Welcome to the TTP community
Be apart of something great, join today!
OJ walks in your door...
- Thread starter Argyle
- Start date
Two very different questions, and for many with very different answers.
It would also depend a lot if he had a knife in his hand I suppose.
I'd make him re-read the sign at the door that said:
No shirt
No shoes
No pair of gloves
No Service
It's too bad for the restaurant owner that his antics are going to get OJ a tonne more publicity than the owner is already sick of. Would have been better off to serve him and be done with it.
No shirt
No shoes
No pair of gloves
No Service
It's too bad for the restaurant owner that his antics are going to get OJ a tonne more publicity than the owner is already sick of. Would have been better off to serve him and be done with it.
Two words:
Not guilty.
You may hate the result, but the system had its chance to get it right with him and failed. Criticise Marsha Clark and Chris Darden for their stupid decisions at trial, including: the glove demonstration (never ask a question to which you do not know the answer), putting a pair of bigot detectives on as witnesses, using trainees to collect evidence at the crime scene, and, generally fcuking up a strong circumstantial case by tainting the the evidence that made it more than circumstantial.
Oh, and how about jury selection. How stupid to move the trial from Simi Valley to LA. The Rodney King story was still fresh as were the riots. A first year sociology student could have predicted the jury nullification verdict.
Seriously.
Not guilty.
You may hate the result, but the system had its chance to get it right with him and failed. Criticise Marsha Clark and Chris Darden for their stupid decisions at trial, including: the glove demonstration (never ask a question to which you do not know the answer), putting a pair of bigot detectives on as witnesses, using trainees to collect evidence at the crime scene, and, generally fcuking up a strong circumstantial case by tainting the the evidence that made it more than circumstantial.
Oh, and how about jury selection. How stupid to move the trial from Simi Valley to LA. The Rodney King story was still fresh as were the riots. A first year sociology student could have predicted the jury nullification verdict.
Seriously.
If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit.
That, and the fact that blood preservative was found in some of the blood, which meant that some of the blood was planted, as that preservative is added in drug testing labs.
The blood on top of the 10 foot wall. Like Dr.Henry Lee said, not OJ, not himself, not even Bruce Lee could scale a 10 foot fence.
That does not mean he didn't do it......but as a juror there was plenty of reasonable doubt.
That, and the fact that blood preservative was found in some of the blood, which meant that some of the blood was planted, as that preservative is added in drug testing labs.
The blood on top of the 10 foot wall. Like Dr.Henry Lee said, not OJ, not himself, not even Bruce Lee could scale a 10 foot fence.
That does not mean he didn't do it......but as a juror there was plenty of reasonable doubt.
In some very knowledgable people's view, Dr. Lee is a person who is paid to give evidence: one could argue that he is a business person. So take that as you will, but some might say that may be a bit dangerous: his evidence (opinion evidence it is called) certainly would have been I submit more exhaustively examined, and, again I submit, have been more readily questioned or dismissed (as was the LAPD's forensic expert's evidence in this case) had he been a prosecution witness. The defense gets a lot more latitude in our (and in the American) system. That is just the way it is, and that is good in societies that place a premium on an individual's rights and freedoms. Further, many experts agree (in fact to the extent that this is now a given) that in this trial, contamination was not the issue, but the perception of possible contamination was what Mr. Simpson's distinguished counsel was successfully able to elevate to a level where the jury were able to buy it. And many think that in this day and age juries are not able to even follow this type of thing: hence you get some of the comments made above in this thread.
And let me ask you this...if you are a business person/capitalist that is paid to give your opinion, and the person paying you handsomely is a person with an exteme interest in your opinion going in their direction, in a business scenario, which way would you lean?
This is not a who is right or wrong or a guilty or innocent thought: just a thought that is not based on Nancy Grace's, or Larry King's or Judge Judy's or pretty well anyone else on CNN's opinion.
Planting blood? Oh, my.
Good discussion though. I wonder if there would have been the same verdict under the current political atmosphere south of the border?
And let me ask you this...if you are a business person/capitalist that is paid to give your opinion, and the person paying you handsomely is a person with an exteme interest in your opinion going in their direction, in a business scenario, which way would you lean?
This is not a who is right or wrong or a guilty or innocent thought: just a thought that is not based on Nancy Grace's, or Larry King's or Judge Judy's or pretty well anyone else on CNN's opinion.
Planting blood? Oh, my.
Good discussion though. I wonder if there would have been the same verdict under the current political atmosphere south of the border?
Honestly hats off to the Owner as we all know O.J got away with murder. This guy deserves to go thru life now having awkward moments in public life due to the fact that he did such a horrible thing. Judging by O.J's acceptance of having to leave this was not the first time or the last for this to happen.
Let's say the unthinkable happened and Pickton somehow gets cleared of wrong doing in this neck of the woods would you want him at your restaurant? Apples to Oranges I know but one guy was famous before the murder and the other was well just a pig farmer. To me either guy would deserve to be tossed from society now and then regardless of how famous they were or are now.
Let's say the unthinkable happened and Pickton somehow gets cleared of wrong doing in this neck of the woods would you want him at your restaurant? Apples to Oranges I know but one guy was famous before the murder and the other was well just a pig farmer. To me either guy would deserve to be tossed from society now and then regardless of how famous they were or are now.
- Admin
- #8
Interesting comparison girth.
How much does the media play a role here though in subverting the old mantra "innocent until proven guilty"? I mean, what is the reason that any of the evidence is public knowledge before the trial even begins? The public "right to know"?
What about the pressure that jurors must be under in these circumstances? They "must" know that their own lives will change vastly if they acquit Pickton, no? Is this fair for them? Is it fair for the defendant?
Cheers,
~Regs.
How much does the media play a role here though in subverting the old mantra "innocent until proven guilty"? I mean, what is the reason that any of the evidence is public knowledge before the trial even begins? The public "right to know"?
What about the pressure that jurors must be under in these circumstances? They "must" know that their own lives will change vastly if they acquit Pickton, no? Is this fair for them? Is it fair for the defendant?
Cheers,
~Regs.
Bottom line Sir M, he was acquitted and there was alot of reasonable doubt.
Dr.Henry Lee is the leading forensics scientist in the US, and a VERT respected and reputable man in the scientific community. I have seen interviews with him discussing the OJ case, and he never gives an opinion on wether OJ did or not. All he says it that he deals with facts. Same with teh Jon Bebet case, same with any case he has ever dealt with.
People can make excuses about the prosecution, US justice system, how the jury was dumb, etc, etc. Those, at the end of the day, are excuses.
Any person with a ounce of knowledge would know there was enough reasonable doubt in this case to acquit the guy, which does not mean he didn't do it.
My wife has always been facinated with this case, and as a federal Prosecutor herself, said she can see the the reasonable doubt in the case from a mile away.
Dr.Henry Lee is the leading forensics scientist in the US, and a VERT respected and reputable man in the scientific community. I have seen interviews with him discussing the OJ case, and he never gives an opinion on wether OJ did or not. All he says it that he deals with facts. Same with teh Jon Bebet case, same with any case he has ever dealt with.
People can make excuses about the prosecution, US justice system, how the jury was dumb, etc, etc. Those, at the end of the day, are excuses.
Any person with a ounce of knowledge would know there was enough reasonable doubt in this case to acquit the guy, which does not mean he didn't do it.
My wife has always been facinated with this case, and as a federal Prosecutor herself, said she can see the the reasonable doubt in the case from a mile away.
Check again. Used to be while working for the State of New York, and is now consultant. Many consultants are now retired and are on contract, and are very expensive: prosecution does not like expensive. Actually no one likes expensive, but compare Marcia's salary to Johnny's or F. Lee's price in the case we are speaking about.
And no one is questioning this man's integrity, but the Criminal Justice System is full of retired "experts" who are called by defence and guess what, they all of a sudden offer opinions that are favourable to the defence.
It would be an interesting little research project to compare an expert's findings whilst an employee of the State to his or her's findings as a contract person to the accused. One may want to start with person's refenced in this thread.
PS: In Canada for those looking in, federal prosecutors do not deal with criminal matters. They deal mostly with land claims (the more experienced ones) and drug cases, and a few other non-criminal things. But I am sure they have, like a few of us on this thread, a keen interest in criminal matters, especially stuff on TV. With all due respect.
And most Canadian federal prosecutors do not know Doctor Lee personally I believe.
PPS: As an observer, I don't dispute the acquittal. I am just trying to point out a few details from strictly an observer's status eating cheezies on the couch watching that trial.
One more observation: Neither Henry nor Bruce Lee ever won a Heisman trophy or held the all time NFL record for rushing yards. And in many people's opinion no one retired or in the private consluting industry I am told is not even close to being the leading forensics expert in the U.S. Many however are considered to be the leaders in marketing their talents in this field. The real leading experts are working daily in the lab or the field, you just don't see them on T.V. They are too busy.
Sir M, check your facts...
Dr.Henry Lee at the time of the Oj trial, had worked for the prosecution over 95% of the time...
