Why isn't O.J. Simpson in jail?
Michael Ejercito
his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Michael
CSU College Republicans
Brett Weiss
only that the state didn't prove the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable
doubt.
--
Brett
*****************************************************************
* Personal Injury/Malpractice Bankruptcy *
* *
* BRETT WEISS, P.C. *
* Attorneys at Law *
* Maryland, D.C. and Federal Bars *
* law...@erols.com *
* http://www.erols.com/lawyer *
* *
* Small Business Estates & Estate Planning *
*****************************************************************
The Small Print: This response is for discussion purposes only. It isn't
meant to be legal advice and you shouldn't treat it as such. If you want
legal advice, speak with a local lawyer familiar with your state's laws who
can review *all* of the facts and the law applicable to your situation.
*****************************************************************
Gary L. Burnore <gbur...@databasix.com> wrote in message
news:366b502e...@nntpd.databasix.com...
>On Mon, 07 Dec 1998 03:19:35 GMT, in article
><366b4933....@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, chs...@ix.netcom.com (Carl H.
>Starrett II) wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 07 Dec 1998 02:01:37 GMT, gbur...@databasix.com (Gary L.
>>Burnore) wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 06 Dec 1998 17:46:57 -0700, in article
>>><mejercit-061...@134.139.52.24>, meje...@csulb.edu (Michael
>>>Ejercito) wrote:
>>>
>>>> Because he was found not guilty because the prosecution failed to
prove
>>>>his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
>>>
>>>Which, in this country, means he's not guilty. Aquitted. In EVERY case
where
>>>the defendant is found not guilty, the prosecution failed to prove the
persons
>>>guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
>>
>>However, a not guilty version is not the equivalent of a declaration
>>of innocence.
>
>
>Actually, it is. If you're not guilty, you are innocent.
chatter
Michael Zarlenga wrote in message ...
:Carl H. Starrett II (chs...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
:: >Because he was found not guilty because the prosecution failed to prove
:: >his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
:
:: No, it's because the jury was brain dead.
:
:Why do you say that?
Members of the jury even stated after the trial that they and other members
of the jury had already decided OJ was not guilty before the trial started.
That is the definition of "brain dead".
Carl H. Starrett II
Carl H. Starrett II
Burnore) wrote:
>On Sun, 06 Dec 1998 17:46:57 -0700, in article
><mejercit-061...@134.139.52.24>, meje...@csulb.edu (Michael
>Ejercito) wrote:
>
>> Because he was found not guilty because the prosecution failed to prove
>>his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
>
>Which, in this country, means he's not guilty. Aquitted. In EVERY case where
>the defendant is found not guilty, the prosecution failed to prove the persons
>guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
However, a not guilty version is not the equivalent of a declaration
of innocence.
Michael Zarlenga
: >Because he was found not guilty because the prosecution failed to prove
: >his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
: No, it's because the jury was brain dead.
Why do you say that?
--
-- Mike Zarlenga
finger zarl...@conan.ids.net for PGP public key
Laser Watcher
>
> On Sun, 06 Dec 1998 17:46:57 -0700, in article
> <mejercit-061...@134.139.52.24>, meje...@csulb.edu (Michael
>
> > Because he was found not guilty because the prosecution failed to prove
> >his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
>
> guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Or a jury might nullify an unjust prosecution, or nullify in fear of an
unjust punishment, or nullify an unjust law. The Salem witch trials,
the fugitive slave laws, alcohol prohibition...
Michael Zarlenga
: :: >Because he was found not guilty because the prosecution failed to prove
: :: >his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
: :: No, it's because the jury was brain dead.
: :Why do you say that?
: Members of the jury even stated after the trial that they and other members
: of the jury had already decided OJ was not guilty before the trial started.
: That is the definition of "brain dead".
It is? I thought that was the definition "presumed innocent."
Also, if they were so brain dead, why didn't the LA County DA's
office have them removed? CA has some of the most prosecutor-
friendly jury selection processes in the nation.
Ted Frank
Gary L. Burnore <gbur...@databasix.com> wrote:
>>No, it isn't. There is no verdict of innocent in US courts. Not guilty means
>>only that the state didn't prove the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable
>>doubt.
>
What's to revert? If found not guilty, the only meaning is that the defendant
is not subject to criminal penalties. The verdict does nothing to change the
underlying truth values.
>That being innocent. Remember, the CONSTITUTION says innocent until proven
>guilty. THus, if you're not guilty, you're innocent.
First, this is a non sequitur. That someone is *deemed* innocent until proven
guilty does not mean that the failure to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt
or a jury nullification of a clearly guilty person, as in the Simpson case,
does not have causal effects that change history to make someone innocent.
Second, the Constitution says no such thing. Look it up.
Ted Frank
Michael Zarlenga <zarl...@conan.ids.net> wrote:
>: Members of the jury even stated after the trial that they and other members
>: of the jury had already decided OJ was not guilty before the trial started.
>: That is the definition of "brain dead".
>
>It is? I thought that was the definition "presumed innocent."
Hardly.
>Also, if they were so brain dead, why didn't the LA County DA's
>office have them removed? CA has some of the most prosecutor-
>friendly jury selection processes in the nation.
How soon they forget how Judge Ito allowed the defense to run wild in the
Simpson case.
That the prosecutor's office got outlawyered and was the victim of unethical
defense tactics, and that the prosecutors did what they could to alienate
the jury over a long trial, does not mean that the verdict was not a
disgrace to justice, and a prime example of why jury nullification is wrongful.
Scott Goehring
>Remember, the CONSTITUTION says innocent until proven guilty.
No, it doesn't.
>THus, if you're not guilty, you're innocent.
However, the mere fact that you're not _proven_ guilty doesn't mean
that you are factually innocent. It just means that you're not proven
guilty (and, according to the law, cannot be treated as though you
were guilty).
--
"[E]xperience suggests that seeking to bring the First Amendment to the assist-
ance of abortion protesters is more likely to harm the former than help the
latter." -- Lawson v. Murray, No. 97-1790, slip. op. (U.S., Oct. 19, 1998)
(J. Scalia, concurring in denial of writ of certiorari).
Scott Goehring
>[...] the verdict was not a disgrace to justice, and a prime example
>of why jury nullification is wrongful.
It is NOT jury nullification when a defendant gets off because the
prosecutor fails to make the state's case, or the defense succeeds in
overcoming the state's case.
Ted Frank
Scott Goehring <sc...@poverty.bloomington.in.us> wrote:
>In article <74gifi$1it$1...@saltmine.radix.net>, Ted Frank <m...@Radix.Net> wrote:
>
>>[...] the verdict was not a disgrace to justice, and a prime example
>>of why jury nullification is wrongful.
>
>It is NOT jury nullification when a defendant gets off because the
>prosecutor fails to make the state's case, or the defense succeeds in
>overcoming the state's case.
I didn't say it was.
It is jury nullification where, as in the Simpson case, the defense counsel ignores
the evidence and asks the jury to send a message about an irrelevant collateral
issue, and the jury accedes and returns a verdict that ignores the overwhelming
evidence.
Hackman
Ted Frank wrote:
your speaking about the overwhelming eveidence of police misconduct in this case right
?
Scott Goehring
>It is jury nullification where, as in the Simpson case, the defense
>counsel ignores the evidence and asks the jury to send a message
>about an irrelevant collateral issue, and the jury accedes and
>returns a verdict that ignores the overwhelming evidence.
No, that is error on the part of the judge for permitting the defense
to make such a request of the jury, and of the prosecution for not
objecting to the defense's attempt to do so.
Jon Beaver
>No, it isn't. There is no verdict of innocent in US courts. Not guilty means
>only that the state didn't prove the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable
>doubt.
>
The reason that we don't have a verdict of "innocent" in US courts is
because we deem "not guilty" to be the legal equivalent. Guilt or not
is the only legal issue on which legal rights and duties depend.
Innocence is not justiciable, being otherwise legally presumed.
Actually, isn't the question just philosphical wrangling? Forget what
we call it -- "innocent," "not guilty," "unproved." Pragmatically,
it's the ultimate legal effect that we need to look to to determine
what an acquittal "means." To the extent that you can point out a
right, priviledge, disability, or status that would have been
different if he had been found "innocent," then to THAT extent only is
"not guilty" legally distinguishable. After all, even an "absolutely
innocent" verdict wouldn't be binding on public opinion, nor would it
have been binding in the civil case or the custody proceeding.
Sometimes we forget that we are arguing about how to characterize the
facts rather than the facts themselves.
-Jon Beaver
Michael Ejercito
(Carl H. Starrett II) wrote:
> On Sun, 06 Dec 1998 17:46:57 -0700, meje...@csulb.edu (Michael
> Ejercito) wrote:
>
> > Because he was found not guilty because the prosecution failed to prove
> >his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
>
> No, it's because the jury was brain dead.
Funny,they seem to understand that a man who never had a perm or any
chemical treatment on his hair can leave chemically-treated hairs in a
knit cap. They understood that a biased population databadse makes DNA
relative frequncies useless for determining a match. They understood that
a man wearing bloody shoes would leave red stains on a white carpet. They
understood that a man with bloody hands would leave traces of blood in the
sink. Foir twelve brain dead people,they sure understand many things.
Michael
CSU College Republicans
Michael Ejercito
(Michael Zarlenga) wrote:
> Carl H. Starrett II (chs...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
> : >Because he was found not guilty because the prosecution failed to prove
> : >his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
>
> : No, it's because the jury was brain dead.
>
> Why do you say that?
>
> --
> -- Mike Zarlenga
> finger zarl...@conan.ids.net for PGP public key
he does not understand the concept of reasonable doubt. he thjinks a
man who never had a perm can leave chemically-treated hairs in a knit cap.
He thinks a man wearing bloody shoes can walk on a white carpet without
leaving a single stain. He thinks a biased sample can be used to caluclate
the relative frequencies of alleles.
Michael
CSU College Republicans
Michael Ejercito
> In article <366b8dfc...@nntpd.databasix.com>,
> Gary L. Burnore <gbur...@databasix.com> wrote:
> >>No, it isn't. There is no verdict of innocent in US courts. Not guilty means
> >>only that the state didn't prove the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable
> >>doubt.
> >
> >In which case, the defendand reverts to where he/she was before being
charged.
>
> What's to revert? If found not guilty, the only meaning is that the defendant
> is not subject to criminal penalties. The verdict does nothing to change the
> underlying truth values.
You would be correct.
> >That being innocent. Remember, the CONSTITUTION says innocent until proven
> >guilty. THus, if you're not guilty, you're innocent.
>
> First, this is a non sequitur. That someone is *deemed* innocent until proven
> guilty does not mean that the failure to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt
> or a jury nullification of a clearly guilty person, as in the Simpson case,
> does not have causal effects that change history to make someone innocent.
But then,he wiould not be CLEARLY guilty,at best,he would be probably
guilty.
Michael
CSU College Republicans
Michael Ejercito
> In article <newscache$rbll3f$lo3@poverty>,
> Scott Goehring <sc...@poverty.bloomington.in.us> wrote:
> >In article <74gifi$1it$1...@saltmine.radix.net>, Ted Frank <m...@Radix.Net>
wrote:
> >
> >>[...] the verdict was not a disgrace to justice, and a prime example
> >>of why jury nullification is wrongful.
> >
> >It is NOT jury nullification when a defendant gets off because the
> >prosecutor fails to make the state's case, or the defense succeeds in
> >overcoming the state's case.
>
> I didn't say it was.
>
> It is jury nullification where, as in the Simpson case, the defense
counsel ignores
> the evidence and asks the jury to send a message about an irrelevant
collateral
> issue, and the jury accedes and returns a verdict that ignores the
overwhelming
> evidence.
Let us take a look at this overwhelming evidence. The hat had hairs
which were chemically treated,while OJ Simpson never had such treatment.
The population database used to caluclate the relative frequncies of
the alleles used to compare the testrr and control DNA samples consists of
two hundred forty people from Detroit,Michigan.
No blood stains on the carpet.
The sock was wet with blood such as there woiuld be a compression stain
from one side to the other,but not to the carpet underneath.
No blood on the handrail.
No blood in the plumbing drains or traps.
Is there any evidence you think the jury ignored?
Michael
CSU College Republicans
Ted Frank
Michael Ejercito <meje...@csulb.edu> wrote:
> But then,he wiould not be CLEARLY guilty,at best,he would be probably
>guilty.
Why do you think the perception is more important than the truth?
(Simpson is clearly a murderer, but that's a different issue.)
Ted Frank
What's your explanation for the blood? Conspiracy?
> Is there any evidence you think the jury ignored?
The *acquittal* tells me they didn't consider the evidence.
The only other possible explanation is that they thought that it was
a reasonable possibility that:
* Fuhrman took "the bloody glove" from the murder scene to OJ Simpson's
house
*and*
* Fuhrman found some of OJ Simpson's blood
*and*
* Fuhrman wiped it on the glove
and wiped the glove on the inside of Simpson's locked car, with
the cooperation and ignorance of the rest of the LAPD
*and*
* someone who wasn't Fuhrman wiped blood off of the gate at Bundy and
applied Simpson's blood (or that Fuhrman, upon discovering the murder
scene, immediately decided to frame Simpson, and hatched a diabolical
plan to lie in his contemporaneous notes from the crime scene where he
wrote he saw blood on the gate, and, again without discovery, applied
Simpson's blood to the gate)
*and*
* that Fuhrman did all of this while not having the faintest idea of
whether Simpson had an ironclad alibi, or whether he would have
cooperation of the lab personnel who would eventually test the
crime scene, or whether there was other DNA evidence at the crime
scene that would exonerate Simpson
*and*
* someone besides Fuhrman stole Goldman's blood from the autopsy and put
it inside the Bronco, which was then in police custody
*and*
* someone besides Fuhrman stole some of Nicole's blood and contaminated
the sock, which by the time of the autopsy was in a police evidence
lab
*and*
* the actual murderer just happened to have the same shoe size as
Simpson
*and*
* despite the trial and police investigation being under the greatest
media scrutiny in the history of a murder trial, not a single member
of the conspiracy decided to cash in by blowing the whistle.
That's not reasonable doubt. It's not even reasonable to suggest that that
is reasonable doubt. It's simply preposterous. There's no physical or
direct evidence of any of this, and not even circumstantial evidence of
the parts of the theory that don't involve Fuhrman -- and the
circumstantial evidence of the parts of the theory that do involve Fuhrman
would probably be inadmissible if Fuhrman were to be tried for the crime
of "framing" Simpson.
(Partial credit for this list goes to Jeffrey Toobin's October 23, 1995
article in the New Yorker).
Jon Beaver
>In article <mejercit-071...@134.139.52.24>,
>Michael Ejercito <meje...@csulb.edu> wrote:
>> But then,he wiould not be CLEARLY guilty,at best,he would be probably
>>guilty.
>
>Why do you think the perception is more important than the truth?
>
For humans, perception is indistinguishable from truth.
-Jon Beaver
Scott Goehring
>The *acquittal* tells me they didn't consider the evidence.
Or that they considered it but decided it was not credible, or that
there was more credible evidence that overwhelmed it. You were not on
that jury and have no idea what they actually did.
Jeff Carter
prosecution team was made up of idiots. Second the man had the money to buy
the best defense team out there. It's not that the jury were idiots they
just got taken in by a good con job. Also the racial make up of the jury
had nothing to do with it. I would agree with this if it were an all black
jury, but it was'nt. Sure race had a large part to do with the trial but
thats because the prosecution did not even think to take in account that the
LAPD has a very bad image when it comes to racial bias, and the defense team
was able to exploit that.
Carl H. Starrett II wrote in message
<366b490b....@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...
>On Sun, 06 Dec 1998 17:46:57 -0700, meje...@csulb.edu (Michael
Michael Ejercito
> In article <mejercit-071...@134.139.52.24>,
> Michael Ejercito <meje...@csulb.edu> wrote:
> > Let us take a look at this overwhelming evidence.
>
> What's your explanation for the blood? Conspiracy?
No,someone planted the blood on the gate. Remmber the trial,where Barry
Scheck asked Dennis fung where the blood was in the image of the gate on
the photograph taken the night of the murders.
I noticed you did not adfdress the evidence I presented. What is your
explanantion for the hairs,which were NOT oOJ's,as they were chemically
treated.
> > Is there any evidence you think the jury ignored?
>
> The *acquittal* tells me they didn't consider the evidence.
That is just pure bullshit;YOU are the one not considering the evidence.
> The only other possible explanation is that they thought that it was
> a reasonable possibility that:
> * Fuhrman took "the bloody glove" from the murder scene to OJ Simpson's
> house
>
> *and*
>
> * Fuhrman found some of OJ Simpson's blood
>
> *and*
>
> * Fuhrman wiped it on the glove
> and wiped the glove on the inside of Simpson's locked car, with
> the cooperation and ignorance of the rest of the LAPD
>
> *and*
>
> * someone who wasn't Fuhrman wiped blood off of the gate at Bundy and
> applied Simpson's blood (or that Fuhrman, upon discovering the murder
> scene, immediately decided to frame Simpson, and hatched a diabolical
> plan to lie in his contemporaneous notes from the crime scene where he
> wrote he saw blood on the gate, and, again without discovery, applied
> Simpson's blood to the gate)
>
> *and*
>
> * that Fuhrman did all of this while not having the faintest idea of
> whether Simpson had an ironclad alibi, or whether he would have
> cooperation of the lab personnel who would eventually test the
> crime scene, or whether there was other DNA evidence at the crime
> scene that would exonerate Simpson
That sort of thing happens frequently.
> *and*
>
> * someone besides Fuhrman stole Goldman's blood from the autopsy and put
> it inside the Bronco, which was then in police custody
>
> *and*
>
> * someone besides Fuhrman stole some of Nicole's blood and contaminated
> the sock, which by the time of the autopsy was in a police evidence
> lab
Well,the blood seeped through BOTH sides of the sock. Obviosuly,it did
not seep through while it was worn. If ity seeped through while it was on
the carpet,then it should have SDTAINED the carpet. But there was NEVER
any bloodstain on the carpet.
> *and*
>
> * the actual murderer just happened to have the same shoe size as
> Simpson
Millions of people have that same shoe size.
> *and*
>
> * despite the trial and police investigation being under the greatest
> media scrutiny in the history of a murder trial, not a single member
> of the conspiracy decided to cash in by blowing the whistle.
>
> That's not reasonable doubt. It's not even reasonable to suggest that that
> is reasonable doubt. It's simply preposterous. There's no physical or
> direct evidence of any of this, and not even circumstantial evidence of
> the parts of the theory that don't involve Fuhrman -- and the
> circumstantial evidence of the parts of the theory that do involve Fuhrman
> would probably be inadmissible if Fuhrman were to be tried for the crime
> of "framing" Simpson.
>
> (Partial credit for this list goes to Jeffrey Toobin's October 23, 1995
> article in the New Yorker).
Once again,YOU are the one who refuses to consider the evidence.
The hat had hairs
which were chemically treated,while OJ Simpson never had such treatment.
The population database used to caluclate the relative frequncies of
the alleles used to compare the testrr and control DNA samples consists of
two hundred forty people from Detroit,Michigan.
No blood stains on the carpet.
The sock was wet with blood such as there woiuld be a compression stain
from one side to the other,but not to the carpet underneath.
No blood on the handrail.
No blood in the plumbing drains or traps.
and YOU accuse the jury of ignoring evidence,while you yourself engage
in such a practice. I would never want you on any criminal jury.
Michael
CSU College Republicans
_
Michael Ejercito
(Scott Goehring) wrote:
> In article <74h5ag$sm9$1...@saltmine.radix.net>, Ted Frank <m...@Radix.Net> wrote:
>
> >The *acquittal* tells me they didn't consider the evidence.
>
> Or that they considered it but decided it was not credible, or that
> there was more credible evidence that overwhelmed it. You were not on
> that jury and have no idea what they actually did.
of course. Notice that Ted Frank did not even try to explain why there
wewre chemically-treated hairs,wehich did not belong to OJ simpson as he
never had any such treatment, inside the knit cap found at the murder
scene. At the very least,it proves that the evidence was tainted.
he did not even try to explain how OJ managed to run up to his bedroom
without leaving a blood trail from the door to his room. (did he
fly,perhaps?)
He did not try to explain why no blood was found in the plumbing drains
or traps.
And he did not explain the sock.
Michael
Ted Frank
Michael Ejercito <meje...@csulb.edu> wrote:
>In article <74h5ag$sm9$1...@saltmine.radix.net>, m...@Radix.Net (Ted Frank) wrote:
>> What's your explanation for the blood? Conspiracy?
>
> No,someone planted the blood on the gate.
In the face of all the evidence to the contrary, and without any evidence
to support you, you claim the blood was planted.
And that still doesn't explain the blood in the Bronco.
I've just lost all respect for your critical reasoning skills.
>explanantion for the hairs,which were NOT oOJ's,as they were chemically
>treated.
The hairs were OJ's, and matched hair from his head and from other hats he
wore. I really don't know where you're getting this claim from; you've
never given a source for this claim, and you're the only one making it.
That other people's hair was also in the hat is hardly grounds for
reasonable doubt, unless you're posing a conspiracy to take a cap OJ
denies owning and place it in the crime scene.
Furthermore, OJ's hair was found on Goldman.
Your complaint is silly.
> That is just pure bullshit;YOU are the one not considering the evidence.
You haven't given me any evidence contradicting the overwhelming evidence
of OJ's guilt.
>> * that Fuhrman did all of this while not having the faintest idea of
>> whether Simpson had an ironclad alibi, or whether he would have
>> cooperation of the lab personnel who would eventually test the
>> crime scene, or whether there was other DNA evidence at the crime
>> scene that would exonerate Simpson
>
> That sort of thing happens frequently.
Sir, you make me mourn for the American educational system, and its utter
failure to instill in its students basic critical reasoning skills, much
less the concept of Occam's razor.
It's especially disturbing when someone who purports to be a Republican
subscribes to these Oliver Stone-style theories.
> Once again,YOU are the one who refuses to consider the evidence.
> The hat had hairs
>which were chemically treated,while OJ Simpson never had such treatment.
So what? The hat had hairs that were Simpson's. Goldman's body had hairs
that were Simpson's.
And that's before we get to the fibers and the blood, and Simpson's
attempt to flee, much less the inadmissible evidence such as his
confession to Grier.
> The population database used to caluclate the relative frequncies of
>the alleles used to compare the testrr and control DNA samples consists of
>two hundred forty people from Detroit,Michigan.
False. And ludicrous, given the sheer number of DNA experts who
concurred with the findings, using different methodologies.
Brett Weiss
guilty".
Could you please point out where in the Constitution it says that you're
innocent until proven guilty? Article and section, please.
--
Brett
*****************************************************************
* Personal Injury/Malpractice Bankruptcy *
* *
* BRETT WEISS, P.C. *
* Attorneys at Law *
* Maryland, D.C. and Federal Bars *
* law...@erols.com *
* http://www.erols.com/lawyer *
* *
* Small Business Estates & Estate Planning *
*****************************************************************
The Small Print: This response is for discussion purposes only. It isn't
meant to be legal advice and you shouldn't treat it as such. If you want
legal advice, speak with a local lawyer familiar with your state's laws who
can review *all* of the facts and the law applicable to your situation.
*****************************************************************
Gary L. Burnore <gbur...@databasix.com> wrote in message
news:366b8dfc...@nntpd.databasix.com...
>On Sun, 6 Dec 1998 23:27:09 -0500, in article
><74flff$19o$1...@winter.news.rcn.net>, "Brett Weiss" <law...@erols.com> wrote:
>
>>No, it isn't. There is no verdict of innocent in US courts. Not guilty
means
>>only that the state didn't prove the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable
>>doubt.
>
>In which case, the defendand reverts to where he/she was before being
charged.
Brett Weiss
Rarely do I disagree with you, but here I do. <g>
Each of the terms you cite--innocent, not guilty, unproved--have different
meanings, and imply different things, as does the dual-definition "guilty".
The problem arises when we mix the "moral" definitions of guilt and
innocence with the "legal" definitions of guilty and not guilty.
"Innocent" isn't used in US courts, but it means that the accused did not
commit the offense.
"Not Guilty" means that the state did not prove that the accused committed
the offense. You can be innocent or morally guilty (i.e. you committed the
offense, but the state can't prove you did) with a not guilty verdict; the
same verdict is used for both situations. From a legal perspective, a not
guilty verdict means that there are no legal penalties associated with the
crime (other than having to pay your lawyer <g>). As OJ has found, however,
not guilty does not equate to innocent.
"Unproved" isn't used in US courts, but it is more equivalent to morally
guilty--the jury doesn't find the defendant innocent, but finds that the
state did not prove that the accused committed the offense.
"Guilty" means two things: legal guilt and moral guilt. Legal guilt means
that the state proved the defendant guilty to the satisfaction of the trier
of fact. Interestingly enough, as with a verdict of "not guilty," a guilty
verdict makes no distinction between those who are innocent and those who
are morally guilty--it merely means that the state proved the defendant
guilty to the trier of fact.
Second, "guilty" means moral guilt, that the accused actually committed the
offense. Legal guilt and moral guilt are often treated as the same, but they
are very different. The *hope* is that legal guilt = moral guilt, and it
does in the overwhelming majority of criminal cases. But is doesn't always.
"Beyond a reasonable doubt" does not mean "beyond all doubt," and innocents
are occasionally convicted.
--
Brett
*****************************************************************
* Personal Injury/Malpractice Bankruptcy *
* *
* BRETT WEISS, P.C. *
* Attorneys at Law *
* Maryland, D.C. and Federal Bars *
* law...@erols.com *
* http://www.erols.com/lawyer *
* *
* Small Business Estates & Estate Planning *
*****************************************************************
The Small Print: This response is for discussion purposes only. It isn't
meant to be legal advice and you shouldn't treat it as such. If you want
legal advice, speak with a local lawyer familiar with your state's laws who
can review *all* of the facts and the law applicable to your situation.
*****************************************************************
Jon Beaver <jbe...@imagecomp.com> wrote in message
news:366bf319....@nntp.imagecomp.com...
>"Brett Weiss" <law...@erols.com> wrote:
>
>>No, it isn't. There is no verdict of innocent in US courts. Not guilty
means
>>only that the state didn't prove the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable
>>doubt.
>>
>
Wayne Foote
Jon Beaver wrote:
> Yes, I understand all of that, but what difference does it make? If
> the Simpson jury had been authorized to, and did, make a verdict of
> "innocent" or "not proved," what would be different about Simpson's
> legal status today? Basically, there are only two kinds of outcomes
> in a any criminal trial: (1) conviction and (2) anything else. I
> agree that there is a difference between a "miss by an inch," a "miss
> by a mile" and a "miss by 10 miles" -- except when only hits count.
> -Jon Beaver
One difference is that the ourcome of the civil trial makes it functionally
impossible (collateral estoppel) for Simpson to bring a libel suit against the
posters to this NG for saying he killed his ex-wife. A finding of true innocence
would clearly change that status.
--
Wayne Foote
This isn't a legal opinion upon which to rely. For that, hire an attorney.
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." M.L. King, Jr.
Wayne Foote
Brett Weiss wrote:
> There is no "reversion" of status--there is simply a finding of "not
> guilty".
>
> Could you please point out where in the Constitution it says that you're
> innocent until proven guilty? Article and section, please.
Fifth amendment due process of law. While it isn't expressly stated, the
Supremes have made it pretty clear. See In re Winship, 397 US 358 (1970) and
Mullaney v. Wilbur, 421 US 684 (1975).
Michael Zarlenga
: >Also, if they were so brain dead, why didn't the LA County DA's
: >friendly jury selection processes in the nation.
: How soon they forget how Judge Ito allowed the defense to run wild in the
: Simpson case.
How soon you forget that Jury Selection occurs BEFORE the trial.
Michael Zarlenga
: > But then,he wiould not be CLEARLY guilty,at best,he would be probably
: >guilty.
: Why do you think the perception is more important than the truth?
Why do you think your perception is the truth?
Carl H. Starrett II
Burnore) wrote:
>On Mon, 07 Dec 1998 03:19:35 GMT, in article
><366b4933....@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, chs...@ix.netcom.com (Carl H.
>Starrett II) wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 07 Dec 1998 02:01:37 GMT, gbur...@databasix.com (Gary L.
>>Burnore) wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 06 Dec 1998 17:46:57 -0700, in article
>>><mejercit-061...@134.139.52.24>, meje...@csulb.edu (Michael
>>>Ejercito) wrote:
>>>
>>>> Because he was found not guilty because the prosecution failed to prove
>>>>his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
>>>
>>>Which, in this country, means he's not guilty. Aquitted. In EVERY case where
>>>the defendant is found not guilty, the prosecution failed to prove the persons
>>>guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
>>
>>However, a not guilty version is not the equivalent of a declaration
>>of innocence.
>
>
>Actually, it is. If you're not guilty, you are innocent.
No, you are just not guilty.
Carl H. Starrett II
Burnore) wrote:
>On Sun, 6 Dec 1998 23:27:09 -0500, in article
><74flff$19o$1...@winter.news.rcn.net>, "Brett Weiss" <law...@erols.com> wrote:
>
>>No, it isn't. There is no verdict of innocent in US courts. Not guilty means
>>only that the state didn't prove the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable
>>doubt.
>
>In which case, the defendand reverts to where he/she was before being charged.
>That being innocent. Remember, the CONSTITUTION says innocent until proven
>guilty. THus, if you're not guilty, you're innocent.
Nowhere in the the Constitution does say "innocent until proven
guilty" It say that the government cannot deprive of life, liberty or
property without due process of law. And no, he is has not reverted
to where he was before. Or did you forget the rather large civil
judgment against him?
- John McGuire
Gary L. Burnore <gbur...@databasix.com> wrote in article <366b8dfc...@nntpd.databasix.com>...
> On Sun, 6 Dec 1998 23:27:09 -0500, in article
> <74flff$19o$1...@winter.news.rcn.net>, "Brett Weiss" <law...@erols.com> wrote:
>
> >No, it isn't. There is no verdict of innocent in US courts. Not guilty means
> >only that the state didn't prove the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable
> >doubt.
>
> In which case, the defendand reverts to where he/she was before being charged.
> That being innocent. Remember, the CONSTITUTION says innocent until proven
> guilty. THus, if you're not guilty, you're innocent.
>
Wrong!
And for the proof, consult the recent SCOTUS ruling (1998) that states
Judges may consider the charges where a defendant was acquitted
in aggravating the sentence for the charges that resulted in conviction.
( i.e. in a multi-count indictment)
So if acquittal really means innocence, then how could acquittals
be held against a defendant ...???
JMcG
Carl H. Starrett II
Zarlenga) wrote:
>Carl H. Starrett II (chs...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>: >Because he was found not guilty because the prosecution failed to prove
>: >his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
>
>: No, it's because the jury was brain dead.
>
>Why do you say that?
Where I come from, when the defendant's blood is at the crime scene
and the victim's blood if found in the defendant's car and driveway,
that's usually the end of the ball game. Actually, the was a very
loose paraphrase of Vincent Bugliosi, but it get's the point across.
If you are one of those ding dongs that acutally believe OJ is
innocent, I suggest that you read a book called Outrage: 5 Reason Why
OJ Simplson Got Away with Murder.
Carl H. Starrett II
Zarlenga) wrote:
>Also, if they were so brain dead, why didn't the LA County DA's
>office have them removed? CA has some of the most prosecutor-
>friendly jury selection processes in the nation.
And upon what fact to you base that conclusion?
Carl H. Starrett II
wrote:
>
>
>Ted Frank wrote:
>
>> In article <newscache$rbll3f$lo3@poverty>,
>> Scott Goehring <sc...@poverty.bloomington.in.us> wrote:
>> >In article <74gifi$1it$1...@saltmine.radix.net>, Ted Frank <m...@Radix.Net> wrote:
>> >
>> >>[...] the verdict was not a disgrace to justice, and a prime example
>> >>of why jury nullification is wrongful.
>> >
>> >It is NOT jury nullification when a defendant gets off because the
>> >prosecutor fails to make the state's case, or the defense succeeds in
>> >overcoming the state's case.
>>
>> I didn't say it was.
>>
>> It is jury nullification where, as in the Simpson case, the defense counsel ignores
>> the evidence and asks the jury to send a message about an irrelevant collateral
>> issue, and the jury accedes and returns a verdict that ignores the overwhelming
>> evidence.
>
>your speaking about the overwhelming eveidence of police misconduct in this case right
>?
What overwhelming evidence of police misconduct?
Carl H. Starrett II
Ejercito) wrote:
> Let us take a look at this overwhelming evidence. The hat had hairs
>which were chemically treated,while OJ Simpson never had such treatment.
And what is you evidence to support this claim?
> The population database used to caluclate the relative frequncies of
>the alleles used to compare the testrr and control DNA samples consists of
>two hundred forty people from Detroit,Michigan.
Where can this claim be verified?
> No blood stains on the carpet.
The murder happened outdoors, his blood stains where there and hers
were in the Bronco and his driveway.
> The sock was wet with blood such as there woiuld be a compression stain
>from one side to the other,but not to the carpet underneath.
So you say.
> No blood on the handrail.
So you say
> No blood in the plumbing drains or traps.
So you say
> Is there any evidence you think the jury ignored?
A good portion of the trial.
Jon Beaver
Michael Zarlenga
: >in this case right
: What overwhelming evidence of police misconduct?
Perjury by the two main LAPD detectives, Vanatter and Fuhrman.
Perjury by Criminalist Fung. 1.5cc of missing blood. Transfer
stains on the socks. EDTA in the gate blood sample.
And then there's the bad evidence : The gloves that obvioulsy did
NOT fit OJ's hands. The knit cap found at the scene and allegedly
worn by OJ that had chemically-treated hairs in it. The 9 sets of
fingerprints at the crime scene never identified (but not OJs or any
residents' or guests'). The complete lack of Nicole's or Ron's blood
at the Simpson house (there was blood everywhere at the crime scene,
he should have been drenched, especfially his feet).
The State of California did a TERRIBLE job explaining the bad
evidence.
Ted Frank
Michael Zarlenga <zarl...@conan.ids.net> wrote:
>Carl H. Starrett II (chs...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>: >you're speaking about the overwhelming eveidence of police misconduct
>: >in this case right
>
>: What overwhelming evidence of police misconduct?
>
>Perjury by the two main LAPD detectives, Vanatter and Fuhrman.
Perjury refers to material matters, and there's no evidence that either lied about
any material matter.
>Perjury by Criminalist Fung. 1.5cc of missing blood. Transfer
>stains on the socks. EDTA in the gate blood sample.
No perjury by Fung, and nothing here is police misconduct.
>And then there's the bad evidence : The gloves that obvioulsy did
>NOT fit OJ's hands. The knit cap found at the scene and allegedly
>worn by OJ that had chemically-treated hairs in it.
No one denied that the knit cap had hairs other than OJ's. The knit cap
did have OJ's hair.
>The State of California did a TERRIBLE job explaining the bad
>evidence.
I'll acknowledge prosecutorial incompetence. The bad evidence was hardly that bad,
given the overwhelming amount of good evidence.
Ted Frank
Michael Zarlenga <zarl...@conan.ids.net> wrote:
>Ted Frank (m...@Radix.Net) wrote:
>: >Also, if they were so brain dead, why didn't the LA County DA's
>: >office have them removed? CA has some of the most prosecutor-
>: >friendly jury selection processes in the nation.
>
>: Simpson case.
>
>How soon you forget that Jury Selection occurs BEFORE the trial.
How soon you forget that Ito controlled the jury selection process, and
allowed the defense to systematically eliminate every juror who might have
a brain.
