I guess OJ didn't kill anyone then. You don't need to know the whole story, just the verdict. I know the verdict, OJ was found not guilty. That is the end of the story.I dont need to know the whole story. I know the verdict. That is the end of the story. I make no judgement about this case, because it is not for me to judge this case. others were required to do that. And they did.
I do agree. I think this particular trial took several days though, and more than just the victim and defendant testified. These cases are always difficult.Cases like this can be a law enforcement officers worst nightmare. I think that brovol will agree with me from his experience as a prosecutor and a judge.
Offenses where there may not be any physical evidence, the crime may have been delayed in being reported and all you may have is the testimony of victim and suspect.
Based on your previous comments I would assume you would have supported the OJ verdict enthusiastically. No confessions or video evidence.I guess OJ didn't kill anyone then. You don't need to know the whole story, just the verdict. I know the verdict, OJ was found not guilty. That is the end of the story.
I don't believe that this man is innocent. I never said I did. I said why I believe some people are questioning the verdict, and why I feel, based off of the knowledge that I have, that there is a reasonable doubt to this person's guilt. That does not mean I think he's innocent, and I don't think he is.
He was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.Based on your previous comments I would assume you would have supported the OJ verdict enthusiastically. No confessions or video evidence.
When did I say I think he's innocent? I believe I made it clear that I don't believe that when I said:So what evidence do you use to support your conclusion that you "think he's innocent"? But yet you have issues with the guilty verdict. Strange.
I don't believe that this man is innocent.
DNA evidence doesn't go against either of the cadet's testimoney. The male cadet admitted they had sex. Interested to know what that "other" physical evidence was; perhaps that was the deciding factor in the case.Here, there was physical evidence, DNA as well as other.
This is not what was stated in a corps wide email that was sent out following the incideint. In the corps wide email, it was stated as follows:From someone who attended the trial:
There was not a delay in reporting.
I don't think anyone on this thread has blamed the victim.In LE, you are trained to NEVER blame the victim.
Lol. What evidence do I have that he is guilty? The conviction last week. Indeed, a certified conviction is irrefutable evidence that the defendant committed the crime, and is accepted as a matter of law in every court in the country.He was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Bloody shoe prints that matched Simpson's shoe size. Crime scene blood. Crime scene hairs and fibers. Bloody gloves. Bloody socks. A bloody bronco. Simpson lacked an alibi or even plausible story for what he was doing during the period during which the murder occurred. Simpson had a violent past where he had hit Nicole Simpson in the past, and had shown fits of jealous rage. That is guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Having 1 person claim you did something is not guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
When did I say I think he's innocent? I believe I made it clear that I don't believe that when I said:
However brovol, I'd like to ask, what evidence do you use to support your conclusion that he's guilty besides the girl's testimony?
DNA evidence doesn't go against either of the cadet's testimoney. The male cadet admitted they had sex. Interested to know what that "other" physical evidence was; perhaps that was the deciding factor in the case.
This is not what was stated in a corps wide email that was sent out following the incideint. In the corps wide email, it was stated as follows:
"This summer, I was the CFT second company commander. While we were in the field conducting land navigation training, CDT Jacob Whisenhunt ‘19 sexually assaulted his battle buddy, and squad mate, as 187 others lay asleep nearby. Two days after the assault, myself and two other members of the chain of command found that battle buddy in a distraught state. After talking with her, she described what had transpired and demonstrated the bravery to report her sexual assault. I explained that I was an unrestricted reporting source and that I would contact the proper authorities, thus, beginning a ten month investigation that ended in a court martial this past week."
F. Lee Bailey was once asked if he would rather be tried by a civilian or military court. He responded by answering, "It would depend on whether I was innocent or guilty", affirming his opinion that a military court was much more likely to deliver an accurate verdict than a civilian court.From someone who attended the trial:
Here, there was physical evidence, DNA as well as other.
Lol. What evidence do I have that he is guilty? The conviction last week. Indeed, a certified conviction is irrefutable evidence that the defendant committed the crime, and is accepted as a matter of law in every court in the country.
I have stated multiple times that I believe that the male cadet is most likely guilty. Look at Brian Banks. If everyone had just blindly believed the "victim", Banks would still be serving his sentence today. I see nothing morally wrong with not blindly trusting what a proposed victim says; if we did this, wrongful convictions would never be resolved. If my words offended you, I apologize for that. However, I don't think it is right to refuse even let the thought of a wrongful conviction cross our minds, especially in a case like this where evidence is far from abundant. I think Brian would agree with that sentiment.While he may feel he is not technically blaming the victim for the rape, he clearly fails to believe her.
Wrong again whale. While a conviction is conclusive proof that the defendant is guilty, an acquittal is not proof of innocence. It simply means that the defendant was not found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In the civil case against OJ, for example, the plaintiff prevailed because the standard of proof was preponderance of evidence.By that logic, the evidence I have for OJ Simpson's innocence is the court ruling that he was innocent. That is irrefutable evidence that he is innocent. Forgot the blood stains, forgot the fact he had previously hurt the woman, the court ruling is irrefutable evidence.
I have stated multiple times that I believe that the male cadet is most likely guilty. Look at Brian Banks. If everyone had just blindly believed the "victim", Banks would still be serving his sentence today. I see nothing morally wrong with not blindly trusting what a proposed victim says; if we did this, wrongful convictions would never be resolved. If my words offended you, I apologize for that. However, I don't think it is right to refuse even let the thought of a wrongful conviction cross our minds, especially in a case like this where evidence is far from abundant. I think Brian would agree with that sentiment.