ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags murder cases , O.J. Simpson

Reply
Old 11th November 2017, 03:18 AM   #161
bobtaftfan
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 381
Originally Posted by BStrong View Post
1. Never had a dog (or cat) in your life? If someone is in an area that the pet inhabits there is a good chance that when they leave they are going to have pet hairs on their clothing.

The fact that the hair was from the belly does not mean that the dog would have had to walk over the glove for the hair to be there. It could have been transferred from either of the victims to the glove during the murders.

2. Goldman wasn't any type of trained fighter. His hand injuries (abrasions) were determined to be from struggling in the enclosed area where he fell, and the cuts in his hands that were determined to be defensive from Goldman attempting to fend off his attacker.
Actually, Ron Goldman was a black belt in karate and was very muscular because he regularly lifted weights--his friends described his body as "sculpted by weightlifting and tennis" ("Murder Victim Called Free Spirit and Caring Friend," Los Angeles Times, June 15, 1994). Apparently none of the sources you've read mention this fact. Isn't that a rather glaring omission? Perhaps you should read the other side of the story.

Dr. Baden noted that the bruises on Goldman's hands were far more consistent with hitting flesh than with hitting a hard surface like a wall or tree.

As for the dog hair on the Rockingham glove, ok, describe for me a rational scenario where a killer would have touched the underbelly of the dog during the murders. Boy, it's amazing what this ninja killer was able to do in no more than 60 seconds. So now, somehow, he also touched the underbelly of the dog while inflicting 21 stab wounds (that equals a rate of least 1 stab every 3 seconds), grabbing Goldman's shirt, wrestling with Goldman and digging out and moving dirt with his shoes in the ground in the process (as did Goldman), going around Goldman and pressing the knife against his neck just hard enough to make two minor long cuts on his neck (clearly, these were control wounds and happened before the fighting started--how do you fit that into the prosecution's scenario?), and having his super-tight-fitting left glove pulled off by Goldman--all in no more than 60 seconds. It's just nonsense.

And tell me again why Goldman would have grabbed the left hand if the knife was in his attacker's right hand? And are you ever going to address the forensic evidence that most of Goldman's wounds were caused by a left-handed attacker? Or perhaps his attacker was right handed and could amazingly contort his arm and hand to stab at angles that would normally be done with the left hand?

Dr. Henry Johnson, M.D., an experienced ER doctor who has seen lots of knife wounds, was the first one to notice that most of the cut angles described in the autopsy report must have been made by a left-handed killer. Here's an interview with Dr. Johnson's brother, Thomas Johnson, that explains in layman's terms why most of the wounds were made by a left-handed person:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VOLW-xsBlS4
__________________
Mike Griffith. Real Issues Home Page.

Last edited by bobtaftfan; 11th November 2017 at 04:27 AM.
bobtaftfan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2017, 01:03 PM   #162
Matthew Best
Philosopher
 
Matthew Best's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Leicester Square, London
Posts: 6,215
Originally Posted by bobtaftfan View Post
You and others have done nothing but repeat common myths about the case, and you seem to be looking for any excuse not to read anything that challenges those myths.
....said every 9/11 truther ever.
Matthew Best is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2017, 06:35 AM   #163
bobtaftfan
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 381
Perhaps it might be useful to summarize the evidence that supports O.J.’s innocence and that points to someone else/some others:

* The blood found under Nicole’s fingernails was not O.J.’s blood type, nor was it Nicole’s or Goldman’s blood types. To try to explain this away, the prosecution floated the absurd theory that the blood type somehow morphed from Nicole’s blood type to a different blood type, a theory that even one of the prosecution’s own expert witnesses rejected and that has no support in forensic literature.

* None of the few African-American hairs found in the physical evidence had dandruff, whereas O.J. had a problem with dandruff (as his barber confirmed at the criminal trial).

* Caucasian hairs were found on the ski cap and the gloves. O.J. was black.

* The ski cap was markedly too small for O.J.

* An identical ski cap was found inside Nicole’s house. The prosecution did their best to conceal this fact. The two caps probably belonged to the Simpsons’ two young children, Sydney and Justin. Someone probably took one of the ski caps from the house and placed it by the bodies. The ski cap never made any sense anyway. Why on earth would anyone draw attention to themselves by wearing a ski cap in mid-June in Southern California?

* One of the blood drops in the Bronco contained DNA that did not belong to O.J. or to either of the victims. We know the DNA did not come from Fung or Mazzola, since, as criminalists, their DNA genotype was tested and known. The defense wanted Fuhrman’s blood tested to see if the DNA was his, but Fuhrman was compelled to have his blood tested.

* No one saw O.J. at the crime scene.

* No one saw O.J. anywhere near the crime scene just before, during, or just after the murders. (I trust no one is going to cite the lying flake Jill Shively. If so, you might take a look at “Joseph Bosco and 10 Myths About the O.J. Simpson Case,” pp. 6-7.)

* There was no cut in the left glove at the location of the half-inch cut on O.J. left middle finger, and scenarios where Goldman somehow removed the left glove are implausible because O.J. was right handed and because the glove fit him almost skin tight and would have been impossible to remove quickly.

* The alleged murder gloves were clearly too small for O.J., and testing has proven that the gloves would have shrunk very little, if at all, from having blood on them. When O.J. tried the gloves on at the trial, they were clearly too small for his huge hands. Only after pulling and jerking on them could he get his hands into them, and it was obvious to all that they were virtually skin tight on him. (And, no, O.J. did not make his hands bigger by not taking his arthritis medicine—this lie was debunked at the trial, yet it keeps reappearing from time to time and is quickly gobbled up by an uncritical media.)

* O.J.’s claim that he suffered a very minor cut in his Bronco before he left for the airport was supported by the sparse trail of blood that the police found at his house. The rather sparse trail led from his Bronco, straight up the driveway, and to his front door. No blood—not one drop—was found along the route that the prosecution claimed O.J. walked after he exited the Bronco.

