What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

“Is O.J. Innocent? The Missing Evidence.” January 15th on Investigation Discovery (2 Viewers)

Todem said:
Barry was the star IMO. He brought it home with the DNA collection doubt and the doubt created by the blood swatches and that some blood appeared planted (poured) not splattered.....it was a great defense.
Click to expand...
Was it him that just destroyed that poor DNA guy (William Fung)?  It was brutal

 
Todem said:
I have zero doubt in my mind he absolutely brutally murdered both Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson.  The problem was you only need one juror to have one shred of doubt.....and in this case there were several that had doubts. The prosecution blew it. This was also very early in the DNA era of collecting evidence and the entire case was a giant circus. Karma did bite them though. OJ is a sociopath and convict. Cochran died of brain cancer. So karma has a way of biting you in the ###.

The ESPN 30 for 30 was fantastic and harrowing. It really showed how crazy OJ was. He was a controlling maniacal person and anyone with any shred of common sense knows OJ murdered them in cold blood in brutal fashion in a rage of jealousy only a scorned lover can exhibit. But the L.A. PD and the Prosecution botched the entire case, beginning with the fact they filed it downtown in Los Angeles instead of in Brentwood where his true peers lived. OJ a face of the African American community....bhwahahahahahahahaha what a joke that was. That jury was not one of his true peers in the least bit.
Click to expand...
Cochran died of brain cancer as a karmic payback for defending OJ? Please.

As far as the venue was concerned, it would have been tried in Santa Monica not Brentwood, which was where the West District criminal trials were held. However at the time, and jury pool would have been about 7% African American versus about 31% in downtown L.A. http://www.metnews.com/articles/2010/perspectives050310.htm

Why L.A. was chosen, IMO, was that the DA's office was concerned that a guilty verdict might be overturned on appeal if the trial was held in Santa Monica as not being a trial by his peers. I think they got ahead of themselves in their thinking and were looking at post trial appeals rather than concentrate on getting a conviction first (and the conventional wisdom at the time was that he would be found guilty).  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I still don't get how the defense team could go in and alter the residence before the jury visit to the house.  seems like tampering with evidence to me.  what is the point of visiting the house if it looks nothing like it did on the night of the murder?  It is deliberately misleading the jury.  Ito should have never allowed that.

Also, did they ever actually prove that blood evidence was planted by the cops?  I missed that part.

O.J. was getting acquitted the second jury selection was over.  The prosecution never had a chance.  Even if the golve and Fuhrman debacle never happened.  They were never convicting him.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
zoonation said:
I still don't get how the defense team could go in and alter the residence before the jury visit to the house.  seems like tampering with evidence to me.  what is the point of visiting the house if it looks nothing like it did on the night of the murder?  It is deliberately misleading the jury.  Ito should have never allowed that.

Also, did they ever actually prove that blood evidence was planted by the cops?  I missed that part.

O.J. was getting acquitted the second jury selection was over.  The prosecution never had a chance.  Even if the golve and Fuhrman debacle never happened.  They were never convicting him.
Click to expand...
No but Fuhrman committed perjury on the stand for falsely claiming he never used racial epithets, which he later pleaded no contest to. That ruined his credibility and tainted the testimony he had given.

Also at that time, there was distrust in the minority community of LEOs with the perception (rightfully or wrongfully) that planting evidence to get a conviction was quite common.

In addition Fuhrman, in audio tapes on a fictional book he had been working on as a consultant, talked in the first person, about how he had framed people to get a conviction - he claimed he was speaking in the part of a fictional character as a "bad cop" and not about his actual past actions, but that and the multiple use of the "N" word in his own words on those tapes probably made the difference in the outcome of the verdict IMO.

 
squistion said:
Cochran died of brain cancer as a karmic payback for defending OJ? Please.

