# O.J. Simpson, Beyond a Reasonable Doubt **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 26, 2012, 2:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/o-j-simpson-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt/645185 "2012-12-26T14:16:37Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Condescending\_Robot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a183cd/32.png) [@Condescending\_Robot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Condescending_Robot)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2012, 3:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/o-j-simpson-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt/645185/81 "2012-12-27T15:10:32Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > You’re completely missing the point. Human Action. Obviously Simpson murdered those people, I am not disputing that. But Furhman was also a racist cop who refused to deny under oath that he had planted evidence. Him taking the Fifth is not an admission of guilt if he was on trial, but he wasn’t on trial, Simpson was. Take it out of the Simpson paradigm. If you’re a juror in a case with a black defendant, an investigator in the case gets called to the stand (by the prosecution, no less!) and is caught lying about being a committed racist, then, when asked if he planted evidence, says he refuses to answer the question, you would be either insane or a racist yourself if you vote to convict. Reasonable doubt? A mountain of it. ---
**Author:** ![pchaos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/258eb7/32.png) [@pchaos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pchaos)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2012, 3:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/o-j-simpson-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt/645185/82 "2012-12-27T15:10:43Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > Furthermore, if one wished to reform the legal system due to the miscarriage of justice that was OJ Simpson’s acquittal, the standard of evidence seems like an odd choice, since it had little or nothing to do with the result. > > I don’t think our system needs much fundamental reform, but if the Simpson trial pointed to one, it’d probably be the inability to correct a “bad” acquittal. There are any number of reasons to overturn or set aside a bad conviction, but if you end up with an absurd acquittal due to an inept prosecution, with evidence that any randomly-selected team of prosecutors could get a conviction on 99% of the time, there is no remedy (that I am aware of, IANAL). > > So, **pchaos** , how about an appeal process for a double-jeopardy exception, in the event of monstrously incompetent prosecution? There shouldn’t be an exception to double-jeopardy. If there’s an exception to double-jeopardy, then why not an exception to that also. Eventually, people will be retried a dozen times or more. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2012, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/o-j-simpson-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt/645185/83 "2012-12-27T15:26:20Z")
> [@Condescending Robot](#): > > Take it out of the Simpson paradigm. If you’re a juror in a case with a black defendant, an investigator in the case gets called to the stand (by the prosecution, no less!) and is caught lying about being a committed racist, then, when asked if he planted evidence, says he refuses to answer the question, you would be either insane or a racist yourself if you vote to convict. Reasonable doubt? A mountain of it. Firstly, again, taking the 5th is not an admission of guilt. Even if it was, it’s only a reasonable doubt if it was **possible** for the hypothetical detective to have planted the evidence in question. I don’t care how racist someone is, they can’t turn one glove into two through racist willpower. > [@pchaos](#): > > There shouldn’t be an exception to double-jeopardy. If there’s an exception to double-jeopardy, then why not an exception to that also. Eventually, people will be retried a dozen times or more. So we’re back to a lower standard of evidence, then? Isn’t that using 4x8 plywood to swat a fly? A massive change to prevent a small number of false acquittals, at the great cost of more false convictions? ---
**Author:** ![pchaos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/258eb7/32.png) [@pchaos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pchaos)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2012, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/o-j-simpson-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt/645185/84 "2012-12-27T15:35:40Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > Firstly, again, taking the 5th is not an admission of guilt. > > Even if it was, it’s only a reasonable doubt if it was **possible** for the hypothetical detective to have planted the evidence in question. I don’t care how racist someone is, they can’t turn one glove into two through racist willpower. > > So we’re back to a lower standard of evidence, then? Isn’t that using 4x8 plywood to swat a fly? A massive change to prevent a small number of false acquittals, at the great cost of more false convictions? Not necessarily. “Beyond a reasonable doubt” is a vague standard for a logical mind. Why don’t we just say, if you are 80% sure. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2012, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/o-j-simpson-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt/645185/85 "2012-12-27T15:41:27Z")
> [@pchaos](#): > > “Beyond a reasonable doubt” is a vague standard for a logical mind. Why don’t we just say, if you are 80% sure. Because a made-up and arbitrary number is not any more useful than the concept of beyond a reasonable doubt. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2012, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/o-j-simpson-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt/645185/86 "2012-12-27T15:49:58Z")
