[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Powerbook 

According to the law, he is a murderer. He lost his civil trial, where he was found guilty of the murders

No. If, according to law he was guilty, he'd have been convicted and done time.

Judge Judy is not proper law.

[TheWOAT]

With OJ in jail, who is going to continue the search for the real killers?

[Powerbook]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

No. If, according to law he was guilty, he'd have been convicted and done time.

Judge Judy is not proper law.

Dude, are you having ADHD? He was convicted in a civil trial for wrongful death and battery. This was no kangaroo court. You don't get to pay some 33 million because of a "Judge Judy".

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Powerbook 

Dude, are you having ADHD? He was convicted in a civil trial for wrongful death and battery. This was no kangaroo court. You don't get to pay some 33 million because of a "Judge Judy".

Dude, which bit are you not understanding?

To be found innocent of something in a criminal court and then found guilty of the very same offence in a civil court is basically the civil court saying to the criminal court that it's wrong.

I can't help it if the US legal system is fsked up beyond all logic, can I?

[Dakar V]

In case you're unaware, Doofy, it's easier to be found guilty in a civil trial, versus a criminal one.

Feel free to have at that.

[olePigeon]

If it were anyone but Simpson, they'd 've served a few years in prison. However, it's next to impossible to find a jury composed of people who don't know who Simpson is or what he did prior.

These are two completely and unrelated cases. While I do think he should go to prison/execution for the two murders, the fact remains that he wasn't sentenced. Regardless of personal feelings, the law is being abused to "get even" in a completely unrelated case, which is a disgrace to the legal system.

I'm guessing there will be a move for a mistrial.

[TheWOAT]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Dude, which bit are you not understanding?

To be found innocent of something in a criminal court and then found guilty of the very same offence in a civil court is basically the civil court saying to the criminal court that it's wrong.

I can't help it if the US legal system is fsked up beyond all logic, can I?

To side with the PLaintiff, Civil Court requires a preponderance of evidence, criminal court wants "guilt beyond a reasonable doubt".. Perponderance of evidence means the scales of justice are tipped 51% to 49%, the Plaintiffs (forgot the term for them) side has to have SLIGHTLY more evidence on their side in order get the jury to vote on their side... at least in theory, or you can have the jury think up things and decide the case based on preconcieved notions and psychic powers.. (which is what my experience was as a juror).

[OAW]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. In the first O.J. case there was plenty of evidence for one to conclude that the police "embellished" the case (i.e. tampering with evidence) in an attempt to bolster the prosecution of a man who was likely guilty. The thing is, they got busted. Barry Sheck, the DNA legal expert and founder of The Innocence Project, was instrumental in his successful defense by raising all kinds of reasonable doubt regarding cross-contamination, procedural, and chain of custody issues. Add to that the bungled prosecution strategy of Marcia Clark and Chris Darden and the end result is that O. J. walked.

Fast forward 13 years. O. J. has avoided legal trouble all this time, but decides to go retrieve property that even the prosecution acknowledged belonged to him. The problem is that he did it by "force". The average person, especially given this cast of unsavory characters, would likely not have even been prosecuted for this especially since no one was hurt. But the prosecution over-charged everybody and then cut deals with everyone else in their zeal to get O. J. Given his notoriety and the lingering resentment from the first trial, the jury pool was already against him. The deck was stacked when the actual jury was selected .... for obvious reasons that go unstated.

Given the cast of characters that were given an incentive by the prosecution to testify against him. And given the taped evidence against him he was "technically" guilty. So now he is hemmed up for God knows how long. And its all his fault IMO. He knew the legal system was just waiting for him to f*ck up and he was dumb enough to go do it. Over some petty memorabilia.

OAW

PS: Interesting how the prosecution acknowledged that the items belonged to O. J. and went after him based on the letter of the law ... yet decided not to prosecute the alleged "victims" for possession of stolen goods.

[Dakar V]

And the thread lives up to real life. O.J.s guilt still divides (mostly) along racial lines.

[TheWOAT]

Well, I think he did it, both times, and I think the LAPD tampered with evidence and f-d up the case along with the DAs.. and I thikn the LV prosecutors went hard at OJ as payback, and if it was someone else, they wouldnt be facing life in jail... and like OAW said, possesion of stolen goods???? so nothing mutually exclusive here, and we can all agree that OJ is a major idiot

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Dakar V 

And the thread lives up to real life. O.J.s guilt still divides (mostly) along racial lines.

How does your mind come up with twisted sh!t like that ?

Is it evolution ?

-t

[ctt1wbw]

You don't watch the news? I didn't see NOT ONE black person in shock. I have yet to meet NOT ONE black person who thought he was guilty. You didn't see the hordes of black people dancing for joy when the verdict was read? If that sounds racist, then so be it. But let the facts speak for themselves.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by OAW 

PS: Interesting how the prosecution acknowledged that the items belonged to O. J. and went after him based on the letter of the law ... yet decided not to prosecute the alleged "victims" for possession of stolen goods.

