OJ did it!

The BBQ Pit
101

It’s not, but it spices it up a bit for me on a topic that has been done to death. If you took serious offense, I do apologize. I’m sure other than your views on the Simpson case, you’re a wonderful guy.

Of course. And others would be wrong. The actual facts (that Simpson’s DNA was at the scene, that the EDTA was nothing, and that there was never a shred of evidence to support the idea that Fuhrman got the glove from the crime scene, and all the rest I’ve pointed out to you) don’t change though. And my opinion is supported by the evidence.

Color me surprised by this comment. :rolleyes:

I’m not sure how many times I have to say it before it sinks in. Three? Four? Should I put it in bold for you? Colored font? Italics?

There is more than enough blame to go around. The judge, the prosecutors, the cops, the defense counsel, AND the jury share the blame for a murderer being free.

102

Maybe the learned prosecutor can enlighten us as to what a jury is allowed to assume about a witness’s testimony that has been shown to be false in part?

CMC +fnord!

103

Actually I’m a cast iron son of a bitch. But hey, that’s just my good side! No offense taken.

I think I can live with this as a summation, Mr. Prosecutor.

104

Do you think if a person lies once, then everything that person says is a lie? Do you think that the minute a defendant or a witness shades the truth or makes a mistake, everything that person said is now to simply be disregarded? Is that reasonable to you?

The jury has a duty to look at all the evidence, and determine the credibility of the witnesses. When a witness lies, shades the truth, or makes a mistake, that credibility certainly takes a hit. But does that mean that the case is over and jury is done?

In the OJ case, not everything Fuhrman testified to was a lie. The jury shouldn’t have just dismissed all the evidence that Fuhrman had anything to do with, and instead look at all the evidence presented and make a determination of credibility based on that. Fuhrman had used the n word in the prior 10 years, does that mean that it wasn’t OJ’s blood at the crime scene? Fuhrman was a complete douchebag, does that mean the bloody footprint, the bloody glove, the blood on the vehicle, suddenly all disappear?

Look at the evidence. ALL the evidence. And consider how it all fits together, what you believe and what you don’t, and determine the facts. And for fucks sake take more than 3 hours to do it when the trial itself had 150 witnesses, took months, and involved DNA evidence.

105

Glad to hear it.

106

The tragedy of the (original) OJ trial was not guilt unpunished, but the development that even in the most expensive and widely-scrutinized trials, the truth (including the whole truth and devoid of anything but the truth) is a commodity sought and offered by no one. Hamlet’s apparent plerophory that a jury’s duty is to take the government’s case, reluctantly separate the stuff that’s biased or sloppy or mistaken or a big fat lie, assume that the rest is gospel and render a verdict based on that, does not take account of the simple fact that absolutely nobody, no matter how simple or sophisticated, does or should think this way. If the side assuming the entire burden of proof, the side with all the resources and the authority of the state behind it, lies, or presents testimony from easily-impeached witnesses without itself disclosing and explaining or ameliorating their flaws, or offers as proof physical evidence without being able to show impressive protection of its validity, or in any other way behaves as if the demonstrable, verifiable truth is not enough for its purposes, then that side should and I hope will lose every time. And so should hope everyone in favor of a law-and-order-based society. The most important job of criminal juries is to protect us from the excesses of government, not to protect government prosecutions from their own excesses.

107

I argued with Hamlet over this case in an old thread, and I’m surprised that he continues to dogmatically insist the jury was wrong–and somehow maliciously so–to find OJ not guilty.

Forget about the EDTA and the missing blood in the vial, the glove and all that mess. The prosecution’s case was blown when the lead detective was shown to be a perjurer and was caught on tape bragging about fabricating probable cause in prior cases with black suspects. That revelation combined with all the chain of custody questions and the other hinky goings-on with the evidence gave the defense the shadow of doubt needed to keep OJ out of jail.

Expecting someone to go sifting through a haystack of a doubt and suspicion for the one or two needles of bonafide evidence is unreasonable. Such an expectation ignores the basic understanding that juries should trust the prosecution enough to not have to worry about telling apart its possible facts from its possible fictions. That they didn’t have that luxury in the OJ trial means that it would have been a travesty if OJ was found guilty.

108

Whoa, wait-I don’t remember Fuhrman being caught on tape saying he had framed people in the past. Using racial slurs, yes. But out and out framing people? I’m going to have to ask for a cite on that one.

