Acting Innocent? Acting Guilty?

[weezer]

Knocked a phone from her hands. Right.
She says no violence from him.
martin II

you crack me up -- she can believed about everything EXCEPT and UNLESS it reflects badly on orenthal. LOL

[bobaugust]

bob
IF oj got the message and then called Gretchen sp it certainly seems like paulas call did not mean that much. Seems like he felt that he could move on to someone that he had in mind previously. not that HE started SHAKING, PRANCING BACK AND FORTH, TALKING TO HIMSELF , RAN TO THE KITCHEN and GRABBED A KINFE and FLEW TO BUNDY.
This call proves nothing other then Paula tossed some kind of anger fit for a night. happens in many relationships.
martin II

According to Simpson's telephone records he first listened to Paula's message at 6:56 P.M. He called; Gretchen Stockdale at 7:32 P.M. leaving her a message. He then called Paula again at 7:53 P.M. leaving her a message. At 8:00 P.M. Simpson received Gigi's telephone call. That was the telephone call that gave Simpson the opportunity to go to Bundy that night. Simpson called his message center again just before 8:55 P.M. and then he called Paula again at 8:58 and 8:59 P.M. At 10:03 P.M. Simpson again called Paula from his cell phone before he went to Bundy. Your suggestion that Simpson started shaking and prancing, back and forth, talking to himself only shows your imagination how you may think he reacted that night but I doubt if it happened.

You keep talking about what Paula's message might have meant to her but you don't know that and neither did Simpson that night. All Simpson knew was what Paula said in her message and that he couldn't get hold of her the entire day.

You can try and spin this any way you want but the reality is that Cochran and Simpson disagree with you. Cochran hid Paula's message from the criminal trial jury and lied to them. When Simpson was confronted with the undeniable evidence that he heard Paula's message he continued to lie and deny it. It's evident that both Cochran and Simpson were far more concerned about that message then you want to believe.

bobaugust

[socaldiva]

you crack me up -- she can believed about everything EXCEPT and UNLESS it reflects badly on orenthal. LOL

And he doesn't consider knocking a phone from someone's had a violent gesture? :rolleyes:

[martin II]

you crack me up -- she can believed about everything EXCEPT and UNLESS it reflects badly on orenthal. LOL

i don't know what you mean 'Knocked phone from her hand" and i really don't know what you mean by Pauls has some CROSS to bear.

"I ASSUME" "I don't know" means i assume and I don't know.

I thought she made a quick recovery as she did get to the jail to confort OJ
the day after his arrest.
imo
martin II

[martin II]

According to Simpson's telephone records he first listened to Paula's message at 6:56 P.M. He called; Gretchen Stockdale at 7:32 P.M. leaving her a message. He then called Paula again at 7:53 P.M. leaving her a message. At 8:00 P.M. Simpson received Gigi's telephone call. That was the telephone call that gave Simpson the opportunity to go to Bundy that night. Simpson called his message center again just before 8:55 P.M. and then he called Paula again at 8:58 and 8:59 P.M. At 10:03 P.M. Simpson again called Paula from his cell phone before he went to Bundy. Your suggestion that Simpson started shaking and prancing, back and forth, talking to himself only shows your imagination how you may think he reacted that night but I doubt if it happened.

You keep talking about what Paula's message might have meant to her but you don't know that and neither did Simpson that night. All Simpson knew was what Paula said in her message and that he couldn't get hold of her the entire day.

You can try and spin this any way you want but the reality is that Cochran and Simpson disagree with you. Cochran hid Paula's message from the criminal trial jury and lied to them. When Simpson was confronted with the undeniable evidence that he heard Paula's message he continued to lie and deny it. It's evident that both Cochran and Simpson were far more concerned about that message then you want to believe.

bobaugust

i don't think oj became angry with Paula (her call) and then went to kill Nicole.
Thats nonsense. You seem to be trying to make Silk out of banana leaves.imo
martin II

[weezer]

i don't know what you mean 'Knocked phone from her hand" and i really don't know what you mean by Pauls has some CROSS to bear.

"I ASSUME" "I don't know" means i assume and I don't know.

I thought she made a quick recovery as she did get to the jail to confort OJ
the day after his arrest.
imo
martin II

remember the deposition of Paula that you didn't want to share the link to? Well you should actually read it -- you're making yourself look bad. ;)

[martin II]

remember the deposition of Paula that you didn't want to share the link to? Well you should actually read it -- you're making yourself look bad. ;)

weezer


Negative personal comments directed at a poster does not add anything to the debate.
imo

martinii

[bobaugust]

i don't think oj became angry with Paula (her call) and then went to kill Nicole.
Thats nonsense. You seem to be trying to make Silk out of banana leaves.imo
martin II

martin II, there you go again attributing something to me that I never said. You make something up and then tell us how it doesn't make any sense to you. The facts are the facts.

Triumph of Justice,
Johnnie Cochran had emphasized Paula's relationship with Simpson in the criminal trial. Simpson, he told the jury, had no motive to kill Nicole because he was deeply involved with Paula at the time of the murders. They were back together, he said. Simpson had even called an interior decorator to design a bedroom at the Rockingham estate to Paula's tastes. They had attended a fancy party Saturday night, June 11. and witnesses saw Simpson and Paula there, happy as lovebirds. They were embarking on a life together, perhaps even looking toward marriage. so, according to Cochran, why kill Nicole? Simpson wasn't obsessed with Nicole, he had Paula.

Cochran was deceiving the criminal trial jury and hiding Paula's message, lying to them telling them that it was all wild speculation and preposterous that Paula had a falling out with Simpson the day of the murders. And when Simpson was confronted with the undeniable evidence that he listened to Paula's message he lied and denied it.

Both Cochran and Simpson's lies contradict your beliefs as to what Paula's message meant to Simpson. Simpson didn't have Paula to talk to the night of the murders. He was obsessed with Nicole. That's why he killed her.

bobaugust

[weezer]

weezer


Negative personal comments directed at a poster does not add anything to the debate.
imo

martinii

it wasn't a negative personal comment but rather a suggestion that I would hope help with the debate.

[martin II]

it wasn't a negative personal comment but rather a suggestion that I would hope help with the debate.

"you're making yourself look bad."

this negative comment does not add to the debate. I think you know that.
imo
martin II

[Kate Sachel]

I can appreciate the Judge's sentiments, but, unitl the law changes a verdict of not guilty stands as a truth. The verdict only speaks to the trial in which it was rendered. Ergo, I would disagree with the more learned judge and you. The finding of new evidence may lead to a new trial. The verdict in the new trial[B]would be a statment of truth in that trial and not a statement of truth to the other. I think you maybe mixing the concept of finality, res judicata, with a verdict. I intend to further my education with different and additional courses in law. However, I think I have had enough courses to understand the difference between finality and truth as to whether or not a prosecution or plaintiff met it's required standard of proof by the verdict, which is the statement of truth to that particular trial. However, with that said, this highlights another difference between a civil and criminal trial. [B]I think that there is a time limit to take an appeal in a civil trial and there is no corresponding time limit in a criminal. Perhaps, you may want to talk with the judge on this issue as well as to the verdict being a statement of truth to a particular trial.

Kindly,

William

Let's discuss again about the innocent men jailed and now released because it's quite simple to look at the verdicts in these cases and recognize that they were not the truth.

It doesn't matter if we're speaking of a guilty or not guilty verdict, the fact remains that even in the legal world a veridct and the truth are not necessarily one and the same and that fact is becoming more noticed.

Regarding time limits, I believe there is a time limit to appeal in federla court and I believe that the time limits varies by state in state court.

Kate

[William Anthony]

Let's discuss again about the innocent men jailed and now released because it's quite simple to look at the verdicts in these cases and recognize that they were not the truth.

It doesn't matter if we're speaking of a guilty or not guilty verdict, the fact remains that even in the legal world a veridct and the truth are not necessarily one and the same and that fact is becoming more noticed.

Regarding time limits, I believe there is a time limit to appeal in federla court and I believe that the time limits varies by state in state court.

Kate

Let's look at the case about which you speak. If they were released, it was because of a variety of reasons, faulty DNA results, perjured testimony, false or coerced confessions, hamful errors of law of new evidence. All of these things would have been come to light after the evidence was entered in the trial. Thus, the jury rendered a truth based on the evidence admitted or excluded, rightly or wrongly, and their verdict was the statement of truth as to whether or not, based on the evidence exclueded or presented in that trial, the evidence was sufficent to prove guilt as charged or insufficient, leading to a verdict of not guilty as charged.

Nothing said that upon additional evidence or harmful and clearly erroneous errors of law the finding of guilty must stand. Therefore, nothing says that the verdict is final-only that the jury returned the statement of truth based on the evidence they heard, regardless of the fact of whether or not they heard all the proper evidence. This is only in the matter of a verdict of guilty. A finding of not guilty is not only the statement of truth in that particular trial but is a finality until the law is changed. I do not know about facts becoming more noticed, since this has always been the case. Perhaps, what is becoming more noticed is the number of falsely convicted , because of the things I mentioned above.

What I was asking is that I know there is a time to ask for a new trial based on new evidence in the civil procedure. However, I do not think there is a corresponding time limit in a criminal procedure. I am sure you understand that the jury is charged with finding facts based on the evidence and the judge is charged with the law.

[martin II]

Let's look at the case about which you speak. If they were released, it was because of a variety of reasons, faulty DNA results, perjured testimony, false or coerced confessions, hamful errors of law of new evidence. All of these things would have been come to light after the evidence was entered in the trial. Thus, the jury rendered a truth based on the evidence admitted or excluded, rightly or wrongly, and their verdict was the statement of truth as to whether or not, based on the evidence exclueded or presented in that trial, the evidence was sufficent to prove guilt as charged or insufficient, leading to a verdict of not guilty as charged.

Nothing said that upon additional evidence or harmful and clearly erroneous errors of law the finding of guilty must stand. Therefore, nothing says that the verdict is final-only that the jury returned the statement of truth based on the evidence they heard, regardless of the fact of whether or not they heard all the proper evidence. This is only in the matter of a verdict of guilty. A finding of not guilty is not only the statement of truth in that particular trial but is a finality until the law is changed. I do not know about facts becoming more noticed, since this has always been the case. Perhaps, what is becoming more noticed is the number of falsely convicted , because of the things I mentioned above.

What I was asking is that I know there is a time to ask for a new trial based on new evidence in the civil procedure. However, I do not think there is a corresponding time limit in a criminal procedure. I am sure you understand that the jury is charged with finding facts based on the evidence and the judge is charged with the law.


:beer: :beer: :beer:

martinii

[Kate Sachel]

Let's look at the case about which you speak. If they were released, it was because of a variety of reasons, faulty DNA results, perjured testimony, false or coerced confessions, hamful errors of law of new evidence. All of these things would have been come to light after the evidence was entered in the trial. Thus, the jury rendered a truth based on the evidence admitted or excluded, rightly or wrongly, and their verdict was the statement of truth as to whether or not, based on the evidence exclueded or presented in that trial, the evidence was sufficent to prove guilt as charged or insufficient, leading to a verdict of not guilty as charged.

Nothing said that upon additional evidence or harmful and clearly erroneous errors of law the finding of guilty must stand. Therefore, nothing says that the verdict is final-only that the jury returned the statement of truth based on the evidence they heard, regardless of the fact of whether or not they heard all the proper evidence. This is only in the matter of a verdict of guilty. A finding of not guilty is not only the statement of truth in that particular trial but is a finality until the law is changed. I do not know about facts becoming more noticed, since this has always been the case. Perhaps, what is becoming more noticed is the number of falsely convicted , because of the things I mentioned above.

What I was asking is that I know there is a time to ask for a new trial based on new evidence in the civil procedure. However, I do not think there is a corresponding time limit in a criminal procedure. I am sure you understand that the jury is charged with finding facts based on the evidence and the judge is charged with the law.

Jury Nullification in and of itself shows us that verdict and truth are not the same.

Kate

[William Anthony]

Jury Nullification in and of itself shows us that verdict and truth are not the same.

Kate

I think that I should ask you what your understanding of jury nullification is, since there are many mechanisms to accomplish this feat. I will say that a demurre, summay judgement, and directed verdicts occur before a jury renders its verdict, and some before the trial begins. However, there is the appeal process. This brings about an interesting point. The jury is charged with giving weight and credibility to the evidence and the Judge is charged with the law. There have been many cases stating just that. Therefore, the only reason for reversing a verdict and ordering a new trial should be harmful errors of law, which, as I have stated, is not to say the verdict was incorrect.
However, there have been cases where the appellate court has ruled that the weight of the evidence conflicted with the jury's determination. I do not believe that this should be in the purview of the appellate court. I must accept that it is.

Here is a quote from Lavender v. Kern , 227 U. S. 645 (1946). "Only when there is a complete absence of probative facts to support the conclusion reached does a reversible error appear." I think from that quote we can see that an appellate could should rarely, if at all, disturb a finding of the jury, as I believe is the case. The main standard, imho, for the admissibility of evidence is that it is more probative than prejudicial. Hence, if there was no probative evidence, which I am hard pressed to believe, that would lead to a probative fact, then a trial should not have happened.

Another quote on another point from the cited case. "Whenever the facts are in dispute or the evidence is such that fair-minded men may draw different inferences, a measure of specualtion and conjecture is required on whose duty it is to settle the dispute by choosing to them what seems to be the most reasonable inference." Therefore, the jury is allowed to speculate and enter into conjecture.", and there is nothing wrong with others on this board doing likewise.

[William Anthony]

Jury Nullification in and of itself shows us that verdict and truth are not the same.

Kate

I have thought about this and I believe that in the case of jury nullification what the court is saying is not that the jury's verdict and determination of fact was not the truth based on the evidence they heard, but that the evidence was legally insufficient and should have never been admitted, based on the dicta in Lavender, and there was no need for a trial. Since the admissibilty of evidence is a matter of law, the appellate court is technically saying that the evidence was improperly admitted and harmful error has occured, not that the jury's determination of the improperly admitted evidence was incorrect or untrue. If that is the case, then I suppose that jury nullification through the appellate process is technically acceptable, because the Judge has not usurped his/her/their authority.

[weezer]

I have thought about this and I believe that in the case of jury nullification what the court is saying is not that the jury's verdict and determination of fact was not the truth based on the evidence they heard, but that the evidence was legally insufficient and should have never been admitted, based on the dicta in Lavender, and there was no need for a trial. Since the admissibilty of evidence is a matter of law, the appellate court is technically saying that the evidence was improperly admitted and harmful error has occured, not that the jury's determination of the improperly admitted evidence was incorrect or untrue. If that is the case, then I suppose that jury nullification through the appellate process is technically acceptable, because the Judge has not usurped his/her/their authority.

maybe you could take your 'legal system' posts to an appropriate board? I don't believe Kate's post was an invitation for you to write a dissertation on jury nullification but rather looking for discussion as the jury nullification pertains to the simpson case. (At least that was my take on her post)

[martin II]

maybe you could take your 'legal system' posts to an appropriate board? I don't believe Kate's post was an invitation for you to write a dissertation on jury nullification but rather looking for discussion as the jury nullification pertains to the simpson case. (At least that was my take on her post)

there is no shortage of memory on this forum and everyone can post as much
info and they can type.imo

Thanks

martin II

[weezer]

there is no shortage of memory on this forum and everyone can post as much
info and they can type.imo

Thanks

martin II

this is the thread for the simpson case -- not william's blog for pontificating on HIS thoughts regarding the legal system. Enough already!!!!

[martin II]

this is the thread for the simpson case -- not william's blog for pontificating on HIS thoughts regarding the legal system. Enough already!!!!

are we to the point where you get to say what can and cannot be posted?
thats not your intent is it?
i think his post are very informative.
martin II

[weezer]

are we to the point where you get to say what can and cannot be posted?
thats not your intent is it?
i think his post are very informative.
martin II

I'm not saying what can and cannot be posted? the Board actually says it: "O.J. Simpson" -- not william on law. not william on jury nullification. not william on 'someday I'm gonna be a lawyer' --

I think it's great that you find his posts informative -- maybe you two can PM and hel'll write his pontifications and you can read them there. In the meantime, his ramblings do not need to be on this board. imo

of course, if there are others on the board who care to read william's ramblings, then I would certainly bow to the majority.

[martin II]

I'm not saying what can and cannot be posted? the Board actually says it: "O.J. Simpson" -- not william on law. not william on jury nullification. not william on 'someday I'm gonna be a lawyer' --

I think it's great that you find his posts informative -- maybe you two can PM and hel'll write his pontifications and you can read them there. In the meantime, his ramblings do not need to be on this board. imo

of course, if there are others on the board who care to read william's ramblings, then I would certainly bow to the majority.

weezer

i don't think it is necessary or fair for you or anyone else to try to set up some thread POLL on whether another poster can post opinions, facts and informative information.
A lot of the Oj threads do involve legal issues and i think that any poster with more legal experience/education than most of us should be welcomed not shuned.
William is not the only poster that has posted opinions and fact based on law.
Some people post short post and some like to post longer ones.

Actually i know of no thread posting rules that would allow YOU to even ask poster this question.
Remember you like every other poster can just skip over any post that does not exicite your interest.

So i will pretend that this subject was never brought up by you.
fini.
imo

I think you post is mean spirited and uncalled for and a personal attrack on william personally.
martin II

[martin II]

I'm not saying what can and cannot be posted? the Board actually says it: "O.J. Simpson" -- not william on law. not william on jury nullification. not william on 'someday I'm gonna be a lawyer' --

I think it's great that you find his posts informative -- maybe you two can PM and hel'll write his pontifications and you can read them there. In the meantime, his ramblings do not need to be on this board. imo

of course, if there are others on the board who care to read william's ramblings, then I would certainly bow to the majority.

weezer
it was another poster that tossed in the subject of jury nullification into the discussion. William did a good job of keeping that issue discussed and explained. Actually it was informative for me.imo

so just start bowing and try to enjoy yourself. everything is fine.

martin II

[martin II]

this is the thread for the simpson case -- not william's blog for pontificating on HIS thoughts regarding the legal system. Enough already!!!!

weezer

Did you ever complain when BOB AUGUST so many times posted his PERSONAL WEB site on this FORUM?? if so i don't remember when.
martin II

[socaldiva]

*snip*
So i will pretend that this subject was never brought up by you.
fini.


Then why did you post TWO more posts about this?

[William Anthony]

maybe you could take your 'legal system' posts to an appropriate board? I don't believe Kate's post was an invitation for you to write a dissertation on jury nullification but rather looking for discussion as the jury nullification pertains to the simpson case. (At least that was my take on her post)

As I read and understood Kate's post it was not specific to any trial-only that jury nullification nullified the idea that a verdict means a statement of truth.

[William Anthony]

this is the thread for the simpson case -- not william's blog for pontificating on HIS thoughts regarding the legal system. Enough already!!!!

I think Freshwater has previously posted that conversations sometimes stray and that is permissible. This whole issue arose most recently as a result of a discussion on what a verdict means. There have been many posts on this board that bash the criminal verdict and the jurors, accusing them of not doing their duty and having an agenda, as well as what the civil trial verdict means. I find it arduous, if not impossible, to have a discussion on a trial or trials without discussing the various legal issues involved. I do not think the proper focus would be served, if we abandon the law, and just offer opinions as we see fit. For instance to discuss evidence without knowing what evidence is, is usless imho. I entered this discussion, because of the extensive media coverage the trial had. America got to see arguments that the jury did not. This trial served as a teaching mechanism on the law. To now want to disallow any discussion of the law negates any value that showing the trial had, imho. Like it or not trials are held on the basis of procedural, evidentiary and substantive law. How can we offer an informed opinion of whether or not he was guilty without understanding the foundation of the forum in which the evidence was presented and facts determined? How can we critize a jury if we do not understand the elements that are presented for them to do their duty?

[William Anthony]

maybe you could take your 'legal system' posts to an appropriate board? I don't believe Kate's post was an invitation for you to write a dissertation on jury nullification but rather looking for discussion as the jury nullification pertains to the simpson case. (At least that was my take on her post)

There has been no jury nullification in the Simpson case.