quote:

His real crime was in kickstarting "reality TV" and making the Kardashians famous.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
You should look at the autopsy photos. He didn’t just kill them…he butchered them.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
You should look at the autopsy photos. He didn’t just kill them…he butchered them.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
You should look at the autopsy photos. He didn’t just kill them…he butchered them.

You know who saw those photos, the jury.

Does nothing to rebut what I typed above.

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:
Killing two people wasn't his worst crime, lots of people you never hear of kill two or more.

His real crime was in kickstarting "reality TV" and making the Kardashians famous.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
LHeym, a number of us were old enough to watch the trial. It was considered daily viewing by some while I was in residency.

The universal commentary at the time was this was an example of jury nullification.

Were the cops a bunch of idiots? Yes.

The judge was not in control of that courtroom. He became a running joke (I still recall Leno and his "dancing Itos)...

Cochrane and his histrionic "if it doesn't fit, you must acquit" stunt.

Yes, Fuhrman holds a lot of responsibility for letting OJ off.

But almost no one felt he didn't commit the crime after watching the debacle live on TV.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
LHeym, a number of us were old enough to watch the trial. It was considered daily viewing by some while I was in residency.

The universal commentary at the time was this was an example of jury nullification.

Were the cops a bunch of idiots? Yes.

The judge was not in control of that courtroom. He became a running joke (I still recall Leno and his "dancing Itos)...

Cochrane and his histrionic "if it doesn't fit, you must acquit" stunt.

Yes, Fuhrman holds a lot of responsibility for letting OJ off.

But almost no one felt he didn't commit the crime after watching the debacle live on TV.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
A good example as to why I don’t trust courts of law. Should have been an open and shut case.

Even though I liked OJ as a kid…the court of law let the perpetrator of one of the most heinous murders…walk.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
A good example as to why I don’t trust courts of law. Should have been an open and shut case.

Even though I liked OJ as a kid…the court of law let the perpetrator of one of the most heinous murders…walk.

Jury let him walk, not the court. That case was over the day the jury was picked. Cochran got exactly the jury that his consultants told him was most likely to acquit or hang. Predominantly female, predominantly African-American.

And, the case was totally circumstantial.

And, Johnny Cochran was one hell of a trial lawyer.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

Jury let him walk, not the court. That case was over the day the jury was picked. Cochran got exactly the jury that his consultants told him was most likely to acquit or hang. Predominantly female, predominantly African-American.

And, the case was totally circumstantial.

And, Johnny Cochran was one hell of a trial lawyer.

quote:

Originally posted by SlamFire:

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

Jury let him walk, not the court. That case was over the day the jury was picked. Cochran got exactly the jury that his consultants told him was most likely to acquit or hang. Predominantly female, predominantly African-American.

And, the case was totally circumstantial.

And, Johnny Cochran was one hell of a trial lawyer.

You think OJ would have walked, had he slit the throat of a black woman, and stabbed to death a black Ronald Goldman?

I think not.

quote:

Originally posted by Tumbleweed:
I always thought the jury let him off because the black riots that would follow a guilty verdict would kill a helluva lot more than the original two victims.

The Rodney King mess was still fresh in a lot of minds about then.

I remember the black community rejoicing about the O.J. verdict, just as strongly as the white community felt it was wrong.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

I was in the client lobby talking to an owner of a surgey patient when the verdict came through. It stopped our conversation. Nobody could believe it.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
I actually think the Glove do t fit you must acquit was an error that should have drawn an objection and struck with a disregarding instruction.

Here is why I say that. The weight of a particular piece of evidence is left to the jury to assign, or give.

The phrase mislead the jury as instructing the jury on what weight it “had” to give.

That said, as in most cases, jury selection was critical. The untrustworthy detective.

Oh, and that pesky presumption of innocence.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:
Simpson's executor is a piece of work. Says he is going to do everything in his power to keep the Goldman's from getting anything from the estate.

He's a big a piece of shit as OJ.

https://www.reviewjournal.com/...from-estate-3033152/

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:
Simpson's executor is a piece of work. Says he is going to do everything in his power to keep the Goldman's from getting anything from the estate.

He's a big a piece of shit as OJ.

https://www.reviewjournal.com/...from-estate-3033152/

I swear I'm not being argumentative, why do you say that? Shouldn't the executors job be to get OJ's heirs everything?

My sympathy for the Goldman's is waiting.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
The guy was OJ's lawyer in all of this.

He's trying to look out for his clients and follow their wishes. I thought that is what lawyers were supposed to do?

As long as he stays within the bounds of the law, why are you offended by him in that regard? I do get that he is saying things about a dead man's family that are offensive.

Now, the question is, why did the courts allow OJ to hide/keep so many assets in the face of the previous settlement?

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
The guy was OJ's lawyer in all of this.

He's trying to look out for his clients and follow their wishes. I thought that is what lawyers were supposed to do?

As long as he stays within the bounds of the law, why are you offended by him in that regard? I do get that he is saying things about a dead man's family that are offensive.

Now, the question is, why did the courts allow OJ to hide/keep so many assets in the face of the previous settlement?

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
The guy was OJ's lawyer in all of this.

He's trying to look out for his clients and follow their wishes. I thought that is what lawyers were supposed to do?

As long as he stays within the bounds of the law, why are you offended by him in that regard? I do get that he is saying things about a dead man's family that are offensive.

Now, the question is, why did the courts allow OJ to hide/keep so many assets in the face of the previous settlement?

And, I don't know the answer as to why OJ was able to live out his years in relative comfort after he got out of prison.

State law and bankruptcy provide some protection to debtors and exempts certain assets from being executed upon by judgment creditors. In Texas, there's thing called the Homestead Exemption. The only person/entity that can typically execute on a person's home due to the entry of a judgment is the bank or lender that holds any purchase money security interest in the home....the mortgage. Otherwise, the homestead (your house) is exempt from execution by your creditors.

Texas has a long list of exemptions. Or, they used to when I was in law school. Includes livestock, guns, etc. Here's a partial list of things a creditor can't take from the debtor per Google:

One vehicle for each member of the family with a driver's license
Professionally prescribed health aids
Religious bible or other sacred religious book
Other property can also be protected, but the maximum value of the following items in total is $50,000 for an individual (or $100,000 for a family)

Home furnishings, including family heirlooms
Food and similar items for consumption
Farming or ranching vehicles and implements
Tools and equipment used for a job
Clothes
Jewelry (up to a total value of $12,500 for a single person or $25,000 for a family)
2 firearms
Athletic and sporting equipment
2 horses, mules, or donkeys with food and riding equipment
12 head of cattle with food
60 head of other livestock with food
120 fowl with food
Household pets