The Truth About The Original OJ Case
 

He was supposed to be acquitted. And all those respectable lawyers (at least some of them were respectable) had few qualms about getting him acquitted. Because it was wrong to charge him with first degree murder. He committed second degree murder. (At the very end, the jury was instructed that they could in fact find him guilty of second degree, but I believe that even an unbiased jury would have trouble doing that when the prosecution case did not really admit that second degree murder was a reasonable alternative.)

Any other opinion is moronic.

Re: The Truth About The Original OJ Case
 

[ QUOTE ]
He was supposed to be acquitted.

[/ QUOTE ]

He was acquitted, not he was supposed to be. What's more he was acquitted by a jury, afaik. To bring up his guilt now, seems to me very anti US law. I presume if you can doubt the rightness of his acquittal you have to doubt every guilty findings as well, especially those that end up in an execution. I mean you must be against capital execution! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] Perhaps you feel that probabilities are sufficient when it comes to capital punishment?!

Sorry this may be an hijack but you are at least questioning people's opinion of a jury finding, as well as finding this opinion moronic!

Re: The Truth About The Original OJ Case
 

The court of law and the court of public opinion are always two different things...

Re: The Truth About The Original OJ Case
 

[ QUOTE ]
And all those respectable lawyers (at least some of them were respectable) had few qualms about getting him acquitted.

[/ QUOTE ]

So those same "respectable" lawyers would have let him get convicted if it was only a second degree charge?

If there was a strong enough case available to convict him, given his capable defense, then the problem was the prosecution acted like morons.

D.

Re: The Truth About The Original OJ Case
 

[ QUOTE ]

Any other opinion is moronic.

[/ QUOTE ]


The killing of another with malice aforethought. As somebody currently sitting in a law class, I disagree with this analysis. Premeditation can happen in the blink of an eye.

Re: The Truth About The Original OJ Case
 

so you think OJ went over to the crime scene to see his exwife( was it in front of her house?) and in a sudden rage killed them both? well did he normally carry around a big knife? if not that shows intent.

Re: The Truth About The Original OJ Case
 

<font color="blue"> Any other opinion is moronic. </font>

I'm not sure if you realize that putting things in such black and white terms and overusing the word moronic as you do, serves to hurt your credibility. If used sparingly it would be powerful coming from someone like yourself. But calling people morons is a running theme in almost every one of your posts and it just doesn't mean much anymore.

Re: The Truth About The Original OJ Case
 

[ QUOTE ]
so you think OJ went over to the crime scene to see his exwife( was it in front of her house?) and in a sudden rage killed them both? well did he normally carry around a big knife,immediatly prior to catching a flight to Chicago? if not that shows intent.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: The Truth About The Original OJ Case
 

And wearing leather gloves on an LA summer night was a fashion statement?

Re: The Truth About The Original OJ Case
 

I've actually started to wonder if those small gloves belonged to an OJ accomplice...In his current memorabilia indiscretion he seems to like accomplices...they were the ones carrying the guns weren't they?

Re: The Truth About The Original OJ Case
 

[ QUOTE ]
I've actually started to wonder if those small gloves belonged to an OJ accomplice...In his current memorabilia indiscretion he seems to like accomplices...they were the ones carrying the guns weren't they?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the glove shrunk when the wet blood dried.

Re: The Truth About The Original OJ Case
 

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue"> Any other opinion is moronic. </font>

I'm not sure if you realize that putting things in such black and white terms and overusing the word moronic as you do, serves to hurt your credibility. If used sparingly it would be powerful coming from someone like yourself. But calling people morons is a running theme in almost every one of your posts and it just doesn't mean much anymore.

[/ QUOTE ]

I give a little talk at business conventions titled "Don't screw up the easy stuff"( business is tough enough). Successful 'salesman turned business owner' are the most in need of it.
Here, the 'easy stuff' is the basic facts -
- the role of the defense in a trial.
- the conditions necessary to meet the various killing categories in a states legal system.
- the key evidence presented

Then one could make a forum-level comment built on factors that interest you and that others could meaningfully challenge or build on. Tossing out random sensation seeking comments without that base .... well, a mind is a terrible thing to waste. What a contribution DS could make if he had the urge, not that what he does is 'wrong' for him to do. It's from my self interest that I'm speaking.

luckyme

Re: The Truth About The Original OJ Case
 

Yes he was supposed to be acquited. However,

[ QUOTE ]
And all those respectable lawyers (at least some of them were respectable) had few qualms about getting him acquitted. Because it was wrong to charge him with first degree murder. He committed second degree murder. (At the very end, the jury was instructed that they could in fact find him guilty of second degree, but I believe that even an unbiased jury would have trouble doing that when the prosecution case did not really admit that second degree murder was a reasonable alternative.)

