9-33 years: "The Juice" gets squeezed for good

[Kiwon]

For more than 13 years, he has been widely regarded as the man who got away with murder. But this morning, O.J. Simpson was punished for other crimes: last year’s kidnapping and armed robbery of two sports memorabilia dealers at Palace Station.

After hearing a statement of remorse from Simpson, whose voice quivered as he spoke, District Judge Jackie Glass imposed a sentence that will keep the Hall of Fame running back behind bars between nine and 33 years.

http://www.lvrj.com/news/35601444.html

[cpk1994]

Not sure where they get 33 years, but all the major news services report 9 years to 15 years with parole eligibility to begin at 5 years.

[CaliforniaCheez]

Why start a thread not about football or about the Packers here.

A moderator should move it to the Romper Room.

Criminals should not be discussed here (unless it is another arrested viking).

[sheepshead]

To quote Bill Michaels...Ssssseeee ya!

[oregonpackfan]

How is O.J. ever going to find his wife's killer if he is behind bars? :roll:

[cheesner]

Probably part of OJs plan. He likely knows who the real killer is, the guy is in prison, and now the juice can get to him.

The man is relentless.

[Kiwon]

The younger guys here have no idea how popular O.J. Simpson was back in the mid-70's.

Football, TV, movies, commercials. He was the marketing equivalent of Tiger Woods and Michael Jordan rolled into one.

He made it to the football HOF, but other than that........

He wasted his life in the worst way. It's a shame.

[cpk1994]

The younger guys here have no idea how popular O.J. Simpson was back in the mid-70's.

Football, TV, movies, commercials. He was the marketing equivalent of Tiger Woods and Michael Jordan rolled into one.

He made it to the football HOF, but other than that........

He wasted his life in the worst way. It's a shame.Absolutely, Ill never forget his famous Hertz commerical showing him running through the airport. I actually still have an orange "OJ Simpson signature NFL football". Boy Im really starting to date myself.

[packinpatland]

I (we) were living in Oswego, NY in 1976. My husband's boss gave us tickets to a home Buffalo game. Saw OJ play. He was good.

[texaspackerbacker]

I honestly don't know why I've always been sympathetic to O.J., but I am.

In this recent case, it just seems like he was behaving like a natural man--going after something he perceived to have been stolen from him. And I don't care what the law says, kidnapping when the person kidnapped never leaves the room? Come on. That's bullshit. I could see myself--and truth be told, almost any of us--behaving about the same in similar circumstances.

Now, I'll sit back and listen to all the whiny do-gooder shame-on-you types spew about how they're above all that.

I would have voted Not Guilty in his murder case too. The inept prosecutors never crossed the reasonable doubt threshhold. "He probably did it" doesn't cut it in the American judicial system.

Besides, by the Texas legal doctrine of "she needed killing", she did ...... and the boyfriend even more so.

[retailguy]

pathetic. there are no other words to describe that. Tex you should be ashamed.

[swede]

I honestly don't know why I've always been sympathetic to O.J., but I am...

I would have voted Not Guilty in his murder case too...

Besides, by the Texas legal doctrine of "she needed killing", she did ...... and the boyfriend even more so.

Tex!
OMG!

http://www.15minutedate.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/03/pic_49.jpg


Seriously, Tex...that post should buy you 9-33 days in the Rat Trap.

(Do we still HAVE the Rat Trap?)

[packinpatland]

I honestly don't know why I've always been sympathetic to O.J., but I am.

In this recent case, it just seems like he was behaving like a natural man--going after something he perceived to have been stolen from him. And I don't care what the law says, kidnapping when the person kidnapped never leaves the room? Come on. That's bullshit. I could see myself--and truth be told, almost any of us--behaving about the same in similar circumstances.

Now, I'll sit back and listen to all the whiny do-gooder shame-on-you types spew about how they're above all that.

I would have voted Not Guilty in his murder case too. The inept prosecutors never crossed the reasonable doubt threshhold. "He probably did it" doesn't cut it in the American judicial system.

Besides, by the Texas legal doctrine of "she needed killing", she did ...... and the boyfriend even more so.


I don't for one minute believe you believe what you wrote.
You just like yank people's chains. :roll:

[texaspackerbacker]

I'm just saying what is routinely said in bars and factories and offices, everywhere that intellectually honest men gather and speak without fear of the p.c. crowd.

