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

[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.