[/ QUOTE ]

This is by far the worst argument I have ever seen you make.

OJs lawyers genuinely believed and made a great case that the police planted evidence. This is the reason he had to be acquitted and that they were so passionate in his defense.

You are not a moron if you don't know this. This is not useful to know so expecting people to have this knowledge would be moronic.

Re: The Truth About The Original OJ Case
 

It's nice to see you trying to make a point about something other than moronically applying Bayes' Theorem to make-believe prior probabilities based on practically no personal knowledge which you pull out of your ass and hide under the table, pontificating on the sweet smell of their ethereal conclusions while we try to digest the meal of actual evidence.

It's a pleasant change of pace in this case to watch you moronically pontificate about technical legal points about which you also evidently know practically nothing.

PairTheBoard

Re: The Truth About The Original OJ Case
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
He was supposed to be acquitted.

[/ QUOTE ]

He was acquitted, not he was supposed to be. What's more he was acquitted by a jury, afaik. To bring up his guilt now, seems to me very anti US law. I presume if you can doubt the rightness of his acquittal you have to doubt every guilty findings as well, especially those that end up in an execution.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. In theory if someone is convicted it's because there was no reasonable doubt and they almost certainly did it. If someone is acquitted, they may very well have done it, there just isn't evidence "beyond a reasonable doubt". It's not really the same at all to compare these opposites.

Re: The Truth About The Original OJ Case
 

I just read up about the case because I didn't know much if anything about it, but all I can say is:

Holy crap. The US law system is unbelievably bad. The idea that people feel they live in a modern society is wrong in so many ways I don't know where to start.

Plz let the voluntary society be here tomorrow. Thank you god.

Re: The Truth About The Original OJ Case
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And all those respectable lawyers (at least some of them were respectable) had few qualms about getting him acquitted.

[/ QUOTE ]

So those same "respectable" lawyers would have let him get convicted if it was only a second degree charge?

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: The Truth About The Original OJ Case
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And all those respectable lawyers (at least some of them were respectable) had few qualms about getting him acquitted.

[/ QUOTE ]

So those same "respectable" lawyers would have let him get convicted if it was only a second degree charge?

If there was a strong enough case available to convict him, given his capable defense, then the problem was the prosecution acted like morons.

D.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me clarify a bit:

Most criminal defense lawyers believe in the theoretical idea that a defendent that is guilty should still be given the best possible defense because of the overriding concern that people should not be convicted if the government can not prove their case.

I have always had a little bit of a problem with this concept because it leads to the conclusion that if a defendent tells his attorney he did it, the attorney will recomend to his client that he still plead innocent if he thinks the case is winnable.

The implication is that if you commit a crime and are arrested, it is somehow the patriotic thing to do to plead innocent if you expect the government can't prove it. Or it is at least patriotic and ethical for the defense attorney to do that.

I say the foregoing because I want to make clear that both I and many defense attorneys I know, are not big fans of acquitting guilty defendents just because the system forces it. It is an unfortunate consequence of our zeal to protect the innocent. And I know there are defense attorneys who will not take cases they think they can win because it bothers them if they know they are helping acquit an obviously guilty bad guy.

I am speculating that at least a few of OJ's lawyers were in that category. I don't think they would have signed on to help acquit a man they were sure committed true first degree murder (if there is such a thing as "blink of an eye" premeditation, I expect the public would believe it is an unfair category.) So they must have believed that he deserved to be acquitted, not just that he could beat the case.

While setting a guilty man totally free based on legal machinations seems wrong, it is surely better to set a guilty man free, even using legal ploys, than to have him convicted of a significantly greater offense than that which he was guilty of. I'm guessing that it was the prevention of this type of miscarriage of justice which allowed the attorneys to feel they were doing the right thing. Another reason, I agree, might have been that they thought the police planted evidence. But I don't think that was the main one.

PS The National Enquirer, whose stories are often exaggerated, but are more often than not basically true, had a story where they went into pretty great detail about plea bargain negotiations where OJ admitting snapping while engaged in stalking Nicole and coming upon Ron Goldman. His new book may offer the same scenario. I didn't read it. But it is certainly by far the most plausible explanation. Anyone who thinks he left his houuse with plans to murder doesn't know human nature. He never expected to encounter Goldman. He was going to kill Nicole only? Please. Anyway the Enquirer said he was willing to plead guilty to I believe, first degree manslaughter. The prosecutors wanted second degree murder. When he turned it down they did the common prosecutor's technique of trying for the higher charge.