* None of the witnesses who saw O.J. at the LA airport, on his flight to Chicago, or at the Chicago airport saw any cuts on O.J.’s hands, and they all said he seemed relaxed and friendly. The minor cut that O.J. described suffering at his house would not have been noticeable, but the half-inch cut that the police photographed on June 13 would have been impossible to miss.

* O.J.’s claim that he cut he suffered the half-inch cut on his left middle finger in his Chicago hotel room after hearing the news of Nicole’s death is supported by the fact that Chicago police found blood on broken glass and on a pillowcase and a bed sheet in his hotel room and that the hotel receptionist confirmed that O.J. came downstairs soon after the call to get a bandage for a cut on one of his fingers.

* Witnesses on O.J.’s flight back to LA from Chicago stated that he was calling people trying to find out what had happened and that he appeared genuinely distraught and heartbroken as he made the inquiries.

* Numerous forensic experts have noted that the killer or killers in this attack would have had their clothes soaked/drenched in blood because of the wounds and because of the victims’ increased blood pressure from stress and fear. Yet, no blood-soaked clothes from the crime scene, much less any linked to O.J., were ever found, despite massive police searches in LA and Chicago, searches that included searching in sewers and searching all ground in a wide area spanning from the crime scene to O.J.’s house (in one search, the police and others lined up in a straight line starting at a point near the crime scene and walked in unison toward O.J.’s house).

* No murder weapon or weapons were ever found. The prosecution’s original claims about the murder weapon—that it was a large knife purchased at Ross Cutlery—were exposed as being based on perjured/erroneous testimony and on Vannatter’s misrepresentation of the knife’s size to the coroner (Vannatter led him to believe that the knife bought from Ross Cutlery was a long knife, 12 to 15 inches in length). The supposed murder knife was in fact found. It was a tiny pocket knife that still had the price tag on it when it was found, and forensic testing revealed that it had not come into contact with blood or human tissue.

* It is an established fact that the blood that the LAPD claimed they found on the back gate on July 3 was not there on June 13, the day after the murders, when the police spent hours processing the crime scene. A photo taken of the back gate on June 13 shows no blood where the LAPD claimed they found blood on July 3. An enlarged version of the photo that focuses on the area of the back gate where the police belatedly claimed they found blood was used to cross-examine LAPD criminalist Dennis Fung, and he admitted that he could not see any blood in the photo. There is also the fact that the back-gate blood had DNA concentrations that could have only existed in fresh blood that was collected within minutes after it was deposited, yet the back-gate blood supposedly sat exposed to the elements for three weeks, on metal no less, before it was “found.”

* Photos and a video of O.J.’s bedroom prove that the LAPD moved clothes around and that O.J.’s socks were not on the floor before Dennis Fung came upstairs to examine the bedroom.

* Numerous police and defense experts who saw or examined the socks in the days after the murders saw no blood on them. When the head of the LAPD’s crime lab inventoried the evidence items for blood, she found no blood on the socks. The first two evidence reports on the socks said no blood was seen on them. Yet, nearly two months after the murders, the LAPD claimed they found a huge blood stain on one of the socks. Additionally, forensic testing proved that no foot had been in the sock when that blood was deposited.

* The so-called “bloody glove” that was allegedly found behind O.J.’s house defied the laws of science. When Detective Fuhrman said he found the glove, he claimed that the blood on it was still moist and sticky, which would have been a scientific impossibility for blood that had been sitting out for seven hours. Numerous tests have confirmed that the small amount of blood on that glove would have been bone dry by the time Fuhrman claimed he “found” it. A highly placed source in the LAPD told best-selling true-crime author Stephen Singular that Fuhrman planted the glove and that he used a blue LAPD evidence bag to transport the glove from Bundy to O.J.’s house—note that the source told this to Singular before anyone knew that a blue plastic bag was found and photographed near the Rockingham glove.

* The crucial five Bundy blood drops that testing showed matched O.J.'s DNA were later found to have been sent for testing in UNmarked bindles, even though Mazzola testified that she marked the bindles with her initials (as she did with all other items), and some of the swatches in those bindles had wet transfers on them, clearly suggesting that the blood that was tested was not the same blood that was collected. As Dr. Lee noted, if the swatches were collected and processed the way the LAPD claimed they were, there could not have been any wet transfers--it would have been physically impossible.

* The best evidence relating to O.J.’s demeanor shows that he was not in any kind of an angry mood, much less a dark rage, on the night of the murders. When Denise Brown gave her initial statement, she said nothing about O.J. being in an angry mood that night, even though she was asked about his demeanor. A home video filmed right after the dance recital that evening shows O.J. interacting with Denise and her mother in a clearly friendly manner, and it shows Denise and her mom kissing O.J. goodbye. Kato Kaelin, the last person to spend time with O.J. before the murders, said O.J. was not in any kind of a bad mood but just seemed a bit tired—note that this was about an hour before the murders.

* In his police interview, O.J. assumed that Nicole had been killed by a gun and that the murders had occurred inside her house. He offered to let the detectives inspect his guns, and he noted that he had not been inside Nicole’s house in weeks.

* O.J. was examined twice shortly after the murders, and he did not have any cuts, scratches, or bruises on his head, neck, face, chest, back, or arms. Yet, supposedly he had just been in a brutal, vicious struggle with two people in which one victim scratched her attacker and the other victim--a muscular black belt in karate--struck his assailant(s) several times (as evidence by the numerous bruises on his knuckles).

