Conspiracy Theories: Why Believe?

[Martin]

There seems to be a sort of bored, adolescent rebelliousness behind some of this stuff.

 

[Heyo]

Perhaps there's a conspiracy to put out all these wacky tales and wild accusations to deliberately confuse the public into becoming useful idiots for some nefarious cause. There must be some Master Conspirator somewhere who is accusing everyone else of conspiracy.

Has nobody told you, yet?
Almost all conspiracy theories are invented by the Cocaine Import Association. When they are, again, suspected to be at the center of the next conspiracy, they simply point at the accusers and call them "conspiracy theorists" (well, they get some else to do that) and their credibility is void.

 

[Estro Felino]

People who point to the Military Industrial Complex do so to call attention to government misbehavior and corruption which starts wars. It seems their obvious intention is to oppose and stop war, not start wars.

The notion of evidence is very different in the US.
Than our concept of evidence.

When a defendant is not credible, for so many things he said or did, he will be sentenced to jail.

On the contrary, the Anglo-Saxon penal system states that evidence is the confession or similar.

Clear example: in Italy OJ Simpson would have never be acquitted in a Court of Assizes.
To begin with, our penal trials can last even 10 years...there is the 1st degree trial, the Appeal and then the SC (Cassation).
So three different trials...but can become four or five, sometimes six.
Because OJ Simpson was not credible.
So he would have never been acquitted.

 

[Stevicus]

The notion of evidence is very different in the US.
Than our concept of evidence.

When a defendant is not credible, for so many things he said or did, he will be sentenced to jail.

On the contrary, the Anglo-Saxon penal system states that evidence is the confession or similar.

Clear example: in Italy OJ Simpson would have never be acquitted in a Court of Assizes.
To begin with, our penal trials can last even 10 years...there is the 1st degree trial, the Appeal and then the SC (Cassation).
So three different trials...but can become four or five, sometimes six.
Because OJ Simpson was not credible.
So he would have never be acquitted.

True, although in the court of public opinion, I think most people considered OJ to be guilty and that trial as a travesty of justice. The jury saw it differently. At the time, his credibility was largely influenced by his status as a celebrity, but at the same time, the credibility of the attorneys (from both sides), as well as the judge and the police, were called into question. It seems the discrediting of the police officer (Mark Fuhrman) is what killed the case against OJ. If the accuser is not credible, then they may not be believed.

I'm not a lawyer, although I see forensics as a science in which evidence of "whodunit" is collected, discerned, and presented in court. The rules of evidence should be the same as in any science, so I can't explain why a scientific process should vary from country to country.

 

[Estro Felino]

True, although in the court of public opinion, I think most people considered OJ to be guilty and that trial as a travesty of justice. The jury saw it differently. At the time, his credibility was largely influenced by his status as a celebrity, but at the same time, the credibility of the attorneys (from both sides), as well as the judge and the police, were called into question. It seems the discrediting of the police officer (Mark Fuhrman) is what killed the case against OJ. If the accuser is not credible, then they may not be believed.

I'm not a lawyer, although I see forensics as a science in which evidence of "whodunit" is collected, discerned, and presented in court. The rules of evidence should be the same as in any science, so I can't explain why a scientific process should vary from country to country.

For instance, the penal procedure is a science.
Personal opinions are irrelevant in a penal trial.

The crime is observed and studied as in a scientific lab.
Example. What do we have in that case?
A divorced woman brutally beheaded in her own house. No signs of trespassing. Beside her, a young man brutally stabbed to death.
Question. What (or better whom) do these two people have in common?
Answer: they were in a relationship.

Question: what kind of perpetrator (as for criminology casuistry) could have committed such an awful murder?
Someone incredibly strong and with an indescribable hatred towards the victims.

Question: who had reasons to hate the victims so fiercely?
Answer: maybe a relative. The ex husband, perhaps.

Question: Does the ex husband have an alibi?
Answer: No. There is blood traces in his garden, he is incredibly strong, he was reported for beating his wife and he even tried to escape.

Do I need more? No.

 

[Stevicus]

For instance, the penal procedure is a science.
Personal opinions are irrelevant in a penal trial.

The crime is observed and studied as in a scientific lab.
Example. What do we have in that case?
A divorced woman brutally beheaded in her own house. No signs of trespassing. Beside her, a young man brutally stabbed to death.
Question? What (or better whom) do these two people have in common?
Answer: they were in a relationship.

Question: what kind of perpetrator (as for criminological casuistry) could have committed such an awful murder?
Someone incredibly strong and with an indescribable hatred towards the victims.

Question: who had reasons to hate the victims so much?
Answer: maybe a relative. The ex husband, perhaps.

Question: Does the ex husband have an alibi?
Answer: No. There is blood traces in his garden, he is incredibly strong, he was reported for beating his wife and he even tried to escape.

Do I need more? No.

Probably not, although in the case of OJ, he was someone who enjoyed celebrity status. Before all this happened, he was generally beloved as a football hero, actor, and public figure. His public image was that of an upstanding, likeable, friendly, respectable, affable fellow.

I'll admit that I didn't believe it at first. I was a big OJ fan back in the day, and I remember thinking at the time, there's no way he could have done it. I figured, if anything, a man of his stature and wealth could have hired someone to do the killing, but not that he would do it himself.

As the trial wore on, I began to have more and more doubts about his innocence. The trial was interminably long, and it was on TV every day. There was the famous "if it doesn't fit, you must acquit" line, and then the suggestion that the physical evidence might have been tampered with by a cop who might have been racist.

 

[Estro Felino]

Probably not, although in the case of OJ, he was someone who enjoyed celebrity status. Before all this happened, he was generally beloved as a football hero, actor, and public figure. His public image was that of an upstanding, likeable, friendly, respectable, affable fellow.

I'll admit that I didn't believe it at first. I was a big OJ fan back in the day, and I remember thinking at the time, there's no way he could have done it. I figured, if anything, a man of his stature and wealth could have hired someone to do the killing, but not that he would do it himself.

As the trial wore on, I began to have more and more doubts about his innocence. The trial was interminably long, and it was on TV every day. There was the famous "if it doesn't fit, you must acquit" line, and then the suggestion that the physical evidence might have been tampered with by a cop who might have been racist.

Another example...that gives you an idea of how penal justice works here.
Ragusa case. A woman who vanished into thin air, all of a sudden. We all thought she had just eloped from her family to start over in another country.
The years passed by in vain.
A witness saw her and her husband in a car the night before her disappearance.

Her body was never found.
But the husband has never been considered credible...so...he was sentenced to jail
Man gets 20 years for wife's murder

 

[Stevicus]

Another example...that gives you an idea of how penal justice works here.
Ragusa case. A woman who vanished into thin air, all of a sudden. We all thought she had just eloped from her family to start over in another country.
The years passed by in vain.
A witness saw her and her husband in a car the night before her disappearance.

Her body was never found.
But the husband has never been considered credible...so...he was sentenced to jail
Man gets 20 years for wife's murder

I'm not sure how this case would play out if it happened in America. There have been a number of similar cases where a wife goes missing, and the investigation tends to focus on a husband or ex-husband. The media eat these stories up like milk fed to kittens.

I sometimes wonder about how the media treat these events when they happen and how they cover the trials. It makes me think of all the other thousands of murders which take place without much attention or outrage. Does everyone really get a fair trial when their cases are handled by overworked attorneys on a factory assembly line? Does everyone get equal treatment?

OJ Simpson bought himself a "dream team" of high-priced attorneys, which reinforces the notion that justice is only for the rich and influential.