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  
•       •       •

12384 clicks; posted to Main » on 10 Jun 2014 at 9:09 AM (23 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



136 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
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.
 
2014-06-10 10:25:03 AM  
"I'm not sayin' that OJ should have killed Nichole, but I understand."
 
2014-06-10 10:29:24 AM  
OJ later wrote a book called something like "IF I did it". I'm pretty sure it was pulled out of circulation but I did find an internet copy of it and read it. If you can locate it, it's totally worth reading. In short, it seems to be nothing short of a confession.
 
2014-06-10 10:33:17 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.


Being tape recorded saying the N-word and then lying about it on the stand is your definition of a good police officer?  As the current owner of the Clippers has also found out, being recorded on tape being a racist douche bag is never a good idea.

Now, admittedly, maybe such testimony shouldn't have been allowed in the first place, with the blame lying on the judge and prosecution here.

The defense did their job-getting their client off.  The prosecution didn't.
 
2014-06-10 10:35:11 AM  

JackieRabbit: "I'm not sayin' that OJ should have killed Nichole, but I understand."


You do? Because that would make you a really farked-up person.

/I know, it's a "joke."
//Worst joke ever. Fark you, Chris Rock.
 
2014-06-10 10:35:40 AM  

cig-mkr: 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.


And the people most hit by these riots? Poor blacks, Hispanics, and Korean shop owners. Congrats on sticking it to the man
 
2014-06-10 10:36:24 AM  

Hiro-ACiD: 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.


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

/mercury & lead childhood poisonings vs 100 years ago
//science biatches


jIt isn't that people are stupider today. It is more complex than that. People ARE smarter in anlot of ways, but often not as smart as they think they are because the "knowledge" came from the TV shows and movies they watched and took as gospel no matter how much Hollywood bullshiat was mixed in. Also many of them confuse the burden of proof requirements as "beyond a shadow of a doubt" instead of "beyond a REASONABLE doubt" which are two different things.
 
2014-06-10 10:36:26 AM  

cig-mkr: The jury was afraid of another riot, and personal safety, and decided finding OJ not guilty was the easy way out.


Nah, some members of the jury were just stupid.  There was evidence that the blood samples matched OJ's DNA.  One jury member post-verdict said "Lots of people have the same blood type", indicating a complete misunderstanding of DNA matching.
 
2014-06-10 10:38:20 AM  

cryinoutloud: JackieRabbit: "I'm not sayin' that OJ should have killed Nichole, but I understand."

You do? Because that would make you a really farked-up person.

/I know, it's a "joke."
//Worst joke ever. Fark you, Chris Rock.


I'm sure there are worse jokes out there, but it was pretty lame. I can understand the mental processes that might lead to such an act, but I certainly don't "get it".
 
2014-06-10 10:42:52 AM  

fireclown: dryknife: Kardashian was a big ass?

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


That's a balcony you could recite Shakespeare off of. - Porgy Tirebiter Rand Paul
 
2014-06-10 10:44:22 AM  

Brick-House: 20 years later... and OJ is doing a very long stretch for some minor thing... why do we care again?


Stretching a minor?
fl1.findlaw.com
 
2014-06-10 10:47:12 AM  
Robert Kardashian, OJ Simpson's trusted confidant and member of his "Dream Team" of lawyers, carried away evidence in a suitcase from the former footballer's home the night his ex-wife Nicole Brown-Simpson and her friend Ron Goldman were viciously stabbed to death - and took the secret of where it is to his grave.

 Well, that's awfully convenient.

cig-mkr: 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.


Regardless of what the jury felt, the LAPD dropped the ball by turning the crime scene and the Bronco into sideshows. DNA evidence is worthless when you don't control the scene and anyone could have planted it there, regardless of if they ACTUALLY planted it there. I would say that if there was any doubt, the jury would err on the side of caution...
 
2014-06-10 10:47:57 AM  

dragyne: 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.


Correct, but the defense can't hide, move, tamper with, or in any other way assist with the concealment of the evidence.
 
2014-06-10 10:48:17 AM  

syrynxx: Nah, some members of the jury were just stupid.  There was evidence that the blood samples matched OJ's DNA.  One jury member post-verdict said "Lots of people have the same blood type", indicating a complete misunderstanding of DNA matching.


Then the prosecution should have explained it better.
 
KIA
2014-06-10 10:48:40 AM  
A lot of evidence was excluded from the criminal trial that came in during the civil trial. Examples: OJ had a long straight cut on the back if his left hand when police caught him. They didn't document it but later said it looked like a knife cut. OJ said he knocked over a glass in the bathroom and cut himself cleaning it up. How does one cut oneself on the back if knees hand picking up broken glass?

The Bruno Malia shoes which OJ denied ever wearing were finally found in a photo which showed OJ wearing the exact pair that matched all of the footprints.

Blood on the Explorer in several places, blood in the shower drain, there was a ton of stuff. Read "Triumph of Justice" bu Daniel Petrocelli, one if the civil case attorneys. It's fascinating.
 
KIA
2014-06-10 10:51:56 AM  
Ugh. Stupid auto correct, sorry.
 
2014-06-10 10:52:04 AM  

Jiro Dreams Of McRibs: 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.


Of COURSE he didn't do it. He was innocent, the jury said so. And he vowed he would find the real killer. He worked very hard doing that, searching many of the most prestigious golf courses in the world. And when THAT failed he intentionally got himself arrested so he could look in prison where there are LOTS of killers. In short, Ron... LEAVE O. J. ALONE!!!!! :'(
 
2014-06-10 10:52:09 AM  

vudukungfu: 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.


img.fark.net

You don't say....
 
2014-06-10 10:53:56 AM  

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

, but none of that mattered and neither would have any other evidence presented, no matter how incriminating, because this verdict was revenge for the Rodney King verdict.

FTFY
 
2014-06-10 10:55:43 AM  
Did the OBVIOUS tag not fit?
 
2014-06-10 10:55:53 AM  
Alright, CSB, but I heard this story during a break in a deposition I was in with an attorney who worked with Cochran, but apparently the whole trying-on-the-glove disaster was because F. Lee Bailey goaded Christopher Darden into it. The defense team had discussed the issue of the gloves and Cochran said there was no way Darden was dumb enough to have OJ put the gloves on because there was too much risk that they might not fit after months in the evidence room. Bailey actually bet Cochran he could make Darden do it. On their way to court that morning, outside the elevator, Bailey asks Darden (knowing the gloves will be introduced in evidence that day) if he is going to get OJ to try them on, and Darden says most likely not, and F. Lee Bailey said to him, "Yeah, Johnny thought you would, but I told him you didn't have the balls God gave a titmouse to pull something like that." And we all know what happened that day.
 
2014-06-10 10:56:33 AM  
And we have OJ to thank for the fact that we now have the KardASSSSSSSSSSians splattered across our TV's...
 
2014-06-10 10:57:00 AM  

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

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


Everytime I see a Kardashian I wonder how a father THAT ugly could have a hand in producing non-ugly children.  I also think its because of O.J. that we had the Kardashians heaped upon us.
 
2014-06-10 10:57:26 AM  

Mugato: 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 image 258x240]

So if OJ hadn't killed those people, would we not have the Kardashians foisted upon us or was it inevitable?


Not sure, but I lean toward the former. Vanity Fair had an interesting article about how OJ begat the Kardashians, Real Housewives and the Hills. For that reason alone, he should have been executed.
 
2014-06-10 11:01:14 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.


goldman isn't claiming some evidence just fell in kardashian's lap unknowingly or accidentally.

goldman is claiming kardashian intentionally tampered.
 
2014-06-10 11:16:37 AM  
OJ is responsible for at least one of the Kardashians, i'm pretty sure the one with the enormous chin is actually his kid.
 
2014-06-10 11:16:40 AM  

WhyKnot: dragyne: 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.

Correct, but the defense can't hide, move, tamper with, or in any other way assist with the concealment of the evidence.


Exactly- if a defense attorney comes into possession of physical evidence they have to turn it over and almost always will have to withdraw as counsel because of a conflict of interest and the attorney witness rule.  If they know of the whereabouts of evidence, they have to maintain attorney client privilege if they learned about it through their client and keep silent.  If they learn about it through a third party they have to keep silent as well but can not advise anyone to destroy, alter or otherwise tamper with it.
 
2014-06-10 11:16:50 AM  

bluorangefyre: Everytime I see a Kardashian I wonder how a father THAT ugly could have a hand in producing non-ugly children


Hmmmm, maybe you need better glasses? I mean, I think those girls are just as ugly as the dad (and fat, too).
 
2014-06-10 11:17:42 AM  

Nabb1: Alright, CSB, but I heard this story during a break in a deposition I was in with an attorney who worked with Cochran, but apparently the whole trying-on-the-glove disaster was because F. Lee Bailey goaded Christopher Darden into it. The defense team had discussed the issue of the gloves and Cochran said there was no way Darden was dumb enough to have OJ put the gloves on because there was too much risk that they might not fit after months in the evidence room. Bailey actually bet Cochran he could make Darden do it. On their way to court that morning, outside the elevator, Bailey asks Darden (knowing the gloves will be introduced in evidence that day) if he is going to get OJ to try them on, and Darden says most likely not, and F. Lee Bailey said to him, "Yeah, Johnny thought you would, but I told him you didn't have the balls God gave a titmouse to pull something like that." And we all know what happened that day.



"Alright now, just leave me the hell out of this!"

birds.audubon.org
 
2014-06-10 11:20:55 AM  

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


In the LAPD's defense, they frame everyone.
 
