[QUOTE=ambushed] Wrong again. It is you who owe me an apology for evading so many of my questions. You also owe me an apology for either not reading the intervening posts or outright ignoring them.
Please try again.
Please specify for me which of your “many” questions I have evaded and please apologize for:
telling me my logic is “deeply flawed” when I asserted that Fuhrman could have “planted the glove” while you repeated over and over that it was impssible for him to do so, only to then say in post #37 that it was possible;
telling me that there was no way for the jury to “legally” refuse to convict O.J. based on a specific piece of evidence only and then failing to address the fact that they can. perfectly legally as I pointed out, vote their conscience regardless of the evidence;
for telling me that you agree with Martin Hyde’s post that I must in fact be mistaken on the issue of exigent circumstances since the police had O.J.'s suicide note as a reason to enter, even though that note was not yet written;
for repeatedly saying that I was telling falsehoods and my arguments are completely worthless without ever addressing the substance.
As to your question what was the person Kato heard doing near the air conditioner if he was not “trying to hide evidence” I don’t know. First of all I don’t know if Kato heard anyone, just that he thought he did. Second Kato never said he heard someone hiding evidence. Third O.J may be a complete idiot and a sociopath and guilty of a double homicide but you are the first person in history to suggest that he hid one bloody glove, in plain sight, on his own property, after leaving the other at the scene of the crime. How extraordinarily ingenious of him. Any idea as to his motive?
And if Fuhrman did plant the glove as you now admit he could have, do you really think it is ok to plant it at O.J’s after taking it from the scene of the crime because it is real evidence?
[QUOTE=ambushed] Wrong again. It is you who owe me an apology for evading so many of my questions. You also owe me an apology for either not reading the intervening posts or outright ignoring them.
Please try again."
Please specify for me which of your “many” questions I have evaded and please apologize for:
telling me my logic is “deeply flawed” when I asserted that Fuhrman could have “planted the glove” while you repeated over and over that it was impssible for him to do so, only to then say in post #37 that it was possible;
telling me that there was no way for the jury to “legally” refuse to convict O.J. based on a specific piece of evidence only and then failing to address the fact that they can. perfectly legally as I pointed out, vote their conscience regardless of the evidence;
for telling me that you agree with Martin Hyde’s post that I must in fact be mistaken on the issue of exigent circumstances since the police had O.J.'s suicide note as a reason to enter, even though that note was not yet written;
for repeatedly saying that I was telling falsehoods and my arguments are completely worthless without ever addressing the substance.
As to your question what was the person Kato heard doing near the air conditioner if he was not “trying to hide evidence” I don’t know. First of all I don’t know if Kato heard anyone, just that he thought he did. Second Kato never said he heard someone hiding evidence. Third O.J may be a complete idiot and a sociopath and guilty of a double homicide but you are the first person in history to suggest that he hid one bloody glove, in plain sight, on his own property, after leaving the other at the scene of the crime. How extraordinarily ingenious of him. Any idea as to his motive?
And if Fuhrman did plant the glove as you now admit he could have, do you really think it is ok to plant it at O.J’s after taking it from the scene of the crime because it is “genuine evidence?”
[QUOTE=denquixote]
You have been wrong about so much this is like shooting fish in a barrel.
[/quote]
I see. So you haven’t made plenty of errors yourself, my fishy friend?
[QUOTE=denquixote]
I would assume you are able to show that Lance Ito instructed the jury not to consider Detective Fuhrman’s veracity when considering O.J.'s guilt. Please tell me where he said that. When you are unable to do so I will again accept your apology.
[/quote]
WTF? What, are you in some kind of time warp or something? Why the hell don’t you read my intervening posts? You’re way behind the curve. Please review my earlier post in which I clarified the issue thusly:
[/quote]
Thus, we see that it would indeed be contrary to law – a violation of the jury instructions – to decide the case on the grounds that Fuhrman was a racist, trivially perjurious cop. They only way they could have legally done so is if NO other evidence established O.J.'s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and that was most emphatically not the case.
[QUOTE=denquixote]
As to the wrong decision by Ito, it was clear from my post that i was referring to his decision to accept the detective’s testimony that it was exigent circumstances that caused them to enter O.J.'s grounds and not a search for the “suspect” or to find evidence.
[/quote]
I repeat: It was not “wrong” in the least tiny bit…
Since the burden of proof here belongs to you, you cite the case law that would deny the cops’ emergency exigent access under the circumstances in question. You cite the case law that would bar admittance of the evidence found during that emergency exigent search. Otherwise, we must conclude that Ito ruled correctly.
[QUOTE=denquixote]
The fact that Martin Hyde thinks I might have been referring to another decision because he has his facts wrong and has not seen fit to return and apologize should speak for itself.
[/quote]
Hey, insult Martin Hyde on your own time. Take it up with him, but be prepared to have your ass handed to you (very politely, of course).
[QUOTE=denquixote]
The fact that you think there was an urgent reason for the cops to enter does not mean that your urgent reason is what motivated them.
[/quote]
And it doesn’t mean it’s not, either, says the gander to the goose. Isn’t that your line?
[QUOTE=denquixote]
It is only their motivation which is relevant, not the motivation of the reasonable person.
[/quote]
First, I tend to doubt that, since the “reasonable person” standard seems tailor-made for this issue, but IANAL. But more importantly, it would be impossible to prove “motivation” one way or the other. It seems to me that there can be no other way for a judge to reach a decision on that except on whether or not a “reasonable person” would agree that exigent circumstances were present in that situation.
[QUOTE=denquixote]
As to whether the jury can legally refuse to convict (I believe the mistake in the original quote is mine, but we both know I meant refuse to convict and not convict) based on a particular element of the case, you are wrong.
[/quote]
No, you are wrong once again in that you continue to misrepresent my statements. I certainly wish you would stop that (and an apology would be nice, seeing as you’re so demanding of them from others). See above on this issue.
[QUOTE=denquixote]
There is a legitimate legal concept known as jury nullification, a concept about which a judge is usually not permitted to speak to the jury when giving his instructions and thus Ito did not so inform the jury in spite of the detailed instructions that he did give. Jury nullification allows the jury to vote its conscience regardless of facts, evidence or legal instructions. The concept dates to the 18th century and was first upheld in the “Zenger” case. This is the reason that the jury decision stands whether or not you find it logical and whether or not you approve of the concept.
[/quote]
This is not news to me, and in any case is utterly irrelevant here, since the jury did not “nullify”. Can we limit our discussion to the case at hand, please?
[QUOTE=denquixote]
I agree, if kato was telling the truth (an issue for the jury - his credibility) that the likelihood of Fuhrman finding the glove in just the right place argues against his having planted it. This does not mean he did not plant it or that a reasonable jury could not have believed the defense’s arguments. Let’s leave it at that.
[/QUOTE]
No. In some aspects of this debate, we have been discussing the nature or application of the law. In others, such as this one, we are talking about facts independent of legal interpretations or rules of evidence. Here, facts and logic rule. Here, Kato heard the thumping. Here, if Kato were inclined to lie about the thumping, he would have omitted this information or denied it at trial, since insisting upon this fact was directly contrary to his friend O.J.'s interests. In the world of fact and logic, Fuhrman could not possibly have manufactured or contrived the evidence on the bloody glove. In the world of fact and logic, Fuhrman could not possibly have known to “plant” it right where Kato heard the thumping long before Furhman or any other cop was on the scene. In the world of fact and logic, O.J. Simpson could not possibly have been factually innocent of this brutal double murder.
From the Boalt Hall (University of California) Journal of Criminal Law
Courts consider the level of intrusion itself when determining whether police action was reasonable.[28] This basic reasonableness standard governs warrantless entries made for community caretaking purposes, including intent to render emergency aid.[29] Probable cause and exigent circumstances analysis is not implicated when officers are not motivated by crime-solving intentions.[30] Thus, officer intent at the time of entry is a significant consideration when determining whether the community caretaking exception applies,[31] and courts require officers to act in good faith, meaning that the officer’s entry cannot be a pretext for the investigation of criminal activity.[32] Moreover, the officer’s actions must be objectively reasonable, meaning that he must have a reasonable belief, based on articulable facts, that a person is in need of immediate assistance or protection from harm.[33]
[28] See People v. Davis, 497 N.W.2d 910, 920–21 (Mich. 1993).
[29] See State v. Nemeth, 23 P.3d 936, 944 (N.M. App. 2001); see also Ortega v. State, 974 S.W.2d 361, 364 (Tex. App. 1998).
[30] Ray, 981 P.2d at 936-37.
[31] This differs from the entirely objective determinations of whether probable cause and exigent circumstances existed. Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 813 (1996) (“Subjective intentions play no role in ordinary, probable-cause Fourth Amendment analysis.”)
Black’s Law Dictionary definition of jury nullification: a jury’s “knowing and deliberate rejection of the evidence or refusal to apply the law either because the jury wants to send a message about some social issue that is larger than the case itself or because the result dictated by law is contrary to the jury’s sense of justice, morality, or fairness."
It has nothing to do with nullifying a verdict, it is perfectly legal and totally relevant if you think the jury was not acting on the evidence. I am not saying that jury nullification took place here, I believe the jury interpreted all of the evidence and came to a dubious but arguably correct conclusion. But they were nevertheless entitled to vote their conscience if they so chose. contrary to what you asserted when you said they could not “legally refuse to convict blah blah blah.”
When you say the jury did not “nullify” I assumed you said that because you did not know what the term meant. However if you have some personal knowledge regarding the deliberations please enlighten us (actually I am sure it is only me at this point.)
Anybody know if Nevada allows trial by just a judge, or panel of judges, instead of a jury? It would certainly seem Simpson would be better off facing people with training and inclination to focus just on the case in front of them, and with a need to appear to be doing so as well, than people who would feel an obligation to dispense justice to him in a broader sense.
No. 1: why did Judge Ito alow the trial to become the trial of Mark Furman? The whole thing should have been thrown out.
No.2: how did OJ clean up the mess from the murders, change his clothes, and dispose of the bloody clothes so quickly? I think he had an accomplice.
I’m glad OJ will finally face justice. A long jail sentence sounds about right.
there was a story circulating that kardashian tried to hire a hitman to kill nicole six months before the actual murder and that the la da’s office was preparing to prosecute him and o.j. for conspiracy to murder nicole but never did. whether there is any truth to this i have no idea.
[QUOTE=BobLibDem]
The evidence was overwhelming, but the prosecution still blew it big time. They should never have allowed the glove trying stunt. I don’t care how well a glove fits, if you try to slide it over a latex surgical glove it isn’t going to work. And how did thy miss the photos which later surfaced of OJ wearing those rare shoes? Maybe if those had been available earlier it would have made a difference.
[/QUOTE]
IRC, didn’t they order an identical pair of gloves from the same company? I could swear I read an interview with Marcia Clark where she said that Darden was too impatient to wait for the order to arrive, and wanted to have him try on the actual glove at a certain point in the testimony.
[QUOTE=denquixote]
Oh gee, I can’t think of one off the top of my head. Oh wait maybe a lying racist police officer planted it.
[/QUOTE]
Of course, if Furhman did plant the bloody glove he was the luckiest lying racist police office ever considering:
(1) he was the 14th officer on the scenes at Brown-Goldman murder site and was thus lucky that 13 other officers either all overlooked the glove and/or were all equally racist and happy to join Fuhrman in framing OJ;
(2) the glove was found at OJ’s before anyone had interviewed him, so Fuhrman was darned lucky OJ did not have an alibi;
(3) the glove was found before anyone interviewed Nicole Brown’s neighbors, so Fuhrman was lucky none of them witnessed the real killers arriving or leaving the scene.