I think that with all high profile cases that the general public (including unfortunately potential future jurors) frequently makes up its mind wrt Guilt or innocence before the case actually comes to trial. It matters not a whit whether *we* all think he's guilty or innocent, at the end of the day it comes down to either the jury (if he elects for a jury trial) or the judge to decide on the evidence and the evidence alone.

No country has a perfect judicial system so I think criticism of the americans is superflous just IMO of course

I don't know why it didn't come to me before, but all of this has already been written about, and later filmed, in one of the best books I've ever read: The Bonfire of the Vanities, by Tom Wolfe.

All the ingredients are there; the rich man brought to heel by poor black people who later turn out to be as daft as the ridiculous justice system. I still remember the WASPs and X-RAYs, brilliant stuff.

So in your opinion the US system is ridiculous, fair enough but which country has a better system in your opinion? Spain maybe, the UK or how about the Swedish system, any unbiased observer (I think) would concede that no country system has a perfect judicial system.

Ps Yes it was an excellent book one of his best IMO

As you say none are perfect and I can see faults in all those you mention incl.the UK.

However looking back on the Jackson and OJ trials, I doubt very much if similar verdicts would have been recorded in any other Western democracy, or many other places too, even if they had both been born there.

The general view seems to be that this guy has already virtually been tried, convicted and condemned, but I wonder had he been a popular all American boy with a favourable reputation at his profession, if his fate would not have been much more in the balance, at the very least.

I think people forget that the basic concept of the american judicial system is that it is for the prosecution to prove their case on evidence and and in theory the defense objective is to solely discredit such evidence i.e they don't have to provide any evidence of innocence

Why did OJ get off? well basically Cochrane demolished the prosecutions evidence (especially the false stuff like the glove) and the racist cop didn't help matters either.

Of course in the eyes of the general public DSK has been tried and convicted but he still has to be judged by a jury of his peers.

Its amusing to think we could have been having exactly the same conversation during the run up to OJ's trial and yet look how that turned out ;-)

Even though he has protested his innocence it will however, be interesting as to what he actually pleads on June 6th. My money is on a plea bargain

I recall having a similar conversation during the OJ trial, however ppl.who were obviously more in the know than myself told me they were a hundred percent certain he would walk away from it, which I found hard to believe at the time.
Though OJ was after all a very famous US sportsman.

Not sure what use a plea bargain would be for this guy.
I don't know how old he is, but if the alleged crime was appropriate for the maximum sentence, then even a fifty percent reduction for coughing, would still likely mean he'd never see the light of day again.

Was the OJ result not down largely to him almost cherry picking his own jury ?

This guy could always try objecting that all the would be American jurors are biased, but I doubt if it would do him any good.

Bias (IMO) is the major problem facing all major trials, personally I blame the media, which I actually detest with their constant attempts to brainwash the public on all matters of importance.

BTW I've noticed and must say, you are a very pleasant person to discuss controversial subjects with. Unlike some others, you rarely seem to descend into ad hominem attacks :-)

Are you not getting your info from the brainwashing media then ?

Yes of course, I never said I didn't. Please let me know if you have discovered somewhere else where can one get information on events in the world.

Even though I detest the media in general there are still some sections where one can get just information that doesn't reflect the opinion of the person writing. Bloomberg for example. Funnily enough some american papers are quite OK for pure news reporting, unlike the UK where they all print the same articles the only difference being the political spin.

(SNIP)

Also, I read that they compromised DNA samples by having them open in the same lab, which is dumb, dumb, dumb.

The question was asked earlier in this thread, 'Which country has the best justice system?'

It's a hard one to answer, and must depend on who is doing the asking.

From a defendant's viewpoint, the UK is probably the best choice. You can start off by trying to bung the Old Bill, if that doesn't wok, the Crown Prosecution Service would be next, and then the judge. If none of them are cooperative, your last resort would be to nobble a couple of members of the jury. If it all fails you would have to live in Panama for the rest of your life, and they speak Spanish.

From 'society's' point of view, Saudi Arabia or the US would be best. In serious cases they torture defendants to get them to confess and then put them to death.

I'm not being facetious, all those instances are well documented as having happened and are still happening.

I used to think that the UK and similar US jury systems were the best, but now I'm not so sure.
You have to remember that these juries are complete novices at the job they are requested to do.
There naivity is easily exploited by clever defence lawyers with a good sob story or something else to place doubts in their minds.
Little wonder that many accused elect to go on trial under the jury system given the choice, and the figures speak for themselves I believe.
Professional judges are especially trained to a high level in some other countries in order that they can sort the wheat from the chaff and figure out who is lying and who is not.
No doubt both systems are open to bribery and corruption, but give me the properly trained professionals any day rather than a bunch of naive novices.

It looks like the IMF guy is already an outcast to society.
His Mrs arranged accomodation for him when he was released on a million dollar bail, c/w electronic tag and armed guard, for whom he has to foot the bill.
Unfortunately for the both of them, the other tenants in the building where they had intended moving, made an official objection to their presence and put the block on them.
Now they've had to move into another building which is owned or controlled by the security company charged with keeping an eye on him.

I think believing in a just world is akin to believing in God. Stephen Hawking, the brain connected to a computer recently stated that religion was a fairy tale.

Personally, I prefer fairy tales to Fox News, though both are heavily linked. Our attention is drawn to the Frenchman in New York; leaving his wealth and importance aside, I suppose we imagine it could be us against the US justice system.

If it was me, I'm sure I would still be in Riker's, in an orange jump suit. I'm a respectable member of society and obey its laws as best I can, but the US authorities wouldn't give a f*** because I'm a foreigner.

That's what this is all about - foreigners. When you leave your own country, you're a foreigner in danger. I'm in danger now. If I catch the young Spaniard spraying graffiti on my wall and give him a whack, I'll get banged up.

C'est la Vie.