Lori Loughlin

[TT]

One of my favourite 80s teen queens. Goddamn she was cute (still is).

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/de/35/80/de35800560432d6a967c5e7ab7978cf6.jpg

https://www.listchallenges.com/lori-loughlin-filmography

Recently famous for college admission scandal, in which she claims
'innocent' at court. How do you feel about it? What do you think she
will get?

Huffman plead guilty and got a few days... already out.

[Mack A. Damia]

On Sun, 3 Nov 2019 16:32:47 +0200, TT <as...@dprk.kp> wrote:

>One of my favourite 80s teen queens. Goddamn she was cute (still is).
>
>https://i.pinimg.com/originals/de/35/80/de35800560432d6a967c5e7ab7978cf6.jpg
>
>https://www.listchallenges.com/lori-loughlin-filmography
>
>Recently famous for college admission scandal, in which she claims
>'innocent' at court. How do you feel about it? What do you think she
>will get?

I think that she and her husband are counting on her star power to
sway the jury. It worked with OJ. She may try to seduce them in her
own way.

>Huffman plead guilty and got a few days... already out.

If she is found guilty, she will get the book thrown at her.

[william ahearn]

On Sunday, November 3, 2019 at 11:17:36 AM UTC-5, Mack A. Damia wrote:
>
> I think that she and her husband are counting on her star power to
> sway the jury. It worked with OJ. She may try to seduce them in her
> own way.
>

No way. OJ got off because the evidence was presented so poorly. To compare OJ to this couple is ridiculous.

[Mack A. Damia]

Come on, William, you know that the jury was tainted by OJ's star
power. No way they were going to convict a famous "brother".

[william ahearn]

Really? No famous "brothers" ever convicted before? That's laughable.

[Michael OConnor]

> > I think that she and her husband are counting on her star power to
> > sway the jury. It worked with OJ. She may try to seduce them in her
> > own way.
> >
> No way. OJ got off because the evidence was presented so poorly. To compare OJ to this couple is ridiculous.

Marsha Clark was a weak prosecutor; they should have gotten Bugliosi to prosecute OJ, but because it was a domestic murder (ex-wife), they thought Clark would be play better. In addition, the jury was a joke, Johnnie Cochran rejected all jurors who had taken as much as a high school chemistry class, which meant the DNA evidence went over all their heads. But the most important thing, I think, was that this came shortly after the Rodney King brouhaha, and IMO the jury was righting a perceived wrong and letting OJ slide. Even though they were sequestered, I think the jury understood the magnitude of the case, the fact that it went on for eight or nine months, and the fact if they found OJ guilty, there would be rioting that would make Rodney King look like nothing, and they would have to move back into their old neighborhoods, and their names would eventually become public.

If you remember back in the mid 90's, in polling, most African Americans believed OJ was innocent of the murders, you can look that up. There are youtube videos of news footage of Africans Americans cheering when he was found innocent and non-African Americans who were upset when the verdict was announced. But if you look at polling that has been done in the years since the murders, African Americans believe he was guilty. You can look that up also.

And I think a lot of the "OJ was innocent" feeling back during the murder case was due to the LAPD's treatment of Rodney King and how those officer got off in their trial which sparked the LA Riots, and the public wanted to see justice of some kind. OJ was just a symbol of payback for Rodney King.

[moviePig]

OJ's star power sure didn't hurt him, in that the jury likely *wanted*
him to be innocent. (Hell, so did I.) But I agree that the prosecution
was the major player in his acquittal. Who can forget the gloves?...

[Mack A. Damia]

There was no way the jury would convict one of their cultural heroes,
and the victims were both white, too. If the jury was of average
intelligence and "fair-minded", there would be no way they could
acquit him considering the DNA and other evidence. But they were of
average intelligence and not fair-minded; it was a "fix".

You could have shown the jury a video of OJ killing the two, and he
would have been acquitted.

[Michael OConnor]

> > No way. OJ got off because the evidence was presented so poorly. To compare OJ to this couple is ridiculous.
>
> OJ's star power sure didn't hurt him, in that the jury likely *wanted*
> him to be innocent. (Hell, so did I.) But I agree that the prosecution
> was the major player in his acquittal. Who can forget the gloves?...

I was a fan too, but I wanted him to be found guilty after seeing the trial and all the testimony and evidence. His blood and their blood was found in the Bronco, on his socks, inside his house, at the murder scene. There were the cuts on his hands that he could not really account for (he actually said he broke a glass when he was notified Nicole died and tried to pick up the shards with the back side of his hand and cut his knuckles), and he changed his story as to what he was doing during the time of the murder three or four times (hitting golf balls in the back yard, sitting on his bed doing nothing).

There was also his history of abuse towards her, the photos of her beaten face, and the 911 phone calls they played, especially the one where he screamed, "Me and my two fists are leaving", sooner or later he was going to lose all control and murder her IMO. Also, the audiotape he recorded at Robert Kardashian's house the day of the slow speed chase which was almost a suicide note and almost a confession but he didn't quite confess although he seemed very, very sorry about what happened.

