Which not guilty verdict was worse? Casey Anthony or OJ Simpson

[jml4life]

Casey's seemed more obvious. Dead body smell in her car. Doesn't report missing child for a month. Lie after lie. Gee golly I wonder who did it .

 

[Kardashians]

I’d go with Casey. Murdering a fucking child and getting away with it? Absolute trash.

Though OJ’s smugness irritates the shit out of me too.

 

[Two Crows]

Both are horrible.

OJ was wrong, but I can at least understand why he did it. Passion/Love/Anger/Jealousy ... history/mutual assets/kids ... the classic motives for spousal's murder throughout written history. Ron Goldman was the man in the wrong place at the wrong time. He could have been any guy she was brining home that night, and it would have been the same (JIMO).

Killing a child though, ESPECIALLY YOUR CHILD, is just something else. If you will kill your own baby, you'll kill anyone.

OJ got away with it, but doesn't scare me.
Casey looks like she barely even remembers it, like it was a forgettable lunch or something. She's much scarier.

 

[Jack Reacheround]

So, all you guys who are convinced that OJ and Casey Anthony are guilty, I want you to remember this when someone gets accused of sexual assault, rape, sexual harassment. Because many of you are going to say to those who believe the allegations, “What happened to due process? They haven’t had a trial and ____ hasn’t been proven guilty.”

Because these two did go to trial, and they were not convicted.

So, you can have an opinion as to whether or not someone is guilty of something even though there was no court case, much like you can think someone who was not convicted in court, found innocent, can still be guilty. And you can be right, as you would in these two cases.

 

[BoogerDawson]

OJ.

 

[HARRISON_3]

The Gettys case.

 

[Two Crows]

So, all you guys who are convinced that OJ and Casey Anthony are guilty, I want you to remember this when someone gets accused of sexual assault, rape, sexual harassment. Because many of you are going to say to those who believe the allegations, “What happened to due process? They haven’t had a trial and ____ hasn’t been proven guilty.”

Because these two did go to trial, and they were not convicted.

So, you can have an opinion as to whether or not someone is guilty of something even though there was no court case, much like you can think someone who was not convicted in court, found innocent, can still be guilty. And you can be right, as you would in these two cases.

There is a little nuance there, though.

OJ, for example, was found/declared "not guilty", despite a preponderance, a near overwhelming preponderance, of evidence in contrary.

I wouldn't have any problem with people feeling/thinking/suggesting he was guilty, as long as there were no actionable measures utilized.
IOW, he should not fired and/or dropped from a contact a nothing more than accusation (especially accusation unexamined in cross).

I also don't expect everyone to agree on anything beyond; "they were acquitted, there will be no legal punishment."

 

[deadshot138]

So, all you guys who are convinced that OJ and Casey Anthony are guilty, I want you to remember this when someone gets accused of sexual assault, rape, sexual harassment. Because many of you are going to say to those who believe the allegations, “What happened to due process? They haven’t had a trial and ____ hasn’t been proven guilty.”

Because these two did go to trial, and they were not convicted.

So, you can have an opinion as to whether or not someone is guilty of something even though there was no court case, much like you can think someone who was not convicted in court, found innocent, can still be guilty. And you can be right, as you would in these two cases.

The jury got it wrong in both instances. There was enough evidence to convict. Why did OJ drive around in a blood soaked Bronco threatening to kill himself if he didn't do it?

 

[Jack Reacheround]

There is a little nuance there, though.

OJ, for example, was found/declared "not guilty", despite a preponderance, a near overwhelming preponderance, of evidence in contrary.

I wouldn't have any problem with people feeling/thinking/suggesting he was guilty, as long as there were no actionable measures utilized.
IOW, he should not fired and/or dropped from a contact a nothing more than accusation (especially accusation unexamined in cross).

I also don't expect everyone to agree on anything beyond; "they were acquitted, there will be no legal punishment."

The point is that you can have an opinion on the matter that doesn’t fully comport with either their conviction or acquittal in a court of law. For instance, in matters where they don’t even go to court. You can have an opinion on it. People don’t seem to understand that.

 

[Jack Reacheround]

The jury got it wrong in both instances. There was enough evidence to convict. Why did OJ drive around in a blood soaked Bronco threatening to kill himself if he didn't do it?

I’m sorry, but did you read my post and get front it “Both Anthony and OJ didn’t kill them”?

 

[Jack Reacheround]

I’ll break it down super easy for you guys.

Sherdoggers when some movie star is accused of rape or sexual assault, and someone says they probably did it:
“What happened to due process? Innocent until proven guilty! Waaaah! Waaaah!”

Sherdoggers when two people were found innocent of murder after due process:
“They’re guilty!”

Do you see the hypocrisy here?

 

[Two Crows]

The point is that you can have an opinion on the matter that doesn’t fully comport with either their conviction or acquittal in a court of law. For instance, in matters where they don’t even go to court. You can have an opinion on it. People don’t seem to understand that.

Oh, I agree.

