OJ Poll
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> Off Topic Reply to topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  

Do you think OJ is
GUILTY
73%
 73%  [ 28 ]
NOT GUILTY
13%
 13%  [ 5 ]
COMPLICIT
7%
 7%  [ 3 ]
UNDECIDED
5%
 5%  [ 2 ]
OTHER (Explain)
0%
 0%  [ 0 ]
Total Votes : 38

Author Message
Cutheon
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 10 Jul 2009
Posts: 12307
Location: Bay Area

PostPosted: Sat Apr 13, 2024 9:00 am    Post subject:

OJ did it; if not OJ, absolutely it was his son.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
jodeke
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 68678
Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered a great way to learn.

PostPosted: Sat Apr 13, 2024 10:05 am    Post subject:

White Ford Bronco O.J. Simpson fled in is now a museum piece in Tennessee

LINK

If any are curious google the net worth of those involved in the case. Mark Furman is estimated to be worth 3 million dollars.
_________________
Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.

America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Dr. Laker
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 12 Apr 2002
Posts: 17344

PostPosted: Sat Apr 13, 2024 1:32 pm    Post subject:

jodeke wrote:
White Ford Bronco O.J. Simpson fled in is now a museum piece in Tennessee

LINK

If any are curious google the net worth of those involved in the case. Mark Furman is estimated to be worth 3 million dollars.


Chris Darden got his ass kicked in last month's judicial elections.
_________________
On Lakersground, a concern troll is someone who is a fan of another team, but pretends to be a Lakers fan with "concerns".
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
jodeke
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 68678
Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered a great way to learn.

PostPosted: Sat Apr 13, 2024 2:04 pm    Post subject:

Dr. Laker wrote:
jodeke wrote:
White Ford Bronco O.J. Simpson fled in is now a museum piece in Tennessee

LINK

If any are curious google the net worth of those involved in the case. Mark Furman is estimated to be worth 3 million dollars.


Chris Darden got his ass kicked in last month's judicial elections.


I know. I voted for him. Marcia Clark quit the DA office.
_________________
Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.

America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 53119
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.

PostPosted: Mon Apr 15, 2024 11:49 am    Post subject:

Dr. Laker wrote:
I have a reasonable doubt.

OJ was not Phi Beta Kappa - slashing two people to death, disposing of the murder weapon, bloody clothes, etc., and catching a flight at LAX 90 minutes later without leaving a ton of bloody evidence takes criminal genius or professional coordination.


It was obviously not that hard for him to do, as the evidence showed.

Quote:
I was told at the time by an LAPD detective that Jason (OJ's oldest son) did it.


it's interesting you say that despite the vast amount of evidence demonstrating OJ's guilt, you have "reasonable doubt" about it, yet you believe Jason did it based on nothing but innuendo and rumor.

THIS GUY AGREES:

Quote:
Dear has prescription bottles, blood vials, and clothing that he says belongs to his suspect: OJ Simpson's oldest son, Jason. Dear even has a Jeep that he claims belonged to Jason Simpson at the time Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman were murdered.

But Dear's biggest claim has to be that here, in Mount Calm, Texas, he has the murder weapon. He says the knife, which he believes matches some of the wounds on Nicole Brown Simpson, was inside a box that was left inside a storage unit. The unit was later auctioned off, says Dear, which is how the items ended up in his possession.


All that, and yet none of it produced . . .
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames


Jason Isbell

Man, do those lyrics resonate right now
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
jodeke
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 68678
Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered a great way to learn.

PostPosted: Mon Apr 15, 2024 11:58 am    Post subject:

Dr. Laker wrote:
Quote:
I have a reasonable doubt.

OJ was not Phi Beta Kappa - slashing two people to death, disposing of the murder weapon, bloody clothes, etc., and catching a flight at LAX 90 minutes later without leaving a ton of bloody evidence takes criminal genius or professional coordination.


Reasonable doubt is subjective. I think it's according to who's looking at the evidence. All the evidence presented in my eyes leaves no doubt. OJ committed the murders. My aside is did he have help?
_________________
Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.

America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 53119
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.

PostPosted: Mon Apr 15, 2024 11:59 am    Post subject:

ribeye wrote:
ChickenStu wrote:
^
To address the 2 posts above mine, first off, I think Fuhrman was a racist, yes. However, that pretty much has nothing to do with the case. You have blood evidence, DNA evidence. You can't just manufacture that. The science doesn't lie. It's not like the LAPD had vials of OJ's blood and they just found themselves at the crime scene and said hey, let's go to the lab and throw some of OJ's blood around and frame him! I mean, come on.

So to address the other point, we know for a fact that Simpson was there at the scene when the murders went down. FOR A FACT. So any other stuff that Cochran brought up at the trial (Fuhrman, the gloves "not fitting", Dr. Lee testifying that "something's wrong"), it absolutely should not constitute reasonable doubt unless Simpson himself provided an explanation for why his blood got there. Cochran brought up that other killers could have done it, the whole "Colombian necktie" thing, etc. But he never argued that Simpson himself was there and, say, tried to ward off the real killers and got injured in the process. (And then fled lol.) Absent this, I don't see how any rational human being could say that reasonable doubt was created. And I'm someone that 100% defaults to reasonable doubt. It could be 90/10 guilty and I'm inclined to believe in an acquittal. But yeah, his blood is there, and instead of explaining how it may have gotten there, they basically went for the "shoddy policework" defense and said you can't trust the DNA evidence.

Egregious, outrageous, preposterous!


