kraftdinner
|
posted on March 19, 2001 09:46:01 AM
Looking back on the O.J. Simpson case, what do you think were the biggest flaws on either side? AND, do you think justice was served?
|
spazmodeus
|
posted on March 19, 2001 09:50:03 AM
You've gotta be kidding.
|
kraftdinner
|
posted on March 19, 2001 10:06:20 AM
Personally spaz, I think the whole thing is beyond words, but I've talked to people who think that because he wasn't found guilty in the criminal trial, he's not...period.
I'm still waiting for any new news he has regarding how he's making out finding the real killers, but some people have asked me why he should be because he wasn't found guilty.
I can't believe there are people out there who still believe in his innocence, but there are. I guess I want to know how you could believe he's innocent?
|
toke
|
posted on March 19, 2001 10:18:00 AM
I'll have to say I don't know anyone who thinks O.J is innocent.
I am confused by his being found guilty in the "wrongful death" suit...since he'd already been found "not guilty" of murder in criminal court. I don't understand the legal principle at play.
I'd appreciate someone clarifying this for me...it's bugged me for a long time 
|
kcpick4u
|
posted on March 19, 2001 10:39:52 AM
Toke
Civil trial requires only a preponderance of evidence (simple majority decision of the jury), A crimminal trial requires evidence beyond a shadow of doubt(unanimous decision of the jury)
|
mrpotatoheadd
|
posted on March 19, 2001 10:49:18 AM
criminal vs. civil
http://www.kena.com/canmorelegalservices/articles/crimeandcivil.htm
|
Zazzie
|
posted on March 19, 2001 10:51:51 AM
kc---so in a criminal case do all 12 jurors have to vote either guilty or innocent---or can there be 2 innocent and 10 guilty??
|
toke
|
posted on March 19, 2001 11:04:30 AM
Thanks, everyone. It still seems weird...guilty in one jurisdiction...not guilty in the other. Tried twice for the same crime...though in different courts?
Good thing I never wanted to be a lawyer...
|
kcpick4u
|
posted on March 19, 2001 11:24:16 AM
Zazzie
Oregon and Louisiana allow convictions with only 10 of 12 votes. The remaining 48 states
require 12.
|
xardon
|
posted on March 19, 2001 11:33:48 AM
Read the book:
"OUTRAGE: THE FIVE REASONS WHY O.J. SIMPSON GOT AWAY WITH MURDER" by
Vincent Bugliosi
|
spazmodeus
|
posted on March 19, 2001 11:53:17 AM
The Bug's making a career out of being a Monday morning quarterback. Too bad his insights and vehemence have no impact on anything that matters.
kraft,
I guess I want to know how you could believe he's innocent?
Just so we're clear, that's a general "you," right, not directed to me specifically? I do not believe he is innocent.
|
lofsness
|
posted on March 19, 2001 12:46:32 PM
i recently saw a story on TV about an investigator with a new book and a new O.J. theory... O.J.'s SON DID IT -- O.J. was at the murder scene, after it happened - but he didn't do it! All the weird clues fit with this idea - and, the son was working as a chef and had a collection of large butcher knives! - O.J. knows the real story but is keeping his mouth shut to protect the kid.
|
kraftdinner
|
posted on March 19, 2001 01:22:39 PM
spaz...Sorry, that was directed at everyone.....I guess I want to know how you could believe he's innocent.....not you personally! 
I really thought EVERYONE believed he was guilty, but I guess not.
Some believe he is seriously still looking for the killer(s).......I thought this was so laughable, I couldn't respond, so I thought I'd bring it up here.
Does ANYONE think he might be inoocent??
(lofsness...I heard that rumour too about 6 months ago probably started by O.J.)
|
chococake
|
posted on March 19, 2001 02:58:10 PM
O.J.'s too self centered and cold to protect anyone, even his son.
|
brighid868
|
posted on March 19, 2001 10:04:39 PM
In my experience it is pretty much a racial divide in terms of what people perceive O.J. as. Many African-Americans I know here in Los Angeles feel that he was not guilty---or that we cannot know for sure. Part of that is due to the very real fact that often Black people in this city ARE harassed and targeted by the police. I feel that perhaps their awareness of the true, real, and regrettable (horrible) harassment they or their loved ones have received is perhaps clouding their judgement to the more obvious points of the case.
I don't know a single white person who believes he is innocent.
That is why I say it is a racial divide.
