What do Barry George and OJ Simpson have in common ........ yeah you know what Im talking about ......

Question

Theres a difference between being innocent and not being able to prove someone is guilty.

We all know it.

Answer 1

The key word being "know"...

You can't "know" unless you have conclusive evidence.

Do you?

i agree with Andi C...relax, will you?

Answer 2

They were in a panic to prosecute somebody and he was an easy target. I hope he gets millions in compensation for this miscarriage of justice!

Answer 3

oh goody

another one of your 'interesting' therories

big sigh

Answer 4

Also, they all have a lot of white friends that get them in more trouble than they should probably be in...

Answer 5

There's a huge difference between those cases, and anyone who can't see that must be a bit of a dimwit.

OJ Simpson SHOULD have been convicted - there was a massive amount of evidence against him, and if he hadn't been a famous black man, he would now be sitting on death row.

I have no idea whether Barry George is innocent or not, but it's extremely clear, and always has been, that he absolutely should not have been convicted. There is simply no evidence against him whatsoever. Police suspicions are not enough.

Justice has been done in the Barry George case, it hasn't in the OJ Simpson one.

Answer 6

it always helps to have evidence of guilt. and there isnt any is there dave? none at all. that fact points to innocence.

Answer 7

The ruling is "innocent until PROVEN guilty", ergo, not proven equals innocent.

You seem to be very harsh and bitter lately!

Answer 8

That whilst they have been able to afford defense they, are pigs and, should die a horrible death sad and lonely crying over their dollars knowing its going to be spent by other people

Answer 9

rubbish!!  barry george was convicted on circumstantial, flimsy evidence...provided by a desperate police force....this guy did not kill jill dando - THANK GOD...we do not have the death penalty here!!  crikey!!

Answer 10

So you're that guy that thought he was guilty.Ah well ,can't be right all the time.Or any of the time in your case.Lol!

Answer 11

I have no idea what you are talking about.

They have had a good SEVEN years to prove a simpleton like Barry George guilty deary. There IS NO EVIDENCE to put him at the scene of the crime.

Answer 12

the letter O

Answer 13

OJ used a long established defense, the huge backing of a race divide.

He was found guilty in the end in a civil court case & it proves the huge discrepancies within the US justice system.

OJ pandered & won backing from people who refused to believe the truth or the

( deliberate ? ) NEGLECT to remove a latex glove from the Glove, he donned during his trial in front of the cameras projecting that lie nationwide.

Barry Georges' conviction was injustice in reverse, at the time the Police had the murder of a high-profile & popular presenter, they asked for help from the criminal fraternity, there was no response.

that in it's self made the chances of catching the gunman very remote, to say the least.

Barry Georges clothes were supposedly Contaminated by the criminologists, either by accident or by design, someone needed to be convicted, the general public demanded it.

George fitted the purpose.

A loner, bit unhinged & had a history violence.

Perfect.

Too perfect?

Me?

I believe it was a professional hit, she upset people while presenting the Crime-watch programme, rubbed someone up the wrong way & paid with her life.

We may never know who killed her.

Answer 14

I wouldnt be so sure.. If we look back to 1999, quite obviously the killing had all the hallmarks of a professional hit; even the police admitted that. Dando's work on Crimewatch meant that there may be a number of potential professional suspects with motives. The timing for the hit seemed to be planned as there was suspicious activity before the crime. A single shot was fired at the front door and the killer calmly retreated. This is highly unlikely to be the actions of a crazed stalker.

The initial photofit was described as a man late thirties to early forties [ok BG was 39], clean shaven [BG had a goatie], in a suit, with a mobile phone [they never found one] and the face looks more elongated and slender. This guy got convicted by dodgy evidence as heads were going to roll if the cops got no one. Now that he has been freed its probably wise to go back to the drawing board while admitting it was very likely a contract killing.

Answer 15

what are you trying to say dave?

innocent until proven guilty applies to everyone. doesn't it?  

Answer 16

From the day he was arrested and the media c**p they came out with it was so bloody obvious he was totally innocent.....justice prevails......