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!

The People v OJ Simpson - FX (1 Viewer)

Maybe they were killed by birds?  One bird picked up a knife and kept flying into them.  Another bird had pecked in some other blood before the murder and got a few random drops into the crime scene. The killer bird flew to the ocean after the murders and dropped the knife way out there. Highly unlikely, like one in a trillion, but it could have happened.  Was the Akita who found the bodies ever even questioned? 

 
straw-man-300x233.jpg


 
Willie Neslon said:
Lee's testimony was discredited by the FBI during the trial. Specifically his testimony regarding a second shoe print. The FBI debunked his findings saying it was imprint in the concrete that was left by a worker when the concrete was initially laid.  Clark didn't even mention this during her summation. The fact is OJ went free because the prosecution was completely incompetent.  There was a mountain of evidence that pointed to only one guy.  Every thing else was just bull#### floated by the defense.

(having trouble quoting multiple posts on the new board)
Click to expand...
Again, even if the prosecution could explain the shoe print, they could not explain the tainted blood on the sock.  They could not explain the hair in the knitted cap.  They could not explain the dna under Brown-Simpson's fingernails.  The sock evidence alone was enough to acquit.  The other pieces strongly suggest that, even if he did it, there was someone else there, presenting a big hole in the prosecution's narrative.

 
Struggling to get very far with the Bugliosi video. His derision of the defense team is similar to what the show did last night with Clark's reaction. Reeks of over-confidence which ultimately doomed her. He also ignores the member of the defense team who was the likely MVP - Barry Scheck. His assault on Dennis Fung's incompetence was a huge victory for the defense. It's fair to say Shapiro and Bailey did little to win the case but Scheck did great work in my opinon. And Bugliosi can attack Cochran's lack of criminal trial experience all he wants but he came through big for Simpson. 

 
Short Corner said:
Again, even if the prosecution could explain the shoe print, they could not explain the tainted blood on the sock.  They could not explain the hair in the knitted cap.  They could not explain the dna under Brown-Simpson's fingernails.  The sock evidence alone was enough to acquit.  The other pieces strongly suggest that, even if he did it, there was someone else there, presenting a big hole in the prosecution's narrative.
Click to expand...
This is all bull####. The defense threw a bunch of wild theories against the wall based on minuscule irregularities. It's all been explained away as much as it possibly could have been. Their main argument was that the blood wasn't simpsons because the sample were tainted with dirt and other elements.  "garbage in- garbage out".  This has been proven to be bull####.  The sock nonsense has been debunked. The defense put a bunch a garbage out there in regards to the dna. I've tried to steer you to what you're looking for, you don't want to find it.  I posted a NYT article, that video, the case overview.  The information you're looking for is out there. I'm not going to waste my time looking for stuff on the internet to disprove the wild bull#### you're posting here if you're going to discount it even before reading or watching.  You're posting this stuff "tainted sock" unexplained "hair in cap", "dna under fingernails".  All have been debunked as never having been true but you're throwing them out there as facts.  They're not facts.  These were the made up, wild theories proposed by the defense.  They were not true.

For the last time, YES, the prosecution SUCKED.  They blew the case. Just stop parading these defense theories that were debunked or completely discounted as untrue (and should have been more forcefully handled by Clark, she blew by pretty much all of this in her summation) during the trial.

 
Willie Neslon said:
This is all bull####. The defense threw a bunch of wild theories against the wall based on minuscule irregularities. It's all been explained away as much as it possibly could have been. Their main argument was that the blood wasn't simpsons because the sample were tainted with dirt and other elements.  "garbage in- garbage out".  This has been proven to be bull####.  The sock nonsense has been debunked. The defense put a bunch a garbage out there in regards to the dna. I've tried to steer you to what you're looking for, you don't want to find it.  I posted a NYT article, that video, the case overview.  The information you're looking for is out there. I'm not going to waste my time looking for stuff on the internet to disprove the wild bull#### you're posting here if you're going to discount it even before reading or watching.  You're posting this stuff "tainted sock" unexplained "hair in cap", "dna under fingernails".  All have been debunked as never having been true but you're throwing them out there as facts.  They're not facts.  These were the made up, wild theories proposed by the defense.  They were not true.

