Claiming OJ Simpson to be innocnent of the murders is an attack on reason

[Xray]

Far more realistic only because you assume that O.J. was the murderer. Your assumption does not prove your conclusion. That's circular reasoning.

A circular reasoning which I don't apply, in case it eluded you. Since the evidence clearly marks beyond all doubt OJ Simpson as the killer, to see him as guilty is nothing that was pulled out of thin air as a mere "assumption".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tg7OTs7cif4

A murderer got away with it. Sadly, egregious miscarriages of justice do happen in life.

A juror later said that if she had known about the incriminating evidence against Simpson which the prosecution did not present at trial, she would have to vote "guilty".

And there certainly was no question of his children accompanying him when he had the disguise material, bundle of cash and his passport with him during the slow speed chase.

With him in a bag in his car. For a celebrity who traveled regularly and kept a travel bag packed at all times.

In his car? Wasn't it in Cowlings' car where the stuff was found?

Wan't OJ found not-guilty by jury trial. The issue is settled.

Ba'al Chatzaf

You believe "not-guilty" implies he must be innocent?

I wouldn't accept Bugliosi as my lawyer if he was working pro bono

If you were guilty of a crime and had to choose between Marcia Clark and V. Bugliosi as prosecutors - whom would you prefer?

Edited January 21, 2011 by Xray

[BaalChatzaf]

Wan't OJ found not-guilty by jury trial. The issue is settled.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Selene]

Wan't OJ found not-guilty by jury trial. The issue is settled.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Robert:

Oh, so now you are going to bring in facts and screw up MsXray's arguments...

How cruel you are. I mean throwing a critical, established and final fact at her argument...tsk tsk!

Adam

[Brant Gaede]

An attack on reason? Like, with a knife?

--Brant

[J Neil Schulman]

The very title of this discussion is an attack on reason. And it's not because it's the Simpson case. It's anti-reason to assert that someone questioning any conclusion, based on any collection of evidence, is an attack on reason. It's declaring one's own opinion is unquestionably orthodox, omniscient. Ridiculously dogmatic.

[Selene]

The very title of this discussion is an attack on reason. And it's not because it's the Simpson case. It's anti-reason to assert that someone questioning any conclusion, based on any collection of evidence, is an attack on reason. It's declaring one's own opinion is unquestionably orthodox, omniscient. Ridiculously dogmatic.

Neil:

I see you know Ms.Xray intimately.

She worships at the anti-reason shrine that she has in her bedroom.

Adam

Post Script:

Thanks for the direct answer on the number of CD's on the other thread. That is a reasonable amount to carefully go through and open each CD case and play them,

I had this vision of thirty (30) or so CD's in a box.

[Rich Engle]

The best part is watching a clearly-aroused Johnnie Cochran trying to get O.J. all horned up. He starts with a gentle back rub, then moves on to huggies and kissies. You can't see it from that camera angle, but I'm guessing he was humping his leg a little bit, too.

So in the end, Justice has Spoked<tm>, meaning that O.J is. . .

Edited January 22, 2011 by Rich Engle

[BaalChatzaf]

The best part is watching a clearly-aroused Johnnie Cochran trying to get O.J. all horned up. He starts with a gentle back rub, then moves on to huggies and kissies. You can't see it from that camera angle, but I'm guessing he was humping his leg a little bit, too.

So in the end, Justice has Spoked<tm>, meaning that O.J is. . .

To quote the late Johnny C. from the O.J. trial: " What dooo a black man sound like?"

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Xray]

Wan't OJ found not-guilty by jury trial. The issue is settled.

Robert:

Oh, so now you are going to bring in facts and screw up MsXray's arguments...

How cruel you are. I mean throwing a critical, established and final fact at her argument...tsk tsk!

It is not about the existence of the not-guilty verdict as an established fact. It is about whether the not-guilty verdict was a miscarriage of justice.

Do you think Simpson did it?

And as for the issue being settled because of a not-guilty verdict: Would it be settled for you if you knew a perp had gotten away in court with murdering one of your loved ones?

The prosecution have got themselves to blame for not introducing crucial incriminating evidence against Simpson. Some of this evidence they wanted to hold back so that they could confront him with it on cross-examination, obviously ignoring the immense risk that Simpson might not testify at all.

How the prosecution could even think Simpson might testify is beyond me. For any defense lawyer worth his salt would probably have advised Simpson (whom a mountain of evidence implicated in the crimes) not to testify.

It's anti-reason to assert that someone questioning any conclusion, based on any collection of evidence, is an attack on reason. It's declaring one's own opinion is unquestionably orthodox, omniscient. Ridiculously dogmatic.

It depends on the premises which are the basis of one's conclusions. Bill Dear's premise that Simpson "could not have committed the murders" is simply false.

I see you know Ms.Xray intimately.

