Queso
Topic Author
Posts: 3109
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2006 12:28 pm

O. J. Simpson Back In Custody

Fri Jan 11, 2008 9:12 pm

Apparent bail violation.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/01/11/simpson.bail/index.html

Lock him up and throw away the key.

[Edited 2008-01-11 13:12:54]
 
rfields5421
Posts: 5709
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:45 am

RE: O. J. Simpson Back In Custody

Fri Jan 11, 2008 9:19 pm

What is "in custody of his bail bondsman" ??

Has Dog got him in the back of the SUV?
 
lobster
Posts: 653
Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2008 7:03 pm

RE: O. J. Simpson Back In Custody

Fri Jan 11, 2008 11:03 pm



Quoting Queso (Thread starter):
Lock him up and throw away the key.

Couldn't agree more.
 
ltbewr
Posts: 12501
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2004 1:24 pm

RE: O. J. Simpson Back In Custody

Fri Jan 11, 2008 11:21 pm

OJ Simpson apparently has violated a condition of his bail agreement on the charges he is facing in Las Vegas, NV. Various news outlets are reporting from the court papers filed that he may have attempted to contact via a 3rd party a witness, that is a possible act of tampering or trying to intimidate a witness in violation of his bail agreement. He will face a hearing Monday or Tuesday next week and could be detained until he goes to trial or makes a plea deal assuming these charges are believed to be true to a reasonable doubt.
Maybe finally his arrogance will lead to hopfully his going to jail for years.
 
Queso
Topic Author
Posts: 3109
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2006 12:28 pm

RE: O. J. Simpson Back In Custody

Fri Jan 11, 2008 11:27 pm



Quoting LTBEWR (Reply 3):
Maybe finally his arrogance will lead to hopfully his going to jail for years.

I hope they make him forfeit his bail, too. I doubt that will happen though.
 
Nuori5084
Posts: 105
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 4:25 am

RE: O. J. Simpson Back In Custody

Fri Jan 11, 2008 11:35 pm

What a dirt bag. How many chances can a guilty man get?
Failure to plan on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part.
 
trekster
Posts: 4319
Joined: Fri Dec 26, 2003 2:47 am

RE: O. J. Simpson Back In Custody

Sat Jan 12, 2008 12:28 am

Can someone please just loose the key this time.

Let him stay where he belongs..
Where does the time go???
 
User avatar
LTU932
Posts: 13091
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2006 12:34 am

RE: O. J. Simpson Back In Custody

Sat Jan 12, 2008 12:42 am



Quoting Queso (Thread starter):
O. J. Simpson Back In Custody

OJ Simpson should have never been released from custody back in 95. He should have stayed in jail.
 
Queso
Topic Author
Posts: 3109
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2006 12:28 pm

RE: O. J. Simpson Back In Custody

Sat Jan 12, 2008 12:49 am



Quoting LTU932 (Reply 7):
OJ Simpson should have never been released from custody back in 95. He should have stayed in jail.

Agreed, but he has had some "better than average" lawyers so legally he had to be let go.
 
N1120A
Posts: 26468
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: O. J. Simpson Back In Custody

Sat Jan 12, 2008 12:50 am



Quoting LTU932 (Reply 7):

OJ Simpson should have never been released from custody back in 95. He should have stayed in jail.

You can't do that. He was found not guilty.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
User avatar
LTU932
Posts: 13091
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2006 12:34 am

RE: O. J. Simpson Back In Custody

Sat Jan 12, 2008 1:52 am



Quoting N1120A (Reply 9):
He was found not guilty.

Yes, I know. I'm well aware of how double jeopardy works in the US, thank you.  Yeah sure

My point is that he should have been convicted at the murder trial.
 
IADCA
Posts: 1361
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 12:24 am

RE: O. J. Simpson Back In Custody

Sat Jan 12, 2008 2:03 am



Quoting N1120A (Reply 9):
You can't do that. He was found not guilty.

Why even have trials?

Signed, John Ashcroft
 
OPNLguy
Posts: 11191
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 1999 11:29 am

RE: O. J. Simpson Back In Custody

Sun Jan 13, 2008 10:14 pm

Assuming that OJ didn't actually do what he was charged with in Las Vegas, wouldn't it be the ultimate irony if he was convicted and sentenced for a crime that he didn't commit versus being previously acquitted for a crime he did commit?

If so, that would have to burn, and he'd hopefully have 10-15 years to have it do so....
ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
 
FlyDeltaJets87
Posts: 4479
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 3:51 am

RE: O. J. Simpson Back In Custody

Mon Jan 14, 2008 12:10 am



Quoting N1120A (Reply 9):
You can't do that. He was found not guilty.

Captain Obvious to the rescue!
 sarcastic 

Just because he was found "not guilty" doesn't mean he should have been found "not guilty". Learn to differentiate for once.
"Let's Roll"- Todd Beamer, United Airlines Flight 93, Sept. 11, 2001
 
bagpiper
Posts: 1050
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2006 11:24 pm

RE: O. J. Simpson Back In Custody

Mon Jan 14, 2008 12:30 am

maybe he'll stay long enough to learn his lesson this time.

And hopefully they'll loose the key.
 
N1120A
Posts: 26468
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: O. J. Simpson Back In Custody

Mon Jan 14, 2008 6:02 pm



Quoting LTU932 (Reply 10):

My point is that he should have been convicted at the murder trial.

He wasn't.

Quoting FlyDeltaJets87 (Reply 13):
Just because he was found "not guilty" doesn't mean he should have been found "not guilty". Learn to differentiate for once.

Dude, I am well aware of how to differentiate. If you actually looked at the evidence put forward at trial, not the media circus shadow trial that went on when you were 8, there was no way a jury could be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
Queso
Topic Author
Posts: 3109
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2006 12:28 pm

RE: O. J. Simpson Back In Custody

Mon Jan 14, 2008 6:31 pm



Quoting N1120A (Reply 15):
there was no way a jury could be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty.

The evidence looked pretty convincing to me. And if you want to talk about a circus, let's talk about the show that the clown and his trainer put on in the courtroom regarding the fit of the glove. Then there was the infamous "slow speed chase" which would have been shut down pretty quick had it been any "normal" person in the Bronco. How are you going to spin that one?
 
N1120A
Posts: 26468
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: O. J. Simpson Back In Custody

Mon Jan 14, 2008 6:42 pm



Quoting Queso (Reply 16):
Then there was the infamous "slow speed chase" which would have been shut down pretty quick had it been any "normal" person in the Bronco. How are you going to spin that one?

No spin. Who knows what was going through his head at that point. In any case, Cowlings drove OJ home and he surrendered.

Quoting Queso (Reply 16):

The evidence looked pretty convincing to me.

You weren't on the jury, and you saw much more than they did. Further, the standard is not "pretty convincing"

Quoting Queso (Reply 16):
And if you want to talk about a circus, let's talk about the show that the clown and his trainer put on in the courtroom regarding the fit of the glove.

Hey, the prosecution asked for it and received an outcome they didn't want.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
MDorBust
Posts: 4914
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 10:10 pm

RE: O. J. Simpson Back In Custody

Mon Jan 14, 2008 6:43 pm



Quoting N1120A (Reply 15):
If you actually looked at the evidence put forward at trial, not the media circus shadow trial that went on when you were 8, there was no way a jury could be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty.

 redflag 

If you had actually studied the case, as you just chastised another poster to do, you would know that the evidence was overwhelming of OJs guilt but the prosecution screwed up at several key points, Judge Ito ran a shambles of a courtroom and the jury was confused by the technicalities of the DNA evidence and distracted by the Mark Fuhrman scandal. Clark & team essentially blew a case that had been gift wrapped for them.
"I KICKED BURNING TERRORIST SO HARD IN BALLS THAT I TORE A TENDON" - Alex McIlveen
 
N1120A
Posts: 26468
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: O. J. Simpson Back In Custody

Mon Jan 14, 2008 7:45 pm



Quoting MDorBust (Reply 18):

If you had actually studied the case, as you just chastised another poster to do, you would know that the evidence was overwhelming of OJs guilt but the prosecution screwed up at several key points

I actually have, and the evidence actually applied to the case, and as applied by the prosecutors, was never going to get him convicted.

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 18):
Judge Ito ran a shambles of a courtroom

Ito did the best he could in that situation, and his handling of the case didn't cause the verdict anyway.

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 18):
and the jury was confused by the technicalities of the DNA evidence

And who's fault was that? The prosecution should have put on a better expert and the LAPD should have done a lot better in taking care of that evidence. That is evidenced by the radical changes in DNA handling after the case.

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 18):
and distracted by the Mark Fuhrman scandal.

Fuhrman is a racist who perjured himself on the stand. Then again, the jury wasn't getting all the news about him while serving for that trial.

