OJ's Daughter Calls Cops on Dad the Murderer

subgenius · 30th January 2003, 08:05 AM

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/Da...ter030130.html
Its only a matter of time before this butcher blows up again.
Outrageous that he has custody. Hope the authorities are able to protect the kids.

LucienVanImpe · 30th January 2003, 08:37 AM

Quote:

When they arrived, the girl said she and her father "got into an argument over family issues," according to the one-page police report.

Those 'family issues' wouldn't be the fact that her father killed her mother by slashing her throat, would it now?

subgenius · 30th January 2003, 08:38 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by LucienVanImpe

Those 'family issues' wouldn't be the fact that her father killed her mother by slashing her throat, would it now?

Now that the poor girl is grown and has a mind of her own.......

30th January 2003, 08:44 AM

Sounds very much to me like the chickens have come home to roost.

Almost makes you want to believe in karma, doesn't it?

Mike B. · 30th January 2003, 08:53 AM

I am sure the reason he wasn't home when the police arrived is that he was looking for the "real killers."

You know those "Columbian drug lords."

After all didn't he say he would devote the rest of his life to catching the "real killers."

30th January 2003, 08:56 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mike B.
I am sure the reason he wasn't home when the police arrived is that he was looking for the "real killers."

You know those "Columbian drug lords."

After all didn't he say he would devote the rest of his life to catching the "real killers."

And he'll scour every golf course in the world until he finds them!

Crossbow · 30th January 2003, 08:58 AM

OJ Simpson, the Lizzie Borden of our day!

LucienVanImpe · 30th January 2003, 09:29 AM

At least Mel Ignatow had the guts to admit guilt after being aquitted for killing his fiancée, but only after photos emerged that displayed him committing the act. His ex-girlfriend took the pictures and even testified against him in the first trial, but apparently the jurors thought he looked respectable.

Double jeopardy saved him, but he was nailed on perjury. Peculiar case.

http://www.storyhousepro.com/jeopardy.html
http://www.thelouisvillechannel.com/...10/detail.html

jayrev · 30th January 2003, 09:35 AM

Subgenious, you're an OJ bashing troll.

subgenius · 30th January 2003, 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by jayrev
Subgenious, you're an OJ bashing troll.

Don't yell at me, I'm already being trashed in another thread.

Ian Osborne · 30th January 2003, 12:01 PM

Seen OJ's e-mail address? It's...

SLASH-SLASH-BACKSLASH-BACKSLASH-DELETE 2-ESCAPE

Tmy · 30th January 2003, 12:09 PM

Give Oj some credit! If I ever called 911 on my dad and screamed at him that he was a "loser", I would be soooooooo dead.

Lousy back talking brat!

Jade · 31st January 2003, 09:28 AM

What astounds me to this day, is that I am in awe of people's stupidity regarding Simpson innocence.

Doctor X · 31st January 2003, 09:45 AM

What? Simpson is guilty of double homicide?

I thought he just "liable. . . ."

--J. "Did I miss the Easter Bunny?" D.

Jade · 31st January 2003, 09:46 AM

Here is a reminder of the carnage he inflicted upon two people. http://vatican.rotten.com/simpson/ {very graphic}

subgenius · 31st January 2003, 10:05 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jade
Here is a reminder of the carnage he inflicted upon two people. http://vatican.rotten.com/simpson/ {very graphic}

Not pretty, but lest we forget.

subgenius · 3rd February 2003, 01:01 AM

Hope we hear a (good) follow up to this story.

skepticism · 11th December 2006, 01:07 AM

Therein lies the real danger of "science" and scientific experts in court, deciding people's life or death.

The usual Randi group think OJ is guilty because some scientist testified at the criminal trial, and the jury didn't buy their testimony.

We just had new forensic research showing the usual police investigation of arsons was assuming incorrect views of how fires spread. We just had DNA overturn a conviction of a man found guilty based on fingerprint evidence. Those "scientists" who testify about the certainity of fingerprint matches with latents, turned out to be wrong. No one has done serious studies on the error rates for fingerprint matches.

If this were just some academic debate about what happened to the earth, evolution or Creation, millions of years ago or 6,000 years ago, it would all be harmless debate. But we're talking about people's lives. The uncritical acceptance of standard "science" and "experts" in courtrooms puts innocent people in prison and on death row.

Meanwhile, anyone who questions the "science" is labeled an anti-science quack. We had a chemist who got tired of doing lab tests, it took up so much time. So it was easier for him to dry lab the results, just write up the reports as if a test were done, and reach the conclusions the police wanted. We had the FBI lab results in Timothy McVeigh's case, finding cocaine, because they thought they were supposed to find a drug, as if it were a drug case.

OJ Simpson had Mark Furhman, the racist police officer who liked to manufacture evidence and lie on the stand, because he's trying to help convict people he "knows" are guilty. So he sprinkles some blood of OJ on the crime scene, sprinkles some of the victims' blood in his car.

