Today, 9/10 black's agree "oj probably is guilty or involved" [Archive]

garrison

07-24-2006, 10:52 AM

Whites thought - he did it - but he should plead guilty and spare eveyone the budon of a trial". The facts proved he was guilty; and the facts were too solid and many to be explained away.

In this case there was a divide from the start. Rascim is such that all the layers of LE, media and white society can not see the reality of racsim in modern america. Sure they can recognize it when it's in-the-face ie N*** N***'! But it's about much more if you LOOK.

Why look at unpleasant things? So, we don't look.

Blacks thought - he did it - but took the White/Anglo justice system to heart, where a person is able to plead their innocence and inturn receive a fair trial. They said he was guilty but the case was typical of the way blacks get fixed up with extra evidence, some untruthful testimony by LE and drowned by the torrents of DAs, assistant DAs, departments, experts, pr & media, scientists and ability to reach the entire public.

They new that maybe oj could be the one to shake the whole LE system until white people noticed and had to look and see it for all its flaws, ingrained bias and failings. OJ was going to use the whiteman system to beat them off with if he could but the theme was about the ingrained abuses that exist.

OJ had to win however for the real message blacks needed to be heard. the support for oj today shows this - 9/10 blacks say he was involved.

jotun

07-31-2006, 02:09 AM

Freshwater-All
Shouldn't this RACIST GARBAGE be on the race thread????????
jotun

garrison

08-13-2006, 06:31 AM

Whites hate to consider rasicim, we do not what to think such a thing still exists. It still does.

It was whole 2nd glove/Furhman debacle. It shoved rasicim in our white faces and we hated it. We called everything the race card toward them (as if Rodney King was white - we said the jury was an all black female jury - yeah sisters always let murdering brothers of all the time!

nettathirty

08-14-2006, 05:18 PM

Originally posted by socaldiva

those ignorant jurors.

Socal,

Now your saying the jurors, based their decision on MF solely?

fbgweezer

08-15-2006, 11:16 AM

Alan Dershowitz: "I think for some of the jurors, Barry Scheck gave them the intellectual and the moral permission to vote their heart. They wanted to vote acquittal. Barry showed them how to; Johnnie told them why to. …"

And we all know that their decision was not based on the evidence or facts of the case.

nettathirty

08-15-2006, 06:02 PM

Originally posted by fbgweezer

*Snipped*

And we all know that their decision was not based on the evidence or facts of the case.

fbg,

I cannot disagree with you more, and just how wrong this statement is!

1. Abuse: Was not, what it was made out to be!
2. Gloves: Were they left by the killer(s), or someone else?
3. Blood: How did OJ sustain the cut to his finger, and when?

The evidence could not withstand the challenge, and it wasn't because the defense was deception, it was because it wasn't presented legitimately...

I want all my G's to do me a favor: I know in your heart of heart you believe OJ is guilty.. Take the evidence and ask yourself how can this evidence be viewed in favor of OJ's innocense?

bobaugust

08-15-2006, 07:09 PM

Originally posted by nettathirty

2. Gloves: Were they left by the killer(s), or someone else?
3. Blood: How did OJ sustain the cut to his finger, and when?

I want all my G's to do me a favor: I know in your heart of heart you believe OJ is guilty.. Take the evidence and ask yourself how can this evidence be viewed in favor of OJ's innocense?

nettathirty, ask yourself how can this evidence be viewed in favor of Simpson's innocence? It can't.

2. Gloves: All of the evidence of Simpson wearing the exact same gloves, where they were found, and all of the blood and trace evidence found on them point to Simpson and only Simpson. Nothing points to anyone else.

3. Blood: It's not necessary to know how Simpson cut his finger. Only Simpson can tell us that and he's not going to tell the truth. As to when he was cut, we know that it was when he was at Bundy. That's where he first left his blood drops.

bobaugust

nettathirty

08-15-2006, 08:28 PM

Originally posted by bobaugust

*Snipped*

It can't.

2. Gloves: All of the evidence of Simpson wearing the exact same gloves, where they were found, and all of the blood and trace evidence found on them point to Simpson and only Simpson. Nothing points to anyone else.

3. Blood: It's not necessary to know how Simpson cut his finger. Only Simpson can tell us that and he's not going to tell the truth. As to when he was cut, we know that it was when he was at Bundy. That's where he first left his blood drops.

bobaugust

August,

Your not trying...

You didn't follow my instructions, Using the glove, can you tell the class how the gloves that OJ wore could give us a different explanation than the plain O' their expensive he's rich and so you know the rest..

Try this on for size (no pund intended), the gloves didn't belong to the killer(s)!

bobaugust

08-15-2006, 09:38 PM

Originally posted by nettathirty

August,

Your not trying...

You didn't follow my instructions, Using the glove, can you tell the class how the gloves that OJ wore could give us a different explanation than the plain O' their expensive he's rich and so you know the rest..

Try this on for size (no pund intended), the gloves didn't belong to the killer(s)!

nettathirty, you're trying to play some game that honestly I'm not interested in playing.

The fact is that Simpson wore the killer's gloves. The gloves were the exact same kind and size that he was shown wearing many times before. The gloves were his. The blood on one of the gloves was his blood. There were fibers on that glove that came from his Bronco carpeting. There were fibers on that glove that came from the clothing he wore that night.

If you want to imagine fantasies that have nothing to do with the reality of the evidence and these murders than go right ahead, you're not alone. Other posters who like you refuse to face the truth post the same kind of fantasies.

Posters who understand that Simpson killed both Ron and Nicole rely on the reality of the known facts and evidence. I certainly don't speak for all of those posters here but the fact is we argue the truth, we don't play silly games. Maybe someone else might want to play along with you but I'll pass, thank you.

bobaugust

tazzybaby

08-16-2006, 08:44 AM

Originally posted by nettathirty

*snip*

I want all my G's to do me a favor: I know in your heart of heart you believe OJ is guilty.. Take the evidence and ask yourself how can this evidence be viewed in favor of OJ's innocense?

Hi Netta,

The only way to make this work towards OJ's innocence is to use hypothetical (unsupported) theories. The evidence found on the glove points to OJ. EVERYTHING points to OJ. You want us to consider that the glove was planted......what evidence tells us it was? That Mark Fuhrman use the "n" word in the last 10 years before the murders?

nettathirty

08-16-2006, 05:56 PM

Originally posted by tazzybaby

*Snipped*

That Mark Fuhrman use the "n" word in the last 10 years before the murders?

- Where did this come from, I never mentioned MF.. Why do you keep obsessing over MF, his role in this case went beyond the N-word.. Unless your saying the Criminal Jury reendered it's decision solely on race? Where is your proof?

nettathirty

08-16-2006, 06:51 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by tazzybaby
[B]
*Snipped*

The only way to make this work towards OJ's innocence is to use hypothetical (unsupported) theories.

Tazzy,

No!

OJ altered the crime scene at Bundy in the isotoner gloves that he was photographed wearing at the Football game.. He placed Nicoles' feet underneath the gate were they were found by the police.. He also moved Goldman's body into the alcove, off the pathway.

OJ removed his glove to check and see if Goldman had a pulse.. The cap, I have no ideal why it was removed, or even if he wore one.. He either left it behind unintentionally or deliberately, not sure yet!

OJ then placed the menu from the Mezzaluna in the middle of the 2 victims.. Someone else left the finger print on the glasses.. We know the cut to OJs finger didn't happen with a knife, so I'm of the mindset it was a re-injury that happened during his rearrangment of the bodies...

The deaths occurred shortly after 10pm, which means when Mandel and Aaronson passed the condo Nicole and Ron were dead, and Oj was happening upon the scene.. Heidstra did see the white colored vehicle but he didn't hear anything come from Nicoles' condo... Because Nicole's next door neighbor would have heard the same noises, since they were up and closest to 875 Bundy... and not in some alley across the street..

This is what I'm talking about!

bobaugust

08-16-2006, 08:04 PM

Originally posted by nettathirty
[QUOTE]Originally posted by tazzybaby
[B]
*Snipped*

The only way to make this work towards OJ's innocence is to use hypothetical (unsupported) theories.

Tazzy,

No!

OJ altered the crime scene at Bundy in the isotoner gloves that he was photographed wearing at the Football game.. He placed Nicoles' feet underneath the gate were they were found by the police.. He also moved Goldman's body into the alcove, off the pathway.

OJ removed his glove to check and see if Goldman had a pulse.. The cap, I have no ideal why it was removed, or even if he wore one.. He either left it behind unintentionally or deliberately, not sure yet!

OJ then placed the menu from the Mezzaluna in the middle of the 2 victims.. Someone else left the finger print on the glasses.. We know the cut to OJs finger didn't happen with a knife, so I'm of the mindset it was a re-injury that happened during his rearrangment of the bodies...

The deaths occurred shortly after 10pm, which means when Mandel and Aaronson passed the condo Nicole and Ron were dead, and Oj was happening upon the scene.. Heidstra did see the white colored vehicle but he didn't hear anything come from Nicoles' condo... Because Nicole's next door neighbor would have heard the same noises, since they were up and closest to 875 Bundy... and not in some alley across the street..

This is what I'm talking about!

nettathirty, you're fantasizing.

Not only is there no evidence that what you fantasized happened, there is evidence that contradicts your fantasy.

There is no evidence Simpson moved either body. They died where they fell.
There is no evidence Simpson removed his glove to check Ron's pulse. Simpson is right handed if he were to check anything he most likely would have removed his right hand glove, not his left hand glove. And if he did remove it he would not have left it behind.
There is no evidence that the menu was deliberately placed between the bodies
There was no evidence there was a finger print on the eyeglasses
You don't know that Simpson didn't cut his finger on the knife.
The murders were committed after 10:30. Mandel and Aaronson didn't see anything out of the ordinary before 10:30 because there was nothing to see.
Heidstra did hear the two voices come from Nicole's condo. There was nothing or no one that ever contradicted his testimony.

