Rodney King was beat up by 2 road cops 15 or so years ago and the city rioted because of it, and u still hear that being referred to still to this day....an investigator said the N-word...wow seems open and shut case to me....i'm sure the LAPD went and killed 2 innocent people and set up OJ. Simpson, one of the most famous people in the state just to get black at blacks for...ah....i guess being Black....u realize how dumb your making yourself sound man?
Just for the record....The reason O.J. was not found guilty is because when Dr Lee came in and demostrated how Blood was placed on OJ socks where it was droped and soaked through which indicated that this would not have happen if a foot was in the sock. Bottom line is..OJ probably did it, but the Cops tried to seal the case by adding evidence and made it seem as though they set the entire case up which brought reasonable doubt.
Of course there could be a shadow of doubt when hearing the entire story, at some point though logic must take over...there was just way too much evidence...unfortunately OJ Simpson is a scumbag killer, who was a wife batterer and just not a really good guy like we all thought...
Who didn't love OJ Simpson?
Who didn't love OJ Simpson?
The beggining of the end was when the dumb bitch decided that the Santa Monica court house was to small and changed the jury venuue to downtown L.A. and the jury pool was pooled from the ghetto.
One of the first inteviews after the verdict Johnny Cocka thanked the bitch he hired to select the jury.
One of the first inteviews after the verdict Johnny Cocka thanked the bitch he hired to select the jury.
All anyone needed to know about this case, you just look at the reactions around the country as the verdict was being read....one group jumping for joy, the other stunned silence...it really did come down to race, and I don't think either group fully understands what it's like to be the other.
Mr. Roach,
The burden of proof is not that someone's guilty beyond a SHADOW of a doubt, only that they are guilty beyond REASONABLE doubt. While the defense lawyers in the case raised alot of reasonable questions about alot of the evidence, the totality of the evidence (the blood on his socks, the blood on his Bronco, and most of all the blood leading up to his door) prove his guilt beyond any halfway intelligent person's reasonable doubt. 60 Minutes did a story about one of the jurors being bribed, but that was pretty much hushed up. In any case, one needed only to hear the interviews with the jurors after the trial to know that most, if not all, did not meet the "halfway intelligent" standard.
He suffers from the juries decision? How about he suffers from his own horrible decision making at trial? He speaks for the dead Johnny Cochran now too?
Yes OJ was guilty. Between the police manipulating evidence and the horrible prosecution by Darden and Clarke - it's not surprising a man with almost unlimited resources was able to have his lawyers convince a jury of reasonable doubt.
From a chat session on a news site
greggrt asks: Do you think the result would have been different if Vincent Bugliosi would have prosecuted? Why or why not?
Alan Dershowitz: I think the result might have been different if any competent prosecutor had prosecuted this case. In thirty five years of practicing law, I never encountered two more incompetent bunglers than Clark and Darden. They blew the case at every stage. From jury selection to theory of the case, the length of the presentation, to their unprofessional demeanor in court.
Do you know that Marsha Clark has admitted that she whispered to a lawyer in the case as he was about to make a legal argument: "I want you to remember I'm not wearing any underwear."
And that was one of her better moments.
The amazing thing is that she benefited and profited enormously from her incompetence because people believed she was on the right side. I believe that had she been in private practice, she would have moved mountains to try to defend Simpson, though I'm sure she'll now deny that, because no one would ever hire her to defend him. That's the way she is, that's why she does television.
greggrt asks: Do you think the result would have been different if Vincent Bugliosi would have prosecuted? Why or why not?
Alan Dershowitz: I think the result might have been different if any competent prosecutor had prosecuted this case. In thirty five years of practicing law, I never encountered two more incompetent bunglers than Clark and Darden. They blew the case at every stage. From jury selection to theory of the case, the length of the presentation, to their unprofessional demeanor in court.
Do you know that Marsha Clark has admitted that she whispered to a lawyer in the case as he was about to make a legal argument: "I want you to remember I'm not wearing any underwear."
And that was one of her better moments.
The amazing thing is that she benefited and profited enormously from her incompetence because people believed she was on the right side. I believe that had she been in private practice, she would have moved mountains to try to defend Simpson, though I'm sure she'll now deny that, because no one would ever hire her to defend him. That's the way she is, that's why she does television.
