If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Daily Mail)   Fred Goldman says that OJ's lawyer Robert Kardashian had evidence that would have easily convicted OJ of the murders of Goldman's son and Nicole Brown   (dailymail.co.uk) divider line 136
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

12386 clicks; posted to Main » on 10 Jun 2014 at 9:09 AM (28 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



136 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-06-10 08:16:09 AM  
Defense attorneys are required to turn over any evidence in their possession to the prosecution for testing. Not doing so is a charge of obstruction.
 
2014-06-10 08:21:57 AM  
Goldman believes Simpson was raped by a fellow prisoner

Wow he's got all kinds of killer inside info.  Way to find a great source of knowledge, daily fail!
 
2014-06-10 08:22:57 AM  
The prosecutors had enough evidence to easily convict OJ, but they botched it all to Hell and back.
 
2014-06-10 09:11:56 AM  

ArkAngel: Defense attorneys are required to turn over any evidence in their possession to the prosecution for testing. Not doing so is a charge of obstruction.


not sure if serious, but you have it backwards.  It's the prosecution that has to turn over any evidence to the defense
 
2014-06-10 09:12:43 AM  
3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2014-06-10 09:14:55 AM  

nekom: Goldman believes Simpson was raped by a fellow prisoner


www.famouspictures.org
 
2014-06-10 09:17:12 AM  
I just hope his time in prison has helped in his search for the real killers.
 
2014-06-10 09:19:23 AM  
He seems to be descending into madness before our very eyes.

 

ArkAngel: Defense attorneys are required to turn over any evidence in their possession to the prosecution for testing. Not doing so is a charge of obstruction.


Negative. Burden of proof is always on the prosecution.  If they miss something in their investigation that is on them.
 
2014-06-10 09:19:53 AM  
OJ was guilty?! Getthefarkouttahere.
 
2014-06-10 09:20:27 AM  
Shame the LAPD had to try to frame a guilty man.
 
2014-06-10 09:21:44 AM  
Does he have evidence of this evidence?
 
2014-06-10 09:22:00 AM  

dragyne: He seems to be descending into madness before our very eyes.


Look at that fruity mustache. He was never playing with a full deck.
 
2014-06-10 09:22:32 AM  
Of course, NOW is the time to bring this to light.

I think it's pretty well consiered now that everyone knows OJ was guilty.  But there was no way for the prosecution to make their case "beyond reasonable doubt".  The one attorney that walked off the case before it was decided actually said with no other explanation, "sometimes it's necessary to let a guilty man go free so that an innocent man doesn't go to jail."

And, unfortunate as it turned out in this case, I'd have to agree with him.

OJ won that case because the prosecution messed things up.  So badly to a point that they couldn't prove their case.  That's pretty much it.
 
2014-06-10 09:23:50 AM  
i.dailymail.co.uk

I don't think anyone was as surprised at the verdict more than Kardashian.
 
2014-06-10 09:24:44 AM  
didn't this happen in 1995? Who gives a fark
 
2014-06-10 09:25:22 AM  
I just clicked on the link.F Lee Bailey is still alive? I thought he died about 10 years ago.
 
2014-06-10 09:26:08 AM  

ArkAngel: Defense attorneys are required to turn over any evidence in their possession to the prosecution for testing. Not doing so is a charge of obstruction.


Unless it rises to the level of destruction of evidence, nope.
 
2014-06-10 09:26:09 AM  

This text is now purple: Shame the LAPD had to try to frame a guilty man.


They were looking for a change of pace.
 
2014-06-10 09:26:11 AM  
Kardashian was a big ass?
 
2014-06-10 09:28:32 AM  
How wrong is it that when I saw the pic of the small kardouchians, I wished that they could have died in childhood.

/actually, I prefer the window seat.
 
2014-06-10 09:28:32 AM  
They did have evidence to convict OJ, but what allowed the defense to poke holes in the case and cast doubt was the evidence relating to OJ's accomplice, such as the glove, along with the sleaziness of the LAPD.  Plus the prosecutor's Jheri curl was weird.
 
2014-06-10 09:28:51 AM  

dryknife: Kardashian was a big ass?


www.chinola.net
/what a Kardashian ass might look like.
 
2014-06-10 09:29:26 AM  
If the cake is a lie, he must not fry.
 