When the evidence is contaminated, when we have too many people ready to believe any "scientists" who testify, we're very lucky to have a country with a jury system, where lay people can reject "science."

This is the real danger of "science," the uncritical acceptance of "experts" when a real practical issue is involved. If we're dealing with when an ape evolved into a human in the distant past, no one really cares. When we're dealing with life and death issues, everyone cares.

OJ was innocent. Even the white civil jurors said had the standard of proof been reasonable doubt, they agreed there was reasonable doubt. the nearly all female criminal jury found OJ innocent.

Mark Fuhrman took the Fifth Amendment. When you lie, and manufacture evidence in a criminal case, with a potential death penalty, that's a crime. Why isn't Fuhrman being prosecuted for manufacturing evidence.

The Hebrew Bible may be archaic, a collection of myths, but it had one tiny little law that is so different from American law. If you made a false accusation, the penalty, in the Hebrew text, was the same penalty for the charge you falsely accused the other person of doing. It makes sense. But in American law, you can falsely accuse anyone of anything, and at most you get some minor penalty. Women falsely accuse men of child molest to get custody, and almost nothing ever happens to them. Mark Furhman can put people in the electric chair, by false accusations, and he collects royalties from books on his investigations. I believe Fuhrman belongs on death row, not OJ. But you never see white people complaining about Fuhrman, they like the idea of false evidence used to convinct those they "know" are guilty.

DNA is nice science. It has shown endless people were falsely convicted. But no one goes back to see how the original false conviction occurred. There was a prosecutor, police, and forensic "scientists" in the original trial, all claiming "science" proved the defendant guilty. Then comes some new science, and they let the guy go after 20 years in prison. Maybe the problem isn't science or racism, so much as it's an uncritical acceptance of standard science.

you get the same thing in child paternity suits. A woman had a kid, and it could be or a plausible claim could be made that a particular male is the father, the father has money, so a lawyer gets a scientist to testify that that male is the father. They use Bayesian analysis, developed by a monk to determine probabilities using a number of assumptions. No doubt Randi types like these scientists, who use a priori assumptions, to find males the father of children who later turn out to look a lot like some other male in the woman's life.

"Science" is not whatever our society admires, or the academic experts who use the title scientist in their job description. Deference to experts is not a scientific method, it's submission to authoritarianism. White people like doing that if it leads to believing OJ is guilty.

OJ is probably not guilty, because he risked everything to go to trial, turning down even exploring a plea agreement to save himself, at a time when the evidence looked so bad his attorney Shapiro tried to get a plea, without OJ's authorizaiton.

Most criminal defendants may be guilty. Whites trust the police to make good arrests. But most criminal defendants who risk everything, including their life, at a trial, turning down opportunities for a plea agreement, raise serious questions as to their innocence. Then throw in a racist evidence tampering police detective like Fuhrman who takes the Fifth, you can't just conclude that OJ is guilty and trot out "science" as the reason.

Dave1001 · 11th December 2006, 01:29 AM

I think most would acknowledge that OJ only seems more guilty as the years go on. He doesn't behave like there's someone out there who really killed his wife that can clear his name. That's not proo of guilt, but it doesn't inspire conifedence in me in his claims of innocence.

mrfreeze · 11th December 2006, 02:40 AM

You know, assuming for one second that Mark Furman did in fact frame OJ, how the hell did he get some of his blood to "sprinkle at the crime scene"? I was rather young when the case took place, so if this scenario was covered at the time I apologize.

Zep · 11th December 2006, 02:48 AM

Actually, if I understand it correctly, making false accusations is indeed a criminal offense under most western jurisdictions, and can be dealt severe punishment.

So there goes your whole basis of your rant, feller...

gumboot · 11th December 2006, 03:44 AM

Interesting rant...

To be fair... I believe in the rule of law. I believe the rule of law is paramount to a safe and fair society. Have all the corrupt politicians and police you want, but the court is the final say.

I do not believe in trial by media - something that is becoming increasingly common. I do not believe in trial by armchair.

OJ Simpson was found not guilty in a court of law. Period.

These are fundamental principles upon which society is based. They are not things that can be discarded at will. There will be mistakes, certainly. Guilty people walk free. Innocents go to prison. No system is perfect. But nonetheless, this is the system we use, and I believe it is the right system to use.

You think OJ Simpson was guilty? Prove it in a court of law. Until that happens, the man is innocent.

-Gumboot

Darat · 11th December 2006, 03:50 AM

Originally Posted by gumboot

Interesting rant...

To be fair... I believe in the rule of law. I believe the rule of law is paramount to a safe and fair society. Have all the corrupt politicians and police you want, but the court is the final say.

I do not believe in trial by media - something that is becoming increasingly common. I do not believe in trial by armchair.

OJ Simpson was found not guilty in a court of law. Period.

These are fundamental principles upon which society is based. They are not things that can be discarded at will. There will be mistakes, certainly. Guilty people walk free. Innocents go to prison. No system is perfect. But nonetheless, this is the system we use, and I believe it is the right system to use.

You think OJ Simpson was guilty? Prove it in a court of law. Until that happens, the man is innocent.

-Gumboot

I agree - there is however the fact that Simpson was found "liable for the wrongful death of Ronald Goldman, battery against Ronald Goldman, and battery against Nicole Brown." (O.J. Simpson^WP) in a civil court.

RandFan · 11th December 2006, 04:08 AM

Originally Posted by gumboot

To be fair... I believe in the rule of law. I believe the rule of law is paramount to a safe and fair society. Have all the corrupt politicians and police you want, but the court is the final say.

I do not believe in trial by media - something that is becoming increasingly common. I do not believe in trial by armchair.

OJ Simpson was found not guilty in a court of law. Period.

These are fundamental principles upon which society is based. They are not things that can be discarded at will. There will be mistakes, certainly. Guilty people walk free. Innocents go to prison. No system is perfect. But nonetheless, this is the system we use, and I believe it is the right system to use.

You think OJ Simpson was guilty? Prove it in a court of law. Until that happens, the man is innocent.

-Gumboot

Innocent until proven guilty is legal mater. We are actually allowed to form our own opinion. If you saw someone murder another and that person got off would you then pretend that you didn't see event?

I don't have to suspend my disbelief in Simpson's case or any case. The man is guilty.

gumboot · 11th December 2006, 04:09 AM

Originally Posted by Darat

I agree - there is however the fact that Simpson was found "liable for the wrongful death of Ronald Goldman, battery against Ronald Goldman, and battery against Nicole Brown." (O.J. Simpson^WP) in a civil court.

I put about as much credibility in American Civil Courts as I do in my neighbour at my previous place of residence.

I've always felt there was something repugnant about the civil court system.

-Gumboot

gumboot · 11th December 2006, 04:10 AM

Originally Posted by RandFan

Innocent until proven guilty is legal mater. We are actually allowed to form our own opinion. If you saw someone murder another and that person got off would you then pretend that you didn't see event?

I don't have to suspend my disbelief in Simpson's case or any case. The man is guilty.

So you don't believe in the value of "innocent until proven guilty"?

Okay. I do. Even when it's inconvenient.

-Gumboot

Darat · 11th December 2006, 04:11 AM

Originally Posted by gumboot

I put about as much credibility in American Civil Courts as I do in my neighbour at my previous place of residence.

Based on what?

Originally Posted by gumboot

I hope he was convicted in a criminal court...

Originally Posted by gumboot

I've always felt there was something repugnant about the civil court system.

-Gumboot

Based on what?

gumboot · 11th December 2006, 04:27 AM

Originally Posted by Darat

Based on what?

Based on the entire concept.

Originally Posted by Darat

I hope he was convicted in a criminal court...

Good call.

Randfan said above:

"If you saw someone murder another and that person got off would you then pretend that you didn't see event?"

I did see my neighbour dealing drugs, so I feel justified regarding him as a drug dealer. Of course I might be mistaken. I think if you actually witnessed a crime, you have grounds for presuming guilt. I was not aware that anyone here at JREF personally witnessed Simpson kill anyone. (I could be mistaken though, there's all sorts of interesting people here...

)

Originally Posted by Darat

Based on what?

Based on the concept. I find it repugnant that you can sue someone for a criminal act after they have been found not-guilty. I understand Americans quite enjoy it. Fair enough, it's their country.

-Gumboot

fuelair · 11th December 2006, 04:55 AM

Simpson was found not guilty for racist/political reasons. Would be wonderful if we had A)not proven as a possibility(like Scottish system on that aspect) and B)removal of the double jeopardy thing in any case where conclusive evidence was found after the Not Guilty by reason of we don't like the cops/real ,but mistaken, Not Guilty - especially if that evidence was not available previously because it was hidden by the murderer, his lawyer or any representative/agent of either.

ponderingturtle · 11th December 2006, 05:29 AM

Originally Posted by gumboot

Interesting rant...

To be fair... I believe in the rule of law. I believe the rule of law is paramount to a safe and fair society. Have all the corrupt politicians and police you want, but the court is the final say.

I do not believe in trial by media - something that is becoming increasingly common. I do not believe in trial by armchair.

OJ Simpson was found not guilty in a court of law. Period.

These are fundamental principles upon which society is based. They are not things that can be discarded at will. There will be mistakes, certainly. Guilty people walk free. Innocents go to prison. No system is perfect. But nonetheless, this is the system we use, and I believe it is the right system to use.

You think OJ Simpson was guilty? Prove it in a court of law. Until that happens, the man is innocent.

-Gumboot

Impossible, as you can not be retried for the same crime. It can't happen now no matter what comes up, what he does or anything.

The Central Scrutinizer · 11th December 2006, 05:33 AM

Anyone who thinks OJ didn't do it is a moron. Period.

ponderingturtle · 11th December 2006, 05:35 AM

Originally Posted by gumboot

Based on the concept. I find it repugnant that you can sue someone for a criminal act after they have been found not-guilty. I understand Americans quite enjoy it. Fair enough, it's their country.