What you are talking about is pure imagined b.s.

bobaugust

nettathirty

08-16-2006, 11:57 PM

Originally posted by bobaugust

nettathirty, you're fantasizing.

Not only is there no evidence that what you fantasized happened, there is evidence that contradicts your fantasy.

There is no evidence Simpson moved either body. They died where they fell.
There is no evidence Simpson removed his glove to check Ron's pulse. Simpson is right handed if he were to check anything he most likely would have removed his right hand glove, not his left hand glove. And if he did remove it he would not have left it behind.
There is no evidence that the menu was deliberately placed between the bodies
There was no evidence there was a finger print on the eyeglasses
You don't know that Simpson didn't cut his finger on the knife.
The murders were committed after 10:30. Mandel and Aaronson didn't see anything out of the ordinary before 10:30 because there was nothing to see.
Heidstra did hear the two voices come from Nicole's condo. There was nothing or no one that ever contradicted his testimony.

What you are talking about is pure imagined b.s.

bobaugust

August,

So, your saying Nicole's next door neighbors would not have been in a better position than Heidstra, who was across the street in the alley?

Neither the states attorneys nor the plantiffs attorneys would even say anything about the cut in either trial... Other than it being a coincident that OJ was bleeding, "NOT CUT" on the same night of the murders...

The glove at Bundy, was removed one finger at a time. Most people, probably not you will rely on the strongest hand, so it would be natural for right handed people to remove their left hand glove first.. (Observe people removing their gloves, and see)

Oj made 2 trips down the path at Bundy, did he realize he had forgotten (NOT LOST) his left hand glove.. OJ has staged the bodies, and goes to leave and realizes he's (FORGOT) not (LOST) his glove and returns to the bodies.. Could this be when OJ reinjuries his finger, which may explain why his blood was know where near either victims...

Mandel and Aaronson walking pass the Condo shortly after 10:30p. Nicole and Ron lay dead (QUIETLY), and according to them there is NO barking dog. Why would their attention be drawn to the front porch of Nicoles condo?

bobaugust

08-17-2006, 01:37 AM

Originally posted by nettathirty

August,

So, your saying Nicole's next door neighbors would not have been in a better position than Heidstra, who was across the street in the alley?

Neither the states attorneys nor the plantiffs attorneys would even say anything about the cut in either trial... Other than it being a coincident that OJ was bleeding, "NOT CUT" on the same night of the murders...

The glove at Bundy, was removed one finger at a time. Most people, probably not you will rely on the strongest hand, so it would be natural for right handed people to remove their left hand glove first.. (Observe people removing their gloves, and see)

Oj made 2 trips down the path at Bundy, did he realize he had forgotten (NOT LOST) his left hand glove.. OJ has staged the bodies, and goes to leave and realizes he's (FORGOT) not (LOST) his glove and returns to the bodies.. Could this be when OJ reinjuries his finger, which may explain why his blood was know where near either victims...

Mandel and Aaronson walking pass the Condo shortly after 10:30p. Nicole and Ron lay dead (QUIETLY), and according to them there is NO barking dog. Why would their attention be drawn to the front porch of Nicoles condo?

nettathirty, the fact is that Nicole's neighbors never heard Ron and Simpson yell at each other. All they heard was the dog barking, so they weren't in a better position. Nicole's closest neighbor was Eva Stein and she testified she went to sleep about 10:00 and was later awaken by dogs barking.

No one knows how Simpson cut himself but the fact is that Simpson had to have cut himself to have left his blood at the murder scene. Once again something you can't seem to grasp, a logical reasonable inference.

Your claim about the glove is ridiculous. First of all the glove did not have to be removed finger by finger. If you had watched the end of the glove demonstration you would have seen Simpson snap each glove in a fraction of a second. Besides the fact your comment that right handed people remove their right hand first is irrelevant. Simpson never intentionally took of one glove let alone two. And if he did remove one glove to check for a pulse he would have taken off his right glove since he was right handed. And if he had intentionally taken his left glove off he certainly would not have left it there or thrown it under one of the plants in the dark garden area.

Simpson may have returned to Ron to make sure he was dead. Simpson had no idea what it took to kill someone. Or Simpson may have returned looking for his glove and hat but never saw them and didn't want to spend any more time looking. He had to get back home as quickly as possible.

You ask why would Mandel and Aaronson's attention be drawn to the front porch of Nicole's condo? Because if the murders had already been committed the front gate would have been open and her body would have been clearly visible from from the sidewalk just like it was when it was seen about two and half hours later by Sukru Boztep and Bettina Rasmussen.

bobaugust

tazzybaby

08-17-2006, 08:57 AM

Originally posted by nettathirty

- Where did this come from, I never mentioned MF.. Why do you keep obsessing over MF, his role in this case went beyond the N-word.. Unless your saying the Criminal Jury reendered it's decision solely on race? Where is your proof?

I am NOT obsessed over MF. You said that the defense was not deceptive. THEY said that MF planted the glove.

:rolleyes:

tazzybaby

08-17-2006, 09:01 AM

Originally posted by nettathirty
[QUOTE]Originally posted by tazzybaby
[B]
*Snipped*

The only way to make this work towards OJ's innocence is to use hypothetical (unsupported) theories.

Tazzy,

No!

*snip*

This is what I'm talking about!

This whole post is exactly what I'm talking about. hypothetical (unsupported) theories.

How do you know that OJ moved the menu? How do you know that he "positioned" her legs?

You don't.

Please explain to me how you came to the conclusions that you did. I don't want a big exchange of sarcastic remarks. If you want me to consider your theory, then please explain.

msldystrkr

08-17-2006, 12:17 PM

OJ didn't kill Ron and Nicole... He would not have with his 2 children asleep upstairs with the possibility of them waking up and discovering their mother killed in such a horrible way.

Also the killer could not have left this scene without being splashed in blood.

Someone else is definately involved in this murder.

Was OJ involved... that is entirely another discussion.

nettathirty

08-17-2006, 04:42 PM

Originally posted by socaldiva

*Snipped*

There was NO evidence that anyone other than Orenthal committed these murders.

Socal,

There was NO evidence that the man arrested and taken into custody in the Ramsey case committed her murder????????

nettathirty

08-17-2006, 09:05 PM

Originally posted by socaldiva

What on earth are you talking about now? :confused:

Looks like Netta is serving up apples & oranges again. :tongue:

Socal,

You and the other (G's) say, well if there was evidence of someone other than OJ and the 2 victims at Bundy, where is it.. I think the Ramsey's case prove that you can have a horrible situation like this and apparently there not be evidence of the killer..

nettathirty

08-17-2006, 10:20 PM

Originally posted by socaldiva

There was unidentified DNA left at the Ramsey crime scene. LE put it in the FBI database & did not come back with a match.

Being that you want to draw a parallel here, where is the unidentified DNA at Bundy?

There was blond hair on the glove, that wasn't Nicoles..

The unidentified finger print on the Bundy gate..

nettathirty

08-17-2006, 10:31 PM

Originally posted by socaldiva

Who knows WHEN the blonde hair fell

.

The blonde hair was found on the glove.. You might want to reconsider that answer, or think it through?

nettathirty

08-17-2006, 11:16 PM

Originally posted by X Richmonder

You mean like DNA in John Bennett's panties?:shrug:

Who is John Bennett?

nettathirty

08-17-2006, 11:30 PM

Originally posted by X Richmonder
[QUOTE]Originally posted by nettathirty

Who is John Bennett? [/QUOTE
Jon Benet, you know who I'm talking about. Just respond to the post which was about the DNA in her panties.

Oh, i'm sorry! That is news to me.. I'll have to research it!

bobaugust

08-18-2006, 07:09 AM

Originally posted by nettathirty

There was blond hair on the glove, that wasn't Nicoles..

The unidentified finger print on the Bundy gate..

nettathirty, it's comical when you try to argue facts when you have no idea what you're talking about.

There was no blond hair found on the killer's glove, there was one short light brown Caucasian hair. Deedrick testified that hair may very well have come from Ron Goldman.

Fuhrman and Roberts thought there was a possible fingerprint in the blood on the brass deadbolt on the rear gate. If it was a fingerprint it probably was Simpson's since all of the other relevant physical evidence in this case tells us that there were only three people at Bundy that night. The two victims and Simpson. And we pretty much know that when Simpson left Bundy he was wearing only one glove and bleeding from a cut on his bare left hand.

June 29, 1995
MS. CLARK: Okay. Of all of the samples that you compared, including those of Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown, was there any one sample that did come close to exhibiting the same microscopic characteristics as those in the short light brown Caucasian hair on the Rockingham glove?

MR. DEEDRICK: The only sample that had an area of the hair that was close was the known sample from Ronald Goldman, and that would have been the proximal portion of the hair only, that nearest the root.

MS. CLARK: And that hair on the Rockingham glove, that was naturally shed?

MR. DEEDRICK: That was naturally shed and it was about an inch long, right, and his hairs were about five or so, five and a half.

MS. CLARK: And you had no naturally shed hairs from the Coroner's office for Ronald Goldman?

MR. DEEDRICK: I did not.

bobaugust

fbgweezer

08-18-2006, 11:12 AM

Originally posted by nettathirty

There was blond hair on the glove, that wasn't Nicoles..

The unidentified finger print on the Bundy gate.. The hair belonged to Nicole and there was no unidentified fingerprint on the gate.

Simpsonese

08-18-2006, 03:41 PM

That blond hair WASN'T hers. Neither was the handprint that WAS indentified.

I swear to freaking God, the haters will simply say anything to prove Simpson's "Guilt".

bobaugust

08-18-2006, 03:51 PM

nettathirty

08-18-2006, 04:13 PM

Originally posted by bobaugust

*Snipped*

MS. CLARK: And that hair on the Rockingham glove, that was naturally shed?

MR. DEEDRICK: That was naturally shed and it was about an inch long, right, and his hairs were about five or so, five and a half.

MS. CLARK: And you had no naturally shed hairs from the Coroner's office for Ronald Goldman?

