What is Digg?Sponsored by Double Your Dating
Scary Quiz - Do you have what it takes to attract women? view!
doubleyourdating.com - Think you know a thing or two about meeting women? Take this quiz and find out...
116 Comments
- ventralnet, on 10/12/2007, -2/+69That isn't very fair.... I'm not saying you can't buy yourself out of criminal charges (OJ simpson).
But the bottom line is none of us reviewed the evidence in the case so we really can't pass judgement - RuffRidr, on 10/12/2007, -10/+76We must ban all knives immediately so this type of thing never happens again!
- nixonrichard, on 10/12/2007, -3/+57This case is pretty unique. The jury was out for only 4 hours before returning "not guilty" as they could not rule out self defense beyond a reasonable doubt. The guy made no attempt to cover up the "crime" and when police arrived he was still holding the knife and refused to let go of it.
This case doesn't piss me off as much as those cases where a woman shoots her husband in his sleep, buries the body, and when she gets caught says it was self defense because she was in an abusive relationship . . . you know, the stuff "Lifetime" movies are made of. - halleyscomet, on 10/12/2007, -24/+71Ahh, yet again, the wealthy buy a "Get out of Jail" card.
Remember kids, if you want to kill your wife, you HAVE to be wealthy to get away with it. - benijuana, on 10/12/2007, -1/+47thats not going far enough. ban rich people! and wives!
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+43i heard he has a book deal going called "i didnt stab my wife 24 times , but if i did kill her, heres how i did it"
- Alfdog, on 10/12/2007, -6/+45Yeah, well... a million bucks says he's innocent... seriously... make the check payable to...
- Y2JCrisis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+37If we outlaw knives, only the outlaws will be able to eat steak.
- 5N00PY, on 10/12/2007, -7/+40 He stabbed her 24 times, in "self defense?"
- sideshowRAHEEM, on 10/12/2007, -15/+46Lets not be so judgmental maybe she had it commin'
- twinklyJesus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+28If you RTFA, Hallyscomet, you would've seen he ALSO had 8 stab wounds. Several people testified she was known for paranoia and irrational fits of rage where she would attack people. Based on that, and trusting the jury had much more evidence as well, it's pretty logical that barring any eye-witness testimony, reasonable doubt is obvious. That's all it takes is reasonable doubt, and you can't convict.
I watched the OJ trial everyday. He didn't buy a verdict as much as the LA Prosecutor's office lost the case. They didn't prove anything beyond circumstance and coincidence, IMHO. Now, that being said, I think he did it. But what I saw was, a prosecution team that was trying to "out-shyster" some pretty good shysters. They got themselves a bad rep with the jury for pulling under-handed stunts. A case in point: The pics Ito said couldn't be introduced, which "accidentally" were handed to the jury in a stack of crime-scene photos that were admissible. Juries don't like feeling like they are being fooled, regardless of which side of the ball you are on. The beginning of the trial they had the two detectives that went to OJ's house that morning. They testified that OJ was not a suspect, they were merely concerned for his safety. That was total BS and the jury didn't buy it. The spouse, esp. a divorced one, is the prime suspect immediately. They lied to the jury, they tried to trick the jury and the jury didn't like it. It gave them the reasonable doubt they needed. The doubt they might not otherwise have had.
Juries aren't as dumb as you think. - DeviantBoi, on 10/12/2007, -4/+30The story says that the jury "couldn't be sure if Odierno stabbed and slashed Christine, his wife of nearly three decades, in cold blood or self-defense."
That to me sounds like the prosecution didn't do their job... and not that he got away with murder cause he's rich.
Same thing happened with the OJ case. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -6/+23of course he had to use money,, how many millionaires can use the "race" card to get away with stabbing your wife to death.
oh wait,,,,,,,, - ToxicDose, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15Actually, from the sounds of it, she snapped. All of their neighbors and even her own children testified that she was mentally unstable. Check out the facts. I know that this is only Digg and the facts don't matter as much as first impressions but . . .
Check out http://www.crimesceneblog.com/?cat=62 for a brief history of her behavior. - ClassicJBC, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14People still toss around OJ, but they forget the details of that case. Could you convict someone on tampered evidence? The fact that evidence was tampered with alone creates reasonable doubt, and in general our legal system works harder to protect the innocent than to prosecute the guilty. If you want a different system, one in which you could much easier be wrongly convicted (which is already a huge problem), then I'm sure there are plenty of fascist states that would love to have you as a citizen.
- drmangrum, on 10/12/2007, -3/+15I'm guessing you guys have never been in an actual physical fight. You rarely remember your individual actions or even how long it occurred. It's the same for any other high-stress period. Have you ever been in a car accident and been able to remember everything that happened? To see 24 wounds and weigh their actions from a rational state of mind is kind of unfair. If you think someone is trying to kill you, do you attack once and flee? Do you keep attacking until you feel the threat is over? It's hard to say.
- DerProfi, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13Heh. That ranks right up there on the believability scale along with "I don't know who did this to me. Police or other prisoners."
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/29062006/80-132/operation-remove-light-bulb-inmate-s-anus.html - Dumbledorito, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12"Well, you're rich and white, I don't see a problem..."
