The Magic Café
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » O.J. (0 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4 [Next]
mastermindreader
View Profile
V.I.P.
Seattle, WA
12589 Posts

Profile of mastermindreader
For starters:

Quote:
For the prosecution, the biggest mistake of the trial may well have been to file the Simpson case in the downtown district rather than--as is normal procedure--in the district in which the crime occurred, in this case Santa Monica. Implausibly, the prosecution explained its decision as an effort to reduce the commuting time of prosecutors and better accommodate the expected media crush. More likely, the decision was a political one, based on concerns that a conviction by what would be a largely white jury in Santa Monica might spark racial protests--or even riots similar to those that occurred following the trial of four LAPD officers accused of beating Rodney King. The prosecutors probably believed that their case against Simpson was so strong that even the more racially diverse jury likely in downtown Los Angeles would have no choice but to convict.

Filing downtown would be only the first of many decisions that may have cost prosecutors the case. The decision of prosecutors not to seek the death penalty cost prosecutors the advantage of not having a "death-qualified" jury, which numerous studies suggest, would be more likely to convict. (A death-qualified jury is one from which all jurors whose opposition to capital punishment might prevent them from imposing a death sentence have been excluded. Typically, excluded jurors are disproportionately black and female.) Prosecutors also would be criticized for ignoring the advice of their own jury consultants, who urged them to use their peremptory challenges--to the extent that they might do so constitutionally--to exclude black and female potential jurors [LINK TO INFORMATION ABOUT SIMPSON JURY AND ITS SELECTION]. ( Once the trial began, there would be other blunders. To name just a few: the decision to have Simpson try the glove used in the murder, the decision to call Mark Fuhrman to the stand, and the strategy of presenting so much evidence from so many witnesses over so many weeks that the case lost much of its force.)


The fact that Prosecutor Darden actually asked the defendant to try on the gloves was a MAJOR blunder. You NEVER let a defendant handle the evidence in this manner.

Quote:
Prosecutor Christopher Darden, confident that the bloody gloves belonged to Simpson, decided to make a dramatic courtroom demonstration. He would ask Simpson, in full view of the jury, to try on the gloves worn by Nicole's killer. Judge Ito asked a bailiff to escort Simpson to a position near the jury box. Darden instructed Simpson, "Pull them on, pull them on." Simpson seemed to struggle with the gloves, then said, "They don't fit. See? They don't fit." Later, it would turn out that there were good reasons why they didn't fit--the gloves may have shrunk because of the blood, photos would turn up showing Simpson wearing ill-fitting gloves--but the damage had been done. Later, Cochran would offer the memorable refrain, "If it doesn't fit, you must acquit."


And then there was the questionable decision to let Detective Fuhrman testify.

Quote:
The LAPD officer who found a bloody glove outside Kato Kaelin's bedroom turned out to be a godsend for the defense's corrupt-police theory. The officer, Mark Fuhrman, testified for the prosecution on March 9 and 10. In his book about the trial, Robert Shapiro wrote: "A suddenly charming Marcia Clark treated him like he was a poster boy for apple pie and American values." Three days later, F. Lee Bailey began a bullying cross-examination of Fuhrman in which he asked the detective, whether, in the past ten years, he had ever used "the n word." Fuhrman replied that he absolutely never had done so. It was a lie...

It turned out that Fuhrman had used "the n word"--many times--and it was on tape. Laura Hart McKinny, an aspiring screenwriter from North Carolina, had hired Fuhrman to consult with her on police issues for a script she was writing. McKinny taped her interviews with Fuhrman, who not only used the offensive racial slur, but disclosed that he had sometimes planted evidence to help secure convictions.


And the prosecution never bothered to check Fuhrman's background before calling him as a key witness?

See: http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/trials10.htm for the full article from which the above quotes appear.
tomsk192
View Profile
Inner circle
3894 Posts

Profile of tomsk192
Many thanks.
mastermindreader
View Profile
V.I.P.
Seattle, WA
12589 Posts

Profile of mastermindreader
Quote:
On 2013-05-15 04:47, tomsk192 wrote:
Thanks Bob. I remember DNA evidence was in its infancy back then. What an unfortunate case that was, in terms of precedent...



You're welcome. But the Simpson case, for all its notoriety, set no precedents. The evidence was unique to that case. And precedents are set in the appellate divisions, not in trial courts.

A lot of lessons were learned, though, about how to blow a seemingly air-tight case.
tomsk192
View Profile
Inner circle
3894 Posts

Profile of tomsk192
That's interesting. Our judicial system is a bit different: I plead ignorance! (Which I suspect wouldn't do on either side of the pond.)
Woland
View Profile
Special user
680 Posts

Profile of Woland
I think the criminal case was deliberately bungled to avoid other problems. Note that a civil jury found him responsible for the killings.
Al Angello
View Profile
Eternal Order
Collegeville, Pa. USA
11047 Posts

Profile of Al Angello
Woland
Do you have any proof of that outrageous claim?
Al Angello The Comic Juggler/Magician
http://www.juggleral.com
http://home.comcast.net/~juggleral/
"Footprints on your ceiling are almost gone"
tommy
View Profile
Eternal Order
Devil’s Island
15933 Posts

Profile of tommy
A civil jury can have have a 49% doubt about whether you are responsible and find that you are in responsible. The standard of proof is rather higher in criminal cases. The cops committed perjury at the criminal murder trail, which tends to taint all the evidence against the accused. If you wish to give credit for what in your opinion was a miscarriage of justice in this case give credit where it is due and blame the cops.

As for the robbery case, in my view at most he should have got two years. Obviously he was put away for at least nine years because he was OJ and all the baggage that came with that. I would appeal against the length at least.
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.

Tommy
EsnRedshirt
View Profile
Special user
Newark, CA
893 Posts

Profile of EsnRedshirt
Quote:
On 2013-05-14 17:39, Tom Jorgenson wrote:
Quote:
On 2013-05-14 17:08, Woland wrote:
For robbery or for murder?


Robbery.

He wants a retrial because his lawyer was so incompetent that he got a "guilty" verdict.

According to the news-readers, 'My lawyer was incompetent' is the most popular reason given for a re-trial request. Also, apparently, "B.S." is also the most popular response from the judges.
Not that it applies in the O.J. case, but given some of the stories I've heard about public defenders, I'm not surprised about incompetence being the most popular reason for re-trial request.

There are multiple standards of justice- one for the poor, one for the rich... and one for corporations, who can apparently get away with murder and just pay a fine.
Self-proclaimed Jack-of-all-trades and google expert*.

* = Take any advice from this person with a grain of salt.
Dannydoyle
View Profile
Eternal Order
20242 Posts

Profile of Dannydoyle
Quote:
On 2013-05-15 08:47, tommy wrote:
A civil jury can have have a 49% doubt about whether you are responsible and find that you are in responsible. The standard of proof is rather higher in criminal cases. The cops committed perjury at the criminal murder trail, which tends to taint all the evidence against the accused. If you wish to give credit for what in your opinion was a miscarriage of justice in this case give credit where it is due and blame the cops.

As for the robbery case, in my view at most he should have got two years. Obviously he was put away for at least nine years because he was OJ and all the baggage that came with that. I would appeal against the length at least.


Cops committed purgery and it tainted all the evidence? His conviction had nothing to do with evidence.

Ahh nostalgia. No need for facts.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus
<BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell
Destiny
View Profile
Inner circle
1429 Posts

Profile of Destiny
I only just realised the coincidence - Kato Kaelin, an important witness to O.J.'s innocence - recants - same week as Wade Robson, an important witness to Michael Jackson's innocence also recants.
mastermindreader
View Profile
V.I.P.
Seattle, WA
12589 Posts

Profile of mastermindreader
Quote:
On 2013-05-15 08:47, tommy wrote:
A civil jury can have have a 49% doubt about whether you are responsible and find that you are in responsible. The standard of proof is rather higher in criminal cases. The cops committed perjury at the criminal murder trail, which tends to taint all the evidence against the accused. If you wish to give credit for what in your opinion was a miscarriage of justice in this case give credit where it is due and blame the cops.

