But how will OJ look for the killer on the golf course?:o We'll never catch the killer now.:roll: :rotfl:

Just goes to show.....lightning will strike twice, once in a while.

SS you know I respect the heck out of you and I will give you the shirt off my back if you would ever need it. The only thing I find a bit troubling is the assertion of "planting" evidence. I must have missed the the federal civil rights trial against the members of the LAPD that participated in the conspiracy to frame Orenthal James Simpson of a mass murder. Why didn't the Dream Team go after the city of Los Angeles in a civil trial for framing OJ? It was not as cut and dry and many mistakes were made in both the investigation and the presentation of the case. All OJ's attorneys had to do was plant a seed of doubt in the juror's mind. Which I submit, was easy in the totality of the circumstances.

You're right there, AND I APOLOGIZE (not meaning to shout, or make a point; I just wanted to make sure nobody missed it). I did state it as a fact, which I have no more knowledge of than I have knowledge of whether he's innocent or guilty. It's not a fact, it's a conclusion drawn by the defense, and it's true they didn't go after the LAPD, but the opposite is also true - nobody accused the defense of slandering Fuhrman's "good name"; at least as far as I'm aware. But that doesn't matter - I shouldn't be stating insinuation as fact, especially in a post complaining about people doing that very thing. I've been wrong before, and I'll be wrong again. So again, I apologize for making an unproven accusation.

However, Alan Dershowitz was so convinced it was true that he takes it for a fact, even while also admitting that he thinks OJ was probably guilty, even if he couldn't say so.

A fascinating read:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...ershowitz.html

Fuhrman and the other police messed up when they scaled the Fence and Gate surrounding OJ's home without obtaining a search warrant. The entire case should have died right there.

Why police think that they can break the law and ignore the US Constitution is beyond me!

Other than that I think that OJ did murder Nicole and Ron.

The fact that police went to the murder scene and then took blood to OJ home without first taking the blood to the lab is another mistake. It just looks bad.

Fuhrman found the glove in the dark in a off the path area. I thought he said he was afraid for OJ's life when they saw the tiny blood spots on OJ's car , which was parked out on the street.

I was able to watch the entire trial from start to the very end. I watched it every day and every hour it was on CNN. You might say I got to watch the trial of the Century along with all the other retired folks.

OJ would have been found guilty if the Jury was not composed of mostly blacks. If they had held the trial in the White section of LA and used an all white jury OJ would have been in jail for the last 13 years or would have been executed by now.

For the record: I am not saying that OJ didn't do it. I am saying that some of the police screwed up big time IMHO. But everyone is human and we all make mistakes. A murder investigation is not usually dissected and shown on TV like the OJ case was. Fuhrman lied and they caught him in his lie. They caught OJ in this robbery case the very same way. Using a tape recorder to record what was said.

I do think it was ironic that they convicted OJ on the 13 th anniversary and after 13 hours of deliberations. Now that's strange.

-----

Had MF just admitted to the fact that he had used the word derived from niggard, then it would have been a moot point.

Plain view doctorine and exigent circumstances probably would have kept the glove admissable in the trial. That alone would have hung OJ, so to speak, but the rest of the "evidence" actually helped the defense.

Crappy investigation coupled with inept prosecutors equals acquittal.

But that's exactly why the defense gets to control the setting for the trial - to make sure the jury is prejudiced against the defendant. And I use the word 'prejudice' in its intended context: 'pre-judging'.

Actually, though they sound very similar, the two words have absolutely no linguistic connection.

nig·gard
1.an excessively parsimonious, miserly, or stingy person.
2.niggardly; miserly; stingy.
[Origin: 1325–75; ME nyggard, equiv. to nig niggard (< Scand; cf. dial. Sw nygg; akin to OE hnéaw stingy) + -gard]
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/niggard

And the 'N' word:
[Origin: 1640–50; < F nègre < Sp negro blackhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/g...una/thinsp.png]
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/negro

So neither is derived from the other - they just sound that way.

My bad SS. I read something a long time ago in some sort of book on the events of the civil war where that was brought up. Can't remember off hand but the author insisted that, the southerners had used derived a certain word from another certain word. I suffer the fool for trusting what I read.

Check out the Usage section out:

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/niggard


:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

Well , looks like the wife murder thing Did play a part in the decision

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117...rom=public_rss

looks like he really got a jury of his peers too , 9 women and all white with one hispanic - there were 2 african american alternates but they had no role in the decision:nope:

Clark county Nevada: 62% White, 10% Black, 22% Hispanic. 26% of the population is under the age of 18. So a little math, 11 out of 14 jurors is 78%, 2 = 14% 1 = 7%. Racial make up of the county actually short changed the Hispanic make up of the county.

Doing the math , how do you explain 80 plus percent of the jury being made up of white females and there being no African Americans in the 12 jurors that actually counted?

The same way you explain the jury in his first trial. They were the ones selected and not one of the pre-emptories allowed to the defense and prosecution.

It's a total of 14 in most jury pools, to hear an actual Criminal trial. It's up to the attorneys who have two types of challenges to exclude a potential juror. Each side gets a few "freebies" that they do not need to give an explanation for, the others they would have to present an argument with prior case law to exclude, usually for bias. The prospective jurors are paneled (questioned) about biases and it's through this process that a jury is picked.

So you are correct in your assertion that out of the jurors that would actually decide the fate of OJ, none of them were black. As to why the make up consisted of a high amount of white females, I'm not sure. I could hazard some guesses, none which are statistical facts but more of common sense in nature.

Lets get a bit deeper in your underlying assertion: The original jury empaneled in the OJ mass murder trial consisted of race: 9 black, 2 whites, 1 hispanic. Sex: 10 females and 2 males. Go a step further education: 9 high school graduates, 2 college graduates, and 1 with neither.

The expression "jury by peers" is not meant to be literal, in any way.

Any word yet on how long the sentance will be???

Sentencing won't be until December 5, I believe. He could end up getting life.