Goodbye And Good Riddance

[Holmes]

Asswipe (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050329/ap_on_re_us/obit_cochran_5).

[Pancho1188]

Hey, he was a hell of a good

lawyer...

[TDizzle]

he dies a rich man thanks to

OJ

[Holmes]

Hey, he was a

hell of a good lawyer...

:rofl:

"Oh, he was an asshole, but a WELL-MEANING asshole."

[Pancho1188]

Well, there are positive

traits in everyone...

Actually, from what I read in the article discussing his life he was "the go-to guy"

before OJ...and had done many other high-profile cases as well. I'm thinking Snoop Dogg might've been profitable

as well.

So you see, had Mr. Cochran not existed, we wouldn't have such great things like, "Drop It Like It's

Hot" and, "That's totally inapproprate! It's lewd, lascivious, salacious...outrageous!" aka Jackie Chiles...



See the good that was brought into this world because of him? :POKE:

[TRock]

are you serious? the guy was a

genius and a great civil rights activists. he also did alot of pro bono work.

[Holmes]

So you see, had

Mr. Cochran not existed, we wouldn't have such great things like, "Drop It Like It's Hot" and, "That's totally

inapproprate! It's lewd, lascivious, salacious...outrageous!" aka Jackie Chiles...

True, true.

:lol:

I didn't know he represented Bono.

[TRock]

yeah the glove didn't fit on Bono

either.

[Pancho1188]

Yeah, all of the supporters

were wearing "Pro Bono" shirts to show how much they were for him...it's a good thing he didn't lose, though,

because then they would've had to buy new shirts to support him in prison..."Con Bono"...his Spanish-speaking

supporters were avid as well. The news headline on TV was "Pro Bono con Bono" when they interviewed him. Actually,

they made a deal with him in exchange for valuable information, so they called it "Quid Pro Bono"...the believed his

information to be true, so they said it was "Bono Fide"...they threw in a pair of tickets to Hawaii in February, so

he got football tickets and became "Pro Bowl-Bound Bono"...

...okay, okay. I'm done. ;)

[belgareth]

What's the problem? He did

what he was paid to do. Would you want to pay somebody big bucks to do any less than the best they could? Whether

you like the outcome of any trial, it was done under the legal standards in this country. At least give the guy

credit for earning his fee honestly. And to tell the truth, I wasn't in the courtroom, didn't hear and see it all.

There may be good reason OJ was acquited. I don't know.

[silksand]

What Bel said!

It's

amazing how convinced so many people are - even in advance of the trial sometimes - of the guilt of the accused in

our media-frenzied murder trials.

[Pancho1188]

What are you talking about?

Celebrities, politicians, and executives are above the law until the courts have to set an example to appease the

peasants. White-collar crime becomes big, and they make an example of Martha Stewart. She served a few months, she

came out richer, and she's back without losing a step. On a positive note, it's good to know that a convicted

criminal has the opportunity to get a second chance in society... :rolleyes:

[belgareth]

Once they are in the courtroom

and in front of twelve honest men and women politics are irrelevent. I agree with you prior to the courtroom. But I

believe in the integrity of the jury system and do not believe most juries can be swayed by politics.

There is

also the other thought and a big part of the reason for the legal structure we have: Would you rather see a guilty

person walk free or an innocent one hang? For me the choice is obvious.

[Pancho1188]

Well, the courts have proven

recently that they aren't swayed by politics (or religion for that matter), so I would like to share your optimism

for the 12 jurors as well.


Rich people still get much better representation than others, however, so they are

always more likely to get off (all other things being equal). It could be more resources to support their

arguments, or it could be spending mad Gs for witty catch-phrases: "If it doesn't fit, you must acquit!"



http://www.cnn.com/US/OJ/daily/9-27/8pm/acquit.wav





[url="http://www.cnn.com/US/OJ/daily/9-27/8pm/knitcap.wav"]http://www.cnn.com/US/OJ/daily/9-27/8pm/knitcap.wav[/ur

l]

That, my friends, is a million-dollar defense at work! You didn't see the prosecution coming up with such

witty retorts as, "He fled from the scene; you know what that means," "He fled from the crime; he'll be doing

time," "The victims fought tooth and nail; throw his ass in jail," or, "The man got away in his Ford Bronco faster

than any of his Hertz commercials. It's guilty...or not exactly." Oh, wait...that slogan came afterwards. ;)



But his greatest performance of all: teaching the jury how to remove a glove (in case they didn't already know

how):



http://www.cnn.com/US/OJ/daily/9-27/8pm/gloves.mov

[belgareth]

So, you know OJ was guilty?

Please share with me how you know this.

[Pancho1188]

So, you know

OJ was guilty? Please share with me how you know this.Did I even hint at my opinion of his innocence or

guilt? All I said was that he had the best people representing him, so he had a better chance to be acquitted than

any average joe. Whether or not he was guilty, you know he could've been convicted had he not had that defense team

and/or had the prosecution been stronger. Like you said, that's the nature of our legal system: you have two sides

making their arguments, and 12 people decide how strong their cases were based on the evidence presented at trial.



Everything else was just a playfully mocking tribute to Cochran...after all, it's his thread!

Case

dismissed! :hammer: