Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder ... O.J. Simpson was convicted on all counts and remanded to custody in Las Vegas.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/10/04/oj.simpson.verdict/index.html" target="_blank">http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/...dex.html</a>
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder Talk about Karma- today was 13 years to the day he was acquitted of the murders. This jury deliberated 13 hours to convict him.
Originally Posted By ecdc Good. I've watched late night comedians make jokes about OJ for the past 13 years, and I'll confess at times I'v laughed along. But this man is a total disgrace of a human being. He killed two people so violently he almost severed Nicole's head. I'm glad he was finally found guilty of something. How long can we expect to see him in prison for this?
Originally Posted By ecdc Minimum of 15? Excellent. And that's on multiple counts. BTW, my reference to late night comedians seems random in retrospect. I meant to add that there's nothing less funny than someone killing another person. Yet somehow this murderer managed to become a national punch line. You'll never hear a joke about Ted Bundy, or the DC snipers. But for some reason OJ Simpson is a laugh a minute. I think that's in part because he went free. I truly hope being locked away for a while allows him to fade from memory and become the nobody he truly is.
Originally Posted By mele I haven't really paid much attention to this trial but there's a slight possibility that no matter what evidence there was/wasn't...he was going to be found guilty. The thing about OJ that was most maddening was that he seemed to continue to get into minor trouble and then there was that outrageous book "If I Did It". I think he really hurt race relations in this country and I won't be crying into my pillow if he rots in jail for the rest of his life.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< You'll never hear a joke about Ted Bundy >>> Here's one for you: Q: What was Ted Bundy's last job? A: Conductor.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip I agree that Simpson did the murders, but as a "casual observer" following the story in the newspapers and on TV, I thought the jury gave a proper verdict. I didn't think the state proved its case. Is that true in your opinion, or was that just the "media conclusion"?
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder As someone who was in the courthouse the day of Simpson's first court appearance back in 1994 (I was testifying in another murder trial and snuck in after I was done to see his appearance), eventually met, worked with and/or and grew to know in varying degrees some of the lawyers involved, Simpson got a fair trial back in 1995. He was guilty as sin, but Clark and Darden blew it. Reasonable doubt was established, and off he went. It happens. But the semi-amateur psychologist in me thinks Simpson continued on a course of self-destructive behavior ever since. It was almost as if being a virtual pariah in society was enough. What he did in that hotel in Vegas was one of the dumber things anyone whose every move is scrutinized could ever do. Whether he knew there were guns involved in that room or not, and the guns are what made this case, a normal, sane logical person doesn't go anywhere near something like that. He knew what hew as doing I believe, and some part of him wanted to get caught. That said, I don't believe he could get a fair trial for anything after the notoriety of 1994-95. I think this entire Vegas episode was a slam job from the start. Technically, they had the elements of all the crimes charged, but do many others in that jurisdiction get 12 felony counts ran up on them like that if they aren't O.J. Simpson? I'd be very interested to know. My guess is most others would be offered, practically begged to take a plea on much lesser charges that might not include much jail time, if any at all. But in the end, had different D.A.'s been on the case back in 1995, Simpson never would have been literally free to ever have been in Vegas that night. He'd be a sad, forgotten figure right now, locked up going on 13 years now. It just took him longer to get there.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder It was almost as if being a virtual pariah in society was enough. arrrgghh It was almost as if being a virtual pariah in society WASN'T enough.
Originally Posted By amazedncal2 >>>today was 13 years to the day he was acquitted of the murders.<<< Very interesting! I always think of Nicole's two kids. I suppose they are all grown up now and have had major counseling. I can't imagine what it must be like for them now.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << Is that true in your opinion, or was that just the "media conclusion"? >> In order to believe that O.J. was not guilty, you have to be someone who does not believe in science and someone who truly believes that you have a good chance of winning the multi-state lottery in your lifetime. The DNA evidence against O.J. was solid. The defense made a ludicrous argument that there were statistical odds of the DNA evidence being wrong -- statistical odds that would give you a better chance of winning the aforementioned lottery than O.J. not being the murderer. The jury bought it. It's shameful how we treat verifiable science as witchcraft in these court cases.
Originally Posted By hopemax Then one of those "what if" questions is, what would have happened if the case occurred after CSI? In the years since CSI, there have been more than one news story about how CSI has made it more difficult for states to convict people because the jury's expect forensic and DNA evidence like they see on TV.
Originally Posted By mawnck As was frequently pointed out at the time, "not guilty" is not the same thing as "innocent." All "not guilty" means is that the prosecution didn't prove it. >> In the years since CSI, there have been more than one news story about how CSI has made it more difficult for states to convict people because the jury's expect forensic and DNA evidence like they see on TV.<< Now you're in my neck of the woods. It actually can work both ways. Innocent guys can end up in jail because the jury was bamboozled by an "expert" spouting CSI-type nonsense about the evidence, or (in the case of video, which is my thing) misusing the forensic computer programs to produce a misleading result.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< The defense made a ludicrous argument that there were statistical odds of the DNA evidence being wrong -- statistical odds that would give you a better chance of winning the aforementioned lottery than O.J. not being the murderer. >>> The defense did, but... <<< The jury bought it. It's shameful how we treat verifiable science as witchcraft in these court cases. >>> I don't think the jury dismissed the DNA evidence because DNA is faulty, but because they didn't believe the police, and felt that some evidence may have been planted. The defense was able to prove beyond all doubt that one of the detectives lied on the stand, and that was all that some jurors needed to dismiss what they wanted to dismiss. At least that's how I read it. Generally speaking, it's up to the jury to decide how credible each piece of evidence or testimony is or is not, and to decide the relative weighting of them. I don't think it's reasonable to conclude that in all cases where DNA evidence is presented and the jury finds in the opposite way the DNA points, that they're disregarding science.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 I forget who said it first, but "OJ walked because the police tried to frame a guilty man" is the explanation a lot of people believe. The defense seized on that, created the reasonable doubt, and the DA's weren't good enough to make that not matter to the jury. Did you see OJ's face when the guilty verdict was read? It looked like a combination of non-surprise and almost relief to me. Maybe SPP is on to something, amateur psychology or not.
Originally Posted By barboy ///In order to believe that O.J. was not guilty, you have to be someone who does not believe in science and someone who truly believes that you have a good chance of winning the multi-state lottery in your lifetime./// But that looks to be too shortsighted: an innocent may find his DNA at a crime scene due to planting/framing or just plain bad luck. Thus, the statistical and/or scientific reliability of DNA evidence has the potential of becoming meaningless or irrelevant in some cases. As for the original OJ case who knows. I admit that a police planting sounds pretty damn hard to believe but then crazier things have happened too so I can't completley, 100% rule out investigative misconduct.
Originally Posted By barboy ///I don't think it's reasonable to conclude that in all cases where DNA evidence is presented and the jury finds in the opposite way the DNA points, that they're disregarding science/// Exactly. Some sexual battery cases can perfectly exemplify: the state may introduce DNA evidence linking the accused to the donation. But often *consent*(or lack thereof) is the issue at hand thus rendering the DNA evidence irrelevant.
