Issues In The Criminal Trial [Archive] - Crime Library Message Boards

William Anthony

09-30-2007, 02:03 PM

William

Thanks for this thread. Maby agitators will not find the thread. hahaha
Hopefully different opinions of the trial can be expressed in a civil manner.

martiinII

Martin,

The first issue that comes to my mind is the role of the media and public figures giving thier opinion on the jury verdict. How much do you think this contributed to public opinion and what effect it had on Simpson's subsequent conduct?

martin II

09-30-2007, 02:53 PM

Martin,

The first issue that comes to my mind is the role of the media and public figures giving thier opinion on the jury verdict. How much do you think this contributed to public opinion and what effect it had on Simpson's subsequent conduct?

William
thanks for the entry.

I have some polling info on the subject.
Some of the results surprised me.

However it is my belief that the media controlled much of what everyone thought about the case. I also believe that the media, from their target market audience profiles did some tailoring what they presented to the public
for daily rating benefit. Many time this did not benefit oj simpson.

****
Before the trial started about 85 % of white people thought oj simpson was guilty.

****

People were asked if the jurors performed their duty responsibly, regardless of the verdict. Sixty-two percent said that it was, and 32% said that it was not.

****

When asked "Do you agree or disagree with the verdict?" 33 percent agreed and 56 percent disagreed. 57 percent of trial watchers believed that the jury reached a verdict too quickly. 33 percent disagreed.

Next, people were asked about their overall opinion of some of the key players in the trial. Eighty-four percent felt that the defense did a good job, compared to 72 percent for the defense and 63 percent for Judge Lance Ito. A majority, 52 percent to 40 percent, felt that the jury had done a good job. The prosecution was praised by a broader majority, 72 percent to 22 percent.

http://search.cnn.com/search?query=oj+simpson&type=news&sortBy=relevance&intl

martin II

09-30-2007, 03:17 PM

tvdinner

09-30-2007, 03:38 PM

William
i will give a partial to your other question.

I believe that the majority of the talking heads and media on camera people
gave strong opinions reports that oj was guilty.
Some such as N Gace and Geraldo actually gave trial summaries that were so opinionated against oj that some just discounted them alltogeather.

I believe that "POPULAR" media people did influence 'THEIR' followers.

I believe the media missed a opportunity to do good for the public when almost none of the media presentations focused on educating the public on the criminal trial system, criminal trial jury, prosecution and defense responsibilities in the trial, evidence presentation and cross eximination.

It is my belief that with more time spent educating the public ion these issue,
more people would have had a deeped understand of the trial and the verdict.

I donot think many americans really understand 'PROOF BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT' concept.

imo
martin III understand beyond a reasonable doubt very well. I've said before that Johnny Cochran didn't have a good understanding of it and I posted why.

I think several of the media were very good at educating their viewers on the law. Greta comes to mind as one. Geraldo was also good. I watched the trial closely and I found his reporting to be accurate. It was his perogative to say he thought Simpson was guilty. His show was commentary not news.

William Anthony

09-30-2007, 03:46 PM

I understand beyond a reasonable doubt very well. I've said before that Johnny Cochran didn't have a good understanding of it and I posted why.

I think several of the media were very good at educating their viewers on the law. Greta comes to mind as one. Geraldo was also good. I watched the trial closely and I found his reporting to be accurate. It was his perogative to say he thought Simpson was guilty. His show was commentary not news.

Tv,

I beg to differ on JC's understanding as he used a jury instruction on circumstantial evidence to hammer home that, according to the wording of the law, the jury must take the doubt that favors innocence (paraphasing for time).

To speak of the law is one thing and to say that someone is guilty after a jury said he was not guilty is another. I think that a higher duty comes with public figures to respect the law and not taint the view of viewers, even if the show is commentary. Ratings v. justice-not being in tv, I choose justice.

kjb19500

09-30-2007, 03:50 PM

William Anthony

09-30-2007, 04:00 PM

IMO, the one most important factor missed in this whole stinking affair is that a criminal trial is not entertainment and shouldn't be televised. Period. These people aren't actors and shouldn't have to perform for the cameras.

I would have to disagree, since trials are public events. I think there should be camera's in all courtrooms, even the Supreme Court, so that the American public could educate themselves rather than listening to the opinions of others.

tvdinner

09-30-2007, 04:02 PM

Tv,

I beg to differ on JC's understanding as he used a jury instruction on circumstantial evidence to hammer home that, according to the wording of the law, the jury must take the doubt that favors innocence (paraphasing for time).

To speak of the law is one thing and to say that someone is guilty after a jury said he was not guilty is another. I think that a higher duty comes with public figures to respect the law and not taint the view of viewers, even if the show is commentary. Ratings v. justice-not being in tv, I choose justice.What about the commentators that were pro-defense. Do you find the same fault with them?

tvdinner

09-30-2007, 04:04 PM

IMO, the one most important factor missed in this whole stinking affair is that a criminal trial is not entertainment and shouldn't be televised. Period. These people aren't actors and shouldn't have to perform for the cameras.I agree with you on this. I was fascinated with the criminal trial from beginning to end but I think it changed the way witnesses testified and the way attorneys for both sides behaved in the courtroom. Judge Ito was completely inappropriate both in front of the camera and in his chambers.

William Anthony

09-30-2007, 04:16 PM

What about the commentators that were pro-defense. Do you find the same fault with them?

I do not see how, if they are saying that he was not guilty after being found not guilty, I could feel the same toward them. However, if they were saying that he was innocent before the verdict came end, I still could not fault them for adhering to the presumption. However, if they were over the top and saying that the evidence was insufficient before cross examination of the evidence, then, yes.

William Anthony

09-30-2007, 04:19 PM

I agree with you on this. I was fascinated with the criminal trial from beginning to end but I think it changed the way witnesses testified and the way attorneys for both sides behaved in the courtroom. Judge Ito was completely inappropriate both in front of the camera and in his chambers.

I agree with your post. However, if cameras were the norm, then I believe the judges and the lawyers would act normally. I did see some witnesses performing but, for the most part, they calmed down and acted in a normal manner. Yes, I think the lawyers and the judge were out of control, but this will also get back to normal when cameras are the norm.

martin II

09-30-2007, 05:23 PM

tvdinner

09-30-2007, 06:14 PM

I agree with your post. However, if cameras were the norm, then I believe the judges and the lawyers would act normally. I did see some witnesses performing but, for the most part, they calmed down and acted in a normal manner. Yes, I think the lawyers and the judge were out of control, but this will also get back to normal when cameras are the norm.I see the merit to what you're saying even though it's not feasible to televise every trial. I can see all of them being on camera for future reference.

martin II

09-30-2007, 06:33 PM

I understand beyond a reasonable doubt very well. I've said before that Johnny Cochran didn't have a good understanding of it and I posted why.

I think several of the media were very good at educating their viewers on the law. Greta comes to mind as one. Geraldo was also good. I watched the trial closely and I found his reporting to be accurate. It was his perogative to say he thought Simpson was guilty. His show was commentary not news.

tv
i am sure you understand beyond reasonable doubt. I was speaking to the average person that got their info from media sound bites or evening news.

AS far as Geraldo is concerned, many people listen to commentary and take it as factual news.

i have always said that Gretas coverage was fair and unbiased when she was on cnn. I think this has changed some since she moved to fox.

imo
martin II

martin II

09-30-2007, 06:46 PM

I would have to disagree, since trials are public events. I think there should be camera's in all courtrooms, even the Supreme Court, so that the American public could educate themselves rather than listening to the opinions of others.

William
I agree, trials are public events and television has given the public a chance at first hand knowledge of a case. Before tv people had to rely on tv persons to give their accounts and this was not always accurate.

I thought ito did some celebrity stunts but he gave both sides full range to make their points to the jury. There was not as much judicial control as there was in the civil trial and i think that was a good thing.imo
martin II

tvdinner

09-30-2007, 07:04 PM

tv
i am sure you understand beyond reasonable doubt. I was speaking to the average person that got their info from media sound bites or evening news.

AS far as Geraldo is concerned, many people listen to commentary and take it as factual news.

i have always said that Gretas coverage was fair and unbiased when she was on cnn. I think this has changed some since she moved to fox.

imo
martin III still think Greta is fair. I thought she leaned more toward the defense in the criminal trial. As far as people taking commentary as undisputed fact there are always going to be those people that can't think for themselves.

kjb19500

09-30-2007, 07:22 PM

Ok, I'll relent and agree that videotaping trials for archival and judicial review purposes are appropriate, but not live television. Just MOI.

martin II

09-30-2007, 08:19 PM

Ok, I'll relent and agree that videotaping trials for archival and judicial review purposes are appropriate, but not live television. Just MOI.

kjb

i think it is great that you considered you position, made some changes and then posted your new position.:beer: :beer:

martin II

martin II

09-30-2007, 11:09 PM

I still think Greta is fair. I thought she leaned more toward the defense in the criminal trial. As far as people taking commentary as undisputed fact there are always going to be those people that can't think for themselves.