2014-06-10 11:24:20 AM  

SlothB77: 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.

goldman isn't claiming some evidence just fell in kardashian's lap unknowingly or accidentally.

goldman is claiming kardashian intentionally tampered.


I'm curious how Mr. Goldman comes to the conclusion that Kardashian concealed evidence of a crime that had not been committed yet.  Unless he had OJ's to do list for the next day with "kill ex and Ron Goldman" on it, I think that a justifiably angry and bitter father of a murdered son is just striking out in anger and nothing more.  I think that anger and understandable irrationality comes through the rest of his claims about the prosecution, the LAPD and most definitely through his complaints about the change of venue and Judge Ito.
 
2014-06-10 11:29:32 AM  

Nabb1: Alright, CSB, but I heard this story during a break in a deposition I was in with an attorney who worked with Cochran, but apparently the whole trying-on-the-glove disaster was because F. Lee Bailey goaded Christopher Darden into it. The defense team had discussed the issue of the gloves and Cochran said there was no way Darden was dumb enough to have OJ put the gloves on because there was too much risk that they might not fit after months in the evidence room. Bailey actually bet Cochran he could make Darden do it. On their way to court that morning, outside the elevator, Bailey asks Darden (knowing the gloves will be introduced in evidence that day) if he is going to get OJ to try them on, and Darden says most likely not, and F. Lee Bailey said to him, "Yeah, Johnny thought you would, but I told him you didn't have the balls God gave a titmouse to pull something like that." And we all know what happened that day.


That's just like the Seinfeld episode.
 
2014-06-10 11:32:02 AM  

NotoriousW.O.P: Not sure, but I lean toward the former. Vanity Fair had an interesting article about how OJ begat the Kardashians, Real Housewives and the Hills. For that reason alone, he should have been executed.


Yeah, now I'm really pissed he killed those people.
 
2014-06-10 11:35:45 AM  
I really couldn't beleive the way they went after Mark Fuhrman, just for slipping up and using A Word That Must Not Be Said.
 
2014-06-10 11:36:22 AM  

ArkAngel: cig-mkr: 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.

And the people most hit by these riots? Poor blacks, Hispanics, and

Korean shop owners. Congrats on sticking it to the man

Actually the Korean shop owners took up arms, shotguns and rifles, and went to the rooftops to protect their stores when the police pulled out of Koreatown.
 
2014-06-10 11:40:57 AM  
I still have a lurking suspicion that it was the limo driver, and OJ was just an angry idiot who did all the wrong things when he found the bodies.

I know this seems irrational, but I remember watching the trial and getting a killer vibe from the limo driver.

Either way, I'd still trade OJ for the entire Kardashian clan. I think he has done less evil than they have, even if he is a murderer.
 
2014-06-10 11:41:30 AM  
i111.photobucket.com
 
2014-06-10 11:44:37 AM  

fireclown: dryknife: Kardashian was a big ass?

[www.chinola.net image 850x740]
/what a Kardashian ass might look like with a ton of plastic surgery.

youthleaderstash.com
 
905
2014-06-10 11:53:28 AM  
cig-mkr: The jury was afraid of another riot, and personal safety, and decided finding OJ not guilty was the easy way out.

Nah, some members of the jury were just stupid.  There was evidence that the blood samples matched OJ's DNA.  One jury member post-verdict said "Lots of people have the same blood type", indicating a complete misunderstanding of DNA matching.


Twenty years ago, DNA matching was still considered "medical sorcery" in the eyes of the general public.  They could grasp the idea of blood type matching and fingerprint matching, but as a forensic science, I think DNA "fingerprinting" had only been around since the mid '80's and not very much in the public eye as it is today.
 
2014-06-10 11:56:08 AM  

drivingsouth: I just clicked on the link.F Lee Bailey is still alive? I thought he died about 10 years ago.


Shhh. Nobody told him. A zombie F Lee Bailey is a better lawyer than most entire law firms.
 
2014-06-10 11:56:11 AM  

syrynxx: cig-mkr: The jury was afraid of another riot, and personal safety, and decided finding OJ not guilty was the easy way out.

Nah, some members of the jury were just stupid.  There was evidence that the blood samples matched OJ's DNA.  One jury member post-verdict said "Lots of people have the same blood type", indicating a complete misunderstanding of DNA matching.


Or an inability of the prosecution to explain DNA matching to someone with an education track that may have stopped in the 6th grade.
 
2014-06-10 12:04:59 PM  

Geotpf: 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.

Being tape recorded saying the N-word and then lying about it on the stand is your definition of a good police officer?  As the current owner of the Clippers has also found out, being recorded on tape being a racist douche bag is never a good idea.

Now, admittedly, maybe such testimony shouldn't have been allowed in the first place, with the blame lying on the judge and prosecution here.

The defense did their job-getting their client off.  The prosecution didn't.


It was an interview he had almost 10 years prior. Do you remember everything you said 10 years ago?
 
2014-06-10 12:11:06 PM  

MyRandomName: Geotpf: 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.

Being tape recorded saying the N-word and then lying about it on the stand is your definition of a good police officer?  As the current owner of the Clippers has also found out, being recorded on tape being a racist douche bag is never a good idea.

Now, admittedly, maybe such testimony shouldn't have been allowed in the first place, with the blame lying on the judge and prosecution here.

The defense did their job-getting their client off.  The prosecution didn't.

It was an interview he had almost 10 years prior. Do you remember everything you said 10 years ago?


Considering the content of the interview, I'd think I would remember.

Of course, I also wouldn't have had made the statements in the interview that Fuhrman had.

As a legal matter, however, I think the judge should have excluded the tape and that whole line of questioning as not relevant to the trial at hand.
 
2014-06-10 12:13:12 PM  

JDJoeE: syrynxx: cig-mkr: The jury was afraid of another riot, and personal safety, and decided finding OJ not guilty was the easy way out.

Nah, some members of the jury were just stupid.  There was evidence that the blood samples matched OJ's DNA.  One jury member post-verdict said "Lots of people have the same blood type", indicating a complete misunderstanding of DNA matching.

Or an inability of the prosecution to explain DNA matching to someone with an education track that may have stopped in the 6th grade.


But being a juror is an honored duty in our society.  Professionals of all stripes anxiously await their notices to serve each and every year, and everybody makes sure that they clear off their schedule to serve on a jury. Businesses give full pay and benefits to those chosen for this duty. How could they have not found 12 intelligent men and women willing to serve on this most sacred trust?
 
2014-06-10 12:19:44 PM  

dpzum1: And we have OJ to thank for the fact that we now have the KardASSSSSSSSSSians splattered across our TV's...


I think that's the greater crime.
 
2014-06-10 12:22:56 PM  

pueblonative: But being a juror is an honored duty in our society.  Professionals of all stripes anxiously await their notices to serve each and every year, and everybody makes sure that they clear off their schedule to serve on a jury. Businesses give full pay and benefits to those chosen for this duty. How could they have not found 12 intelligent men and women willing to serve on this most sacred trust?


The only people who serve on juries are the ones too stupid to get out of it.
 
2014-06-10 12:27:51 PM  

Mugato: pueblonative: But being a juror is an honored duty in our society.  Professionals of all stripes anxiously await their notices to serve each and every year, and everybody makes sure that they clear off their schedule to serve on a jury. Businesses give full pay and benefits to those chosen for this duty. How could they have not found 12 intelligent men and women willing to serve on this most sacred trust?

The only people who serve on juries are the ones too stupid to get out of it.


So rewrite the sixth Amendment and be done with it.
 
2014-06-10 12:31:44 PM  

pueblonative: The only people who serve on juries are the ones too stupid to get out of it.


So rewrite the sixth Amendment and be done with it.


Nah, I doubt lawyers on either side want smart jurors.
 
2014-06-10 12:34:36 PM  

pueblonative: But being a juror is an honored duty in our society. Professionals of all stripes anxiously await their notices to serve each and every year, and everybody makes sure that they clear off their schedule to serve on a jury. Businesses give full pay and benefits to those chosen for this duty. How could they have not found 12 intelligent men and women willing to serve on this most sacred trust?


It amazes me that the only two groups of people absolutely essential to a criminal trial are the only two groups not paid to be there.
 
2014-06-10 12:35:50 PM  

Mugato: pueblonative: The only people who serve on juries are the ones too stupid to get out of it.


So rewrite the sixth Amendment and be done with it.

Nah, I doubt lawyers on either side want smart jurors.


I believe our society consists of more than just lawyers. Reform jury service to make it more worthwhile and stiffen penalties for non service or replace juries with a three judge system with one judge having at least ten years defending criminal clients.
 
2014-06-10 12:36:00 PM  
Was the Bronco ride a distraction for the police for OJ's friends and family to remove evidence from the house?  Does an innocent man go on the Bronco ride and hold a gun to his own head for hours?  I remember when the verdict came out and how my office was so split... the African-Americans were cheering and high-fiving and the rest of us stood there in shock, like Kardashian.    Yes, the black community and the LA Riots influenced the verdict.  The whole thing is one big cluser fark.
 
2014-06-10 12:45:40 PM  

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.


**eyeroll**
 
2014-06-10 12:49:09 PM  

Mugato: NotoriousW.O.P: Not sure, but I lean toward the former. Vanity Fair had an interesting article about how OJ begat the Kardashians, Real Housewives and the Hills. For that reason alone, he should have been executed.

Yeah, now I'm really pissed he killed those people.



This.
 
2014-06-10 12:50:49 PM  
This will be an embarassing stain on the fine, honorable name of Kardashian.
 
