OJ Simpson the pirate
- Thread starter Legion
- Start date
Geeforcer said:
LOL
Simple use of a mirror would end that search.
Legion said:
Only this country would've turned that trial into a race issue. I always viewed it as a gender issue: that man beat his ex-wife while he was with her, stalked her after they split, and ended up murdering her afterwards in a fit of jealous rage.
I remember seeing one of the jurists interviewed after the trial was over and flat-out admitting on national TV that she couldn't understand the DNA evidence, that it was too complicated for her to grasp. Her husband, also present, piped up and said you've have to be a PhG to understand it.
I always thought of it as more of a fame and money issue.
Man, if I had a lawyer who could make something like 1 in 300 million odds seem like something that happened as often as getting an AOL cd in the mail, I'd be heading straight to the local lottery office.
Left that blood sample in the sun too long? Why, the DNA could have magically reconstituted itself into the exact match of my client's!
It is worrisome that the average level of scientific comprehension is so low, especially as methods for solving crime are becoming increasingly technical in nature. Without this understanding, chicanery is indistinguishable from high tech, and it's bad enough when fraudulent science is better able to sell itself than the real thing.
Man, if I had a lawyer who could make something like 1 in 300 million odds seem like something that happened as often as getting an AOL cd in the mail, I'd be heading straight to the local lottery office.
Left that blood sample in the sun too long? Why, the DNA could have magically reconstituted itself into the exact match of my client's!
It is worrisome that the average level of scientific comprehension is so low, especially as methods for solving crime are becoming increasingly technical in nature. Without this understanding, chicanery is indistinguishable from high tech, and it's bad enough when fraudulent science is better able to sell itself than the real thing.
John Reynolds said:Legion said:
Only this country would've turned that trial into a race issue. I always viewed it as a gender issue: that man beat his ex-wife while he was with her, stalked her after they split, and ended up murdering her afterwards in a fit of jealous rage.
I remember seeing one of the jurists interviewed after the trial was over and flat-out admitting on national TV that she couldn't understand the DNA evidence, that it was too complicated for her to grasp. Her husband, also present, piped up and said you've have to be a PhG to understand it.
Did you actually see the trial? There was very little , if any evidence of what you mentioned at the trial. Your regurgitating media speculation and government misinformation. I was unemployed at the time and I saw the entire trial. Any rational person would have aquitted the man. Think of this . It took the jury 45 minutes to reach a verdict. Since the trial not one juror has changed there mind. There's a reason for that. The gov'ts case was weak and the evidence was severely mishandled. They didn't even come close to establishing a pattern of stalking or beating. I don't know what trial you watched.
indio said:
No, his stalking and beating her wasn't permitted as evidence in the trial because it was ruled that it would've unfairly prejudiced the jury against the defendent. That said, the police records of being called to the Simpson house and the hospital records of her injuries exist.
3dilettante said:
The odds were actually 1 in 10 Billion that the DNA in the blood sample was someone other than OJ. Considering world population at the time had just crossed 5 Billion, I wouldn't have bet on those odds.
Though the prosecution did do some stupid things, like asking OJ to try on the dried blood leather gloves. I mean, c'mon now, the idiocy of that maneuver was classic.
And I agree. Definitely fame and wealth. He got the best defense money could buy and, imo, got away with murder. I doubt he would be walking around today had he been a regular joe schmo. Whether that's a good thing (if he really is innocent) or a bad thing (because he's really guilty) is up for interpretation of course.
Even if it was admissible there where 3 or 4 incidents in all the time they were together (which if I recall was over 13 years). The point being , there were no incidence of abuse after the divorce (which happened 3 years prior to the murder). The reason it was not admissible was sound and it is this. There was no abuse or stalking in the recent history before the murder. Did he stalk her for weeks and beat her for weeks and then kill her? No. He punched in the head 5 + years prior to her being murdered. What can you really conclude from that? Unless he told her during that incident I'm going to kill you 5 years later you realistically can't even say they're related. The probative value in determining guilt is very weak compared to the prejudicial result.
The govt needed to show the judge that there was a logical link between the incidents they wanted entered into court and the murder. Such as 3 separate incidents over a month getting progressively worse and continuing threats. That’s not what the govt wanted to do. They wanted to throw in all incidents of violence between the two and let the jury SPECULATE as to how they lead up to murder. The judicial system should not play fill in the blanks. I'm not saying OJ didn't kill anyone, only one person knows that. I'm saying the Gob’s was very very far from proving
he murdered his wife and the legal system worked (finally). No one, even if they are guilty should be convicted of anything with bad evidence with no clear chain of custody. That would be a horrible precedent. It's better that a 10 guilty go free than 1 innocent be convicted. I truly believe that.
The govt needed to show the judge that there was a logical link between the incidents they wanted entered into court and the murder. Such as 3 separate incidents over a month getting progressively worse and continuing threats. That’s not what the govt wanted to do. They wanted to throw in all incidents of violence between the two and let the jury SPECULATE as to how they lead up to murder. The judicial system should not play fill in the blanks. I'm not saying OJ didn't kill anyone, only one person knows that. I'm saying the Gob’s was very very far from proving
he murdered his wife and the legal system worked (finally). No one, even if they are guilty should be convicted of anything with bad evidence with no clear chain of custody. That would be a horrible precedent. It's better that a 10 guilty go free than 1 innocent be convicted. I truly believe that.
Natoma said:3dilettante said:
The odds were actually 1 in 10 Billion that the DNA in the blood sample was someone other than OJ. Considering world population at the time had just crossed 5 Billion, I wouldn't have bet on those odds.
Though the prosecution did do some stupid things, like asking OJ to try on the dried blood leather gloves. I mean, c'mon now, the idiocy of that maneuver was classic.
And I agree. Definitely fame and wealth. He got the best defense money could buy and, imo, got away with murder. I doubt he would be walking around today had he been a regular joe schmo. Whether that's a good thing (if he really is innocent) or a bad thing (because he's really guilty) is up for interpretation of course.
The odds of the DNA being his was not in doubt . How it got there was.
OJ's Nicoles and Ron Goldmans blood was collected at a Hospitol 2 miles from the crime scene. Up until the point NONE of the blood samples that were collected were OJ . ( When each piece of evidence was found was documented) . The detective in charge of bringing those blood samples to the crime lab did not drive to the crimelab. He drove to the crime SCENE instead with vials of OJ's Nicoles and Ron's blood. There it sat in an unlocked Crim Lab trailer for 12 hours unguarded The funny thing is the nearest crime lab was 7 blocks away , instead it traveled 2 miles away to the one place it shouldn't have been. 24 hours later , the miraculous happened! OJ's blood was found at the crime scene. I guess it's just a coincendence. The other coincidence is the also found a pair of bloody socks under OJ's bed with Ron and Nicoles blood , still soaking wet I might add. 3 days after the murder and after 48 hours of scouring his premises JACKPOT! Like i said the evidence is weak with a dubious chain of custody. Everything I said is material FACT in the case. None of it is in dispute by either side.
There's only one thing you can say about the trial. Johnnie Cochran is a bloody genius.
indio said:
3 or 4 incidents in all the time they were together (13) years. I'm not sure how to react to that. Are you actually arguing that as a good thing? Wow, OJ only laid hands on her 3-4 times during their relationship. You ever see photos of that woman's face after one of those incidents? And he was following and harassing her fairly close to the date of the murders. His previous actions set the precedent of a willingness to commit physical violence against her, his stalking showed an ongoing obsession. The crime scene indicated that it was not a common or random murder, that extreme violence had been performed on her body, indicating a personal grudge or nature to the crime.
Now whether any of the above is admissible is up to the legal minds. But we're supposed to believe the LA police, who had repeatedly failed to take adequate action against OJ because of his fame, suddenly turned on him and falsified evidence because of his ethnicity? Uh huh.
digitalwanderer
Legend
Seconded.The Baron said:
please also remember that today DNA evidence is taken as granted. What I mean is that people understand that if your dna was found at a crime scene then there is no possibility that it was someone elses. BUT back then DNA wasnt such a big thing. You take people from an urban enviromnent and the newness of DNA testing and youll end up with confused jurors.
later,
epic
later,
epic
Similar threads
