20 Years ago: Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman murdered

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by ken0042

You are correct- however I would say the prosecution maybe spent too much time on the science. The jury was bored to tears as they went on and on for hours. (Or was it even days?)

Maybe. The network did spend a lot of time explaining DNA to the audience too though, so it obviously was a fairly new thing in trials.

I can't really say if the prosecution spent too much time on explaining the science or not. I could say that they spent too much time on it compared to other parts of their case. And we would probably agree on that. They probably did that because they believed that the DNA should make the case a slam dunk (and of course weren't adequately prepared in other areas). And in many cases it is. The defense did their job though and were able to poke enough holes in that, and the case surrounding it.

However, I am fairly certain that I remember one of the jurors saying years after that she wasn't sold on DNA evidence at that time.

[4X4]

Originally Posted by Daradon

But that's basically what I said before you posted your comment. IE the prosecution did poorly and the defense was great. Don't play victim here.

Throw out a smarmy comment and your likely to get a knee jerk response. If you wanted actual dialogue make a post that deserves one.

Don't mind strombad, he's just being his dooshy self, with a different name.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by 4X4

Don't mind strombad, he's just being his dooshy self, with a different name.

Same guy? Heh, well that's kinda disappointing as I thought Strom and I were getting along fairly well.

[Trumbull]

Originally Posted by Antithesis

I'm going to have to say I'm not sure what it is that I said that caused this response (assuming it's directed to me).

The prosecution WAS inept, the defense did it's job. In my opinion, there is easily more than enough physical and circumstantial evidence to support a conviction, and I (along with many others) think that a lack of understanding of DNA evidence hampered the prosecution. All are fair to say and don't indicate any lack of respect for our justice system.

It was in general, as this news piece has obviously circulated around the internet and other forums, it's pretty eye-opening to me, much like other cases like the Zimmerman trial, or Michael Jackson trials, where the public's reaction was so visceral and overreacting it provided a distraction from the actual trial at hand.

Originally Posted by 4X4

Don't mind strombad, he's just being his dooshy self, with a different name.

I have no idea what your deal is with.. whoever that is, but if you're going to be madly obsessive about other posters on a pixel message board, you should at least be sure it's who you say it is. And your disturbing PM to me was reported as well. I doubt the people who run these forums would be pleased knowing people like this are going around the forum sending new members this stuff. If someone's got in your head that much, I would either take a break or seek help.

[4X4]

Lol. Just as uppity about it as ever, eh?

[Daradon]

So getting back on track here, another interesting take that was just presented to me was that the trial took entirely too long, and that got to the jurors. They openly said that.

A case that drags is far more likely to help the defense more than the prosecution. Couple reasons for that. One, it's natural for jurors to feel they are there for the prosecution, for the system, so if it's dragging, that's where the anger is going to go. Two and even more importantly, the jurors are there till there is consensus. If they understand that there are differences of opinion, and everyone wants to go home, it's far easier on the conscience to swing from a guilty to non-guilty vote, than the other way around.

[Trumbull]

Originally Posted by Daradon

So getting back on track here, another interesting take that was just presented to me was that the trial took entirely too long, and that got to the jurors. They openly said that.

A case that drags is far more likely to help the defense more than the prosecution. Couple reasons for that. One, it's natural for jurors to feel they are there for the prosecution, for the system, so if it's dragging, that's where the anger is going to go. Two and even more importantly, the jurors are there till there is consensus. If they understand that there are differences of opinion, and everyone wants to go home, it's far easier on the conscience to swing from a guilty to non-guilty vote, than the other way around.

The US has come a long way since the days of 12 Angry Men. While I don't have much faith in the US public thanks to both how knee-jerk they are and because of this self-aggrandizing attitude the media promotes with wall to wall coverage of even a turd spec of information, juries approved by both sides of a case have been their saving grace.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Trumbull

The US has come a long way since the days of 12 Angry Men. While I don't have much faith in the US public thanks to both how knee-jerk they are and because of this self-aggrandizing attitude the media promotes with wall to wall coverage of even a turd spec of information, juries approved by both sides of a case have been their saving grace.

