This is exactly why Johnny should be warming to the fire.
He convinced people that there was evidence planted.
No evidence was planted.
Mark Furman was a racist asshole, but I don’t believe for one second that evidence was planted.
This whole defence was one big subterfuge, which evidently convinced a lot of people.
The lawyer is gone but he’s not forgotten
This is the story of Johnnie Cochran
If the glove don’t fit
You must acquit
This is the story of Johnnie Cochran…
Oh bugger off. You don’t like Cochran because you don’t like the outcome of the OJ case. Ethical attorneys, defense and prosecution, destroy reputations, impugn evidentiary practices (sound and unsound), and lay waste to legal theories (established or otherwise), all the time. Its all within the rules and all as it should be.
Our society decided a long time ago that it was better to let attorneys battle it out in court than to let the principles battle it out with cudgels at three paces. Its ugly and the outcome isn’t always the way we might want it to be, but it beats the alternative. Would you like to combine our society’s predeliction for lawsuits with a nice trial by combat judgement system? I bet OJ could have found grounds to sue Nicole and Ron and taken them out legally; it would have been God’s will after all. No destroyed reputations, impugned evidentiary practices, or wasted legal theories.
CJ
I don’t want to hijack this into a debate of the O.J. trial, but my statement wasn’t based on what Cochran said. It was based on photographs and news reports of the time. I saw before and after photographs on television news programs/talk shows that showed blood on Nicole’s gate in spots where in wasn’t three weeks prior, I saw photographs of the inside of the Bronco when it was originally towed, and photographs taken three weeks later in which more stains had appeared.
And regarding the Bronco, I also saw photos taken inside it the day after the murder and was amazed at both the small amount of blood and its location. There were just little smudges here and there around the headliner, the back of the seats, the headrest, etc. It looked to me as though someone with blood on their hands was groping around inside it in the dark looking for the dome light and possible objects behind the seats. My guess would be detectives with blood residue on their rubber gloved hands rushed to Simpson’s house and that one of them began groping around inside the Bronco looking for evidence. At any rate, there wasn’t anywhere near the amount of blood one would expect someone to have left after committing such a horrific and messy murder.
And speaking of erroneous impressions created by Cochran, I would suggest the same on the part of the LAPD and the prosecuter’s office. They managed to convince most people that the alleged planted evidence would have required an organized and illegal conspiracy on the part of some twenty police officers, including some highly regarded detectives nearing retirement, and who would most certainly not jeopardize their pensions by engaging in any illegal activity. But this claim is entirely bogus. All it would have taken would be for one or two or three people, working independently of (and perhaps unknown to) each other to plant the evidence I’m speaking of.
As far as I personally am concerned, I have no particular dog in this fight to begin with. I’m just calling 'em as I see 'em. As far as to whether O.J. is guilty or innocent, I’m 50/50 either way.
Who cares whether OJ was guilty or innocent?
As concern’s Cochran’s legacy, it matters not a whit.
The legal system is adversarial by design, and the burden of proof laid ont he prosecution is there to prevent more innocent people from going to prison.
Once, the word of a nobleman was unimpeachable evidence. Shall we go back to this?
The people must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the crime was committed. The prosecution can even charge someone with a lesser crime than they believe he committed because the limited amount of evidence they had will get a conviction for the lesser crime, rather than the actual crime. That’s a pretty big advantage.
The defense is aided in that they must only show that the prosecution cannot prove their version of events. This is not the “Plan B” or “abject lying” stuff you see on television, either. It’s pretty damn difficult to do.
Cochran did his job. He used every means at his disposal to show that the prosecution could not prove O.J. did what the prosecution says he did. Any less on his part would have been malpractice. It was good work on his part.
And honestly, while I’m not saying I believe either the prosecution OR the defense in that case, if the DA’s office couldn’t make the case, then how solid was it? The list of things the defense found out through its own investigation includes a great number of things the prosecution should already have known before going to trial.
Clark and company dropped the ball. It would have been wrong of Cochran not to pick it up and run with it.
And I can see Johnnie now, in front of Saint Peter.
“If the halo fits, you must admit.”
I have to wonder where you got most of this…you do realize this is all (well mostly) untrue.
I believe it is all true. And because two reasonable people can disagree, we depend of the courts to decide what is true, and what is not. Now, if you don’t like our legal system, that is one thing; but if you accept that the courts are the ones charged with making the decision instead of the mob, you may not pick and choose which decisions you accept just because some of them tick you off. If they say OJ is innocent, then by gum, he’s innocent; no asterisk, no fingers crossed; innocent. To say otherwise is not just rejecting one decision, it is rejecting the entire judicial system.
I think OJ probably did it. But Furman lied through his fucking teeth. His story of how he ‘found’ the bloody glove stank to high heaven.
We can’t blame Cochran for any miscarriage of justice in the Simpson case. He did what he was supposed to do. For his to do anything less would have been unethical.
THe prosecutors, OTOH, were morons. Hamilton Burger would have done a better job.
It’s sad that Cochran will be remembered ONLY for Simpson and not for his long and distinguished career.
So the Jerry Falwell and Johnny Cochran both die and are met at the gates of Heaven by Saint Peter. Peter says to Cochran, “You lived a creditible life in your chosen profession and you gave back to the community. You’re in. Welcome to heaven, sir.” Then he turns to Jerry Falwell. He says, "Mr. Falwell, you couldn’t have been more wrong about how this deal works. For vilifying so many people and leading others astray, you’re consigned to the pits of hell!
Well, Cochran can’t resist this. He’s a lawyer, after all, and here’s a client facing the biggest judgement of all time. So he turns to St. Peter and says, “Well, hold on there a minute. He may have been right or wrong, but he certainly tried to obey your boss’ commandments. If he erred, it’s the Lord’s fault for making the Bible unclear. He didn’t sin, so let him in.”
Saint Peter says, “Ah, but to go Above, you must show love.”
that’s all good in theory. In rejecting the OJ decision, I am rejecting the decision that 12 (actually 22 counting the alternates)idiots made…not the entire legal system as we know it. The case was completely screwed up…and that is both the part of the DA and the defence. Darden screwed up. Gloves. Ugh!
Anyway, let the bastard stand judgement on his works here on Earth.
Cochran is a result of a terrible legal system.
I think jury-trial is one of the worst sorts of legal systems and will produce grand-standing showman-like lawyers who can effectively cause reasonable doubts by theatrics.
So, I don’t like Cochran, but I think the legal system itself is the bigger problem, but that is another discussion in itself.