|
CharlestheHammer posted:Honestly the documentary handled the dude with kid gloves. Did he keep the other one in a sealed bag?
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 22:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 18:23 |
|
|
It's a shame that after Furman we're not going to hear what the police really think ever again.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 23:50
|
|
|
That officer with the mustache was rather honest. Incompetent but honest.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 23:53
|
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:Honestly the documentary handled the dude with kid gloves. I guess its because they interviewed him a ton and if they were real about him he'd probably not offer up interviews
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 00:02
|
|
|
General Dog posted:It's a shame that after Furman we're not going to hear what the police really think ever again. Maybe not in that exact voice, buuuuutttt.... http://mediamatters.org/video/2016/06/01/megyn-kelly-hosts-mark-fuhrman-analyze-inner-city-violence/210669
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 01:42
|
|
|
The thing I found myself asking is how, when and where did Fuhrman pull all this poo poo off? The key thing about the glove wasn't really where it was found. It still had the loving blood evidence all over it just like the one at the crime scene so where's the conspiracy? If he planted the glove at Rockingham, where did he get it? The crime scene, right? How did it have all this blood all over it? From the crime scene. If he planted the blood on the glove and the Bronco and all that poo poo, where did the blood come from? Again, the crime scene. The WORST Fuhrman could have done was place one glove from Rockingham at Brentwood, which is possible but unlikely, and even assuming that, what about the OTHER loving glove? And the blood? Why was this point never raised on redirect? How could he possibly frame Simpson unless Simpson's blood was already present at Rockingham? Or is the argument that it was done later after they'd collected OJ's sample because even that's ridiculous and demonstrably false. I remember that photo they showed where the defense was saying "there is no drop of blood, is there?" so maybe that is the contention but what'd they do, draw a loving gallon of OJ's blood? It was teeny little vial.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 03:01
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:The thing I found myself asking is how, when and where did Fuhrman pull all this poo poo off? The key thing about the glove wasn't really where it was found. It still had the loving blood evidence all over it just like the one at the crime scene so where's the conspiracy? Underestimate whitey at your own peril
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 03:22
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:The thing I found myself asking is how, when and where did Fuhrman pull all this poo poo off? The key thing about the glove wasn't really where it was found. It still had the loving blood evidence all over it just like the one at the crime scene so where's the conspiracy? people are really loving dumb, I've learned
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 03:43
|
|
|
honestly if I was on a jury I'd look at the defendant, make up my mind, and spend the trial playing Clash Royale/Hovercraft: Takedown on my phone instead of listening to details about blood and dna
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 03:45
|
|
Did people even watch the entire doc? It painted a very vivid picture of the timeframe. Racial tensions were really high and it didn't matter if it was the most Uncle Tom black dude you could ever find (which at the time was OJ I guess), it would not be hard at all to convince a predominantly black jury that OJ was set up by a racist white dude given the poo poo that had happened in the three years prior. Combine that with the poo poo the jury went through being involved in a case that high profile and that long, and it wouldn't be hard to give them doubt.BiggerBoat posted:
They brought Simpson's blood BACK to the crime scene that they drew from him when they arrested him. Why would you take blood BACK to a crime scene? I think people are forgetting that nobody had to prove OJ's innocence, and given the context it was really, REALLY easy to put doubt in someone's mind.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 03:49
|
|
|
Has anyone ever interviewed the white juror?
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 03:54
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:The thing I found myself asking is how, when and where did Fuhrman pull all this poo poo off? The key thing about the glove wasn't really where it was found. It still had the loving blood evidence all over it just like the one at the crime scene so where's the conspiracy? Some dumbass crime scene tech took several vials of blood samples and carried them around in his coat pocket, including back to the crime scene weeks after the fact, and that effectively destroyed the counter you're talking about efb
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 04:17
|
|
|
If you read "If I Did It," the chapter that focuses on the actual murder basically has him blacking out. Like one minute he is yelling at a bunch of living people and then suddenly he's like "HOW DID I GET HERE" and surrounded by dead bodies. Now.. if you are hypothetically going over how you would do it, why would you hypothetically black out? I just thought that was... funny? I don't know if it's allowed to be funny, but I kind of got a morbid chuckle out of it given the entire situation behind how the book got written, like a "are you serious..." kind of laugh.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 04:24
|
|
|
Vertical Lime posted:An ad for Juiced: i just finished watching the whole thing and it is one of the most bizarre and unfunny hours of television i've ever sat though. Half the video is clips of strippers grinding on OJ while strange and inappropriate music plays. What few pranks have a punchline can be summed up as "OJ Simpson works somewhere weird and wastes someones time briefly" and they play his rap video in full twice. Half the time they dont even hide the camera crew so OJ keeps getting asked "why are we being filmed?" and he spends most of the non-pranks visibly hosed up
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 05:08