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 18):
Clark & team essentially blew a case that had been gift wrapped for them.

One, then they should have done better. Two, I generally don't define gift wrapped as having a terribly compromised chain of custody, key witnesses perjuring themselves or being unable to deliver as expected and evidence of evidence tampering.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
MDorBust
Posts: 4914
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 10:10 pm

RE: O. J. Simpson Back In Custody

Mon Jan 14, 2008 8:43 pm



Quoting N1120A (Reply 19):
I actually have, and the evidence actually applied to the case, and as applied by the prosecutors, was never going to get him convicted.

So, you don't believe in conclusive DNA evidence either?

Quoting N1120A (Reply 19):
Ito did the best he could in that situation, and his handling of the case didn't cause the verdict anyway.

Sure sure.. that's why most legal experts say he should have recused himself..

Quoting N1120A (Reply 19):
And who's fault was that?

Whose fault it was doesn't change the nature of the evidence. You said the evidence wouldn't have convicted OJ.. not the prosecution did a crappy job. That the prosecution did a shitty job is given. That the evidence when examined independantly should have nailed OJ is also given.. at least amongst people who honestly studied the case.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 19):
Fuhrman is a racist who perjured himself on the stand.

Does anyone remember what Fuhrmans "pergury" was?

He said he hadn't used the "n" word for ten years. Turns out it was actually 9 1/2 years. Whootie F'N Doo! That's the perjury.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 19):
key witnesses perjuring themselves or being unable to deliver as expected and evidence of evidence tampering.

There were allegations of evidence tampering, not proof of it. Right back at Ito being a shitty judge. He should never have allowed the Fuhrman distraction without compelling evidence that there had been evidence tampering. You can't allow testimony to support a motive of an action that can't be demonstrated. Ito should have put an end to it unless the defense could provide support for their claim that Fuhrman planted the glove.
"I KICKED BURNING TERRORIST SO HARD IN BALLS THAT I TORE A TENDON" - Alex McIlveen
 
N1120A
Posts: 26468
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: O. J. Simpson Back In Custody

Mon Jan 14, 2008 9:13 pm



Quoting MDorBust (Reply 20):

There were allegations of evidence tampering, not proof of it.

There was testimony by expert witnesses that several pieces of evidence may have been planted or altered. The truth of that evidence was weighed by the jury.

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 20):

So, you don't believe in conclusive DNA evidence either?

I do believe DNA evidence is nearly always conclusive. I also believe it can be planted.

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 20):

Sure sure.. that's why most legal experts say he should have recused himself..

How about you pull something up to that effect, and not from Faux News or some other conservative source.

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 20):
You said the evidence wouldn't have convicted OJ..

I said the evidence as presented to the jury wouldn't have convicted OJ.

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 20):
Does anyone remember what Fuhrmans "pergury" was?

He said he hadn't used the "n" word for ten years. Turns out it was actually 9 1/2 years. Whootie F'N Doo! That's the perjury.

So now you are trying to negate the fact that he committed a very serious felony and made a mockery of the justice system?

Here is the record, where he lies no fewer than 5 times on the stand.

Q. "I will rephrase it. I want you to assume that perhaps at sometime
since 1985 or 6, you addressed a member of the African American race as
a nigger. Is it possible that you have forgotten that act on your part?"

A. "No, it is not possible."

Q. "Are you therefore saying that you have not used that word in the
past ten years, Detective Fuhrman?"

A. "Yes, that is what I'm saying."

Q. "And you say under oath that you have not addressed any black person
as a nigger or spoken about black people as niggers in the past ten
years, Detective Fuhrman."

A. "That's what I'm saying, sir."

Q. "So that anyone who comes to this court and quotes you as using that
word in dealing with African Americans would be a liar, would they not,
Detective Fuhrman?"

A. "Yes, they would."

Q. "All of them, correct."

A. "All of them."
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
Queso
Topic Author
Posts: 3109
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2006 12:28 pm

RE: O. J. Simpson Back In Custody

Mon Jan 14, 2008 9:16 pm



Quoting N1120A (Reply 21):
So now you are trying to negate the fact that he committed a very serious felony and made a mockery of the justice system?

Please, keep the thread on-topic. We're not talking about Bill Clinton's grand jury testimony here.
 
MDorBust
Posts: 4914
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 10:10 pm

RE: O. J. Simpson Back In Custody

Mon Jan 14, 2008 9:28 pm



Quoting N1120A (Reply 21):
There was testimony by expert witnesses that several pieces of evidence may have been planted or altered.

