Johnnie Cochran the lawyer just died.........

by jula71 45 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  FlyingHighNow

  I don't think too many people are going to shed any tears for this guy.

  I don't agree. And even though I have no idea whether or not OJ killed his wife, no one proved it beyond reasonable doubt.

  I thought Cochran a very good lawyer. I watched much of the trial and felt the prosecution did a very poor job presenting their case. I have to say that from the moment the police found the bloody glove, and long before OJ's lawyers said anything about a frame up, I felt it all looked too convenient for the detectives to find such blatant evidence so easily.

  I have my own theory about this whole case. There was the Rodney King fiasco and the Menedez brothers fiasco. The head D. O. was up for re election. Both were huge embarrassments for the DO and his office. They needed a prosecution for a major, high profile case. A famous black man accused of murdering his white exspouse? How easy a prosecution could that be? Or so it was thought. Certainly could be a motive for a frame up and even murder. My theory is a possibility a just as your assumption that OJ is guilty is a possibility.
• 

  Mary

  I watched much of the trial and felt the prosecution did a very poor job presenting their case.

  You're right they did, but that doesn't mean that O.J.'s innocent, as he was found guilty in the Civil Suit. Johnny Cochrane knew full well that emotions between blacks and whites would be running very high at the trial, and in true lawyer fashion, he played the race card, when race wasn't even a factor in this case. You should read the book that former prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi wrote called: Outrage: The Five Reasons Why O.J. Simpson Got Away With Murder. It was #1 on the New York Times bestseller list and after reading it, there's no doubt that if Vincent Bugliosi had prosecuted the case instead of Marcia Clark, O.J. would be sitting in prison rather than spending his time on the golf course. I often wonder what Johnny Cockroach would have done, had a black cop found the glove with O.J.'s blood on it, instead of Mark Furhmann.......I'm sure he would have come up with another bullshit theory without too much difficulty.

  http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0440223822/qid=1112273621/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/103-8833758-7423865?v=glance&s=books
• 

  FlyingHighNow

  he played the race card, when race wasn't even a factor in this case.

  I strongly feel that after Rodney King, race was a huge factor in this case. I feel if race had not been brought up in the trial that OJs lawyers would have been negligent.

  Remember that in a civil trial you don't have to prove things beyond a reasonable doubt and that it's much easier to make someone look guilty. I don't think the civil trial really proved anything, or solved anything except perhaps to make the Goldmans and the Browns to feel a measure better.

  I am not saying OJ is innocent. I still am not convinced of his guilt. I wish I had time and the heart to look into it more. I do not feel Johnny Cochran is evil for defending OJ. We'd all hire the best lawyer we could afford when facing such serious charges. Neither of us can judge whether Johnny felt OJ was truly innocent. Perhaps he really felt OJ was indeed innocent.
• 

  talesin

  I, too, had a negative viewpoint of Johnny Cochrane. When I really thought about it, though, I had to change my mind. He was a defense attorney. It was his job to get OJ off, by whatever means available. That's the system, and all he did was work it to his client's advantage.

  He was a great trial lawyer, and by all accounts, did a lot of good work for people who needed advocacy.

  RIP Johnny, I didn't know ya, but you sure seemed like quite the character!

  As to the book by Bugliosi, I haven't read it (too sick of OJ), but he was a BRILLIANT prosecutor, and I feel that if he had prosecuted OJ, the trial would have had a different outcome.

  (Anyone who is interested, might want to check out his book Helter Skelter, about the trial of Charles Manson and followers. It was his most famous, or should I say notorious, prosecution.)

  tal
• 

  FlyingHighNow

  (Anyone who is interested, might want to check out his book Helter Skelter, about the trial of Charles Manson and followers. It was his most famous, or should I say notorious, prosecution.)

  I read it back in 1978. One thing to note: Vince had eyewitness accounts to the Manson murders. There were none to the Nicole Simpson/Ron Goldman murders. It might not have been as easy for Vince to prove OJs guilt as all that. Just something to ponder.
• 

  Mecurious?

  Mary, I don't think you or anyone else would make such a big deal out of this if OJ was a white man. Face it OJ is free has more money than you will ever have in life and I believe innocent of the charges. I for one am very happy that he got off, I think justice was served. You make yourself look foolish though with asinine statments like this:

  We certainly wouldn't think too much of a prosector that planted evidence to win a case against a man they know to be innocent would we? Same goes for a defence lawyer that pulls shit out of his hat like Cockroach did during the trial.

  Do yourself a favor and let it go.

  M'
• 

  talesin

  Very true, Flyin'. I just don't think Bugliosi would have made so many 'tactical' errors.

  I can't agree with you on your theory, OJ has too much history as a woman abuser and egomaniac for me to see him in an 'innocent' light, but maybe it's good that we disagree on something for once! hahahaha love you, :)

  tal
• 

  Mary

  Murcurious said: Mary, I don't think you or anyone else would make such a big deal out of this if OJ was a white man. Face it OJ is free has more money than you will ever have in life and I believe innocent of the charges. I for one am very happy that he got off, I think justice was served.

  If you think justice was served, then you're an idiot, plain and simple.

  You make yourself look foolish though with asinine statments like this: We certainly wouldn't think too much of a prosector that planted evidence to win a case against a man they know to be innocent would we? Same goes for a defence lawyer that pulls shit out of his hat like Cockroach did during the trial.

  Not nearly as foolish as you make yourself look by making the asinine statement that you believe justice was served.
• 

  FlyingHighNow

  I can't agree with you on your theory, OJ has too much history as a woman abuser and egomaniac for me to see him in an 'innocent' light, but maybe it's good that we disagree on something for once! hahahaha love you, :)

  tal

  Yeah, it's like Andy hating Don Henley and me not being able to stomach Sarah McGlaughlin. We agree on just about everything else though.

  I don't know if OJ is innocent or not. I agree he is not a good guy and certainly has proved abusive to women. I don't think it proves he murdered Nicole though. There is the fact that Nicole's girl friend, who had bad dealings with murderous drug dealers, had been staying with Nicole close to the time of Nicole's murder. That is something the DO's office should have investigated but never did. I personally do not believe OJ had the time to get to the condo, murder not just Nicole but an athletic young man, clean off massive amounts of blood and get back to his home in time to make it to the airport. I know a lot of people who feel the same way about the time factor. We all agree that OJ is not a nice man. We just haven't seen enough proof that he is a murderer.

  In the Manson case, Linda Caspian was at the Tate house when the Tate murders took place. She gave an eyewitness account of the murders and backed up the motive. Unfortunately we don't have that kind of evidence against OJ. We have policeman and detectives trapesing all over the murder scene and then climbing in and out of the bronco. We have missing blood and a, oh so conveniently found, bloody glove that did not fit OJ. If I were on OJ's jury I would have voted to acquit him, too. And it would have been because of the type and amount of evidence.
• 

  Mecurious?

  Yeah, it's like Andy hating Don Henley and me not being able to stomach Sarah McGlaughlin. We agree on just about everything else though.

  I don't know if OJ is innocent or not. I agree he is not a good guy and certainly has proved abusive to women. I don't think it proves he murdered Nicole though. There is the fact that Nicole's girl friend, who had bad dealings with murderous drug dealers, had been staying with Nicole close to the time of Nicole's murder. That is something the DO's office should have investigated but never did. I personally do not believe OJ had the time to get to the condo, murder not just Nicole but an athletic young man, clean off massive amounts of blood and get back to his home in time to make it to the airport. I know a lot of people who feel the same way about the time factor. We all agree that OJ is not a nice man. We just haven't seen enough proof that he is a murderer.

  In the Manson case, Linda Caspian was at the Tate house when the Tate murders took place. She gave an eyewitness account of the murders and backed up the motive. Unfortunately we don't have that kind of evidence against OJ. We have policeman and detectives trapesing all over the murder scene and then climbing in and out of the bronco. We have missing blood and a, oh so conveniently found, bloody glove that did not fit OJ. If I were on OJ's jury I would have voted to acquit him, too. And it would have been because of the type and amount of evidence.

  Flying, thats was succinct, excellent and well put. This is exactly how I feel. Finally a voice of reason about the facts regarding OJ. If people would stop letting thier emotions and other things get in the way they could see things clearly. Imho nothing else I heard make this much sense. So when I say justice was served I mean from the standpoint of not punishing an innocent man, which I believe OJ to be.

  M'