Text 6943, 141 rader
Skriven 2008-07-03 22:49:00 av Bob Klahn (1:124/311)
     Kommentar till en text av Richard Webb
Ärende: The Black Experience
============================
 RW> Hi Bob,
 RW> Bob Klahn wrote in a message to Richard Webb:

 RW>> Looked that way to me at times, but there's that "beyond a
 RW>> reasonable doubt" standard. tHink I alluded to my
 RW>> "reasonable doubts" in another msg in this echo.

BK>>  Yep. However, I feel the DNA was beyond a reasonable doubt. Esp
BK>> since all Fong did was raise doubts about the collection, not  about
BK>> the accuracy of the tests. IOW, he said it was not lab  standard
BK>> collection, but never said the tests were wrong, or  even seriously
BK>> might be wrong.

 RW> True, but as I mentioned in another msg in this thread, Oj
 RW> was a frequent visitor to those premises.  HIs kids lived
 RW> there. HE and NIcole still might have had the on again off
 RW> again relationship thing going on.

 RW> the example I used was the friend's apartment with whom I
 RW> watched many of the Oj trial coverage.  I had lived in that
 RW> apartment for 3-4 years.  I'd grown up downstairs, worked
 RW> repairing plumbing and stringing electrical wire throughout
 RW> that old house.  conceivably, could my dna have been found
 RW> in the dust bunnies in the closet or the attic? I was still
 RW> a frequent visitor.  My musical colleage lived upstairs, my
 RW> grandmother lived downstairs.

 I know all that. Again, we are not just talking DNA randomly
 spread, we are talking blood at the scene of the crime. How much
 blood did you leave on your driveway? How much would be likely
 to be fresh on the day of a murder, and how likely would it be
 to be close to the scene of the murder?

BK>>>  Remember, you are not supposed to pre-judge the case, and you  are
BK>>> supposed to judge based on the facts presented. You are not
BK>>> required to forget everything you know when you walk into the  jury
BK>>> room.

 RW>> This is true, and I still would have had doubts.

BK>>  I always have doubts, but in this case they would not be
BK>>  reasonable doubts.

 RW> Mine there again were based on some of the human
 RW> interactions in the whole thing.  A cop with a "get the
 RW> black dude" attitude, a man with a close relationship with

 One witness with a history of bad behavior almost 10 years
 before. Even the black cops who worked with him said he was not
 a racist. They could be wrong, but he had to be professional,
 not perfect.

 RW> his family.  Easy enough in the potential rush to judgment
 RW> judgment to misconstrue the cold sterile process of
 RW> collecting scientific evidence. From oj's subsequent
 RW> behavior, and what I heard of the civil trial, I'm of the
 RW> opinion that most likely he was the guy that did the deed.

 I am firmly convinced he did.

BK>>>  Fong was the defense DNA expert wasn't he? He gave opinion, not
BK>>> facts. Cochran gave opinion, not facts about the hat. Even the
BK>>> bloody glove theory was opinion, not fact. That the glove had to
BK>>> fit or you had to aquit was opinion, not law.

 RW>> Again agreed.  HOwever, there's always more than one
 RW>> possible path to irrefutable "facts" such as how the dna
 RW>> got there in the first place.

BK>>  If the data are correct, how they got there becomes irrelevant.

 RW> Not necessarily.  See above.

 Like I said, blood at the scene of the crime.

 RW> LET's take another example of this.

 RW> I'm heavily involved in emergency communications work.  I
 RW> have preparations for emergency power, plenty of
 RW> ready-to-eat food on-hand in case of need.  I own at least
 RW> one firearm.  I'm a libertarian. My house is guarded when
 RW> I"m not home by 100 lb plus of Rottweiler that would appear
 RW> to want to rip your throat out if you knocked on the door.
 RW> Add to this fact that I"m rather vocal about if you're from
 RW> the government and you want to come inside you better have
 RW> that piece of paper signed by a judge. IF I'm alone I'm
 RW> going to ask for your badge number and other data, and I"m
 RW> gonna phone the authorities to check and see if you truly
 RW> have such a warrant and if you're the real deal. That's
 RW> because I can't actually see to read your badge through the
 RW> door.

 Yep, and the only real problem is, the dog and if you show the
 gun.

 RW> Ipso facto, I'm a member of a right-wing militia because I
 RW> fit the pattern. Anyone making that judgment and coming to
 RW> that conclusion would be dead wrong.

 You would not have to be a member of a militia. Just personally
 whacko.

 However, this raises the question, why would you require a
 warrant? Think about it.

BK>>>  That is true. However, a juror who knew a little science, and
BK>>> applied a bit of logic, could interpret the facts in light of  his
BK>>> knowledge.

 ...

BK>>>  I don't recall it ever being shown that the facts Furhman
BK>>>  testfied to were not legit. I do believe the prosecution should
BK>>> have won dispite Furhman.

 RW> GOes back again in my mind to assumptions you make when
 RW> investigating somebody. see my example above about my
 RW> activities and political attitudes. An investigator could
 RW> easily glean certain facts about my lifestyle and
 RW> affiliations and massage a few facts to fit his
 RW> conclusions.  IT's happened before in our justice system.

 Yeah, and that still doesn't change the fact that Furhman was
 one witness. There is no reason to believe he lied, and the
 blood evidence alone was pretty damn convincing.

 Even the glove had OJ's blood on it, kinda hard for Furhman to
 fake. As well Nicole's on OJ's socks, and his Bronco, and all
 over the place. No, it was not faked.

BK>>  OH, yeah, vexing is not at all hard to justify in this case.

 RW> Amen brother!


BOB KLAHN bob.klahn@sev.org   http://home.toltbbs.com/bobklahn

... I use to be paranoid...but I feel MUCH better now.  o-%
 * Silver Xpress V4.5/P [Reg]
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5a
 * Origin: FidoTel & QWK on the Web! www.fidotel.com (1:124/311)