(April 30, 2018 at 10:47 pm)Rev. Rye Wrote:

(April 30, 2018 at 8:50 pm)Kit Wrote: I think what LFC means is this:

The jury did not find him guilty based on the evidence provided.  That does not necessarily mean he is innocent.  After all, those are merely the opinions of twelve fallible people.  Factoring in how the evidence was presented by lawyers, how does it still not surprise people who watch public trials that those watching see the evidence much differently than those on the jury?

Our justice system is imperfect, no doubt about it.  But even I highly doubt so many women are going to get together to bring down a man who was loved by all who watched him on television.  It makes more sense that he is actually guilty of what they claim than to be a retarded conspiracy nut.

Case in point, from the article I linked to about the final OJ Simpson Jury, some salient points that could have influenced the jury:

(*) nine of the twelve jurors were black.
(*) five thought it was sometimes appropriate to use force on a family member,
(*) five reported that they or another family member had had a negative experience with the police,
(*) nine thought that Simpson was less likely to be a murderer because he was a professional athlete,

All of these factors were likely to influence the decisions of the Jury. Many liked OJ, some had views on the police that predisposed them to suspect that Fuhrman planted the evidence that led him to be charged, and some may have felt that OJ's rage was, on some level, justifiable.

Well, that and the whole glove fiasco, and nobody seems to be sure exactly how that happened (my guess is the same as Robert Kardashian, that he stopped taking his arthritis medication in the weeks prior to the demonstration and his hands may have swelled big enough that the gloves barely fit).

I know this fool has me blocked, I'm going to address this anyway

Quote:(*) nine of the twelve jurors were black.

Are you literally implying that black jurors cannot be impartial?

There were 10 white jurors on the Cosby trial with testimony that at least one was not impartial.

Quote:(*) five thought it was sometimes appropriate to use force on a family member,

Ok...

obviously this depends on the context, unless you're saying that under no circumstances is it appropriate to use force on a family member.

Quote:(*) five reported that they or another family member had had a negative experience with the police,

Really? What about the negative experience of the corrupt cop who was actually involved in the trial?

Quote:(*) nine thought that Simpson was less likely to be a murderer because he was a professional athlete,

OJ would have been the first black multimillionaire athlete to PERSONALLY kill someone at the time, if you have that kind of money you'd hire someone. It's not like OJ didn't have the connections to do so, Nicole's sister was dating a known mafia hitman...
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1995-...ld-goldman

Quote:Among the witnesses is Anthony "Tony the Animal" Fiato, a former underworld hit man who entered the federal witness-protection program after becoming a government informer in the early 1980s.

Sources close to the defense said that Fiato, who dated Nicole Brown's sister Denise earlier this year, would testify that he heard a key detective in the murder investigation admit that police quickly decided Simpson was a suspect.

Really, the confluence of all of these points I mentioned points to the limitations of juries. You give them the information in the case, and they fit it into the schemas they have set up to interpret the world around them. Any one of these points is weak on its own, but together, it shouldn't be hard to see why someone would believe the jury made the wrong decision. I mean, sure, Mark Fuhrman is, to say the least, an unsavory character, one who lied under oath, and one can't potentially rule out the possibility that the LAPD is capable of tampering with a crime scene and planting evidence to support the case against their preferred perp.

However, the issue of whether or not the LAPD are potentially capable of such an act is not exactly the question that needs to be asked (Seriously, the Rampart Scandal a few years later proved they very much were). The question is: did they actually do such a thing in this case?

And here's another hypothesis as to why OJ got off, from Alan Dershowitz, member of the defense: a form of jury nullification where the jurors probably believed he actually was guilty, BUT, because they believed the cops tried to frame him, decided they couldn't, in good conscience, vote him guilty because of that tainted evidence. Not sure if that's true or not, but it is interesting.

Naturally, despite all the ink spilled on this case, so many details are about as clear as mud, and there's a lot of interesting hypotheses. Which one is totally correct, nobody knows, but there's a lot of interesting points of view to potentially grasp.

And since I got notification that Huggy Bear is responding to my posts, I can only assume that the block function does not work both ways.

This is for all of you who thought the trial wasn't racially motivated.

Cosby accuser’s family ‘despises black people’ & used Cosby for revenge on ‘all black people’

Quote:Andrea’s mother hates black men,” Robert Russell, a close friend of the Constand family told  YC during an exclusive interview in a suburban hotel outside of Philadelphia.

Andrea Constand is the lone Cosby accuser who brought criminal charges charges  against the comedian for an alleged assault that occurred nearly 18 years ago.

“What they have done is disgraceful,” Russell told us. “I’ll never forget when she told me she’d like to see all niggers gathered together and killed. That is genocide. She spoke like Adolf Hitler. I realized what I was getting involved in and got out of it like a bat out of hell. That family was dark and I don’t want anything to do with them.”

Lead attorney Tom Mesereau says his team had unearthed an old pal of Andrea Constand, Robert Russell, to bring out the ghosts in Andrea & Gianna Constand’s past.

Yet Judge Steven O’Neill blocked the lawyers from introducing the tales of drug use, greed, racism that included a deep hatred for African-Americans — a hatred so deep and dark he claims Andrea’s mother, Gianna Constand, wanted to “see all niggers gathered together and killed.” However, Judge O’Neill wouldn’t allow it after prosecutors argued it would taint the jurors perspective on who the Constand’s were so much that it could poison their minds and likely change the outcome.

It appears I have been vindicated.

Apparently i'm the only critical thinker on this forum, since everyone else hopped on the guilty bandwagon based on zero evidence.

Gosh, all white people alive today are guilty of racism if you go back far enough in their family tree. 

What a fantastic point to make. Yea for Huggy!

(May 7, 2018 at 10:37 am)Huggy74 Wrote: This is for all of you who thought the trial wasn't racially motivated.

Cosby accuser’s family ‘despises black people’ & used Cosby for revenge on ‘all black people’

Quote:Andrea’s mother hates black men,” Robert Russell, a close friend of the Constand family told  YC during an exclusive interview in a suburban hotel outside of Philadelphia.

Andrea Constand is the lone Cosby accuser who brought criminal charges charges  against the comedian for an alleged assault that occurred nearly 18 years ago.

“What they have done is disgraceful,” Russell told us. “I’ll never forget when she told me she’d like to see all niggers gathered together and killed. That is genocide. She spoke like Adolf Hitler. I realized what I was getting involved in and got out of it like a bat out of hell. That family was dark and I don’t want anything to do with them.”

Lead attorney Tom Mesereau says his team had unearthed an old pal of Andrea Constand, Robert Russell, to bring out the ghosts in Andrea & Gianna Constand’s past.

Yet Judge Steven O’Neill blocked the lawyers from introducing the tales of drug use, greed, racism that included a deep hatred for African-Americans — a hatred so deep and dark he claims Andrea’s mother, Gianna Constand, wanted to “see all niggers gathered together and killed.” However, Judge O’Neill wouldn’t allow it after prosecutors argued it would taint the jurors perspective on who the Constand’s were so much that it could poison their minds and likely change the outcome.

It appears I have been vindicated.

Apparently i'm the only critical thinker on this forum, since everyone else hopped on the guilty bandwagon based on zero evidence.

 

(May 7, 2018 at 12:50 pm)mh.brewer Wrote: Gosh, all white people alive today are guilty of racism if you go back far enough in their family tree. 

What a fantastic point to make. Yea for Huggy!

I never said 'all'... I specified this particular trial.

It seemed as though this judge was doing everything within his power to ensure Cosby didn't get a fair trial.

Quote:Apparently i'm the only critical thinker on this forum, since everyone else hopped on the guilty bandwagon based on zero evidence.

I think your brain is in critical condition.  He was found guilty by a jury that heard the evidence and weighed the credibility of the witnesses.

Just curious, have you ever served on a jury?

(May 7, 2018 at 5:33 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:Apparently i'm the only critical thinker on this forum, since everyone else hopped on the guilty bandwagon based on zero evidence.

I think your brain is in critical condition.  He was found guilty by a jury that heard the evidence and weighed the credibility of the witnesses.

Just curious, have you ever served on a jury?

Yes, I've served on a jury on a major murder case in Alaska, although in this particular case it was on an appeal to get a reduced sentence from 1st to 2nd degree murder, he had already been found guilty.

Here's a link to the case.
https://law.justia.com/cases/alaska/cour...037-1.html

Well then you know that many of the arguments by the lawyers and rulings by the judge take place with the jury out of the court.  The judge determines what the jury gets to hear.

In many cases, those decisions are raised on appeal.