[yvonne]

They are for different times. The Harris Ranch is for a sit-down meal. In-N-Out is for
Take out or drive-thru.

I just noticed your .sig. Did you mean to have on that has Mariet Ford saying something "burns [him] up"?

[yvonne]

They are for different times. The Harris Ranch is for a sit-down meal. In-N-Out is for
Take out or drive-thru.

I just noticed your .sig. Did you mean to have on that has Mariet Ford saying something "burns [him] up"?

[CowboyIndian]

I just noticed your .sig. Did you mean to have on that has Mariet Ford saying something "burns [him] up"?

It's a quote from the faux Daily Kal that the Daily published during the week following the '82 Big Game. I found it creepily funny.

[CowboyIndian]

I just noticed your .sig. Did you mean to have on that has Mariet Ford saying something "burns [him] up"?

It's a quote from the faux Daily Kal that the Daily published during the week following the '82 Big Game. I found it creepily funny.

[Papa John]

[quote author=Yvonne link=topic=11234.msg107151#msg107151 date=1417474797]
I just noticed your .sig. Did you mean to have on that has Mariet Ford saying something "burns [him] up"?

It's a quote from the faux Daily Kal that the Daily published during the week following the '82 Big Game. I found it creepily funny.
[/quote]

Creepy is not the word that I would use to describe Mariet Ford:

http://www.sfgate.com/sports/kroichick/a...763807.php

[Papa John]

[quote author=Yvonne link=topic=11234.msg107151#msg107151 date=1417474797]
I just noticed your .sig. Did you mean to have on that has Mariet Ford saying something "burns [him] up"?

It's a quote from the faux Daily Kal that the Daily published during the week following the '82 Big Game. I found it creepily funny.
[/quote]

Creepy is not the word that I would use to describe Mariet Ford:

http://www.sfgate.com/sports/kroichick/a...763807.php

[CowboyIndian]

Creepy is not the word that I would use to describe Mariet Ford:

And that's what makes the world go around. I'm well aware of his story.

[CowboyIndian]

Creepy is not the word that I would use to describe Mariet Ford:

And that's what makes the world go around. I'm well aware of his story.

[Redrum]

...I'm betting that the faith extended to Ford by the Innocence Project availed nought.  Maybe the story of a witness who allegedly did the coke with the guy allegedly staking out Ford's house and putative murder suspect didn't pan out.  Good read  to see it all laid out as it was.  Kroichick  did a really good job.  I think the jury probably got it right. 

[Redrum]

...I'm betting that the faith extended to Ford by the Innocence Project availed nought.  Maybe the story of a witness who allegedly did the coke with the guy allegedly staking out Ford's house and putative murder suspect didn't pan out.  Good read  to see it all laid out as it was.  Kroichick  did a really good job.  I think the jury probably got it right. 

[Rally]

...I'm betting that the faith extended to Ford by the Innocence Project availed nought.  Maybe the story of a witness who allegedly did the coke with the guy allegedly staking out Ford's house and putative murder suspect didn't pan out.  Good read  to see it all laid out as it was.  Kroichick  did a really good job.  I think the jury probably got it right.

"I think the jury probably got it right" seems a pretty good leap.  How in the world would you know?

[Rally]

...I'm betting that the faith extended to Ford by the Innocence Project availed nought.  Maybe the story of a witness who allegedly did the coke with the guy allegedly staking out Ford's house and putative murder suspect didn't pan out.  Good read  to see it all laid out as it was.  Kroichick  did a really good job.  I think the jury probably got it right.

"I think the jury probably got it right" seems a pretty good leap.  How in the world would you know?

[dabigv13]

[quote author=Redrum link=topic=11234.msg107232#msg107232 date=1417559397]
...I'm betting that the faith extended to Ford by the Innocence Project availed nought.  Maybe the story of a witness who allegedly did the coke with the guy allegedly staking out Ford's house and putative murder suspect didn't pan out.  Good read  to see it all laid out as it was.  Kroichick  did a really good job.  I think the jury probably got it right.

"I think the jury probably got it right" seems a pretty good leap.  How in the world would you know?
[/quote]

Somebody has been listening to Serial!

[dabigv13]

[quote author=Redrum link=topic=11234.msg107232#msg107232 date=1417559397]
...I'm betting that the faith extended to Ford by the Innocence Project availed nought.  Maybe the story of a witness who allegedly did the coke with the guy allegedly staking out Ford's house and putative murder suspect didn't pan out.  Good read  to see it all laid out as it was.  Kroichick  did a really good job.  I think the jury probably got it right.

