Printable View
The entire prosecution was retarded in that case. As mentioned above, the whole gloves issue. But Mark Fuhrman certainly didn't help. I thought the PD defined "Keystone Cops" during the case.
Edit: I'd like to note, that even though I thought he probably did it, if I were a juror I'd probably vote Not Guilty, as the evidence presented wasn't enough for me.
You are presumed innocent unless proven guilty. OJ was not proven guilty, so he is innocent.Quote:
Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown
Most of the jurors said he was innocent after the trial. Only a couple weren;t sure but thought he was probably innocent.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
here is proof OJ is innocent:
OJ GUILTY BUT NOT OF MURDER
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...9946122795&hl#
He was presumed innocent until found not "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt".Quote:
Originally Posted by Galileo
OJ was presumed innocent before the trial. The jury verdict is consistent with innocence.Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
The jury verdict is consistent with the fact that there was not enough evidence presented to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It's not the same as innocent.Quote:
Originally Posted by Galileo
The jury verdict did not overule that OJ was innocent before the trial started. OJ was innocent before the trial and innocent after the trial. You lose. You support a police state were everybody is guilty.Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
define innocent.
Innocent means OJ didn't murder anyone.Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
Johny Cockroach "Just give me one black juror and I'll get him off."
Question. If you care to divulge, you "OJ is innocent" posters, ie Wild Cobra, Galilaeo, what race are you?
Also, Civil trial, the one where the prosecution had real lawyers, and a real judge presiding, quite a difference.
I'd say that, for the purposes of consequences, "not guilty" and "innocent" are the same thing. They are innocent in the sense that they were not found guilty. To take the definition of the word "innocent" that CC is using would imply that innocence is impossible to determine, unless one was actually there at the time.
In the eyes of the law, one could argue that the person wasn't innocent, just "not guilty". But in the eyes of the public, the two are (usually) one and the same.
I'm white btw, for what it's worth.
The civil trial was a joke:Quote:
Originally Posted by Fabbs
* evidence of the real killer was not presented to the jury.
* bogus and planted evidence from the criminal trial was re-used.
* a blatant violation of the Constitution, twice putting someone in jeopardy.
* etc.
Galileo was an Italian.
You're nothing more then troll status. :lol
btw "Italian" does not tell skin color, rather country.
We don't expect an honest answer from you anyways.
I'd submit that evidence of the real killer was presented to the jury -- that you choose to disbelieve Mr. Simpson's role in the killing doesn't change that. And if there was evidence of someone other than Mr. Simpson being the killer, his defense team in the civil trial would have presented it; to not do so would be the rankest form of malpractice.Quote:
Originally Posted by Galileo
Legally, there is no double jeopardy concern attendant to a civil trial that follows a criminal trial for at least two reasons: (1) the claims against the defendant are different and involve wholly different standards of proof; and (2) no matter what the outcome of the civil trial, Mr. Simpson no longer faced the jeopardy of imprisonment for his role in the murders even if found liable for the wrongful death of Nicole Brown Simpson or Ronald Goldman. It is a routine occurrence that those who are accused of crimes are tried separately to establish their civil liabilities and those civil trials proceed without regard to the outcome of the criminal trial.
OJ's son is the real killer. No, OJ did not want his son to go to prison. That's why the evidence wasn't produced.Quote:
Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown
Well, then it's entirely OJ's fault that he's in the predicament that he now faces; if Jason Simpson is the killer, OJ chose to take the fall for him.Quote:
Originally Posted by Galileo
No, that's not justice. And once OJ is a suspect he is no longer obligated to tell the police who did it. The police blew it.Quote:
Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown
Hence his acquittal on the murder charges, one might suspect. If, as you say, he didn't do it, the criminal trial afforded him justice, since he's not imprisoned at the moment for murder.Quote:
Originally Posted by Galileo
But if he knew he didn't do it, and chose in the civil trial against putting on evidence to show that someone else did it in, then that's his fault. According to you, he could have avoided liability altogether, but he made the decision to withhold that evidence to protect his son. The trade off for protecting his son, as you say, was a $30 million dollar civil judgment. If you're right, he had the opportunity to do justice for himself -- and to give closure to the grieving families of those who were killed on that fateful night (a consideration that the non-scumbags among us would contemplate)-- but he elected against doing that. Bad call.
Well, if the cops get Jason, then OJ can overturn the civil verdict. Then Fred Golddigger will have to pay OJ back the money. Ha. Ha.Quote:
Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown
:lmao
Actually, he can't, but I'm sure he'll wish that he had come forward with that evidence a whole lot sooner, when it could have made a difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by Galileo
There are technical differences. The law may read one way, but the perceptions, as the OJ case proves, are different. A verdict of "innocent" can be given, but it is rare.Quote:
Originally Posted by Galileo
Thanx.Quote:
Originally Posted by Galileo
I loaded that and started watching it, but paused it. I'll watch it later.
I generally, strongly disagree with most things you say, but agree with you on this issue.
Well, if they turned around and gave a "innocent" verdict, I really don't know the law here, but I doubt that he could have been sued in a civil case afterward.Quote:
Originally Posted by Galileo
FWD... What would an innocent verdict have done to the following civil case?
I'm a Heinz 57, or a mutt.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fabbs
Scottish, Norwegian, Icelandic, German, Cherokee, Blackfoot, Black, Swedish, Spanish... etc...
I have a grandfather as dark as Obama is. Scottish is my most dominant heritage.
That's why an innocent verdict is very rare.Quote:
Originally Posted by LnGrrrR