Not Guilty?

Mott the Hoople said:
You can believe what you want but I'm telling you as a person who did this kind of work for a living for quite a few years, that the forensic evidence contained more then "a few blunders". As I pointed it out to you, and I have no earthly reason to defend OJ Simpson, their case against OJ was pinned almost exclusively on the forensic evidence and the forensic evidence was tainted and unreliable by any professional standards. Based on reliable forensic evidence you would be right, the prosecutions case against him would have been convincing and it was well presented and that is why so many lay people were convinced he was guilty but the problem for the prosecution was that the forensic evidence had been completely botched in a grossly amateurish way that I personally to this day cannot fathom. Like I said, I would have fired Dennis Fung for gross negligence and incompetence.

I've heard the jurors defend their decision and they did so based on the facts that I've stated, to state the Fox News party line on it is an unwarranted attack on their personal integrity. Based on what I saw as gross incompetence by the coroners office, I'd say they did a hell of a job,as lay people, sifting through the data and by god they got it right.
Click to expand...

The victims DNAs were found inside his Bronco! It was also found on the back gate to his home... explain how that happened? OJ was guilty, and the prosecution presented a fairly iron-clad forensic case against him, and the defense ALLEGED the evidence was tainted, and that was enough justification for the jury to find reasonable doubt, because they were prejudiced against the law enforcement and supportive of OJ because he was a black man. At the time, DNA evidence was relatively new, and people were a little leery of accepting it as legitimate evidence. Juxtaposed with today, when such DNA evidence is almost mandatory in order to get a conviction.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
You can believe what you want but I'm telling you as a person who did this kind of work for a living for quite a few years, that the forensic evidence contained more then "a few blunders". As I pointed it out to you, and I have no earthly reason to defend OJ Simpson, their case against OJ was pinned almost exclusively on the forensic evidence and the forensic evidence was tainted and unreliable by any professional standards. Based on reliable forensic evidence you would be right, the prosecutions case against him would have been convincing and it was well presented and that is why so many lay people were convinced he was guilty but the problem for the prosecution was that the forensic evidence had been completely botched in a grossly amateurish way that I personally to this day cannot fathom. Like I said, I would have fired Dennis Fung for gross negligence and incompetence.

I've heard the jurors defend their decision and they did so based on the facts that I've stated, to state the Fox News party line on it is an unwarranted attack on their personal integrity. Based on what I saw as gross incompetence by the coroners office, I'd say they did a hell of a job,as lay people, sifting through the data and by god they got it right.
Click to expand...


Fox news party line? STUPID- Fox news was not even on the air in 94/95 ya dork! The link I provided to the graphs has absolutely nothing to do with Fox News. Google racial tensions and OJ Simpson- this is no rabbit out of a hat opinion.
 
Dixie said:
The victims DNAs were found inside his Bronco! It was also found on the back gate to his home... explain how that happened? OJ was guilty, and the prosecution presented a fairly iron-clad forensic case against him, and the defense ALLEGED the evidence was tainted, and that was enough justification for the jury to find reasonable doubt, because they were prejudiced against the law enforcement and supportive of OJ because he was a black man. At the time, DNA evidence was relatively new, and people were a little leery of accepting it as legitimate evidence. Juxtaposed with today, when such DNA evidence is almost mandatory in order to get a conviction.
Click to expand...
The biggest problem is not that the black community was merely suspicious. Shortly after the OJ trial it was found that LAPS in the Rampart district had indeed been planting evidenc to frame black sefendants. The community had been asserting this fact for sometime to the lying denials of LAPD. It was not beyond reality that the same thing had taken place in the OJ case.
 
Ice Dancer said:
Casey Anthony acquitted by jury-Not Guilty. Unfrickin believable!
Click to expand...

the whole thing became a media show and the mob is disappointed that they did not get blood

oat, perhaps we should adopt an option that the scotts use, that being a verdict of 'not proven' instead of not guilty

however, any way i look at it, the prosecution did not prove its case and should have taken more time to collect more evidence

so my question is, who killed the girl
 
St. Vitus' Dance said:
The biggest problem is not that the black community was merely suspicious. Shortly after the OJ trial it was found that LAPS in the Rampart district had indeed been planting evidenc to frame black sefendants. The community had been asserting this fact for sometime to the lying denials of LAPD. It was not beyond reality that the same thing had taken place in the OJ case.
Click to expand...

I love OJ and I still have my Mark Furhman is a Bruin t-shirt. The black community was right to be suspicious of the LAPD based on the LAPD's behavior. The irony though is OJ received preferential treatment from the LAPD in the past.
 
Schadenfreude said:
the whole thing became a media show and the mob is disappointed that they did not get blood

oat, perhaps we should adopt an option that the scotts use, that being a verdict of 'not proven' instead of not guilty

however, any way i look at it, the prosecution did not prove its case and should have taken more time to collect more evidence

so my question is, who killed the girl
Click to expand...

I believe Casey Anthony killed the girl. That's what people don't seem to understand, I think most of the jury probably thought Casey Anthony killed the girl too... the prosecution failed to prove the case! It does not matter who you THINK killed someone, it has to be PROVEN by the evidence, and in this case, the evidence was unclear as to how she died, when she died, where she died, and what the motive was. As much as I hate the fact she was acquitted, the burden is on the prosecution to make the case beyond all reasonable doubt, and they simply failed to meet that criteria.
 
Dixie said:
I believe Casey Anthony killed the girl. That's what people don't seem to understand, I think most of the jury probably thought Casey Anthony killed the girl too... the prosecution failed to prove the case! It does not matter who you THINK killed someone, it has to be PROVEN by the evidence, and in this case, the evidence was unclear as to how she died, when she died, where she died, and what the motive was. As much as I hate the fact she was acquitted, the burden is on the prosecution to make the case beyond all reasonable doubt, and they simply failed to meet that criteria.
Click to expand...

Actually the burden is beyond "a" reasonable doubt. The difference may seem insignificant, but it is not. The problem the prosecutors had was that they made this a capital case when they never had the evidence for one. I believe it was gross negligence from willful or depraved indifference to human life. The prosecutor should have pursued manslaughter based on the idea that death was caused by chloroform and duct tape and that Caylee aspirated. I believe that circumstantial evidence supports that thery and that the jury could have been led down that path intelligently.

reasonable doubt n. not being sure of a criminal defendant's guilt to a moral certainty. Thus, a juror (or judge sitting without a jury) must be convinced of guilt of a crime (or the degree of crime, as murder instead of manslaughter) "beyond a reasonable doubt," and the jury will be told so by the judge in the jury instructions. However, it is a subjective test since each juror will have to decide if his/her doubt is reasonable. It is more difficult to convict under that test, than "preponderance of the evidence" to decide for the plaintiff (party bringing the suit) in a civil (non-criminal) trial.
 
cawacko said:
I love OJ and I still have my Mark Furhman is a Bruin t-shirt. The black community was right to be suspicious of the LAPD based on the LAPD's behavior. The irony though is OJ received preferential treatment from the LAPD in the past.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm sure if I had met some of the black community from the LA area I would have become exposed to that sentiment. As it is, all of the black people I've ever known from the Seattle area who have ever mentioned OJ to me have strongly inferred that they believe him to be guilty. Spoiled bastards!!
 