Carl H. Starrett II
Zarlenga) wrote:
>Carl H. Starrett II (chs...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>: >you're speaking about the overwhelming eveidence of police misconduct
>: >in this case right
>
>: What overwhelming evidence of police misconduct?
>
>Perjury by the two main LAPD detectives, Vanatter and Fuhrman.
There was no perjury by Vanatter. The only possible perjury by
Furhman was his use of the "n" word, and event that was not on a
material issue of the case.
>Perjury by Criminalist Fung.
Such as?
>1.5cc of missing blood.
There was no "missing blood"
>Transfer stains on the socks.
Translation: Goofy defense theory
>EDTA in the gate blood sample.
*alleged* edta in gate blood sample
>And then there's the bad evidence : The gloves that obvioulsy did
>NOT fit OJ's hands.
Duh, they shrank and he was wearing rubber gloves. Or did you not
hear the testimony of the Isotoner company president?
>The knit cap found at the scene and allegedly
>worn by OJ that had chemically-treated hairs in it.
So you say. Evidence please.
The 9 sets of fingerprints at the crime scene never identified (but
not OJs or any residents' or guests').
So you say. Besides, what is the relevance? Ever hear of solicitors?
>The complete lack of Nicole's or Ron's blood
>at the Simpson house (there was blood everywhere at the crime scene,
>he should have been drenched, especfially his feet).
Nicoles blood was in the Bronco and his driveway. Besides, what makes
you think he would where blood soak clothes all the way home?
>The State of California did a TERRIBLE job explaining the bad
>evidence.
The procution could have done a better job, but the evidence was
ovewhelming against OJ. Just a brain dead jury.
Phil
Easy answer - Affirmative Action.
For what other reason could Marsha "the stripper" Clark and
Christopher Darden fuck up the most open and shut case in the history
of crime!! DNA, physical eveidence, the whole lot right at their
finger-tips and they blew it. Think F. Lee Bailey or Dershowitz (sp)
would have lost the case??
Exactly....
But this is what happens when you let non-qualified people do
important jobs - they let murderers "walk" due to their incompetence.
Way to go Marsha and Christopher! Yes, YOU ARE examples of what AA has
done!
Hahahaha!
Phil.
On Sun, 06 Dec 1998 17:46:57 -0700, meje...@csulb.edu (Michael
Ejercito) wrote:
> Because he was found not guilty because the prosecution failed to prove
>his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
>
>
> Michael
>
>
> CSU College Republicans
Ken
> It is jury nullification where [...] the jury [...] returns a verdict that
> ignores the overwhelming evidence.
Now, Ted, I know that you know that "overwhelming" (preponderence) of
evidence is not the standard used in American law for criminal conviction.
It is "beyond reasonable doubt".
The fact is: the defense might present no evidence, ergo there is only
"overwhelming evidence" of guilt, and the jury might find "reasonable
doubt" without any compromise of integrity. They might find the evidence
non-credible. Or they might have their own reasonable interpretation of
the evidence; the jurors are not bound by the interpretation of evidence
presented by either counsel. You know that, Ted. And I know you know
that.
Also, let's remember that the jurors could not consider all the "evidence"
that the public was aware of. If you can call what the media reports
"evidence". Remember the CIA crack "evidence" and the "evidence" of use
of chemical weapons by American troops? (Both later found to be false.)
The OJ Simpson criminal trial is emotionally charged, and it is easy to
forget our principles. It is also easy to make wild claims on both sides.
I can present a very plausible explanation that fits all of the evidence
that I'm aware of, does not require any collusion by either the state or
the defense, and still leaves room for "reasonable doubt".
The facts in the OJ trial are simple: while there is evidence to
suggest that OJ was present at the crime scene, and that might reasonably
suggest that he committed the crime, there may be insufficient evidence to
suggest he committed the crime "beyond reasonable doubt".
-- Ken Mintz
Michael Ejercito
zarl...@conan.ids.net (Michael Zarlenga) wrote:
> Carl H. Starrett II (chs...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
> : >you're speaking about the overwhelming eveidence of police misconduct
> : >in this case right
>
> : What overwhelming evidence of police misconduct?
>
> Perjury by the two main LAPD detectives, Vanatter and Fuhrman.
> Perjury by Criminalist Fung. 1.5cc of missing blood. Transfer
> stains on the socks. EDTA in the gate blood sample.
>
> And then there's the bad evidence : The gloves that obvioulsy did
> NOT fit OJ's hands. The knit cap found at the scene and allegedly
> worn by OJ that had chemically-treated hairs in it. The 9 sets of
> fingerprints at the crime scene never identified (but not OJs or any
> residents' or guests'). The complete lack of Nicole's or Ron's blood
> at the Simpson house (there was blood everywhere at the crime scene,
> he should have been drenched, especfially his feet).
About the gloves,I remmber that Fred Goldman said that during the civil
trial,he would have OJ Simpson place the gloves directly on his bare hands
to show that the gloves DO fit.
Did they fit?
Michael
Michael Ejercito
> Carl H. Starrett II (chs...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
> : >you're speaking about the overwhelming eveidence of police misconduct
> : >in this case right
>
> : What overwhelming evidence of police misconduct?
>
> Perjury by the two main LAPD detectives, Vanatter and Fuhrman.
> Perjury by Criminalist Fung. 1.5cc of missing blood. Transfer
> stains on the socks. EDTA in the gate blood sample.
>
> And then there's the bad evidence : The gloves that obvioulsy did
> NOT fit OJ's hands. The knit cap found at the scene and allegedly
> worn by OJ that had chemically-treated hairs in it. The 9 sets of
> fingerprints at the crime scene never identified (but not OJs or any
> residents' or guests'). The complete lack of Nicole's or Ron's blood
> at the Simpson house (there was blood everywhere at the crime scene,
> he should have been drenched, especfially his feet).
About the gloves,I remember that Fred Goldman said that during the
Michael Ejercito
> Why isn't OJ in jail?
>
> Easy answer - Affirmative Action.
>
> For what other reason could Marsha "the stripper" Clark and
> Christopher Darden fuck up the most open and shut case in the history
> of crime!! DNA, physical eveidence, the whole lot right at their
> finger-tips and they blew it. Think F. Lee Bailey or Dershowitz (sp)
> would have lost the case??
I do not think that Johnnie Cohcran would have lost the case if he
prosecuted,assuming that the evidence fits the charges.
He was an LA County Deputy District Attorney during the 1980's. He
worked closely with Gil Garcetti,who is currently the District Attorney of
LA County.
Michael
Ted Frank
> Now, Ted, I know that you know that "overwhelming" (preponderence) of
> evidence is not the standard used in American law for criminal conviction.
> It is "beyond reasonable doubt".
While "overwhelming" is not a technical legal term, it is standard English,
and about as close as any adjective can get to meaning "beyond a reasonable
doubt."
It certainly doesn't mean "preponderance." Look it up.
> I can present a very plausible explanation that fits all of the evidence
> that I'm aware of, does not require any collusion by either the state or
> the defense, and still leaves room for "reasonable doubt".
In addition to your misunderstanding of "overwhelming," you must have
an unusual definition of "plausible."
Jon Beaver
>
>
>Jon Beaver wrote:
>
>> Yes, I understand all of that, but what difference does it make? If
>> the Simpson jury had been authorized to, and did, make a verdict of
>> "innocent" or "not proved," what would be different about Simpson's
>> legal status today? Basically, there are only two kinds of outcomes
>> in a any criminal trial: (1) conviction and (2) anything else. I
>> agree that there is a difference between a "miss by an inch," a "miss
>> by a mile" and a "miss by 10 miles" -- except when only hits count.
>> -Jon Beaver
>
> One difference is that the ourcome of the civil trial makes it functionally
>impossible (collateral estoppel) for Simpson to bring a libel suit against the
>posters to this NG for saying he killed his ex-wife. A finding of true innocence
>would clearly change that status.
Yes, the civil verdict is another matter. But it's not as simple as
that. I agree that the old mutuality rule is dead so that it wouldn't
be a bar to a defense of collateral estoppel in a defamation case.
But remember that defamation is a very narrow common law tort. There
are hosts of very similar potentially tortious acts to which the
"truth" is not a defense: invasion of privacy, intentional infliction
of emotional distress, harrassment, various economic interferences,
not to mention the outright trespasses and assaults that have been
proposed by some hotheads on other newsgroups.
-Jon Beaver
Webguide
the same man had been on trial and had not been wealthy or a famous
sports figure, he's be rotting his deserved butt off in some cell.
Stacy Alexander
|:{}:{}|:{|}:{|}{:|}{:}|::{|}:{|}:{:|}{:}|{:}{::{}|:{}|:{}|}:{}|:{}|:{|}::{|}:|{}:|{}{|:}
Michael Zarlenga
: In article <fr4b2.1676$fz4....@news12.ispnews.com>,
: Michael Zarlenga <zarl...@conan.ids.net> wrote:
: >Carl H. Starrett II (chs...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: >: >you're speaking about the overwhelming eveidence of police misconduct
: >: >in this case right
: >
: >: What overwhelming evidence of police misconduct?
: >
: >Perjury by the two main LAPD detectives, Vanatter and Fuhrman.
: Perjury refers to material matters, and there's no evidence that either lied about
: any material matter.
Christ, Ted, did you BELIEVE Detective Phillip Vanatter when
he testified that when he jumped over the wall at Rockingham t
hat Simpson was NOT a suspect?!?!
... or maybe you think that was immaterial?
And if Fuhrman's lies were immaterial, why did he plead guilty
to perjury? Was he really THAT stupid?
: No one denied that the knit cap had hairs other than OJ's. The knit cap
: did have OJ's hair.
Says who? You? All I heard from the LA DA's officeer was
that "SOME OF the hairs were consistent" with OJ's. That's
about as VAGUE as you can get.
: I'll acknowledge prosecutorial incompetence. The bad evidence was hardly that bad,
: given the overwhelming amount of good evidence.
How can you trust the "good evidence" when you know the blood
on the socks was planted and so much of Simpson's blood sample
was unaccounted for?
Michael Zarlenga
: About the gloves,I remmber that Fred Goldman said that during the civil
: trial,he would have OJ Simpson place the gloves directly on his bare hands
: to show that the gloves DO fit.
: Did they fit?
He was never asked to try them on in the civil trial.
Michael Ejercito
(Carl H. Starrett II) wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Dec 1998 08:13:35 GMT, gbur...@databasix.com (Gary L.
> Burnore) wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 6 Dec 1998 23:27:09 -0500, in article
> ><74flff$19o$1...@winter.news.rcn.net>, "Brett Weiss" <law...@erols.com> wrote:
> >
> >>No, it isn't. There is no verdict of innocent in US courts. Not guilty means
> >>only that the state didn't prove the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable
> >>doubt.
> >
> >In which case, the defendand reverts to where he/she was before being
charged.
> >That being innocent. Remember, the CONSTITUTION says innocent until proven
> >guilty. THus, if you're not guilty, you're innocent.
>
> Nowhere in the the Constitution does say "innocent until proven
> guilty" It say that the government cannot deprive of life, liberty or
> property without due process of law. And no, he is has not reverted
> to where he was before. Or did you forget the rather large civil
> judgment against him?
Civil judgements are independent of criminal trial verdicts.
Michael
CSU College Republicans
Michael Ejercito
(Carl H. Starrett II) wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Dec 1998 04:56:50 GMT, zarl...@conan.ids.net (Michael
> Zarlenga) wrote:
>
> >Carl H. Starrett II (chs...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
> >: >Because he was found not guilty because the prosecution failed to prove
> >: >his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
> >
> >: No, it's because the jury was brain dead.
> >
> >Why do you say that?
>
> Where I come from, when the defendant's blood is at the crime scene
> and the victim's blood if found in the defendant's car and driveway,
> that's usually the end of the ball game. Actually, the was a very
> loose paraphrase of Vincent Bugliosi, but it get's the point across.
> If you are one of those ding dongs that acutally believe OJ is
> innocent, I suggest that you read a book called Outrage: 5 Reason Why
> OJ Simplson Got Away with Murder.
