Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

Mr.Vicchio · Nov 12, 2004, 04:36 pm

Guilty in the first Degree, time to put this dog down, life in prison is too good for him.

bishop · Nov 12, 2004, 04:41 pm

glad i won't have to hear about this trial on tv anymore.

gr8fuldaniel · Nov 12, 2004, 05:05 pm

Yeah, now the press will be freed up to cover the real news like, Election Fraud and oil production in Iraq and civilian casualties. They will be able to cover corporate crimes like fleecing the public and deforestation. And stuff.

Mr.Vicchio · Nov 12, 2004, 05:16 pm

Er... there is a reason they aren't "covering" that stuff. Its called there is no story, atleast not... the way you view them.

I am just glad its over, and no more

"Breaking News, a peterson juror just sneezed, is there a flu out break in the court room? We'll have experts on to explain what this all means!"

Scribbler1 · Nov 12, 2004, 05:52 pm

I was afraid the whole thing was going to turn into the O.J. trial. The next step is to kill the bastard.

Dieval · Nov 12, 2004, 07:52 pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Scribbler1,
I was afraid the whole thing was going to turn into the O.J. trial. The next step is to kill the bastard.

Wow, I agree with you, for once

Suburbanite · Nov 12, 2004, 08:59 pm

if this trial meant anything to you, you should go to jail with him

Technosoul · Nov 12, 2004, 09:07 pm

I personally think he was quilty and everyone was cheering the judgement.

However, many have doubts if the justice system here in the L.A. court systems was worth praising.

For example: The jury ruled he was guilty of pre-mediated murder in the death of his unborn son, but he was only guilty of a non-mediated (lesser crime) murder of his wife. That seems confusing to me, how can a jury find him guilty of planning to murder his unborn son by drowning while not planning to murder it's mother (wife)? Was his wife just an accidental death that happened when he killed his unborn son?

His poweful and famous lawyer was not present during the announcment, he was spotted eating lunch near his office across town.

One of the people that the judge removed from the jury was a skilled lawyer. Leaving open the chances for a more emotionally motivated determination of guilt.

The jury came to a fast determination of gult quickly after the judge instructed them to do so, but what the told the jury is still a secret of the court but might be used when the trial will be appealed.

Like I said he was most likely guilty but our whole so-called justice system needs fixing if we are going to continue to have respect for it.

Technosoul.

OberonDOtherseid · Nov 12, 2004, 10:09 pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Scribbler1,
I was afraid the whole thing was going to turn into the O.J. trial. The next step is to kill the bastard.

Slowly , very very slow and painful would be best.

Technosoul · Nov 12, 2004, 10:46 pm

I made misstake in my other message, he was found guilty for killing his wife in the first degree, but not in the first degree concerning the death of the unborn son. None the less, if you plan to kill a woman who is about to have a baby how could you not expect to kill the baby as part of that plan? Makes no sense to have one degree of conviction for the mother and another for the unborn infant. That could result in this case and it's apeals to go all the way to the Supreme Court.

Scribbler1 · Nov 12, 2004, 10:59 pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Dieval,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Dieval,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-Scribbler1,
I was afraid the whole thing was going to turn into the O.J. trial. The next step is to kill the bastard.

Wow, I agree with you, for once

[/b][/quote]

Now lets be fair. I think you agreed with me one other time too.

Scribbler1 · Nov 12, 2004, 11:03 pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Suburbanite,
if this trial meant anything to you, you should go to jail with him

Actually, like the O.J. trial, this trial meant absolutely nothing to me. It's a big country and I don't get upset over murders a whole country away. My feeling about O.J. was that this is one C-Grade actor who bumped off his wife and in a population of 250 some-odd million it is insignificant. But the rest of the country didn't seem to agree with me.

So anyway, why should I go to jail with him?

Suburbanite · Nov 12, 2004, 11:38 pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Scribbler1,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Scribbler1,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-Suburbanite,
if this trial meant anything to you, you should go to jail with him

Actually, like the O.J. trial, this trial meant absolutely nothing to me. It's a big country and I don't get upset over murders a whole country away. My feeling about O.J. was that this is one C-Grade actor who bumped off his wife and in a population of 250 some-odd million it is insignificant. But the rest of the country didn't seem to agree with me.

