OJ Simpson is Dead

[JerryShoe]

Originally Posted by Brad K

The verdict wasn't for OJ. It was against corrupt cops and inept experts.

"Don't do anything that will make you look like a jerk on the stand." With stronger wording, my new partners told me to act like a professional. Charlie and Craig should have directed that to this that group of LAPD investigators, because when watching the trial play out our squad had a lot of fun at their expense, everything from initial evidence collection to ultimate testimony. This is why I wrote earlier that the criminal verdict was reasonable and here Brad K is completely correct.

[BaseballMan]

Originally Posted by Brad K

The verdict wasn't for OJ. It was against corrupt cops and inept experts.

The cops were not on trial, OJ was.

[Amazin69]

Originally Posted by dsvitak

The civil trial was a formality. OF COURSE Simpson was responsible. He cut his hand, badly. He removed the interior dome light on his Bronco, so he could drive away more easily. He threw out his bloody clothes immediately outside the airport terminal, and was seen doing it. EVERYTHING pointed to him. The DNA evidence, as well.

No rational human can have even the remotest doubt that OJ Simpson was guilty of murder.

You have an active imagination, and an interesting concept of being "rational".

The actual FACTS are that

• the bloody clothes were never recovered.

• I don't believe anybody testified to seeing OJ throwing the clothes away in the criminal trial (if somebody claimed to have seen this in the civil case, I suspect Revenge Perjury, honestly)

• In the criminal trial, several witnesses testified that OJ was signing autographs on the plane, in fine spirits, no cuts on his hand, which he did not try to hide.

(His hand did later have a cut, but he claimed he got that in Chicago. Whether it was mere coincidence, or OJ trying to draw suspicion away from his son is unclear.)

But hey, according to you, all 12 jurors were "irrational", too. So I guess I'm in good company.

[Amazin69]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

It doesn't get around anything because civil cases can only deprive you of money; your freedom is never at stake. Criminal cases in contrast can deprive you of your liberty, and for a long time.

Still, being forced into poverty by a lesser standard of proof even AFTER you have already been acquitted by a court of law doesn't sound like my idea of fun, and hardly what the Founders had in mind when they wrote the Fifth Amendment.

I refuse to believe that Madison et. al. envisioned a parallel system of "civil courts" that lets popular outrage get a second, easier, bite at the cherry. Since the Amendment specifies that it is protecting defendants' "life, liberty, and property", I can't see the idea being one trial for "life and liberty" and another for "property", just to be sure that BAD MAN has to PAY!!

Perhaps the Supreme Court has ruled the other way. (Although I can't find a case on point.) But that's all right, the Court has been wrong before. (Dred Scott v. Sanford, Plessy v. Ferguson, and so forth.) One hopes they will eventually correct their error, if they have IMO erred already.

[jcard]

Originally Posted by Amazin69

I refuse to believe that Madison et. al. envisioned a parallel system of "civil courts" that lets popular outrage get a second, easier, bite at the cherry.

Or fresh-squeezed juicing of the orange, for that matter…

[Ragnar]

Originally Posted by Amazin69

Still, being forced into poverty by a lesser standard of proof even AFTER you have already been acquitted by a court of law doesn't sound like my idea of fun, and hardly what the Founders had in mind when they wrote the Fifth Amendment.

The trial forced him into poverty. The civil lawsuit kept him there. It's not like he had any earning potential anyway. Everybody thought he did it. Life as he knew it ended after the trial, not the civil suit.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by Amazin69

Still, being forced into poverty by a lesser standard of proof even AFTER you have already been acquitted by a court of law doesn't sound like my idea of fun, and hardly what the Founders had in mind when they wrote the Fifth Amendment.

Did Simpson ever actually pay the judgement? There are plenty of cases in which the financial penalty never gets paid.

The civil system exists to allow an individual to seek redress for damages that do not rise to the level of a criminal offense.

Originally Posted by Amazin69

I refuse to believe that Madison et. al. envisioned a parallel system of "civil courts" that lets popular outrage get a second, easier, bite at the cherry.

Once again you do not seem to understand the difference between criminal and civil cases.

A conviction in a criminal case can put you in PRISON, possibly for the rest of your life. A conviction in a civil case means having to pay a fine — which in some cases never gets paid. There are plenty of examples of a fine being levied but never paid either because the defendant doesn't have the ability to or chooses not to — and there limited means available by which paying a judgement can be compelled.

This is why some people are effectively lawsuit-proof. Even if you win you case, your chances of being paid the judgement are nil while you are still out the legal expenses. (Some people will still sue regardless if only to secure the legal victory.)

[jcard]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

Did Simpson ever actually pay the judgement? There are plenty of cases in which the financial penalty never gets paid.

A conviction in a criminal case can put you in PRISON, possibly for the rest of your life. A conviction in a civil case means having to pay a fine — which in some cases never gets paid. There are plenty of examples of a fine being levied but never paid either because the defendant doesn't have the ability to or chooses not to — and there limited means available by which paying a judgement can be compelled.

For clarification, I would replace “fine” (which is more punitive than anything, and typically imposed by an authority for violating some regulation, etc., to be collected by the authority) with “damages” (paid to the plaintiff to make home / her whole, with a further award of “punitive damages” often an option for a jury to add on top of the compensatory damages).

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by BaseballMan

The cops were not on trial, OJ was.

That should have been the case. It wasn't. The cops made themselves and issue and lost.

[thehef]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

Did Simpson ever actually pay the judgement? There are plenty of cases in which the financial penalty never gets paid.

I read somewhere earlier today that Simpson's died without having to pay most of the judgement awarded to the Browns & Goldmans; that both families could be in line to get - through the probate process - some of whatever exists of OJ's estate; that OJ's attorney/executor plans to do all he can to make sure the Goldman's receive zero, and that his animosity towards the Goldman's stems from them successfully getting rights to OJ's book, "If I Did It" and changing the name of it to "If I Did It: Confessions of the Killer."

I'm surprised nobody in this thread - in all the discussions of whether he was guilty or not - points to that book. I mean, it being well after the trials it has no bearing on any either court case, but at this point - with the trials being distant memories and OJ's corpse about to be torched into ashes - the only thing that remains as to his guilt or innocence is whether we think he did it or not. Most think he did, some have their doubts, and a few might actually think he didn't do it. At any rate, IMO, the book (which, admittedly, I did not read) would seem to come down on the side of "he did it," although those on other sides can reasonably(?) point to OJ's statements that it was a work of fiction and nothing more than an effort to make some money - at little cost, since the overwhelming majority of people are convinced he did it - for the apparently broke OJ.

[BaseballMan]

Originally Posted by Brad K

That should have been the case. It wasn't. The cops made themselves and issue and lost.

How?
When was it proven that any cop planted evidence on the OJ case?

[BaseballMan]

Originally Posted by thehef

I'm surprised nobody in this thread - in all the discussions of whether he was guilty or not - points to that book.

I listened to the book on audible after i had already came to the conclusion he actually did do it.
If i had not then that book and the book Outrage would certainly help.

To me it was him confessing without confessing.
If he was just trying to make money then why not write a book on he thought did it? Why put your self in the story?
Its like someone accuses you of robbing a safe.
You say i didn't do it but i would rob the safe this way which just happens to match the way it was robbed.
I have no idea of why OJ thought the book would be a good idea.
He would lose any profits to the Goldmans and it would be suspected by the public even more.
Why not write a book on why i am innocent.
Yeah that book was just weird thing for him to do.

[dsvitak]

Originally Posted by Brad K

The verdict wasn't for OJ. It was against corrupt cops and inept experts.

Exactly this. The defense - successfully - made it a racial issue, an issue of them vs. us, and NOT whether OJ was guilty of murder.

The jury likely knew this, and that they also knew that if OJ WAS found guilty of the murder he 100% committed, then the city of Los Angeles would burn baby burn.

[Ragnar]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

Did Simpson ever actually pay the judgement? There are plenty of cases in which the financial penalty never gets paid.

If you look it up, it comes to around $500,000.

[Syd Thrift]

Originally Posted by BaseballMan

How?
When was it proven that any cop planted evidence on the OJ case?

Lest we forget, Fuhrman literally pled the 5th when the defense point blank asked him if he had planted evidence. I’m sorry, but if I’m on a jury and that’s what I hear, that’s a yes for me, dog. If the prosecution wanted to point out that there were reams of evidence and Fuhrman being a jerk didn’t change that, they should have pointed that out. Instead they left it completely in the air for some reason.

You said you read Outrage, which is Vincent Bugliosi’s book on the trial. Bugliosi said as much as what I said, except he was even harder on Clark and Darden than I’m being right now.

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by BaseballMan

How?
When was it proven that any cop planted evidence on the OJ case?

It didn't have to be proven. All that was needed was a reasonable doubt the cops were telling the truth. They got a lot more than reasonable doubt.

Van Atter on the stand saying they entered OJ's property without a warrant because they were concerned for his safety. The first suspect when a woman is murdered is the husband, boyfriend, ex husband, and ex boyfriend. If Van Atter's first thought was for OJ's safety, he should have been fired for incompetence.

Better a thousand criminals go free than a single person be punished for a crime they didn't commit.

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by Syd Thrift

Lest we forget, Fuhrman literally pled the 5th when the defense point blank asked him if he had planted evidence. I’m sorry, but if I’m on a jury and that’s what I hear, that’s a yes for me, dog. If the prosecution wanted to point out that there were reams of evidence and Fuhrman being a jerk didn’t change that, they should have pointed that out. Instead they left it completely in the air for some reason.

You said you read Outrage, which is Vincent Bugliosi’s book on the trial. Bugliosi said as much as what I said, except he was even harder on Clark and Darden than I’m being right now.

Do you think that if Fuhrman admitting to planting evidence that the prosecution could have overcome that? I think had they handled it properly it would have been less of a handicap for the prosecution than ignoring it. Course, Fuhrman would have to admit to a crime.

[dsvitak]

Originally Posted by Amazin69

You have an active imagination, and an interesting concept of being "rational".

The actual FACTS are that

• the bloody clothes were never recovered.

• I don't believe anybody testified to seeing OJ throwing the clothes away in the criminal trial (if somebody claimed to have seen this in the civil case, I suspect Revenge Perjury, honestly)

• In the criminal trial, several witnesses testified that OJ was signing autographs on the plane, in fine spirits, no cuts on his hand, which he did not try to hide.

(His hand did later have a cut, but he claimed he got that in Chicago. Whether it was mere coincidence, or OJ trying to draw suspicion away from his son is unclear.)

But hey, according to you, all 12 jurors were "irrational", too. So I guess I'm in good company.

You ARE irrational. Explain the Bruno Magli shoes. This should be good.

[Amazin69]

While Fuhrman was planting other blood "evidence", he grabbed some Bruno Maglis out of OJ's closet and left the footprints. DUH.

Btw, I see you're so busy calling me names (how mature!) that you ignored all the evidence against the outright lies ("bloody clothes in the airport trash bins", FFS!) I caught you spewing in the last post. Whatever gets you through the night, I guess.

[thehef]

Furman may have had his character flaws but he was no idiot. I can't see him trying to plant evidence - which he'd have a short window to do - in what he'd know was just about to blow up and be the most publicized and scrutinized event of the year. It's one thing to be confident of planting evidence on some gang-banger that's pretty much guilty anyway and where nobody's gonna give the "evidence" a second look. It's quite another for Furman to think "I'm gonna frame OJ by grabbing some Bruno's out of his closet and drag them through the blood..."

IMO, this is one of the more unlikelier possibilities out there.