> [@pchaos](#): > > Not necessarily. “Beyond a reasonable doubt” is a vague standard for a logical mind. Why don’t we just say, if you are 80% sure. You keep putting out percentages…but how do you reach those exact percentages in the first place? Why don’t you tell us what percentage you are sure about the Simpson case, and how you arrived at that exact percentage? ---
**Author:** ![Condescending\_Robot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a183cd/32.png) [@Condescending\_Robot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Condescending_Robot)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2012, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/o-j-simpson-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt/645185/87 "2012-12-27T15:52:41Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > Firstly, again, taking the 5th is not an admission of guilt. Mark Furhman wasn’t on trial. You seem to not understand this. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2012, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/o-j-simpson-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt/645185/88 "2012-12-27T15:57:02Z")
> [@pchaos](#): > > Not necessarily. “Beyond a reasonable doubt” is a vague standard for a logical mind. Why don’t we just say, if you are 80% sure. I may not have a logical mind, then, because I find “beyond a reasonable doubt” much easier to grasp and articulate than “80% certainty”. > [@Condescending Robot](#): > > Mark Furhman wasn’t on trial. You seem to not understand this. I don’t mean “guilt” in the legal sense, I mean Mark Fuhrman refusing to answer a question about planting evidence by taking the 5th does not mean, on its own, that Mark Fuhrman, in fact, planted evidence, and it should not be taken as such by a jury. ---
**Author:** ![phungi](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/phungi/32/395_2.png) [@phungi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/phungi)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2012, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/o-j-simpson-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt/645185/89 "2012-12-27T16:00:53Z")
> [@pchaos](#): > > In general, beyond a reasonable doubt requires that there’s a 95% probability that an individual is guilty of the alleged crime. 95% probability is required for _statistical significance_ in scientific research in order to reject the null hypothesis. It has nothing to do with jury decision-making or satisfying the “beyond a reasonable doubt” clause. ---
**Author:** ![DrFidelius](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drfidelius/32/3447_2.png) [@DrFidelius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrFidelius)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2012, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/o-j-simpson-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt/645185/90 "2012-12-27T16:05:34Z")
> [@pchaos](#): > > Not necessarily. “Beyond a reasonable doubt” is a vague standard for a logical mind. Why don’t we just say, if you are 80% sure. Juriprudence is much closer to anthropology or sociology than it is to physics. It is one of the soft sciences, and we have found that a hard, quantifiable or inflexible approach introduces its own set of miscarriages of justice. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2012, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/o-j-simpson-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt/645185/91 "2012-12-27T16:35:59Z")
> [@Condescending\_Robot](#): > > Take it out of the Simpson paradigm. If you’re a juror in a case with a black defendant, an investigator in the case gets called to the stand (by the prosecution, no less!) and is caught lying about being a committed racist, then, when asked if he planted evidence, says he refuses to answer the question, you would be either insane or a racist yourself if you vote to convict. Reasonable doubt? A mountain of it. This is where I disagree vehemently. Yes, Fuhrman is a racist douchbag cop who deserves a great deal of animus for the rest of his life. But he wasn’t the only witness in the case. You, and the jury, bought into the defense “argument” that because there was a bad cop investigating the case, you can ignore all the other evidence against Simpson, even the evidence that Fuhrman had absolutely nothing to do with. The jury took what? 3 and a half hours to go over months and months of evidence? No, they didn, and that is exactly what the defense wanted. They created a scapegoat, the jury bought it, and just ignored the evidence to acquit because they didn’t like Fuhrman, the prosecution team, and Ito. Throw out all of Fuhrman’s testimony as unreliable. Think every single word he said was perjury. And there is still a mountain of evidence proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, that OJ Simpson killed two people. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2012, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/o-j-simpson-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt/645185/92 "2012-12-27T17:05:05Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > This is where I disagree vehemently. Yes, Fuhrman is a racist douchbag cop who deserves a great deal of animus for the rest of his life. I’ll part with you here. Yes, Fuhrman used racial slurs. But there’s no evidence he engaged in racist acts while a detective for the LAPD. He worked to free Arrick Harris, a young black man accused of murder. According to Fuhrman’s then-partner, Ron Phillips: “Fuhrman worked extremely hard on the case to establish that Harris was not involved. I remember Mark telling me, ‘Ron, we’ve got to prove this guy didn’t do it before the prelim or he’s going to sit in jail for a murder he didn’t do’. He even got the DA to request a continuance of the prelim so he could have more time to work on the case.” Another former partner, the African-American Toish Ellerson, on her time with Fuhrman: “To be blunt, I never had any problems with him.” Another, the Hispanic Roberto Alaniz, whom Fuhrman requested as a partner: “The Mark Fuhrman I know is not that. He’s not a racist.” Another who worked with Fuhrman at the West LA Station, the African-American Ed Palmer: “I am as shocked as anybody. If Mark were a racist and especially as big a racist as he sounded on the tapes, I would have no trouble telling him he was the scum of the earth. But I really can’t.” One more: In 1985, Nicole Brown called 911. The officer dispatched found the windows of Brown’s Mercedes smashed, she sat on the hood, crying. Brown told the officer that her husband OJ had smashed the windows with a baseball bat. Simpson is at the scene. The officer does not arrest Simpson, he doesn’t even file a report. That officer was Mark Fuhrman. Just how much can he hate Simpson, or African-American men with white women, or successful African-Americans, if he passed up this chance to arrest one for a crime, or at least file a report? Victims and their family members in cases Fuhrman worked also deny any racial discrimination. I could go on, but I won’t unless you want more. I have no trouble believing that Fuhrman, after a lengthy career as a detective, prosecuting mainly African-American criminals, would grow to hate African-American criminals. That this hatred was transferred to African-Americans in general, and especially to cause a (factually impossible) attempt at a frame of an innocent man? This idea has never had any credibility. > [@Hamlet](#): > > The jury took what? 3 and a half hours to go over months and months of evidence? No, they didn, and that is exactly what the defense wanted. They created a scapegoat, the jury bought it, and just ignored the evidence to acquit because they didn’t like Fuhrman, the prosecution team, and Ito. > > Throw out all of Fuhrman’s testimony as unreliable. Think every single word he said was perjury. And there is still a mountain of evidence proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, that OJ Simpson killed two people. This, I endorse wholeheartedly. One of the many things the prosection did wrong was to not even address the defense’s main strategy, the idea of a frame. Darden, for instance had 170 pages of opening arguement and rebuttal. He devoted one sixth of one page to the idea of a police frame. What sort of inept buffoons don’t try to rebut the defense’s one and only strategy? I am not a lawyer and have never been part of a trial, but I honestly feel I could have gotten a conviction, purely through common sense. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2012, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/o-j-simpson-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt/645185/93 "2012-12-27T17:13:57Z")
I don’t buy the notion that the prosecution was incompetant. They may have looked incompetant. But a team that gets crushed in the Superbowl looks like a lousy team too. But you don’t get to the Superbowl by being a lousy team, and so too nothing in Clark or Darden’s prior work suggested that they were incompetant prior to the trial. What really happened IMO is primarily the following 2 things: 1. Almost no one in the world really follows procedure. I see that in my own professional field, and I see that in all other areas of life. There are all sorts of optimum rules and conditions that would always be followed if everyone always did everything by the book, and all these things have rational basis. But as a practical matter, with people being imperfect and the practical realities of life, a lot of these things tend to slide. As a practical matter, most of these are minor and of little practical consequence. What the Dream Team accomplished was that they were able to throw enormous resources at the case and identify every undotted i or uncrossed t, and bring experts in to testify about how this raised doubts as to the validity of the evidence. At the end of the day, the evidence was still overwhelming, but there was simply so much quibbling over various deficiencies and alleged deficiencies that it had the impact of making the overall evidence seem somehow suspect. And that tied into #2. 1. The Race Card. Very heavily emphasized at the trial, playing to the ethnic makeup of the jury. This was a big deal, partially because a lot of the jury emphathized with OJ, but also because this was a jury that was predisposed to buy into the notion of a vast conspiracy of racist cops and prosecutors out to frame and bring down a successful black man. So it’s not that the jury members thought “let’s just acquit this black guy”, but that the story spun by the defense was more believable to them than it would have been people from other backgrounds. The combination of these two factors was a toxic mix for the prosecution. Because once the jury had a way of dismissing the evidence, it was going to do it. All the defense needed to do was to give it some rationale, and they would buy it. And the various nitpicks at the evidence were enough for that. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2012, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/o-j-simpson-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt/645185/94 "2012-12-27T19:21:30Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > I don’t buy the notion that the prosecution was incompetant. They may have looked incompetant. But a team that gets crushed in the Superbowl looks like a lousy team too. But you don’t get to the Superbowl by being a lousy team, and so too nothing in Clark or Darden’s prior work suggested that they were incompetant prior to the trial. I shall try and prove their incompetence to you. Note that I do not claim that Clark and Darden are incompetent at law by their nature, which is why the phrase “perfect storm of imcompetence” is useful: the combination of defendant, facts, and prosecutors combined to product incompetence. To make this more difficult, I will use ONLY occasions on which Clark or Darden introduced evidence or made claims in such a way to undermine thier own case, rather than also noting the evidence they did not introduce at all, and the other forms of incompetence. - The prosecution alleged, in the criminal complaint and at trial, that Simpson had premeditated the murders well in advance. This claim could not be proven, and Simpson’s defence was easily able to poke holes in the idea (for instance, Simpson had been “happy and cordial” at a golf event four days before the murder). Why did they introduce it at all? They had nothing to gain, and stood to lose, by letting the defense poke holes in _any_ aspect of their case. - On direct examination of Lange and Vannatter, the prosecution established that they had interviewed Simpson, but did not introduce his tape-recorded interview or otherwise introduce the content of the interview. When the defense made reference to the interview, Clark and Darden would object, making it appear to the jury that the interview exonerated Simpson, when in fact it incriminated him. Clark actually argued against the admission of the interview in a sidebar when Cochran requested it, Ito ruled in Clark’s favor. - Requesting that Simpson try on the gloves. You could write a book on how stupid this was on so many levels. Again, a lot to lose, nothing to gain. Simpson’s glove size and Brown’s purchase of an identical pair of gloves in 1990 (one of 300 such pairs sold in the entire United States, 240 of which were sold in 1990) were documented. - Prosecution witnesses Denise Brown and Candace Garvey testified in direct examination that at the dance recital before the murders, Simpson was acting strangely, “simmering”, with a “spooky” look on his face. The defense simply played a video of the recital, in which Simpson can be seen laughing and in high spirits. The prosecution had this video as well! They seemingly did little to no witness preparation, nor did they correlate all the evidence at their disposal. - Clark decided to use coroner Dr. Irwin Golden for the autopsies, despite assistant DAs warning her of his reputation for sloppiness, his actual sloppiness indeed harmed the state’s credibility, leading them to instead call Golden’s superior, Dr. Sathyavageswaran, which again made it appear that the state had something to hide from the autopsy results. - A special prosecutor, Brian Kelberg, spend 8 days on his direct examination of Dr. S! He even asked the doctor to recreate the murders, down to the order of stab wounds, which the defense was able to poke holes in, because it can’t be done with any kind of accuracy. There was no need for this insane degree of detail: no upside, plenty of potential for harm. > [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > What the Dream Team accomplished was that they were able to throw enormous resources at the case and identify every undotted i or uncrossed t, and bring experts in to testify about how this raised doubts as to the validity of the evidence. At the end of the day, the evidence was still overwhelming, but there was simply so much quibbling over various deficiencies and alleged deficiencies that it had the impact of making the overall evidence seem somehow suspect. I can go on if you wish, but the broader point is this: the prosecution was incompetent, with the result that most of the quibbling by the defense that you speak of was only possible because of the prosecution’s ruinous errors. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2012, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/o-j-simpson-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt/645185/95 "2012-12-27T19:24:07Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > The Race Card. Very heavily emphasized at the trial, playing to the ethnic makeup of the jury. This was a big deal, partially because a lot of the jury emphathized with OJ, but also because this was a jury that was predisposed to buy into the notion of a vast conspiracy of racist cops and prosecutors out to frame and bring down a successful black man. > > So it’s not that the jury members thought “let’s just acquit this black guy”, but that the story spun by the defense was more believable to them than it would have been people from other backgrounds. This is accurate, though the composition of the jury again reflected incompetence by the prosection, by moving the case downtown, and then _trying_ to stack the jury with black females, when jury research offered to the prosecution showed that they were the _least_ favorable jurors for this case. ---
