|
Post by Lesterstrat on Apr 14, 2024 15:56:43 GMT -5
Given what you do professionally, I'd like to read your take on this from a legal standpoint. Not really a professional opinion more than just analysis of the evidence. He had a documented history of assaulting his wife. His blood was found at the scene, he had mysterious cuts on his hand, his glove was found at the scene, the wounds were consistent with a knife he was known to own, his footprints in shoes he was known to own were found at the scene, his clothes he had been wearing that night, an possibly the murder weapon, disappeared (Robert Kardashian took his bag and it was never seen again). Then he had someone drive him in the Bronco with cash, a disguise, and when he was found out, he threatened to kill himself. It’s just too much for him to not have been guilty; all of those things could not have coincidentally happened. The prosecution, for their part, had to deal with a masterful defense which demonstrated one of the main detectives had made racist statements, that evidence may have been planted, and the blood evidence at the scene was never recovered. Relying on the racial tension that existed from the Rodney King incident, and the public perception of OJ being a lovable, non-objectionable guy, they got him cleared despite overwhelming evidence of his guilt. He definitely had the dream team of defense attorneys, but I don’t think he’d have been found guilty by a *jury* if they’d have caught him at the scene putting the knife back in his pocket. IMO, that trial serves as really good evidence for anyone trying to make a case against jury trials.
|
|
|
Post by Mfitz804 on Apr 14, 2024 16:50:58 GMT -5
Not really a professional opinion more than just analysis of the evidence. He had a documented history of assaulting his wife. His blood was found at the scene, he had mysterious cuts on his hand, his glove was found at the scene, the wounds were consistent with a knife he was known to own, his footprints in shoes he was known to own were found at the scene, his clothes he had been wearing that night, an possibly the murder weapon, disappeared (Robert Kardashian took his bag and it was never seen again). Then he had someone drive him in the Bronco with cash, a disguise, and when he was found out, he threatened to kill himself. It’s just too much for him to not have been guilty; all of those things could not have coincidentally happened. The prosecution, for their part, had to deal with a masterful defense which demonstrated one of the main detectives had made racist statements, that evidence may have been planted, and the blood evidence at the scene was never recovered. Relying on the racial tension that existed from the Rodney King incident, and the public perception of OJ being a lovable, non-objectionable guy, they got him cleared despite overwhelming evidence of his guilt. He definitely had the dream team of defense attorneys, but I don’t think he’d have been found guilty by a *jury* if they’d have caught him at the scene putting the knife back in his pocket. IMO, that trial serves as really good evidence for anyone trying to make a case against jury trials. I disagree with this, because the prosecution was inept at every level. Just asking him to try on the glove in open court is against the cardinal rule, you don’t ask a question you don’t know the answer to. That’s like the most basic principle of trial law that you learn in the first year or two of law school. I think it was a winnable case but for the ineptitude of both the LAPD and the prosecution.
|
|
|
Post by Leftee on Apr 14, 2024 17:13:21 GMT -5
I wonder if Ford is going to make a special edition Bronco. It would be white and have a top speed of 35mph on the freeway.
|
|
|
Post by Lesterstrat on Apr 14, 2024 17:36:31 GMT -5
He definitely had the dream team of defense attorneys, but I don’t think he’d have been found guilty by a *jury* if they’d have caught him at the scene putting the knife back in his pocket. IMO, that trial serves as really good evidence for anyone trying to make a case against jury trials. I disagree with this, because the prosecution was inept at every level. Just asking him to try on the glove in open court is against the cardinal rule, you don’t ask a question you don’t know the answer to. That’s like the most basic principle of trial law that you learn in the first year or two of law school. I think it was a winnable case but for the ineptitude of both the LAPD and the prosecution. Oh, I agree with you 100% about the prosecution being inept. As far as the case being winnable, we’ll just have to agree to disagree about that.
|
|
|
Post by LeftyMeister on Apr 14, 2024 19:20:39 GMT -5
The whole case can be blamed on Kato. His hair was a distraction for the jury.
|
|
|
Post by Lesterstrat on Apr 14, 2024 19:42:21 GMT -5
The whole case can be blamed on Kato. His hair was a distraction for the jury. I always figured Warren Zevon’s hair line in Werewolves of London was in reference to Kato’s hair.
|
|
|
Post by Mfitz804 on Apr 15, 2024 5:50:15 GMT -5
I disagree with this, because the prosecution was inept at every level. Just asking him to try on the glove in open court is against the cardinal rule, you don’t ask a question you don’t know the answer to. That’s like the most basic principle of trial law that you learn in the first year or two of law school. I think it was a winnable case but for the ineptitude of both the LAPD and the prosecution. Oh, I agree with you 100% about the prosecution being inept. As far as the case being winnable, we’ll just have to agree to disagree about that. Of course. Disagreement is a healthy emotion.
|
|
|
Post by Leftee on Apr 15, 2024 7:40:09 GMT -5
Especially if it stops short of wedgies.
|
|
|
Post by Mfitz804 on Apr 15, 2024 17:06:59 GMT -5
Especially if it stops short of wedgies. I make no such stipulation, and wedgies are never off the table.
|
|
|
Post by LeftyMeister on Apr 15, 2024 21:36:35 GMT -5
Swirlies are the new wedgies.
|
|
|
Post by Mfitz804 on Apr 23, 2024 21:16:09 GMT -5
If you haven’t watched the OJ: Made in America series, there’s a pretty good summary of the evidence and the law enforcement and prosecutorial failures.
Episode 4 contains the evidence discussion. But the whole thing is worth a watch.
|
|