2014-06-10 09:29:45 AM  
Ron looked like a total douchebag.
 
2014-06-10 09:31:57 AM  

drivingsouth: [i.dailymail.co.uk image 468x306]

I don't think anyone was as surprised at the verdict more than Kardashian.


That's exactly how I remember it, too. Dude looked completely aghast when the verdict was read that morning.
 
2014-06-10 09:32:08 AM  
Attorney/client privilege, biatch.

And yes. the prosecution should have had more than enough to convict.  Police were sloppy with the handling of the evidence.  The trial was mishandled by Judge Ito not to mention Marsha Clark and Christopher Darden were short yellow bus frequent riders..  Mark Fuhrman was the only person to be convicted of any charges relating to the case.
 
2014-06-10 09:32:21 AM  
Hope living as a bitter old man fascinating about prison rape is worth it, Freddie. Ain't gonna bring back your son.
 
2014-06-10 09:32:45 AM  
I think the legal stand of "reasonable doubt" needs to be revisited.  People, on the whole, are much more stupid now than they were a hundred years ago.
 
2014-06-10 09:33:39 AM  

durbnpoisn: Of course, NOW is the time to bring this to light.

I think it's pretty well consiered now that everyone knows OJ was guilty.  But there was no way for the prosecution to make their case "beyond reasonable doubt".  The one attorney that walked off the case before it was decided actually said with no other explanation, "sometimes it's necessary to let a guilty man go free so that an innocent man doesn't go to jail."

And, unfortunate as it turned out in this case, I'd have to agree with him.

OJ won that case because the prosecution messed things up.  So badly to a point that they couldn't prove their case.  That's pretty much it.


I would say the same as I would about the Zimmerman trial.  Given the facts and arguments presented during the trial, the verdict was correct, even though I don't like it.
 
2014-06-10 09:35:41 AM  

gfid: ArkAngel: Defense attorneys are required to turn over any evidence in their possession to the prosecution for testing. Not doing so is a charge of obstruction.

not sure if serious, but you have it backwards.  It's the prosecution that has to turn over any evidence to the defense


If the prosecution ask for evidence then the defense is obligated to turn it over. Refusal to do so may be charged with obstruction of justice. Of course the prosecution has to know about it first.
 
2014-06-10 09:36:08 AM  
He sounds like a truther
 
2014-06-10 09:38:00 AM  

karmaceutical: I think the legal stand of "reasonable doubt" needs to be revisited.  People, on the whole, are much more stupid now than they were a hundred years ago.


i62.photobucket.com
Oh do tell us more Ron, your moustache is so angsty.

/mercury & lead childhood poisonings vs 100 years ago
//science biatches
 
2014-06-10 09:38:43 AM  

Mateorocks: drivingsouth: [i.dailymail.co.uk image 468x306]

I don't think anyone was as surprised at the verdict more than Kardashian.

That's exactly how I remember it, too. Dude looked completely aghast when the verdict was read that morning.


Yes.  I thought if the judge could have stopped the juror just before they said "Not Gill-Cup" and asked OJ if he wanted a plea bargain, OJ would have taken it.
 
2014-06-10 09:42:00 AM  
The investigation was handled adequately.  The proof was there, he was guilty beyond any doubt.  Any of a dozen pieces of evidence alone should have convicted him.  Fuhrman did an exemplary job, and that was his mistake.  In order to free OJ, Fuhrman had to be destroyed, because the evidence he had found was irrefutable.  So a good officer had his career destroyed to save a murderer.
 
2014-06-10 09:42:21 AM  
20 years later... and OJ is doing a very long stretch for some minor thing... why do we care again?
 
2014-06-10 09:45:19 AM  

Nabb1: The prosecutors had enough evidence to easily convict OJ, but they botched it all to Hell and back.


Judge Ito wasn't exactly demonstrating jurisprudence, either.  He got too starry-eyed with all of the televised coverage in the courtroom.
 
2014-06-10 09:45:55 AM  

Mateorocks: drivingsouth: [i.dailymail.co.uk image 468x306]

I don't think anyone was as surprised at the verdict more than Kardashian.

That's exactly how I remember it, too. Dude looked completely aghast when the verdict was read that morning.


