|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Do you think OJ is |
| GUILTY |
|
72% |
[ 26 ] |
| NOT GUILTY |
|
13% |
[ 5 ] |
| COMPLICIT |
|
8% |
[ 3 ] |
| UNDECIDED |
|
5% |
[ 2 ] |
| OTHER (Explain) |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 36 |
|
| Author |
Message |
jodeke
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 67924
Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered a great way to learn.
|
 Posted: Thu Apr 25, 2024 7:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| slavavov wrote: | | 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. |
Isn't it a lawyer's job to win by any means necessary? If race was an issue to help in that endeavor wouldn't a good lawyer be remiss not to use it? Race wasn't the only reason Johnnie won, I listed numerous reasons in the post above. Bottom line, Johnnie was head and shoulders above Marcia and Chris in case making, court presence, and presentation. Again, he straight out lawyered them. IMO OJ got away with murder and as I voted in the poll he was complicit.
Marcia changed her hairstyle and wardrobe.
_________________
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 |
|
 |
slavavov
Star Player
Joined: 03 Oct 2003
Posts: 8442
Location: Santa Monica
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 25, 2024 6:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jodeke wrote: | | slavavov wrote: | | 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. |
Isn't it a lawyer's job to win by any means necessary? If race was an issue to help in that endeavor wouldn't a good lawyer be remiss not to use it? Race wasn't the only reason Johnnie won, I listed numerous reasons in the post above. Bottom line, Johnnie was head and shoulders above Marcia and Chris in case making, court presence, and presentation. Again, he straight out lawyered them. IMO OJ got away with murder and as I voted in the poll he was complicit.
Marcia changed her hairstyle and wardrobe. |
Of course it's a lawyer's job to win by any means necessary. So from Cochran's standpoint, he was brilliant for making it about race and exploiting the racial tensions in our city that had gotten worse just before 1994.
But in an objective sense, it looked bad, especially when you consider that OJ wasn't really fighting for the Black community. Race had nothing to do with this case -- the LAPD didn't frame OJ.
It wasn't right to find OJ not guilty to correct the wrongs of racial injustice, and it wasn't right for the Black community to celebrate that not guilty verdict.
_________________
Lakers 49ers Chargers Dodgers |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jodeke
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 67924
Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered a great way to learn.
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 26, 2024 9:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| slavavov wrote: | | jodeke wrote: | | slavavov wrote: | | 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. |
Isn't it a lawyer's job to win by any means necessary? If race was an issue to help in that endeavor wouldn't a good lawyer be remiss not to use it? Race wasn't the only reason Johnnie won, I listed numerous reasons in the post above. Bottom line, Johnnie was head and shoulders above Marcia and Chris in case making, court presence, and presentation. Again, he straight out lawyered them. IMO OJ got away with murder and as I voted in the poll he was complicit.
Marcia changed her hairstyle and wardrobe. |
Of course it's a lawyer's job to win by any means necessary. So from Cochran's standpoint, he was brilliant for making it about race and exploiting the racial tensions in our city that had gotten worse just before 1994.
But in an objective sense, it looked bad, especially when you consider that OJ wasn't really fighting for the Black community. Race had nothing to do with this case -- the LAPD didn't frame OJ.
It wasn't right to find OJ not guilty to correct the wrongs of racial injustice, and it wasn't right for the Black community to celebrate that not guilty verdict. |
Then you agree Johnnie did his job.
You object. OK. I'm speaking for me. I saw OJ as a Black person making it in a White world. I didn't need him to represent me or my community. He wasn't someone I looked up to. He was no race saver. He wasn't Jim Brown he was just OJ.
Race had a lot to do with this case! A Black man was charged with killing a White woman and a White man. How can you say race wasn't an ingredient?
No, the LAPD didn't frame OJ, they did a horrific job in making their case, so horrific that it was easy to make it look as though they were trying to and Johnnie exploited it.
No, it wasn't right for OJ to be found not guilty just as it wasn't right for Black men to be hanged and mutilated. I didn't celebrate the not guilty verdict per se. I was at ease seeing a Black man get White man justice.
_________________
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.
Last edited by jodeke on Fri Apr 26, 2024 11:21 am; edited 3 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 52698
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 26, 2024 9:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
If you've read this thread, you know what my thoughts would be. I much more curious to hear yours.
Do you agree with him that subverting the legal system to deny justice to two innocent victims of a brutal murder and their families in favor of an abusive liar (and monster) who abandoned his community long before he killed two people in cold blood" was "necessary" to rectify an societal ill?
If so, why do you believe that doing so actually accomplished anything meaningful and "necessary" for society, as opposed to simply satisfying some people's desire for societal revenge?
_________________
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 |
|
|
kikanga
Retired Number
Joined: 15 Sep 2012
Posts: 29548
Location: La La Land
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 26, 2024 10:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| DaMuleRules wrote: |
If you've read this thread, you know what my thoughts would be. I much more curious to hear yours.
