SPECTER: "Now here's a FReeper after my own heart!"
Posted on 11/22/2006 12:12:09 PM PST by color_tear
It sounds to me that you probably weren't living in the US at the time of the trial. DNA evidence showed that OJ was at the crime scene. Our judicial system operates on the idea that it is better to let a guilty person go than to convict an innocent person. OJ did it.
Years ago, when I was young in the 40s and 50s, leather gloves were much more commonly used than today, and dry cleaning was very expensive, so many women learned to wash their leather gloves with soap and water.
When you wet thin glove leather, whether with water or with blood, it shrinks to about half its original size. Then you must patiently stretch the leather again to make it fit.
None of this simple matter was brought out in testimony about the glove, to my recollection (I watched the entire, sickening spectacle on tv), because I think very few younger people have ever tried to wash a leather glove.
So the entire "If the glove don't fit, you must acquit" slogan by OJ's lawyer just didn't sit right with me. I was not convinced of his innocence by this method, although for many people, this was the single most convincing factor "proving" his innocence.
Later, he was convicted in criminal court. He has also spent the intervening years playing golf and continuing to live a celebrity lifestyle, instead of relentlessly seeking his wife's killer, as he vowed to do.
What convinces you he is innocent, other than the bogus verdict?
SPECTER: "Now here's a FReeper after my own heart!"
I do my part! ;-)
My doubts were raised when OJ was asked to try on the gloves. He seemed to hold his fingers splayed and stiff and was "unable" to get the glove on. Wish I could see a video of that part of the trial. I've often thought of emailing Greta to see if she could take a look-see at that part and verify (or not) if I remember correctly.
Hate to be blunt, but start by getting a clue.
First, you make it sound like only "conservative" talk show hosts believe Simpson murdered two people. I would bet that most liberals (at least, those with an IQ over 70) believe it as well. Second, juries do not find a defendant "innocent" - - they merely determine whether they believe there is enough evidence presented to find a defendant "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt."
Our court system may be the best in the world, but that doesn't mean that it isn't often a sick joke. In the Simpson case, you had a jury that couldn't spell "DNA" if you spotted them the 'D' and the 'N', along with a thoroughly incompetent prosecution and judge. It was a sick joke.
See post 62.
When I ride hard my hands sweat, and my gloves are always shrunken and stiff when I put them back on. I wash them on my hands with leather conditioner before I take them off, and put them on a glove rack (made one with dowels and a piece of board). That helps, but they still shrink whenever they get wet.
Understanding is anticipatory resolute projection of the inauthentic Being from the future to the having-been.
Same here. I read the book also. I believe he did it, but the prosecution didn't do it's job to prove it beyond reasonable a doubt,imo.
I mean, did he try the "ugly-ass" shoes on?
I was being sarcastic, and in some sense I agree...I feel the, 'not proven' verdict would make a prosecutor be a little more wary about which cases he brings to trial (a string of 'not provens' being an indictment of his incompetence.) I'm just not sure if we would want an accused (OJ notwithstanding) having to deal with the stigma. I think part of the American character in such matters is one that likes the black and white (no race pun intended)finality of either "guilty" or "not guilty."
How does he look at his kids with a straight face? Once they figure out he probably did it they will turn away from him.
Now I'm confused. I watched the trial, and felt it failed because the prosecution did not make leather shrinkage and expert testimony about leather shrinkage a clear enough issue. As an attorney, your recall is probably much greater than mine, a mere student of Con law. What do you mean by "stunt"?
There is no reasonable doubt in #62 IMHO.
"Not Proven" is better than "Not Guilty" here. If those were the alternatives, I'd take Not Proven. However, if you throw in a Guilty verdict, well - that makes it different...But I'd rather have the man have the taint of a "Not Proven" verdict than being able to clamour on that he is "Innocent" because he is "Not Guilty"....
The trial took place in 1995.
NO system of justice is perfect. None. If so, we'd never have an innocent man, woman or child in jail, but it does happen (I point you to the Duke Lacross "Rape" case for a present version of miscarriage of justice).
The OJ trial, with all the evidence against him, blood of the victims on his shoes, socks, clothes, in his truck, droplets up OJ's driveway to his house, even in his washing machine is a pretty good indicator he was there, if not participating. His alibi fell apart. Yet the jurors found him innocent. Why? Because they chose race over justice. And the fact that the police were painted as racists didn't help.
But remember this, in a civil trial he was found responsible for the deaths, and was ordered to pay some $30+ million in damages.
"Most of the TV audience saw MORE of the O.J. trial than did the jurors themselves."
*** Are you sure? How do you know? It is this kind of answer makes me wondering about those hosts. Do they have the same mentality?
Obviously you have not heard, the title was the publisher's gimmick. A marketing stunt!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.