Well, first of all, by referencing the Simpson trial, you highlight the fact that both verdicts had absolutely nothing to do with race; only your oppinions of them, media bias and a very, VERY healthy dose of misandry.
Because OJ Simpson DIDN'T kill his wife, or Ron Goldman; you imply that he did and that the jury was too stupid to understand the evidence or not render a verdict based on their racial self-interest.
The jury heard ALL the forensic evidence, and fully understood it - concluding (correctly) that OJ didn't kill his wife, or Ron Goldman, the Police did, and then planted their blood in his car, after stealing his shoes and gloves, while he was more than 1500 miles away in Chicago - he actually has a cast-iron alibi.
And that's even without being told (as they were not) that Ron Goldman was NOT his wife's lover, but was in fact her coke dealer and and also so screamingly gay, he was disowned by his own father (who Un-disowned him once he was dead, when there was a serious opportunity to cash-in).
Here, it's absolutely clear that Pistorious has absolutely no idea what happened to him and has just been repeating back to the court a story suggested to him by the Police (the chief detective of whom was, at the time, being investigated for having committed two actual MURDERS himself...)
What makes this Counter-Femninist screed (for that's what this is) mascarading as Feminism all the more represenible is that Deborah Orr clearly knows that - were she ignorant of this, she would have referred in error to the popular lie that Ron Goldman was Nicole Brown Simpson's lover, that OJ became aware of this and butchered the pair of them on her doorstep in a wild and jealous rage in the middle of a residential area at a ridiculously early hour; no, this was a tactical Neo-Nazi wet-team, dressed in black, working together, at least four of them. We know this, and the crime scene says so.
But no - Deborah Orr refers to Goldman visiting her house on "an errand", implying that he was merely in the wrong place at the wrong time. No.
The "errand" he was running was to deliver drugs, as all of the other waiters and serving staff at his place of work used to to, they were street-level couriers operating a massively lucrative cocaine distribution ring through the restaurant in West Holywood - which the LAPD clearly knew about and did nothing to disrupt.
And again, he was an absolute screaming homosexual - arresting officer Mark Fhurman was in the process of being fired, and was eventually convicted of perjury for lying about his whereabouts at the the time of the murder (he has no alibi), and in large part for his open membership of the group WASP which he organised within LAPD, White AngloSaxon Policemen; he was eventually fired for marking the lockers of colleagues engaged in inter-racial relationships with small Swazstikas, as well as the date of the MLK Day holiday on the Locker-room calendar - and the only thing they hate, despise and want to wipe out and cleanse from the Earth more than Jews, Blacks and Race-Traitors is screaming queers.
OJ Simpson has a cast-iron alibi and no motive - Mark Fhurman doesn't, and lied about it under oath.
Oh - and he also boasted all around the precinct locker-room that he had been boning Nicole Brown for some weeks before, as well - he had certainly visited the house, and had means, motive and opportunity to steal (and wear) OJ's shoes and gloves while he was there.
What makes this whole polemic even more egregious is the conscious blurring of violent crime and homicide and domestic violence.
Deliberate, pre-mediated murder has nothing to do with domestic violence; nor does negligent homicide.
That isn't what you mean at all - how can an honest and sincere verdict be inadequate? The prosecution can be, but the considered oppinion of the jury panel cannot.
You don't mean that you think it's inadequate, you mean to say that it's wrong - which is, of course, legally actionable to say in print, and you clearly know that.
The Guardian have good lawyers, and good subs.
Well, for one thing, the arresting officer was, at the time, already under investigating for committing two OTHER murders...
For another thing, HE was injured, and she was bludgeoned around the head with a big, heavy piece of wood, and THEN shot three times through the bathroom door with his gun - and he has no clear memory of what happened to him (although, he does keep a gun next to the bed for self-defence).
So, someone clearly attacked them both, took her out into the garden and probably attempted to rape her, beat her with a stick when she screamed, she ran away, hid in the bathroom, and they shot her through the door with his gun.
Otherwise, why would she be hiding in her own bathroom, with a fatal head wound, rather than running away from the man with the gun who has no legs?
Official - First time in history that the Guardian expresses full, unqualified confidence in the integrity of the ruling of a South Africa court.
(even though the judge openly stated that she disagreed with the verdict, prior to sentencing.)
The jury was intelligent, listening and right - the judge is WRONG.
No comments:
Post a Comment