2014-06-10 01:08:56 PM  

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


Yes, but deliberately hindering prosecution is a bit different:

OJ Simpson's trusted confidant and member of his "Dream Team" of lawyers, carried away evidence in a suitcase from the former footballer's home the night his ex-wife Nicole Brown-Simpson and her friend Ron Goldman were viciously stabbed to death
 
2014-06-10 01:28:38 PM  

pueblonative: Hope living as a bitter old man fascinating about prison rape is worth it, Freddie. Ain't gonna bring back your son.


Yeah, I mean, we are all angry that the Kardashian girls are famous, but, give it a rest Fred.
 
2014-06-10 01:35:46 PM  
So Goldman waited 20 years to reveal this? Does he have a 20th Anniversary book coming out about the murders or something?
 
2014-06-10 01:39:07 PM  
ts2.mm.bing.net
Mr. Goldman
 
2014-06-10 01:39:33 PM  
Whole reason for the "article" is about 6 paragraphs up from the bottom:

"His daughter Kim, 42, is doing well. She just published a book, 'My 20-year battle with O.J. Simpson... Can't Forgive' "
 
2014-06-10 01:52:59 PM  

Mugato: pueblonative: The only people who serve on juries are the ones too stupid to get out of it.


So rewrite the sixth Amendment and be done with it.

Nah, I doubt lawyers on either side want smart jurors.


I've watched peremptory challenges used to dump college grads and well-spoken professionals. I've seen an obvious meth-head and various other dingbats empaneled. Suffice it to say, I share your doubts.
 
2014-06-10 01:56:44 PM  

Already Disturbed: Stretching a minor?


Funny thing, if they had given Jackson a long prison term he would still be alive.

Goldman said he KNEW OJ was raped in prison not he thought OJ was raped. To me that sounds more like he paid someone to fark him not that he was fantasizing about it.

Kardashian hid or destroyed the clothes and shoes OJ had been wearing the night of the murder, the socks had already been found by police. The news stations at the time pretty much said that's what had happened it's not like any of this is a secret at all.

They went to the airport with 3 bags and came back with 2, does not take a genius to figure out what happened.
 
2014-06-10 02:02:40 PM  
Go back over the newsreel clips and you will clearly see Kardashian striding down OJ's driveway right past the cops, a briefcase in one hand, a clothing bag slung over his shoulder.
 
2014-06-10 02:05:54 PM  

fireclown: dryknife: Kardashian was a big ass?

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


Look, I know she's a horrible human being, but GOT DAMN I want to do dirty nasty things to dat ass.

weknowmemes.com
 
2014-06-10 02:08:32 PM  

KIA: Examples: OJ had a long straight cut on the back if his left hand when police caught him. They didn't document it but later said it looked like a knife cut.


Then it might as well not have been there.

It's like science:  If you didn't write it down, it didn't happen.  You arrest someone and you don't document their injuries?  That's pretty farkin' stupid.

CSB:  I got arrested once*.  The guy they were processing next to me had a cut on his thumb with a couple of stitches in it.  The cop documented it, and pointedly asked him if it was caused by the police (it wasn't).  And that was for some piddly misdemeanor-type arrest.


*Long story short:  I was supposed to go to court for a speeding ticket, but the company command in my unit didn't notify me of the date and time.  So I didn't go.  Which the court took a dim view on.  It got straightened out, but not before I got the shiat scared out of me.
 
2014-06-10 02:08:47 PM  
Wasn't the judge in the case absolutely horrible too?  I recall him being the focus of a lot of hate for his rulings and antics.
 
2014-06-10 02:12:29 PM  

oryx: 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.


Other than not having a clear, well-produced film of OJ actually performing the deed, they shouldn't have had too many problems with evidence.  Many people have been (rightly) convicted with much less.  The defense questioning absolutely everything sowed enough seeds of doubt in the jury.  I don't know whether the jury wanted to find them guilty, but the prosecution allowed those seeds of doubt to grow.  It may just be that the prosecution being seen as really arrogant and presenting to their egos and not to the jury knocked them out.  I remember being on a jury where the prosecutor was just such a dick that at least half the people were saying "well, yeah, this guy clearly is guilty, but man, I wish there was a way to say what a prick that prosecutor is...."
 
2014-06-10 02:13:37 PM  

thefatbasturd: Hiro-ACiD: 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.


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

/mercury & lead childhood poisonings vs 100 years ago
//science biatches

jIt isn't that people are stupider today. It is more complex than that. People ARE smarter in anlot of ways, but often not as smart as they think they are because the "knowledge" came from the TV shows and movies they watched and took as gospel no matter how much Hollywood bullshiat was mixed in. Also many of them confuse the burden of proof requirements as "beyond a shadow of a doubt" instead of "beyond a REASONABLE doubt" which are two different things.


That was my point.  The standard for "reasonable" has changed a lot of the years, towards the absurd.  I didn't want to interupt Hiro-ACiD's petulant and non-sensical tantrum, though.
 
2014-06-10 02:18:19 PM  

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.