Do we have nobody in here who admits he would go in and kick some ass if somebody stole something from him and he knew where to find the thief?

Do we have nobody in here who at least sympathizes with a guy who offs his slut ex-wife and her boyfriend? Sure, most of us wouldn't do it, but why? Because it isn't worth the time you do if you get caught, that's all.

Whine on, you p.c. types. I bet you felt sorry for Russert too.

[swede]

I would like to challenge anyone who thinks anything I write to be "extremist" to state specifically "how" and "why" they see whatever it is as "extremist"--and NOT merely normal Americanism.


I honestly don't know why I've always been sympathetic to O.J., but I am.

In this recent case, it just seems like he was behaving like a natural man--going after something he perceived to have been stolen from him. And I don't care what the law says, kidnapping when the person kidnapped never leaves the room? Come on. That's bullshit. I could see myself--and truth be told, almost any of us--behaving about the same in similar circumstances.

Now, I'll sit back and listen to all the whiny do-gooder shame-on-you types spew about how they're above all that.

I would have voted Not Guilty in his murder case too. The inept prosecutors never crossed the reasonable doubt threshhold. "He probably did it" doesn't cut it in the American judicial system.

Besides, by the Texas legal doctrine of "she needed killing", she did ...... and the boyfriend even more so.

The above is extremely not normal Americanism, dude.

[texaspackerbacker]

I would like to challenge anyone who thinks anything I write to be "extremist" to state specifically "how" and "why" they see whatever it is as "extremist"--and NOT merely normal Americanism.


I honestly don't know why I've always been sympathetic to O.J., but I am.

In this recent case, it just seems like he was behaving like a natural man--going after something he perceived to have been stolen from him. And I don't care what the law says, kidnapping when the person kidnapped never leaves the room? Come on. That's bullshit. I could see myself--and truth be told, almost any of us--behaving about the same in similar circumstances.

Now, I'll sit back and listen to all the whiny do-gooder shame-on-you types spew about how they're above all that.

I would have voted Not Guilty in his murder case too. The inept prosecutors never crossed the reasonable doubt threshhold. "He probably did it" doesn't cut it in the American judicial system.

Besides, by the Texas legal doctrine of "she needed killing", she did ...... and the boyfriend even more so.

The above is extremely not normal Americanism, dude.

I disagree. Among a bunch of elitists and dilettantes, yes, what I say may be pretty extreme. But among regular people speaking from the gut--what they really feel instead of worrying what whoever is gonna think and whine about them, this is not the least extremist. I would say, "ask around", but you forum negativists would probably be perceived (correctly) as the p.c. police, and not get honest responses.

[MJZiggy]

I think once someone is your ex, what they do or with whom is no longer your business, so no matter who she was sleeping with, no, she did not "need killin'"

Seriously, dude, it's not about being PC. That is just over-the-top not what one expects to hear from a self-proclaimed decent American.

[Bretsky]

I'm just saying what is routinely said in bars and factories and offices, everywhere that intellectually honest men gather and speak without fear of the p.c. crowd.

Do we have nobody in here who admits he would go in and kick some ass if somebody stole something from him and he knew where to find the thief?

Do we have nobody in here who at least sympathizes with a guy who offs his slut ex-wife and her boyfriend? Sure, most of us wouldn't do it, but why? Because it isn't worth the time you do if you get caught, that's all.

Whine on, you p.c. types. I bet you felt sorry for Russert too.


Piss Poor Tex

The idea that he was beating the crap out of her might have had a bit to do with her life decisions as well

You don't kill somebody

[packinpatland]

I'm just saying what is routinely said in bars and factories and offices, everywhere that intellectually honest men gather and speak without fear of the p.c. crowd.

Do we have nobody in here who admits he would go in and kick some ass if somebody stole something from him and he knew where to find the thief?

Do we have nobody in here who at least sympathizes with a guy who offs his slut ex-wife and her boyfriend? Sure, most of us wouldn't do it, but why? Because it isn't worth the time you do if you get caught, that's all.

Whine on, you p.c. types. I bet you felt sorry for Russert too.


Every family, in this case forum, has it's class A-one a*&%hole........
you Tex, fit the bill.