So anyway, why should I go to jail with him?[/b][/quote]

if it didnt mean anything to you than you shouldn't.

Dieval · Nov 12, 2004, 11:40 pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Scribbler1,
Now lets be fair. I think you agreed with me one other time too.

I think you're right...atleast 1 other time..

bullshitdetector · Nov 15, 2004, 09:37 am

I find myself being right in line with you Dieval but also agree with Scribbler quite a bit on a number of occasions. Interesting, eh?

bullshitdetector · Nov 15, 2004, 09:43 am

On another note I agree with Scribbler that one murder hardly constitutes that much significance considering the 250 million population, what is so different about that murder over any other, other than celebrity status with OJ and the media whoring to pander to female victimology to the feminist movement? Note that the woman who ran over her husband 3 times over and over got a light sentence and not a lot of media sympathy for the male victim. The only great service can be brought from this albeit unintentional is that at least in cases like OJ you can clearly see just how fucked up the justice system is for all victims of murder.

Technosoul · Nov 15, 2004, 10:35 am

I was one of the few people who got to watch the whole OJ trial on TV everyday, if I had been on the Jury I would have had to go with the non-guilty judgement based on the evidence presented, even it I had a gut feeling he was guilty, most of the real evidence did not support that idea, and some of the evidence suggested that he was being framed.

But what really got my goat, as an outside observer was that the Judge did not allow the Jury to hear all the information that the lawyers wanted to present. I think if we are going to have a jury made of by adults they we should respect that they are smart enough to know how to weigh the infor for their self, instead of a judge doing it for them by blocking some of the data based on the idea it might "sway the jury" one way or the other.

bullshitdetector · Nov 15, 2004, 10:54 am

The judge in that particular case wanted to sway the jury, there was never any doubt in my mind about that.

Scribbler1 · Nov 15, 2004, 06:18 pm

Lance Ito was an idiot, simple as that. Not too many people know that this fool was the judge in the slam-dunk-guilty-as-charged Keatiing Five fraud case as well. The guilty verdict was thrown out by a higher court because of Ito's "improper procedures".

Mia · Nov 15, 2004, 10:38 pm

Quote:

Originally posted by bishop,
glad i won't have to hear about this trial on tv anymore.

Me too - it was driving me crazy.

I hope the f-er gets the lethal injection.

Nov 12, 2004, 04:36 pm	#1 (permalink) (top)
Mr.Vicchio Navy Veteran Location: Texas Posts: 6,031	Guilty in the first Degree, time to put this dog down, life in prison is too good for him. Einstein's "Theory of Relativity" is still being challenged to this day, but by consensus Global Warming is a fact... that's REAL science at work, why didn't Albert just go that route?

Nov 12, 2004, 04:41 pm	#2 (permalink) (top)
bishop moderat-e/o-r Location: boston Posts: 11,184	glad i won't have to hear about this trial on tv anymore. hope for america... http://www.ronpaul2008.com/

Nov 12, 2004, 05:05 pm	#3 (permalink) (top)
gr8fuldaniel Fire the Liars Location: California Posts: 7,090	Yeah, now the press will be freed up to cover the real news like, Election Fraud and oil production in Iraq and civilian casualties. They will be able to cover corporate crimes like fleecing the public and deforestation. And stuff. ~~ Helpful Linx * Huff Post * WRH * RAW STORY ~~

Nov 12, 2004, 05:16 pm	#4 (permalink) (top)
Mr.Vicchio Navy Veteran Location: Texas Posts: 6,031	Er... there is a reason they aren't "covering" that stuff. Its called there is no story, atleast not... the way you view them. I am just glad its over, and no more "Breaking News, a peterson juror just sneezed, is there a flu out break in the court room? We'll have experts on to explain what this all means!" Einstein's "Theory of Relativity" is still being challenged to this day, but by consensus Global Warming is a fact... that's REAL science at work, why didn't Albert just go that route?

