The conspiracy hobbyist's game

[John Corbett]

I've been debating the JFKA online for about 35 years on various forums. The conspiracy hobbyists' game hasn't changed much over the years. They act like a defense lawyer who knows his client is guilty as hell and his only hope is to try to confuse the jury by bringing up red herring objections to the evidence against his client.

This reminds me of one of two criminal trials on which I served as a juror. It was a simple check forgery case. The cops had gotten a confession from the defendant by offering him a diversion program which would have kept him out of jail. Then they looked at his priors and told him he wasn't eligible for the program at which time he recanted his confession. He never actually signed the confession. In the meantime he had given the cops several handwriting samples. One of them was what was called a London Letter. The idea being that even if a suspect tries to disguise his handwriting, he will eventually lapse back into his own. The other thing he did was write out the same names that were on the forged checks.

The irony is if the defendant had just clammed up and asked for a lawyer from the start, there would have been no case against him. The defense attorney hinted at that in his opening statement. The prosecution had the cops testify about the oral but recanted confession. A handwriting expert testified the forged checks were written in the defendant's handwriting. They put into evidence the forged checks and the handwriting sample. The defense attorney presented no witnesses. His whole defense was to pooh-pooh the prosecution's case. He scoffed at the cops claim of an oral confession and the handwriting experts testimony. Then he said "What evidence do they have? A piece of paper?" as he picked up one of the checks and tossed it back down dismissively.

Then we got back into the jury room and looked at the handwriting samples and compared them to the forged checks. You didn't need to be a handwriting expert to know they were written by the same hand. The signatures looked like carbon copies. We reached a guilty verdict in about a half hour and didn't even have to consider the cops claim of a confession or the expert testimony.

The WC presented far more evidence of Oswald's guilt in both homicides than was presented by the prosecution in the forgery case. Like the defense attorney in that case who was dealt a losing hand, all the conspiracy hobbyists can do is pooh-pooh the evidence against Oswald. Their problems is that there is just so damn much of it that it becomes ridiculous to argue for Oswald's innocence. The forensic evidence alone removes any and all doubt that Oswald murdered two men that day, but that doesn't stop the conspiracy hobbyists from coming up with one excuse after another for why we shouldn't believe what the evidence is screaming at us. OSWALD DID IT!!!

[John Mytton]

That was a great read, it's interesting what goes on and how a lot of defence lawyers are close to the lowest forms of life.
I'm sure the entire OJ defence "dream" team knew full well OJ was guilty but watching them "deal the race card from the bottom of the pack"* was pretty hard to watch and comparing Detective Mark Fuhrman to Hitler, was just plain disgusting. The early Johnnie Cochran was a man of principle, who rightfully defended Blacks but as he got more high profile and was guided by money rather that ethics, he became an embarrassment.
Also I think you're right that a lot of CT's act like defence attorneys but I reckon that a fair percentage of them lack critical thinking skills and genuinely think that Oswald was innocent  and it doesn't matter how much evidence is presented to the contrary they will have an out, and when push come to shove, the evidence was manufactured or the authorities lied, it's just all so predictable.
BTW you said you were on two juries, if you have time it would educational if you presented this case too?

Edit: * the actual quote;

Robert Shapiro told Barbara Walters, "Not only did we play the race card, we dealt it from the bottom of the deck".

JohnM

[John Corbett]

That was a great read, it's interesting what goes on and how a lot of defence lawyers are close to the lowest forms of life.
I'm sure the entire OJ defence "dream" team knew full well OJ was guilty but watching them "deal the race card from the bottom of the pack"* was pretty hard to watch and comparing Detective Mark Fuhrman to Hitler, was just plain disgusting. The early Johnnie Cochran was a man of principle, who rightfully defended Blacks but as he got more high profile and was guided by money rather that ethics, he became an embarrassment.
Also I think you're right that a lot of CT's act like defence attorneys but I reckon that a fair percentage of them lack critical thinking skills and genuinely think that Oswald was innocent  and it doesn't matter how much evidence is presented to the contrary they will have an out, and when push come to shove, the evidence was manufactured or the authorities lied, it's just all so predictable.
BTW you said you were on two juries, if you have time it would educational if you presented this case too?

Edit: * the actual quote;

Robert Shapiro told Barbara Walters, "Not only did we play the race card, we dealt it from the bottom of the deck".

JohnM

I generally don't hold defense lawyers in contempt. Even if they know their client is guilty, they are bound legally and ethically to put up the best defense possible WITHIN the law and the ethics of their profession. If that means they get a guilty man acquitted, they've done their job.

