The jurors were disgusted with and angry at the prosecution for showing the photos, so they decided to get back at the prosecution by acquitting OJ.
-
Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.
"This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.
Company News Interplay update: unpaid employees file complaints
- Thread starter Vault Dweller
- Start date
Seven
Erudite
Major_Blackhart said:
So they were mad at the people who showed them the pictures and not the person who actually committed the crime? Your law professor's an idiot, that logic's just stupid. I'm sorry, but any one who believes that is not taking everything into consideration, nor are they playing with a full deck.
Sol Invictus
Erudite
Blackheart never actually claimed to be intelligent, though, did he?
THink of it like this: You know the prosecution in a competent court room would never be allowed to show something like Nicole Simpson lying on a morgue slab with her throat slashed wide for the whole world to see. Seeing this beautiful woman, and a young man brutally murdered moves you to sickness rage or whatever. You dont sleep well at night. Who do you blame? The prosecution for showing them to begin with. That was a poor attempt by the prosecution to move the jury to rage against OJ, but instead it backfired. The jury blamed the ones who showed them the pictures, not the one who committed the crime.
Seven
Erudite
Major_Blackhart said:
Well after deep consideration I've decided that you're right; I mean I'd certainly never blame the murderer if I could just as easily blame the prosecution. I don't know why I didn't see it like this before.
:shock:EDIT: Oh yeah, you probably have post trial juror comments to back this up, your law professor's certainly not blowing smoke up your... Ehrm, I mean he's not speculating right?
Hey, schmuck, never said I believed him, but it is a possibility. Besides, I had this guy over 2 years ago and aint seen him since. Just expressing another's thought on the subject. Anyway, Im not one to say he's wrong. He's an accomplished lawyer, as well as a Dr of Philosophy and History. Besides, since OJ was proven innocent due to fuckups in the LAPD, (not necessarily Furman, though Im sure he didnt help), who cares? And what he explained seems reasonable to me.
Sol Invictus
Erudite
They shouldn't have kept calling him a nigger in court.
The jury was sympathetic to OJ inspite of his guilt because it seemed to them, at the time, that the prosecution and the police were simply putting a black man on trial for the color of his skin. They ignored most of the evidence and went with their emotions. It had nothing to do with the damn autopsy photos. The jury consisted of imbeciles, and the prosecution made it seem like a race-centric trial.
The jury was sympathetic to OJ inspite of his guilt because it seemed to them, at the time, that the prosecution and the police were simply putting a black man on trial for the color of his skin. They ignored most of the evidence and went with their emotions. It had nothing to do with the damn autopsy photos. The jury consisted of imbeciles, and the prosecution made it seem like a race-centric trial.
Seven
Erudite
Major_Blackhart said:
Hey fuck-face
:wink: , for something that you didn't believe you sure did post a lot defending and explaining it. Furthermore, Wheren't you calling Judge Ito an incompetant idiot, and you went on to use this crazy theory to back up that point? Yup, don't take some one a PHD to see that you've stepped in it now...
Alright shithead, how have I "stepped in it"? I called him incompetent for allowing the photos to be shown in the first place. My point was that no self-respecting judge with half a brain would ever allow the photos to be shown.
I think that in a murder trial, showing the crime scene photos and autopsy photos would be a given. Shouldn't the jury be allowed to see the bodies to better determine how the crime went down?
From what I've been told no. The reason is that it would possibly bias the jury. You can show crime scene photos, but not photos of the victims.
Seven
Erudite
In a murder case the victem is the site of the crime, and the reason why the jury might get biased is that they'd be more inclined to convict not acquit, so piss off with your logic.
That's why they dont show the victims. The jury would be more likely to convict. I never said they would favor the defendants after seeing a grizzly homicide. What Im saying is that my professor said this is what the prosecution attempted and it backfired. Also, in crime scene photos, the jury sees only chalk outlines or bodies covered.
Hence the name crime scene. Where the event occured.
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2002
- Messages
- 28,547
Oddly enough, I've been in enough court cases in South Australia to know that over here, that's not the case. My understanding is that showing the carved up bodies ("You can see the stab wounds here and here") happens more often than it doesn't. It's evidence ("Here you can see how the victim is facing towards the door with wounds in the back, indicating he was running away from the assailant").Major_Blackhart said:
So let's say that showing the pictures was a bad idea. I don't think so, but let's pretend. How is that the judges fault that the prosecution put those photos in as evidence. Is the judge supposed to say, "Wait, that might blow your case, I'm not going to allow it." I don't think that's his job.
Did you say you GRADUATED from law school, or are you still in law school?
Did you say you GRADUATED from law school, or are you still in law school?
The prosecution always wants things like that shown to the jury. The defense never does. So, the defense complains and the judge has to decide if it gets shown or not.
Never said I was in law school at all. I took a law class (two: business and another I cant remember). Good classes, learned alot.
Sol Invictus
Erudite
Apparently not enough, and not from the right man.
As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.