Nancy Eldreth Posted June 14, 2005 Share Posted June 14, 2005 Al, First of all great to hear from you again. Missed you. What and how if you could see a change in our system a for better justice to be served how would you say that it could be done? Your opinions here. Myself I stopped watching the Jackson trail after he disgraced himself and the courtroom. That was it for me. OJ I just could not get into it. Felt he would get away with it and he did but didn't watch it. Watergate I tried to watch what little they showed to us because of concealments done at that time. Clinton watched every second of it as much as I could and the retakes. Not because of need to but because I was so hoping that it would go away. Just as much as the count the votes with Bush Jr. going into office. The same. Yes, I do think Media watching things does play a role into this as well. Puts pressure on the judge as well as they jury. Maybe it is harmful but with the Watergate deal at that time of closed courtrooms it does make one wonder more. Most of Senate dealings were also so very closed years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al Carrier Posted June 14, 2005 Share Posted June 14, 2005 Certainly agree with you about the OJ case and even how the losing attorneys made money from it.Did you ever read Bugliosi's book on the failings of the prosecution in the Simpson case? It's devestating. It is hard to understand how a man with a mind as sharp as Bugliosi's can subscribe to the proposition that Oswald was the sole assassin. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Tim, Vince is overrated as to his sharp mind as he made his name through the same sensationalism that I am referring to and is using it to make a few bucks by standing by the safe side and prosecuting Oswald. His statements on the OJ prosecution could have been made by a fisrt year trial lawyer, but he had the name to bring it to the media. His prosecution of the Manson Family was deemed a sensational feat, when realistically, he could have sold the conservative jury in a time of acid induced hippies any story and they would have bought it to get rid of these low lifes. The California Justice Sytem of the late sixties was still trying to control a society gone awry when today it is popular to be radical and immoral out there. Paris Hilton's slut video has made her a bigger than ever star and now her sleeze mother is even cashing in on cable. Al Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Gratz Posted June 14, 2005 Share Posted June 14, 2005 Interesting, Al, and I certainly agree with you about Paris Hilton and her mother. The fascination with celebrities and sleaze is a sad commentary on our society. Jerry Springer also comes to mind in that regard. Now your remark about Paris Hilton could lead to a discussion of the dealings that Conrad Hilton had with organized crime. And as you know Fidel used the Havana Hilton for his first HQ in Cuba. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Simkin Posted June 14, 2005 Share Posted June 14, 2005 Well I quess The criminal justice system is no longer America. What with the O. J. trial and now the Michael jackson trial, all of you people that dont live in the United States can now see how thing operate in the the good old U.S.A. If you're black and rich you can get by with murder. Why, because God forbid we would accuse a Black man of committing a violent act in this country. I have worked in Law enforcement since 1985, And I will be the first to admit that I am embarrassed because of our criminal justice system. George Bernard Shaw once said that you will also have prostitution if you have some people with money who can buy the bodies of people poor enough to want to sell them. Shaw went on to argue that you can only have justice if you have a system that does not contain too much inequality. This point is accepted in countries like the UK and in the past attempts have been made to reduce this inequality (both inside and outside the legal system). Like most Europeans I am fascinated by life in America. (In truth, our media gives us little option). The same is true of the trials of O. J. Simpson and Michael Jackson. I watched quite a bit of the O. J. trial on television and could not believe the “not guilty” verdict. At the time I thought the main reason was that the defence had more money to spend than the prosecution. In fact, the prosecution lawyers seemed so incompetent that I suspected they had been bribed to do such a lousy job. Every night Sky reconstructed 30 minutes of the day’s proceedings in the Jackson trial. I watched these broadcasts with great interest. This time the prosecution put forward a good case against Jackson. The police appeared to have done a good job in accumulating the evidence against him. Members of the police force also appeared to be good witnesses when cross-examined by the prosecution. All the evidence suggested that Jackson had been a long-time sexual abuser of very young boys. In the UK paedophiles are the most hated of all criminals and I fear direct action would have been taken against him (we have had several cases of vigilantes taking revenge of paedophiles in the UK). The strategy of Jackson’s team was appalling (a bit like that of Bush’s election campaign). The whole point seemed to be to smear the prosecution witnesses. They did not attempt to deny the evidence presented by the witnesses that showed that Jackson was a long-term sexual abuser. Instead they tried to argue that all those who supplied evidence against Jackson were motivated by money or revenge. Although that might be the case with one or two individuals in a case, to portray so many people in this way suggested that the moral integrity of the American people had completely disappeared. That everyone was now so completely controlled by the desire for money that truth had lost all its meaning. It is true that several parents gave evidence that suggested that they virtually sold their young sons to Jackson. In other words, Jackson could have sex with their sons in return for presents and holidays. It reminded me of the film Pretty Baby. I know we have always had people who are willing to sell their children in this way. However, the primary objective of the legal system is to protect the children from sex abusers like Jackson. I was convinced that the American system would do that. I was surprised that the jury did not make a decision within the first day. When it went on I feared the worse. The verdict shows that the jury has lost all confidence in the moral integrity of the American people. You really are a society in deep crisis. Although these two cases concerned black men, I do not think it is a race issue. Maybe if Jackson had been really white (rather than fake white) his case would never have been brought to trial. As Bill Cheslock has pointed out: “When was the last time a millionaire was sent to the death chamber?”. The problem is one of inequality. It is the same problem that distorts your political system. Your system survives this because of your prosperity. In fact, some people have argued that your economic success is based on this inequality. However, as your economy begins to crumble (mainly as a result of the competition from the state capitalist system being employed by China), your country will become ungovernable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nancy Eldreth Posted June 14, 2005 Share Posted June 14, 2005 (edited) your country will become ungoverable This is the point. It is a concern that we feel that the system is failing all of us. Maybe it is media viewing in at the wrong times puts pressure on Jury and Judge as well. It gets lost for what the courtroom is about and that is for justice. Somethings do need to be watched, who is running our country and or will run it. Issues that the Senate decline and accepts for our laws and standards. When a person who is so clearly guilty and has shown this prior gets away he or she will do the act again. Sadly we all lose not just the ones who were the victums of the crimes. How can anyone change this? I am not sure. Seems that we can fix a car by finding out what is wrong with it with just an analysis test. We can go to a hospital and get tests to find out what is wrong with our health. We can't go to any form of test to tell who is telling the truth and who is not whether it is a witness or the one accused of the crime. Maybe one day my words won't be science fiction and I do hope for this. A test that is one hundred per cent full proof and a back up maybe to that test to make sure the first one is correct. Who knows just maybe one day we can advance this to a better way of understanding. I don't know. I can only hope one day that the crimes get convictions and the ones accused of crimes that are innocent get set free. I worry about our citizens that perhaps their own minds are going corrupt to even be a good person to stand in on a trail. Two of the jury members on Jackson trial cried. That means two pleaded for him to be found guility. I ask why is this system failing and what we get for an answer is not enough evidence to prove him guility by any reasonable doubt. I have seen what goes on in a courtroom and I have to shack my head on it and felt a big let down on my own experience. Can't even go to the back up of what caused the crime to happen. Can't view or express certain things that can prove a case before any judge. Certain points of evidence withdrawn when it should be shown. At the end of it all they call it justice, I call it corrupt. Edited June 14, 2005 by Nancy Eldreth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted June 14, 2005 Share Posted June 14, 2005 (edited) While I didn't watch the Jackson trial, I feel I can shed a little light on it. My sister lives in central California, and many of the locals have been on Jackson's side since the get-go. Why? Because they hate the local grand-standing government officials. My brother-in-law has stated that everybody up there knows that charges were brought against Jackson because the county was upset because he'd found some loophole to help him avoid paying his taxes. While I'm 100% convinced Michael is a very sick individual ill-equipped to raise children, I can't say I heard anything that had me absolutely convinced of his guilt. Not so for O.J. Or for Blake. Both of them were guilty as hell. While a black man's playing of a race card to get off was a novel twist, I don't believe any of these trials represent new lows. After all, how long did it take Byron de la Beckwith to get convicted? And what about the death of Emmett Till, etc? Or the Scottsborough Boys? Or even the Bruno Hauptmann trial? There were hundreds of race-related trials with obviously wrong decisions all through the early decades of the twentieth century. The real problem as I see it is the same old problem. While people can be trained to drive 65 mph in bumper-to-bumper traffic, it's just impossible to train people to think clearly. Despite all the mistakes in the O.J. case I still believe they made their case. It's just that the jury refused to think. They heard Henry Lee say "something's wrong," assumed that meant that racist cops had faked the evidence, and acquitted a multiple murderer. Only it turned out Lee's comment referred to the handling of the evidence, that it was a little sloppy, and was not meant to imply the blood results were faked. BTW, I'm writing from Simi Valley, CA, about three blocks from the courthouse where the cops who beat Rodney King were acquitted. A few years after that Rodney started a record label and was seeking my help in running it. I invited him out for lunch. He drove. We went to the Elephant Bar, a restaurant where buses to the Ronald Reagan Library stop off for lunch. I sat next to his cousin and he sat next to my girlfriend. We looked like two zebra couples in the middle of Elephant country. We turned a few heads. I thought it was all a bit funny. And still do. I bring up that trial to remind some that the doors of injustice swing both ways. Edited June 14, 2005 by Pat Speer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Gratz Posted June 14, 2005 Share Posted June 14, 2005 (edited) An interesting post, as always, Pat, and the restaurant story is very funny! By the way, I did not know they allowed Democrats in Simi County. Edited June 14, 2005 by Tim Gratz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawn Meredith Posted June 14, 2005 Share Posted June 14, 2005 In my opinion OJ walked because the then DA was stupid enough to bring the case where OJ had ONLY black jurors. I watched much of the trial and felt he was guilty. I also aked strangers regularily, standing in the grocery store check-out and discovered that almost all whites thought he was guilty and blacks said he was innocent and "framed" so that verdict did not surprise me. California "justice" has always seemed crazy to me. Trials take way too long. Celebs get off routinely. I am listening to the MJ jurors and am astounded by their thinking. I truly think they were star struck. Also this mother made a terrible impression, she lied in the JC Penny case and apparently had her boys lie, so the jurors felt they were lying here too. Now the 25 year old Christian youth pastor: no one is discussing his very credible testimony. I was SICKENED by the verdict last night. I feel so bad that these boys aren't believed. Dawn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted June 15, 2005 Share Posted June 15, 2005 (edited) In my opinion OJ walked because the then DA was stupid enough to bring the case where OJ had ONLY black jurors. I watched much of the trial and felt he was guilty. I also aked strangers regularily, standing in the grocery store check-out and discovered that almost all whites thought he was guilty and blacks said he was innocent and "framed" so that verdict did not surprise me. Dawn <{POST_SNAPBACK}> As much as I wish you were wrong on this one, Dawn, unfortunately, you're right. The lawyer who tried the civil case, Petrocelli, tried it a number of times with mock juries and found that black females overwhelmingly voted for O.J., the evidence be damned. They just had this "feeling" he'd been framed. My sister was on a jury where there was an 11-1 hung jury, and the one juror was a black woman and the defendant was a black man. Same story. My sister talked with the prosecutor afterwards and found that it was a re-trial, and that the previous jury was also dead-locked, with one black woman as the hold-out. The prosecutor told her not to worry, though, as the defendant had tried to kill the judge in the first trial, and was convicted and awaiting sentencing on those charges. Unfortunately, people of all kinds have a built-in bias. A blind spot. The Simi Valley jury who let the policemen off after they beat up Rodney King were either related to cops, or neighbors with cops, as Simi is the "Copland" of Los Angeles. Edited June 15, 2005 by Pat Speer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al Carrier Posted June 15, 2005 Share Posted June 15, 2005 In my opinion OJ walked because the then DA was stupid enough to bring the case where OJ had ONLY black jurors. I watched much of the trial and felt he was guilty. I also aked strangers regularily, standing in the grocery store check-out and discovered that almost all whites thought he was guilty and blacks said he was innocent and "framed" so that verdict did not surprise me. Dawn <{POST_SNAPBACK}> As much as I wish you were wrong on this one, Dawn, unfortunately, you're right. The lawyer who tried the civil case, Petrocelli, tried it a number of times with mock juries and found that black females overwhelmingly voted for O.J., the evidence be damned. They just had this "feeling" he'd been framed. My sister was on a jury where there was an 11-1 hung jury, and the one juror was a black woman and the defendant was a black man. Same story. My sister talked with the prosecutor afterwards and found that it was a re-trial, and that the previous jury was also dead-locked, with one black woman as the hold-out. The prosecutor told her not to worry, though, as the defendant had tried to kill the judge in the first trial, and was convicted and awaiting sentencing on those charges. Unfortunately, people of all kinds have a built-in bias. A blind spot. The Simi Valley jury who let the policemen off after they beat up Rodney King were either related to cops, or neighbors with cops, as Simi is the "Copland" of Los Angeles. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Pat, Let's talk for a moment on Rodney King and look at it realistically. Then let's put police brutality issues into perspective with the number of cases charged realistically against officers v. the number of officers killed and assaulted while protecting the public. Have you seen the entire video of the Rodney King Incident? I am not talking about the abbreviated version that the media released for the sensationalism of showing police brutality. If not, you may wish to view it before passing too hard of judgement on the officers. Was the King Case a case of brutality, you bet! It became brutality when the twelve plus officers who were not involved in the case stood by and watched instead of stepping in to take control of this violent individual by way of swarming the individual and controlling him with multiple officers to prevent harm to the individual or fellow officers. These individuals did not get charged for failing to lend aid, the officers who inflicted the strikes until King obeyed the commands were charged. He continued to try and get up. He was the one who pulled out the taser darts and threw them back at the officers. He was the one with the violent past and history of assault and resisting. Why don't you do a search and determine how many officers have been rightously charged with brutality in conjunction with how many LEOKA stats there are in the past five years. (LEOKA if Law Enforcement Officers Killed or Assaulted). Keep in mind that these are the men and women who are out there risking their lives and having to make split second decisions to try and avoid litigation against them to protect the likes of you who are quick to scream police brutality. Please do not quote case law of the fifties and sixties to me. We have come along way since then and now the police are having to defend their actions against thugs like King and others. LE now have cameras mounted in their vehicles to show that they are performing their job properly. They are not there as evidence in crimes. My agency investigates numerous accusations of police brutality and wrong doing through internal investigation complaints every year. Many state rediculous claims that the video shows never happened. We do not charge them with filing a false report as we do not wish to discourage others from bringing questionable claims to our attention. Instead we spent countless man hours investigating bull###t that never occurred. I have a recent case I would love to speak about if you would like to hear it. As a Patrol Watch Commander, I get to deal with these weekly, wasting my time in order to show we are in the right and allow prosecution on the original charges. Maybe you should walk the walk before you talk the talk!!! Al Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Gratz Posted June 15, 2005 Share Posted June 15, 2005 I agree with Al! Law enforcement officers risk their lives to protect law-abiding citizens on a daily basis. They deserve our respect and support. I think he is right about the King case as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dixie Dea Posted June 15, 2005 Share Posted June 15, 2005 (edited) I live in CA and yet I had a whole different experience then with blacks believing OJ was innocent. In fact, I believe the media has made a bigger issue out of the race thing then actualy existed, as far as that jury is concerned. At the time of OJ's trial, I had several Black clients as well as White clients. The trial was a big topic of conversation, most of the time. I did not, have one black person tell me they believed OJ was innocent. They were also not falling for the race-card gimmick. In fact, they were mostly amused and believed it was way to obvious or mostly just rediculous just as I believed. Among those I worked with, we had a little side bet, just before the jury handed down the verdict. I voted, 'Not Guilty." I did believe he was guilty, but I also believed the Prosecution screwed up and I only saw reasonable doubt. Today, I am not so sure that OJ did actually kill Nicole and Ron Goldman!!! I realize that is a strange thing for me to say. However, after reading he following book, it made a whole lot of sense to me. Although, I am not positive, this book does at last bring me back to the thought of reasonable doubt. Mr Dear says that it was OJ's older son. and that he had motive, means and opportunity...as well as a history of mental problems, drug abuse and violent temper problems. He was also very upset with Nicole that evening! O.J. Simpson Is Guilty But Not Of Murder by William Dear http://www.atlasbooks.com/marktplc/00554.htm It is different with MJ. I haven't head any favorable reactions in regard to the verdict. Most everyone is shocked. I believed he was guilty, yet I did not believe that family and most I have talked to, didn't either. I am also sorry to say that I believe whatever may have happened, was allowed and even encouraged by the mother.....for a purpose. Then for some reason the game was over and that is when all hell broke loose. Whatever.... that does not imply MJ wasn't guilty. Yet, I don't believe the jury was allowed to hear the evidence that would most likely have convicted MJ. Dixie Edited June 15, 2005 by Dixie Dea Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Gratz Posted June 15, 2005 Share Posted June 15, 2005 Dixie it looks like an interesting book. The author was involved with the exhumation of Oswald, the bio says. Do you know anything about this? Maybe John needs to start a topic: "Who Killed Nicole?