He looks more shocked than this but it's the best still I could find. Only the video does it justice (no pun intended).

www.cnn.com

So if OJ hadn't killed those people, would we not have the Kardashians foisted upon us or was it inevitable?
 
2014-06-10 09:46:12 AM  

fireclown: dryknife: Kardashian was a big ass?

[www.chinola.net image 850x740]
/what a Kardashian ass might look like.


I bet she rips farts like a long haul trucker.
 
2014-06-10 09:46:26 AM  
Not likely.  Could have shown that jury a video of OJ smiling and waving at the camera as he was killing Nicole and Goldman and that group still would have acquitted him.
 
2014-06-10 09:46:43 AM  

fireclown: dryknife: Kardashian was a big ass?

[www.chinola.net image 850x740]
/what a Kardashian ass might look like.


img1.wikia.nocookie.net

/what a Cardassian lawyer might look like
 
2014-06-10 09:47:44 AM  

Repack Rider: The investigation was handled adequately.  The proof was there, he was guilty beyond any doubt.  Any of a dozen pieces of evidence alone should have convicted him.  Fuhrman did an exemplary job, and that was his mistake.  In order to free OJ, Fuhrman had to be destroyed, because the evidence he had found was irrefutable.  So a good officer had his career destroyed to save a murderer.


*Laughs for other reasons*
 
2014-06-10 09:54:38 AM  
I don't see what difference more evidence would have made. The verdict was a result of jury nullification and incompetent prosecution. The jury wanted to find OJ not guilty and the blunders the prosecution made gave them an out.
 
2014-06-10 09:55:49 AM  
Kardashian was going to have OJ plead guilty.  But then Johnny Cochran came on and persuaded them that they might beat it.
 
2014-06-10 09:57:36 AM  
Makes sense why "the killer" hired him.
 
2014-06-10 09:59:40 AM  

Fat Man Of La Mancha: gfid: ArkAngel: Defense attorneys are required to turn over any evidence in their possession to the prosecution for testing. Not doing so is a charge of obstruction.

not sure if serious, but you have it backwards.  It's the prosecution that has to turn over any evidence to the defense

If the prosecution ask for evidence then the defense is obligated to turn it over. Refusal to do so may be charged with obstruction of justice. Of course the prosecution has to know about it first.


I don't think it works that way.

"Hey, defense attorney, has your client said where he was on the night of the murder?"
"Why don't you go eat your own ass?"
 
2014-06-10 10:04:40 AM  

RminusQ: Fat Man Of La Mancha: gfid: ArkAngel: Defense attorneys are required to turn over any evidence in their possession to the prosecution for testing. Not doing so is a charge of obstruction.

not sure if serious, but you have it backwards.  It's the prosecution that has to turn over any evidence to the defense

If the prosecution ask for evidence then the defense is obligated to turn it over. Refusal to do so may be charged with obstruction of justice. Of course the prosecution has to know about it first.

I don't think it works that way.

"Hey, defense attorney, has your client said where he was on the night of the murder?"
"Why don't you go eat your own ass?"


That would fall under the fifth amendment. The defense has to turn over bloody glove evidence, it is not required to force the defendant to tell the truth.
 
2014-06-10 10:07:51 AM  
I though OJ was imprisoned for not killing Fred Goldman.
 
2014-06-10 10:16:42 AM  
OJ is guilty, no doubt about it
But I think goldman should console himself with the wreckage that is oj
and hound him into his early grave

the law wasn't capable of helping, but karma seems to have it covered
 
2014-06-10 10:20:03 AM  
Just me but, I always thought that O J was found innocent only because a few years earlier a jury in the Rodney King case let some white cop off the hook which resulted in the six day long LA riots ( 50+ dead, 2300+ injured and a billion dollars in property damages)
The jury was afraid of another riot, and personal safety, and decided finding OJ not guilty was the easy way out.
I do remember that the LAPD at the time had a really bad relationship with the black community.
/ just my feeling at the time.
 
2014-06-10 10:23:22 AM  
The BBC had a documentary about OJ's son being the murderer. They also blamed the killings on a very prolific serial killer active at the time.

The son almost makes sense as he would have been covered for by his father. Maybe a deal was worked out during the slow chase.

Nah....OJ killed them.
 
Displayed 50 of 136 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report