I think that during the criminal trial Greta paid attention to the details of the trial and was very honest in her reporting to her followers. imo
martin II

martin II

10-01-2007, 09:03 AM

Ok, I'll relent and agree that videotaping trials for archival and judicial review purposes are appropriate, but not live television. Just MOI.

kjb

The part that i don't like about telivised trials is that the private media , cnn.foz .nbc etc gets to make money off of someone's suffering for free. Maby it would be better if the taping would be done by the court without all of the talking heads.

martin II

socaldiva

10-01-2007, 04:08 PM

kjb

The part that i don't like about telivised trials is that the private media , cnn.foz .nbc etc gets to make money off of someone's suffering for free. Maby it would be better if the taping would be done by the court without all of the talking heads.

martin II

Here we go with the "free money" again, yet it never seems to bother you when Orenthal cashes in on someone's suffering. ;)

tvdinner

10-01-2007, 07:00 PM

Here we go with the "free money" again, yet it never seems to bother you when Orenthal cashes in on someone's suffering. ;)Diva, I'm sure the people involved in televising these trials for 'free money' for the various networks are just trying to feed their children and secure their homesteads. ;)

WarmNCozy

10-01-2007, 07:12 PM

Almost 13 years later, and OJ is on trial for a case in which he was acquitted!

He burps and the trial comes up again!

Let's start from the day after the trial to talk about OJ on this thread!

tvdinner

10-01-2007, 07:19 PM

Almost 13 years later, and OJ is on trial for a case in which he was acquitted!

He burps and the trial comes up again!

Let's start from the day after the trial to talk about OJ on this thread!
This thread was started by someone because issues about the criminal trial kept coming up in another thread and discussion kept going off topic. If you don't want to discuss the criminal trial you really aren't required to participate.

socaldiva

10-01-2007, 09:47 PM

Almost 13 years later, and OJ is on trial for a case in which he was acquitted!

He burps and the trial comes up again!

Let's start from the day after the trial to talk about OJ on this thread!

This forum was here long before Orenthal's latest illegal activities & it pretty much centers around both the civil & criminal cases relative to the double murders in case you didn't notice. ;)

socaldiva

10-01-2007, 09:48 PM

Diva, I'm sure the people involved in televising these trials for 'free money' for the various networks are just trying to feed their children and secure their homesteads. ;)

I'm sure you're right :biggrin:

martin II

10-01-2007, 10:34 PM

Diva, I'm sure the people involved in televising these trials for 'free money' for the various networks are just trying to feed their children and secure their homesteads. ;)

hhhmmm
i believe NBC. CBS, ABC, CNN, FOX and others are trying to make billions more
off of the trials.
imo
martin II

socaldiva

10-01-2007, 11:18 PM

hhhmmm
i believe NBC. CBS, ABC, CNN, FOX and others are trying to make billions more
off of the trials.
imo
martin II

I'm sure all of those employees have "children to feed" & "homesteads to protect". :biggrin:

NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN & FOX? I don't think any of those networks televise trials. The only network I know of that carries live trial coverage is CourtTv & I doubt that they make "billions".:shrug:

tvdinner

10-02-2007, 09:24 AM

hhhmmm
i believe NBC. CBS, ABC, CNN, FOX and others are trying to make billions more
off of the trials.
imo
martin IImartin, I was just teasing. :biggrin:

William Anthony

10-02-2007, 10:15 PM

Ok, I'll relent and agree that videotaping trials for archival and judicial review purposes are appropriate, but not live television. Just MOI.

Trials are held in courtrooms but belong to the public. It is not enough, imho, to know what the law is but, more importantly, to see how it is practiced and enforced.

William Anthony

10-02-2007, 10:19 PM

Almost 13 years later, and OJ is on trial for a case in which he was acquitted!

He burps and the trial comes up again!

Let's start from the day after the trial to talk about OJ on this thread!

The day after the trials people were making derogatory remarks about the defense, the verdict and the jury, which has continued to this day and will continue, for reasons I do not think people are willing to openly admit.

tvdinner

10-02-2007, 11:57 PM

William Anthony

10-03-2007, 05:50 PM

William, what do you feel those reasons are?

Tv,

I posted what I think are the reasons on another thread. I think a lot of it comes from self denial.

tvdinner

10-03-2007, 06:32 PM

Tv,

I posted what I think are the reasons on another thread. I think a lot of it comes from self denial.

I read what you posted in the other thread. It's become apparent to me that it's not possible to discuss this subject, as a person that thinks OJ Simpson is guilty of murder, without being labeled a racist.

There was a post earlier in another thread from a NG to a G that was so filled with hatred that I was really taken back. It's good that it's been deleted. I'm not going to address the self-denial comment. Nothing worthwhile is being accomplished here.

Kate Sachel

10-04-2007, 10:13 AM

Almost 13 years later, and OJ is on trial for a case in which he was acquitted!

He burps and the trial comes up again!

Let's start from the day after the trial to talk about OJ on this thread!

I am almost in disbelief over the fact that I now have to point out the obvious, which is that this entire forum was created for the purpose of discussing the criminal and civil trial and all that goes with both of those.

Kate

Kate Sachel

10-04-2007, 10:16 AM

The day after the trials people were making derogatory remarks about the defense, the verdict and the jury, which has continued to this day and will continue, for reasons I do not think people are willing to openly admit.

I'd like to interject here and say that I was insulted that many jurors went to OJ's victory party on the date of the verdict. I thought that jurors were supposed to be unbiased, and though I agree with their verdict I do strongly disagree with attending any type of celebration afterward.

Kate

William Anthony

10-04-2007, 05:21 PM

I read what you posted in the other thread. It's become apparent to me that it's not possible to discuss this subject, as a person that thinks OJ Simpson is guilty of murder, without being labeled a racist.

There was a post earlier in another thread from a NG to a G that was so filled with hatred that I was really taken back. It's good that it's been deleted. I'm not going to address the self-denial comment. Nothing worthwhile is being accomplished here.

I have not called anyone a racist, and there are many reasons why someone may be in self-denial, such as not wanting to admit there was evidence from which a person could form a reasonable doubt that some of the evidence was planted. The fact that many call the jury ignorant, dumb, unitelligent, and wanting to say they were interested in freeing one of their own but unwilling to take a good hard look at the sufficieny of the evidence and the way it was present and are quick to dismiss any mention of the role of race is what makes me think that some are in self-denial. Yes, I agree that, until one is able to speak on the subject openly and honestly, any discussion of it is useless. Maybe, you do not know that there was a thread titled "The Role of Race..."

William Anthony

10-04-2007, 05:23 PM

I'd like to interject here and say that I was insulted that many jurors went to OJ's victory party on the date of the verdict. I thought that jurors were supposed to be unbiased, and though I agree with their verdict I do strongly disagree with attending any type of celebration afterward.

Kate

Kate,

I think that they had to maintain their impartiality during the course of the trial and after the trial were free to associate with whom they pleased.

tvdinner

10-04-2007, 11:06 PM

I have not called anyone a racist, and there are many reasons why someone may be in self-denial, such as not wanting to admit there was evidence from which a person could form a reasonable doubt that some of the evidence was planted. The fact that many call the jury ignorant, dumb, unitelligent, and wanting to say they were interested in freeing one of their own but unwilling to take a good hard look at the sufficieny of the evidence and the way it was present and are quick to dismiss any mention of the role of race is what makes me think that some are in self-denial. Yes, I agree that, until one is able to speak on the subject openly and honestly, any discussion of it is useless. Maybe, you do not know that there was a thread titled "The Role of Race..."

William, that word is seldom used here but it's often heavily insinuated. Talking about race as an issue unto itself regarding the trial is okay with me. It's when someone doesn't like the turn of the discussion or doesn't like a truth that's come to light and suddenly you're accused of being in no position to continue the discussion because "why does it concern you?" -- that bothers me. You think some people are in self-denial about reasonable doubt. I think some are in self-denial about jury nullification. When a jury takes less than four hours to return a verdict in a case that took nine months to try they certainly didn't do much deliberating.

I know there was a thread on race before I joined this forum. I'm sure getting rid of it was a wise move by the administrator of this message board. If it was anything like the virulent post I witnessed yesterday before it was deleted it didn't deserve to be here.

tvdinner

10-04-2007, 11:18 PM

Kate,

I think that they had to maintain their impartiality during the course of the trial and after the trial were free to associate with whom they pleased.Even though OJ Simpson was acquitted in the criminal trial there were no real winners. The families have not gotten justice and Simpson's life has never returned to what it once was. If OJ Simpson and his camp wanted to celebrate that's fine. It was undignified and insulting for the jurors to attend a victory party for his acquittal. If some of them are saying that they weren't sure if he was guilty or not but the evidence wasn't there, why would they want to attend a party in honor of someone they think could possibly be a double-murderer?

martin II

10-04-2007, 11:32 PM

William, that word is seldom used here but it's often heavily insinuated. Talking about race as an issue unto itself regarding the trial is okay with me. It's when someone doesn't like the turn of the discussion or doesn't like a truth that's come to light and suddenly you're accused of being in no position to continue the discussion because "why does it concern you?" -- that bothers me. You think some people are in self-denial about reasonable doubt. I think some are in self-denial about jury nullification. When a jury takes less than four hours to return a verdict in a case that took nine months to try they certainly didn't do much deliberating.

I know there was a thread on race before I joined this forum. I'm sure getting rid of it was a wise move by the administrator of this message board. If it was anything like the virulent post I witnessed yesterday before it was deleted it didn't deserve to be here.

