Ebook Reasonable Doubts: The O.J. Simpson Case and the Criminal Justice System

When some individuals think that this is a hard publication to check out, we will certainly tell you that it turns into one of the smarter suggestions to come with something various. The different things of the Reasonable Doubts: The O.J. Simpson Case And The Criminal Justice System with various other publications are lasting heading just how the writer improvisate and select the subject frequently and also interestingly. It will be timeless and also unlimited to make all people feel decorated and also amazed of this book.

Reasonable Doubts: The O.J. Simpson Case and the Criminal Justice System

Ebook Reasonable Doubts: The O.J. Simpson Case and the Criminal Justice System

Book Reasonable Doubts: The O.J. Simpson Case And The Criminal Justice System is one of the valuable worth that will certainly make you constantly abundant. It will certainly not mean as abundant as the cash give you. When some individuals have absence to encounter the life, people with lots of publications in some cases will be better in doing the life. Why ought to be book Reasonable Doubts: The O.J. Simpson Case And The Criminal Justice System It is really not suggested that book Reasonable Doubts: The O.J. Simpson Case And The Criminal Justice System will provide you power to get to every little thing. The e-book is to review and also just what we meant is guide that is reviewed. You can additionally view how the publication entitles Reasonable Doubts: The O.J. Simpson Case And The Criminal Justice System and varieties of e-book collections are offering right here.

If you obtain the printed book Reasonable Doubts: The O.J. Simpson Case And The Criminal Justice System in on the internet book shop, you could also locate the same issue. So, you have to move establishment to shop Reasonable Doubts: The O.J. Simpson Case And The Criminal Justice System as well as look for the offered there. However, it will not take place below. Guide Reasonable Doubts: The O.J. Simpson Case And The Criminal Justice System that we will offer right here is the soft documents idea. This is exactly what make you could quickly locate and get this Reasonable Doubts: The O.J. Simpson Case And The Criminal Justice System by reading this site. We provide you Reasonable Doubts: The O.J. Simpson Case And The Criminal Justice System the most effective product, always and always.

Currently, you could know well that this book is mostly recommended not just for the viewers who like this topic. This is likewise advertised for all individuals and also public form culture. It will not limit you to check out or otherwise the book. However, when you have started or begun to read DDD, you will recognize why specifically the book will certainly give you al positive things.

Locating this Reasonable Doubts: The O.J. Simpson Case And The Criminal Justice System as the ideal publication actually makes you really feel eased. Even this is just a book; you could find some benefits that can not be got from any other sources. Fulfilling the interested it is at some point really simple, yet sometime it needs the huge effort. As below, before locating this web site to obtain the book, you could feel so overwhelmed. Why? It's due to the fact that you truly need this awesome publication to check out immediately.

Product details

#detail-bullets .content {

margin: 0.5em 0px 0em 25px !important;

}

Audible Audiobook

Listening Length: 3 hours and 1 minute

Program Type: Audiobook

Version: Abridged

Publisher: Simon & Schuster Audio

Audible.com Release Date: March 11, 2010

Language: English

ASIN: B003BWG1NY

Amazon Best Sellers Rank:

Just started reading. So far, so good.

great read

No complaints at all

Not a very interesting book re: The O.J. Simpson Case. Of course it is viewed from the view of the defense. Would NOT recommend to family or friends.

Famed appellate attorney Alan Dershowitz states in the Introduction of this 1996 book, “When the word came … that there was a verdict… I also thought I would have to begin preparing for an appeal. Indeed, from the moment I learned that the jurors had reached their verdict, I began to outline the likely issues for the appeal. As an appellate lawyer… My job is to prepare for the worst… That is why O.J. Simpson always referred to me as his ‘God forbid’ lawyer---‘God forbid there should be a conviction, you’ve got to get it reversed on appeal.’ … But there was no mistaking the jury’s verdict: not guilty. There was silence in my office. No one cheered… It was not a moment for celebration. There were two victims, brutally murdered… There was a man who had spent sixteen months in jail accused of a crime of which a jury had just ruled he was not legally guilty, but of which most Americans though he was factually guilty.” (Pg. 13-14)He continued, “I have written this book primarily for the majority of thoughtful observers who sincerely and understandably believe that O.J. Simpson killed Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman… I will try to explain why even jurors who thought that Simpson ‘did it’ … could reasonably have found him not guilty as a matter of law---and of justice… it is my intention to explain how, under our system of criminal justice, the Simpson jury could properly have reached a verdict so at odds with the conclusion reached by millions of intelligent and decent people who watched what they believed was the same trial.” (Pg. 16-17)He gives examples of “mistakes” made during the early hours of the investigation, such as: “the bodies of the victims were dragged around the crime scene before hair and fiber samples were taken from their clothing… The police failed to obtain a warrant to enter the Simpson estate, and instead came up with a story that seemed open to doubt… The police misstated facts on the search warrant, causing the judge eventually to find that Detective Philip Vannatter was ‘at least reckless’ in regard to the truth… The LAPD sent to the crime scene a trainee… who collected blood samples along with Dennis Fung. [She] had never before had primary responsibility for collecting blood evidence from a crime scene… Detective Vannatter carried around O.J. Simpson’s blood in a vial in an unsealed envelope for three hours … before booking it… The criminologists failed to find blood on the back gate and socks (if blood was, in fact, there) during the original investigation and only found it several weeks after Simpson’s blood sample was taken out of the tubes.” (Pg. 31-32)He points out, “prosecutors put Mark Fuhrman on the stand after having been informed that he as a racist, a liar, and a person capable of planting evidence even before they called him as a trial witness. An assistant district attorney, among others, warned the Simpson prosecutors about Fuhrman. The prosecutors also saw his psychological reports, in which he admitted his racist attitudes and actions. The only thing they didn’t know was that Fuhrman … would be caught by the tape-recorded interviews that Fuhrman gave an aspiring screenwriter.” (Pg. 44)He states, “When Detective Philip Vannatter testified that O.J. Simpson ‘was no more of a suspect’ than Robert Shapiro, many commentators and pundits concluded that he was covering up the truth. Nearly all said so in private; some said so in public… What made this charade even more difficult to understand was the fact that if the police had told the truth, the judges might well have found that ensuing search was lawful and that its fruits were admissible in evidence…” (Pg. 49-50) Later, he adds, “The verdict in the Simpson case is a wake-up call about police perjury… if JUDGES do not begin to take police perjury seriously, JURORS may begin to take the issue into their own hands. This is what Johnnie Cochran urged the Simpson jury to so, and what many Americans believed they did.” (Pg. 66)He notes, “To the shock of prosecutors, the FBI tests demonstrated the presence of EDTA in the blood found on the socks… the prosecution … changed its tack. An FBI expert… acknowledged the presence of EDTA, but testified that the amount was consistent with having come directly from a human body… it is possible that … the blood did come directly from a human body, but it is also possible that the blood came from a test tube of blood preserved with EDTA.” (Pg. 75-76)He adds, “the inventory videotape taken by the Los Angeles Police Department to protect itself from claims that anything could have been stolen from the Simpson house showed no socks on the white rug where the police claimed they later found them… Again, there was a possible explanation for the discrepancy---perhaps the chronology was wrong---but it was at least equally consistent with suspicion.” (Pg. 77)He says, “The commentators who argue that the uncorrupted evidence should have been independently considered, without taking the arguably corrupted evidence into account, point to [Simpson’s blood, hat, shoe prints, left glove] standing alone as enough to establish Simpson’s guilt. The fallacy in their reasoning is that this evidence DID NOT stand alone. No reasonable juror would totally ignore the fact that THIS evidence was gathered by the same police department that might have tampered with the other evidence… ALL the police evidence and testimony would now come before the jurors bearing a presumption, or at very least a suspicion, that it had been corrupted.” (Pg. 87)He contends, “I submit that under our system of justice, it is far better for a jury to err on the side of finding perjury where it did not occur than in failing to find it where it did occur. This is precisely how one juror---a white woman---put it after the verdict… ‘If we made a mistake, I would rather it be a mistake on the side of a person’s innocence than the other way.’” (Pg. 124)He asserts, “I am not … arguing that all the evidence in the O.J. Simpson case was in fact corrupted. I am suggesting that if some of the evidence was tampered with---and the argument with respect to the socks is quite compelling---then the jury would be obliged to regard with suspicion all the evidence to which the corrupt police officers had access. That suspicion might lead them to discount some more of the prosecution’s evidence, without which the circumstantial case would be less than convincing.” (Pg. 132-133)He admits, “The most common complaint about lawyers---especially criminal defense lawyers---is that they distort the truth, and there is some sense in that accusation. But as I explained in Chapter II, a criminal trial is anything but a pure search for truth.” (Pg. 166)He summarizes, “if some jurors sent a message, they did so not because Johnnie Cochran asked them to, but rather because Detectives Fuhrman and Vannatter---and the prosecutors who presented these witnesses---challenged them either to accept or reject false police testimony. They rejected it.” (Pg. 204)This is a helpful commentary on the actual evidence and issues of the criminal trial, and will be of great interest to anyone so interested in the trial.

Famed appellate attorney Alan Dershowitz states in the Introduction of this 1996 book, “When the word came … that there was a verdict… I also thought I would have to begin preparing for an appeal. Indeed, from the moment I learned that the jurors had reached their verdict, I began to outline the likely issues for the appeal. As an appellate lawyer… My job is to prepare for the worst… That is why O.J. Simpson always referred to me as his ‘God forbid’ lawyer---‘God forbid there should be a conviction, you’ve got to get it reversed on appeal.’ … But there was no mistaking the jury’s verdict: not guilty. There was silence in my office. No one cheered… It was not a moment for celebration. There were two victims, brutally murdered… There was a man who had spent sixteen months in jail accused of a crime of which a jury had just ruled he was not legally guilty, but of which most Americans though he was factually guilty.” (Pg. 13-14) [NOTE: page numbers below refer to the 238-page hardcover edition.]He continued, “I have written this book primarily for the majority of thoughtful observers who sincerely and understandably believe that O.J. Simpson killed Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman… I will try to explain why even jurors who thought that Simpson ‘did it’ … could reasonably have found him not guilty as a matter of law---and of justice… it is my intention to explain how, under our system of criminal justice, the Simpson jury could properly have reached a verdict so at odds with the conclusion reached by millions of intelligent and decent people who watched what they believed was the same trial.” (Pg. 16-17)He gives examples of “mistakes” made during the early hours of the investigation, such as: “the bodies of the victims were dragged around the crime scene before hair and fiber samples were taken from their clothing… The police failed to obtain a warrant to enter the Simpson estate, and instead came up with a story that seemed open to doubt… The police misstated facts on the search warrant, causing the judge eventually to find that Detective Philip Vannatter was ‘at least reckless’ in regard to the truth… The LAPD sent to the crime scene a trainee… who collected blood samples along with Dennis Fung. [She] had never before had primary responsibility for collecting blood evidence from a crime scene… Detective Vannatter carried around O.J. Simpson’s blood in a vial in an unsealed envelope for three hours … before booking it… The criminologists failed to find blood on the back gate and socks (if blood was, in fact, there) during the original investigation and only found it several weeks after Simpson’s blood sample was taken out of the tubes.” (Pg. 31-32)He points out, “prosecutors put Mark Fuhrman on the stand after having been informed that he as a racist, a liar, and a person capable of planting evidence even before they called him as a trial witness. An assistant district attorney, among others, warned the Simpson prosecutors about Fuhrman. The prosecutors also saw his psychological reports, in which he admitted his racist attitudes and actions. The only thing they didn’t know was that Fuhrman … would be caught by the tape-recorded interviews that Fuhrman gave an aspiring screenwriter.” (Pg. 44)He states, “When Detective Philip Vannatter testified that O.J. Simpson ‘was no more of a suspect’ than Robert Shapiro, many commentators and pundits concluded that he was covering up the truth. Nearly all said so in private; some said so in public… What made this charade even more difficult to understand was the fact that if the police had told the truth, the judges might well have found that ensuing search was lawful and that its fruits were admissible in evidence…” (Pg. 49-50) Later, he adds, “The verdict in the Simpson case is a wake-up call about police perjury… if JUDGES do not begin to take police perjury seriously, JURORS may begin to take the issue into their own hands. This is what Johnnie Cochran urged the Simpson jury to so, and what many Americans believed they did.” (Pg. 66)He notes, “To the shock of prosecutors, the FBI tests demonstrated the presence of EDTA in the blood found on the socks… the prosecution … changed its tack. An FBI expert… acknowledged the presence of EDTA, but testified that the amount was consistent with having come directly from a human body… it is possible that … the blood did come directly from a human body, but it is also possible that the blood came from a test tube of blood preserved with EDTA.” (Pg. 75-76)He adds, “the inventory videotape taken by the Los Angeles Police Department to protect itself from claims that anything could have been stolen from the Simpson house showed no socks on the white rug where the police claimed they later found them… Again, there was a possible explanation for the discrepancy---perhaps the chronology was wrong---but it was at least equally consistent with suspicion.” (Pg. 77)He says, “The commentators who argue that the uncorrupted evidence should have been independently considered, without taking the arguably corrupted evidence into account, point to [Simpson’s blood, hat, shoe prints, left glove] standing alone as enough to establish Simpson’s guilt. The fallacy in their reasoning is that this evidence DID NOT stand alone. No reasonable juror would totally ignore the fact that THIS evidence was gathered by the same police department that might have tampered with the other evidence… ALL the police evidence and testimony would now come before the jurors bearing a presumption, or at very least a suspicion, that it had been corrupted.” (Pg. 87)He contends, “I submit that under our system of justice, it is far better for a jury to err on the side of finding perjury where it did not occur than in failing to find it where it did occur. This is precisely how one juror---a white woman---put it after the verdict… ‘If we made a mistake, I would rather it be a mistake on the side of a person’s innocence than the other way.’” (Pg. 124)He asserts, “I am not … arguing that all the evidence in the O.J. Simpson case was in fact corrupted. I am suggesting that if some of the evidence was tampered with---and the argument with respect to the socks is quite compelling---then the jury would be obliged to regard with suspicion all the evidence to which the corrupt police officers had access. That suspicion might lead them to discount some more of the prosecution’s evidence, without which the circumstantial case would be less than convincing.” (Pg. 132-133)He admits, “The most common complaint about lawyers---especially criminal defense lawyers---is that they distort the truth, and there is some sense in that accusation. But as I explained in Chapter II, a criminal trial is anything but a pure search for truth.” (Pg. 166)He summarizes, “if some jurors sent a message, they did so not because Johnnie Cochran asked them to, but rather because Detectives Fuhrman and Vannatter---and the prosecutors who presented these witnesses---challenged them either to accept or reject false police testimony. They rejected it.” (Pg. 204)This is a helpful commentary on the actual evidence and issues of the criminal trial, and will be of great interest to anyone so interested in the trial.

Reasonable Doubts: The O.J. Simpson Case and the Criminal Justice System PDF
Reasonable Doubts: The O.J. Simpson Case and the Criminal Justice System EPub
Reasonable Doubts: The O.J. Simpson Case and the Criminal Justice System Doc
Reasonable Doubts: The O.J. Simpson Case and the Criminal Justice System iBooks
Reasonable Doubts: The O.J. Simpson Case and the Criminal Justice System rtf
Reasonable Doubts: The O.J. Simpson Case and the Criminal Justice System Mobipocket
Reasonable Doubts: The O.J. Simpson Case and the Criminal Justice System Kindle

Reasonable Doubts: The O.J. Simpson Case and the Criminal Justice System PDF

Reasonable Doubts: The O.J. Simpson Case and the Criminal Justice System PDF

Reasonable Doubts: The O.J. Simpson Case and the Criminal Justice System PDF

Reasonable Doubts: The O.J. Simpson Case and the Criminal Justice System PDF