MR. DEEDRICK: I did not.

bobaugust

August,

Talking comical

This says the hair found shed naturally, and Goldman's hair did not! That means the hair wasn't Goldman's and it wasn't Nicole's and it wasn't from an African American..

nettathirty

08-18-2006, 04:18 PM

Originally posted by bobaugust

Simpsonese, there was no blond hair found on the killer's glove. There was no hand print ever found.

bobaugust

Simpsonese,

What August is saying, this evidence existed it just works against their fantasy theories!

bobaugust

08-18-2006, 04:43 PM

Originally posted by nettathirty

August,

Talking comical

This says the hair found shed naturally, and Goldman's hair did not! That means the hair wasn't Goldman's and it wasn't Nicole's and it wasn't from an African American..

nettathirty, yes you do talk comical.

Deedrick said he had no naturally shed hair from Ron to compare with but that the light brown caucasian hair did come close to exhibiting the same microscopic characteristics near the root of the hair as other samples of Ron's hairs. That in no way eliminates the hair coming from Ron. That suggests that hair could have come from Ron.

It's always funny when someone as uninformed of the facts, the evidence, and what witnesses testified to like you are makes claims that the defense attorneys never made. Good job.

bobaugust

bobaugust

08-18-2006, 04:57 PM

Originally posted by nettathirty

Simpsonese,

What August is saying, this evidence existed it just works against their fantasy theories!

nettathirty, no what I'm saying is that there was no blond hair ever found on the glove. There was no palm print ever found in blood.

There was a light brown Caucasian hair found on the glove.
There was a possible finger print seen in blood on the brass deadbolt of the rear gate at Bundy.
The only palm print found in this case was found on Nicole's black Cherokee Jeep on the outside of the passenger side rear fender.

I simply stated the facts. I leave the fantasy theories for you and other posters to make who can't seem to understand the truth of these murders.

bobaugust

nettathirty

08-18-2006, 05:20 PM

Originally posted by bobaugust

*SNIPPED*

. That suggests that hair could have come from Ron.

bobaugust

August,

All the Prosecution Expert (PAID) witness needed to do was get a sample of Goldmans hair and compare it! He didn't, why?

bobaugust

08-18-2006, 05:37 PM

Originally posted by nettathirty

August,

All the Prosecution Expert (PAID) witness needed to do was get a sample of Goldmans hair and compare it! He didn't, why?

nettathirty, Deedrick was not a "paid" witness. He was a special agent with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, unit chief in the hairs and fibers unit of the scientific analysis section.

It was not his responsibility to get additional hairs, he only examined the hair evidence and samples that were provided to him.

Instead of asking me that question you should be asking Simpson's defense attorneys. But then again they never made the claims you make.

bobaugust

nettathirty

08-18-2006, 05:41 PM

Originally posted by bobaugust

nettathirty, Deedrick was not a "paid" witness. He was a special agent with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, unit chief in the hairs and fibers unit of the scientific analysis section.

It was not his responsibility to get additional hairs, he only examined the hair evidence and samples that were provided to him.

Instead of asking me that question you should be asking Simpson's defense attorneys. But then again they never made the claims you make.

bobaugust

August,

So we agree, the hair wasn't Goldmans...

nettathirty

08-18-2006, 05:51 PM

Originally posted by X Richmonder

Bob, I admire you fortitude. I just hope you aren't too upset when you find out all the people you have been debating are between 11 and 14 years of age. :seeya:

X Richmond,

Rise above the NG's tactics of evading the real issues, and resulting to mudd slinging! Your G' , you guys answer the tough questions!:lol:

bobaugust

08-18-2006, 06:09 PM

Originally posted by nettathirty

August,

So we agree, the hair wasn't Goldmans...

nettathirty, no we don't agree. The light brown Caucasian hair could very well have come from Ron Goldman.

bobaugust

nettathirty

08-18-2006, 06:47 PM

Originally posted by bobaugust

nettathirty, no we don't agree. The light brown Caucasian hair could very well have come from Ron Goldman.

bobaugust

August,

It could have very well been someone else's!

bobaugust

08-18-2006, 08:24 PM

Originally posted by nettathirty

August,

It could have very well been someone else's!

nettathirty, and it was more likely that it was Ron Goldman's.

bobaugust

nettathirty

08-18-2006, 08:43 PM

Originally posted by bobaugust

nettathirty, and it was more likely that it was Ron Goldman's.

bobaugust

August,

Then, why not have it tested?

nettathirty

08-18-2006, 09:37 PM

Originally posted by socaldiva
It might have been a hair without a root containing mitochondrial DNA for testing.

Socal,

That's the opposite of what Deedrick said!

nettathirty

08-18-2006, 11:06 PM

Originally posted by socaldiva

I seriously doubt that. If they had mitochondrial DNA for testing, they could have included or excluded Ron Goldman as a source. I think you are wrong. Again.

Socal,

The States resources could have made it possible to know who's the source of the hair!

fbgweezer

08-19-2006, 03:11 PM

*SnippedOriginally posted by nettathirty
[QUOTE]Originally posted by tazzybaby
[B]OJ then placed the menu from the Mezzaluna in the middle of the 2 victims.. What Mezzaluna menu? IIRC, there was a flyer from a Chinese restaurant found in the area. More misinformation.

fbgweezer

08-19-2006, 09:57 PM

Originally posted by Simpsonese
That blond hair WASN'T hers. Neither was the handprint that WAS indentified.

I swear to freaking God, the haters will simply say anything to prove Simpson's "Guilt". O.J. Unmasked; M.L. Rantala; p5: "The Rockingham glove had on it fibers from Ron Goldman's shirt, hair from Nicole, carpet fibers matching the carpeting in Simpson's Bronco, and the blood of Nicole, Ron, and Simpson."

Marsha Clark closing argument (Transcript, 26 September 1995): "So what do we find on the Rockingham glove, the one he (Simpson) drops? We find everything. Everything. We find fibers consistent with Ron Goldman's shirt. We find the hair of Ron. We find the hair of Nicole. We find the blood of Ron Goldman. We find the blood of Nicole Brown. And we find the blood of the defendant. And we find Bronco fiber from the defendant's Bronco. We find blue black botton fibers just like those found on the shirt of Ron Goldman and on the socks of the defendant in his bedroom. And on this glove he is tied to every aspect of the murder; to Ron Goldman, to Nicole Brown, to the car, and of course that is why the defense has to say that the glove is planted, because if they don't everything about this glove convicts the defendant, where it is found, what is found on it, what is found in it, even a black limb hair found inside the glove. Everything about it convicts him."

nettathirty

08-21-2006, 03:47 PM

Originally posted by X Richmonder

*Snipped*

Innocent men don't lie or leave their blood at a murder scene.

Mark Fuhrman lied, and he lied about something totally irrevelant to the case... Are you saying, MF planted the Rockingham glove?

nettathirty

08-21-2006, 10:09 PM

Originally posted by socaldiva

*Snipped*

I think you are confused again.

.

The poster said, if OJ was innocent why would he lie!

I said if that's the case, then MF lied to cover up his evidence planting! That's what I said, I guess the confused one would be you, but that ain't news now is it!

nettathirty

08-21-2006, 10:59 PM

Originally posted by X Richmonder
I think the most damaging evidence is the size 12 Bruno Magli shoe prints with a trail of blood dripping to the left of them and OJ owned a pair of size 12 Bruno Magli and had a cut on his left finger. He lied about the shoes. Innocent men don't lie or leave their blood at a murder scene.

No your facts: Good Grief!

1. The shoe sole made the print, not the shoe! The paid expert by Petrocelli could not produce another shoe like the one speculated at Bundy... The sole print at Bundy was just like that of the Bruno Magli, the Bruno Magli is rare, the sole isn't!

2. It was not a cut on OJ's finger it was a injury.. OJ did not cut himself at Bundy, and neither of the attorneys for the state or the plantiffs would say that he did! They all implied it was a coincident that OJ BLED on the same night of the murders, August and the media said it was a cut.. What's the difference, ask Petrocelli, Clark and Darden!

3. The gloves, Clark Darden and Petrocelli all implied came from the killer(s). We know both gloves were NOT inside out, which means the gloves were patiently removed 1 finger at a time! Goldman did not remove the left glove in a struggle, whoever suggested such a "idiotic fantasy" should not be taken seriously!

nettathirty

08-21-2006, 11:09 PM

Originally posted by socaldiva

Nope, I'm not the confused one. By your own admission, you stated that MF's lie was irrevelant to the murder.

If he lied about planting a glove, that wouldn't be irrelevant, would it? :rolleyes:

.

MF lied about nothing, are your suggesting that he would be truthful when it comes to something relevant? GimmeAbreak!

"Do you solemly swear to tell the truth, and nothing but the truth so HELP YOU GOD"?

MF: Yes!,

You may be seated!

Knowing full well the defense has a audio tape of him using the "N" word a thousand times in one sentence, and 2 witnesses who heard him refer to a black man, in such a way.. HE KNEW THIS EVIDENCE EXISTED, Clark, Darden and MFs own attorneys knew!

FLeeBailey, have you used the "N" word in the past 10 years?

MF: No!

You have GOTZ to be JOKING!!!!

nettathirty

08-22-2006, 12:22 AM

Originally posted by socaldiva

You have posted MANY times that you thought that MF was on the up & up IIRC, now you are recanting & switching back into a mode of pursuiting MF? You have "GOTZ" to be joking :rolleyes:

His "lie" about the "n" word being used in the past had no bearing on this case & it shouldn't have been allowed in. There was no proof MF planted anything.

What's your excuse for Orenthal's MANY lies? Hmmm???:seeya:

It is clear to me that you are here just to bait & argue & you seem to have no respect for the truth, so :seeya:

My position on the MF matter still holds true.. However, when your poster buddies make an asertion that OJ lied, to cover his guilt.. I simply point out, that you have to make the same argument in the Fuhrman instance...

The truth, you can't HANDLE the truth!

limakey

08-22-2006, 12:22 AM

Netta,

I don't believe the DA's knew about the tapes nor do I think the defense did. The defense already had many witnesses who would testify about their encounters with Mark Fuhrman. They were going to testify until the tapes became known.

IMO, while I believe the DA's used Fuhrman as their scapegoat which protected their case, I don't think they knew about the tapes.

I remember when Fuhrman said that he forgotten all about the tapes, until I heard him bragging about the glove and what he knew what would happen if he went down---and so did Clark.

I do believe that the DA's office knew right away Fuhrman was going to be a problem but they used it to their advantage in the trial.

It is very easy for many people to blame Fuhrman for the loss of the case but to be honest, he was the perfect cover up for the rest of the evidence.

IMO, if you took Fuhrman's race challenged views away from this case, it doesn't change a thing about the glove or the other evidence. IMO.

If MF planted the glove, IMO, it was to get in the case of the life time and show up those goons who refused his promotions and his transfer into the elite unit. I also think that his past relationship and knowledge of the Simpsons' led him to believe that OJ was the prime suspect---as it should have. To find out that he left town? Yeah, I'm looking for him too for the murders. Again, IMO.

Osuzzanna

08-22-2006, 03:49 AM

People still yakking about OJ? Why?
He was acquitted by a jury.
Mark Fuhrman was proven to be a racist cop ( who loved the N word)
Dr. Henry Lee said "something wrong"
Detective Vanatter carried a blood vile around instead of turning it in to the lab
Dennis Fung had a trainee on the job ( and actually shook OJ's hand after his testimony)

It's OVER.

bobaugust

08-22-2006, 04:27 AM

Originally posted by nettathirty

No your facts: Good Grief!

1. The shoe sole made the print, not the shoe! The paid expert by Petrocelli could not produce another shoe like the one speculated at Bundy... The sole print at Bundy was just like that of the Bruno Magli, the Bruno Magli is rare, the sole isn't!

2. It was not a cut on OJ's finger it was a injury.. OJ did not cut himself at Bundy, and neither of the attorneys for the state or the plantiffs would say that he did! They all implied it was a coincident that OJ BLED on the same night of the murders, August and the media said it was a cut.. What's the difference, ask Petrocelli, Clark and Darden!

3. The gloves, Clark Darden and Petrocelli all implied came from the killer(s). We know both gloves were NOT inside out, which means the gloves were patiently removed 1 finger at a time! Goldman did not remove the left glove in a struggle, whoever suggested such a "idiotic fantasy" should not be taken seriously!

nettathirty, either you're deliberately lying or you still can't comprehend what Bodziak testified to.

1. Bodziak brought a Bruno Magli Lorenzo style shoe with a Silga sole to court and it was entered into evidence.
The Silga sole was made exclusively for the Bruno Magli Lorenzo style shoe.

2. Of course Simpson cut himself at Bundy. How else could he have dripped his blood there if not from a cut? How else could he have left his blood splattered all over the inside of his Bronco if not from a cut? How else could he have left his blood on his driveway and his foyer floor if not from a cut?

3. Simpson's left hand glove found at Bundy could very well have been pulled off his hand by Goldman grabbing Simpson's fingers and pulling. The glove would not have been inside out. If you had watched the end of the glove demonstration in the criminal trial when Simpson dropped his hands and pulled each of his gloves off in a fraction of a section with out them being inside out, you would understand this. Evidently you never saw that.

June 19, 1995
THE COURT: All right. The box and contents, Bruno Magli shoes, 375.
(Peo's 375 for id = box & contents/shoes)
MR. GOLDBERG: I'm going to write a little "375" on the top of the box.
THE COURT: Thank you.
MR. GOLDBERG: Sir, showing you People's 375 for identification, can you tell us what that is?
MR. BODZIAK: Exhibit 375 are the two shoes, the Lyon or Lyon and the Lorenzo, which were submitted to me by Mr. Peter Grueterich and which were left over from the shipment or distribution of those shoes in 1991 and 1992.
MR. GOLDBERG: And if you can hold up one of them again, I think it is the Lorenzo, it appears to be faded a little bit on one side?
MR. BODZIAK: Yes. The left side of this shoe is much darker than the right side, which appears to maybe have been in a window and is somewhat discolored.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Is that the condition they were in when you got them?
MR. BODZIAK: Yes, sir, it is.

January 16. 1997
The independent construction in one factory for Bruno Magli of this upper, combined with the independent design of this contoured sole with these features, in another factory combined, makes this unique.
Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) You say in another factory. You're saying the soles were made in one factory and the tops were made in another?
A. For Bruno Magli, and then assembled together.
Q. Based on your -- you were at the factory, weren't you?
A. Yes.
The upper was made at the 4C factory; the sole was made at the Silga factory. And they were made by Bruno Magli through those factories and assembled in the 4C factory.
Q. As part of your opinion in your investigation, did you make a determination whether the dye used to make the upper was used in any other shoe?
A. I was told these were not. These were specifically made -- the soles for the bottom of the shoe and the uppers were specifically made for that design and are no longer used.
Q. By each separate factory?
A. Yes, sir. Yes.

bobaugust

2L8 4A D8

08-26-2006, 02:53 AM

Originally posted by msldystrkr
OJ didn't kill Ron and Nicole... He would not have with his 2 children asleep upstairs with the possibility of them waking up and discovering their mother killed in such a horrible way.

Also the killer could not have left this scene without being splashed in blood.

Someone else is definately involved in this murder.

Was OJ involved... that is entirely another discussion.

You obviously have not taken into consideration Nicole's dog, Kato the Akita, or you would not state "Someone else is definitely involved in this murder."

Yes, OJ WAS involved and it is being thoroughly discussed by posters (G's and NG's alike) on every Thread on this Board.

JMO and MOO!!

Osuzzanna

08-26-2006, 03:23 AM

As a Black woman I have discussed, debated, listened, and opined the OJ Simpson case.
The majority of Black people still have the same opinion... OJ might have been involved BUT he did not commit the actual crime.
This topic has been the focus of barbecues, picnic's, church sermons, the water cooler at work, neighborhood gatherings..etc.
The next time you choose to post what Black people think..PM me or just drop on by. :seeya:

bobaugust

08-26-2006, 06:52 AM

Originally posted by Osuzzanna
As a Black woman I have discussed, debated, listened, and opined the OJ Simpson case.
The majority of Black people still have the same opinion... OJ might have been involved BUT he did not commit the actual crime.
This topic has been the focus of barbecues, picnic's, church sermons, the water cooler at work, neighborhood gatherings..etc.
The next time you choose to post what Black people think..PM me or just drop on by. :seeya:

Osuzzanna, in these discussions you have been in, how many people who believe Simpson was involved but didn't commit the crime are knowledgeable about the actual facts and evidence in this case? How many of these people are aware of all the new information that became known from the many depositions for the civil trial? How many of these people are aware of the new evidence, and new tests results that became available in the civil trial? And how many of these people are aware of all the lies Simpson told when he testified in the civil trial?

bobaugust

limakey

08-27-2006, 12:39 AM

Oz,

I do not believe Mr. Simpson was involved in the murders. I do believe that he knows more then what he has said but I don't believe he was involved in the murders. IMO.

bobaugust

08-27-2006, 07:48 AM

Originally posted by limakey
Oz,

I do not believe Mr. Simpson was involved in the murders. I do believe that he knows more then what he has said but I don't believe he was involved in the murders. IMO.

limakey, what do you base your belief that Simpson was not involved in the murders?

Certainly not the relevant physical evidence, since it all points to Simpson and only Simpson as the killer.
Certainly not what any of the witnesses testified to, since they all testified to facts that incriminated Simpson.
Certainly not Simpson's testimony, since he lied about everything he said he did during the time of the murders.
Certainly not on Simpson's behavior after the murders, unless you are extremely gullible and believe his acting and lies after the tried to commit suicide.
Certainly not on anything you know of that eliminates Simpson from being the killer, since there is nothing legitimate that eliminates Simpson.
Certainly not the false claim that Simpson was framed, since no one knew Simpson didn't have an airtight alibi the night of the murders.

So tell us, what do you base your beliefs on?

bobaugust

nettathirty

08-27-2006, 04:41 PM

Originally posted by bobaugust

limakey, what do you base your belief that Simpson was not involved in the murders?

Certainly not the relevant physical evidence, since it all points to Simpson and only Simpson as the killer.
Certainly not what any of the witnesses testified to, since they all testified to facts that incriminated Simpson.
Certainly not Simpson's testimony, since he lied about everything he said he did during the time of the murders.
Certainly not on Simpson's behavior after the murders, unless you are extremely gullible and believe his acting and lies after the tried to commit suicide.
Certainly not on anything you know of that eliminates Simpson from being the killer, since there is nothing legitimate that eliminates Simpson.
Certainly not the false claim that Simpson was framed, since no one knew Simpson didn't have an airtight alibi the night of the murders.

So tell us, what do you base your beliefs on?

bobaugust

August,

It's the lack of a solid alibi, tells me OJ isn't the killer..
Gloves found, NOT Inside out.. tells us the gloves weren't from the killer
The timeline totally exonerates OJ ..
OJs inability to convince us he didn't have firsthand knowledge of the crime, but his willingness to come back from Chicago, was another sign he wasn't guilty..
OJ voluntarily, and without both his attorneys present speaking with Lange and Vannatter, having his blood drawn.. Which 2cc came up missing later..
The video tape of OJ at the recital, shows OJ with a BLACK OUTFIT w/ short sleeves.. Shively saying she saw OJ's arm when he yelled at her "Phantom Nissan Driver".. Tells us Kato was off on his description of the outfit, and that OJ was still wearing the same clothes when he arrived at Bundy from the Recital.. Another point, the fibers weren't found in the Bronco nor the Bentley, not even the other sock.. Just the sock the Police had possession of.. hmmmm
The bloody shoe print leaving the crime scene, is not from the killer. The bloody print was made in blood that was at least 15 -20 minutes on the ground prior to the person walking through it..
Heidstra claiming the gate slam, was an indication Goldmans arrival at Bundy is just plain "DUMB"..
a) We don't know if Goldman entered through the rear gate?
b) With 38 gated yards in the immediate area, HELLO!!!!
c) The gate was opened when the bodies were discovered, yet Heidstra heard a gate SLAM, how dumb is that!