The law does not set a specific time for a jury to deliberate. The jury is required to deliberate up to the point that there is 100% agreement on a vedict, no more.

There was a recent case in Houstom where the jury convicted a man in a death penalty case after four hours deliberaiton and i believe there are other cases where the jury came to a vote after short periods of deliberaiton so i don't see where the oj case was any different from some others.

imo
martin II

tvdinner

10-04-2007, 11:36 PM

The law does not set a specific time for a jury to deliberate. The jury is required to deliberate up to the point that there is 100% agreement on a vedict, no more.

There was a recent case in Houstom where the jury convicted a man in a death penalty case after four hours deliberaiton and i believe there are other cases where the jury came to a vote after short periods of deliberaiton so i don't see where the oj case was any different from some others.

imo
martin IImartin, you and I have been over this same ground before. Was the trial in Houston nine months long?

I never said that there is a law for minimum deliberation times. I'm not suprised that they reached 100% agreement in under four hours. I've heard it said many times that OJ Smpson knew the verdict before he walked into the courtroom and that the jurors had their bags packed before they deliberated. It's really shameful.

martin II

10-04-2007, 11:48 PM

Even though OJ Simpson was acquitted in the criminal trial there were no real winners. The families have not gotten justice and Simpson's life has never returned to what it once was. If OJ Simpson and his camp wanted to celebrate that's fine. It was undignified and insulting for the jurors to attend a victory party for his acquittal. If some of them are saying that they weren't sure if he was guilty or not but the evidence wasn't there, why would they want to attend a party in honor of someone they think could possibly be a double-murderer?

There are other cases where some jury members have attended after trial parties given by exdefendants to celebrate their freedom.Jury members , after trials are regular citizens. They can hold press conferances, write books
and attend any social event they desire. I think a acquittal of a defendant after a trial is a time for celabration especially by a jury that determined the defendant to be not guilty.

At the party, these ex members of the jury remained the same dedicated concerned citizens that gave 9 mos of their time in service to the court.
imo
martin II

tvdinner

10-04-2007, 11:51 PM

There are other cases where some jury members have attended after trial parties given by exdefendants to celebrate their freedom.Jury members , after trials are regular citizens. They can hold press conferances, write books
and attend any social event they desire. I think a acquittal of a defendant after a trial is a time for celabration especially by a jury that determined the defendant to be not guilty.

At the party, these ex members of the jury remained the same dedicated concerned citizens that gave 9 mos of their time in service to the court.
imo
martin IIIf the jury had convicted him and attended a victory party with Marcia Clark and Chris Darden you'd be singing another tune.

I don't care who has done it in the past or what the case was about. It's extremely tacky and in very poor taste. I'm well aware that it's their legal right to do whatever they want after the trial. That doesn't make it the right thing to do.

martin II

10-05-2007, 12:00 AM

martin, you and I have been over this same ground before. Was the trial in Houston nine months long?

I never said that there is a law for minimum deliberation times. I'm not suprised that they reached 100% agreement in under four hours. I've heard it said many times that OJ Smpson knew the verdict before he walked into the courtroom and that the jurors had their bags packed before they deliberated. It's really shameful.

i don't know how long the Houston case took. But, it was complicated because the defendant did not cooperate and there were many delays in the case.

my point is that the oj case is not the only case where the jury camt to a decision without extensive deliberaitons.imo

In some cases the jury has taken a vote as their first order of business, became aware that they were in agreement and voted a verdict.

The oj jury had 9 months to decide which evidence/testimony they believed.

I don't believe there would have been any complaint if that jury had deliberatred for four hours and then found oj guilty.
imo
martin II

martin II

martin II

10-05-2007, 12:06 AM

If the jury had convicted him and attended a victory party with Marcia Clark and Chris Darden you'd be singing another tune.

I don't care who has done it in the past or what the case was about. It's extremely tacky and in very poor taste. I'm well aware that it's their legal right to do whatever they want after the trial. That doesn't make it the right thing to do.

I am not sure about that so how can you be so sure?

Well, it is good to know what your OPINION is.

Some People seem to find all kinds of reason to attack that jury.

martin II

tvdinner

10-05-2007, 12:07 AM

i don't know how long the Houston case took. But, it was complicated because the defendant did not cooperate and there were many delays in the case.

my point is that the oj case is not the only case where the jury camt to a decision without extensive deliberaitons.imo

In some cases the jury has taken a vote as their first order of business, became aware that they were in agreement and voted a verdict.

The oj jury had 9 months to decide which evidence/testimony they believed.

I don't believe there would have been any complaint if that jury had deliberatred for four hours and then found oj guilty.
imo
martin II

martin IIDeliberating isn't supposed to start until the jury is sent to the jury room. Since they had already packed their bags that tells me the deliberation was over when they entered the jury room. Plus, I'm sure they were looking forward to the upcoming celebration.

martin II

10-05-2007, 12:10 AM

If the jury had convicted him and attended a victory party with Marcia Clark and Chris Darden you'd be singing another tune.

I don't care who has done it in the past or what the case was about. It's extremely tacky and in very poor taste. I'm well aware that it's their legal right to do whatever they want after the trial. That doesn't make it the right thing to do.

the oj jury was no different that other juries that have attended exdefendants parties. It sounds strange that you would attack this jury and have no concern for all the other juries that have done the same thing.:no:

imo
martin II

tvdinner

10-05-2007, 12:20 AM

the oj jury was no different that other juries that have attended exdefendants parties. It sounds strange that you would attack this jury and have no concern for all the other juries that have done the same thing.:no:

imo
martin IIYou're twisting again, martin. This is what I said:

I don't care who has done it in the past or what the case was about. It's extremely tacky and in very poor taste.

I was referring to ANY jury that engages in that kind of celebratory activity. You need to slow down and read more carefully. :no:

martin II

10-05-2007, 12:20 AM

Deliberating isn't supposed to start until the jury is sent to the jury room. Since they had already packed their bags that tells me the deliberation was over when they entered the jury room. Plus, I'm sure they were looking forward to the upcoming celebration.

tv
according to the notes and time line of the jury members, deliberation started
when the jury went to the jury room. Some discussion took place and some jury members had questions on two issues , One was A Parks testimony which they asked for a readback.Furthur discussion took place and they decided to take a vote. This vote was 100 % not guilty. There was no need to deliberate further.

I was not in the jury room and have no idea if any bags were packed or what that would prove if that were true.

Remember the prosecution/s glove expert wrote a letter to the prosecution
before the verdict reminding them that he would see them at the celebration party or asking for a invitation.
imo
martin II

tvdinner

10-05-2007, 12:26 AM

tv
according to the notes and time line of the jury members, deliberation started
when the jury went to the jury room. Some discussion took place and some jury members had questions on two issues , One was A Parks testimony which they asked for a readback.Furthur discussion took place and they decided to take a vote. This vote was 100 % not guilty. There was no need to deliberate further.

I was not in the jury room and have no idea if any bags were packed or what that would prove if that were true.

Remember the prosecution/s glove expert wrote a letter to the prosecution
before the verdict reminding them that he would see them at the celebration party or asking for a invitation.
imo
martin III stand by my opinion that they didn't deliberate long enough for a nine month long trial. Whether or not the glove expert did what you said he did I don't know. There's nothing wrong with the prosecution or the defense having a victory party. It's the presence of the jurors that's wrong.

William Anthony

10-05-2007, 06:01 AM

William, that word is seldom used here but it's often heavily insinuated. Talking about race as an issue unto itself regarding the trial is okay with me. It's when someone doesn't like the turn of the discussion or doesn't like a truth that's come to light and suddenly you're accused of being in no position to continue the discussion because "why does it concern you?" -- that bothers me. You think some people are in self-denial about reasonable doubt. I think some are in self-denial about jury nullification. When a jury takes less than four hours to return a verdict in a case that took nine months to try they certainly didn't do much deliberating.

I know there was a thread on race before I joined this forum. I'm sure getting rid of it was a wise move by the administrator of this message board. If it was anything like the virulent post I witnessed yesterday before it was deleted it didn't deserve to be here.

To me the refusal of Black and White Americans alike to openly and honestly discuss the subject is what allows it to foster. I do not think I have accused anyone of being racist because I did not like the turn of the conversation. I think, after watching the case and the way the evidence was presented, that it did not take a jury long to reach their conclusion. It was not the issue of the length of the trial but it was what the evidence proved. I think reasonable doubt was easy to come to and jury nullification only pertains to those who believe the prosecution proved its case.

Kate Sachel

10-05-2007, 08:53 AM

Kate,

I think that they had to maintain their impartiality during the course of the trial and after the trial were free to associate with whom they pleased.

Interesting, because when we engaged in discussion regarding this topic previously your response was quite different.

Kate

martin II

10-05-2007, 09:22 AM

I stand by my opinion that they didn't deliberate long enough for a nine month long trial. Whether or not the glove expert did what you said he did I don't know. There's nothing wrong with the prosecution or the defense having a victory party. It's the presence of the jurors that's wrong.

tv
I am not trying to change your opinion. I have posted that the law imo, which most here understand, does not set a deliberation time for any jury to deliberate other than the time it takes to come to a verdict. Also i don't believe a jury listen to testimony during a trial, make decisions as to which testimony they believe as it is given and then wipe
these this information out of their minds just prior to deliberations start.If they were required to then there may not have been a reason for them to hear testimony in the first place.

I also believe that there are some pivital issues in a prosecutions presentation that if not believed by a jury can cause them to reject other testimony that may seem to some to be very important as the judges instructions allows for this, imo
martin II

martin II

martin II

10-05-2007, 09:31 AM

You're twisting again, martin. This is what I said:

I don't care who has done it in the past or what the case was about. It's extremely tacky and in very poor taste.

I was referring to ANY jury that engages in that kind of celebratory activity. You need to slow down and read more carefully. :no:

Thats fine.
Many of us have used history of simular events as a guide to help us form our opinions on current events. i posted opinions to show that the oj jury
was not that different from some other jury deliberations.

imo
martin II

fbgweezer

10-05-2007, 01:27 PM

tv
according to the notes and time line of the jury members, deliberation started
when the jury went to the jury room. Some discussion took place and some jury members had questions on two issues , One was A Parks testimony which they asked for a readback.Furthur discussion took place and they decided to take a vote. This vote was 100 % not guilty. There was no need to deliberate further.

I was not in the jury room and have no idea if any bags were packed or what that would prove if that were true.

Remember the prosecution/s glove expert wrote a letter to the prosecution
before the verdict reminding them that he would see them at the celebration party or asking for a invitation.
imo
martin II

You do remember that they didn't wait to hear the read back of Park's testimony don't you?

martin II

10-05-2007, 01:41 PM

You do remember that they didn't wait to hear the read back of Park's testimony don't you?

When the readback was requested the jury continued to discuss that issue.
They came to a point in the discussion that the two jurors questions had been answered and they as a group decided to take a vote. In case you don't know that vote was 100% all 12 for Not Guilty. End of story. nuff said.
imo
martin II

fbgweezer

10-05-2007, 01:48 PM

When the readback was requested the jury continued to discuss that issue.
They came to a point in the discussion that the two jurors questions had been answered and they as a group decided to take a vote. In case you don't know that vote was 100% all 120 for Not Guilty. End of story. nuff said.
imo
martinj II

"100% all 120 for Not Guilty" -- not sure what this means.

"LOS ANGELES - The forewoman and another juror who voted to acquit O.J. Simpson of murder said they likely would decide against him if they were on a civil jury. . ."

The crime didn't change, the victims didn't change, the accused didn't change, the evidence didn't change -- thank goodness the jury did!

imo

martin II

10-05-2007, 01:57 PM

"100% all 120 for Not Guilty" -- not sure what this means.

"LOS ANGELES - The forewoman and another juror who voted to acquit O.J. Simpson of murder said they likely would decide against him if they were on a civil jury. . ."

The crime didn't change, the victims didn't change, the accused didn't change, the evidence didn't change -- thank goodness the jury did!

imo

I tried to delete the 0 but it was too late.

The balance of your post means absolutely nothing.

IF a apple had wings it likely would be able to fly.

MARTIN ii

fbgweezer

10-05-2007, 03:00 PM

I tried to delete the 0 but it was too late.

The balance of your post means absolutely nothing.

IF a apple had wings it likely would be able to fly.

MARTIN ii

the rest of my post means this: IF the crime didn't change, the victims didn't change, the accused didn't change and the evidence didn't change but the jury did, and the jury that found him not guilty in the criminal trial would find him guilty in a civil trial -- guess what? -- that criminal jury knew he was guilty when they took their swipe at the justice system and white America. Good for them -- hope they feel better. Especially watching orenthal continue his rantings, ravings and abusive ways over the years since they set him free on society. imo

martin II

10-05-2007, 03:59 PM

the rest of my post means this: IF the crime didn't change, the victims didn't change, the accused didn't change and the evidence didn't change but the jury did, and the jury that found him not guilty in the criminal trial would find him guilty in a civil trial -- guess what? -- that criminal jury knew he was guilty when they took their swipe at the justice system and white America. Good for them -- hope they feel better. Especially watching orenthal continue his rantings, ravings and abusive ways over the years since they set him free on society. imo

WEEZER
Not so at all.

The criminal trial jury has shown no indication that they were swiping at anyone.I have seen no indication that they had one iota of concren with white america as they did their duty for the community. White America had no place in the juries decision so i am puzzled as to why you mention them as some kind of victim that was swiped by the jury.

The jury had no responsibility to any group other than the citizens of LA.
No ranting by anyone can change that.

MARTIN ii

socaldiva

10-05-2007, 04:01 PM

*snip*
I have seen no indication that they had one iota of concren with white america

And the black power salute was in reference to what??:rolleyes:

fbgweezer

10-05-2007, 04:09 PM

And the black power salute was in reference to what??:rolleyes:

I'm sure it didn't mean anything more than the juror who said, "We take care of our own."

William Anthony

10-05-2007, 08:59 PM

Interesting, because when we engaged in discussion regarding this topic previously your response was quite different.

Kate

There was a recent post made saying something to the effect that I make posts and when asked say I meant something else. However, my posts are trying to be made to the point and may not be as clear as they should be. Just because I said that the presumption of innoncence went to the defendant and the jury should grant the defendant that presumption, does not mean that the jury should not look to the prosecution to meet its burden. The fact that a jury is able to uphold the presumption and scrutinize the prosecution's meeting of its burden is a sign of their impartiality, imho. If the prosecution meets its burden, then a verdict of guilty should be returned. However, if it does not, then the defendant should be declared not guilty and the presumption retained. If it becomes clear to the jury that the prosecution did not meet is burden during the trial, then DELIBERATIONS need not be a long drawn out process. I do not think the law requires that the jury should not form an opinion after all the evidence is presented. What is required to my understanding is that the jurors, after hearing all the evidence, should not discuss their personal opinions until the jury begins deliberations. I am answering two issues in one so that I do not have to make as many posts.

I do not believe my response was different but I may not have explained my thought processes at length. If this was not te discussions to which you refered, then please inform me.

William Anthony

10-05-2007, 09:03 PM

"100% all 120 for Not Guilty" -- not sure what this means.

"LOS ANGELES - The forewoman and another juror who voted to acquit O.J. Simpson of murder said they likely would decide against him if they were on a civil jury. . ."

The crime didn't change, the victims didn't change, the accused didn't change, the evidence didn't change -- thank goodness the jury did!

imo

Then you disagree with bobaugust's statement that new evidence was presented, I would guess. What did change was the burden of proof and it appears that the forewoman and the other juror understood this.

William Anthony

10-05-2007, 09:08 PM

I'm sure it didn't mean anything more than the juror who said, "We take care of our own."

The alleged Black Power Salute may have been in recognition that equality of justice had been attained and the pronoun "we" could have meant that citizens of the United States demand that the prosecution meet its burden before convicting a fellow citizen-take care of our own.

fbgweezer

10-05-2007, 09:47 PM

fbgweezer

10-05-2007, 09:54 PM

Then you disagree with bobaugust's statement that new evidence was presented, I would guess. What did change was the burden of proof and it appears that the forewoman and the other juror understood this.

then you would have guessed wrong -- I don't disagree with bobaugust's statement regarding new evidence because unlike you, I actually watched, looked, listened and read about the evidence (old, new and everything in between) presented in the civil trial. It served to confirm what most reasonable people knew -- orenthal james simpson murdered two human beings: Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown.

The criminal trial jurors said they didn't consider (understand) the DNA, they didn't consider the history of violence between orenthal and Nicole and they thought the gloves fit.

imo

William Anthony

10-05-2007, 10:02 PM

then you would have guessed wrong -- I don't disagree with bobaugust's statement regarding new evidence because unlike you, I actually watched, looked, listened and read about the evidence (old, new and everything in between) presented in the civil trial. It served to confirm what most reasonable people knew -- orenthal james simpson murdered two human beings: Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown.

The criminal trial jurors said they didn't consider (understand) the DNA, they didn't consider the history of violence between orenthal and Nicole and they thought the gloves fit.

imo

I am hard pressed to understand you posts. This is a part of your first post.

"The crime didn't change, the victims didn't change, the accused didn't change, the evidence didn't change -- thank goodness the jury did!

imo

Now, you are saying, "I don't disagree with bobaugust's statement regarding new evidence..." I cannot understand how the evidence did not change and there was new evidence. Please, if you would be so kind as to elaborate, or, if it is unexplainable, please so state?

fbgweezer

10-05-2007, 10:06 PM

I am hard pressed to understand you posts. This is a part of your first post.

"The crime didn't change, the victims didn't change, the accused didn't change, the evidence didn't change -- thank goodness the jury did!

imo

Now, you are saying, "I don't disagree with bobaugust's statement regarding new evidence..." I cannot understand how the evidence did not change and there was new evidence. Please, if you would be so kind as to elaborate, or, if it is unexplainable, please so state?

no problem -- it's a fairly simple concept -- the evidence from the criminal trial didn't change. The evidence from the criminal trial NOT changing has nothing to do with NEW evidence presented in the criminal trial.

William Anthony

10-05-2007, 10:22 PM

no problem -- it's a fairly simple concept -- the evidence from the criminal trial didn't change. The evidence from the criminal trial NOT changing has nothing to do with NEW evidence presented in the criminal trial.

