100% clear that he would not even have been charged now that our justice system is ruled be a brave, strong man who doesn’t bow to pc bs.
At the time of O.J.’s trial, DNA evidence was relatively new and his jury didn’t really understand it. Not it’s the gold standard that convicts people or frees the unjustly convicted.
If Simpson’s murders occurred today, there would be a plea agreement and no trial.
Which is precisely why the prosecutors never should have had him try to pull them on in front of a jury when they never did it behind closed doors. They handed the defense team a massive win.
The cops planted evidence and got caught.
The prosecutors bungled the case over and over.
The judge favored the defense in several key decisions.
The jury was handed plenty of reasonable do reasonable doubt (as much as that sucks).This. ubt (as much as that sucks).
This.
1. Have you ever tried to put on snug fitting leather gloves over vinyl disposable gloves? Try it. I have. It's almost impossible to do. Marcia Clark should have never allowed this to happen. You'd think someone in her advisory group would have pointed this out.
2. Cops planted evidence. This is huge. I the cops get caught or even strongly suspected of planting evidence, it brings the veracity of ALL of the evidence brought by the cops into question.
3. The prosecutors bungled the case over and over. Marcia Clark was either incompetent or following bad advice. She was no match for Johnnie Cochran, F. Lee Bailey and the rest of OJs dream team... from jury selection to venue to keeping evidence from being presented to not finding critical evidence. Clark was so harried in trying to manage her life and this case that she once showed up at the trial with wet hair!
Example: A shoe print was found at the scene of the crime that matched a very rare and expensive Bruno Magli Lorenzo model shoe in OJ's size 12, but OJ claimed he didn't own any shoes like this and the shoes were never found. Records show fewer than 300 pairs of that shoe were sold in the US. Had a photo of OJ surfaced wearing those shoes it would have been as big as "the glove don't fit, you must acquit" moment.
One year after the trial someone found a video of OJ announcing at a football game wearing those rare shoes. Had Clark had anything on the ball, she would have tasked someone to review every second of footage of OJ on the sidelines doing interviews until she found a shot of him wearing those shoes. Again, you'd think that she or someone on her staff would have thought of this.
100% clear that he would not even have been charged now that our justice system is ruled be a brave, strong man who doesn’t bow to pc bs.
At the time of O.J.’s trial, DNA evidence was relatively new and his jury didn’t really understand it. Not it’s the gold standard that convicts people or frees the unjustly convicted.
If Simpson’s murders occurred today, there would be a plea agreement and no trial.
Yes and no.
If there was a better general understanding of DNA evidence, it might have helped the prosecution...
...until we get to the fact that the blood evidence was planted by the police, using blood taken from OJ that had anticoagulant in it.
Can you imagine a jury today, in the moment that an expert explains to them, emphatically, "The only explanation is that this blood evidence was planted by the police." That creates a tanker ship full of reasonable doubt.
In fact, today we would see charges brought against the officer.
It's all a bit too complicated for you. On the facts presented a court said OJ committed the crimes on the basis of the balance of probabilities and on the facts presented to another court it found Houlihan couldn't show legitimate cause for a banned substance in her body because her explanation failed the same test of the balance of probabilities. You confuse an onus of proof with a standard of proof - it was the same in both cases. But you are always confused by doping cases.
A civil court found that OJ committed crimes? Are you sure you passed the bar, rather than stopped in and had a few too many before getting kicked out?
The difference is that OJ's accusers presented an affirmative case with evidence that passed the test.
The court said OJ was liable for their deaths, which is the finding of a civil court. You were aware he killed them?
Shelby also tried to present an affirmative case for her defence but it similarly failed the test of the balance of probabilities. I am absolutely sure you would never pass the bar exams.
This post was edited 23 seconds after it was posted.
A civil court found that OJ committed crimes? Are you sure you passed the bar, rather than stopped in and had a few too many before getting kicked out?
The difference is that OJ's accusers presented an affirmative case with evidence that passed the test.
The court said OJ was liable for their deaths, which is the finding of a civil court. You were aware he killed them?
Shelby also tried to present an affirmative case for her defence but it similarly failed the test of the balance of probabilities. I am absolutely sure you would never pass the bar exams.
You said "a court said OJ committed the crimes". Seems to me that if you really passed the bar as you claim, you should know why you were wrong to say that, and if you had any integrity, you would correct the statement, rather than double down with false arrogance.
Now you say "similarly failed". Similar to what? OJ's accusers did not fail.
Honestly, do you even know what happened? Are all these threads about your senior moments?
The court said OJ was liable for their deaths, which is the finding of a civil court. You were aware he killed them?
Shelby also tried to present an affirmative case for her defence but it similarly failed the test of the balance of probabilities. I am absolutely sure you would never pass the bar exams.
You said "a court said OJ committed the crimes". Seems to me that if you really passed the bar as you claim, you should know why you were wrong to say that, and if you had any integrity, you would correct the statement, rather than double down with false arrogance.
Now you say "similarly failed". Similar to what? OJ's accusers did not fail.
Honestly, do you even know what happened? Are all these threads about your senior moments?
Unlike a pedantic bore, which you are, I was making the point that the civil court found he caused their deaths. He killed them - murdered them. I did not say he incurred a criminal conviction, you tedious prat. It was a civil court. But the finding of liability necessarily means he killed them. They were both stabbed to death. His defence in the civil trial therefore failed, just as Houlihan's did in her case - and according to the same standard that established OJ's liability, of the balance of probabilities. You don't realize it but your stupid nitpicking only shows what an arrogant and ignorant twat you are.
Unlike a pedantic bore, which you are, I was making the point that the civil court found he caused their deaths. He killed them - murdered them. I did not say he incurred a criminal conviction, you tedious prat. It was a civil court. But the finding of liability necessarily means he killed them. They were both stabbed to death. His defence in the civil trial therefore failed, just as Houlihan's did in her case - and according to the same standard that established OJ's liability, of the balance of probabilities. You don't realize it but your stupid nitpicking only shows what an arrogant and ignorant twat you are.
Oooh. Name calling. I touched a nerve.
You said he "committed the crimes". If you really did pass the bar, you should know that in law, words like "crimes" and "civil" and "criminal" have well defined meanings. Don't blame if you simply don't understand the difference.
While the standards of "preponderance of evidence" and "balance of probability" are often equated, that is where the similarity of the two cases ends.
OJ's liability was established to the civil standard of "preponderance of evidence".
Shelby's liability was not established to any legal standard, but presumed, according to the terms in a non-negotiable contract.
In non-pedantic laymen's terms: OJ was "innocent until proven guilty", while Shelby was "guilty until proven innocent".
These cases are not similar, because arbitration proceedings are not like civil court proceedings.
So we can agree that it is not correct to say "a court said OJ committed the crimes", as no court said any such thing, and generally civil courts cannot find persons guilty of crimes. I could understand this kind of mistake appearing "in common parlance", but not from someone who pretends to be knowledgeable about the law.
In Houlihan's case, the test of "balance of probability" was not applied to the questions of doping or intent. These charges were both founded on presumptions. No question before the CAS met the "balance of probability" standard, according to the CAS and the WADA Code.
So we can agree that it is not correct to say "a court said OJ committed the crimes", as no court said any such thing, and generally civil courts cannot find persons guilty of crimes. I could understand this kind of mistake appearing "in common parlance", but not from someone who pretends to be knowledgeable about the law.
In Houlihan's case, the test of "balance of probability" was not applied to the questions of doping or intent. These charges were both founded on presumptions. No question before the CAS met the "balance of probability" standard, according to the CAS and the WADA Code.
You're lying as usual. Houlihan's attempted defence failed to meet the test of the balance of probabilities, which was expressly applied by CAS. But you're trying too hard. You're really wanting to argue that OJ didn't do it, that despite being found by a civil court to have caused his wife and lover's deaths he was a victim of an unjust judicial system as you say Houlihan was. There's sometimes no cure for a psychosis such as yours.