And lets not even get into how wrong it is to take my stuff just because I was responsible for hurting you.

The whole reason that it makes sense is that you have a beyond a reasonable doubt as the requirement, meaning you need to be very very sure that someone did it, while the other has a preponderance of the evidence as the standard, so you need to be 51% sure that it happened. Because of this, you can be found not guilty and responceible if the jury is convinced to exactly the same degree in both cases.

So you also think that the guy who has been in jail for 12 years for non compliance with a divorce court decision is also repugnant.

Mephisto · 11th December 2006, 06:42 AM

Originally Posted by RandFan

Innocent until proven guilty is legal mater. We are actually allowed to form our own opinion. If you saw someone murder another and that person got off would you then pretend that you didn't see event?

I don't have to suspend my disbelief in Simpson's case or any case. The man is guilty.

I agree wholeheartedly. There are things commonly regarding as truth that most of us know aren't always true.

Your government cares about you personally,

Agent Orange won't hurt you.

We know where they are, they're north, south, east and west of Tikrit.

You won't get pregnant if I pull-out.

OJ is innocent.

Bad people get what they deserve.

Monkey Napoleon · 11th December 2006, 07:14 AM

Funny you should say that, ponderingturtle...

I also agree with RandFan wholeheartedly. This man is guilty as hell. In fact, google "If I did it". You should get a number of returns that are news articles pertaining to a book announced last month written by Simpson. His publisher is repeatedly quoted as saying that it's his confession. It's since been cancelled due to public outcry.

"The Juice" is a prime example of just how much badness one man can have in his heart. He murdered those people in cold blood, lost a civil case worth thirty-three point something million dollars (which he hasn't paid a dime of, btw), wrote a book to profit from the frenzy his admission of guilt would inevitably cause, and allready had lawyers working on a loophole to protect said book earnings from seizure at the time of it's announcement.

This is a baaaad man.

Monkey Napoleon · 11th December 2006, 07:27 AM

Originally Posted by gumboot

Based on the entire concept.

You obviously don't understand the American Civil Court then. It's very true that the system is often manipulated by repugnant people, and sometimes judges make questionable rulings, but you couldn't possibly be insinuating that there is no such thing as a case in which monetary damages should be awarded. It's meant to keep the money and criminal sides of justice somewhat seperate, which I can't concieve of any situation where that is a bad idea.

BPSCG · 11th December 2006, 07:28 AM

Even if he was found "not guilty" in the criminal trial, he is guilty of being excrement wrapped in skin.

To claim you were innocent of your wife's vicious murder, then to be able to even contemplate the idea of making money off speculation over how you could have pulled it off bespeaks reptilian cold-bloodedness. Any sane person should beware of getting within a hundred yards of him.

alfaniner · 11th December 2006, 08:19 AM

I don't know if his kids are legal adults yet, but I think it's only a matter of time before they are old enough to realize that this is the man that killed their mother, and say or do something about it.

Mephisto · 11th December 2006, 09:02 AM

Originally Posted by alfaniner

I think it's only a matter of time before they are old enough to realize that this is the man that killed their mother, and say or do something about it.

I wonder what the chances of that ending up in violence are?

hgc · 11th December 2006, 09:13 AM

Originally Posted by Mephisto

I wonder what the chances of that ending up in violence are?

One can hope that the realization will be coupled with the sense to avoid the person known to have already murdered a close family relation.

Nancarrow · 11th December 2006, 09:15 AM

Originally Posted by gumboot

So you don't believe in the value of "innocent until proven guilty"?

Okay. I do. Even when it's inconvenient.

-Gumboot

The value of the concept is its place within a court of law. The JREF forum is not a court of law.

There'd be something very wrong with the legal system if we could put OJ away merely because RandFan (and I, and most other people) say he's guilty.

But we can't. And the system doesn't. And the wonderful values of freedom, democracy, liberty, justice... law... excuse me (sniff) (wipes tear from eye) do not evaporate when someone on a message board says 'he's guilty'.

"Guilty until proven innocent" is a great concept for the courtroom. Leave it where it belongs.

30th January 2003, 08:05 AM	#1
subgenius Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 4,788	OJ's Daughter Calls Cops on Dad the Murderer http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/Da...ter030130.html Its only a matter of time before this butcher blows up again. Outrageous that he has custody. Hope the authorities are able to protect the kids.
subgenius Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 4,788	__________________ "The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any controlling private power."---Franklin D. Roosevelt Proud to be Liberal

30th January 2003, 08:37 AM	#2
LucienVanImpe Student Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 27	Quote: When they arrived, the girl said she and her father "got into an argument over family issues," according to the one-page police report. Those 'family issues' wouldn't be the fact that her father killed her mother by slashing her throat, would it now?
LucienVanImpe Student Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 27