I think all one needs to do is look at the staggering conviction rate in the US with any data analysis training to realize something is REALLY wrong.
As things stand in the US today; Accused virtually guarantees Guilt.

What's worse is when people agree about the details & facts, but disagree about justified outcome. Impossible to make everyone happy.

 

[Sweater of AV]

 

[Cajun]

I’d go with Casey. Murdering a fucking child and getting away with it? Absolute trash.

Though OJ’s smugness irritates the shit out of me too.

Would agree. She is a worse monster and a bigger loss of a conviction.

 

[nostradumbass]

Gotta go with OJ. The Casey Anthony jury actually weren't sure because the prosecution just did a terrible job and bricked a layup. The OJ jury knew he did it but wanted to let him off anyway.

So, all you guys who are convinced that OJ and Casey Anthony are guilty, I want you to remember this when someone gets accused of sexual assault, rape, sexual harassment. Because many of you are going to say to those who believe the allegations, “What happened to due process? They haven’t had a trial and ____ hasn’t been proven guilty.”

Because these two did go to trial, and they were not convicted.

So, you can have an opinion as to whether or not someone is guilty of something even though there was no court case, much like you can think someone who was not convicted in court, found innocent, can still be guilty. And you can be right, as you would in these two cases.

This isn't some he-said, she said crap with no evidence about who you had sex with 20 years ago, OJ cut people's heads off and got into a police chase down the highway trying to get escape, then wrote a book about beheading them, and Casey Anthony killed her daughter, then went out and got shit housed and gave a bunch of randos lapdances after she dumped the body, reported the kid missing like a month later and made up a fake nanny to blame it on using a name she got off an apartment guest sheet, made up a fake job for police and took them all the way through an office building at Disney before she admitted she didn't even work there.

These aren't taking anybody's word for anything, there were televised trials with mountains of evidence, and even the jurors that acquitted them admitted later that they got it wrong in Casey Anthony's case, and that they knew OJ was guilty even then but let him off anyway because they were mad about Rodney King so they wanted to let a black guy get away with beheading white people.



Interviewer: Do you think there are members of the jury that voted to acquit OJ because of Rodney King?Bess: Yes.
Interviewer: You do?
Bess: Yes.
Interviewer: How many of you do you think felt that way?
Bess: Oh, probably 90 percent of them.
Interviewer: 90 percent. Did you feel that way?
Bess: Yes.
Interviewer: That was payback.
Bess: Uh-huh.
Interviewer: Do you think that’s right?


Despite the decision to acquit Anthony, the jurors later said their decision haunted them.


"We were sick to our stomach to get that verdict," Juror #3, Jennifer Ford, told ABC News. "We were crying, and not just the women. It was emotional, and we weren't ready."


Another female juror told PEOPLE in 2012 that she was plagued with questions after the trial. "I did what I could do based on the evidence that we got to hear," she said. "But the people watching at home could see the sidebars and the commentary, and they knew much more about the case than I did. I hated being on that jury; I wish I hadn't been. But I don't know what else I could have done."

 

[djacobox372]

OJ, the evidence was about as damning as it gets, yet because a dude said the N word once, the Jury assumed everything was planted and made up.

 

[chardog]

I’ll break it down super easy for you guys.

Sherdoggers when some movie star is accused of rape or sexual assault, and someone says they probably did it:
“What happened to due process? Innocent until proven guilty! Waaaah! Waaaah!”

Sherdoggers when two people were found innocent of murder after sue process:
“They’re guilty!”

Do you see the hypocrisy here?

You’re an idiot, these cases have physical evidence, sexual assaults dating back 20 years, who conveniently have civil suits looking to score millions, don’t.

 

[deadshot138]

I’ll break it down super easy for you guys.

Sherdoggers when some movie star is accused of rape or sexual assault, and someone says they probably did it:
“What happened to due process? Innocent until proven guilty! Waaaah! Waaaah!”

Sherdoggers when two people were found innocent of murder after sue process:
“They’re guilty!”

Do you see the hypocrisy here?

False rape accusations with no evidence vs two cases that have tons of evidence against the accused. Two entirely different things. I don't see the point in your thread to be honest.

 

[Madmick]

There is a little nuance there, though.

OJ, for example, was found/declared "not guilty", despite a preponderance, a near overwhelming preponderance, of evidence in contrary.

I wouldn't have any problem with people feeling/thinking/suggesting he was guilty, as long as there were no actionable measures utilized.
IOW, he should not fired and/or dropped from a contact a nothing more than accusation (especially accusation unexamined in cross).

I also don't expect everyone to agree on anything beyond; "they were acquitted, there will be no legal punishment."

One of the jurors, an old black woman, admitted years later in the spectacular Made in America documentary that she knew he was guilty, but she let him off as revenge for the Rodney King beatings simply to spite white people.

 

[pinger]

The "if the glove don't fit you have to acquit" was the dumbest shit I've seen in a while.

All he had to do was put on some weight, get saline injections into his hands, take a medication that causes fluids retention, or if he is allergic to anything get exposure to the allergen.