this is an emotional video https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10152314305106568
Printable View
this is an emotional video https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10152314305106568
I don't remember,but i was somewhere[i think].
I was at home, getting ready to go to work. Two things struck me at the time: First, if people watched the case, the verdict was the correct one. The police half-assed their way through the process and came in with a 'mountain of evidence' that was impeached piece-by-piece by the defense. And second, the fact that a man that I'm convinced is guilty walked by as a consequence of due process when most of us would have been convicted for lack of such a high paid and experienced defense team.
I didn't really know how to feel because I thought the jury got it right although the law got it wrong. Carrying a vial of blood to the crime scene before 'discovering' a drop of blood on a fence? Blood carrying EDTA on a sock? The blood was soaked through from one side to the other as if it was applied to a folded sock, which was problematic.
Oh, and the Bruno Magli shoes. They showed that the killer wore a pair of high-priced shoes that happened to be the same size that OJ wore. But they couldn't find a receipt or proof that he wore those shoes. Until two weeks after the case ended. The photo that they found showing him wearing them would have put that bastard in jail, but it was too late.
We won't go into the glove. In my perspective, the protocols of evidence collection are there for a reason. You had a team full of seasoned but lackadaisical detectives who decided that all they had to do was suggest that the evidence was clean and they could get a conviction. Guess what? Normally, they would get it.
In the end, you cannot jump a fence without a warrant and be the first to find a bloody glove on a front lawn. You cannot find blood tainted with preservative on a sock that didn't appear to have been splattered. You cannot find a drop of blood on a fence after a thorough first canvass of the scene. You can't bring an FBI agent to testify that he searched the world over to find who wore a pair of 13.5 shoes without showing that the defendant also had a pair of those shoes. You can't put Barney Fife on the stands testifying as to how he and his evil twins found and handled evidence. You have to get the most out of your witnesses, as well. They dropped the ball with Kato Kaelin and the old man [[Hykstra?) from down the alley. They had information that the prosecution failed to take advantage of. You can't fail to take your job seriously and not collect evidence in a professional and appropriately-documented manner. You also can't assume that the jury is not listening.
Oh, and if it doesn't fit, you must acquit. OJ was not guilty but it was technically correct because he wasn't close to being innocent. That case should be the text book example of how to lose a case before it even goes on trial. The prosecutors should have asked every question that the defense did before they presented the evidence and been ready to counter the answers. It was not won by the defense, it was lost by the prosecution.
Regardless of whether he should've been found guilty or not-guilty in the eyes of the law, everyone and their mother knew that he was guilty and he pretty much admitted after the fact. With that being said, every person who cheered when he was found not guilty is either a blind fool, or okay with murderers walking free.
Don't consider anyone to be blind or a fool unless you have their experience in life. I didn't cheer but I recognized that the process of law is important. I respect the reason for the acquittal but lament the fact that a man that I presume to be guilty walked free. There is a reason that due process is written into the law. I'm pretty sure that if you were on trial, you'd rather be proven guilty in court than assumed guilty and sentenced based upon that assumption.Quote:
Originally Posted by thomas96
I remember exactly were I was! I was at Opryland in Nashville in one of the large convention halls at a trade show. They had these big screens set up just to broadcast the verdict! Can you imagine, me, Nashville, Opryland when this controversial verdict came down? LOL!Quote:
Originally Posted by glencro
No, it was more or less a warped thought of justice being served......Quote:
Originally Posted by thomas96
Let me explain. Many of the people that cheered when the OJ verdict was announced were African Americans who remember the first Rodney King verdict [[among the decades of not guilty verdicts for people like Bryon Delabeckwith who murdered Medgar Evans, Roy Bryant and J. W. Milam who murdered Emmitt Till, etc, etc,etc). To many it was like payback for the many miscarriages of justice in the past in the United States.
You were probably in the hooch! Come on, admit it! LOL!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by arr&bee
Let me add to this. What many of those white citizens were feeling and expressing at the time of the OJ verdict is what black citizens felt and expressed [[mostly only among themselves because of the prevailing racial discrimination in America during the last century) after klansmen, white supremiscist, law enforcement officers walked free after being tried for the murders of black people. It is not a good feeling at all. When the mother of Emmitt Till had to listen to all those white southerners cheer when the murders of her little boy were found not guilty and set free [[only to have them admit to the killing months later in Life or Look Magazine!).
People just don't get it! Black people were not cheering because of any great love for OJ Simpson. They were cheering because it was one of the only times a black person was found not guilty for killing a white person in this country.
I believed OJ Simpson was guilty a full year before the verdict! In fact, i said he was guilty within 3 days of this case hitting the news.
The LAPD attempted to frame a guilty man and that's why OJ was acquitted.
I'm going to use this one. I couldn't put it better myself [[see the long post above).Quote:
Originally Posted by smark21
I was at home watching the verdict. At the time, I thought he was innocent, so I was happy. But, once O.J. opened his mouth about his vow to find the "real" killer changed my mind fast.
O.j. Is basically an idiot.
He was a waterhead. That's true, BTW. I don't know why anybody expected him to be smart when he grew up. It just took a while for it to catch up to him.
I do remember how Blacks hated him because he ran in the the White community and married a [[gasp!) White woman, and, then all of a sudden, they came to his defense when he was accused of killing Ron and Nicole. I had a sister who used to go on about how he married a White woman instead of a Black woman. Him, Quincy Jones, and Lou Rawls.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry Oz
The Lord sure works in mysterious ways cause now OJ is old and in ill health in a jail in Nevada so he sure got his comeupance. I hope hes making peace with his maker and taking responsibility to the Lord for him murdering and butchering the mother of his kids and her friend Ronald Golddman.