30th January 2003, 08:38 AM	#3
subgenius Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 4,788	Quote: Originally posted by LucienVanImpe *Those 'family issues' wouldn't be the fact that her father killed her mother by slashing her throat, would it now?* Now that the poor girl is grown and has a mind of her own.......
subgenius Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 4,788	__________________ "The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any controlling private power."---Franklin D. Roosevelt Proud to be Liberal

30th January 2003, 08:44 AM	#4
Guest Posts: n/a	Sounds very much to me like the chickens have come home to roost. Almost makes you want to believe in karma, doesn't it?
Guest Posts: n/a

30th January 2003, 08:53 AM	#5
Mike B. Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 1,186	I am sure the reason he wasn't home when the police arrived is that he was looking for the "real killers." You know those "Columbian drug lords." After all didn't he say he would devote the rest of his life to catching the "real killers."
Mike B. Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 1,186

30th January 2003, 08:56 AM	#6
Guest Posts: n/a	Quote: Originally posted by Mike B. I am sure the reason he wasn't home when the police arrived is that he was looking for the "real killers." You know those "Columbian drug lords." After all didn't he say he would devote the rest of his life to catching the "real killers." And he'll scour every golf course in the world until he finds them!
Guest Posts: n/a

30th January 2003, 08:58 AM	#7
Crossbow Seeking Honesty and Sanity Join Date: Oct 2001 Posts: 6,294	OJ Simpson, the Lizzie Borden of our day!
	__________________ A man's best friend is his dogma.

30th January 2003, 09:29 AM	#8
LucienVanImpe Student Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 27	At least Mel Ignatow had the guts to admit guilt after being aquitted for killing his fiancée, but only after photos emerged that displayed him committing the act. His ex-girlfriend took the pictures and even testified against him in the first trial, but apparently the jurors thought he looked respectable. Double jeopardy saved him, but he was nailed on perjury. Peculiar case. http://www.storyhousepro.com/jeopardy.html http://www.thelouisvillechannel.com/...10/detail.html
LucienVanImpe Student Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 27

30th January 2003, 09:35 AM	#9
jayrev Critical Thinker Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 275	Subgenious, you're an OJ bashing troll.
jayrev Critical Thinker Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 275

30th January 2003, 09:53 AM	#10
subgenius Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 4,788	Quote: Originally posted by jayrev Subgenious, you're an OJ bashing troll. Don't yell at me, I'm already being trashed in another thread.
subgenius Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 4,788	__________________ "The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any controlling private power."---Franklin D. Roosevelt Proud to be Liberal

30th January 2003, 12:01 PM	#11
Ian Osborne JREF Kid Tagger Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Wiltshire Posts: 6,383	Seen OJ's e-mail address? It's... SLASH-SLASH-BACKSLASH-BACKSLASH-DELETE 2-ESCAPE
	__________________ "Faith without doubt leads to moral arrogance, the eternal pratfall of the religiously convinced" - Joe Klein, Time magazine "The fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." - Carl Sagan

30th January 2003, 12:09 PM	#12
Tmy Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Republic of Massachusetts Posts: 6,489	Give Oj some credit! If I ever called 911 on my dad and screamed at him that he was a "loser", I would be soooooooo dead. Lousy back talking brat!

31st January 2003, 09:28 AM	#13
Jade New Blood Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 11	Family dispute What astounds me to this day, is that I am in awe of people's stupidity regarding Simpson innocence.
Jade New Blood Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 11

31st January 2003, 09:45 AM	#14
Doctor X Suspended Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 1,470	What? Simpson is guilty of double homicide? I thought he just "liable. . . ." --J. "Did I miss the Easter Bunny?" D.
Doctor X Suspended Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 1,470

31st January 2003, 09:46 AM	#15
Jade New Blood Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 11	Simspon Here is a reminder of the carnage he inflicted upon two people. http://vatican.rotten.com/simpson/ {very graphic}
Jade New Blood Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 11

31st January 2003, 10:05 AM	#16
subgenius Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 4,788	Re: Simspon Quote: Originally posted by Jade Here is a reminder of the carnage he inflicted upon two people. http://vatican.rotten.com/simpson/ {very graphic} Not pretty, but lest we forget.
subgenius Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 4,788	__________________ "The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any controlling private power."---Franklin D. Roosevelt Proud to be Liberal

3rd February 2003, 01:01 AM	#17
subgenius Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 4,788	Hope we hear a (good) follow up to this story.
subgenius Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 4,788	__________________ "The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any controlling private power."---Franklin D. Roosevelt Proud to be Liberal

11th December 2006, 01:07 AM	#18
skepticism Student Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 44	Therein lies the real danger of "science" and scientific experts in court, deciding people's life or death. The usual Randi group think OJ is guilty because some scientist testified at the criminal trial, and the jury didn't buy their testimony. We just had new forensic research showing the usual police investigation of arsons was assuming incorrect views of how fires spread. We just had DNA overturn a conviction of a man found guilty based on fingerprint evidence. Those "scientists" who testify about the certainity of fingerprint matches with latents, turned out to be wrong. No one has done serious studies on the error rates for fingerprint matches. If this were just some academic debate about what happened to the earth, evolution or Creation, millions of years ago or 6,000 years ago, it would all be harmless debate. But we're talking about people's lives. The uncritical acceptance of standard "science" and "experts" in courtrooms puts innocent people in prison and on death row. Meanwhile, anyone who questions the "science" is labeled an anti-science quack. We had a chemist who got tired of doing lab tests, it took up so much time. So it was easier for him to dry lab the results, just write up the reports as if a test were done, and reach the conclusions the police wanted. We had the FBI lab results in Timothy McVeigh's case, finding cocaine, because they thought they were supposed to find a drug, as if it were a drug case. OJ Simpson had Mark Furhman, the racist police officer who liked to manufacture evidence and lie on the stand, because he's trying to help convict people he "knows" are guilty. So he sprinkles some blood of OJ on the crime scene, sprinkles some of the victims' blood in his car. When the evidence is contaminated, when we have too many people ready to believe any "scientists" who testify, we're very lucky to have a country with a jury system, where lay people can reject "science." This is the real danger of "science," the uncritical acceptance of "experts" when a real practical issue is involved. If we're dealing with when an ape evolved into a human in the distant past, no one really cares. When we're dealing with life and death issues, everyone cares. OJ was innocent. Even the white civil jurors said had the standard of proof been reasonable doubt, they agreed there was reasonable doubt. the nearly all female criminal jury found OJ innocent. Mark Fuhrman took the Fifth Amendment. When you lie, and manufacture evidence in a criminal case, with a potential death penalty, that's a crime. Why isn't Fuhrman being prosecuted for manufacturing evidence. The Hebrew Bible may be archaic, a collection of myths, but it had one tiny little law that is so different from American law. If you made a false accusation, the penalty, in the Hebrew text, was the same penalty for the charge you falsely accused the other person of doing. It makes sense. But in American law, you can falsely accuse anyone of anything, and at most you get some minor penalty. Women falsely accuse men of child molest to get custody, and almost nothing ever happens to them. Mark Furhman can put people in the electric chair, by false accusations, and he collects royalties from books on his investigations. I believe Fuhrman belongs on death row, not OJ. But you never see white people complaining about Fuhrman, they like the idea of false evidence used to convinct those they "know" are guilty. DNA is nice science. It has shown endless people were falsely convicted. But no one goes back to see how the original false conviction occurred. There was a prosecutor, police, and forensic "scientists" in the original trial, all claiming "science" proved the defendant guilty. Then comes some new science, and they let the guy go after 20 years in prison. Maybe the problem isn't science or racism, so much as it's an uncritical acceptance of standard science. you get the same thing in child paternity suits. A woman had a kid, and it could be or a plausible claim could be made that a particular male is the father, the father has money, so a lawyer gets a scientist to testify that that male is the father. They use Bayesian analysis, developed by a monk to determine probabilities using a number of assumptions. No doubt Randi types like these scientists, who use a priori assumptions, to find males the father of children who later turn out to look a lot like some other male in the woman's life. "Science" is not whatever our society admires, or the academic experts who use the title scientist in their job description. Deference to experts is not a scientific method, it's submission to authoritarianism. White people like doing that if it leads to believing OJ is guilty. OJ is probably not guilty, because he risked everything to go to trial, turning down even exploring a plea agreement to save himself, at a time when the evidence looked so bad his attorney Shapiro tried to get a plea, without OJ's authorizaiton. Most criminal defendants may be guilty. Whites trust the police to make good arrests. But most criminal defendants who risk everything, including their life, at a trial, turning down opportunities for a plea agreement, raise serious questions as to their innocence. Then throw in a racist evidence tampering police detective like Fuhrman who takes the Fifth, you can't just conclude that OJ is guilty and trot out "science" as the reason.
skepticism Student Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 44

11th December 2006, 01:29 AM	#19
Dave1001 Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 3,717	I think most would acknowledge that OJ only seems more guilty as the years go on. He doesn't behave like there's someone out there who really killed his wife that can clear his name. That's not proo of guilt, but it doesn't inspire conifedence in me in his claims of innocence.
Dave1001 Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 3,717	__________________ I'm here to discuss ideas, not to get personal. I won't criticize you personally, please don't criticize me personally. I won't direct ad hominems at you, please don't direct ad hominems at me. I won't attack you or put you down, please don't attack me or put me down. Thanks.

11th December 2006, 02:40 AM	#20
mrfreeze Critical Thinker Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Outside of Detroit Posts: 425	You know, assuming for one second that Mark Furman did in fact frame OJ, how the hell did he get some of his blood to "sprinkle at the crime scene"? I was rather young when the case took place, so if this scenario was covered at the time I apologize.

11th December 2006, 02:48 AM	#21
Zep Banned Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 26,985	Actually, if I understand it correctly, making false accusations is indeed a criminal offense under most western jurisdictions, and can be dealt severe punishment. So there goes your whole basis of your rant, feller...
Zep Banned Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 26,985

11th December 2006, 03:44 AM	#22
gumboot lorcutus.tolere Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: New Zealand Posts: 23,127	Interesting rant... To be fair... I believe in the rule of law. I believe the rule of law is paramount to a safe and fair society. Have all the corrupt politicians and police you want, but the court is the final say. I do not believe in trial by media - something that is becoming increasingly common. I do not believe in trial by armchair. OJ Simpson was found not guilty in a court of law. Period. These are fundamental principles upon which society is based. They are not things that can be discarded at will. There will be mistakes, certainly. Guilty people walk free. Innocents go to prison. No system is perfect. But nonetheless, this is the system we use, and I believe it is the right system to use. You think OJ Simpson was guilty? Prove it in a court of law. Until that happens, the man is innocent. -Gumboot
	__________________ O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi. A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge.

11th December 2006, 03:50 AM	#23
Darat Lackey Administrator / JREF Forum Liaison Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 64,798	Originally Posted by gumboot Interesting rant... To be fair... I believe in the rule of law. I believe the rule of law is paramount to a safe and fair society. Have all the corrupt politicians and police you want, but the court is the final say. I do not believe in trial by media - something that is becoming increasingly common. I do not believe in trial by armchair. OJ Simpson was found not guilty in a court of law. Period. These are fundamental principles upon which society is based. They are not things that can be discarded at will. There will be mistakes, certainly. Guilty people walk free. Innocents go to prison. No system is perfect. But nonetheless, this is the system we use, and I believe it is the right system to use. You think OJ Simpson was guilty? Prove it in a court of law. Until that happens, the man is innocent. -Gumboot I agree - there is however the fact that Simpson was found "liable for the wrongful death of Ronald Goldman, battery against Ronald Goldman, and battery against Nicole Brown." (O.J. Simpson^WP) in a civil court.
	__________________ If it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart? - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn 1918-2008

11th December 2006, 04:08 AM	#24
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,370	Originally Posted by gumboot To be fair... I believe in the rule of law. I believe the rule of law is paramount to a safe and fair society. Have all the corrupt politicians and police you want, but the court is the final say. I do not believe in trial by media - something that is becoming increasingly common. I do not believe in trial by armchair. OJ Simpson was found not guilty in a court of law. Period. These are fundamental principles upon which society is based. They are not things that can be discarded at will. There will be mistakes, certainly. Guilty people walk free. Innocents go to prison. No system is perfect. But nonetheless, this is the system we use, and I believe it is the right system to use. You think OJ Simpson was guilty? Prove it in a court of law. Until that happens, the man is innocent. -Gumboot Innocent until proven guilty is legal mater. We are actually allowed to form our own opinion. If you saw someone murder another and that person got off would you then pretend that you didn't see event? I don't have to suspend my disbelief in Simpson's case or any case. The man is guilty.
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

11th December 2006, 04:09 AM	#25
gumboot lorcutus.tolere Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: New Zealand Posts: 23,127	Originally Posted by Darat I agree - there is however the fact that Simpson was found "liable for the wrongful death of Ronald Goldman, battery against Ronald Goldman, and battery against Nicole Brown." (O.J. Simpson^WP) in a civil court. I put about as much credibility in American Civil Courts as I do in my neighbour at my previous place of residence. He was a drug dealer. I've always felt there was something repugnant about the civil court system. -Gumboot
	__________________ O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi. A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge.

11th December 2006, 04:10 AM	#26
gumboot lorcutus.tolere Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: New Zealand Posts: 23,127	Originally Posted by RandFan Innocent until proven guilty is legal mater. We are actually allowed to form our own opinion. If you saw someone murder another and that person got off would you then pretend that you didn't see event? I don't have to suspend my disbelief in Simpson's case or any case. The man is guilty. So you don't believe in the value of "innocent until proven guilty"? Okay. I do. Even when it's inconvenient. -Gumboot
	__________________ O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi. A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge.

11th December 2006, 04:11 AM	#27
Darat Lackey Administrator / JREF Forum Liaison Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 64,798	Originally Posted by gumboot I put about as much credibility in American Civil Courts as I do in my neighbour at my previous place of residence. Based on what? Originally Posted by gumboot He was a drug dealer. I hope he was convicted in a criminal court... Originally Posted by gumboot I've always felt there was something repugnant about the civil court system. -Gumboot Based on what?
	__________________ If it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart? - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn 1918-2008

11th December 2006, 04:27 AM	#28
gumboot lorcutus.tolere Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: New Zealand Posts: 23,127	Originally Posted by Darat Based on what? Based on the entire concept. Originally Posted by Darat I hope he was convicted in a criminal court... Good call. Randfan said above: "If you saw someone murder another and that person got off would you then pretend that you didn't see event?" I did see my neighbour dealing drugs, so I feel justified regarding him as a drug dealer. Of course I might be mistaken. I think if you actually witnessed a crime, you have grounds for presuming guilt. I was not aware that anyone here at JREF personally witnessed Simpson kill anyone. (I could be mistaken though, there's all sorts of interesting people here... ) Originally Posted by Darat Based on what? Based on the concept. I find it repugnant that you can sue someone for a criminal act after they have been found not-guilty. I understand Americans quite enjoy it. Fair enough, it's their country. -Gumboot
	__________________ O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi. A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge.

11th December 2006, 04:55 AM	#29
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 28,961	Simpson was found not guilty for racist/political reasons. Would be wonderful if we had A)not proven as a possibility(like Scottish system on that aspect) and B)removal of the double jeopardy thing in any case where conclusive evidence was found after the Not Guilty by reason of we don't like the cops/real ,but mistaken, Not Guilty - especially if that evidence was not available previously because it was hidden by the murderer, his lawyer or any representative/agent of either.
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 28,961	Last edited by fuelair; 11th December 2006 at 04:56 AM. Reason: fix spelling and-

11th December 2006, 05:29 AM	#30
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Tarrytown, NY Posts: 26,433	Originally Posted by gumboot Interesting rant... To be fair... I believe in the rule of law. I believe the rule of law is paramount to a safe and fair society. Have all the corrupt politicians and police you want, but the court is the final say. I do not believe in trial by media - something that is becoming increasingly common. I do not believe in trial by armchair. OJ Simpson was found not guilty in a court of law. Period. These are fundamental principles upon which society is based. They are not things that can be discarded at will. There will be mistakes, certainly. Guilty people walk free. Innocents go to prison. No system is perfect. But nonetheless, this is the system we use, and I believe it is the right system to use. You think OJ Simpson was guilty? Prove it in a court of law. Until that happens, the man is innocent. -Gumboot Impossible, as you can not be retried for the same crime. It can't happen now no matter what comes up, what he does or anything.
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

11th December 2006, 05:33 AM	#31
The Central Scrutinizer Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: The White Zone Posts: 42,278	Anyone who thinks OJ didn't do it is a moron. Period.
	__________________ If I see somebody with a gun on a plane? I'll kill him.

11th December 2006, 05:35 AM	#32
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Tarrytown, NY Posts: 26,433	Originally Posted by gumboot Based on the concept. I find it repugnant that you can sue someone for a criminal act after they have been found not-guilty. I understand Americans quite enjoy it. Fair enough, it's their country. And lets not even get into how wrong it is to take my stuff just because I was responsible for hurting you. The whole reason that it makes sense is that you have a beyond a reasonable doubt as the requirement, meaning you need to be very very sure that someone did it, while the other has a preponderance of the evidence as the standard, so you need to be 51% sure that it happened. Because of this, you can be found not guilty and responceible if the jury is convinced to exactly the same degree in both cases. So you also think that the guy who has been in jail for 12 years for non compliance with a divorce court decision is also repugnant.
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

11th December 2006, 06:42 AM	#33
Mephisto Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: in a state of disbelief Posts: 6,065	Originally Posted by RandFan Innocent until proven guilty is legal mater. We are actually allowed to form our own opinion. If you saw someone murder another and that person got off would you then pretend that you didn't see event? I don't have to suspend my disbelief in Simpson's case or any case. The man is guilty. I agree wholeheartedly. There are things commonly regarding as truth that most of us know aren't always true. Your government cares about you personally, Agent Orange won't hurt you. We know where they are, they're north, south, east and west of Tikrit. You won't get pregnant if I pull-out. OJ is innocent. Bad people get what they deserve.
	__________________ "What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy?" Mahatma Gandhi

11th December 2006, 07:14 AM	#34
Monkey Napoleon Student Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Salem, OR Posts: 32	Funny you should say that, ponderingturtle... I also agree with RandFan wholeheartedly. This man is guilty as hell. In fact, google "If I did it". You should get a number of returns that are news articles pertaining to a book announced last month written by Simpson. His publisher is repeatedly quoted as saying that it's his confession. It's since been cancelled due to public outcry. "The Juice" is a prime example of just how much badness one man can have in his heart. He murdered those people in cold blood, lost a civil case worth thirty-three point something million dollars (which he hasn't paid a dime of, btw), wrote a book to profit from the frenzy his admission of guilt would inevitably cause, and allready had lawyers working on a loophole to protect said book earnings from seizure at the time of it's announcement. This is a baaaad man.
	Last edited by Monkey Napoleon; 11th December 2006 at 07:17 AM.

11th December 2006, 07:27 AM	#35
Monkey Napoleon Student Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Salem, OR Posts: 32	Originally Posted by gumboot Based on the entire concept. You obviously don't understand the American Civil Court then. It's very true that the system is often manipulated by repugnant people, and sometimes judges make questionable rulings, but you couldn't possibly be insinuating that there is no such thing as a case in which monetary damages should be awarded. It's meant to keep the money and criminal sides of justice somewhat seperate, which I can't concieve of any situation where that is a bad idea.