OJ and Tyson

Re: Protection Against Double-Jeopardy

If prosecutors could prove that OJ did the deed could he not be tried for perjury? He did testify if I remember correctly. The sentence for perjury would be a slap on the wrist compared to murder, but at least it would be something.

 

Re: Re: Degree Mill Graduates?

Uhmmmmm, what university did you graduate from?

 

<"Some innocent people are in jail">


And this is why I am so vehemently, ardently, unequivocally and irrevocably opposed to capital punishment.

 

Jimmy Cliftonianism

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Jimmy Clifton
Dear Jack,
Thank you for your civility, kindness and decency.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted in another thread:

Dear Jack,
What you are observing is "classic" Jimmy Cliftonianism. Good ole Jimmy is doing here what he attempted to do at AED a few years ago. He masqueraded as a pyschologist and was exposed and never provided a competent reply, IIRC.

Here is the thread which exposed him then:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%...tcom.com&rnum=1

Perhaps Jimmy is being afforded too much bandwidth, but I think it's important for all forum members to see this con artist at work, once again.

Jimmy will evade discussion and continue to post ambiguous drivel or will resort to infantile, ad hominem attacks.

Kindly,
Steven King
P.S. Jimmy - simply answer the questions about your "credentials" and perhaps your credibility will be semi-repaired.


__________________
Don't worry about the world ending today - it's tomorrow in Australia.

 

<The black experience of how the police operate...">

This, http://www.policeforum.org/racial.html is an excellent site. The book is online and makes for very interesting, enlightening and engaging reading.

 

I don't know enough specifics to comment on the Mike Tyson conviction but I can comment on a couple of sexual assault trials in Canada to show the difficulty of defending ones-self against such charges.

A former premier of Nova Scotia was charged with many 30-40 year old sexual assaults. The timing of the alleged assaults was pretty blurry but one alleged victim pegged a time when the defendant was living outside Nova Scotia. He was found not guilty. He was then charged with several more charges that were dropped before trial.

An Alberta Member of Parliament was charged with a 30 year old plus sexual assault that was supposed to have happened while he was a police officer (RCMP). She said she was raped. He said she wasn't. The judge allowed the jury to consider attempted rape which wasn't supported by any evidence or testimony. He was convicted of the lesser offence but the conviction was overturned on appeal. Double jeopardy prevented retrying on the rape charge but he was recharged with a minor charge, made a deal for a get out of jail free card.

Canada has no statute of limitations on criminal offences. Time makes prosecution difficult but makes defence almost impossible. These cases could almost be classified as political show trials because, if not for the subsequent prominence of the individuals, they would have never made it to court.

 

Darren, everything you mention is covered in the book. What you saw at trial wasn't what the prosecution had, not by a longshot. A lot of people think Fuhrman blew the trial, and while he certainly deserves some blame, the simple fact is that Marcia Clark and Chris Darden did a crappy job prosecuting, and Lance Ito was a horrible judge. Combine that with a jury looking for any excuse to acquit, and it was a foregone conclusion that O.J. was going to walk.


Bruce

 

Forgot to address that....no, it doesn't legally make him a murderer, since he wasn't convicted of murder.

The standard of proof in a criminal trial is beyond a reasonable doubt, while a civil trial is the preponderence of the evidence (meaning more likely than not, or 51/49).

I'm just very disappointed that O.J. was never prosecuted for civil rights violations. It was good enough when the Feds wanted a second shot at the LA cops in the Rodney King incident, it certainly should have been good enough when two people are butchered to death.


Bruce

 

I agree. I think in any case involving a public figure, the jury is looking for an excuse to aquit. I will get the book.....it sounds interesting.

 

<I think in any case involving a public figure, the jury is looking for an excuse to aquit>

This has always been the case, it seems, in some capacity. In the old days of Hollywood people such as Fatty Arbuckle, who may have been responsible for the death of a young woman, if I remember correctly, had nothing done to him.

 

Fatty Arbuckle, in the murder case of Virginia Rappe, had, I believe, three hung juries before the hysteria surrounding his trials died down. His last trial ended not only with a "Not Guilty", but a formal apology from the jury and a strong statement as to his total innocence. In that case, it does appear a celebrity was wrongly charged.

The whole sad story can be read here.


Bruce