Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "No way jonny, I don't care who prosecuted simpson or tried to get him jailed long term, the deck was stacked against a conviction. I don't care who prosecuted those 4 cop pigs with night sticks taking batting practice on king, the deck was stacked against a conviction in Simi Valley also. I like mark f because he tells it like it is now and is a good man." We'll attribute this little belch to gross ignorance.
Originally Posted By ClintFlint2 ///We'll attribute this little belch to gross ignorance./// this is the third time you unleashed nasties on me in a short time so knock it off who are you?, someone who can't hack it in the private sector and your family and home life sucks so you are bitter in life?
Originally Posted By gadzuux You came out publicly endorsing a known racist and liar. A man who chooses to break the law in order to skew the results his way. You can expect some flak to come your way as a result. It's part of the to and fro of public discourse - you can proclaim anything you like, but if you take irresponsible positions, people will call you on it.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Clint, your #20 is filled with contradictions. You say that you understand that largely black juries convict black defendants all the time. Weren't all those defendants arrested by the same police departments these communities supposedly distrust? Of course they were. So everything you say in the paragraph after that makes no sense. If black juries in LA felt they had to "get back" at the system, they could have done so in plenty of cases in between King and Simpson. But they didn't. So you have to look at what the real difference was between Simpson and those nameless defendants. And that was tons of money, a great defense team, and mistakes by the prosecution very much including Fuhrman.
Originally Posted By jonvn It's not a "shadow of a doubt." It's a reasonable doubt. And no reasonable person could believe that OJ was not guilty.
Originally Posted By ClintFlint2 it's not a contradiction if you look closer to what I wrote. To rephrase Black juries convict their own more often than many people think and they can be quick to deliver guilty verdicts all over the america every day but I am saying pockets in america like Cinci, Boston and especailly in the LA area Blacks do not trust police ((for good reason too))and this distrust has been going on way before Mark Furman ever took the stand and got skewered and grilled by Baily over that n-word junk and glove planting ((or was it Cockeren?)) ////If black juries in LA felt they had to "get back" at the system, they could have done so in plenty of cases in between King and Simpson.//// True, they could have but why would they or why should they if nobody is watching. If there is no audience then why do it?? with so many watching the simpson case the black community could really stick it to ////the man/// but good, and they did this time. Are people really disagreeing with me that the deck was stacked against a conviction irrespective of who was prosecuting,,, even considering the composition of the jury, that the denfendant was a well known black man and this all went down in the LA area? Well anyway Furman looks like he has good manners now, is more polished and is interesting to watch. I am glad to see him bounce back after a really bad start in the public eye. n--words are ugly almost always and I'm sure he knows that pretty well now.
Originally Posted By ClintFlint2 ///And no reasonable person could believe that OJ was not guilty./// I think in one way or another you fully agree with what I am above all trying to say. IT WAS JURY NOLAFICATION I tell you. It had to be because there was a mountain of evidence, enough evidence to put 5 or more people away for a long time and still this guy walked out a free man. Clark, Derdden and Furman played a very bad game but even if they would have brought their ///A game/// to court the jury would still find their community's Heinzmon winner innocent.
Originally Posted By jonvn nullification. Yes. It was. I watched the trial very closely. The prosecution was inept, but the jurors were not going to convict OJ if they had a video of him doing it, which they had everything but. These jurors let a double murderer who comitted acts unspeakably violent walk free because someone said a nasty word. This country is filled with idiots. But in a place where things like this happen: <a href="http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-stabbing_wedjul04" target="_blank">http://www.chicagotribune.com/ news/nationworld/chi-stabbing_wedjul04</a>,1,3762451.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed What can you expect. We've become a nation of senselessly stupid lowlife.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <it's not a contradiction if you look closer to what I wrote. To rephrase Black juries convict their own more often than many people think and they can be quick to deliver guilty verdicts all over the america every day but I am saying pockets in america like Cinci, Boston and especailly in the LA area Blacks do not trust police ((for good reason too))and this distrust has been going on way before Mark Furman ever took the stand and got skewered and grilled by Baily over that n-word junk and glove planting ((or was it Cockeren?))> I read your piece just fine. And again, LA juries had plenty of chances to do what you say they did in the Simpson case, before Simpson. ////If black juries in LA felt they had to "get back" at the system, they could have done so in plenty of cases in between King and Simpson.//// <True, they could have but why would they or why should they if nobody is watching. If there is no audience then why do it??> For all the reasons you supposedly outlined - none of which (originally) was "because people are watching." To get back at the system. To re-balance the scales they thought were unbalanced. All that could have been done regardless of whether anyone was watching - if juries really think they way you say, people watching would be a nice bonus, but not the prime motivation. <with so many watching the simpson case the black community could really stick it to ////the man/// but good, and they did this time.