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

FormerMod-a1 · April 12, 2016

But one piece of tainted evidence doesn't mean they all are. You can discount 10 pieces of evidence and keep the rest. Just because 10 things are bad does not mean they all are. Just because 10 people are bad, does not mean they all are, etc. If you write this out as a logic problem, like "if A then B" it will never equate that all are bad just because some are.

DangerousMinds · April 12, 2016

Not trusting one piece of evidence is a reason to discount that, not for reasonable doubt.

Crs97 · April 12, 2016

I took one logic class almost 30 years ago, but I seem to recall that I first analyze whether I can trust the person who is talking before I analyze what he is saying.

If the person who tells me evidence #1 is rock solid is then caught in a lie because he actually planted evidence #1, I can logically ignore anything he has to say about evidence #2 and #3. I don't have to accept the "Yes, I was lying about that, but I am not lying about this so you have to believe this!" argument. Give me enough detectives on the stand who try it, and the DA has a problem with the case.

helenamonster · April 12, 2016

Question for some of you more legal-minded people (and I apologize if this question has already been asked, but I don't think it has): how do you think the verdict would have gone if the prosecution decided to not present any of the physical/DNA evidence and stuck with the circumstantial evidence? Allan Park's testimony, take a chance by putting Jill Shively on the stand, introduce the history of domestic violence, the person that heard Ron Goldman shouting, the tight time frame, Kato hearing the bumps and OJ's strange behavior the day before...if the idea of DNA evidence hadn't been around yet, this would have been all they had anyway (and some other things that I'm probably forgetting), so what would their odds have been if they decided that the DNA evidence was too tainted and decided to throw it out completely? Cuz the defense couldn't bring it up, right, if the prosecution hadn't? The defense couldn't argue that DNA evidence had been tampered with as part of a racially-motivated frame job on behalf of the LAPD if the prosecution hadn't decided to use it in their case, correct?

deerstalker · April 12, 2016

But one piece of tainted evidence doesn't mean they all are. You can discount 10 pieces of evidence and keep the rest. Just because 10 things are bad does not mean they all are. Just because 10 people are bad, does not mean they all are, etc. If you write this out as a logic problem, like "if A then B" it will never equate that all are bad just because some are.

But you are trusting the word and the integrity of the LAPD and crime lab when it comes to how they came by the evidence, and their results from the evidence. Once it has been shown that you cannot take them at their word on some pieces of evidence, or even just one piece, why should they have your trust on the other pieces of evidence either?

Question for some of you more legal-minded people (and I apologize if this question has already been asked, but I don't think it has): how do you think the verdict would have gone if the prosecution decided to not present any of the physical/DNA evidence and stuck with the circumstantial evidence? Allan Park's testimony, take a chance by putting Jill Shively on the stand, introduce the history of domestic violence, the person that heard Ron Goldman shouting, the tight time frame, Kato hearing the bumps and OJ's strange behavior the day before...if the idea of DNA evidence hadn't been around yet, this would have been all they had anyway (and some other things that I'm probably forgetting), so what would their odds have been if they decided that the DNA evidence was too tainted and decided to throw it out completely? Cuz the defense couldn't bring it up, right, if the prosecution hadn't? The defense couldn't argue that DNA evidence had been tampered with as part of a racially-motivated frame job on behalf of the LAPD if the prosecution hadn't decided to use it in their case, correct?

The defense could have still introduced the DNA evidence. It would have been extraordinarily stupid for them to have done so, but they could have done it. I think if the prosecution had only introduced the circumstantial evidence, OJ would have still walked. Remember, before he was "evil OJ", he was the guy who did not get cast as the Terminator, because producers thought people found him way too likable to be believable as a killer. The prosecution had to hang their hat on the DNA to try to get a conviction. But it came back around to bite them in the end. Very few people before OJ had the resources to challenge DNA results and evidence collection. Keep in mind that 95% of cases are plea-bargained, not tried in court. And defendants are much more likely to want to plead when confronted with a mountain of "irrefutable" DNA evidence against him. Just going by common sense and playing the odds, OJ should have probably pled guilty. I don't know what his thought process was that he decided not to. But whatever it was, he was correct.

Edited April 12, 2016 by deerstalker

ganesh · April 12, 2016

They really needed someone who could explain DNA evidence at a junior high level and not expect the jury to be experts.

FormerMod-a1 · April 12, 2016

But you are trusting the word and the integrity of the LAPD and crime lab when it comes to how they came by the evidence, and their results from the evidence. Once it has been shown that you cannot take them at their word on some pieces of evidence, or even just one piece, why should they have your trust on the other pieces of evidence either?

"Just because 10 people are bad doesn't mean they all are" - I'm not willing to mistrust everyone that works somewhere just because some, or even a lot, are not trust worthy.

psychoticstate · April 12, 2016

Question for some of you more legal-minded people (and I apologize if this question has already been asked, but I don't think it has): how do you think the verdict would have gone if the prosecution decided to not present any of the physical/DNA evidence and stuck with the circumstantial evidence? Allan Park's testimony, take a chance by putting Jill Shively on the stand, introduce the history of domestic violence, the person that heard Ron Goldman shouting, the tight time frame, Kato hearing the bumps and OJ's strange behavior the day before...if the idea of DNA evidence hadn't been around yet, this would have been all they had anyway (and some other things that I'm probably forgetting), so what would their odds have been if they decided that the DNA evidence was too tainted and decided to throw it out completely? Cuz the defense couldn't bring it up, right, if the prosecution hadn't? The defense couldn't argue that DNA evidence had been tampered with as part of a racially-motivated frame job on behalf of the LAPD if the prosecution hadn't decided to use it in their case, correct?

I think it would all depend on how the defense would decide to argue. If they had simply said "it's circumstantial, that's it", it could go either way. Although that would be a pretty significant amount of circumstantial evidence and it would be enough to convince me of guilt (taking all that evidence along with Simpson's history of domestic violence and his lack of alibi, etc.) (This would also be supposing that the DNA evidence did not exist because if it did and the state chose not to present it, that would be a huge red flag for anyone)

However . . . if the defense had decided to play on the jurors' emotions and elaborate that Simpson was a well known and successful black man who couldn't have done this and the LAPD, either in their quest for justice or because they were teeming with racists, rushed to judgment and got tunnel vision, I think with this particular jury, the outcome would be the same.

Edited April 12, 2016 by psychoticstate

psychoticstate · April 12, 2016

But you are trusting the word and the integrity of the LAPD and crime lab when it comes to how they came by the evidence, and their results from the evidence. Once it has been shown that you cannot take them at their word on some pieces of evidence, or even just one piece, why should they have your trust on the other pieces of evidence either?

"Just because 10 people are bad doesn't mean they all are" - I'm not willing to mistrust everyone that works somewhere just because some, or even a lot, are not trust worthy.

I agree with aquarian1's reply but also wanted to say that if we decided to throw out everything the LAPD and crime lab had collected and tested based on what they did in the past or might have done, we might as well just let everybody go now and not even bother calling the PD when a crime takes place.

It's been said before but it bears repeating. The jury could have decided that the socks were tainted evidence and dismissed them entirely from their deliberations, while accepting the blood in the Bronco and the glove. (That's of course assuming that the jury actually deliberated.) It's not necessarily an all-or-nothing scenario.

I really think this highlights how little the jury understood instructions and findings of the law. They seemed to believe that they either had to accept all evidence as a whole or not at all, and yet Fuhrman could have cherry picked what he chose to take the Fifth on. (Either that or they were so determined to acquit Simpson they were just going to write their own rules and dismiss anything that might suggest he was guilty.)

Umbelina · April 12, 2016

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cas62.htm

Here are Judge Ito's instructions for the jury.

Personally, I felt that after Fuhrman's testimony was tainted they should have brought on a parade of officers that also found evidence, including officers who had never met him.

It wouldn't have mattered though.

psychoticstate · April 12, 2016

The defense could have still introduced the DNA evidence. It would have been extraordinarily stupid for them to have done so, but they could have done it. I think if the prosecution had only introduced the circumstantial evidence, OJ would have still walked. Remember, before he was "evil OJ", he was the guy who did not get cast as the Terminator, because producers thought people found him way too likable to be believable as a killer. The prosecution had to hang their hat on the DNA to try to get a conviction. But it came back around to bite them in the end. Very few people before OJ had the resources to challenge DNA results and evidence collection. Keep in mind that 95% of cases are plea-bargained, not tried in court. And defendants are much more likely to want to plead when confronted with a mountain of "irrefutable" DNA evidence against him. Just going by common sense and playing the odds, OJ should have probably pled guilty. I don't know what his thought process was that he decided not to. But whatever it was, he was correct.

I agree with you. It would have been stupid for the defense to introduce the DNA in that scenario but remember this is the defense who fought to introduce Simpson's slow speed chase and so-called suicide note. Crazy! (Of course the prosecution fought to keep it out which was equally crazy)

I think Simpson had the resources to test and retest the DNA but unless he was going to find a crime lab that was shifty and willing to alter the results for some bank, you can test the blood, DNA, fibers, etc. all you want and you're still going to get the same result when the odds/percentages are what they were in this case. And the defense obviously knew that because they never had anything retested and they never argued that the blood wasn't Simpson's, Ron's or Nicole's. They didn't argue the fibers didn't come from Ron's shirt or the hair in the cap wasn't Simpson's. They just said it must have been planted. Because they knew the test results were accurate.

Shapiro wanted to plead Simpson out. Sure, he was a master at plea deals but he was not a stupid man. He knew what the evidence indicated. He thought the best route for his client was to argue a diminished capacity and take a plea - - not even chance a jury.

I'd be curious to know what Weitzman was thinking when he allowed Simpson to be interviewed by Lange and Vannatter without counsel present. I cannot fathom what he was thinking. Even if he believed Simpson was guilty and even if he were not a criminal defense attorney (which he wasn't), he should have either arranged for a criminal defense attorney to accompany Simpson to the interview or he should have gone himself. I would think counsel would not have allowed Simpson to say anything about the cut or cuts on his hand, much less allowed them to be photographed and perhaps refused a blood collection on that day, waiting for a subpoena. Instead, he went to the LAPD with Simpson but then left him to go have lunch. No words.

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cas62.htm

Here are Judge Ito's instructions for the jury.

Personally, I felt that after Fuhrman's testimony was tainted they should have brought on a parade of officers that also found evidence, including officers who had never met him.

It wouldn't have mattered though.

I agree. But I think Clark failed in that while she shouldn't have embraced Fuhrman after that, she should have at least backed him up by indicating how impossible it would have been for him to plant evidence. She could have said that while his words on the tapes were reprehensible and unacceptable, they did not indicate how he performed his job on June 12-13 and he was performing his job as directed by Lange and Vannatter. Turning her back to him when he retook the stand and then telling the jury what a horrible person he was in her closing was a mistake.

Umbelina · April 12, 2016

Those jury instructions. Good God, Ito loved to hear himself talk.

It would have taken me two hours to go over those.

deerstalker · April 12, 2016

I agree with aquarian1's reply but also wanted to say that if we decided to throw out everything the LAPD and crime lab had collected and tested based on what they did in the past or might have done, we might as well just let everybody go now and not even bother calling the PD when a crime takes place.

It's been said before but it bears repeating. The jury could have decided that the socks were tainted evidence and dismissed them entirely from their deliberations, while accepting the blood in the Bronco and the glove. (That's of course assuming that the jury actually deliberated.) It's not necessarily an all-or-nothing scenario.

I really think this highlights how little the jury understood instructions and findings of the law. They seemed to believe that they either had to accept all evidence as a whole or not at all, and yet Fuhrman could have cherry picked what he chose to take the Fifth on. (Either that or they were so determined to acquit Simpson they were just going to write their own rules and dismiss anything that might suggest he was guilty.)

Yes, as a juror, I could cherry pick what evidence I think was planted, and what I thought was "real" evidence. But logically, why should I? If I think any evidence has been planted by an agent of the state, and/or the lab results tainted or corrupted by the state, I'm finding the defendant not guilty. The state is supposed to be neutral party, using only real facts at its disposal, not putting a thumb on the scale of justice and fudging results. If they have been found to lie about even one piece of evidence, then all of their evidence becomes suspect. If they were caught falsifying this one piece of evidence, what else did they falsify, and just not happen to get caught? At that point, it is all tainted. The state has enormous resources at its disposal, and as a juror, I have to trust that they are garnering those resources against the right person. Legally the state does not get the benefit of the doubt, not one bit, in recognition of this power imbalance. So yes, at the point where I have reason to believe that the state has falsified some, or even one, piece of evidence, you have introduced enough reasonable doubt to find the defendant not guilty. Which is how our whole legal system is set up. The bar for reasonable doubt is extremely low, and based on the idea that it is better to let ten guilty man go free, than one innocent man go to prison (not the other way around). If you find yourself having to handwave perjury and falsifying evidence on the prosecution's side, you are trying too hard, and ignoring the whole concept of reasonable doubt.

I'd be curious to know what Weitzman was thinking when he allowed Simpson to be interviewed by Lange and Vannatter without counsel present. I cannot fathom what he was thinking. Even if he believed Simpson was guilty and even if he were not a criminal defense attorney (which he wasn't), he should have either arranged for a criminal defense attorney to accompany Simpson to the interview or he should have gone himself. I would think counsel would not have allowed Simpson to say anything about the cut or cuts on his hand, much less allowed them to be photographed and perhaps refused a blood collection on that day, waiting for a subpoena. Instead, he went to the LAPD with Simpson but then left him to go have lunch. No words.

And that, I think, is most lawyers, unfortunately. We are spoiled by too many tv shows, seeing extraordinary lawyers doing extraordinary things. Most are in the barely adequate range, and are compleely overwhelmed with the amount of cases they have, and are usually very cozy with the police and prosecutors, who they depend on to give them good deals for their clients. So it is a small wonder that almost all criminal cases end in a plea deal. It is in absolutely everyone's interest for it to (except the client's sometimes, but they are a cog in the wheel). The Dream Team were some of the best of the best, putting on a masterclass for reasonable doubt. Most of the police and prosecutors would have never run into even one such lawyer in their lifetime to poke holes in their stories and cases, let alone a whole team of them. Which is why , quite frankly, their falsification efforts were so sloppy. Blood on the sock weeks later? The magically disappearing tear on the gloves? The blood on the back gate that the detective spontaneously finds, and decides to test weeks after? But why not, if you have never been called out on such shenanigans before?

Edited April 13, 2016 by deerstalker

Moose135 · April 12, 2016

But one piece of tainted evidence doesn't mean they all are. You can discount 10 pieces of evidence and keep the rest.

But how do I know that the other evidence is not tainted? "Really, believe me, that one was phony, but I swear, the rest are real..."

psychoticstate · April 12, 2016

Yes, as a juror, I could cherry pick what evidence I think was planted, and what I thought was "real" evidence. But logically, why should I? If I think any evidence has been planted by an agent of the state, and/or the lab results tainted or corrupted by the state, I'm finding the defendant not guilty. The state is supposed to be neutral party, using only real facts at its disposal, not putting a thumb on the scale of justice and fudging results. If they have been found to lie about even one piece of evidence, then all of their evidence because suspect. If they were caught falsifying this one piece of evidence, what else did they falsify, and just not happen to get caught? At that point, it is all tainted. The state has enormous resources at its disposal, and as a juror, I have to trust that they are garnering those resources against the right person. Legally the state does not get the benefit of the doubt, not one bit, in recognition of this power imbalance. So yes, at the point where I have reason to believe that the state has falsified some, or even one, piece of evidence, you have introduced enough reasonable doubt to find the defendant not guilty. Which is how our whole legal system is set up. The bar for reasonable doubt is extremely low, and based on the idea that it is better to let ten guilty man go free, than one innocent man go to prison (not the other way around). If you find yourself having to handwave perjury and falsifying evidence on the prosecution's side, you are trying too hard, and ignoring the whole concept of reasonable doubt.

I understand your point but to say that all the evidence has to be dismissed because one piece may be tainted isn't always correct. If you (meaning you in general, not necessary just you, deerstalker) believe beyond there is no question that the police intentionally planted evidence, then I can understand that argument. If, however, you believe that perhaps the lab made some mistakes, do you still think that all the evidence should be disregarded? Do you account for the possibility of genuine human mistake?

Do you think that because Allan Park may have been incorrect in his tally of the cars in the driveway at Rockingham meant that the rest of his testimony was obviously wrong? Does that mean his arrival and departure times were wrong? That the Bronco not being there when he arrived and parked there when he left was wrong? Because it's basically the same thing. I believe Park could have been incorrect in the number of cars in the driveway without it having any effect on the remainder of his testimony.

FWIW, I agree with you about the state being a neutral party. The state's first and major responsibility should be to see that justice is done and that means not only to get justice for the victims but also to see that no injustices are done toward the accused.

And that, I think, is most lawyers, unfortunately. We are spoiled by too many tv shows, seeing extraordinary lawyers doing extraordinary things. Most are in the barely adequate range, and are compleely overwhelmed with the amount of cases they have, and are usually very cozy with the police and prosecutors, who they depend on to give them good deals for their clients. So it is a small wonder that almost all criminal cases end in a plea deal. It is in absolutely everyone's interest for it to (except the client's sometimes, but they are a cog in the wheel). The Dream Team were some of the best of the best, putting on a masterclass for reasonable doubt. Most of the police and prosecutors would have never run into even one such lawyer in their lifetime to poke holes in their stories and cases, let alone a whole team of them. Which is why , quite frankly, their falsification efforts were so sloppy. Blood on the sock weeks later? The magically disappearing tear on the gloves? The blood on the back gate that the detective spontaneously finds, and decides to test weeks after? But why not, if you have never been called out on such shenanigans before?

Well, I have to disagree that most attorneys are barely adequate. That's like saying all cops are racist. I don't believe either statement is correct. There are some barely adequate attorneys, of course. But most attorneys are competent and do their utmost to do the best job possible for the client. In that regard I will agree that the defense team did the best job imaginable for Simpson. I think "Dream Team" is highly subjective. Cochran may have been the best attorney to put forth the racism defense but otherwise I don't think any of the others did anything that was that superior or exceptional.

psychoticstate · April 12, 2016

But how do I know that the other evidence is not tainted? "Really, believe me, that one was phony, but I swear, the rest are real..."

I think it depends on how you believe and/or if it's been proven if the evidence was intentionally planted/tainted or if the evidence was corrupted by natural (weather, etc.) and/or human error means.

In this particular case, I think the prosecution could have shown that it was impossible for all the evidence to have been intentionally corrupted by the LAPD and/or crime lab while admitting there were mistakes made. Fung should not have put the blood samples in an un-air conditioned vehicle. However, causing the blood to degrade and break down would make less of a match to any suspect and therefore would actually help Simpson, not hinder him. (So the blood results should have been less conclusive). The shoes that Lange put in his trunk? Tennis shoes, not the Bruno Maglis. So not policy or procedure but these shoes had nothing to do with the murders and had no import on the case. Nicole's body being covered with a blanket from her own home? That actually happens quite a lot but that blanket is not going to transfer Simpson's blood to the crime scene, unless he had just bled on that blanket. And even if he had, unless he was bleeding profusely, it's not going to transfer blood drops. Could that blanket have transferred a hair? Sure. But that hair should have then transferred to what it was covering -- Nicole's body. The hair was found within the knit cap found by Ron Goldman.

I think the most damning piece of evidence from what I've read and heard were the socks. I don't know what happened there. Could they have been planted? Of course. They also could have been overlooked, mishandled, etc. Anything is possible. But the socks on their own merit do not prove or disprove guilt or innocence in my opinion. They were simply one piece out of many pieces of evidence in this case.

deerstalker · April 12, 2016

I understand your point but to say that all the evidence has to be dismissed because one piece may be tainted isn't always correct. If you (meaning you in general, not necessary just you, deerstalker) believe beyond there is no question that the police intentionally planted evidence, then I can understand that argument. If, however, you believe that perhaps the lab made some mistakes, do you still think that all the evidence should be disregarded? Do you account for the possibility of genuine human mistake?

I think even if the lab made some key, critical errors, but I don't think those errors were intentional, I would probably still discount much, if not all of the lab work. Some of these errors would include cross-contamination of the evidence, where the control vials of blood already had both the suspects and the defendant's blood in them, "mislogging" the amount of blood you have taken from a suspect, and keeping blood evidence in a hot car. How can you trust the accuracy and precision of the test results from this lab if they have already shown themselves not to be accurate or precise?

Do you think that because Allan Park may have been incorrect in his tally of the cars in the driveway at Rockingham meant that the rest of his testimony was obviously wrong? Does that mean his arrival and departure times were wrong? That the Bronco not being there when he arrived and parked there when he left was wrong? Because it's basically the same thing. I believe Park could have been incorrect in the number of cars in the driveway without it having any effect on the remainder of his testimony.

If I am asking Allan Park about bananas, and he happens to get the number of cars in the driveway wrong, I might still be able to trust him on the subject of bananas. If I ask him about the number of cars he saw that night, and he gets the number of cars he saw that night wrong, I am probably not going to give much weight to the number of cars he says he saw that night. I can still probably believe his testimony regarding his own arrival and departure, especially since that is backed up by independent third-party evidence.

Well, I have to disagree that most attorneys are barely adequate. That's like saying all cops are racist. I don't believe either statement is correct. There are some barely adequate attorneys, of course. But most attorneys are competent and do their utmost to do the best job possible for the client. In that regard I will agree that the defense team did the best job imaginable for Simpson. I think "Dream Team" is highly subjective. Cochran may have been the best attorney to put forth the racism defense but otherwise I don't think any of the others did anything that was that superior or exceptional.

Most attorneys are average, or adequate. That' how averages work. I think most attorneys, especially your run of the mill criminal defense attorneys, are slammed with clients, and if each and every one demanded a trial, could not ever possibly hope to represent them all (the same for prosecutors too). They have a vested interest in making sure a case settles quickly and quietly, especially if their clientele is middle-class or lower. Those clients simply can't afford a trial and expert witnesses at all, especially of the type and caliber that OJ could afford. Scheck et al simply tore about the DNA evidence, collection handling, and chain of custody. Many of the jurors cite Scheck, not Cochran, as the person who made them doubt the state's case, and believe that the defense's theory that some of the evidence was planted could actually hold some water.

In this particular case, I think the prosecution could have shown that it was impossible for all the evidence to have been intentionally corrupted by the LAPD and/or crime lab while admitting there were mistakes made. Fung should not have put the blood samples in an un-air conditioned vehicle. However, causing the blood to degrade and break down would make less of a match to any suspect and therefore would actually help Simpson, not hinder him. (So the blood results should have been less conclusive).

I think the defense's contention was that the original swatches were too degraded to be used at all, precisely because they were put in the hot car. The defense further suggested that those samples were switched out at a later date for other samples. The lab tech who collected the swatches put her initials on each swatch. Video taken at the scene confirmed that she followed this protocol. The swatches tested did not have any initials on them, and the blood on them was not put on the swatches in accordance with normal procedure. The prosecution did not really even bother to try to explain what happened there.

Edited April 12, 2016 by deerstalker

mystere · April 12, 2016

The thing is you don't need anything but the gloves and the shoe prints to arrive at the conclusion that OJ had to be guilty. The gloves (size large, which we know is the size that Nicole bought for OJ, I don't care what the courtroom dramatics showed) were very rare, about 300 pairs sold in all of the USA. The Bruno Magli shoes also only sold about 300 pair in all the USA. At the time there were about 300,000,000 people in the USA. The odds of one person owning both the shoes and the gloves...well, it's about 1 in a trillion. It's equivalent to a DNA match. Just those two pieces of evidence alone would have been enough to convict most people.

I still am not sure how the cops were supposed to know to bring these incredibly rare gloves in OJ's size with them the night of the murder to ensure a frame-up.

I also realize the jury didn't get confirmation that OJ owned the shoes, but we know now that he did. The fact that he owned both the shoes plus the gloves, and that both were linked to the murder scene the night of the killings, pretty much nails it right there. You can throw out all the other evidence if you want.

MJ Frog · April 13, 2016

I think the most damning piece of evidence from what I've read and heard were the socks. I don't know what happened there. Could they have been planted? Of course. They also could have been overlooked, mishandled, etc. Anything is possible. But the socks on their own merit do not prove or disprove guilt or innocence in my opinion. They were simply one piece out of many pieces of evidence in this case.

As someone stated upthread, if we are sitting outside the courtroom, and our job is simply to determine the likelihood of Simpson's guilt or innocence, then yes, we don't have to allow for one (or more) questionable pieces of evidence to discount or negate the considerable remaining physical and circumstantial evidence. As someone who is 100% convinced that Simpson murdered those two people, it pains me to admit the following, but here goes. As a juror, I believe my duty goes a little further than whether I think he did it or not, and being that it is not just possible but PROBABLE that the sock evidence was planted, along with other apparent shenanigans, I believe that the process was sufficiently tainted to open the door for reasonable doubt. And reasonable doubt, from the point of view of a juror, isn't just about simple guilt or innocence, but also about safeguarding the integrity of the process itself. Part of their job is to ensure that if the state is going to deprive someone of their freedom, and possibly their life, that they have done so properly and legally. And if they have gone outside those bounds, whether through incompetence or malfeasance (or both, as I believe to be the case here) then I feel it is better to take the chance on setting a guilty person free, than to reward and thus reinforce such a flawed process.

Now, logic tells us that there would not have been any conspiracy large enough to have manufactured all the physical evidence, nor coincidence so great as to have nearly all circumstances point towards one conclusion. Logic tells us the man is guilty as fuck. But I believe there are other things the jury must consider, odd as that sounds. Whether this particular jury did indeed consider these things to reach their not guilty verdict can be argued either way. But the verdict was not unreasonable.

Blech. I can't believe I just said that. I have been on the other side of this for so long and have only just now come to this conclusion.

Edited to get my damn tenses in line.

Edited April 13, 2016 by MJ Frog

whiporee · April 13, 2016

The thing is you don't need anything but the gloves and the shoe prints to arrive at the conclusion that OJ had to be guilty. The gloves (size large, which we know is the size that Nicole bought for OJ, I don't care what the courtroom dramatics showed) were very rare, about 300 pairs sold in all of the USA. The Bruno Magli shoes also only sold about 300 pair in all the USA. At the time there were about 300,000,000 people in the USA. The odds of one person owning both the shoes and the gloves...well, it's about 1 in a trillion. It's equivalent to a DNA match. Just those two pieces of evidence alone would have been enough to convict most people.
I still am not sure how the cops were supposed to know to bring these incredibly rare gloves in OJ's size with them the night of the murder to ensure a frame-up.

I also realize the jury didn't get confirmation that OJ owned the shoes, but we know now that he did. The fact that he owned both the shoes plus the gloves, and that both were linked to the murder scene the night of the killings, pretty much nails it right there. You can throw out all the other evidence if you want.

Let me ask you this: If it's shown that the cops found the glove at Bundy and brought it over to Rockingham, do you still think it's okay for them to be part of the evidence used to convict him? If Lange or Vanatter or Fuhrman were to say they found the glove at Bundy, wiped some blood on it and took it with them to Rockingham and "found" it later, would you still vote to convict? How about if they admitted to putting the blood on the sock and on the gate after the fact? The DNA is all the same -- they just sped up the process a bit, made it easier for a jury to do what needed to be done. Would you still vote to convict?

I don't think anyone thinks the cops happened to guess the gloves Simpson wore, obtained a pair and then brought them to the crime scene. I don't think anyone contends that. And I don't think anyone here is alleging a police framing of Simpson -- what many of us say is that the evidence was corrupted in a myriad of ways, and if you base your case on corrupt evidence, you shouldn't get a conviction. The State has to be held to a higher standard than that, don't you think? Wouldn't you want a higher standard if you were the one on trial.

You mention the gloves and the shoes. Here's the thing though -- even though they are rare, there were still 300 other pairs of each sold. If you were someone wanting to frame OJ Simpson, that might be a good way to do it, don't you think? There's no serial numbers on either, just rarity. So I don't think those are -- and should not be -- enough to convict someone, not when you start with the presumption that they are innocent.

What I say -- and I don't think I'm alone but maybe I am -- is that you cannot "reward" prosecutors and police officers with a conviction if they are found to have fabricated ANY evidence. If you as a juror believe they've fabricated evidence, you MUST acquit. Jury instructions don't say that -- they don't say you have to, but they also say you're allowed to assume that if a witness lied about something, you are allowed to assume they lied about everything. You don't have to make that assumption, but you're allowed to. Because the state has too much power to be allowed to work unencumbered by its own rules.

Edited April 13, 2016 by whiporee

mystere · April 13, 2016

Yes, I think it's enough to convict. It does not pass reasonable doubt for me. The odds of having both the gloves and the shoe prints at the scene of the crime are astronomical. It just does not pass the smell test to me to think that someone managed to get their hands on BOTH these really rare shoes and the really rare gloves and then used them to frame OJ. You would have to assume that the person who did all this homework is also the killer. So...the cops killed them? To me, this is getting into a land of conspiracy theory that does not make sense.

I can't emphasize it enough: the numbers game on the gloves and shoes alone pins it down to one person. Three hundred pairs of anything spread across the three hundred MILLION people in the USA is 1 in 10000000000, and then you multiply that by ANOTHER 1 in 10000000000, and that's your odds. Or, put another way, to get another person who owns both these gloves and these shoes, you would need to search through all the population of earth multiple times.

FWIW, I do not believe the cops tampered with the evidence in this case. I think they were sloppy, yes, but I don't believe they planted anything.

Edited April 13, 2016 by mystere

Kel Varnsen · April 13, 2016

But how do I know that the other evidence is not tainted? "Really, believe me, that one was phony, but I swear, the rest are real..."

That's sort of what i have been thinking. If you pretty much know one piece of evidence is tainted or has been planted, sure it doesn't mean other evidence was. But too me it does confirm that the possibility of other evidence being planted is not unreasonable. And isn't that what reasonable doubt is all about?

Cheyenne · April 13, 2016

One of the best series I've ever seen on TV and the cast was perfect, except for Cuba Gooding. He's a good actor, but he is not OJ.

whiporee · April 13, 2016

I can't emphasize it enough: the numbers game on the gloves and shoes alone pins it down to one person. Three hundred pairs of anything spread across the three hundred MILLION people in the USA is 1 in 10000000000, and then you multiply that by ANOTHER 1 in 10000000000, and that's your odds. Or, put another way, to get another person who owns both these gloves and these shoes, you would need to search through all the population of earth multiple times.

I'm only doing this for fun, because I know I can't convince you, and I'm not throwing out another crazy conspiracy to do that. But you don't need a trillion people -- all you need is one who buys a pair of shoes and a pair of gloves. Stuff that I imagine is fairly available in New York and LA.

We know Nicole bought gloves. We don't know she bought the gloves that were found at the murder scene and we don't know she gave the gloves she bought to Simpson. All we know is she bought gloves of the same kind that were covered in blood. Maybe she bought them and had them on a counter, and the other person -- the one who killed her -- found them and used them to kill her. I don't know. We have pictures of Simpson wearing gloves that look like the ones found, but we don't know for certain they are the same ones. Probably, sure, but not for certain. Same thing with the shoes.

If you're willing to convict with that -- and you're willing to convict based on corrupt police evidence (not that you think it was corrupt, but that was the scenario I suggested) then you're willing to convict, period. You were willing to convict at the Bronco chase --you were willing to convict as soon as you heard the connection. or the 911 tapes. Or whatever else.

I think the latitude you're willing to give police is truly scary. Much scarier than any particular criminal going free. laws and rules of evidence exist to protect all of us, not just the guilty.

mystere · April 13, 2016

No, I am not willing to convict, period. I am leaving the police entirely out of the equation for the purposes of this exercise. There is no doubt the gloves were found at the scene (I don't think they moved them at all, but even if they did, I don't think anyone disputes that the gloves were there to begin with.) The bloody shoe prints were there at the scene. The gloves and shoes are rare enough pieces of evidence that it is actually not possible for the police to have planted them. This isn't a matter of opinion. Combined, these two articles of clothing are astronomically rare, and both are linked to Simpson. Add in motive, and yes, he did it. The alternative would be for someone to establish before the murders that OJ owned both of these items and then hang around, hoping someone who was NOT OJ would murder two people so that this person, who had collected the rare items of clothing, could run over and plant them immediately at the scene. How on earth could this make sense?

So no, I don't need the Bronco chase. I don't need DNA or fiber or witnesses or any of the massive amounts of evidence that all points at one person. The gloves and shoes by themselves are enough so there is simply no question in my mind that he did it.

Finnegan · April 13, 2016

I think the latitude you're willing to give police is truly scary. Much scarier than any particular criminal going free. laws and rules of evidence exist to protect all of us, not just the guilty.

I agree. I was thinking about this case earlier, and how personally many of us seem to react to it...questioning why I don't feel the overwhelming hatred and vindictiveness towards OJ that I perhaps should, given the fact that I think he did commit this awful crime. Where I *do* feel visceral anger is towards the LAPD and police corruption in general. Perhaps because corruption is institutionalized, whereas murder is more aberrant. I'm not sure why, and I'm not saying I'm right, but I do think the extreme emotional reactions to this case might have to do with our underlying thoughts about the justice system.

whiporee · April 13, 2016

No, I am not willing to convict, period. I am leaving the police entirely out of the equation for the purposes of this exercise. There is no doubt the gloves were found at the scene (I don't think they moved them at all, but even if they did, I don't think anyone disputes that the gloves were there to begin with.) The bloody shoe prints were there at the scene. The gloves and shoes are rare enough pieces of evidence that it is actually not possible for the police to have planted them. This isn't a matter of opinion. Combined, these two articles of clothing are astronomically rare, and both are linked to Simpson. Add in motive, and yes, he did it. The alternative would be for someone to establish before the murders that OJ owned both of these items and then hang around, hoping someone who was NOT OJ would murder two people so that this person, who had collected the rare items of clothing, could run over and plant them immediately at the scene. How on earth could this make sense?

So no, I don't need the Bronco chase. I don't need DNA or fiber or witnesses or any of the massive amounts of evidence that all points at one person. The gloves and shoes by themselves are enough so there is simply no question in my mind that he did it.

Like I said, I'm only doing this for fun.

Is it conceivable -- not probably, not likely, but within the realm of possibility -- that some other person a) saw the gloves Simpson wore and bought the same pair in order to frame him b) saw the shoes Simpson wore and bought the same pair in order to frame him and c) killed Brown-Simpson and Goldman in order to frame OJ Simpson for their murders? You don't need some astronomical coincidence -- since all you need is the gloves and the shoes -- all you need is someone who knew he owned a pair of those gloves and knew he owned a pair of those shoes and wanted her dead and him in jail for it.

My money's on Al Davis. But that's just me.

Again, not trying to convince you and I don't believe this scenario, either. But you're saying you'd be willing to convict based on the unlikelihood of someone else owning those two peices of clothing, and I'm saying that if you wanted to frame Simpson, buying those two pieces of clothing would be a good start.

Edited April 13, 2016 by whiporee

psychoticstate · April 13, 2016

I'm only doing this for fun, because I know I can't convince you, and I'm not throwing out another crazy conspiracy to do that. But you don't need a trillion people -- all you need is one who buys a pair of shoes and a pair of gloves. Stuff that I imagine is fairly available in New York and LA.

We know Nicole bought gloves. We don't know she bought the gloves that were found at the murder scene and we don't know she gave the gloves she bought to Simpson. All we know is she bought gloves of the same kind that were covered in blood. Maybe she bought them and had them on a counter, and the other person -- the one who killed her -- found them and used them to kill her. I don't know. We have pictures of Simpson wearing gloves that look like the ones found, but we don't know for certain they are the same ones. Probably, sure, but not for certain. Same thing with the shoes.

If you're willing to convict with that -- and you're willing to convict based on corrupt police evidence (not that you think it was corrupt, but that was the scenario I suggested) then you're willing to convict, period. You were willing to convict at the Bronco chase --you were willing to convict as soon as you heard the connection. or the 911 tapes. Or whatever else.

I think the latitude you're willing to give police is truly scary. Much scarier than any particular criminal going free. laws and rules of evidence exist to protect all of us, not just the guilty.

I can speak for the LA. contingent and tell you that gloves are not that common out here. We just don't have need for them in general; our weather is not that cold. I have many friends out here that don't own a coat, much less gloves.

As far as the Bruno Maglis . . . I was pretty much up on fashion back in 1994 and I had never heard of Bruno Maglis before this case.

biakbiak · April 13, 2016

As pointed out above the number of both those size gloves and those size shoes that were sold in the entire country was MINISCULE.

Edited April 13, 2016 by biakbiak

mystere · April 13, 2016

To me, whether the jury verdict was reasonable and whether OJ actually did it are somewhat separate questions. From our vantage point twenty years later, having access to all the evidence and the benefit of hindsight, I don't think there's a way to have reasonable doubt that he was guilty. Whether the state proved their case or not, that's an area where reasonable minds can disagree.

I actually share a lot of the horror at police corruption, brutality and overreach. I know that cops in LA and elsewhere have lied, manufactured evidence, and beaten suspects into false confessions. I absolutely think these injustices happen disproportionately to people of color, and it does make me angry. I think Mark Fuhrman is a racist POS. I think the tapes exemplify pervasive attitudes in law enforcement that persist to this day, and it's sickening. I think where officers exhibit serious misconduct, especially anything that infringes on guilt/innocence or civil rights...they should be fired and prosecuted. (For the record, I think this also pertains to the officers who refused to investigate Simpson's repeated domestic violence incidents. They don't look so good in this either.)

My opinion, however, is that there is not enough evidence that the police tampered with evidence in the Simpson case, especially not in any way that would have substantially altered the question of OJ's guilt. They were sloppy and used improper procedure. (Spoiler alert: this happens in unfortunately most murder cases. Stuff gets missed in the first round. People make mistakes.) As I mentioned above, it's nigh on impossible for the cops to have manufactured or planted the shoe prints and the gloves. This is evidence they could not have made up. When cops invent evidence, it tends to be things like planting a gun or drugs on someone, or forcing a false confession. These are things they have easy access to and which are under their control. They did not have easy access to these rare gloves and rare expensive shoes. Again, for this to be a frame-up, someone else would have had to know that OJ had both of these incredibly rare items of attire, go out and find duplicates (not easy, given how rare they were), then either:

1. Hang around and hope someone murdered Nicole (and Ron, in this case) so that they could run over and plant the gloves and shoe prints at the scene

2. Murder Nicole and Ron themselves and then plant the evidence

These are not, to me, scenarios that constitute reasonable doubt. They are UNreasonable. Ergo, Simpson is guilty. So then I don't care about what other mistakes the cops might have made in collecting the DNA evidence because I can discard it entirely and it does not change the verdict in my mind. It is irrelevant. I don't look at that as rewarding them for their mistakes. The trial is not about rewarding or punishing the investigating officers. It's about determining the guilt or innocence of the defendant. I think there was enough evidence to do that at the time, and I am sure there's enough evidence in hindsight.

Edited April 13, 2016 by mystere

Jel · April 13, 2016

Reading this thread reminds me why I understood that the jury found him not guilty. All the details and the questions, it can send a person into the not seeing the forest for the trees territory.

That's what I think happened -- little questions and doubts (perhaps personal past experiences with police -- the legacy of racism) caused the jurors to lose confidence in the prosecution. It's possible that corners were cut, asses were covered and things were sped along -- and that OJ did the murders. The two are not mutually exclusive. For me, the prosecution did a lousy job of explaining or even addressing the mysteries of the case.

Societally maybe we should also ask why so many people were *convinced* Oj had done it before the prosecution even finished laying out it's case -- perhaps there was an equal amount of bias there. The vehemence, the outright incredulity if you didn't immediately think OJ did it -- that made a strong and lasting impression on me.

deerstalker · April 13, 2016

To me, whether the jury verdict was reasonable and whether OJ actually did it are somewhat separate questions. From our vantage point twenty years later, having access to all the evidence and the benefit of hindsight, I don't think there's a way to have reasonable doubt that he was guilty. Whether the state proved their case or not, that's an area where reasonable minds can disagree.

I actually share a lot of the horror at police corruption, brutality and overreach. I know that cops in LA and elsewhere have lied, manufactured evidence, and beaten suspects into false confessions. I absolutely think these injustices happen disproportionately to people of color, and it does make me angry. I think Mark Fuhrman is a racist POS. I think the tapes exemplify pervasive attitudes in law enforcement that persist to this day, and it's sickening. I think where officers exhibit serious misconduct, especially anything that infringes on guilt/innocence or civil rights...they should be fired and prosecuted. (For the record, I think this also pertains to the officers who refused to investigate Simpson's repeated domestic violence incidents. They don't look so good in this either.)

My opinion, however, is that there is not enough evidence that the police tampered with evidence in the Simpson case, especially not in any way that would have substantially altered the question of OJ's guilt. They were sloppy and used improper procedure. (Spoiler alert: this happens in unfortunately most murder cases. Stuff gets missed in the first round. People make mistakes.) As I mentioned above, it's nigh on impossible for the cops to have manufactured or planted the shoe prints and the gloves. This is evidence they could not have made up. When cops invent evidence, it tends to be things like planting a gun or drugs on someone, or forcing a false confession. These are things they have easy access to and which are under their control. They did not have easy access to these rare gloves and rare expensive shoes. Again, for this to be a frame-up, someone else would have had to know that OJ had both of these incredibly rare items of attire, go out and find duplicates (not easy, given how rare they were), then either:

1. Hang around and hope someone murdered Nicole (and Ron, in this case) so that they could run over and plant the gloves and shoe prints at the scene

2. Murder Nicole and Ron themselves and then plant the evidence

These are not, to me, scenarios that constitute reasonable doubt. They are UNreasonable. Ergo, Simpson is guilty. So then I don't care about what other mistakes the cops might have made in collecting the DNA evidence because I can discard it entirely and it does not change the verdict in my mind. It is irrelevant. I don't look at that as rewarding them for their mistakes. The trial is not about rewarding or punishing the investigating officers. It's about determining the guilt or innocence of the defendant. I think there was enough evidence to do that at the time, and I am sure there's enough evidence in hindsight.

I will state at the outset that I believe that Simpson probably did it. But "probably" is not good enough to convict someone, especially in light of police/crime lab malfeasance. And as far as the rare items go, if we know that Nicole and Simpson were still hooking up post divorce, why wouldn't Simpson still have clothing items left over at Nicole's apartment, including shoes and gloves? I know I still have some items from my exes hanging around, even years later. If that is the case, then it requires nothing more than the police already grabbing items at hand. And the problem is when the evidence strongly supports that the police already planted in one instance in the case, why would any other instance be unthinkable? I always wondered why Simpson would choose a pair of expensive dress shoes to go murdering in. And the gloves, well there enough shenanigans around those items that was already brought up in the original trial.

That's the thing once the state is basically caught fiddling around and falsifying evidence. It opens up to a whole new world of possibilities. Which is why you can't find for conviction. "If this is so, then why not this?" It is on the state to be a completely straight shooter with the evidence, in all ways possible. We are trusting them with the power to take away someone's freedom or someone's life, based on the say-so and actions of its agents. If we give them this power, our trust that the process is uncorrupted must be complete. If they have not fulfilled their end of this bargain, then we must acquit. Otherwise, why have trials at all? Just a kangaroo court sham to make citizens feel better? Sometimes this results in a guilty man going free. So be it. Our system of democracy depends on citizens being the check against state abuse of its power, state incompetence, and state overreach.

Edited April 13, 2016 by deerstalker

RemoteControlFreak · April 13, 2016

Question for some of you more legal-minded people (and I apologize if this question has already been asked, but I don't think it has): how do you think the verdict would have gone if the prosecution decided to not present any of the physical/DNA evidence and stuck with the circumstantial evidence? Allan Park's testimony, take a chance by putting Jill Shively on the stand, introduce the history of domestic violence, the person that heard Ron Goldman shouting, the tight time frame, Kato hearing the bumps and OJ's strange behavior the day before...if the idea of DNA evidence hadn't been around yet, this would have been all they had anyway (and some other things that I'm probably forgetting), so what would their odds have been if they decided that the DNA evidence was too tainted and decided to throw it out completely? Cuz the defense couldn't bring it up, right, if the prosecution hadn't? The defense couldn't argue that DNA evidence had been tampered with as part of a racially-motivated frame job on behalf of the LAPD if the prosecution hadn't decided to use it in their case, correct?

Still not guilty.

The demographic of the jury with 9 African Americans and 10 women was perfectly suited to an acquittal. Research before the trial from jury consultants that Marcia Clark stupidly chose to ignore showed that to be true. And especially when a well-known African American celebrity defense attorney like Cochran defending OJ Simpson, he could have confessed in open court and it wouldn't have swayed the minds of this jury.

psychoticstate · April 13, 2016

To me, whether the jury verdict was reasonable and whether OJ actually did it are somewhat separate questions. From our vantage point twenty years later, having access to all the evidence and the benefit of hindsight, I don't think there's a way to have reasonable doubt that he was guilty. Whether the state proved their case or not, that's an area where reasonable minds can disagree.

I actually share a lot of the horror at police corruption, brutality and overreach. I know that cops in LA and elsewhere have lied, manufactured evidence, and beaten suspects into false confessions. I absolutely think these injustices happen disproportionately to people of color, and it does make me angry. I think Mark Fuhrman is a racist POS. I think the tapes exemplify pervasive attitudes in law enforcement that persist to this day, and it's sickening. I think where officers exhibit serious misconduct, especially anything that infringes on guilt/innocence or civil rights...they should be fired and prosecuted. (For the record, I think this also pertains to the officers who refused to investigate Simpson's repeated domestic violence incidents. They don't look so good in this either.)

My opinion, however, is that there is not enough evidence that the police tampered with evidence in the Simpson case, especially not in any way that would have substantially altered the question of OJ's guilt. They were sloppy and used improper procedure. (Spoiler alert: this happens in unfortunately most murder cases. Stuff gets missed in the first round. People make mistakes.) As I mentioned above, it's nigh on impossible for the cops to have manufactured or planted the shoe prints and the gloves. This is evidence they could not have made up. When cops invent evidence, it tends to be things like planting a gun or drugs on someone, or forcing a false confession. These are things they have easy access to and which are under their control. They did not have easy access to these rare gloves and rare expensive shoes. Again, for this to be a frame-up, someone else would have had to know that OJ had both of these incredibly rare items of attire, go out and find duplicates (not easy, given how rare they were), then either:

1. Hang around and hope someone murdered Nicole (and Ron, in this case) so that they could run over and plant the gloves and shoe prints at the scene

2. Murder Nicole and Ron themselves and then plant the evidence

These are not, to me, scenarios that constitute reasonable doubt. They are UNreasonable. Ergo, Simpson is guilty. So then I don't care about what other mistakes the cops might have made in collecting the DNA evidence because I can discard it entirely and it does not change the verdict in my mind. It is irrelevant. I don't look at that as rewarding them for their mistakes. The trial is not about rewarding or punishing the investigating officers. It's about determining the guilt or innocence of the defendant. I think there was enough evidence to do that at the time, and I am sure there's enough evidence in hindsight.

Still not guilty.

The demographic of the jury with 9 African Americans and 10 women was perfectly suited to an acquittal. Research before the trial from jury consultants that Marcia Clark stupidly chose to ignore showed that to be true. And especially when a well-known African American celebrity defense attorney like Cochran defending OJ Simpson, he could have confessed in open court and it wouldn't have swayed the minds of this jury.

I agree with both of these posts. I think Marcia Clark lost the case when she ignored the jury consultant and ignored Darden's advice to deep six Fuhrman. And she should have because Lange and Vannatter were senior detectives and could have testified as to what was found. It wasn't necessary for Fuhrman to testify.

I think the entirety of the physical evidence could have been tossed out and there was still enough circumstantial evidence to convict.

That said, I would much rather a guilty man like Simpson walk free than an innocent man be convicted. If anyone is unfamiliar with the West Memphis 3 story, I encourage posters/readers here to check it out. The reasonable doubt of the defendants' guilt and the clear police (and possibly prosecutorial) misconduct, as well as what I consider judicial bias, will make you crazy.

DangerousMinds · April 13, 2016

Reading this thread reminds me why I understood that the jury found him not guilty. All the details and the questions, it can send a person into the not seeing the forest for the trees territory.

That's what I think happened -- little questions and doubts (perhaps personal past experiences with police -- the legacy of racism) caused the jurors to lose confidence in the prosecution. It's possible that corners were cut, asses were covered and things were sped along -- and that OJ did the murders. The two are not mutually exclusive. For me, the prosecution did a lousy job of explaining or even addressing the mysteries of the case.

Societally maybe we should also ask why so many people were *convinced* Oj had done it before the prosecution even finished laying out it's case -- perhaps there was an equal amount of bias there. The vehemence, the outright incredulity if you didn't immediately think OJ did it -- that made a strong and lasting impression on me.

Yes, there was 8 months worth of often confusing information to digest and consider. Too bad the jury didn't actually take the time necessary to deliberate amongst each other . . .

I have seen several posters state "I think OJ is 100% guilty, but . . ." To me, there is no other option there but to find him guilty. 100% guilty leaves no room for any doubt, certainly not reasonable doubt. This case was not about convicting or punishing the LAPD (although they may have deserved that for past deeds), it was about finding the defendant guilty of two brutal murders. When police do get put on trial, I am usually likely to assume the worst, but this case wash about that.

psychoticstate · April 13, 2016

Yes, there was 8 months worth of often confusing information to digest and consider. Too bad the jury didn't actually take the time necessary to deliberate amongst each other . . .

I have seen several posters state "I think OJ is 100% guilty, but . . ." To me, there is no other option there but to find him guilty. 100% guilty leaves no room for any doubt, certainly not reasonable doubt. This case was not about convicting or punishing the LAPD (although they may have deserved that for past deeds), it was about finding the defendant guilty of two brutal murders. When police do get put on trial, I am usually likely to assume the worst, but this case wash about that.

This was and is my biggest frustration with this case. It should have been about Simpson and his guilt or innocence but it became about the alleged misdeeds and conduct of the LAPD. It was no joke when people said it became the Fuhrman trial, because it did. If the LAPD needed to be put on trial, do so. By all means. Bad conduct should be punished. But Ron and Nicole should not be punished for that, nor should their loved ones.

It always seemed to me that the jury felt they had to deliver a verdict that punished the LAPD and sent a message. The actual murders of two innocent people were incidental. It wasn't their job to send a message and it wasn't their job to punish the LAPD. I hold Ito very responsible for this. If he had control of his courtroom at all times, he would not allowed the defense to go on a fishing expedition without proof of corruption/conspiracy/intentional behavior in this case. But he too was so consumed and worried about national public sentiment and reaction versus justice being done with regard to two homicides.

GHScorpiosRule · April 13, 2016

If anyone is unfamiliar with the West Memphis 3 story, I encourage posters/readers here to check it out. The reasonable doubt of the defendants' guilt and the clear police (and possibly prosecutorial) misconduct, as well as what I consider judicial bias, will make you crazy.

Oh JEEBUS CRIPES! I knew they sounded familiar, but I was clearly thinking about another case! When I Googled (and I JUST finished reading the Wiki page, which also has some errors! Like not being able to count the number of days after the bodies were found!) it, am just...GOBSMACKED. The trial judge and jury foreperson?!!! I'll sleep well tonight! Thanks so much, psychoticstate. I think I'll read about rainbows and puppies and look over the pictures of my adopted* dearly departed Golden, Mick.

*He actually belonged to my college professor, but I always used an excuse to visit Dr. P., just so I could play with Mick and take him for walks/runs on Campus.

After I graduated and went back to visit after two or three years? Mick was at the end of the hall. I whispered his name (he was about 20 feet away), and he came running toward me, jumped me and gave me kisses, while whining, which was his speak for where have you BEEN all these years. Yes, Mick was the best boyfriend I had.

What?

Edited April 13, 2016 by GHScorpiosRule

deerstalker · April 13, 2016

This was and is my biggest frustration with this case. It should have been about Simpson and his guilt or innocence but it became about the alleged misdeeds and conduct of the LAPD. It was no joke when people said it became the Fuhrman trial, because it did. If the LAPD needed to be put on trial, do so. By all means. Bad conduct should be punished. But Ron and Nicole should not be punished for that, nor should their loved ones.

It always seemed to me that the jury felt they had to deliver a verdict that punished the LAPD and sent a message. The actual murders of two innocent people were incidental. It wasn't their job to send a message and it wasn't their job to punish the LAPD. I hold Ito very responsible for this. If he had control of his courtroom at all times, he would not allowed the defense to go on a fishing expedition without proof of corruption/conspiracy/intentional behavior in this case. But he too was so consumed and worried about national public sentiment and reaction versus justice being done with regard to two homicides.

Nicole and Ron were beyond punishing. And trials should not be about victim's families seeking retribution. They should be about weighing the guilt or innocence of the defendant, with a presentation of the facts against the defendant by the prosecution, and a refutation of those facts by the defense. If at the end, the jury believes that there is some doubt as to whether the defendant committed the crime, even if they think he probably did it, then they must find the defendant not guilty.

Here are the instructions for the jury in this case:

Also, if the circumstantial evidence as to any particular count is susceptible of two reasonable interpretations, one of which points to the defendant's guilt, and the other to his innocence, you must adopt that interpretation which points to the defendant's innocence and reject that interpretation which points to his guilt. If, on the other hand, one interpretation of such evidence appears to you to be reasonable, and the other interpretation to be unreasonable, you must accept the reasonable interpretation and reject the unreasonable.

******************

A witness who is willfully false in one material part of his or her testimony, is to be distrusted in others. You may reject the whole testimony of a witness who has willfully testified falsely as to a material point unless, from all the evidence, you believe the probability of truth favors his or her testimony and other particulars.

*******************

Reasonable doubt is defined as follows. It is not a mere possible doubt, because everything relating to human affairs is open to some possible or imaginary doubt. It is that state of the case which, after the entire comparison and consideration of all the evidence, leaves the minds of the jurors in that condition that they cannot say they feel an abiding conviction of the truth of the charge.

The prosecution has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt each element of the crimes charged in the information and that the defendant was the perpetrator of any such charged crimes. The defendant is not required to prove himself innocent or to prove that any other person committed the crimes charged.

I don't think the jury "punished" the LAPD for mistakes and past malfeasance. They simply had no prior confidence in them (as what technically should be the case in a trial, but so rarely is), so the prosecution actually had to do the work and prove the case, and each piece of evidence. And while doing that, it became clear to not just the jury, but people following along, that there were a lot of botched procedures, cross-contamination, and lying on the witness stand in the state's case, even setting aside the very solid possibility of falsification of evidence. Why should a jury convict under those circumstances? The state must prove its case. When it's shown that your agents are willing to lie, that they did not follow protocols so their results cannot be trusted, and that they have missing and magically appearing evidence, that allows a lot of room for doubt. The jury decision was not about "punishing" the LAPD. I think some people get angry/upset that the jury did not give the LAPD/prosecution the deference that is normally afforded them in cases, and acted as a truly neutral party.

If I am to trust your lab work, then your lab cannot show cross-contamination. It cannot show that the defendant's blood is already been mixed in with the control vials of the victim's. It cannot show that swatches taken at the scene have a lab technician's initials, but the same supposed swatches shown later for testing do not have these initials You cannot have "mislogged" the amount of blood that you have taken from the defendant. You cannot have recorded and photographed a tear in the finger of a hotly disputed glove, and yet have the same glove examined later not have a tear, and then that same glove not fit the defendant. How much confidence should anyone have in a lab under those circumstances like that? Nor can a jury trust the word of detectives who must plead the 5th, or other detectives who think it is appropriate to take key pieces of evidence home with them, or be given a sample of the defendant's blood, and rather than logging it in, stroll around both crimes scenes with it, for no particular reason. I don't think refusing to accept unquestioningly the findings of the state is the same as "putting the LAPD on trial." There were some real verifiable questions raised by the defense that pointed to shenanigans not with the LAPD in general, or with their past misdeeds, but with both the LAPD and the crime lab in this case in particular.

psychoticstate · April 13, 2016

Nicole and Ron were beyond punishing. And trials should not be about victim's families seeking retribution. They should be about weighing the guilt or innocence of the defendant, with a presentation of the facts against the defendant by the prosecution, and a refutation of those facts by the defense. If at the end, the jury believes that there is some doubt as to whether the defendant committed the crime, even if they think he probably did it, then they must find the defendant not guilty.

Here are the instructions for the jury in this case:

Also, if the circumstantial evidence as to any particular count is susceptible of two reasonable interpretations, one of which points to the defendant's guilt, and the other to his innocence, you must adopt that interpretation which points to the defendant's innocence and reject that interpretation which points to his guilt. If, on the other hand, one interpretation of such evidence appears to you to be reasonable, and the other interpretation to be unreasonable, you must accept the reasonable interpretation and reject the unreasonable.

******************

A witness who is willfully false in one material part of his or her testimony, is to be distrusted in others. You may reject the whole testimony of a witness who has willfully testified falsely as to a material point unless, from all the evidence, you believe the probability of truth favors his or her testimony and other particulars.

*******************

Reasonable doubt is defined as follows. It is not a mere possible doubt, because everything relating to human affairs is open to some possible or imaginary doubt. It is that state of the case which, after the entire comparison and consideration of all the evidence, leaves the minds of the jurors in that condition that they cannot say they feel an abiding conviction of the truth of the charge.

The prosecution has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt each element of the crimes charged in the information and that the defendant was the perpetrator of any such charged crimes. The defendant is not required to prove himself innocent or to prove that any other person committed the crimes charged.

I don't think the jury "punished" the LAPD for mistakes and past malfeasance. They simply had no prior confidence in them (as what technically should be the case in a trial, but so rarely is), so the prosecution actually had to do the work and prove the case, and each piece of evidence. And while doing that, it became clear to not just the jury, but people following along, that there were a lot of botched procedures, cross-contamination, and lying on the witness stand in the state's case, even setting aside the very solid possibility of falsification of evidence. Why should a jury convict under those circumstances? The state must prove its case. When it's shown that your agents are willing to lie, that they did not follow protocols so their results cannot be trusted, and that they have missing and magically appearing evidence, that allows a lot of room for doubt. The jury decision was not about "punishing" the LAPD. I think some people get angry/upset that the jury did not give the LAPD/prosecution the deference that is normally afforded them in cases, and acted as a truly neutral party.

If I am to trust your lab work, then your lab cannot show cross-contamination. It cannot show that the defendant's blood is already been mixed in with the control vials of the victim's. It cannot show that swatches taken at the scene have a lab technician's initials, but the same supposed swatches shown later for testing do not have these initials You cannot have "mislogged" the amount of blood that you have taken from the defendant. You cannot have recorded and photographed a tear in the finger of a hotly disputed glove, and yet have the same glove examined later not have a tear, and then that same glove not fit the defendant. How much confidence should anyone have in a lab under those circumstances like that? Nor can a jury trust the word of detectives who must plead the 5th, or other detectives who think it is appropriate to take key pieces of evidence home with them, or be given a sample of the defendant's blood, and rather than logging it in, stroll around both crimes scenes with it, for no particular reason. I don't think refusing to accept unquestioningly the findings of the state is the same as "putting the LAPD on trial." There were some real verifiable questions raised by the defense that pointed to shenanigans not with the LAPD in general, or with their past misdeeds, but with both the LAPD and the crime lab in this case in particular.

It's not about retribution. It's about getting justice for the victims. I don't think the Goldman or Brown families ever asked for retribution or called for Simpson's head on a stick. They only wanted justice.

The jury may not have punished the LAPD, per se, but they sent a message. Very clear when you look at Juror #6's gesture to Simpson and Carrie Bess' statement post-verdict. It may not have been the sole basis for their verdict but it certainly weighed heavily.

Some of the evidence collection is this case was a mess, I will grant you that. No crime scene is perfect. And I think if there was only one piece of evidence and no circumstantial evidence, I could understand the jury saying they acquitted based on that improper/mislogged/contaminated evidence. But I believe the jury, at its heart, acquitted Simpson because of the racial undertones. No matter what the prosecution may have shown, no matter what the defense may or may not have been able to dispute, that jury was never going to convict Simpson. Never.

whiporee · April 14, 2016

No matter what the prosecution may have shown, no matter what the defense may or may not have been able to dispute, that jury was never going to convict Simpson. Never.

You could say the same thing about the civil judge and jury. They were never going to do anything but punish Simpson for the fact the criminal jury didn't. Never.

Ain't America grand.

deerstalker · April 14, 2016

It's not about retribution. It's about getting justice for the victims. I don't think the Goldman or Brown families ever asked for retribution or called for Simpson's head on a stick. They only wanted justice.

The jury may not have punished the LAPD, per se, but they sent a message. Very clear when you look at Juror #6's gesture to Simpson and Carrie Bess' statement post-verdict. It may not have been the sole basis for their verdict but it certainly weighed heavily.

Some of the evidence collection is this case was a mess, I will grant you that. No crime scene is perfect. And I think if there was only one piece of evidence and no circumstantial evidence, I could understand the jury saying they acquitted based on that improper/mislogged/contaminated evidence. But I believe the jury, at its heart, acquitted Simpson because of the racial undertones. No matter what the prosecution may have shown, no matter what the defense may or may not have been able to dispute, that jury was never going to convict Simpson. Never.

I think that is very unfair to the jury, and making a lot of unwarranted assumptions about their decision making process based on the racial make up of the jury. Would it be fair to say that a jury of all whites would have voted to convict Simpson, no matter how much the defense showed that evidence was planted/mishandled/contaminated? Black juries convict black defendants all the time. It is not a noteworthy thing for a jury to do. But if you have a detective who is known for making racial epithets and boasting about planting evidence on minority suspects, and this detective just so happens to find key evidence on your minority defendant, it would be legal malpractice for a defense attorney not to point this out. It would also a key factor for a jury to consider, I would hope, whether they were black or white. And if you find that so much of the components of the prosecutions case does not hold up scrutiny, where their witnesses are forced to contradict themselves, explain missing pieces of evidence, the sudden appearance of damning pieces of evidence with no explanation, excuse botched procedure and sloppy police work, at what point does it become reasonable doubt? Because for me, at the first firm indication that the state has either falsified evidence, or hopelessly corrupted it and tried to cya, that's enough reasonable doubt for me. The state's hands must be completely clean for me to vote to convict someone. And it is obvious that the state's hands were quite dirty in this case.

I do think too much has been made over the fist pump gesture by that one juror. From reading what the other jurors had to say, it doesn't appear that he had much affect on the deliberations (such as they were). After listening to what the people on both sides had to say for about a year, ten people on the jury all had the same conclusion. The other two people would not identify themselves during the deliberation period, nor make a case for conviction. After some discussion of the (few) parts of the case that did not involve any government actors, in which they found that the witness contradicted himself, on the next vote everyone was unanimous.

I remember watching the case at the time, and listening to people's commentary, and feeling a little incredulous that people were so surprised at this result. I guess back then it was a little more unthinkable for some people to believe that police planted evidence and that lab technicians would corrupt/falsify results to ensure convictions. But in the intervening decades, after reading and seeing so many police departments being caught actually planting evidence, and so many convictions being vacated because labs (including the FBI lab!) were caught routinely falsifying evidence, or not even bothering to run tests and just saying that they had, all in an effort to ensure convictions, I don't see why it is still so unthinkable.

SinInTheCamp · April 14, 2016

Having working in law enforcement for nearly a decade, I know that prosecutors LURVE to say that trials are about justice, because it makes them feel like noble superhero crusaders, but it's simply not true. Criminal trials are all about determining the guilt of the defendant/s. And I'm always gobsmacked when Ito is accused of acting in the interest of public opinion, as if that's a bad thing. He should be deferring to the public. After all, it was the People of the State of California v. O.J. Simpson, not Fred Goldman & The Browns et al. v. Simpson or even the District Attorney's Office of Los Angeles v. Simpson. The prosecution was only our representatives (not the ones I would have personally chosen, but I digress...). I think it's an oft-forgotten fact that the justice system is supposed to be paying attention to public sentiment. This is often overlooked because law enforcement views themselves as an exclusive club and doesn't want the public involved. But it's our right to make our voices heard, and we should be doing so much more often--and not just in high-profile cases. Ito actually didn't have the ego that many think he did--because unlike judges with legitimately huge egos, he was willing to listen the public. That's the opposite of someone with an ego problem.

SinInTheCamp · April 14, 2016

The jury may not have punished the LAPD, per se, but they sent a message. Very clear when you look at Juror #6's gesture to Simpson

Oh geez, and I make that gesture all the time to colleagues after they've successfully presented a project. I didn't realize that instead of conveying, "Yes, you've made it through!" I was actually telling them that if they ever decide to kill two people, I will ensure that they get off scot-free despite being overwhelmingly convinced of their guilt. I feel terrible.

TXLonghorn93 · April 14, 2016

Why should a juror be conveying that message to the defense team and/or Simpson at all? It speaks volumes about his mindset & was entirely inappropriate, IMO.

You could say the same thing about the civil judge and jury. They were never going to do anything but punish Simpson for the fact the criminal jury didn't. Never.

Ain't America grand.

I don't recall any quotes or actions by the civil jurors that support your contention & they managed to deliberate for more than five minutes (days, in fact). I suggest watching the documentary that one of the civil jurors did (it's on youtube, I think).

Edited April 14, 2016 by TXLonghorn93

psychoticstate · April 14, 2016

I think that is very unfair to the jury, and making a lot of unwarranted assumptions about their decision making process based on the racial make up of the jury. Would it be fair to say that a jury of all whites would have voted to convict Simpson, no matter how much the defense showed that evidence was planted/mishandled/contaminated? Black juries convict black defendants all the time. It is not a noteworthy thing for a jury to do. But if you have a detective who is known for making racial epithets and boasting about planting evidence on minority suspects, and this detective just so happens to find key evidence on your minority defendant, it would be legal malpractice for a defense attorney not to point this out. It would also a key factor for a jury to consider, I would hope, whether they were black or white. And if you find that so much of the components of the prosecutions case does not hold up scrutiny, where their witnesses are forced to contradict themselves, explain missing pieces of evidence, the sudden appearance of damning pieces of evidence with no explanation, excuse botched procedure and sloppy police work, at what point does it become reasonable doubt? Because for me, at the first firm indication that the state has either falsified evidence, or hopelessly corrupted it and tried to cya, that's enough reasonable doubt for me. The state's hands must be completely clean for me to vote to convict someone. And it is obvious that the state's hands were quite dirty in this case.

I do think too much has been made over the fist pump gesture by that one juror. From reading what the other jurors had to say, it doesn't appear that he had much affect on the deliberations (such as they were). After listening to what the people on both sides had to say for about a year, ten people on the jury all had the same conclusion. The other two people would not identify themselves during the deliberation period, nor make a case for conviction. After some discussion of the (few) parts of the case that did not involve any government actors, in which they found that the witness contradicted himself, on the next vote everyone was unanimous.

I remember watching the case at the time, and listening to people's commentary, and feeling a little incredulous that people were so surprised at this result. I guess back then it was a little more unthinkable for some people to believe that police planted evidence and that lab technicians would corrupt/falsify results to ensure convictions. But in the intervening decades, after reading and seeing so many police departments being caught actually planting evidence, and so many convictions being vacated because labs (including the FBI lab!) were caught routinely falsifying evidence, or not even bothering to run tests and just saying that they had, all in an effort to ensure convictions, I don't see why it is still so unthinkable.

I think people were surprised that a defendant whose blood was found at the crime scene, whose vehicle and home was found with the victims' blood in it, who had a history of violence with one victim and who went on that slow speed chase via the 405 could be acquitted.

I know we will never see eye to eye on this but the defense didn't prove that anything was planted or intentionally tampered with. They suggested it and said that could explain Simpson's blood and DNA. Sure, it could. But it's just not plausible here. Aliens also could have done it. A random killer roaming the streets of Brentwood, never striking before and having never struck again, could also have done it. But again, not plausible here.

I greatly admire The Innocence Project and Barry Scheck has done wonderful work. I was horrified to read of the problem in Illinois with the crime lab. Of course it's possible and it definitely happened in Illinois. But again, there is no proof it happened in LA in this case.

One person did identify herself during the deliberation period as one of the two guilty votes. Regardless though, what does that have to do with anything? Does it really matter if a person wants to say how they voted? How does it change anything?

In any event, I'm not making assumptions about the jury's decision making process based on the racial makeup. This particular jury did not want to convict Simpson - - whether because of his celebrity, fear of riots, belief that all cops are corrupt, I don't know. But I personally believe they would not have convicted him no matter what. Heck, I spend more time planning my dinner menu for the week than they did deliberating a murder case.

How were the state's hands quite dirty in this case? The defense didn't prove that. Were they sloppy? Yes. Did the prosecution make some key mistakes? Absolutely. Do you think the prosecutors were somehow involved in some conspiracy to plant evidence/frame Simpson?

Having working in law enforcement for nearly a decade, I know that prosecutors LURVE to say that trials are about justice, because it makes them feel like noble superhero crusaders, but it's simply not true. Criminal trials are all about determining the guilt of the defendant/s. And I'm always gobsmacked when Ito is accused of acting in the interest of public opinion, as if that's a bad thing. He should be deferring to the public. After all, it was the People of the State of California v. O.J. Simpson, not Fred Goldman & The Browns et al. v. Simpson or even the District Attorney's Office of Los Angeles v. Simpson. The prosecution was only our representatives (not the ones I would have personally chosen, but I digress...). I think it's an oft-forgotten fact that the justice system is supposed to be paying attention to public sentiment. This is often overlooked because law enforcement views themselves as an exclusive club and doesn't want the public involved. But it's our right to make our voices heard, and we should be doing so much more often--and not just in high-profile cases. Ito actually didn't have the ego that many think he did--because unlike judges with legitimately huge egos, he was willing to listen the public. That's the opposite of someone with an ego problem.

The Furhman tapes should not have been a matter of public debate or concern at that time, in relation to the trial against Simpson. Ito's first concern should have been that proper judicial decisions were made in his courtroom relating to the case at hand. Not whether or not the public deserved to hear those tapes.

And Ito did have an ego problem of some sort - - look how he fawned over the celebrities that he invited into the courtroom. Dominick Dunne wrote about it and also mentioned how giddy Ito was about Arsenio Hall writing him. Ito shouldn't have been concerned with that at all - - he was presiding over what many pundits were calling the trial of the century; he should have been busy enough with the case, not fanwanking.

If public sentiment alone played into the case, Simpson likely never would have been charged with the crimes.

Oh geez, and I make that gesture all the time to colleagues after they've successfully presented a project. I didn't realize that instead of conveying, "Yes, you've made it through!" I was actually telling them that if they ever decide to kill two people, I will ensure that they get off scot-free despite being overwhelmingly convinced of their guilt. I feel terrible.

Why should a juror be conveying that message to the defense team and/or Simpson at all? It speaks volumes about his mindset & was entirely inappropriate, IMO.

I don't recall any quotes or actions by the civil jurors that support your contention & they managed to deliberate for more than five minutes (days, in fact). I suggest watching the documentary that one of the civil jurors did (it's on youtube, I think).

Agree, TXLonghorn. I don't find the gesture offensive or improper but in the context it was delivered? It was insensitive and inappropriate.

The civil trial was a completely different animal - - it didn't have the circus atmosphere that surrounded the criminal trial and the judge kept the cameras and nonsense out of the courtroom. The civil trial jurors were not supposed to deliberate using the criminal trial acquittal but people are people so who knows how the jury could have voted? They could have found Simpson not liable, or they could have voted liable but with a much smaller amount of damages. I think Simpson - - his demeanor and deposition - - affected that greatly.

Umbelina · April 14, 2016

At least the jury deliberated in the civil trial.

They also had proof of the shoes though, and the criminal jury didn't have that.

Most of all? OJ had to testify in the civil trial, and he absolutely came off as the ass and murderer he was. Petrocelli's cross examination, not letting OJ tell his rehearsed linear script, breaking up the questions, was genius. Transcripts here: http://simpson.walraven.org/

This is from one of the civil jurors, and it's well worth watching.

Edited April 14, 2016 by Umbelina

FuriousStyles · April 15, 2016

Yes, there was 8 months worth of often confusing information to digest and consider. Too bad the jury didn't actually take the time necessary to deliberate amongst each other . . .

I have seen several posters state "I think OJ is 100% guilty, but . . ." To me, there is no other option there but to find him guilty. 100% guilty leaves no room for any doubt, certainly not reasonable doubt. This case was not about convicting or punishing the LAPD (although they may have deserved that for past deeds), it was about finding the defendant guilty of two brutal murders. When police do get put on trial, I am usually likely to assume the worst, but this case wash about that.

All 12 jurors can think OJ was 100% guilty and still have a right if not obligation to vote not guilty if they believe the prosecution didnt prove it. Its why they say "not guilty" versus "innocent". OJ was voted not guilty, but it doesnt mean he was innocent of the charges. ALL the burden is on the prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

In a similar vain, the defense never has to prove *anything*. They didnt have to actually prove that the LAPD planted evidence. All they did was present an alternative theory. And it seems their presentation resonated more with the jury than the prosecution's.

vibeology · April 15, 2016

And part of the reason posters can say now that they thing OJ is 100% guilty is we have more information in the form of OJ's awful book and his own testimony at the civil trial. We know way more now that anyone did then. Even the shoes hadn't been proven at the criminal trial. Its hard to put yourself back in a place before you knew something. I know I thought OJ was guilty as a kid hearing things on the news, but ask me as a adult, with the information presented at trial if I could vote guilty, I honestly can't say because I know that I'm misremembering things and conflating one trial with the other. I just know that for me, I think the sock was planted evidence and that opens up a sliver of worry about how the case was handled as a whole. Is that enough to be "reasonable" in the face of the other facts like Alan Park and Kato, like OJ owning the gloves, like the issue of motive, like all of the rest of the blood evidence found almost immediately after the murders and OJs own behavior in the week after the murders. I don't think so, but I know that I'm looking at the situation with more information than I would have had at the time and my opinion might have been different back then.

Jel · April 15, 2016

All 12 jurors can think OJ was 100% guilty and still have a right if not obligation to vote not guilty if they believe the prosecution didnt prove it. Its why they say "not guilty" versus "innocent". OJ was voted not guilty, but it doesnt mean he was innocent of the charges. ALL the burden is on the prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

In a similar vain, the defense never has to prove *anything*. They didnt have to actually prove that the LAPD planted evidence. All they did was present an alternative theory. And it seems their presentation resonated more with the jury than the prosecution's.

Exactly.

I do get that it seems very odd to think, to be sure even, that a person is guilty and then vote not guilty. But that is the legal system, warts and all.

In everyday life if you are convinced something is one way, then you act accordingly. But in trials, where life or liberty are at stake, there is more involved. That "more" is the burden of proof. There are no doubt many, many times when the State's obligation to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt causes guilty people to go free, but that is the system, and it's a price the American system of justice is willing to pay to *prevent* innocent people from losing their freedom. Everything costs, and that is the cost of the burden of proof being on the State.

Being very frank here, and based on the many convos I have had about the case over the years, I think there's a prevailing opinion that the people who agreed with the verdict were, um, let's say, intellectually unsophisticated (If it doesn't fit, you must acquit; the police are corrupt, they planted the evidence), and maybe that is true of some of those people. But there are also people who think that he did it, but that the verdict was correct because the State did not meet its obligation. And this was one of those situations where a murderer got away with it -- one of those costs of the American legal system.

Personally, I believe he did it; and I think there was enough evidence to convict him, but I also understand why people would think the State didn't prove it, so even if he was guilty, the right verdict was rendered. Even though that is not my opinion, I can understand it and respect it.

Gia Jake · April 16, 2016

Hi all. The miniseries and jury duty discussion enticed me to sign up and share my experiences. As a resident of a large metropolitan area, we have City, State and Federal trials here. Weirdly, I have been summoned to all three venues for a total of six times, once as an alternate, and once the judge declared a mistrial.

I was under the mistaken belief I could only be called every three years, but that was just City. But I was allowed to be called for State and Federal during that time. At one point I was called three years in a row, showed up, and picked EVERY SINGLE TIME for my six call-ups to serve.

There were so many funny stories and good times, but I never wanted to serve in the beginning. Eventually you developed nice relationships, and really took the case seriously. During the many times the jury was sent out of the courtroom, I was the gal who played poker with the guys during breaks and lunch. I hues it's good I learned to play at five, haha.

I live in a predominately AA city, so juries were generally mixed, except on Federal when a deadlocked priest and religious brothers were on trial for destroying a nuclear installation. It was noted by all reporters that the jury looked like Woodstock refugees, myself included. Fun times. Did anyone else serve? I have to say as a juror having someone's life in my hands was a sacred responsibility, and I didn't take it lightly.

My beloved husband of 39 years recently died. I always remember him saying that he wanted someone like Henry Fonda there from 12 Angry Men if he ever had a jury trial. Thank heavens we never needed that, but I heartily agreed with that sentiment.

Sign In

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

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

psychoticstate

SinInTheCamp

SinInTheCamp

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment