Originally posted by WO Polaski
not even close. and the prosecution against oj had some actual evidence not "circumstantial evidence" which is actually just a way of saying evidence that isnt really evidence but implications.
Well the evidence that Jackson feared coming to light in the Chandler case was damning.
16 million dollars worth of damning.
So the analogy stands.
Originally posted by WO Polaski
not even close. and the prosecution against oj had some actual evidence not "circumstantial evidence" which is actually just a way of saying evidence that isnt really evidence but implications.
Then why did the detectives have to fake evidence?
They claimed that blood on OJ's socks showed that he stepped in the victims blood. What they couldn't explain was how the blood had managed to soak through the whole sock...Meaning that it couldn't have been on his foot when it was put in the blood...Meaning they wiped it through the blood and claimed it was evidence.
Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Well the evidence that Jackson feared coming to light in the Chandler case was damning.16 million dollars worth of damning.
So the analogy stands.
i would have paid them too, even if i didnt do it, for 2 reasons. 1: the simple of act of being accused of doing something like that can kill a career. if i had any sense id try to stifle the event before it becomes big simply for the sake of continuing to make money. people in general are very judgmental. look at Michael now. he was found innocent and yet people still talk shit, and theyd talk shit if the defense still havent a single case. id gladly pay money to keep something like that under wraps. 2: the fact that the parents took the money pretty much shows that they wanted money. a parent that believes his child was molested/raped isnt going to just be quiet because the molester coughed up some cash. taking the money weakens the parents case and heavily implicates that they made the accusations in the hope of making money. doesnt mean michaels guilty.
Then why did the detectives have to fake evidence?They claimed that blood on OJ's socks showed that he stepped in the victims blood. What they couldn't explain was how the blood had managed to soak through the whole sock...Meaning that it couldn't have been on his foot when it was put in the blood...Meaning they wiped it through the blood and claimed it was evidence.
do you think OJ did it?
Gotta love the twist in the tail
http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2009/jun/26/michael-jackson-drugs-doctor-missing
Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Nah. I dodnt accept that, WO.Not guilty?
Then he should be able to repell the attacks of the prosecution.
And it wasnt like paying off and corrupting or averting a trial was gonna disuade suspicion anyhow. Only increase it.Particularly when hw was already in the public spotlight anyway.
the prosecution had a case what they did have was ludicrous. it increases suspicion but it does so on both counts. any parent who would accept money from a man who molested their child is greedy scum and throws their entire initiative into question.
you dont have to accept anything but its a logical and clear counter-theory to your theory, so i mean... what else can be said ultimately its your opinion vs mine know what i mean?
Originally posted by WO Polaski
im not smart enough to understand what you said here. 😮
Sorry man.....
I just meant "Cash settlements over loads of different things, accidents assaults etc, are awarded in courts all the time."
Jackson couldn't UNmolest the kid, after all.
I do agreethat its disgusting that no other punishment was given, despite the cash thing.
Any parents willing to endanger their kids AFTER that big case, were mercenary or devoid of parental sense.
Originally posted by WO Polaski
i agree with you. i had to do a study on the oj case for my class a couple months ago and that always struck me as ironic.
We done an in-depth analysis of the forensic evidence from the case as part of my honours degree in forensic science. The whole investigation was a farce from start to finish because the detectives running it were old school and didn't want to rely on forensic teams.
Originally posted by jaden101
Gotta love the twist in the tailhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2009/jun/26/michael-jackson-drugs-doctor-missing
That article states: "The Los Angeles police or LAPD, whose robbery-homicide detectives are making a full investigation into the death, would not comment on the report about the injection and would not name the doctor."
Couldn't you also refer to them as the Los AP Department? hmm
Originally posted by Impediment
YouTube video
lol, standup-wise, George Carlin has been my 2nd favorite comedian for as long as i can remember, after Martin Lawerce. 3rd is 80's Eddie Murphy.
We're talking on stage stand-up comedy..