You mention the blood evidence and the DNA evidence. Apparently, you did not watch the trial or you forgot Barry Scheck's examination. First, there was missing blood (about a quarter vile or so as I recall) from the time Fong gathered it until the time it arrived at the FBI. You combine the missing blood with the curious factor of the particular swatch that had OJ's DNA, and doubt occurs. Scheck demonstrated the numbering sequence of the blood swatches beginning in a low number around Nicole's door, progressing higher in the number sequence to the back gate and continuing back to the house: let's just say, numbers 1 through 25 to the gate and 26 to 50 back to the house. Then, the very last numbered swatch (let's just say 51) was found all the way back to the back gate (out of sequence so to speak)--was the one with OJ's DNA--as though this one swatch was (or could have been) gathered (or prepared) at a later date--you know with the missing blood.

Since the very beginning when detectives said the had to break into OJ's house by climbing the fence due to their concern that grave danger had occurred or was occurring (a requirement to enter without a warrant) based solely on a few drops of blood on OJ's driveway, OJ's team, upon questioning the detectives, suggested they lied about the grave danger aspect of their decision, beginning to question their motive that continued throughout the trial. With so much bad press about the LA law enforcement in general, that went well beyond Rodney King, as well as the personal experiences of many of the locals, believing that the police would plant evidence or would sweeten the evidence, was not a huge leap, especially when caught in a possible lie to begin the trial.


One of the many shady things the OJ team did (and Ito idiotically allowed them to get away with) was to completely misrepresent what "reasonable doubt" means.

What it means is that one can have some area of doubt, but that those doubt would not lead a reasonable person to assume innocence despite the preponderance of the evidence provided.

It does NOT mean that if there is some evidence that is in doubt, that all of the other existing evidence is negated.

As CS stated, no reasonable person could look at entirety of the evidence that was presented and come away with the conclusion that Simpson was not guilty of killing Brown and Goldman
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames


Jason Isbell

Man, do those lyrics resonate right now
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ribeye
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 10 Nov 2001
Posts: 12810

PostPosted: Mon Apr 15, 2024 12:46 pm    Post subject:

DaMuleRules wrote:
ribeye wrote:
ChickenStu wrote:
^
To address the 2 posts above mine, first off, I think Fuhrman was a racist, yes. However, that pretty much has nothing to do with the case. You have blood evidence, DNA evidence. You can't just manufacture that. The science doesn't lie. It's not like the LAPD had vials of OJ's blood and they just found themselves at the crime scene and said hey, let's go to the lab and throw some of OJ's blood around and frame him! I mean, come on.

So to address the other point, we know for a fact that Simpson was there at the scene when the murders went down. FOR A FACT. So any other stuff that Cochran brought up at the trial (Fuhrman, the gloves "not fitting", Dr. Lee testifying that "something's wrong"), it absolutely should not constitute reasonable doubt unless Simpson himself provided an explanation for why his blood got there. Cochran brought up that other killers could have done it, the whole "Colombian necktie" thing, etc. But he never argued that Simpson himself was there and, say, tried to ward off the real killers and got injured in the process. (And then fled lol.) Absent this, I don't see how any rational human being could say that reasonable doubt was created. And I'm someone that 100% defaults to reasonable doubt. It could be 90/10 guilty and I'm inclined to believe in an acquittal. But yeah, his blood is there, and instead of explaining how it may have gotten there, they basically went for the "shoddy policework" defense and said you can't trust the DNA evidence.

Egregious, outrageous, preposterous!


You mention the blood evidence and the DNA evidence. Apparently, you did not watch the trial or you forgot Barry Scheck's examination. First, there was missing blood (about a quarter vile or so as I recall) from the time Fong gathered it until the time it arrived at the FBI. You combine the missing blood with the curious factor of the particular swatch that had OJ's DNA, and doubt occurs. Scheck demonstrated the numbering sequence of the blood swatches beginning in a low number around Nicole's door, progressing higher in the number sequence to the back gate and continuing back to the house: let's just say, numbers 1 through 25 to the gate and 26 to 50 back to the house. Then, the very last numbered swatch (let's just say 51) was found all the way back to the back gate (out of sequence so to speak)--was the one with OJ's DNA--as though this one swatch was (or could have been) gathered (or prepared) at a later date--you know with the missing blood.

Since the very beginning when detectives said the had to break into OJ's house by climbing the fence due to their concern that grave danger had occurred or was occurring (a requirement to enter without a warrant) based solely on a few drops of blood on OJ's driveway, OJ's team, upon questioning the detectives, suggested they lied about the grave danger aspect of their decision, beginning to question their motive that continued throughout the trial. With so much bad press about the LA law enforcement in general, that went well beyond Rodney King, as well as the personal experiences of many of the locals, believing that the police would plant evidence or would sweeten the evidence, was not a huge leap, especially when caught in a possible lie to begin the trial.


One of the many shady things the OJ team did (and Ito idiotically allowed them to get away with) was to completely misrepresent what "reasonable doubt" means.

What it means is that one can have some area of doubt, but that those doubt would not lead a reasonable person to assume innocence despite the preponderance of the evidence provided.

It does NOT mean that if there is some evidence that is in doubt, that all of the other existing evidence is negated.

As CS stated, no reasonable person could look at entirety of the evidence that was presented and come away with the conclusion that Simpson was not guilty of killing Brown and Goldman


Did you watch the trial? All of it? I did, as did the 12 jurors. I can see how the jurors arrived at their verdict. This does not mean that OJ was innocent. It only means that there was reasonable doubt, that it was not proven he did it. To quote Gerry Spence, the folksy lawyer, who never lost a criminal case, who was on nearly every day after the trial with his brilliant analysis:

Quote:
This axiom applies to O.J. I have always held mixed feelings about his acquittal for the murders of two innocent people. There is little doubt in my mind that he committed the murders. But I thought the verdict of acquittal was understandable given the tenor of the prosecution presented by Marcia Clark – in my opinion a display of prosecutorial behavior that encouraged a predominately black jury to acquit. I wrote about this in some detail in my book, O.J. the Last Word.

_________________
"A metronome keeps time by using a Ringo"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
jodeke
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 68678
Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered a great way to learn.

PostPosted: Mon Apr 15, 2024 1:36 pm    Post subject:

Putting OJ's guilt or innocence aside Johnnie Cochran was the reason he was found not guilty. How he managed to get a jury consisting of 8 Blacks, 1 White, 2 Hispanics, and 1 half Native American seated demonstrates his prowess. Johnnie straight up out-lawyered Marcia and Christopher.
_________________
Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.

America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
lakersken80
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 12 Aug 2009
Posts: 39107

PostPosted: Mon Apr 15, 2024 1:41 pm    Post subject:

jodeke wrote:
Putting OJ's guilt or innocence aside Johnnie Cochran was the reason he was found not guilty. How he managed to get a jury consisting of 8 Blacks, 1 White, 2 Hispanics, and 1 half Native American seated demonstrates his prowess. Johnnie straight up out-lawyered Marcia and Christopher.


The wheels were set in motion for a loss when they moved the case from Santa Monica to downtown LA.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
jodeke
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 68678
Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered a great way to learn.

PostPosted: Mon Apr 15, 2024 1:46 pm    Post subject:

DaMuleRules wrote:
ribeye wrote:
ChickenStu wrote:
^
To address the 2 posts above mine, first off, I think Fuhrman was a racist, yes. However, that pretty much has nothing to do with the case. You have blood evidence, DNA evidence. You can't just manufacture that. The science doesn't lie. It's not like the LAPD had vials of OJ's blood and they just found themselves at the crime scene and said hey, let's go to the lab and throw some of OJ's blood around and frame him! I mean, come on.

So to address the other point, we know for a fact that Simpson was there at the scene when the murders went down. FOR A FACT. So any other stuff that Cochran brought up at the trial (Fuhrman, the gloves "not fitting", Dr. Lee testifying that "something's wrong"), it absolutely should not constitute reasonable doubt unless Simpson himself provided an explanation for why his blood got there. Cochran brought up that other killers could have done it, the whole "Colombian necktie" thing, etc. But he never argued that Simpson himself was there and, say, tried to ward off the real killers and got injured in the process. (And then fled lol.) Absent this, I don't see how any rational human being could say that reasonable doubt was created. And I'm someone that 100% defaults to reasonable doubt. It could be 90/10 guilty and I'm inclined to believe in an acquittal. But yeah, his blood is there, and instead of explaining how it may have gotten there, they basically went for the "shoddy policework" defense and said you can't trust the DNA evidence.

Egregious, outrageous, preposterous!


You mention the blood evidence and the DNA evidence. Apparently, you did not watch the trial or you forgot Barry Scheck's examination. First, there was missing blood (about a quarter vile or so as I recall) from the time Fong gathered it until the time it arrived at the FBI. You combine the missing blood with the curious factor of the particular swatch that had OJ's DNA, and doubt occurs. Scheck demonstrated the numbering sequence of the blood swatches beginning in a low number around Nicole's door, progressing higher in the number sequence to the back gate and continuing back to the house: let's just say, numbers 1 through 25 to the gate and 26 to 50 back to the house. Then, the very last numbered swatch (let's just say 51) was found all the way back to the back gate (out of sequence so to speak)--was the one with OJ's DNA--as though this one swatch was (or could have been) gathered (or prepared) at a later date--you know with the missing blood.

Since the very beginning when detectives said the had to break into OJ's house by climbing the fence due to their concern that grave danger had occurred or was occurring (a requirement to enter without a warrant) based solely on a few drops of blood on OJ's driveway, OJ's team, upon questioning the detectives, suggested they lied about the grave danger aspect of their decision, beginning to question their motive that continued throughout the trial. With so much bad press about the LA law enforcement in general, that went well beyond Rodney King, as well as the personal experiences of many of the locals, believing that the police would plant evidence or would sweeten the evidence, was not a huge leap, especially when caught in a possible lie to begin the trial.


One of the many shady things the OJ team did (and Ito idiotically allowed them to get away with) was to completely misrepresent what "reasonable doubt" means.

What it means is that one can have some area of doubt, but that those doubt would not lead a reasonable person to assume innocence despite the preponderance of the evidence provided.

It does NOT mean that if there is some evidence that is in doubt, that all of the other existing evidence is negated.

As CS stated, no reasonable person could look at entirety of the evidence that was presented and come away with the conclusion that Simpson was not guilty of killing Brown and Goldman


I look at the following as brilliance. A defense lawyer's task is to win for his client.
Quote:
In Tuesday's episode "The Race Card," you'll see defense lawyer Johnnie Cochran redecorate O.J. Simpson's house before the jury visits. Pictures of half-nude models are replaced by friendly pictures of family members as large pieces of African art are hung on the walls.


Quote:
During the seemingly endless trial, jurors were allowed to go to Simpson's home. But Simpson's lawyer Johnnie Cochran was inexplicably given permission to redecorate it before the tour. Among other changes, Cochran took down revealing photos of Simpson's then-girlfriend and replaced them with African art.