Do you agree with him that subverting the legal system to deny justice to two innocent victims of a brutal murder and their families in favor of an abusive liar (and monster) who abandoned his community long before he killed two people in cold blood" was "necessary" to rectify an societal ill?
If so, why do you believe that doing so actually accomplished anything meaningful and "necessary" for society, as opposed to simply satisfying some people's desire for societal revenge? |
You know me. I love to debate. But on this topic. I’m woefully ignorant of all the facts.
I’m just kind of absorbing from people who know way more than me on the case.
I do know giving OJ an innocent verdict does nothing for the greater AA community. He’s just a rich guy buying freedom. And it shows how screwed up our justice system is. Results shouldn’t be dependent on the wealth of the defendant.
I guess my biggest question is. Did police and/or witnesses actually get caught lying on the stand? Or is Marc lying?
If police/witnesses lied on the stand. I would blame them and hate them the most for the innocent verdict (if I was a victim's family member).
And if I was a juror. Oh god, that complicates things.
Judging by the consensus I’ve seen (OJ did it). You are jeapordizing getting the correct verdict by lying on the stand.
_________________
"Every hurt is a lesson, and every lesson makes you better” |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 52698
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 30, 2024 7:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| kikanga wrote: | | DaMuleRules wrote: |
If you've read this thread, you know what my thoughts would be. I much more curious to hear yours.
Do you agree with him that subverting the legal system to deny justice to two innocent victims of a brutal murder and their families in favor of an abusive liar (and monster) who abandoned his community long before he killed two people in cold blood" was "necessary" to rectify an societal ill?
If so, why do you believe that doing so actually accomplished anything meaningful and "necessary" for society, as opposed to simply satisfying some people's desire for societal revenge? |
You know me. I love to debate. But on this topic. I’m woefully ignorant of all the facts.
I’m just kind of absorbing from people who know way more than me on the case.
I do know giving OJ an innocent verdict does nothing for the greater AA community. He’s just a rich guy buying freedom. And it shows how screwed up our justice system is. Results shouldn’t be dependent on the wealth of the defendant.
I guess my biggest question is. Did police and/or witnesses actually get caught lying on the stand? Or is Marc lying?
If police/witnesses lied on the stand. I would blame them and hate them the most for the innocent verdict (if I was a victim's family member).
And if I was a juror. Oh god, that complicates things.
Judging by the consensus I’ve seen (OJ did it). You are jeapordizing getting the correct verdict by lying on the stand. |
The controversy all centered on a handful of procedural errors committed by the LAPD and the inconsistencies in the testimony regarding those procedural errors. That got conflated into the LAPD lying in order to "frame" Simpson. In truth, the only outright lieproven in court was in regards to Mark Furhman having ever used the N-word. He claimed he didn't recall ever doing so, and the defense presented evidence from an interview he did well prior to the murders that had nothing to do with the case, nor the evidence presented.
The myth of the LAPD consistently lying on the stand in an attempt to frame OJ is just that, and time has only nurtured the myth since those who perpetuate it have essentially turned it into an old wives tale.
_________________
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 |
|
|
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 52698
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 30, 2024 7:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| slavavov wrote: | | Of course it's a lawyer's job to win by any means necessary. |
That's actually not a lawyer's job.
A lawyer's job is to provide a vigorous defense within the rules of proper jurisprudence, which is not what occurred in the Simpson criminal trial for his murders of Brown and Goldman.
Cochran gets praised for his allegedly great lawyering, but in truth, he benefitted tremendously from the fact that Judge Lance Ito got sucked into the celebrity notoriety of "The Dream Team" and made numerous rulings in favor of the defense that never should have occurred. Which is why legal experts at the time criticized Ito for allowing the trial to become a circus of sidebars and poor judicial responsibility.
Under the guidance of a judge not prone to getting swayed by the spotlight of the media spectacle, many of Cochran's moves would have been cut off at the knees, as they should have been. Though, it may not have made a difference since the jury was dead set on acquitting Simpson under any circumstances.
_________________
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 |
|
|
slavavov
Star Player
Joined: 03 Oct 2003
Posts: 8442
Location: Santa Monica
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 30, 2024 8:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| DaMuleRules wrote: | | slavavov wrote: | | Of course it's a lawyer's job to win by any means necessary. |
That's actually not a lawyer's job.
A lawyer's job is to provide a vigorous defense within the rules of proper jurisprudence, which is not what occurred in the Simpson criminal trial for his murders of Brown and Goldman.
Cochran gets praised for his allegedly great lawyering, but in truth, he benefitted tremendously from the fact that Judge Lance Ito got sucked into the celebrity notoriety of "The Dream Team" and made numerous rulings in favor of the defense that never should have occurred. Which is why legal experts at the time criticized Ito for allowing the trial to become a circus of sidebars and poor judicial responsibility.
