OJ Simpson scared of attack by white supremesists in Jail
Discussion
Hoppy2008 said:
Anyone read the article in The Sun today?
Apparently OJ's s
tting himself about being rolled in jail by a group of white racists.
Wonder how his ex wife and her friend felt as he was slaying them?
We should remember that PH is a public domain website, accessible worldwide by anyone, and consequently we should all be very very careful what we say about OJ Simpson.Apparently OJ's s
tting himself about being rolled in jail by a group of white racists.Wonder how his ex wife and her friend felt as he was slaying them?
After all, he is a big bloke, and he has already brutally murdered two people...
Simpo Two said:
Pat H said:
Simpo Two said:
IIRC he was found innocent.
No he wasn't.He was found not guilty.
Which means that the jury wasn't sure that he did it.
[i]"The Not Proven Verdict
Scots law is unusual in allowing three alternative verdicts in a criminal trial. Although the "Not Proven" verdict is known, incorrectly, as the third verdict, it has a 300 year history in Scotland. Even though it has a long history it has been the subject of criticism since 1827 when Sir Walter Scott, novelist and Sheriff, described the not proven verdict as "that b
d verdict, not proven."The verdict of not proven is essentially one of acquittal. In all respects the verdicts of not guilty and not proven have exactly the same legal effects. In practice it is thought that a verdict of not proven simply means that the judge or jury have reasonable doubt as to the accused's guilt. It is interesting to note that the not proven verdict is used in one third of acquittals by juries, and in one fifth of acquittals in non-jury trials. Because of the higher number of non-jury trials ninety per cent of all not proven verdicts are returned in such cases. It is generally thought that the verdict gives juries, and judges, an option between not guilty and guilty where they feel that the charges have not been proved but they equally cannot say the accused is "not guilty" because of its moral connotations.
Current challenge to the verdict stems from the dissatisfaction and feelings of injustice suffered by the families of victims of crime. Political influence has also been apparent, in 1993 George Robertson tabled a Private Members Bill to abolish the verdict.
The legal profession has been divided over the issue most of this century. A number of eminent judges have attacked the verdict. One saying that it was theoretically and historically indefensible, Lord Moncrieff in 1906. Others have supported it. In 1964 Lord Justice General Clyde stated that "for upwards of 200 years a not proven verdict has been available . . . and no convincing argument has been advanced to justify its elimination from our law." One view from England helped to explain the reason for the not proven verdict, Judge Gerald Sparrow wrote, "I have often thought that the distinction typifies the different spirit of Scottish and English law: the Scottish being the more logical, the English more sporting." The original verdicts in Scots law were "culpable" and "convict"; or "cleanse". Guilty and not guilty were introduced by Cromwell during the Usurpation, when he imposed English judges on Scotland. After the reformation the Scots courts reverted to asking judges to find whether the facts in the indictment were "proven" or "not proven." The "not guilty" verdict was reintroduced in 1723 in the trial of Carnegie of Findhorn for the murder of the Earl of Strathmore. In 1975 the Thomson Committee which examined Scottish criminal procedure recommended that the three verdict system be retained. In 1993 the Scottish Office said that "it was not convinced that there was enough groundswell of dissatisfaction from the public and, crucially, from the legal profession" to justify any scrutiny of the not proven verdict. Most recently in 1994 the Government in a White Paper, Firm but Fair, dealing, inter alia, with the verdict made no proposals for any changes as in the absence of "a considerable weight of informed opinion against the verdict" the three verdict system should be retained.
It would appear that there is no immediate prospect that there will be any change in the current three verdict system."[/i]
http://www.siliconglen.com/Scotland/1_8.html
makes u glad that this time an all white jury found that he did kidnap those guys, if they really had stolen from him, the police would have been easier, now he gets to slip on soap in the showers and take his pick on being a biatch for some bigger black guy or simply getting screwed by the KKK 
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff