Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

OJ Simpson is a free man because

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
Doctor_J Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 04:58 PM
Original message
Poll question: OJ Simpson is a free man because
For something a little different. The recent little debacle got me to thinking about a question that has had America guessing for years. Weigh in if you want, or ask the mods to delete it is it's unfit to be discussed.

OJ is not in prison because:

Sorry, polls are turned off at Level 3.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
MonkeyFunk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 05:01 PM
Response to Original message
1. Other...
cuz the cops tried to frame him, and fair or not, the punishment for crooked crops is no conviction.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nini Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 05:02 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. that and incompetent prosecutors
I could have tried that case better - sheesh..

the verdict was correct for the case though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ChairmanAgnostic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 06:02 PM
Response to Reply #2
36. exactly. they never had control of their own case, much less the defense's
they were seriously outlawered. There are tons of lawyers, on either side, that would have made mincemeat out of the prosecution AND defense here in Chicago. It was painful to watch, the little that I saw.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Doctor_J Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 05:02 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. Bugliosi lays out a case that Clark and Darden flubbed the
prosecution badly, which I guess is an offshoot of your case.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
China_cat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 05:06 PM
Response to Original message
4. They just didn't have enough for the jury to say it
was beyond a reasonable doubt. I think he's guilty, but if I'd been on the jury I'd have had to vote to acquit on the evidence presented.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Eugene Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 05:09 PM
Response to Original message
5. Other: The prosecutors blew it.
The defense was conspiracy theory but police and prosecutors
gave OJ's defenders plenty of openings to create "reasonable"
doubt. If Mark Fuhrman had gone by the book, OJ would be
doing time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aint_no_life_nowhere Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 05:27 PM
Response to Reply #5
19. Agree - and Detective Vannatter blew it too
bringing OJ's blood sample to the crime scene, after which there was missing blood from the vial. And then there was Vannatter's statement corroborated by witnesses wherein he supposedly told people that OJ was guilty even before the investigation was complete.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nam78_two Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 05:10 PM
Response to Original message
6. Other: I don't care.nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
maveric Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 05:12 PM
Response to Original message
7. Because of all the innocent black men sent to prison/execution.
Payback was a B****!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
maxsolomon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 05:17 PM
Response to Reply #7
12. so it was a case of retroactive reparations by the jury?
and the Browns & Goldmans are denied justice so that others finally recieve it belatedly?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nini Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 05:21 PM
Response to Reply #7
13. I don't agree with that
I think he did kill those two, but I also feel the case was not prosecuted in a manner to legally come up with a guilty verdict.

Blame the prosecution for their incompetence.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clark2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-16-06 02:14 AM
Response to Reply #13
77. Actually, I blame Judge Ito for not controlling his own courtroom.
The prosecution had some flaws, granted, but how the fuck does what Mark Furhman said to an author about fictional accounts of police department arrests warrant being admissible in court in THIS case? Ito allowed it to become The People v. Furhman rather than The People v. Simpson.

There was plenty of evidence. There was plenty of reason to find him guilty, but Ito was too swooned by the cameras to follow the proper rules of procedure correctly.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-16-06 01:25 PM
Response to Reply #77
83. for the same reason that a cop who calls gays fags
would be relevent if I were arrested. Furman not only said the n word but actually stated he planted evidence to frame blacks who had married whites. If that isn't relevent to the OJ Simpson case I haven't a clue what would be. Oh, and to top it off he lied about it under oath.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hang a left Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-16-06 02:22 PM
Response to Reply #77
85. You are absolutely right.
Also the jury was pissed off at having been sequestered for over a year. They came back with a verdict in a little over 3 hours. Jury took it out on the prosecution. He was guilty as hell. I watched almost the whole trial on CNN.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Junkdrawer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 05:37 PM
Response to Reply #7
24. OJ and Johnnie Cochran exploited those innocent black men...
It was sad. :(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
treestar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 05:12 PM
Response to Original message
8. He was acquitted
We shouldn't worry so much about this - nothing is perfect, he's famous so we know all about it, but we don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater because of this case - our system is on balance a good one.

