OJ Simpson Civial Trial - Interview Tapes

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: Clevy
That's why I said any doubt. 1 person innocent in prison is too many. I wonder if your opinion would change if you or a loved one was on trial and the circumstantial evidence was very strong and they were found guilty.

Well then please refrain from being a juror. There can always be doubt but that doubt needs to be "beyond" reasonable. And that is by a "reasonable" person. You may not "reasonable" in my view.

I have heard your arguments before and the the "what if it were your...bla bla bla." Let me turn the tables on YOU. What if you decided that he was innocent because YOU felt it was not exactly 100% certain (maybe 99.99%) so YOU (Mr. Perfection) vote to acquit and the jury is hung. Subsequently he is not retried, and allowed to go free. Low and behold he kills again and as (bad luck-for you) he kills YOUR wife.

This is precisely the reason we don't insist on a maniacally ridiculous requirement. The unintended consequences would be huge. I know liberals can never see this, but no choices are perfect. It is better to execute an innocent person than free 10 murderers.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Clevy
I'm well aware it reasonable doubt as I said in my post however how many men have died on death row that were later proven innocent based on the DNA left at the scene.

That's why I said any doubt. 1 person innocent in prison is too many. I wonder if your opinion would change if you or a loved one was on trial and the circumstantial evidence was very strong and they were found guilty. My brother was victimized in this way. He did 5 years on a 10 year bit. The police had it in for him and made sure he went to prison even though the official narrative wasn't the actual story.

Once it was clear there was an issue he had a choice. Retrial, another 100k in lawyer fees and more stress to our family as well as the whole thing back in the media, which would certain kill our business due to the negatives, or immediate parole and we just not talk about it.

So yes I have a vested interest in absolutely no doubt towards guilt. Too many times cops will adjust evidence, people are intimidated and silenced and the truth is an afterthought to perceived justice.

I've walked in these shoes as has my family.


Clevy -

Very sorry to hear you & your family had to go through this!

Read Manufacturing Guilt by Barry Anderson. It was published c. 20 years ago and deals with wrongful murder convictions in Canada, including Steven Truscott, Guy Paul Morin, Thomas Sophanow, etc.

Barry Anderson was a prof at the University of Regina at the time - your part of the world. I worked with his brother here.
 
Originally Posted By: OneEyeJack
He was convicted in a civil trial. The attorney, Daniel Petrocelli, stayed away from the technical and medical evidence and did the job by sticking to the timeline of events that could be accurately documented and confirmed with an absolute certainty. If you read his book, Triumph of Justice, it is obvious beyond any reasonable doubt that OJ is guilty. The civil trial and book make the criminal trial look and sound like a sick comedy.

There was one good reason for this approach that never saw the light of day at the time of the post trial circus. The jury was told that with the DNA evidence there was only one chance in 170 million that the blood evidence found at the scene in various places was not that of OJ. A lady juror stated when interviewed that she voted not guilty because she was told that the evidence had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was guilty. So, she said that because of that one chance in 170 million there was the possibility that it was not OJ. She stated that she worked hard at convincing several other jurors that because of that one chance that OJ deserved the benefit of the doubt. The interview that was aired on TV with her was carefully edited. It was apparent that the jury did not understand something as complicated as numbers.


No one is "convicted" in a civil trial. It's a different burden of proof and a different finding of fact by the jury. The standard is NOT "beyond a reasonable doubt" in a civil trial. The defendant is, or is not, found responsible for the damages inflicted, including pain and suffering and damages for causing death. In the criminal action, the one quote I found most telling came from a juror after the verdict which was "I don't know nothin' about no DNA". Oh, and Ito was an idiot.
 
Last edited:
The documentary about the whole criminal trial is on tonight. See my original post for info.
 
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: Al
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
I think Kardashian knew OJ was guilty,

I think anyone with an IQ higher than 70 knew he was guilty.


It was unethical for him to defend OJ if he knew he was guilty. He did it because OJ was his friend.

Or maybe he didn't realize it until after the trial, and that's why Kardashian disowned OJ after the trial.


In a criminal case it is about whether the prosecution can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that someone committed the crime with which he has been charged. It is not about whether he did it. So while defending someone who you know is guilty may be wrong or immoral in your view based on your morals, it is absolutely not unethical. since the system has been deliberately set up this way.

ethics vs morals
 
Originally Posted By: BRZED
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: Al
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
I think Kardashian knew OJ was guilty,

I think anyone with an IQ higher than 70 knew he was guilty.


It was unethical for him to defend OJ if he knew he was guilty. He did it because OJ was his friend.

Or maybe he didn't realize it until after the trial, and that's why Kardashian disowned OJ after the trial.


In a criminal case it is about whether the prosecution can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that someone committed the crime with which he has been charged. It is not about whether he did it. So while defending someone who you know is guilty may be wrong or immoral in your view based on your morals, it is absolutely not unethical. since the system has been deliberately set up this way.

ethics vs morals


Maybe true ... but if you watched these documentaries you would find out that Kardashian gave OJ the "benefit of the doubt" and defended him because they were best friends. Yet by the end of the trial Kardashian knew OJ was guilty because of the irrefutable evidence. That's why he disowned OJ and never associated with him again after the trail was over. He probably would not have defended him if he had any inkling at all that OJ was guilty.

If anyone watched the show tonight, they would see that the photos of OJ wearing the same shoes that he admiralty denied owning could have been a piece of evidence during the criminal trial that could have changed the jury's decision. Those photos were not discovered until after the criminal trial.

All I can say for sure it that OJ will burn in [censored] for eternity over his actions on this earth.
 
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: BRZED

In a criminal case it is about whether the prosecution can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that someone committed the crime with which he has been charged. It is not about whether he did it. So while defending someone who you know is guilty may be wrong or immoral in your view based on your morals, it is absolutely not unethical. since the system has been deliberately set up this way.

ethics vs morals


Maybe true ... but if you watched these documentaries you would find out that Kardashian gave OJ the "benefit of the doubt" and defended him because they were best friends. Yet by the end of the trial Kardashian knew OJ was guilty because of the irrefutable evidence. That's why he disowned OJ and never associated with him again after the trail was over. He probably would not have defended him if he had any inkling at all that OJ was guilty.

If anyone watched the show tonight, they would see that the photos of OJ wearing the same shoes that he admiralty denied owning could have been a piece of evidence during the criminal trial that could have changed the jury's decision. Those photos were not discovered until after the criminal trial.

All I can say for sure it that OJ will burn in [censored] for eternity over his actions on this earth.


We are clearly talking about totally different things. The only reason I commented was because you seem to think it is unethical for a laywer to defend someone who he knows is guilty. Anything else, specifically whether or not Karadshian knew OJ to be guilty before he took his case or if he figured it out during or after the trial doesn't interest me at all and I refuse to waste my time with idle speculation on a 20 year old case.
 
LoL ... whatever. I guess I'm more ethical and moral than most lawyers - so YES I think it IS unethical for someone to defend a murderer if they know they are guilty of the crime. Ethics and morals occupy some of the same space in a person's personality. They are not totally exclusive, at least in my world.

I'm sure most lawyers don't know in the beginning if their client is innocent or guilty, but later throughout the case trial they may find out they are guilty, then what? I guess they are "locked in" and need to continue, but I'm sure they could back out if they really wanted to. Kardashian said himself that he wanted to back out, but he was too deep into it by then.

And besides, Kardashian recorded tapes of his feelings about it all and he wrote off OJ as a friend for obvious reasons - he didn't want to be friends with a murderer, even thought he was found "innocent" in the most messed up criminal trial ever. He probably felt guilty about defending a murderer that was once his best friend. His morals and also his ethics caused his guilt.
 
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
LoL ... whatever. I guess I'm more ethical than most lawyers


I think you mean to say moral. Morals are an individual thing. Ethics is about habits and customs a society accepts. Morals and ethics may clash Someone can even act morally but unethical at the same time. Of course, I may as well have replied, LOL... whatever.
 
^^^ Go back and read my last post again ... more there than before.

Morals and ethics are not totally exclusive. Most people have a lot of overlap of those two traits. People that make them totally exclusive are not normal.
 
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
^^^ Go back and read my last post again ... more there than before.

Morals and ethics are not totally exclusive. Most people have a lot of overlap of those two traits. People that make them totally exclusive are not normal.


Where did I say they were necessarily mutally exclusive? And they are not "traits." They are philosophical concepts. I was just trying to be helpful. Alas, a lost cause. I'm outta here.
 
They aren't traits of someone's personality and define how somebody acts? ... LoL, yeah Ok.
eek.gif


http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/trait

Goodbye ... have a drink for me.
10.gif
 
Lawyers know their jerk clients are guilty, its just a pay day for them.

Same goes for the surgeon that operates on 90 year old patient with multiple health problems.
 
Originally Posted By: Mr Nice
Lawyers know their jerk clients are guilty, its just a pay day for them.

Same goes for the surgeon that operates on 90 year old patient with multiple health problems.
So what's the age limit it "OK" with you TO operate. We'll put YOU in charge of those decisions ---- when you reach it.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
LoL ... whatever. I guess I'm more ethical and moral than most lawyers ...


Really?

What if someone is guilty of an offense, but is overcharged?

What if the proposed punishment of the guilty person is uncommonly harsh and a jury might come up with a more just decision?

is it moral to just walk off and not defend that "guilty" person?

What kind of a man looks the other way at an injustice or just walks away from it? Not much of one, imo.
 
Originally Posted By: Win
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
LoL ... whatever. I guess I'm more ethical and moral than most lawyers ...


Really?

What if someone is guilty of an offense, but is overcharged?

What if the proposed punishment of the guilty person is uncommonly harsh and a jury might come up with a more just decision?

is it moral to just walk off and not defend that "guilty" person?

What kind of a man looks the other way at an injustice or just walks away from it? Not much of one, imo.


You're running with a general statement I made ... every situation is unique. Sure, a lawyer can defend a guilty person knowing he's guilty, and defend him in such a way as to ensure he "gets what he deserves". But trying to get someone off for charges they clearly deserve would be unethical except to a slimy lawyer. Court cases are usually a dirty game between prosecution and defense, and ethics and morals are twisted by both sides all the time to win.

My comment was made in context of defending someone you know is guilty at some point along the way. I'm sure at first Kardashian didn't feel OJ did the murders because there was a long time friendship between them. And the fact that he didn't really know that OJ was a very violent person and a long time wife abuser, he didn't know who OJ really was. As time went on and facts surfaced during the trial, he saw OJ as the monster he was. Kardashian disowned OJ through shear guilt because he compromised his own ethics and morals defending him. Pretty sad actually. OJ screwed up many people's lives ... hope he's kept in jail for the 33 years they sentenced him to for the robbery/kidnapping crime.
 
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
But trying to get someone off for charges they clearly deserve would be unethical except to a slimy lawyer

You couldn't be more wrong.

I couldn't disagree more. Lawyers represent defendants. That's their job. Doing the best job they can even for the slimeast of scumbags is their job. If they do a terrible job the scumball may require a retrial.

I personally loath the lawyers that represent clients in extracting money from "victims" in questionable situations (ambulance chasers). But in cases of criminal law I draw the line. A defendant is deserving of competent representation.

You obviously are entitled to your opinion but it is blatantly wrong inn the context of U.S. Law
 
Last edited:
^^^ Well, maybe the laws need to be changed.
grin.gif
I don't like people who lie, cheat and steal to get other people out of being responsible and paying for what they do to other people.

Now if the guy is actually innocent and proven so, great. But if the guy is actually guilty and gets off for some idiotic reason when he shouldn't have, then that's not right.

Yeah, it's our lovely court system. Yes, it works most of the time but not always. The OJ case was a prime example of criminal court trial process failure.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

dave1251
  • Locked
Exxon Mobil
Replies
19
Views
16K
MolaKule
Back
Top Bottom