For the last time, YES, the prosecution SUCKED.  They blew the case. Just stop parading these defense theories that were debunked or completely discounted as untrue (and should have been more forcefully handled by Clark, she blew by pretty much all of this in her summation) during the trial.
Click to expand...
link to where they were debunked?

 
packersfan said:
Struggling to get very far with the Bugliosi video. His derision of the defense team is similar to what the show did last night with Clark's reaction. Reeks of over-confidence which ultimately doomed her. He also ignores the member of the defense team who was the likely MVP - Barry Scheck. His assault on Dennis Fung's incompetence was a huge victory for the defense. It's fair to say Shapiro and Bailey did little to win the case but Scheck did great work in my opinon. And Bugliosi can attack Cochran's lack of criminal trial experience all he wants but he came through big for Simpson. 
Click to expand...
He goes into detail about Scheck in that video. Like Cochran, Scheck should have been ashamed of himself for his performance during that trial.  He knew Simpson was guilty and blatantly lied and made stuff up.  It's covered in that video.

 
Willie Neslon said:
He goes into detail about Scheck in that video. Like Cochran, Scheck should have been ashamed of himself for his performance during that trial.  He knew Simpson was guilty and blatantly lied and made stuff up.  It's covered in that video.
Click to expand...
So Scheck somehow lied and made up how Fung contradicted himself on the witness stand? Sorry, not buying that. I'll try to keep watching but Scheck turned Fung into a worthless pile of goo on the stand and created reasonable doubt all over the place. To me, that was when the defense won the case. Scheck was the MVP of that case for the defense in my opinion.   

 
Short Corner said:
So you don't have it.  That's what I thought.
Click to expand...
Haha.  Why do I have to debunk stuff that was made up to begin with?  You're parroting complete fabrications of evidence and then wanting me to find information to disprove it?  Read the trial transcript.   Where are you getting your information? How about YOU prove the bull#### you're parroting?  Good Christ. 

 
packersfan said:
So Scheck somehow lied and made up how Fung contradicted himself on the witness stand? Sorry, not buying that. I'll try to keep watching but Scheck turned Fung into a worthless pile of goo on the stand and created reasonable doubt all over the place. To me, that was when the defense won the case. Scheck was the MVP of that case for the defense in my opinion.   
Click to expand...
Fung was on the stand for 9 days.  He was soft spoken guy who was badgered by Scheck for leaving blood samples in the truck for something like 7 hours and missing spots of blood during his initial gathering.  These were exactly the minuscule, human errors that the defense turned into mountains and used to cloud the minds of the jury.  Nothing nefarious was proven.  The guy was just doing his job. There are interviews out there with Fung after the trial worth viewing.

 
Willie Neslon said:
Haha.  Why do I have to debunk stuff that was made up to begin with?  You're parroting complete fabrications of evidence and then wanting me to find information to disprove it?  Read the trial transcript.   Where are you getting your information? How about YOU prove the bull#### you're parroting?  Good Christ. 
Click to expand...
If you're not going to acknowledge the Lee testimony then I don't know what to say.  Not asking you to debunk it, just back up your claims that someone else has.  Posting a 4-hour video or a wall of text from someone else's blog (that ended up being all speculation and hearsay) doesn't get it done.  Like others, I'll get around to watching the video when I have time.  

 
Short Corner said:
If you're not going to acknowledge the Lee testimony then I don't know what to say.  Not asking you to debunk it, just back up your claims that someone else has.  Posting a 4-hour video or a wall of text from someone else's blog (that ended up being all speculation and hearsay) doesn't get it done.  Like others, I'll get around to watching the video when I have time.  
Click to expand...
You bet.

 
Short Corner said:
If you're not going to acknowledge the Lee testimony then I don't know what to say.  Not asking you to debunk it, just back up your claims that someone else has.  Posting a 4-hour video or a wall of text from someone else's blog (that ended up being all speculation and hearsay) doesn't get it done.  Like others, I'll get around to watching the video when I have time.  
Click to expand...
Good luck. I'm 30 minutes in and may tap out. Bugliosi's arrogance has gotten a little hard to stomach. 

 
Willie Neslon said:
You're saying the police planted evidence but it's likely OJ was the murderer? :confused:   So in your likeliest scenario the LAPD framed a guilty man?  Is that what you're saying? You're all over the place in this thread counselor.
Click to expand...
I am to an extent, yes.  

This case is a wonderful example of how legal practice is a gray area.  Willie, you're thinking in absolutes.  In your eyes, everything is with complete certainty or it isn't.  Unfortunately, the law and trials aren't designed that way for obvious reasons.  First, rarely is the "truth" easily attainable.  In a he-said-she-said case it's likely one of the parties is lying, but it's also likely to be nearly impossible to definitively determine which one.  Second, proving things with certainty would place likely a far too heavy burden on the police/state.  So, our legal system (wisely, IMO) creates varying levels/burdens of proof.  We've recognized that the loss of liberty is a greater loss than pecuniary loss and we've dually recognized that victims probably should still be able to be compensated in cases which aren't so clear-cut.  As such, many criminal cases with issues fall in that legal gray area between preponderance of the evidence (merely likely than not) and proof beyond reasonable doubt (firmly convincing). 