Irrefutable?  Really?  Okay, then explain the following to me:

1)  The killer removes a blood-soaked glove and drops it at the scene.
2)  The killer then opens a vehicle door, drives across town, gets out and closes the door, all with that one, ungloved hand (which he hopes doesn't have blood on it).
3)  The killer then decides to remove the other glove and drop it behind OJ's house.

Why not drop BOTH gloves at the scene?  Did he wear the other one all the way home, or have it stuffed in a pocket (without leaving trace evidence in the vehicle)?  Why drop it behind the house?  Why not take it inside and run it down the garbage disposal, or cut it up and flush it away?  Why not give it to Kardashian with the other bloody clothes he allegedly got rid of that night?

The incongruity of the gloves raises reasonable doubt in my mind.  I'm not saying OJ didn't do it, but I'm not buying the "he dropped one at the scene and one at home" story.  We know police have planted evidence to get a quick conviction, so why not in such a high-profile case as this?  Plant the glove, plant blood evidence in the car and on the fence behind OJ's house.  It would take just one cop to do that.
 
2014-06-10 03:05:30 PM  
FTFA: OJ Simpson's trusted confidant and member of his "Dream Team" of lawyers, carried away evidence in a suitcase from the former footballer's home the night his ex-wife Nicole Brown-Simpson and her friend Ron Goldman were viciously stabbed to death.

Where does Goldman get this information from?  And the whole "OJ was raped" thing.  He has CI's in prison?  How did he know to just call up the DA and say "was OJ raped?"  And the DA just sort of "winks" at him through the phone?  The whole thing sounds idiotic.  Fred Goldman is a douche who needs to just shut the fark up and go away.
 
2014-06-10 03:16:25 PM  
When the Simpson team brought in Gerald Uleman (sp?) from the Santa Clara University law school I knew that they were sure OJ would be convicted.  Uleman made a career of being an anti death penalty "expert witness" and had a pretty good record arguing against the death penalty in trials. Being a strict Roman Catholic in regards to anything even remotely connected to "anti life."  Including the sale of contraceptives at drug stores near the school didn't hurt his stature with the team either.

/Sister-in-law was a student there at the time of the trial
//Uleman staged a mock debate every year with someone who was pro death penalty or pro abortion or pro contraception and made it so he would always win.
///Three slashies today
 
KIA
2014-06-10 03:38:41 PM  

indy_kid: 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.

Irrefutable?  Really?  Okay, then explain the following to me:

1)  The killer removes a blood-soaked glove and drops it at the scene.
2)  The killer then opens a vehicle door, drives across town, gets out and closes the door, all with that one, ungloved hand (which he hopes doesn't have blood on it).
3)  The killer then decides to remove the other glove and drop it behind OJ's house.

Why not drop BOTH gloves at the scene?  Did he wear the other one all the way home, or have it stuffed in a pocket (without leaving trace evidence in the vehicle)?  Why drop it behind the house?  Why not take it inside and run it down the garbage disposal, or cut it up and flush it away?  Why not give it to Kardashian with the other bloody clothes he allegedly got rid of that night?

The incongruity of the gloves raises reasonable doubt in my mind.  I'm not saying OJ didn't do it, but I'm not buying the "he dropped one at the scene and one at home" story.  We know police have planted evidence to get a quick conviction, so why not in such a high-profile case as this?  Plant the glove, plant blood evidence in the car and on the fence behind OJ's house.  It would take just one cop to do that.


Because he sliced his own hand when he slashed Nichole's throat. He pulled off the glove to look at the damage and it probably hurt too much to put back on. Plus, it probably enraged him further and he probably did a bit more stabbing after that.

Completely consistent with the other facts and scene.
 
2014-06-10 03:48:41 PM  

forgotmydamnusername: Nah, I doubt lawyers on either side want smart jurors.


I've watched peremptory challenges used to dump college grads and well-spoken professionals. I've seen an obvious meth-head and various other dingbats empaneled. Suffice it to say, I share your doubts.


Sure, it makes sense. No matter which side of the aisle you're on it's all about manipulating the jury, often hitting on their emotions. No one wants to deal with people with intellect to do that.
 
2014-06-10 03:53:17 PM  

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
 
2014-06-10 03:55:31 PM  

KIA: Because he sliced his own hand when he slashed Nichole's throat. He pulled off the glove to look at the damage and it probably hurt too much to put back on. Plus, it probably enraged him further and he probably did a bit more stabbing after that.

Completely consistent with the other facts and scene.


So did the glove in question have a matching cut through it?

No, it did not.
 
2014-06-10 04:23:44 PM  

Mugato: syrynxx: Nah, some members of the jury were just stupid.  There was evidence that the blood samples matched OJ's DNA.  One jury member post-verdict said "Lots of people have the same blood type", indicating a complete misunderstanding of DNA matching.

Then the prosecution should have explained it better.