I think OJ would be a lot better regarded today if he had just killed himself that Friday, during the events of the Bronco chase, that we probably would not have found out what a really horrible guy he was, that we would instead probably think he instead just had a extreme fit of jealous rage one night and murdered his ex-wife and some guy and a few days later killed himself, a delayed murder-suicide. He would be regarded more along the lines of Mrs. Phil Hartman, perhaps, as somebody who just went crazy and took out their spouse.

[moviePig]

In a capital murder trial, the jury is looking for reasonable doubt (as
it should be). And, by far, the most dramatic moment in the courtroom
was OJ trying on those gloves. I'd like to think that even a
"predisposed" jury *could* have found him guilty, but not after that.

[Mack A. Damia]

On Sun, 3 Nov 2019 15:48:02 -0500, moviePig <pwal...@moviepig.com>
wrote:

It was a fluke, and the prosecution was not ready for it.

Gil Garcetti (D.A.) on Good Morning America in 2016:

“What we didn’t know until I saw it on this film was that O.J. Simpson
was taking arthritic medication for his hands and he was told if you
stop taking this arthritic medication, your hands will swell. Your
joints will stiffen. My God,” Garcetti told “GMA.”

Simpson, according to Gilbert, had stopped taking his arthritis
medicine two weeks before, so his hands were swollen, and the gloves
would not fit properly.

But the jury still chose to ignore the overwhelming evidence of his
guilt.

[moviePig]

Interesting, and does *somewhat* exonerate Clark. But it also reminds
of the well-tried: "Never ask a question you don't know the answer to."

[Mack A. Damia]

On Sun, 3 Nov 2019 16:51:24 -0500, moviePig <pwal...@moviepig.com>

I don't think Clark was a good choice to prosecute him, but the
powers-that-be thought it was a good idea.

A female was a good idea, just not her.

And, of course, the gloves gave the jury the excuse they were looking
for to acquit him. And Johnny Cochran spelled it out for them.

[william ahearn]

On Sunday, November 3, 2019 at 5:06:05 PM UTC-5, Mack A. Damia wrote:

> And, of course, the gloves gave the jury the excuse they were looking
> for to acquit him. And Johnny Cochran spelled it out for them.

You forget where the gloves came from and how problematic that was for the prosecution.

[Mack A. Damia]

I haven't forgotten anything. One was found at the scene and the
other was found on OJ's property. I don't know that it was a
problem except that the defense claimed that Fuhrman had planted the
gloves - and that was enough for a sympathetic jury.

[william ahearn]

On Sunday, November 3, 2019 at 5:22:35 PM UTC-5, Mack A. Damia wrote:

> I haven't forgotten anything. One was found at the scene and the
> other was found on OJ's property. I don't know that it was a
> problem except that the defense claimed that Fuhrman had planted the
> gloves - and that was enough for a sympathetic jury.

Like Fuhrman didn't present any other problems. Wake up.

[Mack A. Damia]

You love to scramble the subject to try to score points, don't you? I
have no idea what you are talking about.

Why can't you just discuss an issue like an adult? Of course, Fuhrman
had problems; even so, the evidence of OJ's guilt was overwhelming,
but the fix was in at the start of the trial: The jury had already
decided he was not guilty, and that is MY opinion.

[TT]

Mack A. Damia kirjoitti 3.11.2019 klo 18:17:
> If she is found guilty, she will get the book thrown at her.

Could be. News articles talk about 40 years max etc. I certainly hope not.

She (or her lawyer) may have made a really bad move not admitting her
guilt early on, since she's clearly guilty. Now the bastards are piling
charges on her and trying to make her a warning example.

[william ahearn]

On Sunday, November 3, 2019 at 6:09:39 PM UTC-5, Mack A. Damia wrote:

> You love to scramble the subject to try to score points, don't you? I
> have no idea what you are talking about.

You never do.

[Mack A. Damia]

This may help:

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51ZsEi8kpvL.jpg

[Mack A. Damia]

In that she has allegedly broken the law in a way that suggests she
thinks that she is privileged because of her wealth and standing does
not sit too well with most Americans.

Law enforcement MUST make an example of her for the good of the
system. American society needs to see that she does not get special
treatment. Nobody is above the law.

[william ahearn]

On Sunday, November 3, 2019 at 6:44:26 PM UTC-5, Mack A. Damia wrote:

> This may help:
>
> https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51ZsEi8kpvL.jpg

It's official: You're demented.

[TT]

Trump appears to be above the law... can do anything from treason to
financial crimes and still not get charged for it.

I don't know if throwing the book on Lori saves the reputation of US
justice system, or is even fair. At least she shouldn't get harsher
penalty just because she's famous.

But yeah, I think her lawyers fucked it up big time.

[moviePig]

I haven't sensed a connection between her and Trump, but hadn't really
thought about one. Her fate at "public sentencing", it seems to me,
hangs on whether she rejected her early deal because she felt she was
innocent, or because she merely thought she could beat the rap...