Dershowitz just more or less admitted that OJ was guilty

[zinfamous]

Lulz, On 1A tonight:

He was asked if he had any clients that he regretted defending, and when it came to him talking about OJ:

"Look [Hamilton said] better that 10 guilty go free than 1 innocent sent to prison. Look, I did my job and that jury decided one way, another jury decided another way."

Wow.

Now, Dershowtiz is certainly quite the snake and it's hard to side with the dude when he contorts with his past self to argue against his own published arguments from a constitutional basis (this is revealed a few times in the show, by Lichtman), but I think he deserves some respect in the sense that he has a very simple code: "everyone* deserves a defense. That's my job."

(*he claims that he will not defend repeat criminals: say drug traffickers or mafia that he and everyone knows have and will return to criminality as soon as they get the chance. This seems to be the case...)

This was actually a very good episode: The case for Impeachment. Dershowitz vs Lichtman.

https://the1a.org/shows/2018-07-11/...itz-on-how-the-law-applies-or-doesnt-to-trump

(The OJ, et al comments are at the very end of the interview, when it's just J Johnson and Dershowitz, and Dersh is posed the question. Interesting: he regrets Leona Helmsley (irascible, apparently); OJ, not at all. because he did his job...oh yeah but he's a murderer, though )



Dershowitz still claims to be hyper liberal--he voted for Hillary, and that he wrote a parallel book for the case against impeaching Hillary, assuming she would win. He makes some spurious, illogical arguments: "What if Hillary had talked with Russia, what if Hilary had done these things that Trump did...what IF?" ....obviously that is an argument that teenagers and AT conservative idiots make: Hilary didn't do those things, never did those things, and it was already known that Trump had done those things. It's ridiculous. "What about Hillary's emails??" ....seriously. Let's compare investigations and indictments.

The guy is a clown, but he certainly fancies himself a John Adams (an avowed anti-communist, anti-Nazi, with a history of defending both) and he does have something of the bonafides here. I'm not sure if he's just old, though, but his logic center is rather incapable of striking equally in a simple task of compare and contrast between 2 people and their known, factual, behavior and actions. Anyway, do listen. It's pretty good.

 

[interchange]

I'm pretty sure OJ more or less admitted that he was guilty.

 

[Hugo Stiglitz]

The hunt for the real killer continues.

 

[fskimospy]

Dershowitz’s arguments against impeaching Trump are circular and self-defeating. At this point I’m pretty sure he’s just trying to sell books.

He has argued that if Trump wanted to cede Alaska back to Russia that wouldn’t be an impeachable offense if he genuinely thought it was a good idea instead of doing it for some treasonous motive. If Congress impeached him over it it should be overturned by SCOTUS because they can’t prove it was a crime. He’s then also said that the president can stop any criminal investigation any time he wants. Ie: the way you prove something is a crime. So in his mind you can’t impeach a president without him basically letting you. You also can’t indict one because impeachment is the appropriate answer to a criminal president.

In short, he can’t be indicted because you’re supposed to impeach him, you can’t impeach him unless you find evidence of a crime, and he can legally prevent anyone from finding that evidence.

Dershowitz is a clown at this point. His legal theories aren’t just out of the mainstream they are transparently ludicrous.

Also, OJ basically wrote a book about how he was guilty.

 

[compuwiz1]

Once acquitted, Orenthal could walk for days, saying "I did it". Under the law, he cannot be prosecuted for the same crime, even if he's actually guilty. Dershowitz isn't telling us anything we didn't already know. Everyone in America thought OJ was guilty. I'm sure the the lawyers involved have their regrets. When one steps up to the plate, to be a criminal defense lawyer, I'm certain they don't sleep well at night, with what is in their files. They choose to defend, even the guilty, on the assumption, that everyone has the right to be assumed innocent, until proven guilty. I couldn't do it.

 

[zinfamous]

I'm pretty sure OJ more or less admitted that he was guilty.

He did. It's just interesting hearing this from a guy like The Dersch.

I recall in that ~10 hour-long ESPN documentary on OJ (which was quite excellent), his best friend recounted a convo that he had with OJ, some years after the murders, while they were cleaning up OJ's house for sale/demo. OJ asked him if he thought that he (OJ), murdered Nicole and Ron B. His friend waffled a bit and said that he wasn't sure, but that OJ probably did. OJ, "who of course was never at that house that evening," said, "I'll just say this: if Nicole didn't open that door with a knife in her hand, they'd both still be alive."

...wtf

 

[fskimospy]

While I think it is nearly certain that OJ did it I’m also totally fine with his acquittal. First, the prosecution’s lead detective perjured himself during the trial. Second, when asked if he had planted evidence against OJ he took the 5th. If I were a juror once that happened it would be case over. You can’t trust anything he touched after that and he touched almost everything.

 

[deathBOB]

Who cares? The state failed to make its case.

 

[Homerboy]

I'm pretty sure OJ more or less admitted that he was guilty.

Came here to say this.
In this situation, the state and the judicial system got it wrong. They did their job, but did it worse than the defense. So they lost and a murderer walked free.

 

[Commodus]

While I think it is nearly certain that OJ did it I’m also totally fine with his acquittal. First, the prosecution’s lead detective perjured himself during the trial. Second, when asked if he had planted evidence against OJ he took the 5th. If I were a juror once that happened it would be case over. You can’t trust anything he touched after that and he touched almost everything.

This is why the initial outrage (and let's be honest, the outrage largely came from white people) was very short-sighted and simplistic. Did OJ do it? Probably. But evidence is not enough -- the prosecution also has to show that the evidence gathering and testimony was trustworthy. If it can't do that, it's permitting one crime to punish another.

 

[woolfe9998]

While I think it is nearly certain that OJ did it I’m also totally fine with his acquittal. First, the prosecution’s lead detective perjured himself during the trial. Second, when asked if he had planted evidence against OJ he took the 5th. If I were a juror once that happened it would be case over. You can’t trust anything he touched after that and he touched almost everything.

IIRC Fuhrman wasn't involved in the collection of the bulk of the physical evidence in the case. Even if you simply excluded the "bloody glove" from evidence, there was more than sufficient evidence to overcome reasonable doubt. The fact you state that OJ's guilt is "nearly certain" makes him not just factually guilty in your mind, but legally guilty. "Nearly certain" is synonymous with "beyond reasonable doubt."

My own view is that we have a jury system, and we have to respect that regardless of whether we agree with the verdict in a given case. I just happen to disagree with this verdict.

 

[fskimospy]

IIRC Fuhrman wasn't involved in the collection of the bulk of the physical evidence in the case. Even if you simply excluded the "bloody glove" from evidence, there was more than sufficient evidence to overcome reasonable doubt. The fact you state that OJ's guilt is "nearly certain" makes him not just factually guilty in your mind, but legally guilty. "Nearly certain" is synonymous with "beyond reasonable doubt."

My own view is that we have a jury system, and we have to respect that regardless of whether we agree with the verdict in a given case. I just happen to disagree with this verdict.

My view now is also colored by my experience since that day and likely by a lot of stuff that happened outside the courtroom. I may have phrased it poorly but based on what I know as to what was presented at trial I would not have voted to convict.

Fuhrman was the first guy on the scene and invoked his right against self incrimination when asked if he planted evidence. Even if he wasn’t involved in collecting evidence later as far as we know other people could have just been collecting evidence he planted. To me personally having the first guy on the scene refuse to answer if he planted evidence makes it nearly impossible to convict. (I’m aware he could have pleaded the 5th for other reasons but it’s not enough)

Anyways though that just how I feel about it personally, perhaps because it really bothers me how infrequently police misconduct is punished.

 

[woolfe9998]

My view now is also colored by my experience since that day and likely by a lot of stuff that happened outside the courtroom. I may have phrased it poorly but based on what I know as to what was presented at trial I would not have voted to convict.

Fuhrman was the first guy on the scene and invoked his right against self incrimination when asked if he planted evidence. Even if he wasn’t involved in collecting evidence later as far as we know other people could have just been collecting evidence he planted. To me personally having the first guy on the scene refuse to answer if he planted evidence makes it nearly impossible to convict. (I’m aware he could have pleaded the 5th for other reasons but it’s not enough)

Anyways though that just how I feel about it personally, perhaps because it really bothers me how infrequently police misconduct is punished.

Fuhrman took the Fifth on that occasion because he couldn't answer questions about his prior perjury on the "n word" without incriminating himself. Which meant he had to take the Fifth on every question they asked him. The Fifth gives blanket protection, not selective protection. You can't answer some questions and not others. His taking the Fifth wasn't really a tacit admission that he planted evidence. It was a tacit admission that he lied when he said he hadn't used the n word, which isn't the same thing.

Fuhrman was first to arrive at the murder scene, but he arrived with his partner, not alone. Unless his partner was also in on a framing conspiracy, he couldn't have planted evidence there, certainly not anywhere near the quantity they found. More importantly, when he went to OJ's residence, he was accompanied by both his partner and two other detectives. It's possible he could have surreptitiously planted the glove there without the others seeing, just as he could have surreptitiously lifted it from the murder scene. But all that blood on the Bronco, the driveway, and inside OJ's house? Not a chance.

This was either an all in police conspiracy or OJ did it. I see no evidence of such a conspiracy among all those officers, and I find it highly implausible that such a conspiracy would form between that many police offers, especially in such a short time frame.

 

[fskimospy]

Fuhrman took the Fifth on that occasion because he couldn't answer questions about his prior perjury on the "n word" without incriminating himself. Which meant he had to take the Fifth on every question they asked him. The Fifth gives blanket protection, not selective protection. You can't answer some questions and not others. His taking the Fifth wasn't really a tacit admission that he planted evidence. It was a tacit admission that he lied when he said he hadn't used the n word, which isn't the same thing.

Right, that's kind of my point. We now can't believe anything that Fuhrman was involved with, or at least I couldn't.

Fuhrman was first to arrive at the murder scene, but he arrived with his partner, not alone. Unless his partner was also in on a framing conspiracy, he couldn't have planted evidence there, certainly not anywhere near the quantity they found. More importantly, when he went to OJ's residence, he was accompanied by both his partner and two other detectives. It's possible he could have surreptitiously planted the glove there without the others seeing, just as he could have surreptitiously lifted it from the murder scene. But all that blood on the Bronco, the driveway, and inside OJ's house? Not a chance.

This was either an all in police conspiracy or OJ did it. I see no evidence of such a conspiracy among all those officers, and I find it highly implausible that such a conspiracy would form between those four detectives, especially in that time frame.

There was a relatively recent story where a cop happened to get caught planting evidence on tape with several other police officers around. They not only said nothing, they actively enabled it.

http://foxbaltimore.com/news/local/...a-shows-officer-may-have-manipulated-evidence

So a cop's partner being in on a framing conspiracy? Sure. Other police being in on it too? Sure! I imagine it's relatively common, in fact. There's a reason why the police themselves joke about 'testilying'.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/18/nyregion/testilying-police-perjury-new-york.html

 

[theeedude]

He's now a big Trump defender...

 

[hal2kilo]

He's now a big Trump defender...

I wonder how Trump can really trust Dershowitz's defense of Trump, after all he's liberal democrat. He shouldn't be believed because of his partisanship according to Trump and his water carriers.

 

[woolfe9998]

Right, that's kind of my point. We now can't believe anything that Fuhrman was involved with, or at least I couldn't.

That line of reasoning is known in Latin as falsus in uno falsus in omnibus (false in one, false in all). The actual jury instruction on that says if a witness lies about one thing, the jury may infer they are lying about other things. The principle isn't wholly logical, however. The fact is, people can and often do lie about one thing and tell the truth about everything else. In the case of Fuhrman and the "n word" I tend to think that in this culture, as it is now and back in the 90's, lots of people would lie about having used that word. That said, his use of the word and lying about it later certainly impacted his credibility. I have always been inclined to just assume, in all fairness to OJ, that he planted the glove. Which doesn't alter my evaluation of the total body of evidence terribly much.

There was a relatively recent story where a cop happened to get caught planting evidence on tape with several other police officers around. They not only said nothing, they actively enabled it.

http://foxbaltimore.com/news/local/...a-shows-officer-may-have-manipulated-evidence

So a cop's partner being in on a framing conspiracy? Sure. Other police being in on it too? Sure! I imagine it's relatively common, in fact. There's a reason why the police themselves joke about 'testilying'.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/18/nyregion/testilying-police-perjury-new-york.html

There's no evidence of any conspiracy here. There is evidence that one of the investigators used the "n word" and lied about it. That is all. We cannot assume that because some police officers in some other case at some other time in some other city conspired to plant evidence, that this is what happened here. If we want to make such a blanket assumption without particularized evidence that it is true in a given case, then we're going to have a hard time ever convicting anyone of anything.

I would also point out that when police do plant evidence, it's almost always because they think the person in question is guilty but they worry that they don't have enough for a conviction. Here, the police had no reason to think anything one way or another about OJ's guilt until they arrived at his residence. Yet the conspiracy would have to have been formed at the murder scene, because they would have had to gather up not just the glove, but samples of Nicole's blood to plant at OJ's house. However, as of the time they were at the murder scene, they had no idea where OJ even was at the time of the murder. He could have had an iron clad alibi. For all they new, he could even have been on live TV at the time. If he had a solid alibi, man it would have looked strange that they found all that evidence on his property. I guess they would have had to argue that "Kato" did crime.

Any planting of evidence here would more likely have been an implusive act on the part of Fuhrman, and would have involved a very limited subset of the evidence actually found.

 

[fskimospy]

That line of reasoning is known in Latin as falsus in uno falsus in omnibus (false in one, false in all). The actual jury instruction on that says if a witness lies about one thing, the jury may infer they are lying about other things. The principle isn't wholly logical, however. The fact is, people can and often do lie about one thing and tell the truth about everything else. In the case of Fuhrman and the "n word" I tend to think that in this culture, as it is now and back in the 90's, lots of people would lie about having used that word. That said, his use of the word and lying about it later certainly impacted his credibility. I have always been inclined to just assume, in all fairness to OJ, that he planted the glove. Which doesn't alter my evaluation of the total body of evidence terribly much.

I hear you and I respect your opinion. I guess it impacts his credibility more to me than to you.

There's no evidence of any conspiracy here. There is evidence that one of the investigators used the "n word" and lied about it. That is all. We cannot assume that because some police officers in some other case at some other time in some other city conspired to plant evidence, that this is what happened here. If we want to make such a blanket assumption without particularized evidence that it is true in a given case, then we're going to have a hard time ever convicting anyone of anything.

I'm not assuming it's true, I just think that when central witnesses are shown to have perjured themselves that basically sinks your case.

I would also point out that when police do plant evidence, it's almost always because they think the person in question is guilty but they worry that they don't have enough for a conviction. Here, the police had no reason to think anything one way or another about OJ's guilt until they arrived at his residence. Yet the conspiracy would have to have been formed at the murder scene, because they would have had to gather up not just the glove, but samples of Nicole's blood to plant at OJ's house. However, as of the time they were at the murder scene, they had no idea where OJ even was at the time of the murder. He could have had an iron clad alibi. For all they new, he could even have been on live TV at the time. If he had a solid alibi, man it would have looked strange that they found all that evidence on his property. I guess they would have had to argue that "Kato" did crime.

Any planting of evidence here would more likely have been an implusive act on the part of Fuhrman, and would have involved a very limited subset of the evidence actually found.

I personally couldn't speculate on what Fuhrman thought as to OJ's possible guilt or lack thereof. I know he's someone who perjured himself on the witness stand and in the same tapes that revealed his perjury bragged about savagely beating black people. To me that's a fatal blow to his credibility.

Anyways, like I said I respect your opinion and I totally see where you're coming from. I personally would not have voted to convict but I can see how a reasonable person would disagree.