_________________
Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.

America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ChefLinda
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 24791
Location: Boston

PostPosted: Mon Apr 15, 2024 2:21 pm    Post subject:

Rich people get rich people's version of justice. If you have enough money to hire hundreds of investigators to dig up enough red herrings, then hire a huge cadre of A-team lawyers talented enough to muddy up the trial and turn it into a spectacle, then you too can get away with murder.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Dr. Laker
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 12 Apr 2002
Posts: 17344

PostPosted: Mon Apr 15, 2024 3:26 pm    Post subject:

ChefLinda wrote:
Rich people get rich people's version of justice. If you have enough money to hire hundreds of investigators to dig up enough red herrings, then hire a huge cadre of A-team lawyers talented enough to muddy up the trial and turn it into a spectacle, then you too can get away with murder.


Happens all the time - for the rich.
_________________
On Lakersground, a concern troll is someone who is a fan of another team, but pretends to be a Lakers fan with "concerns".
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 53119
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.

PostPosted: Mon Apr 15, 2024 7:08 pm    Post subject:

ribeye wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
ribeye wrote:
ChickenStu wrote:
^
To address the 2 posts above mine, first off, I think Fuhrman was a racist, yes. However, that pretty much has nothing to do with the case. You have blood evidence, DNA evidence. You can't just manufacture that. The science doesn't lie. It's not like the LAPD had vials of OJ's blood and they just found themselves at the crime scene and said hey, let's go to the lab and throw some of OJ's blood around and frame him! I mean, come on.

So to address the other point, we know for a fact that Simpson was there at the scene when the murders went down. FOR A FACT. So any other stuff that Cochran brought up at the trial (Fuhrman, the gloves "not fitting", Dr. Lee testifying that "something's wrong"), it absolutely should not constitute reasonable doubt unless Simpson himself provided an explanation for why his blood got there. Cochran brought up that other killers could have done it, the whole "Colombian necktie" thing, etc. But he never argued that Simpson himself was there and, say, tried to ward off the real killers and got injured in the process. (And then fled lol.) Absent this, I don't see how any rational human being could say that reasonable doubt was created. And I'm someone that 100% defaults to reasonable doubt. It could be 90/10 guilty and I'm inclined to believe in an acquittal. But yeah, his blood is there, and instead of explaining how it may have gotten there, they basically went for the "shoddy policework" defense and said you can't trust the DNA evidence.

Egregious, outrageous, preposterous!


You mention the blood evidence and the DNA evidence. Apparently, you did not watch the trial or you forgot Barry Scheck's examination. First, there was missing blood (about a quarter vile or so as I recall) from the time Fong gathered it until the time it arrived at the FBI. You combine the missing blood with the curious factor of the particular swatch that had OJ's DNA, and doubt occurs. Scheck demonstrated the numbering sequence of the blood swatches beginning in a low number around Nicole's door, progressing higher in the number sequence to the back gate and continuing back to the house: let's just say, numbers 1 through 25 to the gate and 26 to 50 back to the house. Then, the very last numbered swatch (let's just say 51) was found all the way back to the back gate (out of sequence so to speak)--was the one with OJ's DNA--as though this one swatch was (or could have been) gathered (or prepared) at a later date--you know with the missing blood.

Since the very beginning when detectives said the had to break into OJ's house by climbing the fence due to their concern that grave danger had occurred or was occurring (a requirement to enter without a warrant) based solely on a few drops of blood on OJ's driveway, OJ's team, upon questioning the detectives, suggested they lied about the grave danger aspect of their decision, beginning to question their motive that continued throughout the trial. With so much bad press about the LA law enforcement in general, that went well beyond Rodney King, as well as the personal experiences of many of the locals, believing that the police would plant evidence or would sweeten the evidence, was not a huge leap, especially when caught in a possible lie to begin the trial.


One of the many shady things the OJ team did (and Ito idiotically allowed them to get away with) was to completely misrepresent what "reasonable doubt" means.

What it means is that one can have some area of doubt, but that those doubt would not lead a reasonable person to assume innocence despite the preponderance of the evidence provided.

It does NOT mean that if there is some evidence that is in doubt, that all of the other existing evidence is negated.

As CS stated, no reasonable person could look at entirety of the evidence that was presented and come away with the conclusion that Simpson was not guilty of killing Brown and Goldman


Did you watch the trial? All of it? I did, as did the 12 jurors. I can see how the jurors arrived at their verdict. This does not mean that OJ was innocent. It only means that there was reasonable doubt, that it was not proven he did it. To quote Gerry Spence, the folksy lawyer, who never lost a criminal case, who was on nearly every day after the trial with his brilliant analysis:

Quote:
This axiom applies to O.J. I have always held mixed feelings about his acquittal for the murders of two innocent people. There is little doubt in my mind that he committed the murders. But I thought the verdict of acquittal was understandable given the tenor of the prosecution presented by Marcia Clark – in my opinion a display of prosecutorial behavior that encouraged a predominately black jury to acquit. I wrote about this in some detail in my book, O.J. the Last Word.


I followed every aspect of the case from day one including every day of the trial; as well as the aftermath, in which two of the jurors later came out to say they would have voted guilty, but felt bullied into voting otherwise. So the unanimous jury thing doesn't really hold much weight since they had been sequestered for the entirety of the case and some just wanted it to be over so they could go home.

I'm also aware of the concept of reasonable doubt, and Spence's opinion doesn't erase what the concept really is. Numerous lawyers have spoken regarding the measure of reasonable doubt in the Simpson case that contradict Spence's opinion. And in fact, Spence's opinion epitomizes the concept. He expresses mixed feelings about the verdict, indicating that he reasonably thinks that it is likely that OJ committed the crime; otherwise there'd be no "mixed feelings" about the verdict. Again, reasonable doubt doesn't mean you select a few pieces of evidence that don't fit and then use them to dismiss the entirety of the evidence.