- Tom Servo, as a cop, in the MST3K epsiode, "Mitchell." - Tmacman, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11Maybe after the first stab, she just fell on the knife 23 more times.
- aolshove, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Read the friggen article. The guy had 8 stab wounds to his own abdomen from the fight. _Everybody_ testified that the wife was an unstable psycho-bitch and agreed that it was in her character to attack somebody with a knife. There wasn't enough evidence that it was or wasn't self defense and I'm glad to see that there are still reasonable people in this country that don't automatically assign guilt and punishment because of their own jealousy of wealth.
- thcobbs, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10I know I'll get buried for this but people, come on.
I'm not saying he's innocent, but he sure wasn't proven guilty. Were you in the courtroom to hear all the evidence? Were you a part of the investigation team? Were you in the kitchen with them?
Stop saying that someone DID something if you don't know all the facts. - KnytFyre, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10I have to agree with drmangrum, when you are in a fight and you truly believe your life is on the line you are not going to be in a very rational place mentally. If you get the opportunity to fight back, you may not stop at the first stab (probably a good thing too as a single stab wound is rarely fatal or even debilitating). You are very likely to continue to stab and slice at your attacker until you either calm down or the realization comes crashing in of what you have done.
That being said, I will also say that there are a number of people doing time because they defended themselves with such ferocity. It's clear that lady justice isn't blind and that money can tip the scales of justice to your favor quite easily. - JDoggqx, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11Think of the children!!!
- johnmacd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8@RuffRidr
Or they should sue the makers of the knife. Isnt that how it's done in this country nowadays? - NoNom, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10The "race card", in the judicial system, is used to arrest not set free.
- kutza, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Reminds me of the Free Hat episode of South Park.
"He killed those 23 babies out of self defense." - staticneuron, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5"People still toss around OJ, but they forget the details of that case. Could you convict someone on tampered evidence? The fact that evidence was tampered with alone creates reasonable doubt, and in general our legal system works harder to protect the innocent than to prosecute the guilty. If you want a different system, one in which you could much easier be wrongly convicted (which is already a huge problem), then I'm sure there are plenty of fascist states that would love to have you as a citizen."
What is even worse is that the prosecuters tried to make it seemed like a crime of passion and a planned murder at the same time. This leads to supposed evidence which paints OJ as a genius at times and at other times slower than forest gump. Seriously, I paid attention to the case starting out with no opinion and afterwards didn't feel like it made sense. The most logical thing was to say he's guilty.... why would he run. but after thinking about it would "you" run as well? Who here has blind faith in our justice system? Who here thinks that they are really innocent until proven guilty.
After looking at some of these comments I would hate to be around at the scene of a crime, because it seems as most people are quick to judge without knowing all the facts.
If this guy did it or OJ did it I hope karma comes around in the end but because I was not there and I really do not "know" what has happened, I will reserve my judgement. - doctechnical, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Isn't it a little late for the O.J. trial to hit Digg? I mean geez...
Oh. Wait. Nevermind. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4You're all outraged because you all know the facts of the case better than the jury, right?
Unless you sat on the jury panel or were otherwise present in the courtroom during the entire trial, then guess what... You don't know *****.
He did stab her, yes. He killed her. Agreed. Was what he did wrong? Probably.
He was also, however, stabbed 8 times himself. If the prosecution had charged him with voluntary manslaughter or something other than second degree murder, he would likely have been found guilty. But instead they went for the strongest charges they thought they could get to stick. As it is very difficult to prove state of mind, this was probably a mis-step on the part of the prosecution. They gambled and lost. If he was angry and did it in the heat of passion then it is NOT murder in the second degree. The jury had to decide whether he was (beyond reasonable doubt) guilty of the charges before them, which were one count of second degree murder.
From FindLaw:
Second-degree murder is ordinarily defined as 1) an intentional killing that is not premeditated or planned, nor committed in a reasonable "heat of passion" or 2) a killing caused by dangerous conduct and the offender's obvious lack of concern for human life.
If I am ever tried by a jury of my peers, I hope I am not subjected to this level of condemnation after being found INNOCENT of the charges laid upon me. Yes, he may have been convicted and punished had they tried him for another crime. Perhaps someone will bring a wrongful death suit against him in civil court. - aliengoods, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@nonom
The race card isn't used to set free? OH, I see the misunderstanding. We're talking about is the US judicial system. Last I checked, the race card is used to arrest AND set free. - StevoCJ, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"A German friend of mine once remarked about my standard Geek-issue Swiss Army knife: "That would be illegal in Germany"."
That's funny. I wonder what he'd say about the swiss army knife I bought in Germany.
Or the shop that sold full-on suits of armour and 4 foot long swords. - fooplex, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Why do we even have courts, when we could just ask digg submitters to determine guilt or innocence with 100% certainty?
- tcquad, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6First, the guy's 73 and was rich but unknown beforehand.
Second, the race card OJ played was the size of a freakin' billboard.
Third, despite forensic evidence, OJ denied ever being there. This guy said he was there, he did it, but it was self-defense.
