|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
jodeke
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 67574
Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered a great way to learn.
|
 Posted: Mon Jun 20, 2016 7:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Aussiesuede wrote: | | jodeke wrote: | | Qsmiff wrote: | | jodeke wrote: | | Qsmiff wrote: | | jodeke wrote: | | Qsmiff wrote: | jodeke wrote
The series may cause some to one day think OJ's guilty the next innocent.
I haven't seen anything to make me think OJ was innocent... lots and lots to make me think LAPD was dirty. Of course,.... just my opinion
_________________ |
You are going on your feelings. Again, what ever blows your skirt up. |
Lol...how dare I go on my feelings...what is it that you are going on exactly ?!?....just wondering???
Well, I guess I'll never wear this skirt again |
Human nature. |
So what is your view on this case ??? Grown folk can have differing opinions.. |
I think the evidence was overwhelming on OJ being guilty. The prosecution did a poor job of proving their case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Marsha Clark and Christopher Darden were grossly out lawyer-ed. Johnnie Cochran threw them completely off their game. Turned it from the OJ trial into the Mark Fuhrman trial. |
Right there you touch upon an extremely important misunderstanding that the average American had in regards to their justice system. The general public has been poorly educated to the difference between "Innocent" & "Not Guilty". They are entirely two different things in the eyes of the Criminal Justice System. In the United States, Innocence is the natural state of being for every American UNLESS their guilt can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The onus is on the state to PROVE guilt. There is absolutely ZERO onus on an American to PROVE his innocence. And this is where far too many get into trouble, by not understanding the difference between the two. A "Not guilty" verdict simply means that the state was unable to meet the bar of PROVING guilt. The states failure to prove guilt is not what makes a defendant innocent. He's innocent by the simple virtue of being an American. Innocent is the natural constitutional state of every American who hasn't been proven as guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and is no reflection on whether or not someone committed a crime. The founding fathers were very careful in setting up the natural state of a citizen as presumed innocent and that's why a citizen isn't supposed to have to prove his innocent. This is why profiling is such a bane in this society. Profiling strips away at the natural state of every American, which is innocent. The moment an agent of the government engages in profiling, he's violated the basic right of the presumption of innocence which is at the very basis of being a free American. And when that agent acts upon that profiling, he's then violated the civil right of that American's natural presumption of innocence.
The misunderstanding between "Innocent" and "Not guilty" is at the basis of just about every single issue of abuse by agents of the government against American citizens. You can think an American is guilty, but you're not supposed to treat him as such until his guilt has been proven. Sadly, this is likely the single most abused right of Americans - their presumption of innocence. Everyday juries in pretty much every jurisdiction seem the think a American should be trying to prove his innocence. It's a staggering epidemic. |
America has a judicial system formed by government.
Winston S. Churchill
“Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.”
Our judicial system is a product of that government.
I understand the difference between not guilty and innocent. OJ was found not guilty by the standards of that system. No one said he was innocent.
How does the Canadian system operate? Are you guilty until proven innocent?
_________________
Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.
America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
R-Tistic
Star Player
Joined: 19 Jun 2003
Posts: 1235
Location: Los Angeles (Western & Florence)
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 21, 2016 12:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Cochran's 15 Points of reasonable doubt:
1. Why, on the monitor, did the blood show up on the sock almost two months after a careful search for evidence? And why, as demonstrated by Dr. Lee and Professor McDonald, was the blood applied when there was no foot in it?
Think that's a fair question in this case? Let's see if she can answer that question.
Question number 2: Why was Mark Fuhrman, a detective who'd been pushed off the case, the person who went, by himself, to the Bronco over the fence to interrogate Kato, to discover the glove in the thump thump thump area?
Number 3: Why was the glove still moist when Fuhrman found it if Mr. Simpson had dropped it seven hours earlier? As agent Bodziak told you, McDonald has told you, blood dries very rapidly.
4. If Mark Fuhrman would speak so openly about his intense genocidal racism to a relative stranger such as Kathleen Bell, how many of his co-workers, the other detectives in this case, were also aware that he lied when he denied using the N-word, yet failed to come forward? Part of Barry Scheck's fourth C of continuing cover-up.
5. Why did the prosecution not call a single police officer to rebut police photographer Rokhar's testimony by Detective Fuhrman was pointing at the glove before, before, Fuhrman went to Rockingham? That is around 4:30 in the morning.
