This is f'd up.

[HELIX]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/football/ncaa/11/15/bowden.payoff.ap/index.html?cnn=yes

here you go, you suck as a coach so have $537,500.
i wish my boss would tell me that i do a horrible job and then pay me off.

[Jessie]

What is f'ed up is OJ writing a book telling how he'd theoretically have committed the murders if he was hypothetically the murderer.  Pretend I put a link here about it.

[HELIX]

the glove didn't fit.  they had to acquit.

[Gamplayerx]

What is f'ed up is OJ writing a book telling how he'd theoretically have committed the murders if he was hypothetically the murderer.  Pretend I put a link here about it.

I saw something about how he was getting $3.5M for it.  But wouldn't that be attached for the civil judgment.

[Jessie]

http://www.forbes.com/entrepreneurs/feeds/ap/2006/11/15/ap3178772.html

[Miss Molly]

Wow.  I was 13 at the time of the trial, and when it was over I asked my mom something to the effect of "what if they find out later that he did do it?"  She told me "He could write a book called How I Murdered Nicole and they Couldn't do anything."

10 years later, it's true.

[Alice]

I hope in the book, he accidentally gives away some sort of new evidence - so they can nail his ass.

[dazie]

He can't be tried again for the murder, can he? 

[HELIX]

nope.  double jeopardy.
can't be tried twice for the same crime.  what they should have done was tried him separately for each case.  that way if they lost the 1st one, they could have tried him again.  the da screwed up.

[Jessie]

Nope.  He was acquitted.  He can say whatever he wants.  They could try him for perjury, though.  

That happened here with a fairly high profile case.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/01/25/48hours/murder/main325643.shtml

[Alice]

I was always under the impression that if new evidence came up - a new trial could be had.  Not necessarily for the same *degree* of murder though. 

[Jessie]

You can't be tried for the same crime twice.

In that case I was talking about, some dude bought Mel Ignatow's house, and when he replaced the floorboards, he found pictures that had been taken of the victim.  I mean, photographic evidence of him killing her, and they *still* couldn't retry him.

[Alice]

That's a stupid law.

[Jessie]

Eh, kind of.  It's one of those laws though, where it's stupid when it's obviously in favor of a guilty person, but if you were an innocent person accused...it wouldn't seem so dumb.

[Alice]

Eh, kind of.  It's one of those laws though, where it's stupid when it's obviously in favor of a guilty person, but if you were an innocent person accused...it wouldn't seem so dumb.

There should be an addendum about new evidence.

[Bennyhana]

Eh, kind of.  It's one of those laws though, where it's stupid when it's obviously in favor of a guilty person, but if you were an innocent person accused...it wouldn't seem so dumb.

There should be an addendum about new evidence.

You can have a second trial based on new evidence if you were found guilty.

Double jeopardy isn't stupid; the system is designed under the philosophy of letting a few guilty people go free in order not to imprison lots of innocent people.  If you could be tried over and over again for the same crime, they could keep you in court for your entire life until they found a sympathetic jury.

Basically, what we need is a vigilante.

[Beefy]

Eh, kind of.  It's one of those laws though, where it's stupid when it's obviously in favor of a guilty person, but if you were an innocent person accused...it wouldn't seem so dumb.

There should be an addendum about new evidence.

You can have a second trial based on new evidence if you were found guilty.

Double jeopardy isn't stupid; the system is designed under the philosophy of letting a few guilty people go free in order not to imprison lots of innocent people.  If you could be tried over and over again for the same crime, they could keep you in court for your entire life until they found a sympathetic jury.

Basically, what we need is a vigilante.

[attachment deleted by admin]

[Jessie]

Eh, kind of.  It's one of those laws though, where it's stupid when it's obviously in favor of a guilty person, but if you were an innocent person accused...it wouldn't seem so dumb.

There should be an addendum about new evidence.

You can have a second trial based on new evidence if you were found guilty.

Double jeopardy isn't stupid; the system is designed under the philosophy of letting a few guilty people go free in order not to imprison lots of innocent people.  If you could be tried over and over again for the same crime, they could keep you in court for your entire life until they found a sympathetic jury.

Basically, what we need is a vigilante.

I was waiting for that.

[Bennyhana]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/football/ncaa/11/15/bowden.payoff.ap/index.html?cnn=yes

here you go, you suck as a coach so have $537,500.
i wish my boss would tell me that i do a horrible job and then pay me off.

And to bring this thread back on topic, I would rather just keep my job than have my boss tell me I suck and that I'd be paid(less than my current salary) NOT to do my job for 4 years.