If the above story is true it pretty much corroborates my theory.

Re: The Truth About The Original OJ Case
 

First and foremost ;- I found your post both intruiging and insightful.

[ QUOTE ]

Most criminal defense lawyers believe in the theoretical idea that a defendent that is guilty should still be given the best possible defense because of the overriding concern that people should not be convicted if the government can not prove their case.

I have always had a little bit of a problem with this concept because it leads to the conclusion that if a defendent tells his attorney he did it, the attorney will recomend to his client that he still plead innocent if he thinks the case is winnable.

The implication is that if you commit a crime and are arrested, it is somehow the patriotic thing to do to plead innocent if you expect the government can't prove it. Or it is at least patriotic and ethical for the defense attorney to do that.


[/ QUOTE ]

What alternative would you suggest that isn't ridicoulously corruptable?

Re: The Truth About The Original OJ Case
 

[ QUOTE ]
First and foremost ;- I found your post both intruiging and insightful.

[ QUOTE ]

Most criminal defense lawyers believe in the theoretical idea that a defendent that is guilty should still be given the best possible defense because of the overriding concern that people should not be convicted if the government can not prove their case.

I have always had a little bit of a problem with this concept because it leads to the conclusion that if a defendent tells his attorney he did it, the attorney will recomend to his client that he still plead innocent if he thinks the case is winnable.

The implication is that if you commit a crime and are arrested, it is somehow the patriotic thing to do to plead innocent if you expect the government can't prove it. Or it is at least patriotic and ethical for the defense attorney to do that.


[/ QUOTE ]

What alternative would you suggest that isn't ridicoulously corruptable?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is way too important a subject to be discussed in a silly OJ thread. Perhaps you would like to start a new one. If not, I will, when I get around to it.

Re: The Truth About The Original OJ Case
 

Please do, I will, of course, add to it. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: The Truth About The Original OJ Case
 

[ QUOTE ]
I have always had a little bit of a problem with this concept because it leads to the conclusion that if a defendent tells his attorney he did it, the attorney will recomend to his client that he still plead innocent if he thinks the case is winnable.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is moronic. How do I know? Well, one can't know the motives of every criminal defense attorney, so I don't anymore than you do. But, I happen to have 3 family members who are criminal defense attorneys with 20+ years experience each, one high up in Washington. Neither they, nor any other ethical attorney would recommend an admittedly guilty client to plead innocent. Not one. This is easy to see because if the opposition actually does pull off a rare victory (I say rare because you stated the case was winnable), it would mean guilt for both the defendent and the defense attorney.

You clearly have little knowledge of the legal system. I mean are you really citing the National Inquirer to prove your case even with an "if this is true" caveat?

Re: The Truth About The Original OJ Case
 

[ QUOTE ]
This is easy to see because if the opposition actually does pull off a rare victory (I say rare because you stated the case was winnable), it would mean guilt for both the defendent and the defense attorney.


[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe I am being a bit dunce, but I don't really see what you are saying here.

Either that, or I get what you are saying, but I don't get what you are basing yout opinion on.

This post is 100% genuinely not trying to be provocative, so please do not be cinycal in your reply. I genuinely am missing something. I don't see how you can make this arguement as stated fact without some kind of knowledge you are not sharing or I do not understand.

Re: The Truth About The Original OJ Case
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have always had a little bit of a problem with this concept because it leads to the conclusion that if a defendent tells his attorney he did it, the attorney will recomend to his client that he still plead innocent if he thinks the case is winnable.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is moronic. How do I know? Well, one can't know the motives of every criminal defense attorney, so I don't anymore than you do. But, I happen to have 3 family members who are criminal defense attorneys with 20+ years experience each, one high up in Washington. Neither they, nor any other ethical attorney would recommend an admittedly guilty client to plead innocent. Not one. This is easy to see because if the opposition actually does pull off a rare victory (I say rare because you stated the case was winnable), it would mean guilt for both the defendent and the defense attorney.



You clearly have little knowledge of the legal system. I mean are you really citing the National Inquirer to prove your case even with an "if this is true" caveat?

[/ QUOTE ]

I should have said that the defense attorney is sure that he did it rather than that the defendant admitted it to him. That technically matters in some places I guess. In any case it is an irrelevant fine point. Most attorneys tell their clients not to admit anything to them just to get out of this problem.