[KYPack]

Well, I won't jump you too bad, but you are one strange bird, Tex.

"intellectually honest men"

Are you shittin' me?

Mebbe it outta be.."where intellectually honest men get together and bump each other with their hoods".

[Tarlam!]

I think once someone is your ex, what they do or with whom is no longer your business, so no matter who she was sleeping with, no, she did not "need killin'"

This was my thought, too. And, men should NEVER, under any circumstances beat women. Especially not men built to play in the NFL.

I wonder what our resident Black Panther Mobb Deep says about OJ. Prolly that he was framed by Uncle Tom.

[Rastak]

I'll tell you how I feel.


Sad.


That's it and I really do feel, sad. Here's a guy I really looked up to. I watched most of his trial on court TV. I was convinced based on testimony that he was guilty.

He's become a rather pathetic figure. I'd have alot more sympathy for him had he not bought plastic and rope and such indicating he fully intended to kill his ex. Had it been a crime of passion I might have felt a small bit of understanding but how can you based on the facts?

This latest thing which finally did him in just strikes me as the act of a man losing his mind and it makes me feel sad. Tar, I'm guessing you missed this but this cat was unreal to watch in the 70's on the football field.

Just unreal. He was ok to listen to in the booth. His movies were pretty average. But I always thought the juice was ass kicking.


When I saw him crying and begging for mercy in court today it made me nothing but sad. How a guy could do so much damage to other people then finish himself off is beyond me.

[Tarlam!]

Tar, I'm guessing you missed this but this cat was unreal to watch in the 70's on the football field.

I never saw him play, Ras. I was in D.C. visiting my late wife's Aunt when the infamous car chase went down, so I was brought up to speed. The court case was carried here in Germany.

I read up on the guy and know of his legend. He was one of the first blacks that reportedly crossed the race barrier and was fully accepted by whites - that's what I read.

[Rastak]

Tar, I'm guessing you missed this but this cat was unreal to watch in the 70's on the football field.

I never saw him play, Ras. I was in D.C. visiting my late wife's Aunt when the infamous car chase went down, so I was brought up to speed. The court case was carried here in Germany.

I read up on the guy and know of his legend. He was one of the first blacks that reportedly crossed the race barrier and was fully accepted by whites - that's what I read.


Ah, that could be but I always accepted people of any color from a very young age. My point is, you should have watched that guy play. Very sad.

[Tarlam!]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TomvQ4Nk3k

[Rastak]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TomvQ4Nk3k


You da man Tar.....very cool. Thanks.


edit:

Check this out

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W7Id3ioATXo&feature=related

[texaspackerbacker]

I'll tell you how I feel.


Sad.


That's it and I really do feel, sad. Here's a guy I really looked up to. I watched most of his trial on court TV. I was convinced based on testimony that he was guilty.

He's become a rather pathetic figure. I'd have alot more sympathy for him had he not bought plastic and rope and such indicating he fully intended to kill his ex. Had it been a crime of passion I might have felt a small bit of understanding but how can you based on the facts?

This latest thing which finally did him in just strikes me as the act of a man losing his mind and it makes me feel sad. Tar, I'm guessing you missed this but this cat was unreal to watch in the 70's on the football field.

Just unreal. He was ok to listen to in the booth. His movies were pretty average. But I always thought the juice was ass kicking.


When I saw him crying and begging for mercy in court today it made me nothing but sad. How a guy could do so much damage to other people then finish himself off is beyond me.

First of all, addressing the legal aspect, just because most people, me included, THOUGHT he did it following the trial doesn't mean he should have been found guilty. The prosecutors were mental light weights going up against Johnny Cochran and the Dream Team. Several issues of reasonable doubt that might have been beatable weren't even addressed by the prosecution. Any juror doing his duty had to conclude the burden of proof wasn't met.

Secondly, the moral aspect--his ex and the guy "needing killing", I'm just saying, that's a gut reaction I and I firmly believe the huge majority of men would have--not to act on, but to sympathize with somebody who did--assuming O.J. actually did what he was accused of. Sure, most women and some guys think otherwise. I'm just saying that most "intellectually honest" men--those not afraid to express their true gut reaction--can understand and empathize with O.J.