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dixie Dea Posted June 15, 2005 Share Posted June 15, 2005 Tim No, I don't really know anything about Mr Dear's work on LHO's exhumaion. Although the info is probably around the internet someplace. I will check around and if I find anything I will post it, unless someone beats me to it. You can read the First Chapter of the OJ book here.... O.J. Simpson Is Guilty But Not Of Murder by William Dear http://www.atlasbooks.com/marktplc/rr00554.htm And there is much more info about Wiliam Dear and his Private Detective Agency here. He is in Dallas, Tx and his office is (or was anyway) on Stemmons Freeway. William C. Dear http://www.pimall.com/nais/n.dear.html Dixie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted June 15, 2005 Share Posted June 15, 2005 (edited) The man who killed Nicole was "cut by his cell phone." I was a big fan of O.J.'s and didn't want to believe his guilt. He lost me, however, when he explained that the cuts on his hand and the blood in his car came when he got cut on his cell phone, which he'd left in his car, and that he walked all over his front yard talking to his girlfriend with blood dripping off his hand. Hogwash! And Al, I'm sure you're right about what a pain in the A it is for cops these days, with everyone and their brother carrying a camera and ready to cry "brutality." But the final verdict on the trial involving Rodney King was correct, in that two of the men were guilty and two of the men were not. In Daryl Gates' book Chief he comes to the same conclusion. Gates cites a number of violations conducted by his officers. Al, I believe you reveal your own bias when you say that Rodney King was violent and threw the tasers back at the officers. The tapes I remember watching showed that Rodney never fought back against the officers at all, but that he was scared for his life and was trying to run away. Briseno sensed that and tried to calm Rodney down by holding him down with his foot and talking to him. Actually meeting Rodney and spending time with him really taught me a lot about prejudice. Like most white people, I saw Rodney as a big black man capable of harm, and was intitially defensive of the police and their need to send a message to those resisting arrest. After meeting the man though my eyes were opened. You see Rodney King is a child. Approximately a ten year old. He could very well be mildly retarded. When he saw the cops he got scared and tried to get away, and the more they beat him the more he wanted to get away. Think of Lenny in Of Mice and Men minus the proclivity to kill soft furry things. Rodney was scared and the police just saw him as a threat, and kept pounding away to teach the "gorillas in the mist" what happens to them when they don't obey. Their motto is To Protect and To Serve, and all they could think about was serving up an ass-whupping. Now Rodney's face has been smashed in and one of his eyes is permanently crying. Tears trickle down his face every few minutes.. Literally. I've worked with cops and respect them. My sister's long-time boyfriend is a cop and an ex-girlfriend and I helped him train rookies on a movie set. They were told we were a domestic violence situation that they had to handle, but in fact we had a former officer upstairs with an M-16 who was supposedly my brother-in-law. Somewhere in the middle of them separating us etc.. he would make a loud noise and the officers were supposed to then respond to that situation "who else is in the house" etc. A number of the trainees tried to impress the older officers by roughing me up when they first came in the house. Even though they knew I was an actor, they threw me against walls, threw me to the floor, put me in painful fingerholds, etc... Since I knew what was coming, I deliberately tried to make sure the "brother-in-law" got these guys. By the end of the day we'd dropped 17 policemen. They were so busy showing off for the other cops they didn't notice the bullet casings on the floor, or the cocaine on the coffee table. Some of the cops were very nice and wanted to calm us down and discuss our problems etc. and even believed me when I told them the noise upstairs was our dog jumping off the bed. Some of the nice guys got killed as well. After two full days of this, I came away with a lot of respect for the dificult jobs cops perform on a daily basis. A year or so later one of the young officers from the station I worked with was killed by a teenage boy who'd broken into a stereo shop. The boy ran away and hid in an attic. A dog was used to track his scent. One by one fellow officers went into the attic to try and get the boy to surrender. Somehow each one fired once at the boy as he pointed his gun at them. I believe he bled to death in the attic with four different wounds by four different officers. No one really believed the scenario but he was a cop-killer so no one really cared. I'm pretty sure the officer who died was one of the men I'd helped train but I don't remember whether or not he killed my "brother-in-law" or my "brother-in-law" killed him. I'd like to think he killed my "brother-in-law." Edited June 15, 2005 by Pat Speer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now