The Truth About The Original OJ Case

[David Sklansky]

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.

[MidGe]

[ 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!

[Splendour]

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

[David Steele]

[ 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.

[Roland32]

[ 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.

[PLOlover]

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.

[Lestat]

<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.

[RJT]

[ 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 ]

[RJT]

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

[Splendour]

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?