Where the system doesn't work, people would be imprisoned even after they were acquitted, or let go when convicted because they can pay someone off. That would be an example of a system that doesn't work.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Selatius Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 05:12 PM
Response to Original message
9. He's rich, and the cops were fucking crooked as hell with the evidence tampering.
The man was free not just because he had the Dream Team defending him but because the police shot themselves in the foot by messing with the evidence.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SeattleGirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 06:31 PM
Response to Reply #9
48. Do you have proof of that?
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RadiDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 06:54 PM
Response to Reply #9
54. agree
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
maxsolomon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 05:14 PM
Response to Original message
10. because he's black & (was) rich
take out either piece & he'd be rotting in jail. that's the way america is.

if the prosecutors had Kato Kaelin testify about the meth he smoked with OJ just prior to the murder, he'd be in jail, too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
libodem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 05:16 PM
Response to Original message
11. because...of money
was what popped into my head. My cynicism meter elevated to high after he won. American justice is bought and paid for, simple as that. That system is broken along with education, medicine, government, and religion. Time for some paradigm shifts, baby.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MonkeyFunk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 05:22 PM
Response to Reply #11
16. Who'd he pay off?
besides his lawyers - the jury? the judge? the prosecutors?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 05:34 PM
Response to Reply #16
21. well, first of all
he had the best defense money could buy. Second of all, there's a lot of deference paid rich people in this country, and even more paid to celebrities- and he was a double or triple celeb; a sport's hero, a movie star, and a black sports hero and movie star.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hedgehog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 05:21 PM
Response to Original message
14. Because the cops destroyed any evidence by tampering with it.
Once the physical evidence was called into question, there really wasn't much to take to trial. He may have done it, but you couldn't prove it in court.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eppur_se_muova Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 05:54 PM
Response to Reply #14
30. 'Fraid so. I think he was guilty, but thinking isn't proving beyond a reasonable doubt. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wuushew Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 05:56 PM
Response to Reply #14
32. how do you destroy blood?
DNA can remain viable for thousands of years under the right conditions. I don't think southern California crimes labs are normal environments for such decay.

Theories of racist conspiracies can be supported or disproven by examination of physical evidence as well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hedgehog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 09:30 PM
Response to Reply #32
70. Once they walked through the crime scene with a sample of his blood,
all the blood collected at the scene was no good since it could have been planted. Of course planted blood would match his DNA.


I didn't watch the trial. Did they try to introduce DNA evidence?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wuushew Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-16-06 02:10 AM
Response to Reply #70
76. Every unrelated lab tech and forensic specialist
Edited on Sat Dec-16-06 02:14 AM by wuushew
would have to be in on the alleged tampering.

Just use logic. Presumably crime scenes are photographed and recorded. Physical evidence is weighed, measured and cataloged. In the course of testing, date stamps and lab results are generated for the purposes of quality control and audits.

