R Kelly's former lawyer says he was guilty as, well...  Okay, it rhymes with "well" but R Kelly's former lawyer who defended him against charges involving having sex with a child finally admits that he was guilty all along.  Sure this violates the attorney-client agreement but from what, I believe, I read the attorney is now dying of Cancer so maybe he just wants to clear the record and get it off his conscience before the end.  Maybe it's just because R Kelly is back in the news and on trial again and has a different lawyer.  Who knows why but you can bet that the lawyer knew then when he was defending him before, that he was guilty so I don't really know why the confession now and why he sees the need to be truthful now.  

What next?  Will Michael Jackson's attorneys make a statement regarding what they knew about Michael Jackson and the arrangements that they made on his behalf?

Be as the Bereans ( Acts 17:11 )

Original Post
unclegus posted:

You know OJ was guilty, his lawyers just out did the prosecution. 

Correction, the jurors,especially the black ones that harassed the white
ones out of the court room. That and a very liberal judge that allowed
the most kangaroo trial in history.
 
You must not have watched it read it.

"That and a very liberal judge that allowed

the most kangaroo trial in history".
 
Allowing him to put on rubber gloves was ridiculous too. Dried out leather gloves that he tried to get over rubber gloves....then they claim they didn't fit?
 
Jack Hammer posted:

Liberals will never admit the facts much less the truth.

Of course liberals think Caylee Anthony committed suicide.

Liberals love facts and truth. We just can't find a Republican that has ever supported any truth.

You can't ignore a conspiracy to save your soul, can you.

Jutu posted:

"That and a very liberal judge that allowed

the most kangaroo trial in history".
 
Allowing him to put on rubber gloves was ridiculous too. Dried out leather gloves that he tried to get over rubber gloves....then they claim they didn't fit?
 
The above was proven true, normal people know the difference
and those having trouble with right from wrong aren't considered
worth the effort.
Jack Hammer posted:
Jutu posted:

"That and a very liberal judge that allowed

the most kangaroo trial in history".
 
Allowing him to put on rubber gloves was ridiculous too. Dried out leather gloves that he tried to get over rubber gloves....then they claim they didn't fit?
 
The above was proven true, normal people know the difference
and those having trouble with right from wrong aren't considered
worth the effort.

I'm pretty sure the black people, convicted by white juries pre 1965, would argue about the 'most kangaroo trial in history.'

Republicans love their exaggerated analogies.

There has been a multitude of tragedies throughout the years, and will continue, where innocent people are convicted for one reason or another and just like the current Smollett case there will be guilty people allowed to get off free.  The injustice is one reason I am not for the death penalty in all cases unless there is video or incontrovertible evidence that a person was guilty.  Too many innocent people have been proven innocent and saved from death row.  

As for OJ I do fully believe he was guilty and further believe that there was someone else there with him and that someone, I believe, was his son.  With respect to the glove that wasn't a mistake allowing it but it was a mistake the prosecution not bring in experts to counter it by explaining why the glove would not fit.  I don't know for sure but I would bet that a glove soaked in blood would shrink up and if the glove was tight to begin with then it would have shrunk to a size too small to easily go over his hand.  

Also, as I alluded to before, there is ample reason to suspect that there was more than  one person there at the crime scene and possibly the glove was worn by the other person and so why would the prosecution not inject that into the trial?  Television documentaries since have found enough evidence to indicate that there was a second person there, present, meaning two killers.  Even if that isn't the case and there was only one I do believe that it could've been proven that the glove would have shrunk being soaked in blood.  Either way OJ was found innocent and not convicted in that trial but he has at least suffered some penalties since and had to serve some time.

Add Reply

Likes (0)
Post

×
×
×
×