* The alleged evidence that O.J. abused and stalked Nicole in the weeks leading up to the murders has been thoroughly refuted. The infamous/famous entry from Nicole’s diary has been determined to have been forged. Nicole herself stated on tape in October 1993 that O.J. had not touched her in anger since January 1989. Nicole’s best friend, Cora Fischman, testified that Nicole never said a word to her about any abuse from O.J. in the months leading up to the murders. Up to two months after the murders, Denise Brown said she did not consider Nicole to have been a battered wife. Indeed, just a few weeks before the murders, O.J. helped nurse Nicole back to health when she had the flu, and a few days later Nicole went over to O.J.’s house for a party and snuggled up to him in front of numerous witnesses. Furthermore, O.J. was in fact out of town for much of the time between January 1994 and June 12, 1994. He was only in town that weekend because he had flown back to attend his daughter’s recital on June 12, the night of the murders.

* Two other friends of Ron Goldman's were murdered between July 1993 and September 1995. They were Brett Cantor and Michael Nigg. Cantor owned the Dragonfly nightclub, where Ron and Nicole, and Faye Resnick, were frequently seen. Cantor was stabbed to death and Nigg was shot. Figure the odds that in a 26-month period, three friends of John Doe would be murdered and that John Doe himself would be murdered during the same time period.

* Two other friends of Goldman's were attacked or threatened between 1994 and 1995. One of them had his car torched, while the other one had his life threatened. Both later disappeared. Dr. Donald Freed and Dr. Raymond Briggs tried to locate them in 1996 but could not find them.
__________________
Mike Griffith. Real Issues Home Page.

Last edited by bobtaftfan; 12th November 2017 at 07:08 AM.
bobtaftfan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2017, 06:53 AM   #164
calebprime
moleman
 
calebprime's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 12,218
Show what a good scholar you are and summarize the evidence for the other side.

And, critique your own points. On the one hand, on the other hand.

Take a page from Karl Popper.
calebprime is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2017, 09:43 AM   #165
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,518
Question: IF Jason did this, when and how did OJ find out?
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2017, 12:34 PM   #166
Dumb All Over
A Little Ugly on the Side
 
Dumb All Over's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: They call it the Earth (which is a dumb kinda name)
Posts: 5,503
Originally Posted by calebprime View Post
Show what a good scholar you are and summarize the evidence for the other side.

And, critique your own points. On the one hand, on the other hand.

Take a page from Karl Popper.
Ain't gonna happen. Conspiracy theorists are incapable of applying this type of measured examination.
__________________
The Three Word Story Pledge of Allegiance- "I Hereby swear upon Engelbert's grave that I will gallop, not stride run, not walk posting three words on Shemp's honor, honoring: bananas, dwarfs, clarinets, [the 7th naughty forum word], haggis, Batman, nuns, wombats until such time as I'm sober. Or dead."
"Some people have a way with words, other people...Um...Oh...Uh, not have way." -Steve Martin
Dumb All Over is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2017, 02:39 PM   #167
bobtaftfan
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 381
Originally Posted by Matthew Best View Post
....said every 9/11 truther ever.
So that's your excuse for refusing to read the other side of the story: you assume that doubting the case against OJ/believing OJ is innocent is the same as believing in the nutty 9/11 conspiracy theories?

Tell me: How many genuine scientists believe in the 9/11 nonsense? Do you know how many dozens of forensic pathologists, criminalists, and other scientists have expressed serious doubts about the case against OJ or believe OJ is innocent? The names run into the dozens.

Are you aware that two senior assistant district attorneys in the LADA's office privately expressed serious doubts about the evidence against OJ (Lucienne Coleman and Peter Bozanich)?

The 9/11 conspiracy theories fall apart after the slightest critical analysis. If anything, the prosecution's case against OJ is far closer to the 9/11 conspiracy tales than is the case for his innocence. Let's review, quickly:

* OJ was in a dark murderous rage that night -- Debunked by the dance recital video and by the last person to spend time with OJ barely an hour before the murders.

* OJ stalked and abused Nicole in the months leading up to the murders, because he was insanely jealous of her -- Refuted by Nicole's best friend, refuted by Nicole's known interactions with OJ less than six weeks before the murders, refuted by OJ's conduct on the day of the murders, refuted by Paula Barbieri's testimony, refuted by Christian Reichardt's testimony, refuted by the evidence that Nicole's damning diary entry was forged.

* OJ had no alibi from 9:30 to 10:50 -- Uh, how many single men have an alibi for their whereabouts at that time of night? Hundreds of thousands of other single men in LA had no alibis for that time period either.

* OJ's blood was found at the crime scene -- Every drop of Bundy blood that was tested and found to match OJ's blood came from unmarked evidence bindles, and the swatches in those bindles had wet transfers on them. The Bundy back-gate blood was clearly planted, for the reasons I have already explained.

* OJ's blood, Nicole's blood, and Goldman's blood was found in OJ's Bronco -- If OJ had been the killer, far, far more of the victims' blood should have been found in the Bronco, and in many more spots in the vehicle. The minuscule amount of OJ's blood found in the Bronco came from the tiny cut he suffered from one of the sharp edges of his cell phone mount, and the sparse blood trail from the Bronco to his front door supports OJ's account of his movements and contradicts the prosecution's version. Most of the blood that Fuhrman said he saw in the Bronco would *not* have been visible from the windows but only from inside the vehicle, proving that he lied when he said he was never in the vehicle that night. By the way, why did Fuhrman not mention the bloody streaks at the preliminary hearing or in his notes? Why did two non-police people who got into the Bronco at the impound lot to look at the blood that was supposedly there not see any blood--they were looking for "all the blood" that police-leaked press accounts were saying was in the blood, but when they got in the vehicle just days after the murders to see this blood, they saw *none.* Odd, huh?

* Nicole's blood was found on one of OJ's socks -- That blood was clearly planted, for the reasons I've detailed in previous replies. And, it has been proven that the socks were not on the bedroom floor until Fung entered the room.

* A bloody glove was found behind OJ's house -- That glove was clearly planted, for the reasons I've detailed in previous replies.