For the record I am white and I think he is guilty. Although I have seen Nicole's house first hand and I find it amazing that it could happen where it did, because her front door was only steps from the street (and Bundy in that area is a very busy street).
|
ubiedaman
|
posted on March 19, 2001 11:16:23 PM
What the jury had to do was deliver a verdict "beyond a reasonable doubt".
I did NOT see all the evidence presented, (or did ANY of you unless you were ON the jury)...
I have doubts that OJ did it alone...how did he do it, and still have only a couple of tiny spots of blood show up in the Bronco?..I get more blood than that on me opening a cyrovac'd inside round!!!!
I have NO doubt that he was involved, but I DO have doubts that he "did" it by hisself...just like a numerous amount before and after, he was "let loose" because of a lack of evidence, and the bumbling of the PD.
Keith
I assume full responsibility for my actions, except
the ones that are someone else's fault.
|
Al
|
posted on March 19, 2001 11:26:01 PM
GUILTY
|
krs
|
posted on March 20, 2001 12:46:41 AM
brighid868,
"In my experience it is pretty much a racial divide in terms of what people perceive O.J. as. Many African-Americans I know here in Los Angeles feel that he was not guilty---or that we cannot know for sure. Part of that is due to the very real fact that often Black people in this city ARE harassed and targeted by the police. I feel that perhaps their awareness of the true, real, and regrettable (horrible) harassment they or their loved ones have received is perhaps clouding their judgement to the more obvious points of the case".
These are very remarkable statements. I've no doubt that you would have been removed from jury consideration by both sides, brighid868, in fact it might have been a minor race to see who would get rid of you first. Is it your premise that only black people have"clouding [of] their judgement to the more obvious points of the case"?
From your expressions I can only conclude that at least one white person has very cloudy judgement concerning any aspect of the case, not just those which you call obvous points. I would further submit for your consideration that unless you sat on the jury in that case, which of course you did not, you don't know a damned thing about any points of the case except those willingly presented to your already obviously clouded view by the hyping media which covered the case. If I may, You didn't go, so you just don't know.
"I don't know a single white person who believes he is innocent".
You do now. I believe he is innocent because he was found innocent at trial by a jury of his peers. More than that I don't claim to know.
|
sideslam
|
posted on March 20, 2001 06:16:07 AM
Guilty.
|
Al
|
posted on March 20, 2001 07:22:26 AM
I've always believed that if OJ had to make that glove fit in order to prove his innocence,he would have been able to pull that glove up past his elbow in a heartbeat...and had enough glove left to squeeze that big head of his in there too.
"If it doesn't fit, you must acquit!"
|
KatyD
|
posted on March 20, 2001 07:50:14 AM
I believe he is innocent because he was found innocent at trial by a jury of his peers
On the contrary, he was found not guilty by the jury..not found"innocent". There is a big difference between the two. The jury simply found that the evidence presented did not support a guilty verdict, not that he was "innocent of the crime". A "not guilty" verdict simply meant that the jury did not find the evidence presented proved guilt, not that the accused was "innocent".
Also, I have black friends who DO think O.J. is guilty, so I don't know that there is a "racial divide".
KatyD
|
krs
|
posted on March 20, 2001 07:55:25 AM
Stopit, KatyD! The only difference in the terms is one which you apply subjectively. To make such an insistence is only to say that you admit that he was found not guilty but YOU still think that he's guilty.
|
KatyD
|
posted on March 20, 2001 08:00:46 AM
KatyD
|
bunnicula
|
posted on March 20, 2001 08:10:51 AM
AI: What got me at the time was that he was so obviously stiffening & spreading his hand when pulling on the glove. Have you ever done that? Makes it impossible to put on a glove. After that little performance the prosecutor should have picked another man in the room, measured his hand against OJs for size & then have *him* try on the glove...
Edited to put in "on"
[ edited by bunnicula on Mar 20, 2001 08:43 AM ]
|
Linda_K
|
posted on March 20, 2001 08:40:28 AM
Guilty
Biggest flaw? The DNA testimony. It's my belief it was too complicated for the majority of the jurors to comprehend.
[ edited by Linda_K on Mar 20, 2001 08:43 AM ]
|
Al
|
posted on March 20, 2001 08:58:06 AM
I thought he was gonna show us that he could palm a basketball or two.I mean,he REALLY OPENEDthat hand up!
Trial data link
http://askoj.com/Members/TData/
|
grannyfox
|
posted on March 20, 2001 09:30:41 AM
I think that OJ may very well have been guilty of the murders of Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman. But...
During evidence gathering protocol was not followed...the reason for the protocol is so that there was no appearance of evidence tampering. While none may have taken place there was a chance for it. It placed some small degree of doubt.
During laboratory analysis protocol was once again ignored. The evidence was handled and analyzed in a slip shod manner that once again allowed for some doubt.
Fuhrman and his history lent some doubt.
The DNA evidence was beyond the understanding of the audience (the jury and most of the rest of us too)...it was discounted.
This and more does IMO result in reasonable doubt...
Considering that he was found not guilty by a jury of his peers...he is a free man and should be allowed to live that way. Sam Shepard was found guilty by the first jury...he was guilty by popular opinion...but really was most likely innocent of the murder of his wife (though he was a crappy husband)... His life was destroyed, his son's life consumed and for no other reason that too many individuals believed they had the God given right to judge someone else when they did not know all of the facts,
|
codasaurus
|
posted on March 20, 2001 09:56:57 AM
Biggest flaw by the prosecution was to have to depend on Mark Fuhrman's testimony. Once he testified and Simpson's defense team got to cross examine him and expose his racism they had precisely what they needed for an acquittal... reasonable doubt.
Reasonable doubt is a legal concept that more or less says if there is some "reasonable" explanation for the crime other than the defendant having committed it then the jurors must find in favor of the defendant.
Everything hinges on what each juror considers a reasonable doubt as they examine the evidence. The judge, in his instructions and charge to the jury, provides guidelines for concepts like "burden of proof" and "reasonable doubt" but jury deliberations are not as mechanistic as one might suppose based on outside observation of the trial process.
Fuhrman's racism provided a "reasonable" doubt because the jury felt that the more compelling physical evidence might have been the result of manipulation by Fuhrman (and possibly others).
The prosecution was constantly put on the defensive about details. The amount of blood drawn from Simpson and what became of every last drop. The presence of a trace subtance in the blood evidence that is normally a part of the materials in a blood collection vial. Collection and handling procedures.
Had I been sitting on that jury I would have voted to acquit as well. And quite possibly a good deal sooner than the jury did. As compelling as the DNA evidence was, there existed in my mind a reasonable doubt as to how Simpson's blood ended up on the evidence.
Was justice served? That depends on your concept of justice and whether you believe there is an all encompassing justice for any given situation.
|
ypayretail
|
posted on March 20, 2001 10:29:44 AM
OJ is as guilty as the day is long, irregardless of what the court said. I hope those of you that support the legal system also have the funds should you ever need it as the system is solely controlled by the funds you have to hire the best lawyer - not whether you are guilty or innocent.
Someone mentioned the African American vote in Los Angeles. I used to live in LA during this time and they are absolutely correct. Several interviews with African American jurors after the case said they were mesmerized by his attorneys. Many African American preachers and leaders spoke of how it was time they won. I do believe in some African American eyes this was a payback for all the injustices their community has received, including poor treatment by the police department.
The sad thing for the African American community is that OJ never wanted to be a part and to this day never has supported or been a part of that community. His friends were all white, his girlfriends are all white and he socialized and hung out with whites. He never embraced the African American community in anyway. He was a poor pick to right the past wrongs.
The main reason, as has been mentioned, is the basic fact that the DNA evidence was way over the heads of the jurors. The prosecution made no attempt to simplify it. DNA - like your fingerprints proved without a shadow of a doubt that he was quilty. The brutal methods used show a crime of passion and OJ did commit murder. His own friends that were supportive before have now left him and have publicly declared him guilty. If his closest friends feel he is guilty on top of the evidence, it would be pretty hard to stretch the facts and convince me he is innocent.
Who loses here? The children. They were taken away from their grandparents that essentially raised them to FL with the man they know most people feel killed their mother. If you have seen recent pics of them in comparison to pics when their mother was alive you would be saddened. Such a drastic change in appearance as well as their lack of smiles and light in their eyes.
I truly believe that what goes around comes around and OJ will get his in one way or another - just a matter of time.
|
codasaurus
|
posted on March 20, 2001 10:52:54 AM
Hello YPayRetail,
If the community is as racially poplarized as you maintain then how do you account for the fact that the entire jury voted to acquit?
Wouldn't one or two of the jurors who weren't black have maintained their belief in his guilt and hung the jury?
Your contention seems to be that the blacks voted to acquit despite their belief that he was guilty just to "win one" in the continuing lopsided battle that Black Americans have with our system of justice.
And does it occur to you that all of these friends that have abandoned Simpson since the trial have done so because they are just as superficial and shallow as Simpson?
|