Ice Dancer said:
Actually the burden is beyond "a" reasonable doubt. The difference may seem insignificant, but it is not. The problem the prosecutors had was that they made this a capital case when they never had the evidence for one. I believe it was gross negligence from willful or depraved indifference to human life. The prosecutor should have pursued manslaughter based on the idea that death was caused by chloroform and duct tape and that Caylee aspirated. I believe that circumstantial evidence supports that thery and that the jury could have been led down that path intelligently.

reasonable doubt n. not being sure of a criminal defendant's guilt to a moral certainty. Thus, a juror (or judge sitting without a jury) must be convinced of guilt of a crime (or the degree of crime, as murder instead of manslaughter) "beyond a reasonable doubt," and the jury will be told so by the judge in the jury instructions. However, it is a subjective test since each juror will have to decide if his/her doubt is reasonable. It is more difficult to convict under that test, than "preponderance of the evidence" to decide for the plaintiff (party bringing the suit) in a civil (non-criminal) trial.
Click to expand...


I agree with what you said, although, "any reasonable doubt" ... "all reasonable doubt" ... "a reasonable doubt" are essentially the same in my mind, and in any case, there was reasonable doubt in the minds of the jurors, and it was up to the prosecution to make the case. I also agree, they overreached. This was not a death penalty case, and they should have known that from the start. It is damn near impossible to get a death penalty conviction on circumstantial evidence. They should have gone for aggravated manslaughter, and built the case around that instead of premeditated murder. While I believe they had some circumstantial evidence to point to premeditation, it was very weak, and the jury just didn't buy the scenario laid out by the prosecution. It was far too elaborate and detailed, and really had little evidence to support, it left a lot to the imagination. There was a much more plausible case to be made for negligence and her actions during the month before the truth came out that Caylee was missing, was enough to convict her on that, in my opinion.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Either way, they trod on her right to a fair trial and, obviously, bungled the prosecution. It's rather doubtful that the Jury was composed completely of idiots (as Brent would have you believe though Brent does have a certain amount of credibility when it comes to idiots, being one himself.) and since they were the ones that heard all the testimony and saw all the evidence I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt that they got it right.

I know I was real unpopular when I agreed with the OJ verdict. OJ may have killed that woman but their was no question that reasonable doubt existed in his trial and that the jury got it right.
Click to expand...

"I know I was real unpopular when I agreed with the OJ verdict."

I know the feeling, Mott.

I think the reason public opinion is against the OJ and Anthony verdicts is because people can't think of another possible suspect and they want revenge of some type.
 
apple0154 said:
"I know I was real unpopular when I agreed with the OJ verdict."

I know the feeling, Mott.

I think the reason public opinion is against the OJ and Anthony verdicts is because people can't think of another possible suspect and they want revenge of some type.
Click to expand...

it's because the majority of our population is ignorant and uneducated when it comes to the duties and responsibilities of being a part of the justice system.
 
OJ killed Ron Goldman and nearly cut Nicole's head off. If the police had worked hard and done their job correctly he would have gone away for life. But blood evidence was carried around in the back of a car for weeks, taken to OJ's house where miraculously blood was found at his house. The blood evidence on some of his clothes lacked splatter patterns and looked "dropped" on. As has been pointed out, there was numerous evidence of cross contamination. Couple that with the fact that dozens and dozens of cases were overturned in the Rampart District because of police evidence tampering and frame jobs and you get a community that had no reason to trust that the evidence in OJ's trial was any more legit. The black community was aware of the frame ups before it ever became news.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
it's because the majority of our population is ignorant and uneducated when it comes to the duties and responsibilities of being a part of the justice system.
Click to expand...

The majority of the population know that getting convictions is just part of someone's job and everyone is trying for that promotion. Unfortunately, prosecutors have as much concern regarding who they try to convict as the aluminum siding seller has concerns over to whom he sells siding.
 
apple0154 said:
The majority of the population know that getting convictions is just part of someone's job and everyone is trying for that promotion. Unfortunately, prosecutors have as much concern regarding who they try to convict as the aluminum siding seller has concerns over to whom he sells siding.
Click to expand...

no they don't. the majority of our population have been spoonfed that all they need to do is listen to nanny state government on what they need to do and what they can't do. How many people do you think know what jury nullification is?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top