 In this case there is clear evidence that the police, to an extent, likely planted or, at best, mishandled some evidence at the crime scene.  Accordingly, assuming arguendo this is true, then, legally speaking, most of the evidence could probably be reasonably in doubt. This is pretty blatant reasonable doubt and there's no way I'd ever want to deprive somebody of his liberty with reasonable doubt present So, the prosecution could not prove OJ's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.  However, and NOT mutually exclusive to the criminal application, there are many pieces of evidence about the case that the police could not have reasonably possibly manufactured or manipulated (i.e. the Bronco chase, some of the blood stains, his recorded statements, the 404 and motive evidence, etc.) that such it more likely than not that OJ did kill the victims.  So, the civil standard was appropriately met. 

Regardless, I have not been all over the place in this thread.  I have maintained the exact same position since I started replying.  My positions are exactly in line with the two verdicts reached in court.  They just appear to be somewhat complicated to those seeking absolutes -- a never-ending endeavor in the legal system, unfortunately. 

 
Willie Neslon said:
Fung was on the stand for 9 days.  He was soft spoken guy who was badgered by Scheck for leaving blood samples in the truck for something like 7 hours and missing spots of blood during his initial gathering.  These were exactly the minuscule, human errors that the defense turned into mountains and used to cloud the minds of the jury.  Nothing nefarious was proven.  The guy was just doing his job. There are interviews out there with Fung after the trial worth viewing.
Click to expand...
Scheck was just doing his job as well by pointing out Fung's inconsistencies.  Apparently the jury disagreed with you that they were minuscule human errors.*

*Assuming this line of cross actually was a factor for the jury in their deciding the case -- something we'll never know. 

 
Zow said:
Scheck was just doing his job as well by pointing out Fung's inconsistencies.  Apparently the jury disagreed with you that they were minuscule human errors.*

*Assuming this line of cross actually was a factor for the jury in their deciding the case -- something we'll never know. 
Click to expand...
Scheck was brilliant in my opinion. When he was done with Fung it was impossible not to find some semblance of reasonable doubt in my opinion. Re-reading articles written at the time it's impossible not to be taken aback by the number of times he was caught contradicting himself by Scheck. Bugliosi can call the jury stupid all he wants; but given the gross level of incompetence involved by all members of the prosecution side it's pretty easy to see how the final verdict was reached. I don't think Dennis Fung was part of some nefarious plot to frame O.J. He was just a regular guy who ended up being rather bad at his job and had his incompetence broadcast for all the world to see.  

I was wondering if the show would gloss over Scheck's impact on the case but since they cast Rob Morrow in the role I'm assuming he won't be slighted. 

 
Officer Pete Malloy said:
Drinking game:. Take a shot evey time Ross Kardashian says "The Juice".   Take two shots if his eyes are damp and has an obvious boner when he says it.
Click to expand...
They should have gone all in with the Friends cast. Monica could play Marcia Clark & Joey could play Robert Shapiro.

 
It is what it is but there are some solid performances. Nathan Lane, Vance and Paulsen all great.  Cuba is great too. Don't know why Travolta is doing that weird affectation when he speaks.  Just doesn't work. Playing it too hoity-toity, not real.

 
You guys are nuts, whatever it is Travolta is doing is ####ing incredible. I can't take my eyes off him when he's on the screen. 

 
Willie Neslon said:
It is what it is but there are some solid performances. Nathan Lane, Vance and Paulsen all great.  Cuba is great too. Don't know why Travolta is doing that weird affectation when he speaks.  Just doesn't work. Playing it too hoity-toity, not real.
Click to expand...
Have you ever seen an OJ interview? Cuba isnt even in the same universe let alone ballpark. Worst casting ever.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Willie Neslon
30 Years Ago Today (6/12/94) - O.J. Simpson Murders
Replies
49
Views
3K
CletiusMaximus
CletiusMaximus
Wingnut
Vince Gilligan's new series, Wycaro 339, coming this summer.
Replies
10
Views
2K
Zow
Zow
kupcho1
The FBG Top 300 Books of All Time (fiction edition) | #2 The Stand by Stephen King | #1 The Lord of the Rings by J.R.R. Tolkien ... it's a wrap
31 32 33
Replies
2K
Views
85K
scoobus
scoobus

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top