O.J.: Made in America

[Red Dawg]

To me what makes the whole OJ case interesting and sad at the same time is how crazy stupid our legal system can be.

--The accused murderer had his blood and both victims blood in his car, house and drive way and the seen of course. Claimed he cut his finger and just walked around letting bleed.
-- A woman saw him hauling ass in his car right after the murder but that info was never used in court.
-- He mysterious lost a bag that he took to the airport while making his get away. He wrote what sounds like a confession note that was read on the air.
-- He went crazy and tried to run in his Bronco from the cops with a gun in his hand with a costume to hide his identity that he bought two weeks prior to the murder. Claimed he was going to Nicole's grave

People have gone to prison over tiny drops of blood as DNA proof but in this case is was splattered all over the place and the juror's were actually stupid enough to let the defense convince them that the LAPD planted it all the evidence even though they had never done shit to him after the numerous 911 calls they got from Nicole for him beating her up. Now all of sudden in a span of like and hour everyone involved got top together and said "Let's frame OJ". The jurors were also duped into the contaminated evidence bullshit.

All of this happened not long after Rodney King got his ass kicked so the black jury in this case really didn't care because OJ is black. Just set him free for all black people was the theme. The defense messed up plenty but the stupidity of the jury is mind blowing. Furman screwed the pooch bad but how does him being an asshole mean OJ is innocent? Only in America would it be possible for OJ to have walked in this case and all I did was point out a small amount of the evidence. There was a lot more.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Tuckdaddy

To me what makes the whole OJ case interesting and sad at the same time is how crazy stupid our legal system can be.

--The accused murderer had his blood and both victims blood in his car, house and drive way and the seen of course. Claimed he cut his finger and just walked around letting bleed.
-- A woman saw him hauling ass in his car right after the murder but that info was never used in court.
-- He mysterious lost a bag that he took to the airport while making his get away. He wrote what sounds like a confession note that was read on the air.
-- He went crazy and tried to run in his Bronco from the cops with a gun in his hand with a costume to hide his identity that he bought two weeks prior to the murder. Claimed he was going to Nicole's grave

People have gone to prison over tiny drops of blood as DNA proof but in this case is was splattered all over the place and the juror's were actually stupid enough to let the defense convince them that the LAPD planted it all the evidence even though they had never done shit to him after the numerous 911 calls they got from Nicole for him beating her up. Now all of sudden in a span of like and hour everyone involved got top together and said "Let's frame OJ". The jurors were also duped into the contaminated evidence bullshit.

All of this happened not long after Rodney King got his ass kicked so the black jury in this case really didn't care because OJ is black. Just set him free for all black people was the theme. The defense messed up plenty but the stupidity of the jury is mind blowing. Furman screwed the pooch bad but how does him being an asshole mean OJ is innocent? Only in America would it be possible for OJ to have walked in this case and all I did was point out a small amount of the evidence. There was a lot more.

I watched the trial and I don't have a problem with the verdict. I'm sure OJ was guilty, but IMO the likelihood that at least some members of the LAPD sweetened the evidence pot is pretty high. At the very least, some of them lied on the witness stand. OJ had all the advantages of a best-money-can-buy defense team and it paid off by at least arguably creating a reasonable doubt. I think you should blame the cops and the prosecution for the acquittal, not the jury.

No one should believe Mark Furman jumped the fence without a warrant to make sure OJ was safe.

[Baby Lee]

Originally Posted by patteeu

I think you should blame the cops and the prosecution for the acquittal, not the jury.

Even with the verdict taking minutes, and the power salute to the defense team from a juror?

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Baby Lee

Even with the verdict taking minutes, and the power salute to the defense team from a juror?

I get that there was a racial component at work here and that made the defense's job easier, but I still think the verdict was defensible.

[Rausch]

Originally Posted by patteeu

I get that there was a racial component at work here and that made the defense's job easier, but I still think the verdict was defensible.

It's important to remember it was a product of the time it happened it.

The justice system doesn't operate in a sterile environment...

[Amnorix]

Originally Posted by Baby Lee

Even with the verdict taking minutes, and the power salute to the defense team from a juror?

Blame whoever you want, but the LAPD seriously ****ed up that investigation.

In many ways, there was more overwhelming evidence of OJ's guilt than you will see in nearly any trial. Certainly WAAAY more than, say, Aaron Hernandez. But the LAPD so ****ed up the entire thing, step by step, that it created reasonable doubt where there absolutely should not have been any.

If you want to blame the jury, that's fine. There was more than enough evidence to convict. But you HAVE to blame the cops too, because they CREATED the reasonable doubt that OJ's lawyers used to get him off, due to their Keystone Kop ineptitude and stupidity.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Originally Posted by Amnorix

Blame whoever you want, but the LAPD seriously ****ed up that investigation.

