RDK Posted June 10, 2004 Report Share Posted June 10, 2004 If OJ was called away by his son to deal with this, he would have had to be called away before the murders happened! There is no way in hell that OJ goes to the crime scene if he isn't the killer. The timeline completely breaks down under that assumption. And there's no way in hell the glove gets to OJ's estate if he's not the killer. Dan, your assumptions would be correct except for the whole time machine thing. Please get your facts straight... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catesta Posted June 10, 2004 Report Share Posted June 10, 2004 Anybody see Conan O'Brian last night? He had a silly character on called "Man Who Is A Fan of the Naked Gun Movies Wakes Up From an 11 Year Coma". The guy is asking about all this stuff and asks about OJ, who acted in one of those movies. Conan says, "Well, he just did an interview... take a look..." They cut to his interview on CNN and he says, "Well, things are going great. My son is graduating from high school...." and lists all these normal things that are happening. They cut back to coma man and he screams in horror, "OH MY GOD! OJ IS A MURDERER!!!!!!!" Very funny. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Johnson Posted June 10, 2004 Report Share Posted June 10, 2004 Combo of 1, 2 and 3--guilty, but the prosecutors were inept. Well, inept is probably a little strong, but I don't think they came anywhere made the most of the evidence they had. And the defense knew their opponents' weaknesses, played it to a "T"--shazam. Not guilty. Interestingly, this was before serious advances in forensic technology; here's a question for those on the board. If this case went to trial today, would the presentation and outcome be different? Based on the responses here, I'm guessing people don't believe the evidence played a huge role in the verdict (!), so perhaps nothing would change... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aggie87 Posted June 10, 2004 Report Share Posted June 10, 2004 Anybody here have (or have read) Vincent Bugliosi's book about the OJ trial, called 'Outrage'? I just recently picked it up and have it in my to-read pile. Bugliosi (prosecutor of Charles Manson) claims he could have convicted OJ, and seems to go through all the reasons OJ got acquitted. Looking forward to reading it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christiern Posted June 10, 2004 Report Share Posted June 10, 2004 " Johnny Cochran is not a sleazbag. He's a damn fine attorney you would be lucky to have defend you in a criminal trial." He's an ambulance-chasing sleazebag, IMO. Had the LAPD done its job, had the prosecuting attorneys not been so inept, and had the Defense not hired an expert to select a most-apt-to acquit jury, Cochran would have returned to obscurity and OJ would be where he belongs. I know that you strongly disagree with that, Rainy, so further discussion of this issue between us would probably quickly become a tiring waste of time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jazzmoose Posted June 10, 2004 Report Share Posted June 10, 2004 I went along with the incompetence of the police and prosecution theory. Mainly the police. Let's face it, if you know anything about the history of the LAPD, and you're on the jury of a murder trial with the LAPD claiming a black man did the crime, police misconduct is just not that hard of an idea to sell. I find it interesting that Dan didn't have a choice of "not guilty because he didn't do it" in the poll and no one is objecting. But then neither am I.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Gould Posted June 10, 2004 Author Report Share Posted June 10, 2004 I find it interesting that Dan didn't have a choice of "not guilty because he didn't do it" in the poll and no one is objecting. But then neither am I.... Actually, its implicit in the Mark Furhman planted the glove option. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jazzmoose Posted June 10, 2004 Report Share Posted June 10, 2004 Oh. Well, see, I could believe that Furhman planted the glove, but OJ still did it. I can't quite stretch it to believe that Furhman planted the glove and OJ didn't do it. Call it "police overkill"... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aggie87 Posted June 10, 2004 Report Share Posted June 10, 2004 ...had the Defense not hired an expert to select a most-apt-to acquit jury An interesting point. Jo Ellen Demetrius was hired by the defense team to help select the jury in their favor. Jury consultants are a small part of the legal community, but seem to have alot of power to skew results one way or another. Jo Ellen was on Larry King a number of times back after the OJ trial, offering her analysis of what happened. She has worked on a number of other high profile trials, including some that are ongoing presently. My sister is a jury consultant. It's a fairly small community of professionals, and she knows Jo Ellen and most of the other consultants around the country. She travels alot and is hired for a large number of cases to help with jury selection, run mock trials to help determine what are good/poor issues to present when the real trial comes around, and various other things. It's actually quite interesting to hear from her about the cases she has worked on, though that's usually in the past tense since she doesn't talk about ongoing trials/cases. Although not in the public eye like Cochran, Shapiro, Bailey et al, Jo Ellen Demetrius had probably as large of an influence on the outcome of the trial as any of them... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christiern Posted June 10, 2004 Report Share Posted June 10, 2004 The defense also had a jury consultant, but Marsha Clark ignored his advice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheldonm Posted June 10, 2004 Report Share Posted June 10, 2004 I remember the day after the "not guilty" verdict, OJ proclaimed on national TV that he would spare no time and personal expense to find Nicole's "real" killer. Uh.... we'e still waiting, OJ. He has searched for the "real" killer....... on every golf course in America! I also voted "guilty" and I do partially blame the jury! Mark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jazzmoose Posted June 10, 2004 Report Share Posted June 10, 2004 He has searched for the "real" killer....... on every golf course in America! Hey, don't blame OJ; you know how it is, once he suspected Davis Love, he just kind of zeroed in and forgot about other suspects... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
connoisseur series500 Posted June 11, 2004 Report Share Posted June 11, 2004 Everything seems to point to OJ's guilt. The most damning evidence to me was the suicidal trip in his Bronco. But it is also clear to me that the jury couldn't convict him based on the bumbling prosecution team. The defence was able to raise enough doubt to justify the acquital. I really haven't thought much about the trial since it ended. One thing's for sure: a killer is running free and living a pretty comfortable lifestyle. It's a shame; especially when one considers there are probably a ton of people unjustly put behind bars. This scumbag should be in prison while others should not. Life aint fair... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheldonm Posted June 11, 2004 Report Share Posted June 11, 2004 Life aint fair... ...you got that right, brother! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PHILLYQ Posted June 11, 2004 Report Share Posted June 11, 2004 Speaking of great lawyering, let's not forget Claus Von Bulow- Alan Dershowitz got him out on appeal. Guilty as sin! Stupid juries- Jayson Williams trial- one juror said he didn't look like a cold-blooded killer! He's drunk, he curses a guy while holding a loaded gun, points it at the guy and then the guy has a gaping hole in his chest. Gulity as sin! With those two cases and OJ, the common thread is that the criminal had much green for great lawyers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Gould Posted June 11, 2004 Author Report Share Posted June 11, 2004 You're right, Philly, but at least with Jayson Williams, the prosecution gets another shot at the manslaughter charge-or reckless disregard or whatever it was that some members of the jury held out for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris olivarez Posted June 11, 2004 Report Share Posted June 11, 2004 Guilty but he had things rolling his way. A team of lawyers that might have gotten Hitler off and the less than sterling reputation of the LAPD were two major factors in the "incredible" verdict that was handed down. OJ is one of the reasons that when I hear the "and justice for all" portion of the pledge of allegiance I always think to myself "Yeah depending on your bank account". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim R Posted June 11, 2004 Report Share Posted June 11, 2004 Now, how many people think that Ted Kennedy committed murder?????? He's a free man too. This comment reminded me that I had never bothered to do much reading about Chappaquidick. I was only 13 in 1969, and come from a family that's not all that interested in politics. 