I could go on, but hey!

jotun

08-27-2006, 05:53 PM

Originally posted by nettathirty

August,

It's the lack of a solid alibi, tells me OJ isn't the killer..
Gloves found, NOT Inside out.. tells us the gloves weren't from the killer
The timeline totally exonerates OJ ..
OJs inability to convince us he didn't have firsthand knowledge of the crime, but his willingness to come back from Chicago, was another sign he wasn't guilty..
OJ voluntarily, and without both his attorneys present speaking with Lange and Vannatter, having his blood drawn.. Which 2cc came up missing later..
The video tape of OJ at the recital, shows OJ with a BLACK OUTFIT w/ short sleeves.. Shively saying she saw OJ's arm when he yelled at her "Phantom Nissan Driver".. Tells us Kato was off on his description of the outfit, and that OJ was still wearing the same clothes when he arrived at Bundy from the Recital.. Another point, the fibers weren't found in the Bronco nor the Bentley, not even the other sock.. Just the sock the Police had possession of.. hmmmm
The bloody shoe print leaving the crime scene, is not from the killer. The bloody print was made in blood that was at least 15 -20 minutes on the ground prior to the person walking through it..
Heidstra claiming the gate slam, was an indication Goldmans arrival at Bundy is just plain "DUMB"..
a) We don't know if Goldman entered through the rear gate?
b) With 38 gated yards in the immediate area, HELLO!!!!
c) The gate was opened when the bodies were discovered, yet Heidstra heard a gate SLAM, how dumb is that!

I could go on, but hey!

Netta
Right you are.
GO ON....
jotun

bobaugust

08-27-2006, 06:10 PM

2L8 4A D8

08-27-2006, 07:25 PM

Originally posted by nettathirty

<snipped>

c) The gate was opened when the bodies were discovered, yet Heidstra heard a gate SLAM, how dumb is that!

I could go on, but hey!

If this has been discussed before, I have not read the posts. What if the gate slamming that Heidstra heard was OJ leaving out of the back gate? Just curious. Any comments?

bobaugust

08-27-2006, 07:42 PM

Originally posted by 2L8 4A D8

If this has been discussed before, I have not read the posts. What if the gate slamming that Heidstra heard was OJ leaving out of the back gate? Just curious. Any comments?

2LB 4A D8, Heidstra testified that he heard Nicole's front gate slam after he heard the two male voices coming from Nicole's condo.

I posted excerpts from the criminal trial transcripts of a conversation between Douglas and Ito about the gate slamming where they discussed the possibility that I have suggested that when a metal gate is slammed hard it may bounce back open without latching. That's most likely why Nicole's front gate was found open. Nettathirty still can't understand this simple reality since he has no life experience about metal gates.

August 17, 1995
THE COURT: My recollection of the crime scene photos is that the rear six-foot gate on the Bundy alleyway, on the west alleyway, was opened.
MR. DOUGLAS: That--
THE COURT: And that the gate at--where Miss Brown Simpson was found was also opened, so the only other gate that would have been slammed closed would be the mid-gate, but that gate was opened as well is my recollection.
MR. DOUGLAS: I do think, however, your Honor, a couple things that comes to mind. First, the slamming action is the clanging of metal against metal and not necessarily the clanging of the door locking into its metal jam; therefore, in optimum fairness it would probably be best for us to recreate each of the gates and to have Mr. Heidstra identify that sound which best replicates what he heard those gates--
THE COURT: Did you--
MR. DOUGLAS: You can slam a gate, your Honor.
THE COURT: I know you can slam a gate and you can slam it hard enough that it won't have time to latch.
MR. DOUGLAS: Correct. That is exactly my point.
THE COURT: I have slammed gates before myself.

bobaugust

nettathirty

08-27-2006, 08:15 PM

Originally posted by bobaugust

*Snipped*

I posted excerpts from the criminal trial transcripts of a conversation between Douglas and Ito about the gate slamming where they discussed the possibility that I have suggested that when a metal gate is slammed hard it may bounce back open without latching. That's most likely why Nicole's front gate was found open. Nettathirty still can't understand this simple reality since he has no life experience about metal gates.

bobaugust

August,

You have got to be the most stubborness person on the face of this earth.. Concede, the gate being opened is proof Heidstra was off in his testimony, or as you like to say "HE GOT IT WRONG"..

BTW:
Twisting Douglas's sidebar with Ito to support your one sided way of thinking my friend is just down right LOW..

2L8 4A D8

08-27-2006, 08:23 PM

Originally posted by bobaugust

2LB 4A D8, Heidstra testified that he heard Nicole's front gate slam after he heard the two male voices coming from Nicole's condo.

<snipped>

bobaugust

Thanks Bob. I knew that I could count on you to set me straight!

nettathirty

08-27-2006, 08:27 PM

Originally posted by 2L8 4A D8

Thanks Bob. I knew that I could count on you to set me straight!

WOW!!!

Heidstra got it WRONG..

limakey

08-27-2006, 11:38 PM

Mr. August,

IMO, I was convinced Mr. Simpson was the killer, until the prelim hearing. Then I knew that he would never be convicted because of the testimony of the detectives and the testimony of the doctor who did the autopsies. I can't remember, was it Dr. Golden?

During the trial, is when I came to believe that not only would he not be convicted, there was a chance, a very good chance that he may be innocent or that he didn't act alone.

Of course the "evidence" only points to Mr. Simpson, because after Marcia Clark's press conferences and Gil Garcetti's round of interviews, before the prelim hearing, said it was only Simpson and then they said it was too late to change from that.

Mr. August, at least be honest enough to admit that any and all of Mr. Simpson's actions that night could be painted either way, it depends on how you see the case. I believe I started the thread, "acting guilty or acting innocent".

2L8 4A D8

08-28-2006, 02:55 AM

Originally posted by nettathirty

WOW!!!

Heidstra got it WRONG..

I really don't think that we need anymore of your snide comments/posts! Not only do they waste bandwidth, but they are completely irrelevant!

JMO and MOO!!

bobaugust

08-28-2006, 06:56 AM

Originally posted by limakey
Mr. August,

IMO, I was convinced Mr. Simpson was the killer, until the prelim hearing. Then I knew that he would never be convicted because of the testimony of the detectives and the testimony of the doctor who did the autopsies. I can't remember, was it Dr. Golden?

During the trial, is when I came to believe that not only would he not be convicted, there was a chance, a very good chance that he may be innocent or that he didn't act alone.

Of course the "evidence" only points to Mr. Simpson, because after Marcia Clark's press conferences and Gil Garcetti's round of interviews, before the prelim hearing, said it was only Simpson and then they said it was too late to change from that.

Mr. August, at least be honest enough to admit that any and all of Mr. Simpson's actions that night could be painted either way, it depends on how you see the case. I believe I started the thread, "acting guilty or acting innocent".

limakey, I have no idea what you think Dr. Golden said that would convince you that Simpson couldn't be the killer.
Nothing Dr. Golden testified to eliminated Simpson as the killer.

All of the relevant physical evidence points to Simpson and only Simpson as the killer. Nothing points to anyone else. Nothing eliminates Simpson. Nothing Clark, Garcetti or any attorney said or did had anything to do with those facts.

Simpson's actions that night can only be seen one way based on all the lies he told. Simpson was trying to act as normal as possible but couldn't do it. There's plenty of evidence something was wrong with him that night.

It was not normal that Simpson showed no concern about a possible intruder that Kaelin was so obviously scared and nervous about. If he was acting normal he would have called the police to check it out, but he never even considered it because he knew he was the one who had been behind Kaelin's room.

It was not normal for Simpson not to set his house alarm before going to the airport. It was not normal for Simpson to later call Kaelin to set the alarm by giving him his alarm code. Kaelin never did that before and normally Simpson would never have given Kaelin his alarm code.

Simpson lied about almost everything he said he did that night. Lies that were contradicted by both Allan Park and Kato Kaelin. They both agreed that Kaelin attempted to get the small dark colored knapsack that was on the ground behind the Bentley when Simpson stopped him, telling him that he would get that himself. Simpson lied denying that ever happened.

Simpson also lied saying he went out to his Bronco during that time. Either Park or Kaelin was with Simpson or in sight of Simpson in that ten minutes or so before leaving for the airport and neither saw or heard Simpson open the Rockingham gate and go out to his Bronco let alone open it a second time to return.

All of those actions and lies can't be seen any other way than one way.

bobaugust

The R

04-29-2008, 08:00 AM

William Anthony

04-29-2008, 09:36 AM

interesting thread.

I find it scary that blacks felt as they did about OJ's trial outcome. Not that they don't have justification in their beliefs about blacks being unfairly treated by the CJ system, etc. but that a more than likely guilty man would be supported by and cheered on by his race because of the history of the system.

To me it's sad that OJ's case was viewed as an important one for black equality in the CJ system and was a poor example of any justification. Equality in the CJ system shouldn't even be an issue....all should be treated equally w/o thought but unfortunately that hasn't been the case.

It's just a shame that a scumbag like OJ was a rallying point for some blacks in their angst against the unfairness of the CJ system.

ALLMO,
R

Imho, the evidence did not support a finding of guilty and the blacks rallied, because they saw this case as a case in which justice was color blind.

martin II

04-29-2008, 10:05 AM

i am wondering where these figures of 9/10 blacks think oj was involve came from.

William Anthony

04-29-2008, 11:08 AM

i am wondering where these figures of 9/10 blacks think oj was involve came from.

I am wondering where the word guilty came from in the title of this thread.

Jayme K

04-29-2008, 11:29 AM

I am wondering where the word guilty came from in the title of this thread.

