Did you hear that OJ Simpson is getting re-married???

[Galileo]

Did you hear that OJ Simpson is getting re-married???

Yep, he has decided to take another stab at it!!!

:lmao

Sorry Ladies, O.J. Simpson Is Off The Market

"Imprisoned sports star turned actor OJ Simpson has fallen in love with a pen pal and is set to marry her behind bars according to US report. The naked gun star will be marrying the pen pal who he has never met physically; the actor has fallen in love over a series of letters that the duo exchanged with each other and he has proposed her for marriage, she will now be his third wife. The pen pal called Anna is a young blonde; she had sent her picture to Simpson who flipped after looking at the picture and is believed to be a spitting image of his late wife Nicole. The former football star had been acquitted of her murder in 1995."

http://www.crunktastical.net/2010/07/06/oj-simpson-marrying-blonde-woman/

OJ Simpson, who is truly innocent of the 1994 murders, should be out on appeal soon, and then we'll have the 5th OJ Simpson trial!

:ihit

[CosmicCowboy]

nicole was hot

[LnGrrrR]

Why are they calling OJ an actor in this story? I'm pretty sure he's more reknowned for his football skills.

[Wild Cobra]

Why are they calling OJ an actor in this story? I'm pretty sure he's more reknowned for his football skills.
Maybe because he was a bad actor?

[Galileo]

OJ is innocent! Free the Juice!!

[Galileo]

you've been duped by the mass media:

O.J. Simpson: Guilty, But Not of Murder?
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/58743.html

[Galileo]

"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them."

Ayn Rand

[Galileo]

"If a man accuses another man of murder, and the charge is not proven, then the accuser shall be put to death!"

Hammurabi

[DarrinS]

OJ is innocent! Free the Juice!!


So, you're a 9/11 nutter who thinks OJ is innocent?

Ok, everything makes sense now.

[Galileo]

So, you're a 9/11 nutter who thinks OJ is innocent?

Ok, everything makes sense now.

you are a nutjob. The jury found OJ innocent.

[Wild Cobra]

So, you're a 9/11 nutter who thinks OJ is innocent?

Ok, everything makes sense now.
I think he is innocent also. Too much circumstantial and tainted evidence. I think he was framed.

[FromWayDowntown]

you are a nutjob. The jury found OJ innocent.

The jury found OJ not guilty; it didn't find him innocent.

[Wild Cobra]

The jury found OJ not guilty; it didn't find him innocent.
Minor technicality since an innocent ruling is extremely rare.

[FromWayDowntown]

Minor technicality since an innocent ruling is extremely rare.

It's not a technicality. It's the law.

The not guilty finding could -- and I think does -- mean that the jury found that there was substantial evidence that OJ murdered Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman but that the State had not proven his involvement in the murders beyond a reasonable doubt. In that circumstance -- a highly plausible one to me -- there would be plenty of evidence that OJ played a role in the murders but not enough evidence to convict him of murder. He wouldn't be innocent, since there would be evidence of his involvement in the crime, but not enough evidence to convict him under the controlling standard of proof.

Given everything that occurred during that trial, there's zero chance that the jury found him innocent. That jury concluded that the State didn't carry it's burden to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

[Wild Cobra]

Think about it. The instructions for the verdict are almost always only two options. Guilty, or not guilty.

Ever been on a jury? Ever have a judge allow an innocent verdict?

Like I said, it's very rare.

[FromWayDowntown]

Think about it. The instructions for the verdict are almost always only two options. Guilty, or not guilty.

Ever been on a jury? Ever have a judge allow an innocent verdict?

Like I said, it's very rare.

Again, the fact that he's been found not guilty still doesn't mean that he's innocent. If there's some evidence against him, he's not innocent.

For someone who's universally concerned with word parsing, you sure are using a liberal standard with this one.

[Wild Cobra]

If there's some evidence against him, he's not innocent.

There is no valid evidence against him. If there was, he would have been found guilty.

[ElNono]

There is no valid evidence against him. If there was, he would have been found guilty.

lol

Sure there's valid evidence against him. Just not enough to remove ALL doubts from the jury, which is the bar set by criminal justice in order to hand a guilty verdict.

[Wild Cobra]

lol

Sure there's valid evidence against him. Just not enough to remove ALL doubts from the jury, which is the bar set by criminal justice in order to hand a guilty verdict.
Ok, there was no solid evidence that wasn't subject to interpretation. It's hard to win a case with just circumstantial evidence, isn't it.

I stand corrected.

[101A]

Think about it. The instructions for the verdict are almost always only two options. Guilty, or not guilty.

Ever been on a jury? Ever have a judge allow an innocent verdict?

Like I said, it's very rare.

You do realize you are arguing with an attorney, right?

[FromWayDowntown]

Think about it. The instructions for the verdict are almost always only two options. Guilty, or not guilty.

Ever been on a jury? Ever have a judge allow an innocent verdict?

Like I said, it's very rare.

I'd also tell you that the reason we only instruct juries to find guilty or not guilty is that there are other procedural mechanisms for resolving the case if there's no evidence of the Defendant's guilt. If there is no evidence of the Defendant's guilt, the case shouldn't go to the jury and, accordingly, the jury would never be in a position to determine that the accused is wholly innocent -- only that he's not been proven guilty.

[Wild Cobra]

You do realize you are arguing with an attorney, right?
Then he should know this already.

[DarrinS]

I think he is innocent also. Too much circumstantial and tainted evidence. I think he was framed.


This is what his defense "dream" team argued and their argument was enough to convince a jury, and apparently you. If the prosecutors weren't so incompetent, a lot of this argument could have been much less compelling. And handing OJ the gloves? Pure stupidity.

[CosmicCowboy]

If it doesn't fit you must aquit!

[DarrinS]

If it doesn't fit you must aquit!

I must admit, that guy was pretty smooth.

I remember seeing Vincent Bugliosi on TV, basically saying that Marcia Clark and Chris Darden were retarded.

[LnGrrrR]

The entire prosecution was retarded in that case. As mentioned above, the whole gloves issue. But Mark Fuhrman certainly didn't help. I thought the PD defined "Keystone Cops" during the case.

Edit: I'd like to note, that even though I thought he probably did it, if I were a juror I'd probably vote Not Guilty, as the evidence presented wasn't enough for me.

[Galileo]

The jury found OJ not guilty; it didn't find him innocent.

You are presumed innocent unless proven guilty. OJ was not proven guilty, so he is innocent.

[Galileo]

lol

Sure there's valid evidence against him. Just not enough to remove ALL doubts from the jury, which is the bar set by criminal justice in order to hand a guilty verdict.

Most of the jurors said he was innocent after the trial. Only a couple weren;t sure but thought he was probably innocent.

here is proof OJ is innocent:

OJ GUILTY BUT NOT OF MURDER
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7905933759946122795&hl#

[CosmicCowboy]

You are presumed innocent unless proven guilty. OJ was not proven guilty, so he is innocent.

He was presumed innocent until found not "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt".

[Galileo]

He was presumed innocent until found not "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt".

OJ was presumed innocent before the trial. The jury verdict is consistent with innocence.

[CosmicCowboy]

OJ was presumed innocent before the trial. The jury verdict is consistent with innocence.

The jury verdict is consistent with the fact that there was not enough evidence presented to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It's not the same as innocent.

[Galileo]

The jury verdict is consistent with the fact that there was not enough evidence presented to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It's not the same as innocent.

The jury verdict did not overule that OJ was innocent before the trial started. OJ was innocent before the trial and innocent after the trial. You lose. You support a police state were everybody is guilty.

[CosmicCowboy]

define innocent.

[Galileo]

define innocent.

Innocent means OJ didn't murder anyone.

[Fabbs]

Johny Cockroach "Just give me one black juror and I'll get him off."

Question. If you care to divulge, you "OJ is innocent" posters, ie Wild Cobra, Galilaeo, what race are you?

Also, Civil trial, the one where the prosecution had real lawyers, and a real judge presiding, quite a difference.

[LnGrrrR]

I'd say that, for the purposes of consequences, "not guilty" and "innocent" are the same thing. They are innocent in the sense that they were not found guilty. To take the definition of the word "innocent" that CC is using would imply that innocence is impossible to determine, unless one was actually there at the time.

In the eyes of the law, one could argue that the person wasn't innocent, just "not guilty". But in the eyes of the public, the two are (usually) one and the same.

I'm white btw, for what it's worth.

[Galileo]

Johny Cockroach "Just give me one black juror and I'll get him off."

Question. If you care to divulge, you "OJ is innocent" posters, ie Wild Cobra, Galilaeo, what race are you?

Also, Civil trial, the one where the prosecution had real lawyers, and a real judge presiding, quite a difference.

The civil trial was a joke:

* evidence of the real killer was not presented to the jury.

* bogus and planted evidence from the criminal trial was re-used.

* a blatant violation of the Constitution, twice putting someone in jeopardy.

* etc.

Galileo was an Italian.

[Fabbs]

You're nothing more then troll status. :lol

btw "Italian" does not tell skin color, rather country.
We don't expect an honest answer from you anyways.