She worships at the anti-reason shrine that she has in her bedroom.

Adam

I happen to have Ayn Rand's works in my bedroom. If you call them an "anti-reason shrine", that's your problem, not mine.

You always miss the target, Mr. Selene. You definitely have to practise more. B)

Bugliosi, p. 124:

It [the date of the purchase] was May 27, 1994, just over two weeks prior to the murders! And just a few days after Nicole returned to Simpson earrings and a bracelet he had given her for her birthday, May 19, telling him that their relationship was finally over.

This is just lame. You're seriously arguing that O.J. Simpson planned this murder for weeks ahead?

I'm arguing that the thought of murdering Nicole planted itself in his mind at some point, and that this thought grew more and more powerful.

For that it was not necessary for Simpson to possess the mental attitude of a professional killer planning a murder ahead in acribic detail, taking into account everything which might possibly happen.

I don't think he even planned a specific day, but imo after the dance recital he attended with Nicole's family present, something acted as a trigger, tearing down the last barrier which may still have been his mind regarding the deed.

Imo the murder of Nicole was a mixture of premeditation and an act of impulse in terms of the time when it was committed.

The murder of Ron Goldman, while not planned beforehand, still was a first-degree murder, the motive being to eliminate him as an eyewitness.

For what reason would O.J. Simpson murder Nicole? Why? Give me a motive for weeks-before premeditation. Because he couldn't get another girlfriend just as pretty? Because he wanted to be stuck with sole custody of his children? Because he wanted to change his status overnight from one of the most liked celebrities in the world to one of the most vilified?

Like I said on the other thread, I can't understand why you as a fiction writer find it so difficult to think of a motive. You have to approach this case far more from a psychological angle than you are doing.

Because he couldn't get another girlfriend just as pretty?

Do you seriously believe people treat relationships like department store purchases where one just gets another pretty pair of shoes if one's favorite pair is beyond repair?

Simpson had had a very intense and conflict-laden relationship with Nicole over a considerable time span.

As for motive: even if people should downright hate their spouses (or ex-spouses/partners), this does not mean that they will bear the thought of their (ex)partner finding happiness without them.

For hatred is a feeling that strongly ties the hater to the object of his/her hatred.

The intensity of the feeling of hatred can be as strong in intenstiy (if not stronger) as the feeling of love.

And since hatred almost always seriously impairs reason and deletes all feelings of objectivity and common sense, those unspeakable tragedies of which the Simspon murders are an example happen in life.

It looks like Simpson was so filled with hatred that it overrode all other rational considerations he might have had.

Because he wanted to be stuck with sole custody of his children? Because he wanted to change his status overnight from one of the most liked celebrities in the world to one of the most vilified?

See above. At the moment when the thought "Nicole has got to die" took over in the psychopathic narcissist's mind, everything else was of secondary importance.

"IMO," "IMO," "IMO." All speculation based on your assumption that O.J. Simpson was the perp.

I use "IMO" to make clear that what I write is not in the documented case record. This does not mean that what I write I pulled out of thin air with no facts to base it on.

Again, don't put the cart before the horse. The of evidence clearly marks Simpson as the murderer. There is no way to deny this fact.

And since every murderer has a motive, to claim that Simpson had "no motive" is a thinking error.

As for the knife found in Jason's car allegedly matching "the forensic wounds" - I have asked you several times about what type of knife it was, whether it has been tested for blood, where that knife is now, and never got a reply.

Even if we go along, for discussion's sake only, with your belief it that it was the missing knife - have you ever thought of the possibility that Simpson could have asked Jason to help him cover up the crime by hiding the murder weapon?

Edited January 22, 2011 by Xray

[BaalChatzaf]

It is not about the existence of the not-guilty verdict as an established fact. It is about whether the not-guilty verdict was a miscarriage of justice.

Do you think Simpson did it?

Irrelevent. Under law the jury has the very last word if its verdict is not-guilty. A guilty verdict can be set aside. A not-guilty verdict stands forever. That is our law and by definition, under our law, a not-guilty verdict CANNOT be a miscarriage of justice. The matter is settled. Get used to it.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Brant Gaede]

It is not about the existence of the not-guilty verdict as an established fact. It is about whether the not-guilty verdict was a miscarriage of justice.

Do you think Simpson did it?

Irrelevent. Under law the jury has the very last word if its verdict is not-guilty. A guilty verdict can be set aside. A not-guilty verdict stands forever. That is our law and by definition, under our law, a not-guilty verdict CANNOT be a miscarriage of justice. The matter is settled. Get used to it.

Ba'al Chatzaf

It can be set aside in the sense that sometimes federal charges can be brought. I believe one such charge might be deprivation of civil rights. Your statement is correct de jure, mine de facto. Also, Simpson might have gotten a lighter sentence in Nevada on different charges except for his notoriety. Don't forget that OJ then lost a civil judgment, but I don't think any of it was ever collected. As for your statement "a non-guilty verdict CANNOT be a miscarriage of justice," what's so definitionally morally pristine about a jury's verdict? A black man gets hanged by a lynch mob and against the evidence the white jury finds the murderers "Not Guilty!"--and in about fifteen minutes too boot.

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

It can be set aside in the sense that sometimes federal charges can be brought. I believe one such charge might be deprivation of civil rights.

--Brant

Not on the same charge, though.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[PDS]

This would be a slightly more compelling topic without the typo in the title. Even then, it is the legal equivalent of debating what would have happened if the South had won the Civil War. The war is over. The North won. OJ's trial is over. He was not-guilty. The little problem of double jeopardy is for the anti-OJ crowd what Appamatox was to the anti-slavery crowd.

As for what actually happened in real time on the night of the victims' deaths, I am with Neil on this: claiming OJ was not the murderer is the precise opposite of an "attack on reason." It is an appeal to reason, i.e., an appeal to facts and arguments. I happen to disagree with the thrust (no pun intended) of Neil's arguments, but that doesn't make his argument an "attack on reason."

[kiaer.ts]

"Found 'not guilty'" and "is not guilty" are two entirely different things.

[BaalChatzaf]

"Found 'not guilty'" and "is not guilty" are two entirely different things.

Exactly. A jury decides one thing: did the prosecution prove its case? Yes or no. Only God and Perp know who IS guilty.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[PDS]

"Found 'not guilty'" and "is not guilty" are two entirely different things.

Exactly. A jury decides one thing: did the prosecution prove its case? Yes or no. Only God and Perp know who IS guilty.

Ba'al Chatzaf

No big deal here, but you are both incorrect.

"Not guilty" or "guilty" are legal terms, defined differently in different jurisdictions, and in different countries as well. OJ is/was not guilty in the jurisdiction where the case was tried. Period.

Whether he did the act alleged is a completely different issue. If God is an American who believes in the presumption of innocence and the required burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, God would definitely agree that OJ is "not guilty", unfortunately.

[Backlighting]

Remember the glove that didn't fit? If I'm correct OJ washed and dried the blood soaked gloves. Leather shrinks considerably when washed and dried.

[Xray]

A guilty verdict can be set aside. A not-guilty verdict stands forever. That is our law and by definition, under our law, a not-guilty verdict CANNOT be a miscarriage of justice.

In case I used the wrong technical term in calling it "miscarriage of justice", I'll use "travesty of justice" from now on. Any objections?

This would be a slightly more compelling topic without the typo in the title.

I could not edit the typo in the title anymore. Maybe the mods can delete the "n"?

Even then, it is the legal equivalent of debating what would have happened if the South had won the Civil War. The war is over. The North won. OJ's trial is over. He was not-guilty. The little problem of double jeopardy is for the anti-OJ crowd what Appamatox was to the anti-slavery crowd.

I can't see the point in arguing that something is "over". For example, the building of the Egyptian pyramids is "over" as well. Surely you would not argue that it is pointless to make onself familiar with it if one is interested?

On reputable true crime forums, you can find vivid discussions of controversial criminal cases which are far more back in time than the Simpson case.

As for what actually happened in real time on the night of the victims' deaths, I am with Neil on this: claiming OJ was not the murderer is the precise opposite of an "attack on reason." It is an appeal to reason, i.e., an appeal to facts and arguments.

So you think claiming that OJ was not the murderer is an appeal to facts and arguments.

How so? What about the mountain of evidence linking Simpson to the crimes?

Or is one to interpret your comment as meaning that every claim is "an appeal to facts and arguments"? So suppose John Doe claims that the earth is flat, you would call this "an appeal to facts and arguments" as well?

Direct question to you: Do you think Simpson committed the murders?

I happen to disagree with the thrust (no pun intended) of Neil's arguments, but that doesn't make his argument an "attack on reason.

Have you kept track of Neil's posts where he is repeatedly trying to explain away the incriminating evidence against Simpson?

If memory serves, Neil also stated God suggested to him that OJ is innocent. Would you call this an "appeal to facts and arguments" as well?

And what exactly is your disagreement with the thrust of Neil's arguments? Could you be more specific please.

Ted Keer: "Found 'not guilty'" and "is not guilty" are two entirely different things.

Indeed they are. Is Neil seriously suggesting that just because OJ was "found 'not guilty'" this mean he IS not guilty?

Edited January 22, 2011 by Xray

[Brant Gaede]

My understanding is the judge didn't do a good job. Also, it was deliberate jury nulification by some of the jurors.

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

In case I used the wrong technical term in calling it "miscarriage of justice", I'll use "travesty of justice" from now on. Any objections?

You bet I object. Unless you are God or the perpetrator of the crime you do not know who is guilty (as a matter of fact). You can suppose, you can guess but you cannot know. You might know who is innocent if you can provide an alibi to the accused.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Selene]

So you think claiming that OJ was not the murderer is an appeal to facts and arguments.

How so? What about the mountain of evidence linking Simpson to the crimes?

Or is one to interpret your comment as meaning that every claim is "an appeal to facts and arguments"? So suppose John Doe claims that the earth is flat, you would call this "an appeal to facts and arguments" as well?

Direct question to you: Do you think Simpson committed the murders?

Indeed they are. Is Neil seriously suggesting that just because OJ was "found 'not guilty'" this mean he IS not guilty?

Ah! Ha! I knew you would make a mistake!

THE WORLD IS FLAT!!!!

And Friedman writes for the NEW YORK TIMES!!!! And we all know that that is THE paper of RECORD!!

So admit you were wrong! I have the mountain of evidence on my side now!!

[kiaer.ts]

"Found 'not guilty'" and "is not guilty" are two entirely different things.

Exactly. A jury decides one thing: did the prosecution prove its case? Yes or no. Only God and Perp know who IS guilty.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Both you and I know he is guilty.

[PDS]

Xray, with her half glasses at the end or her nose and her hands on her hips, wonders the following :

"So you think claiming that OJ was not the murderer is an appeal to facts and arguments.

How so? What about the mountain of evidence linking Simpson to the crimes?

Or is one to interpret your comment as meaning that every claim is "an appeal to facts and arguments"? So suppose John Doe claims that the earth is flat, you would call this "an appeal to facts and arguments" as well?

Direct question to you: Do you think Simpson committed the murders?"

She even used boldface in her original post, so I guess I am required to take time out of my preparations for a trial starting on Monday to answer ;) :

1. I agree there is a mountain of evidence linking OJ to the crimes, but unfortunately, you are assuming the conclusion, and Neil has put forth his own variety of facts and arguments. He is not asking us to accept his position on faith, and there is no reason to believe he is making anything up. If you don't like his facts, dispute them or rebut them.

2. Not every claim is an appeal to facts and arguments, Xray. Claims to facts and arguments are claims to facts and arguments. Existence exists. A is A. Reality decides, and then Leonard Peikoff breaks ties, especially with George Reisman and those who disagree with his theory of induction...

3. Flat Earthers are welcome to their views, but I don't waste much time arguing with them. In case you have forgotten, OJ was acquitted. That would seem to be a pretty good starting point for distinguishing Neil from Flat Earthers. We also have pictures of Earth from space, but fortunately, in this era of You Tube, there is no video of these grisly murders.

4. Do I think OJ committed the murders? Yes. I base this view largely on my view (1) that the prosecution of OJ was riddled by weakness, clowning and grandstanding, (2) on the strength of arguments made in Vincent Bugliosi's book (notwithstanding Neil's Monday Morning Quarterbacking of Bugliosi's alleged Monday Morning Quarterbacking), and (3)on the outcome of the civil trial, where outstanding lawyers went toe to toe on most of these issues, but in a more professional fashion, and in front of a real judge, not some starstruck cat in love with the cameras. I also say this because I am temperamentally unsuited to any theory that involves Grand Conspiracies. People aren't usually smart enough or organized enough to pull such conspiracies off, such as would be involved, for instance, in the planting of the blood. Anybody troubled by my skepticism in this area should ask Chuck Colson how Watergate turned out--a conspiracy which would only have required about 4-5 really smart people to keep their mouths shut.

You seem to be confusing Neil's OJ theory and his God theory. I consider Neil's theory that OJ, in effect, "took one for the team" only slightly more believable than his theory that a bumbling God resembling ole' Uncle Festus entered his body for 8 hours, admitted to limited powers, and then forget to tell Neil anything else of significance. I think Neil was on a low-carb bender that day, myself. But, then again, why would somebody who was granted the privilege of communing with God longer than all but a handful of the Bible's starting lineup care what I think? If I were Neil, I would be more concerned about what Colson thinks--both about God and about conspiracies.

At the end of the day, at least we can examine and test Neil's hypothesis regarding OJ. The reason for this is because something in reality actually did happen. A was A on that horrible night. Neil's theory is therefore an appeal to reason, not an attack on it.

Edited January 23, 2011 by PDS

[Selene]

Well stated counselor.

Bravo.

Adam

Post Script:

I am listening to the oral argument on CSpan 1 of General Dynamics v. U.S. the case on the "state secrets" doctrine. The doctrine prevents the disclosure in litigation of state secrets.

[BaalChatzaf]

Both you and I know he is guilty.

I know, no such thing. I was not present at the place and time of the killings.

Apparently the jury was not convinced by the evidence.

Ba'al Chatzaf