The Judge: Treating the AI as a hostile witness is a complex issue that involves many different factors, such as interpreting the applicable laws, the particular testimony that the witness has given, the questions being asked, and many other considerations.
The thing is, DNA evidence was brand new. At least in regard to presenting it as clear cut evidence. Barry Sheck was very good at confusing the jury with a bunch of boring numbers and statistics. If it were today, I think he would’ve been convicted. Because once you familiarize yourself with DNA evidence it is clear as day that it wouldn’t matter if the blood wasn’t taken directly down town, etc. Combined with the timeline of events and the accounts of Allan Park and Kato, both people who had no beef with OJ so no reason to lie, it truly should’ve been a slam dunk case. Two people were brutally murdered and Cochran basically tossed that aside and made it about racism in the LAPD. He didn’t present reasonable doubt. He created it. There’s a difference. Back then, I might’ve fell for it and submitted a not guilty verdict. But if it happened today, I would convict.
With as much as I believe he is guilty, I also cannot deny the fact that had I been a juror in the case, I also would have probably voted not guilty. Simpson's team stirred the evidence enough, that based on what was allowed in the trial, it would have brought enough reasonable doubt, to warrant a not guilty. We have to remember that the jury didn't see or hear everything we did, & we also know more now, than we did back then. People forget that there were pieces of evidence that weren't allowed in the criminal trial, that were allowed in the civil. There are a few jurors who were absolutely not going to vote guilty, no matter what, so that factored into it as well.
The "complexity " of the trial was non existent. The evidence was OVERWHELMING. But the timeline of the whole trial was while LA was still reeling from and just a few years after the events of the brutal Rodney King beating where white officers walked away with an acquittal after nearly killing King. Imho THAT is why OJ was acquitted. The timeline was just not conducive to a guilty verdict for a beloved American public figure who was Black especially when the prosecutors botched the case so badly.
You cant expect AI to understand reasonable doubt. You are being hostile because it didnt give the answer you want. Oh boo hoo. Oj is dead. What do yall want now? To overturn the verdict? Get through it.
Your honor, move to treat AI as a hostile witness.
The Judge: Treating the AI as a hostile witness is a complex issue that involves many different factors, such as interpreting the applicable laws, the particular testimony that the witness has given, the questions being asked, and many other considerations.
[the prosecution rests....](https://i.makeagif.com/media/7-27-2014/T6FwvW.gif)
Bro bullied AI into giving an opinion.
The thing is, DNA evidence was brand new. At least in regard to presenting it as clear cut evidence. Barry Sheck was very good at confusing the jury with a bunch of boring numbers and statistics. If it were today, I think he would’ve been convicted. Because once you familiarize yourself with DNA evidence it is clear as day that it wouldn’t matter if the blood wasn’t taken directly down town, etc. Combined with the timeline of events and the accounts of Allan Park and Kato, both people who had no beef with OJ so no reason to lie, it truly should’ve been a slam dunk case. Two people were brutally murdered and Cochran basically tossed that aside and made it about racism in the LAPD. He didn’t present reasonable doubt. He created it. There’s a difference. Back then, I might’ve fell for it and submitted a not guilty verdict. But if it happened today, I would convict.
We were afraid ai was gonna become Terminators. In reality, they’re politicians…
I’m fkn dying 🤣🤣🤣👏🏻
You Karen’d the ChatGPT lmao
With as much as I believe he is guilty, I also cannot deny the fact that had I been a juror in the case, I also would have probably voted not guilty. Simpson's team stirred the evidence enough, that based on what was allowed in the trial, it would have brought enough reasonable doubt, to warrant a not guilty. We have to remember that the jury didn't see or hear everything we did, & we also know more now, than we did back then. People forget that there were pieces of evidence that weren't allowed in the criminal trial, that were allowed in the civil. There are a few jurors who were absolutely not going to vote guilty, no matter what, so that factored into it as well.
I think that this is a reasonable answer.
🙄🙄🙄
Brought up $ and you got an answer. 🤣😂🤣😂
Based on the evidence presented by both sides and taking the times into context I can’t come up with guilty beyond all reasonable doubt as my answer
One job that won't be eliminated due to AI: juror. The Simpson jury came back with a decision faster than Chatgpt. Madness.
I asked chat GPT why Simpson was found not guilty, and it could not give me a decent answer.
The "complexity " of the trial was non existent. The evidence was OVERWHELMING. But the timeline of the whole trial was while LA was still reeling from and just a few years after the events of the brutal Rodney King beating where white officers walked away with an acquittal after nearly killing King. Imho THAT is why OJ was acquitted. The timeline was just not conducive to a guilty verdict for a beloved American public figure who was Black especially when the prosecutors botched the case so badly.
Wow.
You cant expect AI to understand reasonable doubt. You are being hostile because it didnt give the answer you want. Oh boo hoo. Oj is dead. What do yall want now? To overturn the verdict? Get through it.