"I think the jury probably got it right" seems a pretty good leap.  How in the world would you know?
[/quote]

Somebody has been listening to Serial!

[pefloresjr]

[quote author=Redrum link=topic=11234.msg107232#msg107232 date=1417559397]
...I'm betting that the faith extended to Ford by the Innocence Project availed nought.  Maybe the story of a witness who allegedly did the coke with the guy allegedly staking out Ford's house and putative murder suspect didn't pan out.  Good read  to see it all laid out as it was.  Kroichick  did a really good job.  I think the jury probably got it right.

"I think the jury probably got it right" seems a pretty good leap.  How in the world would you know?
[/quote]

Disclaimer:  I spent 10 years prosecuting cases in Sacramento County where Ford was convicted and know the deputy DA who prosecuted his case, though we were only acquaintances and I no longer worked there at the time of the trial. 

It makes sense to think the jury got it right, because juries finding guilt usually do get it right.  It takes all 12 votes to get a guilty verdict and only one vote to hang a jury.  It is difficult enough to convict the guilty, much less the innocent.  A jury unanimously acquitting a defendant also usually gets it right.  (OJ being the exception to every rule.) 
The assertion that there have been hundreds of exonerations is misleading because evidence discovered after a trial that makes it reasonably likely that a jury's verdict would have been different is enough to overturn a case.  That is a far cry from a finding of factual innocence.  In other words, many cases are overturned because there is doubt about the validity of the jury verdict, but we don't know whether the "exonerated" person did or did not commit the crime.  I agree there are times when people are wrongly convicted but it is extremely rare. 
Also, in cases where a pregnant wife and her child are killed in the family home, unfortunately, the perpetrator is usually the husband. 
Finally, circumstantial evidence is every bit as valid as direct, eyewitness evidence.  In fact, since most crimes are not witnessed, circumstantial evidence is the most common evidence presented in criminal trials.  The classic, simple examples of circumstantial cases are thieves caught with the stolen goods and the tools used to break into the car or house shortly after the theft or a kid sitting in front of the empty plate that was filled with cookies and the kid has chocolate and crumbs all over his mouth and hands.  Both depend entirely on circumstantial evidence. 
So, while none of us can know what really happened, we can reasonably conclude based on the evidence and the verdict, that the jury probably got it right and he is truly guilty. 
Final point:  He is from Cal and made the forward lateral that was the final part of The Robbery.  Karma has clearly decided that he is guilty. 

Apologies for the rant, but I am currently at a crappy motel in Northern CA to attend a hearing to get restitution for a murder victim's family, just had my return flight cancelled, and now know that I have to drive home 7 hours in the rain if I hope to see my wife before she leaves for a long business trip.  I am feeling very pro-prosecution. 

Cheers,
Pete F.

[pefloresjr]

[quote author=Redrum link=topic=11234.msg107232#msg107232 date=1417559397]
...I'm betting that the faith extended to Ford by the Innocence Project availed nought.  Maybe the story of a witness who allegedly did the coke with the guy allegedly staking out Ford's house and putative murder suspect didn't pan out.  Good read  to see it all laid out as it was.  Kroichick  did a really good job.  I think the jury probably got it right.

"I think the jury probably got it right" seems a pretty good leap.  How in the world would you know?
[/quote]

Disclaimer:  I spent 10 years prosecuting cases in Sacramento County where Ford was convicted and know the deputy DA who prosecuted his case, though we were only acquaintances and I no longer worked there at the time of the trial. 

It makes sense to think the jury got it right, because juries finding guilt usually do get it right.  It takes all 12 votes to get a guilty verdict and only one vote to hang a jury.  It is difficult enough to convict the guilty, much less the innocent.  A jury unanimously acquitting a defendant also usually gets it right.  (OJ being the exception to every rule.) 
The assertion that there have been hundreds of exonerations is misleading because evidence discovered after a trial that makes it reasonably likely that a jury's verdict would have been different is enough to overturn a case.  That is a far cry from a finding of factual innocence.  In other words, many cases are overturned because there is doubt about the validity of the jury verdict, but we don't know whether the "exonerated" person did or did not commit the crime.  I agree there are times when people are wrongly convicted but it is extremely rare. 
Also, in cases where a pregnant wife and her child are killed in the family home, unfortunately, the perpetrator is usually the husband. 
Finally, circumstantial evidence is every bit as valid as direct, eyewitness evidence.  In fact, since most crimes are not witnessed, circumstantial evidence is the most common evidence presented in criminal trials.  The classic, simple examples of circumstantial cases are thieves caught with the stolen goods and the tools used to break into the car or house shortly after the theft or a kid sitting in front of the empty plate that was filled with cookies and the kid has chocolate and crumbs all over his mouth and hands.  Both depend entirely on circumstantial evidence. 
So, while none of us can know what really happened, we can reasonably conclude based on the evidence and the verdict, that the jury probably got it right and he is truly guilty. 
Final point:  He is from Cal and made the forward lateral that was the final part of The Robbery.  Karma has clearly decided that he is guilty. 

