O.J. Simpson was aquitted of double murder. When the public stop accusing him of the crime?

[devilgrrl]

You tell me.

[DURHAM D]

1. Huh?

[Freddie Stubbs]

2. They only had to wait for him to commit the next one

[HighContext]

54. The Juice is working TIRELESSLY to catch the real killer....um, or so he said all those years ago.

TIRELESSLY.:eyes:

[Skidmore]

3. What does one trial in this country have to do with the outcomes of

a trial in another?

[Scout]

4. never. acquittal does not mean you are factually innocent ... n/t

[Nye Bevan]

5. Shouldn't we be discussing something "that actually matters"?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2746197&mesg_id=2746197

I mean, "who gives a shit about that idiot"?

[pintobean]

19. Lol. Nicely done.

[ceile]

29. +1

[liberalhistorian]

43. ROFL!

Great find!

[11 Bravo]

48. Ouch! That's going to leave a mark!

[Obamanaut]

49. That must have hurt. The OP hasn't been back. nt

[Iggo]

59. Reversal! Two points!

[MADem]

6. Never. The jury as much as acknowledged that they nullified.

OJ was payback, pure and simple.

It's a one-off; to try to make OJ "representative" of anything save a specific circumstance in a specific municipality, that had endured egregious police brutality against the black community for eons, is simply a non-starter.

Gee, you're really pissed about this Knox acquittal!

[liberalhistorian]

40. +1,000,000,000

Amanda Knox was INNOCENT, OJ was NOT. It certainly was jury nullifcation, although the prosecution also didn't do its job right. And Nazi-loving racist Fuhrman was not exactly the best witness to have against him. As a family friend once said "the LAPD conspired to frame a guilty man and failed!"

[barbtries]

7. he was also convicted

of those same murders in a civil trial. what is your point? juries make mistakes; OJ is guilty as hell IMO

[TheWraith]

14. Uh, NO.

You can't be "convicted" of something in a civil trial. And frankly I find it disturbing that so many people are so eager to dismiss the verdict of a partially black jury as being prejudiced and just about police brutality, whereas the verdict of an all-white jury operating under a much lower standard of evidence is gospel truth.

[JuniperLea]

16. Oh, right...

We're automatic racists because of the jury make up... what a bogus and shitty remark. He LOST the civil case.

Disgusting.

[barbtries]

18. well you didn't hear that from me.

i just said i think he was guilty as hell and the jury made a mistake. juries are loose cannons. i'm equally convinced of casey anthony's guilt and she was acquitted too. go figure.

i realize now that this is why my MADD woman was supportive of the plea deal that got the woman who killed my daughter off the murder charge. she believed that it would be even harder on Bekah's family dealing with an acquittal following a trial than with the travesty of a plea bargain the woman was allowed. there is just no way to know how a jury will decide.

okay, he wasn't "convicted" in civil court. just found guilty. or should i be more careful and say "liable"?

[liberalhistorian]

45. Casey Anthony was acquitted because

the prosecution did a shit-poor job of presenting their case. They presented almost NO evidence to actually back up their claims, they couldn't even back up their most basic claims and couldn't even say how Caylee died. They relied mostly on emotion and publicity and it backfired on them bigtime, as it damn well should have. The jury did their job and did it right, you don't convict someone on emotion. You have to have a real case.

Far more substantial evidence was presented in OJ's case. That verdict WAS jury nullification, plain and simple.

[barbtries]

51. i disagree,

believe there was no reasonable doubt in that case. whatever.

[liberalhistorian]

52. Then you were obviously not actually following the details of

the case at all. Every allegation made by the prosecutors was NOT backed up with actual evidence. They couldn't even show how Caylee died. You CANNOT convict someone based on what you THINK they did, there must be actual evidence to prove it. YOU may want to live in a society where people (including yourself and your family/friends) can be convicted based on emotion, hearsay and hyperbolic, hysterical media hype, but I do NOT.

[barbtries]

56. in fact i watched the entire trial.

i disagree with your assessment.

eta you do not need to cast personal aspersions to make a point. ignoring.

[JSK]

21. Much more reliable evidence was presented in the civil trial

Like the Bruno Magli shoes and the bloody shoe prints.

[RZM]

22. I highly recommend you read Jeff Toobin's book on the case and trial

http://www.amazon.com/Run-His-Life-People-Simpson/dp/0684842785/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1317674689&sr=8-1

It's a fun, breezy read and full of really interesting details. He covered the case for the New Yorker.

Lots of great stuff in there. The 'smoking gun,' IMO, was a focus group that was done before the trial (can't remember which side commissioned it), which showed some of the vastly different attitudes potential jurors held towards not only OJ, but towards the victims too.

It's a must-read if you're at all interested in the case. Really, I can't recommend it enough.

Plus, it's got Kardashians!

[ChairmanAgnostic]

27. yes, you can. Except the only penalty is financial

not detainment or imprisonment. PLus the standard is far lower in civil cases.

[hifiguy]

36. Indeed. The standard of proof in a civil case

is basically 50% plus one atom. It's a far cry from "clear and convincing evidence" or the criminal standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt."

And the Simpson murder prosecution was NEVER the slam dunk it was portrayed as being in the media. The cops were so sloppy and the investigation so compromised (inability to establish uncontested chains of custody with regard to items of physical evidence) that Dr. Henry Lee was able to tear the forensics apart brick by brick. Police incompetence and Lee's testimony had far more to do with the verdict than the gloves or anything else.

