OJ: Still Young Enough to Kill

24
2759
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

I am starting an OJ Pool.

I am willing to bet that OJ will kill again. Within five years. Or something else spectacularly OJ-esque.

Anyone want in?

Look out!

Share Button

24 COMMENTS

  1. In reading the comments made in the last day or so (not just this post), about de-legitimizing government “authority” I was thinking that the OJ case shows something interesting that nobody has ever talked about in this way. It gets bogged down in other issues like racism etc.

    What is most interesting about OJ’s case is, his lawyers managed to de-legitimize the police and prosecutors in the eyes of the jury. Granted had the makeup of the jury been different, it would have been harder for that to happen, but OJ’s lawyers worked hard to get the jury they did. They played with the imperfections of the “justice” system with a lot of foresight and skill. They played the police, prosecutors, the judge and even the jury.

    Most of the case was based on physical but mostly circumstantial evidence. There were no worthwhile eye witnesses at all. The physical evidence was pretty strong though, with lots of hard to defend against DNA etc. It likely would have lead to a conviction of most defendants.

    OJ’s lawyers always pushed the narrative of LA police planting evidence in OJ’s house. And you know what? They were probably right about that. I think that did happen (at least the glove) in order to “strengthen” the case against OJ. Remember DNA was pretty new then, even very few police even knew what it could do. They thought juries would be more likely to buy the case, if actual evidence was at OJ’s house.

    So the police ended up damaging their case against OJ but not allowing the evidence to remain where it was. If they hadn’t had to go on the defensive on the evidence and been able to stick with the DNA, OJ maybe would not have walked free.

    The shady (and illegal) behavior of police (and then later by prosecutors) put the doubt that the jury needed to return a not guilty verdict. Probably the right verdict, even though there is little doubt that OJ is likely guilty. The LA detective Mark Fuhrman was later convicted of perjury in the OJ case (not ever jailed though-blue discount). And that only happened when OJ’s lawyers caught him in a lie (a lie not directly tied to OJ’s case). They neutered everything he said and did by making him a liar in the eyes of the jury. Since he had collected most of evidence, there went most of the case.

    OJ walked not because he was innocent, but because the police and prosecutors misconduct, mismanagement, destroying their own case. Most of time, lawyers don’t attack the system (since they are part of it, even defense lawyers). So OJ had the right lawyers willing to get people to question the system rather then OJ. It still cost him dearly (I have heard the legal bills got to ten million dollars), so he was still “punished”.

    • In much of the world, killing one of your women and a trespasser in your home is still your own business.

      The founders would be astounded that your own chattel property and an enemy stranger have any kind of rights over you as a matter of law.

      OJ should have been ordered to pay 8 million in cash to each “victim’s” family and then be done with the matter.

      If the Goldmans and Browns still want revenge, let them try to exact it themselves.

      We were all made to pay for Shawshanking the Juice.

      Just part and parcel of living in a big Cuck City I guess.

      • I’ve mentioned this before, but if you can find it somewhere online still watch the documentary “OJ, guilty but not of murder”. It is the result of a PI’s investigation into the case. Long story short the murderer was probably OJ’s son and OJ covered it up and took the rap. There is no better theory that I’ve heard. It fits the evidence very well.

  2. Hey, when you’re searching for killers you might end up in some pretty tough situations. Anything can happen.

    But you can bet for sure CNN Headline News will be there to cover all the action! And stay tuned after the local news for The Late Night Inoffensive Comedy Show with comedian-du-jour for a light-hearted wacky take on The Juice.

    RATINGS GOLD!

  3. I chose to start smoking at age 32 when my ex-wife was “awarded” my children. She had no job, no permanent residence, and was already packing them up to move to AZ, from VA, to live with a wealthy “boyfriend”. Despite owning my house, having a regular job, and still being in college, and the judge stating that I was the more stable and responsible parent, he still told me I should just follow her wherever she takes the children. My own ex-In-laws offered to have me murdered for trying to “interfere” with my children, and yet, I had to somehow remain rational and non-violent through all this chaos. I can clearly understand what would have pushed O.J. to the limits; albeit he was amazingly stupid in “executing” his wrath. So when I get berated for smoking, my usual response is thus.
    “My smoking, while seemingly grotesque to others, probably saved lives!”

  4. While murder is generally a bad thing, sometimes people are driven to it.

    In OJ’s case, it was family court. It’s pretty difficult for an aging ex-jock to maintain $25,000/month (after-tax income) payments so the ex can live in his house wiith her new boyfriend. In other words, OJ was eventually going to prison anyway for failing to pay alimony, with no chance of ever escaping this lifetime of debt slavery.

    So killing her wasn’t entirely irrational. Wny do we continue to tolerate the blatant human rights abuse and enslavement of men via unconstitutional family courts? This massive injustice is going on under the radar in every western country, with the resultant epidemic of fatherless kids, broken families, single moms who get to force men into ‘fatherhhood’ (otherwise known as monthly payments) but not the other way around, and declining birth rates.

    Think about it – it’s truly miraculous how few men retaliate violently when their kids, homes, assets, and income are stripped from them and they are sentenced to lifeime debt servitude, without cause.

    • Hi Karalan,

      A good friend of mine – mid 40s – is going through this and basically looking at starting over with pretty much nothing. His house, business, assets – poof.

      I suppose I might go “OJ” to…

      • I forgot to mention, if OJ failed to make the alimony payment, he would be jailed ‘automatically,’ by a mechanism designed to protect politicians, judges, lawyers, bureaucrats and psychologists (the architects of this nastiness) while denying him charges or due process of even a limited sort. His passport would be confiscated too. While in jail, he would have fallen farther into debt by $600,000 per year.

      • Hi Brent,

        Of course – in re women being in charge. They have the one thing most men want. Supply (limited) and demand (effectively unlimited).

        Vagina has Power.

        But it is also a curse – for them.

        A woman – assuming she she is attractive to begin with – has a window of about 20 years, from her late teens to her mid-late 30s – after which her “stock” begins to plummet. During this relatively brief period, Power of her Pussy is incredible. She can use it to get almost anything she wants.

        But as she gets within sight of 40, the power begins to wane. She notices this – and is alarmed (rightly). She begins to grow anxious, then desperate. If she has not secured a man by then, (cue OJ) look out. She will become Hillary Clinton in short order.

        Meanwhile, a man’s “stock” holds its value much longer – assuming he is employed and not an outright cretin. And even if he is not especially attractive. Provided he is financially in good shape.

        A man in his 50s can usually still get women in their 30s (even 20s) without much trouble.

        But a woman in her 40s will have trouble finding a man in his 40s – because the man wants someone younger (biological imperative; someone still nubile) and can get her.

        Cue angry pants-suit wearer…

        • Yes, that’s true. However, I was referring to the idea that “patriarchy” is myth created by feminists. It never existed. The lecture in the video makes that clear.

          Going back to the 19th century women always had the upper hand legally. It’s very difficult to undo because of the white knights, the man-up attitude of society no matter how bad the deal gets, and of course the whining from women at the mere suggestion they actually be treated like men.

          Feminists don’t want equality and never did. It’s always been a superiority movement. Equality would be downward move.

        • Had an old man tell me this when I was young, “If men did not need women for sex we would have hunted them for sport to the point of extinction thousands of years ago.”

      • Great find!

        I’ve watched her speak in that same room before.
        But not these words anywhere.

        We’re MRAs ourselves.
        Men who ask only to be left in peace until we cause actual harm.

        Gonna start saying I’m a meninist now, see what that does.

  5. He will do something for sure. Watch out Florida.

    The sad thing, women will still throw themselves at him. In spite of everything he has done.

    His head sure got fat. Holy moly. He has been claiming poor health, one of the reasons he is using to get out. I’m sure he will make a complete recovery in the sunshine state.

LEAVE A REPLY