What about this proves evidence tampering? Nothing, that's what.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 21):
I do believe DNA evidence is nearly always conclusive. I also believe it can be planted.

How would the police have ended up with large enough samples of OJs blood to plant it in the quantities found?

Quoting N1120A (Reply 21):
How about you pull something up to that effect, and not from Faux News or some other conservative source

I'm really not sure what Fox News or conservative politics have to do with this... But,

http://www.amazon.com/Murderous-Meth...UTF8&s=books&qid=1200345799&sr=8-1

This is simple jurisprudence. Fuhrman was bashing the judges wife on the tapes that Ito then allowed to be introduced into evidence despite the fact that the defense failed in any way to provide support for their claim of evidence tampering.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 21):
I said the evidence as presented to the jury wouldn't have convicted OJ.

"put forward" and "as presented" do not mean the same thing.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 21):
So now you are trying to negate the fact that he committed a very serious felony and made a mockery of the justice system?

I'm saying that making a mis-statement of 1/2 year after ten years shouldn't be considered to the level of perjury. It's an absurd technicality.
"I KICKED BURNING TERRORIST SO HARD IN BALLS THAT I TORE A TENDON" - Alex McIlveen
 
N1120A
Posts: 26468
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: O. J. Simpson Back In Custody

Mon Jan 14, 2008 9:33 pm



Quoting MDorBust (Reply 23):

What about this proves evidence tampering? Nothing, that's what.

The evidence of tampering was admissible, leaving the jury to decide its weight.

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 23):

How would the police have ended up with large enough samples of OJs blood to plant it in the quantities found?

Um. They took lots of his blood.

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 23):
Fuhrman was bashing the judges wife on the tapes that Ito then allowed to be introduced into evidence despite the fact that the defense failed in any way to provide support for their claim of evidence tampering.

Both Garcetti and Clark admitted that the Judge MAY have recused himself, but had no obligation to do so. Not to mention that it would have caused a mis-trial and the very real possibility that jeopardy had attached because of the media attention.

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 23):

I'm saying that making a mis-statement of 1/2 year after ten years shouldn't be considered to the level of perjury. It's an absurd technicality.

The first question asked was specifically about the year, as I showed you. Further, I don't see how you are now defending a criminal's actions.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
GDB
Posts: 12679
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: O. J. Simpson Back In Custody

Mon Jan 14, 2008 9:37 pm

Chris Rock recently pointed out that Britney lost custody of her kids, but OJ kept his.......even though he killed their mother!
 
MDorBust
Posts: 4914
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 10:10 pm

RE: O. J. Simpson Back In Custody

Mon Jan 14, 2008 9:41 pm



Quoting N1120A (Reply 24):
The evidence of tampering was admissible

Except for that one little catch... there was no evidence of tampering. Expert witness =/= evidence.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 24):
Um. They took lots of his blood.

Unless the LAPD has a nifty time machine you are going to have to explain how blood taken after his arrest ended up at the crime scene on the day of the incident.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 24):
Both Garcetti and Clark admitted that the Judge MAY have recused himself, but had no obligation to do so.

I said "should have recused himself" not "was required to recuse himself."

Quoting N1120A (Reply 24):
Not to mention that it would have caused a mis-trial...

Amongst one of many things that should have brought that circus to a screeching halt.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 24):
Further, I don't see how you are now defending a criminal's actions.

I think it's quite plain that I don't consider a mis-statement of 1/2 year after a ten year period to rise to the level of perjury. If you tell me right here and now that you can remember saying a specific word in 1997/98, then I'll say you are absolutely full of  redflag .
"I KICKED BURNING TERRORIST SO HARD IN BALLS THAT I TORE A TENDON" - Alex McIlveen
 
N1120A
Posts: 26468
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: O. J. Simpson Back In Custody

Mon Jan 14, 2008 9:48 pm



Quoting MDorBust (Reply 26):

Except for that one little catch... there was no evidence of tampering. Expert witness =/= evidence.

Expert Witness gives Testimony. Testimony = Evidence. Jury weighs that evidence.

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 26):

Unless the LAPD has a nifty time machine you are going to have to explain how blood taken after his arrest ended up at the crime scene on the day of the incident.

And that is where chain of custody issues come into play.

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 26):

I said "should have recused himself" not "was required to recuse himself."

And where did you see that "most legal experts" said he should have recused himself?