Why fbgweezer,

I think I must now put your comments into context. Here is an additional part of your first post.

"LOS ANGELES - The forewoman and another juror who voted to acquit O.J. Simpson of murder said they likely would decide against him if they were on a civil jury. . ."

The crime didn't change, the victims didn't change, the accused didn't change, the evidence didn't change -- thank goodness the jury did!

Of course the evidence from the criminal trial has nothing to do with new evidence from the criminal trial, because there was no new evidence that could have been admitted in the criminal trial. You have stated an impossibility as to what your post meant. The post from "LOS ANGELS" said on a civil jury. "

Therefore, you must be disagreeing with the statement that new evidence in the civil trial, whether it was evidence that had been ruled inadmissible in the criminal trial or entirely new evidence, which was admitted in the civil trial proved Simpson was the murderer. So what you are saying is that there was no new evidence that proved Simpson the murderer and only a civil jury with a different composition claimed to have found Simpson liable for murder, correct?

fbgweezer

10-05-2007, 10:30 PM

Why fbgweezer,

I think I must now put your comments into context. Here is an additional part of your first post.

"LOS ANGELES - The forewoman and another juror who voted to acquit O.J. Simpson of murder said they likely would decide against him if they were on a civil jury. . ."

The crime didn't change, the victims didn't change, the accused didn't change, the evidence didn't change -- thank goodness the jury did!

Of course the evidence from the criminal trial has nothing to do with new evidence from the criminal trial, because there was no new evidence that could have been admitted in the criminal trial. You have stated an impossibility as to what your post meant. The post from "LOS ANGELS" said on a civil jury. "

Therefore, you must be disagreeing with the statement that new evidence in the civil trial, whether it was evidence that had been ruled inadmissible in the criminal trial or entirely new evidence, which was admitted in the civil trial proved Simpson was the murderer. So what you are saying is that there was no new evidence that proved Simpson the murderer and only a civil jury with a different composition claimed to have found Simpson liable for murder, correct?

the point of my post is that the criminal jury believed orenthal to have murdered Ron and Nicole but set him free under the guise of 'prosecution didn't prove their case' -- that was bs since we know that their verdict was not based on the evidence presented in the criminal trial. The jurors statement speaks for itself -- in a civil trial they would have found orenthal to have committed the murders. I'm not sure what you think the further discussion of new evidence presented in the civil trial has to do with their statement. :confused:

William Anthony

10-05-2007, 10:49 PM

the point of my post is that the criminal jury believed orenthal to have murdered Ron and Nicole but set him free under the guise of 'prosecution didn't prove their case' -- that was bs since we know that their verdict was not based on the evidence presented in the criminal trial. The jurors statement speaks for itself -- in a civil trial they would have found orenthal to have committed the murders. I'm not sure what you think the further discussion of new evidence presented in the civil trial has to do with their statement. :confused:

Why fbgweezer,

You have called the criminal jury, ignorant, dumb and biased. However, their statement show they understood that, despite their belief, the prosecution had to prove its case and that they understood the difference in the burdens of proof between a civil and criminal trial. However, the civil jurors' statements that they found Simpson liable for murder shows they were ignorant, imho. Therefore, I cannot understand this portion of your post.

"The crime didn't change, the victims didn't change, the accused didn't change, the evidence didn't change -- thank goodness the jury did!"

Are you advocating for certain ignorant jurors?

William Anthony

10-05-2007, 11:27 PM

Allegedly, the Ford video was taken, not for evidentiary purposes, but to make sure that false claims of theft were not filed against LE. I have often wondered why LE did not have rooms/areas videoed before evidence was collected and after. Was there a reason why LE did not want some rooms/areas/objects videoed before the evidence was collected? I think it would be easy to show this is how the scene looked before collection, this is what we collected and this is how it looked afterward and this could have been accomplished systematically. I am certain that LE had been accused of evidence planting before the Simpson case and this method would did not involve deep thought on how to show evidence that there was no planting of evidence. Why when you had a rich public figure accused of two murders was this not done?

martin II

10-06-2007, 08:16 AM

martin II

10-06-2007, 08:21 AM

[QUOTE=William Anthony;9010670]Allegedly, the Ford video was taken, not for evidentiary purposes, but to make sure that false claims of theft were not filed against LE. I have often wondered why LE did not have rooms/areas videoed before evidence was collected and after. Was there a reason why LE did not want some rooms/areas/objects videoed before the evidence was collected? I think it would be easy to show this is how the scene looked before collection, this is what we collected and this is how it looked afterward and this could have been accomplished systematically. I am certain that LE had been accused of evidence planting before the Simpson case and this method would did not involve deep thought on how to show evidence that there was no planting of evidence. Why when you had a rich public figure accused of two murders was this not done?[/QUOTE

Your idea would help to prevent planting.
martin II

William Anthony

10-06-2007, 08:26 AM

martin II

10-06-2007, 08:28 AM

Why fbgweezer,

I think I must now put your comments into context. Here is an additional part of your first post.

"LOS ANGELES - The forewoman and another juror who voted to acquit O.J. Simpson of murder said they likely would decide against him if they were on a civil jury. . ."

The crime didn't change, the victims didn't change, the accused didn't change, the evidence didn't change -- thank goodness the jury did!

Of course the evidence from the criminal trial has nothing to do with new evidence from the criminal trial, because there was no new evidence that could have been admitted in the criminal trial. You have stated an impossibility as to what your post meant. The post from "LOS ANGELS" said on a civil jury. "

Therefore, you must be disagreeing with the statement that new evidence in the civil trial, whether it was evidence that had been ruled inadmissible in the criminal trial or entirely new evidence, which was admitted in the civil trial proved Simpson was the murderer. So what you are saying is that there was no new evidence that proved Simpson the murderer and only a civil jury with a different composition claimed to have found Simpson liable for murder, correct?

Sounds like something is tied in a knot.:beer:
martin II

William Anthony

10-06-2007, 08:34 AM

Sounds like something is tied in a knot.:beer:
martin II

Yes, the knot of not guilty as charged.

tvdinner

10-06-2007, 09:13 AM

William

That is right on point.

Thanks
martin IIWilliam and martin, I'm incredulous that you two would attempt to spin the meaning of the Black Power salute into something else. :eek:

William Anthony

10-06-2007, 09:22 AM

William and martin, I'm incredulous that you two would attempt to spin the meaning of the Black Power salute into something else. :eek:

What do you think the Black Power Salute meant?

tvdinner

10-06-2007, 09:33 AM

What do you think the Black Power Salute meant?The Black Power salute is a symbol of racial pride. Surely, you already know that William. :)

William Anthony

10-06-2007, 10:02 AM

The Black Power salute is a symbol of racial pride. Surely, you already know that William. :)

Tv,

I took the Salute as a symbol of solidartiy of people engaged in a struggle to attain racial, social, political and financial empowerment in America. Over the years, I noticed that the salute became nothing more than a greeting or a reminder that the struggle was not over. I have seen the Black Power Salute used by Whites and some Whites in affluent positions. Therefore, I am unsure as to what the symbol symbolized in the ninties and the intention of the message sent by the user, smile.

tvdinner

10-06-2007, 10:18 AM

Tv,

I took the Salute as a symbol of solidartiy of people engaged in a struggle to attain racial, social, political and financial empowerment in America. Over the years, I noticed that the salute became nothing more than a greeting or a reminder that the struggle was not over. I have seen the Black Power Salute used by Whites and some Whites in affluent positions. Therefore, I am unsure as to what the symbol symbolized in the ninties and the intention of the message sent by the user, smile.William, when the salute first became popular it meant Black unity and power. I'm telling you this so you'll know that I understand what it means and the origins of it. I believe that Lionel Cryer was of an age to recall the original meaning and context of the salute and I think that is what he was conveying to OJ Simpson.

William Anthony

10-06-2007, 10:38 AM

William, when the salute first became popular it meant Black unity and power. I'm telling you this so you'll know that I understand what it means and the origins of it. I believe that Lionel Cryer was of an age to recall the original meaning and context of the salute and I think that is what he was conveying to OJ Simpson.

Tv,

I am now pleased to hear you say that you think that is what the juror was saying and not that you know that is what he was saying or that was the only thing he was saying. I have offered another explanation of what he could have been saying, based on latter uses of the salute. The point I was responding to was that I was trying to spin the meaning of the symbol, which has changed, imho, over the years to include meanings of which I am unsure and, in some instances, is nothing more than a greeting, imho. He may have been saying you chose the right defense team, congradulations. Who knows?

tvdinner

10-06-2007, 10:50 AM

Tv,

I am now pleased to hear you say that you think that is what the juror was saying and not that you know that is what he was saying or that was the only thing he was saying. I have offered another explanation of what he could have been saying, based on latter uses of the salute. The point I was responding to was that I was trying to spin the meaning of the symbol, which has changed, imho, over the years to include meanings of which I am unsure and, in some instances, is nothing more than a greeting, imho. He may have been saying you chose the right defense team, congradulations. Who knows?Willliam, I understand what you're saying about the evolution of the meaning of the salute. What I'm saying is that Lionel Cryer was 44 years old at the time of the trial. That would make him around 17 when the salute originated. It was a militant symbol in the late 60's. That is the meaning that it would have had for a man the age of Lionel Cryer.

