OJ makes me sick (page 2)

Navigator

Meadow77

Very Good! I certainly would have contributed a gallon or two to that kitty.

I thought both verdicts were good verdicts. In a criminal trial, the defendant must be found guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt." Reasonable doubt is similar to the feeling one gets when they leave the house and wonder if they locked the door or turned the coffee maker off; enough to cause one to return home to check. In the criminal trial, enough police wrongdoing was uncovered to provide reasonable doubt. The apparent tampering with evidence engaged in by the cops provided the reasonable doubt. Among other things, the glove was likely planted; Mark Fuhrman's testimony was so coached it sounded like a law school textbook was being read: "I thought someone's life was in jeopardy in that house." The crime had occurred hours before, and in my opinion, insufficient evidence was presented to justify use of the "exigent circumstances" exception to the search warrant requirement. Judge Ito gave all the breaks to the prosecution, and those Bozos still couldn't convict OJ, notwithstanding the "mountain of evidence" they purported to have on their side. Some here have suggested that the verdict was solely based on Mark Fuhrman's false testimony regarding use of the "n" word, but that was only the tip of the iceberg. Mark Fuhrman was a renegade cop who wanted to be a superstar and in my opinion contributed to the demise of the prosecution's case. Marcia Clark's statement shortly after the trial that the verdict was "payback" for Rodney King and other civil rights abuses by the LAPD was an effort to shift the blame for what amounted to a disgraceful showing of prosecutorial incompetence.

However, I also agree with the verdict in the civil trial. The standard of proof in a civil trial is a preponderance of the evidence, which means more likely than not. Clearly, OJ had motive, and there was a substantial amount of evidence linking him to the crime. I agree that enough evidence was presented to provide at least 51% likelihood that he was the culpable party.

It is possible OJ didn't do it, despite overwhelming public opinion to the contrary. Mr. Simpson's been adjudicated not guilty, and all of us ought to respect the decisions of the courts, regardless of our opinions as to their accuracy. Our system isn't perfect, but it's better than most, and it's the only one we've got. If a guilty man has to walk so as to keep innocent folks free, so be it.

Edited by - 144thousand_and_one on 19 December 2002 0:31:57

Farkel

144K,

You don't know shit about shit. Your ramblings don't mean nothin'.

Furthermore, you havent read "Outrage" as I suggested. Until you do, you are just making it up.

(Get back to me when you quit talking out of your ass and actually READ something, ie. "Outrage" as I suggested.)

Farkel

144thousand_and_one

Farkel,

I don't need to read books you deem to be relevant as you are a lay person with respect to your knowledge of the law, and your opinion, in addition to being expressed in a rude and entirely inappropriate manner, is absolutely meaningless to me.

Edited by - 144thousand_and_one on 19 December 2002 0:29:13

heathen

144- I don't know how you can deduce that fuhrman plants evidence .They only proved he used the N word ,nothing more .Sherlock holmes ,you are not sir.Granted the guy should not have purged himself on the stand this does not however turn him into a glove planting linch mob .

144thousand_and_one

Heathen,

Furhman lied on the stand, and was caught. California jury instructions provide that the jury may discredit the entire testimony of a witness if any portion of his testimony is proven to be false. Additionally, Furhman chose to enter OJ's property all alone, despite the existence of ample time to obtain a search warrant and a lack of real evidence suggesting that someone's life was in imminent danger. I found much of his testimony to be absolutely lacking in credibility, and his justification for violating OJ's 4th Amendment rights sounded like it was being read from a law school hornbook (the "exigent circumstances" exception).

144thousand_and_one

Heathen,

I don't recall making any representations that I am "Sherlock Holmes," but thanks for your clarification. I'm going to assume this statement was included in your post as a lame effort to demonstrate some wit, instead of the initial impression I had that you were attempting to debate using personal attacks.

meadow77

Hey guys-no need to quarrel.Let's fight the "real enemy"

refiners fire

Only thing i saw of the "O J saga" was when I saw on the news with O J in the back of a van with a gun to his head and doxens of cop cars following in a train down the freeway and idiots holding signs up along the route. I thought, "this is a circus" So I switched off right there and never watched anything to do with it again.

heathen

RF- I was rooting for him to pull the trigger. I think that act only made him look more guilty. That had to have been the most retarded thing I've ever witnessed . The only reason they caught up to him was because they were able to trace the cell from his cell phone.

OJ makes me sick

Share this