As far as the venue was concerned, it would have been tried in Santa Monica not Brentwood, which was where the West District criminal trials were held. However at the time, and jury pool would have been about 7% African American versus about 31% in downtown L.A. http://www.metnews.com/articles/2010/perspectives050310.htm

Why L.A. was chosen, IMO, was that the DA's office was concerned that a guilty verdict might be overturned on appeal if the trial was held in Santa Monica as not being a trial by his peers. I think they got ahead of themselves in their thinking and were looking at post trial appeals rather than concentrate on getting a conviction first (and the conventional wisdom at the time was that he would be found guilty).  
Click to expand...
Yeah......Karma is ##### man. What he did in that trial was deplorable.....playing the racist card to the extreme.  O.J was a man who brutally murdered two innocent people. He used every angle....and while people will say...he is a defense attorney and he needs to use whatever means.....ok. So karma will get you in the end. And it did here. 

#### him. Disgusting some of that #### he pulled in that trial. He turned into a social platform and made it all about skin color. When it simply was not. It was a murder trial. And this guy did it and most of the world knew it.

The whole thing stinks. And while I think our system is by far the best.....it;s not perfect. This case was an example of what happens when you have a inept prosecution vs the best that money can bye.....and the losers are the Browns and Goldman families. 

Just sickens me to this day.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Todem said:
Yeah......Karma is ##### man. What he did in that trial was deplorable.....playing the racist card to the extreme.  O.J was a man who brutally murdered two innocent people. He used every angle....and while people will say...he is a defense attorney and he needs to use whatever means.....ok. So karma will get you in the end. And it did here. 

#### him. Disgusting some of that #### he pulled in that trial. He turned into a social platform and made it all about skin color. When it simply was not. It was a murder trial. And this guy did it and most of the world knew it.

The whole thing stinks. And while I think our system is by far the best.....it;s not perfect. This case was an example of what happens when you have a inept prosecution vs the best that money can bye.....and the losers are the Browns and Goldman families. 

Just sickens me to this day.
Click to expand...
I don't believe that everyone who gets cancer deserves it and that it is some sort of karmic payback for their prior bad behavior, but if hold you that superstition, ok...

A criminal trial is not about seeking justice for the victim, it is about the prosecution meeting the burden of presenting proof to the jury that the defendant committed the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. In this case they failed to do that. From Alan Dershowitz:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-dershowitz/the-criminal-trial-is-not_b_893207.html

The Criminal Trial Is Not About Justice for the Victim

A criminal trial is never about seeking justice for the victim. If it were, there could be only one verdict: guilty. That’s because only one person is on trial in a criminal case, and if that one person is acquitted, then by definition there can be no justice for the victim in that trial.

A criminal trial is neither a “whodunit” nor a “multiple choice test”. It is not even a criminal “investigation” to determine who among various possible suspects might be responsible for a terrible tragedy. In a murder trial, the state, with all of its power, accuses an individual of being the perpetrator of a dastardly act against a victim. The state must prove that accusation by admissible evidence and beyond a reasonable doubt. Even if it is “likely” or “probable” that this defendant committed the murder, he must be acquitted, because neither “likely” nor “probable” satisfies the daunting standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, a legally proper result — acquittal in such a case — may not be the same as a morally just result. In such a case, justice has not been done to the victim, but the law has prevailed.

 
RokNRole said:
I don't understand the legalese.

just give it to me straight hoss
Click to expand...
1.  "Innocent" means 100% a person didn't do it.  As in me and you are definitely innocent of killing Nicole Brown Simpson. Or, those Duke lacrosse players were innocent of raping that prostitute. 

2. "Not guilty" means that a reasonable person cannot be firmly convinced that the accused/suspect did it.  The reasonable person may think that the suspect probably did it and may not have any reason to think somebody else did it.  But if there's any doubts as to whether the person did it, based in reason (i.e. cops botching the investigation, planting evidence, etc.) , then the suspect is "not guilty."  

 
If this topic is of interest to you, be sure to check out The People v. O.J. Simpson: American Crime Story.

Very engaging TV. Lots of outstanding acting and it shows several different sides of the case.

 
squistion said:
No but Fuhrman committed perjury on the stand for falsely claiming he never used racial epithets, which he later pleaded no contest to. That ruined his credibility and tainted the testimony he had given.