A cynic might well observe that the cops screwed up by trying so hard to frame a guilty man.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

50. the screwups by the cops were a prelude

to the complete and utter fuck-ups by the prosecutors.

Chicago's criminal courts, known as 26th and Cal, is filled with some superb and incredible lawyers. They would, on either side, have made mincemeat of the opponents. PLus, they try cases every day, which makes a huge difference before a jury. The simpson prosecutors were about as effective as a pet rock. It was a lesson of what not to do.

I mean really, try this glove on WITHOUT KNOWING THE PROBABLE RESULT IN ADVANCE?

[NoGOPZone]

33. Are you sure? I know I always refer to people found liable for damages as 'convicts' nt

[liberalhistorian]

44. Maybe we wouldn't have been so "quick to dismiss it"

if they hadn't taken barely an hour to deliberate after MONTHS of trial. They had their minds made up long before they ever went in that jury room, period. It was jury nullification, plain and simple. The very real acts of police brutality from a racist department does NOT and NEVER SHOULD justify allowing a murderer to go free.

[RZM]

8. Never

People were convinced he was guilty in 1995 and they are no less convinced now.

Are you aware that this is the 16th anniversary of his acquittal or is your post a coincidence?

[deaniac21]

9. Yeah, dammit....He has dedicated the rest of his life to finding

the killer(s).

[JuniperLea]

11. And he searched every golf course from Los Angeles to Miami...

trying to find that sucker!

[deaniac21]

23. The murder weapon was, after all, a 9 iron. That mean's he was

using the scientific method.

[Recovered Repug]

47. Where better to find someone with such a vicious slice? nt

[JuniperLea]

10. There is a big difference between 'not guilty' and 'innocent'

He lost the civil trial, don't forget.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

12. He lost the civil suit...

[lynne]

13. When he finds the real killer as he promised to do -

- Oh, wait . . .

[Manifestor_of_Light]

15. Overwhelming circumstantial evidence.

[uppityperson]

17. she/he's upset that A Knox got freed. eom

[Fearless]

20. A pedestrian knowledge of both the art of analogy and the judicial system.

[Drale]

24. OJ is a psychopath that got lucky once

he proved that by holding people hostage and is now probably in prison till he dies.

[raccoon]

25. The public never stopped accusing Lizzie Borden, and she was acquitted. nt

[ChairmanAgnostic]

28. blood splatter techniques and DNA didn't exist, or

she probably would have been hung out to die.

[RebelOne]

26. Well, he is in prison now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O._J._Simpson

In September 2007, Simpson was arrested in Las Vegas, Nevada, and charged with numerous felonies, including armed robbery and kidnapping.<3> In 2008, he was found guilty<4><5> and sentenced to 33 years imprisonment, with a minimum of 9 years without parole.<6> He is currently serving his sentence at the Lovelock Correctional Center in Lovelock, Nevada.<7>

[Swede]

30. He did it,so,never.

[Bunny]

31. lol

pathetic

[Cali_Democrat]

32. If Obama was a young blond female, the public wouldn't have been as outraged. n/t

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

42. Um, what?

[Manifestor_of_Light]

34. Three words, from my Criminal Procedure teacher:

Means, motive and opportunity.

Answering those three questions, that will solve most crimes.

Did they have the means?
Did they have the motive?
Did they have the opportunity?


My criminal procedure teacher wrote his own textbook on Search & Seizure, BTW.

[hifiguy]

35. He's in the hoosegow now anyway

for shaking down that sports memorobilia dealer in Vegas, IIRC.

[IDemo]

37. This should help->

Outrage: The Five Reasons Why O.J. Simpson Got Away With Murder
By Vincent Bugliosi, the prosecutor of Charles Manson (and many others)

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/517X52nzAIL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA300_SH20_OU01_.jpg

[Zoeisright]

38. Jury nullification means an unfair result.

What about that? You tell me.

[MicaelS]

39. Never - because he's guilty...

If Simpson had not been famous and rich, he would have been convicted the first time. He and his defense team played the race card, and got the jury nullification the wanted. The civil jury found against him because he was really guilty. They had more intelligence than the criminal jury. Simpson proved he really was a criminal and ended up in prison where he should have been after he murdered his ex-wife and Ron Goldman.

Robert Blake also proved if you're rich and famous in Hollywood you can get away with murder, but will have to pay at the civil trial afterward.

There are lots of rich and famous shitbirds in Hollywood, New York and DC who get away with crimes all the time. Sometimes true justice aka karma does catch up with them. Simpson is one of the those. He is exactly where he deserves to be, and I hope he never get out.

[MurrayDelph]

58. Actually, he is, by definition, "not guilty"

but he DID do it!

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

41. Celebrities don't get convicted in Hollywood

Period.

[WI_DEM]

46. Why even bring the subject up?

[liberalhistorian]

55. Who knows? The only one who does is the OP and I find it

interesting that she hasn't returned to this thread. Must be too much truth in it for her or something.

[uppityperson]

57. she's pissed Amanda Knox got freed so is trying to show we are hypocrites by being glad.

[Initech]

53. When people stop accusing Bill Clinton, and Casey Anthony, and what's-her-name, and so on...