Trauma masa kecil terungkap, badai perceraian segera terjadi! | Kembali Ke Jalur yang Benar | YOUKU
Shining. The previous classes have covered most of the basic elements of murder. The contents like criminal act, criminal intent, cognition of errors of fact, etc. From this class on, we will be combining cases in order to study the charges. Now you may have heard from your upperassman or you may have even googled my class so you understand the intensity of this class. But if you think the pressure from your previous assignments is already overwhelming then I suggest that you double the time and intensity you invest in this class. So let’s begin with the first case OJ Simpson murder case. Now, OJ Simpson’s murder is one of the most famous cases in American judicial history. So, we’re going to begin with that case. Now, who can tell me what is the charge against Simpson? Simpson was sued for two first-degree murders, the murder of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman. Very good. What are the elements consisting in the crime? The elements include criminal intent, criminal act, and the casualties between the two. Sit down. That was good. Thank you. Only by forming a complete chain of evidence can we prove the murderer’s criminal behavior. In the case of Simpson, what did the prosecutor do to prove criminal behavior? Which of the evidence was incomplete? And what result did that incomplete evidence cause? You wake her up. You answer my question. Professor, could you please repeat your question? In the Simpson case, what evidence did the prosecution present to prove Simpson’s criminal behavior? Um, the main uh the main evidence includes the gloves with blood found in Simpsons villa, the the socks with blood found under his bed and it was confirmed that DNA that DNA match that of the victims. Um, what’s more, there were several blood spots in Simpson’s car, and the footprint discovered at the crime scene was left by a 12s shoe. Which of the evidence was incomplete? What mistakes did the prosecution make that allowed for the jury to move for a quiddle of this case? Sorry, professor. I don’t know the answer. Why? Because I haven’t complete resign reading. Then what are you doing sleeping in my class? I understand you have a lot of pressure as freshman in law school. But the first year of law school is to transform yourself from common people to the elites who practice law. Now you must take that very seriously. That’s a personal decision. You understand? Now who can answer that question for her? You. And I hope you’ve read the material. I believe a key point of evidence of looked by the prosecution is the absence of the murder weapon. According to the autopsy report, the murder weapon was a sharp knife. To this date, it is not been found. Nor has single witness to the crime ever stepped forward. Possession of a murder weapon and eyewitness are both essential elements in forming a criminal case. This left the defense with a great opportunity to refute the prosecution’s claims. In addition, their means of evidence collection was also called into question since the police searched Simpson’s home without warrant thereby violating his protection against illegal search and the seizure guaranteed by the fourth amendment. Finally, the credibility of Mark Foreman, the detective who found the bloody glove and the persecution’s star readiness was caught into doubt. Foreman testified that round a quarter past 10 that night, Simpson drove his jeep to his ex-wife’s apartment and then went back to his residence about 2 miles away after he murdered the victims. The prosecution used the detectives testimony as their core evidence, but the defense objected based on forman’s past documented racist behavior. Eventually, the detective went from the one providing testimony to the one being doubted and was even suspected of framing Simpson. Detective Furman’s lack of credibility heard the prosecution’s claims. Furthermore, of the 12 member jury, eight of the jurors were Africanamean. It’s not difficult to imagine how destructive the defense claims of racism were to the prosecution’s case. in accordance with proving the defendant’s guilt. Beyond a reasonable doubt, the jury had no choice but to acquit Mr. Simpson since there was no established chain of evidence linking him to the murders of Nico Bron Simpson and the Ronald Gotman. Excellent. You can sit down, but don’t let this happen again. And I hope you’ve learned something from this. Okay, thank you all for coming. That’s the end of this session. I’ll stay here for about five minutes to answer questions. So, thank you and I’ll see you tomorrow. forchech. Don’t for What did you go? Are you in Hi. You are Fore! Foreign! Foreign! Oh, speech speech. Oh my fo. She’ll Fore! Foreign! Foreign! forever. Um, you will serve a new hostess the same way as you serve my father. Whenever she wants three meals, you satisfy her needs and you do whatever she wants you to do. She is still studying university, so she has a lot of work to do. Which means if she need quiet space, you disappear. Heat. Hey, Heat.