Also at that time, there was distrust in the minority community of LEOs with the perception (rightfully or wrongfully) that planting evidence to get a conviction was quite common.

In addition Fuhrman, in audio tapes on a fictional book he had been working on as a consultant, talked in the first person, about how he had framed people to get a conviction - he claimed he was speaking in the part of a fictional character as a "bad cop" and not about his actual past actions, but that and the multiple use of the "N" word in his own words on those tapes probably made the difference in the outcome of the verdict IMO.
Click to expand...
I know he also pled the 5th when Cochran asked him if he tampered with any evidence in the case.  I wasn't sure if they ever proved the blood evidence was planted.  The blood evidence seemed, to me, overwhelming against the Juice.

 
Zow said:
1.  "Innocent" means 100% a person didn't do it.  As in me and you are definitely innocent of killing Nicole Brown Simpson. Or, those Duke lacrosse players were innocent of raping that prostitute. 

2. "Not guilty" means that a reasonable person cannot be firmly convinced that the accused/suspect did it.  The reasonable person may think that the suspect probably did it and may not have any reason to think somebody else did it.  But if there's any doubts as to whether the person did it, based in reason (i.e. cops botching the investigation, planting evidence, etc.) , then the suspect is "not guilty."  
Click to expand...
What is a reasonable person?

 
zoonation said:
I know he also pled the 5th when Cochran asked him if he tampered with any evidence in the case.  I wasn't sure if they ever proved the blood evidence was planted.  The blood evidence seemed, to me, overwhelming against the Juice.
Click to expand...
The burden of proof was not on the defense, however, the Lee testimony provided more than enough doubt that it was.  The presence of anti-coagulant on the actual sock and identical splatter patterns on both sides of the sock.  Also the disregard of crime scene evidence.  LAPD had their narrative and managed the crime scene subjectively to support that narrative.

 
Zow said:
Ideally, somebody who doesn't make snap judgments and let their rationale be unduly influenced by emotion or bias. 

Basically the opposite of @fantasycurse42 above. 
Click to expand...
The question posed "Is OJ innocent?"

A show titled "OJ Simpson Found Not Guilty" might be a little dull, being that we already know the legal outcome.

So removing the legal mumbo jumbo (which I think most of us understand anyways as it pertains to what you're saying); he was guilty, he butchered two people, no rational human being can think otherwise. There was literally a trail of DNA evidence from the murder to his house.

 
fantasycurse42 said:
The question posed "Is OJ innocent?"

A show titled "OJ Simpson Found Not Guilty" might be a little dull, being that we already know the legal outcome.

So removing the legal mumbo jumbo (which I think most of us understand anyways as it pertains to what you're saying); he was guilty, he butchered two people, no rational human being can think otherwise. There was literally a trail of DNA evidence from the murder to his house.
Click to expand...
Thank you for furthering my point. 

 
squistion said:
I don't believe that everyone who gets cancer deserves it and that it is some sort of karmic payback for their prior bad behavior, but if hold you that superstition, ok...

A criminal trial is not about seeking justice for the victim, it is about the prosecution meeting the burden of presenting proof to the jury that the defendant committed the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. In this case they failed to do that. From Alan Dershowitz:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-dershowitz/the-criminal-trial-is-not_b_893207.html

The Criminal Trial Is Not About Justice for the Victim

A criminal trial is never about seeking justice for the victim. If it were, there could be only one verdict: guilty. That’s because only one person is on trial in a criminal case, and if that one person is acquitted, then by definition there can be no justice for the victim in that trial.

A criminal trial is neither a “whodunit” nor a “multiple choice test”. It is not even a criminal “investigation” to determine who among various possible suspects might be responsible for a terrible tragedy. In a murder trial, the state, with all of its power, accuses an individual of being the perpetrator of a dastardly act against a victim. The state must prove that accusation by admissible evidence and beyond a reasonable doubt. Even if it is “likely” or “probable” that this defendant committed the murder, he must be acquitted, because neither “likely” nor “probable” satisfies the daunting standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, a legally proper result — acquittal in such a case — may not be the same as a morally just result. In such a case, justice has not been done to the victim, but the law has prevailed.
Click to expand...
Great.

He murdered them both. 

 
The biggest losers of the trial were the jurors who basically had half a year of their lives taken from them.  I can't imagine what would happen to my family/job if I was POOF, taken away that long.  Not to mention my own mental health.

I woulda gone along with the crowd on whatever they wanted just to get the hell outta there.  Coincidentally, so did some of the actual jurors of that case. 

Based on the legal definition OJ was not guilty because, well, he was found not guilty.

Based on the actual definition and common sense, he was guilty as ####.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
zoonation said:
Also, did they ever actually prove that blood evidence was planted by the cops?  I missed that part.
Click to expand...
No, this was all horse#### spun by the defense. But additionally they showed how the forensics people were sloppy with the blood evidence, so they were attacking it from both angles. To make things even tougher, DNA evidence was a novel concept at the time and some (most?) of the idiot jurors didn't understand it or thought it was junk science.

 
Baloney Sandwich said:
I don't think OJ did it, pretty sure it was his whack job son. The Juice took the heat for his son.
Click to expand...
There was a documentary by some ace detective or something.  It was called something like 'oj guilty, but not of murder'.  It made an extremely compelling case that OJ took the fall for the son.  That documentary went missing and I can't find a trace of it.  

I looked it up and it was by William C. Dear.  

 
Ren Ho3k said:
There was a documentary by some ace detective or something.  It was called something like 'oj guilty, but not of murder'.  It made an extremely compelling case that OJ took the fall for the son.  That documentary went missing and I can't find a trace of it.  

I looked it up and it was by William C. Dear.  
Click to expand...
I saw that. It was pretty interesting. I remember the parts about OJs son being in the restaurant and developing knife skills and owning a knife that matched. All the stuff about the jeep and the area that would have had blood stains being cut out. The parts about OJ having too little blood to be the killer but enough blood to have been at the scene. Very interesting.

 
The thing that got me the most was how mortified OJ was at the sight of blood.  I don't think he could commit a crime like that.  The police work on this case was very shoddy and that's being generous.

Here's a trailer for those that haven't seen it:  https://youtu.be/7yWXEfpysR0 

 
ghostguy123 said:
The biggest losers of the trial were the jurors who basically had half a year of their lives taken from them.  I can't imagine what would happen to my family/job if I was POOF, taken away that long.  Not to mention my own mental health.

I woulda gone along with the crowd on whatever they wanted just to get the hell outta there.  Coincidentally, so did some of the actual jurors of that case. 

Based on the legal definition OJ was not guilty because, well, he was found not guilty.

Based on the actual definition and common sense, he was guilty as ####.
Click to expand...
Exactly what I thought. There were some who truly believed he murdered them....but the amount of time they were away from their families, their life......they were done with all of it. 

It was a cluster####.

And yes and yes to the other bolded statements. 

 
Zow said:
1.  "Innocent" means 100% a person didn't do it.  As in me and you are definitely innocent of killing Nicole Brown Simpson. Or, those Duke lacrosse players were innocent of raping that prostitute. 

2. "Not guilty" means that a reasonable person cannot be firmly convinced that the accused/suspect did it.  The reasonable person may think that the suspect probably did it and may not have any reason to think somebody else did it.  But if there's any doubts as to whether the person did it, based in reason (i.e. cops botching the investigation, planting evidence, etc.) , then the suspect is "not guilty."  
Click to expand...
I'd go with 93% sure on the bolded. It's RokNRole.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

D
Bin Laden Documents
Replies
5
Views
674
beer 30
beer 30
GregR
Greg's Useless Trivia #50 - 100 questions (75 greatest hits, 25 new)
Replies
19
Views
3K
GregR
GregR
BobbyLayne
The 25 Greatest Films of the 21st Century So Far
2 3 4
Replies
155
Views
11K
El Floppo
El Floppo

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top