Attorney-Client privelage unjustly jails man for 26 years

[Rick Lee]

Originally Posted by Dottore

You say the virtue of the US system is that it makes it harder to convict people who stand wrongly accused but the statistics don't bear this out. Even if the statistics were to bear out this claim - should this be the litmus test of a good justice system?

This part of your response has nothing to do with the part about percentage of population behind bars or non-violent drug offenders. I'll go out on a limb and say the vast majority of drug offenders were correctly convicted. That you think their crimes should not be crimes is another matter. That they are in for long prison terms because of mandatory minimum laws is also another matter. Being wrongly accused is a world apart from having a bad lawyer who can't plead you down to a lesser charge.

[svandamme]

MRM , it still doesn't add up

it does not matter who is prosecuting, or who initiated the claim or what court of what state did it...


in order to be held liable for damages, the result of taking the life of two people
you have to be guilty of murder



how could you take the life of 2 people, that were proven to have been killed by violence
and not be guilty of murder, or at the very least homicide, aggravated assault, or whatever classification of "guilty party vs dead body"


and at the same time you cannot be liable for damages, that are the result of a murder you were not found guilty for...
because either they can prove you did it, or you are innocent until proven guilty
there is no middle way, it's not innocent until proven guilty, or until the odds that you did it become 5 to 1 as determined by the bookies @ the MGM grand in Vegas



the 2 OJ cases basically say that
1+1+2=4
and at the same time that 1+3=-38 million


true justice can only have one outcome, it's not quantum mechanics

[MRM]

Stijn, all it means is that the crime was not proven in one jurisdiction by a higher burden of proof, but the taking of the lives was proven in a different jurisdiction that has a lower burden of proof.

If OJ was drunk and ran over two people, he could have been prosecuted for criminal vehicular operation (CVO). If he fooled the criminal jury and wasn't convicted of the crime of drunk driving, he would go free but the estate could still sue him for the traffic deaths. In civil court the burden of proof is lower and the rules of evidence more genrous. He could be found liable for damages even though he was found not guilty of the crime.

He was found not guilty of the crime, he wasn't declared innocent.

[svandamme]

well, it's still bullocks to me

there is only one meaning to the word justice

and there's one justice system
within that system, there are 2 outcomes

that does not make sense if one is talking about "justice"
the burden of proof cannot be different, that's the whole point
it makes a mockery of the whole system
it can never satisfy the relatives of the dead

"my sister got murdered, the murderer was not found guilty, but at least we plucked him clean financially, so i'm satisfied now and i sleep well at night knowing that he payed for his liability, justice was done in the end"

common, you have to admit that it sounds laughable to say the least

[Dottore]

Originally Posted by Rick Lee

Being wrongly accused is a world apart from having a bad lawyer who can't plead you down to a lesser charge.

Agreed. My principal beef with the US justice system, as I said, is that it is capricious. It is not blind and fair as justice should be. How the system treats you depends the quality of your lawyer, your connections, and your money. Then you are at the mercy of a judge and jury - the former of which frequently have agendas, and the latter of which are often ill-equipped for the task they are to perform. There is no consistency in sentencing or even plea bargaining. The system is completely hit and miss.

The mandatory minimum laws are of course insane - but that is another matter.

But my point remains: As a litigant - the US justice system is probably the last one in the developed world that I would like to find myself at the mercy of.

[m21sniper]

Originally Posted by MRM

In the US confessions are audiotaped or videotaped or they are inadmissible. Sorry Snipe, but you seem a bit out of touch. The case on that came down a year or so ago.

Great, so only in the last year has that terrible avenue for rampant abuse been shut down.

Excellent, i call that real progress. Now if we can just get the Mass atty-client privelige standard adopted at the federal level....

And for the love of God, someone needs to put the damn brakes on the continuing militarization of US police.

[m21sniper]

Originally Posted by svandamme

MRM , it still doesn't add up

it does not matter who is prosecuting, or who initiated the claim or what court of what state did it...


in order to be held liable for damages, the result of taking the life of two people
you have to be guilty of murder



how could you take the life of 2 people, that were proven to have been killed by violence
and not be guilty of murder, or at the very least homicide, aggravated assault, or whatever classification of "guilty party vs dead body"


and at the same time you cannot be liable for damages, that are the result of a murder you were not found guilty for...
because either they can prove you did it, or you are innocent until proven guilty
there is no middle way, it's not innocent until proven guilty, or until the odds that you did it become 5 to 1 as determined by the bookies @ the MGM grand in Vegas

In the US there are two standards for determining guilt. In criminal proceedings the standard is "Guilty beyond a reasonable doubt". However in civil proccedings the far more lax standard of "A preponderence of the evidence" is at play.

That's how you get found not guilty for murder, yet still get held liable for wrongful death.

Of course at the same time, people get sent to jail in the US every day despite an obvious reasonable doubt. Happens every day.

[Rick Lee]

Stijn, you live in a place that is far less litigious than this country. That's a cultural, not legal, thing. If there were no other recourse whatsoever for victims' families when clearly guilty murderers went free, then that would be an absolute injustice. As much as I hate the fact that we have so many lawsuits anytime anyone feels slightly wronged about anything, it is somewhat comforting to know that someone like OJ has a huge monetary judgment hanging over his from the wrongful death suit. At least he ended up on the wrong side of one court. And at least that civil suit made the jurors in his criminal case look like the incredible idiots they were.

[Dottore]

Originally Posted by Rick Lee

it is somewhat comforting to know that someone like OJ has a huge monetary judgment hanging over his from the wrongful death suit. At least he ended up on the wrong side of one court. And at least that civil suit made the jurors in his criminal case look like the incredible idiots they were.

This is cold comfort is it not? In any western European justice system the guy would be behind bars, where he belongs.

[Rick Lee]

Originally Posted by Dottore

This is cold comfort is it not? In any western European justice system the guy would be behind bars, where he belongs.

I would hope so. But how long would he serve? Certainly not life.

[m21sniper]

Originally Posted by Rick Lee

Stijn, you live in a place that is far less litigious than this country. That's a cultural, not legal, thing. If there were no other recourse whatsoever for victims' families when clearly guilty murderers went free, then that would be an absolute injustice. As much as I hate the fact that we have so many lawsuits anytime anyone feels slightly wronged about anything, it is somewhat comforting to know that someone like OJ has a huge monetary judgment hanging over his from the wrongful death suit. At least he ended up on the wrong side of one court. And at least that civil suit made the jurors in his criminal case look like the incredible idiots they were.

The jurors weren't the idiots. The evidence planting and racist detective that handled the investigation is the idiot.

The jury called the cops to task, and i applaud them for it.

Originally Posted by Dottore

This is cold comfort is it not? In any western European justice system the guy would be behind bars, where he belongs.

One would hope that an EU judge could just as easily have seen the wanton misconduct of the police and tossed this case out too. Whether OJ did it or not(most likely he did), it does not give the cops free reign to plant evidence, and it does not excuse total incompetence by those collecting evidence(real or planted).

OJ got off cause that was one of the most sloppy and questionable pieces of police work that one can imagine.

[MRM]

Snipe, I hate it when you say things I agree with. I don't aplaud the OJ verdict, but I certainly understand it and I couldn't agree more on the militarization of the police. I am a conservative. I don't like anyone to accumulate too much power, even when it is my side gathering the power.

[Rick Lee]

So Snipe, was the OJ verdict ok with you because it taught the cops a lesson and let a double murderer go free? What does that have to do with justice?

[m21sniper]

Originally Posted by Rick Lee

So Snipe, was the OJ verdict ok with you because it taught the cops a lesson and let a double murderer go free? What does that have to do with justice?

Yes, the OJ verdict was absolutely ok with me.

The government(s) of this country have killed WAY more people wrongfully than OJ could ever kill in 10 lifetimes. The government has destroyed orders of magnitudes more lives than OJ could ever destroy in 1000 years.

The message the jury sent to the police was actually a question. It asked, "What, do you think we're fuccking stupid or something?"

They basically told the whole 'criminal justice system' to shove it's cheating, racist, underhanded ways up it's collective ass, and to clean their act the hell up. Head shot...good for them. I applaud them.

Originally Posted by MRM

Snipe, I hate it when you say things I agree with. I don't aplaud the OJ verdict, but I certainly understand it and I couldn't agree more on the militarization of the police. I am a conservative. I don't like anyone to accumulate too much power, even when it is my side gathering the power.

I'm just calling it as i see it. That's all i ever try to do.

[Rick Lee]

Originally Posted by m21sniper

The message the jury sent to the police was actually a question. It asked, "What, do you think we're fuccking stupid or something?"

They basically told the whole 'criminal justice system' to shove it's cheating, racist, underhanded ways up it's collective ass. Head shot...good for them. I applaud them.

No, I think the message they sent was, "OJ, today's your lucky day."

Why do go into all the injustices committed by politicians at the federal level over many many years? OJ was a double murderer tried in an LA County court that had nothing to do with the fed. gov't. Sure, the judge was a softy and the prosecution and police were clumsy. Does that mean a double murderer should walk? Would you feel the same way if your kid had been one of OJ's victims?

[m21sniper]

Originally Posted by Rick Lee

No, I think the message they sent was, "OJ, today's your lucky day."

OJ, today's is your lucky day because.....'We have had enough of this bullshiit.'

Originally Posted by Rick Lee

Why do go into all the injustices committed by politicians at the federal level over many many years? OJ was a double murderer tried in an LA County court that had nothing to do with the fed. gov't.

I would say the verdict had far more to do with the local and state levels of injustice than the federal. The people on that jury had all been subjected to the same institutionally corrupt police force and injustice system their whole lives. This was their one chance to do something about it in the face of BLATANT evidence of police misconduct, on a national stage. And they did.

Originally Posted by Rick Lee

Sure, the judge was a softy and the prosecution and police were clumsy.

I would change the term "clumsy" into one more along the lines of "obviously criminal"

Planting evidence is a heinous, heinous crime. It strikes at the very heart of the notions of a fair trial or the presumption of innocence.

Originally Posted by Rick Lee

Does that mean a double murderer should walk? Would you feel the same way if your kid had been one of OJ's victims?

If you want to see someone punished for the crimes, send Mark Furhman to prison for the rest of his filthy, racist life.

I am sure he's destroyed many hundreds of lives more than OJ has with his racist, evidence planting ways.

[Rick Lee]

No disagreement on Mark Fuhrman either. Why does letting a murderer go free make a good punishment for the police planting evidence? So the murderer might give the cops a second chance to get him in a future crime? Think about that. The police who did wrong should be punished too. but OJ is still a murderer and is walking free, Mark Furhman is making millions on the talkshow and book circuits. Yeah, truth, justice and the American way.

[m21sniper]

Letting a murderer go is not OK.

But it was the Jury's only real choice if they wanted to make a statement about the obvious injustice that goes on daily in LA county. That case stunk to high heavens of incompetence and misconduct.

So they let him off in protest. Kudos to them i say.

[competentone]

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

What on earth makes you think I didn't bother to read the articles about the case? Because I disagree with your postition? I stand by what I said.

As a matter of fact, I'll extend what I said to any judge who has ever been complicit in such a case. To any other attorney who has ever stood his "professional ethics" ground over the life of an innocent man. These people are simply the lowest scum to be found slithering their way through our society. They feel they sit above us all, all but dressed in their powdered wigs and robes, where they can debate the finer points of attorney/client privilege while an innocent man rots in jail. Un ******* believable. The day their little bull***** "privilege" cost an innocent man his life behind bars is the day it had lost all moral justification. There is simply no excuse. None.

But my questions still remain. How are you so certain that Hunt is innocent?

All we know is that a man who plead guilty to the same murders told his attorney that he acted alone and that Hunt wasn't involved.

Why are you so willing to believe the man who plead guilty to murder? Or for that matter, what the attorney is saying now? (It is funny how you are enraged by this attorney's actions, yet are so willing to believe him about what he says his client said!)

I still want to know what evidence was their to convict Hunt of this crime? Exactly what was the relationship between the two men who were both convicted of the crime, and what was their relationship with the victims?

It is just amazing to me to see people so "enraged" about an "innocent" man in prison when they have so few details about the case. Or why people are so willing to believe a convicted murderer when he has supposedly said that another individual, who is a potential co-conspirator, is "innocent"?

Doesn't anyone want to know the facts of the case before concluding that there is some "great injustice"?

Maybe jurors, "jumping to conclusions" and not looking at evidence (just like some of you are doing on this thread) were responsible for Hunt's conviction?

Get the facts before condemning.

[kstar]

Reminds me of a great Billy Bragg lyric:

I said there is no justice
As they led me out of the door
And the Judge said, "This isn't a court of justice, son
This is a court of law."