It seems to come from expression of opinion "o.j. PROBABLY guilty". Nothing in the thread title says he was FOUND guilty so relax.

William Anthony

04-29-2008, 11:33 AM

It seems to come from expression of opinion "o.j. PROBABLY guilty". Nothing in the thread title says he was FOUND guilty so relax.

You misunderstand. This is what I am talking about from the first post.

'OJ had to win however for the real message blacks needed to be heard. the support for oj today shows this - 9/10 blacks say he was involved."

One2Snoop

04-29-2008, 01:45 PM

William Anthony

04-29-2008, 02:00 PM

martin II

04-29-2008, 04:08 PM

I am wondering where the word guilty came from in the title of this thread.

maby we will get the link to the stats reported and named of the link to 9/10 black say oj was involved. i would like to read that and see who did this polling imo
martin II

martin II

04-29-2008, 04:23 PM

interesting thread.

I find it scary that blacks felt as they did about OJ's trial outcome. Not that they don't have justification in their beliefs about blacks being unfairly treated by the CJ system, etc. but that a more than likely guilty man would be supported by and cheered on by his race because of the history of the system.

To me it's sad that OJ's case was viewed as an important one for black equality in the CJ system and was a poor example of any justification. Equality in the CJ system shouldn't even be an issue....all should be treated equally w/o thought but unfortunately that hasn't been the case.

It's just a shame that a scumbag like OJ was a rallying point for some blacks in their angst against the unfairness of the CJ system.

ALLMO,
R

What about the idea that blacks were just pleased that oj, having been judge
to have been guilty by 85% of the white public BEFORE the trial started,
were just pleased to hear that the prosecution had not proven their claims beyond a reasonable dounb and that oj was not guilty of the charges.

fbgweezer

04-29-2008, 05:12 PM

What about the idea that blacks were just pleased that oj, having been judge
to have been guilty by 85% of the white public BEFORE the trial started,
were just pleased to hear that the prosecution had not proven their claims beyond a reasonable dounb and that oj was not guilty of the charges.

martin, why do you think it is so outrageous that people believed orenthal murdered Ron and Nicole based on information before the trial?

martin II

04-29-2008, 06:24 PM

martin, why do you think it is so outrageous that people believed orenthal murdered Ron and Nicole based on information before the trial?

For me it indicated a bias against oj as no testimony or evidence had been presented when 85% of white people voiced their opinions of guilt before the trial so i see no basic for those opinions other than bias.

fbgweezer

04-29-2008, 07:49 PM

martin II

04-29-2008, 08:06 PM

but you don't see any bias from the ones that found LE guilty before they knew they evidence? go figure.

I don't know who you speak of however, lapd had a wide spread reputation of abuse of citizens long before the oj trial started so if citizens expressed these opinions it was proberly well deserved as a result of past lape activity in the comminuty.:cool:

martin II

04-30-2008, 06:13 AM

interesting thread.

I find it scary that blacks felt as they did about OJ's trial outcome. Not that they don't have justification in their beliefs about blacks being unfairly treated by the CJ system, etc. but that a more than likely guilty man would be supported by and cheered on by his race because of the history of the system.

To me it's sad that OJ's case was viewed as an important one for black equality in the CJ system and was a poor example of any justification. Equality in the CJ system shouldn't even be an issue....all should be treated equally w/o thought but unfortunately that hasn't been the case.

It's just a shame that a scumbag like OJ was a rallying point for some blacks in their angst against the unfairness of the CJ system.

ALLMO,
R

I have come to the conclusion that the idea that blacks only reason for thinking oj was not guiltry was that they had some beef with the LA cjs is just a media invented reason attatched to blacks to infer that the prosecution did prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt and that black were focused on this bogus beef and not interested in the fact that the prosecution did not prove their case.

SlowHandSam

04-30-2008, 08:45 AM

I don't know who you speak of however, lapd had a wide spread reputation of abuse of citizens long before the oj trial started so if citizens expressed these opinions it was proberly well deserved as a result of past lape activity in the comminuty.:cool:

do you not believe that there is some level of responsibility of *those* citizens that could have resulted in the way LAPD responded?

I do.

William Anthony

04-30-2008, 09:09 AM

do you not believe that there is some level of responsibility of *those* citizens that could have resulted in the way LAPD responded?

I do.

Members of LE take an oath to protect and serve. They should be held to that standard. If they are unable to fulfill their oath, for whatever reason, then it is time for them to change jobs or retire. They of all people should not be taking the law in their own hands by opening old scars on a junkie's arm to make them "appear" fresh. They should not let their prejudice due to the color of one's skin make them target certain individuals. They should uphold, rather than hate, people's right to associate, marry, and date who they choose, so long as the individuals are above the age of legal consent.

William Anthony

04-30-2008, 09:21 AM

I have come to the conclusion that the idea that blacks only reason for thinking oj was not guiltry was that they had some beef with the LA cjs is just a media invented reason attatched to blacks to infer that the prosecution did prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt and that black were focused on this bogus beef and not interested in the fact that the prosecution did not prove their case.

I will post this link on this thread as I believe it answers the question.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/oj/themes/prosecution.html

Kate Sachel

04-30-2008, 10:25 AM

For me it indicated a bias against oj as no testimony or evidence had been presented when 85% of white people voiced their opinions of guilt before the trial so i see no basic for those opinions other than bias.

Good Morning Everyone. I'm sorry to have missed out on discussion for an extended period of time. My father took ill and I took a leave of absence to go back home to Boston to be with my family. Unfortunately, my father passed away on April 21st.

Moving on, the bottom line on this point is that everyone, and I do mean everyone, forms an immediate opinion at the onset of a case. That is human nature and there is no escape from that. Even you martin, said that at the beginning of this case while the Bronco chase was occurring that you thought he was probably guilty.

The key, and the goal of which everyone should strive for, is to be open enough to re-evaluate your thoughts and opinions as time moves on and evidence is presented. That is the best that we can do.

On the flip side of polls showing that some 85 percent of white americans thought OJ guilty before the trial, you must also note that polling was done at the same time regarding black americans and those polls showed that the majority thought him not guilty. Thus, those black americans made the same rush to judgment as the white americans you wish to condemn. The only difference between the two was the opinion they rushed to form.

Kindly,
Kate

Kate Sachel

04-30-2008, 10:26 AM

Members of LE take an oath to protect and serve. They should be held to that standard. If they are unable to fulfill their oath, for whatever reason, then it is time for them to change jobs or retire. They of all people should not be taking the law in their own hands by opening old scars on a junkie's arm to make them "appear" fresh. They should not let their prejudice due to the color of one's skin make them target certain individuals. They should uphold, rather than hate, people's right to associate, marry, and date who they choose, so long as the individuals are above the age of legal consent.

I agree with this post in its entirety. Very eloquently voiced.

Kate

William Anthony

04-30-2008, 11:23 AM

Good Morning Everyone. I'm sorry to have missed out on discussion for an extended period of time. My father took ill and I took a leave of absence to go back home to Boston to be with my family. Unfortunately, my father passed away on April 21st.

Moving on, the bottom line on this point is that everyone, and I do mean everyone, forms an immediate opinion at the onset of a case. That is human nature and there is no escape from that. Even you martin, said that at the beginning of this case while the Bronco chase was occurring that you thought he was probably guilty.

The key, and the goal of which everyone should strive for, is to be open enough to re-evaluate your thoughts and opinions as time moves on and evidence is presented. That is the best that we can do.

On the flip side of polls showing that some 85 percent of white americans thought OJ guilty before the trial, you must also note that polling was done at the same time regarding black americans and those polls showed that the majority thought him not guilty. Thus, those black americans made the same rush to judgment as the white americans you wish to condemn. The only difference between the two was the opinion they rushed to form.

Kindly,
Kate

I understand your point and I know we will disagree. However, the presumption rests with the opinion of innocence until proven guilty.

William Anthony

04-30-2008, 11:25 AM

I agree with this post in its entirety. Very eloquently voiced.

Kate

Thank you.

Kate Sachel

04-30-2008, 11:28 AM

I understand your point and I know we will disagree. However, the presumption rests with the opinion of innocence until proven guilty.

The presumption of innocence until proven guilty does not apply outside of a courtroom. If it did, law enforcement would not be able to arrest on probable cause.

Are you telling me that you have never formed an opinion on a case prior to a trial?

Kate

tvdinner

04-30-2008, 11:49 AM

Good Morning Everyone. I'm sorry to have missed out on discussion for an extended period of time. My father took ill and I took a leave of absence to go back home to Boston to be with my family. Unfortunately, my father passed away on April 21st.

Moving on, the bottom line on this point is that everyone, and I do mean everyone, forms an immediate opinion at the onset of a case. That is human nature and there is no escape from that. Even you martin, said that at the beginning of this case while the Bronco chase was occurring that you thought he was probably guilty.

The key, and the goal of which everyone should strive for, is to be open enough to re-evaluate your thoughts and opinions as time moves on and evidence is presented. That is the best that we can do.

On the flip side of polls showing that some 85 percent of white americans thought OJ guilty before the trial, you must also note that polling was done at the same time regarding black americans and those polls showed that the majority thought him not guilty. Thus, those black americans made the same rush to judgment as the white americans you wish to condemn. The only difference between the two was the opinion they rushed to form.

Kindly,
KateKate, I'm so sorry to hear of your father's passing. You were missed while you were absent and I'm glad to see you back. :)

Kate Sachel

04-30-2008, 12:12 PM

Kate, I'm so sorry to hear of your father's passing. You were missed while you were absent and I'm glad to see you back. :)

Thank you for your condolences and for expressing that you missed my presence, I greatly appreciate both. He was a good man, and my grieving process will take quite awhile.

Kate

fbgweezer

04-30-2008, 01:05 PM

Good Morning Everyone. I'm sorry to have missed out on discussion for an extended period of time. My father took ill and I took a leave of absence to go back home to Boston to be with my family. Unfortunately, my father passed away on April 21st.

