Dead Pool 2024

[grumbler]

He got away with it.

Yep.  All because the LAPD assigned the case to a racist perjuring cop who took the fifth when asked by the judge if he planted evidence.

[Syt]

Wonder how long before cancer comes out with a book

"I didn't do it, but if I had done it, here's how!"

[DGuller]

He got away with it.

Yep.  All because the LAPD assigned the case to a racist perjuring cop who took the fifth when asked by the judge if he planted evidence.

But what were their options?  Hire an outside consultant?

[grumbler]

He got away with it.

Yep.  All because the LAPD assigned the case to a racist perjuring cop who took the fifth when asked by the judge if he planted evidence.

But what were their options?  Hire an outside consultant?

Hire cops who weren't racist perjurers?  Assign a detective who didn't make racist comments in the locker room?  There are ways to avoid losing cases that should be open-end-shut wins.

[Barrister]

Wow.  OJ Simpson.

Kids or younger people just have no conception of how huge that trial was in the 90s (or the infamous police chase).  I remember people cheering when OJ was found Not Guilty - he was a beloved sports star / actor.  In the years since though it was widely recognized he was guilty as sin of the murders.

Grumbles brings up Mark Fuhrman.  I mean as a lawyer good on defence counsel who were able to misdirect and make Fuhrman the issue on trial, rather than Simpson.  But whether or not Fuhrman used the n-word has nothing to do with the guilt of Simpson (and the N-word, while bad, was nowhere near as toxic then as it is now).

[HVC]

My mom would watch CNN everyday because of the trial. It bred a lifelong aversion in me to Larry Kings voice.  I also think it was the start of my Misophonia. There's some voices I just can't stand.

[Syt]

Wow.  OJ Simpson.

Kids or younger people just have no conception of how huge that trial was in the 90s (or the infamous police chase).  I remember people cheering when OJ was found Not Guilty - he was a beloved sports star / actor.  In the years since though it was widely recognized he was guilty as sin of the murders.

Grumbles brings up Mark Fuhrman.  I mean as a lawyer good on defence counsel who were able to misdirect and make Fuhrman the issue on trial, rather than Simpson.  But whether or not Fuhrman used the n-word has nothing to do with the guilt of Simpson (and the N-word, while bad, was nowhere near as toxic then as it is now).

The chase was incredibly iconic.

It played on TV in Duke Nukem 3D:



And on Wrestlemania XII in 1996, Roddy Piper and Goldust had a "Hollywood Backstreet Brawl" during which Goldust escapes with a golden car and Piper chases him with a white Bronco, leading to, well, this kind of footage:

[Barrister]

OJ Simpson sort-of reminds me of Michael Jackson.  MJ went through a big child sex abuse trial in (googles - 2005).  He was acquitted.  People seemed quite happy about that.  In the years since then the reputation of MJ has completely shifted though and people recognize he was a serial child sex abuser.

Actually - hell the same applies to Johnny Depp, and even fucking Donald Trump.  If people like someone it's hard for them to look past that and look at the actual evidence.

[HVC]

As far as I know Depp only has the one accuser, unlike the others.

The one that really surprised me was Cosby.

[Sheilbh]

Grumbles brings up Mark Fuhrman.  I mean as a lawyer good on defence counsel who were able to misdirect and make Fuhrman the issue on trial, rather than Simpson.  But whether or not Fuhrman used the n-word has nothing to do with the guilt of Simpson (and the N-word, while bad, was nowhere near as toxic then as it is now).

I'd be interested in your take as a prosecutor though - as Grumbler says he took the fifth on whether he planted evidence or not. Is that the sort of thing that's fatal to a case?

Instinctively I think if I was a juror I feel like that'd make it very difficult for me to move past reasonable doubt. But I'm not sure.

[Sheilbh]

OJ Simpson sort-of reminds me of Michael Jackson.  MJ went through a big child sex abuse trial in (googles - 2005).  He was acquitted.  People seemed quite happy about that.  In the years since then the reputation of MJ has completely shifted though and people recognize he was a serial child sex abuser.

Maybe - with Jackson. I mean there's a biopic coming out next year starring his nephew but also with, say, Colman Domingo and Miles Teller in it.

I don't know what that will or won't cover.

[Barrister]

Grumbles brings up Mark Fuhrman.  I mean as a lawyer good on defence counsel who were able to misdirect and make Fuhrman the issue on trial, rather than Simpson.  But whether or not Fuhrman used the n-word has nothing to do with the guilt of Simpson (and the N-word, while bad, was nowhere near as toxic then as it is now).

I'd be interested in your take as a prosecutor though - as Grumbler says he took the fifth on whether he planted evidence or not. Is that the sort of thing that's fatal to a case?

Instinctively I think if I was a juror I feel like that'd make it very difficult for me to move past reasonable doubt. But I'm not sure.

So a few different things.

-It's been 30 years, and while I followed the case closely at the time, I didn't follow it as a lawyer.
-I'm a prosecutor, not a juror, and hard to move past that
-"taking the fifth" isn't a thing in Canadian law.  We have the opposite point of view - if you're under subpoena you MUST answer the question, but anything you say can't be used against you

But this was what defence lawyers will always like to do - make the trial about anything other than their client's guilt.  Ideally Judge Ito should have shot down this entire line of questioning - Fuhrman wasn't on trial, and only his actions relating to the trial itself would be relevant.  It can be relevant if a police officer has been convicted of an offence, but for anything else it would be a "collateral fact".  Let's say defence asks a witness if they use drugs.  The witness says "no".  The defence is prohibited from then calling evidence to show the witness uses drugs - it's not an issue at trial - it's a "collateral fact" - unless it can be shown to be relevant to the issues at trial.  If the witnessed used drugs on the day of the event that might be relevant, but not on other dates.

And of course I should say - this is my knowledge and experience of Canadian criminal law.  I'm not licensed to practice in California, and I've already noted at least one example of how those criminal laws differ between the jurisdictions.

[Razgovory]

"Did you plant evidence" seems pertinent.

[Sheilbh]

Wild OJ Simpson fact for the Brits - Simpson participated in sprints before he was a footballer and took part in a race at Stanford in 1967 which was won by a British athlete who ran under 10.2s. That athlete was future Lib Dem leader Ming Campbell

[HisMajestyBOB]

I remember a teacher running into our fourth grade classroom to announce the verdict.