posted on November 17, 2000 12:24:37 PM new. It was blatantly clear in the Simpson case that Simpson's attorneys understood this fact and the prosecution either didn't understand it or couldn't apply it.
Or another explanation...it was "payback time", and it didn't matter one whit what kind of prosecution was put on, nor what kind of defense. The jury had an agenda. And yes, that happens.
posted on November 17, 2000 02:02:47 PM new
KatyD, that may be, but when the prosecution bungles the case there is unfortunately no way to tell. It's too bad because if the jury had proceeded along the lines you mention despite a good prosecution (and yes, of course it happens all the time) it might have spurred some needed reforms. As it is, the only thing the Simpson case accomplished was to build the reputations of Simpson's lawyers and give the U.S. justice system a black eye in front of the world.
________
I never had one, and I didn't want one, and I don't, so now I do...
posted on November 17, 2000 02:06:36 PM new
you know, just something weird I wanted to throw in.....
around 2 months after the murder I drove by the house where Nicole Simpson was killed (it's about a 3 minute drive from the college I was attending at the time). I just wanted to take a look at the place (call me weird, go ahead...everyone else does.) I was amazed by two things. First, the street, Bundy, is a very very busy street. Not at all like the quiet, tree shaded street I had pictured. More like a small street that over time has become a major artery and there are cars whizzing by constantly.
The second thing I was amazed by was how close the front of the house was to the street. I'm not good with distances but it was practically right on the sidewalk. There were some bushes and (I think) a gate and a few feet of walkway and the house was right behind that. Not set back from the street much at all. Very little privacy that I could see. And the next door houses were very closely set on the adjacent properties.
Absolutely mind-boggling to me that nothing was seen or heard that night!! Truly makes me wonder if people covered up for him, or were afraid to come forward, or if he wore a disguise, or whatever......
posted on November 19, 2000 03:53:38 PM new
Netlawful,
Am I disgusted by the actions of the jury? Absolutely! However; I am also guilty as probably alot of you are in that I have always opted out of jury duty as the majority of businesspeople I have encountered do.
What does that leave for a jury? People that aren't working - maybe aren't as up on the latest technology (DNA) and do not understand the full implications of their position.
That is what the attorneys are for. Although I definately believe they did a poor job on the prosecution side - not poor enough to throw the case IMHO.
Money pays and OJ got the best there is to defend him. The superiority of their lab technician alone made the prosecution look horrible.
Either way - I still think there is no excuse for a juror to describe her experience on such a case as - "I thought the defense attorneys were adorable". It only makes her look ignorant and throw the whole jury into the same light.
I'll never like it. I will always hate the man and feel very sorry for those two children.
Lessons learned and I gurantee you I always sit on juries when requested now.
posted on November 19, 2000 06:56:28 PM newBoysmommy3: Those are the people lawyers *want* on the juries. I, for one, do not shun or abhor jury duty. Over the years I have been called up several times for jury duty. Guess how many times I have served on a jury? Not once. The lawyers for each side take turns questioning the prospective jurors and, from what I have seen, weed out anyone with an ounce of brains and/or interest. The last time I was called up (a few months ago) the case they were interviewing us as jurors for involved a jet ski accident. Anyone who had even a passing involvement with or knowledge of jet skis, motor boats, sail boats, or anything to do with water sports was excused. *I* was excused because I admitted that I have seen jet skis being ridden a couple of times when I was at the beach. That is our jury system for you.
posted on November 19, 2000 09:39:08 PM new
Brighid,
It is strange but as fast as the crime happened and he did escape out the back gate - he may never have been seen there.
The neighbors all reported when Nicole's dog started baying and that was right after the murders. One neighbor said he had the tv up and only heard the dog.
A girl said OJ ran the stop sign by the house and nearly hit her - however, her testimony was not allowed by the prosecution b/cuz she accepted money from the Enquirer to tell her story. BTW - her alibi and way home timewise etc. would have her at that stop sign at that time - her normal routine. But she sold out so the jury never heard her as a witness.
The neighbors nanny was sent back to Mexico or Puerto Rico the day after. I believe she came back to testify but was so limited english she did not good.