Moving on, the bottom line on this point is that everyone, and I do mean everyone, forms an immediate opinion at the onset of a case. That is human nature and there is no escape from that. Even you martin, said that at the beginning of this case while the Bronco chase was occurring that you thought he was probably guilty.

The key, and the goal of which everyone should strive for, is to be open enough to re-evaluate your thoughts and opinions as time moves on and evidence is presented. That is the best that we can do.

On the flip side of polls showing that some 85 percent of white americans thought OJ guilty before the trial, you must also note that polling was done at the same time regarding black americans and those polls showed that the majority thought him not guilty. Thus, those black americans made the same rush to judgment as the white americans you wish to condemn. The only difference between the two was the opinion they rushed to form.

Kindly,
Kate

my condolences on your loss -- you were missed.

as always, your post is right on target.

fbgweezer

04-30-2008, 01:07 PM

I understand your point and I know we will disagree. However, the presumption rests with the opinion of innocence until proven guilty.

the presumption of innocence rests within the CJS -- it has nothing to do with private opinions.

FDInLaw

04-30-2008, 02:09 PM

Good Morning Everyone. I'm sorry to have missed out on discussion for an extended period of time. My father took ill and I took a leave of absence to go back home to Boston to be with my family. Unfortunately, my father passed away on April 21st.

Moving on, the bottom line on this point is that everyone, and I do mean everyone, forms an immediate opinion at the onset of a case. That is human nature and there is no escape from that. Even you martin, said that at the beginning of this case while the Bronco chase was occurring that you thought he was probably guilty.

The key, and the goal of which everyone should strive for, is to be open enough to re-evaluate your thoughts and opinions as time moves on and evidence is presented. That is the best that we can do.

On the flip side of polls showing that some 85 percent of white americans thought OJ guilty before the trial, you must also note that polling was done at the same time regarding black americans and those polls showed that the majority thought him not guilty. Thus, those black americans made the same rush to judgment as the white americans you wish to condemn. The only difference between the two was the opinion they rushed to form.

Kindly,
KateWelcome back Kate!

I'm sorry to hear that your Father has passed away.:rose:

It's great to see you posting again. Hugs ~ FD

William Anthony

04-30-2008, 03:59 PM

The presumption of innocence until proven guilty does not apply outside of a courtroom. If it did, law enforcement would not be able to arrest on probable cause.

Are you telling me that you have never formed an opinion on a case prior to a trial?

Kate

The opinion I formed is that the accused is innocent until proven guilty. I may have said that there is something wrong with the story a person gives and suspect that more happened. I would not say that person is guilty.

The presumption of innocence remains when a person is arrested. The concept of probable cause only means that the police have a valid reason to arrest that person, because there is enough prima facie evidence to belief that person committed the crime and charges should be brought. It does not mean because he was arrested he is guilty. The presumption still applies and that is why a trial is necessary. I will not speak to the public's view, because they may or may not have any or very little respect for legal principles.

Kate Sachel

04-30-2008, 04:18 PM

The opinion I formed is that the accused is innocent until proven guilty. I may have said that there is something wrong with the story a person gives and suspect that more happened. I would not say that person is guilty.

The presumption of innocence remains when a person is arrested. The concept of probable cause only means that the police have a valid reason to arrest that person, because there is enough prima facie evidence to belief that person committed the crime and charges should be brought. It does not mean because he was arrested he is guilty. The presumption still applies and that is why a trial is necessary. I will not speak to the public's view, because they may or may not have any or very little respect for legal principles.

That opinion varies between all of the attorneys I work with. Many agree with your thoughts and an equal number disagree; in fact this particular topic stirs quite a bit of controversy in the legal world. Many see it as you do and many see it as the idea that an arrest occurs because there is probable cause to believe that person guilty of committing the crime for which he is being arrested which in turn translates for some into being arrested on the presumption of being guilty.

Kate

William Anthony

04-30-2008, 04:29 PM

That opinion varies between all of the attorneys I work with. Many agree with your thoughts and an equal number disagree; in fact this particular topic stirs quite a bit of controversy in the legal world. Many see it as you do and many see it as the idea that an arrest occurs because there is probable cause to believe that person guilty of committing the crime for which he is being arrested which in turn translates for some into being arrested on the presumption of being guilty.

Kate

I do understand the thinking of those who feel opposite as I do. However, I see the GJ and the preliminary hearing as a means to sustain the arrest and the trial as a means of proving the arrested guilty. I am of the opinion that throughout those respective processes the presumption of innocence remains with the accused, although I will admit that it is easy to get the GJ to indict a ham sandwich. I see the former two processes as simply a means to say that there was enough evidence to believe that the accused committed the crime at the time the arrest was made, but that evidence is not enough to say beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused did the crime. Therefore, the accused is still presumed innocent.

martin II

04-30-2008, 05:44 PM

martin II

04-30-2008, 08:20 PM

kate

sorry to hear about your father.:rose::rose: :rose:

William Anthony

04-30-2008, 11:13 PM

A popular opinion in our society is that the accused at the time of arrest "must be guilty otherwise le would not have arrsted him/her.
Add this to the onesided GJ proceedings(prosecution advantage) and the defendant enters the trial presumed to be guilty by many.imo

There is much validity in what you say and what Kate said about the thinking of those in the legal profession. Pragmatically, it may be true that some feel that way and the system works that way. For the sake of liberty, I believe that it should work in the opposite manner, and am optimistic that it does. I do not think that legal theory on the presumption of innocence means much to the incarcerated. However, I hope and pray that it means something to our citizens that might be chosen as jurors and to those in the legal profession who are trying the case.

martin II

05-01-2008, 05:37 AM

do you not believe that there is some level of responsibility of *those* citizens that could have resulted in the way LAPD responded?

I do.

When i look at the history of lapd 'RAMPART' activities. NO.
There are legal procedures for making arrest of suspect.They do not include abuse.

The U.S. Justice Department actions against LAPD proves this for me.

The R

05-01-2008, 07:34 AM

I thought this was an interesting article -

Barack Obama Thought OJ Was Guilty
March 20th, 2008

The OJ Simpson trial was one of the most racially divisive issues in America during the 1990’s with many whites believing he was guilty and many blacks arguing in favor of his innocence. Now, during a time of racial strife in Senator Obama’s campaign spawned by his pastor Jeremiah Wright’s anti-American and anti-white comments, Barack Obama thought O.J. did ithe admits that he had always personally thought that Simpson was guilty of murdering his ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson.

“You remember when, during the O.J. trial … black and white culture just had these completely opposite reactions and nobody understood it. I’m somebody who was pretty clear that O.J. was guilty,” Obama told “Nightline’s” Terry Moran.
He continued: “And I was ashamed for my own community to respond in that way, but I also understood what was taking place, which was that reaction had more to do with a sense that somehow the criminal justice system historically had been biased so profoundly that a defeat of that justice system was somehow a victory.”
Not to sound cynical but this is a pretty blatant stretch to try and reach out to white voters in a time of campaign crisis. He mentioned it during his speech and elaborated it on Nightline. If this were the 1996 elections it would be a major deal but now, well, who cares? Is this the plan for reaching out to middle ages white voters? Is there a Rodney King thought somewhere too?

http://www.electiongeek.com/blog/2008/03/20/barack-obama-thought-oj-was-guilty/

This is basically the issue I was referring to in my post. I also have a black college professor, well respected member of the faculty where I attend, says the same thing; that OJ was guilty and that he thought the evidence showed that. In addition to that, I also have black co-workers whom I respect that say the same thing. So...that's why I asked the question. I know that the obvious thing is these people did not sit on O.J.'s jury, but all feel he was guilty none the less. My concern remains. Why would blacks generally speaking, cheer a not guilty verdict even if it appeared OJ could be guilty? That's where my concern lies.

If we have an pretty much entire group of people in our system that so distrusts the courts, should we change the way we administer the law?
Are blacks, or any other minority justified in their belief that the system doesn't work for them because of bias or demographic?

ALLMO,
R

The R

05-01-2008, 07:45 AM

Good Morning Everyone. I'm sorry to have missed out on discussion for an extended period of time. My father took ill and I took a leave of absence to go back home to Boston to be with my family. Unfortunately, my father passed away on April 21st.

Moving on, the bottom line on this point is that everyone, and I do mean everyone, forms an immediate opinion at the onset of a case. That is human nature and there is no escape from that. Even you martin, said that at the beginning of this case while the Bronco chase was occurring that you thought he was probably guilty.

The key, and the goal of which everyone should strive for, is to be open enough to re-evaluate your thoughts and opinions as time moves on and evidence is presented. That is the best that we can do.

On the flip side of polls showing that some 85 percent of white americans thought OJ guilty before the trial, you must also note that polling was done at the same time regarding black americans and those polls showed that the majority thought him not guilty. Thus, those black americans made the same rush to judgment as the white americans you wish to condemn. The only difference between the two was the opinion they rushed to form.

Kindly,
Kate

I kinda agree with the Bronco thing. People usually assume that if you are under suspicion or are wanted for questioning by the authorities, then you have a reason for running away or avoiding them. It's kinda self-explanatory. I can however also see the distrust that a black man or woman would have for the LAPD as well. But in the end, running from the police isn't rational, esp. if you had the resources that OJ had legally.

ALLMO,
R

The R

05-01-2008, 07:48 AM

I have come to the conclusion that the idea that blacks only reason for thinking oj was not guiltry was that they had some beef with the LA cjs is just a media invented reason attatched to blacks to infer that the prosecution did prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt and that black were focused on this bogus beef and not interested in the fact that the prosecution did not prove their case.

I appreciate your view on this. Is it your opinion that this reaction to the verdict is not endemic or doesn't really exist nation wide? That the reactions we saw from the televised verdict was more of a media creation?

Thanks,
R

The R

05-01-2008, 08:04 AM

do you not believe that there is some level of responsibility of *those* citizens that could have resulted in the way LAPD responded?

I do.

No disrespect intended but in most of these cases, the issue is not one of probable cause but is one of the use of excessive force. It does exist obviously and we as citizens shouldn't allow it.