Apologies for the rant, but I am currently at a crappy motel in Northern CA to attend a hearing to get restitution for a murder victim's family, just had my return flight cancelled, and now know that I have to drive home 7 hours in the rain if I hope to see my wife before she leaves for a long business trip.  I am feeling very pro-prosecution. 

Cheers,
Pete F.

[washingtonismoney]

Pedantry perhaps, but the phrase "the jury probably got it right" grates if we're talking about a criminal trial where the standard is reasonable doubt.

[washingtonismoney]

Pedantry perhaps, but the phrase "the jury probably got it right" grates if we're talking about a criminal trial where the standard is reasonable doubt.

[Bruce Wang]

Garvin is right.  That so-called Play has cast a powerful curse on Kal football and most of them don't even know it.  If Kal wants to have any success, they should officially concede defeat in that game and take legal measures to prevent that so-called Play from ever being broadcast again.

[Bruce Wang]

Garvin is right.  That so-called Play has cast a powerful curse on Kal football and most of them don't even know it.  If Kal wants to have any success, they should officially concede defeat in that game and take legal measures to prevent that so-called Play from ever being broadcast again.

[washingtonismoney]

One thing I've never figured out about OJ...

These days, the original verdict is remembered, rightly or wrongly, as a travesty of justice -- like everyone thinks he was guilty. What I find interesting is that, at the time, the verdict was widely perceived as correct: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monk...bout-race/

[washingtonismoney]

One thing I've never figured out about OJ...

These days, the original verdict is remembered, rightly or wrongly, as a travesty of justice -- like everyone thinks he was guilty. What I find interesting is that, at the time, the verdict was widely perceived as correct: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monk...bout-race/

[Hulk01]

A dozen springs ago, I spent several nights dining and drinking with F. Lee Bailey.  He was great fun, by the way, and I was flattered that he apparently decided to deploy me as his front man, reeling in some pretty Swedish women for him while he sat and finished yet another glass of scotch.  My theory always has been that Lee feels self-conscious about his height (maybe 5'8"), and figured my taller and half-Swedish genes would play better in this away game.

But, as always, I digress.

On our third night, I summonsed the courage--not hard during drink round three--to ask him, "So did he do it?"

"Let me tell you two stories about Mark Fuhrman," he said, and I couldn't wait; Lee is a master storyteller.

"The police went to his home in Sandpoint (Idaho) to investigate.  Fuhrman is an avid reader, and his den is lined with bookshelves.  And as on most book shelves, the books all face spine out--all of them, that is, but one."

I bit, of course.  "What book was that?'

"Mein Kampf," he said.  And then he continued.

"They wre searching the home just after Christmas, and the tree still was up.  It was covered with only white lights and only silver ornaments--meticulously.  Fuhrman is anal.  And can you guess what those ornaments were?"

"AK 47s and Uzis?"  Again, I was near the bottom of glass three,

"No," Lee said.  "Silver swastikas."

Of course, even the nonlawyers on the board are now thinking, "and this was evidence of what?"  Agreed.  But Lee seemed genuinely convinced that Fuhrman was an Aryan Supremacist who disliked blacks and loathed Simpsion, and was determined to make sure there was abundance of evidence to convict OJ beyond all doubt. 

Lee also had a memorable story about Marilyn Monroe.  But I have to be close to any person, and sitting in a bar later on some night, before I share it.

[Hulk01]

A dozen springs ago, I spent several nights dining and drinking with F. Lee Bailey.  He was great fun, by the way, and I was flattered that he apparently decided to deploy me as his front man, reeling in some pretty Swedish women for him while he sat and finished yet another glass of scotch.  My theory always has been that Lee feels self-conscious about his height (maybe 5'8"), and figured my taller and half-Swedish genes would play better in this away game.

But, as always, I digress.

On our third night, I summonsed the courage--not hard during drink round three--to ask him, "So did he do it?"

"Let me tell you two stories about Mark Fuhrman," he said, and I couldn't wait; Lee is a master storyteller.

"The police went to his home in Sandpoint (Idaho) to investigate.  Fuhrman is an avid reader, and his den is lined with bookshelves.  And as on most book shelves, the books all face spine out--all of them, that is, but one."

I bit, of course.  "What book was that?'

"Mein Kampf," he said.  And then he continued.

"They wre searching the home just after Christmas, and the tree still was up.  It was covered with only white lights and only silver ornaments--meticulously.  Fuhrman is anal.  And can you guess what those ornaments were?"

"AK 47s and Uzis?"  Again, I was near the bottom of glass three,

"No," Lee said.  "Silver swastikas."

Of course, even the nonlawyers on the board are now thinking, "and this was evidence of what?"  Agreed.  But Lee seemed genuinely convinced that Fuhrman was an Aryan Supremacist who disliked blacks and loathed Simpsion, and was determined to make sure there was abundance of evidence to convict OJ beyond all doubt. 

Lee also had a memorable story about Marilyn Monroe.  But I have to be close to any person, and sitting in a bar later on some night, before I share it.

[Redrum]

That upper part of Idaho seems to be ground zero for apocalyptic survivalists and right-wing armed resistance believers.  Back in my Jurassic past, when doing video journalism for various shows,  we were put on alert to be ready to head for N. Idaho to do a piece on this geopolitical phenomenon.  Gear packed, departure imminent.  Followed by a stand-down order.  Then a repeat, followed by a stand-down order.  Then, again.  This happens a lot in that kind of business, but finally they pulled the plug.  When we asked why, the producer -- we knew from long association as being straightforward and honest-- simply answered: "Too many threats.  These guys are for real."  This, from a guy who'd covered combat,  humped it through jungles in guerilla wars,  had dealt with narco warlords.

I, too, have a Marilyn Monroe story, also related to the video production phase of my life.  But just thinking about it makes me want to take a shower.  A reminder of how the TV world is rife top-to-bottom with hyenas.

[Redrum]

That upper part of Idaho seems to be ground zero for apocalyptic survivalists and right-wing armed resistance believers.  Back in my Jurassic past, when doing video journalism for various shows,  we were put on alert to be ready to head for N. Idaho to do a piece on this geopolitical phenomenon.  Gear packed, departure imminent.  Followed by a stand-down order.  Then a repeat, followed by a stand-down order.  Then, again.  This happens a lot in that kind of business, but finally they pulled the plug.  When we asked why, the producer -- we knew from long association as being straightforward and honest-- simply answered: "Too many threats.  These guys are for real."  This, from a guy who'd covered combat,  humped it through jungles in guerilla wars,  had dealt with narco warlords.

I, too, have a Marilyn Monroe story, also related to the video production phase of my life.  But just thinking about it makes me want to take a shower.  A reminder of how the TV world is rife top-to-bottom with hyenas.

[Nan3cy]

I remember a quote from years ago -- don't remember who said it, but it was someone connected in some way with the case -- that was something to the effect of, what an accomplishment for the LAPD, to have framed a guilty man.

[Nan3cy]

I remember a quote from years ago -- don't remember who said it, but it was someone connected in some way with the case -- that was something to the effect of, what an accomplishment for the LAPD, to have framed a guilty man.

[CTcard]

What I find interesting is that, at the time, the verdict was widely perceived as correct:

That is not a correct statement. I think the view of the verdict was strong one way or the other, but roughly evenly split.

At the time, there was a heavy preponderance of whites who thought the verdict was a travesty and a heavy preponderance of blacks who thought it was correct.

The chart in the article you quoted stated that 50% of Democrats and 41% of Republicans agreed with the OJ verdict, which I think means that a majority thought the verdict was incorrect, or "didn't have an opinion" I guess.

Also from the article,

Democrats and Republicans also reacted similarly to the O.J. Simpson verdict despite the brobdingnagian racial divide in perceptions of his innocence.

In the context of this article, that would seem to imply that the party split in this country has now become strongly defined by a racial split, much more so than in 1995. This is a claim I have seen elsewhere, and cannot be a good development.

[CTcard]

What I find interesting is that, at the time, the verdict was widely perceived as correct:

That is not a correct statement. I think the view of the verdict was strong one way or the other, but roughly evenly split.

At the time, there was a heavy preponderance of whites who thought the verdict was a travesty and a heavy preponderance of blacks who thought it was correct.

The chart in the article you quoted stated that 50% of Democrats and 41% of Republicans agreed with the OJ verdict, which I think means that a majority thought the verdict was incorrect, or "didn't have an opinion" I guess.

Also from the article,

Democrats and Republicans also reacted similarly to the O.J. Simpson verdict despite the brobdingnagian racial divide in perceptions of his innocence.

In the context of this article, that would seem to imply that the party split in this country has now become strongly defined by a racial split, much more so than in 1995. This is a claim I have seen elsewhere, and cannot be a good development.

[Rally]

An "us versus them" mentality is developing in our country.  I don't want to be a "white American. " I don't want there to a "black America."  We tried something like that in the 1800s.  Not healthy.  We need to find a way to be one country or we fail.

[Rally]

An "us versus them" mentality is developing in our country.  I don't want to be a "white American. " I don't want there to a "black America."  We tried something like that in the 1800s.  Not healthy.  We need to find a way to be one country or we fail.

[washingtonismoney]

That is not a correct statement. I think the view of the verdict was strong one way or the other, but roughly evenly split.

You say roughly evenly split, I say widely.  I have no idea how that equates to my statement being incorrect, but I think we basically agree.

If you re-polled people re: OJ I would guess almost no one would say the jury found correctly. Yet many -- even a wide number of people! -- thought that the jury got it right. That's interesting, given current perception and presentation of the trial.

(See, for instance, Dave Chappelle's joke about OJ here: http://youtu.be/De-A4SWJDUY)

[washingtonismoney]

That is not a correct statement. I think the view of the verdict was strong one way or the other, but roughly evenly split.

You say roughly evenly split, I say widely.  I have no idea how that equates to my statement being incorrect, but I think we basically agree.

If you re-polled people re: OJ I would guess almost no one would say the jury found correctly. Yet many -- even a wide number of people! -- thought that the jury got it right. That's interesting, given current perception and presentation of the trial.

(See, for instance, Dave Chappelle's joke about OJ here: http://youtu.be/De-A4SWJDUY)

[CompSci87]

The distinction between "did he do it?" and "did the jury get it right?" is interesting. I wonder how many folks looked at the evidence carefully enough to determine whether they thought there was a reasonable doubt, as opposed to just determining whether they thought he probably was or was not guilty.

[CompSci87]

The distinction between "did he do it?" and "did the jury get it right?" is interesting. I wonder how many folks looked at the evidence carefully enough to determine whether they thought there was a reasonable doubt, as opposed to just determining whether they thought he probably was or was not guilty.

[dabigv13]

Just because no one seemed to pick up on my last reference...

www.serialpodcast.org

From the This American Life crew, an excellent podcast presented in serial fashion. It is very good, this first season is about a 15 year old murder case involving high achieving Baltimore high school students, and a reexamination of the case against the person who is now serving life in jail for the murder. Reasonable doubt and what that means is a big theme.

I think the last couple episodes have slowed a bit, but the first few are incredible.

[dabigv13]

Just because no one seemed to pick up on my last reference...

www.serialpodcast.org

From the This American Life crew, an excellent podcast presented in serial fashion. It is very good, this first season is about a 15 year old murder case involving high achieving Baltimore high school students, and a reexamination of the case against the person who is now serving life in jail for the murder. Reasonable doubt and what that means is a big theme.

I think the last couple episodes have slowed a bit, but the first few are incredible.

[CTcard]

You say roughly evenly split, I say widely.  I have no idea how that equates to my statement being incorrect, but I think we basically agree.

If you re-polled people re: OJ I would guess almost no one would say the jury found correctly. Yet many -- even a wide number of people! -- thought that the jury got it right. That's interesting, given current perception and presentation of the trial.

My apologies. I interpreted "widely held" to mean "majority" or something like that.

It's an interesting question whether many people have changed their minds. There are recent articles claiming that either many blacks have changed their mind about OJ and that very few have changed their minds about OJ. Most of these are based upon interviews with a couple of individuals.

There is an Economist sponsored poll that seems to roughly match your assertion, that many have changed.
https://today.yougov.com/news/2014/06/12...ars-later/
But even in 1995, the Black support for OJ wasn't really about OJ, but rather a protest against the system and the LAPD.

[CTcard]

You say roughly evenly split, I say widely.  I have no idea how that equates to my statement being incorrect, but I think we basically agree.

If you re-polled people re: OJ I would guess almost no one would say the jury found correctly. Yet many -- even a wide number of people! -- thought that the jury got it right. That's interesting, given current perception and presentation of the trial.

My apologies. I interpreted "widely held" to mean "majority" or something like that.

It's an interesting question whether many people have changed their minds. There are recent articles claiming that either many blacks have changed their mind about OJ and that very few have changed their minds about OJ. Most of these are based upon interviews with a couple of individuals.

There is an Economist sponsored poll that seems to roughly match your assertion, that many have changed.
https://today.yougov.com/news/2014/06/12...ars-later/
But even in 1995, the Black support for OJ wasn't really about OJ, but rather a protest against the system and the LAPD.