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 26):

I think it's quite plain that I don't consider a mis-statement of 1/2 year after a ten year period to rise to the level of perjury. If you tell me right here and now that you can remember saying a specific word in 1997/98, then I'll say you are absolutely full of

Except that they were asking about something he gave in a recorded interview that should very easily have stuck out in his mind. Further, the original lie he told was specific as to the year, not a "1/2 year misstatement".

It is quite plain that you are downplaying Fuhrman's criminal acts.

118. (a) Every person who, having taken an oath that he or she will
testify, declare, depose, or certify truly before any competent
tribunal, officer, or person, in any of the cases in which the oath
may by law of the State of California be administered, willfully and
contrary to the oath, states as true any material matter which he or
she knows to be false, and every person who testifies, declares,
deposes, or certifies under penalty of perjury in any of the cases in
which the testimony, declarations, depositions, or certification is
permitted by law of the State of California under penalty of perjury
and willfully states as true any material matter which he or she
knows to be false, is guilty of perjury.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
MDorBust
Posts: 4914
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 10:10 pm

RE: O. J. Simpson Back In Custody

Mon Jan 14, 2008 10:10 pm



Quoting N1120A (Reply 27):
Testimony = Evidence

No, testimony equals opinion. Or have you changed your mind and would now like to support issuing the death penalty based off of the testimony single eye witness?

There's a very good reason why testimony ranks below physical evidence in the eyes of decent trial lawyers. It's inherently flawed.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 27):
Jury weighs that evidence.

The judge is supposed to weigh the evidence first to determine if the line of questioning can even be introduced. In this case, Mark Fuhrman saying the "n" word was deemed to be sufficient evidence to introduce tampering. That's bollocks.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 27):
And that is where chain of custody issues come into play.

And one hell of a conspiracy theory only rivaled by 9/11 if you actually believe that the police introduced blood, taken from OJ at another location, to the crime scene, after they had already gathered evidence there, in a conspiracy against OJ apparently conceived on the fly and executed without any of the dozens of officers involved objecting or ever mentioning it... based solely on Mark Fuhrman saying the "n" word 9 1/2 years ago instead of 10.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 27):
And where did you see that "most legal experts" said he should have recused himself?

Well, I already introduced one book to you. I highly doubt that Amazon has had time to deliver it to you, much less you read it. I have more books here if you would like to read them. They all say the same thing. Ito should have recused himself if he was going to allow the introduction of evidence in which his wife was mentioned in a derogatory manner by the witness in question.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 27):
Except that they were asking about something he gave in a recorded interview that should very easily have stuck out in his mind.

I seriously doubt you remember anything you said a decade ago, interview or otherwise.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 27):
It is quite plain that you are downplaying Fuhrman's criminal acts.

No duh, really?!

In case there was any doubt, let's see it again...

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 26):
I think it's quite plain that I don't consider a mis-statement of 1/2 year after a ten year period to rise to the level of perjury. If you tell me right here and now that you can remember saying a specific word in 1997/98, then I'll say you are absolutely full of

"I KICKED BURNING TERRORIST SO HARD IN BALLS THAT I TORE A TENDON" - Alex McIlveen
 
N1120A
Posts: 26468
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: O. J. Simpson Back In Custody

Mon Jan 14, 2008 10:17 pm



Quoting MDorBust (Reply 28):

No, testimony equals opinion.

No, testimony equals evidence presented at trial. The jury then weighs the credibility of that evidence and makes up their mind.

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 28):

There's a very good reason why testimony ranks below physical evidence in the eyes of decent trial lawyers.

Of course physical evidence is generally better than testimonial evidence, however, expert witness testimony is often needed to explain physical evidence.

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 28):

The judge is supposed to weigh the evidence first to determine if the line of questioning can even be introduced.

The judge need only weigh logical and legal relevance to introduce it. It is then up to the jury to decide on which evidence, testimonial or otherwise, they accept.

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 28):
In this case, Mark Fuhrman saying the "n" word was deemed to be sufficient evidence to introduce tampering.

No. Fuhrman lying about saying the n word was sufficient for the jury to deem him not credible. In fact, Fuhrman himself took the issue of his own tampering out of the case by taking the Fifth, which he was completely entitled to do. The defense had a right to introduce evidence as to potential tampering, including expert testimony on the level of EDTA in the blood and to the nature of the blood stains on the socks being pressure applications.

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 28):

I seriously doubt you remember anything you said a decade ago, interview or otherwise.

If I couldn't remember something like that, then I would have answered "I don't know" or "I am not sure", not an unqualified no, never, nada, nein like Fuhrman did.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
MDorBust
Posts: 4914
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 10:10 pm

RE: O. J. Simpson Back In Custody

Mon Jan 14, 2008 10:44 pm



Quoting N1120A (Reply 29):
No, testimony equals evidence presented at trial. The jury then weighs the credibility of that evidence and makes up their mind.

Really? So all testimony is weighed by the jury? Any testimony that either side wants to introduce?

Are you sure you want that to be your position?

Quoting N1120A (Reply 29):
The judge need only weigh logical and legal relevance to introduce

And what would you say the logical and legal relevance of Mr. Fuhrman saying the "n" word ten years past is in relation to the claim evidence was planted?

You say it casts doubt on the credibility of Mr. Fuhrman. Okay, but does that suggest any evidence was planted? No, it doesn't. In fact, the "N" word side show did nothing at all to suggest evidence was planted. It's irrelevant. Which means the line should never have been introduced to the jury for consideration because it was purely conjecture and speculation.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 29):
If I couldn't remember something like that, then I would have answered "I don't know" or "I am not sure", not an unqualified no, never, nada, nein like Fuhrman did.

So what Mr. Fuhrman is really guilty of is being poorly coached for the trial?


Since you obviusly don't believe OJ did it, then do you believe in the required LAPD conspiracy to frame OJ by planting the blood of Ms. Simpson and Mr. Goldman in OJs house on his clothes and in his car, plant OJs blood at the crime scene, create the bloody prints that match OJs shoes, find a pair of gloves that match ones worn by OJ on tv, soak them in blood and plant them in two locations, create cuts on OJ, find and then plant Ms. Simpsons lost keys at OJs house, forged recipets showing OJ purchased a knife which had a blade that matched the wounds... etc etc etc?

That's a hell of a complex conspiracy to cook up on the fly.

Hell if it's true, we need Fuhrman and crew, these guys are brilliant to concoct such a seamless scheme and not miss a beat.
"I KICKED BURNING TERRORIST SO HARD IN BALLS THAT I TORE A TENDON" - Alex McIlveen
 
N1120A
Posts: 26468
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: O. J. Simpson Back In Custody

Mon Jan 14, 2008 10:53 pm



Quoting MDorBust (Reply 30):
So all testimony is weighed by the jury?

Try reading the whole post.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 29):

The judge need only weigh logical and legal relevance to introduce it.

It was both logically and legally relevant as to Fuhrman's character and the credibility of his testimony, not to mention potential bias against the accused, a black man.

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 30):

You say it casts doubt on the credibility of Mr. Fuhrman. Okay, but does that suggest any evidence was planted?

It showed he was capable of lying on the stand, under oath.

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 30):

So what Mr. Fuhrman is really guilty of is being poorly coached for the trial?

No, he is guilty of perjury. He lied on the stand as to a question specifically asked of him.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
MDorBust
Posts: 4914
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 10:10 pm

RE: O. J. Simpson Back In Custody

Mon Jan 14, 2008 10:58 pm



Quoting N1120A (Reply 31):
Try reading the whole post.

I did. You said the jury gets to weigh the credibility of evidence. You are skipping the portion where evidence has to be ruled admisable in the first place.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 31):
It was both logically and legally relevant as to Fuhrman's character and the credibility of his testimony...

BS. It wasn't relevant at all to the issue at hand, the possibility of the fabrication of evidence. Saying the "N" word ten years past in no way supports that action.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 31):
It showed he was capable of lying on the stand, under oath.

Which in no way supports the fabrication of evidence.

Say, why didn't you answer about the LAPD?

Why is that? Can't bear to admit that given the options, OJ being guilty is the far more logical and rational explanation?
"I KICKED BURNING TERRORIST SO HARD IN BALLS THAT I TORE A TENDON" - Alex McIlveen
 
N1120A
Posts: 26468
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: O. J. Simpson Back In Custody

Mon Jan 14, 2008 11:41 pm



Quoting MDorBust (Reply 32):
You are skipping the portion where evidence has to be ruled admisable in the first place.

I didn't skip anything. I already showed you that.

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 32):
It wasn't relevant at all to the issue at hand, the possibility of the fabrication of evidence. Saying the "N" word ten years past in no way supports that action.

The issue at hand was his credibility as a witness. He showed a propensity to lie. That damaged his credibility as to anything he had to say.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
MDorBust
Posts: 4914
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 10:10 pm

RE: O. J. Simpson Back In Custody

Mon Jan 14, 2008 11:58 pm



Quoting N1120A (Reply 33):
The issue at hand was his credibility as a witness. He showed a propensity to lie. That damaged his credibility as to anything he had to say.

Which ,yet again, does nothing to suggest fabrication of evidence in any way.

You uh, seem to have still failed to answer about the LAPD conspiracy to fabricate the evidence for the case. Are we to take at granted that you can't logically support that position and therefore accept that OJ was in fact the murderer as dictated by the evidence?
"I KICKED BURNING TERRORIST SO HARD IN BALLS THAT I TORE A TENDON" - Alex McIlveen
 
N1120A
Posts: 26468
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: O. J. Simpson Back In Custody

Tue Jan 15, 2008 12:12 am



Quoting MDorBust (Reply 34):

Which ,yet again, does nothing to suggest fabrication of evidence in any way.

It doesn't have to. It suggests that Fuhrman, by lying on the witness stand, was an unreliable witness. Since he is also the guy who claimed to have found several pieces of physical evidence, that cast doubt on the veracity of everything he was involved with.

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 34):

You uh, seem to have still failed to answer about the LAPD conspiracy to fabricate the evidence for the case.

What does evidence of a conspiracy have to do with anything? Evidence of problems with chain of custody and reliability of both testimonial and physical evidence led the jury to a not guilty verdict.

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 34):
Are we to take at granted that you can't logically support that position and therefore accept that OJ was in fact the murderer as dictated by the evidence?

The evidence, as weighed by the jury, led to a verdict of not guilty.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
MDorBust
Posts: 4914
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 10:10 pm

RE: O. J. Simpson Back In Custody

Tue Jan 15, 2008 12:24 am



Quoting N1120A (Reply 35):
It doesn't have to.

Yes, actually it does have to support the claim in order to be introduced, or as previously stated it's irrelevant. You can't just throw out anything you want willy nilly in a court room.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 35):
What does evidence of a conspiracy have to do with anything?

Because if the LAPD didn't conspire to fabricate evidence, then the evidence at the crime scene was correct and OJ Simpson did commit the murders.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 35):
The evidence, as weighed by the jury, led to a verdict of not guilty.

Answer the question.

Do you believe OJ Simpson did committed the murders, or do you believe the LAPD conspired to fabricate evidence against OJ Simpson?

You can't answer. No, you won't answer. Because the obvious answer is the one that isn't in your camp.

OJ Simpson commit the murders, and the evidence supports it.... Or, the LAPD engaged in a large scale conspiracy to fake evidence. Which on is it?
"I KICKED BURNING TERRORIST SO HARD IN BALLS THAT I TORE A TENDON" - Alex McIlveen
 
N1120A
Posts: 26468
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: O. J. Simpson Back In Custody

Tue Jan 15, 2008 12:37 am



Quoting MDorBust (Reply 36):

Yes, actually it does have to support the claim in order to be introduced, or as previously stated it's irrelevant.

Evidence is Relevant if it tends to make the existence of any fact of consequence to the outcome of the action more probable than it would be without the evidence.

The evidence impeaching Fuhrman was relevant to impeach his testimony. It showed he had a propensity for dishonesty under oath.

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 36):

Because if the LAPD didn't conspire to fabricate evidence, then the evidence at the crime scene was correct and OJ Simpson did commit the murders.

It isn't a black or white issue. First, even if the jurors thought that by a preponderance of the evidence, Simpson was guilty, they couldn't convict him because the standard is higher than that. The evidence was given to the jury, the jury weighed it and they came back with the verdict.

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 36):

Do you believe OJ Simpson did committed the murders

It doesn't matter what I think, it matters what the jury thought.

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 36):
or do you believe the LAPD conspired to fabricate evidence against OJ Simpson?

See above

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 36):

OJ Simpson commit the murders, and the evidence supports it...

The evidence as presented at trial did not convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that Simpson committed murder. If I were on that jury and had that evidence in front of me, I would have returned the same verdict.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
MDorBust
Posts: 4914
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 10:10 pm

RE: O. J. Simpson Back In Custody

Tue Jan 15, 2008 12:48 am



Quoting N1120A (Reply 37):
The evidence impeaching Fuhrman was relevant to impeach his testimony.

Which takes us right back to... this does nothing to suggest evidence was fabricated.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 37):
It isn't a black or white issue.

Yes it is.

