Outrage

  • 37 Replies
  • 6925 Views
*

Saddam Hussein

  • Official Member
  • 35374
  • Former President of Iraq
Outrage
« on: September 15, 2010, 10:24:11 AM »
I am currently reading a book, Outrage: The Five Reasons Why O.J. Simpson Got Away With Murder by Vincent Bugliosi, the man best known for prosecuting Charlie Manson.  It's a pretty old book, but as many people were too young to remember the O.J. Simpson trial, I recommend it to anyone who is curious about that case.

As a quick review from me, the point of this book is not to make the case that O.J. was guilty.  Of course he was guilty.  Rather, Bugliosi points out exactly how the obviously unjust verdict came to be.  He allocates the blame among almost everyone involved in the trial, not just the jury, who, although they certainly made a ridiculous decision, did not acquit O.J. just because most of them were black and they didn't like the LAPD.

The judge is criticized as being biased towards the defense, particularly because of his decision to allow the defense to cross-examine Mark Fuhrman on the subject of race, such as asking him if he had ever used the word "nigger", which of course turned the entire case into a racial issue.  Bugliosi also accuses the prosecutors of being poorly prepared, and not introducing key pieces of evidence, such as the long, rambling tape of O.J. talking about how he cut his finger, and the circumstances of O.J.'s flight in the white Bronco (there was money, a passport, a change of clothes, and a disguise kit).

It's not perfect; sometimes Bugliosi just gets pissed and starts ranting at no one in particular, and comes off as a little arrogant when he talks about how much of a better job he would have done if he had been prosecuting the case.  Still, though, it's a fascinating read and a dark recounting of one of the worst miscarriages of justice in American trial history.

*

Saddam Hussein

  • Official Member
  • 35374
  • Former President of Iraq
Re: Outrage
« Reply #1 on: September 15, 2010, 03:26:02 PM »
Someone respond, dammit!

*

EnglshGentleman

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 9548
Re: Outrage
« Reply #2 on: September 15, 2010, 03:38:02 PM »
tl;dr

Re: Outrage
« Reply #3 on: September 15, 2010, 03:46:55 PM »
If the cops were racist then they should be exposed like anyone else. I do think that o.j. did it but the cops were racist.

*

Wendy

  • 18492
  • I laugh cus you fake
Re: Outrage
« Reply #4 on: September 15, 2010, 06:04:05 PM »
Johnson, shut the fuck up. I seriously hope you resist arrest on a bad day. Saddam: It does sound like an interesting read. I obviously don't know much about the O.J. Simpson trial, being not only a foreigner but a rather young one. Of course, with all the mentions the case is still getting in the media today, it must have been very significant, and the book sounds like a good way to catch up on it all.
Here's an explanation for ya. Lurk moar. Every single point you brought up has been posted, reposted, debated and debunked. There is a search function on this forum, and it is very easy to use.

*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 9074
  • Resident atheist.
Re: Outrage
« Reply #5 on: September 15, 2010, 06:21:32 PM »
I obviously don't know much about the O.J. Simpson trial, being not only a foreigner but a rather young one.
After a long history of household violence, he butchered some people,
lied about what clothing he owned at the trial,
tried to flee in a less interesting highway pursuit later on
     (while sobbing over a phone something to the effect of 'I'm the only one who deserves to get hurt' -- I'd call that an admission),

and he was able to defend himself under the pretense that he was framed by the police because the dumb ass cops didn't stick to procedure. Improper investigations are flushed to protect citizens.

Later on, he published a book I think was called, "If I did it, here's how it happened".

I left out a lot, but I'd consider those to be the highlights.
« Last Edit: September 15, 2010, 08:33:21 PM by ﮎingulaЯiτy »
If I was asked to imagine a perfect deity, I would never invent one that suffers from a multiple personality disorder. Christians get points for originality there.

*

Benjamin Franklin

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 12993
  • The dopest founding father.
Re: Outrage
« Reply #6 on: September 15, 2010, 06:29:22 PM »
ITT: Media bias influences people to extreme degrees.

*

frostee

  • Official Member
  • 3555
  • Posts: 1337
Re: Outrage
« Reply #7 on: September 15, 2010, 07:06:05 PM »
Recently religious due to the impending rapture.

*

Johannes

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 2755
Re: Outrage
« Reply #8 on: September 15, 2010, 08:23:59 PM »
Of course he was guilty.
There are no kangaroo courts in the United States of America.

*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 9074
  • Resident atheist.
Re: Outrage
« Reply #9 on: September 15, 2010, 08:28:13 PM »
ITT: Media bias influences people to extreme degrees.
Can you dispute the factual content of anything I said? If so, I'd be happy to correct myself.
If I was asked to imagine a perfect deity, I would never invent one that suffers from a multiple personality disorder. Christians get points for originality there.

*

Saddam Hussein

  • Official Member
  • 35374
  • Former President of Iraq
Re: Outrage
« Reply #10 on: September 16, 2010, 10:22:17 AM »
Of course he was guilty.
There are no kangaroo courts in the United States of America.

???

*

SupahLovah

  • 5167
  • Santasaurus Rex!
Re: Outrage
« Reply #11 on: September 16, 2010, 11:10:15 AM »
O.J. Simpson was innocent.
"Study Gravitation; It's a field with a lot of potential!"

*

Saddam Hussein

  • Official Member
  • 35374
  • Former President of Iraq
Re: Outrage
« Reply #12 on: September 16, 2010, 12:12:33 PM »
O.J. Simpson was innocent.

Please take your obvious trolling elsewhere.

*

SupahLovah

  • 5167
  • Santasaurus Rex!
Re: Outrage
« Reply #13 on: September 16, 2010, 12:36:11 PM »
If the glove don't fit...
"Study Gravitation; It's a field with a lot of potential!"

*

Saddam Hussein

  • Official Member
  • 35374
  • Former President of Iraq
Re: Outrage
« Reply #14 on: September 16, 2010, 02:12:04 PM »
If the glove don't fit...

Actually, the book does talk about that briefly as well, namely the prosecution's incompetence in stumbling into that trap, and their failure to address it after the fact.  Same thing for Cochran's ridiculous theory of the LAPD framing O.J.  The prosecution spent very little time trying to counter that argument by explaining to the jury how far-reaching, complex, and unlikely such a conspiracy would be.

*

Johannes

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 2755
Re: Outrage
« Reply #15 on: September 16, 2010, 02:27:47 PM »
Of course he was guilty.
There are no kangaroo courts in the United States of America.

???
You seem to think OJ Simpson was guilty, despite the fact that he was found to be innocent in a court of law. The only place OJ Simpson could be found guilty would be a kangaroo court

*

Saddam Hussein

  • Official Member
  • 35374
  • Former President of Iraq
Re: Outrage
« Reply #16 on: September 16, 2010, 04:20:33 PM »
Of course he was guilty.
There are no kangaroo courts in the United States of America.

???
You seem to think OJ Simpson was guilty, despite the fact that he was found to be innocent in a court of law. The only place OJ Simpson could be found guilty would be a kangaroo court

I'm not talking about the legal jargon here.  I'm talking about the issue of whether or not O.J. Simpson murdered his ex-wife and her friend.  He definitely did, and he only escaped punishment due to the combination of an excellent defense team, an incompetent prosecution, a biased judge, and a stupid jury.  Anyone who doubts that he really did it ought to look up the case to see for themselves.

Also, the term is "not guilty", not "innocent".  That may seem like semantics, but the jury's job is not to travel back in time and see if the defendant committed the crime, it is to listen to the evidence and decide if the prosecution has proven their case beyond a reasonable doubt.  A verdict of "not guilty" is not a broad proclamation that the defendant is innocent.  After all, considering the fact that O.J. lost in civil court, it would be a pretty big contradiction if two juries were saying completely opposite things.

*

Johannes

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 2755
Re: Outrage
« Reply #17 on: September 16, 2010, 05:57:30 PM »
Of course he was guilty.
There are no kangaroo courts in the United States of America.

???
You seem to think OJ Simpson was guilty, despite the fact that he was found to be innocent in a court of law. The only place OJ Simpson could be found guilty would be a kangaroo court

I'm not talking about the legal jargon here.  I'm talking about the issue of whether or not O.J. Simpson murdered his ex-wife and her friend.  He definitely did, and he only escaped punishment due to the combination of an excellent defense team, an incompetent prosecution, a biased judge, and a stupid jury.  Anyone who doubts that he really did it ought to look up the case to see for themselves.

Also, the term is "not guilty", not "innocent".  That may seem like semantics, but the jury's job is not to travel back in time and see if the defendant committed the crime, it is to listen to the evidence and decide if the prosecution has proven their case beyond a reasonable doubt.  A verdict of "not guilty" is not a broad proclamation that the defendant is innocent.  After all, considering the fact that O.J. lost in civil court, it would be a pretty big contradiction if two juries were saying completely opposite things.
You don't believe in the presumption of innocence?

*

Wendy

  • 18492
  • I laugh cus you fake
Re: Outrage
« Reply #18 on: September 16, 2010, 06:21:37 PM »
There is a difference between presumption of innocence and not listening to hard evidence.
Here's an explanation for ya. Lurk moar. Every single point you brought up has been posted, reposted, debated and debunked. There is a search function on this forum, and it is very easy to use.

*

Johannes

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 2755
Re: Outrage
« Reply #19 on: September 16, 2010, 08:30:45 PM »
There is a difference between presumption of innocence and not listening to hard evidence.
The evidence was not enough to make OJ Simpson a criminal.

*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 9074
  • Resident atheist.
Re: Outrage
« Reply #20 on: September 16, 2010, 08:55:10 PM »
The evidence was not enough to make OJ Simpson a criminal.
Do you think juries are incapable of screwing up or something?
If I was asked to imagine a perfect deity, I would never invent one that suffers from a multiple personality disorder. Christians get points for originality there.

*

Saddam Hussein

  • Official Member
  • 35374
  • Former President of Iraq
Re: Outrage
« Reply #21 on: September 17, 2010, 06:37:01 AM »
You don't believe in the presumption of innocence?

What are you talking about?  Let me make this very clear for you.  I am not talking about legality here.  I am talking about the facts.  What happened in a courtroom several months after the fact has no bearing on whether or not he actually did the deed.

*

Wendy

  • 18492
  • I laugh cus you fake
Re: Outrage
« Reply #22 on: September 17, 2010, 06:44:08 AM »
ITT: Johannes + trollbait.
Here's an explanation for ya. Lurk moar. Every single point you brought up has been posted, reposted, debated and debunked. There is a search function on this forum, and it is very easy to use.

*

Johannes

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 2755
Re: Outrage
« Reply #23 on: September 17, 2010, 11:01:00 AM »
You don't believe in the presumption of innocence?

What are you talking about?  Let me make this very clear for you.  I am not talking about legality here.  I am talking about the facts.  What happened in a courtroom several months after the fact has no bearing on whether or not he actually did the deed.
So you are one of those people who thinks an indicted person is guilty before the trial even starts???

*

Trekky0623

  • Official Member
  • 10061
Re: Outrage
« Reply #24 on: September 17, 2010, 12:10:19 PM »
I think he's saying that if he were on a jury for OJ Simpson, he would vote guilty given the same evidence presented to the original jury.

*

Saddam Hussein

  • Official Member
  • 35374
  • Former President of Iraq
Re: Outrage
« Reply #25 on: September 17, 2010, 12:26:56 PM »
You don't believe in the presumption of innocence?

What are you talking about?  Let me make this very clear for you.  I am not talking about legality here.  I am talking about the facts.  What happened in a courtroom several months after the fact has no bearing on whether or not he actually did the deed.
So you are one of those people who thinks an indicted person is guilty before the trial even starts???

The fuck?  That's not what I said at all.  Stop being a shitty troll.

Re: Outrage
« Reply #26 on: September 18, 2010, 09:19:47 PM »
I'm not trying to troll. I do think o.j. did it, but he has the right to a fair trial. Defendants have the right to question their accusers. Why shouldn't they be allowed to call them on it? If I was black and I thought that cops were framing me because they were racist I would want to put it out there.

*

Trekky0623

  • Official Member
  • 10061
Re: Outrage
« Reply #27 on: September 18, 2010, 10:06:56 PM »
No one in this thread is saying we shouldn't have due process. However, what Saddam is saying is:
... if he were on a jury for OJ Simpson, he would vote guilty given the same evidence presented to the original jury.

*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 9074
  • Resident atheist.
Re: Outrage
« Reply #28 on: September 18, 2010, 10:47:03 PM »
Last I checked, 75% of American's would have voted guilty given the chance.
If I was asked to imagine a perfect deity, I would never invent one that suffers from a multiple personality disorder. Christians get points for originality there.

*

Saddam Hussein

  • Official Member
  • 35374
  • Former President of Iraq
Re: Outrage
« Reply #29 on: September 19, 2010, 08:20:50 AM »
I'm not trying to troll. I do think o.j. did it, but he has the right to a fair trial. Defendants have the right to question their accusers. Why shouldn't they be allowed to call them on it? If I was black and I thought that cops were framing me because they were racist I would want to put it out there.

Our judicial system recognizes that juries are made up of ordinary people, and as people are not infallible, very strict rules govern what can or cannot be said to them.  In this case, the issue of racism was an extremely divisive and prejudicial topic, so the defense should not have been allowed to bring it up unless they had actually had direct evidence that the police were framing O.J. because of his race.  They did not.  Mark Fuhrman and several of the LAPD were racist, yes, but did that prove that they were framing O.J.?  The police's racism was essentially irrelevant, and the judge should have known better than to allow it in court.

In Los Angeles fifteen years ago, race was an extremely sensitive issue.  The moment the word "nigger" was mentioned, the case was transformed from murder to an issue of race.  The jury forgot all about the two dead victims, the DNA evidence, the fact that O.J. had already tried to run, etc.  Instead, their minds were filled with images of Rodney King, To Kill a Mockingbird, and every other famous racial case.  And worst of all, even after the judge allowed race to become an issue, the prosecution made almost no effort to try and counter the claims of racism.  They could have argued that such a conspiracy would be impossible to maintain.  They could have argued that O.J., living in Brentwood, one of the richest and most successful parts of LA, had more in common with the average white man than the average black man.  But they didn't.
« Last Edit: February 14, 2011, 08:54:55 AM by Saddam Hussein »