 |
Uncensored Justice System Discussion
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
SaberGal
Joined: 12 Dec 2007
Posts: 349
Location: Oregon
|
 Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 11:40 pm Post subject: The whole truth? |
 |
|
It is my humble opinion that the prosecution presented half truths to the jury and the country during the murder trial and that is why OJ was acquitted in 1995 for the murders of Ron and Nicole. Anyone else see it this way?
_________________
"Evil triumphs when good men do nothing."
- E. Burke
__________________________________________
That's OK. I wasn't using my civil liberties anyway. (Insert rolly eye emoticon here) |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
NoJustice_NoPeace
Joined: 12 Dec 2007
Posts: 37
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 13, 2007 7:44 am Post subject: Re: The whole truth? |
|
|
| SaberGal wrote: | | It is my humble opinion that the prosecution presented half truths to the jury and the country during the murder trial and that is why OJ was acquitted in 1995 for the murders of Ron and Nicole. Anyone else see it this way? |
I see the verdict more as a payback. But what do you mean by half truths? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JUSTICE1st
Joined: 13 Dec 2007
Posts: 715
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 13, 2007 7:13 pm Post subject: Re: The whole truth? |
|
|
| SaberGal wrote: | | It is my humble opinion that the prosecution presented half truths to the jury and the country during the murder trial and that is why OJ was acquitted in 1995 for the murders of Ron and Nicole. Anyone else see it this way? |
I can't comment on the murder trial, since I didn't see more than bits and pieces of it. I have, however, read Gerry Spence's book O.J.; THE LAST WORD, and it gave me a lot of information about the murder case.
Personally, I think OJ's present case, the Las Vegas armed robbery, has been drastically overcharged. If it weren't O.J. who was the instigator of this whole mess, would the Las Vegas authorities really charged him with kidnapping? I rather doubt it. When I heard that on TV, I just said, "oh, come ON! You have GOT to be kidding me." But they weren't.
Yes, I certainly agree that OJ doesn't help himself one bit with his antics, and I'm rather impatient with his arrogant attitude. Not being an attorney, I don't really know what charges would be totally appropriate and reasonable in this case. But I simply can't buy the kidnapping charge, since no one ever left that hotel room, and that NOBODY got hurt physically. JMO
J 8)
_________________
"We must remember, always, that accusation is not proof, and conviction depends on evidence and due process of law."
EDWARD R. MURROW, 1954 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SaberGal
Joined: 12 Dec 2007
Posts: 349
Location: Oregon
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 13, 2007 9:19 pm Post subject: Re: The whole truth? |
|
|
| NoJustice_NoPeace wrote: | | SaberGal wrote: | | It is my humble opinion that the prosecution presented half truths to the jury and the country during the murder trial and that is why OJ was acquitted in 1995 for the murders of Ron and Nicole. Anyone else see it this way? |
I see the verdict more as a payback. But what do you mean by half truths? |
Well....I'm not a kook but I do think that OJ did have at least one accomplice on the night of the murders. I think it's very possible there was another accomplice after the fact to get rid of evidence. I also don't believe that the murders occurred when the prosecution or the defense say they did.
_________________
"Evil triumphs when good men do nothing."
- E. Burke
__________________________________________
That's OK. I wasn't using my civil liberties anyway. (Insert rolly eye emoticon here) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SaberGal
Joined: 12 Dec 2007
Posts: 349
Location: Oregon
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 13, 2007 9:23 pm Post subject: Re: The whole truth? |
|
|
| JUSTICE1st wrote: | | SaberGal wrote: | | It is my humble opinion that the prosecution presented half truths to the jury and the country during the murder trial and that is why OJ was acquitted in 1995 for the murders of Ron and Nicole. Anyone else see it this way? |
I can't comment on the murder trial, since I didn't see more than bits and pieces of it. I have, however, read Gerry Spence's book O.J.; THE LAST WORD, and it gave me a lot of information about the murder case.
Personally, I think OJ's present case, the Las Vegas armed robbery, has been drastically overcharged. If it weren't O.J. who was the instigator of this whole mess, would the Las Vegas authorities really charged him with kidnapping? I rather doubt it. When I heard that on TV, I just said, "oh, come ON! You have GOT to be kidding me." But they weren't.