Re: The Truth About The Original OJ Case
 

I think you have to refine this concept DS:

your quote "Most criminal defense lawyers believe in the theoretical idea that a defendent that is guilty should still be given the best possible defense because of the overriding concern that people should not be convicted if the government can not prove their case."


that people should not be convicted if the government can not prove their case---This is not their overriding concern though they would like to prevent it...Their overriding concern is that they upheld the constitutional right of any accused individual to a defense under the law...
They are primarily concerned with this most basic of constitutional rights whether or not the defendant is guilty or not...

Re: The Truth About The Original OJ Case
 

[ QUOTE ]
Most attorneys tell their clients not to admit anything to them just to get out of this problem.

[/ QUOTE ]
In the uk you have a solicitor who you should tell the truth and he then briefs a barristor who defends you in court. The barristor cannot knowingly mislead the court and is not expected to know if the defendent is guilty or not.

I think that's how it works, may be mistaken.

personally I side with shakespear.

chez

Re: The Truth About The Original OJ Case
 

[ QUOTE ]
He was supposed to be acquitted. And all those respectable lawyers (at least some of them were respectable) had few qualms about getting him acquitted. Because it was wrong to charge him with first degree murder. He committed second degree murder. (At the very end, the jury was instructed that they could in fact find him guilty of second degree, but I believe that even an unbiased jury would have trouble doing that when the prosecution case did not really admit that second degree murder was a reasonable alternative.)

Any other opinion is moronic.

[/ QUOTE ]

What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

Re: The Truth About The Original OJ Case
 

[ QUOTE ]


personally I side with shakespear.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Shakespear never said that, unless of course you also want to attribute that all "drugs should be sold to the coloreds" to F. Coppala.

Re: The Truth About The Original OJ Case
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


personally I side with shakespear.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]


Shakespear never said that, unless of course you also want to attribute that all "drugs should be sold to the coloreds" to F. Coppala.

[/ QUOTE ]
nit

chez

Re: The Truth About The Original OJ Case
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


personally I side with shakespear.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]


Shakespear never said that, unless of course you also want to attribute that all "drugs should be sold to the coloreds" to F. Coppala.

[/ QUOTE ]
nit

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I think every lawyer winces inside when they hear this. my feelings, my feelings [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Re: The Truth About The Original OJ Case
 

[ QUOTE ]

PS The National Enquirer, whose stories are often exaggerated, but are more often than not basically true, had a story where they went into pretty great detail about plea bargain negotiations where OJ admitting snapping while engaged in stalking Nicole and coming upon Ron Goldman.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think even if this is true, him stalking nicole, who almost certainly had an order of protection against him, or even if she didn't, while he was armed with a big knife would be enough to prove intent and 1st degree murder.

Re: The Truth About The Original OJ Case
 

<font color="blue">I should have said that the defense attorney is sure that he did it rather than that the defendant admitted it to him. That technically matters in some places I guess. In any case it is an irrelevant fine point. Most attorneys tell their clients not to admit anything to them just to get out of this problem. </font>


Bingo. And anyone who thinks Cochran asked OJ if he did it, is nuts. On the same token, anyone who thinks there's any chance Cochran didn't know he did it, is nuts. He knew like the rest of us knew.

But you really make some great points about how a defense attorney's job isn't just to get his client off, but to make sure he isn't isn't found guilty of some higher crime he might not have committed. I never looked at OJ's case like that. I'd bet everything I own he killed them, but wouldn't bet much if anything, that it was premeditated if that's what the DA was going after. Very interesting.

Re: The Truth About The Original OJ Case
 

[ QUOTE ]


He was acquitted, not he was supposed to be. What's more he was acquitted by a jury, afaik. To bring up his guilt now, seems to me very anti US law. I presume if you can doubt the rightness of his acquittal you have to doubt every guilty findings as well, especially those that end up in an execution. I mean you must be against capital execution! Perhaps you feel that probabilities are sufficient when it comes to capital punishment?!

Sorry this may be an hijack but you are at least questioning people's opinion of a jury finding, as well as finding this opinion moronic!

[/ QUOTE ]

your reasoning is usually better than this. I'd elaborate but I'm damn sure you are smart enough to know what you got wrong.

Re: The Truth About The Original OJ Case
 

"I'm guessing that it was the prevention of this type of miscarriage of justice which allowed the attorneys to feel they were doing the right thing."

You have a much greater degree of confidence in the scuples of the lawyers than I do. You really think F. Lee Bailey or Johnny Cochrane cared about whether OJ was guilty or not?

How do you define "stalking"? He went there with a knife for what purpose?