I was fascinated with the case for several reasons. I was a fan of OJ since I was a kid. First, as a football fan, then as a movie fan when he was in one of my first favorite movies, Towering Inferno and then other films. I first met him through my mom, because she was in the industry and knew him. I later met him again when I sold a Christmas tree to Nicole and him several years before the murder; an event which not only stuck in my mind because that was cool, but because the guys who delivered that tree that evening came back to the lot and said that they bolted the residence after watching OJ fight with Nicole about where the tree was going to go and that it started to get physically abusive and the cops were being called; no doubt one of those moments that was documented in the trial on one of the tapes played where Nicole was talking to a 911 dispatcher about how the LAPD came numerous times to their house but never did anything about OJs abuse (as anyone who genuinely followed the case will recall). Then a few years after that, I briefly worked with Jason Simpson. So, I don't need any information on how it all played out because I was all in what was going on from the first moment that I heard Nicole had been found murdered.
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames


Jason Isbell

Man, do those lyrics resonate right now


Last edited by DaMuleRules on Mon Apr 15, 2024 8:40 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 53119
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.

PostPosted: Mon Apr 15, 2024 7:32 pm    Post subject:

Dr. Laker wrote:
ChefLinda wrote:
Rich people get rich people's version of justice. If you have enough money to hire hundreds of investigators to dig up enough red herrings, then hire a huge cadre of A-team lawyers talented enough to muddy up the trial and turn it into a spectacle, then you too can get away with murder.


Happens all the time - for the rich.


Indeed it does; and the classist and racial implications of that are horrible.

But that's where one of the biggest ironies of the OJ murder case comes in; the fact that he was a rich black man who hung out with white people at one of the most exclusive Westside country clubs and who had never had much to do with the black community once he started benefitting from celebrity and being protected from his criminal actions by the the private college who viewed him as a commercial asset, he suddenly became an icon for some of the black community he turned his back on so they could take revenge on the very rich, white privilege OJ embraced. And while that's something I totally get because I was outraged by the Rodney King verdict as well, trading one injustice for another may make for a feel good moment of revenge against the system, but it just feeds that very cycle.
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames


Jason Isbell

Man, do those lyrics resonate right now
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ChickenStu
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 25 Apr 2015
Posts: 32961
Location: Anaheim, CA

PostPosted: Mon Apr 15, 2024 9:20 pm    Post subject:

All the fancy lawyering in the world may have shown shoddy policework, a racist cop, and poor evidence collecting. But you can't fake the fact that his blood is there. Not just a tiny droplet, either, so there's no way any reasonable person could argue, say, that it could have been there at a different time because he may have come over to Nicole's residence many times in the recent past. No, we're talking about plenty of his blood at the scene. It is not reasonable to assume that it could have gotten there in any fashion except...he was there when the murders were committed! (And of course, OJ's hand had been injured with a pretty deep cut when the police first apprehended him.) So although the prosecution, of course, has the burden of proof, when something like this is clearly shown -- it's an indisputable fact that he was there when the murders happened or in the moments immediately afterward -- then the onus shifts to the other side to be able to offer up some sort of rational, reasonable explanation as to why his blood is there. It doesn't have to be the most likely explanation, merely something that could make sense, such as: he arrived during or immediately after the killings took place, he tried to stop it or encountered the killers, and he got injured in the process. They didn't do that, and of course if he had testified to something like that, the obvious question would have been, well, why didn't you immediately go to the cops and call 911 if your ex-wife and another dude had been killed? Your ex, that you still allegedly loved, has been killed, and you don't want to alert the cops as quickly as possible so that maybe the murderers could be apprehended? And as bad as that may have looked for OJ, just saying that this is what happened and I just panicked because I knew my blood was there and I was grief-stricken over seeing the love of my life murdered and I just wasn't in my right mind so I fled...this would have at least been within the realm of possibility, although extremely unlikely.

I got off on a little tangent there, but to my mind, it's not reasonable to assume that he didn't commit the murders. The entire scenario simply is not rational or reasonable. And this ignores everything else that was not presented at trial, such as him attempting to flee in the Bronco and the suicide note and all that. Just strictly going off what was presented at trial, I don't believe reasonable doubt was created. The blood evidence makes it overwhelming.

As for Johnnie Cochran outlawyering Marcia Clark and Chris Darden, I mean, he was certainly a better attorney than they were, sure. But if you want to blame someone in the DA's office, blame Gil Garcetti for changing the venue. Clark said it herself: as soon as the jury was selected, she didn't think they were going to get a conviction, despite the evidence they had, given the context of 1992. Again, in sports parlance, the OJ verdict was a make-up call.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Dr. Laker
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 12 Apr 2002
Posts: 17344

PostPosted: Tue Apr 16, 2024 7:37 am    Post subject:

DaMuleRules wrote:
Dr. Laker wrote:
ChefLinda wrote:
Rich people get rich people's version of justice. If you have enough money to hire hundreds of investigators to dig up enough red herrings, then hire a huge cadre of A-team lawyers talented enough to muddy up the trial and turn it into a spectacle, then you too can get away with murder.


Happens all the time - for the rich.


Indeed it does; and the classist and racial implications of that are horrible.

But that's where one of the biggest ironies of the OJ murder case comes in; the fact that he was a rich black man who hung out with white people at one of the most exclusive Westside country clubs and who had never had much to do with the black community once he started benefitting from celebrity and being protected from his criminal actions by the the private college who viewed him as a commercial asset, he suddenly became an icon for some of the black community he turned his back on so they could take revenge on the very rich, white privilege OJ embraced. And while that's something I totally get because I was outraged by the Rodney King verdict as well, trading one injustice for another may make for a feel good moment of revenge against the system, but it just feeds that very cycle.