Oh I agree in juries approved by both sides. I agree with the system as it is. I've argued for the legal system in other threads. More so the Canadian one, cause I get a little bent out of shape when you get the 'that's the Canadian justice system for you!' drive-bys by people who are generally arguing for tougher and longer sentencing.

But it doesn't mean that we can't look at a specific case and analyze the mistakes and culture around it. That's how you improve anything. It's also interesting to look at something after a lengthy period of time with a new lens.

And yeah, the media is a big mess for the exact reason you mentioned. Having to figure out how to fill 24 hour news channels. The model just encourages way to much speculation, shoddy journalism, and movement with few facts.

[4X4]

Originally Posted by Trumbull

And your disturbing PM to me was reported as well.

Ha! Disturbing? Post it for all to see...

[Trumbull]

Originally Posted by 4X4

Ha! Disturbing? Post it for all to see...

With such a genius idea, why didn't you?

I wonder how many other new members this poster has greeted with PM's accusing them of being someone else and then following them into a topic they're posting in to call them "dooshy" and do nothing but flame bait.

tl;dr -> Seek help, fellow poster.

[MissTeeks]

They had one of the jurors on Dateline last week. He talked about how the DNA talk did get boring and how they all just wanted to go home. It was an 8 month trial and they only deliberated 4 hours before they reached a verdict.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by Trumbull

With such a genius idea, why didn't you?

I wonder how many other new members this poster has greeted with PM's accusing them of being someone else and then following them into a topic they're posting in to call them "dooshy" and do nothing but flame bait.

tl;dr -> Seek help, fellow poster.

When the person behind the user account has a proven history of trolling, I imagine it would be a constant thing to expect.

[squiggs96]

Originally Posted by Trumbull

With such a genius idea, why didn't you?

I wonder how many other new members this poster has greeted with PM's accusing them of being someone else and then following them into a topic they're posting in to call them "dooshy" and do nothing but flame bait.

tl;dr -> Seek help, fellow poster.

Originally Posted by Trumbull

I have no idea what your deal is with.. whoever that is, but if you're going to be madly obsessive about other posters on a pixel message board, you should at least be sure it's who you say it is. And your disturbing PM to me was reported as well. I doubt the people who run these forums would be pleased knowing people like this are going around the forum sending new members this stuff. If someone's got in your head that much, I would either take a break or seek help.

Pattern seems similar, even down to the TLDR.

Originally Posted by strombad

I'm going to rant, just for a second:
I'm not a returning poster. I get the self proclaimed sleuths around here have this dire need to label anyone who comes out guns blazing as a returning poster, but you know what? It's REALLY not hard to just jump in with both feet as a new poster. If anything, all it leads to is infractions and miscommunications. I've had my share of both. I've talked trash to some of the more respectable posters here and been shamed for it, which is totally fine, because I simply did not know. I'm fine with taking lumps, but this whole "returning poster" narrative is kind of ridiculous. It's fine if you think that, but constantly having to mention things like "oh you outed yourself!" and "oh yeah well you're a returning poster so your opinion is blegh" is just childish and tired.

Trust me, if I get banned (and that's entirely possible, I know I go too far sometimes) I will be more than happy to leave sneaky clues about the fact that I was once strombad. However, this remains the very first account I've posted with on CP. I enjoy posting on CP, so I do it quite a bit. Posting at a high rate and with a bit of sandpaper once in a while doesn't automatically mean someone was here before.

To believe that every new poster that goes in heavy is a returning poster shows a complete disregard for the popularity of this site. This isn't a mom-and-pop site where the membership is small and it's a tight community, it's pretty f'n big. New people will come and go. You'll like some, and you won't like others. Just because someone comes in and walks the line of good taste doesn't mean they've been banned before. If anything, you'd think someone who had been banned would LEARN.

I'm cool with the returning poster garbage once in a while for brand new people. Make your guesses, let it go. But it's been like 6 months. Get over it already.

TLDR: The "returning poster" narrative that some people lean on RGMG. Get over it, ya bunch of wannabe Sherlocks.

Originally Posted by strombad

You'd probably be able to find quite a few people who would argue my level of twattage has been all over the place since I got here. I've even done my best to turn it down a notch! Maybe just get over it?

[Trumbull]

Originally Posted by squiggs96

Pattern seems similar, even down to the TLDR.

Ahh, so that person's posts made me understand:

If you join a forum, have opinions, and have ever so slightly the same posting style (besides a semi-similar usage of tl;dr and proper punctuation/spelling, I don't see the connection), you must be a returning poster [insert veteran poster] has some mad obsession with.

I've got an easy solution then, rather than run through some gauntlet to appease some people with problems I don't have the care to fix, I'll just start tossing people on ignore and solve that problem as fast as it begins. Thanks for the heads up.

[4X4]

Ok, Trumbull.

What a perfect thread to bust you in. Not ironic at all. (No, really, it's not at all ironic, Alanis)

Sorry for the derailment.

[Dion]

20 Years Later: Law Professor Looks Back At O.J. Murder Trial

IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law Professor Douglas Godfrey, a former New York prosecutor, said case-breaking mistakes were made long before the case made it to the courtroom. In fact, he said they began from almost the moment Los Angeles Police rolled up on the scene.

“The location where Ron and Nicole were murdered was contaminated from the beginning,” he said. “Police were walking through it. A police officer actually brought a blanket out from the house to cover the bodies.”

Simpson had been in his ex-wife’s home to visit his children.

“If you wanted to explain how Simpson’s hair was at the murder scene, you could say it was on the blanket,” he said.

He said an LAPD detective who drew Simpson’s blood samples kept them in his pocket and returned to the crime scene still carrying the samples, which gave the defense the ability to argue that Simpson was framed.

Godfrey said that it was one of the rare cases where the defendant could spend as much, if not more, than the prosecution.

He said good lawyering can win cases, and bad lawyering can lose them. He said the shrewdness of Simpson’s legal team was mirrored at many points by the ineptness of the prosecution.

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2014/06/...-murder-trial/

[ernie]

Originally Posted by CedarMeter

I read the book too I'm still confused on who this Charlie person was. He (Charlie) was with him at the scene of the crime. Who was he?

Haven't read the book but I'm guessing that Charlie is a fictional character that is the personification of all the thoughts/emotions swirling through his head o the part of his mind that is trying to get him to stop. At least the articles I've seen dscussing the book make it seem like that is the case. It also, of course, allows him to confess (a need for many killers) by potentially pinning the blame on "Charlie" (i.e. the book is I have no idea what happened, I sort of coame out of a blackout and people were dead. I could have done it I suppose but maybe it was Charlie!). It allows him to disconnect from the act itself.

[FlamesAddiction]

Yeah, like many people, I think he did it, or at least played a roll in it.

But the way the case was handled, from missing evidence, crime scene contaminations and police with questionable character; there was a shred of reasonable doubt at the time.

Originally Posted by Dion

20 Years Later: Law Professor Looks Back At O.J. Murder Trial





http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2014/06/...-murder-trial/

It's funny to read the parts about scene contamination. I watched a few 20th anniversary specials and the one thing that struck me was images the video footage of the scene after police arrived.

It seemed to me there were reporters, with cameras, so close to the scene that I wondered how the police were handling it.

Today, that entire street would be shut down.

[Kjesse]

I have no idea how you all follow this, but you are saying that Trumbull is the game guy who called LA the best match up for the Canucks a couple years back, as a Canucks fan? Wow why do I remember that?

Or am Imreading too much into the signature, he's only Strombad?