JOHNNIE COCHRAN......DEAD

[THE HITMAN]

Johnnie Cochran, of OJ trial fame, died today in LA at the age of 67.
My comment..........he was one of the 5 or 6 that should have been jailed(including OJ, Judge Ito, Kardashian etc.) in connection with the crime/trial. Sorry, Johnnie, no RIP from me.

 

[Master Capper]

Have to disagree, he was one of the greatest defense lawyers that I have ever seen. I do share your point of view that O.J. was guilty, but you have to give credit where credit is due.

 

[dr. freeze]

RIP Not-so-honest Johnny Cochran

 

[THE HITMAN]

Master........I just am embarassed about how he was let to make a mockery of the U S judicial system, that is all. He turned the trial into a circus and, in my opinion, his act should have been stifled early on. He was "out of order" just too many times for my liking. If he would have done it with some proof or legitimate jury persuasion, I would probably think differently. I will always think 5 or 6 should have been jailed.
Your opinion is appreciated, tho.

 

[homedog]

Master........I just am embarassed about how he was let to make a mockery of the U S judicial system, that is all. He turned the trial into a circus and, in my opinion, his act should have been stifled early on. He was "out of order" just too many times for my liking. If he would have done it with some proof or legitimate jury persuasion, I would probably think differently. I will always think 5 or 6 should have been jailed.
Your opinion is appreciated, tho.

I agree Hitman.

 

[fatdaddycool]

On the contrary I believe it was the media and the fame seeking prosecution that made a mess of the trial. Along with Judge Ito and Marcia Clark. I do not, however, share your belief of the guilt of O.J. as the actual evidence in the case left a considerable amount of reasonable doubt. The fact that much of the defense evidence was dissallowed by Ito and the fact that there were many glaring holes in what little evidence they had was ridiculous. Many will probably blast away at me for being this or that but keep in mind I watched every single minute of the trial and have it on tape. Have read all the transcripts and can make my own mind up. The fact that the Dr. that drew O.J.'s blood testified under oath that he drew 8 mls of blood from the defendant and then handed it to Van Atter who instead of proceeding to book this vial into evidence which was a mere two floors away. He proceeded to both crime scenes with the vial of the chief suspects blood in his pocket to both crimes scenes and then checked in only 6.8 mls of blood into evidence 8 hours later. The incriminating blood evidence found at the condo was one drop of blood found 47 days after the original crime and constituted approximately one tenth of one drop of blood. This evidence was of course lifted by the same criminologist that put O.J.'s uncovered shoes in the same van as the blood evidence found on bundy. Sorry, still have to prove your case and they fell far short.

 

[ceciol]

Sorry, still have to prove your case and they fell far short.

True, but that's where common sense doesn't figure into our court system.

 

[Hoops]

True, but that's where common sense doesn't figure into our court system.

Exactly.

Seems like you almost need a videotape of the actual crime to convict someone in cases where it was more than blatantly obvious who committed the crime..ala Robert Blake, OJ, etc.

 

[Marco]

"True, but that's where common sense doesn't figure into our court system."

OK....now I'm confused.....they each present thier cases and then the jury haggles over the evidence and uses thier judgement based on such evidence to determine a guilty verdict or not guilty verdict.

Where does common sense NOT fit into the jury's reasoning?

 

[beantownjim]

HEY DONT GET ME WRONG FELLAS I LIKED JOHNNY COCHRAN I WATCHED A LOT OF THE O.J. CASE AND I CANT TELL YOU HOW MANY TIMES I SAID TO MY FRIENDS AT THE IRISH SOCIAL CLUB AS WE WERE SIPPING DOWN OUR BEERS (I'LL BET YOU A CEE NOTE JONNHY IS BANGING MARCIA CLARK) I STILL HAVENT COLLECTED ON THE BET AND NOW THAT JOHNNY IS GONE I HOPE HE DIDNT TAKE THE SECRET TO HIS GRAVE I HAVE A NICKLE IN ACTION THAT SAID HE WAS BANGING HER AND I WANT TO COLLECT.I KNOW SHE WAS BANGING THAT OTHER NIGERIAN CHRIS DARDEN.

THINGS THAT MIGHT BE WRITTEN ON JOHNNY COCHRANS TOMBSTONE

(IF YOU WHITE,YOU'S IN FOR A FIGHT)
(IF YOU BLACK,I GOTS YOUR BACK)

I RESPECTED JOHNNY BECAUSE HE WAS A RACIST AND EBVERYBODY KNEW IT AND HE JUST PLAYED THE GAME.

 

[fatdaddycool]

The OJ case was one where common sense actually prevailed and the proper verdict was rendered. To be quite honest with you, the simple fact that the prosecution tried to base the time of death on the time a dog started barking and even then the husband wife team next door couldn't even agree on what time he started barking is absurd. The entire case was based on a timeline that started when a fuhking dog started barking. That is not only ludicrous but absurd. Dog's eat their own crap yet you want to convict a man of capital murder based on the rantings of a stool eating dog. Trust me none of us would have standed for that kind of prosecution had that been Clint Eastwood on the stand.

 

[Kdogg21]

I wish I would of had Johnnie in my death pool....

 

[Kdogg21]

http://www.geocities.com/antman67/oj.htm

 

[Kdogg21]

How is it a civil trial jury ruled he was liable for the 1994 death of Goldman and battery against his ex-wife Nicole, in a suit filed by the families of the victims, February 4, 1997? What prompted OJ Simpson to make his famous "slow speed chase" in Al Cowlings Bronco days after the murders?

 

[Marco]

I thought the civil trial just reeked with doudle jeoparty......how can you have a trial about the innocence of guilt of a person, in the first case he's released.....

....yet in the second trial, the "go for the money try".....he's found guilty and ordered to pay like 25 million......

How can a basic lawyer NOT claim double jeopardy and get the second trial thrown out because the first trial ruled he was not culpable.....

Basically, if you lose the trial, just go back and make a stab at the money and hope the next jury does a make-up call like refs on a playfield?

What kind of standard allows a civil suit when the criminal suit has failed? Ask the guy to pay money after the first trial failed to prove guilt?

 

[fatdaddycool]

How is it a civil trial jury ruled he was liable for the 1994 death of Goldman and battery against his ex-wife Nicole, in a suit filed by the families of the victims, February 4, 1997? What prompted OJ Simpson to make his famous "slow speed chase" in Al Cowlings Bronco days after the murders?

There is no burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt in a civil trial. You don't have to prove guilt at all, much like the officers that undoubtedly beat Rodney King yet were found to be innocent in the criminal trial yet responsible in the civil trial. I think the slow speed chase speaks for itself as I am quite sure that he saw the news shows that were convicting him without hope of a fair trial too. OJ watches tv too. Let me ask you a question did you think Coontz (sp?) and the other cops were guilty for beating Rodney King?
Do you think Kobe was guilty?
How about Tyson?
Keep in mind your judgement is based entirely on what you have learned from the media or did you read all the transcripts and such? Just because a rich black man is scared of losing everything from a clearly biased, white dominated justice system does not prove guilt. Evidence is supposed to do that, and if you want to talk about evidence then lets do that, not supposition and conjecture.
Fuhrman testified that the glove found on OJ's property was wet and sticky yet found it more than six hours after the dog barking. Do you know the evaporation properties of blood in the open air?
What about when they walked into Nicoles apartment and found ice cream, a drawn bath, a radio on and proceeded to throw out the ice cream without checking the consistency or age in a lab, emptied the tub without checking the temp, turned off the stereo without looking to see if it was a cd, cassette, radio or whatever then went and got a sheet off of her own bed and covered her body thereby ruining any chance of dna recovery. Do you have any idea how much blood was at the scene? Yet no dna evidence linking Goldman or Nicole was found at OJ's house. No bloody clothes, except for the planted glove. Maybe its me but I prefer to make up my own mind rather than have media do it for me.

 

[hogman14]

I wish I would of had Johnnie in my death pool....

A buddy of mine asked if anyone had him in ours..but w/someone like that, people generally start asking questions, as this seems out of the blue....

 

[yyz]

"I wanna know if he put the balm on!?"

 

[2muchchalk]

i was not a big fan, but he was a great lawyer. He just played the game better than every1 else. Where his methods unethical? probably, but dont' hate the player hate the game.

 

[Marco]

"There is no burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt in a civil trial. You don't have to prove guilt at all...."

So much for having the courts. Just throw out the constitution while we're at it, and employ lynch mobs and vigilantism. I was mistaken....I thought we were all innocent until proven guilty......now we don't have to even prove anything.

I would think a reasonable expectation would be that a monetary award was given from the outcome of a trial that judged a person to be guilty. The monetary award, in all fairness, should be part of the penalty phase of finding a party guilty, and not a separate entity of its own.

Why even bother having a criminal trial when it's obvious that few if no standards apply to civil trials, and apparently as obvious that they are therefore easier to win....so why bother trying to prove guilt when it's much easier to say "We think he's guilty, so here's a pile of money."

And then ask those same people...."What leads you to think he's guilty....what evidence?"

To which they respond...."Evidence doesn't matter, we just got a hunch. We don't have to be scientific here."