**Author:** ![brickbacon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/898d66/32.png) [@brickbacon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brickbacon)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2012, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/o-j-simpson-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt/645185/96 "2012-12-27T20:20:13Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > The case against Blake was weak. The acquittal was just. Really? The “I couldn’t have killed her because I left her to get MY gun” excuse was plausible in your mind? Not to mention, IIRC, that there was testimony he tried to have her killed before. > [@Human\_Action](#): > > R Kelly’s alleged victim did not wish to pursue charges and refused to testify. Because he paid her off. Either way, there was a tape of the incident in question. How much more proof could you have? > [@Human\_Action](#): > > The prosecutors had been informed by TWO sources of Fuhrman’s racial animus and use of racial epithets before the trial began. They chose to disbelieve the sources (Kathleen Bell and Andrea Terry), neither of whom had any motive to lie. > > The prosecutors were aware that in 1981 Fuhrman had revealed in interviews with a psychiatrist (pursuant to a stress-related disability pension claim) that he held minorities in contempt, and used racial slurs in the sessions. > > Instead of revealing this information through direct examination, the prosecution allowed the defense to reveal and trumpet it, while the prosecution issued denials, until tape recordings of Fuhrman were discovered. It would not have mattered. This is not a Law & Order episode where admitting your witness is unreliable and racist before the other side discovers it gains you any points. > [@Human\_Action](#): > > After this, the prosecution effectively dropped Fuhrman as a witness, making no effort to place his words in context, or defend his police work (which was easily defended, both in this case and throughout his career), while the defense made him the key to their insane conspiracy theories. It’s not easily defended. Why would anyone trust him or his colleagues wrt to his reputation? The problem is that people have a hard time compartmentalizing these things. Yes, it’s possible Furhman is a shitty human being, but a great detective, but it’s very hard to get people to buy that. Just as it’s hard to paint an NFL superstar and beloved actor as a murderer. > [@Human\_Action](#): > > And if Fuhrman takes the Fifth about planting evidence, all the prosecution needs to do is establish the timeline of events, which makes Fuhrman planting evidence effectively impossible. They did not do this. There is no timeline that makes planting evidence an impossibility. I am not saying he planted evidence, but the fact that he would not say under oath that he didn’t is highly problematic. > [@Human\_Action](#): > > The ineptitude of the prosecution can generally be divided into two parts: the evidence they did not introduce, and the evidence they used poorly. If you wish to break down what the prosecution did right or wrong, I’m willing, after a bit more research time. Honestly, I am not that invested in this at this point. I just think it’s very easy to blame the guy who fumbled the ball for losing the game even when there are other players who made winning more difficult. > [@Condescending\_Robot](#): > > They put Furhman on the stand, not the defense. It’s on the prosecution for calling the lying, racist cop. But in reality, they had to call him. And even if they hadn’t the defense would likely have called him anyway. ---
**Author:** ![Blaster\_Master](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/cab0a1/32.png) [@Blaster\_Master](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blaster_Master)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2012, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/o-j-simpson-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt/645185/97 "2012-12-27T21:23:29Z")
There shouldn’t be a quantifiable amount of reasonable doubt that applies to every case because what would constitute reasonable doubt can easily change from case to case. By that, I mean, the prosecution has the burden of eliminating all reasonable scenarios under which the accused may be not guilty. So, for the OJ case, if one thinks that he probably did it but it’s possible someone else did, then you only have probably not beyond a reasonable doubt. If they don’t need to show that it was part of some conspiracy by the trilateral commision, that’s not a reasonable doubt. Specifically to the OJ case, I think he probably did it, but with all of the incompetence, I wouldn’t have the level of confidence in the evidence I’d need to be sure beyond a reasonable doubt. So I think it’s appropriate that he was guilty with a preponderence of evidence but not beyond a reasonable doubt. Besides, even if we did go with a 95% figure, that’d mean we’d be wrong 5% of the time. You can never be 100% sure, even if you actually witnessed the crime yourself, there’s been plenty of studies showing the faults of eye-witness accounts. Personally, in a case like the double murder OJ case, I’d certainly want to be a bit more sure than 95% that he was guilty before putting him away for the rest of his life. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2012, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/o-j-simpson-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt/645185/98 "2012-12-27T22:20:56Z")
Guilty guilty guilty. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2012, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/o-j-simpson-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt/645185/99 "2012-12-27T22:23:50Z")
> [@brickbacon](#): > > Really? The “I couldn’t have killed her because I left her to get MY gun” excuse was plausible in your mind? Not to mention, IIRC, that there was testimony he tried to have her killed before. It’s not implausible on its face, no. The testimony you speak of, beside the fact that it’s not direct evidence that Blake killed her on the night in question, was not credible. One had a history of mental problems and contradicted himself repeatedly, the other was a lifelong criminal and drug addict. Point is, the state couldn’t come close to guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in the Blake case. > [@brickbacon](#): > > Because he paid her off. Either way, there was a tape of the incident in question. How much more proof could you have? Perhaps, perhaps not. My point is that it’s spurious to compare the chances for conviction of a double-murder and a consensual sex crime. For one thing, the victim of the latter crime might not see herself as a victim at all; a payoff is not needed for this to occur. > [@](#): > > It would not have mattered. This is not a Law & Order episode where admitting your witness is unreliable and racist before the other side discovers it gains you any points. Yes, it does. It’s a maxim amongst prosecutors to introduce negative information (which, by law, the defense also has) yourself so as to be able to frame and explain it. Don’t take my word for it, [here’s an excerpt](http://books.google.com/books?id=jBB8WHcI-M0C&pg=PA129&lpg=PA129&dq=prosecution+introduce+negative+first&source=bl&ots=NozySNVhXa&sig=8QkKuJIWvEhvw82lpArzFvFqQDc&hl=en#v=onepage&q=prosecution%20introduce%20negative%20first&f=false) (pages 128-129, if the link doesn’t work) from _The Art of Prosecution: Trial Advocacy Fundamentals from Case Preparation Through Summation_ by John Bugliosi (no relation, as far as I can tell): > [@The Art of Prosecution](#): > > To ignore negatives is to seek disaster because the defense attorney, whether skilled or unskilled, is not only going to bring them out, but make them the centerpiece of the case. And the effect of a negative will be magnified if first injected into a trial by a defense attorney. This is because of the psychological effect of hearing it first from the defense attorney, (just as it is advantageous to to be first heard during opening) who has total control over how the information is presented. In addition, the defense attorney will introduce the information in the manner that is most damaging your case (rather than the least damaging which would be the case if you introduced it). Finally, allowing the defense attorney to expose negative material will not only diminish the credibility of the witness, but your credibility as well (because not only can the defense attorney make full use of the negative material itself, but the attorney can also attack the reason you didn’t elicit it), which further compounds the problem. That is precisely why the prosecutor must be the one to inject all material weaknesses into the case. > [@brickbacon](#): > > It’s not easily defended. Why would anyone trust him or his colleagues wrt to his reputation? The problem is that people have a hard time compartmentalizing these things. Yes, it’s possible Furhman is a shitty human being, but a great detective, but it’s very hard to get people to buy that. Just as it’s hard to paint an NFL superstar and beloved actor as a murderer. Fair enough, but that distrust isn’t reasonable doubt by itself. > [@brickbacon](#): > > There is no timeline that makes planting evidence an impossibility. I am not saying he planted evidence, but the fact that he would not say under oath that he didn’t is highly problematic. He couldn’t have planted the only evidence needed: the glove, the shoe prints, and the blood, which Simpson admitted was his and from a cut on his finger. That’s an airtight case, right there, when coupled with Simpson’s flight and motive. > [@brickbacon](#): > > Honestly, I am not that invested in this at this point. I just think it’s very easy to blame the guy who fumbled the ball for losing the game even when there are other players who made winning more difficult. Your call. To keep with a sports metaphor, the prosecution went out and threw six interceptions. Was it still possible to win the game? Yes, but they put the “team” so far behind, it would have taken a miracle. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2012, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/o-j-simpson-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt/645185/100 "2012-12-27T22:29:20Z")
Or as the jury said in _The Producers_: "We find the defendant _incredibly_ guilty. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/o-j-simpson-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt/645185.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/o-j-simpson-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt/645185.md?page=6)