Thirdly, as for the current case, the legal definition of kidnapping is pure bullshit. Detaining somebody in a fixed location for a few minutes? Come on. That's just ridiculous. And armed robbery of somebody in possession of YOUR OWN stolen goods? While meeting the letter of the law, that's pretty damn justifiable, if you ask me, and for the judge--a vengeful female judge sentencing based on the verdict of an all white jury--to throw the book at O.J., that, IMO, is just wrong--an illegal creeping in of vengeance from the perceived injustice 13 years ago.

I don't suppose any of you holier-than-thou elitists and p.c. freaks would care to discuss the facts as I have laid them out there.

[Bretsky]

this plane is now landing in the Romper Room and holier than now elitists :lol: can have at it

[Harlan Huckleby]

ok bretsky, I'm here.


I think in Tex's original comment, he was talking about the recent case of OJ reclaiming his sports memorabilia, not OJ the slasher from 15 years ago.

several people misunderstood and had a cow

then Tex came back in swinging, now offering his wisdom on OJ part one, validating the earlier misguided revulsion.

Or maybe I don't understand this thread and am not interested enough to read the long posts. ya, that's probably right.

[Tarlam!]

I'm no elitist and I have no idea what a PC person is, but, you just don't have the right to bash and kill your ex-wife.

I can understand coming home, catching your wife in bed and killing her. It aint right, you shouldn't kill period, but, shit, I could understand why one would be inclined to do it.

OJ, apparently, was a serial wife basher. He didn't have a slip of the hand, he bashed his wife. Not good. And nobody, who has any self respect, male female or androgynous, will find that to be a good thing. Men should not hit women.

So, she had a right to dump him, cause he bashed her. If anything, Tex, OJ needed killin' for bashin' his wife.

I think your opinion on this is really screwed up.

[Patler]

First of all, addressing the legal aspect, just because most people, me included, THOUGHT he did it following the trial doesn't mean he should have been found guilty. The prosecutors were mental light weights going up against Johnny Cochran and the Dream Team. Several issues of reasonable doubt that might have been beatable weren't even addressed by the prosecution. Any juror doing his duty had to conclude the burden of proof wasn't met.


Sorry, Tex, but I think you and too many people, including jurors in some criminal cases, have confused REASONABLE doubt with ANY doubt. A criminal conviction can be supported even in the presence of doubt.

In my opinion, the so-called reasonable doubt raised by the Dream Team was not reasonable, it was pure fantasy. There was plenty of circumstantial evidence, all consistent and supportive of the other, for a guilty verdict. Many of the primary forensic evidence defenses raised by Simpson were scientifically wrong, and would not fly today.

The prosecutors made their share of blunders, but neither alone nor collectively should these mistakes have been fatal to their case.

The Simpson murder trial was a typical Hollywood trial, with the inevitable acquittal at the end.

And yes, I watched the trial and videotaped what I didn't watch live. I have even read much of the transcript from the forensics experts.

[texaspackerbacker]

I'm no elitist and I have no idea what a PC person is, but, you just don't have the right to bash and kill your ex-wife.

I can understand coming home, catching your wife in bed and killing her. It aint right, you shouldn't kill period, but, shit, I could understand why one would be inclined to do it.

OJ, apparently, was a serial wife basher. He didn't have a slip of the hand, he bashed his wife. Not good. And nobody, who has any self respect, male female or androgynous, will find that to be a good thing. Men should not hit women.

So, she had a right to dump him, cause he bashed her. If anything, Tex, OJ needed killin' for bashin' his wife.

I think your opinion on this is really screwed up.

First of all, Harlan, thanks for the mitigation, but actually, I made reference to both cases in my first post.

Tarlam, PC means Political Correctness--that new age liberal mindset where it's so horrible to say what people are so obviously thinking, but the elitists can't stand to hear us regular people say. Of course, that doesn't apply when they are spewing crap about THEIR favorite targets. If memory serves, I think you have been victim of the PC police in here once or twice.

You bring up a valid point about OJ being a wife-beater. I haven't condoned that, although it seems quite possible her sluttiness was going on even before they got divorced, in which case, there is a degree of justification--kind of a which came first, the chicken or the egg sort of thing.