MR. SCHECK: Now, Dr. Lee, in terms of the side that you're usually on in criminal cases in terms of percentages, what percentage of the time are you called by the Prosecution and what percentage of the time are you called by the Defense?
DR. LEE: Uh, approximately 95 percent is for the Prosecution, less than five percent for the Defense.
For those looking in....
My wife has worked as a criminal defence attorney, and is a federal drug prosecutor, and has studied criminal law, unlike some of the people giving opinions here who eat cheezies on the couch.
Dr.Henry Lee at the time of the Oj trial, had worked for the prosecution over 95% of the time...
MR. SCHECK: Now, Dr. Lee, in terms of the side that you're usually on in criminal cases in terms of percentages, what percentage of the time are you called by the Prosecution and what percentage of the time are you called by the Defense?
DR. LEE: Uh, approximately 95 percent is for the Prosecution, less than five percent for the Defense.
For those looking in....
My wife has worked as a criminal defence attorney, and is a federal drug prosecutor, and has studied criminal law, unlike some of the people giving opinions here who eat cheezies on the couch.
Anywas, we could argue till we are black and blue.
Bottom line is, a juror of his peers found him not gulity because they had reasonable doubt, and there was alot of reasonable doubt from what I have read. Some of that reasonable doubt came from testimony from Dr.Henry Lee, soem came because there was crooked cops, some came because some of the blood may have been tainted, some came because the timeline was very tight, some came because there was alot of blood, but no visible injuries to O.J.
People who argue this poing are still bitter about a decision from over 10 years ago.
Wether he did or not, I don't know. For anyone to argue that there wasn't reasonable doubt is just letting personal opion get in the way of looking at the facts.
Bottom line is, a juror of his peers found him not gulity because they had reasonable doubt, and there was alot of reasonable doubt from what I have read. Some of that reasonable doubt came from testimony from Dr.Henry Lee, soem came because there was crooked cops, some came because some of the blood may have been tainted, some came because the timeline was very tight, some came because there was alot of blood, but no visible injuries to O.J.
People who argue this poing are still bitter about a decision from over 10 years ago.
Wether he did or not, I don't know. For anyone to argue that there wasn't reasonable doubt is just letting personal opion get in the way of looking at the facts.
Gurps, the fact is Doctor Lee when he was an employee of the state was a prosecution witness most of the time, and when he was an employee of the defence he was a defence witness, all of the time. And opinion witnesses tend to testify in favour of their employers. Ask your wife, if she has ever been exposed to this. Thats what Nancy Grace said last week, I saw it dude.
Again, with all due repect.
PS You have hurt my feelings about the validity of my opinion just because I like to eat cheezies and sit on the couch. I also like to wear party hats and have cake at parties by the way.
When his findings favor the prosecution, he would be called by them
When it favors the defence, they will call him.
The way you make it sound is that he would alter his testimony based on who was hiring him, which I do not belive to be true.
When it favors the defence, they will call him.
The way you make it sound is that he would alter his testimony based on who was hiring him, which I do not belive to be true.
I have discussed this with her when she was working defence.
Many times they called experts who sometimes worked with them, sometimes those same experts were called by the provincial prosecutors and went against the defence, depending on the case. Never did those experts always work for the defence or always for the prosecution. It always would depend on what they found.
In this case, If Dr.Lee's findings supported the prosecution, they would have called him. He was called buy the defence to exaine the findiings, he did so, those findings were favourable to the defence, and he was called. If those findings were not favourable, there is no way he would have been called on to testify.
Many times they called experts who sometimes worked with them, sometimes those same experts were called by the provincial prosecutors and went against the defence, depending on the case. Never did those experts always work for the defence or always for the prosecution. It always would depend on what they found.
In this case, If Dr.Lee's findings supported the prosecution, they would have called him. He was called buy the defence to exaine the findiings, he did so, those findings were favourable to the defence, and he was called. If those findings were not favourable, there is no way he would have been called on to testify.
Gurps, no they would not have. They had their experts, who were more expert than he was. Defence then called their expert who based on his previous experience contradicted the current experts. In criminal cases, especially cases such as murder, it is very rare that prosecutors call "experts" who give evidence for money, as the state have experts on staff who do this kind of stuff for a living. It is very common, however, for defence counsel, to call part timers or retired people who don't have full time jobs in their field of expertise.
But juries do not know that.
Anyway, must go now, I have a party to go to, and need to choose a hat.
But juries do not know that.
Anyway, must go now, I have a party to go to, and need to choose a hat.
Latest posts
-
-
2024 BC Masters Provincial A Cup - Predictions, Results & Banter- Latest: Rangerforever
-
-
-
-
-
-