6. If the glove had been dropped on the walkway at Rockingham 10 minutes after the murder, why is there no blood or fiber on that south walkway or on the leaves the glove was resting on? Why is there no blood in 150 feet of narrow walkway around the stucco wall abutting it? And you've been back there.
Number 7: For what purpose was Vannatter carrying Mr. Simpson's blood in his pocket for three hours and a distance of 25 miles instead of booking it down the hall at Parker Center?
Number 8: Why did Deputy District Attorney Hank Goldberg, in a desperate effort to cover up for the missing 1.5 milliliters of Mr. Simpson's blood, secretly go out to the home of police nurse Thano Peratis without notice to the defense and get him to contradict his previous sworn testimony at both the grand jury and the preliminary hearing? Peratis was never sworn. We were never given notice.
9. Why, if, according to Ms. Clark, he walked into his own house wearing the murder clothes and shoes, is there not any soil or so much as a smear or drop of blood associated with the victims on the floor, the white carpeting, the doorknobs, the light switches, and his bedding?
10. If Mr. Simpson had just killed Mr. Goldman in a bloody battle involving more than two dozen knife wounds where Mr. Goldman remained standing and struggling for several minutes, how come there is less than seven-tenths of one drop of blood consistent with Mr. Goldman found in the Bronco?
Number 11: Why, following a bitter struggle alleged with Mr. Goldman, were there no bruises or marks on O. J. Simpson's body? And you'll have those photographs back in the jury room.
Number 12: Why do blood stains with the most DNA not show up until weeks after the murders? Those on the socks, those on the back gate. Those on -- those are the two major areas.
Number 13: Why did Mark Fuhrman lie to us? Why did Phil Vannatter lie to us?
And finally 15: Given Professor McDonald's testimony that the gloves would not have shrunk no matter how much blood was smeared on them and given that they never shrank from June 21, 1994, until now, despite having been repeatedly frozen and thawed, how come the gloves just don't fit? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jodeke
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 67574
Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered a great way to learn.
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 21, 2016 1:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| DaMuleRules wrote: | One of the things about the OJ case was that people think that because the Dream Team was able to cast doubt on some of the evidence, then that means ALL of the evidence is in doubt, thus erroneously coming to the conclusion of "reasonable doubt".
While the OJ team managed to inject some doubt to certain pieces of evidence, much of their arguments against the evidence were smoke and mirrors - like the infamous glove. People bought into the whole "if it doesn't fit, you must acquit" mantra and think it applies across the board to all of the evidence presented by the prosecution. The reality, the glove was very much demonstrated to be Simpsons and that due to shrinkage over time it no longer would go on Simpson's hand (and thanks to swelling intentionally induced by the defense team). That's why that demonstration was a stupid move. People jumped to the conclusion that because it didn't fir in the courtroom, it couldn't possibly be his glove. They then extrapolated that to mean that the rest of the evidence was false.
But in reality, most of the evidence was NOT successfully refuted by the defense team. And there was tons of evidence that proved OJ was guilty. It's the job of the jury to look at the evidence in it's entirety and reach a verdict based of the total of it. What happened in OJ's case was that the jury said, "well this piece of evidence looks shady, and this piece of evidence doesn't add up so that means that all of the rest of the evidence must be suspect. That's not how yo are supposed to rule. Despite some real miscues by the prosecution and a well crafted defense, the case was proven beyond reasonable doubt. But because the jury chose to focus on a couple of areas of doubt and ignore the evidence that was compelling, they reached an erroneous decision of "Not Guilty". |
I don't think the glove was the REAL reason OJ was found not guilty. I don't believe enough weight is being given to Johnnie saying during jury selection, paraphrasing, "If I can get 1 Black on the panel I can get an acquittal or a hung jury."
Also the statement made by the juror who said this was payback for Rodney King should be considered and weighed. IMO this was clearly a verdict based on race not evidence.
_________________
Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.