> I watched the trial, and I didn't get that from the jury. I got that most of them were a long way from rocket scientists. Another great advantage of having money and a great defense team is that they will be very skilled at picking jurors. SPP can probably tell you - sometimes it's over before it starts if you've done a good enough job at that. There are plenty of black people - yes, even in LA - who would have easily convicted Simpson. His team was very careful not to pick any. <Are people really disagreeing with me that the deck was stacked against a conviction irrespective of who was prosecuting,,, even considering the composition of the jury, that the denfendant was a well known black man and this all went down in the LA area?> Yes, I'm disagreeing. I think this jury was going to acquit given any sort of reasonable doubt (which Fuhrman provided, and not just because of the "n-word" - the police tried to gild the lilly and, in the smartest words I remember reading at the time, "frame a guilty man"), but not because of their race. I liken it to the von Bulow case. IMO, it was just as obvious that Claus von Bulow killed his wife as that OJ killed his. Yet he got the best defense money could buy (including, not coincidentally, some of the SAME people OJ got), and skated. Is that because a white jury wanted to free a white man? No, it's because a very skillful defense planted enough "reasonable doubt" that a non-brain-trust jury bought it. <Well anyway Furman looks like he has good manners now, is more polished and is interesting to watch. I am glad to see him bounce back after a really bad start in the public eye. n--words are ugly almost always and I'm sure he knows that pretty well now.> I'm sure he does. But from what I've seen of him, a racist corrupt man cleaned up for the cameras and careful to watch his mouth is still a racist, corrupt man.
Originally Posted By jonvn Claus von Bulow's wife is still not dead. The jury convicted him, but the conviction was overturned on appeal. An appeal orchestrated by Alan Dershowitz, one of OJ's lawyers.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 I was referring to the appeal, of course, when I talked about him skating. An outcome even more surprising considering he had been convicted once. And you're right about her not being dead; I obviously should have phrased that differently. Dershowitz and others of his skill level can get pretty obviously guilty men acquitted. Does anyone think that if OJ had gotten a court-appointed attorney, like so many black defendants in LA get, with little experience and no jury-picking skills, that he'd have walked? Not a chance.
Originally Posted By jonvn He probably would have copped a plea so he would not get the death penalty.
Originally Posted By ClintFlint2 ////Dershowitz and others of his skill level can get pretty obviously guilty men acquitted.//// Now wait a minute. Didn't that Dershowitz lawyer represent Mike Tison the boxer who was totally innocent of rape but still his client was put in prison? And didn't that very skilled defense lawyer Mark Galapogos lose when there was enough reasonable doubt for 2 people to go free but yet his client is on death row.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "this is the third time you unleashed nasties on me in a short time so knock it off who are you?, someone who can't hack it in the private sector and your family and home life sucks so you are bitter in life?" You can leave the family and home life comments out or you'll likely never post here again. If you'd like I could take you to school on this case for as long as is necessary. There's not much about this case I don't know. I know some of the players involved, I have worked with some others, and have written about it. This case was mismanaged from the beginning, from the choice of lawyers by the county, to the insistence of Garcetti having it heard downtown which changed the make up of the jury pool to the behavior of the prosecutors during the trial and several other things in between. As far as your comments about Fuhrman, if you truly believe he is a good human being, then nothing else you might say on this subject has any credibility whatsoever.
Originally Posted By ClintFlint2 ///He probably would have copped a plea so he would not get the death penalty./// but Gersetty did not call for a death sentence, he wanted his minions to pursue life in prison.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "Now wait a minute. Didn't that Dershowitz lawyer represent Mike Tison the boxer who was totally innocent of rape but still his client was put in prison?" You've GOT to be kidding. "And didn't that very skilled defense lawyer Mark Galapogos lose when there was enough reasonable doubt for 2 people to go free but yet his client is on death row." Whether or not Geragos is "very skilled" is a matter of some debate. I hope you're not referring to Scott Peterson here.
Originally Posted By ClintFlint2 ////You can leave the family and home life comments out or you'll likely never post here again./// fair enough AND you need to grow some manners and stop bullying those with whom you disagree. If you disagree, fine, but stop cutting people down while doing it. I think you are stressed out because of how this country is being run but stop taking it out on me because I voted for Gore.
Originally Posted By ClintFlint2 /// I hope you're not referring to Scott Peterson /// well yes, I was good amounts of doubt was present. I am not saying he is innocent or better yet I am saying likely he is a real killer but there is good amount of doubt also.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "good amounts of doubt was present. I am not saying he is innocent or better yet I am saying likely he is a real killer but there is good amount of doubt also." Well, once you decide whether or not he did it, start another thread.
Originally Posted By jonvn "Whether or not Geragos is "very skilled" is a matter of some debate." You have to admit he's very good at getting publicity for himself.
