JOHNNIE COCHRAN......DEAD

GM

PleasureGlutton
Forum Member
Jan 21, 2000
2,962
5
0
123
Toronto, ON, Canada
fatdaddycool said:
I watched every single minute of the trial and have it on tape.
You have every minute of what, six months(?) worth of trial on tape? Holy crap man, you must have a couple of rooms in your house devoted to nothing but storing VHS tapes.
 

Kdogg21

who?
Forum Member
Dec 8, 2001
5,364
0
0
48
Chicago,IL
daddycool.....good points. yea i read alot about the trial and read the transcripts. With the evidence and testimony I saw and read, I believe he was guilty. Look at what happend in the past with OJ beating her. Nicole told three friends, including Faye Resnick, that O.J. was going to kill her. Nicole had expressed her fears to her therapist, Susan Forward, that she was afraid O.J. was going to off her. In her diary, she expressed similar fears of being murdered by him because he told her, "If I can't have you, nobody can." Her fear was so intense, she made out her will five weeks before she was murdered. The blood found on Ron Goldman's boots was found to be a mixture of his and O.J.'s. Blood matching Nicole Simpson's and O.J.'s was found inside the Bronco. O.J.'s blood was found on the walkway outside the Brentwood mansion and in the shower and sink of his bathroom. During his interrogation, Simpson stated he had no recollection of cutting himself. Fibres found on the knit cap left at the crime scene and the notorious bloody glove behind O.J.'s house were unique to the 1994 model Ford Bronco, belonging to O.J. The hair found in the cap matched a reference sample taken from O.J.'s head and the large number of hairs inside the cap suggests that O.J. had worn it. A 12-inch hair with the same characteristics as those of Nicole Simpson was found on the bloody glove found at O.J.'s estate. The killer wore size 12 shoes. O.J. Simpson wore size 12 shoes. Some of the blood stains matching Nicole's blood found on the bloody sock inside O.J.'s home were microscopic flakes too small to be tampered with. The DNA samples were tested and matched by three independent labs on behalf of the L.A.P.D., the Cellmark Diagnostics laboratory and the California Department of Justice. Also, in the end, a glove matching the bloody glove, one pair of 240 pairs sold by Bloomingdales in 1989, fit Simpson.
 

danmurphy jr

Registered User
Forum Member
Sep 14, 2004
2,966
5
0
Marcia Clark and that Uncle Tom should have been jailed. If you want to kill somebody, do it in LA. Prosecuters buy their jobs. Everybody made big bucks on that incident, even the Zionist who sued him for his trinkets.
 

vyrus858

Registered User
Forum Member
Apr 9, 2003
3,137
46
0
43
San Diego, CA
2muchchalk said:
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.

Amen :clap: ... he did whatever other lawyer is trying to do, WIN, so he can advance in his career...thats my take
 

Master Capper

Emperior
Forum Member
Jan 12, 2002
9,104
11
0
Dunedin, Florida
Bottom line.....if I was on trial for a double Murder would I want him as my defense lawyer? Hell yes, the guy was a wizard in the court, and made the prosecution look like morons. I don't see how anyone can have hatred for him for doing his job, if you want to be a hater then you need to hate Mark Fuhrman for being a racist Barney Fife, hate the LA Police Department for being incompetent, hate Clark and Darden for being less than up to the task to battle the dream team, but dont hate a man for doing his job. In my heart I know that OJ is guilty as hell, and personally I would love to see someone take him out, but I give credit where credit is due.
 

ceciol

Registered User
Forum Member
Oct 18, 2003
514
1
0
Marco said:
"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?

Because you are told you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. So if common sense tells you he's guilty, it doesn't matter if you haven't proven guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt". To me, that takesd common sense out of the equation.
 

ceciol

Registered User
Forum Member
Oct 18, 2003
514
1
0
fatdaddycool said:
The OJ case was one where common sense actually prevailed and the proper verdict was rendered.

I disagree. If common sense were allowed, there would have been no trial and he would have been jailed immediately.
 

ceciol

Registered User
Forum Member
Oct 18, 2003
514
1
0
Kdogg21 said:
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?

Because of common sense.
 

ceciol

Registered User
Forum Member
Oct 18, 2003
514
1
0
fatdaddycool said:
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.

Police incompetence should not exclude guilt.
 

ceciol

Registered User
Forum Member
Oct 18, 2003
514
1
0
penguinfan said:
Kdogg, please do not confuse FDC with facts that do not support his obvious bias in the issue.

fatdaddycool, kdogg1 and others... just curious. Do you believe Scott Peterson was guilty? Robert Blake? I didn't follow those trials either, but would be interested in your take (I'm serious, I'm not trying to be a jerk - it seems you guys may know more about these as well, and since I have no clue about the evidence, I'm wondering what the transcripts would lead one to believe.
 

THE HITMAN

Registered User
Forum Member
Dec 18, 2001
2,899
3
0
HOLLYWOOD, FL
Wow.......I didn't think the thread would get so many responses. Ceciol, to anwer your question, I guess Scott Peterson is probably guilty, although I didn't follow the trial or examine the facts as I did with the positively guilty OJ. I would have bet (and lost) that Robert Blake is guilty, too. Next up awaiting judgement...........Phil Spector.
Probably this is good material for a brand new thread, but to follow up a bit on Master Capper's thoughts about taking OJ out.........To my amazement, no one has never even taken a pot shot at him, much less taken him out. Not even small crack at him. I would think that some brazen nut case or someone with a termininal illness with not much to lose, or just some vigilante would have gone after him. And he is everywhere publically, golf courses, racetracks, etc. Someone could have nailed him on a golf course with a long range rifle and never even be seen or suspected.
Add Fidel Castro to that list............so many wild Cubans just hate the crap out of him, but no one has ever even given him a shot.
I'm really surprised both of these guys are still living. Instead, they went after JFK, Robert Kennedy, Ronald Reagan, Gerald Ford & John Lennon. Go figure.
 
Last edited:

Kdogg21

who?
Forum Member
Dec 8, 2001
5,364
0
0
48
Chicago,IL
Blake i think was guilty, Peterson for some reason, I dont think he was, but probably had something to do with it, which in any case would make you guilty.
 

fatdaddycool

Chi-TownHustler
Forum Member
Mar 26, 2001
13,715
275
83
60
Fort Worth TX usa
penguinfan said:
Kdogg, please do not confuse FDC with facts that do not support his obvious bias in the issue.
Pfan, thank you so much for the support. As I have always found you as a contributor to this forum, I am a bit unnerved to you questioning my knowledge on the matter. I do not enter anything into this forum that is less than fact. I am not questioning your right to disagree, however I certainly question you attack on my character and reading abilities. I will tell you this and all others that question my intelligence, interests, frankness, and my affinity for telling the truth. Deny what you will but that is what you did. You want the truth, then lets talk about it."

If I can't have you, nobody can." Her fear was so intense, she made out her will five weeks before she was murdered.

The rantings of a woman hardly make anyone a killer. She may have been seriously afraid of OJ, but I ask you..........is anyone afraid of you or a friend of yours.....is he a killer?

The blood found on Ron Goldman's boots was found to be a mixture of his and O.J.'s. Blood matching Nicole Simpson's and O.J.'s was found inside the Bronco.

Not true, it was found to be a mixture of the blood type inherent to the suspect and victim. OJ was O positive as is the majority of the black population, and white for that matter.

Blood matching Nicole Simpson's and O.J.'s was found inside the Bronco.

Absolutely untrue, please see transcripts. It was a mixture of his blood type and hers, both very common. However what was not allowed into evidence was the testimony of the man who removed the Bronco to the impound area that testified that he saw absolutely NO blood anywhere in the Bronco, and went so far as to press his fingerprints into the rearview mirror, as is standard practice.

Fibres found on the knit cap left at the crime scene and the notorious bloody glove behind O.J.'s house were unique to the 1994 model Ford Bronco, belonging to O.J. The hair found in the cap matched a reference sample taken from O.J.'s head and the large number of hairs inside the cap suggests that O.J. had worn it. A 12-inch hair with the same characteristics as those of Nicole Simpson was found on the bloody glove found at O.J.'s estate.

All of which can be explained away by the unfortunate perversion of the crime scene by officer Riske and Fuhrman, covering the body by a dirty sheet from her bed that was testified to as being visited by OJ just a week before.

Let me say this, Fuhrman wears a size 12 as do most men that are 6 foot or taller. Not saying I am the truth and you are all wrong................simply this...................for all people that look past the race card the evidence was questionable. The search warrant was questionable. The blood evidence collected 47 days after the murder is questionable. The fact that all the incriminating blood evidence found after the fact was found to have preservitaves in it, and the fact that I could go on and on forever on the mistakes made in this case lead me, you, and all that commit to a jury of peers to find reasonable doubt.

As far as the socks, they weren't entered into evidence until 31 days after the murders. Let me suggest that you read the trascripts and try to pretend it is your wife or mother on trial and then tell me if you would aquit. Don't read the footnotes but the transcripts and then tell me if it was beyond a reasonable doubt..........................................................reasonable doubt ...................not personal opinion



You have every minute of what, six months(?) worth of trial on tape? Holy crap man, you must have a couple of rooms in your house devoted to nothing but storing VHS tapes.
Yesterday 06:36 AM


Absolutely, not rooms but CDs. How many hours of porn do most men that are obsessed with it have stored at their house. When does that become strange. Are you actually saying that my interest in current events strike you as strange? You should see my file on Gacy.

Dog me all you want .......................I invite it.

Aggressiveness breeds insecurity which bears itself to vanity. You want an opinion from a white anglo saxon protestant or from a baptist. I suggest you read every minute of every second of the transcripts and form an opinion of that, not what you heard from Pat O'Brien
 
Bet on MyBookie
Top