America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aussiesuede
Franchise Player
Joined: 27 Jul 2005
Posts: 10964
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 21, 2016 5:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jodeke wrote: |
How does the Canadian system operate? Are you guilty until proven innocent? |
Nope, it's basically the same as in the US - Innocence is a presumed right in the Canadian constitution. Also, Canada has a much different interpretation of what constitutes a "Reasonable Bail" and as such the bails are MUCH lower than is the case in the US. And the rules of pre-trial imprisonment are MUCH more humane in Canada. Unlike in the US, prisoners aren't imprisoned prior to trial for most offenses. For the most part, Canada seeks ways to keep citizens out of jail until they've earned the status of criminal. This is in stark contrast to the US system that seeks ways to incarcerate for any flimsy reason they can come up with then saddle a criminal suspect with a bail that's generally unobtainably high thus holding over a defendant in custody prior to a determination of guilt.
The Canadian "Supreme Court" has actually gone as far as to strike down "Reverse Onus" statutes that were put on the books back in the 80's in an attempt to follow some of the American styled "Get Tough on Crime Laws". It made for a few dark years where cops were giddy that they too could just take peoples personal property and then force them to prove their right to possess it. As you know, in the US, the cops make a killing on confiscating peoples property without due process. They force the possessor to prove his innocence in ownership (ie,a form of reverse onus since they are assuming malpheasance)
One area where of basic difference in citizen protections comes in the area of "Willfullness" to commit a crime. In the US, if you were found to be in possession of a piece of property that turned out to be stolen, but you reasonably were unaware, you can still be prosecuted for possession of stolen property. In Canada, the element of willfullness in required. You have to have been trying to commit a crime.
_________________
I'm On point, On task, On message, and Off drugs. A Streetwise Smart Bomb, Out of rehab and In denial. Over the Top, On the edge, Under the Radar, and In Control. Behind the 8 ball, Ahead of the Curve and I've got a Love Child who sends me Hate mail. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Qsmiff
Star Player
Joined: 05 Feb 2008
Posts: 3242
Location: Mid-Wilshire: just beyond "The Puff Puff Pass"
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 22, 2016 8:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| DaMuleRules wrote: | One of the things about the OJ case was that people think that because the Dream Team was able to cast doubt on some of the evidence, then that means ALL of the evidence is in doubt, thus erroneously coming to the conclusion of "reasonable doubt".
While the OJ team managed to inject some doubt to certain pieces of evidence, much of their arguments against the evidence were smoke and mirrors - like the infamous glove. People bought into the whole "if it doesn't fit, you must acquit" mantra and think it applies across the board to all of the evidence presented by the prosecution. The reality, the glove was very much demonstrated to be Simpsons and that due to shrinkage over time it no longer would go on Simpson's hand (and thanks to swelling intentionally induced by the defense team). That's why that demonstration was a stupid move. People jumped to the conclusion that because it didn't fir in the courtroom, it couldn't possibly be his glove. They then extrapolated that to mean that the rest of the evidence was false.
But in reality, most of the evidence was NOT successfully refuted by the defense team. And there was tons of evidence that proved OJ was guilty. It's the job of the jury to look at the evidence in it's entirety and reach a verdict based of the total of it. What happened in OJ's case was that the jury said, "well this piece of evidence looks shady, and this piece of evidence doesn't add up so that means that all of the rest of the evidence must be suspect. That's not how yo are supposed to rule. Despite some real miscues by the prosecution and a well crafted defense, the case was proven beyond reasonable doubt. But because the jury chose to focus on a couple of areas of doubt and ignore the evidence that was compelling, they reached an erroneous decision of "Not Guilty". |
It's the job of the prosecution to CONVINCE the jury that the defendant was guilty........... BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT....again this coming from someone that thought he did it from day one |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jodeke
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 67574
Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered a great way to learn.
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 22, 2016 8:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Qsmiff wrote:
| Quote: | | It's the job of the prosecution to CONVINCE the jury that the defendant was guilty........... BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT....again this coming from someone that thought he did it from day one |
It's the job of the defense to show the jury reasonable doubt. Johnnie (1) Marsha (0)
_________________
Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.
America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 52648
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 22, 2016 8:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Qsmiff wrote: | | It's the job of the prosecution to CONVINCE the jury that the defendant was guilty........... BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT....again this coming from someone that thought he did it from day one |
Yeah, and it's the obligation of the jury to render a verdict based on the rule of law and not their personal biases or vendettas.
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames
Jason Isbell
Man, do those lyrics resonate right now |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
OX1947
Franchise Player
Joined: 30 Jun 2001
Posts: 14951
Location: Winchester, CA.