Uh, no.

OJ was never an icon or embraced by the black community. He visited a few black churches during his trial, but he wasn't beloved or anything. Most blacks think he's guilty - and thought it then.

The issues for the black community were:

1 - The evidence was NOT slam/dunk,
2 - The investigation was shoddy with a lot of shortcuts,
3 - The defense had MUCH better lawyers & experts,

Under those circumstances, white folks with money routinely get acquitted. This was the first time a black man with money beat the rap.

It wasn't about OJ, it was about the system finally giving a black man the same privilege it gives to white people.

Remember, this is the same city where in 1991, a rich Korean woman shot and killed a 15 year old black girl after falsely accusing her of stealing orange juice (with three eyewitnesses and videotape of the incident) - and her sentence was 400 hours of community service and paying the funeral costs for Latasha Harlins. Famously, the next day a person received a much harsher penalty for kicking a dog.

So Black LA just wanted OJ to get the same justice that rich white men get . . . and he did.

But there's no love lost for OJ.
_________________
On Lakersground, a concern troll is someone who is a fan of another team, but pretends to be a Lakers fan with "concerns".
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 53119
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.

PostPosted: Tue Apr 16, 2024 8:05 am    Post subject:

Dr. Laker wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:

Indeed it does; and the classist and racial implications of that are horrible.

But that's where one of the biggest ironies of the OJ murder case comes in; the fact that he was a rich black man who hung out with white people at one of the most exclusive Westside country clubs and who had never had much to do with the black community once he started benefitting from celebrity and being protected from his criminal actions by the the private college who viewed him as a commercial asset, he suddenly became an icon for some of the black community he turned his back on so they could take revenge on the very rich, white privilege OJ embraced. And while that's something I totally get because I was outraged by the Rodney King verdict as well, trading one injustice for another may make for a feel good moment of revenge against the system, but it just feeds that very cycle.


Uh, no.

OJ was never an icon or embraced by the black community. He visited a few black churches during his trial, but he wasn't beloved or anything. Most blacks think he's guilty - and thought it then.

The issues for the black community were:

1 - The evidence was NOT slam/dunk,
2 - The investigation was shoddy with a lot of shortcuts,
3 - The defense had MUCH better lawyers & experts,

Under those circumstances, white folks with money routinely get acquitted. This was the first time a black man with money beat the rap.

It wasn't about OJ, it was about the system finally giving a black man the same privilege it gives to white people.

Remember, this is the same city where in 1991, a rich Korean woman shot and killed a 15 year old black girl after falsely accusing her of stealing orange juice (with three eyewitnesses and videotape of the incident) - and her sentence was 400 hours of community service and paying the funeral costs for Latasha Harlins. Famously, the next day a person received a much harsher penalty for kicking a dog.

So Black LA just wanted OJ to get the same justice that rich white men get . . . and he did.

But there's no love lost for OJ.


Exactly my point . . . hence the use of the word "irony". At that point in his life, he was not in anyway exemplary of the societal ills faced by others he shared a complexion with (and nothing else)
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames


Jason Isbell

Man, do those lyrics resonate right now
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Omar Little
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90403
Location: Formerly Known As 24

PostPosted: Wed Apr 17, 2024 12:13 pm    Post subject:

I supported the jury verdict, because according to the letter of the law, the poorly handled prosecution and some deft defense using it left some reasonable doubt as presented.

But there’s little doubt in reasonable minds that a guy who later went on to hypothetically describe how he did it (and slip up when asked whether the gate was open “hypothetically” by responding, “I don’t remember”) that he did it. The covering for his son has some philosophical merit but doesn’t fit the evidence, nor does any of his behavior later.
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
jodeke
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 68678
Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered a great way to learn.

PostPosted: Wed Apr 17, 2024 12:41 pm    Post subject:

^^^ I also support the jury verdict. I think the preponderance of evidence said OJ was guilty. Johnnie Cochran was the reason OJ was found not guilty. The not guilty verdict doesn't mean he was innocent.
_________________
Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.

America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 53119
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.

PostPosted: Wed Apr 17, 2024 8:42 pm    Post subject:

Omar Little wrote:
I supported the jury verdict, because according to the letter of the law, the poorly handled prosecution and some deft defense using it left some reasonable doubt as presented.

But there’s little doubt in reasonable minds that a guy who later went on to hypothetically describe how he did it (and slip up when asked whether the gate was open “hypothetically” by responding, “I don’t remember”) that he did it. The covering for his son has some philosophical merit but doesn’t fit the evidence, nor does any of his behavior later.


As I mentioned earlier, one of several nefarious tactics Cochran et al employed in the trial was to bastardize the concept of reasonable doubt to include any measure doubt ("If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit"; nonsense that obviously bamboozled with far too many). But, that's not how the legal concept of what reasonable doubt actually works. Some doubt is allowed and even is expected; hence the "reasonable" part. In fact, it can be argued that devoid of an actual confession, there is likely to be some doubt, because after all, that is the only absolute proof of guilt (though, I will note that false confessions have occurred for various reasons).

So, having established what reasonable doubt actually is, lets discuss the handful of instances of procedural error and alleged misconduct by the LAPD as well as the "deft" defense.