At the time of O.J.’s trial, DNA evidence was relatively new and his jury didn’t really understand it. Not it’s the gold standard that convicts people or frees the unjustly convicted.
If Simpson’s murders occurred today, there would be a plea agreement and no trial.
Yes and no.
If there was a better general understanding of DNA evidence, it might have helped the prosecution...
...until we get to the fact that the blood evidence was planted by the police, using blood taken from OJ that had anticoagulant in it.
Can you imagine a jury today, in the moment that an expert explains to them, emphatically, "The only explanation is that this blood evidence was planted by the police." That creates a tanker ship full of reasonable doubt.
In fact, today we would see charges brought against the officer.
You must be referring to Fuhrman, but how did he get possession of the second glove that had DNA from all three parties, in order to plant it at O.J’s house? One of the officers at the crime scene would have needed to pick it up, call Fuhrman, and it give it to him to “find” at O.J.’s property. His using N-bombs in a screen play didn’t prove that he planted evidence or deserved to be arrested.
At no time during the trial did any expert testify that “The only explanation is that this blood evidence was planted by the police." Anticoagulant can come from other sources than preservation, and the blood from Nicole and Goldman found on the gloves and in O.J.’s car, didn’t have any in them.
Your conspiracy theory would have required about 10 people. O.J. was very popular at the time and the police wouldn’t have had any motive to frame him. His domestic battery incidents were covered up by the police. That he was as acquitted in no way proves he was not guilty. One of the jurors admitted that 90% of them thought he was guilty but acquitted him as payback for Rodney King. That, and wanting to go home after 9 months of being sequestered, was why they took only 4 hours to reach a verdict.
Do you really believe he was innocent? He had no alibi, just happened to have a cut on his hand that he couldn’t explain, and the Bronco chase was hardly something an innocent man would have done.
You're lying as usual. Houlihan's attempted defence failed to meet the test of the balance of probabilities, which was expressly applied by CAS. But you're trying too hard. You're really wanting to argue that OJ didn't do it, that despite being found by a civil court to have caused his wife and lover's deaths he was a victim of an unjust judicial system as you say Houlihan was. There's sometimes no cure for a psychosis such as yours.
Fact-based logic and intelligence are not psychoses needing to be cured.
Nothing you said contradicts anything I said. Saying "Houlihan failed to meet the test ..." only confirms "No question before the CAS met the standard ...".
I don't want to argue anything. It is plainly self-evident to everyone not in denial that "a court said OJ committed the crimes" is false, not to mention a highly incompetent statement coming from someone purported to have passed the bar. The facts are that a criminal court did not reach a guilty verdict, and a civil court found him liable. These are historical facts, and I have offered no opinion about his treatment in the courts.
You're lying as usual. Houlihan's attempted defence failed to meet the test of the balance of probabilities, which was expressly applied by CAS. But you're trying too hard. You're really wanting to argue that OJ didn't do it, that despite being found by a civil court to have caused his wife and lover's deaths he was a victim of an unjust judicial system as you say Houlihan was. There's sometimes no cure for a psychosis such as yours.
Fact-based logic and intelligence are not psychoses needing to be cured.
Nothing you said contradicts anything I said. Saying "Houlihan failed to meet the test ..." only confirms "No question before the CAS met the standard ...".
I don't want to argue anything. It is plainly self-evident to everyone not in denial that "a court said OJ committed the crimes" is false, not to mention a highly incompetent statement coming from someone purported to have passed the bar. The facts are that a criminal court did not reach a guilty verdict, and a civil court found him liable. These are historical facts, and I have offered no opinion about his treatment in the courts.
You're hung up, like the gormless pedant you are, on the argument that he didn't commit any "crimes" because it wasn't a criminal trial. Ok. He stabbed his wife and lover to death. That was the finding of the civil court that found him liable for their deaths. Factually, if not legally, he therefore murdered them. They didn't die by accident. But it wasn't "criminal". I didn't say he was convicted by a criminal court (he wasn't). But the finding of the civil court established murder as a fact and according to the balance of probabilities. The only thing you prove on these threads is what a pretentious jerk you are.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.