Yes, I certainly agree that OJ doesn't help himself one bit with his antics, and I'm rather impatient with his arrogant attitude. Not being an attorney, I don't really know what charges would be totally appropriate and reasonable in this case. But I simply can't buy the kidnapping charge, since no one ever left that hotel room, and that NOBODY got hurt physically. JMO
J 8) |
I totally agree with you about OJ being overcharged in the Vegas case. No, OJ doesn't do himself any favors but in the interest of justice, he should be treated like everyone else. I do think the state will have some issues with their "witnesses" - imo
btw - I love Gerry Spence!
_________________
"Evil triumphs when good men do nothing."
- E. Burke
__________________________________________
That's OK. I wasn't using my civil liberties anyway. (Insert rolly eye emoticon here) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JUSTICE1st
Joined: 13 Dec 2007
Posts: 715
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2007 2:28 pm Post subject: Re: The whole truth? |
|
|
I can't comment on the murder trial, since I didn't see more than bits and pieces of it. I have, however, read Gerry Spence's book O.J.; THE LAST WORD, and it gave me a lot of information about the murder case.
Personally, I think OJ's present case, the Las Vegas armed robbery, has been drastically overcharged. If it weren't O.J. who was the instigator of this whole mess, would the Las Vegas authorities really have charged him with kidnapping? I rather doubt it. When I heard that on TV, I just said, "oh, come ON! You have GOT to be kidding me." But they weren't.
Yes, I certainly agree that OJ doesn't help himself one bit with his antics, and I'm rather impatient with his arrogant attitude. Not being an attorney, I don't really know what charges would be totally appropriate and reasonable in this case. But I simply can't buy the kidnapping charge, since no one ever left that hotel room, and that NOBODY got hurt physically. JMO
J 8)[/quote]
I totally agree with you about OJ being overcharged in the Vegas case. No, OJ doesn't do himself any favors but in the interest of justice, he should be treated like everyone else. I do think the state will have some issues with their "witnesses" - imo
btw - I love Gerry Spence![/quote]
Oh I agree, OJ has to be treated as everyone else, and if I implied otherwise, my apologies. I think the state has some serious problems with a few of their witnesses. I saw quite a bit of Yale Gallanter's cross of Walter Alexanders, and after that cross, Mr. Alexander didn't look too good.
As to Gerry Spence, I can't say enough.  I've read many of his books, including FROM FREEDOM TO SLAVERY, GIVE ME LIBERTY and WIN YOUR CASE. All excellent and well worth reading.
J 8)
_________________
"We must remember, always, that accusation is not proof, and conviction depends on evidence and due process of law."
EDWARD R. MURROW, 1954 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JUSTICE1st
Joined: 13 Dec 2007
Posts: 715
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2007 2:30 pm Post subject: Re: The whole truth? |
|
|
| JUSTICE1st wrote: |
I can't comment on the murder trial, since I didn't see more than bits and pieces of it. I have, however, read Gerry Spence's book O.J.; THE LAST WORD, and it gave me a lot of information about the murder case.
Personally, I think OJ's present case, the Las Vegas armed robbery, has been drastically overcharged. If it weren't O.J. who was the instigator of this whole mess, would the Las Vegas authorities really have charged him with kidnapping? I rather doubt it. When I heard that on TV, I just said, "oh, come ON! You have GOT to be kidding me." But they weren't.
Yes, I certainly agree that OJ doesn't help himself one bit with his antics, and I'm rather impatient with his arrogant attitude. Not being an attorney, I don't really know what charges would be totally appropriate and reasonable in this case. But I simply can't buy the kidnapping charge, since no one ever left that hotel room, and that NOBODY got hurt physically. JMO
J 8) |
I totally agree with you about OJ being overcharged in the Vegas case. No, OJ doesn't do himself any favors but in the interest of justice, he should be treated like everyone else. I do think the state will have some issues with their "witnesses" - imo
btw - I love Gerry Spence![/quote]
Oh I agree, OJ has to be treated as everyone else, and if I implied otherwise, my apologies. I think the state has some serious problems with a few of their witnesses. I saw quite a bit of Yale Gallanter's cross of Walter Alexanders, and after that cross, Mr. Alexander didn't look too good.