As for the robbery case, in my view at most he should have got two years. Obviously he was put away for at least nine years because he was OJ and all the baggage that came with that. I would appeal against the length at least.


Tommy- I agree with you! Start up the band!

But I would blame the prosecution, not just the cops, for the reasons I cited earlier.
mastermindreader
View Profile
V.I.P.
Seattle, WA
12589 Posts

Profile of mastermindreader
Quote:
On 2013-05-15 06:15, Woland wrote:
I think the criminal case was deliberately bungled to avoid other problems. Note that a civil jury found him responsible for the killings.


That theory has absolutely no basis in reality. The prosecution was literally devastated when the verdict came in. They had, in fact, prematurely prepared their victory party. There is NO competent evidence whatsoever that the case was intentionally thrown.
Dannydoyle
View Profile
Eternal Order
20242 Posts

Profile of Dannydoyle
I doubt it was intentionally thrown. Incompetence was rampant and if they might have wanted to bungle it they would not have had to do anything differently.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus
<BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell
Woland
View Profile
Special user
680 Posts

Profile of Woland
Hi Al,

The bungling amateurish of the prosecution in such a high-profile case suggests that AG Garcetti deliberately sent a weak team to bat.
Al Angello
View Profile
Eternal Order
Collegeville, Pa. USA
11047 Posts

Profile of Al Angello
Woland IMHO
The bad decision happened because of the poorly selected jury, and the perception of a sloppy method of evidence collecting, but I will admit that there was lots of blame to go around.
Al Angello The Comic Juggler/Magician
http://www.juggleral.com
http://home.comcast.net/~juggleral/
"Footprints on your ceiling are almost gone"
critter
View Profile
Inner circle
Spokane, WA
2551 Posts

Profile of critter
Fuhrman's comments made it a race issue in the eyes of the public and the jury. I believe that when we studied the case in Criminal Justice there were some minor errors made in the investigation that were made to look even larger when he used the phrasing in court that allowed the defense to take advantage of an appearance of bias.
"The fool is one who doesn't know what you have just found out."
~Will Rogers
Woland
View Profile
Special user
680 Posts

Profile of Woland
Mr. Simpson's legal team out-lawyered the prosecution every day. The prosecutors were bamboozled and in way over their heads. I think that's the way Mr. Garcetti wanted it.
Al Angello
View Profile
Eternal Order
Collegeville, Pa. USA
11047 Posts

Profile of Al Angello
I agree, but with all the mistakes made, and 20/20 hindsight there were far too many mistakes for any one group to have planned them all, and to be honest with you the race card was played perfectly.
Al Angello The Comic Juggler/Magician
http://www.juggleral.com
http://home.comcast.net/~juggleral/
"Footprints on your ceiling are almost gone"
Woland
View Profile
Special user
680 Posts

Profile of Woland
Yes, I agree that Mr. Simpson's defense team played every card they held brilliantly.

But you see, Mr. Garcetti did not have to plan every one of his team's mistakes. He knew his prosecutors. He knew that he could assign a team that would have a high likelihood of flubbing the match. He didn't have to know exactly how they would do it, and he didn't even necessarily have to think that they would ultimately go down in flames. He just needed to give Mr. Simpson every possible chance he could.
Al Angello
View Profile
Eternal Order
Collegeville, Pa. USA
11047 Posts

Profile of Al Angello
As long as you say that none of the many many many mistakes made by Marcia, Chris, and the LAPD were done intentionally it is hard to disagree.
Al Angello The Comic Juggler/Magician
http://www.juggleral.com
http://home.comcast.net/~juggleral/
"Footprints on your ceiling are almost gone"
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » O.J. (0 Likes)
 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4 [Next]
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2020 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.29 seconds requiring 5 database queries.
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café
are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic.
> Privacy Statement <

ROTFL Billions and billions served! ROTFL