In many ways, there was more overwhelming evidence of OJ's guilt than you will see in nearly any trial. Certainly WAAAY more than, say, Aaron Hernandez. But the LAPD so ****ed up the entire thing, step by step, that it created reasonable doubt where there absolutely should not have been any.

If you want to blame the jury, that's fine. There was more than enough evidence to convict. But you HAVE to blame the cops too, because they CREATED the reasonable doubt that OJ's lawyers used to get him off, due to their Keystone Kop ineptitude and stupidity.

I think this is somewhat true. There were cops like Vannater and Lange and criminologists like Fung who were just egregious ****ups. However, OJ's team took a scorched Earth policy towards everything. They completely destroyed Ron Shipp during cross through inuendo, and Cochran invoked Godwin's Law in his closing arguments. As the documentary mentions, and Sheck all but admits, his DNA refutation was also based upon scientific principles he did not believe in.

It was an absolute scorched earth policy.

[Baby Lee]

Originally Posted by Amnorix

Blame whoever you want, but the LAPD seriously ****ed up that investigation.

In many ways, there was more overwhelming evidence of OJ's guilt than you will see in nearly any trial. Certainly WAAAY more than, say, Aaron Hernandez. But the LAPD so ****ed up the entire thing, step by step, that it created reasonable doubt where there absolutely should not have been any.

If you want to blame the jury, that's fine. There was more than enough evidence to convict. But you HAVE to blame the cops too, because they CREATED the reasonable doubt that OJ's lawyers used to get him off, due to their Keystone Kop ineptitude and stupidity.

There's plenty of blame to go around, sure.

Question is, how much more of a compelling case, competently investigated and expertly presented, do you think the prosecution should be required to deliver to overcome the observations I made?

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Originally Posted by Baby Lee

There's plenty of blame to go around, sure.

Question is, how much more of a compelling case, competently investigated and expertly presented, do you think the prosecution should be required to deliver to overcome the observations I made?

I have a question for you and the other lawyers:

In school and in practice, what are the extents you are taught and told to go to in order to defend a client?

Cochran's closing argument was, to me, revolting. What would a law school professor say about his presentation? What would the general profession's perception be of defense tactics? When are you expected to hold back?

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

I have a question for you and the other lawyers:

In school and in practice, what are the extents you are taught and told to go to in order to defend a client?

Cochran's closing argument was, to me, revolting. What would a law school professor say about his presentation? What would the general profession's perception be of defense tactics? When are you expected to hold back?

Depends on the field, the situation and who's doing the teaching.

But the short answer is to whatever extent allowed by law (and the cannons of professional responsibility). I think Cochran's close was acceptable. Scorched earth, yes, but as near as I can tell, nothing illegal, unethical or improper.

Now if you look at Jose Baez's close in the Casey Anthony trial, it should have been grounds for prosecutors to request an immediate mis-trial and have the whole thing re-tried. Baez introduced facts and theories that had not been introduced as evidence; it was wholly inappropriate. Baez should've been sanctioned for that particular bit of horseshit. Cochran didn't do that, he just threw out a bunch of static and the jury failed to see through it.

The best theory I've ever found for defending parties you're almost certain are guilty has nothing to do with the defendant but rather the system in general. As an adversarial system, is it absolutely imperative that each side receive the best, most complete defense possible. Guilty or not, our adversarial system operates at its highest only when all sides are being equally represented.

If you are a defense attorney, you feel its your duty to the system to present your client with the absolute strongest defense possible. Because if you've done that, you've ensured that you have done everything in your power to ensure that the system runs at full stroke.

[Amnorix]

Originally Posted by Baby Lee

There's plenty of blame to go around, sure.

Question is, how much more of a compelling case, competently investigated and expertly presented, do you think the prosecution should be required to deliver to overcome the observations I made?

How much more? "Enough" more.

Look, it's the job of the state -- which means cops/prosecutors -- to present the jury with a case that establishes that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Where the cops help CREATE a reasonable doubt, through their own stupidity, incompetence or outright improper conduct, they are undermining the ability to obtain a conviction, no matter how guilty the accused might ACTUALLY be.

The system puts the onus on the state, as it should. And the state ****ed up royally.

Would THAT jury at THAT point in time have acquitted him no matter how good the evidence was? Even if the cops were perfect? Sure, maybe, but we'll certainly never know becuase the cops made it pretty goddamn easy for a jury that was already inclined to acquit him to acquit him.

Compare to Aaron Hernandez, where the evidence was completely circumstantial, and yet so overwhelming, and so meticulously and carefully presented to the jury, that they found him guilty despite Hernandez having truly excellent defense lawyers.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by patteeu

I watched the trial and I don't have a problem with the verdict. I'm sure OJ was guilty, but IMO the likelihood that at least some members of the LAPD sweetened the evidence pot is pretty high. At the very least, some of them lied on the witness stand. OJ had all the advantages of a best-money-can-buy defense team and it paid off by at least arguably creating a reasonable doubt. I think you should blame the cops and the prosecution for the acquittal, not the jury.

No one should believe Mark Furman jumped the fence without a warrant to make sure OJ was safe.

If the jury said "I'm sure he did it based on the credible evidence but the cops may have planted additional evidence so I'm going to let him go" then yes, I'm absolutely blaming the jury.

They put a murdering psychopath back on the street because they were irritated at cops.

Now if they actually felt like the evidence was all false and planted by the LAPD and as such, they couldn't trust any of the evidence, first and foremost they are stupid, but at least in that event, they haven't engaged in nullification.

Your role as a juror is not to be a social activist. You are nothing more than a simple finder of fact. That's why verdict directors are almost kindergarten level in their breakdown. "If you believe that on X date, Y person killed victim, check this box and review Box B" Then box B will list off affirmative defenses that could justify the killing. Something else will lay out possible aggravating/mitigating factors.

You have one goddamn job, jury. You are there to do nothing more than that one job and when you try to do so, the entire trial process - the crux of our legal system- falls apart.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

If the jury said "I'm sure he did it based on the credible evidence but the cops may have planted additional evidence so I'm going to let him go" then yes, I'm absolutely blaming the jury.

They put a murdering psychopath back on the street because they were irritated at cops.

Now if they actually felt like the evidence was all false and planted by the LAPD and as such, they couldn't trust any of the evidence, first and foremost they are stupid, but at least in that event, they haven't engaged in nullification.

Your role as a juror is not to be a social activist. You are nothing more than a simple finder of fact. That's why verdict directors are almost kindergarten level in their breakdown. "If you believe that on X date, Y person killed victim, check this box and review Box B" Then box B will list off affirmative defenses that could justify the killing. Something else will lay out possible aggravating/mitigating factors.

You have one goddamn job, jury. You are there to do nothing more than that one job and when you try to do so, the entire trial process - the crux of our legal system- falls apart.

I think it was the latter. I'm more empathetic with the jury than you are. For example, DNA evidence was in it's infancy and I thought Barry Scheck ran circles around the prosecution on that component. Beyond that, they sewed seeds of doubt at nearly every stage of the investigation from Furman's first entrance into OJ's property when he found the glove to the chain of custody of the evidence to the DNA conclusions. Those doubts may not have taken hold if the cops had played it straight but they didn't. It sucks that most defendants don't have the resources to hammer away at all of the evidence like that, but that's our system.

[The Rick]

Originally Posted by Tuckdaddy

To me what makes the whole OJ case interesting and sad at the same time is how crazy stupid our legal system can be.

--The accused murderer had his blood and both victims blood in his car, house and drive way and the seen of course. Claimed he cut his finger and just walked around letting bleed.
-- A woman saw him hauling ass in his car right after the murder but that info was never used in court.
-- He mysterious lost a bag that he took to the airport while making his get away. He wrote what sounds like a confession note that was read on the air.
-- He went crazy and tried to run in his Bronco from the cops with a gun in his hand with a costume to hide his identity that he bought two weeks prior to the murder. Claimed he was going to Nicole's grave

People have gone to prison over tiny drops of blood as DNA proof but in this case is was splattered all over the place and the juror's were actually stupid enough to let the defense convince them that the LAPD planted it all the evidence even though they had never done shit to him after the numerous 911 calls they got from Nicole for him beating her up. Now all of sudden in a span of like and hour everyone involved got top together and said "Let's frame OJ". The jurors were also duped into the contaminated evidence bullshit.

All of this happened not long after Rodney King got his ass kicked so the black jury in this case really didn't care because OJ is black. Just set him free for all black people was the theme. The defense messed up plenty but the stupidity of the jury is mind blowing. Furman screwed the pooch bad but how does him being an asshole mean OJ is innocent? Only in America would it be possible for OJ to have walked in this case and all I did was point out a small amount of the evidence. There was a lot more.

I think this, in a nutshell, is the crux of the documentary. Under normal circumstances, the trial should have been a no-brainer, open and shut case. But these weren't normal circumstances due to OJ's celebrity status and it was the perfect storm due to riots, Rodney King, etc.

[alpha_omega]

Originally Posted by The Rick

....., Rodney King, etc.

Without a doubt.
http://www.thewrap.com/oj-simpson-ju...r-rodney-king/