Printable View
I have a question for you, IL.....Given what I have posted here about the police and authority in general, are you surprised that A. I agree with you about OJ (at least as far as not being happy with the verdict) and B. That I sided with the prosecution? True that, I did and I would again if the case were presented the same way today. I'm still amazed that he got off scott free but he screwed up down the road. Didn't learn I guess. RobQuote:
Originally Posted by iris lilies
I was OK with the OJ verdict. "Reasonable doubt" is a pretty high standard to meet, and for good reason. The police and the prosecution botched the case, and a likely killer walked.
That's how our legal system works.
Bae, I mean no sarcasm here, I'm honestly curious. How do you see that the police and the prosecution botched the case? I found Marcia Clarke's statement about 99.99999 (how many nines were there, I forgot) very damning. RobQuote:
Originally Posted by bae
Rob - remember Mark Fuhrman?
Once a jury thinks the police are tampering with/fabricating/misrepresenting/mishandling evidence, "reasonable doubt" is pretty hard to meet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Fuhrman
See also:
http://www.policeone.com/crime/artic...a-crime-scene/
RE: The OJ Case with respect to the racist issues. I think the defense played the race card, and I think the jury was willing to go that route.It was the path of least resistance. Fuhrmann, a tough, seasoned street cop, was the patsy. It gave the panel of ordinary people in an extraordinary situation a way out--since the King debacle and the fallout from it was only a couple years prior, they figured that there would be civil disorder if OJ was convicted, and innocent people senselessly killed on account of it. The public perception of OJ was that of an affable and cool sports celebrity, so that lends doubt in the court of public opinion. LA is a rough place, murders are not uncommon.. Second, ( & I hope this won't annoy the feminists herein), but it could be rationalized by those jurors, being not idealistic, but pragmatic, that Nicole Simpson (partially) contributed to her own death. In view of her intimate knowledge of OJ & knowing full well his psychopathic anger at her, and factor in LA street crime, she truly needed to conduct herself in such a way that she would not be vulnerable. But, she was careless; besides OJ, anyone could've killed her and her friend. So, it wasn't truly a racial discrimination issue, by the police, per se, that got OJ acquitted.
A agree that the wholesale devaluation of human life is closer to the root cause than gun ownership. Was Michael Brown's life worth less than the cop's he posed a threat to? Less than mine? Less than an unnamed fetus? Intellectually the answer has to be that they're all equal in value and yet we treat at least half of those examples as a throw away commodity. That's a little too effed up for my liking.
The prosecution didn't give Judge Ito any choice. Simpson's later convictions on other charges show that justice can be, if nothing else, poetic.Quote:
Originally Posted by bae
There were a lot of factors that doomed the OJ case: Gil Garcetti's unaccountable failure to try the case in Santa Monica, Mark Fuhrman's white lie (who wants to out themselves as a bigot), jury nullification, Francine Florio-Bunten's orchestrated ouster from the jury, Chris Darden's disastrous glove demo, and the too-late discovery of the photo showing Simpson wearing the "ugly-ass Bruno Magli shoes." And I'm sure I missed a few. Although the DNA evidence alone would convince any rational person, it seemed irrelevant under the circumstances.
Hmmm........Lots of words, but what the heck is he really saying?Quote:
Originally Posted by Xmac