Reply With Quote
OJ = acquitted in California
Acquitted <> innocent
OJ = guilty in Nevada
Guilty <> innocent
OJ <> innocent
OJ = Innocent
OJ = acquitted in California
Acquitted <> innocent
OJ = guilty in Nevada
Guilty <> innocent
OJ <> innocent
....hmmm..
if x <> y
and -x <> y
then x <> -x
and -x<> x
....false...
Um,
1 <> 2
-1 <> 2
1 <> -1
-1 <> 1
True.
Yes he just assisted Al Cowlings.
The Bruno Magli shoes, the glove, the blood? That skunk Kardashian coming to the house and taking something out (the knife?).
Did you watch the competent trial put on by the civil attys?
That the same guys who believe in the 9-11 conspiracy plots also believe that OJ Simpson is somehow just a patsy who is being persecuted by the government strikes me as entirely unsurprising.
The government has to prove that evidence was not planted. Some of the evidence, the defense proved, was planted. For example the bloody glove and the bloody sock.
Other evidence excluded OJ. The timeline excluded OJ. Also, there is no motive. No murder weapon connected to OJ. etc.
The prosecution in the OJ case has a history of charging people with crimes.
That's an incorrect statement of the law. The government has to prove a chain of custody when its evidence is challenged, but short of that, the evidence introduced by the government (or by the Defendant) is en led to a presumption of validity and is susceptible of attack by impeachment -- which places the burden of proof on the party urging that the evidence is somehow not credible. And then, resolution of the question of credibility of the evidence lies with the jury. If the jury doesn't buy the government's story, it elects to disregard the evidence. And if the evidence is significant enough, that election can provide the basis for an acquittal.
One might argue that such is the basis for O.J. Simpson's acquittal.
Likewise, motive is not an element necessary to prove homicide in any state. A person can be convicted of murder without having had any motive at all -- that's exactly the basis for convicting people of murders committed in "the heat of the moment," which is a fairly common basis for intentional homicides.
But the fact that OJ was acquitted of a crime has NOTHING to do with his civil liability for the conduct that led to the deaths of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman.
You repeatedly conflate the burdens of proof in civil cases and criminal cases. They are entirely different and pretending that they are not is silly. A person who is acquitted of the crime of intentional homicide (murder) is not necessarily innocent of participating in the killing; an acquittal is more appropriately a finding that the State failed to sustain its burden to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. But in a civil case, the plaintiff only needs to prove that it is more likely than not that the Defendant is liable for the conduct alleged. This means there is a greatly reduced burden of proof on the Plaintiff in a civil case. Thus, a jury could find that it is more likely than not that Simpson was involved in the wrongful deaths of Nicole and Goldman and a different jury could find that the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Simpson intended to murder those two -- and given the varying burdens of proof, the two verdicts are entirely consistent.
Oh, and prosecutors are obligated to charge people with crimes (at least to urge grand juries to indict them of crimes) -- it's kind of their jobs.
I suggest you go and investigate what the jurors themselves said about the case (not what media "experts" said about the jurors thinking).
The media was sure to blanket us with info about everybody involved in the case; defense lawyers, witnesses, prosecutors, detectives, judges, family of victims, coke s, etc.
But 99% of the nation has no idea what the jurors think besides their verdict.
The jurors made this clear:
The timeline does not work. OJ and Kato went to the McDonald's drivethrough and bought some burgers. They were seen on video establishing an exact time a fair distance from OJ's house. We also know exactly when the limo driver picked up OJ and took him to the airport.
What the government claims is that OJ got home from a routine drivethrough visit with Kato, then out of the blue, decided to drive across town and murder his ex-wife because they got into an argument 5 years earlier, then he came back and got on the plane for a professional engagement. All in a half hour.
There was not enough time to do this. This proves that the blood evidence had to be planted right there.
OJ won the trial during the first two days of cross-examination. F. Lee Bailey cross-examined detectives Tom Lange and Phililp Van Atter about OJ's timeline.
Bailey proves that the government's case was impossible. The rest of the evidence has to fit into the timeline. A juror would reasonably presume that OJ could not fake the time his plane took off or the time he was seen on the McDonald's videotape. But it is easy to fake blood evidence, you just take OJ's blood and plant it.