Answer the question. Was the evidence fabricated or not. Saying yes to that accepts the LAPD conspiracy. Saying no accepts that OJ committed the crime.

YES OR NO?

Quoting N1120A (Reply 37):
It doesn't matter what I think,

On the contrary, it matters greatly if you believe OJ committed the crimes or not.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 37):
If I were on that jury and had that evidence in front of me, I would have returned the same verdict.

So you believe the evidence was in fact fabricated.

Well, that settles that then... You believe in the LAPD conspiracy theory. Wow, just wow...
"I KICKED BURNING TERRORIST SO HARD IN BALLS THAT I TORE A TENDON" - Alex McIlveen
 
N1120A
Posts: 26468
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: O. J. Simpson Back In Custody

Tue Jan 15, 2008 12:56 am



Quoting MDorBust (Reply 38):

Which takes us right back to... this does nothing to suggest evidence was fabricated.

 banghead 

Mark Fuhrman testified that he found the bloody glove at Rockingham. The same glove that didn't fit Simpson at the trial, and the guy who found it is shown to be a liar on the stand.

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 38):

So you believe the evidence was in fact fabricated.

Well, that settles that then... You believe in the LAPD conspiracy theory.

No. Do you think you had a jury of 12 conspiracy theorists? No. It was a jury of 12 people who had evidence from both sides presented and, after weighing it, could not remove the reasonable doubt from their mind.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
MDorBust
Posts: 4914
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 10:10 pm

RE: O. J. Simpson Back In Custody

Tue Jan 15, 2008 1:16 am



Quoting N1120A (Reply 39):
Mark Fuhrman testified that he found the bloody glove at Rockingham.

Which would gain traction if Mark Fuhrman was alone at Rockingham.. but, he wasn't so we are right back to the co-operative LAPD conspiracy.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 39):
The same glove that didn't fit Simpson at the trial, and the guy who found it is shown to be a liar on the stand.

Actually, if you had read all the information instead of paying attention to " the media circus" as you have chastised, you would know that the glove was in fact the right size to fit OJ... courtroom theatrics and evidence shrinking aside.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 39):
Do you think you had a jury of 12 conspiracy theorists?

I think there was a jury of twelve people who were tired after months of the circus and wanted to go home. But, we aren't talking about the jury.. they're a whole other ballgame.

We're talking about you believing the LAPD conspiracy theory, which is the only way a person who supposedly has studied the case and the evidence can believe that OJ didn't commit the crime.

Take for example the blood. OJs blood was at the crime scene and the victims blood was at his house and in his car. How do you explain that? Either 1) OJ did it or 2) Someone planted it. There are no other explanations. What say you?
"I KICKED BURNING TERRORIST SO HARD IN BALLS THAT I TORE A TENDON" - Alex McIlveen
 
ltbewr
Posts: 12501
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2004 1:24 pm

RE: O. J. Simpson Back In Custody

Tue Jan 15, 2008 2:47 am

As I posted previously as to the charges facing OJ Simpson in Las Vegas, I hope that their is a fair trial (for all parties), that the evidence meets the standards required for a conviction, then if convicted he gets a nice long jail term.

Those that bash the way the criminal trial on murder of OJ Simpson went forget the racial politics of the time, especially after the King assult and the failure to find the cops guilty in the way Blacks in the LA area wanted it be still resonated. OJ was probably one of the few times a Black man accused of murder could afford a real defense. The trial for security reasons was held at a downtown LA County courthouse, not a branch closer to where the murders took place which meant the jury pool would be mostly black, not white.
I also blame the Proscutition for not fighting the motions of OJ for a expedited trial and pre-trial motions (asked as the kids didn't have a mother). Normaly a murder trial and pre-trial procedures, especially in a potentially difficult case like this wouldn't start until about a year after the inditement. That meant preparation of the trial by the Proscution was comprimised so that they were not sufficiently prepared for OJ's case, a key person who was to be on the Proscution team would not be available (due to health reasons) and perhaps political decisions to have the lady proscutor be one of the leads (in part as one of the victims was a woman).
You also had (as we saw today with the Brittany Spears hearing) far too much press attention outside the courthouse. I think the TV cameras should have been kept out of the courtroom. Judge Ito was too scared of making a decision that could be used on appeal by the Defense (and couldn't be done by the Proscution).

Hopefully, and I believe, this trial of OJ in Las Vegas will be far more fair for all parties and will reach justice.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: flyguy89, JJJ, Moose135, Pihero and 6 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos