Speaking of OJ Simpson: Why I Support the Verdict

Um, well, I've never heard that saying, but o.k. Yeah!

How come after all of the criminal goings-on that this man has committed since the murders do some still not believe that he did it?

Just the titles of these posts have me laughing, LOL!

Let's not grind each other into old, dead pieces of fish because of a celeb slipping through the cracks.

You know what they say...slip them a 20, and your problems fade away!

--
"I am the ruler of the world. You will die, and Canada will be bombed. Anyone with a opinion different than mine will be hanged immediately."
-Ann Coulter

--
Edited by WestAir Forums at 07/31/2007 9:37 PM

At least in this case the jury saw that evidence is only as good as the agency/agencies that collect/test. I wish it were so in many other cases. Prosecutors and police are not infallible, and unfortunately not all are HONEST.



What I don't get in our system is how if found not guilty they can take you to civil court! I think that's ridiculous!

--
joyn49

The entire case rested on the honesty, integrity and competence of the police and their technicians.

All criminal trials that rely heavily on forensics and the testimony of the officers have an "honesty" component.

The problem is that OJ's dream team exaggerated what were common in many trials - mistakes and conflicting testimony - and inflated them into things like misconduct and conspiracy.

It was the skill of the defense lawyers, not the mistakes of the prosecution witnesses, that freed OJ.

The defense had the money to prove that the police violated their own procedures, mishandled evidence, possibly planted evidence and perjured themselves.

A question: What evidence was so compromised by the procedure and handling that it amounted to reasonable doubt to the jury?

As for perjury...it depends on your definition of perjury really. Fuhrman's statements to one interviewer in a controlled environment with a limited subject doesn't make the grade for perjury in this case.

The point the defense was trying to make is that Fuhrman was so racist against African Americans he planted evidence to frame OJ. To prove it they revealed these tapes that were a controlled and limited and said a word Fuhrman said he'd never said.

But the defense didn't prove their point. They proved that a man can say the word, but they never proved he acted like it in his professional life. To this day they've never found one person he called that word and they've never found that he's acted in any way different with Af-Am victims and criminals than any other color....and there was an investigation. If Fuhrman wanted to he has grounds to vacate his perjury conviction.

And I have to say this.....there has never been any proof that Fuhrman planted anything, that he had any expectation that it would be OJ's glove or that he had access to OJ's blood. The planting theory is ludicrous.

The technicians violated their own procedures, mishandled evidence and perjured themselves.

In the Darlie Routier case a technician rolled her t-shirt, which was still wet with blood, and placed it in a bag. The procedure was to let it hang dry and then put it in the bag.
The jury was able to convict because the relevant blood spots on her t-shirt were obviously not from transfer. So although the technician mishandled the evidence, they jury was able to judge the evidence for its merit and not dismiss it for a mistake in collection.

OJ's jury was not like that...the jury took every mistake and created reasonable doubt from that alone. You can't do that, all cases and all people that are in these cases are prone to mistakes. The presence of a mistake is not reasonable doubt....reasonable doubt only arises from the evidence that the handling compromised the veracity of the evidence.

Logically that couldn't have happened in this case.

Given that, all of the evidence had to be tossed and conviction was impossible.

No. The evidence shouldn't be tossed merely because collection procedures were violated. The only reason to toss evidence because of procedural violations is if the violation so compromised the accuracy of the evidence at testing that its value as evidence was questionable. Jury's must be reasonable when judging the collection procedures specifically because collections are made by human beings.

For example, the Routier t-shirt. The collection procedure was violated but the value of the evidence was not compromised (the relevant stain was not transfer) and testing accurately showed an important part of the crime that was borne out by the crime scene. The defense did exactly what they were supposed to do, too. They argued the collection destroyed all accurate testing. But the jury found that while the mistake was made, the accuracy of the testing was not compromised by the mishandling.
OJ's jury didn't follow through to the last step and consider if the blood and other evidence were accurate even if the collection was flawed...they just threw it out when the defense yelled "wasn't done exactly right".

Some have suggested that OJ's son may have been the guilty party. It seems he had some sort of obsession with his stepmother.

If you aren't convinced by OJ's blood being at the scene, that he had Nicole and Goldman's blood on him, their blood at his house or by the fiber transfer, gloves, shoes and cap...I doubt you'll be convinced by the argument that Jason did it. There is no evidence placing him at the crime.

--
I do whatever my Rice Krispies tell me to.

very good points Branson.

--
Every man has an intimate friend;
one who knows everything, and yet nothing about him;
every man has himself..Kahil Gibran

Hello Rap. Expansion over the holidays? Put new pipes in the kitchen?

--
Every man has an intimate friend;
one who knows everything, and yet nothing about him;
every man has himself..Kahil Gibran