* OJ had a half-inch cut and a quarter-inch cut on his left hand -- The "quarter-inch" cut was so small and apparently irrelevant that Lange and Vannatter did not even bother to have it photographed when they interviewed OJ the day after the murders--they only had the half-inch cut photographed. OJ said the half-inch cut happened in Chicago, and plenty of evidence supports his claim.

* OJ fled when he learned he was going to be arrested -- Innocent people who believe they are being framed sometimes flee, especially if they don't think they can get a fair trial. Guilty people don't agree to a police interview with no lawyer present. Guilty people don't offer to let the police take their blood. Guilty people don't tell the police to check their guns. Guilty people don't offer to take a polygraph. OJ did all of these things.

* OJ did not ask how his wife died when he was notified of her death -- Yes, he did, as Detective Phillips admitted under cross-examination.

* OJ bought a large knife at Ross Cutlery six weeks before the murders -- No, he did not. He bought a tiny knife that he never used. It was found with the price tag still on it, and forensic testing showed it had not touched blood or human tissue.

* African-American hair was found on some evidence items -- And no African-American hair was found where one would expect it should have been found if OJ had been the killer. And the African-American hair that was found did not have dandruff on it, but OJ had a dandruff issue. Caucasian hair was found on the bloody glove and on the ski cap. Whose was it? And the ski cap was much too small for OJ.
__________________
Mike Griffith. Real Issues Home Page.

Last edited by bobtaftfan; 12th November 2017 at 02:42 PM.
bobtaftfan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2017, 02:58 PM   #168
Matthew Best
Philosopher
 
Matthew Best's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Leicester Square, London
Posts: 6,215
Originally Posted by bobtaftfan View Post
Tell me: How many genuine scientists believe in the 9/11 nonsense?
Depends who you ask. If you ask a 9/11 truther they will say that there are dozens of architects, scientists, explosives experts etc who have expressed serious doubts about the official story of the 9/11 events. Just like you, in other words.
Matthew Best is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2017, 03:25 PM   #169
bobtaftfan
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 381
Originally Posted by Monza View Post
Wasn't this because he found a second pair of footprints in one of the crime scene photographs? His infamous "there's something wrong" remark?

Of course, that second pair of footprints was an imprint in the concrete made when the walkway was originally poured.
By the way, if the LAPD were certain that that set of possible imprints were tool marks made when the cement was poured, why did they refuse to test them with chemicals that would reveal latent shoeprints (shoeprints not visible to the naked eye)?

And why did they refuse to allow Dr. Lee to test the rest of the walkway and patio for latent shoeprints?
__________________
Mike Griffith. Real Issues Home Page.
bobtaftfan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th November 2017, 02:20 PM   #170
bobtaftfan
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 381
Originally Posted by Matthew Best View Post
Depends who you ask. If you ask a 9/11 truther they will say that there are dozens of architects, scientists, explosives experts etc who have expressed serious doubts about the official story of the 9/11 events. Just like you, in other words.
Read: You're not going to bother reading the research of world-renowned forensic experts and other reputable scholars if that research debunks the case against OJ.

And, pray tell--just do pray tell--who are the reputable, recognized scientists who have expressed any sympathy, much less support, for the 9/11 conspiracy theories? Name just one. I ask because one of the most potent arguments against the 9/11 truthers is that no credible scientists support their nonsense. I've watched many debates with 9/11 truthers and have yet to see them cite one recognized, reputable scientist who buys their nuttiness.

That's a far, far, far cry from the O.J. Simpson case. For example, you've probably never heard of the open letter that 25 leading scientists wrote during the trial to point out that the way the prosecution was using DNA evidence against OJ was invalid and unsound. One of these scientists was Dr. Kary Mullis, the guy who invested the PCR method of DNA testing. Another was Dr. Terry Speed, a renowned scholar on statistics at UC Berkeley and an NRC contributor. Another was Dr. Henry Lee, recognized around the world as a leading forensic expert and criminalist.
__________________
Mike Griffith. Real Issues Home Page.

Last edited by bobtaftfan; 17th November 2017 at 02:22 PM.
bobtaftfan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd November 2017, 03:37 AM   #171
bobtaftfan
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 381
Originally Posted by Matthew Best View Post
Depends who you ask. If you ask a 9/11 truther they will say that there are dozens of architects, scientists, explosives experts etc who have expressed serious doubts about the official story of the 9/11 events. Just like you, in other words.
I'm still waiting on you to name one reputable scientist who has expressed support for the 9/11 conspiracy theories.

On the other hand, there are dozens of scientists who have strongly questioned or rejected the case against OJ, not to mention criminalists, lawyers, and investigative journalists.

I suspect the problem is that you have not read the criminal trial transcript. The trial that the media continues to portray is just about the polar opposite of the trial that occurred in the courtroom. A good example of this is the FX series The People vs. O.J. Simpson, which ignores 90% of the evidence of innocence, distorts the defense's positions, and exaggerates the prosecution's case.
__________________
Mike Griffith. Real Issues Home Page.

Last edited by bobtaftfan; 23rd November 2017 at 03:46 AM.
bobtaftfan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th November 2017, 05:23 AM   #172
bobtaftfan
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 381
While we're still waiting for Matthew to provide the names of any reputable scientists who believe in the nutty 9/11 conspiracy theories, here's a tantalizing piece of evidence that Joseph Bosco discusses in his book A Problem of Evidence:

The defense discovered that there were a flurry of cell phone calls between and from Detectives Mark Fuhrman, Brad Roberts, and Ron Phillips from 2:00-4:00 AM, when they were supposedly all together at the Bundy crime scene. When the prosecution finally turned over the phone records, they were heavily sanitized.

Bosco asks, "If Fuhrman and Phillips and Roberts are together at Bundy, why would there be any telephone communication among them at that time?" (A Problem of Evidence, pp. 224-226)

Yes, that's a very good question. As Bosco suggests elsewhere in his book, they were talking on the phone because they were not all together at Bundy during those two crucial hours. Fuhrman and Roberts were going back and forth between Bundy and Rockingham to plant evidence. They were the men whom Rosa Parks said she heard on OJ's estate in the early hours of the morning.

This ties into the crucial fact that the defense proved at the trial that Fuhrman had the famous glove-pointing picture taken over two hours earlier than he claimed it was taken. Fuhrman and all the other police personnel at the scene insisted that the picture was taken shortly after 7:00 AM. Fuhrman, Lange, and Vannatter all argued that Fuhrman would have had no reason to have had a photo taken of him pointing at the glove at Bundy before they returned from Rockingham, and that therefore the picture must have been taken after 7:00 AM. Uh-huh, and then the defense proved from the negatives of the photo that it was taken at around 4:40 AM, and the police photographer had no choice but to admit this fact under cross-examination. This is crucial evidence on a number of points.
__________________
Mike Griffith. Real Issues Home Page.
bobtaftfan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th November 2017, 06:57 PM   #173
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 11,467
Originally Posted by bobtaftfan View Post
Actually, Ron Goldman was a black belt in karate and was very muscular because he regularly lifted weights--his friends described his body as "sculpted by weightlifting and tennis" ("Murder Victim Called Free Spirit and Caring Friend," Los Angeles Times, June 15, 1994). Apparently none of the sources you've read mention this fact. Isn't that a rather glaring omission? Perhaps you should read the other side of the story.

snipped
I've seen this assertion more than once and have yet to see any evidence of Goldman's training or qualifications. First of all, in what style did he train in and achieve his status? Saying that someone "has a black belt in karate" doesn't mean much without knowing those facts.

In Korea, there are Tae Kwon Do schools adjacent to US military facilities that guarantee US military personnel their black belt in one year - one year being the general tour of duty back in the day.

Those one year wonders get a nifty certificate to hang on their wall and not much in actual ability. There are dojos in different styles in the US that basically advance on time-in-training as much as anything else, but none that I'm aware of give out a one year black belt. Without knowing Goldman's qualifications and how he acquired them there is no way to asses his capabilities

The second problem is this: black belt or not, Goldman did not go to see Nicole ready to fight for his life. I can tell you that most individuals, even sport trained individuals that are confronted with a violent physical attack will either freeze or flee, not immediately launch into a effective violent resistance. Over the years, in our agency and other agencies that we had a relationship with we'd would share lessons learned from officer involved incidents, and not just firearm use/lethal force incidents. The prime factor in surviving violent encounters for LE is the ability of the officer to not fall victim to what is called Sudden Stress syndrome and effectively get far enough ahead on the reaction curve that they can defend themselves. If you're interested, here's a link to a DOJ study from 2006 on LEO assaults:

https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/police...-readahead.pdf

Goldman, even if some type of trained martial artist, was not someone trained to fight for his life, for real, for keeps. That's no knock on the man. He was not prepared to cope mentally with the attack he faced and react quickly enough to save his or Nicole's life.

ETA - knives are a simple enough tool that anyone with two hands can effectively use it in either hand. It's not like playing a musical instrument or writing.
__________________
"When a man who is honestly mistaken, hears the truth, he will either cease being mistaken or cease being honest." - Anonymous

"Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus

Last edited by BStrong; 24th November 2017 at 06:59 PM.
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th November 2017, 05:00 AM   #174
bobtaftfan
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 381
Originally Posted by BStrong View Post
I've seen this assertion more than once and have yet to see any evidence of Goldman's training or qualifications. First of all, in what style did he train in and achieve his status? Saying that someone "has a black belt in karate" doesn't mean much without knowing those facts.

In Korea, there are Tae Kwon Do schools adjacent to US military facilities that guarantee US military personnel their black belt in one year - one year being the general tour of duty back in the day.

Those one year wonders get a nifty certificate to hang on their wall and not much in actual ability. There are dojos in different styles in the US that basically advance on time-in-training as much as anything else, but none that I'm aware of give out a one year black belt. Without knowing Goldman's qualifications and how he acquired them there is no way to asses his capabilities

The second problem is this: black belt or not, Goldman did not go to see Nicole ready to fight for his life. I can tell you that most individuals, even sport trained individuals that are confronted with a violent physical attack will either freeze or flee, not immediately launch into a effective violent resistance. Over the years, in our agency and other agencies that we had a relationship with we'd would share lessons learned from officer involved incidents, and not just firearm use/lethal force incidents. The prime factor in surviving violent encounters for LE is the ability of the officer to not fall victim to what is called Sudden Stress syndrome and effectively get far enough ahead on the reaction curve that they can defend themselves. If you're interested, here's a link to a DOJ study from 2006 on LEO assaults:

https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/police...-readahead.pdf

Goldman, even if some type of trained martial artist, was not someone trained to fight for his life, for real, for keeps. That's no knock on the man. He was not prepared to cope mentally with the attack he faced and react quickly enough to save his or Nicole's life.

ETA - knives are a simple enough tool that anyone with two hands can effectively use it in either hand. It's not like playing a musical instrument or writing.
I'll address the last point first: If you're in a vicious fight and are using a knife, you're going to use your dominant hand because you can thrust and stab harder with your dominant hand and because you will have more control over the knife with your dominant hand. And you will do this instinctively, every time.

The fact that Goldman was a black belt in karate was established at the trial and has been acknowledged by the Goldman family. See the book His Name Is Ron, written by the Goldman family, for example. Goldman was a third-degree black belt and was described as being "avid" about it. And, as mentioned, he was also very muscular--his friends described his body as "sculpted."

We need to move beyond the myth that Goldman was surprised or that he came on the scene after or just before Nicole was killed. Again, Nicole would have *had* to let Goldman in the middle gate because the buzzer was not working. Plus, Goldman was found to have had lipstick on his cheek (who else would have kissed him between the time he showered at his apartment and the time he arrived at Nicole's house?). And, the blood spatter patterns make it clear that he and Nicole were upright and close to each other for part of the struggle.

Furthermore, the "control wounds" on Goldman's neck strongly suggest that the fight did not start right away but that one of the killers restrained Goldman by holding a knife against his neck just hard enough so that he could feel it and so that it would make minor linear nicks on his neck but not hard enough to cause serious injury or to cause him to resist. The fight only started after Goldman's and/or Nicole's answers were not satisfactory.

The prosecution could provide no rational explanation for the control wounds on Goldman's neck. They had to admit that the wounds were control wounds, because this was too obvious to deny. But they could not come up with a believable, rational explanation for how or why a supposed lone killer would have had time for controlling, much less have bothered to take that time, when the fight supposedly lasted no more than 60 seconds.

Keep in mind that the only forensic pathologist the prosecution called was an LAPD coroner (Dr. Lakshmanan)! And he was not even the coroner who did the autopsy! The prosecution could not get a single recognized forensic pathologist to testify in support of their ridiculous scenario for how the killings occurred.

Why did the prosecution take the unprecedented, extremely suspicious step of refusing to call Dr. Golden, the coroner who performed the autopsy? One reason was that Dr. Golden had admitted in the preliminary hearing that the stab wounds indicated that two weapons were used:
Mr. Shapiro: Regarding the knife wounds, is it your finding that there were two types of knife wounds on both victims?

Dr. Golden: There are two morphologically different types of stab wounds on the victims. Namely, some of the stab wounds on the victims are indicative of a single-edged blade for the reasons that I indicated. They have both a round or blunt end and a pointed end. And other -- some of the wounds have a characteristically double pointed or forked end, which would indicate that they could be made by either a blunt end instrument, or knife, or a double sharp end instrument. (Preliminary hearing, July 8, 1994, pp. 0024-0025)
Another reason the prosecution did not dare call Dr. Golden was that this would have opened the door to talking about the alleged-then-debunked murder knife, which in turn would have shown the jury clear evidence that the LAPD had lied to Dr. Golden about the knife that OJ bought from Ross Cutlery and that the prosecution had solicited, if not encouraged, perjured testimony from the Ross Cutlery employees who testified at the preliminary hearing.
__________________
Mike Griffith. Real Issues Home Page.

Last edited by bobtaftfan; 25th November 2017 at 05:02 AM.
bobtaftfan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th November 2017, 09:12 AM   #175
Ampulla of Vater
Master Poster
 
Ampulla of Vater's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: North of the White Line of Toldt
Posts: 2,983
Originally Posted by bobtaftfan View Post
I'm still waiting on you to name one reputable scientist who has expressed support for the 9/11 conspiracy theories.

On the other hand, there are dozens of scientists who have strongly questioned or rejected the case against OJ, not to mention criminalists, lawyers, and investigative journalists.

I suspect the problem is that you have not read the criminal trial transcript. The trial that the media continues to portray is just about the polar opposite of the trial that occurred in the courtroom. A good example of this is the FX series The People vs. O.J. Simpson, which ignores 90% of the evidence of innocence, distorts the defense's positions, and exaggerates the prosecution's case.
There is a 911 thread here, on this site. Go read it and you will answer this question of yours.
Ampulla of Vater is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th November 2017, 03:41 AM   #176
bobtaftfan
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 381
Originally Posted by Ampulla of Vater View Post
There is a 911 thread here, on this site. Go read it and you will answer this question of yours.
Comparing the 9/11 conspiracy nonsense to the case for OJ's innocence is just a silly dodge. It's a poor, lazy excuse to avoid dealing with facts you can't explain.

I notice you made no effort to explain any of the facts I discussed in my two previous replies, such as the flurry of cell phone calls between Fuhrman, Roberts, and Phillips between 2:00 and 4:00 AM, i.e., when they were supposedly all together at Bundy, or the fact that the autopsy coroner said the wounds showed indications of having been made by two different knives.

And could you explain how the 9/11 thread answers the point that you folks do not seem to have read the OJ criminal trial transcript, much less the grand jury and preliminary hearing transcripts? Over and over again you folks have floated myths that were debunked during the criminal trial.

If you ever do gather up the courage to read the other side of the story on the OJ case, you really should start with the book written by three of the OJ jurors, Madam Foreman: A Rush to Judgment?, so you can hear them explain, in a sensible and factual manner, why they not only rejected the prosecution's case but believed that at least some of the evidence clearly appeared to have been planted.
__________________
Mike Griffith. Real Issues Home Page.

Last edited by bobtaftfan; 30th November 2017 at 04:23 AM.
bobtaftfan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2017, 12:57 AM   #177
KatieG
Rootin' Tootin' Raspberry
 
KatieG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: at the end of the Oregon Trail
Posts: 3,839
In my wildest imagination, I never thought he'd really ever be home for Christmas.

If ya can't cry, ya gotta laugh.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2BMWFRrhw0
__________________
What a time to be alive! It's like the collapse of Rome but with WiFi

Basically, if the GOP doesn't want to be called the white supremacy party, they should stop acting like they are.
-Mumbles
KatieG is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2017, 06:27 AM   #178
bobtaftfan
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 381
Originally Posted by KatieG View Post
In my wildest imagination, I never thought he'd really ever be home for Christmas.

If ya can't cry, ya gotta laugh.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2BMWFRrhw0
I take it you simply have no interest in facts that show OJ is innocent.

The video is truly sad. It just assumes OJ is guilty and goes from there.

If you ever do become interested in justice and truth, here are some questions you might try to research:

* Why was the blood found under Nicole's fingernails *not* OJ's blood?

* Why did OJ have no bruises or scratches on his face, neck, or upper body, given the fact that the autopsy evidence shows that Goldman struck his attacker(s) very hard several times?

* Why did the LAPD refuse to release the results of the tests done on the blood on Goldman's keys and on the blood on the handrail at Nicole's house? (You can bet that if that blood had been OJ's or either of the victims' blood, the police and the prosecution would have used it as evidence.)

* Why did the LAPD decline OJ's offer to take a polygraph? Why did the voice stress analysis polygraph that was done on one of OJ's interviews show he was telling the truth when he denied killing Nicole and Goldman?

* How did one of the lenses in Judy Brown's glasses--the glasses that Goldman brought to Nicole's house at her request--disappear after the LAPD took custody of the glasses? Did the fact that the lens had a partial fingerprint on it and blood on it have anything to do with its disappearance?

* Why did the LAPD refuse to allow outside forensic experts to do chemical tests at the Bundy crime scene, such as standard chemical tests for latent shoeprints?

* Why did no one who saw OJ's hands on the flight to Chicago or at either airport within three hours after the murders see any cuts or scratches on his hands?

* Why is it not crucial that Mark Fuhrman admitted on tape that he had planted evidence against minorities in previous cases?

* Why did the LAPD redact so many of the phone numbers that Fuhrman, Phillips, and Roberts called between 2:00 and 4:00 AM? Who in the devil were they calling at that time of the morning, just hours after the murders? And why were they calling each other so often during that same timeframe when they were supposedly all together in the small area of the Bundy crime scene? (Answer: Because Fuhrman and Roberts were planting evidence at Rockingham and were touching base with Phillips to check on developments at Bundy.)

* If the back-gate blood that the police conveniently "found" three weeks after they had processed the crime scene was not planted, why does that blood not appear on any photos of the back gate taken when the police processed the crime scene? And how could it be that that blood had DNA concentrations that were vastly higher than the blood that was collected from the scene the day after the murders? Is it not established scientific fact that DNA in blood degrades rapidly when exposed to the elements, and that after three weeks the back-gate blood should have been so degraded as to yield no testable DNA?

Many more such questions could be asked.
__________________
Mike Griffith. Real Issues Home Page.

Last edited by bobtaftfan; 3rd December 2017 at 06:29 AM.
bobtaftfan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th March 2018, 10:46 AM   #179
Nova Land
/
Tagger
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Whitleyville, TN, surrounded by cats
Posts: 5,701
Jeffrey Toobin has an article up regarding the interview with O. J. Simpson which was conducted in 2006 and aired this past weekend on Fox, in which Simpson tells how he "would have" committed the murders "if" he had committed the murders.

In the interview Simpson claims there would have been an accomplice he calls Charlie there with him if he'd been there. Toobin says that's nonsense.

Quote:
... O.J. killed his ex-wife and her friend by himself...

All of the evidence pointed to O.J. Simpson -- alone -- as the killer. A single set of bloody footprints were left at the scene. Simpson was photographed wearing a pair of the same kind of Bruno Magli shoes that left the prints. Drops of blood were found to the left of the footprints. DNA tests revealed that was Simpson's blood. And the following day, Simpson appeared with a bandage on his left hand. The trail of Simpson's blood continued to the rear gate of Nicole's home, into Simpson's white Ford Bronco, to the steps in front of Simpson's home on Rockingham and into Simpson's bedroom, on his socks.

What was more, one bloody glove was left at the crime scene, and a matching glove was found in a narrow passageway behind the guest homes on Simpson's property, where Kato Kaelin lived. On the night of the murders, Kaelin told police that he heard three loud thumps right where the glove was found, suggesting that someone (Simpson, of course) had hidden it there.

Of course, during the criminal trial, Simpson's lawyer claimed that that evidence, including blood, was planted at the crime scenes by racist police officers to frame Simpson. To me, at least, this theory was never believable, but the accomplice suggestion throws it out the window.

If Simpson is acknowledging (as he appears to be) that he was involved in the murder, his blood would be at the scene, too. But what of this supposed accomplice? How could "Charlie" -- or Jason, or anyone else -- have participated in the murder and left no evidence of his presence? There are no footprints, no hair and fiber, no fingerprints of anyone else at the crime scene. That's because there was no accomplice...

Granted, the site the article is posted on may not be as well-known or as well-regarded as miketgriffith.com, but Toobin does seem to know what he's talking about and what he says makes sense. It's a good article, worth a read if you're interested in this case. (I'm not, but stumbled on the article and thought I'd pass it along.)

Last edited by Nova Land; 13th March 2018 at 10:51 AM. Reason: forgot to include the link to the article
Nova Land is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th March 2018, 11:06 AM   #180
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 12,528
All I know is the fact that OJ Trial and the internet's "Miscarriage of Justice" fandom didn't exist at the same time is the biggest missed bullet in all of human history.

In the pre-internet days when crazy people had to leave their houses in order to be crazy in groups that trial was the closest thing ever to a real life version of the Amanda Knox thread.
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th March 2018, 04:24 PM   #181
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,185
a modicum of skepticism and a dollop of time, in other words

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
All I know is the fact that OJ Trial and the internet's "Miscarriage of Justice" fandom didn't exist at the same time is the biggest missed bullet in all of human history.

In the pre-internet days when crazy people had to leave their houses in order to be crazy in groups that trial was the closest thing ever to a real life version of the Amanda Knox thread.
There will always be people who think that OJ is innocent, despite all of the evidence. There will always be people who think that Knox and Sollecito are guilty, despite all of the evidence. What "miscarriage of justice fandom" is, is not entirely clear, but the strong balance of probability is that you mean it as a pejorative term. The best estimate out there is that the wrongful conviction rate is 5%, which translates to somewhere in the vicinity of 100,000 wrongfully convicted people in this country alone. Deciding who was or who was not wrongfully convicted is not "magic" as you have suggested elsewhere; one only needs the ability to think for oneself and a willingness to seek out the facts. For anyone so inclined, I suggest reading John Butler's summary of the DNA evidence in the Simpson case in his textbook on DNA profiling.
__________________
“Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had
happened.” – Winston Churchill

Last edited by Chris_Halkides; 13th March 2018 at 04:28 PM.
Chris_Halkides is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th March 2018, 06:38 PM   #182
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 29,078
Originally Posted by Nova Land View Post
Jeffrey Toobin has an article up regarding the interview with O. J. Simpson which was conducted in 2006 and aired this past weekend on Fox, in which Simpson tells how he "would have" committed the murders "if" he had committed the murders.
I had to check the calendar... Is CNN really paying Toobin for opinions that are ten years stale?
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th March 2018, 08:20 PM   #183
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,518
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
I had to check the calendar... Is CNN really paying Toobin for opinions that are ten years stale?
He's commenting on the interview that was taped in 2006, but just broadcast for the first time. That makes it news. And as a former federal prosecutor, and a close student of the OJ case who wrote a best-selling book about it, his opinion should carry some weight.
https://www.amazon.com/Run-His-Life-.../dp/081298854X
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th March 2018, 08:21 AM   #184
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 29,078
Ah, my bad. I thought the interview was aired in 2006.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th March 2018, 03:27 PM   #185
applecorped
Rotten to the Core
 
applecorped's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 18,333
Perhaps Bigfoot killed Ron and Nicole
__________________
All You Need Is Love.
applecorped is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th March 2018, 10:28 PM   #186
Roger Ramjets
Illuminator
 
Roger Ramjets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 3,658
Originally Posted by bobtaftfan View Post
* Why is it not crucial that Mark Fuhrman admitted on tape that he had planted evidence against minorities in previous cases?
It is crucial, and was a large part of why the jury found O. J. not guilty.

Why Was O.J. Simpson Found Not Guilty? Jurors Cited Reasonable Doubt
Quote:
A more conflicted juror was Anise Aschenbach, who initially voted guilty during deliberations. According to the San Francisco Chronicle, Aschenbach's daughter told ABC that, "She told me, 'I think that [Simpson] probably did do it, but what happened was the evidence was not there, mainly because of Fuhrman.'"
O. J. Simpson was found Not Guilty due to reasonable doubt. If I had been on that jury I too would have voted to acquit. And not just because of the tapes. As one juror said, "Things just didn't add up".

Hold on, that can't be right? Everybody knows he did it! So how did he get off? Well you see, when black jurors acquit a black defendant there can only be one reason...
__________________
We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good.
Roger Ramjets is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th March 2018, 10:49 PM   #187
Roger Ramjets
Illuminator
 
Roger Ramjets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 3,658
Who was the Biggest Winner in the O.J. Simpson Trial? Mark Fuhrman.
Quote:
O.J. Simpson is imprisoned and broke and universally accepted as a multi-murderer. That’s likely about the same condition he’d be in if he’d been convicted...

But anybody looking for tragic fallout from the Trial of the Century need look no further than Mark Fuhrman’s celebrity. Thanks to the acquittal, a racist, crooked detective became America’s most popular cop.

This was a guy introduced to America as a cop who dropped racial slurs casually, boasted of beating minority suspects, railed against “patty cake, patty cake” interrogations in favor of brutality, and pleaded the fifth when asked if he planted evidence while working cases other than Simpson’s...

Yet the public backlash to Simpson’s acquittal was such that Fuhrman’s most heinous attributes became selling points. Fox News made him the network’s resident law enforcement expert—he was on the Kelly File as recently as two weeks ago—and he has enjoyed a career as a prolific crime writer, authoring at least seven books.

And now we have to hear him explain why Rodney King needed to be beaten. So forget the verdict for a second. Want a real reason to feel bad about the Simpson trial? He’s it.
__________________
We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good.
Roger Ramjets is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th March 2018, 11:18 PM   #188
trustbutverify
Philosopher
 
trustbutverify's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 7,178
Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
It is crucial, and was a large part of why the jury found O. J. not guilty.

Why Was O.J. Simpson Found Not Guilty? Jurors Cited Reasonable Doubt

O. J. Simpson was found Not Guilty due to reasonable doubt. If I had been on that jury I too would have voted to acquit. And not just because of the tapes. As one juror said, "Things just didn't add up".
Given the political/racial/celebrity environment the trial took place in, a guilty verdict was completely out of reach, no matter what evidence was presented. Simpson could have confessed, while a videotape of the murders played, and still gotten a hung jury. The racist cop and other circumstances simply took a hung jury off the table.

Given the multitude of high circumstantial probabilities involved, the truth of the matter isn't really in doubt. But a trial isn't actually a search for the truth.
__________________
"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated." -- Mahatma Gandhi

Wollen owns the stage
trustbutverify is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd March 2018, 05:30 PM   #189
Roger Ramjets
Illuminator
 
Roger Ramjets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 3,658
Originally Posted by trustbutverify View Post
Given the political/racial/celebrity environment the trial took place in, a guilty verdict was completely out of reach, no matter what evidence was presented. Simpson could have confessed, while a videotape of the murders played, and still gotten a hung jury.
Evidence?
__________________
We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good.
Roger Ramjets is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th March 2018, 12:50 PM   #190
Dr. Keith
Not a doctor.
 
Dr. Keith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 16,675
Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
Evidence?
While not evidence, I have seen it argued that the OJ verdict and the Rodney King verdict are two sides of the same coin.

The other had actual video evidence, so it isn't much of a stretch to assume video evidence could have had a similar impact on the OJ trial.
__________________
I once proposed a fun ban.

Suffering is not a punishment not a fruit of sin, it is a gift of God.
He allows us to share in His suffering and to make up for the sins of the world. -Mother Teresa
Dr. Keith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:42 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.