Posted on 11/22/2006 12:12:09 PM PST by color_tear
I need freeper's help on this matter. I heard many conservative talk show hosts believe that OJ is guilty of murder. Does it mean non of them believe our court system? OJ was found not guilty by 12 peers. It was not a mistrial. There was no appeal to the case. I understand he was found guilty in the civil case. I've never seen any company ask about civil lawsuits in their new employee questionnaire. My question: "How do those hosts know OJ is guilty?" I do not believe any one of those hosts was in that courtroom through the whole trial but those jurors were. I don't believe any one of those hosts studied the whole court record (transcribe), those 12 people did. I'm so confused . Where is the "reasonable doubt"? Where is the "defendent does not have to prove innocent?" I love our system but seems like most conservatives do not believe it. They are willing to condemn a person without thorough study. They do not believe their peers. I heard many times that people say most WHITE people believe OJ is gulity but I've never believed it. To tell the truth, I start having doubt now. Al Sharpton made a most outragious racist statement yesterday about Letterman show, come to think of it, he probably knows something I don't. My freeper friends, help me to understand.
The number one mistake was the head D.A. (Garcetti?) consenting to a change of venue to LA Central. O.J. wasn't tried by a jury of his peers, he was tried by a bunch of racists who didn't want to see "the man" get a famous black guy (despite the fact that O.J. has spent his entire life trying to be white.) That was the D.A.'s fault.
Also drew a bad judge who didn't control his courtroom and rein in the crazy defense lawyers who were playing the race card for all it was worth, plus a team of not-too-competent ADAs who botched the presentation of their case. Combine that with a jury that was too stupid to understand the evidence and had no intention of convicting from the get go, and you have a guilty man going free.
All those things went wrong at once. Doesn't happen that often, happens more often in high profile cases where the defendant has money to throw around like water. No human system is perfect, this one is as good as it gets, but it presumes competent participants.
Sounds like a great project. Arlen Specter could be your point man. He did such a bang up job on the Warren Commission, after all.
A prosecutor has to convince 12, a defense attorney, just 1........
Well, that was a dumb spot where he used it. But it has applicability here...
What you said.
The jury found OJ not guilty based on the evidence presented during the criminal case. He was not found innocent, just not guilty.
He was found guilty in a wrongful death civil case which has a lower thresehold for a finding a guilt.
There's a theory in the legal community. It's called jury nullification".
Basically, you get anywhere from one to 4 jurors who say "Screw the evidence. This guy is not guilty".
It seems as though the jurors most likely to commit nullification are minorities. In OJ's case, I believe it was several black jurors who said that he didn't do it. And nothing was gonna change their mind.
This was their way of sticking it to "The Man" or "Whitey".
However, on September 26th, 1993, AP photographer Harry Scull Jr. had taken pictures of Simpson wearing these exact shoes at the Rich Stadium in New York. It didn't seem to impress the jury.
From http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/famous/simpson/hairs_14.html
my bad.
wordsmith. ;)
So if a defendant is found "not guilty," it means that the prosecutor didn't prove his case. The defendant may still be guilty as sin; he just can't be convicted at trial.
The standard of proof in a Civil case is different...and much lower: 'to a preponderance of the evidence. On THAT standard of proof, which essentially means 51% probable, the Civil jury found OJ to be Liable for causing the homicides.
The OJ Criminal jury was given plenty of 'reasonable doubt' by highly-paid lawyers. The Police may have planted the evidence, they said. Detective Fuhrman is a racist, providing the motive for setting-up OJ. The LAPD Crime Lab contaminated the evidence--perhaps intentionally--to pin the crime on OJ.
Overall, the System (Criminal & Civil combined) may not have performed so badly as a casual observer might, at first glance, surmise. Nothing coming from the Courtroom, however, could ever restore Nicole & Ron to life. For that sort of justice, you must look to God...
"We need what the Scots have - "Not Proven". "
Arlen? That you? ;)
I agree on principle...but the legal aspect is very touchy. You can be held responsible, even if you didn't actually pull a trigger (or decapitate 2 people,) just like you can be guilty of committing the act but not responsible.
I spent quite a few hours debating this with my baby sister, who is a lawyer.
Thank you Senator Specter.
"It is better that one hundred guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer." - Benjamin Franklin
"Where do we go to get deliberated?" another quote.
from what I remember, the prosecution had OJ try on the glove because had they not, cochran would have..they tried to pre-empt cochrans move and prove the glove fit..I don't remember the name of the attorney (the one that prosecuted manson), but he insists to this day the glove DID fit based on it being wet, then dried out..and I believe he said, although I could be wrong, that they should have gotten a pair of gloves that DID fit OJ, get them wet and dry them, THEN have OJ try the gloves on..it would have proved the glove DID fit since it DIDN'T fit in the same manner..
but, I've been known to be wrong before..
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.