Never mind that the only criminal conviction during the entire affair was against a police officer that committed felony perjury...  Hard to trust a lot of the physical evidence when the investigating police officers are shown to be liars.
 
2014-06-10 08:48:07 PM  
Woo, got to block a bunch of dudes for telling the father of a murdered man to "get over it"! Let's see you try, schmucks.

Basically the Simpson trial is a giant wreck at the intersection of Long-Standing Racial Issues Boiling Over and Tiered Justice System That Favors The Rich And Famous, Especially In L.A.. At that time, in that place, you could not have found him guilty of murder even if you caught it on camera. The racial issues are still there, the Blue Code of Silence is still there. They're still widespread, and you catch the public in the right mood with the right cops getting off for the right thing, and it'll be riots again.

And the rest of it is completely unchanged and nobody in this country is smart enough or mad enough to want to change it, because they've been trained since birth to keep their lips glued firmly to the asses of "celebrities." How many times did Lohan slither out of drug charges that would've ruined your life or mine? How often do spoiled little shiats get away with pretty much anything short of murder? What infuriates me is that time after time people fail to be upset about that- either everyone else should get the cushy sentences or rich assholes should do hard time. Recently a judge actually used the term "affluenza" in his opinion when letting some rich kid skate. And nobody cares. There should be guillotines and torches and Frankenstein rakes over shiat like that. And nobody cares.
 
2014-06-10 09:02:32 PM  

Anonymous Bosch: What infuriates me is that time after time people fail to be upset about that- either everyone else should get the cushy sentences or rich assholes should do hard time. Recently a judge actually used the term "affluenza" in his opinion when letting some rich kid skate. And nobody cares. There should be guillotines and torches and Frankenstein rakes over shiat like that. And nobody cares.


What would you suggest? And what are you doing about it?
 
2014-06-10 10:43:32 PM  

stonicus: FTFA: OJ Simpson's trusted confidant and member of his "Dream Team" of lawyers, carried away evidence in a suitcase from the former footballer's home the night his ex-wife Nicole Brown-Simpson and her friend Ron Goldman were viciously stabbed to death.

Where does Goldman get this information from?



I remember seeing this on tv -- at the time, there was video on CNN of Kardashian walking past reporters with a large suitcase, coming from OJ's house. I think they even shouted "what's in the suitcase?" to him and he just smiled and walked past.

This wasn't some big secret and isn't a big reveal today, so I don't know what Goldman is talking about. At the time, people did ask questions about it -- but without the internet being in full swing there wasnt an outcry or a petition to sign, and the inane media never got on board with questions about the suitcase. I guess there was too much going on with the case to focus on any one thing.

About a month (week? year?) later, Kardashian answered the questions by bringing the suitcase to court, or somewhere, I can't recall, where he opened it, showed that it was empty, and said "see, there wasn't anything in here at all" basically.

I've always thought that OJs bloody clothes and maybe even the murder weapon(s) were in the suitcase, stashed in his house until Kardashian could abscond with them. To me, it was the most egregious thing that this lawyers did, and that's a long, long list.
 
2014-06-10 11:09:51 PM  

Christian Bale: there was video on CNN of Kardashian walking past reporters with a large suitcase, coming from OJ's house. I think they even shouted "what's in the suitcase?" to him and he just smiled and walked past


It's Marsellus Wallace's soul.
 
2014-06-10 11:15:05 PM  

Mugato: pueblonative: But being a juror is an honored duty in our society.  Professionals of all stripes anxiously await their notices to serve each and every year, and everybody makes sure that they clear off their schedule to serve on a jury. Businesses give full pay and benefits to those chosen for this duty. How could they have not found 12 intelligent men and women willing to serve on this most sacred trust?

The only people who serve on juries are the ones too stupid to get out of it.


I was leaning in your direction until recently. Got a jury questionnaire from my county and after checking with my HR dep't learned that they'll cover the difference between jury duty pay and my normal pay. So, hell yes, I'll serve if called. It's my civic duty!
 
2014-06-10 11:20:07 PM  

Anonymous Bosch: Woo, got to block a bunch of dudes for telling the father of a murdered man to "get over it"! Let's see you try, schmucks.


Bragging about the size of your ignore list again? That's lame as fu*k.
 
2014-06-11 01:29:31 PM  

Christian Bale: stonicus: FTFA: OJ Simpson's trusted confidant and member of his "Dream Team" of lawyers, carried away evidence in a suitcase from the former footballer's home the night his ex-wife Nicole Brown-Simpson and her friend Ron Goldman were viciously stabbed to death.

Where does Goldman get this information from?


I remember seeing this on tv -- at the time, there was video on CNN of Kardashian walking past reporters with a large suitcase, coming from OJ's house. I think they even shouted "what's in the suitcase?" to him and he just smiled and walked past.