If the juror wanted to get the message across to OJ Simpson that he chose the right defense team an enthusiastic wave would have done very well. IMO, Mr. Cryer chose to use the Black Power salute ro convey a specific message and also IMO you know that as well. :)

William Anthony

10-06-2007, 11:00 AM

Willliam, I understand what you're saying about the evolution of the meaning of the salute. What I'm saying is that Lionel Cryer was 44 years old at the time of the trial. That would make him around 17 when the salute originated. It was a militant symbol in the late 60's. That is the meaning that it would have had for a man the age of Lionel Cryer.

If the juror wanted to get the message across to OJ Simpson that he chose the right defense team an enthusiastic wave would have done very well. IMO, Mr. Cryer chose to use the Black Power salute ro convey a specific message and also IMO you know that as well. :)

Tv,

I do not know that as well, :). America has taken the salute to be a militant symbol, even though all that used it may not have been militant. The salute was used by the Black Panther organization and by Olympic medalist, who were stripped of their medals. I do not think that the athletes were acting militant, but protesting the inequality, and yes, probably racial, that existed in America. If a white person shave their head does that make them militant? Could that person have lost hair and shaved his/her head because of kimo treatments? I am saying that we sometimes jump to conclusions based on scant evidence. Were all Blacks that were Mr. Cryer's age when the salute originated and used it militant? I was in the service and used it. I was not militant but I was asking a nation to uphold its promises. P.S., hurry up and make a post. Did you see the number of your last post. smile?

tvdinner

10-06-2007, 11:15 AM

Tv,

I do not know that as well, :). America has taken the salute to be a militant symbol, even though all that used it may not have been militant. The salute was used by the Black Panther organization and by Olympic medalist, who were stripped of their medals. I do not think that the athletes were acting militant, but protesting the inequality, and yes, probably racial, that existed in America. If a white person shave their head does that make them militant? Could that person have lost hair and shaved his/her head because of kimo treatments? I am saying that we sometimes jump to conclusions based on scant evidence. Were all Blacks that were Mr. Cryer's age when the salute originated and used it militant? I was in the service and used it. I was not militant but I was asking a nation to uphold its promises. P.S., hurry up and make a post. Did you see the number of your last post. smile?

EEK!!!:eek: Thanks for the warning...talk about bad luck!!:eek:

William, I didn't say everyone that used it was militant. There's nothing wrong with the salute. It's a symbol of solidarity, rising to popularity at a time of intense struggle. I still maintain that it was used in this instance in an inappropriate manner to send a message of Black power and unity to OJ Simpson. It's possible I could be guilty of jumping to conclusions if the juror had just been walking down the street. Under the circumstances, it really could only have meant one thing. Notice I used IMO when I said you know that as well. ;) I knew you wouldn't agree with me.

BTW, thank you for your service to this country. :patriot:

William Anthony

10-06-2007, 11:23 AM

EEK!!!:eek: Thanks for the warning...talk about bad luck!!:eek:

William, I didn't say everyone that used it was militant. There's nothing wrong with the salute. It's a symbol of solidarity, rising to popularity at a time of intense struggle. I still maintain that it was used in this instance in an inappropriate manner to send a message of Black power and unity to OJ Simpson. It's possible I could be guilty of jumping to conclusions if the juror had just been walking down the street. Under the circumstances, it really could only have meant one thing. Notice I used IMO when I said you know that as well. ;) I knew you wouldn't agree with me.

BTW, thank you for your service to this country. :patriot:

No, you did not say everyone and I understand your logic and saw your IMO. This is what makes America great-we are allowed to express our opinions even, if we are wrong.:)

martin II

10-06-2007, 12:54 PM

Tv,

I do not know that as well, :). America has taken the salute to be a militant symbol, even though all that used it may not have been militant. The salute was used by the Black Panther organization and by Olympic medalist, who were stripped of their medals. I do not think that the athletes were acting militant, but protesting the inequality, and yes, probably racial, that existed in America. If a white person shave their head does that make them militant? Could that person have lost hair and shaved his/her head because of kimo treatments? I am saying that we sometimes jump to conclusions based on scant evidence. Were all Blacks that were Mr. Cryer's age when the salute originated and used it militant? I was in the service and used it. I was not militant but I was asking a nation to uphold its promises. P.S., hurry up and make a post. Did you see the number of your last post. smile?

william
i make the salute now sometimes based on who i am greeting. It has nothing to do with being militant or sending some special message. I think the salute by the juror was fine. What i think is comical is that some would try to dictate how a grown man should show what ever he is showing by using a gesture that they believe shoudl have been used. Like a wave of the hand would have been better than the salute. So a black man has to only make gesture approved by some white person. UTTER NONSENSE.
imo
martin II

martin II

10-06-2007, 01:02 PM

socaldiva

10-06-2007, 01:14 PM

*snip* So a black man has to only make gesture approved by some white person. UTTER NONSENSE.

Who here posted that? No one,that's who :rolleyes:

If this salute is so benign, then why are some posters denying that he made the salute? or characterizing it as the "alleged salute"? hahahha

fbgweezer

10-06-2007, 02:20 PM

"As he left court, one juror, a former Black Panther whom prosecutors had inexplicably left on the panel, gave Mr. Simpson a clenched fist salute with his left arm. Before the verdict was read, the same juror, Lionel Cryer, a 44-year-old black man, had smiled and winked at him. At that point, one defense lawyer, Carl Douglas, whispered to his client, "We won; we won," though Mr. Douglas later said it was because the juror thought most hostile to the defense -- Anise Ascherbach, a 60-year-old white woman -- had also smiled in their direction."

New York Times; NOT GUILTY: THE OVERVIEW; Jury Clears Simpson in Double Murder; Spellbound Nation Divides on Verdict
By DAVID MARGOLICK
Published: October 4, 1995

martin II

10-06-2007, 03:11 PM

William Anthony

10-06-2007, 03:48 PM

In a recent trail in New York last week the jury walked in to give the verdict.
a white female juror looked at the black woman plaintiff and gave her a big smile. All the media saw it and wrote about it. The jury found in her favor.

martin II

Martin,

I do believe that many people join organizations in their youth and I do not think they are always sticklers for the beliefs of the group and even, if they were, may change their view in their more mature life. I called the salute alleged, because it is seen as the Black Power Salute, which I do not know that it was termed that way by the people who used it or, if everyone that uses it means it to be a Black Power Salute.

martin II

10-06-2007, 05:35 PM

Martin,

I do believe that many people join organizations in their youth and I do not think they are always sticklers for the beliefs of the group and even, if they were, may change their view in their more mature life. I called the salute alleged, because it is seen as the Black Power Salute, which I do not know that it was termed that way by the people who used it or, if everyone that uses it means it to be a Black Power Salute.

william
correct.
But some people that have never been a part of the panthers or any other
black organization seem to believe they know what the guy in court had in mind when he flashed the salute.

imo
martin II

martin II

10-06-2007, 05:38 PM

Martin,

I do believe that many people join organizations in their youth and I do not think they are always sticklers for the beliefs of the group and even, if they were, may change their view in their more mature life. I called the salute alleged, because it is seen as the Black Power Salute, which I do not know that it was termed that way by the people who used it or, if everyone that uses it means it to be a Black Power Salute.

most people black and white use it as a simple greeting.
martin II

William Anthony

10-07-2007, 07:22 AM

most people black and white use it as a simple greeting.
martin II

Martin,

Please, tell me in which room of a house would you normally expect to find a pair of socks?

tvdinner

10-07-2007, 10:07 AM

most people black and white use it as a simple greeting.
martin IImartin, I guess I need to get out more but I've never seen a white person use it. :shrug:

fbgweezer

10-07-2007, 10:11 AM

martin, I guess I need to get out more but I've never seen a white person use it. :shrug:

Lionel Cryer had been/was a member of the Black Panthers -- I doubt very seriously that he was 'just saying hello'! LOL

William Anthony

10-07-2007, 10:22 AM

martin, I guess I need to get out more but I've never seen a white person use it. :shrug:

Believe me there are plenty and most recently by a man in a business suit to me. I took it as his way of saying, hello.

tvdinner

10-07-2007, 11:16 AM

Believe me there are plenty and most recently by a man in a business suit to me. I took it as his way of saying, hello.I'm not saying you're wrong. I've just never personally noticed it. You don't think that Lionel Cryer's association with the Black Panthers has any bearing on the message he was trying to convey with the salute? That it's just a coincidence?

William Anthony

10-07-2007, 11:25 AM

I'm not saying you're wrong. I've just never personally noticed it. You don't think that Lionel Cryer's association with the Black Panthers has any bearing on the message he was trying to convey with the salute? That it's just a coincidence?

