7 piped up to “Does Anybody Really Believe That OJ Simpson’s Sentence Had Nothing To Do With Trying To Right An Old Wrong?”

1. Emmy Posted: Dec 14th, 2008 at 7:11 pm

   1 He definitely got prosecuted because of his previous acquittal. Hello? They gave the two guys who actually had the guns in their hands immunity in exchange for testifying against Simpson. They played the police tape in court where officers specifically made comments about finally nailing the bastard. I think the whole thing was a setup. Some guy just happens to find out about OJ memorabilia at a hotel, and then goes on to tape record the entire thing? Even the guys who got held up said they didn’t want to testify and had to be subpoenaed to a trial on their behalf. Just because prosecutors were incompetent the first time doesn’t mean he should be nailed the second time by a white jury to compensate.

2. Dorothy Mantooth Posted: Dec 15th, 2008 at 9:45 am

   2 I’m of two minds about this one. On the one hand I agree with Emmy. He was totally set up, and the punishment does not fit the crime. And no, the prosecution in the muder trial did not prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. We all knew he did it, but knowing it and meeting the legal standards of proof are two different things. They botched the case; they allowed a man to perjure himself on the stand; to be frank, it wouldn’t have surprised me one bit to find they did in fact manufacture evidence because there were simply too many holes (where did the missing blood go? Why did the first few officers on the scene at his place not report seeing any blood in the Bronco, but the later ones claimed it was swimming in blood? That sort of thing). Whereas decent prosecutors who knew what they were doing could have made that an open-and-shut case, Johnny Cochrane notwithstanding. But on the other hand…we all know he did it, and he deserved to rot in jail then and he deserves it now. So while I’m not comfortable with HOW it happened…I can’t help but think, yeah, but he *should* be in jail. Because set-up or not, he didn’t have to go along with it. Nobody dragged him into that hotel room, you know? I don’t know. It’s just very complex and I’m not sure how I feel about it.

3. Teddypig Posted: Dec 15th, 2008 at 10:18 am

   3 Because set-up or not, he didn’t have to go along with it. Nobody dragged him into that hotel room, you know? This! Plus he knew guns were involved. How does that support his innocence? Would even the richest asshole not just call a lawyer to get back what they think belongs to them? Seems to me he wanted to look like a thug and so that is how he got treated. I guess I am a bad person. OJ keeps coming across as so arrogant and so stupid. He got off the murder rap and you would think he be smart and would remain out of the spotlight the rest of his life after all that. But no… he has to up the drama every time he feels his spotlight is fading. The only question is will someone else die the next time he wants more attention? At this point I just don’t care if the evidence was manufactured or if what happened to him in this particular case was fair or even right.

4. Dorothy Mantooth Posted: Dec 15th, 2008 at 5:16 pm

   4 I don’t think you’re a bad person for feeling that way, Teddy. That rdiculous “I didn’t know it was illegal, I thought I was confronting friends” story is just… What sort of moron actually thinks it’s not illegal to force yourself into someone’s room and threaten them with guns? And yeah, any ordinary law-abiding person would call a lawyer or the police (but then, he wasn’t supposed to have that stuff, was he? Wasn’t he supposed to hand all that stuff over to the Goldmans?) For me it’s a bit like Cher’s Oscar. She won it for Moonstruck because she *should* have won it for Mask. And everyone knows that they gave it to her for Mask, even though technically it was for Moonstruck. So there’s that bit of “That’s not right”…but on the other hand, at least she got what she deserved.

5. Tuscan Capo Posted: Dec 15th, 2008 at 9:03 pm

   5 There are probably people who think Al Capone was set-up on the tax evasion thing, too. But whatever, he got away with racketeering and murder in his own turf; sometimes it just takes outsiders to bring about even a shred of justice.

6. Dominique Adair Posted: Dec 15th, 2008 at 9:57 pm

   6 I watched the sentencing and the judge stated one of the contributing factors was his past. I believe the statement was something along the lines of his ‘escalating’ violence with regards to his brushes with that law. Personally…I think the bastard should rot in prison and be forced to listen to the Carpenters and Donny & Marie albums all day every day.

7. Anon76 Posted: Dec 16th, 2008 at 7:01 pm

   7 Sigh. What a shambles this guy has made of his life. But I do wonder if the sentence is a bit harsh. Although, maybe not. Sentences have minimums and maximums and there is no guarantee you will get the low end of the spectrum. Me? I could not have sat on that jury. I’m still miffed about the whole “if it doesn’t fit, you must acquit” fiasco. Have you ever tried to put a shoe or glove on a kid who didn’t want it on. And in the case of a glove, they spread their darn fingers making it a huge battle (watch the tape of OJ on that point). Add in a leather glove that has been soaked and then left to dry without stretching it, and well… Sigh