The original evidence presumably generated these records as did samples provided by Mr. Simpson. Does any of this data promote the idea that his sample was used for retroactive recreation of a false crime scene?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aint_no_life_nowhere Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-16-06 02:14 PM
Response to Reply #76
84. I believe Detective Vanatter brought Simpson's blood to the crime scene
while the evidence was being collected there. He took a sample of Simpson's blood when he met with OJ in one part of town and pocketed the vial, stopping at the crime scene that day on his way to the forensic lab to have it catalogued. And later in the trial, testimony suggested that some of that blood was missing, as the vial apparently had more blood in it originally than could be accounted for in the testing of removed drops of it later on. Furthermore, Vanatter was overhead by witnesses saying that he thought Simpson was guilty while the investigation was ongoing and before it was completed. Whether Vanatter planted the evidence himself or not, it would not take a wide conspiracy but only the action of one man. I'm not saying at all that this is the way it happened. But it was sufficient to plant a reasonable doubt. You don't bring a suspect's test sample of blood to a crime scene while the blood at that scene is being collected. Plus, Vanatter was not very likeable on the witness stand and had an arrogant and unpleasant demeanor, even more than Fuhrman's, which worked against him and his credibility.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RadiDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 06:55 PM
Response to Reply #14
56. agree
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Little Star Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-16-06 05:50 PM
Response to Reply #56
91. Corrupt Cops planting evidence and lying.
He'd be in jail if it weren't for the cops and the prosecutors.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Judi Lynn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 05:21 PM
Response to Original message
15. It's a settled case, from a long time ago.
No one's going to change his/her mind on this. It's only good for race-baiting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pretzel4gore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 05:23 PM
Response to Original message
17. maybe because too many innocent people
have been casually persecuted, over centuries, their race/colour/sex preference and social status exposing them to arbitrary mob viciousness...simpson benefitted from it, maybe(?) imagine what it would have been like had #32 been convicted! even with all that police malfeasance,and with the pigmedia howling for his blood!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LSK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 05:25 PM
Response to Original message
18. Other
This issue is a police/criminal justice issue and I never followed it. I could not honestly tell you one detail about the whole case. Following it is a waste of time and a distraction issue IMO.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
S n o w b a l l Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 05:53 PM
Response to Reply #18
29. I would have to disagree....
It was a glimpse into our judicial system that most of us had never seen before. I found it very educational and interesting. I tend to get very interested in true crime & justice however, so I understand not everyone would agree.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Balbus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 05:27 PM
Response to Original message
20. Other: Stupidest jury ever.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wuushew Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 05:35 PM
Response to Reply #20
22. I agree
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nini Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 05:38 PM
Response to Reply #20
25. Not really
The actually came up with the correct verdict based on evidence presented AND reasonable doubt.

It's easy to say they let him walk because of his color or whatever. The fact is the prosecution didn't effectively counter the bullshit by the defense team. They were not prepared and were more caught up in their own celebrity than presenting a solid case.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oasis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 06:18 PM
Response to Reply #20
40. "Stupidest jury ever"? What about the Rodney King jury that saw an actual
video of blatant police brutality, but came to a verdict of "not guilty"?

:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nini Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 06:52 PM
Response to Reply #40
51. Yep.. My dad was retired LAPD and he was so pissed at that
He was so ashamed of what the LAPD had become and that they got away with that crap. I thought his head was going to explode over that verdict.


I will NEVER forget how hard he took that. I made me proud to know he wasn't towing the line for those assholes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oasis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 06:59 PM
Response to Reply #51
58. The Rodney King Jury was responsible for setting L.A. ablaze. They must've
all had their heads up their collective behinds.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
S n o w b a l l Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 07:34 PM
Response to Reply #40
61. Well of course...
But, this isn't about the Rodney King incident. However, I do believe that contributed to the OJ verdict. People, blacks especially, were sick of the LAPD. It poisoned their minds. It was this incident that caused me to join the ACLU.

I was in sales in LA & my territory was South Central LA at the time of the riots. I lived it.Was there almost everyday.Fortunately after the verdict, I had enough sense to not go there, but it was personal for me and very traumatic.

But, anyway, I digress... this is the OJ thread, right?




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oasis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 07:58 PM
Response to Reply #61
66. O.J.'s jury : "the stupidest ever" says the poster. He obviously is no
Edited on Fri Dec-15-06 07:59 PM by oasis
expert on stupid juries. I thought my "fact-based"post would help to enlighten him.

