The Juice is no longer loose

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
J. Lane Easter, DVM

A born Texan has instilled in his system a mind-set of no retreat or no surrender. I wish everyone the world over had the dominating spirit that motivates Texans.– Billy Clayton, Speaker of the Texas House

No state commands such fierce pride and loyalty. Lesser mortals are pitied for their misfortune in not being born in Texas.— Queen Elizabeth II on her visit to Texas in May, 1991.

12 April 2024, 06:06

LHeym500

Well juries do kit like lying, racists cops.

Better to let a Vet hundred Ms of miles away decide.

Oh, he was considered innocent the second he walked into court. He starts out w the legal conclusion of innocence. It is upon the state to rebut the presumption.

Those words have meaning. A presumption of innocence means a jury starts out from a conclusion of innocence. The state has to rebut that. It failed. He was and is innocent. That is what he started out as.

If you do not like it, advocate for more of a police state. Where the burden is on the defendant and not the state. No thank you.

12 April 2024, 06:16

ledvm

I accept it. I am just pointing out that courts get it wrong. Even when it is a slam dunk case.

This was a heinous crime with copious evidence…still got it wrong.

Even King Lowe can’t put it right.

And I am 100% with the “innocent until proven guilty” concept. You should get on board with that concept as well.

12 April 2024, 06:20

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.

12 April 2024, 06:23

ledvm

You should look at the autopsy photos. He didn’t just kill them…he butchered them.

12 April 2024, 06:24

ledvm

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

But I will agree with you here.

12 April 2024, 06:32

Kensco

I guess he never did find who killed them like he promised his kids. Just a piece of shit. Had every chance in the world and managed to completely fuck it up.

Anyone who ever wore a golf glove and got it soaking wet understands why "the glove" wouldn't fit. The prosecution was totally incompetent.

12 April 2024, 06:39

Jefffive

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

And confessed:
https://twitter.com/BMeiselas/.../1778437718915387870

He keeps forgetting it's supposed to be "hypothetical".

12 April 2024, 06:50

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.

12 April 2024, 07:17

Jefffive

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.

He was found Not Guilty, didn't change the plain fact that he killed them; the prosecution was inept.

12 April 2024, 07:34

sjr

Wonder if BLM are planning on any somewhat peacefull demostration durning his funeral ?

12 April 2024, 08:07

lavaca

Heym, you don't understand the system. He was not found guilty. That does not mean he was found innocent. A civil jury with a different burden of proof held that he did it. Not guilty and innocent are different things.

12 April 2024, 08:11

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.

12 April 2024, 10:25

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.

12 April 2024, 12:12

Saeed

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.

The Clintons come to mind!

George Soros, indirectly?

12 April 2024, 15:58

ledvm

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.

I was in my residency at Texas A&M. I was never entranced with it…but there were TVs throughout the teaching hospital and we all kept up.

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.

12 April 2024, 17:20

Mike Mitchell

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.

This. Judge Ito lost control of that trial and IMHO is largely to blame for the outcome. He let the case become about race.

I would point out that while the criminal case jury got it wrong, the civil case jury did not. $33 million verdict.

12 April 2024, 17:29

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.

12 April 2024, 20:02

zebrazapper

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.

I saw Johnny Cochran one time in the DFW airport. You would have though he was Mick Jagger the way people were gathered around him. He was certainly good at what he did for a living.

12 April 2024, 20:47

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.

12 April 2024, 22:27

zebrazapper

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.

I disagree. I would suggest that it would have been much less of a story. Black on black crime is not exciting but a attractive blonde killed? now that will sell.

13 April 2024, 01:33

TomP

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.

A jury of his peers...

13 April 2024, 03:59

carpetman1

_I would like to have eaten with the Goldman's last night---bet it was a big feast. I hope they get his estate. Had I been making decision about the parole he got--the Goldman's would have started receiving their settlement or OJ would have stayed locked up--where he belonged.

13 April 2024, 05:13

Magine Enigam

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.

That was the first time for me when I realized the justice system was flawed.

The second time was when I got a divorce.

Now I know that Trump can beat the system and become the 47th POTUS.

13 April 2024, 10:22

carpetman1

The glove not fitting was minor compared to the real evidence that was not even mentioned. That being the dog was still alive and uninjured. This indicates the perpetrator was known. Had it been a stranger the dog would have fought to it's death.

13 April 2024, 20:07

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.

13 April 2024, 22:17

ANTELOPEDUNDEE

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.

Who had custodial possession of the glove from the time it was discovered until OJ tried it on? If it was indeed allowed to get wet and eventually shrink in size how did that happen and why didn't the prosecution question it? If it was tampered with they could have moved to have it disregarded. Could it possibly have been treated to remove OJ's blood?

14 April 2024, 03:11

LHeym500

Does not matter.

The statement mislead the jury as to the jury’s role in giving weight to any particular piece of evidence. The jury did not have to acquit if the glove did not fit. The jury could acquit. It was within the jury’s discretion on what weight to give that piece of evidence. There was no mandate to it.

The phrase should have been o he red to during closing with an instruction given.

14 April 2024, 03:21

Mike Mitchell

OJ killed those folks. The DNA blood evidence was conclusive. Simpson's blood was at the murder scene. They found the victims' blood in OJ's car. They found that bloody glove (that matched the one found at the crime scene) at OJ's house. The DNA proved all of that beyond any reasonable doubt.

14 April 2024, 03:26

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/

14 April 2024, 05:46

jdollar

The whole verdict was simply jury nullification…

14 April 2024, 08:23

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.

14 April 2024, 16:59

Mike Mitchell

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.

The heirs get what is left after the debts of the estate are settled.

His statements about the Goldman's are offensive to me.

https://www.google.com/search?...vid:lzuA0e9W7Jg,st:0

15 April 2024, 00:21

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?

15 April 2024, 00:33

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?

His client massacred the children of the judgment creditors. A jury made that finding and entered a judgment accordingly. Getting on national TV and smugly stating that he is going to do everything possible to screw the Goldman's and the Brown's is more than offensive. It's repugnant. Especially when you realize he is on TV running his mouth because he knows it will generate a significant amount of business for him.

Plus, asking Cuomo to offer condolences to OJ's children. Bullshit.

And, he's the executor of the estate, not the lawyer for Simpson's kids. His obligation is to do everything possible to carry out the wishes of the decedent that are expressed in the will. I would expect that he also has a fiduciary responsibility to the beneficiaries of the will. He would in Texas.

What I am saying here is not that the guy shouldn't do everything legally possible to carry out his task. If that means there are legal means available where he can keep the Goldman's from executing on the estate, then obviously he has the obligation to do that. But, getting on TV and talking about it like a smug asshole while grinning stupidly and trolling for legal business shouldn't be part of the drill.

Just my opinion.

15 April 2024, 00:45

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

15 April 2024, 23:33

zebrazapper

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

Not an expert but I think the protections of NFL pentions played an issue.