Which not guilty verdict was worse? Casey Anthony or OJ Simpson

[Long Dark Blues]

Casey Anthony for murdering a child.

 

[Unknown Pleasures]

OJ for murdering two people.

 

[ShadBo]

I’ll break it down super easy for you guys.

Sherdoggers when some movie star is accused of rape or sexual assault, and someone says they probably did it:
“What happened to due process? Innocent until proven guilty! Waaaah! Waaaah!”

Sherdoggers when two people were found innocent of murder after sue process:
“They’re guilty!”

Do you see the hypocrisy here?

Courts don't test for innocence.
They test for guilt.

Not guilty =/= innocent.

 

[Fedor>Cain]

The "if the glove don't fit you have to acquit" was the dumbest shit I've seen in a while.

All he had to do was put on some weight, or get saline injections into his hands.

I was thinking the explanation was that gloves shrank because of the blood lol. Maybe I'm misremembering

 

[Ichibanner]

I don't know enough about the Casey Anthony case to say whether or not the jury should have come to a different conclusion based on evidence presented.

I have to go with the OJ verdict based on various documentaries that I've viewed and the people interviewed concerning the case, evidence presented, and statements made. If I knew more about the Casey Anthony case I might have a different opinion.

If both are equally guilty of murder I'd have to say that my opinion is that Casey Anthony is the bigger piece of shit for killing her own child.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

Casey Anthony. Because she looks fucking crazy.

 

[Clifford_Harris]

One of the jurors, an old black woman, admitted years later in the spectacular Made in America documentary that she knew he was guilty, but she let him off as revenge for the Rodney King beatings simply to spite white people.

Lol and it worked beautifully too cause 30 years later whites are still mad.

 

[rearnakedchoke]

the oj verdict was the right call. Doesn’t matter how strong your case is, if you can’t follow the chain of custody on the evidence and have to plant evidence, the defendant should get off. The LAPD admitted they did stuff like that to solidify cases.

These guys were drawing blood from oj and taking it to the crime scene. Blood that wasn’t there on the initial pictures all of a sudden showed up.

Oj is a psycho and this should have been a slam dunk, but they fucked up mel.

 

[BFoe]

The "if the glove don't fit you have to acquit" was the dumbest shit I've seen in a while.

All he had to do was put on some weight, get saline injections into his hands, take a medication that causes fluids retention, or if he is allergic to anything get exposure to the allergen.

I was thinking the explanation was that gloves shrank because of the blood lol. Maybe I'm misremembering

I read a book written by an associate of OJ’s who claimed that OJ had bad arthritis in his hands, and they purposely had him stop taking his arthritis medication so his hands would be arthritic and swollen and the glove wouldn’t fit. Who knows though.

edit: it was “Confession: How I Helped OJ Get Away With Murder” by Mike Gilbert


I wasn’t surprised at the Not Guilty verdict in that case, his lawyers did far too god of a job poking holes in the evidence. Once the Fuhrman tapes came to light it was all over.

 

[Scerpi]

the oj verdict was the right call. Doesn’t matter how strong your case is, if you can’t follow the chain of custody on the evidence and have to plant evidence, the defendant should get off. The LAPD admitted they did stuff like that to solidify cases.

These guys were drawing blood from oj and taking it to the crime scene. Blood that wasn’t there on the initial pictures all of a sudden showed up.

Oj is a psycho and this should have been a slam dunk, but they fucked up mel.

True... They fucked up the OJ case worse than a soup sandwich

It was a fucking weird time in LA too... Just off the Rodney King riots

 

[rearnakedchoke]

True... They fucked up the OJ case worse than a soup sandwich

It was a fucking weird time in LA too... Just off the Rodney King riots

I’m not sure if the LAPD has changed since then. That seems pretty systemic. But who knows.

 

[MMAisGod]

One of the jurors, an old black woman, admitted years later in the spectacular Made in America documentary that she knew he was guilty, but she let him off as revenge for the Rodney King beatings simply to spite white people.

Source for this? This sounds insane and I'm unsure how she doesn't have any legal consequences admitting something like that. -.-

EDIT: Found it. Wow lol. Just wow.

 

[HereticBD]

I didn't see the Anthony trial, but OJ's trial was more complex than it appears. They did have a forensics guy travelling to the crime scene with OJ's blood, in one of biggest investigative blunders of all time. At that point, it wasn't hard to sell the notion that his DNA was planted at the scene. As a juror, I'd even find it hard to believe that it was some mere oversight, and "set up" would certainly creep into my mind. Then there was the whole glove thing, and Mark Fhurman putting icing on that cake. There was certainly a lot of evidence against him, but how can you trust it as a juror, once it was established that the people presenting it were complete fuck ups and racists, and cementing preconceived notions of how shady the system was?

Sure, it was a bit cheap to just play the whole "corrupt system again black people" card, but in this case, they probably had more evidence to back that argument up, than most cases that try that angle.

All in all, what I'm getting at is that the jury was perhaps not as incompetent as they're made out to be. Yeah, there was definitely some racial animosity driving some of them, but there was also legit questions as to how the investigation was conducted, and reasons to believe that everything wasn't on the up and up.

 

[gspieler]

There is a little nuance there, though.

OJ, for example, was found/declared "not guilty", despite a preponderance, a near overwhelming preponderance, of evidence in contrary.

I wouldn't have any problem with people feeling/thinking/suggesting he was guilty, as long as there were no actionable measures utilized.
IOW, he should not fired and/or dropped from a contact a nothing more than accusation (especially accusation unexamined in cross).

I also don't expect everyone to agree on anything beyond; "they were acquitted, there will be no legal punishment."

Gotta go with OJ. The Casey Anthony jury actually weren't sure because the prosecution just did a terrible job and bricked a layup. The OJ jury knew he did it but wanted to let him off anyway.





This isn't some he-said, she said crap with no evidence about who you had sex with 20 years ago, OJ cut people's heads off and got into a police chase down the highway trying to get escape, then wrote a book about beheading them, and Casey Anthony killed her daughter, then went out and got shit housed and gave a bunch of randos lapdances after she dumped the body, reported the kid missing like a month later and made up a fake nanny to blame it on using a name she got off an apartment guest sheet, made up a fake job for police and took them all the way through an office building at Disney before she admitted she didn't even work there.

These aren't taking anybody's word for anything, there were televised trials with mountains of evidence, and even the jurors that acquitted them admitted later that they got it wrong in Casey Anthony's case, and that they knew OJ was guilty even then but let him off anyway because they were mad about Rodney King so they wanted to let a black guy get away with beheading white people.



Interviewer: Do you think there are members of the jury that voted to acquit OJ because of Rodney King?Bess: Yes.
Interviewer: You do?
Bess: Yes.
Interviewer: How many of you do you think felt that way?
Bess: Oh, probably 90 percent of them.
Interviewer: 90 percent. Did you feel that way?
Bess: Yes.
Interviewer: That was payback.
Bess: Uh-huh.
Interviewer: Do you think that’s right?


Despite the decision to acquit Anthony, the jurors later said their decision haunted them.


"We were sick to our stomach to get that verdict," Juror #3, Jennifer Ford, told ABC News. "We were crying, and not just the women. It was emotional, and we weren't ready."


Another female juror told PEOPLE in 2012 that she was plagued with questions after the trial. "I did what I could do based on the evidence that we got to hear," she said. "But the people watching at home could see the sidebars and the commentary, and they knew much more about the case than I did. I hated being on that jury; I wish I hadn't been. But I don't know what else I could have done."

You’re an idiot, these cases have physical evidence, sexual assaults dating back 20 years, who conveniently have civil suits looking to score millions, don’t.

I beleive you may be missing the point. I beleive that poster was merely pointing out the fallacy of appealing to a conviction by jury, as constituting valid evidence of guilt. It's not. Wrongful convictions occur frequently, and there are many well-documented instances of such. But if you venture over into the Danny Masterson thread and, in good faith, ask "what was the evidence against him?", you'll likely be met with something like "a jury of peers convicted him" rhetoric without actually addressing the point.

And for the record, since I sometimes get straw-manned on these types of comments: I think Masterson is probably guilty of some of the accusations against. But I also think the case against him seems fairly weak.

 

[KaNesDeath]

OJ. It enthralled a large segment of our population that beating two murder cases was cool.

 

[Ron Mexico]

The point is that you can have an opinion on the matter that doesn’t fully comport with either their conviction or acquittal in a court of law. For instance, in matters where they don’t even go to court. You can have an opinion on it. People don’t seem to understand that.

You also understand that innocent folks do serious time
We don’t always get it right

 

[emefer]

OJ. He killed two people that were living actual lives.
Casey killed her baby who didn’t really know what was happening. She probably did the baby a favor by killing it.

 

[Jack Reacheround]

You also understand that innocent folks do serious time
We don’t always get it right

Yes. That is very much in line with the point I am making.

 

[Protectandserve]

Don’t Casey bang her attorney to pay her trial fees too?

 

[My Spot]

It wasn't a huge shock that Casey Anthony got acquitted because the prosecutor was a roody poo and also wouldn't take the death penalty off the table.
As for OJ, well...if the glove don't fit, you must acquit.