In regards to the former, that being that the LAPD was out to frame OJ Simpson, that brings us to one of the other ironies I referenced earlier: it was well documented that the LAPD not only had a friendly relationship with OJ, but had a history of allowing OJ to get away with his abuse of Nicole. But even if one chooses to ignore that, one cannot ignore the obvious instance that played out on national TV in Prime Time; the famous "Low Speed Chase'". That chase involved pursuing two black men, admittedly armed, one of whom was wanted for murder, driving well over a hundred miles while dictating a leisurely pace with the police just laying back and letting that murder suspect drive into his front gate and walk into his house where he could easily have started an armed barricade situation. Anyone with half a brain knows that in no other instance, under those circumstances, would that be allowed to happen. But let us put that aside since we are looking to justify Reasonable Doubt. Acknowledging there were errors made by the LAPD and that some of them may even have been intentional, those errors don't erase the plethora of other valid evidence that proved OJ had the motive, method and opportunity to commit the crime. Under the actual definition of reasonable doubt, that evidence doesn't just disappear, it just gets measured alongside the possible doubts. There's no reasonable conclusion that the doubts outweighed the vast majority of the other evidence, no matter how much Cochran's pithy catch phrases conned people into thinking otherwise; That's was actual Reasonable Doubt is.

Which brings us to the "deft" defense. Yes, the Dream Team was "impressive"; that's what you get when you are a wealthy celebrity: one of literally the most famous celebrity fame whore lawyers in the nation for decades, a renowned expert who was willing to sell out his own previously excellent and honorable work in the field of DNA evidence who sold himself out for fame and wealth, an old family friend who was clearly willing to go to any lengths to hide evidence, and finally a charismatic bull crap artist with fewer morals than the others. And hey, I agree, it was indeed a "deft" defense, because it totally starstruck a basic LA County judge who got enamored with the spotlight and the overwhelming, collectively personality in front of him and allowed them to ride roughshod over him, manipulating him with side bars and motions to dismiss in comical fashion that was called out by legal experts as the trial played out. Yes, it was "deft", they owned Judge Ito and exploited that in order to garner the opportunity to present baseless conjecture as "evidence" while disallowing very legitimate and pertinent evidence. That "deftness" was indeed impressive, but is just another BS justification for how there was "reasonable" doubt. Even the smartest of people can get conned if the conmen are deft enough. but if they are, it doesn't change what the "letter of the law" regarding reasonable doubt is; the OJ verdict was not that.

Bottomline, people are certainly free to attempt to justify what their personal interpretation of what "reasonable" doubt is (especially when the jury has a social interest in reaching a desired verdict), that's why wealthy, connected people of privilege literally get away with murder while others who are truly innocent without those means sometimes go to death row. But all of those justifications don't change what Reasonable Doubt actually is.
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames


Jason Isbell

Man, do those lyrics resonate right now
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
slavavov
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 03 Oct 2003
Posts: 8576
Location: Santa Monica

PostPosted: Thu Apr 18, 2024 8:25 pm    Post subject:

jodeke wrote:
Putting OJ's guilt or innocence aside Johnnie Cochran was the reason he was found not guilty. How he managed to get a jury consisting of 8 Blacks, 1 White, 2 Hispanics, and 1 half Native American seated demonstrates his prowess. Johnnie straight up out-lawyered Marcia and Christopher.

Here's a question I have: all of us are entitled to a "jury of our peers" per the Constitution. Obviously O.J. killed those two people, that's a fact, but you still have to obey his Constitutional rights. Was having 8 Blacks on the jury a "jury of his peers," or was that Johnnie simply gaming the system and stacking the deck in his murderer client's favor?
_________________
Lakers 49ers Chargers Dodgers
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
jodeke
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 68678
Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered a great way to learn.

PostPosted: Wed Apr 24, 2024 8:09 am    Post subject:

slavavov wrote:
jodeke wrote:
Putting OJ's guilt or innocence aside Johnnie Cochran was the reason he was found not guilty. How he managed to get a jury consisting of 8 Blacks, 1 White, 2 Hispanics, and 1 half Native American seated demonstrates his prowess. Johnnie straight up out-lawyered Marcia and Christopher.

Here's a question I have: all of us are entitled to a "jury of our peers" per the Constitution. Obviously O.J. killed those two people, that's a fact, but you still have to obey his Constitutional rights. Was having 8 Blacks on the jury a "jury of his peers," or was that Johnnie simply gaming the system and stacking the deck in his murderer client's favor?
Peers relating to OJ is subjective. By the Merriam-Webster definition, OJ was not tried by a jury of his peers.
Quote:
1
: one that is of equal standing with another : EQUAL
The band mates welcomed the new member as a peer.
especially : one belonging to the same societal group especially based on age, grade, or status
I've said in past posts Johnnie Cochran is the reason OJ was found not guilty. Not INNOCENT but Not GUILTY. He got the jury he wanted, redecorated OJ's home, put doubt in the mix with "If the glove don't fit you must acquit" and made LAPD the villain. He was by far the brightest bulb in the chandelier. Marcia and Christopher were overmatched.
_________________
Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.

America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
slavavov
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 03 Oct 2003
Posts: 8576
Location: Santa Monica

PostPosted: Wed Apr 24, 2024 6:23 pm    Post subject:

jodeke wrote:
slavavov wrote:
jodeke wrote:
Putting OJ's guilt or innocence aside Johnnie Cochran was the reason he was found not guilty. How he managed to get a jury consisting of 8 Blacks, 1 White, 2 Hispanics, and 1 half Native American seated demonstrates his prowess. Johnnie straight up out-lawyered Marcia and Christopher.

