Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
Forums
Rugby Union
General Rugby Union
Muliaina Arrested
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="YoungScud" data-source="post: 722775" data-attributes="member: 72423"><p>I think the OJ case is a bad one to use to illustrate what you're trying to say. I have no clue whether he did or did not murder his ex-wife. What I do believe is that, despite the evidence of his guilt which was presented, and there was a reasonable amount of that, the manufactured evidence brought by the prosecution was overwhelmingly bound to lead to a Not Guilty verdict. It had to. A conviction wouldn't have got past the first appeal. This was as good an example as you'll find of investigators selecting their suspect and determining from the start that this was their man. The prosecutors concurred and went after Simpson with no compunction about filling in the gaps in their evidence with whatever they could think of. In other words, they lied through their teeth and at least on of their witnesses did the same, Det. Mark Fuhrmann.</p><p></p><p>As to the difference between 'not guilty' and 'innocent', in law there is no difference, nor should there be. You are innocent until proven guilty, no more, no less (unless 'National Security' is cited, and then all bets are off, when the burden of proof seems to disappear). Accusation should never be a cause for conviction, nor should it be a reason to doubt innocence. If you can't get past an acquittal witjhout simply accepting innocence, then the problem lies with you.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="YoungScud, post: 722775, member: 72423"] I think the OJ case is a bad one to use to illustrate what you're trying to say. I have no clue whether he did or did not murder his ex-wife. What I do believe is that, despite the evidence of his guilt which was presented, and there was a reasonable amount of that, the manufactured evidence brought by the prosecution was overwhelmingly bound to lead to a Not Guilty verdict. It had to. A conviction wouldn't have got past the first appeal. This was as good an example as you'll find of investigators selecting their suspect and determining from the start that this was their man. The prosecutors concurred and went after Simpson with no compunction about filling in the gaps in their evidence with whatever they could think of. In other words, they lied through their teeth and at least on of their witnesses did the same, Det. Mark Fuhrmann. As to the difference between 'not guilty' and 'innocent', in law there is no difference, nor should there be. You are innocent until proven guilty, no more, no less (unless 'National Security' is cited, and then all bets are off, when the burden of proof seems to disappear). Accusation should never be a cause for conviction, nor should it be a reason to doubt innocence. If you can't get past an acquittal witjhout simply accepting innocence, then the problem lies with you. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rugby Union
General Rugby Union
Muliaina Arrested
Top