|
|
|
Jubs posted:Has anyone ever interviewed the white juror? Yes, after the verdict: quote:It was 10-2 in favor of acquittal. One of the two negative votes came from a 61-year-old white woman, Anise Aschenbach, who would later tearfully say that while Simpson may be guilty, the evidence didn't prove it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 05:13
|
|
|
Highly recommend Jeff Toobin's (the squirrel-y reporter guy) book "Run of His Life: The People vs. OJ Simpson." Super good and in depth reporting on all the major players and events. Also Barry Scheck would later go on to help start The Innocence Project which is completely cuckoo bananas to me.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 07:00
|
|
weekly font posted:Highly recommend Jeff Toobin's (the squirrel-y reporter guy) book "Run of His Life: The People vs. OJ Simpson." Super good and in depth reporting on all the major players and events. I imagine proving people's innocence would be pretty lucrative for a guy who helped OJ get off. Maybe I'm just being cynical though.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 07:24
|
|
|
MY NIGGA D-LINK posted:Some dumbass crime scene tech took several vials of blood samples and carried them around in his coat pocket, including back to the crime scene weeks after the fact, and that effectively destroyed the counter you're talking about Except the gloves and I presume the sock and the Bronco blood were already discovered and placed into evidence so I'm still a tad confused.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 15:05
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:Except the gloves and I presume the sock and the Bronco blood were already discovered and placed into evidence so I'm still a tad confused. Didn't they have the bloody loving footprints as well, or was that something that only came up in the civil case?
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 15:18
|
|
|
TBeats posted:Did people even watch the entire doc? It painted a very vivid picture of the timeframe. Racial tensions were really high and it didn't matter if it was the most Uncle Tom black dude you could ever find (which at the time was OJ I guess), it would not be hard at all to convince a predominantly black jury that OJ was set up by a racist white dude given the poo poo that had happened in the three years prior. Combine that with the poo poo the jury went through being involved in a case that high profile and that long, and it wouldn't be hard to give them doubt. All of this is still true!
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 15:20
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:Except the gloves and I presume the sock and the Bronco blood were already discovered and placed into evidence so I'm still a tad confused. They had to provide doubt, even if it makes you only 99.99999999% sure he did it, they didn't have to prove innocence.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 15:20
|
|
|
Yeah, a big thing to keep in mind between a criminal and civil trial is reasonable doubt versus preponderance of evidence. A criminal trial has to prove beyond a doubt they are guilty, a civil trial simply has to prove guilt is more likely than innocence. Its why the two trials went in very different directions
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 15:28
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:A criminal trial has to prove beyond a doubt they are guilty, a civil trial simply has to prove guilt is more likely than innocence. This is not true. It's beyond any reasonable doubt. Your 99.9999999 falls well within the range of reasonable suspicion of guilt. A .000001 percent doubt of guilt is not even approaching reasonable. Vincent Bugliosi talked about this in his OJ book, "Outrage" and it's a common misunderstanding. The behind the scenes double crossing, conspiracies, corruption, lies, tampering and even the timelines necessary to frame OJ would make a Metal Gear Solid plot seem coherent. I think the prosecution should have made a better attempt to construct this story and point out how many things would have had to have happened for it to occur. Sort of a "let me get this straight" thing. Maybe they tried.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 15:53
|
|
|
I suppose you're right and we are getting it mixed with beyond a shadow of a doubt.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 16:01
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:The behind the scenes double crossing, conspiracies, corruption, lies, tampering and even the timelines necessary to frame OJ would make a Metal Gear Solid plot seem coherent. I think the prosecution should have made a better attempt to construct this story and point out how many things would have had to have happened for it to occur. Sort of a "let me get this straight" thing. Pretty much this. I think the prosecution just dropped the ball.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 16:11
|
|
|
I was 10 when the bronco chase happened and only really knew OJ as a sideline reporter that used to be good at football. This whole documentary has been  and eye opening at what a circus the 90s were.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 16:15
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:Yeah, a big thing to keep in mind between a criminal and civil trial is reasonable doubt versus preponderance of evidence. That and the fact that the jury in the Civil Trial was lilly white and from Santa Monica
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 16:19
|
|
|
MY NIGGA D-LINK posted:Some dumbass crime scene tech took several vials of blood samples and carried them around in his coat pocket, including back to the crime scene weeks after the fact, and that effectively destroyed the counter you're talking about There was also footage of a tech on TV handling physical evidence at the crime scene without wearing gloves. Also they used a blanket from the house to cover the body and not a proper cover. Then there was that guy who put evidence in his trunk and not turning it in till the next day. The racial element was prominent but a juror could absolutely vote not guilty based solely on the LAPD's incompetence in putting the case together (including the witness selection). It really speaks to how much of a poo poo outfit it was.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 16:30
