This is why jurors need to be more properly vetted.
This is why jurors need to be more properly vetted.Evidence is evidence. Video can be doctored or edited out of context and testimony can be perjury. That’s why juries deliberate. But for jurors to not realize that testimony is evidence is very troubling.
Only to you... Maybe they just didn't consider the testimony to be credible.
The prosecution was lame but the case was so cut and dried that only a biased jury could have acquitted.
Was it.
Let's review.
All the really incriminating evidence was found by Fuhrman, an avowed racist who admitted to planting evidence in the past . The key bit of evidence was a pair of bloody gloves that didn't fit OJ's hands.
the Crime lab claimed only Mr. Fung collected evidence, which was contradicted by video of his assistant collected it.
So at the end of the day, it came down to, did the jury really believe the same LAPD that had been brutalizing their community for years, when they were caught in such blatant misconduct.
And the standard is "Reasonable doubt". If "Furhman planted the evidence" was just as plausible as "OJ Did it", then you have to acquit.
Evidence is evidence. Video can be doctored or edited out of context and testimony can be perjury. That’s why juries deliberate. But for jurors to not realize that testimony is evidence is very troubling.
Only to you... Maybe they just didn't consider the testimony to be credible.
This is why jurors need to be more properly vetted.
No, this is why prosecutors and cops need to have their shit together before wasting anyone's time.
The tragedy of the OJ Trial was that OJ just had the resources to fight back against being railroaded into prison, unlike the hundreds of thousands of young men who are sent to prison every year.
The prosecution was lame but the case was so cut and dried that only a biased jury could have acquitted.
Was it.
Let's review.
All the really incriminating evidence was found by Fuhrman, an avowed racist who admitted to planting evidence in the past . The key bit of evidence was a pair of bloody gloves that didn't fit OJ's hands.
the Crime lab claimed only Mr. Fung collected evidence, which was contradicted by video of his assistant collected it.
So at the end of the day, it came down to, did the jury really believe the same LAPD that had been brutalizing their community for years, when they were caught in such blatant misconduct.
And the standard is "Reasonable doubt". If "Furhman planted the evidence" was just as plausible as "OJ Did it", then you have to acquit.
Can’t happen. That would be called racist.This is why jurors need to be more properly vetted.Evidence is evidence. Video can be doctored or edited out of context and testimony can be perjury. That’s why juries deliberate. But for jurors to not realize that testimony is evidence is very troubling.
Only to you... Maybe they just didn't consider the testimony to be credible.
The prosecution was lame but the case was so cut and dried that only a biased jury could have acquitted.
Was it.
Let's review.
All the really incriminating evidence was found by Fuhrman, an avowed racist who admitted to planting evidence in the past . The key bit of evidence was a pair of bloody gloves that didn't fit OJ's hands.
the Crime lab claimed only Mr. Fung collected evidence, which was contradicted by video of his assistant collected it.
So at the end of the day, it came down to, did the jury really believe the same LAPD that had been brutalizing their community for years, when they were caught in such blatant misconduct.
And the standard is "Reasonable doubt". If "Furhman planted the evidence" was just as plausible as "OJ Did it", then you have to acquit.
They need to be given intellegence tests to weed out the mentally challenged. A lot of these minority type jurors are simply unqualified to look at evidence or even to understand what evidence is....they are governed by their emotions and agenda of black victimhood.
Evidence is evidence. Video can be doctored or edited out of context and testimony can be perjury. That’s why juries deliberate. But for jurors to not realize that testimony is evidence is very troubling.
Only to you... Maybe they just didn't consider the testimony to be credible.
The prosecution was lame but the case was so cut and dried that only a biased jury could have acquitted.
Was it.
Let's review.
All the really incriminating evidence was found by Fuhrman, an avowed racist who admitted to planting evidence in the past . The key bit of evidence was a pair of bloody gloves that didn't fit OJ's hands.
the Crime lab claimed only Mr. Fung collected evidence, which was contradicted by video of his assistant collected it.
So at the end of the day, it came down to, did the jury really believe the same LAPD that had been brutalizing their community for years, when they were caught in such blatant misconduct.
And the standard is "Reasonable doubt". If "Furhman planted the evidence" was just as plausible as "OJ Did it", then you have to acquit.
They need to be given intellegence tests to weed out the mentally challenged. A lot of these minority type jurors are simply unqualified to look at evidence or even to understand what evidence is....they are governed by their emotions and agenda of black victimhood.
The Italian Luxury Footwear Brand That Led to O.J. Simpson’s Civil Conviction
You can have all the "evidence" you want, but when you are considered a liar to start with, no one really believes you.
The Italian Luxury Footwear Brand That Led to O.J. Simpson’s Civil Conviction
Too bad Darden and Clark didn't present that evidence at trial.
Still think the jury would have looked at Fuhrer-man's (That was his nickname around the PD because he like Nazi stuff) lying testimony and disregarded it, though.
The problem with your perspective is that you are ignoring the fact that a legal court found O.J. responsible for the murders....and the evidence presented in that court is exceedingly strong.
Not even to mention that most Americans believe he was guilty ...even the majority of African-Americans.
Time for you to bow out before you embarass yourself even further with your leftwing b.s. of black victimhood.
I agree....that jury had made up their mind even before the trial started.