Nov 12, 2004, 05:52 pm	#5 (permalink) (top)
Scribbler1 Skeptical Patriot Posts: 7,746	I was afraid the whole thing was going to turn into the O.J. trial. The next step is to kill the bastard. Not a day goes by that I don't see something that reinforces my belief that people are idiots.

Nov 12, 2004, 08:59 pm	#7 (permalink) (top)
Suburbanite BANNED Location: Los Angeles Posts: 3,203	if this trial meant anything to you, you should go to jail with him

Nov 12, 2004, 09:07 pm	#8 (permalink) (top)
Technosoul Volcanic Erupter Posts: 8,663	I personally think he was quilty and everyone was cheering the judgement. However, many have doubts if the justice system here in the L.A. court systems was worth praising. For example: The jury ruled he was guilty of pre-mediated murder in the death of his unborn son, but he was only guilty of a non-mediated (lesser crime) murder of his wife. That seems confusing to me, how can a jury find him guilty of planning to murder his unborn son by drowning while not planning to murder it's mother (wife)? Was his wife just an accidental death that happened when he killed his unborn son? His poweful and famous lawyer was not present during the announcment, he was spotted eating lunch near his office across town. One of the people that the judge removed from the jury was a skilled lawyer. Leaving open the chances for a more emotionally motivated determination of guilt. The jury came to a fast determination of gult quickly after the judge instructed them to do so, but what the told the jury is still a secret of the court but might be used when the trial will be appealed. Like I said he was most likely guilty but our whole so-called justice system needs fixing if we are going to continue to have respect for it. Technosoul.

Nov 12, 2004, 10:46 pm	#10 (permalink) (top)
Technosoul Volcanic Erupter Posts: 8,663	I made misstake in my other message, he was found guilty for killing his wife in the first degree, but not in the first degree concerning the death of the unborn son. None the less, if you plan to kill a woman who is about to have a baby how could you not expect to kill the baby as part of that plan? Makes no sense to have one degree of conviction for the mother and another for the unborn infant. That could result in this case and it's apeals to go all the way to the Supreme Court.

Nov 15, 2004, 09:37 am	#15 (permalink) (top)
bullshitdetector BANNED Posts: 598	I find myself being right in line with you Dieval but also agree with Scribbler quite a bit on a number of occasions. Interesting, eh?

Nov 15, 2004, 09:43 am	#16 (permalink) (top)
bullshitdetector BANNED Posts: 598	On another note I agree with Scribbler that one murder hardly constitutes that much significance considering the 250 million population, what is so different about that murder over any other, other than celebrity status with OJ and the media whoring to pander to female victimology to the feminist movement? Note that the woman who ran over her husband 3 times over and over got a light sentence and not a lot of media sympathy for the male victim. The only great service can be brought from this albeit unintentional is that at least in cases like OJ you can clearly see just how fucked up the justice system is for all victims of murder.

Nov 15, 2004, 10:35 am	#17 (permalink) (top)
Technosoul Volcanic Erupter Posts: 8,663	I was one of the few people who got to watch the whole OJ trial on TV everyday, if I had been on the Jury I would have had to go with the non-guilty judgement based on the evidence presented, even it I had a gut feeling he was guilty, most of the real evidence did not support that idea, and some of the evidence suggested that he was being framed. But what really got my goat, as an outside observer was that the Judge did not allow the Jury to hear all the information that the lawyers wanted to present. I think if we are going to have a jury made of by adults they we should respect that they are smart enough to know how to weigh the infor for their self, instead of a judge doing it for them by blocking some of the data based on the idea it might "sway the jury" one way or the other.

Nov 15, 2004, 10:54 am	#18 (permalink) (top)
bullshitdetector BANNED Posts: 598	The judge in that particular case wanted to sway the jury, there was never any doubt in my mind about that.

Nov 15, 2004, 06:18 pm	#19 (permalink) (top)
Scribbler1 Skeptical Patriot Posts: 7,746	Lance Ito was an idiot, simple as that. Not too many people know that this fool was the judge in the slam-dunk-guilty-as-charged Keatiing Five fraud case as well. The guilty verdict was thrown out by a higher court because of Ito's "improper procedures". Not a day goes by that I don't see something that reinforces my belief that people are idiots.