Pat Oliphant for August 24, 2011

So basicly a matter of you thinking he was guilty nomatter what? He may be a sexist jerk to most parts, but most of this trial was too stupid to sound true.

His track record made the charges easy to file to begin with. Even tho he may not have been guilty of the latest, the mud on his boots reeked of mud…………….

Greasy…

I thought justice wore blindfolds, oh, she’s off duty.

graphics got it right, spot on!

Of course, he’s facing similar charges when he gets back to France.

In like Flynn!

i found it odd that noone mentioned that the bloody glove was too small to fit OJ’s hand, because any fine leather shrinks if it’s not cared for after getting wet. probably similar stupid oversights in this matter, as well. money talks.

Hey, women never lie.

We can’t bring the rapists background or other pending charges into court, but the victim can be discredited because of her background. We don’t have to like the woman, everything they say may be true, it doesn’t mean she wasn’t raped. What the courts are telling us is that if you don’t have a spotless character you must have asked for it or lied about it. Even if you do have a spotless character they will find a way to use exactly that against you.

when he gets back(if ever) he will recive french justice, NO JUSTICE.

If France didn’t have a history of NOT extraditing convicted criminals (Polanski), he probably would have been allowed to fly back to France and not snatched off that plane.

Tho I wonder what she was doing in his room while he was in the shower, I still don’t believe this was “consensual sex.” The last I heard, the victim’s character was not supposed to even be presented in court in a rape trial. It doesn’t matter if she was a prostitute, in this case, he attacked her. Women simply bring more grief upon themselves when they report rape — it has always been true and it hasn’t changed.