OT- OJ Simpson found guilty

[Sandy]

Although clearly not cycling related, I thought this would be of interest:

O.J. Simpson was found guilty on all 12 counts, incuding armed robbery and kidnapping. He faces 15 years to life on the kidnapping charge and an additional 10 years in prison for the other charges. He is scheduled to be sentenced on December 5.



Sandy

[Viper]

I was awake during this early am news alert. Couldn't happen to a better person, I slept well. I will toast this am with some oatmeal and orange juice.

[RPS]

Under these particular circumstances I hate for this to have happened.

[1centaur]

We're about to be "treated" to a biopic on GWB, but the life story of OJ Simpson would be an incredible miniseries - Heisman, NFL's biggest star, murder, trial of the century, armed robbery, prison, and probably some day release. If it was fiction the author would be accused of bad writing for packing in too many elements.

[GoJavs]

Karma's a real b#tch.

[csm]

stay away from oj.... it'll kill you.

[Ken Robb]

stay away from oj.... it'll kill you.
stop with the cutting remarks and the sharp humor!

[Sandy]

stop with the cutting remarks and the sharp humor!

You should talk with your last name. Did you participate too?? :)


:) Slick Stealing Serotta Sandy :)

[cadence90]

You should talk with your last name. Did you participate too?? :)


:) Slick Stealing Serotta Sandy :)
Well...it's not like with your name you're actually standing on such solid ground yourself. :)

[jmc22]

LAS VEGAS - In a city where luck means everything, O.J. Simpson came out the big loser — and his unlucky number in a case full of bizarre twists was 13.

He was convicted of an armed robbery that happened on Sept. 13 and was found guilty on the 13th anniversary of his Los Angeles murder acquittal. The Las Vegas jury deliberated for 13 hours after a 13-day trial.



....in Vegas the House always wins....

[cadence90]

LAS VEGAS - In a city where luck means everything, O.J. Simpson came out the big loser — and his unlucky number in a case full of bizarre twists was 13.

He was convicted of an armed robbery that happened on Sept. 13 and was found guilty on the 13th anniversary of his Los Angeles murder acquittal. The Las Vegas jury deliberated for 13 hours after a 13-day trial.



....in Vegas the House always wins....
That number is about to change, to at least 15 (but one could say that 13 + 2 (trials) = 15), since the minimum sentence for first-degree kidnapping with a deadly weapon is 15 years, with the possibility of parole after five years, and a maximum sentence of life in prison with the chance of parole.

Of course, there will be another sordid appeal with more "experts". :rolleyes:
Where does he get the money for all this, though, considering he lost the civil portion of the the '87 trial to the tune of $8.5 M? His stupid books, etc. can't be covering all this, right?

Enough already. He should be locked up in a white Ford Bronco outside of Winnemuca, NV. as far as I care.

[Tobias]

Like most Americans, I think he probably was guilty of murder but I also think that he was framed as well. I don’t see these two as mutually exclusive. IMO there is little doubt that evidence was planted to solidify the case – which wasn’t all that rare in LA of the past – but he probably did it anyway.

On a big-picture basis the problem I have with cases like OJ’s is that I see little justice in trying Americans twice. I know the law allows for a criminal acquittal to be followed by being sued in civil court for the same supposed crime, but for me it’s a serious injustice.

If I was innocent and acquitted of a crime, and then had all my treasured personal valuables taken by court action, I don’t know what I would do, but I’d have to do something. Accepting what I would perceive as a cruel injustice would not be an option for me.


BTW: Before you fire in my direction, please note that I’m not defending OJ. I’m simply stating that IMO the legal system is wrong in this regard.

[Sandy]

LAS VEGAS - In a city where luck means everything, O.J. Simpson came out the big loser — and his unlucky number in a case full of bizarre twists was 13.

He was convicted of an armed robbery that happened on Sept. 13 and was found guilty on the 13th anniversary of his Los Angeles murder acquittal. The Las Vegas jury deliberated for 13 hours after a 13-day trial.



....in Vegas the House always wins....

Wow! I have 13 bikes that I have "borrowed" from friends, but have neglected to return, have been married 13 times, reside in room # 13 at the Serotta Sanitarium, have 13 unpaid speeding and parking tickets, and have an IQ of 13. Am I in trouble? :)


Serotta Sandy

[News Man]

If I was innocent and acquitted of a crime, and then had all my treasured personal valuables taken by court action, I don’t know what I would do, but I’d have to do something. Accepting what I would perceive as a cruel injustice would not be an option for me.




But OJ was not innocent, he was acquitted.

If you knew you were guilty, would you really perceive civil damages as "cruel injustice"?

If only they would send him to a maximum security prison, that would be sweet justice indeed.

[BumbleBeeDave]

But OJ was not innocent, he was acquitted.

They are two different things. I hate it when newspapers headline that someone was found "innocent" of a crime, when in fact the verdict is "not guilty." That just means the prosecution could not prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. It doesn't mean the suspect didn't do it. Many cases of people who are pretty obviously guilty are also never brought to trial because the DA has decided they do not meet the "beyond a reasonable doubt" threshold. It's the system's way of preventing the innocent from being unjustly convicted, but in the process many suspects who are VERY likely guilty are let go.

BBD

[toaster]

First of all, there should be no doubt in anyone's mind that O.J. Simpson brutally murdered his wife Nicole and Ron Goldman.

Regardless of the culture at the time within the LAPD, someone committing a murder and then subject to the government's actions in the investigation and prosecution of that offense still committed a murder. If he was acquitted due to the lack of a proper prosecution of political climate and set free it is a shame.

So now, O.J. makes a huge mistake and commits a crime using a gun to force another to surrender property when there exists other legal actions to possibly gain back what he thought was rightfully his, he screwed up and that's it.

Yeah, he goes to jail for maybe a long time but at least the system worked in this case regardless of the sentence.

[93legendti]

People get convicted every day of armed robbery. Is this news?

[Ray]

Like most Americans, I think he probably was guilty of murder but I also think that he was framed as well. I don’t see these two as mutually exclusive. IMO there is little doubt that evidence was planted to solidify the case – which wasn’t all that rare in LA of the past – but he probably did it anyway.

On a big-picture basis the problem I have with cases like OJ’s is that I see little justice in trying Americans twice. I know the law allows for a criminal acquittal to be followed by being sued in civil court for the same supposed crime, but for me it’s a serious injustice.

For another rare instance, I agree with Tobias. As a layperson who only knows what was reported, I agree that the evidence against OJ was overwhelming and the odds are equally overwhelming that a guilty man walked. But, the OJ trial brought out ALL of the worst in the American criminal justice system. From evidence tampering to wealth-based inequities in defense (rich dudes like OJ get the best defense teams imaginable - the poor schlub who kills someone robbing the liquor store gets a public defender with little time or resources), to the racially polarized juries (first all-white in Simi Valley and then mostly black in LA), to a supercharged public trial with more grandstanding than evidence - what part of that WASN'T frucked up? And then, for better or worse, the guy gets off and is then tried AGAIN for essentially the same crime. And this recent robbery conviction in Vegas is just a continuation of it.

I don't think it says anything good about our system of justice that we finally got him. The concept of a fair trial (any of the three - take your pick) was the biggest victim in this mess, after the two initial victims of course.

-Ray

[News Man]

.... rich dudes like OJ get the best defense teams imaginable - the poor schlub who kills someone robbing the liquor store gets a public defender with little time or resources..... -Ray

Perhaps the "poor schlub", who I feel terrible for by the way, needs to consider his ability to afford quality council before killing someone. Seriously what do you expect? How many "best defense teams" are out there by the way? This could represent a real botteneck in the criminal justice system when we mandate that all defendants get to choose from one of these teams. Also should we force them to work for free or just raise taxes to pay their fees?

.... And then, for better or worse, the guy gets off and is then tried AGAIN for essentially the same crime........ And this recent robbery conviction in Vegas is just a continuation of it. -Ray

I didn't know that armed robbery was essentially the same crime as double homicide. I think even those sad public defenders would dispute that!


.... I don't think it says anything good about our system of justice that we finally got him. The concept of a fair trial (any of the three - take your pick) was the biggest victim in this mess, after the two initial victims of course.Ray

Thanks for at least remembering that OJ did brutally kill 2 people to kick this chain of events into motion.

[cadence90]

On a big-picture basis the problem I have with cases like OJ’s is that I see little justice in trying Americans twice. I know the law allows for a criminal acquittal to be followed by being sued in civil court for the same supposed crime, but for me it’s a serious injustice.
I agree with you in that I believe Simpson should have been found guilty in the Nicole Simpson/Goldman criminal case, but I don't think criminal v. civil are always, or even the majority of the time, an "injustice", imho. They are completely separate issues.

Criminal vs. Civil cases are hardly an American province; this distinction was started under English law, from which Anglo-American law derives much of its principles, and is certainly a part of most Euro law now.

Criminal is state v. individual (conduct constituting crime and establishing appropriate punishment): Prosecution ("The People", i. e. State of CA.) v. Defendant (i. e. Simpson), the penalty for which (under a guilty verdict: "burden of proof", “beyond reasonable doubt”, "sufficient reason", Presecutor/Defendant regulation as defined by the Bill of Rights, etc.) is usually a prison term and sometimes a fine, as well as legal costs. No compensatory "damages" are awarded to the Prosecution.

Civil is individual v. individual (involving private rights and liabilities): Plaintiff (Brown/Goldman families) v. Defendant (Simpson), for which the standards for guilt are lower (“the balance of probabilities”), and in which any compensatory damages are determined by the court, which weighs the evidence and decides what is most probable. Even the evidence from a criminal trial is not always admissible in a civil suit.

For instance: you are hurt by a driver while riding: the Defendant is found guilty in the criminal case by the jury (or in some cases not...Simpson and a host of others), the driver goes to jail (and as a taxpayer you are partially subsidizing his term in fact); if you desire compensation (usually financial), you still have to file a civil case in order to recoup damages (physical, emotional, property, medical, work, etc.); and you mostly likely would, right? Not an injustice, in my mind.

There are, as you say, many contradictions in criminal v. civil cases: you are acquitted of DUI in a criminal case, but you may still lose your license (privilege) if a civil hearing finds that the balance of probabilities points to the fact that you may DUI again. Same thing, for instance, in child abuse cases: parent(s) found not guilty, child still remanded to a foster home, etc.

I realize this is obvious to you and to most people here, and I do agree that civil cases are sometimes pretty sordid attempts to make money from a crime, but not always, and I think the Plaintiff in those cases has every right to pursue a civil case (i. e. Bernard Ebbers, etc.).

[Tobias]

For another rare instance, I agree with Tobias.Is Hell freezing over? ;)

[Tobias]

Perhaps the "poor schlub", who I feel terrible for by the way, needs to consider his ability to afford quality council before killing someone.I'd feed him to the dogs too -- no problem there. However, the real question for me is about the "100% innocent" guys accused of killing someone. We need to make sure that innocent guys are not set up by police or prosecutors too eager to get a conviction. That’s one of the reasons I feel that police and prosecutors shouldn’t be compensated – in part or in whole – for conviction rate. They should be after the truth, not after blood.

[Tobias]

I agree with you in that I believe Simpson should have been found guilty in the Nicole Simpson/Goldman criminal case, but I don't think criminal v. civil are always, or even the majority of the time, an "injustice", imho. They are completely separate issues.As a legal layman I can’t get to that conclusion. I understand your points about criminal punishment versus financial responsibility, but there has to be a better way than to keep hounding an innocent guy until we get what we want. If nothing else we'll ruin him with legal costs.

Maybe the answer is to combine the two – criminal and civil -- in one trial. My point will always remain that we shouldn’t have an endless go at a person we “suspect” may have done something wrong. It doesn’t make sense to me and doesn’t seem right. As a layperson I don’t see that as justice.

[Tobias]

First of all, there should be no doubt in anyone's mind that O.J. Simpson brutally murdered his wife Nicole and Ron Goldman.Probably, but the integrity of the justice system is far more important than “any” two lives; and that’s not meant to diminish Ron and Nicole in any way whatsoever.

I have less doubt that evidence was planted than of his guilt. Based on that alone I’d have to acquit versus find him guilty even if I thought he probably did it. Finding Ron’s and Nicole’s blood at his place can be explained by a rogue cop; and since OJ’s blood was not found at the scene, it leaves the possibility of a set up too real a possibility – however remote.

My problem came about because of the bloody socks that couldn’t have appeared out of thin air. You can’t have a floor clearly shown on video without socks and then less than an hour later have socks conveniently appear on a different video. Who are we kidding here?

Additionally, I trust my senses about people, and one of the police officers involved in particular raised red flags right off the start.

[93legendti]

Marcia Clarke and Chris Darden had to be 2 of the worst prosecutors in America...either that, or they just happened to do a lousy job on that trial.

Put a SMART prosecutor on the file; try the case in 1-2 weeks, not the ~ 6 months to put on their case, and O.J. would have been convicted. Clarke and Darden must have thought their TV exposure would parlay into big careers and dragged out the case for the free publicity.

If it was such an open and shut case, why didn't they prosecute it that way?
Slamming the system, and not "dumb and dumber" is a major gift to Clarke and Darden.

The MAJOR, determinative difference between the 2 trials (re: Goldman and Brown) was the quality of the lawyers against O.J.

[Kurt]

Marcia Clarke and Chris Darden had to be 2 of the worst prosecutors in America...either that, or they just happened to do a lousy job on that trial.

Put a SMART prosecutor on the file; try the case in 1-2 weeks, not the ~ 6 months to put on their case, and O.J. would have been convicted. Clarke and Darden must have thought their TV exposure would parlay into big careers and dragged out the case for the free publicity.

If it was such an open and shut case, why didn't they prosecute it that way?
Slamming the system, and not "dumb and dumber" is a major gift to Clarke and Darden.

The MAJOR, determinative difference between the 2 trials (re: Goldman and Brown) was the quality of the lawyers against O.J.

it was the venue - if they could have filed in santa monica vs downtown that would have made all the difference. in lv he did not stand a chance.

oh, and there would have been better rep in sm, as you said they were a tad on the light side