As to Gerry Spence, I can't say enough. I've read many of his books, including FROM FREEDOM TO SLAVERY, GIVE ME LIBERTY and WIN YOUR CASE. All excellent and well worth reading.
J 8)[/quote]
YIKES! That last post was a disaster. Sorry about that, I hope it can be read. I must have deleted some posting code by mistake.
J 8)
_________________
"We must remember, always, that accusation is not proof, and conviction depends on evidence and due process of law."
EDWARD R. MURROW, 1954 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SaberGal
Joined: 12 Dec 2007
Posts: 349
Location: Oregon
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 15, 2007 3:00 am Post subject: Re: The whole truth? |
|
|
| JUSTICE1st wrote: |
Oh I agree, OJ has to be treated as everyone else, and if I implied otherwise, my apologies. I think the state has some serious problems with a few of their witnesses. I saw quite a bit of Yale Gallanter's cross of Walter Alexanders, and after that cross, Mr. Alexander didn't look too good.
As to Gerry Spence, I can't say enough. I've read many of his books, including FROM FREEDOM TO SLAVERY, GIVE ME LIBERTY and WIN YOUR CASE. All excellent and well worth reading.
J 8) |
No...I didn't get that you felt he should be treated any differently at all. I was just concurring 8) I do agree that any other person in the same "vegas" situation would probably not have been charged with kidnapping so I don't think he should have been either no matter how repulsed I am by his actions past and present.
Of course....JMO....
_________________
"Evil triumphs when good men do nothing."
- E. Burke
__________________________________________
That's OK. I wasn't using my civil liberties anyway. (Insert rolly eye emoticon here) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NoJustice_NoPeace
Joined: 12 Dec 2007
Posts: 37
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 17, 2007 4:51 am Post subject: Re: The whole truth? |
|
|
| SaberGal wrote: | | NoJustice_NoPeace wrote: | | SaberGal wrote: | | It is my humble opinion that the prosecution presented half truths to the jury and the country during the murder trial and that is why OJ was acquitted in 1995 for the murders of Ron and Nicole. Anyone else see it this way? |
I see the verdict more as a payback. But what do you mean by half truths? |
Well....I'm not a kook but I do think that OJ did have at least one accomplice on the night of the murders. I think it's very possible there was another accomplice after the fact to get rid of evidence. I also don't believe that the murders occurred when the prosecution or the defense say they did. |
I see. I dont think you are a kook but I appreciate you letting me know for sure. ha ha
I guess its possible there was more than one person involved in the murders. I was always more interested in what led up to the verdict. The racial bias and opression that the community experience from the LAPD and the Simi Valley acquittals played a big part IMO.
_________________
What if the "hokey pokey" really is what it's all about? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SaberGal
Joined: 12 Dec 2007
Posts: 349
Location: Oregon
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2007 7:42 am Post subject: Re: The whole truth? |
|
|
| NoJustice_NoPeace wrote: |
I see. I dont think you are a kook but I appreciate you letting me know for sure. ha ha
I guess its possible there was more than one person involved in the murders. I was always more interested in what led up to the verdict. The racial bias and opression that the community experience from the LAPD and the Simi Valley acquittals played a big part IMO. |
I think the discrimination and racism that the jury members had been exposed to did play a part especially considering what the defense was able to expose about Mark Fuhrman. I think it created RD as to the credibility of some of the evidence. I don't necessarily believe that the jury members decided on day one of the trial that no matter what evidence was presented, they were coming back with a not guilty verdict. I realize not many people share this view of the jury but that's how I see it. :wink:
_________________
"Evil triumphs when good men do nothing."
- E. Burke
__________________________________________
That's OK. I wasn't using my civil liberties anyway. (Insert rolly eye emoticon here) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tam5115
Joined: 14 Dec 2007
Posts: 46
Location: Wisconsin
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2007 12:34 am Post subject: Re: The whole truth? |
|
|
| SaberGal wrote: | | NoJustice_NoPeace wrote: |
I see. I dont think you are a kook but I appreciate you letting me know for sure. ha ha
I guess its possible there was more than one person involved in the murders. I was always more interested in what led up to the verdict. The racial bias and opression that the community experience from the LAPD and the Simi Valley acquittals played a big part IMO. |
I think the discrimination and racism that the jury members had been exposed to did play a part especially considering what the defense was able to expose about Mark Fuhrman. I think it created RD as to the credibility of some of the evidence. I don't necessarily believe that the jury members decided on day one of the trial that no matter what evidence was presented, they were coming back with a not guilty verdict. I realize not many people share this view of the jury but that's how I see it. :wink: |
I don't really feel racism played a huge part in their decision, but they did not like Fuhrman and believed what was said about him.