Fourth, this wasn't in the news being analyzed every freakin' day. - StultusJuventus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Moreover, the woman's own CHILDREN testified against her. I think that this is another example of alarmist media striking against the rich because the poor are bitter; it's not whether or not he's guilty. The reason people care is because of his bank accounts.
- mennis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4How about pointy things in general?
- darkstar949, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I agree, without knowing the full details of the case that are available to the jury it is hard to say if they made the right call or not. If the majority of the 24 cuts were shallow in depth then they might have very will been self defense cuts (example - someone comes at you with a knife and you slash at them and connect, the resulting cut may not be enough to seriously injure then and the adrenaline of the situation will likely make them ignore it at first).
As such, I have to agree with you, it sounds like the prosecution went for the more dubious of the changes and couldn't make a convincing enough case.
@davesbrain - One of the reasons that public defenders tend to lose is due to lack of experience - an expensive lawyer is generally more experienced than more public defenders. The bigger problem that most people tend to face in court is the juries personal thoughts in regards to the dependent - if they don't like how you look they might find out guilty just for that. Watch "12 Angry Men" sometime to get an idea of this very thing. - michaelb1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I'm to uninterested to RTFA.
Can someone just tell me if it was OJ again? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3This is all wrong,, you can't go around blaming all men for what a small minority of fundamentalist husbands are doing.
Oh wait that only works on Muslims. - TubaTechno, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7Ahh. Its wonderfully refreshing to see so many experts giving their opinions on the case after just one Fox news article...
- Chivalrysae, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Everyone is so focused on the 24 wounds. I believe those were mostly to the hands. At the end of the article it said he had 8 abdominal wounds. Someone tries to stab me in the 8 times in the stomache...hell yeah I'd go after them.
Only he and God knows what happened in that kitchen. Well, unless he writes a book about how he would have killed her if he was "really" trying to kill her. - ZeroMP, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Maybe she was mouthing. Anyone ever think of that?
- gooniegoogooz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3why don't you ***** actually read the article and not just the headline.
She was described, almost identically by her two grown sons, as a hysterical and irrational woman who was quite capable of being the aggressor in this situation. The guy, her husband, had stab wounds himself from her and was treated for them when he was arrested. He claimed self-defense.
None of you would ever know if he was guilty or not. I dont know what joy most of you get out of hating on us millionaires!
Go ahead now, bury me. - Dustin00, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2It's OK, they'll be reunited in heaven.
- mennis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Oh, thats low. Bill's a good guy.
- ozziedog, on 10/12/2007, -0/+27 stab wounds is just a marriage tiff, but 8! That woman was trying to kill him. With the kids testifying to her madness, it would be hard to find this guy even guilty of manslaughter.
- ozziedog, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Take millionaire out of the article and the guy would still be found innocent. The wounds and kids testimony is enough. As a prosecutor, I would look to see if the kids statements were based on a threat from the father to being disinherited. This would be hard to prove and would not even be worth pursuing if their comments on their mother remained consistent from the beginning.
- tomtucker378, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I dunno. Its tough to judge when you have so few facts. I can identify with him as my (ex)stepmother is nuts (paranoid & delusional) and I could definitely see my dad having to defend himself in such a manner.
- aratika, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6Gotta love the Digg Lefties:
1. Guy found *not guilty* after fatally stabbing psychotic spouse in self defense. Gets to go home.
- Result: Angry Digg Lefties
1. Psychotic despot found *guilty* of fatally stabbing, shredding, gassing, bulldozing alive and raping his citizenry. Gets to go to the gallows.
- Result: Angry Digg Lefties
Poor Digg Lefties. They've confused the Right to Pursue Happiness with the Right to Happiness.
Pursue=Work. Pursue=Effort. Pursue=Self Determination. Pursue=Accepting Responsibility.
Poor Digg Lefties.
No pleasing some people... - JESUSREAM, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I was on a jury pretty similiar to this case. Only the guy stabbed his girlfriend 17 times and claimed self defense. We gave him life in prison with no chance of parole. Although it was obvious from the beginning that she didnt get a chance to defend herself much less stab him first.
- davesbrain, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I watched a documentary on a old guy who was accussed of shooting his wife. The cops believed there was no way he could have slept through it, even though he was deaf without his hearing aids. The woman's son (from a previous marriage) even said the old guy (George) would never kill her. But the cops knew they had the right guy. When they found red material in his sneakers they then knew they had the smoking gun. George said he dropped a strawberry jelly sandwich on his foot the previous day, however the cops knew he was lying. While cop one held George in an interegation room pressuring him to confess, the other ran the sneaker to the lab. As George contuned telling them they were giving the real killer time to get away, the second cop stood and watched the analysis of the sneaker. The look on his face as the technician informed him the red matter was jelly (strawberry or raspberry) was priceless. The real killer was never found.
My point here is: cops will pick the most likely candidate and then focus all their efforts on building the case against that person.
Perhaps that is what they did here. Rather than looking at the evidence and determining that it was, in fact, self defense they were prejudeced by his wealth and went after him. Then again, maybe he got away with murder. Only one man knows. -
Show 51 - 100 of 116 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is