35 years have gone by, and I've never really thought much about it. Anyway, I did a quick search online today and found the following site. I don't necessarily believe all of it, but I found this analysis of the whole thing extremely interesting and very well thought out and presented: Chappaquiddick: A Profile In Cowardice Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Gould Posted June 11, 2004 Author Report Share Posted June 11, 2004 The only difference between Kennedy and OJ is premeditation. From the moment of the accident, Kennedy was the most cowardly, dishonest and self-centered man imaginable. Among his failures: He went all the way back to the house where the party took place, rather than running to any of the homes closer to where Mary Jo was slowly suffocating, some of which had exterior lights illuminated. He convened his friends and when they knew that the last ferry had left, in the middle of the conversation about what to do, Kennedy jumped into the water and swam across. Why? Because he HAD to be where he was "supposed" to be in order to have an alibi. He returned to the hotel. His clothes are soaking wet. Does he try to go to sleep? No-he hasn't established his alibi yet. He changes clothes and makes his way to the front desk, where he says something about noisy guests next door, and specifically asks the clerk what time it is. Why? So that the clerk will remember that Mr. Kennedy was there at 1:00 AM, everything seemed normal, etc. Then of course there's the neck brace he took to wearing in the aftermath. Gee, his neck didn't bother him so much to swim across the damn channel! Its true what they say-the coverup is worse than the act. I'm willing to believe that it was an accident, although Kennedy's driving was likely to have been reckless and it was probably DUI. But his acts afterward are sickening. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christiern Posted June 11, 2004 Report Share Posted June 11, 2004 I agree, it was truly cowardly inaction, and nothing will change that. Also, had he not been a Kennedy, he probably would not have gotten away with it--we have seen the same kind of privileges granted Bush for what might be termed cowardice (although a fundamental difference is that there was no death involved in his case). That said, I think his political career should be judged on its own merits. A single act of cowardice, no matter how apprehensible it is, cannot take away from the man the good work he has subsequently done in the Senate. Dan, you have to admit that your own political persuasion comes into play here, right? You don't like Kennedy or what he stands for, so it is a lot easier for you to blankly condemn him. Had one of your GOP favorites made a similar mistake, don't you think you would separate his or her dark past from what you might consider to be a meaningful present? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Gould Posted June 11, 2004 Author Report Share Posted June 11, 2004 It may be easy to say this, Chris, but I disagree. The fact is, Kennedy's career should have ended immediately following the accident. If the truth had come out, his career would have been over. Compare that to the North Dakota Rep.-he couldn't cover things up, and now he's paid the price (some would say the price wasn't steep enough, but a price was still paid). Some acts forever color a man. This is one of those. If the Kennedy machine hadn't protected him, and he hadn't instigated a cover-up immediately following the accident, he would have never had the chance to do the supposedly good things he has done in the Senate. A young woman died through his actions and inactions. That fact was covered up for years afterward, at his instigation. It will mark him forever. Or it should. Unfortunately, his obituary, when it comes, will refer to his senate career, his family, and somewhere after the highlights thee might be a mention of Mary Jo Kopechne, in the context of a terrible "accident". In a just world, Kennedy's obituary would say: Edward M. Kennedy, who's promising political career ended with the death of a campaign aide, Mary Jo Kopechne, died today. Youngest son of blah blah blah, Kennedy's political aspirations ended when a car driven by Mr. Kennedy crashed and overturned in the waters of ... Mary Jo Kopechne died in the accident, but Mr. Kennedy's actions after the accident damaged and ultimately destroyed the youngest Kennedy's political aspirations. BTW, Chris, my views of Kennedy are colored by something else: in college, my Mother actually went out on a date with the man. In water, on a boat. So, frankly, she's lucky to be alive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christiern Posted June 11, 2004 Report Share Posted June 11, 2004 So there you go...you owe your very existence to Kennedy! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSngry Posted June 11, 2004 Report Share Posted June 11, 2004 UH oh.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BruceH Posted June 14, 2004 Report Share Posted June 14, 2004 I thought this was about OJ. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John B Posted June 14, 2004 Report Share Posted June 14, 2004 I thought this was about OJ. before the accident Teddy had been drinking vodka with O.J., so everything is still on topic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_forumlogo.png.a607ef20a6e0c299ab2aa6443aa1f32e.png)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.