Thus, it remains within the bounds of discussion on the O.J. verdict. :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
S n o w b a l l Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 08:24 PM
Response to Reply #66
69. Well ok...
Read Madame Foreman and tell me what you think then. I'm sorry, I have to agree with this poster...the jury had major problems. Some had to do with sequestering, but we were never talking about a jury of OJ's peers. This jury was handpicked by the defense and they knew exactly what they were doing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hang a left Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-16-06 05:21 PM
Response to Reply #69
88. you are right
the defense got the trial moved from the brentwood area to downtown LA because there would be a better jury pool for the defense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Balbus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-16-06 03:12 AM
Response to Reply #40
78. Okay, 2nd stupidest jury ever.
Better?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
butterfly77 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-16-06 01:09 PM
Response to Reply #20
81. Stupid like the one in the...
civil trial...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fridays Child Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 05:35 PM
Response to Original message
23. Jury Nullification
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RadiDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 06:56 PM
Response to Reply #23
57. agree
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
S n o w b a l l Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 05:48 PM
Response to Original message
26. Who here watched the entire trial?
And read almost every book on the subject? I was in LA on medical disability at the time so was able to watch every day. As an OJ fan with too much time on my hands, I was slightly obsessed. It was almost hard not to be...the entire city was obsessed.

There was no evidence tampering. He was rich enough to hire some brilliant attorneys who manipulated, twisted and distorted the facts to confuse the jurors. The DNA evidence alone would be enough to convict the average Joe. Granted, Ito and the prosecutors made their mistakes, but the evidence was there to convict regardless.

So the answer is....he was rich enough to afford the dream team who were brilliant in every way including jury selection.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzteris Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 05:50 PM
Response to Reply #26
28. I did.
I was pregnant and on "couch rest". The only thing I could do was sit and watch tv - all day long.

I think it was definitely a case of evidence tampering. Racist cops blew it. (And the prosecution totally sucked!)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nini Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 06:30 PM
Response to Reply #28
46. I'm somewhere between you and the other poster
OJ was well connected and liked by the LAPD - he was golfing buddies with many of the higher ups. However, the likes of Fuhrman made me wonder.

The case came down to the DNA evidence in general and there was just enough bungling of the evidence to create the doubt.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzteris Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 05:49 PM
Response to Original message
27. I thought I was one of the only ones
who believed crooked cops and incompetent prosecution so screwed this up that we'll never really "know" if he did it or not.

I know people think they 'know' - but they don't. No one does, really. Except him, I guess.

Personally, I never thought OJ was bright enough to pull of something like that. Probably wouldn't have (pulled it off) if the racist cops hadn't've tried to frame him.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
S n o w b a l l Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 06:09 PM
Response to Reply #27
37. See, I didn't see that at all...
Funny how we all interpret the same facts differently.

Mark Furhman was the defense's saving grace. But he had nothing to do with the blood evidence. I don't believe for a minute the other detectives were racist. I was married to a black man at the time and was constantly bouncing things off him to make sure I wasn't biased in my thinking.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ignacio Upton Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 11:07 PM
Response to Reply #37
73. Furhman became the defense's strawman
And it worked. Combined with Marcia Clark's ineptitude (not emphasizing his Bronco getaway, for example) and it's not surprising the that Juice is loose.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
baldguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 05:56 PM
Response to Original message
31. LA prosecutors tried to frame him.
It just happens that they did a poor job of it. It also just happens that he was guilty.

Maybe if they had just done their job, and if Ito had been able to keep the Circus under control, the verdict would have been different.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MazeRat7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 05:56 PM
Response to Original message
33. Other: Because the jury didn't find him guilty....
Now why that is the case is beyond my ability to read the minds of the 12 people that sat on they jury....


MZr7
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ngant17 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 05:58 PM
Response to Original message
34. Intermittent Rage Disorder and Jason Simpson
Because father was innocent and he was protecting his son, Jason.

see this link:

http://www.mattbaron.com/resources/go_figure/aug2001.ht...
-------------------------
A private investigator shared insights he had developed over a career that spanned over 30 years at that time. He was none other than William C. Dear...Dear unearthed information that had eluded both police and media and which point strongly to Jason Simpson, O.J.'s son from his first marriage, as a suspect in the murders.

Dear's theory is that Jason, upset that Nicole had not dined at the restaurant where he was chef earlier in the night, confronted her and went into a violent rage, much as he is alleged to have done with former girlfriends.

Jason, who supposedly had an airtight alibi, refused to cooperate with police and therefore was never questioned. Dear found the alibi was riddled with holes, and dug into Jason's violent, suicidal past that includes Dr. Jekyll-and-Mr. Hyde behavior clinically known as Intermittent Rage Disorder.

Sadly, the tunnel vision adopted by police and much of the media remained in evidence at the latest IRE conference, where many reporters greeted Dear's book in ho-hum fashion. Dear's staff brought 360 books, fully prepared to give them all away but expecting to pass out perhaps 150.

Numerous reporters gave them the cold shoulder, and Dear returned to Texas only 60 book copies lighter.

Dear has furnished the California Attorney General's Office with all of his investigative findings. Whether his work results in a break in the case remains unclear. But there is no doubt that he has taught something valuable to those who wish to avoid falling prey to the perils of paradigm paralysis.

"Never assume," he states at the book's outset. "Always verify."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MyNameGoesHere Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 06:00 PM
Response to Original message
35. Like it or not
he is free because he was found innocent in a court of law. Any questions?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
S n o w b a l l Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 06:12 PM
Response to Reply #35
39. He was also found guilty in the civil trial...
...and refuses to accept that verdict. Any questions?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MyNameGoesHere Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 06:18 PM
Response to Reply #39
41. Civil trials
do not put people in prison, the question was about him being free. Any other questions? Yeah didn't think so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 06:23 PM
Response to Reply #41
42. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 06:27 PM
Response to Reply #42
44. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
S n o w b a l l Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 06:50 PM
Response to Reply #44
49. How funny you're so intent on the law...
My point was...the law also found him guilty in the civil trial and he refuses to accept that. The law is the law, so you say? So, he's not in prison...the families have had to accept that. But, he was found guilty in a civil trial...so he needs to accept that as well and pay up. Can't have it both ways.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aint_no_life_nowhere Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 08:10 PM
Response to Reply #49
67. Actually, he was not found guilty in the civil trial
He was found liable in damages. Guilty is a criminal law term of art. In a civil trial, you can prove that you are 49% not responsible or not liable for an act but if the other side shows that you are 51% responsible, you are determined to owe compensatory damages to the other side for the loss. Liability in most civil cases in California requires only that 9 out of 12 jurors make that finding by a preponderance (51%) of the evidence. Civil cases that arise out of criminal cases usually are very prejudicial to the defendant because the defendant does not have a police department, a crime, lab, teams of investigators, etc. to dig up ANY evidence that he/she DIDN'T commit the act. Guilt in a criminal trial in California has a much higher standard of proof, requiring 12 out of 12 jurors to determine that a defendant is guilty beyond any reasonable doubt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nini Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 07:35 PM
Response to Reply #44
62. Actually, he was found NOT GUILTY
Edited on Fri Dec-15-06 07:50 PM by nini
big difference from being INNOCENT in the legal world.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MyNameGoesHere Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-16-06 12:29 PM
Response to Reply #62
79. Actually
he was innocent the whole time. he was proven not guilty. big difference. remember even if you are hated or not you are innocent till proven guilty. At least it was/is in the country i grew up in.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nini Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-16-06 04:19 PM
Response to Reply #79
87. the 'presumption' of innocence is true
but my point still stand on the not guilty verdict and what it means.


I do believe he did the murders, I also believe the verdict was appropriate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dollydew Donating Member (127 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 06:11 PM
Response to Original message
38. OJ Trial
Ooh boy, look at that black boy swing! That was a factor. I think the prosecution did a terrible job presenting their case. I'm a member of a family that had a lynching victim, with no justice. Why is Justice more important for some families than for others? Remember, black folks didn't run the society. We built much of it but had no political or economic power. We didn't write the laws. We didn't write the Bill of Rights or the Constitution. We were not even considered full human beings. Remember the 3/5 law that slave owners could use to boost their electoral power? We could be used to enable slave owners to have more voting/economic power. If those who wrote the laws and endorsed them refused to follow their edicts how is that our fault? The ruling elite refused to to follow the laws THEY WROTE. No problem. A law for me but not for thee. It happened over a long period of time. It was not "isolated incidents". Juries, populated by average Americans (most of whom were not non-white) gave non-guilty verdicts despite photographs and eye witness testimony. In a few cases brave judges and juries ruled in favor of these targeted Americans long after the "War of Independence" long after the "Civil War". They were also threatened. America has a severe case of amnesia. There is such a thing a historical and collective memory.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
riderinthestorm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 06:23 PM
Response to Original message
43. If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit!
Heh. Somebody had to do it....

