Most recent edit on 2005-10-25 11:18:04 by EschaTon
Additions:
Orenthal James Simpson is one of the most acclaimed running backs in the NFL [history]. He has been awarded the Heisman Trophy as well as several NFL Player Of the Year awards. But [for] what do we really know OJ for? [you can't end a sentence with a preposition] Perhaps we know him better [he is better known] for his role as defendent in the 1994-95 trial on the murders of ex-wife, Nicole Brown, and Ron Goldman. Depsite a laundry list of concrete evidence, Simpson was never convicted. Whether or not he was guilty, I have no merit to say. The available evidence certainly should have been more than enough to convict him, though through a series of mistakes made by the prosecution, OJ was not convicted.
Deletions:
Orenthal James Simpson is one of the most acclaimed running backs in the NFL [history]. He has been awarded the Heisman Trophy as well as several NFL Player Of the Year awards. But [for] what do we really know OJ for? [you can't end a sentence with a preposition] Perhaps we know him better for his role as defendent in the 1994-95 trial on the murders of ex-wife, Nicole Brown, and Ron Goldman. Depsite a laundry list of concrete evidence, Simpson was never convicted. Whether or not he was guilty, I have no merit to say. The available evidence certainly should have been more than enough to convict him, though through a series of mistakes made by the prosecution, OJ was not convicted.
Edited on 2005-10-25 11:17:21 by EschaTon
Additions:
Why OJ Walked
Orenthal James Simpson is one of the most acclaimed running backs in the NFL [history]. He has been awarded the Heisman Trophy as well as several NFL Player Of the Year awards. But [for] what do we really know OJ for? [you can't end a sentence with a preposition] Perhaps we know him better for his role as defendent in the 1994-95 trial on the murders of ex-wife, Nicole Brown, and Ron Goldman. Depsite a laundry list of concrete evidence, Simpson was never convicted. Whether or not he was guilty, I have no merit to say. The available evidence certainly should have been more than enough to convict him, though through a series of mistakes made by the prosecution, OJ was not convicted.
In any big publicity case, such as this, the prosecution is to instruct its' witnesses not to talk to the media, especially for money. Otherwise, their testimonies would not hold up in a court of law. It's simple common sense. For some reason beyond my scope of thinking, the prosecutors had not been working on the case from the get go and some how failed to inform their witnesses of this, until after many of them had already talked. It resulted in a decision to not call certain witnesses to the stand because the credibility of the witnesses had been ruined. Even simple-minded people know the value of eye witness testimony at a murder trial. The loss of such witnesses was very detrimental to the prosecution.
Months before the murder occured, on October 25, 1993, Nicole Brown called in to report an assault attack.. Her assailant: OJ. In OJ's case, this information should have been enough-if the blood samples weren't already-to at least point a finger his way [you haven't talked about the blood yet, this should come after it then]. Her frantic call to 911 had been taped and should have been strong evidence in proving OJ's track record. Again, the DA did not do her job, and the tape was released to the media. Once the information leaked and the jury members had heard it, the presiding judge was forced to excuse the evidence. Again, this information is crucial for the prosecution. With it, they are [would have been] able to prove that OJ had a motive; that he and his former wife had had disputes such as this quite often. For the jurors to hear a recorded account of a battered and beaten Nicole Brown would have created a[n] entirely different story for the prosecution. Unfortunately, this information was released and would not be permissible in court.
Typically, blood tests are hard to prove because DNA is so complex [what??? I don't understand this sentence]. Of course, tests were conducted on the blood at the scene, in Simpson’s car, and at his home. And, [I]f your blood is found at the murder scene, that's really all you need [for what? why?]. "To deny guilt when your blood is at the murder scene is the e[q]uivalent of a man being caught by his wife inflagrante with another woman and saying to her(quoting Richard Pryor), 'Who are you going to believe? Me or your lying eyes?'"(Outrage, p. 20) Not to mention that not only was Simpson's blood found at the murder scene, but the victims' blood was found in his car and home [this sentence stinks]. After conventional testing, it was deducted [I think you mean deduced] that it was indeed Simpson's blood type-[: ]Type A. But, [A]fter enzyme breakdown [what does this mean?], tests proved that characteristics of the blood matched one-half of 1 percent of the population. To not convict with blood samples like this is preposterous. With no other evidence, the DA should have been able to sit back and watch the clock. While evidence like this proves OJ's guilt, many jurors disregarded it. Apparently, not all the jurors knew enough about DNA samples. One juror, said, "I didn't understand the DNA stuff at all. To me, it was just a waste of time. It was way out there and carried absolutely no weight with me." If this woman actually thought that "DNA stuff" was a "waste of time," she obviously knew very little about such topics. Such substantial evidence should have played a major role in Simpson’s conviction. With evidence such as this, how this jury could let Simpson walk is outlandish. [These last sentences argue against what you've just said. If DNA evidence can allow the DA to sit back and watch the clock, but the DNA stuff didn't make sense to the jury, shouldn't your argument be that DA's need to work harder to make the case for DNA?]
In the end, OJ was forced to take responsibility for the murders when he lost the civil trial in 1997 where he had to pay $8.5 million to the victims‘ families. This proves that there was indeed enough evidence to convict OJ though the verdict in the criminal case suggested otherwise [the rules of evidence discovery are completely different in civil court, though]. While there are many more issues that contributed to the Simpson verdict, the aforementioned faults of the prosecution ultimately allowed OJ Simpson to get away with murder. [This is a really weak conclusion. What other points could you make here?]
[While there does seem to be a lot of evidence here, this essay fails to adequetely engage with the question of why. The analysis of evidence is flimsy and shallow. Also, the conclusion is staggeringly weak.]
Edited on 2005-10-19 13:33:31 by MikeJones
Additions:
Why did OJ Get Away With Murder?
Orenthal James Simpson is one of the most acclaimed running backs in the NFL. He has been awarded the Heisman Trophy as well as several NFL Player Of the Year awards. But what do we really know OJ for? Perhaps we know him better for his role as defendent in the 1994 trial on the murders of ex-wife, Nicole Brown, and Ron Goldman. Depsite a laundry list of concrete evidence, Simpson was never convicted. Whether or not he is guilty, I have no merit to say. But the available evidence should have been more than enough to convict him. The prosecution was simply too batched. It wasn't his name, nor his history in the NFL; even Johnny Cochrane didn't do much. It was merely a case of poor prosecution.
The Release of Critical Information
In any big publicity case, such as this, the prosecution is to instruct its' witnesses not to talk to the media, especially for money. Otherwise, their testimonies would not hold up in a court of law. It's simply common sense. For some reason beyond my scope of thinking, the prosecutors had not been working on the case from the get go and some how failed to inform their witnesses of this, until after many of them had talked. It resulted in a decision to not call certain witnesses to the stand because the credibility of the witnesses had been ruined. Now even simple-minded people know the value of eye witness testimony at a murder trial. It is one of the major selling points in a case such as this, and the loss of such witnesses was very detrimental to the prosecution.
Months before the murder occured, on October 25, 1993, Nicole Brown called in to report an assault attack.. Her assailant: OJ. In OJ's case, this information should have been enough-if the blood samples weren't already-to at least point a finger his way. Her frantic call to 911 had been taped and should have been strong evidence in proving OJ's track record. Again, the DA did not do her job, and the tape was released to the media. Once the information leaked and the jury members had heard it, the presiding judge was forced to excuse the evidence. Again, this information is crucial for the prosecution. With it, they are able to prove that OJ had a motive; that he and his former wife had had disputes such as this quite often. For the jurors to hear a recorded account of a battered and beaten Nicole Brown would have created a entirely different story for the prosecution. Unfortunately, this information was released and would not be permissible in court.
The Blood Tests
Typically, blood tests are hard to prove because DNA is so complex. Of course, tests were conducted on the blood at the scene, in his car, and at his home. And, if your blood is found at the murder scene, that's really all you need. "To deny guilt when your blood is at the murder scene is the euivalent of a man being caught by his wife in flagrante with another woman and saying to her(quoting Richard Pryor), 'Who are you going to believe? Me or your lying eyes?'"(Outrage, p. 20) Not to mention that not only was Simpson's blood found at the murder scene, but the victims' blood was found in his car and home. After conventional testing, it was deducted that it was indeed Simpson's blood type-Type A. But, after enzyme breakdown, tests proved that characteristics of the blood matched one-half of 1 percent of the population. To not convict with blood samples like this is preposterous. With no other evidence, the DA should have been able to sit back and watch the clock. While evidence like this proves OJ's guilt, many jurors disregarded it. Why? Apparently it was presented in such a way, that jurors were not able to interprate it. One juror, a 72-year old black woman, says, "I didn't understand the DNA stuff at all. To me, it was just a waste of time. It was way out there and carried absolutely no weight with me." Obviously, the prosecution did a poor job in explaning the blood samples. If this woman actually thought that "DNA stuff" was a "waste of time," the DA obviously did not reach her. Without a doubt, if the blood evidence had been presented differently, the jurors would have been inclined to convict.
While blood tests do not always hold up because of the controversy over faulty DNA testing, it helps to get a reknown testing center to verify your claims. Unfortunately, months before the trial, the DA's office addmitted, in court, that the LAPD had indeed sent the tests to the wrong testing center. While they were supposed to be sent to Cellmark Diagnostics Inc. in Maryland, they were instead sent to to California State Depratment of Justice lab at Berkeley. This, too was the fault of the DA. If the LAPD had been contacted by the DA and knew she was calling the shots, they would have been forced to cooperate. So, instead, the tests were sent to a California lab. In which case, the defense could argue that the scientists' proximity to the crime directly affected the outcome of the samples.
This "case of the century" was simply poorly prosecuted.
Deletions:
Why OJ Got Away With Murder
Orenthal James Simpson is one of the most acclaimed running backs in the NFL. He has been awarded the Heisman Trophy as well as several NFL Player Of the Year awards. But what do we really know OJ for? Perhaps we know him better for his role as defendent in the 1994 trial on the murders of ex-wife, Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman. Depsite a laundry list of concrete evidence, Simpson was never convicted. Whether or not he is guilty, I have no merit to say. But the available evidence should have lead to a guilty verdict. The prosecution was simply too batched. It wasn't his name, nor his history in the NFL; even Johnny Cochrane didn't do much. It was merely a case of poor prosecution.
Oldest known version of this page was edited on 2005-10-19 00:42:50 by MikeJones []
Page view:
Why OJ Got Away With Murder
Orenthal James Simpson is one of the most acclaimed running backs in the NFL. He has been awarded the Heisman Trophy as well as several NFL Player Of the Year awards. But what do we really know OJ for? Perhaps we know him better for his role as defendent in the 1994 trial on the murders of ex-wife, Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman. Depsite a laundry list of concrete evidence, Simpson was never convicted. Whether or not he is guilty, I have no merit to say. But the available evidence should have lead to a guilty verdict. The prosecution was simply too batched. It wasn't his name, nor his history in the NFL; even Johnny Cochrane didn't do much. It was merely a case of poor prosecution.