The Truth About The Original OJ Case

[PLOlover]

[ 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.

[Lestat]

<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.

[SNOWBALL]

[ 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.

[andyfox]

"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.

[Max Raker]

[ 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.

[andyfox]

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

[tshort]

[ 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".

[bluesbassman]

[ 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.

[PLOlover]

[ 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.

[David Sklansky]

[ 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.