Re: brothers and sisters must register and send this article to users

[Frank Olson <use_the_email_links@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

G. Morgan wrote:



> So, if *you* have no doubt and *I* have no doubt and everyone else with a
> pulse has no doubt he's a murderer then how exactly is it the system "actually
> works"?

The prosecution "dropped the ball", Graham.  They didn't provide the
jury with the proof required to convict him.  When you're serving on a
jury you have to try and divorce yourself from your "feelings" and weigh
the evidence objectively.  If you can't consider certain key factors
because they were ruled as inadmissible by the trial judge, then you
have to go with what you actually have.  I watched portions of the trial
on the evening news.  I knew in my gut that he was as guilty as sin.  I
don't view the trial as a "travesty".  I view it as an example of what
enough money and a couple of sharp lawyers can accomplish using our
system of justice.  If you figure it's "broken", then do something to
fix it, but keep in mind our basic legal tenet (that we are *all*
innocent until *proven* guilty).


>
>
>> The system of justice my father fought for is what got him off.
>
> He was in the Revolutionary War?

WW II.  He was in the merchant marine because he was too young to join
up.  He "fought" the Battle of the Atlantic.


>
>>  You have to be "guilty beyond a shadow of doubt" (and you have to have
>> the ability to pay the sharpest Lawyers around).  None of us were
>> present during the jury's deliberations, but I believe they arrived at
>> this verdict (regardless of how you might feel about it) after very
>> careful consideration of the facts at hand.
>
> Hahahahaha!!  Yeah right, a bunch of stupid black women prejudiced from the
> very beginning gave it tons of thought all right.

The jury wasn't composed entirely of "stupid black women".  I don't
recall the exact demographic, but I believe the men outnumbered the women.


>  Dr. Phil just had a show
> about OJ a couple of weeks ago and they played the tape of one of the jurors
> being interviewed.   She said "the prosecution promised us a mountain of
> evidence, but it was really a molehill" (paraphrased).

Right.  The prosecution "dropped the ball".



>
>
>> The police botched the
>> investigation and the Defense was able to exploit that.
>
> It was all about jury selection.  Marsha Clark was counting on sympathy (and
> empathy too) of the black women jurors based on the long history of physical
> spousal abuse perpetrated by OJ.  That backfired when the judge did not allow
> much of the evidence to be introduced because her diaries were considered
> "hearsay".  After the trial a law was passed in California that would allow
> this type of evidence to be presented.  A day late and a dollar short.

It was more than "jury selection".  A lot of the evidence gathered by
the police was done so "illegally", and was therefore rendered
inadmissible.  OJ's "dream team" of Lawyers ensured that a good deal of
it was put out of reach of the jury and became that "molehill" you
mentioned.



>
>> OJ got his
>> "just desserts" anyway.
>
> Really?  Paying a fine for killing two people in cold blood is "just
> desserts"?

He's paid more than "just a fine", Graham.  He's what they call a
perpetual bankrupt.  He has few friends, and no one will give him a job.


>
> [snip]
>>> Hypothetical situation:
>>>
>>> Let's say you come home from working your counter-clerk job and walk in on
>>> some big black doped up on crack motherfucker raping your wife and killing the
>>> kids.  Waddya do - buy the guy an ice cream?
>>
>> That will never happen.  I don't live in the kind of neighbourhood where
>> anyone "big and black" wanders around "doped up on crack".  Like Jim
>> said...  If the risk is too great, don't go there.  We're miles from the
>> nearest SkyTrain station (where those kinds of folks seem to
>> congregate), we have an excellent Neighbourhood Watch, and the best
>> security system around...
>
> That is not what you were asked.  It is a hypothetical situation.  You said
> you would never kill someone under *any* circumstances.  I think you are
> either lying, mis-spoke,  or seriously misguided.
>
> I'll give you another chance.
>
> Given the hypothetical situation presented, could you kill the man?

I'd beat the crap out of him and let the police deal with the "afterbirth".