Seriously though, the cops and their behavior were just fishy enough for a brilliant defense to plausibly manipulate. Combine that with an incompetent prosecution and I thought it was obvious OJ would walk out a free man.

I'm another one who managed to listen to a LOT of the trial.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hippo_Tron Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 11:03 PM
Response to Reply #43
71. You mean, If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit
Hope someone will get that reference.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hardtravelin Donating Member (156 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-16-06 05:23 PM
Response to Reply #71
90. The "wookie Defence" is unbeatable!!!! nt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sproutster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 06:28 PM
Response to Original message
45. Personally I think he's free
coz of police misconduct -- Gotta have those "slam dunks."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoCalDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 06:31 PM
Response to Original message
47. Because Johnnie Cochran knew how to "work the system"
and because OJ did not get a "jury of his peers". Jury nullification paid back old debts by letting OJ walk.

Justice denied can be acted out in ways we cannot imagine..

OJ, who ran from "being black", had to embrace it to save his measly backside, and unfortunately the victims got no justice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
S n o w b a l l Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 06:54 PM
Response to Reply #47
53. Amen there!
You're exactly right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tiptoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 06:51 PM
Response to Original message
50. Because all 4 detectives testi-lied, and at least one planted evidence.
Edited on Fri Dec-15-06 06:54 PM by tiptoe
(and I'm not talking about the Rockingham glove evidence Fuhrman was suspected of planting).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RadiDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 06:55 PM
Response to Reply #50
55. agree
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aint_no_life_nowhere Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-16-06 04:05 PM
Response to Reply #50
86. There were a lot of strange things going on with the police
I'm not just talking about a long-time veteran homocide detective like Vanatter stupidly putting OJ's blood sample in his coat pocket and bringing it to the crime scene where blood was being collected off the driveway and Bronco.

Mark Fuhrman's audio tapes to the writer in which he described how he felt about blacks was just the tip of the iceberg. Judge Ito prevented the defense from obtaining and introducing Mark Fuhrman's police personnel file, as that is protected by privilege in California under the penal code, even in the case of the most serious public complaints lodged against the officer in his/her past. But we know from separate sources that Mark Fuhrman had a long history of racist behavior, having once beaten an Hispanic youth within an inch of his life and also having beaten a Rabbi, yes a Rabbi on the street in front of his family and having allegedly made anti-semitic remarks to him. There were also charges that Mark Fuhrman had previously falsified evidence pursuant to a racist motivation. Of course Judge Ito did not allow the defense to go into Fuhrman's personnel file in order to ask him about it on the witness stand.

