Reply
Esteemed Contributor
Posts: 6,475
Registered: ‎03-14-2015

@Bri36 wrote:

He should have never been acquitted of those murders in the first place.  That's the real travesty of justice.   

 

I don't know how those people can sleep at night knowing they let a murderer walk out of there...


 

 

 

 

 

That's because the idiot jurors were mesmerized by his celebrity status.

 

 

 

QVC Customer Care
Posts: 1,489
Registered: ‎10-12-2015

This post has been removed by QVC because it is inappropriate

Respected Contributor
Posts: 3,787
Registered: ‎02-20-2017

@Plaid Pants2 wrote:

@Bri36 wrote:

He should have never been acquitted of those murders in the first place.  That's the real travesty of justice.   

 

I don't know how those people can sleep at night knowing they let a murderer walk out of there...


 

 

 

 

 

That's because the idiot jurors were mesmerized by his celebrity status.

 

 

 


And something else.   

Honored Contributor
Posts: 8,039
Registered: ‎03-10-2010

@Plaid Pants2 wrote:

 

 

 

 

That's because the idiot jurors were mesmerized by his celebrity status.

 

 

 


Idiot?  I think not, perhaps they followed the legal instructions they were given, just because you don't agree with the outcome does it makes them stupid. I'm sure they are at peace with their decision.

Respected Contributor
Posts: 2,124
Registered: ‎07-05-2012

@Plaid Pants2 wrote:

That criminal was sentenced to thirty-three years, THIRTY-THREE YEARS for his robbery, and he only served nine years. NINE YEARS!

 

 

That is a travesty.

 

 

He should have served every single day of those thirty-three years in prison.

 

 

 

And it's naive to think that his sentence had nothing to do with Ron and Nichole.


@Plaid Pants2 He wasn't sentenced to 33 years. His sentence was for a minimum of 9 years up to a maximum of 33 years. If he'd been released before 9 years, I'd agree with you. But he has fulfilled his full sentence. And I just read he had actually been granted parole on 5/13 of his convicted charges in 2013, so today's decision was only on the remaining 8. 

Honored Contributor
Posts: 8,039
Registered: ‎03-10-2010

@riley1 wrote:

As I posted in another thread, this is the legal justice system. It applies only to this crime for which he was charged. He did serve his time and by all accounts was fine in prison.

 

They cannot use passed crimes to base their decision as he was acquitted.

 

This is the way it works, whether we like it or not.


Thank you, nobody serves 33 years for a robbery conviction with no fatalities, the state can't afford it.

Honored Contributor
Posts: 9,305
Registered: ‎06-08-2016

@Preds wrote:

@Pearlee wrote:

@beckyb1012 wrote:

@makena wrote:

Granted parole.


Your title is the winner for the year.  I love it, not the subject but the title.


Actually, I don't care for the title because it is misleading. He won't actually be loose until October and the title makes it sounds like he is free right now.


For all intent and purpose ... he is.  He will be a free man. He can spend this time saying goodbye to all his good buddies and handing over all the "jobs" he had while he was there.  He has to train them, too.  No one can do it like he can.

 

This will give him time to get his house in order before he comes home.  It's all good.


He still won't be free in October.  He will be out of prison.

He's on probation and I hope he gets the PO from H E L L

Honored Contributor
Posts: 9,305
Registered: ‎06-08-2016

@Plaid Pants2 wrote:

That criminal was sentenced to thirty-three years, THIRTY-THREE YEARS for his robbery, and he only served nine years. NINE YEARS!

 

 

That is a travesty.

 

 

He should have served every single day of those thirty-three years in prison.

 

 

 

And it's naive to think that his sentence had nothing to do with Ron and Nichole.


 

 

Correct!

Sentenced to 33 years AFTER he turned down a plea bargain for 30 months.

He was that confident.   

 

Esteemed Contributor
Posts: 7,829
Registered: ‎03-18-2010

@SydneyH wrote:

@Plaid Pants2 wrote:

 

 

 

 

That's because the idiot jurors were mesmerized by his celebrity status.

 

 

 


Idiot?  I think not, perhaps they followed the legal instructions they were given, just because you don't agree with the outcome does it makes them stupid. I'm sure they are at peace with their decision.


Only idiots could ignore all the blood evidence that was presented at that trial.

Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
JFK
Honored Contributor
Posts: 9,305
Registered: ‎06-08-2016

Regarding his earlier trial from 1995 (?), after the not guilty verdict, I remarked he did more time in jail than most men who kill their wives.

 

He was in jail over a year.    The trial itself lasted almost a year.

So many men get away with murder.  Drew Peterson comes to mind.   People thought he killed 2 wives.

 

I believe he was eventually convicted on the first murder, many years later.