The Goat Pen

I assume that The People Versus O.J. pretty much follows the facts

I've been getting an education on this. Its easy for me to see why the jury found O.J. innocent. They had no other choice based on the events as they unfold in this series.

well fuck. haven't watched the last two episodes now ecat spoils the verdict for me

heh

I thought last Tuesday's episode was the best so far (I just watched it last night).

So few people are watching this though - at least people I know

We went over to a friends house last week and they asked us what we're watching now and I told them that, thinking they'd be into to it too and they looked at me like I was a moron, then they proceeded to tell me about some show with Steve Harvey and kids - and I returned the look back to them.

Sis-n-law was like "I heard John Travolta sucks in it".

Watching it too. Have to catch up on last weeks though. Man, The DA totally was no match for the dream team. Especially how they played Darden.

I think the whole thing has been pretty well done and Cochran/clark and darden portrayals have been pretty spot on. the whole jury portrayal has been pretty good too.

"they asked us what we're watching now and I told them that, thinking they'd be into to it too and they looked at me like I was a moron"

I bet you get that a lot...

hedge wrote:"they asked us what we're watching now and I told them that, thinking they'd be into to it too and they looked at me like I was a moron"

I bet you get that a lot...

you get used to it after 20 or 30 years of it happening

eCat wrote:I assume that The People Versus O.J. pretty much follows the facts

I've been getting an education on this. Its easy for me to see why the jury found O.J. innocent. They had no other choice based on the events as they unfold in this series.

Been following it and discussing it with the class. It's clear they are blaming the bad tactics on the defense, with mistakes by the prosecutors. But they really are downplaying the significant mistakes the police made. The LA police clearly had developed some sloppy habits, including taking the shoe prints home (when it was closer to take it to the station as he was supposed to do), taking OJ's blood to the crime scene, 11 days of testimony by Dennis Fung who testified that he personally collected the work for the DNA, only to be found on film that his assistant collected the samples and used improper technique in doing so. The one piece of clothing they found at OJ"s other than the gloves and those looked like they were brand new. And the so-called 1 person in 170 million other than OJ (they said 270 million on the show), the witness had to come back and say that there had been a mistake and it actually was 1 in 3 million in the LA area. And then there was Fuhrman. The prosecutors didn't have the jury convinced by the time they closed their portion.

Basic rule: don't lie. The side that is caught in the most lies is the one that tends to lose. The OJ Simpson trial just shows how much belief the police are normally given in testimony. For most, none of this would have come out.

Owlman wrote:

eCat wrote:I assume that The People Versus O.J. pretty much follows the facts

I've been getting an education on this. Its easy for me to see why the jury found O.J. innocent. They had no other choice based on the events as they unfold in this series.

Been following it and discussing it with the class. It's clear they are blaming the bad tactics on the defense, with mistakes by the prosecutors. But they really are downplaying the significant mistakes the police made. The LA police clearly had developed some sloppy habits, including taking the shoe prints home (when it was closer to take it to the station as he was supposed to do), taking OJ's blood to the crime scene, 11 days of testimony by Dennis Fung who testified that he personally collected the work for the DNA, only to be found on film that his assistant collected the samples and used improper technique in doing so. The one piece of clothing they found at OJ"s other than the gloves and those looked like they were brand new. And the so-called 1 person in 170 million other than OJ (they said 270 million on the show), the witness had to come back and say that there had been a mistake and it actually was 1 in 3 million in the LA area. And then there was Fuhrman. The prosecutors didn't have the jury convinced by the time they closed their portion.

Basic rule: don't lie. The side that is caught in the most lies is the one that tends to lose. The OJ Simpson trial just shows how much belief the police are normally given in testimony. For most, none of this would have come out.

they haven't got to the 1 in 3 million and I guess they won't but all the other stuff was covered - pretty well I think. This is really more about how well the Dream Team was able to create a narrative. Plus, DNA evidence was new at the time.

I do agree though with the belief of police. I was telling my wife how we just take it for granted - both prosecution and defense that ballistics, testing, forensics - all of it is the truth when results come back - when science is involved.

civil trial prosecutors did a much better job. I think its on A#E the deposition OJ gave--and the prosecutor laying out the case the way it should have been

Also, in the civil trial, the judge didn't allow any of the impeachment material about Fuhrman, any material suggestive that the police may have planted evidence, and OJ, now not facing criminal prosecution had to testify and was caught lying. Plus, of course, the standard was preponderance of the evidence, (greater than 50% likely) versus beyond reasonable doubt (95% likely) >I know most of you know the standards, just restating them<.

How much did the Goldmans actually get from him?

I wonder if OJ had the bank to pay the Dream Team for an 8 month trial. I can only imagine what it cost, although there was one scene were Shapiro told Bailey this was pro-Bono and Bailey about shit his pants.

I have to believe that legal team expected a civil trial to be forth coming at some point (maybe not - who knows). I think at one point Shapiro advised OJ to move to South America after the trial and OJ refused.

That's what pisses me off about the legal system. If you win your case against the government as a defendant they should have to pay for your defense. Fuck. They charged me for my prosecution.

Jungle Rat wrote:That's what pisses me off about the legal system. If you win your case against the government as a defendant they should have to pay for your defense. Fuck. They charged me for my prosecution.

I used to think that until I learned about how many cases that don't even make it to trial. The prosecutor , unless you box them into a corner and demand a trial, will usually only push for a trial when they know they have it won. They pile on a bunch of bullshit charges they can negotiate away in order to make you happy for a plea bargain and should that fail, I'm sure they consider your viability as a defendent in court.

Bastards

I'd love to be on a Grand Jury again

I'd save the county alot of money

I'm not allowed

what would change the scales of justice IMO is limit the number of charges that can be levied against a defendant

for example I was kind of shocked that you would get charged in a B&E or Burglary with also possession of burglary tools which could be something as simple as a hammer or crowbar in your trunk. If you have a lug wrench that comes standard with your car, and you commit a burglary, you could be in possession of burglary tools if they believe that could have been - not necessarily knowingly used as part of the crime.

its just a bullshit charge that was designed to work alone for some semi-valid reason but has now in turn been used as a "package" charge so that the prosecutor can tell a defendant they are looking at 30 years in jail versus what should be 7 (not exact numbers but you know what I mean)

Limit what a person can be charged with and you'd see a noticeable change in the number of court cases as well as a change in approach for prosecution.
I suspect you'd see a much larger number of people take their chances with a jury trial assuming they could get competent legal representation.

The end result would be alot of guilty bastards walking the streets but I've never liked the idea of one action by a person resulting in multiple felony charges.

eCat wrote:

Jungle Rat wrote:That's what pisses me off about the legal system. If you win your case against the government as a defendant they should have to pay for your defense. Fuck. They charged me for my prosecution.

I used to think that until I learned about how many cases that don't even make it to trial. The prosecutor , unless you box them into a corner and demand a trial, will usually only push for a trial when they know they have it won. They pile on a bunch of bullshit charges they can negotiate away in order to make you happy for a plea bargain and should that fail, I'm sure they consider your viability as a defendent in court.

Rat is a career maker for a prosecuting attorney.