O.J. will discuss 1994 killings in Fox interview

[BlackWidow]

Originally Posted by JazmenFlowers

this makes me ill. seeing his face makes me ill. hearing his voice...well, you get the picture.

and I agree with Strand...he's guilty of the murders...the prosecution just failed to prove it.

I can't imagine what the two families must feel like having this kind of **** on TV and re-hashed over and over. we don't hear much about the kids. I wonder how they are. I remember just how gorgeous they both were.

Nicole was right he really is a SOCIOPATH!!!

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by BlackWidow

Nicole was right he really is a SOCIOPATH!!!

They come in all shapes and sizes.
Last night I was thinking about how everyone who was directly related to that case ended up tainted in some way. Think about it. I think Shapiro's rep was not quite what it was after that. Johnnie Cochran was noted for his work in civil rights and even mangaged to quietly negotiate a settlement in the first Michael Jackson molestation suit. But he will always be known for this case, with the image of a ski cap on his head and his saying "If it doesn't fit, you must acquit."
I'm sure Christopher Darden's career was never quite the same after that disastrous courtroom experiment of letting OJ try the gloves on for the jury. Same goes for Marcia Clark. When it all comes down, the majority of people who followed that case to are mystified as to how OJ got acquitted and will hold the prosecution resposible to some degree.
Then there are the cops! Mark Fuhrman anyone? Could Fuhrman sound any more like fuhrer? Of all the cops in LA this guy ended up in the middle of it. And I'm still wondering if he planted some of the evidence.
And then there's the whole Rodney King aspect. Some people will always view this as payback for that.
This would make one hell of an opera some day a long time from now.

[DavidMn]

You all know what? He WILL GET HIS ONE DAY. He cant escape judgement forever.

[SuzeQuze]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

They come in all shapes and sizes.
Last night I was thinking about how everyone who was directly related to that case ended up tainted in some way. Think about it. I think Shapiro's rep was not quite what it was after that. Johnnie Cochran was noted for his work in civil rights and even mangaged to quietly negotiate a settlement in the first Michael Jackson molestation suit. But he will always be known for this case, with the image of a ski cap on his head and his saying "If it doesn't fit, you must acquit."
I'm sure Christopher Darden's career was never quite the same after that disastrous courtroom experiment of letting OJ try the gloves on for the jury. Same goes for Marcia Clark. When it all comes down, the majority of people who followed that case to are mystified as to how OJ got acquitted and will hold the prosecution resposible to some degree.
Then there are the cops! Mark Fuhrman anyone? Could Fuhrman sound any more like fuhrer? Of all the cops in LA this guy ended up in the middle of it. And I'm still wondering if he planted some of the evidence.
And then there's the whole Rodney King aspect. Some people will always view this as payback for that.
This would make one hell of an opera some day a long time from now.

Right. And don't forget the pathetic testimony of guest house boy.

[DavidMn]

Originally Posted by SuzeQuze

Right. And don't forget the pathetic testimony of guest house boy.

Yes!! Kato Kaelin lives!!!!

[michelle2677]

Originally Posted by cliffdweller

Yeah, I don't know what they were trying to prove with that. I consider myself a fan of South Park, but the episodes so far this season have been really disjointed with no clear message .

I agree with you. I love southpark and they always have a lesson learned at the end. And maybe that one did, I didn't get that far.

[BlackWidow]

Originally Posted by DavidMn

You all know what? He WILL GET HIS ONE DAY. He cant escape judgement forever.

From your mouth..to God's ear.

[SuzeQuze]

Originally Posted by DavidMn

Yes!! Kato Kaelin lives!!!!

I'd even forgotten his name. His 15 minutes is way over.

[Brwn_eyes0511]

Originally Posted by estranged4life

Crap like this is exactly why I refuse to watch FOX (Except for their NASCAR & Baseball coverage), more typical garbage for ratings.

fox news and fox brodcasting are different. FOX is many networks, all separate from FNC

[JazmenFlowers]

Originally Posted by Brwn_eyes0511

fox news and fox brodcasting are different. FOX is many networks, all separate from FNC

good gawd. look what crawled in.

[CreepingDeath]

Originally Posted by BlackWidow

Read "Without A Doubt" by Marcia Clark......

"Outrage: The Five Reasons Why O.J. Simpson Got Away With Murder" by Vincent Bugliosi is better, imo.

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by SteveMacD

As you know, there are two standards. Do I THINK he did it, and does the eveidence PROVE beyond a reasonable doubt that he did it. Yeah, I think he did it, but I don't think the prosecution's case proved he did it. There were too many holes in their case.

Not according to Marsha......

personally I think it was lost because of the makeup of the jury, plain and simple. Plus I think the Prosecution just lost a bunch of people when they started introducing the science. those working class folks didnt care squat about the science, they were bound and determined to get their boy FREE. It was the single most strategic move to request a change of venue in this case. Had OJ been tried by his peers from his OWN community, the result would surely have been different. Granted, the science could have been presented in a more listener-friendly manner, but if you think about the differences between what his jury would have looked like from Beverly Hills/Brentwood area as opposed to Downtown LA, its like night and day (no pun intended!) My instructor at Chico State is an expert in Venue cases and he is consulted for many high profile venue requests. The majority of the time, he recommends AGAINST a change in venue. (usually because media coverage is so pervasive, there's no real advantage in switching to a different community--especially for high profile cases please see the following) OJ managed to get a change in venue anyway, which, according to my former professor, was a total perversion of the process.....
not just MY opinion.

[irishgrl]

by the way, Brian J ought to find this interesting:
(ED BRONSON is my former Professor)

Professor advises McVeigh judge

Steve Hayden

-Wednesday, February 7, 1996

A Chico State University professor advised a federal judge in the Oklahoma City bombing case last week concerning the request for a change of venue for the trial.

Professor Ed Bronson was asked by the lawyers for Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols to testify in Oklahoma last week.

Bronson is considered an expert in change-of-venue issues. He has testified in several major trials on the subject.

"This case, I've never had anything like it," Bronson said. He had two weeks to sift through research on the case. He then flew to Oklahoma City last Monday for the hearing.

He said it was doubtful if the two men accused of the bombing could get a fair trial in the city where it occurred, because the citizens of Oklahoma City were so deeply affected by the blast. The bombing of the federal building killed 169 people in April. McVeigh and Nichols have been charged with the bombing.

When he was in Oklahoma City, Bronson was able to get a sense for how deep the bombing hit the area.

The cafeteria in the Oklahoma City courthouse is selling T-shirts and souvenirs with pictures of loved-ones and family members who died in the explosion, Bronson said. Possible jurors are eating at the cafeteria and walking right by the merchandise, he said, and all the commotion could taint prospective jurors' opinions in the case.

As a result, Bronson said he thinks the trial should be moved to another town, where people are less involved with the case.

Across from the courthouse where Bronson testified is the empty field where the federal building stood until May 15. It is now surrounded by a chain link fence.

"It grabs your heart, the teddy bears and ribbons tied to the fence," he said.

Bronson's students seem to think that having a professor actively involved in real-life trials makes his classes more interesting.

"It's interesting because it's something that's happening now," said Rebecca Waschau, a senior in one of Bronson's classes. "Now he's teaching us about change of venue, it makes it more interesting doing something people have heard of."

Another student, when asked about Bronson's teaching style, just laughed and said he tells funny stories.

Bronson began teaching at Chico State in 1969. He has advised judges in the Chicago Seven trial and the Polly Klass kidnapping and murder trials about changing the locations of the trials. He has been a consultant in more than 100 change-of-venue cases. (including, more recently, the Laci Peterson case!!!) A change of venue occurs when the trial of a controversial case is moved from the city in which the alleged incident occurred.

Although Bronson received a law degree from Denver University in 1959, he never became a lawyer, preferring instead to teach.

"I never took the bar exam because I'm too much the product of a middle-class background," he said. "I didn't want to be tempted, so I didn't take the bar."

Jury consulting takes up a lot of his time, so Bronson is teaching only half-time this semester, he said. However, Bronson said he loves consulting too much to give it up.

"That's what makes this arrangement great," he said.

Bronson has also performed extensive research on the effects of social desirability, which is when a prospective juror goes along with a lawyer's question because of desire to fit in.

"What social scientists do is give fancy names to what everybody already knows," he said.

Bronson did the original research on the constitutionality of the death penalty in 1968. (by the way, he is against it, having spoken personally with that Nun from DEAD MAN WALKING)



Copyright (c) Wednesday, February 7, 1996 by The Orion

[BlackWidow]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

Not according to Marsha......

personally I think it was lost because of the makeup of the jury, plain and simple. Plus I think the Prosecution just lost a bunch of people when they started introducing the science. those working class folks didnt care squat about the science, they were bound and determined to get their boy FREE. It was the single most strategic move to request a change of venue in this case. Had OJ been tried by his peers from his OWN community, the result would surely have been different. Granted, the science could have been presented in a more listener-friendly manner, but if you think about the differences between what his jury would have looked like from Beverly Hills/Brentwood area as opposed to Downtown LA, its like night and day (no pun intended!) My instructor at Chico State is an expert in Venue cases and he is consulted for many high profile venue requests. The majority of the time, he recommends AGAINST a change in venue. (usually because media coverage is so pervasive, there's no real advantage in switching to a different community--especially for high profile cases) OJ managed to get a change in venue anyway, which, according to my former professor, was a total perversion of the process.....
not just MY opinion.

DNA is DNA!!!

[Villavic]

So disgusting.. there is no more interesting and nice stuff to broadcast? What are Tv companies thinking??

worst of all is that sure people will watch, lot of them, cause they know this show could sell. and it will probably do.. DISGUSTING.