🚀 go-pugleaf

>><stevenc@cybersim.com> writes:
>>>We should do away with the jury system as it exists today.For example, 
>>>just how many jurers so you think were able to follow the testimony 
>>>concerning the DNA evidence? The jury in this case could be called many 
>>>things, but intelligent would not be one. This trial was a complete farce
>>>and an embarassment for this country.

>>Don't you just love it when people who don't believe the way you do are
>>stupid?
>>It is the only logical explaination.

>I would call the jury IGNORANT of DNA testing procedures and 
>implications. IGNORANCE does not mean they were unintelligent. The jury 
>however was chosen from a pool of people who did'nt read daily newspapers or 
>frequent bookstores according to judge Ito's juror screening questionaire.


If it were a white middle class jury no one would be calling them dumb...Damn 
we are still so racist.

What smoke screens biggots come up with.  My message to them is:::::::::::::

Ah come on and get a life. The issue with the blood evidence wasn't the DNA 
tests!!!

The problem is that the defense team proved that there was blood with 
chemicals from the test tube planted in the crime scene.

Secondary to that, they proved that a cop carried around a vial of OJ's blood 
at the crime scene for hours.

And further they proved that there was blood missing from the sample drawn 
from OJ.

They also proved that two of the cops who were at the crime scene were liars.

Under the law if you prove a witness is a liar the jury has to be instructed 
that they can assume everything that witness says is a lie.

If that isn't enough they demonstrated that the reading of the DNA tests were 
not all so scientific. It is like reading a ph test strip. A faint grey to 
dark black can be reguarded as positive. When strips were shown at the trial 
that were light grey and on one test read as positive and ones that looked the 
same light grey were read as negative on another test there goes the 
credability of the people reading the test.

The larger issue isn't if OJ killed anyone...Or if the jury system is up to 
speed on scientific evidence... 



The issue is do our laws protect us from being set up by the government.  How 
can you convict a killer if part of the evidence against him is PLANTED by 
agents of the government???


If none of this bothers you what about the skin and blood under N.B.S's 
fingernails that didn't match anyone at the crime sceen? If OJ was the lone 
killer that Marsha Clark portrayed him to be, who did she claw during her 
death struggle. 

Isn't it better to let guilty men go free than hang innocent men?  Are we 
willing to give up the protections that good men have fought and died for for 
220 years cause someone MIGHT have gotten away with murder?     Not me!!!

"killing you boss is part of the American dream"  Homer Simpson  wouldn't it 
follow that killing you exwife would be part of the American dream too?  When 
the Jury found him innocent he was innocent. Period the end,,,even if he did 
it. When people treat OJ as though he is quilty they are violating his civil 
rights and are subject to 10 years in Federal prison and a $10,000 fine. It is 
the same law that protects him from people calling him a nigger and denying 
him a job because he is black. 


Again I say - Get a life  -  evaluate the facts