Not knowing the man or how active he was or how long he was a member of the organization and judging by how the salute has taken on other meanings, I cannot say what he meant by the salute. I am not ready to say that it was a sign that he neglected his duties to free a Black man, because, I think that you even admitted, the prosecution did a poor job of presenting the evidence.

tvdinner

10-07-2007, 11:53 AM

Not knowing the man or how active he was or how long he was a member of the organization and judging by how the salute has taken on other meanings, I cannot say what he meant by the salute. I am not ready to say that it was a sign that he neglected his duties to free a Black man, because, I think that you even admitted, the prosecution did a poor job of presenting the evidence.William, I think the prosecution could have done a better job. However, I think Marcia Clark and the rest of them underestimated the effect that Johnny Cochran's appeal to race was going to have on the jury. They thought the mountain of credible evidence they had would convince any reasonable person and that they would ignore color. Mr. Cryer's salute puts that notion to rest once and for all.

William Anthony

10-07-2007, 12:04 PM

William, I think the prosecution could have done a better job. However, I think Marcia Clark and the rest of them underestimated the effect that Johnny Cochran's appeal to race was going to have on the jury. They thought the mountain of credible evidence they had would convince any reasonable person and that they would ignore color. Mr. Cryer's salute puts that notion to rest once and for all.

There was no mountain of credible evidence as the cross examination exposed the evidence to be less than credible, imho. The cross focused on contamination, sloppiness, discrepancies and lies. The issue of race was only one ridge in the mountain of incredibility. I guess then the White man's salute to me meant an acknowledgement of my color rather than acknowledging that I had a rough day ahead, since he is a customer of the bank in which I work. I guess I had it wrong and he was telling me that he knew I was Black and so was he, :). Seriously, only Cryer knew what he meant with the salute. We can speculate but we cannot disregard the job done by the defense in destroying the evidence.

martin II

10-07-2007, 03:53 PM

I'm not saying you're wrong. I've just never personally noticed it. You don't think that Lionel Cryer's association with the Black Panthers has any bearing on the message he was trying to convey with the salute? That it's just a coincidence?

WILLIAM

I believe that some have searched above and below to find a reason for the verdict. Some find it difficult to admit that the evidence presented by M Clarke and C Darden was not sufficent for this fine jury of 12 LA citizens that had no dog in that fight, to convict on.

Those blammed include;
Defense team
Trial location
Judge ito
le "mistakes"
Lab tech "Mistakes"
Clarke&Darden mismanagement
The dog barking.

I note that Barry Scheck(sp) and F.L. Bailey imo did the most damage to the prosecutions case , but Cochran the only major lawyer that was black receives most of the attacks from people that think the prosecution proved their case. imo:shrug:

martin II

fbgweezer

10-07-2007, 03:59 PM

WILLIAM

I believe that some have searched above and below to find a reason for the verdict. Some find it difficult to admit that the evidence presented by M Clarke and C Darden was not sufficent for this fine jury of 12 LA citizens that had no dog in that fight, to convict on.

Those blammed include;
Defense team
Trial location
Judge ito
le "mistakes"
Lab tech "Mistakes"
Clarke&Darden mismanagement
The dog barking.

I note that Barry Scheck(sp) and F.L. Bailey imo did the most damage to the prosecutions case , but Cochran the only major lawyer that was black receives most of the attacks from people that think the prosecution proved their case. imo:shrug:

martin II

I don't know about anyone else, but I didn't 'blammed' all those things and especially not the dog! :shrug: LOL

socaldiva

10-07-2007, 04:03 PM

I don't know about anyone else, but I didn't 'blammed' all those things and especially not the dog! :shrug: LOL

I 'blammed' the idiot jurors. I think Martin left that off his list. :D

martin II

10-07-2007, 04:08 PM

martin, I guess I need to get out more but I've never seen a white person use it. :shrug:

Happens many times and i give it righ back to them. It may be that you, being a woman have not had a reason to pay attention to what some men do.

What some pleople that live "out of the loop" don't understand is that the black panthers were known in the community more for their childrens day care centers and feeding programs than they were for taking pictures on the capital steps or defending the community from criminal cops.imo
martin II

socaldiva

10-07-2007, 04:11 PM

*snip*
It may be that you, being a woman have not had a reason to pay attention to what some men do.

She can't see because she's a woman? Huh? I live in Los Angeles & I've yet to see a white person give a Black Power Salute.

martin II

10-07-2007, 04:19 PM

There was no mountain of credible evidence as the cross examination exposed the evidence to be less than credible, imho. The cross focused on contamination, sloppiness, discrepancies and lies. The issue of race was only one ridge in the mountain of incredibility. I guess then the White man's salute to me meant an acknowledgement of my color rather than acknowledging that I had a rough day ahead, since he is a customer of the bank in which I work. I guess I had it wrong and he was telling me that he knew I was Black and so was he, :). Seriously, only Cryer knew what he meant with the salute. We can speculate but we cannot disregard the job done by the defense in destroying the evidence.

William

I agree with your post especially your opinion that only Cryer knows what he was conveying to the defense so it is useless for others to KNOW what he meant.
The " MOUNTAIN OF EVIDENCE" was something that was created by the media and the prosecution.It was never a reality unless they were talking about a mountain of sand.imo
martin II

fbgweezer

10-07-2007, 04:20 PM

". . .The group's political goals are often overshadowed by their confrontational and even militaristic tactics, and by their suspicious regard of law enforcement agents; whom the Black Panthers perceived as a linchpin of oppression that could only be overcome by a willingness to take up armed self-defense. . ."

fbgweezer

10-07-2007, 04:22 PM

William

I agree with your post especially your opinion that only Cryer knows what he was conveying to the defense so it is useless for others to KNOW what he meant.
The " MOUNTAIN OF EVIDENCE" was something that was created by the media and the prosecution.It was never a reality unless they were talking about a mountain of sand.imo
martin II

how do you know he didn't mean exactly that?

martin II

10-07-2007, 04:28 PM

Lionel Cryer had been/was a member of the Black Panthers -- I doubt very seriously that he was 'just saying hello'! LOL

you don't think people in the black panthers or their community say hello to each other?

martin II

martin II

10-07-2007, 04:32 PM

Martin,

Please, tell me in which room of a house would you normally expect to find a pair of socks?

william
For me it would be my bedroom first and then my clothes room.
martin II

socaldiva

10-07-2007, 04:35 PM

william
For me it would be my bedroom first and then my clothes room.
martin II

What's a "clothes room"? :confused:

socaldiva

10-07-2007, 04:37 PM

you don't think people in the black panthers or their community say hello to each other?

martin II

Since when was Simpson a member of the black panthers? He lived in Brentwood & didn't seem to associate much with blacks. I doubt he would even know what the salute was :tongue:

martin II

10-07-2007, 04:37 PM

how do you know he didn't mean exactly that?

i don't understand your question. But what makes you believe you KNOW what he meant.What experience do you have with anyone in or associated with the panthers
that would allow you to KNOW what he meant?

martin II

socaldiva

10-07-2007, 04:39 PM

i don't understand your question. But what makes you believe you KNOW what he meant.What experience in the panthers do you have that would allow you to KNOW.

martin II

Does this mean that you are/were a member of the black panthers? If not, how do you profess to KNOW?

socaldiva

10-07-2007, 04:49 PM

Why are some posters trying to say Cryer was merely offering Simpson a "greeting". He didn't give the salute when he or Simpson entered the courtroom. That's the time you offer a "greeting". He gave the salute after the verdict was rendered. Most with common sense can figure what that meant.

William Anthony

10-07-2007, 05:13 PM

Most with common sense know that a greeting/salutation is made when meeting and leaving, Such as hello, have a nice day, goodbye, hope you have a safe trip and will not have to return soon.

William Anthony

10-07-2007, 05:16 PM

william
For me it would be my bedroom first and then my clothes room.
martin II

Martin,

Thank you. Yes, the flimsy justification for collecting socks on which no blood was seen makes it incredible, because they were not out of place, imho.

martin II

10-07-2007, 05:52 PM

Most with common sense know that a greeting/salutation is made when meeting and leaving, Such as hello, have a nice day, goodbye, hope you have a safe trip and will not have to return soon.

VERY GOOD

HAHAHA
MARTIN ii

martin II

10-07-2007, 06:02 PM

William
Some distant observers of the panters or other black power organizations
(Rap Brown) of late 1968 and early 1970s have tried to attatch the same meaning of the power salute then to what it meant in 1995 or now.This points to the hugh lack of understanding of the subject they claim to know.imo
martin II

martin II

10-07-2007, 06:08 PM

Martin,

Thank you. Yes, the flimsy justification for collecting socks on which no blood was seen makes it incredible, because they were not out of place, imho.

WILLIAM
Le used the same type excuse when they claimed Ojs Bronco was parked Wrong or in a unusual position at the Rockingham gate.imo
martin II

socaldiva

10-07-2007, 06:53 PM

VERY GOOD

HAHAHA
MARTIN ii

No, not at all. Most with common sense know that Cryer didn't mean "have a nice day & a safe trip" :rolleyes:

HAHAHA

martin II

10-07-2007, 07:04 PM

William Anthony

10-07-2007, 08:50 PM

VERY GOOD

HAHAHA
MARTIN ii

Matin,

The problem as I see it is that there are different types of English usage being used in America. For instance, some say see you my brother, while others say see ya. Some say I hope this was not an inconveince for you, while others say, I hope you do not need to come back and those may be misinterpreted or not understood. I think Cryer may have been saying see ya, brother and have a nice day.

tvdinner

10-07-2007, 08:52 PM

Happens many times and i give it righ back to them. It may be that you, being a woman have not had a reason to pay attention to what some men do.

