O J...back in the news... (1 Viewer)

mikemiller1955

mikemiller1955

Lieutenant General
Joined
Aug 3, 2008
Messages
17,492
after 9 years in prison...

O J is up for a parole hearing in October...

should be interesting...

any thoughts?
 
There is not a single positive thing that can be said about this travesty. The entire mess was crazy and pointless. The senseless and brutal deaths of two people. A media trial in which he gets off despite overwhelming evidence of guilt. Damage to race relations. As much as I believe OJ got away with double murder in the first instance, his second conviction for "kidnapping" and long sentence was almost equally bogus under the circumstances. That was clearly payback by a court for his murder acquittal. Not a shining moment for our legal system. And if he gets out now, the whole circus can start up anew. I can't wait for the helicopters to follow his car when he is released and the whole mess is revisted over and over again. At least it might be a break from the non-stop Trump coverage. I'm convinced if an asteroid was minutes away from destroying earth the lead story on CNN would be about Trump.

I did read today in the Wash Post that F. Lee Bailey is apparently broke, disbarred and working above a nail salon somewhere in Maine. So perhaps some good did come of this case.
 
Last edited:
I totally misreported this...
O J has already been granted a release by the parole board...
and is due to leave the prison in October...

so he will be out for Halloween...
 
I smell a reality show.....and millions of low life's will watch it!
 
Combat said:
I did read today in the Wash Post that F. Lee Bailey is apparently broke, disbarred and working above a nail salon somewhere in Maine. So perhaps some good did come of this case.
Click to expand...


I disagree with this, F. Lee Bailey was not to blame for the Simpson debacle, those lawyers did their jobs and did them well. I watched that entire trial from start to finish as I was finishing college that summer and was free during the day. It was captivating to me as I at the time was considering criminal law and the "dream team" truly was what the gold standard was and is. They were exceptional criminal attorneys and they flat out whipped the prosecutions rear end. If you want to cast blame, Marcia Clark, Darden, Furman, that is who to blame for a botched prosecution and investigation, it was awful.

Bailey has his own issues later in life and he is paying dearly for them, however, he bore the brunt of a lot of unwanted vitriol due to his successful defense of OJ and I don't think that is right or fair. His own misdeeds, sure, he should be punished for, but he did his job as a criminal attorney and there is nothing wrong with that. Defense attorneys are a much maligned group for being smarter than the average person and doing their job well. If someone is guilty and the prosecution does their job well, then it shouldn't matter who the defense attorney is.

End of day, I have supreme appreciation for Bailey, Cochran, Dershowitz, Shapiro, Shek, etc. I also like Bruce Cutler, he was a terrific mob lawyer. On the flip side, I think Rudy G. ran one of the greatest prosecutorial offices ever in New York in taking down the Mob. I guarantee that if he was the prosecutor on the OJ Case, it would have been a Guilty verdict on all counts.

TD
 
Combat said:
I did read today in the Wash Post that F. Lee Bailey is apparently broke, disbarred and working above a nail salon somewhere in Maine. So perhaps some good did come of this case.
Click to expand...

Hummmmm ..... I wonder if that is the strange dude that does my wife's nails every month or so? ...^&grin

Good Post and ACCURATE!

--- LaRRy
 
tdubel said:
I disagree with this, F. Lee Bailey was not to blame for the Simpson debacle, those lawyers did their jobs and did them well. I watched that entire trial from start to finish as I was finishing college that summer and was free during the day. It was captivating to me as I at the time was considering criminal law and the "dream team" truly was what the gold standard was and is. They were exceptional criminal attorneys and they flat out whipped the prosecutions rear end. If you want to cast blame, Marcia Clark, Darden, Furman, that is who to blame for a botched prosecution and investigation, it was awful.

Bailey has his own issues later in life and he is paying dearly for them, however, he bore the brunt of a lot of unwanted vitriol due to his successful defense of OJ and I don't think that is right or fair. His own misdeeds, sure, he should be punished for, but he did his job as a criminal attorney and there is nothing wrong with that. Defense attorneys are a much maligned group for being smarter than the average person and doing their job well. If someone is guilty and the prosecution does their job well, then it shouldn't matter who the defense attorney is.

End of day, I have supreme appreciation for Bailey, Cochran, Dershowitz, Shapiro, Shek, etc. I also like Bruce Cutler, he was a terrific mob lawyer. On the flip side, I think Rudy G. ran one of the greatest prosecutorial offices ever in New York in taking down the Mob. I guarantee that if he was the prosecutor on the OJ Case, it would have been a Guilty verdict on all counts.

TD
Click to expand...

I don't have any problem with lawyers providing a legitimate defense but the OJ lawyers were publicity seeking scum. Plain and simple. That includes the likes of Bailey who has subsequently been imprisoned and disbarred for his shady practice. They knowingly made up false DNA evidence and relied on race to make their case. I don't see anything admirable about any of that. Granted the prosecution and LAPD did a terrible job. In particular Mark Fuhrman who should have gone to jail for perjury. And Judge Ito. How can we forget that buffoon? The whole process was turned into a circus and disgrace. The trial made a mockery of our legal system. Shady and slick lawyers can sometimes fool a jury but I don't see that as a basis of admiration but the opposite.
 
The lesson from the first trial (which made the second possible) is that money will buy you a good attorney, resources to which many don't have access. With unlimited resources, you have an edge over the prosecution. End of story.
 
I read the article about Bailey, and I disagree with one portion in particular:

"But of all the characters who played a role in Simpson’s unforgettable acquittal for the murder of his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, no one’s life has changed as dramatically as Bailey’s."

I would argue that Robert Kardashian and Johnnie Cochran's lives changed more as the both passed away at relatively young ages less than 10 years after the OJ trial.
 
The OJ trial was simply about race. It was the blacks way of getting back at a system THEY say discriminates against them. The thing about it was in reality Simpson, but for the actual color of his skin, was more white than black. As for Fuhrman he had a no win situation. If he said he used the "N" word he is a racist, if he denied it he was a liar. Again it was all about race.
Gary
 
Combat said:
I don't have any problem with lawyers providing a legitimate defense but the OJ lawyers were publicity seeking scum. Plain and simple. That includes the likes of Bailey who has subsequently been imprisoned and disbarred for his shady practice. They knowingly made up false DNA evidence and relied on race to make their case. I don't see anything admirable about any of that. Granted the prosecution and LAPD did a terrible job. In particular Mark Fuhrman who should have gone to jail for perjury. And Judge Ito. How can we forget that buffoon? The whole process was turned into a circus and disgrace. The trial made a mockery of our legal system. Shady and slick lawyers can sometimes fool a jury but I don't see that as a basis of admiration but the opposite.
Click to expand...

We all may have different opinions, but at the end of the day, it was a prosecutorial screw up of monumental proportions with 2 detectives in particular who did nothing to help their case. End of Story.

Expensive lawyers are expensive for one reason only - they are good. OJ lawyers did their job. I would not insult Alan Dershowitz in the manner which you do. He has long been recognized as one of the most brilliant procedural law minds ever, he did the job that he was paid for. He appears on tv because of his brains, he has long been an outspoken expert in his field. They put on a brilliant defense against what should have been an air tight case. I don't believe they made up evidence? How is that accomplished? They didn't have to provide any evidence, the burden of proof is on the prosecution. They presented their own experts who at the end of the day were better than the prosecution. Did race play a factors, sure, doesn't it always? Whose fault is that? I admire them because they were good at their jobs, in this case, OJ got what he paid for. That is what it is. Should he have gone to jail and been convicted, YES, but again, the only people in the room to blame for that is the prosecution, it was their job to win the case with what seemed to be an overwhelming amount of evidence, yet they screwed it up at every turn. That is our system - beyond a reasonable doubt and you need to have solid, untainted evidence to accomplish that and that jury said they didn't. He went free.

Public vitriolic opinions echoed in your post should be directed at Marcia Clark, Tim Darden and the rest of the team, they are to blame for him getting off. They are some of the biggest idiots to ever practice law and they are the ones who should have been disbarred for complete incompetence. Judge Ito I am not sure shares a whole lot of the blame, look what he had to work with on the prosecution side. I mean, c'mon, they are a case study about what not to do in a criminal trial.

I have always found it fascinating that every defense attorney who is any good is deemed shady and slick.......................how about they are smart and very good at what they do!

TD
 
tdubel said:
We all may have different opinions, but at the end of the day, it was a prosecutorial screw up of monumental proportions with 2 detectives in particular who did nothing to help their case. End of Story.

Expensive lawyers are expensive for one reason only - they are good. OJ lawyers did their job. I would not insult Alan Dershowitz in the manner which you do. He has long been recognized as one of the most brilliant procedural law minds ever, he did the job that he was paid for. He appears on tv because of his brains, he has long been an outspoken expert in his field. They put on a brilliant defense against what should have been an air tight case. I don't believe they made up evidence? How is that accomplished? They didn't have to provide any evidence, the burden of proof is on the prosecution. They presented their own experts who at the end of the day were better than the prosecution. Did race play a factors, sure, doesn't it always? Whose fault is that? I admire them because they were good at their jobs, in this case, OJ got what he paid for. That is what it is. Should he have gone to jail and been convicted, YES, but again, the only people in the room to blame for that is the prosecution, it was their job to win the case with what seemed to be an overwhelming amount of evidence, yet they screwed it up at every turn. That is our system - beyond a reasonable doubt and you need to have solid, untainted evidence to accomplish that and that jury said they didn't. He went free.

Public vitriolic opinions echoed in your post should be directed at Marcia Clark, Tim Darden and the rest of the team, they are to blame for him getting off. They are some of the biggest idiots to ever practice law and they are the ones who should have been disbarred for complete incompetence. Judge Ito I am not sure shares a whole lot of the blame, look what he had to work with on the prosecution side. I mean, c'mon, they are a case study about what not to do in a criminal trial.

I have always found it fascinating that every defense attorney who is any good is deemed shady and slick.......................how about they are smart and very good at what they do!

TD
Click to expand...

I also put most of the blame on the prosecution but also believe the jury was influenced by the "pay back" mentality of finally having a Black man get away with killing white people which had always been the other way around. Our judicial system is flawed by the money factor which allows the wealthy to hire better attorneys and have a better chance of acquittal or a plea bargain.
A close friend's son runs a non-profit that raises bail for non-violent accused criminals. There are thousands of accused (many innocent) who can't even post a few hundred dollars in bail and linger in hard core prisons. When will we learn that wealth is not a virtue.
 
nysoldiers said:
...A close friend's son runs a non-profit that raises bail for non-violent accused criminals. There are thousands of accused (many innocent) who can't even post a few hundred dollars in bail and linger in hard core prisons. When will we learn that wealth is not a virtue.
Click to expand...
Wealth earned by honest work is a virtue. Most people wealthy or poor don't commit crimes or put themselves in a position to be accused of a crime. But then there is a non-profit for everything.
 
tdubel said:
We all may have different opinions, but at the end of the day, it was a prosecutorial screw up of monumental proportions with 2 detectives in particular who did nothing to help their case. End of Story.

Expensive lawyers are expensive for one reason only - they are good. OJ lawyers did their job. I would not insult Alan Dershowitz in the manner which you do. He has long been recognized as one of the most brilliant procedural law minds ever, he did the job that he was paid for. He appears on tv because of his brains, he has long been an outspoken expert in his field. They put on a brilliant defense against what should have been an air tight case. I don't believe they made up evidence? How is that accomplished? They didn't have to provide any evidence, the burden of proof is on the prosecution. They presented their own experts who at the end of the day were better than the prosecution. Did race play a factors, sure, doesn't it always? Whose fault is that? I admire them because they were good at their jobs, in this case, OJ got what he paid for. That is what it is. Should he have gone to jail and been convicted, YES, but again, the only people in the room to blame for that is the prosecution, it was their job to win the case with what seemed to be an overwhelming amount of evidence, yet they screwed it up at every turn. That is our system - beyond a reasonable doubt and you need to have solid, untainted evidence to accomplish that and that jury said they didn't. He went free.

Public vitriolic opinions echoed in your post should be directed at Marcia Clark, Tim Darden and the rest of the team, they are to blame for him getting off. They are some of the biggest idiots to ever practice law and they are the ones who should have been disbarred for complete incompetence. Judge Ito I am not sure shares a whole lot of the blame, look what he had to work with on the prosecution side. I mean, c'mon, they are a case study about what not to do in a criminal trial.

I have always found it fascinating that every defense attorney who is any good is deemed shady and slick.......................how about they are smart and very good at what they do!

TD
Click to expand...

If you think of the legal system only in terms of winning and losing instead of obtaining justice for the victims, then you might have a point. If I were guilty of murder, then I would probably want some shady lawyer to get me off with a lot of ludicrous arguments because that is the only hope of the guilty. From the perspective of a law abiding citizen and society, however, I don't see anything particularly admirable about that dubious skill. I don't even believe they did a particularly good job. They had a biased jury that wasn't going to convict OJ if they had a video of him committing this crime. These lawyers were simply shameless self-promoters and publicity seekers without any scruples. Not any smarter than an average attorney. The Melvin Belli approach to law. It fools a few gullible types, but anyone who practices law can spot a con when they see one.
 
BLReed said:
Wealth earned by honest work is a virtue. Most people wealthy or poor don't commit crimes or put themselves in a position to be accused of a crime. But then there is a non-profit for everything.
Click to expand...

So you believe in the "guilty until proven innocent" system.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Community platform by XenForo® © 2010-2024 XenForo Ltd.
Back
Top