After reading the book three of them wrote, I believe it was Barry Sheck that most swayed them. They listened to Sheck's arguments concerning DNA evidence, and they felt Robin Cotten "talked down" to them. Scheck's whole spin was misleading and the prosecution failed to show that clearly to the jury.
I also believe there was at least one accomplice. At least one tried to clean up after, and there is that weird phone call to the west PD at either 10:02PM or 10:30PM (depending on where you read of it)
I also believe the pros knew that there may have been accomplices but it muddied up the case (made it harder to win) and so they chose to ignore anything that pointed that way. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SaberGal
Joined: 12 Dec 2007
Posts: 349
Location: Oregon
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2007 12:40 am Post subject: Re: The whole truth? |
|
|
| Tam5115 wrote: |
I don't really feel racism played a huge part in their decision, but they did not like Fuhrman and believed what was said about him.
After reading the book three of them wrote, I believe it was Barry Sheck that most swayed them. They listened to Sheck's arguments concerning DNA evidence, and they felt Robin Cotten "talked down" to them. Scheck's whole spin was misleading and the prosecution failed to show that clearly to the jury.
I also believe there was at least one accomplice. At least one tried to clean up after, and there is that weird phone call to the west PD at either 10:02PM or 10:30PM (depending on where you read of it)
I also believe the pros knew that there may have been accomplices but it muddied up the case (made it harder to win) and so they chose to ignore anything that pointed that way. |
And therein lies my problem with the prosecution....I do agree that it was a conscious decision on their part to not bring in the accomplice and exactly for the reason you cited. They wanted an easy, quick win and they wanted a celebrity. When their interest should have been in exposing the whole truth, they chose to only tell part of it. IMO, of course!
Love your avi!!
_________________
"Evil triumphs when good men do nothing."
- E. Burke
__________________________________________
That's OK. I wasn't using my civil liberties anyway. (Insert rolly eye emoticon here) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tam5115
Joined: 14 Dec 2007
Posts: 46
Location: Wisconsin
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2007 12:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | And therein lies my problem with the prosecution....I do agree that it was a conscious decision on their part to not bring in the accomplice and exactly for the reason you cited. They wanted an easy, quick win and they wanted a celebrity. When their interest should have been in exposing the whole truth, they chose to only tell part of it. IMO, of course!
Love your avi!! |
Of course they did! That's not uncommon though.
Garcetti was so intent on winning this. (he knew it would be huge). But they shot themselves in the foot time and time again.
As time passes, I'm more inclined to put most of the responsibility on Clark. She just didn't seem to be clear most of the time. In rewatching a lot of trial footage, it's almost painful when she says things like, "I'm not sure" or "If I remember"
Thanks on the avi.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SaberGal
Joined: 12 Dec 2007
Posts: 349
Location: Oregon
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2007 8:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Tam5115 wrote: |
Of course they did! That's not uncommon though.
|
True...but isn't it pathetic?
_________________
"Evil triumphs when good men do nothing."
- E. Burke
__________________________________________
That's OK. I wasn't using my civil liberties anyway. (Insert rolly eye emoticon here) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tam5115
Joined: 14 Dec 2007
Posts: 46
Location: Wisconsin
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2007 9:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SaberGal wrote: | | Tam5115 wrote: |
Of course they did! That's not uncommon though.
|
True...but isn't it pathetic?
|
Yeah, it is. But truth in a court isn't always really truth, is it?
Like when evidence is thrown out of a case, say because they didn't have a search warrant. That doesn't mean that evidence doesn't exist. But the case can not be decided using that evidence. So sometimes the truth is just a partial truth.
I remember being so angry that the defense could twist things around and basically lie in court. I mean, Scheck knew his contamination and cross contamination theories were misleading. Cochran used words that fanned the flames of racism. I wondered how they all could sleep at night!
Yet, that's the way it works. and the prosecution does it too. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