[FromWayDowntown]

The civil trial was a joke:

* evidence of the real killer was not presented to the jury.

* bogus and planted evidence from the criminal trial was re-used.

* a blatant violation of the Constitution, twice putting someone in jeopardy.

* etc.

Galileo was an Italian.

I'd submit that evidence of the real killer was presented to the jury -- that you choose to disbelieve Mr. Simpson's role in the killing doesn't change that. And if there was evidence of someone other than Mr. Simpson being the killer, his defense team in the civil trial would have presented it; to not do so would be the rankest form of malpractice.

Legally, there is no double jeopardy concern attendant to a civil trial that follows a criminal trial for at least two reasons: (1) the claims against the defendant are different and involve wholly different standards of proof; and (2) no matter what the outcome of the civil trial, Mr. Simpson no longer faced the jeopardy of imprisonment for his role in the murders even if found liable for the wrongful death of Nicole Brown Simpson or Ronald Goldman. It is a routine occurrence that those who are accused of crimes are tried separately to establish their civil liabilities and those civil trials proceed without regard to the outcome of the criminal trial.

[Galileo]

I'd submit that evidence of the real killer was presented to the jury -- that you choose to disbelieve Mr. Simpson's role in the killing doesn't change that. And if there was evidence of someone other than Mr. Simpson being the killer, his defense team in the civil trial would have presented it; to not do so would be the rankest form of malpractice.

Legally, there is no double jeopardy concern attendant to a civil trial that follows a criminal trial for at least two reasons: (1) the claims against the defendant are different and involve wholly different standards of proof; and (2) no matter what the outcome of the civil trial, Mr. Simpson no longer faced the jeopardy of imprisonment for his role in the murders even if found liable for the wrongful death of Nicole Brown Simpson or Ronald Goldman. It is a routine occurrence that those who are accused of crimes are tried separately to establish their civil liabilities and those civil trials proceed without regard to the outcome of the criminal trial.

OJ's son is the real killer. No, OJ did not want his son to go to prison. That's why the evidence wasn't produced.

[FromWayDowntown]

OJ's son is the real killer. No, OJ did not want his son to go to prison. That's why the evidence wasn't produced.

Well, then it's entirely OJ's fault that he's in the predicament that he now faces; if Jason Simpson is the killer, OJ chose to take the fall for him.

[Galileo]

Well, then it's entirely OJ's fault that he's in the predicament that he now faces; if Jason Simpson is the killer, OJ chose to take the fall for him.

No, that's not justice. And once OJ is a suspect he is no longer obligated to tell the police who did it. The police blew it.

[FromWayDowntown]

No, that's not justice. And once OJ is a suspect he is no longer obligated to tell the police who did it. The police blew it.

Hence his acquittal on the murder charges, one might suspect. If, as you say, he didn't do it, the criminal trial afforded him justice, since he's not imprisoned at the moment for murder.

But if he knew he didn't do it, and chose in the civil trial against putting on evidence to show that someone else did it in, then that's his fault. According to you, he could have avoided liability altogether, but he made the decision to withhold that evidence to protect his son. The trade off for protecting his son, as you say, was a $30 million dollar civil judgment. If you're right, he had the opportunity to do justice for himself -- and to give closure to the grieving families of those who were killed on that fateful night (a consideration that the non-scumbags among us would contemplate)-- but he elected against doing that. Bad call.

[Galileo]

Hence his acquittal on the murder charges, one might suspect. If, as you say, he didn't do it, the criminal trial afforded him justice, since he's not imprisoned at the moment for murder.

But if he knew he didn't do it, and chose in the civil trial against putting on evidence to show that someone else did it in, then that's his fault. According to you, he could have avoided liability altogether, but he made the decision to withhold that evidence to protect his son. The trade off for protecting his son, as you say, was a $30 million dollar civil judgment. If you're right, he had the opportunity to do justice for himself -- and to give closure to the grieving families of those who were killed on that fateful night (a consideration that the non-scumbags among us would contemplate)-- but he elected against doing that. Bad call.

Well, if the cops get Jason, then OJ can overturn the civil verdict. Then Fred Golddigger will have to pay OJ back the money. Ha. Ha.

:lmao

[FromWayDowntown]

Well, if the cops get Jason, then OJ can overturn the civil verdict. Then Fred Golddigger will have to pay OJ back the money. Ha. Ha.

:lmao

Actually, he can't, but I'm sure he'll wish that he had come forward with that evidence a whole lot sooner, when it could have made a difference.

[Wild Cobra]

You are presumed innocent unless proven guilty. OJ was not proven guilty, so he is innocent.
There are technical differences. The law may read one way, but the perceptions, as the OJ case proves, are different. A verdict of "innocent" can be given, but it is rare.