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:This is not true. It's beyond any reasonable doubt. Your 99.9999999 falls well within the range of reasonable suspicion of guilt. A .000001 percent doubt of guilt is not even approaching reasonable. Vincent Bugliosi talked about this in his OJ book, "Outrage" and it's a common misunderstanding. I missed adding reasonable doubt, but I do not think my point changes. I don't think LA PD framing a black dude for a white woman's murder in 1995 was an unreasonable assumption to make. I never said anything about 99.999999%. Like it or not, the prosecution and the environment of LA at that time was able to meaningfully construct a reasonable possibility that OJ was in some way framed. Yeah, perhaps the exact details were implausible, but the failures of the LA PD during the course of the investigation alone were enough to make a reasonable person suspicious. commy gun posted:The racial element was prominent but a juror could absolutely vote not guilty based solely on the LAPD's incompetence in putting the case together (including the witness selection). It really speaks to how much of a poo poo outfit it was. bingo
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 16:58
|
|
|
The basic reality of policing and prosecution is that a vast majority of criminal cases could be thrown out for poorly done police work but very few suspects actually can afford a lawyer able to nitpick the investigation to that level. Cops get away with non-regulatory behavior all the time because its very rare for a defendant to be able to call them on it
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 17:01
|
|
|
The prosecution did a very bad job making their case for the jury and they still can't comprehend this and try to blame everyone else involved in the proceedings.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 17:49
|
|
|
What are your thoughts on the recent theory that OJ has CTE. His strange behaviour, mood swings and paranoia sure make it seem so. Dr Bennett has been talking about this a lot. http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/14677428/dr-bennet-omalu-bet-my-medical-license-oj-simpson-cte quote:While Omalu stressed that CTE does not cause the criminal behavior that led to Simpson's incarceration, he wants the case to serve a reminder of the life-altering damage that can result from playing football.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 18:42
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:I missed adding reasonable doubt, but I do not think my point changes. I don't think LA PD framing a black dude for a white woman's murder in 1995 was an unreasonable assumption to make. I know you didn't but the poster right below you did and he had quoted you. No worries. I'm not saying it's unreasonable that the LA cops would frame a black dude for a murder either, just that given the facts of this case and the insurmountable evidence, it would be almost impossible. It's not a "sprinkle some crack on him" type of thing. I guess it comes down to what's "reasonable" and, while it's definitely reasonable to assume racism and corruption in the LAPD, it's unreasonable to connect those dots given the evidence in this case, the timelines, the breadth of the conspiracy and the logistics involved in doing that. Even the motive is off. OJ was friends with many cops and was well liked in the community. He wasn't Tupac or Ice Cube or some poo poo. LAstly, I think it's a good thing that this case was televised, or at least filmed anyway. I wish more trials were. Maybe not live but at least have a video of it for review later. I followed The West Memphis Three case for years and if not for the documentary film makers, those guys never would have gotten out and no one would have even heard of it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 19:11
|
|
|
Aw man. I am loving up left and right. Double post.
BiggerBoat fucked around with this message at 01:59 on Jun 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 19:12
|
|
|
If they finding CTE in college soccer players from a handful of headers a game, then yeah OJs brain is probably lovely
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 19:27
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:This is not true. It's beyond any reasonable doubt. Your 99.9999999 falls well within the range of reasonable suspicion of guilt. A .000001 percent doubt of guilt is not even approaching reasonable. Vincent Bugliosi talked about this in his OJ book, "Outrage" and it's a common misunderstanding. They had a scene in the FX show that Clark laid out all that in a bar to a few guys and you just sit there like "why did you never say that in court?"
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 19:37
|
|
|
commy gun posted:There was also footage of a tech on TV handling physical evidence at the crime scene without wearing gloves. Also they used a blanket from the house to cover the body and not a proper cover. Then there was that guy who put evidence in his trunk and not turning it in till the next day. Yeah, the crime scene was badly botched, and the defense took full advantage of that. It makes your head spin, thinking about the vast scope of evidence against OJ, and I get how people itt marvel that he was acquitted despite that evidence. It's worth saying the defense took down the case with an attack on every part of the prosecution's credibility, none of what they said was even outrageous until Cochran Godwined himself in summation. By then, they'd already destroyed evidence collection and handling, exposed the cops as massively racist, and proved the DA's office was incompetent.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 19:38
|
|
|
Pron on VHS posted:If they finding CTE in college soccer players from a handful of headers a game, then yeah OJs brain is probably lovely It might be impossible to tell with all the blow he did in Miami
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 20:13
|
|
|
Is there a cheat sheet for who the interviewees are? I'm not paying as much attention as I should be I guess, but I can't remember who half of these people are.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 18:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 18:23 |
|
|
No Butt Stuff posted:Is there a cheat sheet for who the interviewees are? I'm not paying as much attention as I should be I guess, but I can't remember who half of these people are. Probably Wikipedia I would think.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 19:34
|
|