The Truth About The Original OJ Case

[hitch1978]

Why are people arguing about whether he did it, and under what circumstances?

1) Surely all the useful questions posted on the subject are theoretical.

2) You were not part of the legal team or jury shown 100% of the evidence to make a decision on.

It is a shame that theoretical debate can be broadsided by two objective conflicting opinions and turn into a 'no I'm right' battle.

Surely the only way to gain anything from this type of discussion is to asses what you know/think given the other guy's perception, and re-evaluate what you think from his point of view? Other wise we are just arguing about what colour the sky is.

By the way, I'm new here, please don't hate me. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[bluesbassman]

[ QUOTE ]
To the three of you I say this:

It is obvious that OJ didn't drive to Nicole's house to kill her. Seeing Goldman put him into a state of rage.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is irrelevant, since it was not "reasonable" for him to be enraged upon seeing Mr. Goldman. See my other post.

If he did murder only after becoming enraged, that's his problem. First degree murder seems to be the appropriate charge in this case.

[andyfox]

When, exactly, did he go back to his car to get the knife? I assume you're arguing that he pulled up, and, seeing Goldman with Nicole, he took the knife out of the car. To what end? The fact is he went to the house with a knife. Memory fails me, but I believe the "ear-witness" said he heard a "white voice" say "hey" or "what's going on here?" or something to that effect; again, memory fails, but I believe the case being made was that he attacked Nicole first and that Ron happened upon them.

The only way this would qualify as a crime of passion is if he pulled up and saw them embracing or whatever and went into a rage. But that would likely only be acceptable if he killed them with his bare hands. That he just happened to have the knife with him wouldn't fly.

I doubt what you're saying about the attorneys very much. My dad was in charge of the Beverly Hills Bar Association for a long time and I did a lot of arbitration work that put me and him in close contact with many of the bigwig attorneys in town here. I can tell you that they simply wanted to get him off. They didn't think he was being charged with the wrong crime and that therefore it would have been an injustice.

I also don't believe you're right on the prosecutors willingness to accept a plea bargain. Too high profile a case. Any reasonable look at the prosecution in the case shows that they prosecutors were completely incompetent and thought they would get a slam dunk conviction. They messed up on the venue, on the jury selection, on the judge, on not introducing OJ's attempt to escape, on Furman's use of the n-word, on the woman who saw OJ driving his car home and gave the story to one of the gossip rags, on letting OJ try on the shrunken glove, etc., etc. The cops' interview with OJ when they first brought him in was laughable, you could surely have done a better job knowing nothing specific about police interrogation techniques; heck, I could have done better.

How could the cops have taken a chance planting evidence at OJ's house when they didn't even know if he was in town that particular week?

Remember that the prosecution was shocked when the jury came back as quickly as it did. They thought they were going to win the case and the shock was that they knew that a jury wasn't going to convict OJ of 1st degree murder in an hour. The prosecution was simply out to lunch.

[andyfox]

Any reasonable examination of the evidence leads to the conclusion that he did it. Remember he was found liable in the civil trial when the more efficient lawyer found plentiful evidence of OJ wearing those "ugly-ass" Bruno Magli shoes that OJ claimed he didn't own.

[hitch1978]

This thread has become 'paper talk'.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
It is obvious that OJ didn't drive to Nicole's house to kill her. Seeing Goldman put him into a state of rage. And murdering someone in that state is not generally accepted by the public as deserving of conviction of a crime that carries the sentence of life without parole.

[/ QUOTE ]


So this, finally, is the straightforward version of your point without all the inflamatory nonsense and extraneous mispeaks you couldn't get to stick against the wall? This is the point which only morons would disagree with?


Heat of Passion

[ QUOTE ]
HEAT OF PASSION - A mental state provoked by fear, rage, anger or terror that, combined with adequate provocation, is an element of certain crimes like voluntary manslaughter. Provocation, in order to be adequate, must be such as might naturally cause a reasonable person in the passion of the moment to lose self-control and act on impulse and without reflection. The effect is to to act as an extenuating circumstance that can reduce the severity of the crime charged almost like a defense.

[/ QUOTE ]

So any non-Moron such as yourself should be able to see that this was obviously a case of "adequate provocation".

Compare to the example of adequate provocation given in this definition of Crime of Passion.

Crime of Passion
[ QUOTE ]
crime of passion n. a defendant's excuse for committing a crime due to sudden anger or heartbreak, in order to eliminate the element of "premeditation." This usually arises in murder or attempted murder cases, when a spouse or sweetheart finds his/her "beloved" having sexual intercourse with another and shoots or stabs one or both of the coupled pair. To make this claim the defendant must have acted immediately upon the rise of passion, without the time for contemplation or allowing for "a cooling of the blood." It is sometimes called the "Law of Texas" since juries in that state are supposedly lenient to cuckolded lovers who wreak their own vengeance. The benefit of eliminating premeditation is to lessen the provable homicide to manslaughter with no death penalty and limited prison terms. An emotionally charged jury may even acquit the impassioned defendant.

[/ QUOTE ]

I suspect that most murders are carried out in some fit of rage or another. Not all fits of rage have adequate provocation to justify a defense as a Crime of Passion. It looks like any non-Moron such as Sklansky would have all such First and Second degree murders while in a rage reduced to the crime of Manslaughter.

PairTheBoard

[David Sklansky]

Every human being on this website, but you, realizes that I did not mean "crime of passion" in the technical sense you quoted. And yes I believe that anyone who kills in an enraged state, even if that indicates a personality problem, should be dealt somewhat less harshly than a cold blooded premeditated murder. So do you.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
Every human being on this website, but you, realizes that I did not mean "crime of passion" in the technical sense you quoted. And yes I believe that anyone who kills in an enraged state, even if that indicates a personality problem, should be dealt somewhat less harshly than a cold blooded premeditated murder. So do you.

[/ QUOTE ]

do you think a crime of passion would include feeling remorse after the fact? I mean if you're not in control of yourself wouldn't you feel bad about it afterwards when you regain your senses? doesn't the fact that OJ covered up as best he could show that the crime was in some sense condoned by OJ's intellect?

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
Every human being on this website, but you, realizes that I did not mean "crime of passion" in the technical sense you quoted. And yes I believe that anyone who kills in an enraged state, even if that indicates a personality problem, should be dealt somewhat less harshly than a cold blooded premeditated murder. So do you.

[/ QUOTE ]

From this watered down vague generalized notion you logically concluded the bold specific legal assertions of your OP, complete with inflamatory rhetoric? Every human being on this website reading this thread can see something David, but I doubt it's what you think it is.

PairTheBoard

[thesnowman22]

If there is anything I have learned from reading all the message boards on this site, its that most people are not as smart as they think, and that a high IQ does not always have common sense in tow with it.

First of all, If we are all assuming OJ was there that nite, which it seems we are, and assuming he actually committed the act, which we all seem to be doing, then there is no way its not first degree murder. Commision of murder while in the process of committing a felony is also first degree and i think we can come up with a felony there. Also, either he A) had the knife, which shows premiditation, or B) he went back to get it which shows premeditation.

His blood is everywhere, he did it.

And anyone who has ever played baseball or softball and worn batting gloves can tell you that if you let them sit for a while they stiffen up and are hard as hell to get on. The glove stunt was a dumb move by the prosecution, but actually proves nothing. Not to mention do you THINK he MIGHT have tried to spread out his fingers to keep em from fitting also, since he was, you know, ON TRIAL FOR HIS LIFE?