OJ and Tyson

Discussion in 'Off-Topic Discussions' started by DCross, May 22, 2002.

Loading...
  1. DCross

    DCross New Member

    When I debate people about whether they consider Mike Tyson a rapist they say yes. When I disagree they say, "Well, that's what the Jury said."

    Then, I ask what they consider OJ. Almost everyone that thinks Tyson is a rapist, also thinks OJ is a murderer, without regard for what the jury said. Why is there so much cynicism?

    Another question. Didn't Desiree Washington say that all she really wanted was for Tyson to say he was sorry? Does this sound like someone who was violated? To me, it sounds more like someone who was inconvenienced.

    Also, do we really want juries to convict people of anything without regard for reasonalbe doubt.

    Does anyone think the OJ thing was open and shut? If so, why? Is there anyone who can say that there was no reasonable doubt?

    Don't get me wrong, if OJ shows up as my daughters date, I have got some real problems. But I think our system worked here.


    Any Lawyers want to chime in?
     
  2. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Hi,

    You pose some very interesting questions. Count me among those who think Tyson and Simpson are guilty. Tyson's behaviors, pre- and post-conviction do not present as belonging to one who is very emotionally stable. They display sociopathological characteristics. Tyson has a blatant disregard for the rights of others. What is so sad about those of us who believe both of these "men" are guilty is that the race card is usually played. In addition to Tyson and Lewis I also believe Michael Skakel is guilty and that the Kennedy down in Florida accused of rape years' ago was also guilty. I think Robert Blake is also guilty. Of all the famous personalities who have been charged and/or convicted of crimes the only one I can remember I felt was innocent was The Honorable Justice Clarence Thomas.
     
  3. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    OJ Simpson is a double-murderer. While he was acquitted in a criminal court, this isn't the same as not having done the crime. Acquittal means "Not Guilty." This is a legal term meaning the state did not prove its case to the jury, that their version of the events was demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt. That is not the same as being "innocent." The failure (IMHO) of that jury to convict him in the face of overwhelming evidence (and little exculpatory evidence) does not absolve him from having committed two brutal murders. Also, a civil trail held that he is responsible for their deaths and ordered penalties for that.

    Mike Tyson is a convicted rapist. Just as one might argue the relative merits of the Simpson case, one may also do so for Iron Mike. Is he wrongly convicted? Who knows. But his subsequent behaviors have not belied the notion that he is, indeed, a rapist. Unlike the Simpson case, where there is a slew of evidence supporting a conclusion of guilt, there is much less in Tyson's. Yet, he was convicted.

    Funny how Washington's testimony was enough to get Tyson convicted, but Professor Anita Hill's wasn't enough to keep Clarence "Where's Scalia, I Don't Know How To Vote This Case" Thomas off the Supreme Court. Hmmm. A beauty pageant contestant willingly goes to Tyson's room in the middle of the night, then claims rape. That gets a guy a prison term. But a respected attorney comes forward, risking her career and reputation in the process, seemingly without personal gain, to accuse a guy of sexual harassment while under oath before the U.S. Senate, and the guy becomes a member of the highest court in the land. And the witness was vilified. Niiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiice. :rolleyes:
     
  4. Bruce

    Bruce Moderator

    I didn't follow any of Tyson's legal problems, simply because I wasn't interested, but as a police officer of 14+ years experience, there is no doubt in my mind whatsoever that O.J. Simpson murdered Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman.

    Mark Fuhrman was a loudmouthed idiot, but he'd have to be a magician to have planted the bloody glove, and Judge Lance Ito allowed the defense to turn the trial into a media circus and a referendum on race relations in the United States. O.J. got away with murder, literally.

    I would highly recommend reading Evidence Dismissed: The Inside Story of the Police Investigation of O.J. Simpson, written by Tom Lange and Philip Vanatter, who were the lead Detectives on the case. They were Robbery/Homicide Detectives, while Fuhrman was a district Detective who shouldn't have gotten as involved as he did. The book is available through Amazon.


    Bruce
     
  5. Dennis Ruhl

    Dennis Ruhl member

    Unfortunately you can't take race out of the justice system.

    The black experience of how the police operate is certainly different from the white experience. I am sure the jury truly believed that OJ was framed.

    When police add a few mph to a speeding ticket to make it stick they should realize that they are dealing with a future juror who may judge police credibility.