According to what I know about the memorabilia, these were items that O.J. gave to Al Beardsley for safekeeping during the criminal case and that the latter kept all these years. They originally belonged to O.J. but according to the judgment in the civil case they should have been turned over to the Goldmans. O.J. thought they were still his property, so he was determined to try to retrieve those items when given the opportunity. I think Beardsley was told by Riccio that a "private collector" was interested in buying the items and didn't know O.J. was the private collector in question. So the goods weren't originally stolen since O.J. gave them to Beardsley, but he and the prosecution may have deemed them stolen when Beardsley later refused to give them back.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by ctt1wbw 

You don't watch the news? I didn't see NOT ONE black person in shock. I have yet to meet NOT ONE black person who thought he was guilty.

Truly you have a dizzying intellect.

[Dakar V]

Catch that on AMC this weekend?

[Laminar]

Nope, we only have OTA channels. Although I did watch most of it last week on DVD.

[Dakar V]

Oh, that's right, college.

[Laminar]

The only things I miss about cable are Comedy Central and Discovery Channel. But with Hulu I can see pretty much anything I really want to.

[Dakar V]

If I had Hulu when I was in college...

...I'd have been even more pissed I didn't have a computer to watch it on.

[Laminar]

Not to mention a media center PC with an HDTV.

[Dakar V]

I'm going to go key your car now,

[Laminar]

Oh yeah, also a 360 and Dolby surround sound.

Life is rough.

[Dakar V]

What, no PS3?!

[OAW]

Originally Posted by ctt1wbw 

You don't watch the news? I didn't see NOT ONE black person in shock. I have yet to meet NOT ONE black person who thought he was guilty. You didn't see the hordes of black people dancing for joy when the verdict was read? If that sounds racist, then so be it. But let the facts speak for themselves.

You don't get out much do you?

The fact of the matter is that there was a great deal of diversity within the African-American community regarding the first O. J. case. The issue that seems to bedevil many in the white community is that they don't appear to understand that there were two questions involved in general, but for African-Americans in particular.

1. Did O. J. do it?

2. Should he have been found guilty in a court of law given the case presented?

As for #1, again, there was a great deal of variety of opinion within the black community. Many, if not most, thought that he was involved in the murder in some capacity .... even if they didn't believe the narrative and the timeline offered by the prosecution in the trial. You can look at major African-American comedians (e.g., Chris Rock, etc.) who said as much in their shows to thunderous approval. You heard this all over African-American talk radio as well. Now as for #2, the black community overwhelmingly thought he should have been found "not guilty" (regardless of their opinion regarding #1) for the reasons I outlined above. The bottom line is that the case, and the African-American community's view on it was not as simplistic as many in the white community try to make it out to be.

OAW

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by Dakar V 

What, no PS3?!

What am I, a nerd? Also, the only game we own for the 360 is Halo 3.

Originally Posted by OAW 

1. Did O. J. do it?

2. Should he have been found guilty in a court of law given the case presented?

I understand that these are separate questions, but I don't understand why someone that believes he was involved in first or second murder also believes that he shouldn't be punished for it, no matter the evidence. Even if evidence was tampered with to make him seem more guilty, he shouldn't get away clean as some sort of revenge on those that did the tampering.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

I understand that these are separate questions, but I don't understand why someone that believes he was involved in first or second murder also believes that he shouldn't be punished for it, no matter the evidence.

I believe that people who are accused of murder should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. But I also believe that the state has the monopoly on handing out sentences. As soon as you believe that only the state has the authority to punish people for crimes, you can believe, personally, that someone is guilty, even though he was found not guilty by a court or a jury.

Originally Posted by Laminar 

Even if evidence was tampered with to make him seem more guilty, he shouldn't get away clean as some sort of revenge on those that did the tampering.

If the evidence was tampered with to incriminate him and it is discovered, damn straight the evidence should be dismissed. Tampering with evidence in a murder case is AFAIK a felony. The evidence isn't dismissed, because of some `revenge,' but because the evidence is tainted. You don't know anymore what the original evidence was, so you cannot draw any conclusions from it anymore.

[Dakar V]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

What am I, a nerd? Also, the only game we own for the 360 is Halo 3.

...and neither of you plays that much, if ever.

So you're either very good students or disinterested gamers.

Edit: is that a baby Jesus in that picture?!

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

If the evidence was tampered with to incriminate him and it is discovered, damn straight the evidence should be dismissed. Tampering with evidence in a murder case is AFAIK a felony. The evidence isn't dismissed, because of some `revenge,' but because the evidence is tainted. You don't know anymore what the original evidence was, so you cannot draw any conclusions from it anymore.

Tampered evidence should definitely be thrown out. But I don't understand how someone that believes a man is guilty of a crime desire that that person be let go.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Dakar V 

Edit: is that a baby Jesus in that picture?!