Under the guidance of a judge not prone to getting swayed by the spotlight of the media spectacle, many of Cochran's moves would have been cut off at the knees, as they should have been. Though, it may not have made a difference since the jury was dead set on acquitting Simpson under any circumstances. |
I agree with what you said here, which is why I say Cochran made it about race when it really wasn't about race.
Yes, a Black man murdered two Caucasians. But OJ didn't kill them because he hated white people. He killed them because of his blind rage and jealousy toward his ex-wife Nicole.
On the other hand, when all those white cops murdered those Black people, such as Eric Garner, George Floyd or Michael Brown, it was about race. Because at least at the systemic or cultural level, there was reportedly at least some elements of racism within those police departments.
Cochran took advantage of a perfect storm to inject race into the OJ case when in reality it didn't belong there. I totally sympathize with Black people and the racism they continue to face, but this wasn't one of those cases where a Black man or Black people as a whole were facing injustice.
_________________
Lakers 49ers Chargers Dodgers |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kikanga
Retired Number
Joined: 15 Sep 2012
Posts: 29548
Location: La La Land
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 30, 2024 8:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| DaMuleRules wrote: | | kikanga wrote: | | DaMuleRules wrote: |
If you've read this thread, you know what my thoughts would be. I much more curious to hear yours.
Do you agree with him that subverting the legal system to deny justice to two innocent victims of a brutal murder and their families in favor of an abusive liar (and monster) who abandoned his community long before he killed two people in cold blood" was "necessary" to rectify an societal ill?
If so, why do you believe that doing so actually accomplished anything meaningful and "necessary" for society, as opposed to simply satisfying some people's desire for societal revenge? |
You know me. I love to debate. But on this topic. I’m woefully ignorant of all the facts.
I’m just kind of absorbing from people who know way more than me on the case.
I do know giving OJ an innocent verdict does nothing for the greater AA community. He’s just a rich guy buying freedom. And it shows how screwed up our justice system is. Results shouldn’t be dependent on the wealth of the defendant.
I guess my biggest question is. Did police and/or witnesses actually get caught lying on the stand? Or is Marc lying?
If police/witnesses lied on the stand. I would blame them and hate them the most for the innocent verdict (if I was a victim's family member).
And if I was a juror. Oh god, that complicates things.
Judging by the consensus I’ve seen (OJ did it). You are jeapordizing getting the correct verdict by lying on the stand. |
The controversy all centered on a handful of procedural errors committed by the LAPD and the inconsistencies in the testimony regarding those procedural errors. That got conflated into the LAPD lying in order to "frame" Simpson. In truth, the only outright lieproven in court was in regards to Mark Furhman having ever used the N-word. He claimed he didn't recall ever doing so, and the defense presented evidence from an interview he did well prior to the murders that had nothing to do with the case, nor the evidence presented.
The myth of the LAPD consistently lying on the stand in an attempt to frame OJ is just that, and time has only nurtured the myth since those who perpetuate it have essentially turned it into an old wives tale. |
Thank for the info. I didn't know any of that.
_________________
"Every hurt is a lesson, and every lesson makes you better” |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ChickenStu
Retired Number
Joined: 25 Apr 2015
Posts: 32063
Location: Anaheim, CA
|
| Posted: Wed May 01, 2024 1:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| slavavov wrote: | | DaMuleRules wrote: | | slavavov wrote: | | Of course it's a lawyer's job to win by any means necessary. |
That's actually not a lawyer's job.
A lawyer's job is to provide a vigorous defense within the rules of proper jurisprudence, which is not what occurred in the Simpson criminal trial for his murders of Brown and Goldman.
Cochran gets praised for his allegedly great lawyering, but in truth, he benefitted tremendously from the fact that Judge Lance Ito got sucked into the celebrity notoriety of "The Dream Team" and made numerous rulings in favor of the defense that never should have occurred. Which is why legal experts at the time criticized Ito for allowing the trial to become a circus of sidebars and poor judicial responsibility.
Under the guidance of a judge not prone to getting swayed by the spotlight of the media spectacle, many of Cochran's moves would have been cut off at the knees, as they should have been. Though, it may not have made a difference since the jury was dead set on acquitting Simpson under any circumstances. |
I agree with what you said here, which is why I say Cochran made it about race when it really wasn't about race.
Yes, a Black man murdered two Caucasians. But OJ didn't kill them because he hated white people. He killed them because of his blind rage and jealousy toward his ex-wife Nicole.
On the other hand, when all those white cops murdered those Black people, such as Eric Garner, George Floyd or Michael Brown, it was about race. Because at least at the systemic or cultural level, there was reportedly at least some elements of racism within those police departments.
Cochran took advantage of a perfect storm to inject race into the OJ case when in reality it didn't belong there. I totally sympathize with Black people and the racism they continue to face, but this wasn't one of those cases where a Black man or Black people as a whole were facing injustice. |
I wouldn't put Michael Brown in that bucket, given the evidence that eventually came out. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