I blame the prosecution for losing that case. It started with Gil Garcetti's dubious decision to move the trial from Brentwood to downtown Los Angeles where O.J. was sure to get a more sympathetic jury. A friend of mine told me right then that O.j. would be acquitted. I was naive enough to think that it wouldn't matter. I couldn't have been more wrong. Then they made the blunder of having O.j. try on the glove in court. That jury was looking for any excuse they could to disregard all the powerful forensic evidence that placed O.J. at the scene of the crime and acquit O.J. The prosecution handed it to them on a silver platter. I've heard it said that a good lawyer should never be surprised by what happens in court. The prosecutors never took into account what happens when leather gets soaked and then dries out. It shrinks. The case was lost right then.  Johnny Cochrane's defense was brilliant. His statement of "If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit" obviously resonated with the jury. The acquittal of O.J. was a blatant miscarriage of justice, but I blame that mainly on the incompetence of the prosecution. The defense team just did their job.

[John Mytton]

I generally don't hold defense lawyers in contempt. Even if they know their client is guilty, they are bound legally and ethically to put up the best defense possible WITHIN the law and the ethics of their profession. If that means they get a guilty man acquitted, they've done their job.

I blame the prosecution for losing that case. It started with Gil Garcetti's dubious decision to move the trial from Brentwood to downtown Los Angeles where O.J. was sure to get a more sympathetic jury. A friend of mine told me right then that O.j. would be acquitted. I was naive enough to think that it wouldn't matter. I couldn't have been more wrong. Then they made the blunder of having O.j. try on the glove in court. That jury was looking for any excuse they could to disregard all the powerful forensic evidence that placed O.J. at the scene of the crime and acquit O.J. The prosecution handed it to them on a silver platter. I've heard it said that a good lawyer should never be surprised by what happens in court. The prosecutors never took into account what happens when leather gets soaked and then dries out. It shrinks. The case was lost right then.  Johnny Cochrane's defense was brilliant. His statement of "If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit" obviously resonated with the jury. The acquittal of O.J. was a blatant miscarriage of justice, but I blame that mainly on the incompetence of the prosecution. The defense team just did their job.

The dream team had a lot of events go there way, like as you say moving the trial out of Brentwood, the incompetence of the prosecution, letting OJ try on the glove was a disaster and the omitting of major evidence like the suicide note, the bronco chase and a large amount of the domestic violence, did them no favours. I also remember they let the jury have an excursion out to OJ's house and they changed the many photos of OJ with white celebrities/politicians and exchanged them for ones more racially accommodating. And all this was in the shadow of Rodney King and having a predominantly black jury who was played to, all made a guilty plea virtually impossible.
I think if OJ was found guilty, the riots and property damage that happened afterwards would have made the Rodney King riots seem like an afternoon picnic, which makes me believe that perhaps the trial being moved and the general incompetence of the prosecution was maybe Planned? I know it makes me a conspiracy theorist, heaven forbid, but avoiding a billion dollars worth of damage and countless deaths perhaps wasn't a bad idea. And they probably knew OJ would somehow get himself into trouble and face jail and funnily enough that's what happened!

I believe this was Cochran's painting that was planted in OJ's house for the Jury to see.



JohnM

[John Corbett]

The dream team had a lot of events go there way, like as you say moving the trial out of Brentwood, the incompetence of the prosecution, letting OJ try on the glove was a disaster and the omitting of major evidence like the suicide note, the bronco chase and a large amount of the domestic violence, did them no favours. I also remember they let the jury have an excursion out to OJ's house and they changed the many photos of OJ with white celebrities/politicians and exchanged them for ones more racially accommodating. And all this was in the shadow of Rodney King and having a predominantly black jury who was played to, all made a guilty plea virtually impossible.
I think if OJ was found guilty, the riots and property damage that happened afterwards would have made the Rodney King riots seem like an afternoon picnic, which makes me believe that perhaps the trial being moved and the general incompetence of the prosecution was maybe Planned? I know it makes me a conspiracy theorist, heaven forbid, but avoiding a billion dollars worth of damage and countless deaths perhaps wasn't a bad idea. And they probably knew OJ would somehow get himself into trouble and face jail and funnily enough that's what happened!

I believe this was Cochran's painting that was planted in OJ's house for the Jury to see.



JohnM

At times it almost looked like the prosecution was trying to throw the game. But making that argument would make me look like a conspiracy theorist.

[John Corbett]

Duplicate deleted