O. J. Simpson and Reasonable Doubt with F. Lee Bailey

[@ladydoc7221]

Just awesome!

[@philliprhinehardt6268]

RIP F LEE BAILEY

[@rahulkadian2972]

Legendary lawyer!!❤️☮️

[@callankellan4955]

i guess I am kinda off topic but does anyone know of a good website to stream new series online ?

[@scilines]

This is so valuable. Thanks!

[@unknownkingdom]

How interesting that he wanted to be a journalist and that his legal career was randomly imposed on him.

[@csdr0]

First, we must understand what reasonable doubt (RD) means. RD can be global or specific. Global is when the doubt pertains to lack of opportunity to commit the crime for example, when the defendant is medically certified to be a physically disable person. He could not have possibly committed the crime given his condition. Or, the timeline conflicts with the incriminating evidence presented against him. He simply does not have enough time to commit the crime as the impossibility of being in two places at the same time is a powerful alibi. Clearly, Global RD can win the case in favor of the defendant. Thus, the Prosecution has to overcome or refute the Global RD first and then demolish the rest of the specific RD's. Specific reasonable doubt can refer to the specific and individual evidence presented against the Defendant. There are 3 essential elements of RD as follows: 1. It must be based strictly on the evidence accepted by the court and presented to the jury. It can also be based on the lack or absence of evidence. Only in a court case the rule, ("Absence of evidence is an evidence of absence") applies. 2. Using logic, abductive reasoning, simple common sense, or process of elimination, the Jury process the evidence in order to arrive at a fair conclusion or what we call the "FACTS" of the case. Thus, the inference or conclusion or the facts were arrived at using the known method of logical reasoning to process the evidence or its absence. This what makes the conclusion or the facts "reasonable." 3. The facts arrived at must undermine the confidence in the evidence against the defendant or the theory/case of the Prosecution making the jurors unable to have an abiding conviction about the defendant's guilt. To go beyond RD requires attacking the 3 elements of the RD as follows: 1. The Prosecution must show that the doubt is not based on the evidence presented in court or of its absence. In other words the RD is actually an imaginary doubt, or based on a mere suspicion or just any reason to doubt. 2. The Prosecution must show that even if RD is based on evidence, nonetheless the inference or "fact derived from the evidence" is not logically sound or it's a NON-SEQUITUR ("it does not follow"). In other words, there is a logical flaw from the evidence to the inference or conclusion. 3. Even if the inference or conclusion or the "fact" derived from the evidence is logically valid nonetheless the Prosecution must show that the "fact" has no force that could undermine the "incriminating" evidence. Thus, the Prosecution should be able to belittle the value of the RD proposed by the Defense. If the Prosecution is able to go beyond or overcome or refute all the reasonable doubt presented by the Defense it can be said that the Prosecution has proven its case beyond and to the exclusion of all (not just one or few but all) reasonable doubt. The burden is that the Prosecution must go beyond and to the exclusion of all reasonable doubt presented against each of the elements of the crime. Usually, in a murder case the only remaining elements that must be proven beyond and to the exclusion of all reasonable doubt are the motive and the identity of the murderer. The first is easy to prove namely: that a murder has been committed.

[@PurpleHounding]

Motive cannot be suspected, it too, must be proven no matter how many ways based on how many existing suspected motives. It might be easier to run it or them by instead.

[@andrewgillis8572]

I would look for CA vehicle private sales for later that year 1994 - kinda like looking for Thane Cesar's sales record for the revolver from the Ambassdor Hotel. Sure enough the sale was months after 4 June '68, not prior; Cesar lied about what should have been a triviality. I would try to determine whether Ron Goldman was driven to Bundy in such a tow-rig pickup truck, by an acquaintance, not known to be crazy by Goldman, who may have thought this was a place full of cocaine, cash, or both - not 2 kids trying to go to sleep after an exciting night out, and on stage. Or driven by someone who thought Nicole was Faye Resnick, herself in major debt to dealers. Same way it might be reasonable surmise that Tippitt & Oswald for about 8 minutes drove together in Dallas that day. The above notwithstanding forensic finding of 2 knives used.

[@OneWayJesus777-x2n]

good point. some have speculated that ron was driven to bundy and that he did not borrow anyones car although they say the detectives gave andrea scott the bloody keys back

[@kidcanuck6031]

20:17 Park said his headlines were off. Lee lies about everything in every interview he did. In the last interview that I saw Lee do, Lee was still lying 25+ years after the fact, when Lee said it takes 20 minutes to drive from Nicole's condo on Bundy to OJ's house on Rockingham. While Lee was in court, the DA showed a video Vannatter doing the drive in less than 6 minutes.

[@mitchphilip7510]

Do you have the link to the episodes with Marcia Clark and Earl Douglas?

[@celsustruth8202]

Fuhrman was a jew himself on his father's side. Guy was a grifter