    The OJ jury all saw the Rodney King tape. Need more be said?

    Was OJ guilty? I'm white - of course he was.

    Off topic or what?
     
  6. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    "This isn't about race. It's about FAME. If O.J. Simpson had a regular job, he wouldn't have gotten off. He'd be 'Orenthal, the bus-driving murderer.' If Jerry Seinfield had committed two murders, and the only person to find the glove just happened to be a member of the Nation of Islam, Jerry goes free."

    Chris Rock
     
  7. Bruce

    Bruce Moderator

    As long as the so-called black "leaders" like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and Louis Farrakhan keep reinforcing that myth, this country will always be divided.

    When I worked in the Drug Control Unit, I had a black suspect on videotape and audiotape making a hand-to-hand drug sale to an undercover police officer. At trial, his defense consisted solely of playing the race card, and the all-black jury let him walk.

    As the jury was leaving the courthouse, a few of them had smug little smiles for me. I just laughed and went home to my house in the suburbs. They have to live in the city, not me, so if they want to side with the heroin and crack dealers, more power to them. They should call Jesse and Al the next time they want to complain that their neighborhoods are open-air drug markets.


    Bruce
     
  8. Guest

    Guest Guest

    I think we are slowly and progressively moving away from the likes of Sharpton and Jackson speaking for the entire black population. I have been encouraged to see folks like J.C. Watts, Armstrong Williams, Thomas Sowell and a host of moderate black leaders being interviewed more and more on many news programs. I used to really admire Jackson but he has been disappointed me of late. At least Sharpton stays consistent and isn't afraid to be interviewed by those who disagree with him. The Connie Rice's and Colin Powell's will be the future spokespersons for the black population. I do hope, however, that the day will come when we will only have spokespersons for the human race.
     
  9. StevenKing

    StevenKing Active Member

    Just as I hope that one day...all fraudulent degree holders realize their folly - and go RA...

    steven king
     
  10. DCross

    DCross New Member




    I happen to have a unique perspective on this:

    While living on the east coast, I had the chance to see every bit of the OJ trial (I got off work at noon).

    First, it is difficult to imagine that OJ was able to pull this off while not leaving so much evidence. So what is the evidence?

    1. All of the blood evidence: There was a discrepency between the amount of blood taken from OJ as stated in the grand jury, and what was presented at trial. At trial, it was said that there was 1.3 ml less than what was said in the GJ. Later, the nurse who took the blood said in a taped rebuttal that actually he remembers taking 1.3 ml less than he originally stated. How much blood was gound all over the place? Oh around 1.3 ml.

    2. Time line- it seems difficult to savagely murder two people, drive across town, clean up and prepare for a trip, while leaving only a tiny spec of the victim's blood on the car door, and leaving no other real evidence all in an hour's time.

    3. The bloody sock in the bedroom floor- In one picture, there was a black sock with blood in the middle of OJs bedroom floor. In a video timestamped earlier than the photo was reported to have been taken, there was no sock.

    Does it seem difficult to understand that this may have created doubt in the heads of jurors?

    As for the civil trial; doesn't that only mean that he was deemed to have been respsonsible for the deaths? This does make him a murderer (legally) does it?


    This is what I think: Sometthing is fishy. Looks like OJ may have done it. Maybe they got the time line wrong. Prosecution flubbed up the case. reasonable doubt actually did exist. OJ was held liable. The system worked.
     
  11. Guest

    Guest Guest

    I always thought Mark Furhman blew the case for the prosecution. What I don't understand is why he shows up on news shows. Gordon Liddy and Oliver North also show up all the time and I would think there are more legitimate, honest and ethical spokespersons out there for interviews and expert opinions.
     
  12. StevenKing

    StevenKing Active Member

    Jimmy,

    Why do you think anyone here would take ANY of your comments seriously?

    Steven King
     
  13. aa4nu

    aa4nu Member

    Steven,

    All that Jimmy adds is "entertainment value", and that is marginal.

    You are correct, NO ONE gives him any real value, NADA, ZERO, at best a smirk and a laugh. Mainly groans ...

    His actions lower the reputation of other pastors.
    His actions lower the reputation of non-class room education.

    Pastor ? HA ? Demonstration of Ph.D level education ? HA-HA

    His actions, I mean really ... look at the outburst he directed at you ... demonstrate actions of a THUG at heart. Which seem to fit, as he still has not directly answered questions of days past.

    I had to laugh at the URL he posted ... He statement suggesting that he would resign if he didn't respond in 48 hours to concerns.

    WAIT ... He did "resign" on here ... or did he ... or he is just wandering around without a clue ...

    Wonder what that local community board that he brags about being on, would think ... if they saw how their locally elected representative "behaves in public" ... or were aware of just what games he plays as to "less than wonderful" degrees ... for himself, and others ?

    Folks like Jimmy, remind me of why they say not to wrestle with pigs in their sty ... they like playing in the mud too much !

    Ignore him Steven, he's simply not worth your time ... His day will come, now or then, and OH MY won't he have some explaining to do. He's made his bed, and now all he can do is play in the stinking mud.

    Billy
     
  14. me again

    me again Well-Known Member

    Degree Mill Graduates?

    When I first saw the thread title, I thought it was referring to OJ Simpson and Tyson chicken. I thought, ”Why would they try to compare the two?”

    My mind quickly noted the similarities between the two: They are both in the slaughtering business. OJ slaughtered Nicole and her boyfriend while Tyson chicken slaughters chickens.

    Then I opened up the thread and saw that it was about Mike Tyson and OJ Simpson. Anyways….

    As a law enforcement officer with 14+ years experience, it is clear to me that OJ is as guilty as sin. Anyone who can’t see this must be a degree mill graduate.
     
  15. Guest

    Guest Guest

    So does O.J. go to his grave "Scott free" or does some new evidence turn up or someone comes forward who knows or, perhaps, O.J. gets a sudden burst of conscience and confesses? It will be very interesting to watch. Now, is the LA PD still investigating these murders?
     
  16. me again

    me again Well-Known Member

    Protection Against Double-Jeopardy

    Jimmy,

    Once a man has been found “not guilty” of a crime, he can never be tried for the same crime… ever again. So, if new evidence arises, it's too late. :(
     
  17. David Boyd

    David Boyd New Member


    Sorry Rich but I have to take issue with this conclusion. The both the Thomas and Tyson situations were basically "he said - she said."

    Even if all the events Hill alleged were true, where's the sexual harassment? They were both single at the time and Hill apparently never complained to Thomas or filed any type of complaint. Keep in mind Hill was no lowly employee. She was an attorney and graduate of one of the top law schools in the country. If she believed it was a hostile work environment she should have said so at the time. If Thomas then discriminated against her I would have supported her 100%.

    And of course she has benefited greatly from her testimony in the terms of books and speaking fees.
    And what career did she risk?

    At the time of his confirmation, every expert agreed if Thomas was a harasser, other victims would eventually come forward. Its now been nearly a decade and no other women have made allegations.

    Would Thomas have been my choice for the Court? No, but I'm glad he didn't back down.

    The entire jury believed Ms. Washington and the majority of the Senate didn't believe Ms. Hill.
     
  18. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Hi, Me Again,

    Yes, I know about double jeopardy but I was thinking in the "court of public opinion," especially all those who think he is innocent. Also, does double jeopardy not only apply to the exact, specific charge? If new evidence turns up couldn't he be charged with a different crime? I remember reading about one who was found innocent of murder but was convicted of second degree manslaughter after new evidence.
     
  19. StevenKing

    StevenKing Active Member

    Thanks, Billy - I try to not let people such as Jimmy Clifton get under my skin. But hey - I'm ONLY human. :D

    Thanks, man!
    Steven King
     
  20. DCross

    DCross New Member

    Re: Degree Mill Graduates?

    Good Point!

    Oh wait a minute, I mean horrible point!

    How do your statements back up your conclusion? You've been a law officer so it is clear to you? If I can't see he is guilty, I must have graduated from a degree mill. Take my advice, don't go to law school! First of all, my comment was he appears to have done it. The point is, however, there was absolutely reasonable doubt. Everyone talks about how the jurors in that case were stupid. I think they did a great job. If OJ did it, the prosecution is to blame for his aquittal. Personally, I am glad things worked the they did. It gives me faith that our system, while imperfect, is the best in the world. Some innocent people are in jail, some guilty people are on the streets. In this case, a man that appears to have commited the crime he was accused of (although we can't be sure beyond reasonable doubt) was held liable for having caused the deaths. Sure we may have wanted him in jail, But more than that, I want my justice system to work just as it did in this case.
     

Share This Page