Text 6931, 112 rader
Skriven 2008-07-02 21:00:16 av Richard Webb (1:116/901.0)
   Kommentar till text 6926 av Bob Klahn (1:124/311)
Ärende: The Black Experience
============================
Hi Bob,
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.

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

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


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.

Mine there again were based on some of the human interactions in the whole
thing.  A cop with a "get the black dude" attitude, a man with a close
relationship with his family.  Easy enough in the potential rush to judgment
judgment to misconstrue the cold sterile process of collecting scientific
evidence. From oj's subsequent behavior, and what I heard of the civil trial,
I'm of the opinion that most likely he was the guy that did the deed.

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. 


Not necessarily.  See above.

LET's take another example of this.

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

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

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.

 RW> True enough, but it was some of my knowledge of science and
 RW> common sense that left the door opened to reasonable doubt
 RW> in my mind.  All I know is I'm glad I didn't have to sit on
 RW> that jury and cast my vote along with the other eleven jury
 RW> members. I"ve served on two juries, and I take the
 RW> responsibility very serious.

BK>  I only served on a Grand Jury, but I would still vote guilty on 
BK> the basis of what I know about it. Like I said, I never saw the 
BK> broadcast of the trial.

I did most of it.  Judging from what I saw and heard I would have had
questions. Maybe those questions would have been resolved had I actually been
one of those empaneled.  AFter all, except sidebar conferences etc. THey *did*
see and hear it all.

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.

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

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

Amen brother!


Regards,
           Richard
--- timEd 1.10.y2k+
 * Origin: Radio REscue net operations BBS       (1:116/901)