ALLMO,
R

William Anthony

05-01-2008, 08:05 AM

This is basically the issue I was referring to in my post. I also have a black college professor, well respected member of the faculty where I attend, says the same thing; that OJ was guilty and that he thought the evidence showed that. In addition to that, I also have black co-workers whom I respect that say the same thing. So...that's why I asked the question. I know that the obvious thing is these people did not sit on O.J.'s jury, but all feel he was guilty none the less. My concern remains. Why would blacks generally speaking, cheer a not guilty verdict even if it appeared OJ could be guilty? That's where my concern lies.

If we have an pretty much entire group of people in our system that so distrusts the courts, should we change the way we administer the law?
Are blacks, or any other minority justified in their belief that the system doesn't work for them because of bias or demographic?

ALLMO,
R

I think the recent Supreme Court ruling that it was unfair on the issue that people who used or sold crack cocaine got more time than people who used or sold cocaine answers that question. It is my belief that the sentencing was not an issue the Supreme Court wanted to address until a large number or whites were sentenced for using or selling crack.

I think that a book, written about blacks' treatment in the legal system, titled, In The Matter of Color, written by a professor of law, Leroy Higginbottom, IIRC, will answer that question.

Kate Sachel

05-01-2008, 08:24 AM

kate

sorry to hear about your father.:rose::rose: :rose:

martin,

Thank you very much, this means alot to me and I do appreciate it.

Kate

The R

05-01-2008, 08:34 AM

I think the recent Supreme Court ruling that it was unfair on the issue that people who used or sold crack cocaine got more time than people who used or sold cocaine answers that question. It is my belief that the sentencing was not an issue the Supreme Court wanted to address until a large number or whites were sentenced for using or selling crack.

I think that a book, written about blacks' treatment in the legal system, titled, In The Matter of Color, written by a professor of law, Leroy Higginbottom, IIRC, will answer that question.

Thanks very much for that reference. I have no doubt however that blacks and probably other minorities have been treated poorly in some or many instances by the CJ system.

I guess what I'd like to see more than anything though is a proper, unbiased assessment of where we are today in the administration of justice. Do these biases exist today as they did in the past? If so, how can we correct them?
Is it OK to acquit a defendant in a court of law because of past social injustice to the demographic he belongs to?

History is an important tool to be sure, but is dwelling on what's happened in the past productive at all?(sorry:) I know I'm being hypocritical here...) At what point do we decide to get over things and move on? I for one am at that point, and would like to see some positive change.

ALLMO,
R

SlowHandSam

05-01-2008, 08:40 AM

No disrespect intended but in most of these cases, the issue is not one of probable cause but is one of the use of excessive force. It does exist obviously and we as citizens shouldn't allow it.

ALLMO,
R

None taken. I guess the point I was attempting to make is that LE respond and adapt to what the environment necessitates. I believe this is true for most professions, actually.

I think when you take the landscape of how world was/is in that particular area, I don't think it's unreasonable to have a different response from the police. While I agree they should be held to a higher standard because of their oath, I do also believe they are human and can only take *so much*, if that makes sense at all?

I don't condone excessive force, but when the community chooses to not respect LE over the course of MANY years and use violence in retaliation to LE and the community ... is it that unbelievable they respond the way they do?

William Anthony

05-01-2008, 09:01 AM

Thanks very much for that reference. I have no doubt however that blacks and probably other minorities have been treated poorly in some or many instances by the CJ system.

I guess what I'd like to see more than anything though is a proper, unbiased assessment of where we are today in the administration of justice. Do these biases exist today as they did in the past? If so, how can we correct them?
Is it OK to acquit a defendant in a court of law because of past social injustice to the demographic he belongs to?

History is an important tool to be sure, but is dwelling on what's happened in the past productive at all?(sorry:) I know I'm being hypocritical here...) At what point do we decide to get over things and move on? I for one am at that point, and would like to see some positive change.

ALLMO,
R

I think I understand what you are saying. The problem is, as I see it, that before there is any change that can be made in a positive manner, there must be more than an acknowledgment that there was wrong done, there must be more than apologies made, there must be an understanding of the cause of the problems and a concrete solution offered.

William Anthony

05-01-2008, 09:06 AM

Thanks very much for that reference. I have no doubt however that blacks and probably other minorities have been treated poorly in some or many instances by the CJ system.

I guess what I'd like to see more than anything though is a proper, unbiased assessment of where we are today in the administration of justice. Do these biases exist today as they did in the past? If so, how can we correct them?
Is it OK to acquit a defendant in a court of law because of past social injustice to the demographic he belongs to?

History is an important tool to be sure, but is dwelling on what's happened in the past productive at all?(sorry:) I know I'm being hypocritical here...) At what point do we decide to get over things and move on? I for one am at that point, and would like to see some positive change.

ALLMO,
R

I know that I did not offer a solution and the only one that I can see has to do with what America has left out of schools and the Pledge of Allegiance. I do not want to start a debate that may never end. I will simply say that I see God as the solution.

William Anthony

05-01-2008, 09:12 AM

None taken. I guess the point I was attempting to make is that LE respond and adapt to what the environment necessitates. I believe this is true for most professions, actually.

I think when you take the landscape of how world was/is in that particular area, I don't think it's unreasonable to have a different response from the police. While I agree they should be held to a higher standard because of their oath, I do also believe they are human and can only take *so much*, if that makes sense at all?

I don't condone excessive force, but when the community chooses to not respect LE over the course of MANY years and use violence in retaliation to LE and the community ... is it that unbelievable they respond the way they do?

The key words are excessive force, such as shooting someone 50 times, who was on his cell phone. I do not think anyone is suggesting that LE does not have the right to defend themselves. What we are speaking of, I think, is the tendency of LE to make generalities about people, because of who they are or where they live, and to act in a manner that violates the oath they are sworn to uphold. I think that once a member of LE realizes that they have violated their oath, it is time for them to reassess their ability to perform their job so that incidents like the one mentioned above will not be repeated.

Kate Sachel

05-01-2008, 09:38 AM

I do understand the thinking of those who feel opposite as I do. However, I see the GJ and the preliminary hearing as a means to sustain the arrest and the trial as a means of proving the arrested guilty. I am of the opinion that throughout those respective processes the presumption of innocence remains with the accused, although I will admit that it is easy to get the GJ to indict a ham sandwich. I see the former two processes as simply a means to say that there was enough evidence to believe that the accused committed the crime at the time the arrest was made, but that evidence is not enough to say beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused did the crime. Therefore, the accused is still presumed innocent.

Your point of view is the ideal, and were I accused of a crime I know that I would rely heavily on the presumption of innocent until proven guilty.

However, the real terminology reads that a suspect is "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law". For that reason, though I don't necessarily agree, I do believe that the presumption of innocence is meant soley to exist in a courtoom. It is my opinion that the presumption of innocence begins at the time that the defendant enters his plea. Obviously, it he pleads guilty he is admitting such and it is not neccessary to ponder further. When the plea of not guilty is entered, it is then that the presumption of innocence truly shall begin.

Kate

Kate Sachel

05-01-2008, 09:43 AM

I kinda agree with the Bronco thing. People usually assume that if you are under suspicion or are wanted for questioning by the authorities, then you have a reason for running away or avoiding them. It's kinda self-explanatory. I can however also see the distrust that a black man or woman would have for the LAPD as well. But in the end, running from the police isn't rational, esp. if you had the resources that OJ had legally.

ALLMO,
R

I do generally see fleeing as a red flag. The issue that comes into play with he Bronco chase is that there are those that question whether or not he was fleeing authorities or simply had a more innocent intent.

I personally don't see anything in the Bronco chase that would lead me to believe he had an innocent motive. When someone is wanted for questioning and is driving from police with cash, a passport, and a disguise it becomes clear that the intent is not innocent in my opinion.

Kate

Kate Sachel

05-01-2008, 09:47 AM

A popular opinion in our society is that the accused at the time of arrest "must be guilty otherwise le would not have arrsted him/her.
Add this to the onesided GJ proceedings(prosecution advantage) and the defendant enters the trial presumed to be guilty by many.imo

You're absolutely right, but that still does not remove the fact that every individual not sworn to uphold an oath in law enforcement or a court of law has the right to make those assumptions. If we were not allowed our freedom to form opinions and offer those opinions freely then we would not have much of anything at all.

Kate

William Anthony

05-01-2008, 09:57 AM

Your point of view is the ideal, and were I accused of a crime I know that I would rely heavily on the presumption of innocent until proven guilty.

However, the real terminology reads that a suspect is "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law". For that reason, though I don't necessarily agree, I do believe that the presumption of innocence is meant soley to exist in a courtoom. It is my opinion that the presumption of innocence begins at the time that the defendant enters his plea. Obviously, it he pleads guilty he is admitting such and it is not neccessary to ponder further. When the plea of not guilty is entered, it is then that the presumption of innocence truly shall begin.

Kate

I see your point and thank you for posting the terminology. The terminology reinforces my philosophical view of how the presumption was intended to work. As you posted, the accused is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law and until that happens he remains an innocent suspect. Thus, the presumption would apply throughout the processes, including arrest and arraignment. Of course, this is just a philosophical understanding which does not address the pragmatic effect. I am happy to see your return and enjoy our civil, polite and cordial discussions and insights.

William Anthony

05-01-2008, 10:02 AM

You're absolutely right, but that still does not remove the fact that every individual not sworn to uphold an oath in law enforcement or a court of law has the right to make those assumptions. If we were not allowed our freedom to form opinions and offer those opinions freely then we would not have much of anything at all.

Kate

While the instruction that you are not to form an opinion of the accused's guilt or innocence until you have heard all the evidence applies to the jury, I think it should be the standard for the public and the media so as to ensure that the accused receives a fair trail based on the evidence presented. This does not mean that the media should not report on the trial; only that they should show caution as to not voice their opinion on guilt or non guilt until the verdict has been rendered, imho.