Then you should read a book called Tainting Evidence by John f. kelly
and Philip K. Wearne,which explains the problems the prosecution had that
OJ's blood was ever there.
Michael
CSU College Republicans
Michael Ejercito
(Carl H. Starrett II) wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Dec 1998 12:12:24 GMT, zarl...@conan.ids.net (Michael
> Zarlenga) wrote:
>
>
> >Also, if they were so brain dead, why didn't the LA County DA's
> >office have them removed? CA has some of the most prosecutor-
> >friendly jury selection processes in the nation.
>
> And upon what fact to you base that conclusion?
I live there. I know that for a fact.
Michael
CSU College Republicans
Michael Ejercito
(Carl H. Starrett II) wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Dec 1998 09:11:26 -0600, Hackman <hac...@nospam.jump.net>
> wrote:
>
> >your speaking about the overwhelming eveidence of police misconduct in
this case right
> >?
>
> What overwhelming evidence of police misconduct?
Vannater lied when he said simpson was a suspect the night the police
went over to his home.
Michael
CSU College Republicans
Michael Ejercito
> In article <mejercit-071...@134.139.69.93>,
> Michael Ejercito <meje...@csulb.edu> wrote:
> >In article <74h5ag$sm9$1...@saltmine.radix.net>, m...@Radix.Net (Ted Frank)
wrote:
> >> What's your explanation for the blood? Conspiracy?
> >
> > No,someone planted the blood on the gate.
>
> In the face of all the evidence to the contrary, and without any evidence
> to support you, you claim the blood was planted.
>
> And that still doesn't explain the blood in the Bronco.
>
> I've just lost all respect for your critical reasoning skills.
>
> >explanantion for the hairs,which were NOT oOJ's,as they were chemically
> >treated.
>
> The hairs were OJ's, and matched hair from his head and from other hats he
> wore. I really don't know where you're getting this claim from; you've
> never given a source for this claim, and you're the only one making it.
> That other people's hair was also in the hat is hardly grounds for
> reasonable doubt, unless you're posing a conspiracy to take a cap OJ
> denies owning and place it in the crime scene.
>
> Furthermore, OJ's hair was found on Goldman.
it comes from testimony. And if OJ's hairs were on goldman,that means
there was a struggle,and as such that means that OJ should have been
covbered in blood,leaving a large bloodstain on the back seat.
> Your complaint is silly.
>
> > That is just pure bullshit;YOU are the one not considering the evidence.
>
> You haven't given me any evidence contradicting the overwhelming evidence
> of OJ's guilt.
You conveniently ignore it.
> >> * that Fuhrman did all of this while not having the faintest idea of
> >> whether Simpson had an ironclad alibi, or whether he would have
> >> cooperation of the lab personnel who would eventually test the
> >> crime scene, or whether there was other DNA evidence at the crime
> >> scene that would exonerate Simpson
> >
> > That sort of thing happens frequently.
>
> Sir, you make me mourn for the American educational system, and its utter
> failure to instill in its students basic critical reasoning skills, much
> less the concept of Occam's razor.
>
> It's especially disturbing when someone who purports to be a Republican
> subscribes to these Oliver Stone-style theories.
>
> > Once again,YOU are the one who refuses to consider the evidence.
> > The hat had hairs
> >which were chemically treated,while OJ Simpson never had such treatment.
>
> So what? The hat had hairs that were Simpson's. Goldman's body had hairs
> that were Simpson's.
But those where NOT simpson's hairs. They were CHEMICALLY treated.
Now,hair matching is NOT generally accepted by scientists. Hairs are not
unique.
> And that's before we get to the fibers and the blood, and Simpson's
> attempt to flee, much less the inadmissible evidence such as his
> confession to Grier.
A confession that you can not possibly know of.
> > The population database used to caluclate the relative frequncies of
> >the alleles used to compare the testrr and control DNA samples consists of
> >two hundred forty people from Detroit,Michigan.
>
> False. And ludicrous, given the sheer number of DNA experts who
> concurred with the findings, using different methodologies.
No,Doctor Robin cotton testified to that,under aoth. Are you implying
she committed perjury? And the other DNA experts' testimony was refuted in
cross-examination.
Michael
CSU College Republicans
_
_
Michael Ejercito
> In article <fr4b2.1676$fz4....@news12.ispnews.com>,
> Michael Zarlenga <zarl...@conan.ids.net> wrote:
> >Carl H. Starrett II (chs...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
> >: >you're speaking about the overwhelming eveidence of police misconduct
> >: >in this case right
> >
> >: What overwhelming evidence of police misconduct?
> >
> >Perjury by the two main LAPD detectives, Vanatter and Fuhrman.
>
> Perjury refers to material matters, and there's no evidence that either
lied about
> any material matter.
So Vannater's belief of whether Simpson was a suspect is NOT material?
> >Perjury by Criminalist Fung. 1.5cc of missing blood. Transfer
> >stains on the socks. EDTA in the gate blood sample.
>
> No perjury by Fung, and nothing here is police misconduct.
>
> >And then there's the bad evidence : The gloves that obvioulsy did
> >NOT fit OJ's hands. The knit cap found at the scene and allegedly
> >worn by OJ that had chemically-treated hairs in it.
>
> No one denied that the knit cap had hairs other than OJ's. The knit cap
> did have OJ's hair.
proof? Consider that Doctor Jeffrey MacDonald was also convicted on
such evidence. consider that hair is not unique among individuals.
> >The State of California did a TERRIBLE job explaining the bad
> >evidence.
>
> I'll acknowledge prosecutorial incompetence. The bad evidence was
hardly that bad,
> given the overwhelming amount of good evidence.
What amount of overwhelming evidence? the prosecution failed to prove
his blood was even there.
Michael Ejercito
(Carl H. Starrett II) wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Dec 1998 09:40:32 -0700, meje...@csulb.edu (Michael
> Ejercito) wrote:
>
>
> > Let us take a look at this overwhelming evidence. The hat had hairs
> >which were chemically treated,while OJ Simpson never had such treatment.
>
> And what is you evidence to support this claim?
the testimony at the trial.
> > The population database used to caluclate the relative frequncies of
> >the alleles used to compare the testrr and control DNA samples consists of
> >two hundred forty people from Detroit,Michigan.
>
> Where can this claim be verified?
Doctor Robin Cotton testified,under oath,that the database used to
calculate the relative frequencies of genetic profiles come from a DNA
database of two hundred forty residents of Detroit,Michigan.
> > No blood stains on the carpet.
>
> The murder happened outdoors, his blood stains where there and hers
> were in the Bronco and his driveway.
When he got home,his hands and feet (and if we are to believe that he
fell on the ground at one point,due to allegations that his hair was on
Goldman's body,his body) were soaked in blood. Now,if such a person were
to walk onto a white carpet,it would leave visible blood stains.
> > The sock was wet with blood such as there woiuld be a compression stain
> >from one side to the other,but not to the carpet underneath.
>
> So you say.
the sock was presented as evidence,with the bloodstain.
> > No blood on the handrail.
>
> So you say
If there were,the prosecution would have shown a blown-up picture of
the blood and pointed straight at the stains.
Michael Ejercito
zarl...@conan.ids.net (Michael Zarlenga) wrote:
> Carl H. Starrett II (chs...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
> : >you're speaking about the overwhelming eveidence of police misconduct
> : >in this case right
>
> : What overwhelming evidence of police misconduct?
>
> Perjury by the two main LAPD detectives, Vanatter and Fuhrman.
> Perjury by Criminalist Fung. 1.5cc of missing blood. Transfer
> stains on the socks. EDTA in the gate blood sample.
I am aware that Fuhrman and Vannater lied,but what lies did Fung tell?
> And then there's the bad evidence : The gloves that obvioulsy did
> NOT fit OJ's hands. The knit cap found at the scene and allegedly
> worn by OJ that had chemically-treated hairs in it. The 9 sets of
> fingerprints at the crime scene never identified (but not OJs or any
> residents' or guests'). The complete lack of Nicole's or Ron's blood
> at the Simpson house (there was blood everywhere at the crime scene,
> he should have been drenched, especfially his feet).
I suppose the prosecution COULD have explained this evidence.
> The State of California did a TERRIBLE job explaining the bad
> evidence.
Yes,it did.
Michael
CSU College Republicans
Michael Ejercito
(Carl H. Starrett II) wrote:
> On Tue, 08 Dec 1998 07:20:43 GMT, zarl...@conan.ids.net (Michael
> Zarlenga) wrote:
>
> >Carl H. Starrett II (chs...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
> >: >you're speaking about the overwhelming eveidence of police misconduct
> >: >in this case right
> >
> >: What overwhelming evidence of police misconduct?
> >
> >Perjury by the two main LAPD detectives, Vanatter and Fuhrman.
>
> There was no perjury by Vanatter. The only possible perjury by
> Furhman was his use of the "n" word, and event that was not on a
> material issue of the case.
so OJ really was not a suspect at the time,eh? the police considered
hima suspect the moment they identified the victims.
> >Perjury by Criminalist Fung.
>
> Such as?
>
> >1.5cc of missing blood.
>
> There was no "missing blood"
>
> >Transfer stains on the socks.
>
> Translation: Goofy defense theory
Did the blood seep through when OJ was wearing the sock?
> >EDTA in the gate blood sample.
>
> *alleged* edta in gate blood sample
>
> >And then there's the bad evidence : The gloves that obvioulsy did
> >NOT fit OJ's hands.
>
> Duh, they shrank and he was wearing rubber gloves. Or did you not
> hear the testimony of the Isotoner company president?
The gloves did not shrink. The latex might have made a difference. I
will have to review the civil trial to see if the gloves fit when
Petrocelli,Fred goldman's lawyer,placed the glove on simpson's hand.
> >The knit cap found at the scene and allegedly
> >worn by OJ that had chemically-treated hairs in it.
>
> So you say. Evidence please.
Testimony.
> The 9 sets of fingerprints at the crime scene never identified (but
> not OJs or any residents' or guests').
>
> So you say. Besides, what is the relevance? Ever hear of solicitors?
Well,if we knew where the fingerprints were found,we can determine that.
> >The complete lack of Nicole's or Ron's blood
> >at the Simpson house (there was blood everywhere at the crime scene,
> >he should have been drenched, especfially his feet).
>
> Nicoles blood was in the Bronco and his driveway. Besides, what makes
> you think he would where blood soak clothes all the way home?
First of all,DNA testing in 1994 was inadequate to provide complete
matches. The FBI statistical method used was still in dispute by many
geneticists.
Second,his home is not that far away,and it was nighttime. Any moisture
on the clothing would still be there upon arrival.
> >The State of California did a TERRIBLE job explaining the bad
> >evidence.
>
> The procution could have done a better job, but the evidence was
> ovewhelming against OJ. Just a brain dead jury.
For a brain-dead jury,they sure understood the evidence pretty well.
Michael
CSU College Republicans
_
_
Michael Ejercito
> Jon Beaver wrote:
>
> > Yes, I understand all of that, but what difference does it make? If
> > the Simpson jury had been authorized to, and did, make a verdict of
> > "innocent" or "not proved," what would be different about Simpson's
> > legal status today? Basically, there are only two kinds of outcomes
> > in a any criminal trial: (1) conviction and (2) anything else. I
> > agree that there is a difference between a "miss by an inch," a "miss
> > by a mile" and a "miss by 10 miles" -- except when only hits count.
> > -Jon Beaver
>
> One difference is that the ourcome of the civil trial makes it functionally
> impossible (collateral estoppel) for Simpson to bring a libel suit against the
> posters to this NG for saying he killed his ex-wife. A finding of true
innocence
> would clearly change that status.
There is no finding of true innocence. besides,simpson is a public
figure,and as such can not sue under common law for libel unless the
libeler had reason to know the statements were false.
Michael
CSU College Republicans
Michael Ejercito
(Michael Zarlenga) wrote:
> Michael Ejercito (meje...@csulb.edu) wrote:
> : About the gloves,I remmber that Fred Goldman said that during the civil
> : trial,he would have OJ Simpson place the gloves directly on his bare hands
> : to show that the gloves DO fit.