Roberta
Roberta
I was in Columbia MD taking a Lotus Notes Admin class.
I was in the snack room when a guy came in and using his outside voice said:
"Well Fug me....guess I'll go home and burn my neighborhood down!"
I was at home watching the entire trial as I was off work due to a medical condition. I watched this trial very, very closely and all I will say is that if I had been a juror the Goldman and Brown families would have gotten JUSTICE.
Johnny Cochran played an excellent game of chess with him making Mark Furhman the scapegoat taking what he wrote in a screenplay that he was writing that used the N word to portray him as a racist. Furhman's personnel file is filled with commendations from both Black and White victims of crime who stated he worked very hard on their cases and was most kind to them. I guess in order to win, someone's character must be villified, huh?
My heart still goes out to both families to this day.
He was convicted of felony perjury. And, from his history, I would have gone after him on the "n" word too.Quote:
Originally Posted by nosey
People are down on Johnny Cochran's tactics, but that's exactly what he was hired to do, is get his client off. If you were O.J., you would have wanted that kind of defense, too.
Mark Furhman jumped a fence and 'discovered' evidence in the grass of OJ's home. There is a reason that protocol must be followed in criminal investigation and he knew that he did the wrong thing when he did it. Don't forget that the jury in that trial was seated in downtown LA and the people on it have heard stories about Rampart and other police scandals on part of the LAPD years before the press discovered them.Quote:
Originally Posted by nosey
No LAPD officer deserves the benefit of doubt when breaking with their training and established legal precedent. In my opinion, jumping a fence because you were 'worried' about a crime taking place inside [[based on a crime that took place elsewhere) is the height of how to stretch the laws about search and seizure. He was a crook and helped set OJ free, not someone who was unjustly 'vilified' for using the N-word in a screenplay.
According to my memory Fuhrman had just left a grizzly and horrific crime scene and was concerned [[imho) that OJ was possibly killed or hurt in addition to making a notification to him of the murder. IMHO again, if he had not jumped the wall, the race hustler's would have had a field day playing the race card that my people sometimes play, [[ducking for cover).
Unfortunately, not waiting for a search warrant helped in the prosecution losing the case. Do you actually need a search warrant to make a death notification?
Also, there was no evidence presented alleging to any corruption in Fuhrman's personnel file so lumping him with corrupted police officers is totally unfair, imo.
I used to joke with folks and said that if OJ had left his HeismanTrophy there, he still would have gotten off! Even my own dear mother said that OJ wouldn't do a thing like that!
So Jerry Oz this will be my last post as I have bigger fish to fry besides somebody's OJ Simpson and thanks for the discourse!
Enjoy your fish. My last post on the subject [[presumably) will simply state that the reasons against unlawful search and seizure are not subjective. If it was that important to violate precedent established over the course of 200 years of law under our Constitution, then he should be satisfied that the family was alright since that was his alleged reason for doing what he did.
I believe OJ committed the crime. But I don't believe it was proven. Furthermore, the police bumbled so hard in trying to build a 'mountain of evidence' against him that they ignored the actual mountain that lie before them. There were too many breaches of protocol for the jury to simply ignore. And don't get me started on the prosecution.
That case was clearly bungled from the investigation to the interrogation to the trial. It was lost by the state rather than won by the defense.
Poppycock! You can't tell me that Furman was only doing a screenplay. He drew directly from his personal experiences, an you also can't tell me that an L.A. cop, working on a gang unit, didn't use the N-word while roughing up people.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry Oz
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry Oz
Yeah!
You're agreeing with me...Quote:
Originally Posted by soulster
Also: I'm LOLing at 'poppycock'.
That was my father's favorite euphemism for "bullshit".Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry Oz
I was in a barber shop when the verdict was read. It seems like everyone in there jumped up and hugged and high fived. I sat there in disbelief. I couldn't believe that I was the only one in there that felt that this man actually either murdered or had something to do with the murder of these two people. I believe that most of my people took the "black loyalty" thing a bit too far with that one.
It wasn't "Black loyalty", it was seen as a protest verdict on the past abuses of police in framing and wrongfully convicting innocent Black men throughout U.S. history. Even one or two of the jurors said as much. Wrong? Sure! But, the bumbling of the L.A. police investigation, the prosecutors not proving their case against Orenthal J. Simpson, the examination of Mark Furman, and the animated display of the glove that did not fit, including Eddie Cochran's closing argument, solidified the jurors' attitudes. Bottom line, though: O.J. was found not guilty because the state did not prove its case. Period. Instead of being angry that he got off, people should be angry that the police, and the state prosecution, did such a lousy job.Quote:
Originally Posted by glencro
I personally believe he either committed the crimes or caused them. My question for you and anybody who was incensed that he was acquitted is what evidence did you hear in trial would you have been comfortable using as a reason for conviction? I often hear outrage about the verdict, but nobody who ever expressed it told me why they objectively would have found him guilty other than 'knowing that he did it'.Quote:
Originally Posted by glencro
I hope you aren't one of those who vote to convict because the defendant has beady little eyes, a bad reputation, or dark skin. Too often have our criminal courts convicted people of crimes just on the basis of prosecution and suggestions that they could have done it. That's not how the system is designed. There should be compelling evidence that shows not that the accused could have done it, but that he did actually commit the crime.