Queen crest Queenzone

Who killed John Lennon?

85 posts Page 6 of 6
Thread

Posts in chronological order

Search forum
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Lester Burnham wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Music Man wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I think I posted that afterwards. I'm kind of confused at what you mean.[/QUOTE]

I think I've gone cross-eyed. Forget I said anything.[/QUOTE]

9 9
L
___
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Brandon wrote: [/QUOTENAME]... and now the "best you can offer is Mr. Jingles? HA! He's... just pathetic.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Music Man wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Show any jury with more than three braincells the pictures of Ron and Nicole lying on the ground with blood gushing out of them and that asshole would have been at the chair before anyone could blink, whether the fucking glove fit or not.[/QUOTE]

Okay, I read the thread. More like I gave it a cursory glance. Either way, don't you think this is what we call "biasing the jury?" You know, having the jury base their decision not upon evidence, but manipulative tricks of prosecuting attorneys?[/QUOTE]

Hmm, let's see what the defense did. The defense had 0 evidence and so spent the entire time prejudicing the jury by making the LAPD out to be racists.
"Brian May, Freddie will."
Hey, this is not the O.J thread.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Brandon wrote: [/QUOTENAME]... and now the "best you can offer is Mr. Jingles? HA! He's... just pathetic.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Music Man wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Show any jury with more than three braincells the pictures of Ron and Nicole lying on the ground with blood gushing out of them and that asshole would have been at the chair before anyone could blink, whether the fucking glove fit or not.[/QUOTE]

Okay, I read the thread. More like I gave it a cursory glance. Either way, don't you think this is what we call "biasing the jury?" You know, having the jury base their decision not upon evidence, but manipulative tricks of prosecuting attorneys?[/QUOTE]

Hmm, let's see what the defense did. The defense had 0 evidence and so spent the entire time prejudicing the jury by making the LAPD out to be racists. [/QUOTE]

Then you should blame the prosecution for not calling the right objections.
Creativity can always cover for a lack of knowledge.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Music Man wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Music Man wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Show any jury with more than three braincells the pictures of Ron and Nicole lying on the ground with blood gushing out of them and that asshole would have been at the chair before anyone could blink, whether the fucking glove fit or not.[/QUOTE]

Okay, I read the thread. More like I gave it a cursory glance. Either way, don't you think this is what we call "biasing the jury?" You know, having the jury base their decision not upon evidence, but manipulative tricks of prosecuting attorneys?[/QUOTE]

Hmm, let's see what the defense did. The defense had 0 evidence and so spent the entire time prejudicing the jury by making the LAPD out to be racists. [/QUOTE]

Then you should blame the prosecution for not calling the right objections.[/QUOTE]

It's more the judge's fault for letting all of the defense's BS in. In the civil trial, they had a no-B.S. judge and he didn't let any of the defense's B.S. go through. A 12-zip vote for liability.
"Brian May, Freddie will."
I honestly don't see what the point in complaining about a decision made over a decade ago will accomplish, especially on a board that has fuck-all to do with OJ Simpson. I might as well complain about why Rhett Butler said "Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn" to Scarlet O'Hara and bitch about what an insensitive bastard he is.

Am I missing something here? I mean, to be passionate about something is respectable, but there's a fine line between passion and constantly littering an unrelated board to the brink of obsession.

Please, somebody - anybody - shed a little light?
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Music Man wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Music Man wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Show any jury with more than three braincells the pictures of Ron and Nicole lying on the ground with blood gushing out of them and that asshole would have been at the chair before anyone could blink, whether the fucking glove fit or not.[/QUOTE]

Okay, I read the thread. More like I gave it a cursory glance. Either way, don't you think this is what we call "biasing the jury?" You know, having the jury base their decision not upon evidence, but manipulative tricks of prosecuting attorneys?[/QUOTE]

Hmm, let's see what the defense did. The defense had 0 evidence and so spent the entire time prejudicing the jury by making the LAPD out to be racists. [/QUOTE]

Then you should blame the prosecution for not calling the right objections.[/QUOTE]

It's more the judge's fault for letting all of the defense's BS in. In the civil trial, they had a no-B.S. judge and he didn't let any of the defense's B.S. go through. A 12-zip vote for liability. [/QUOTE]

Or perhaps the first judge was the better one. How could we ever know?
Creativity can always cover for a lack of knowledge.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Music Man wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Music Man wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Music Man wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Show any jury with more than three braincells the pictures of Ron and Nicole lying on the ground with blood gushing out of them and that asshole would have been at the chair before anyone could blink, whether the fucking glove fit or not.[/QUOTE]

Okay, I read the thread. More like I gave it a cursory glance. Either way, don't you think this is what we call "biasing the jury?" You know, having the jury base their decision not upon evidence, but manipulative tricks of prosecuting attorneys?[/QUOTE]

Hmm, let's see what the defense did. The defense had 0 evidence and so spent the entire time prejudicing the jury by making the LAPD out to be racists. [/QUOTE]

Then you should blame the prosecution for not calling the right objections.[/QUOTE]

It's more the judge's fault for letting all of the defense's BS in. In the civil trial, they had a no-B.S. judge and he didn't let any of the defense's B.S. go through. A 12-zip vote for liability. [/QUOTE]

Or perhaps the first judge was the better one. How could we ever know?[/QUOTE]

Um, no, not actually. A judge that allows one side to present evidence with 0 basis in reality is not a good judge.
"Brian May, Freddie will."
Sarajane seems to be the first one to stand up for racist cops. I could see her defending the cops who beat the living shit out of Rodney King.

Oh wait, that's going to turn into another 100 posts! OH SHIT!!!
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Brandon wrote: [/QUOTENAME]... and now the "best you can offer is Mr. Jingles? HA! He's... just pathetic.[/QUOTE]
Why has my thread turned out to be 5 pages long? :O lol.
"I'm a greedy bitch" - Freddie Mercury REST IN PEACE FREDDIE MERCURY!!