109

See here. The August 29 summary describes the infamous Furhman tapes.

excerpted from the cite:

In reading over the summary, it seems as if Ito ruled against allowing the jury to hear the bit about manufacturing probable cause, but he did allow them to hear them the nigger usage which showed him to be liar. Which doesn’t sound fair when I think about. To me, Furhman’s apparent history of bending the rules in order to lock people up is of more importance to credibility than him lying about calling people nigger. ::shrug::

110

I hear you there-but that doesn’t amount to framing someone exactly. And yes, Fuhrman is a douchebag of the highest order. But I still think O.J.'s a dumbass sociopath and guilty as sin.

111

Framing is your term. Fabricating probable cause is mine, and it’s what the guy admitted to doing.

112

Guinastaia this link (it was provided by davidw earlier) gives a fuller picture on Furhman.

This guy was/is more than a douchebag. If he’s not a murderer, he purposely gave the impression of being one. I wouldn’t trust him within 20 feet of any crime scene.

113

Two things. First, thanks for the word “plerophory”. It’s always nice to learn a new word, and so thanks for expanding my vocabulary. Second, would you be so kind as to not making strawmen out of my argument. I don’t like people having to resort to lying about my position.

I think, despite your misunderstanding of my position, get close to my point with this comment. The jury’s verdict in the Simpson murder trial had nothing to do with a determination, based on the evidence, of whether or not the burden of proof was met. It was a verdict about how much the jury disliked and distrusted, the LAPD and the prosecution. But, oddly enough, that ISN’T their duty. Their duty is to make a determination of guilt or innocence based on the evidence, not send a message that they don’t trust the cops.

114

Again, why is it necessary for so many of you to build these strawman? Is there no one here capable of debating what I actually say, so you have to create these lies? I’m not saying the jury was malicious in their verdict, they were simply unconcerned with a thorough review and determination based, on the evidence.

And, just like Soup, you seem to be getting close to what I am actually saying. I DO expect, and the jury swears to, look at ALL the evidence, not just decide that one cop was a liar about using the N word, so the defendant isn’t guilty. The trial is supposed to be about the evidence, and not about who’s witnesses are bigger douchbags.

That’s the thing about Fuhrman that the defense counsel were counting on. They gave the jury an asshole cop who handled only some of the evidence, and got the jury to use that doubt to dismiss ALL the evidence. The jury simply dismissed all the evidence at the scene of the murder, all the evidence that Fuhrman had nothing to do with (including other blood on the Bronco that Fuhrman never saw or seized), and all the scientific evidence, simply because they had Fuhrman to blame for everything. Despite the fact there was no evidence to support the conclusion that he actually did frame OJ.

115

Well, then, you with the face, I appear to be mistaken. HOWEVER, I still won’t buy that O.J. was framed (if that’s what YOU’RE saying-I know davidw was). The prosecution should never have put the fuck-up on the stand, and his ass should have been fired a long time ago.

On the other hand, looking at the rest of that website, it appears to be rather…odd.

116

One more attempt, without strawmen.

The jury did not “just decide that one cop was a liar… so the defendant isn’t guilty”. Let’s take this in baby steps.

One cop, who happened to be the lead cop, was caught in a lie. The lie was offered to cover up a truly ugly prejudice held by that cop. That lie alone called into question every other statement and every other action of that cop. How, really, could it be otherwise? One lie revealed does not then guarantee the veracity of all other statements. Exactly the opposite.

Offering up a demonstrated liar, as the prosecution did, especially a liar of such importance to the case at hand (although the revealed lie apparently was not) calls into question every other witness you bring forth. Their statements and testimony are not automatically rejected, but they are now suspect. Might they be liars too?

Revealing bungling on the part of some crime scene techs (How were the bloody socks filmed on the bedroom floor after they were collected, but were not visible in video made before they were collected? And a host of other bungles revealed.) calls into question the evidentiary value of everything processed by crime scene techs.

Having your world class experts disagree with their world class experts, day after painful boring day, for excruciating weeks, does not make a juror an expert in scientific evidence. If anything, it makes him suspicious of all experts and all supposed “scientific” evidence. If one side can hire experts to declare that the moon is green cheese, and the other side hires experts to say that the moon is in fact a figment of your imagination, you tend to tune out all the experts.

As Soup says, the jury could indeed examine ALL the evidence, decide that they were unable to winnow grain from chaff in most of it because of uncertainty about its veracity, and conclude that the prosecution had not met its burden. And that’s what they did.

117

About this statement - I don’t agree. I believe that most people lie from time to time. Granted, most won’t on the witness stand, but the lie was about his use of a racial slur that is generally accepted to be “unacceptable language”. Something that would be humiliating and problematic for his job. I don’t condone his lie, but I understand the impulse under teh circumstances.