The strange thing is that although Judge Ito refused to allow the opening of Mark Fuhrman's personnel file to check for a continuing pattern of racially-motivated abuse and previous falsification of evidence, the police themselves allowed a civilian to review Mark Fuhrman's file and to go public about it. Ex police chief Darryl Gates went on local Los Angeles television and radio to announce that he had just then fully reviewed Mark Fuhrman's entire personnel file at police headquarters and had found absolutely no evidence of past racism. Darryl Gates was then a civilian, having retired as Los Angeles Police Chief and yet the police allowed him to review a personnel file that is considered privileged and confidential under the California Penal Code and that had been refused to the defense by Judge Ito. This is the same racist Darryl Gates who had a worst reputation for racism in Los Angeles than David Dukes. This is the same Darryl Gates who blamed blacks for dying in police-administred choke holds (which he instituted) because they were not like "normal" people. This is the same Darryl Gates who called Hispanic Officers "lazy". It's the same Darryl Gates who accused Jewish refugees arriving at that time in Los Angeles in great numbers from the Soviet Union as being spies. This is the same Darryl Gates who tried to punish the gay members of his police force for identifying themselves as being gay when they tried to enlist police recruits in the gay community.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pavulon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 06:52 PM
Response to Original message
52. The real killers are still at large!!!!!
caught the guy fucking his woman and killed them both. That never happens..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Raine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 07:09 PM
Response to Original message
59. Because 4 cops got off
for beating Rodney King.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlueIris Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 07:15 PM
Response to Original message
60. Other: Lance Ito allowed his courtroom to be turned into a circus.
I agree that prosecutorial misconduct also played a critical role in allowing the jury to rationalize it's obvious desire to find an excuse not to convict a formerly revered celebrity and American success story, but if a competent jurist has been on the bench in that room? The media would never have been allowed inside, Simpson's defense attorneys would have been more tightly reined in, and...well, I really think that without the cameras and the craziness Ito allowed to take over the process, the trial might have gone smoothly enough for the jury to believe Simpson had gotten a fair defense and been more receptive to accepting the validity of the evidence against him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pettypace Donating Member (695 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 07:38 PM
Response to Original message
63. You guys brought up the civil trial verdict...
..and using the demographic makeup of that jury versus the predominately minority-laden, criminal jury, I must infer that race was the prevailing factor in Mr. Simpson's exoneration.

I've always pondered whether there is a political dynamic involved in how people view OJ Simpson. Are Democrats/progressives less inclined to harbor anger or repulsion towards Mr. Simpson than those aligned with the opposite party/ideology?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OPERATIONMINDCRIME Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 07:42 PM
Response to Original message
64. ROFLMFAO At The 9 Who Think He's Innocent!
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Doctor_J Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 07:58 PM
Response to Reply #64
65. Proof that Michael Moore is a DUer
he once described himself as "the only white man who thinks OJ is innocent"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
burythehatchet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 11:06 PM
Response to Reply #64
72. be self aware
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OPERATIONMINDCRIME Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 11:42 PM
Response to Reply #72
74. I'm Sorry, Did You Have A Point?
No idea what on earth you're talking about or how it relates in any manner to my comment.

Regardless, I doubt you'll ever come across in your lifetime a being more self aware than I. Trust me when I say my self-awareness is on a level that would drive most people to the brink of insanity, while being one of my greatest gifts yet most tragic flaws all at the same time.

But like I said; damned if I know how in the hell that relates to this thread LOL
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
novalib Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 08:14 PM
Response to Original message
68. The SUN and The PLANETS and the MOON!
He's not in prison because the SUN, Planets, and MOON were NOT properly aligned during the time of his trial for the prosecution to obtain a CONVICTION!!

PLUS:

"Ito" and "Simpson", when combined, form an anagram:

"IT IS ON MOPS"

IT IS ON MOPS!!!!!!!!!!

THAT is why Simpson is not in prison!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Imagevision Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-16-06 01:43 AM
Response to Original message
75. OJ. had to move toFlorida in order to keep a house.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BuyingThyme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-16-06 01:05 PM
Response to Original message
80. He's free because they framed a guilty man.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lurking Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-16-06 01:15 PM
Response to Original message
82. Other
Or, really, a combination of things.

The prosecution was badly mishandled.

He was rich and could afford prominent and high powered attorneys.

He was famous and that tends to imprint an unrealistic picture of their true nature on the public at large.

Televising trials like this turn them into entertainment rather than exercises in jurisprudence and a circus-like psychology takes over.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
porphyrian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-16-06 05:22 PM
Response to Original message
89. There's no justice if it can simply be bought. - n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigwillq Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-16-06 05:52 PM
Response to Original message
92. Because the jury decided he was innocent
based on the facts presented to them in the case.

I for one, thought that the prosecution did a horrible job...and some of their big witnesses bombed big time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Aug 22nd 2014, 06:38 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC