Floyd is...

Michael Press said:

Simpson made a ~30 minute statement to police. This
statement was admissible. It was not used by the
prosecution. Vincent Bugliosi was Los Angeles District
Attorney for some time, and was very good at it. Bugliosi
asserts that basing his case on that statement alone he
could have obtained a guilty verdict against Simpson.

So he alleges. I don't think he would have gotten a conviction without
introducing the other evidence - but it's all hypothetical and mostly
irrelevant speculating what _could_ have happened. What did happen is
the reason they didn'g get a conviction.

When we look at what _did_ come up in testimony, we find a key drop
off blood appearing on a key gate three weeks after the police's own
photos show it not there on the day of the crime; we have a detective
taking key blood samples out for a ride in his car one day; we have a
glove allegedly found in an alley-way that was blocked by spider webs
when the glove was found, etc. There were plenty more examples. Not to
mention the number of things the cops did that simply tainted their
case such as searching his place without a warrant when they could
have gotten one by phone in 10 minutes. Very lame performance on the
part of the LAPD. You can blame the attorney's for not being all that
great - but it was the cops that sunk the case.

There was plenty of evidence to convict OJ. What sunk them was the
number of things the cops did to manufacture other evidence and their
unprofessional actions.

In article <[email hidden]>,

- Bob - said:

Michael Press said:

Simpson made a ~30 minute statement to police. This
statement was admissible. It was not used by the
prosecution. Vincent Bugliosi was Los Angeles District
Attorney for some time, and was very good at it. Bugliosi
asserts that basing his case on that statement alone he
could have obtained a guilty verdict against Simpson.

So he alleges. I don't think he would have gotten a conviction without
introducing the other evidence - but it's all hypothetical and mostly
irrelevant speculating what _could_ have happened. What did happen is
the reason they didn'g get a conviction.

When we look at what _did_ come up in testimony, we find a key drop
off blood appearing on a key gate three weeks after the police's own
photos show it not there on the day of the crime; we have a detective
taking key blood samples out for a ride in his car one day; we have a
glove allegedly found in an alley-way that was blocked by spider webs
when the glove was found, etc. There were plenty more examples. Not to
mention the number of things the cops did that simply tainted their
case such as searching his place without a warrant when they could
have gotten one by phone in 10 minutes. Very lame performance on the
part of the LAPD. You can blame the attorney's for not being all that
great - but it was the cops that sunk the case.

There was plenty of evidence to convict OJ. What sunk them was the
number of things the cops did to manufacture other evidence and their
unprofessional actions.

First, you did not quote my prefacing remark where
explicitly stated that I am speaking hypothetically, so no
points for pointing out that I am.

Second, the District Attorney is responsible for making
the case, not the police. Does not matter if the police
made false statements, the DA is responsible for
presenting the case. I repeat, the Los Angeles District
Attorney was incompetent, and bungled a case that was
provable. Read the Simpson statement, and imagine a sharp
mind prosecuting on the basis of it.

--
Michael Press

Michael Press said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Quoted message said:

Second, the District Attorney is responsible for making
the case, not the police. Does not matter if the police
made false statements, the DA is responsible for
presenting the case. I repeat, the Los Angeles District
Attorney was incompetent, and bungled a case that was
provable. Read the Simpson statement, and imagine a sharp
mind prosecuting on the basis of it.

The most notable thing about the Simpson trial, and which is so
illustrative of the American judicial system, is the obvious fact that
NONE of the major players- prosecution, police, lead defence, judge-
were interested in getting at the truth. The prosecution was interested
in a conviction, lead defence in an aquittal, police in an arrest,
judge in a spectacle- but who stood up for the truth? I say this on the
basis of the most obvious example: the prosecution had Simpson try on
the bloody gloves. This was condemned as foolish. Why? *Because they
did not know what the answer would be before hand!*

So, with the infamous latex gloves, they did not fit, and Marcia Clark
knew it. Only now, years later and without any possibility to check
again, she says they obviously did fit. But what about the REAL fit?
There were a million ways to check if they would have fit without the
latex gloves. But NO ONE wanted to try: the prosecution, because they
were afraid they still might not fit; and the defence, because they
were afraid they might after all. So after all this time, we still
don't know whether the gloves would have really fit or not, whether
they had shrunk or not, or anything. What an incrimination of a justice
system.

As for proving a case based upon a statement: you are making the
jurist's mistake of confusing testimony with evidence. You cannot prove
anything factual upon the basis of testimony, because people lie or are
confused or are stupid or simply recall incorrectly. Evidence is what
matters, evidence. Testimony is a poor substitute, particularly if it
is that of only one witness, in this case Simpson.
»

41 said:

The most notable thing about the Simpson trial, and which is so
illustrative of the American judicial system, is the obvious fact that
NONE of the major players- prosecution, police, lead defence, judge-
were interested in getting at the truth.

The sad truth of our system.

Michael Press said:

First, you did not quote my prefacing remark where
explicitly stated that I am speaking hypothetically, so no
points for pointing out that I am.

Apologies.

Quoted message said:

Second, the District Attorney is responsible for making
the case, not the police. Does not matter if the police
made false statements, the DA is responsible for
presenting the case. I repeat, the Los Angeles District
Attorney was incompetent, and bungled a case that was
provable. Read the Simpson statement, and imagine a sharp
mind prosecuting on the basis of it.

I disagree. Outside of an outright confession, I don't think any jury
is going to convict someone of murder without specific physical
evidence. The defense would tear them apart and the jury would leave
unconvinced. Visualize the defense attorney summarizing "and with all
the resources of a police department that spends 50 million dollars a
year and has over 4000 officers and 450 detectives, they could not
produce a single piece of physical evidence linking the defendant to
the crime scene and was unwilling to put a single detective who
investigated the crime on the stand for examination".

(Number pulled from a hat :-)

"- Bob -" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I disagree. Outside of an outright confession, I don't think any jury
is going to convict someone of murder without specific physical
evidence.

I suggest you actually study some cases. There are plenty of murders that
are found guilty purely on circumstantial evidence. In fact, more are than
are solved with hard evidence.

On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 20:16:01 GMT, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com>

Quoted message said:

"- Bob -" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I disagree. Outside of an outright confession, I don't think any jury
is going to convict someone of murder without specific physical
evidence.

I suggest you actually study some cases. There are plenty of murders that
are found guilty purely on circumstantial evidence.

I didn't say anything about circumstantial evidence - I spoke about
physical evidence. There's a difference and that's a different
discussion.

Quoted message said:

In fact, more are than are solved with hard evidence.

Citation ?

- Bob - a écrit :

Quoted message said:

On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 20:16:01 GMT, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com>

Quoted message said:

"- Bob -" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I disagree. Outside of an outright confession, I don't think any jury
is going to convict someone of murder without specific physical
evidence.

I suggest you actually study some cases. There are plenty of murders that
are found guilty purely on circumstantial evidence.

I didn't say anything about circumstantial evidence - I spoke about
physical evidence. There's a difference and that's a different
discussion.

Quoted message said:

In fact, more are than are solved with hard evidence.

Citation ?

For a citation, you would have to pay my hourly fee, so forget that. On
the other hand, a good number of murder prosecutions have succeeded in
convicting defendants without the physical proof of the death of the
named victim. Bodies never recovered, etc.

--

Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR

Ce n'est pas que j'ai peur de la mort.
Je veux seulement ne pas être là
quand elle arrivera.