To hell with all of ya'll berating J. Cochran for doing his job and doing it well

[mhendo]

@margin

The OJ Simpson trial was never about race. It was about who got to beat and kill women—and uppity white women—and get away with it. Johnny Cochran made that possible, made it seem like rebellion. Murdering and beating women is SO rebellious and so against The Man.

Yeah, whatever. He got a wife-beater and murderer off and made it seem racial.

I actually tend to agree with you that gender politics was pretty important in the whole cultural debate over the OJ trial, and it’s a factor that, in cases like this, often gets pushed aside while everyone focuses on race.

@margin

Oj’s just another wife-murdering scumbag. Cochran’s just another wife beater’s lawyer. Conspiracy? Give me a fucking break. The prosecution wasn’t the best but Cochran played the stupid card in front of the jury and it worked. It was just like a replay of the Clarence Thomas hearing, where the guy whined that the woman or her defenders were lying.

When the OJ trial was on, i hadn’t yet moved to the US, and i never followed it closely enough to form a real opinion about whether or not he was guilty. But even if you’re right, the fact is that the defence lawyer has a job to do, whether he or she a high-priced mouthpiece like Cochran or an overworked public defender.

And again, i say to the people who blame the lawyers for playing to juries’ emotions: blame the juries for swallowing this crap. If they didn’t, lawyers might learn not to use it.

@margin

OJ wasn’t some revolutionary hero. He was a wife-beater. Cochran enabled him t get away with murder. Sorry, but killing somebody seems a lot worse than calling them names.

Sure it is. But all this criticism still rests on a fundamental misunderstanding of what the American system of justice is all about. In this adversarial system, lawyers aren’t supposed to try and weigh all the evidence and come to an impartial conclusion. They are meant to be advocates for their clients. The assumption is that, with strong advocates on both sides, the truth will out in the end. Challenge that assumption if you want, but i think it’s silly to blame lawyers for doing what the system and their professional integrity requires them to do.

As someone pointed out earlier, Cochran and defence lawyers like him also frequently ensure that innocent people stay out of prison. When they manage to get an innocent person acquitted, i don’t see any cries of outrage at the prosecutors for bringing the case.

[duffer]

I’m tempted to Pit Cockroach for dying on me. It is severely limiting my options.

If I ever, God forbid, decide to get coked up and slash the throats of my wife and a guy I think she’s sleeping with, I’ll need his help.

If I leave a bunch of blood in my car that can be identified with DNA tests, I’ll need his help in digging up past sins of the cops.

If the past sins can’t be found, I’ll need him to give press releases alluding to them to turn public opinion. Of course, I’m not a celebrity, so I’ll really need him at this point.

When I essentially kidnap my best friend and have him drive while I lay in the back seat with a disguise, gun, and thousands in cash, I’ll need him to explain why I was only upset over the death and worried the person was after me, too.

When I say I’ll spend every last dollar I have and spend the rest of my life looking for the real killer, then spend my time playing golf and conducting most interviews from a golf cart (OK, seriously, this would be me. Look at the Dopername), I expect you to keep quiet and not give a few seconds to defend me further.

/OJ
You knew I was innocent of killing two people in such a horrendous manner, but the lack of follow-up defense is probably because the check didn’t clear.
\OJ

And finally, bless you, we got to the jury selection. This is where you really shine.

My hope is you find a group of people that might idolize me, but may not have an, oh, extensive education.

Certainly not a group that would understand the extensive testimony and explanation of DNA evidence. That would be far too risky in my case. Go for emotion, not my innocence.

[Tenar]

@Trunk

I think this kind of stuff is bull crap.

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.

How thoughtful of you to know what other people are thinking and to let them in on it. My goodness! And here I thought that I and at least a significant percentage of the other white people who were stunned and horrified by the OJ verdict thought that we were devastated because a murderer got off. Imagine my gratitude in being made aware that I must, by definition, be a lying, racist bastard.

Just for the record – if racism is the reason for “99% of the white outrage,” what was responsible for 99% of the black outrage? Common sense? A desire for justice? A sick feeling in the stomach because a celebrity got away with slaughtering an innocent man and woman? Or are you going to tell me that there were no black people who were disgusted by the verdict? Or, conversely,are you going to tell me that there were no black people who were pleased by the verdict because of their own racism? I submit that there were plenty of both kind of people.

Get a fucking clue, Amazing Kreskin. You have no idea what 99% of ANYBODY thinks, so don’t you dare presume to tell me what I think. Oh, and incidentally – addressing white people as “whitey” is offensive. Or am I just being a racist bastard for pointing that out?

Also for the record – the OJ prosecution sucked. The Robert Blake prosecution sucked. As far as I am concerned, OJ and Blake can rot in hell together, singing “Ebony and Ivory” while teams of carefully race balanced demons drive firey, razor-blade encrusted 18 wheelers up their asses for all of eternity. Unfortunately, as a person who doesn’t believe in hell, I can perhaps be forgiven for wishing that the two of them had gotten their just desserts in this life.

[Scoundrel_Swanswater]

@duffer

I’m tempted to Pit Cockroach for dying on me. It is severely limiting my options.

If I ever, God forbid, decide to get coked up and slash the throats of my wife and a guy I think she’s sleeping with, I’ll need his help.

If I leave a bunch of blood in my car that can be identified with DNA tests, I’ll need his help in digging up past sins of the cops.

If the past sins can’t be found, I’ll need him to give press releases alluding to them to turn public opinion. Of course, I’m not a celebrity, so I’ll really need him at this point.

When I essentially kidnap my best friend and have him drive while I lay in the back seat with a disguise, gun, and thousands in cash, I’ll need him to explain why I was only upset over the death and worried the person was after me, too.

When I say I’ll spend every last dollar I have and spend the rest of my life looking for the real killer, then spend my time playing golf and conducting most interviews from a golf cart (OK, seriously, this would be me. Look at the Dopername), I expect you to keep quiet and not give a few seconds to defend me further.

/OJ
You knew I was innocent of killing two people in such a horrendous manner, but the lack of follow-up defense is probably because the check didn’t clear.
\OJ

And finally, bless you, we got to the jury selection. This is where you really shine.

My hope is you find a group of people that might idolize me, but may not have an, oh, extensive education.

Certainly not a group that would understand the extensive testimony and explanation of DNA evidence. That would be far too risky in my case. Go for emotion, not my innocence.

I agree with you 100%, Duffer.
This is basically what it boils down to for me.
I do see however how people can defend Cochran’s actions.
It is not his fault that you Murkin’s have a crooked, corrupt legal system.
The person with the best money can rent the best lawyer and get off in most cases.
There always is room for reasonable doubts.

[The_Hook]

Cochran was an admirable man who did his job and excelled on it. In a universally ethical perspective, it’s not for me to decide whether he rots in hell (like some of you peace-keeping folk have suggested… “cockroach”, yeah, nice one). Were his tactics reprehensible? No worse than what the money-driven media does on your television every day. His tactic consists of what every lawyer (defense/prosecutor) does: exploit the hell out of the evidence that supports your case.

And if Cochran is such a despicable human being, then so are all lawyers who defend those who break the law. What’s funny is that some of them work for the State and have no choice. But yeah, they will all ROT IN HELL!!!

@Hamlet

They did invent a conspiracy out of whole cloth. The only “evidence” they had was that Fuhrman lied under oath about using the n-word and that he bragged in an interview with a writer. The defense took those two things and created an entire conspiracy involving numerous other cops, a conspiracy that had absolutely no basis in actual evidence.

Well, if the wonderful TV movie starring Ving Rhames is to be believed, blood was found in an unlikely pattern for the scene of a crime such as this one, suggesting it was planted there. Also, some of the swaps showed signs of being tampered with and others were poorly handled, damaging their credibility. When you have that and a racist motherly funko such as Fuhrman speaking of such things and black people… and your defendant is black… well, put two and two together and you have a case. Don’t put two and two together and you have yourself a Marcia Clark.

[Biggirl]

@margin

“Whites: 3,234,023
Blacks: 1”
The OJ Simpson trial was never about race. It was about who got to beat and kill women—and uppity white women—and get away with it. Johnny Cochran made that possible, made it seem like rebellion. Murdering and beating women is SO rebellious and so against The Man.

Johnny Cochran had absolutely NOTHING to do with making it OK to beat and kill women, nor did he “let” OJ get away with anything. It’s pretty stupid to blame one defense lawyer for the ills of society and stupider still to suggest a defense attorney let his client get away with the crime he’s defending him against.

And duffer, don’t worry. Robert Blake’s lawyer is still available so you go right ahead with that coke fueled killing spree.

[Hamlet]

@you with the face

Are you sure about that? I’m not an expert on the OJ trial–being that I have a life and whatnot–but I seem to recall a little something about aEDTA-contaminated blood sample. While it doesn’t prove tampering, it puts more than a reasonable amount of doubt in a key piece of evidence.

I said I don’t want to rehash the evidence of the Simpson case, but, as with most thing people seem to “know” about the Simpson trial, this is a misinterpretation. From a brief summary in Esquire:

The defense had another trick to pull. It found an expert who claimed that a blood preservative, EDTA, was present in the gate blood-indicating that it came from a laboratory sample and had therefore been planted. But EDTA can occur for many reasons, and a forensic chemist, the FBI’s Roger Martz, was adamant that if there was any EDTA in the gate blood, it was in parts per million, more than a thou sand times less than the concentration present in lab-preserved blood.

and

But the jurors apparently did not ask those logical questions. In Madam Foreman (Dove Books), by Simpson jurors Armanda Cooley Carrie Bess, and Marsha Rubin-Jackson, Cooley says that several jurors questioned why 'EDTA was in the blood at the gate" but not in Fung’s other samples. And although the prosecution spent consider able time showing how and why the samples of the pathway blood had degraded because of the way Fung improperly stored them in a sweltering van, Cooley still writes, “It should have deteriorated along with the other samples.”

@you with the face

They didn’t have to create anything if Furhman practically handed it to them on a platter.

No. Fuhrman handed them a racist, lyijng cop. He didn’t hand them a conspiracy involving an entire police squad.

@youwiththe face

That combined with other evidence, such as the clumsy way evidence was handled (specimens left in a car overnight, WTF?) put the prosecution’s case in doubt, and rightfully so.

Did the police make mistakes? Yes. Did it amount to any reasonable doubt? No fucking way.

@youwiththeface

The hatred of the jury? So not only do you consider yourself an expert in the case–even though you don’t even seem to be aware that important evidence was shrouded in question–you now somehow know that the jury had “hatred”? Wow. This absolute certainty you exhibit is amazing.

Insinuations this stupid don’t even need a response.

@youwiththeface

Where do you get this from? How many of people does it take to plant a couple splatters of blood?

Read my above link. If you still don’t get it, read it again. If you still don’t get it, don’t look at me, because I’m not going to waste my time.

@youwiththeface

Right. They didn’t have any exhibits at all.

Outside of Fuhrman being a bad liar, what “evidence” of this elaborate conspiracy did they have? A solid cop telling the truth? One of the 20+ cops involved in the case not playing along? Admissions of Fund, VanAtter, the DNA experts? Anything other than pure speculation based on the fact that one of the cops hated black people?

Look, I went through this whole thing years ago, I’m not doing it all over again to convince people who have made up their mind already. So I won’t respond even to straighten out factual inaccuracies in posts, inane comments, or personal attacks So you’ll be just fine from here on out youwiththeface.

[margin]

@Biggirl

Johnny Cochran had absolutely NOTHING to do with making it OK to beat and kill women, nor did he “let” OJ get away with anything. It’s pretty stupid to blame one defense lawyer for the ills of society and stupider still to suggest a defense attorney let his client get away with the crime he’s defending him against.

And duffer, don’t worry. Robert Blake’s lawyer is still available so you go right ahead with that coke fueled killing spree.

Cochran turned a trial that should have been about a wife-beating scumbag into race. He used racism as a weapon to dismiss sexism. He contributed to the ills of society by doing that, and he deserves credit for it. He made it seem like beating and killing white women was some rebellious act against The Man. Granted, he’s not the one that came up with it—Eldredge Cleaver and LeRoy Jones deserve the credit for that one–but it’s disgusting.

[gum]

@Scoundrel Swanswater

I agree with you 100%, Duffer.
This is basically what it boils down to for me.
I do see however how people can defend Cochran’s actions.
It is not his fault that you Murkin’s have a crooked, corrupt legal system.
The person with the best money can rent the best lawyer and get off in most cases.
There always is room for reasonable doubts.

?

You changed your name, vinryk?

[Scoundrel_Swanswater]

Yes, I did.
I now have my porn-name as handle.

[TwistofFate]

Oh please. He may not be a convicted murderer, but he is a murderer

Correct me if I’m wrong on this Hamlet, but isn’t “murder” a legal term for the unlawful killing of someone?

Wether you agree with the verdict or not, OJ was found not guilty of murder, therefore cannot be a murderer.

[gum]

<hijack>

@Scoundrel Swanswater

Yes, I did.
I now have my porn-name as handle.

hehehehe. </hijack>

[Scoundrel_Swanswater]

@TwistofFate

Correct me if I’m wrong on this Hamlet, but isn’t “murder” a legal term for the unlawful killing of someone?

Wether you agree with the verdict or not, OJ was found not guilty of murder, therefore cannot be a murderer.

I always thought that murder was the layman’s word for somebody who…I don’t know… murdered somebody?

[Biggirl]

@margin

Cochran turned a trial that should have been about a wife-beating scumbag into race. He used racism as a weapon to dismiss sexism. He contributed to the ills of society by doing that, and he deserves credit for it. He made it seem like beating and killing white women was some rebellious act against The Man. Granted, he’s not the one that came up with it—Eldredge Cleaver and LeRoy Jones deserve the credit for that one–but it’s disgusting.

And you, being the arbiter of what trials are about, decided this? The trial was about what every single trial ever is about: the action or process of trying or putting to the proof-- that’s from Merriam-Webster.

The trial was not about your views on feminism and whether feminism is more important than racism. Johnny Cochran did not argue, at any time, that we should excuse violence against women because of racism. He argued, successfully, that OJ did not commit the crime at all.

That was his fucking job. He did it spectacularly well.

[you_with_the_face]

@Hamlet

I said I don’t want to rehash the evidence of the Simpson case, but, as with most thing people seem to “know” about the Simpson trial, this is a misinterpretation. From a brief summary in Esquire: and

Misinterpretation, now? What’s being misinterpreted? There was EDTA found in the analyzed blood sample at concentrations much higher than what is naturally found in the body. That doesn’t prove the sample was deliberately tampered with, but it does indicate that something violated the intergrity of the sample. There were other strange things going on with the placement and discovery of blood as well.

Can you explain to me why questions about this evidence are the product of misinterpretation? Links to Esquire op-eds don’t do much for me, sorry.

No. Fuhrman handed them a racist, lyijng cop.

…who was caught on tape stating that he has manufactured probable fucking cause for “niggers” he picks up off the street. If the only thing the defense had to hang on Fuhrman was that he was racist, then I agree that that isn’t enough to cast doubt on the investigation. But they had evidence that Fuhrman did a bit more than call black folks really really mean names.

He didn’t hand them a conspiracy involving an entire police squad. Did the police make mistakes? Yes. Did it amount to any reasonable doubt? No fucking way.

In your (perhaps uninformed, perhaps biased) opinion.

Insinuations this stupid don’t even need a response.

Then why did you respond to it? The world wants to know.

Outside of Fuhrman being a bad liar, what “evidence” of this elaborate conspiracy did they have? A solid cop telling the truth? One of the 20+ cops involved in the case not playing along? Admissions of Fund, VanAtter, the DNA experts? Anything other than pure speculation based on the fact that one of the cops hated black people?

If the only thing you think the defense proved was that Fuhrman was a racist, then maybe, just MAYBE, your grasp on the evidence of this case is not all of what you think it is.

Look, I went through this whole thing years ago, I’m not doing it all over again to convince people who have made up their mind already.

The irony of it all…its too much for me to handle. Jesus help me!

[Hamlet]

@you with the face

Misinterpretation, now? What’s being misinterpreted? There was EDTA found in the analyzed blood sample at concentrations much higher than what is naturally found in the body.

I know, I know, I said I wouldn’t respond, but when you continue to misstate the facts, while at the same time accusing me of the same, I get a little pissed.

As the FBI report shows, the forensics expert who testified for the defense stated that no EDTA was found in the samples from the sock or the rear gate.

@FBI

In his dictation, Martz reported that EDTA was present in the preserved blood samples taken from Nicole Brown Simpson and O.J. Simpson, but not in the bloodstain evidence from the rear gate and socks, in pertinent part, as follows:

EDTA, a blood preservative, was identified on stains prepared from the K67 and K68 blood samples from Nicole Simpson and Orenthal J. Simpson, respectively. No EDTA was identified in the blood stains removed from the Q204 swabbing of the rear gate at the crime scene and from the Q205/6 sock. Traces of EDTA were detected on the stained and unstained cutting from the victim’s dress.

Then, the called another expert, one with a history of mistakes, to refute their own expert. That guy testified that there may have been EDTA in the samples, but that he did not conduct the tests himself, he simply relied on Martz’s test. In response, Martz testified again, saying:

“It is not appropriate to identify EDTA based on the data I have provided for the sock and the gate,” he testified.

He went on to insist that his data couldn’t even support the theory that there was any EDTA at all in the evidence blood, let alone an amount greater than that naturally found in the body.

So, let’s recap. No EDTA. Even if, in theory, there was EDTA, it was at lower concentrations than regular blood. And you have the audicity to accuse me of misinterpreting the results. Some balls you got there.

@youwiththeface

Can you explain to me why questions about this evidence are the product of misinterpretation? Links to Esquire op-eds don’t do much for me, sorry.

Yeah, I was afraid of that. I figured referring you to the books which the article condenses would be too hard for you. You’d actually have to read the books. So I threw you a bone, something to make it easier for you to follow. But, if that’s not good enough, just read the books the Esquire article refers to.

It’s perfectly clear to me that you have nothing but more insults, unsubstantiated allegations, and idiotic comments about my integrity. Enjoy those.

[rjung]

I have no interest in rehasing the OJ trial, but I always got suspicious about the vial of Simpson’s blood that was supposed to be delivered across the street (from the LAPD to the lab or somesuch), and the person delivering it took 90 minutes to do so – including a round-trip to the murder scene…

[Rilchiam]

@Biggirl

The trial was not about your views on feminism and whether feminism is more important than racism. Johnny Cochran did not argue, at any time, that we should excuse violence against women because of racism. He argued, successfully, that OJ did not commit the crime at all.

Fair enough.

But, being outraged about spousal abuse is not feminism. It’s just being civilized.

[Contrapuntal]

@Biggirl

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.

Biggirl,
Why is it that ragging on Johnnie Cochrane is “racist”?
You have used the word “nigger” Is that hate speech? If I use the word “nigger,” is that hate speech?

[you_with_the_face]

@Hamlet

I know, I know, I said I wouldn’t respond, but when you continue to misstate the facts, while at the same time accusing me of the same, I get a little pissed.

When have I accused you of misstating facts?

So, let’s recap. No EDTA. Even if, in theory, there was EDTA, it was at lower concentrations than regular blood. And you have the audicity to accuse me of misinterpreting the results. Some balls you got there.

Calm the fuck down, dude. I never accused you of misinterpreting anything. I simply asked how the evidence introduced by the defense was the product of misinterpretation, because you state that as if it is proven fact. None of that is obvious to me from my vantage point as a living room spectator.

Yeah, I was afraid of that. I figured referring you to the books which the article condenses would be too hard for you.

Your snarkiness profoundly underwhelms me.

You’d actually have to read the books. So I threw you a bone, something to make it easier for you to follow. But, if that’s not good enough, just read the books the Esquire article refers to.

But why should I? Have I been the one who is proclaiming OJ’s guilt or innocence? Have I been the one judging the jury as incompetent idiotic racists? Have I levied accusations against Cochran for having the audacity to tear apart the prosecution’s evidence? Have I bust a gut with indignation because someone didn’t get convicted of murder? No. Why not? Because I don’t care about OJ!

I do, however, have a strong opinion about the way arrogant assholes have judged the jurors. I don’t need Esquire to tell me how to feel on that account.

It’s perfectly clear to me that you have nothing but more insults, unsubstantiated allegations, and idiotic comments about my integrity. Enjoy those.

And of course you’ll be showing all the readers where I’ve made any allegations about your integrity. Certainly the cites will be forthcoming. Most assuredly they will. But pardon me for not holding my breath.

I did notice, however, you didn’t mention anything about Fuhrman this go around. Hmmmm.