This wasn't some big secret and isn't a big reveal today, so I don't know what Goldman is talking about. At the time, people did ask questions about it -- but without the internet being in full swing there wasnt an outcry or a petition to sign, and the inane media never got on board with questions about the suitcase. I guess there was too much going on with the case to focus on any one thing.

About a month (week? year?) later, Kardashian answered the questions by bringing the suitcase to court, or somewhere, I can't recall, where he opened it, showed that it was empty, and said "see, there wasn't anything in here at all" basically.

I've always thought that OJs bloody clothes and maybe even the murder weapon(s) were in the suitcase, stashed in his house until Kardashian could abscond with them. To me, it was the most egregious thing that this lawyers did, and that's a long, long list.


He could have just been bringing some clothes to his client.
 
2014-06-11 01:30:43 PM  

John Buck 41: Anonymous Bosch: Woo, got to block a bunch of dudes for telling the father of a murdered man to "get over it"! Let's see you try, schmucks.

Bragging about the size of your ignore list again? That's lame as fu*k.


People who use "ignore" are weak minded.  They can't stand a dissenting opinion.  Eventually it will just be him and his ditto-heads that he can read, and then he'll think he's won when he sees no dissent.
 
2014-06-11 02:36:07 PM  

Mugato: forgotmydamnusername: Nah, I doubt lawyers on either side want smart jurors.


I've watched peremptory challenges used to dump college grads and well-spoken professionals. I've seen an obvious meth-head and various other dingbats empaneled. Suffice it to say, I share your doubts.

Sure, it makes sense. No matter which side of the aisle you're on it's all about manipulating the jury, often hitting on their emotions. No one wants to deal with people with intellect to do that.


I never used preemptory challenges on voire dire panel members on the basis of what I thought their IQ was and don't know that any of the scores of other attorneys in the defense bar have either.  Being less intelligent isn't necessarily a good thing for the defense- it could just as easily lead to a juror who is too swayed by emotion, one who doesn't understand the presumption of innocence, or is skeptical and dismiss your expert witnesses' testimony as "eggheaded theory."  Attorneys are more concerned with what prejudices and preconceived notions panelists might bring to the jury than trying to get the stupidest jury possible.
 
2014-06-11 03:34:24 PM  

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.


They bent over backwards to be "fair" and the defense saw to it the jury was stacked with ghetto bunnies who hated whites.  After it was over, several jurors complained the jurors had made a decision in advance to acquit, no matter what evidence (this alone is sufficient for a mistrial) and they made no secret, they would let him off out of racial hate, even if he was guilty---or ESPECIALLY if he was guilty.
 
2014-06-11 05:54:20 PM  

stonicus: John Buck 41: Anonymous Bosch: Woo, got to block a bunch of dudes for telling the father of a murdered man to "get over it"! Let's see you try, schmucks.

Bragging about the size of your ignore list again? That's lame as fu*k.

People who use "ignore" are weak minded.  They can't stand a dissenting opinion.  Eventually it will just be him and his ditto-heads that he can read, and then he'll think he's won when he sees no dissent.


Alternately, I will not have a heart attack at 40 trying to be "strong-minded" and wasting my lifespan trying to out-argue morons.

I am not here to make the debate team. I am not under any obligation to let you waste my time, and there is no "challenge" to be met in dealing with assholes. It's not a competition or a test of character. It's a question of using the resources you have and what you get out of letting others share them. You don't get to share my time if you're trying to argue supply-side economics, antivax, climate science denial or anything else that's been readily and conclusively disproven. You're wasting your own time believing shiat, but don't waste mine.

If you're willing to burn your lifespan by donating your time and patience to the irredeemable and unteachable, have fun. I'm not saying people telling Goldman to get over it are either of those, but there's a definite cruelty to it that tells me that I probably don't want to know you. Sure, I overuse the thing, but it's Fark. It's not like any of this matters.

Meanwhile I've also got a favorites list of people that I don't always agree with, but who always have something intelligent and interesting to say. People who have taught me things and who have even successfully changed my mind on things I was not sufficiently informed on. That is an excellent use of my time and I look forward to seeing those people post.
 
2014-06-11 07:31:21 PM  
Why not drop BOTH gloves at the scene? Did he wear the other one all the way home, or have it stuffed in a pocket (without leaving trace evidence in the vehicle)? Why drop it behind the house? Why not take it inside and run it down the garbage disposal, or cut it up and flush it away? Why not give it to Kardashian with the other bloody clothes he allegedly got rid of that night?The incongruity of the gloves raises reasonable doubt in my mind. I'm not saying OJ didn't do it, but I'm not buying the "he dropped one at the scene and one at home" story. We know police have planted evidence to get a quick conviction, so why not in such a high-profile case as this? Plant the glove, plant blood evidence in the car and on the fence behind OJ's house. It would take just one cop to do that.


Probably because a first time criminal, realizing even briefly the severity of what they just did, is likely to panic and not do things a rational person would do in retrospect?
 
Displayed 136 of 136 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report