(The other problem is that most of the blood didn't match OJ, it matched Jason Simspon, the real killer)
Here is an example of F. Lee Bailey in action at the trial:
F. LEE BAILEY -- CROSS-EXAMINATION of a witness
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9L4tbAhuwg
The witness is a lying ass moron. What bull he says is not evidence. he is full of and no reasonable person would believe him. The witness has to prove what he says is true, not the other wat around. The police also tampered wit the crime scene to hide exculpatory evidence, as this clip shows.
If anyone has video footage of the first two days of trial, with F. Lee Bailey crossing Lange and van Atter, please let me know.
The reason the prosecution was critisized as being "unorganized" has to do with the first two days of trial.
The prosecution knew they had lost the trial. So they had to totally change their strategy whch included planting evidence. That's why a lot of the prosecution's key evidence was not mentioned in the opening satement; it had not been planted yet!
None of that has anything to do with your wholly incorrect assertions about the burdens of proof upon parties in civil and criminal cases.
Are you saying that what the 12 jurors in the criminal trial thought forecloses the possibility that any other 12 jurors, asked to review the facts under a different burden of proof and presented by a different group of attorneys, could conclude differently?
I watched the entire OJ criminal trial, and I understand exactly why that jury decided as it did -- I think it's decision to acquit him was legally correct.
I paid close attention to the OJ civil trial, and I understand exactly why that jury decided as it did -- I think the decision to find him civilly liable was legally correct.
Those verdicts are in perfect harmony, to me.
By the way, I've driven from Rockingham to Gretna Greene in mid-afternoon traffic; having done that, it strikes me as entirely possible. Particularly for someone who knows exactly where he's going and for someone who is dedicated to get there and back quickly. It's not as if he drove from Malibu to downtown LA and back.
The police have to prove that evidence was not planted. The defense does not have to prove it was planted. Providing chain of custody is not proof.
Are you saying that if a prosecutor wants to introduce evidence at trial, he must first prove that it wasn't planted?
That would suggest a presumption that all evidence is planted unless otherwise shown. Is that really what you're saying? If so, I'd love to see some legal authority to support that suggestion.
No, I'm not saying that.
Most prosecutors have a history of blaming other people for crimes. Police have a motive to lie because they want to convict people. What they say should not be believed, unless they can prove it.
Since you accuse them of blaming other people for crimes, are you suggesting that prosecutors volunteer themselves for conviction for those crimes?No, I'm not saying that.
Most prosecutors have a history of blaming other people for crimes. Police have a motive to lie because they want to convict people. What they say should not be believed, unless they can prove it.
Or, are prosecutors not supposed to seek indictments and convictions? Should we just stop altogether with criminal prosecutions.
By the way, that whole burden of proof thing makes juries put prosecutors to their proof. They have to prove their cases beyond a reasonable doubt to secure convictions. If juries don't believe them, they acquit those accused of crimes.
If criminal defendants and criminal defense attorneys think prosecutors are untrustworthy -- or, more to your point, if they believe prosecutors are manufacturing evidence to obtain convictions -- then they have the opportunity to rebut the evidence used to obtain convictions.
I'd tend to agree that there is no more heinous crime in our society than manufacturing evidence to support the conviction of a completely innocent person. But I don't think the fear of that should support a systemic belief that all prosecutorial proof is suspect.
I would never believe what a prosecutor says. They actually make a living off of crime.
So do criminal defense attorneys.
And judges who preside over criminal courts.
And the personnel who work in those courts.
So do criminals.
I think beyond a doubt it proves that OJ was at the scene of the crime, but it does not prove that OJ committed the murder.....beyond what you mentioned, you have the physical evidence at the crime scene which you can examine in pics available on these fine internets...there was a life and death struggle with Ron Goldman, who had some karate training...... the bodies of both Goldman and Nichole, there is just no way OJ could have walked away from that with just a small cut on his finger...his attacker would have been marked up and really, really sore....
but...
p = --p
and - (p ^ -p)
so, p = (p ^ q)
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions