Do you not know how our judiciary system works? It’s an adversarial system. Your job as a defense lawyer is to defend your client, not make life easy for the prosecution. And certainly not to let evidence that one of the investigating officers is a racist bastard who admitted to tampering with evidence in the past. Because of the niggers.
Yeah, Cochran should have let that slide-- don’t wanna be a race baiter!
Contrast the reaction to a good lawyer’s death from a brain tumor to the not guilty verdict of Robert Blake in this thread. elequently summed up by you with the face:
Ohhh. Maybe I shouldn’t start this thread. Don’t wanna be accused of racebaiting!
It’s not a fight. It’s a heated discussion on racism today and how even people who think they don’t have a racist bone in their body have a skewered view of it.
The man used sleazy lawyer doubletalk to get a murdering bastard off. I have no beef with him for doing this, he was a sleazy lawyer, and a damn good one, that’s his job. What does this have to do with race again?
I think part of the reason people are more accepting of the Blake verdict than the OJ verdict is because of the victim. Bonnie Bakely was, by all accounts, a piece of work, a nasty two-bit grifter. Nichole and Ron, on the other hand were people who were entirely innocent. I’m not saying this as a justification for the different reactions, only as an explanation. If the victim was a heel, outrage we will not feel.
As far as Johnnie Cochran goes, sure he behaved as he should within the bounds of the system. AFAIK no one accused him of any ethical violations, or at least he wasn’t found to have committed any. I think the outrage is because OJ got away with murdering his wife and an innocent bystander in a particularly brutal fashion. Of course the jury came to their conclusion by ignoring a heap of DNA evidence, and Cochran motivated them to do this by playing the race card, giving the jury the chance to stick it to the man. The OJ verdict was a travesty, and anyone–prosecuters, the jury, the judge, the media (IMO), but especially the defense attorneys–anyone connected to it will carry a stink with them to their graves. In my opinion Barry Sheck (sp?) has as much to do with the aquittal as Cochran, with his obfuscation of the DNA evidence. He’s done a lot of good work since then with his innocence project, but he’ll always have the taint of helping get a brutal double murderer off.
Of course the real target of outrage should be OJ himself, a narcissistic brutal asshole.
I don’t know. I think it was just a conincidence that opinions on this trial seemed to be split cleanly among the US population based on race. Or even more likely, one monochromatic side came to its conclusion blindly based on their race, while the other monochromatic side came to its comclusion based on their characteristic objectivity, logical thinking, and intelligence.
If you didn’t realize it, I’m being sarcastic!
I’m with BigGirl on this. Sure, OJ got away with murder, but Cochran didn’t hide evidence or doing anything unethical. He did what he had to do to get his client acquitted. That’s what defense lawyers do!
If you want to blame someone for OJ’s acquittal, blame the inept prosecution who used tainted witnesses and who failed to convey the import of the DNA evidence to an non-scientist jury.
Me three. The prosecution made the most egregious mistake any novice lawyer could make: they asked a question they didn’t already know the answer to, i.e. “Here, OJ, try on the glove.” How stupid can you be?
When the OJ verdict was read, you didn’t see action shots of rooms full of whitey with tears in their eyes – looking like they just got stomach-punched – because they were so upset about Nicole, sleazy lawyer tactics, or a travesty of justice.
The black man killed a white woman. And the black man lawyer killed the white woman lawyer.
You think if Nicole Simpson was a two-bit grifter those reactions would have been any different? You think if she was, in fact, a two-bit grifter that the media would have trashed her as a two-bit grifter, or maybe portrayed her as a fighting-back victim of OJ’s violent tendencies.
If people think that anything other than the black-white aspect of this case was the reason for 99% of the white outrage, they’re foolin’ themselves.
Well pizzabrat, I believe OJ slaughtered his ex-wife and the guy standing next her in a fit of blind, jealous rage and that he got away with murder and I have a good bit o’ melanin in my skin.
Just like no one addressed you with the face’s point in the Blake trail thread, most people in this thread are skating the issue.
I think you are right Larry, in that the victim of the Blake murder is much less likeable. The killer is also white and played a cool character on TV. But the difference in people’s reaction to the actual trial is far, far different.
Blake’s trial: Well, we can’t go convicting a man with circumstancial evidence, can we? It’s a good thing that he had good lawyers-- they did an excellent job.
OJ’s trial: Cochran is a racebaiting bastard for bringing up the fact that Furhman has admitted to tampering with evidence to catch niggers. Why, how could he have bought such information to light? The sleazy lawyer and his sleazy tricks!
Why must only one group bear the blame? The prosecution, Ito, idiot jurors, the police, and the defense team all bear some blame for the travesty. Johnnie Cochran doesn’t get more likable just because Marcia Clark and Chris Darden were complete and utter idiots.
The question is why should you ‘dislike’ the defense lawyers? Because they won the case?
I can even see why you would dislike the prosecution. They did a terrible job. OJ was guilty and they let him get away. But is the defense supposed to be lax because everybody believes the defendant to be guilty? What kind of justice system would we have then?