Breaking OJ Simpson dead at 76

Reply to thread
VashTheStampede

VashTheStampede

Caterpillar Accountant
Mr. Queen of the Dead
10K Post Club
Executive
Moderator
GWF Sponsor
GW Elder
Priest d420 Floridaaa Maaannn BEARD The Count
Messages
10,292
nypost.com

OJ Simpson dead at 76 after cancer battle

OJ Simpson — who became one of the most infamous figures in the US during his murder trial in the ’90s — has died after a cancer battle.
nypost.com nypost.com

At least he can rest knowing that his wife's killer is finally dead.

unless y'all wanna start another conspiracy thread about his son killing her
 
TD

TD

ES COO Shitposting Dept. of GWF
10K Post Club
Executive
GW Elder
AI Slut Shitposting CEO GWF Platinum Trophy Club
Messages
16,919
VashTheStampede said:
unless y'all wanna start another conspiracy thread about his son killing her
Click to expand...
Maya Rudolph Eyebrows GIF
 
Crazy Jamie

Crazy Jamie

Active Member
GW Elder
British Bad Ass
Messages
243
From a lawyer's perspective, it's difficult to know if asking him to put on the glove at trial was the worst mistake in context that a lawyer has ever made, but it's certainly the most high profile. And knowing what I know now about being a lawyer, it was such a basic, arrogant mistake. When cross examining someone it is absolutely vital to know when to stop asking questions. So many inexperienced barristers and lawyers fall foul of this. When they get a good answer to a question, they get excited and ask an unnecessary follow up which kills the point ("Ah, so you did punch him first!" --> "No, no. It was after he shoved me"). I've been there, as every other trial lawyer has, but to see it done so flagrantly in such a high profile case is a horrendous mistake. There was no need to ask Simpson to put on that glove. There was loads of incontrovertible forensic evidence linking him to that murder scene. The case was won. And then, it was lost because of pure arrogance. We'll never know definitively if that's why he was acquitted of course, but given how famous the defense line became ("If the glove don't fit, you must acquit"), that's been one of the main conclusions. In any event, a completely avoidable error by the Prosecution.
 
Mark

Mark

Dumbass Progenitor
Administrator
GW Elder
Badge Master
Messages
6,177
Crazy Jamie said:
From a lawyer's perspective, it's difficult to know if asking him to put on the glove at trial was the worst mistake in context that a lawyer has ever made, but it's certainly the most high profile. And knowing what I know now about being a lawyer, it was such a basic, arrogant mistake. When cross examining someone it is absolutely vital to know when to stop asking questions. So many inexperienced barristers and lawyers fall foul of this. When they get a good answer to a question, they get excited and ask an unnecessary follow up which kills the point ("Ah, so you did punch him first!" --> "No, no. It was after he shoved me"). I've been there, as every other trial lawyer has, but to see it done so flagrantly in such a high profile case is a horrendous mistake. There was no need to ask Simpson to put on that glove. There was loads of incontrovertible forensic evidence linking him to that murder scene. The case was won. And then, it was lost because of pure arrogance. We'll never know definitively if that's why he was acquitted of course, but given how famous the defense line became ("If the glove don't fit, you must acquit"), that's been one of the main conclusions. In any event, a completely avoidable error by the Prosecution.
Click to expand...

You always show up in the right threads at the right time.

I’ve always wondered if it was arrogance that led to that decision myself, because even rewatching parts of the trial a third and fourth time in documentaries it never seemed as if they needed to throw the proverbial Hail Mary with that particular piece of evidence. Your take on it confirms my thoughts with actual legal experience, though. Now, I just wonder how do you think it would have played out had they not offered up that demonstration? How about if it didn’t go before a jury and the verdict laid in the judge’s hands only?
 
Crazy Jamie

Crazy Jamie

Active Member
GW Elder
British Bad Ass
Messages
243
Mark said:
You always show up in the right threads at the right time.

I’ve always wondered if it was arrogance that led to that decision myself, because even rewatching parts of the trial a third and fourth time in documentaries it never seemed as if they needed to throw the proverbial Hail Mary with that particular piece of evidence. Your take on it confirms my thoughts with actual legal experience, though. Now, I just wonder how do you think it would have played out had they not offered up that demonstration? How about if it didn’t go before a jury and the verdict laid in the judge’s hands only?
Click to expand...
Arguably he shouldn’t even have been acquitted with the glove mistake. There was so much evidence against him, and the police conspiracy defense was such a flier. Again, it’s standard ground for an experience lawyer. Pretty much regardless of the area of law, your client uttering the line “they were all conspiring against me” usually just means your client is going to lose.

The judge point is interesting. Yes, with a judge alone I think he’s convicted, though as I say, a different jury may well have convicted him too. A standard line I use is that different people reach different conclusions on the same evidence. That applies to judges and juries and is why trials are so risky, though obviously juries are susceptible to some arguments that judges won’t be. Whether that’s a good or bad thing will depend on your view, but I’m not a massive fan of the jury system personally. I get the ideological comfort of only being guilty if found to be so by a jury of your peers, but in practice that just leaves too much room for error and uncertainty where very serious issues are being tried, particularly in certain types of cases such as rape, where it’s been shown that the prejudices of juries around things like consent are a real problem.
 
dimmerwit

dimmerwit

Junior Member
GW Elder
Minecraft Pro British Bad Ass Dice Nice
Messages
334
It's pretty clear that a good part of the jury's thinking was based on the racial climate of the state at the time, particularly after Rodney King. I think there's a fighting chance that the jury might have let him off even if saw video of him doing it. Some believe that white backlash to the verdict contributed to California killing off affirmative action by referendum in 1996, largely to the detriment of the black community.

I'm not sure the glove was necessarily key, even if it very obviously didn't help. It's clear from interviews and books written by the jurors that, aside from the racial issues, many were either more or less completely taken in by the attempts to discredit the DNA and blood analyses, or else they completely ignored those analyses because they didn't understand them.

His acquittal is obviously some kind of perverse mixture of an incompetent jury, a powerful racial climate and idiotic prosecution errors. People have endlessly debated to what extent each has played a part, but in many ways I lean towards the first two.
 
Zell 17

Zell 17

Moderator
Moderator
GW Elder
PlayStation One Thousand Posts! Pyramid Prey Win First Blood City Win
Messages
3,724
Crazy Jamie said:
There was so much evidence against him, and the police conspiracy defense was such a flier.
Click to expand...
Well, it doesn't help that the lead detective on the case refused to testify under oath that he didn't plant evidence. "Did you plant evidence at the scene of the crime?" should be a pretty softball question.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Kat
Mark

Mark

Dumbass Progenitor
Administrator
GW Elder
Badge Master
Messages
6,177
Crazy Jamie said:
Arguably he shouldn’t even have been acquitted with the glove mistake. There was so much evidence against him, and the police conspiracy defense was such a flier. Again, it’s standard ground for an experience lawyer. Pretty much regardless of the area of law, your client uttering the line “they were all conspiring against me” usually just means your client is going to lose.

The judge point is interesting. Yes, with a judge alone I think he’s convicted, though as I say, a different jury may well have convicted him too. A standard line I use is that different people reach different conclusions on the same evidence. That applies to judges and juries and is why trials are so risky, though obviously juries are susceptible to some arguments that judges won’t be. Whether that’s a good or bad thing will depend on your view, but I’m not a massive fan of the jury system personally. I get the ideological comfort of only being guilty if found to be so by a jury of your peers, but in practice that just leaves too much room for error and uncertainty where very serious issues are being tried, particularly in certain types of cases such as rape, where it’s been shown that the prejudices of juries around things like consent are a real problem.
Click to expand...

I feel the same way about jury trials, honestly, and I have only been involved in one jury trial due to a clown trying to commit insurance fraud by causing a car accident. On one hand, I was apprehensive about the fact that the judge had the ability to overrule the jury’s decision to follow the letter of the law to a T, which would have placed me at-fault for rear-ending another vehicle. On the other, I was apprehensive about the jury pool because you essentially had to hope that they’ve encountered or are aware/empathetic enough of insurance fraud to side with me. It’s a lot easier to plead your case to one person than it is a jury, that’s for sure, but the decision being left to one individual has its own risks.

dimmerwit said:
It's pretty clear that a good part of the jury's thinking was based on the racial climate of the state at the time, particularly after Rodney King. I think there's a fighting chance that the jury might have let him off even if saw video of him doing it. Some believe that white backlash to the verdict contributed to California killing off affirmative action by referendum in 1996, largely to the detriment of the black community.
Click to expand...

That is still very much a thing, and often considered a taboo subject when it comes to legal discourse. More often than not, you’ll hear of the disadvantages certain ethnicities face in the courtroom, never those types of advantages.

dimmerwit said:
I'm not sure the glove was necessarily key, even if it very obviously didn't help. It's clear from interviews and books written by the jurors that, aside from the racial issues, many were either more or less completely taken in by the attempts to discredit the DNA and blood analyses, or else they completely ignored those analyses because they didn't understand them.
Click to expand...

I’d sooner believe that they just didn’t understand that evidence, and chose to ignore it rather than acknowledge the lack of comprehension. DNA processing has come pretty far since then, but not far enough to where they were unable to explain certain concepts and constructs in the mid-90’s.

dimmerwit said:
His acquittal is obviously some kind of perverse mixture of an incompetent jury, a powerful racial climate and idiotic prosecution errors. People have endlessly debated to what extent each has played a part, but in many ways I lean towards the first two.
Click to expand...

This is a good point, though. Rather than a simple “this or that” argument, it’s more a matter of several variables contributing to the outcome of the case.
 
Crazy Jamie

Crazy Jamie

Active Member
GW Elder
British Bad Ass
Messages
243
Zell 17 said:
Well, it doesn't help that the lead detective on the case refused to testify under oath that he didn't plant evidence. "Did you plant evidence at the scene of the crime?" should be a pretty softball question.
Click to expand...
True. As has been said, there are plenty of factors that went into this and we can't know how those factors played into the decision and to what extent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom