• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Gary Talis found innocent.

Galileo said:
OJ was innocent. He was proven innocent in a court of law. The evidence pointed to a different killer.
Click to expand...


What's your game? You wake up in the morning, notice that the sun is shining, and announce to everyone who doesn't knock you down that you've never seen such heavy rain.

DNA evidence established OJ's guilt beyond rational doubt. A racist jury refused to convict. There's nothing terribly complicated here.
 
Infoexcavator said:
Gary Talis, the We Are Changer who was accused to have beaten up a handicapped girl in a wheelchair has been found not guilty. When the story broke, screw loose change and this forum had already convicted him and was rabidly attacking all truthers because of the allegation.

Do you think the jury was infested by truthers, maybe it was a conspiracy?

I cannot post links, but searching Gary Talis in google news has a story from NY Post.
Click to expand...

Here's a video with some bckground. It looks like he was telling the Truth too as he has been aquitted of all charges.Another setup foiled.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrNu...2008/250408Bermas.htm&feature=player_embedded
 
theprestige said:
And I just want to point out that the court of public opinion is not bound by the same rules as the court of law. A person can easily be guilty of a crime and yet be acquitted in court on a technicality. This in no way obliges public opinion to treat that person as innocent.
Click to expand...

A fact that is not lost on those who arranged the setup.
 
MarkyX said:
Taking people to court is a setup now?

So I guess Nuremberg Trials were a setup too.
Click to expand...

You said that last- not me.

As regards the first. You are entitled to your opinion. So is everybody else.
 
Last edited:
FineWine said:
What's your game? You wake up in the morning, notice that the sun is shining, and announce to everyone who doesn't knock you down that you've never seen such heavy rain.

DNA evidence established OJ's guilt beyond rational doubt. A racist jury refused to convict. There's nothing terribly complicated here.
Click to expand...

F. Lee Bailey proved to the jury that OJ was not at the crime scene when the crime occurred. OJ was on his way to the airport.

The jury took an oath to defend justice. You just don't like black people.
 
dudalb said:
God, in other OJ threads the difference between Innocent and Not Guilty has been explained to you. Did not take, I guess.
Click to expand...

Are you a theist? Do you believe in a supernatural God?

We have already explained to you that people are presumed innocent before a trial begins. They are still presumed innocent after the trial is over if the jury agrees.
 
MarkyX said:
Taking people to court is a setup now?

So I guess Nuremberg Trials were a setup too.
Click to expand...

"of course, remember the puppet masters write the history books"
ick lol

i want to read HOW he got acquitted
maybe it was a technicality
or his lawyer made his money and cast "reasonable doubt" on the case

wheres the transcripts of the proceedings or any info other than a vague newspaper report?
was this a jury trial or just a judge?

to be fair
i wish deep down in my heart this guy attacked a chick in a wheelchair and we could call him scum etc
but what we want to be true sometimes just isnt
and we have to take the facts for what they and not twist them to come to our conclusions

i did hear his side and it is compelling that the dad was ramming him with the chair
i did find it odd that he punched her in the shoulder blades and the thigh

i also find it compelling that cops and a secret service agent testified against him
id like to see what they said

with that interview with corey and gary
hes saying "ah youre a lil guy etc etc"
some of the toughest people i know are tiny guys
im a fairly large guy at 6'2 210 lbs but i never would underestimate a guy half my size
one of my friends is a cop in harlem
hes 5'4 130 lbs soaking wet
i would NEVER want to go toe to toe with him even before he was a cop, just 1 tough mofo
 
Justin39640 said:
or his lawyer made his money and cast "reasonable doubt" on the case
Click to expand...


Reasonable doubt only applies in criminal trials, not civil trials. The burden of proof is a lot lower in a civil case, which means whoever decided the verdict (judge or jury) didn't find the testimony and evidence against Mr. Talis to be at all convincing.

Justin39640 said:
to be fair
i wish deep down in my heart this guy attacked a chick in a wheelchair and we could call him scum etc
but what we want to be true sometimes just isnt
and we have to take the facts for what they and not twist them to come to our conclusions
Click to expand...


Indeed. I'd warn everyone here not to turn conspiracy theorist, believing this decision is something extremely suspicious and therefore wrong, because you "know the truth".
 
Last edited:
Galileo said:
F. Lee Bailey proved to the jury that OJ was not at the crime scene when the crime occurred. OJ was on his way to the airport.

The jury took an oath to defend justice. You just don't like black people.
Click to expand...


F. Lee Bailey made a complete fool of himself. He --obviously--proved nothing of the sort. Johnny Cochran, by contrast, did a brilliant job of muddying the waters, with help from the inept prosecuting team.

The jury, for racist reasons (remember the Black Power salute given to OJ by one juror after the verdict?), refused to convict. Your clumsy smear is typically stupid.
 
Cl1mh4224rd said:
Reasonable doubt only applies in criminal trials, not civil trials. The burden of proof is a lot lower in a civil case, which means whoever decided the verdict (judge or jury) didn't find the testimony and evidence against Mr. Talis to be at all convincing.
Click to expand...

i thought this was criminal case?

All three Lovetros testified against Talis -- as did a Secret Service agent and several NYPD cops -- but a Manhattan Criminal Court jury found him not guilty of assault.
Click to expand...

ah it was a jury lol
 
FineWine said:
F. Lee Bailey made a complete fool of himself. He --obviously--proved nothing of the sort. Johnny Cochran, by contrast, did a brilliant job of muddying the waters, with help from the inept prosecuting team.

The jury, for racist reasons (remember the Black Power salute given to OJ by one juror after the verdict?), refused to convict. Your clumsy smear is typically stupid.
Click to expand...

Wrong. Then jurors said that F. Lee Bailey proved that the timeline proved that OJ was innocent, when he cross-examined detective Tom Lange and Phillip van Atter. Nothing that happened after the first two days of the trial had any impact on the verdict, if OJ wasn't there, he was innocent. The real killer was Jason Simpson.

Race had nothing to do with the verdict. Your racist smears of honest hard-working members of the jury is disgusting.

You have no respect for the jury system or our country.
 
Galileo said:
Wrong. Then jurors said that F. Lee Bailey proved that the timeline proved that OJ was innocent, when he cross-examined detective Tom Lange and Phillip van Atter. Nothing that happened after the first two days of the trial had any impact on the verdict, if OJ wasn't there, he was innocent. The real killer was Jason Simpson.

Race had nothing to do with the verdict. Your racist smears of honest hard-working members of the jury is disgusting.

You have no respect for the jury system or our country.
Click to expand...

i dont think OJ considers anyone on that jury to be his peer
 
Galileo said:
Wrong. Then jurors said that F. Lee Bailey proved that the timeline proved that OJ was innocent, when he cross-examined detective Tom Lange and Phillip van Atter. Nothing that happened after the first two days of the trial had any impact on the verdict, if OJ wasn't there, he was innocent. The real killer was Jason Simpson.

Race had nothing to do with the verdict. Your racist smears of honest hard-working members of the jury is disgusting.

You have no respect for the jury system or our country.
Click to expand...


Fabulous idiocy! The timeline proved nothing of the sort. The jury refused to attempt to understand how definitive the DNA evidence was. It is true that I have serious doubts about the efficiency of the jury system, but, in stark contrast to you, I love America deeply. If your IQ were at least fifty points higher, I would be offended by your clumsy smears.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom