O.J. dead

fuchsia said:
For years I used the OJ murder trial to teach mental health staff the difference between criminal law conviction standard (beyond a reasonable doubt), civil case (preponderance of the evidence), and mental health commitment standard (clear and convincing evidence). You could not have LAPD detectives running around violating their own rules on handling of blood evidence and not have a reasonable doubt.
Click to expand...
Over the years, people have drawn their own conclusions as to why OJ was acquitted, whether or not he should have been acquitted and whether or not he killed Ron and Nicole. So I'll ask you Fuchsia: do you think he killed them?
 
monte said:
Over the years, people have drawn their own conclusions as to why OJ was acquitted, whether or not he should have been acquitted and whether or not he killed Ron and Nicole. So I'll ask you Fuchsia: do you think he killed them?
Click to expand...
I'll answer, the case is for the prosecution to carry the burden of proof beyond a reasaonable doubt. They failed. The LAPD botched so many aspects of the case and their credibility was lacking; LA prosecutors made multiple miscalculations and the jury were justified in finding that the prosecution did not prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. That is not the same as the jury saying OJ didn't do it. OJ did not have the burden to prove his innocence. A civil jury found he did it (preponderance of the evidence standard).

Two friends I know, at the highest levels within the manhattan DA's office were convinced if this happened in NY he would have been convicted. More professional detective work, where pre-arrest ADAs ride along with the detectives to make sure evidence chain of custody is followed, etc., etc., Better vetting of prosecution witnesses. Much better handling of expert witnesses. Sharper cross examination. Finally, no tactical mistakes during trial.

OJ was lucky he was tried in LA not NYC.
 
monte said:
Everyone was furious that they took off the Knick game, but we soon learned why.
Click to expand...
They put it on the screen at the Knick game.

Same game where some old guy behind my friend wanted to fight him for standing at the end of the game. šŸ˜
 
BrookJersey Redmen said:
I'll answer, the case is for the prosecution to carry the burden of proof beyond a reasaonable doubt. They failed. The LAPD botched so many aspects of the case and their credibility was lacking; LA prosecutors made multiple miscalculations and the jury were justified in finding that the prosecution did not prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. That is not the same as the jury saying OJ didn't do it. OJ did not have the burden to prove his innocence. A civil jury found he did it (preponderance of the evidence standard).

Two friends I know, at the highest levels within the manhattan DA's office were convinced if this happened in NY he would have been convicted. More professional detective work, where pre-arrest ADAs ride along with the detectives to make sure evidence chain of custody is followed, etc., etc., Better vetting of prosecution witnesses. Much better handling of expert witnesses. Sharper cross examination. Finally, no tactical mistakes during trial.

OJ was lucky he was tried in LA not NYC.
Click to expand...
Really appreciate the answer BJR, but that wasn't the question. šŸ˜‚
 
BrookJersey Redmen said:
I'll answer, the case is for the prosecution to carry the burden of proof beyond a reasaonable doubt. They failed. The LAPD botched so many aspects of the case and their credibility was lacking; LA prosecutors made multiple miscalculations and the jury were justified in finding that the prosecution did not prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. That is not the same as the jury saying OJ didn't do it. OJ did not have the burden to prove his innocence. A civil jury found he did it (preponderance of the evidence standard).

Two friends I know, at the highest levels within the manhattan DA's office were convinced if this happened in NY he would have been convicted. More professional detective work, where pre-arrest ADAs ride along with the detectives to make sure evidence chain of custody is followed, etc., etc., Better vetting of prosecution witnesses. Much better handling of expert witnesses. Sharper cross examination. Finally, no tactical mistakes during trial.

OJ was lucky he was tried in LA not NYC.
Click to expand...
Back then yes today no (never would have pulled the try on the glove stunt) Nicole and Goldman would have been charged with disorderly conduct for running into OJā€™s knife and for assaulting OJ for the cut he suffered on his finger.
 
BrookJersey Redmen said:
I'll answer, the case is for the prosecution to carry the burden of proof beyond a reasaonable doubt. They failed. The LAPD botched so many aspects of the case and their credibility was lacking; LA prosecutors made multiple miscalculations and the jury were justified in finding that the prosecution did not prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. That is not the same as the jury saying OJ didn't do it. OJ did not have the burden to prove his innocence. A civil jury found he did it (preponderance of the evidence standard).

Two friends I know, at the highest levels within the manhattan DA's office were convinced if this happened in NY he would have been convicted. More professional detective work, where pre-arrest ADAs ride along with the detectives to make sure evidence chain of custody is followed, etc., etc., Better vetting of prosecution witnesses. Much better handling of expert witnesses. Sharper cross examination. Finally, no tactical mistakes during trial.

OJ was lucky he was tried in LA not NYC.
Click to expand...
Sorry BJR, but there is nothing professional about the Manhattan DAs office!!
 
As to OJ's guilt or innocence, I think O.J. answered that question long before his trial.
He was still in his "unbalanced" state of mind during the hours long car chase.
Once he got his billion dollar defense team, all he had to do is watch his all star defense team shred the public servants piece by piece.
 
BrookJersey Redmen said:
I'll answer, the case is for the prosecution to carry the burden of proof beyond a reasaonable doubt. They failed. The LAPD botched so many aspects of the case and their credibility was lacking; LA prosecutors made multiple miscalculations and the jury were justified in finding that the prosecution did not prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. That is not the same as the jury saying OJ didn't do it. OJ did not have the burden to prove his innocence. A civil jury found he did it (preponderance of the evidence standard).

Two friends I know, at the highest levels within the manhattan DA's office were convinced if this happened in NY he would have been convicted. More professional detective work, where pre-arrest ADAs ride along with the detectives to make sure evidence chain of custody is followed, etc., etc., Better vetting of prosecution witnesses. Much better handling of expert witnesses. Sharper cross examination. Finally, no tactical mistakes during trial.

OJ was lucky he was tried in LA not NYC.
Click to expand...
Present day NYC, he might be released without bail. šŸ˜”
 
Passed Away
OJ Simpson (2024)
F. Lee Bailey (2021)
Johnny Cochran (2005)
Robert Kardashian (2003)

Alive & Well
Judge Ito (73 yrs. old)
Marcia Clark (70 yrs. old)
Chris Darden (68 yrs. old)
Robert Shapiro (81 yrs. old)
Barry Scheck (74 yrs. old)
Al Cowlings (76 yrs old)
Kato Kaelin (65 yrs. old)


GTY_simpson_trial_victims_jef_140605_16x9_992.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top