OT - breaking news - News conference about knife found at OJ's estate
WTF?
Yeah, even Robert Kardashian could poke some holes in that chain of evidence, and he's dead...
Robert Kardashian as played by David Schwimmer could poke holes in it.
a bad name.
...so pardon me if LOL.
Double Jeopardy makes most if not all discussion on this issue rather pointless.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
According to that Ashley Judd movie I saw and every episode of Law and Order ever, yes, it applies...
It's also in the Constitution.
No shit! I need to read that thing some day...
Reading the earlier editions. They're quite a doozy.
Looking at Ashley Judd >> reading Constitution. And I don't care what she's saying.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
Clearly you never saw the super faded poster of her wearing the UK hockey jersey in the window of Coach & Four Barber Shop. They might still have it up but it's been years since I've been by there.
Mutilation of a corpse at best since he was already determined to be dead. /s
edit: that movie has the worst rocky montage ever.
Best is one word for it. Man, that movie was painful--I've blocked enough out that I don't remember if I saw pieces of it, or the whole thing, but I'm not a lawyer, and I still didn't feel like it could be rescued from the fact that the story's entire premise is based on the most obviously false interpretation of the Constitution.
I remember being so astonished by the awful storyline that I read reviews to make sure I wasn't crazy. One review suggested that a district attorney charge someone for murder, take it to trial, and have the person be acquited because the supposed victim is still alive. According to the movie, at that point, the accused is now free to murder the victim since he can't be charged again.
Reminds me of the Tom Clancy book where Jack Ryan signed blank pardon documents so the bearer could commit any crime they wanted--even after Ryan was no longer president.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
murder in a context like this. no way, no how, are they going to file. if they couldn't convict the guilty guy 21 yrs ago, they sure aren't going to be hot on the trail of some new guy.
EDIT: jules, issues with the chain of custody go to the weight of the evidence, not the admissibiliy. 21 yrs in somebody's tool box is going to end up being zero weight.
it would be admissible, they would just need proper foundation to be laid by the people that found it and the people that have had it since. DNA found on the knife, etc. would of course not be reliable and evidence of that would not be admissble but the knife itself certainly would be if they could establish chain of custody (the reliability of the testimony establishing chain of custody is a different question).
No, they could not try OJ again. But they could use this to try the real killer - Kato Kaelin.
But it won't matter. Cause what you cant bring to the old case is a new case cause he was tried by a jury of his peers and found innocent. Double jeopardy and all that.
Now having said that there are probably only 12 people on the entire freaking planet who believe OJ actually IS innocent. Lucky for him all 12 got seated on his jury.
I don't think "believe him to be guilty" was the standard for conviction. I don't know/care enough about the case to have an opinion about whether or not the prosecution should have resulted in a conviction. But generally speaking... I'm glad the standard is a little higher than "I think he/she did it".
The only thing the prosecution lacked in this case was the murder weapon (now perhaps found), a confession and a video of OJ hacking their heads off. Everything else they had and presented to the jury but as Gucci Mane correctly states down the thread a bit, the defense made this case a trial about race, not evidence, and he was aquitted accordingly.
Before the case began ABC ran a special in which they asked some of the best legal minds of the day what he ideal jury would look like for the prosecution and for the defense. They stated that the prosecution would be introducing DNA evidence that would require the jury to understand forensics and be able to process heavily (for the time) scientific findings. They said, therefore, that the ideal prosecution jury would be composed of highly educated people would could under these new concepts.
The defense on the other hand, wanted something quite different. According to them the ideal defense jury would be just short of learning disabled and confused by technical evidence. Sadly for the families on Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown that's exactly what they got.
OJ was as guilty as anyone ever tried and convicted for murder could be. This was anything but a "I think he/she did it". The evidence was overwhelming which is why the verdict was so shocking to so many people.
evidence itself was overwhelming, I will give you that, but I don't think the "education level" of the jury was what resulted in his acquital. I think the prosecution made two fatal mistakes, 1) They assumed that the jury would buy wholesale that being a person capable of domestic violence is also automatically a person capable murder, which resulted in them teling the story of past abuse instead of telling the story of this murder, and 2) They relied too much on DNA evidence to the exclusion of other strong circumstantial evidence. DNA evidence was relatively new at the time (not brand new but also not as known and understood as it was today) and a criminal jury at that time wanted to know how exactly the murder was committed. I don't think it was that the jury did not understand it, but they viewed it as merely one peice to a puzzle. The prosecution could not even decide themselves whether they thought both murders were entirely premeditated or whether it was a crime of passion that escalacted. You cannot expect a jury to buy your story if you are not even sure what story you are telling.
But take a look of the eduation of the OJ jury and you tell me if the defense or the prosecution got what they were looking for in consideration of the accuracy and validity of DNA evidence in 1994:
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/index/nns5.htm
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/Simpson/Jurypage.html
2 College Graduates, 9 High School Graduates, 1 Without Diploma
you. It was unquestionably a good jury for Simpson, you will get no argument from me as to that point. I just don't believe it was the deciding factor.
I don't understand why education level should have anything to do with wheter or not someone is qualified to sit on a jury.
It doesn't, but a lower educated jury makes the defense's emotional tactics land a lot more solidly than the prosecution's scientific tactics.
incompetend prosecution, the die was cast when the jury was seated. One dismissed juror told Denise Brown early on in the trial to forget about a conviction-the remaining jurors had already made up their minds, Johnny C just made is easy for them to acquit.
for a prosecuting attorney.......Unfortunately, these prosecutors felt a 3 pointer was more in order, and they shot an air ball
So in all actuality the State got what they wanted but just botched the case.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
which is where the murder occurred. the DA's office had a choice and they made the most foolish choice they ever could make with that one. central court is called 'the bank' by civil practioners b/c any personal injury case that goes to trial there is a winner, and the numbers/$s are relatively huge. how huge you ask? well, a long-time friend of mine hit for 4.9 BILLION on one case against GM. 'B" as in billion. not a typo. that was the jury pool for OJ's case.
In hindsight the fact that they did not file in Santa Monica is mind blowing. The prosecution just assumed that it would be moved and seemed to just accept that. I suppose at the time they could have been completely ignorant of how big of a factor race would play, but man... that's a huge mistake.
was filed. the law in CA is that the discretion is with the DA to file a case in the judicial district it occurred in, or any case may be filed in the central judicial district.
for those of us old enough, do you remember the yelling b/w OJ and rosie greer? remember that rosie was some form of 'pastor' so it was considered privileged and thus suppressed?
yeah, well one of the witnesses to that outburst was none other than our starting quarterback. and there aren't any secrets on a football team. especially when all of us were in law enforcement. we heard about that long before any news outlets did.
there is a lot more to the story, but no part of that story should be 'OJ didn't do it'.
Rudock or O'Korn?
in college. solid arm, good wheels, and got big and pretty buff for a QB after college, so we would occassionally put him in at safety for certain situations. that said, we were pretty set back there with guys that played at Vandy, TCU, and UTEP to name-drop a few places.
I guess I got confused when you stated "our quarterback". Since this is a UM blog, "our" usually refers to Michigan. But now I realize that you maybe meant "our" in a different way that I still can't completely comprehend.
on a law enforcement team. that QB was an LASO deputy and at men's central jail on that mod, in ear shot, when that argument happened b/w OJ and rosie.
Jury found him not guilty. They didn't proclaim him innocent.
Wouldn't that be as an appeal for someone who was convicted of a crime?
Edit: Nevermind....way too slow!