Can't be, he's not black.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by Dakar V 

...and neither of you plays that much, if ever.

So you're either very good students or disinterested gamers.

Edit: is that a baby Jesus in that picture?!

I wouldn't put myself in either category - I'm busy enough that I can't really devote myself to either.

And yes, I was wondering if someone would notice it.

[Dakar V]

Can I, you know, inquire about this?

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

Tampered evidence should definitely be thrown out. But I don't understand how someone that believes a man is guilty of a crime desire that that person be let go.

If `getting justice' means that you have to abandon principles of law, then yes, the price is too high. This is straight from the assumption of innocence (which was mocked as `just a Latin proverb'): it means that we would rather let guilty men go free than innocent people go to jail.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by Dakar V 

Can I, you know, inquire about this?

Five times a day my roommates and I pray to it.

Actually a friend of one of my roommates painted it, but I'm still not exactly sure why we have it.

[Dakar V]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

Five times a day my roommates and I pray to it.

God, that'd make a fantastic picture. I imagine everyone kneeling, head bowed down upon folded hands.

Particularly with the TV and XBOX there.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

No. If, according to law he was guilty, he'd have been convicted and done time.

Here's the key subtlety I think you're missing.

O.J. was accused of acting alone. That probably isn't what happened, and the evidence didn't really support that happening.

If something didn't happen, and the evidence doesn't support that happening, a not guilty verdict is exactly the result you should get.

What probably did happen was that he had someone help him.

Therefore, he is likely guilty of murder, just not guilty of what the state chose to charge him with.


Edit: more or less scooped by OAW.

[ctt1wbw]

Originally Posted by OAW 

You don't get out much do you?

The fact of the matter is that there was a great deal of diversity within the African-American community regarding the first O. J. case. The issue that seems to bedevil many in the white community is that they don't appear to understand that there were two questions involved in general, but for African-Americans in particular.

1. Did O. J. do it?

2. Should he have been found guilty in a court of law given the case presented?

As for #1, again, there was a great deal of variety of opinion within the black community. Many, if not most, thought that he was involved in the murder in some capacity .... even if they didn't believe the narrative and the timeline offered by the prosecution in the trial. You can look at major African-American comedians (e.g., Chris Rock, etc.) who said as much in their shows to thunderous approval. You heard this all over African-American talk radio as well. Now as for #2, the black community overwhelmingly thought he should have been found "not guilty" (regardless of their opinion regarding #1) for the reasons I outlined above. The bottom line is that the case, and the African-American community's view on it was not as simplistic as many in the white community try to make it out to be.

OAW

Well, I've been almost all the way around the world, but no, I don't get out much. Are you saying that there is or should be two sets of laws? One for whites and one for blacks? A person is either not guilty or guilty of the charge. It doesn't and shouldn't matter what the rest of population of said defendant's skin color thinks or believes.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

I understand that these are separate questions, but I don't understand why someone that believes he was involved in first or second murder also believes that he shouldn't be punished for it, no matter the evidence. Even if evidence was tampered with to make him seem more guilty, he shouldn't get away clean as some sort of revenge on those that did the tampering.

Because you have to vote guilty or not guilty based on the evidence presented ... not one's personal belief. That's the way the system is supposed to work. And it's not perfect. I can sometimes allow someone who did it to go free. But the underlying rationale is that it is better to let a few guilty individuals go free than to wrongly convict an innocent simply because of a jury's "belief".

OAW

[OAW]

Originally Posted by ctt1wbw 

Well, I've been almost all the way around the world, but no, I don't get out much. Are you saying that there is or should be two sets of laws? One for whites and one for blacks? A person is either not guilty or guilty of the charge. It doesn't and shouldn't matter what the rest of population of said defendant's skin color thinks or believes.

Uhhhhh .... no. I said nothing of the sort. I suggest you re-read my post and and try again. I certainly don't see how you possibly got that out of what I said. Others in this forum that have posted after me seem to have comprehended my point. You may want to check out what they had to say as well.

OAW

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

Truly you have a dizzying intellect.

Can't believe I missed this whole thing...

"No more rhymes now, I mean it!"

[mduell]

If OJ and his legal team were concerned about a biased jury (they only interviewed 1500 potential jurors), couldn't they have requested a bench trial?

[Big Mac]

He certainly could have.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by mduell 

If OJ and his legal team were concerned about a biased jury (they only interviewed 1500 potential jurors), couldn't they have requested a bench trial?

As Big Mac indicated, he certainly could have. I've wondered why he didn't go this route myself. The only thing I can think of is that the chances of being convicted were high either way given the circumstances ... so by going with a jury trial perhaps he increases his chances on appeal? That is, it may be easier to make the "jury bias" argument than a "judge bias" argument. Just speculation on my part though.

OAW

[subego]

Originally Posted by mduell 

couldn't they have requested a bench trial?

I understand this particular judge is a hard-ass.