Here's a question I have: all of us are entitled to a "jury of our peers" per the Constitution. Obviously O.J. killed those two people, that's a fact, but you still have to obey his Constitutional rights. Was having 8 Blacks on the jury a "jury of his peers," or was that Johnnie simply gaming the system and stacking the deck in his murderer client's favor?
Peers relating to OJ is subjective. By the Merriam-Webster definition, OJ was not tried by a jury of his peers.
Quote:
1
: one that is of equal standing with another : EQUAL
The band mates welcomed the new member as a peer.
especially : one belonging to the same societal group especially based on age, grade, or status
I've said in past posts Johnnie Cochran is the reason OJ was found not guilty. Not INNOCENT but Not GUILTY. He got the jury he wanted, redecorated OJ's home, put doubt in the mix with "If the glove don't fit you must acquit" and made LAPD the villain. He was by far the brightest bulb in the chandelier. Marcia and Christopher were overmatched.

Cochran won because he made it about race, even though race wasn't a factor.

ChickenStu called the verdict the equivalent of a make-up call. I know there's systemic racism, especially in law enforcement and the prison industrial complex, but this wasn't the time to make a racial statement. But Cochran took advantage of the (justified) tension in the Black community over Rodney King and other things, even though, as others said in this thread, OJ distanced himself from the Black community, especially poor Blacks.
_________________
Lakers 49ers Chargers Dodgers
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
kikanga
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 15 Sep 2012
Posts: 29947
Location: La La Land

PostPosted: Wed Apr 24, 2024 7:55 pm    Post subject:

DaMuleRules wrote:
Omar Little wrote:
I supported the jury verdict, because according to the letter of the law, the poorly handled prosecution and some deft defense using it left some reasonable doubt as presented.

But there’s little doubt in reasonable minds that a guy who later went on to hypothetically describe how he did it (and slip up when asked whether the gate was open “hypothetically” by responding, “I don’t remember”) that he did it. The covering for his son has some philosophical merit but doesn’t fit the evidence, nor does any of his behavior later.


As I mentioned earlier, one of several nefarious tactics Cochran et al employed in the trial was to bastardize the concept of reasonable doubt to include any measure doubt ("If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit"; nonsense that obviously bamboozled with far too many). But, that's not how the legal concept of what reasonable doubt actually works. Some doubt is allowed and even is expected; hence the "reasonable" part. In fact, it can be argued that devoid of an actual confession, there is likely to be some doubt, because after all, that is the only absolute proof of guilt (though, I will note that false confessions have occurred for various reasons).

So, having established what reasonable doubt actually is, lets discuss the handful of instances of procedural error and alleged misconduct by the LAPD as well as the "deft" defense.

In regards to the former, that being that the LAPD was out to frame OJ Simpson, that brings us to one of the other ironies I referenced earlier: it was well documented that the LAPD not only had a friendly relationship with OJ, but had a history of allowing OJ to get away with his abuse of Nicole. But even if one chooses to ignore that, one cannot ignore the obvious instance that played out on national TV in Prime Time; the famous "Low Speed Chase'". That chase involved pursuing two black men, admittedly armed, one of whom was wanted for murder, driving well over a hundred miles while dictating a leisurely pace with the police just laying back and letting that murder suspect drive into his front gate and walk into his house where he could easily have started an armed barricade situation. Anyone with half a brain knows that in no other instance, under those circumstances, would that be allowed to happen. But let us put that aside since we are looking to justify Reasonable Doubt. Acknowledging there were errors made by the LAPD and that some of them may even have been intentional, those errors don't erase the plethora of other valid evidence that proved OJ had the motive, method and opportunity to commit the crime. Under the actual definition of reasonable doubt, that evidence doesn't just disappear, it just gets measured alongside the possible doubts. There's no reasonable conclusion that the doubts outweighed the vast majority of the other evidence, no matter how much Cochran's pithy catch phrases conned people into thinking otherwise; That's was actual Reasonable Doubt is.

Which brings us to the "deft" defense. Yes, the Dream Team was "impressive"; that's what you get when you are a wealthy celebrity: one of literally the most famous celebrity fame whore lawyers in the nation for decades, a renowned expert who was willing to sell out his own previously excellent and honorable work in the field of DNA evidence who sold himself out for fame and wealth, an old family friend who was clearly willing to go to any lengths to hide evidence, and finally a charismatic bull crap artist with fewer morals than the others. And hey, I agree, it was indeed a "deft" defense, because it totally starstruck a basic LA County judge who got enamored with the spotlight and the overwhelming, collectively personality in front of him and allowed them to ride roughshod over him, manipulating him with side bars and motions to dismiss in comical fashion that was called out by legal experts as the trial played out. Yes, it was "deft", they owned Judge Ito and exploited that in order to garner the opportunity to present baseless conjecture as "evidence" while disallowing very legitimate and pertinent evidence. That "deftness" was indeed impressive, but is just another BS justification for how there was "reasonable" doubt. Even the smartest of people can get conned if the conmen are deft enough. but if they are, it doesn't change what the "letter of the law" regarding reasonable doubt is; the OJ verdict was not that.

Bottomline, people are certainly free to attempt to justify what their personal interpretation of what "reasonable" doubt is (especially when the jury has a social interest in reaching a desired verdict), that's why wealthy, connected people of privilege literally get away with murder while others who are truly innocent without those means sometimes go to death row. But all of those justifications don't change what Reasonable Doubt actually is.


What are your thoughts on Marc's comments in this thread?
https://twitter.com/marclamonthill/status/1778461905268412472
_________________
"Every hurt is a lesson, and every lesson makes you better”
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> Off Topic All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Page 2 of 3
Jump to:  

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum






Graphics by uberzev
© 1995-2018 LakersGround.net. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy. Terms of Use.
LakersGround is an unofficial news source serving the fan community since 1995.
We are in no way associated with the Los Angeles Lakers or the National Basketball Association.


Powered by phpBB