"The National Enquirer, whose stories are often exaggerated, but are more often than not basically true . . ."

God help us.

Re: The Truth About The Original OJ Case
 

[ QUOTE ]
Anyone who thinks he left his houuse with plans to murder doesn't know human nature. He never expected to encounter Goldman. He was going to kill Nicole only? Please.

[/ QUOTE ]

Given how badly OJ covered up the evidence this is reasonable. But I am still not sure how it actually went down. Did he happen to have the knife on him or did he see them together and go back to his car for the knife. If he went back to get the knife you could make the case that it was premeditated.

Re: The Truth About The Original OJ Case
 

The very fact that he had the knife would indicate premeditation.

Re: The Truth About The Original OJ Case
 

[ QUOTE ]
OJs lawyers genuinely believed and made a great case that the police planted evidence. This is the reason he had to be acquitted and that they were so passionate in his defense.

You are not a moron if you don't know this. This is not useful to know so expecting people to have this knowledge would be moronic.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm failing to see your support for "OJs lawyers genuinely believed".

Re: The Truth About The Original OJ Case
 

[ QUOTE ]
He was supposed to be acquitted. And all those respectable lawyers (at least some of them were respectable) had few qualms about getting him acquitted. Because it was wrong to charge him with first degree murder. He committed second degree murder. (At the very end, the jury was instructed that they could in fact find him guilty of second degree, but I believe that even an unbiased jury would have trouble doing that when the prosecution case did not really admit that second degree murder was a reasonable alternative.)

Any other opinion is moronic.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll grant you the premise that OJ committed 2nd degree murder, since I don't have the offhand legal expertise to judge the difference between 1st and 2nd degree. Allow me to spell this out:

* OJ committed 2nd degree murder.

* The evidence showed beyond a reasonable doubt that OJ committed 2nd degree murder.

* The prosecution charged him with 1st degree murder, but it is perfectly within the court's legal power to nevertheless convict him of 2nd degree murder, and the jury knew this.

* Conclusion: OJ should have been convicted of 2nd degree murder.

Any other conclusion (given these premises) is moronic. Mr. Sklansky, you are not making the slightest bit of sense.

Re: The Truth About The Original OJ Case
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'll grant you the premise that OJ committed 2nd degree murder, since I don't have the offhand legal expertise to judge the difference between 1st and 2nd degree. Allow me to spell this out:

* OJ committed 2nd degree murder.

* The evidence showed beyond a reasonable doubt that OJ committed 2nd degree murder.

* The prosecution charged him with 1st degree murder, but it is perfectly within the court's legal power to nevertheless convict him of 2nd degree murder, and the jury knew this.

* Conclusion: OJ should have been convicted of 2nd degree murder.

Any other conclusion (given these premises) is moronic. Mr. Sklansky, you are not making the slightest bit of sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the one bit of fact that skansky is misinterpreting, is that the jury instructions only allowed for 1st degree or acquit, because the prosecution was so sure of a victory they didn't want the jury to have the option of 2nd degree because they might take it if the deliberations got long and settle on 2nd just to get out of there.

that's what I heard anyway, it was a long time ago but I think it is correct.

Re: The Truth About The Original OJ Case
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
He was supposed to be acquitted. And all those respectable lawyers (at least some of them were respectable) had few qualms about getting him acquitted. Because it was wrong to charge him with first degree murder. He committed second degree murder. (At the very end, the jury was instructed that they could in fact find him guilty of second degree, but I believe that even an unbiased jury would have trouble doing that when the prosecution case did not really admit that second degree murder was a reasonable alternative.)

Any other opinion is moronic.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll grant you the premise that OJ committed 2nd degree murder, since I don't have the offhand legal expertise to judge the difference between 1st and 2nd degree. Allow me to spell this out:

* OJ committed 2nd degree murder.

* The evidence showed beyond a reasonable doubt that OJ committed 2nd degree murder.

* The prosecution charged him with 1st degree murder, but it is perfectly within the court's legal power to nevertheless convict him of 2nd degree murder, and the jury knew this.

* Conclusion: OJ should have been convicted of 2nd degree murder.

Any other conclusion (given these premises) is moronic. Mr. Sklansky, you are not making the slightest bit of sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

He probably should have been convicted of second degree murder. But there was a fight about whether to allow that option which the prosecutors won. Had they lost, my claim that he should have been acquited is clearly correct.

On the other hand I believe that you could make a case that even a fair jury would have been reluctant to convict a man of a crime that is much different than the one the prsecution was shooting for.

Meanwhile I worry about those posters who think it was probable that OJ planned the murders.