Patler, I would contend that there was plenty of REASONABLE doubt. "If the glove does not fit, you must acquit"--and it sure as hell didn't fit. Sure, soaking in blood and then drying can shrink leather, but the inept prosecutors just let that point sit there without challenge. If the victim was eating ice cream, and there were still chunks unmelted when the cops arrived, how can you say the time of death was such and such--before OJ had an alibi? Never mind that it was cookie dough ice cream--the prosecutors never connected the dots on that. Large questions about chain of custody of blood samples and possible evidence planting, testimony I don't recall about a dog barking, witnesses bringing up alternative perpetrators, all of that was not adequately discredited by the prosecutors. The forensic stuff you mentioned that by TODAY'S SCIENCE would shoot down the defense's effort toward reasonable doubt? Maybe, but with what was available at the time, the doubt was very reasonable.

I'm certainly not saying he didn't do it, just that a strong probability he did it ain't good enough in our legal system--as liberals are so prone to point out with defendants that THEY are sympathetic to.

[Tarlam!]

Tarlam, PC means Political Correctness--(...)If memory serves, I think you have been victim of the PC police in here once or twice.

You bring up a valid point about OJ being a wife-beater. I haven't condoned that, although it seems quite possible her sluttiness was going on even before they got divorced, in which case, there is a degree of justification--kind of a which came first, the chicken or the egg sort of thing.


Thanks for explaining PC. I was only ever really chastised once by Scott Campbell for stating Micheal Vick is innocent until proven guilty.

Even if she was guilty of "sluttiness" (which is hearsay), then a man still shouldn't be a systematic wife basher. Again, I will allow if a man catches his wife in the act, it is understandable that he would react violently. I'm not saying it's OK, just saying I personally could understand that reaction.

What I can't understand is murdering the mother of one's children after a marital separation. It's clear that that's not a chicken/egg question. They were serparated (divorced?), she had a right to live her life any way she chose.

[Patler]

Patler, I would contend that there was plenty of REASONABLE doubt. "If the glove does not fit, you must acquit"--and it sure as hell didn't fit. Sure, soaking in blood and then drying can shrink leather, but the inept prosecutors just let that point sit there without challenge. If the victim was eating ice cream, and there were still chunks unmelted when the cops arrived, how can you say the time of death was such and such--before OJ had an alibi? Never mind that it was cookie dough ice cream--the prosecutors never connected the dots on that. Large questions about chain of custody of blood samples and possible evidence planting, testimony I don't recall about a dog barking, witnesses bringing up alternative perpetrators, all of that was not adequately discredited by the prosecutors. The forensic stuff you mentioned that by TODAY'S SCIENCE would shoot down the defense's effort toward reasonable doubt? Maybe, but with what was available at the time, the doubt was very reasonable.


The gloves were mishandled by prosecutors, for sure. Allowing him to try them on while wearing a pair of latex gloves underneath was mind-boggling to me. I remember screaming at the TV at the time. But, even with that it was easily seen that the gloves only needed to be pulled completely down onto the fingers to fit as designed. It was a glove designed to fit snuggly. They simply could not be pulled on all the way with the latex gloves on underneath. It really had little to do with the gloves having shrunk, it had more to do with the latex gloves he was allowed to wear underneath.

Simpson testified he never owned gloves of that type. Photos showed he did.
Simpson testified he never owned the exclusive brand pf shoes having the unique print found at the scene, again photos proved he did.
Mishandling blood evidence might degrade DNA, but it does not turn the DNA into the DNA of someone else. That was known then. Its not "TODAYS SCIENCE" as you called it.
The planting of evidence arguments were simply unsupported allegations, as were much of the other defenses. They were not reasonable in view of the overwhelming evidence that pointed to Simpson. They may have raised doubt, but not reasonable doubt, in the totality of the evidence.

I will never convince you, you will never convince me. But it is an extremely interesting case to discuss legally and socially. It spawned a new era in which defense attorneys commonly now put the police and prosecutors on trial as part of their defense. The standard of "reasonable doubt" escalated to one of "no doubt". Alternative theories are put before juries with little or no supporting evidence, and are often successful. Arguing the facts of the case is now pointless, but discussing the ramifications is very interesting.

[BallHawk]

Boy Im really starting to date myself.

You should try one of those online matchmaking sites. They can do wonders.

