Full Case Discussion: If It Doesn't Fit, You Must Acquit

[elzin]

Huh?  This thread i the full case discussion. We know everything there is to know about Ron Goldman.  The miniseries isn't going to reveal anything that isn't already known.  There's nothing new shown in the first two episodes, other than the made-up scene with the Kardashian children chanting their name.

I know *we* know all about Ron, but I meant as viewers of the show, as people were saying how little Ron gets talked about. He has barely been mentioned in the show so far, but I think he'll be a bigger part in future episodes.

[BBDi]

I know *we* know all about Ron, but I meant as viewers of the show, as people were saying how little Ron gets talked about. He has barely been mentioned in the show so far, but I think he'll be a bigger part in future episodes.

I think so too. And if the writers are trying to tell a story about fame, Fred Goldman's campaign to

keep Ron from being overlooked would be part of that. My heart still breaks for Fred and Kim.

[psychoticstate]

What is the point of the Dr Lee article you quote. I assume that you are trying to make some point that cross-contamination has no impact on DNA identifications. I'm from CT and I remember that case dr Lee is referring to well. Wife went missing. Husband, with a history of domestic violence, suspected in killing her but no body found. State argued that he froze and chopped up his wife, ran her body thru a wood chipper and took the chopped up parts up and released the scattered chips over a lake. State has to first prove she's dead. Human remains was found on a wood chipper that the husband rented along with DNA from everything else in the forest and surrounding woods. Cross contamination was irrelevant here because small bits of her, identified with her DNA, should not be anywhere if she was still alive. The state was able to prove the poor lady was dead because the only way that bits of her tooth, hair and bone could be found was that she was dead.

In the OJ case, the state is trying to argue that OJ was present at the murder site because his DNA was found there and the victims DNA was found in OJs car and home. The state needs to prove that the only way that the DNA could have gotten there was if OJ was the killer. However, the defense was able to show that there was other ways the DNA could have gotten on there because sloppy police collection and handling could have caused blood to be commingled (like from evidence being put in the same bag, gloves not being changed in the lab when handling evidence, cops walking back and firth through crime scenes).

I think OJ did it but it really bothers me that the jury gets all the blame for the verdict. I think the blame should be first on lapd, second on prosecution, and third on jury. But I'll note that even with the slam dunk forensic evidence in the wood chipper case and white defendant, white victim and white-ish jury, the first trial was a mistrial. Took a second trial to convict. Jury's get it wrong sometimes but it doesn't mean they are racist.

 

If Simpson wasn't framed (which I clearly don't believe he was) how can the LAPD be responsible for the verdict?  Even if they did wrong by Rodney King, that was another case and the LAPD had nothing to do with the Simpson jury's verdict.  That's on the jury, period.  If they wanted to throw some payback on to the LAPD, that's on them.  And it's shameful really because Ron and Nicole had nothing to do with the King verdict.

 

Juries do get it wrong for a variety of reasons.  The Simpson criminal trial jury definitely got it wrong.  I blame them and I also blame the judge as well as the defense attorneys who turned the case into an issue on race rather than about what it really was - - that Simpson was a violent fuckwit who killed his ex-wife out of jealousy and rage and who exploded on Ron because he had the bad luck to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.  Let's also throw some blame on the media who also fed into the race issue.  And the prosecutors have some blame because they made mistakes. 

 

But I'm not going to blame the LAPD or any police department when there is no real, tangible evidence of wrongdoing in this case. 

[psychoticstate]

I respectfully disagree with this point, Yes, this case was about race but it was also about celebrity. I think the idea of OJ Simpson, the male equivalent to 'America's Sweetheart', murdering his wife--regardless of her race--would have been a big deal. Ironically I think OJ was more likely to have been convicted if he had killed a Black woman, and therefore we probably would not be talking about it so much 20+ years later.

I am not disagreeing with your other points, such as the fact that more attention is paid toward violence against White women, but this case is different in my opinion.

 

I agree.  This case was more about celebrity.  It was notorious due to the celebrity connection and the gruesomeness of the crimes.  Look at the Manson Family crimes - - all the victims were white, as were the killers.  They claimed it was about a race war, which is total b.s. but it's stayed in the public consciousness for more than 45 years due to the celebrity involved and the horrible nature of the crimes.

 

That said, if Simpson had killed his first wife or if Nicole had been black he may not have been able to play the race card in the same fashion.  However, I still think he would have been acquitted, if we still had the same judge and jury.  Neither wanted to convict.

[Inscrutable1]

You guys got me thinking about what I remember of the case. I remember a discussion of the black bag, but not in connection with Robert Kardashian but with OJ dumping it himself at the airport.

 

 

http://www.nytimes.com/1995/03/31/us/prosecutors-say-another-witness-saw-simpson-put-black-bag-on-airport-trash-can.html

[helenamonster]

According to IMDb, the actors portraying Fred and Kim Goldman will be appearing in 7 episodes each. Kim Goldman will be showing up in next week's episode, and Fred Goldman will be introduced in the episode after that. And then they'll both be in the rest of the episodes following the next two. Obviously it's hard to gauge how much attention will be paid to them but hopefully quite a bit.

[VanillaBeanne]

If Simpson wasn't framed (which I clearly don't believe he was) how can the LAPD be responsible for the verdict?  Even if they did wrong by Rodney King, that was another case and the LAPD had nothing to do with the Simpson jury's verdict.  That's on the jury, period.  If they wanted to throw some payback on to the LAPD, that's on them.  And it's shameful really because Ron and Nicole had nothing to do with the King verdict.

 

Juries do get it wrong for a variety of reasons.  The Simpson criminal trial jury definitely got it wrong.  I blame them and I also blame the judge as well as the defense attorneys who turned the case into an issue on race rather than about what it really was - - that Simpson was a violent fuckwit who killed his ex-wife out of jealousy and rage and who exploded on Ron because he had the bad luck to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.  Let's also throw some blame on the media who also fed into the race issue.  And the prosecutors have some blame because they made mistakes. 

 

But I'm not going to blame the LAPD or any police department when there is no real, tangible evidence of wrongdoing in this case.

I am not from LA so maybe that is not the case there, but isn't the forensic team part of the LAPD? I did not mention framing in my post. I specifically talked about evidence not being segregated when collected and processed and cops being allowed to walk through crime scenes and back and forth through different crime scenes. These are the mistakes that the LAPD made that allowed the defense to cast what should have been slam dunk evidence in a doubtful light.

[psychoticstate]

I am not from LA so maybe that is not the case there, but isn't the forensic team part of the LAPD? I did not mention framing in my post. I specifically talked about evidence not being segregated when collected and processed and cops being allowed to walk through crime scenes and back and forth through different crime scenes. These are the mistakes that the LAPD made that allowed the defense to cast what should have been slam dunk evidence in a doubtful light.

 

No crime scene is pristine.  This one was no exception.  And mistakes are made.  I'm not disagreeing with that.  However, any type of contamination - - which, again, is relatively normal at crime scenes due to nature, animals, people, etc. - - should make it LESS likely to match a suspect, not more so.   I think the crime scene techs and lab personnel did their jobs to their best ability in the situation they were in.  Did they make mistakes?  Sure.  But I don't think those relatively common mistakes were what cost the trial.

 

I don't think any mistakes or potential mistakes by the LAPD or personnel mattered much because of two things.  First, the jury did not understand the DNA and blood evidence, as was admitted after the verdict.  And second, they had no intention of finding Simpson guilty.

[VanillaBeanne]

Dr Lee disagreed. He testified that the mistakes made were not routine but that there was something seriously wrong with how evidence was collected and processed, making it unreliable. It will be interesting how this show handles that portion of the trial.

Let's agree to disagree about the jury. I think if the prosecution had a tighter case and cleaner evidence and no Furhman, most black jurors would have found OJ guilty. There were some OJ jurors who were indeed racist - the black power guy comes to mind. But there were 11 others. Two of them white.

That's my opinion and yours is clearly different.

Edited February 12, 2016 by VanillaBeanne

[hoosiermom]

Could someone PLEASE explain something to me? How do the lawyers who get murderers off like OJ and Casey Anthony live with themselves? Why aren't they treated with disgust by their fellow lawyers?

[Kel Varnsen]

I get it, everyone deserves a proper defense, otherwise the cops and the proscutors could just railroad whoever they want. They already have a huge advantage, what with the cops only investigating the suspects they like and people generally think if someone is arrested they probably did it. Personally if some goes on trial and is going to lose their freedom i want the proscutors to actually prove it, not just stand in front of the jury and say "c'mon you know he did it, case closed". And a defense lawyer is the one who forces them to not do that.

[Umbelina]

Well, obviously I've been reading quite a bit about this case, mostly from the trial transcripts and looking at evidence from both trials, but quite a bit from books written, interviews, hell, I even watched OJ talk for an hour about his innocence and give a tour of his house and that back area where Kato heard the bumps (it's in the OJ thread.)

 

I do think he was guilty of murder, but two things bother me, and one of them would have bothered me as a juror.

 

The socks. 

OJ was a major fussbudget.  Some of his fights with Nicole were about him liking everything pristine, in it's place, and he was majorly picky about his routine, and hated changes to that routine.  I don't believe a lot of what OJ says, but along with that police video showing NO socks where they say they found them, and before they were collecting evidence, presumably, the one place I did believe him was his vehemence that he would never change in that room, or leave socks on the floor.  Now the reason I believe that is from reading other (generally anti-OJ) stuff about his nearly OCD habits.  He puts socks in shoes or in the laundry basket and he changed only in the bathroom or his giant room-sized closet.  I think if he was concerned about ANY possible blood it would be even more likely for him to change clothes on a washable surface, not on deep carpeting.  Did the police department decide to bump up their evidence with that?  They leave a question in my mind.

 

Cross Contamination

The defense had a point there, and one I didn't fully understand during the trial, which I watched sporadically and in recaps at night, since I was working.  News shows always did several hours of recaps, and I think I taped a few days when something significant was about to happen, a certain witness, etc. 

 

Reading the transcripts though, the testimony of the police officers, etc?  I get that the LA police department was extremely short staffed for a city of that size, but Bundy WAS left unsecured and no inspectors, coroners, blood collectors, nothing was called in there until much later in the day, and after they'd left to go to Rockingham. The detectives in charge simply left regular cops there and went to Rockingham for several hours.  THEN, those same detectives, never wearing booties or gloves, traipsed right back through the Bundy crime scene, where they had already been BEFORE Rockingham (again, no booties or criminologists or others called in to collect evidence.)  So they are literally walking through blood, leaving on crime scene for another, and then BACK again.  You can see them on tapes at Bundy when they returned from Rockingham.

 

DID they cross contaminate?  Honestly, who knows, but it was damn sure possible, the cops wore no gloves or booties at either place.  In an ideal world, they would have sent someone else to Rockingham, had another detective team to call for that, and stayed put where the crimes actually happened.  THEN they had the same team collecting evidence at Rockingham go over and do it at Bundy.  I think that was standard procedure, again, a very short staffed operation in LA compared to other cities of that size, but just damn.  Ideally, one group would have stuck with Bundy (Detectives and crime collectors/investigators) and one group with it's own Detectives/collectors would have been at Rockingham once they realized that might also be involved.

 

The other problem I have is them releasing Rockingham so quickly back to OJ, and having his whole family allowed back in.  Hell, it can take me several hours to find out where I put my keys or hairbrush, how did they do a complete search there, a much bigger place, with huge grounds, that fast?  I always felt that should have been cordoned off for a few days at least while they combed through everything.

 

There is one more thing, not that I think it made a difference, but I don't believe that the detectives were simply notifying OJ.  Fuhrman told them about the domestic dispute, cops ALWAYS suspect family members first even without that, and it was OJ.  Let's tool on over to OJ's guy!  That was probably the normal detective thing of wanting to solve crimes, maybe some of it was being star struck and getting a change to meet OJ, but still.  They were in charge of that crime scene, and they ALL had to leave?  Do I think that was to plant evidence?  No.  I think it was for the two reasons above, but it was sloppy police work, and I do believe they already suspected OJ.

 

This is the 2nd floor diagram to show you the size of his closet and bath:

Edited February 12, 2016 by Umbelina

[hoosiermom]

Of course everyone deserves to be defended. I guess my point is, if they are innocent ,why the lies and deflections by their defense teams?

[Umbelina]

Also, why the hell didn't they at least secure OJ's luggage.  Hell, there it is, you've found blood at his house, you obviously suspect him, but no one bothers to take the luggage he left LA carrying?  Kardashian even offers it to the black and white's and no one's interested?  OJ toodles down to the airport to get the golf bag the next day?

 

I mean, seriously, the hell?

[helenamonster]

Could someone PLEASE explain something to me? How do the lawyers who get murderers off like OJ and Casey Anthony live with themselves? Why aren't they treated with disgust by their fellow lawyers?

 

Unfortunately, getting to pick and choose defending clients based on whether or not you think they're innocent or guilty is not how the American justice system works. If you go to law school and intend to practice, you have to acknowledge to yourself that your career is going to include taking sides in various legal disputes despite your own personal beliefs or feelings. Being a lawyer is just like a lot of other jobs: check your bias and personal experiences at the door if you want to do it right and be taken seriously. Idk if you've ever watched How to Get Away with Murder, but in the earlier episodes, one of the law students, Laurel, makes a point of wanting to become a lawyer so that she can be a champion for the underdog and protect the innocent. Pretty much every other character, including her fellow law students and her professor, makes fun of her for it, and she changes her tune pretty quickly once she realizes what's what.

 

The American justice system isn't really about justice when it comes down to it. It's about who can make the better, more logically sound argument. When it comes to criminal trials, the defense attorney(s) has the easier job, because the burden of proof falls at the feet of the prosecutor. The prosecutor has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime; the defense does not necessarily have to prove that their client didn't commit the crime, they just have to find a way to refute the prosecution's evidence or twist it in their favor. It's a flawed system, sure, but it's based on good intentions, which are to protect innocent people from being railroaded by their government. At the end of the day, I think I would rather have a hundred guilty people go free than have one innocent person convicted.

[Kel Varnsen]

Dr Lee disagreed. He testified that the mistakes made were not routine but that there was something seriously wrong with how evidence was collected and processed, making it unreliable. It will be interesting how this show handles that portion of the trial.

Let's agree to disagree about the jury. I think if the prosecution had a tighter case and cleaner evidence and no Furhman, most black jurors would have found OJ guilty. There were some OJ jurors who were indeed racist - the black power guy comes to mind. But there were 11 others. Two of them white.

That's my opinion and yours is clearly different.

Yea the more i read about the trial the more the aquital makes sense. I mean there was no witnesses, a racist detective, tonnes of issues with dna collection and the glove that didn't fit. Add to that the lack of credibility LAPD had and i think i might have trouble voting. I am curious to see what happens in the episode when the glove gets tried on. I mean what was the DA thinking letting him try the on without taking the stand?

Also what was the deal with the shoes? One of the few things i remember about the civil trial was that they proved the shoe prints matched shoes that OJ owned and only a relatively small number of people in the US actually owned those shoes in that size. Were they talked about at all in the criminal trial?

Edited February 13, 2016 by Kel Varnsen

[Umbelina]

See, the shoes, and OJ's lies about them, and the damn National Enquirer FINDING photos of them is another reason I would have voted to convict.

 

The socks though...I'm bothered by those damn socks.  Has anyone read a logical explanation about that police video with no socks, and then later they say that's where the socks were? 

 

Here's a pdf about the socks.  Not sure if it's biased or not, but the timeline is in there and sounds right.

http://documents.routledge-interactive.s3.amazonaws.com/9781455731381/student/Resources/O.J._Simpson_Sock_Evidence.pdf

Edited February 13, 2016 by Umbelina

[Kel Varnsen]

It's about who can make the better, more logically sound argument. When it comes to criminal trials, the defense attorney(s) has the easier job, because the burden of proof falls at the feet of the prosecutor. The prosecutor has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime; the defense does not necessarily have to prove that their client didn't commit the crime, they just have to find a way to refute the prosecution's evidence or twist it in their favor. It's a flawed system, sure, but it's based on good intentions, which are to protect innocent people from being railroaded by their government. At the end of the day, I think I would rather have a hundred guilty people go free than have one innocent person convicted.

In some respects the prosecution has it easier though. There used to be this show on FOX called Justice with Victor Garber as a top defence lawyer (think Shapiro). The show had a way better cast than it deserved, but the one thing I remember was in the pilot Garber's character talked about how the world needed defence lawyers because of the amount of advantage the prosecution has. He talked about what I said above about how people generally think that if you got arrested you are guilty, and how the prosecution basically has the power of their police force on your side (if you are the defendant it is hard to get the cops to investigate someone else, and it is not like you can apply for a search warrant). Plus at trial the DA gets to make opening arguments first and is the last person to speak to the jury in closing.

The socks though...I'm bothered by those damn socks. Has anyone read a logical explanation about that police video with no socks, and then later they say that's where the socks were?

That is pretty weird. Also with the socks if you read that frontline thing posted earlier which asks lawyers where the DA went wrong one of the lawyers they interviewed was Alan Dershowitz. I know he was on OJ's dream team but he mentioned that the blood samples from the socks had evidence of some sort chemical stabilizer on them that would be found in test tubes. Now again this guy was on OJs team so you know what side he is on, if they could get an expert to confirm that it's one more thing that would lead to reasonable doubt.

[Callaphera]

Also what was the deal with the shoes? One of the few things i remember about the civil trial was that they proved the shoe prints matched shoes that OJ owned and only a relatively small number of people in the US actually owned those shoes in that size. Were they talked about at all in the criminal trial?

 

See, the shoes, and OJ's lies about them, and the damn National Enquirer FINDING photos of them is another reason I would have voted to convict.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong but the pictures of O.J. wearing those particular shoes weren't discovered until the civil trial, after the criminal trial, right? I remember seeing parts of O.J.'s deposition in one of the documentaries where he claims he would never wear those Bruno Magli shoes, they were "ugly ass" shoes, and then lo and behold, pictures start showing up of him wearing them at different events. 

 

ETA: And apparently I never learned to read because the civil trial is mentioned in the first comment. I'll leave this as is to shame myself into better reading comprehension. 

Edited February 13, 2016 by Callaphera

[ennui]

Could someone PLEASE explain something to me? How do the lawyers who get murderers off like OJ and Casey Anthony live with themselves? Why aren't they treated with disgust by their fellow lawyers?

Your defense attorney will never ask you if you did it or not. Your defense attorney is there to ensure that you get a fair trial. The attorneys are not responsible for the jury decision.

And, since they didn’t ask, they don’t know if you really committed the crime.

 

Celebrity is definitely a huge factor in this case. The National Enquirer and Mike Walker are in upcoming episodes.  I find myself more inclined to watch, to see how this is portrayed.

In addition, the Enquirer once again has OJ headlines. They are indicating that Robert Kardashian gave a locked bag to Kris and asked her to hide it. In the event of RK’s death, Kris was supposed to give it to the Goldmans. The implication is that the locked bag contains the murder weapon, which would have changed the outcome of the case.

Naturally, no one knows what happened to this locked bag. Stolen seems to be the popular excuse.

Edited February 13, 2016 by ennui

[Umbelina]

Good point.  I thought they came out during the criminal trial though, but I think I was wrong.  I know they brought them up during the civil trial, and OJ basically admitted he'd worn shoes like that, and expert testimony proved the 30 photos were not altered, they even had the original film.

 

Googling is not helping as far as the DATE The National Enquirer actually published them though.  I'd love to know, anyone have better googling skills?

Edited February 13, 2016 by Umbelina

[VanillaBeanne]

i thought the natl enquirer pic came out at the criminal trial and the defense argued the photo was doctored. Then two photographers discovered 30 photos and negatives, I think, that were introduced in the civil trial. Plus a previously published bronco bill flyer with the photo that basically blew the doctored photo theory out of the water.

Taking a break from Google.

Edited February 13, 2016 by VanillaBeanne

[ennui]

The problem is that OJ may have owned similar shoes, but were they the same shoes that left prints at the crime scene?

[Dejana]

Your defense attorney will never ask you if you did it or not. Your defense attorney is there to ensure that you get a fair trial. The attorneys are not responsible for the jury decision.

And, since they didn’t ask, they don’t know if you really committed the crime.

 

Celebrity is definitely a huge factor in this case. The National Enquirer and Mike Walker are in upcoming episodes.  I find myself more inclined to watch, to see how this is portrayed.

In addition, the Enquirer once again has OJ headlines. They are indicating that Robert Kardashian gave a locked bag to Kris and asked her to hide it. In the event of RK’s death, Kris was supposed to give it to the Goldmans. The implication is that the locked bag contains the murder weapon, which would have changed the outcome of the case.

Naturally, no one knows what happened to this locked bag. Stolen seems to be the popular excuse.

 

The rumor about Robert Kardashian disposing of a bag for OJ goes back to the 1990s, but I wonder if the addition of Kris to the story now is The Enquirer engaging in a bit of real person fan fiction to give the story more contemporary appeal. With Robert dead, OJ in jail and the bag long gone, that's more or less that. With Kris allegedly holding onto key evidence in the case they can cook up headlines speculating where the bag could be hidden, or how she's a hypocrite making a big show of her friendship with Nicole while harboring supposed evidence of her murder. It's a story painting a Kardashian in a bad light, low-hanging fruit for a tabloid and plays right to the group willing to gleefully latch onto any negative headline about Kris & Co. as 100% truth, manna from heaven and a sign of their inevitable downfall. Color me a skeptic on this particular angle.

Edited February 13, 2016 by Dejana

[ennui]

Don't forget the persistent rumour that OJ is Khloe's father.

Edited February 13, 2016 by ennui

[FuriousStyles]

Could someone PLEASE explain something to me? How do the lawyers who get murderers off like OJ and Casey Anthony live with themselves? Why aren't they treated with disgust by their fellow lawyers?

I suspect the same way prosecutors who railroad defendants, withhold evidence (if not completely destroy it) and only think about their conviction rate live with themselves.  The subject of the Netflix documentary Making a Murderer (Steven Avery);  the Central Park 5; West Memphis 3; etc.   The justice system in this country is corrupt beyond what most people would even be able to comprehend.  I used to feel the same way about defense attorneys as you do, but honestly, with the way prosecutors and the police are allowed to do whatever the hell they want with impunity, I have no problem with a defense attorney doing whatever he or she can to defend their client.  I'd rather have an asshole like OJ go free, than to have innocent people sitting in prison for 10,15,20 years for crimes they didn't commit.

[suomi]

I've read parts of three books this week and now I can't remember which one reported this conversation:

 

Someone in the case was at LAX where they were recognized by a pair of skycaps. They talked about the case for a few minutes and the skycaps pointed out something about the availability of trash cans at the curb. "These big ones here?" "No, the small ones. They fill up quickly so they get emptied every 30 minutes."

 

re Kardashian with one of OJ's bags, IIRC, RK walked away from Rockingham the next morning with a suit bag slung over his shoulder.

 

Umbelina, I did read something about the video not showing the socks and I will go back and look for that. At least I know which three books it's in.

 

Some things which bear repeating: the drops of blood with the pigeon-toed trail of shoe prints on the sidewalk at Bundy were seen by the very first officer(s) who arrived, when Fuhrman was asleep, and when OJ was in Chicago. His blood had not been drawn yet, no one had the slightest clue yet that the prints were made by fairly rare shoes, or that OJ owned and wore the same style and size, and suggesting that the LAPD realized they needed to create a pigeon-toed trail of shoe prints is laughable. The drops of blood at the Bronco, the drops leading to the gate, the drops on the driveway, the drops on the front porch and inside the entry were seen by numerous individuals while OJ was in Chicago and before his blood was drawn. Fuhrman saw blood on the outside of the Bronco, using his flashlight. It was full dark so he couldn't see much detail inside the Bronco, and he looked only through the driver's window. About 90 minutes later Roberts saw the blood inside because he looked through the passenger window which gave him a fuller/better (although not closer) view of the driver's area, and because more light was available. Again, this was while OJ was still in Chicago and before his blood was drawn. Then, the rare shoe print in Nicole's blood where the driver rested his foot in the Bronco. And that's about 5% of the evidence.

 

 

[Umbelina]

suomi  The actual (no socks were there)  video is out there, I've seen it in a couple of places, I think the last place was in that OJ 90 minute film I posted in his thread. 

 

It's almost like they got over-zealous with the sock stuff, or maybe someone found them elsewhere and then dropped them in the middle of the room?  Either way, that part is fishy, the cross contamination is certainly possible since several people went back and forth from the locations, some never wearing gloves or booties.  The bloody shoe prints?  No way.  The film/photos of OJ wearing those shoes?  No chance.

 

Very true about the blood spots and glove found before OJ was even home, or had given blood. 

 

As I said, I still think he's guilty, but those socks are troubling on several levels.

Edited February 13, 2016 by Umbelina

[ennui]

re Kardashian with one of OJ's bags, IIRC, RK walked away from Rockingham the next morning with a suit bag slung over his shoulder.

 

The story I read today (Feb. 22 issue of the Nat’l Enquirer) said that the large Louis Vuitton garment bag was a decoy, and that there was a smaller, locked bag that Robert gave Kris for safekeeping.

It was mentioned in another topic here that the Robert Kardashian we are seeing portrayed is the cleaned up, legacy version that the Kardashians would like to show. There is a seedier Robert K. that we will not see, the man who might have done anything to help his friend. In a way, I think David Schwimmer is too likeable for the role. He looks naïve, and I never thought Robert was naïve.

[beavis93]

No. I was answering another poster's statement that OJ may have been the most famous retired African-American athlete at that time who crossed over into movies, commentating and commercials and that he had the highest profile.

 

Nobody said he had the "highest" profile, or was the _most_ famous or loved. But he certainly was extremely popular, highly recognizable, and appealed to every demographic. Everywhere he went, he was swamped with autograph requests, dads would point him out to their kids, and people who never watched an NFL game knew exactly who he was. For some reason you continue to deny this -- these are all quotes from you in this thread and the episode thread:

 

• He wasn't worshipped or universally beloved in my recollection.
• He played football in a small market city (Buffalo) on a bad team and he didn't excel. He was not an NFL star.  His football career peaked in college
• the notion that he was some universally beloved character in his retirement is just plain false. 
• What I meant is that he wasn't as universally beloved or adored as some have pointed out.
• never lived up to the level of promise he showed coming out of USC with the Heisman. 
• some people who were adults at the time are claiming that OJ was larger than life and universally beloved which is absolutely not the case. 
• Sure, he was known, but he wasn't universally adored
• I still contend that the recollection of the level of OJ Simpson's fame is subconsciously magnified

[suomi]

From Schiller's American Tragedy, about 3/4 into the kindle version, during the defense presentation:

 

Wasn't Fung looking for evidence such as bloody clothing? Weren't the socks in a suspicious place?

 

"And you were concerned, were you not," Scheck continued in a rising voice, "that they might have been worn by the assailant?"

 

Dennis Fung admitted that was a "possibility."

 

Then Scheck turned to the LAPD video that the DA had recently been ordered to turn over to the defense.

 

Did Fung know the camera had panned over the bedroom? Did he know the tape had a time stamp?

 

The witness knew. Did he know the video did not show the socks on the bedroom floor?

 

"I remember looking for the socks in the videotape," Fung answered gamely, "and they weren't there." He went on to argue that the socks wouldn't have been visible from that camera angle.

 

~ ~ ~

 

[This section starting a few pages later is a long one so I'm snipping for brevity]

 

On Wednesday, July 19, at the end of the day, the defense called another LAPD officer, Willie Ford, a black man who made the Rockingham video for the LAPD's Scientific Investigation Division.

 

The defense now wanted to prove to the jury that the socks in Simpson's bedroom, stained with Nicole's blood, could have been planted by the police.

 

Barry Scheck had noticed this official-looking guy carrying a video camera months ago on a news-video clip taken at Rockingham. They'd found no tape from him in the discovery pile. Prosecutors had explained to the court that Ford's tape wasn't included because he'd made a visual record of Simpson's property so no one could claim the LAPD stole or damaged anything during the search. The tape was "administrative," not "evidence."

 

[snip: defense speculation re prosecutors' motives]

 

"And when you got to his bedroom, did you see any socks on the floor at the foot of his bed?" Johnnie asked Ford.

 

"No," said the cameraman.

 

"If you had seen the socks there," Johnnie continued, "you would have shot them with the camera, wouldn't you?"

 

Ford said he would have.

 

The time stamp on the tape showed that Ford shot the bedroom scenes at 4:13pm on June 13, 1994. Dennis Fung and Andrea Mazzola's records said they'd collected the socks around 4:30.

 

[snip: background re the socks being suspicious, and how OJ was compulsively neat]

 

Weeks earlier, Carl Douglas and (private investigator for the defense) Pat McKenna had examined the video carefully. They saw the camera pan across parts of the rug at the foot of Simpson's bed. Did it take in the entire rug? They froze several frames. As if assembling a jigsaw puzzle, they matched sections of the woven pattern to see if Ford had really photographed the whole rug.

 

He hadn't. The camera angle missed the section of the rug where the socks were found and later photographed by the police.

 

As Johnnie ran the video in court, Carl Douglas wondered if Clark and Darden knew it didn't show the most important part of the rug. Johnnie didn't care; Ford hadn't seen any socks, period. He'd said so in an evidence hearing. He'd said so to Johnnie personally. Now he had testified to it. So it didn't matter if the video gave a partial picture of the rug - except that Marcia might make something big and nasty of it to soften the impact of Ford's testimony.

 

"Stop it there ... " Johnnie positioned the frame on the rug. "Any socks on that rug that day, Mr Ford?"

 

Ford said no.

 

"You didn't videotape any, and there were none there," Cochran added for emphasis. "Is that correct?"

 

A dramatic end to the day.

 

[snip: background re socks being seen/not being seen]

 

When Ford returned to the stand the next morning, Thursday, July 20, Cochran showed him the LAPD's official evidence photos with the socks lying on the rug.

 

"You never saw what is depicted in that photograph, right?" Johnnie asked.

 

Ford said no.

 

[snip: Cochran liked the jury liking this witness]

 

On cross-examination, Chris Darden repeatedly reminded Ford he was assigned to Rockingham "to show the way it looked after the search," implying that Ford made his video after Fung and Mazzola collected the socks. But Darden never asked whether Ford had videotaped the section of the rug where the socks would have been. Now that the position of the socks was known, Ford's answer would have been "No."

 

[snip: the defense hadn't prepared a next witness because they were working on the Fuhrman tapes. Ito demanded any witness, to make use of the jury's time. They called the detective who searched Simpson's laundry hamper]

 

Detective Bert Luper had pulled a glove like the one at the crime scene out of one of Simpson's drawers and left it on a table under a Tiffany lamp. The defense had seen it in Ford's video. Maybe the jury would assume the detective also dropped the socks on the rug. It was a stretch, but Johnnie needed to kill time.

 

What Cochran forgot was that Darden could turn this into something else: Luper had also found the socks.

 

"Did you see those socks before Mr Ford arrived?" Chris Darden asked.

 

"Yes, sir."

 

"Do you recall what time of the day it was that you first saw those socks?"

 

"It was between twelve-thirty and twelve-forty that afternoon."

 

If Luper was to be believed, the socks were on the rug nearly four hours before Willie Ford made his video. Now it was Luper's word against Ford's. The defense hadn't thought this witness through, and they were paying for it. Darden scored.

 

[suomi]

It was mentioned in another topic here that the Robert Kardashian we are seeing portrayed is the cleaned up, legacy version that the Kardashians would like to show. There is a seedier Robert K. that we will not see, the man who might have done anything to help his friend. In a way, I think David Schwimmer is too likeable for the role. He looks naïve, and I never thought Robert was naïve.

 

I agree, a much seedier aspect. We are privy to RK's increasing doubts and misgivings throughout Schiller's book. The more I read about those the more I wondered how the fuck this guy managed to stand by someone he came to realize was a murderer. I mean, I dumped a friend who balled her husband's brother and passed the baby off as her husband's. Because I thought it was vulgar and common behavior and who needs friends like that? I don't. I think whitewashing RK's reputation was the price he charged for sharing all that inside-the-defense-team information.

[VanillaBeanne]

See, I think the socks are case in point that the LAPD mistakes opened the door for the defense to raise reasonable doubt. The video time stamp seems to indicate that the socks were not visible on the rug at 4:15. Fung notes in his record they were found at 4:30. Now, instead of having a clean record about the socks, you now have a time discrepancy that the prosecution has to explain away.

The prosecution now has to show that the police never adjusted the video recorder for daylight saving time (okay, fine but it was June, again sloppy). They also have to come up with a demo to show that the video did not capture all the angles of the rug, and they now have to explain why one member of the LAPD did not see socks but another member did. If this was the only mistake by the LAPD, then you can easily dismiss it as harmless error, but it wasn't even the only mistake made with respect to the socks. The LAPD examined the sock four times before they noticed blood on it, two months later.

Add to this the defense expert testimony that there should have not been wet blood transfers to the other side of the sock if OJ was wearing them, and you have, again, another example of what should be slam dunk evidence looking reasonably suspect.

I do place primary blame for the verdict on the LAPD and not the jury, but I am glad that the LAPD took serious steps to address their procedures afterwards. The linked article is from a website for law enforcement professionals:

https://www.policeone.com/investigations/articles/7267753-OJ-Simpson-case-taught-police-what-not-to-do-at-a-crime-scene/

Edited February 13, 2016 by VanillaBeanne

[elzin]

I agree, a much seedier aspect. We are privy to RK's increasing doubts and misgivings throughout Schiller's book. The more I read about those the more I wondered how the fuck this guy managed to stand by someone he came to realize was a murderer. I mean, I dumped a friend who balled her husband's brother and passed the baby off as her husband's. Because I thought it was vulgar and common behavior and who needs friends like that? I don't. I think whitewashing RK's reputation was the price he charged for sharing all that inside-the-defense-team information.

I've always thought that the portrayal we're getting (so far) of RK was what it was like. I think he truly believed OJ innocent at first. Maybe RK did some sketchy things. Maybe more than sketchy and just plain illegal.  But I think he was trying to keep his innocent friend from being railroaded.  It was naive, it was hero worship, it was blind loyalty. And then as evidence mounted and OJ's behavior did not reflect that of a not-guilty person, much less an innocent person, he was in too deep and couldn't get out.  In the beginning he was just OJ's friend, but later he was officially representing him. To leave a client mid-case just because you learn he's guilty is not something you can do. He can't come forward without getting himself into a lot of trouble if he did help OJ dispose of evidence prior to renewing his license. And even if he said "ok, I'll get in trouble for accessory after the fact but I'm doing it anyway," who would have believed him? Ito might have ruled any testimony he had as inadmissable and he would have come forward for nothing.

 

It doesn't make his actions ok (assuming this interpretation is correct), but it makes it understandable to me. He fucked up and couldn't fix it. He didn't seem to be in it for glory or fame like Bailey and Cochran, so that automatically makes him more likable to me. Watching RK at the time was seeing someone become disillusioned and heartbroken. He knew he was being used and he was stuck. It doesn't excuse his actions, but I don't think he was a happy participant.

[toodywoody]

And there was a shoe print in blood in the Bronco. Now if there was a frame up, how did detectives go find this one shoe that hardly anyone had ever heard of before much less know where to find, go buy it and have it match the crime lab.

[xyzzy]

Could someone PLEASE explain something to me? How do the lawyers who get murderers off like OJ and Casey Anthony live with themselves? Why aren't they treated with disgust by their fellow lawyers?

I'm no lawyer, but as an American citizen I want good defense lawyers to keep the police and prosecutors on their toes. I don't know for sure that the police took, ahem, shortcuts with the OJ Simpson case, but if they did they got the verdict they deserved. (And, slightly off-topic, imho the Casey Anthony prosecutors overcharged based on the actual evidence they had.) I would have no problem sleeping at night if I were a defense attorney who truly believed that the police/DA's office were being unfair to my client to the point of behaving illegally or were failing to meet the burden of proof.

[Umbelina]

You guys have stated very well why Kardashian is front and center in the TV show, and also his recent ex, and the children that connect them.

 

Thanks suomi, imagine hearing all that as a juror.  You lost me, even when I read it over again, maybe because I haven't finished my first cup of coffee.

[Mittengirl]

I have a vague memory that during one of the big cases back then, OJ or the first Menendez case maybe, that the jurors could not take notes during testimony. Does anyone else remember that?

Edited February 13, 2016 by Mittengirl

[Umbelina]

I've been on a couple of juries, once as foreperson, and I always took notes.  That would be weird, you can't possibly remember all of your impressions of witnesses and evidence without notes.  One of my trials was 3 months long, and these murder trials are even longer.

 

You can request evidence and transcripts in the jury room, but that's not the same as specifically remembering how every witness reacts to a question.

[GHScorpiosRule]

I've been on a couple of juries, once as foreperson, and I always took notes.  That would be weird, you can't possibly remember all of your impressions of witnesses and evidence without notes.  One of my trials was 3 months long, and these murder trials are even longer.

 

You can request evidence and transcripts in the jury room, but that's not the same as specifically remembering how every witness reacts to a question.

 

Yup. The one and only time I sat on a jury (got 'recused' on the last time I appeared because I'm now a paralegal (no one will convince me that wasn't the reason I was dismissed!) and the first and only time I was "just an admin assistant in a bank") and they have us legal pads to write notes.  And this was only a five day criminal/drug trial.

[Umbelina]

I loved being foreperson, because at the time, I was a smoker.  We had a hung jury, it was a nightmare, divided mostly on racial lines and it got LOUD.  The bailiff liked me and would pull me out of there so I could smoke in the hall. 

 

I happened to agree with the African American side of the jury, but oddly, for completely different reasons.  They wanted the bank to lose, and to reward the couple a huge settlement, since they were a bank and banks are bad.  I wanted the bank to lose as well, but wanted to award the couple $1, since it was obvious there was fraud and liars on all sides of this mess.  No one was innocent in that one.

 

Later after the judge finally quit sending us back to come up with a verdict (4 days deliberating, 1 week trying to get a consensus on verdict) I asked to speak to the judge.  I felt so much better after that, because she not only agreed with me, but also said she TOLD them not to bring this mess of a case (both sides) into a courtroom.  Then she told me since we were a hung jury, they were going to go to trial AGAIN.

 

I spoke to both sets of lawyers after the trial, they were all shocked I was chosen foreperson (cute little blond, one of the youngest on the jury) and both really shocked I thought both cases were full of shit.  That was interesting.

 

The most important thing I learned?  Even lawyers will lie under oath.  That just shocked me.  Perjury is a much bigger deal to me than it was to them.

 

That said, I can't imagine not taking notes, though many on my jury did not, some actually slept through most of it.  I remember in my notes quite specifically writing "lying." next to many witness names, most of those?  Lawyers. 

 

Sorry, to get more on topic, I wish we'd seen the jury during the trial, I know why we didn't, and we did get descriptions of their reactions, so I'm hoping this show will give us some glimpses of those.

[RedheadZombie]

Part of the reason people were engrossed in it was because it was on tv all the time. The trial was on during the day and programming was interrupted to show the bronco chase which in DC was during the evening. I didn't really want to watch it all the time, it's what was on. If you didn't have cable, you had no choice if the tv on. I remember getting tired of all the coverage.

Not just TV. I was a new nurse in the Chicago suburbs, working the PM shift. I would wake up early to watch the coverage, then listen to it on the radio on he way to work. Sometimes I could barely make myself leave the car and go into work. I remember being pissed that I had sacrificed sleep while they dragged out reading the verdict. The civil trial didn't have cameras in the courtroom, of course, but I remember the group of surgeons and nurses gathered for the verdict.

[GHScorpiosRule]

Hah! Umbelina, didn't where you sat, an obvious clue that you were foreperson? Or did you set somewhere in the middle/back/other end, furtherest from the judge? Or is that not the way a foreperson was chosen where you were?

 

I will say that I wasn't the foreperson on my jury, but I was, initially, the only holdout for a guilty verdict. Because I wasn't going to let the others bully me into saying guilty, because a good four or five jurors had already decided he was guilty, and wanted out, because they had "vacation plans" and didn't want to be on the jury. Which pissed me off, because the judge asked if there was any reason why they couldn't serve, and vacation was provided as a reason, and these assholes didn't speak up.

 

Don't get me wrong: the guy was guilty. But the state hadn't proven it yet (FIRST DAY! or even the second day) and so we did a poll, and I wrote in all caps, that I wasn't going to be bullied into making my decision. Then we did another vote, and two others agreed with me. So we all, even the assholes had to wait until both sides presented their cases and summations to make a decision.

 

Thing is, just like on Law & Order, the judge said we could believe any or all witnesses or not believe them, but to look at the evidence. One reason one juror wanted to vote not guilty was not because she believed it, but because the State's attorney wasn't "passionate" enough in his opening argument or combative in his questioning. And the public defender was. She was very passionate. She was very good. But the SA did save his passion for his closing and I wanted to rub that in asshole juror's face.

 

I spoke with both the SA and public defender (who was very disappointed in the guilty verdict), and the judge. All very nice people.  And I didn't feel so disappointed that the head SA, who I had scene argue a murder case years before when I was interning at a radio station and covered the trial, wasn't prosecuting this trial.

 

But to get back to OJ. Even I was a moron about DNA evidence and would have been confused. BUT, even I would have paid attention and have reasonable doubt when told that that Ron's blood and Nicole's blood was found in the Bronco.

 

Just saying. And this is coming from someone who couldn't believe OJ was guilty, until the Bronco chase. Just...no way would an innocent man have fled and said all those things that just sounded...manipulative, and narcissistic.  To me.

[FuriousStyles]

I have long had the thought that however it needs to be done (if at all possible) the whole "jury" process needs to be overhauled.  Most people don't want to be on a jury anyway, especially one that requires sequestration.   And outside of that, it doesn't make sense to me that every other person involved in a trial (judge, prosecutor, defense attorney) MUST have gone to school at some point to obtain a law degree, and I believe in murder trials the attorneys have to have a certain amount of years of experience, and yet when it comes to the most important part (IMO) of determining someone's guilt or innocence, they leave it to people who have no legal experience.  

[GHScorpiosRule]

I have long had the thought that however it needs to be done (if at all possible) the whole "jury" process needs to be overhauled.  Most people don't want to be on a jury anyway, especially one that requires sequestration.   And outside of that, it doesn't make sense to me that every other person involved in a trial (judge, prosecutor, defense attorney) MUST have gone to school at some point to obtain a law degree, and I believe in murder trials the attorneys have to have a certain amount of years of experience, and yet when it comes to the most important part (IMO) of determining someone's guilt or innocence, they leave it to people who have no legal experience.  

 

While I do agree that the jury process needs to be overhauled, I don't agree that only those with legal experience should be able to determine/make verdicts.

 

I had no legal experience when I was on a jury, and I had no problem understanding and knowing how to do my job. Then again, Criminal Justice was my minor in college, so I did know how the law works. Or is supposed to work and was familiar with a lot of the language.  And there is always the option for jurors to ask questions of things that they don't understand. At least, the case/jury I sat on did.  But, if we didn't know what x drug was, or chemical y was, and how it worked or didn't work or what effect it had, that wasn't important. What we needed to look at, was whether the State was able to prove the defendant had it and distributed it/was in his possession, because it was illegal.  And we were forbidden to look it up or research anything that was revealed in court.

[elzin]

I've been on two criminal juries. We were not allowed to take notes at all in either (whereas they were allowed to in the OJ criminal case. Not sure about civil). We followed the rules very strictly. There was no discussion of the case ahead of deliberation and none while all jurors weren't in the room (bathroom, smoke breaks).  In one, the foreperson was selected at random. In both, the alternates were selected at random after closing arguments. In the one where the foreperson wasn't random? The judge chose her and turns out she was an attorney.  Civil, but still a practicing attorney. 

 

It's so hard to relate to the OJ jurors because it was so different from my experience. Short trials, no sequestration, no attention, no dead victims. I think the jury system is mostly ok, but it doesn't work for lengthy trials. What needs to be fixed for smaller trials is that you don't really get any say in where or when you can go. It'd better if you could say "These days work, those don't" or "this time of year". It wouldn't help everyone, but since most people show up for jury duty and go home that same day without being selected, there'd be less avoiding it if were workable. I have several courts within five miles of me and yet I had to go to one 20 miles away, practically in another state. In the summer my schedule is a lot easier, while trying to get to trial during the school year was a mess. I didn't want to shirk my duty, but having it SLIGHTLY more convenient would have been welcome. Plus I was very lucky in that my employers paid me both times. In some places it's the law, but not all. I met a lot of people who weren't getting paid and shady employers who were still expecting these people to complete their shifts (which is illegal everywhere, I believe) after. I have a car so I could get to the really far courthouse, but I know lots of people who don't drive and the attitude in the court system is "tough shit. Take the bus."  And maybe that's fair up to a certain mileage. One of my kid's friend's mother doesn't drive and has a small child to get to and from school every day. Taking the bus two hours each way when she could walk to a local courthouse is a burden.

 

Did the OJ jurors keep their jobs? I know the Simpsons and Browns showed up every day. How did they work and still be in court all the time?

[BooBear]

Yup. The one and only time I sat on a jury (got 'recused' on the last time I appeared because I'm now a paralegal (no one will convince me that wasn't the reason I was dismissed!) and the first and only time I was "just an admin assistant in a bank") and they have us legal pads to write notes.  And this was only a five day criminal/drug trial.

Yes I am a lawyer and I work in a court and no one will seat me on a Jury. I hate that because it makes Jury duty a waste of my time. At my job I sort of pick juries and they always try to weed out the "leaders" and we end up with a jury full of idiots.  I have jury duty coming up and I was able to pick the time period I wanted to do it. I deferred my duty from the winter to the summer. A friend always picks Christmas week as no trials are going forward then. If you have the option I can assure you no trials go on that week.

 

I desperately think the jury system needs to get overhauled. I think we need to focus more on discipline. Many jurors just don't care about the law or doing it right and it is the only area where there will be absolutely no consequences.  Our worst juries have had people who lied in the selection process or chose to ignore evidence for reasons they were told not to. I don't think the jury system works if the potential jurors have no respect for it.

[punkypower]

FINALLY clearing American Scandals with Barbara Walters from my DVR, and it piqued my interest when they showed an interview with Shapiro where he said he would not work with Cochran again and would not talk to Bailey again. I figured the Cochran beef was for him undercutting him and taking the lead on the case, but was baffled on the Bailey war.

 

For anyone else interested, or might have been in the dark as well, this clears it all up:

http://articles.philly.com/1996-04-23/living/25659144_1_robert-l-shapiro-shapiro-and-cochran-simpson-defense

[Umbelina]

Hah! Umbelina, didn't where you sat, an obvious clue that you were foreperson? Or did you set somewhere in the middle/back/other end, furtherest from the judge? Or is that not the way a foreperson was chosen where you were?

 

I will say that I wasn't the foreperson on my jury, but I was, initially, the only holdout for a guilty verdict. Because I wasn't going to let the others bully me into saying guilty, because a good four or five jurors had already decided he was guilty, and wanted out, because they had "vacation plans" and didn't want to be on the jury. Which pissed me off, because the judge asked if there was any reason why they couldn't serve, and vacation was provided as a reason, and these assholes didn't speak up.

 

snip

 

Originally I sat in the middle of the back row, once I was chosen foreperson I sat in the front row, seat either closest or furthest from the judge, one of those.  Nah, I was young and blond and cute.  I got myself elected foreperson on the first vote of the jury (in the jury room, away from everyone.)  Two reasons really, the guy who WANTED to be foreman, had been a foreman before so he'd tell us how to do it, and he wanted it bad, was a blowhard, bossy, grandfather type, over 6', extremely opinionated, and didn't want to be there.  I knew there was no way in hell that I was going to be able to put up with him bossing everyone around with his big voice, so I just acted the peacemaker/moderator and sat on the edge of the table instead of in the seats.  I had enough pysch classes to know that works.  Aside from that, I've been a supervisor or manager pretty much all my life, natural born leader type, so the majority of the jury wanted me over him. 

 

Actually I wanted this other women to do it, and when I nominated her the blowhard was really pissed at me and extra bossy, she didn't want to do it so she nominated me back.  This was in San Francisco and both lawyers were shocked I was foreman, which they told me after the trial.  I wasn't shocked at all, but really would prefer not to do it again.  Our jury was particularly hostile, at one point that wanna-be foreman slammed his fist into the table and called 5 African American jurors the "n-word" saying they were voting as a block.  Well, that pissed me (and most everyone else!) off, and it nearly came to blows in there.  I actually CAN have a "projecting large without screaming" voice, and all 110 pounds of me got up on that table and forcefully told them all that this wasn't going to happen, STOP, sit down, and NOW."  I actually got on the table to keep the jurors apart physically, because they were coming over the table at each other.

 

The bailiff came in, HUGE nicest guy, also African American, the one who would call me out to smoke, and asked if I needed any help when I was getting off the table.  I remember looking at all the silent (hopefully ashamed) jurors and told him "nope, I don't think so" staring each of the jurors down.

 

It was seriously a mess.  What I will say is that just about everyone in there was pissed at being on such a long jury for a stupid case with seriously bad attorneys boring us silly, but when it came time for the multiple votes we took?  No one budged.  Well, one person budged, but then one on the other side budged as well.  6-6 when the judge finally let us turn in "hung" as a vote.  It kind of restored my faith a bit, they all wanted it over, but they voted their conscious until the end.  When the (scary but cool) judge said "Madame Foreman, can you tell this court the final vote?" and I told her the 6-6 with two switches, she said "You poor dear."  Ha. 

 

I have long had the thought that however it needs to be done (if at all possible) the whole "jury" process needs to be overhauled.  Most people don't want to be on a jury anyway, especially one that requires sequestration.   And outside of that, it doesn't make sense to me that every other person involved in a trial (judge, prosecutor, defense attorney) MUST have gone to school at some point to obtain a law degree, and I believe in murder trials the attorneys have to have a certain amount of years of experience, and yet when it comes to the most important part (IMO) of determining someone's guilt or innocence, they leave it to people who have no legal experience.  

Because of the above, I kind of have faith in most juries, no one voted against their take on a very tricky trial, even though ALL of them wanted it over.  However I agree, some jurors just want to vote with their "gut" not evidence, and that is usually countered by the other juror I think.

 

I can't imagine being sequestered with that jury though.  Yikes.  Lunch was bad enough.  I never spoke of the trial until it was over, but I know some of the friendly jurors did, I'd overhear them at the bus stop.  Oddly enough, the woman  I nominated and I became friends because we took the same bus, we didn't talk, but we both assumed we knew the way the other one would decide.  We ended up on opposite sides of it, both for good reasons. 

 

ETA, my current jury duty is over 1 1/2 hours away through windy mountain roads, I live on the coast.  I REALLY don't want to be picked, and so far, I've never even made it to individual questions, hopefully that continues.

Edited February 14, 2016 by Umbelina

[hoosiermom]

I just completed reading all the closing arguments in the civil trial. (A very long read) it answered any questions I may have had in a very articulate and easy to understand way. It doesn't have a lot of the BS to wade through that was in the criminal trial.