beReal said:so if the trial hade been after AEOM , the outcome would have been another one? not guilty?
not really ken said:^There was a lot of evidence to suggest that OJ's son did it. Anyone ever heard about that?
Default MX said:FlipMo, we speak the same language (litteraly,) but the shit you've said here, I just dont understand. You claim to know the system better then anyone, well how can that be, seeing as this system has worked for so many years, and is fair, because, well the criminals are put away, or released, based on evidance, not oppinion.
Everyone though OJ was guilty, including the jury, but the prosecution fucked up. The glove for one ruined the whole case, because it had (i assume so) shrunk from the blood, and no longer fit OJ's hand. (It was leather and it shrinks when wet.)
The prosecution in MJ's trial was weak as fuck, and thats why he was found not guility.

Default MX said:Things like this is nothing new, and will stay the same as long as it gets ratings, because everythings about money thease days, including the reason for the trial in the first place.
![]()
Untold Drama said:lol @ everyone thinking he'd be guilty... they had nothing on him... by the end the trial was a joke.... it would have been utterly disgusting to see him get any of the counts, by the end all it was were a bunch of idiots who were known con artists who had failed to sue multipul other people.