[texaspackerbacker]

Patler, I would contend that there was plenty of REASONABLE doubt. "If the glove does not fit, you must acquit"--and it sure as hell didn't fit. Sure, soaking in blood and then drying can shrink leather, but the inept prosecutors just let that point sit there without challenge. If the victim was eating ice cream, and there were still chunks unmelted when the cops arrived, how can you say the time of death was such and such--before OJ had an alibi? Never mind that it was cookie dough ice cream--the prosecutors never connected the dots on that. Large questions about chain of custody of blood samples and possible evidence planting, testimony I don't recall about a dog barking, witnesses bringing up alternative perpetrators, all of that was not adequately discredited by the prosecutors. The forensic stuff you mentioned that by TODAY'S SCIENCE would shoot down the defense's effort toward reasonable doubt? Maybe, but with what was available at the time, the doubt was very reasonable.


The gloves were mishandled by prosecutors, for sure. Allowing him to try them on while wearing a pair of latex gloves underneath was mind-boggling to me. I remember screaming at the TV at the time. But, even with that it was easily seen that the gloves only needed to be pulled completely down onto the fingers to fit as designed. It was a glove designed to fit snuggly. They simply could not be pulled on all the way with the latex gloves on underneath. It really had little to do with the gloves having shrunk, it had more to do with the latex gloves he was allowed to wear underneath.

Simpson testified he never owned gloves of that type. Photos showed he did.
Simpson testified he never owned the exclusive brand pf shoes having the unique print found at the scene, again photos proved he did.
Mishandling blood evidence might degrade DNA, but it does not turn the DNA into the DNA of someone else. That was known then. Its not "TODAYS SCIENCE" as you called it.
The planting of evidence arguments were simply unsupported allegations, as were much of the other defenses. They were not reasonable in view of the overwhelming evidence that pointed to Simpson. They may have raised doubt, but not reasonable doubt, in the totality of the evidence.

I will never convince you, you will never convince me. But it is an extremely interesting case to discuss legally and socially. It spawned a new era in which defense attorneys commonly now put the police and prosecutors on trial as part of their defense. The standard of "reasonable doubt" escalated to one of "no doubt". Alternative theories are put before juries with little or no supporting evidence, and are often successful. Arguing the facts of the case is now pointless, but discussing the ramifications is very interesting.

The mishandling of the blood I referred to was that cop--the one they dug up the racist stuff on--possibly taking it from the crime seen and planting it somewhere incriminating.

The DNA was something about narrowing it down to 1 in x number thousand or whatever--which the defense pointed out could have been a few hundred people in the LA area. Now, they could probably pinpoint it with more certainty.

Keep in mind, I'm not saying O.J. didn't do it, just that there was enough uncontroverted reasonable doubt--partly due to prosecutorial incompetence--that the proper verdict for jurors was not guilty.

If I hadn't been so damn lazy in my youth (and still), I would have gone to law school, and I have always looked at it like: he may be a criminal, but he's MY criminal--if he's my client, and I'll do whatever it takes to get him off--Johnny Cochran or Alan Shore-style. And really, that's what it takes for our judicial system to work as it's supposed to work. Of course, that doesn't take into account the fact that prosecutors are paid so much less, and you often get what you pay for.

[Patler]

The mishandling of the blood I referred to was that cop--the one they dug up the racist stuff on--possibly taking it from the crime seen and planting it somewhere incriminating.

The DNA was something about narrowing it down to 1 in x number thousand or whatever--which the defense pointed out could have been a few hundred people in the LA area. Now, they could probably pinpoint it with more certainty.

Keep in mind, I'm not saying O.J. didn't do it, just that there was enough uncontroverted reasonable doubt--partly due to prosecutorial incompetence--that the proper verdict for jurors was not guilty.


That is where we differ. In my opinion the doubt they raised, the planting of evidence and all of that, was not reasonable doubt in the totality of the circumstances and evidence presented. The prosecutors did not do a great job to be sure, but their job is not to dispel all doubt. There will always be doubt.

[texaspackerbacker]

The mishandling of the blood I referred to was that cop--the one they dug up the racist stuff on--possibly taking it from the crime seen and planting it somewhere incriminating.

The DNA was something about narrowing it down to 1 in x number thousand or whatever--which the defense pointed out could have been a few hundred people in the LA area. Now, they could probably pinpoint it with more certainty.