> : Did they fit?
>
> He was never asked to try them on in the civil trial.
That is funny;I remember that Fred Goldman stated explicitly that he
would do just that.
Why did he back off?
Michael
CSU College Republicans
o...@gci-net.com
wrote:
>m...@Radix.Net (Ted Frank) wrote:
>
>>In article <mejercit-071...@134.139.52.24>,
>>Michael Ejercito <meje...@csulb.edu> wrote:
>>> But then,he wiould not be CLEARLY guilty,at best,he would be probably
>>>guilty.
>>
>>Why do you think the perception is more important than the truth?
>>
>
>For humans, perception is indistinguishable from truth.
>
>-Jon Beaver
Depends what you mean by "perception", and even then, only correct if
you exclude mathematics, which is certainly not "perceived".
Scott Goehring
>> Could you please point out where in the Constitution it says that you're
>> innocent until proven guilty? Article and section, please.
>
>Fifth amendment due process of law. While it isn't expressly stated, the
>Supremes have made it pretty clear. See In re Winship, 397 US 358 (1970) and
>Mullaney v. Wilbur, 421 US 684 (1975).
But the Fifth Amendment only applies to the federal government. If I
am not mistaken, this thread originated in a discussion of the
O.J. Simpson case, which was tried in a state court, to which the
Fifth Amendment does not apply.
--
"[E]xperience suggests that seeking to bring the First Amendment to the assist-
ance of abortion protesters is more likely to harm the former than help the
latter." -- Lawson v. Murray, No. 97-1790, slip. op. (U.S., Oct. 19, 1998)
(J. Scalia, concurring in denial of writ of certiorari).
Scott Goehring
Jon Beaver <jbe...@imagecomp.com> wrote:
>But remember that defamation is a very narrow common law tort.
Well, I would say that under the old English common law it was a very
broad tort, but the First Amendment chopped the hell out of it. :)
Ted Frank
Larry Smith <jl...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>How cleverly you omit to point out that the case was brought in a
>section of Los Angeles where the jury was representative of the
>populace.
The populace of LA is not, and has never been, anywhere near the
composition of the Simpson jury. LA is 14% African-American, and LA
County (not to mention Brentwood) is less than that.
>In another post you squall because you see the outcome as a
>miscarriage of justice as well as jury nullification. It's just about
>as reprehensible of a member of the bar to impeach a jury verdict as
>it is of a member of the bar to denounce judges who elude facts and
>confound the law to reach a decision.
Which is to say, not at all.
>Next thing you know, you and some others will be calling for blue
>ribbon juries, majority verdicts, and relaxed standards of proof in
>criminal cases.
I'll settle for judges keeping cases under control.
>Aren't you the guy who says that since the developments of the last
>two decades' assured fair trials no innocent person is ever executed?
>(Just recently your theory was exploded when a man in the midwest who
>had confessed was freed from death row when a surveillance fluke
>revealed the true killers.)
How is the release of a supposedly innocent man before his execution (he
can't have been too innocent if he confessed, but you give no identifying
details to track down the actual facts) an explosion of my claim that no
innocent person has been executed since the death penalty was reinstated?
>Tit for tat. And why didn't that glove fit? And why didn't they just
>take a cast of O. J.'s hands and use mannequin hands for those
>gloves? If O. J. pulled one on them there, they asked for it.
Oh, no doubt the prosecution committed some grievous errors. Justice
isn't a game, though, and that Marcia Clark annoyed the jury with her
tardiness after late-night partying is no reason to acclaim them for
acquitting a murderer whose guilt was proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
>A jury's verdict is sacred and as final as the end of a war.
The first clause is incorrect, and the analogy is simply mystifying.
>O. J. might as well be in jail. He'll be hounded for the rest of his
>life and avoided as if he carried the plague.
It seems that Judge Lanier should have killed his victims rather than
raping them, then he could have won your respect.
Ted Frank
Michael Ejercito <meje...@csulb.edu> wrote:
>> : About the gloves,I remmber that Fred Goldman said that during the civil
>> : trial,he would have OJ Simpson place the gloves directly on his bare hands
>> : to show that the gloves DO fit.
>> : Did they fit?
>>
>> He was never asked to try them on in the civil trial.
> That is funny;I remember that Fred Goldman stated explicitly that he
>would do just that.
> Why did he back off?
Because the gloves had shrank an inch?
Since there are photos of Simpson wearing the gloves before they had
shrunk, and since the gloves fit across the palm (even as Simpson was
making verbal comments to the contrary) why is there even an issue?
http://www.courttv.com/casefiles/simpson/transcripts/nov/nov06.html
Ted Frank
Larry Smith <jl...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>Reasonable doubt is what is reasonable to the jurors who hear the
>case, not to us out here watching it on the tube.
Well, we'll have to agree to disagree, Larry. I believe in truth, and
justice, and the law, naive as that may be, and I don't believe in moral
relativism or holding jurors to a different standard of executing their
oath because of the color of their skin.
>> >A jury's verdict is sacred and as final as the end of a war.
>>
>> The first clause is incorrect, and the analogy is simply mystifying.
>
>People besides you and me should know that a criminal verdict of 'not
>guilty' is final, absolutely final.
This is true.
It doesn't make a particular acquittal correct, or beyond moral reproach.
>Let's say neither Simpson nor Lanier were ever arrested and brought to
>trial despite their crimes. Which one would inflict the most future
>damage on society?
Who is the most likely to repeat his crimes? Lanier, almost certainly.
You'll get no argument from me that local prosecutors behaved
abominally. That's a political problem with that state's executive
branch, with a political solution.
While I'm reluctant to see local crimes federalized, I'm certainly pleased
to see justice done; our only debate was whether the judges who refused
to interpret Section 1927 to cover the crimes in question could do so
in good faith.
Steve Furbish
Wayne Foote wrote:
>
> Brett Weiss wrote:
>
> > There is no "reversion" of status--there is simply a finding of "not
> > guilty".
> >
> > Could you please point out where in the Constitution it says that you're
> > innocent until proven guilty? Article and section, please.
>
> Fifth amendment due process of law. While it isn't expressly stated, the
> Supremes have made it pretty clear.
It's not expressly stated - and that's what I took Mr.
Burnore's assertion as being...
Steve
Larry Smith
>
> In article <dy%a2.522$Vc7...@news15.ispnews.com>,
> Michael Zarlenga <zarl...@conan.ids.net> wrote:
> >Ted Frank (m...@Radix.Net) wrote:
> >: >Also, if they were so brain dead, why didn't the LA County DA's
> >: >office have them removed? CA has some of the most prosecutor-
> >: >friendly jury selection processes in the nation.
> >
> >: Simpson case.
> >
> >How soon you forget that Jury Selection occurs BEFORE the trial.
>
> How soon you forget that Ito controlled the jury selection process, and
> allowed the defense to systematically eliminate every juror who might have
> a brain.
How cleverly you omit to point out that the case was brought in a
section of Los Angeles where the jury was representative of the
populace. Garcetti could have brought the case to trial in Santa
Monica.
In another post you squall because you see the outcome as a
miscarriage of justice as well as jury nullification. It's just about
as reprehensible of a member of the bar to impeach a jury verdict as
it is of a member of the bar to denounce judges who elude facts and
confound the law to reach a decision. No, I take that back. It's
more blameworthy because you impugn the last defense of the populace
from tyranny. (The other last defenses were the grand jury and habeas
corpus, but they have been construed and secreted away.)
Next thing you know, you and some others will be calling for blue
ribbon juries, majority verdicts, and relaxed standards of proof in
criminal cases. Don't scare us with any more heresies, please. I'd
rather the law be a little broad in favor of the citizenry than in
favor of their custodians.
Why IS O. J. not in jail? Hell, he was acquitted. Is that so
blood-curdling an idea to you, that he may have slipped through?
Aren't you the guy who says that since the developments of the last
two decades' assured fair trials no innocent person is ever executed?
(Just recently your theory was exploded when a man in the midwest who
had confessed was freed from death row when a surveillance fluke
revealed the true killers.) Point is that the system isn't perfect and
may let some slip through, but if you start tweaking and tightening it
up, more innocent people will suffer. To me it's 100 times worse for
an innocent person to be convicted than for a guilty man to be
acquitted.
I noticed during the Simpson trial there was some complaining to the
judge about Marcia and the others on the prosecution team wearing
sympathy pins on their blouses and lapels---pins which the families of
Nicole and Ron also wore--all in the presence of the jury. You say
this isn't attempt at jury nullification? Sure it was JN, just like
that Norman Rockwell print of the little black girl placed in O. J.'s
home the night before the jury marched through.
Tit for tat. And why didn't that glove fit? And why didn't they just
take a cast of O. J.'s hands and use mannequin hands for those
gloves? If O. J. pulled one on them there, they asked for it.
A jury's verdict is sacred and as final as the end of a war. We'll
just have to live with a few bizarre acquittals as a flaw in the
system that has worked well for us since we brought it from England
and improved on it.
rm...@my-dejanews.com
> >
> > No one denied that the knit cap had hairs other than OJ's. The knit cap
> > did have OJ's hair.
> proof? Consider that Doctor Jeffrey MacDonald was also convicted on
> such evidence. consider that hair is not unique among individuals.
What do you mean MacDonald was convicted on "such evidence". What evidence are
you talking about?
Jeffrey MacDonald was convicted ,(the jury later said),because 1."no blood
was found where he said he laid unconscious" ,we now know that there was
blood found there (Jeffrey's type) even though it was not collected until 3
days after the murders. 2. Because "no evidence of intruders was found in the
home", and i don't even need to go into that again do i?
Logan
Logan
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Larry Smith
>
> In article <366DC302...@bellsouth.net>,
> Larry Smith <jl...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >How cleverly you omit to point out that the case was brought in a
> >section of Los Angeles where the jury was representative of the
> >populace.
>
> composition of the Simpson jury. LA is 14% African-American, and LA
> County (not to mention Brentwood) is less than that.
>
> >miscarriage of justice as well as jury nullification. It's just about
> >as reprehensible of a member of the bar to impeach a jury verdict as
> >it is of a member of the bar to denounce judges who elude facts and
> >confound the law to reach a decision.
>
I see you ignored the part about the petit jury's role in personal
freedoms.
>
> >Next thing you know, you and some others will be calling for blue
> >ribbon juries, majority verdicts, and relaxed standards of proof in
> >criminal cases.
>
> I'll settle for judges keeping cases under control.
He let it all come in, from both sides. Black jurors are going to
bend over backwards to avoid convicting one of their icons.
Reasonable doubt is what is reasonable to the jurors who hear the
case, not to us out here watching it on the tube.
Did O. J. commit murder? Yes, by the preponderance of evidence he
did, but not beyond the reasonable doubt of a duly constituted L. A.
jury.
>
> >Aren't you the guy who says that since the developments of the last
> >two decades' assured fair trials no innocent person is ever executed?
> >(Just recently your theory was exploded when a man in the midwest who
> >had confessed was freed from death row when a surveillance fluke
> >revealed the true killers.)
>
> How is the release of a supposedly innocent man before his execution (he
> can't have been too innocent if he confessed, but you give no identifying
> details to track down the actual facts) an explosion of my claim that no
> innocent person has been executed since the death penalty was reinstated?
Well, executed prisoners don't have any motivation to look for
exculpatory evidence, or does anyone on their behalf. The character I
refer to was a farmboy with a motorcycle shop somewhere in the midwest
whose parents were brutally murdered. He must have been drunk. He
was brought in and interrogated so well that he confessed, was tried,
and sentenced to die. Best I could tell from the 20-20-like
investigation, he really thought he was guilty until police using a
wiretap discovered two thugs the condemned man didn't even know had
botched a robbery and committed the murders. I just saw the last ten
or so minutes, saw the man plowing with a tractor on his farm, which
he has now legitimately inherited, but it was quite a chilling account
of a man who was close to being strapped into the gurney.
>
> >Tit for tat. And why didn't that glove fit? And why didn't they just
> >take a cast of O. J.'s hands and use mannequin hands for those
> >gloves? If O. J. pulled one on them there, they asked for it.
>
> Oh, no doubt the prosecution committed some grievous errors. Justice
> isn't a game, though,
[no]
and that Marcia Clark annoyed the jury with her
> tardiness after late-night partying is no reason to acclaim them for
> acquitting a murderer whose guilt was proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
You err. No acclaim from me, just recognition of the imperfections of
the jury system, which, btw, is still the best in the world.
>
> >A jury's verdict is sacred and as final as the end of a war.
>
> The first clause is incorrect, and the analogy is simply mystifying.
People besides you and me should know that a criminal verdict of 'not
guilty' is final, absolutely final. It cannot be set aside or
reversed. It can only be debated forever, just like Sacco and
Vanzetti. Personally I would rather debate the latter, where the
greater damage to society is done by a bum verdict.
>
> >O. J. might as well be in jail. He'll be hounded for the rest of his
> >life and avoided as if he carried the plague.
>
> It seems that Judge Lanier should have killed his victims rather than
> raping them, then he could have won your respect.
Theodore, this is as bad as my war simile.
Now there's your jury nullification theme again, except even worse.
The local prosecutor was the judge's brother. Lanier had it made. He
didn't need to kill them. He thought he was sovereign immunity
personified. If the feds hadn't had civil rights jurisdiction he would
have spermatized the mouth of every unwilling female in West
Tennessee. They had to bring him down to Memphis from Dyersburg to
find a jury that wouldn't be afraid of the monster.
And don't be turning and winking to your audience, Ted. I have no
respect for O. J. Nor do I like the retributive or score-settling
aspect of official punishment.
Carl H. Starrett II
Ejercito) wrote:
>In article <366d30f6....@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, chs...@ix.netcom.com
>(Carl H. Starrett II) wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 08 Dec 1998 07:20:43 GMT, zarl...@conan.ids.net (Michael
>> Zarlenga) wrote:
>>
>> >Carl H. Starrett II (chs...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>> >: >you're speaking about the overwhelming eveidence of police misconduct
>> >: >in this case right
>> >
>> >: What overwhelming evidence of police misconduct?
>> >
>> >Perjury by the two main LAPD detectives, Vanatter and Fuhrman.
>>
>> There was no perjury by Vanatter. The only possible perjury by
>> Furhman was his use of the "n" word, and event that was not on a
>> material issue of the case.
> so OJ really was not a suspect at the time,eh? the police considered
>hima suspect the moment they identified the victims.
You are entitled to your opinion.
Carl H. Starrett II
Ejercito) wrote:
>In article <366c9dd3....@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, chs...@ix.netcom.com
>(Carl H. Starrett II) wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 07 Dec 1998 09:11:26 -0600, Hackman <hac...@nospam.jump.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >your speaking about the overwhelming eveidence of police misconduct in
>this case right
>> >?
>>
>> What overwhelming evidence of police misconduct?
> Vannater lied when he said simpson was a suspect the night the police
>went over to his home.
Is that the best you can do? An unsupported *opinion* that Vannater
cosider OJ a suspect deep down in his heart?
Michael Snyder
Webguide wrote in message <366D80...@javanet.com>...
>Face it. O.J. isn't in jail because he was a wealthy sports figure. If
>the same man had been on trial and had not been wealthy or a famous
>sports figure, he's be rotting his deserved butt off in some cell.
This much is true -- and has nothing to do with guilt or innocence.
Michael Ejercito
> In article <366DC302...@bellsouth.net>,
> Larry Smith <jl...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >Tit for tat. And why didn't that glove fit? And why didn't they just
> >take a cast of O. J.'s hands and use mannequin hands for those
> >gloves? If O. J. pulled one on them there, they asked for it.
>
> Oh, no doubt the prosecution committed some grievous errors. Justice
> isn't a game, though, and that Marcia Clark annoyed the jury with her
> tardiness after late-night partying is no reason to acclaim them for
> acquitting a murderer whose guilt was proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
His guilt was proven beyond a reasonable doubt? Who proved it? It
certainlt was not the prosecution.
Michael
CSU College Republicans
Michael Ejercito
> In article <mejercit-081...@134.139.69.91>,
> Michael Ejercito <meje...@csulb.edu> wrote:
> >> : About the gloves,I remmber that Fred Goldman said that during
the civil
> >> : trial,he would have OJ Simpson place the gloves directly on his
bare hands
> >> : to show that the gloves DO fit.
> >> : Did they fit?
> >>
> >> He was never asked to try them on in the civil trial.
> > That is funny;I remember that Fred Goldman stated explicitly that he
> >would do just that.
> > Why did he back off?
>
> Because the gloves had shrank an inch?
The plaintiifs probably planned to call in an expert on gloves in the
case that the gloves did not fit. But they decided to back off entirely.
> Since there are photos of Simpson wearing the gloves before they had
> shrunk, and since the gloves fit across the palm (even as Simpson was
> making verbal comments to the contrary) why is there even an issue?
How do any of us know the glove in the courtroom is the same glove in
the photograph? Gloves are not unique;they are mass-produced in sweatshops
around the world.
Michael
CSU College Republicans
Michael Ejercito
> > >
> > > No one denied that the knit cap had hairs other than OJ's. The knit cap
> > > did have OJ's hair.
> > proof? Consider that Doctor Jeffrey MacDonald was also convicted on
> > such evidence. consider that hair is not unique among individuals.
>
>
> What do you mean MacDonald was convicted on "such evidence". What evidence are
> you talking about?
Michael Malone testified about saran fibers and hair samples. He said
that the FBI manuals read that saran fibers were not used in wigs. The FBI
manuals specifically stated they wewre used for such a purpose. Maolne
committed perjury.
Michael
CSU College Republicans
Michael Ejercito
(Carl H. Starrett II) wrote:
> On Tue, 08 Dec 1998 14:26:25 -0700, meje...@csulb.edu (Michael
> Ejercito) wrote:
>
> >In article <366c9dd3....@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, chs...@ix.netcom.com
> >(Carl H. Starrett II) wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 07 Dec 1998 09:11:26 -0600, Hackman <hac...@nospam.jump.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >your speaking about the overwhelming eveidence of police misconduct in
> >this case right
> >> >?
> >>
> >> What overwhelming evidence of police misconduct?
> > Vannater lied when he said simpson was a suspect the night the police
> >went over to his home.
>
> Is that the best you can do? An unsupported *opinion* that Vannater
> cosider OJ a suspect deep down in his heart?
No,I do that by inferring from his actions,such as the fact that they
went to his house the night of the murders.
Michael
CSU College Republicans
Scott Goehring
Gary L. Burnore <gbur...@databasix.com> wrote:
>Where the hell did you get THAT idea? The fifth amendment to the
>constitution isn't limited by state powers. DUUHHHHH.
Then why are criminal defendants in California not entitled to
indictment by a grand jury?
Ted Frank
Michael Ejercito <meje...@csulb.edu> wrote:
> The plaintiifs probably planned to call in an expert on gloves in the
>case that the gloves did not fit. But they decided to back off entirely.
You're so tied to your conspiracy theories, that you ignore the facts.
The plaintiffs did call an expert on gloves, and he explained that
the gloves were manufactured at size XL to be Z inches long, and at the
time of the criminal trial they were Z minus one inches long.
He was cross-examined with a tape of Simpson pretending to try to
put the gloves on.
>> Since there are photos of Simpson wearing the gloves before they had
>> shrunk, and since the gloves fit across the palm (even as Simpson was
>> making verbal comments to the contrary) why is there even an issue?
> How do any of us know the glove in the courtroom is the same glove in
>the photograph? Gloves are not unique;they are mass-produced in sweatshops
>around the world.
Let's see there were only a few hundred manufactured in that size, in that
style, with that stitching, with that manufacturers' label, in that color,
and they were only sold in Chicago and New York, yet somehow these pricy
gloves ended up with blood on them in Los Angeles, and, by coincidence,
there were the exact smae style and make as those Simspon wore
broadcasting football games in cold weather.
The gloves alone are enough to convict.
rm...@my-dejanews.com
Ok Michael, thank you for clearing that up.
Not only that but Malone interviewed the Mattel people who made dolls back in
the 60's and they specificly told him that the fibers could not have come from
any doll they were aware of because one of the fibers was 24 inches long and
they new of no doll with hair that long or saran hair that long. The machine
the makes the hair only excepts fibers up to 14 inches long.
He also interviewed wig manufacturers who all told him that wigs were and are
made out of saran,that wigs could be made out of a tow fiber,and that 24 and
22 inch saran hair probably came from a wig.
Malone also stated the purple and black wool that was found in Colette's
mouth,on her shoulder,bicept, and on the murder club that could not be
matched to anything in the home was "household debri". I might add that these
wool fibers were misrepresented to the jury as pajama fibers from MacDonald's
pajama top and were said to be the most important evidence against him.
MacDonald lived there and both the pajama top and bottoms were ripped and
because supposedly two fibers from his pajama top were found on the club it is
the most important piece of evidence against him but when it turns out that
these "pajama fibers" were actually purple and black wool that could not be
matched to anything in the home it is simply houshold debri. To me that is
unbelievable.
It is even more unbelievable that Michael Malone is still working for the FBI
after being cleared of any wrongdoing.He did the same thing in other cases
besides this one also.
Daniel B. Holzman
>
>How is the release of a supposedly innocent man before his execution (he
>can't have been too innocent if he confessed, but you give no identifying
>details to track down the actual facts)
The man's name is Rolando Cruz. Not only was the case against him thrown
out, police are being prosecuted for fabircating evidence of guilt and
concealing evidence of innocence.
I'm surprised you're not familiar with the case, it's been national news.
But you can start your research at
http://www.thonline.com/News/1996/121196/Illinois/38209.htm
> an explosion of my claim that no
>innocent person has been executed since the death penalty was reinstated?
Are you claiming that Roger COleman was guilty, or that he wasn't
executed by the State of Virginia on 20 May 1992?
Ted Frank
Daniel B. Holzman <hol...@xochi.tezcat.com> wrote:
>In article <74kjov$7n5$1...@saltmine.radix.net>, Ted Frank <m...@Radix.Net> wrote:
>>
>>How is the release of a supposedly innocent man before his execution (he
>>can't have been too innocent if he confessed, but you give no identifying
>>details to track down the actual facts)
>
>The man's name is Rolando Cruz. Not only was the case against him thrown
>out, police are being prosecuted for fabircating evidence of guilt and
>concealing evidence of innocence.
>
>I'm surprised you're not familiar with the case, it's been national news.
The Cruz case I'm familiar with. He was nowhere near being executed when
he was released; indeed, it was the state court system (not federal habeas
corpus) that freed him. It's an example of the system eventually working,
even in highly atypical circumstances. I didn't realize that Larry was
relying on a several-year-old case with such unusual facts.
>> an explosion of my claim that no
>>innocent person has been executed since the death penalty was reinstated?
>
>Are you claiming that Roger COleman was guilty, or that he wasn't
>executed by the State of Virginia on 20 May 1992?
Coleman was guilty. His attorneys were allowed to present the allegedly
exculpatory evidence to the district court, and the court found that it
did not even present a colorable showing of actual innocence.
Civ. Action No. 92-0352-R (WD Va., May 12, 1992), p. 19.
Douglas S. Caprette
In a previous article, gbur...@databasix.com (Gary L. Burnore) says:
>On Mon, 07 Dec 1998 03:19:35 GMT, in article
><366b4933....@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, chs...@ix.netcom.com (Carl H.
>Starrett II) wrote:
>
>>
>>However, a not guilty version is not the equivalent of a declaration
>>of innocence.
>
>
>Actually, it is. If you're not guilty, you are innocent.
>
Not so. Based on what I have read IRT the ongoing Sam Shepard
litigation (in Ohio at least). That is, Sam Shepard was found not
guilty at his retrial. But, the state does not have civil liability for
his earlier conviction unless there is a 'declaration of innocence' by
a court.
As I read this in the paper, I am a bit skeptical as to the precise
legal language that should be used.
This is important, as this is the only situation in which I have seen
the term innocent used as a matter of law.
Thus the statement : 'If you're not guilty, you are innocent.'
equates an esotheric legal term with a specific legal meaning to a
broader commonly used but legally undefined term. Thus, it is not
semantically incorrect (nor necessarily legally incorrect either see
below) to say that a person who 'beats the rap' is not innocent despite
a verdict of not guilty.
You are confusing fact with a legal finding. People often confuse the
presumption of innocence with the fact of innocence and mistate the
precept 'a defendent is presumed innocent until proven guilty' (a very
good thing indeed) as 'a defendent is innocent until proven guilty.'
The _fact_ is that a person is guilty as soon as they commit the crime.
They are not criminally liable unless convicted.
Consider, if you will, the typical wording of a criminal statute:
'Whosoever egages in (specific acts) shall be guilty of ...
Now, the Simpson case is a good example of this distinction as simson
was found to be civilly liable in a wrongful death suit. That is,
according to a jury verdict, he is responsible for causing the deaths of
the two victims. Since the facts alleged in the civil case that led to
this verdict are that he willfully killed them, it is hardly incorrect
to deny that Simpson is innocent. This result is made possible by
the difference in the standards of proof for criminal and civil cases
and the differences in competency in the lawyers prosecuting the
criminal and civil cases.
The best term I have heard to describe Simpson's status IRT criminality
is 'an aquitted murderer.'
--
Douglas S Caprette
"A discussion is an exchange of knowledge, as opposed to an argument
which is an exchange of ignorance."
Douglas S. Caprette
In a previous article, chs...@ix.netcom.com (Carl H. Starrett II) says:
>On Sun, 06 Dec 1998 17:46:57 -0700, meje...@csulb.edu (Michael
>Ejercito) wrote:
>
>> Because he was found not guilty because the prosecution failed to prove
>>his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
>
>No, it's because the jury was brain dead.
>
To the contrary, I've heard it said that in prosecutorial circles a slam
dunk case for conviction is sometimes described as a case 'even Marsha
Clark couldn't loose.'
It was the prosecution that created reasonable doubt.
1) Two witnesses giving obviously perjurous testimony.
2) Another witness gives testimony regarding the handling of the physical
evidence which is contradicted by video.
3) A forensic expert who recants his testimony (regarding his
calculation of probability) under cross examination and, after
a weekend adjurnment comes back to testify that the 'correct'
figure is two (or was it more) orders of magnitude different from
his original calculation.
4) Two days spent proving that Simpson had beaten his wife some years
before. Yes, this is quite relevent and important evidence. But for
crying out loud, he pled guilty to that earlier offense. It should
have taken only two minutes apprise the jury of the earlier conviction,
and maybe fifteen minutes to present the photos and medical evidence
as to the severity of the beating. Allowing for Johnny Cochran's
objections this whole process should have taken 3-4 hours, tops. But
_two days_? What is the jury supposed to conclude about a prosecutor
that spends two days proving the defendent comitted a crime _other_
than the crime for which he was charged?
5) Injuries to Goldman's hands indicated that he landed several blows on
his assailant. Yet Simson's only injury was a minor cut on one
hand.
6) The glove fiasco. Aside from the fit, there was also no forensic
evidence found on the glove linking it to Simpson, despite the cut
on his hand. Why not? Maybe he wore latex gloves underneath when he
comitted the crimes. BTW, in a later interview, Shapiro stated
that the glove was tattered and torn, it seemed improbable that a
wealthy man like Simpson would have kept such a disheveled glove in
the first place. Moreover (IRT the wet leather shrinks and OJ was
faking hypothesesi) he had tried on the glove and found it to be too
small to fit his (Shapiro's) hand. He then compared his hand to
Simpson's and found that Simpson's was much larger than his own.
The assumption that glove shrank because it had been soaked with
blood also presupposes that the glove had never before been
pre-shrunk by earlier wettings.
Note that 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 are all screw ups or dishonest acts by the
prosecution/prosecution witnesses. That's why I say the prosecution
created reasonable doubt.
After all this, was there still sufficient unimpeached evidence to
convict Simpson? I daresay there was, but only if the jurors were to
take leave of their senses and trust the balance of a case after many of
its elements had been impeached due to dishonesty and incompetence.
Remember, Simpson was never on trial. It is the body of evidence that
is tried.
It the same interview alluded to above Shapiro also said "What people
should conclude from (this trial) is that in order to prevent the
conviction of the innocent, sometimes the guilty must go free."
BTW, I also would have voted to aquit Marion Barry of perjury despite
the fact that I think he did commit perjury. I simply don't agree that
the prosecution proved he committed perjury.
Douglas S. Caprette
In a previous article, chs...@ix.netcom.com (Carl H. Starrett II) says:
>On Mon, 07 Dec 1998 03:49:21 GMT, gbur...@databasix.com (Gary L.
>Burnore) wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>Actually, it is. If you're not guilty, you are innocent.
>
>No, you are just not guilty.
>
Neither. If you are _found_ not guilty then you _are_ aquitted.
Whether or not you did the deed is a fact the law cannot change.
Douglas S. Caprette
In a previous article, m...@Radix.Net (Ted Frank) says:
>In article <fr4b2.1676$fz4....@news12.ispnews.com>,
>Michael Zarlenga <zarl...@conan.ids.net> wrote:
>>Carl H. Starrett II (chs...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>>: >you're speaking about the overwhelming eveidence of police misconduct
>>: >in this case right
>>
>>: What overwhelming evidence of police misconduct?
>>
>>Perjury by the two main LAPD detectives, Vanatter and Fuhrman.
>
>Perjury refers to material matters, and there's no evidence that
> either lied about any material matter.
Two questions beg to be asked here.
1) Why were these tow witnesses giving testimony that was not
material. What other kind of (allowed, as opposed to prejudicial)
testimony is there?
2) If Fuhrman did not lie about a material matter, for what was he
convicted?
>
>>Perjury by Criminalist Fung. 1.5cc of missing blood. Transfer
>>stains on the socks. EDTA in the gate blood sample.
>
>No perjury by Fung, and nothing here is police misconduct.
>
Agreed. But I think Fung's testimony proved to be inconsistent with
some other facts (a video, right) indicating that his testimony was
unreliable. I personally attribute this FUng having a normal human
memory.
>>And then there's the bad evidence : The gloves that obvioulsy did
>>NOT fit OJ's hands. The knit cap found at the scene and allegedly
>>worn by OJ that had chemically-treated hairs in it.
>
>No one denied that the knit cap had hairs other than OJ's. The knit cap
>did have OJ's hair.
Hairs of more than one person then? What, did OJ borrow a hat to commit
the murders and then forget to return it? Or were some of Simpson's
hairs added to the hat after it was found? How can one differentiate
between the two?
>
>>The State of California did a TERRIBLE job explaining the bad
>>evidence.
>
>I'll acknowledge prosecutorial incompetence. The bad evidence was
> hardly that bad, given the overwhelming amount of good evidence.
>
I agree, but only if you assume honesty and competence IRT to bulk of
the other evidence. A jury should (IMHO, dunno the legal requirement)
begin a case assuming the prosecution ot be legal and competent. But
once the defense proves dishonesty and incompetence then the juror
should (again, IMHO) doubt the honesty and competence of the prosecution
IRT the other evidence that same prosecution presents. This, (rightly,
IMHO) puts a nearly insurmaoutable burden on the prosecution. But it is
the prosecution that put it there.
Eric Conrad
>On Sun, 6 Dec 1998 23:27:09 -0500, in article
><74flff$19o$1...@winter.news.rcn.net>, "Brett Weiss" <law...@erols.com> wrote:
>
>>No, it isn't. There is no verdict of innocent in US courts. Not guilty means
>>only that the state didn't prove the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable
>>doubt.
>
>In which case, the defendand reverts to where he/she was before being charged.
>That being innocent. Remember, the CONSTITUTION says innocent until proven
>guilty. THus, if you're not guilty, you're innocent.
I don't think that phrase is in the Constitution. It is, nonetheless, a
tenet of criminal law in the United States.
Eric
--
Eric Conrad (eco...@math.ohio-state.edu)
http://www.math.ohio-state.edu/~econrad/
Department of Mathematics
The Ohio State University
Eric Conrad
>In article <366C9AF8...@mint.net>, Wayne Foote <wfo...@mint.net> wrote:
>
>>> Could you please point out where in the Constitution it says that you're
>>> innocent until proven guilty? Article and section, please.
>>
>>Fifth amendment due process of law. While it isn't expressly stated, the
>>Mullaney v. Wilbur, 421 US 684 (1975).
>
>But the Fifth Amendment only applies to the federal government. If I
>am not mistaken, this thread originated in a discussion of the
>O.J. Simpson case, which was tried in a state court, to which the
>Fifth Amendment does not apply.
Most state constitutions have provisions similar to the Bill of Rights
(amendments 1 to 10 of the Constitution). In addition, since roughly
the 1940's to 1950's, the Fourteenth Amendment due process clause has
been interpreted as extending the Bill of Rights and other Constitutional
protections of individuals to state governments as well. (In the long run,
I think the gurantees in state constitutions are probably more important
here.)
Daniel B. Holzman
>
>The Cruz case I'm familiar with. He was nowhere near being executed when
>he was released; indeed, it was the state court system (not federal habeas
He was on death row. What's your definition of "nowhere near being
executed?"
Ted Frank
State court appeals remaining with a substantially justified legal issue to raise
on appeal.
If all state court appeals are exhausted, he still has three levels of collateral
state appeals through Illinois habeas corpus procedures. If all those are
exhausted, he then has three levels of collateral federal appeals through federal
habeas corpus procedures.
Then, of course, those on death row usually find well-meaning people who will
raise further collateral appeals at the federal level, no matter how pointless.
It was *these* additional levels of review that Clinton signed a bill restricting,
and that Larry Smith claims destroys federal habeas corpus. I'm of the opinion
that if a person was found guilty by a trial court and that was upheld by eight
levels of review, the ninth level adds very little in the way of justice.
So, Cruz was on the first or second level of at least eight levels of appellate
review. Even if he had no argument, he was six to twelve years away from
execution.
Someone getting freed by the state court system is hardly an argument for the
need for additional federal oversight of the state court system.
Michael Zarlenga
: >
: > Where I come from, when the defendant's blood is at the crime scene
: > and the victim's blood if found in the defendant's car and driveway,
: > that's usually the end of the ball game. Actually, the was a very
: > loose paraphrase of Vincent Bugliosi, but it get's the point across.
: > If you are one of those ding dongs that acutally believe OJ is
: > innocent, I suggest that you read a book called Outrage: 5 Reason Why
: > OJ Simplson Got Away with Murder.
The only "defendant's blood" at the crime scene was a matchhead
sized drop that was collected THREE WEEKS after the crime and also
exhibited properties consistent with the sample containing EDTA.
--
-- Mike Zarlenga
finger zarl...@conan.ids.net for PGP public key
Michael Zarlenga
: >> There was no perjury by Vanatter. The only possible perjury by
: >> Furhman was his use of the "n" word, and event that was not on a
: >> material issue of the case.
: > so OJ really was not a suspect at the time,eh? the police considered
: >hima suspect the moment they identified the victims.
: You are entitled to your opinion.
And you're entitled to continue sticking your head in the sand.
Michael Zarlenga
: >The Cruz case I'm familiar with. He was nowhere near being executed when
: >he was released; indeed, it was the state court system (not federal habeas
: He was on death row. What's your definition of "nowhere near being
: executed?"
Rolondo Cruz was convicted THREE TIMES of murdering Jeanine Ni-
carico and on Death Row when he was finally released. That lying
bastard prosecutor from the DuPage County prosecutor's office in
Chicago ("Knight?") should be tried for three counts of attempted
murder.
If not for the police officer who lied THREE TIMES about a confes-
sion that Cruz and Hernandez never gave and, then, when he could
live with the lie no longer, recanted, Cruz and Hernandez could very
well be dead right now.