118

Fuhrman showed himself to be more than a lying bigot. He showed the police had no problem fixing evidence in the past to get the verdict they wanted. The jury ,then is supposed to mentally cull all the tainted evidence from the fairly obtained. That is a pretty high bar when you are dealing with a guys freedom and life. I can not picture the jury saying"this is fairly gotten ,this is tainted, this may be ,this may not". Lets vote. If you think they are cheating ,you have to acquit.
I think OJ did it. But I am not sure I would have voted guilty were I on the jury.

119

Gonzo, I am not certain that the “fudging evidence” part was allowed by Judge Ito, so I restricted my comment to the lie itself. I think that is sufficient to taint all of his testimony and whatever evidence he developed.

I also think that it is reasonable to believe that others on the force, especially his partner, knew him to be a liar. Covering up for, or at least tacitly accepting, a liar and a bigot then taints the testimony of those who do so.

I agree with you on the jury’s probable evaluation. And I agree with their verdict. They carried out their duty, regardless of Hamlet’s objections. Our criminal justice system was best served by rejecting the liars and bunglers. “Better a thousand guilty men go free than a single innocent man be punished” is supposed to be the gold standard of our system. In this case, freeing a murderer was a better outcome – for all the rest of us – than corrupting the system by accepting taint and incompetence.

Wring, you don’t think that being caught in a lie should reasonably cause others to at least question the veracity of your other statements? Just because you understand his impulse to hide the fact that he is a racist bigot? We’re just gonna have to agree to disagree on that one, then.

120

Hamlet, if you could bench, for a bit, the accusations of lying, this might go more smoothly. Your repeated assertions that others are misrepresenting your position seem to be based mostly on a conviction that no one could both understand and honestly disagree with you, which is a tad overweening.

Take me, for example: I characterized your position as follows: “…a jury’s duty is to take the government’s case, reluctantly separate the stuff that’s biased or sloppy or mistaken or a big fat lie, assume that the rest is gospel and render a verdict based on that…”

Does this reflect your true position? Let’s go to that acknowledged expert on your positon, you:

(post #54)“The police and prosecution did a really poor job. Yet that doesn’t excuse a jury from simply dismissing the evidence…the jury is supposed to deliberate and actually look at the evidence rationally. Not simply say ‘Well, the prosecution was bad and that one cop is a racist, so that means OJ didn’t kill those people’. They are supposed to make their determination on the basis of the evidence.”

(post 65)“You take one item of evidence and, just like the defense counsel wanted you to, pretend that it disproves all the other evidence.”

(post 68)“I’ve repeatedly said the prosecutor’s fucked up and having OJ try on the glove was a huge one. But it did nothing to disprove the other evidence…”

(post 81)“I think the police certainly “helped” the evidence out a bit. Which is a chasm from that to the grand conspiracy that would have been necessary to fabricate ALL the evidence presented…”

(post 84)“Simple mistakes regarding the chain of evidence, or collection, do not call ALL the evidence into question.”

(post 104)“In the OJ case, not everything Fuhrman testified to was a lie. The jury shouldn’t have just dismissed all the evidence that Fuhrman had anything to do with…”

I think I’ve got a pretty firm grasp on your position, and there’s no need for straw men to make it look ridiculous. It’s exactly as I described it.

For all your expertise, you have or are pretending to have a concept of evidence that strikes me as nothing other than naive. Evidence is not a big box of shiny true things lowered from heaven into the courtroom to show us all The Way: it’s just a bunch of stuff each side gathered up, sorted out, labeled as an exhibit, and maybe (your word) “helped” a little in order to create a persuasive presentation. And evidence is a great thing to have. But evidence is not the same thing as proof. Proof is a description of the value of testimony and physical evidence and the interpretation thereof, and it includes an assessment of how much trust one puts in the people and institutions who gathered it, assessed it, maybe “helped” it, and offered it up at trial. The OJ jury wasn’t “sending a message” to anybody, they just caught one side being incompetent enough and dishonest enough to give zero credibility to its case. At that point, “But what about all the stuff that we didn’t lie about and/or screw up?” isn’t very persuasive.

You saw incontrovertible DNA proof of OJ’s guilt. You know what the jury saw? A smudge, a stain, some fuzz, a couple articles of clothing, and a lot of charts and graphs. It meant nothing without more human testimony presented by the good folks who brought us the Fuhrman show. And if the scientific specialists proved, under cross-examination, to be neither special nor scientific enough for the jury to spend a week on their testimony, too bad.

It is a legitimate reaction of a jury to distrust a prosecution after catching it in just one lie, one instance of misconduct with evidence, in short, one betrayal of its trust.