What some pleople that live "out of the loop" don't understand is that the black panthers were known in the community more for their childrens day care centers and feeding programs than they were for taking pictures on the capital steps or defending the community from criminal cops.imo
martin IIYeah, martin, I'm just a woman and don't meddle in the men folk's affairs.

What makes you think I'm "out of the loop"? Do you have to be a former Black Panther to be in the loop?

martin II

10-07-2007, 10:59 PM

Yeah, martin, I'm just a woman and don't meddle in the men folk's affairs.

What makes you think I'm "out of the loop"? Do you have to be a former Black Panther to be in the loop?

I don't know what you do as a woman , But you did say you have never seem a white man give the salute.Since i know this happens i asume you have not paid attention when it did.

i never said you were in or out of the loop. Some here have indicated that they know what the salute meant to the panthers and those that have used it and specifically what it meant to Mr Cryer when he used it.my position is that without any direct or indrect involvement with the organization or people that were involved, it is unlikely that one would have that experience or ability to understand the meaning. However, that said, my overall position is that only mr cryer knows what he was conveying to oj simpson as it was he that made the salute, not any poster here.
imo
martin II

martin II

10-07-2007, 11:08 PM

Matin,

The problem as I see it is that there are different types of English usage being used in America. For instance, some say see you my brother, while others say see ya. Some say I hope this was not an inconveince for you, while others say, I hope you do not need to come back and those may be misinterpreted or not understood. I think Cryer may have been saying see ya, brother and have a nice day.

OR , YO BROTHER, YOU CAN GO.

MARTINii

socaldiva

10-07-2007, 11:33 PM

OR , YO BROTHER, YOU CAN GO.

MARTINii

Pure speculation on your part.

William Anthony

10-08-2007, 07:35 AM

OR , YO BROTHER, YOU CAN GO.

MARTINii

EXactly! It is pure speculation to say what the greeting meant.

martin II

10-08-2007, 07:58 AM

EXactly! It is pure speculation to say what the greeting meant.

Just another lost effort to attack this fine jury.
martin II

Jayme K

10-08-2007, 08:35 AM

The alleged Black Power Salute may have been in recognition that equality of justice had been attained and the pronoun "we" could have meant that citizens of the United States demand that the prosecution meet its burden before convicting a fellow citizen-take care of our own.

What a big pile of BS.

You're not an idiot William so stop trying to protect African Americans at every turn as though you think they're perfect. It's almost like you don't think of people just as people, which is what this jury was and that means that the guy is more than capable of pumpin his black power salute and that the "we take care of our own" means just that.

Kate Sachel

10-08-2007, 12:38 PM

I do not believe my response was different but I may not have explained my thought processes at length. If this was not te discussions to which you refered, then please inform me.

William,

It may be unfair to discuss this because I don't recall the thread in which we discussed this, or your exact comments. With that said, you did not go in to great detail with your response but you did advise that you agreed with me that it was inappropriate.

Do you have recollection of this at all? It may be worth looking for just so that we can both clarify the position.

Kate

socaldiva

10-08-2007, 03:52 PM

I have the feeling that some here would argue that giving someone a certain middle finger has varied meanings :rolleyes:

William Anthony

10-08-2007, 09:57 PM

What a big pile of BS.

You're not an idiot William so stop trying to protect African Americans at every turn as though you think they're perfect. It's almost like you don't think of people just as people, which is what this jury was and that means that the guy is more than capable of pumpin his black power salute and that the "we take care of our own" means just that.

If you know Cryer personally and know that 27 years later he held the same beliefs that he held at the age of 17, then I will defer to your interpretation of what the salute, greeting or salutation meant. If you do not, then I have based my opinion of what he could have meant based upon my observations of the employment of the salute over time.

As for the statement, the same holds true. Not knowing the juror personally and how they employ pronouns and other parts of speech, I have offered a reasonable interpretation of what the statement could mean. I am no more defending people than others who are so quick to critizice them, without knowing them. Call me an optimist and I thank you.

William Anthony

10-08-2007, 10:04 PM

William,

It may be unfair to discuss this because I don't recall the thread in which we discussed this, or your exact comments. With that said, you did not go in to great detail with your response but you did advise that you agreed with me that it was inappropriate.

Do you have recollection of this at all? It may be worth looking for just so that we can both clarify the position.

Kate

Kate,

I do believe you are correct and I do not think I addressed the appropriateness of the situation in my most recent post. I think I addressed the fact that the jurors were required to remain impartial during the trial and afterwards free to associate with whom they chose. I did not answer with my personal feelings about the behavior, IIRC. I would not have attended the party, because I would have found it inappropiate, but I think that remained a personal choice for each juror.

William Anthony

10-08-2007, 10:07 PM

I cannot speak for others but I would take the giving of the middle finger as a sign that the person giving me the finger should posthaste leave my presence, now and forevermore.

tvdinner

10-09-2007, 06:23 PM

I cannot speak for others but I would take the giving of the middle finger as a sign that the person giving me the finger should posthaste leave my presence, now and forevermore.William, so you don't believe that when a person was young and gave the middle finger and meant it as an insult that today they could use the same gesture and mean it in a different way? Maybe you'd be hasty to be offended; perhaps they're just saying you picked the right defense team and have a nice day. :)

martin II

10-09-2007, 07:24 PM

William, so you don't believe that when a person was young and gave the middle finger and meant it as an insult that today they could use the same gesture and mean it in a different way? Maybe you'd be hasty to be offended; perhaps they're just saying you picked the right defense team and have a nice day. :)

tv
it is my experience that the black power salute given in 1995 or today did/does not carry the same intensity of meaning that it did initially when Mr Carlos, the panthers or Rap Brown used it.imo
martin II

socaldiva

10-09-2007, 07:55 PM

tv
it is my experience that the black power salute given in 1995 or today did/does not carry the same intensity of meaning that it did initially when Mr Carlos, the panthers or Rap Brown used it.imo
martin II

Your experience or opinion doesn't change the idea that this gesture was inappropriate & most found it offensive.

martin II

10-09-2007, 07:57 PM

socaldiva

10-09-2007, 08:01 PM

fbgweezer

10-09-2007, 08:02 PM

fbgweezer

10-09-2007, 08:03 PM

martin II

10-09-2007, 09:01 PM

who is Mr Carlos?

Mr John Carlos

fbgweezer

10-09-2007, 09:11 PM

Mr John Carlos

I wondered if that's who you were holding up as an icon. Do yo suppose he was telling everyone hello, have a nice evening. LOL.

tvdinner

10-09-2007, 09:47 PM

william
maby the objection to Mr Cryer's salute is not that he made some gesture to the defense but that he had the nerve to use a salute associated with a black power movement which is not acceptable to some.
I remember Fung leaving the witness stand and walking to the defense lawyers table to shake hands.No big outcry about that.
Who knew what he was trying to say?

It seems that some feel that a gesture may be ok as long as it is one that they approve of.Any gesture associated with a black freedom movement is not allowed.imo
martin IIIt definitely is your opinion and it's wrong. I don't have a problem with any freedom movement, black or otherwise, until it condones and promotes violence. This is what I meant a few days ago when I said that the accusation of racism is heavily insinuated on this forum.

I don't know why I should even address this but the handshake by Dennis Fung is a universally recognized gesture of cordiality used by EVERYONE. I don't know what his motivation may have been except that he's a nice guy and was a little naive.

William Anthony

10-09-2007, 10:18 PM

William, so you don't believe that when a person was young and gave the middle finger and meant it as an insult that today they could use the same gesture and mean it in a different way? Maybe you'd be hasty to be offended; perhaps they're just saying you picked the right defense team and have a nice day. :)

I do not believe that was the way the post was made to which I responded. It said nothing of a person I had met some years ago and was stated as if someone gave the middle finger. I was not answering as to what the person meant but what my reaction to the gesture would be. There are those who are detemined to say they know what the gesture/salute meant, instead of stating their reaction to the gesture. :)

tvdinner

10-09-2007, 10:46 PM

I do not believe that was the way the post was made to which I responded. It said nothing of a person I had met some years ago and was stated as if someone gave the middle finger. I was not answering as to what the person meant but what my reaction to the gesture would be. There are those who are detemined to say they know what the gesture/salute meant, instead of stating their reaction to the gesture. :)William, even if Lionel Cryer meant nothing other than a greeting to Simpson, which I don't believe for one moment, he knew how it would be perceived and he didn't care. That alone tells me he meant it as it was first conceived -- a salute to black power and unity.

martin II

10-09-2007, 10:50 PM

It definitely is your opinion and it's wrong. I don't have a problem with any freedom movement, black or otherwise, until it condones and promotes violence. This is what I meant a few days ago when I said that the accusation of racism is heavily insinuated on this forum.

I don't know why I should even address this but the handshake by Dennis Fung is a universally recognized gesture of cordiality used by EVERYONE. I don't know what his motivation may have been except that he's a nice guy and was a little naive.

tv
i don't think it is correct to insinuate that the salute of Mr Cryer was condoning voilence in any way if that is your objection.I think he was just as cordial as D fUNG. They just had different ways of expressing themselves.

Just as you don't know what D Fungs motivaiton was, you don't know what Mr Cryer's was either. imo
martin II