Keep in mind, I'm not saying O.J. didn't do it, just that there was enough uncontroverted reasonable doubt--partly due to prosecutorial incompetence--that the proper verdict for jurors was not guilty.


That is where we differ. In my opinion the doubt they raised, the planting of evidence and all of that, was not reasonable doubt in the totality of the circumstances and evidence presented. The prosecutors did not do a great job to be sure, but their job is not to dispel all doubt. There will always be doubt.

That's what I'm saying. The prosecutors did NOT do an effective job of dealing with the issues raised by the defense--dispelling the doubt and moving it away from the reasonable side of the spectrum.

Therefore, jurors could have and indeed should have seen the doubts as reasonable--especially given the fact that many were black, and predisposed to look for a reason to acquit O.J.

[Patler]

That's what I'm saying. The prosecutors did NOT do an effective job of dealing with the issues raised by the defense--dispelling the doubt and moving it away from the reasonable side of the spectrum.

Therefore, jurors could have and indeed should have seen the doubts as reasonable--especially given the fact that many were black, and predisposed to look for a reason to acquit O.J.

I know what you are saying, I simply disagree. To me the prosecutors didn't have to do anything more to move the doubt "away from the reasonable side of the spectrum." The prosecutors provided hundreds of pieces of evidence, they provided weeks and weeks of testimony about the evidence. The defense provided what in my opinion were far fetched theories that were not reasonable in the totallity of the evidence and testimony presented. The prosecution does not have to directly confront the alternative theories (even though they often do). The alternative theories can be shown unreasonable simply by the weight of the evidence that contradicts it.

The whole problem in the trial is captured in your last paragraph. The jury was looking for a reason to acquit. I do not think anything short of a confession would have been good enough for them. The prosecution did not do a great job, to be sure, but I'm not sure they ever could have gotten a conviction. Celebrities are often given free passes by star-struck juries.

[texaspackerbacker]

Being a prosecutor is like putting out a brush fire on a windy day. Every time some new fire springs up--those "far-fetched" defense theories you spoke of, the fire needs to be put out--the specific contention needs to be dealt with. O.J.'s prosecutors didn't do that.

Apparently, a lot of the things--the glove, the ice cream, the hauling of the blood evidence all over in the cop's car, the dog barking, and numerous other things--would just go away/be dismissed by jurors as unreasonable. They were wrong--especially with jurors predisposed to side with O.J., and with defense lawyers who were far more eloquent and convincing speakers.

[Rastak]

That's what I'm saying. The prosecutors did NOT do an effective job of dealing with the issues raised by the defense--dispelling the doubt and moving it away from the reasonable side of the spectrum.

Therefore, jurors could have and indeed should have seen the doubts as reasonable--especially given the fact that many were black, and predisposed to look for a reason to acquit O.J.

I know what you are saying, I simply disagree. To me the prosecutors didn't have to do anything more to move the doubt "away from the reasonable side of the spectrum." The prosecutors provided hundreds of pieces of evidence, they provided weeks and weeks of testimony about the evidence. The defense provided what in my opinion were far fetched theories that were not reasonable in the totallity of the evidence and testimony presented. The prosecution does not have to directly confront the alternative theories (even though they often do). The alternative theories can be shown unreasonable simply by the weight of the evidence that contradicts it.

The whole problem in the trial is captured in your last paragraph. The jury was looking for a reason to acquit. I do not think anything short of a confession would have been good enough for them. The prosecution did not do a great job, to be sure, but I'm not sure they ever could have gotten a conviction. Celebrities are often given free passes by star-struck juries.


I'm kind of a court tv fan and I watched most of that trial. I agree the jury was looking to acquit. Alot of evidence was circumstantial but there was shitloads of it. Enough where most reasonable people would find no doubt.

[texaspackerbacker]

It wasn't because O.J. was a superstar. It was because he was black that many on the "jury of his peers" were predisposed to acquit. That combined with the fact that others like me were slightly predisposed to acquit somebody who allegedly offed his slut ex-wife and her boyfriend.

If you think about it, though, "innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" essentially means defeating a predisposition to acquit with proof. Tons of circumstantial evidence--and a few unanswered loose ends just doesn't cut it by that standard.

As for "most reasonable people", what do you think, maybe 70 or 80%? That's about 9 out of 12 jurors. For better or worse, though, it takes 12 out of 12 to get a conviction.