I don't want to get into the details of the original trial here. I am merely using this famous example as to how I think objectivity and our system should work. 

One of his "dream team" was on CBS This Morning claiming that the robbery jury was influenced by the implication of the original murder trial. I thought that was a bullshit claim. Now, do not get me wrong, I do think OJ murdered Nicole and Ron, but again, that is not the point of this opinion. "Not guilty" does not always mean that the jury who comes up with that is saying that. In legal terms it merely means the state did not prove it's case. In that context, regardless of my personal opinion the jury came to the conclusion it thought was best.

I am quite sure the judge in his robbery case, was clear on his instructions about not allowing the bias of his murder trial to creep in to the robbery case. And I am also sure that his defense lawyer vetted the jury with vigor to the best of his ability. The truth of the robbery trial is that the evidence was ON TAPE on VIDEO and did not have the baggage of the prior murder trial. There were no cops being accused of trampling all over the evidence, no accusations of racist cops like Mark Ferman(sp).

I fear the following replies are going to address this individual case, please try to limit it to the context of the long term society and the system all of us would want to live under long term.

The point of this is to say, no matter the person charged or the nature of the charge, or the fame and wealth or obscurity of a no name, a court is there  and a jury is there to fact find, not to assume guilt or get revenge. In OJ's case you have two completely different trials which had far different factors that lead to two different conclusions. I think the right decision was made in the murder trial, precisely because of the sloppy investigation, not because I believe OJ is a squeaky clean saint. But the second trial had far more solid unquestionable evidence and again, I also agreed with that verdict. 

This affects everyone. If you want the guilty to get convicted, then the protocol in the investigation has to have redundancy so that there can be no holes in the case and no chance at appeals. As much as I think he did it, there is still a reason you don't reward sloppy investigations. Not for him, but more so for those without the means to hire fleets of lawyers. Innocent people do end up in prison. Many accused because of the lack of funding for defense lawyers for those who cannot afford it, will often plea rather than risk a longer sentence even if innocent.

The protocol in the murder trial was sloppy. The protocol in the robbery case did not have the same baggage. If we as a society want to insure that the innocent do not get wrongfully convicted, then funding for proper evidence handling, and more funding for defense lawyers has to be what we should strive for. Not for OJ, but for long term society to have decent quality control to insure only the right people get convicted.

Lol, Brian. What a criminal defense expert you are. As usual your post is all the fuck over the place. You can't be for the prevention of wrongful conviction and at the same time make sure there is 'no chance at appeals.' Appeals are an intricate part of freeing the wrongfully convicted, and the fact that people go after that so much is part of the reason we have so many wrongfully convicted.

Also of course the jury was influenced by the first trial. No amount of vetting will make people not remember the OJ Simpson trial.

Anyway, OJ got parole.

So, is he going to resume his search for the Real Killers™ on the golf courses of the nation?

9 years, even if not specifically for the murders of Ron Goldman and Nicole, is way longer than most killers are looking at in Chicago these days.

And OJs prison experience to date does not impress me as the tough slog most everyone was hoping for.

(July 20, 2017 at 6:21 pm)vorlon13 Wrote: 9 years, even if not specifically for the murders of Ron Goldman and Nicole, is way longer than most killers are looking at in Chicago these days.

And OJs prison experience to date does not impress me as the tough slog most everyone was hoping for.

Yeah, but Prison shouldn't be this terrible tough slog anyway, full of abuse. It should be about reforming people so they don't commit crimes again. I'm not a Europhile, but this is one area that western Europe definitely has right. It's funny how good liberal minded people will say this, but when someone gets convicted that they don't like they are like 'fuck em, hope they get raped in prison'

The problem with OJ or Robert Blake or whoever, is that it's so clear that money can buy you an acquittal.

I'm aware of the difficult times some child molesters have in some prisons. I was thinking some of OJs fellow inmates might have taken umbrage with him similarly for having 'wasted' a pretty hot looking chick. (to phrase it as might be worked out in the lock up)

(July 20, 2017 at 6:31 pm)vorlon13 Wrote: I'm aware of the difficult times some child molesters have in some prisons.  I was thinking some of OJs fellow inmates might have taken umbrage with him similarly for having 'wasted' a pretty hot looking chick.  (to phrase it as might be worked out in the lock up)

Not really sure what his Prison experience was like, if you want people to come out of prison as better people less likely to commit further crime, we need to make sure that everybody in Prison is free of abuse though.

(July 20, 2017 at 6:18 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: So, is he going to resume his search for the Real Killers™ on the golf courses of the nation?

Hey!  Maybe the WLB is the real killer?

I didn't want OJ to come out of prison, and didn't care what happened to him while he was there.

With his attitude I wonder just how long he'll be able to comply with parole requirements.