Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: O J Simpson
America's Debate > Archive > Assorted Issues Archive > [A] Big Trials and Legal Cases
Google
Lord Zeved
O. J. Simpson is a case that many claim was race favoritism. Many people say that there was SOO much evidence against him. There was. But other people say that he was very innocent. I say he was guilty.
"What say you?"

L. Zeved
Google
Mega Gigan
doesn't this belong in the "Old news" topic? Also, OJ can't have another trial only because the court won't allow you to go to court on the same topic.
Lord Zeved
Yeah, probably does. Actually, a court can hear the same case again after sentencing someone. It's called an appeal. But that will never happen with O J.

L. Zeved
Wertz
QUOTE(Lord Zeved @ Dec 27 2002, 09:17 AM)
Actually, a court can hear the same case again after sentencing someone.

Actually actually, a court can't hear the Simpson case again: only convictions in a criminal case can be appealed. The prosecution only has one shot - and in this case, they badly misfired.
Mega Gigan
That's what I thought, but I was going to make a fool of myself and try to prove it wrong, because I was fully sure.
quarkhead
I agree that it was a botched prosecution more than anything. It also seems very probable that he is guilty. Murders like that, with that sort of pathology, are hardly EVER done by strangers.

I think most jurors want to do the right thing; I don't think they aquitted him thinking, well, he's black, let's cut him a break.
Wertz
The evidence of Simpson's guilt was pretty overwhelming - as the civil court found. I don't actually think the prosecution botched the case that badly. Their two major flaws were in not properly examining/coaching Mark Furhman before the trial and in not seriously pursuing Simpson's badly acted "inability" to put on the glove (c'mon - he admitted to owning a pair of Aris leather gloves and the gloves entered in evidence were of the largest size Aris manufactures).

What won the case for the defense was their effective jury tampering until they finally had the people they wanted. I do not believe that Simpson was acquitted merely because he was black. I think he was acquitted because enough of the jury felt that the LAPD and District Attorney's Office are essentially racist and that it is not possible for any black man to receive a fair trial in their jurisdiction, innocent or guilty. I think Simpson's guilt was, to that jury, irrelevant. The non-relevant testimony of Mark Furhman made up their minds about the prosecution and Cochrane's "If it doesn't fit..." gave them a handy excuse for acquittal.
Mike
Technically it belongs in "Old News", but seeing as "Big trials and legal cases" isn't usually too busy, I'll leave it here for a while.

Thank you, everyone, for your concern!

Mike
Google
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2014 Invision Power Services, Inc.