O.j...

[DaLAW]

LMAO...

http://www.officer.com/online/article.jsp?siteSection=1&id=43304

Saw this story on the front page. Apparently, one of the officers present during OJ's latest brush with the law said: "This is great. ... California can't get him. ... Now we'll be able to." And, of course, it'll be used in OJ's defense. I just thought how terribly ironic and absurd it would be if he ended up getting off, yet again, due in part to that statement. OJ's life is seriously like a comedy/action-thriller movie that just never ends. My real question is, why is it that everytime an officer or detective makes a questionable comment about OJ, its always on tape somehow? What the hell...

[CityCopDC]

I dont think that dude will walk this time. Although that statement may play a significant role...

[Columbus]

LMAO...

http://www.officer.com/online/article.jsp?siteSection=1&id=43304

Saw this story on the front page. Apparently, one of the officers present during OJ's latest brush with the law said: "This is great. ... California can't get him. ... Now we'll be able to." And, of course, it'll be used in OJ's defense. I just thought how terribly ironic and absurd it would be if he ended up getting off, yet again, due in part to that statement. OJ's life is seriously like a comedy/action-thriller movie that just never ends. My real question is, why is it that everytime an officer or detective makes a questionable comment about OJ, its always on tape somehow? What the hell...

I heard about this... will that comment really benefit him in court?

[CityCopDC]

I heard about this... will that comment really benefit him in court?

It "can" be used as a defense. Depends on how its used and how tight the prosecutions game is.

[DAL]

The statement is not a defense. It merely calls into question the bias of the person making it, and perhaps the bias of the officers in general. A defense is somethng that, if proven, requires acquittal regardless of the other evidence. It would hardly be surprising if officers thought OJ was guilty of murder, especially in light of the civil judgment against him.

[CityCopDC]

It merely calls into question the bias of the person making it, and perhaps the bias of the officers in general.

Which of course you and I know you are "supposed" to be impartial or neutral as an officer or employee of a le agency in such a matter, no?

[VegasMetro]

The comment was made by a civilian employee of the department while collecting evidence inside the room, not by a sworn officer who was conducting the investigation. Silly to say one the less, but the victim had a tape recorder on top of a armoire inside the room that nobody knew about...

[DaLAW]

The statement is not a defense. It merely calls into question the bias of the person making it, and perhaps the bias of the officers in general. A defense is somethng that, if proven, requires acquittal regardless of the other evidence. It would hardly be surprising if officers thought OJ was guilty of murder, especially in light of the civil judgment against him.

The statement itself is not a defense, but it can obviously be used in defense of him not being charged with the various crimes he is on-trial for. If the Defense is able to use this statement, along with a lot of the other questionable stuff that was already occurring in the trial, in the correct manner, OJ very well could be on the golf-course, writing inflammatory books and giving sumbliminal interviews. One can only hope...

[SkepticAlways]

"This is great. ... California can't get him. ... Now we'll be able to."

I'll bet you the entire jury is thinking that exact same thing.

[DaLAW]

I'll bet you the entire jury is thinking that exact same thing.

If you find someone to bet against that, let me know who, I've got a blind-watchdog to sell him...