The Truth About The Original OJ Case

[RJT]

[ 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.

[luckyme]

[ 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

[Leaky Eye]

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.

[PairTheBoard]

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

[AlexM]

[ 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.

[Nielsio]

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.

[felson]

[ 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 ]

[David Sklansky]

[ 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.

[hitch1978]

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?

[David Sklansky]

[ 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.