Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Rambus (RMBS) - Eagle or Penguin -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: richard surckla who wrote (59885)	11/2/2000 11:03:06 AM
From: Daniel Schuh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93625

Take it up with your new friend e-Bill, Dick. He likes spewing about OJ almost as much as he likes spewing about sheep.

To: richard surckla who wrote (59885)	11/2/2000 11:05:37 AM
From: Dr. Id	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93625

OT The fact is that the defense aims to choose a jury that is not very bright and will tend to decide based on emotion rather than logic. That's why none of us (or most of us) would never be chosen for such a jury...the defense wants people that won't understand DNA evidence or convergent validity. When they had the civil trial in Santa Monica with better lawyers, it was a slam dunk against OJ. Dr.Id

To: richard surckla who wrote (59885)	11/2/2000 6:04:47 PM
From: Dave B	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93625

richard, OTOTOTOTOTOTOT The jury (all of them, blacks, whites, and Latinos) didn't believe the prosecution. They believed the defense. In the eyes and minds of the jury, the prosecution could not prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt that O.J. did it. Do you know what the final tally was? All it would have taken was 1 to wind up "not guilty", which would have meant 11 said "guilty". Not exactly an overwhelming vote of acquittal, but that's all it takes. I have no idea what the final count was. Dave