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 22, 2016 10:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| R-Tistic wrote: | Cochran's 15 Points of reasonable doubt:
1. Why, on the monitor, did the blood show up on the sock almost two months after a careful search for evidence? And why, as demonstrated by Dr. Lee and Professor McDonald, was the blood applied when there was no foot in it?
Think that's a fair question in this case? Let's see if she can answer that question.
Question number 2: Why was Mark Fuhrman, a detective who'd been pushed off the case, the person who went, by himself, to the Bronco over the fence to interrogate Kato, to discover the glove in the thump thump thump area?
Number 3: Why was the glove still moist when Fuhrman found it if Mr. Simpson had dropped it seven hours earlier? As agent Bodziak told you, McDonald has told you, blood dries very rapidly.
4. If Mark Fuhrman would speak so openly about his intense genocidal racism to a relative stranger such as Kathleen Bell, how many of his co-workers, the other detectives in this case, were also aware that he lied when he denied using the N-word, yet failed to come forward? Part of Barry Scheck's fourth C of continuing cover-up.
5. Why did the prosecution not call a single police officer to rebut police photographer Rokhar's testimony by Detective Fuhrman was pointing at the glove before, before, Fuhrman went to Rockingham? That is around 4:30 in the morning.
6. If the glove had been dropped on the walkway at Rockingham 10 minutes after the murder, why is there no blood or fiber on that south walkway or on the leaves the glove was resting on? Why is there no blood in 150 feet of narrow walkway around the stucco wall abutting it? And you've been back there.
Number 7: For what purpose was Vannatter carrying Mr. Simpson's blood in his pocket for three hours and a distance of 25 miles instead of booking it down the hall at Parker Center?
Number 8: Why did Deputy District Attorney Hank Goldberg, in a desperate effort to cover up for the missing 1.5 milliliters of Mr. Simpson's blood, secretly go out to the home of police nurse Thano Peratis without notice to the defense and get him to contradict his previous sworn testimony at both the grand jury and the preliminary hearing? Peratis was never sworn. We were never given notice.
9. Why, if, according to Ms. Clark, he walked into his own house wearing the murder clothes and shoes, is there not any soil or so much as a smear or drop of blood associated with the victims on the floor, the white carpeting, the doorknobs, the light switches, and his bedding?
10. If Mr. Simpson had just killed Mr. Goldman in a bloody battle involving more than two dozen knife wounds where Mr. Goldman remained standing and struggling for several minutes, how come there is less than seven-tenths of one drop of blood consistent with Mr. Goldman found in the Bronco?
Number 11: Why, following a bitter struggle alleged with Mr. Goldman, were there no bruises or marks on O. J. Simpson's body? And you'll have those photographs back in the jury room.
Number 12: Why do blood stains with the most DNA not show up until weeks after the murders? Those on the socks, those on the back gate. Those on -- those are the two major areas.
Number 13: Why did Mark Fuhrman lie to us? Why did Phil Vannatter lie to us?
And finally 15: Given Professor McDonald's testimony that the gloves would not have shrunk no matter how much blood was smeared on them and given that they never shrank from June 21, 1994, until now, despite having been repeatedly frozen and thawed, how come the gloves just don't fit? |
Valid questions. So with all this, why did OJ do the Bronco run, or tell 3 different stories about why he cut his middle finger? And turn into a complete and utter imbecile by walking around like he was some rock star not giving a crap about his kids or any of the families that lost their kids/sister/brother?
Legal words, he had no alibi. He beat her continuously for years. There is tape of him screaming and admitted he had been stalking her even when she was romantic with someone.
Going back to OJ's alibi. Mark Fuhrman would have had to have known that OJ didnt have an alibi. How would he have known that? Who hit the AC box behind Kato's room? It couldn't have been Fuhrman. Who was it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
OX1947
Franchise Player
Joined: 30 Jun 2001
Posts: 14951
Location: Winchester, CA.
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 22, 2016 10:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| DaMuleRules wrote: | | Qsmiff wrote: | | It's the job of the prosecution to CONVINCE the jury that the defendant was guilty........... BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT....again this coming from someone that thought he did it from day one |
Yeah, and it's the obligation of the jury to render a verdict based on the rule of law and not their personal biases or vendettas. |
Switch is quite obvious on how they decided not guilty. No matter how much they tell us the prosecution dropped the ball. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
