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.

Pastimes : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bill who wrote (3955)	3/21/2002 11:43:04 AM
From: E	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

Did the jurors know about the evidence, such as the handful of hair in the corpse's hand, hair that didn't match the man who was executed? No.

To: Bill who wrote (3955)	3/21/2002 12:23:13 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

Who is more believable, the writer of the piece or the 12 peers who voted unanimously to convict him Why did you say the jury voted unanimously to convict him when the vote was 7-5?? On what basis do you object to the facts that the victim clutching someone elses hair in his hand, the accused having an alibi, the accused claiming innocence till the second he was killed, the jury all white, prosecutorial misconduct by suppressing evidence of victim clutching hair belonging to someone not the defendant as he died are all factors which point to innocence and is one of many many cases examined by thoughtful people intent on improving the justice system and the quality of the world in which we live?? Hell, Bill. 12 white men on a jury against a black. Outstanding white citizens used to ride out in the evening with a torch and mask and sit on a jury the next morning. On what basis do you "bet the jurors were right" if you have not studied the case? Is it because you believe that jurors are simply always right such as in the oj trial, and therefore that groups like AI are simply wasting thir time by believing that legal justice is a work in progress and not a finished product sacrosanct from criticism or fault-finding. Frankly, I do not follow the motivation in your response. The jury was all white and the vote was not unanimous as you had for some reasom stated, and the case is accepted by most intelligent people as a glaring example of miscarriage due to prejudice and prosecutorial corruption. There was even a witness who spoke to the person leaving the house. When Foy Hortman viewed the lineup he stated "not Adams". It is either your stance that injustice is always done, or that justice was done in this particular case because you have examined the details and arrived at that very considered opinion. Your gratuitous remark that the jurors voted unanimously to convict him, when they did not, shows me that you are not representative of the latter outlook, but of the former. I am sorry to hear it; if it is your position that there have been no injustices committed then you at least do not need to waste any valuable time looking at individual cases. Wasn't oj a great runner, though? I wish I could run like that.