[Wild Cobra]

Most of the jurors said he was innocent after the trial. Only a couple weren;t sure but thought he was probably innocent.

here is proof OJ is innocent:

OJ GUILTY BUT NOT OF MURDER
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7905933759946122795&hl#
Thanx.

I loaded that and started watching it, but paused it. I'll watch it later.

I generally, strongly disagree with most things you say, but agree with you on this issue.

[Wild Cobra]

The jury verdict did not overule that OJ was innocent before the trial started. OJ was innocent before the trial and innocent after the trial. You lose. You support a police state were everybody is guilty.
Well, if they turned around and gave a "innocent" verdict, I really don't know the law here, but I doubt that he could have been sued in a civil case afterward.

FWD... What would an innocent verdict have done to the following civil case?

[Wild Cobra]

Question. If you care to divulge, you "OJ is innocent" posters, ie Wild Cobra, Galilaeo, what race are you?

I'm a Heinz 57, or a mutt.

Scottish, Norwegian, Icelandic, German, Cherokee, Blackfoot, Black, Swedish, Spanish... etc...

I have a grandfather as dark as Obama is. Scottish is my most dominant heritage.

[Wild Cobra]

I'd say that, for the purposes of consequences, "not guilty" and "innocent" are the same thing. They are innocent in the sense that they were not found guilty. To take the definition of the word "innocent" that CC is using would imply that innocence is impossible to determine, unless one was actually there at the time.

In the eyes of the law, one could argue that the person wasn't innocent, just "not guilty". But in the eyes of the public, the two are (usually) one and the same.

I'm white btw, for what it's worth.
That's why an innocent verdict is very rare.

[Wild Cobra]

btw "Italian" does not tell skin color, rather country.
We don't expect an honest answer from you anyways.
Race and ethnicity are in fact two different things, but both matter in such issues.

[Wild Cobra]

OJ's son is the real killer. No, OJ did not want his son to go to prison. That's why the evidence wasn't produced.
Wow...

That's a stretch. Does your HR+ video prove that?

I think your back into tin hat attire on that one. Can you change my mind?

[FromWayDowntown]

Well, if they turned around and gave a "innocent" verdict, I really don't know the law here, but I doubt that he could have been sued in a civil case afterward.

FWD... What would an innocent verdict have done to the following civil case?

A. a jury isn't empowered to give an "innocent" verdict in most states; an "innocent" finding -- to the extent that such a thing exists at all after an indictment -- would come by the judge's dismissal of the case before it ever went to the jury. That is, if the evidence at trial establishes innocence, there's nothing for the jury to decide; if there is something for the jury to decide, there is "some evidence" and the jury can only decide whether the Defendant is guilty or not.

B. even if an "innocent" verdict were somehow permissible, that outcome would have no specific bearing on the civil case because the standard of proof and the elements to be proven are similar, but different. Presumably, as noted above, if the Defendant were found innocent it would be the result of an utter lack of any evidence to establish the alleged criminal conduct. If there was truly no evidence (as a legal matter, not as a matter of what distant observers choose to believe about the case; this means that evidence must be treated as "some evidence" even if a distant observer might find it difficult to believe) it would be difficult to prove the causation element of a wrongful death tort claim; difficult, but perhaps not impossible. I don't think that an "innocent" verdict in a criminal context -- again, if it might exist at all -- is legally preclusive of a civil tort claim.

[Wild Cobra]

Well, then it's entirely OJ's fault that he's in the predicament that he now faces; if Jason Simpson is the killer, OJ chose to take the fall for him.
How many parents wouldn't if that is true?

[FromWayDowntown]

How many parents wouldn't if that is true?

That it might be commonly done (or presumed to be commonly done) it doesn't make the outcome unjust. There are consequences to decisions and the consequence for a parent who makes that choice is the potential exposure to liability. Again, if Galileo's speculation is somehow correct, OJ had it within his power to more strenuously contest a civil verdict by coming forward with evidence that someone else caused the wrongful deaths of Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman -- he chose against producing that evidence, for whatever reason. Accordingly, given the evidence that was produced in that trial, the jury's verdict is correct.

[Wild Cobra]

That it might be commonly done (or presumed to be commonly done) it doesn't make the outcome unjust. There are consequences to decisions and the consequence for a parent who makes that choice is the potential exposure to liability. Again, if Galileo's speculation is somehow correct, OJ had it within his power to more strenuously contest a civil verdict by coming forward with evidence that someone else caused the wrongful deaths of Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman -- he chose against producing that evidence, for whatever reason. Accordingly, given the evidence that was produced in that trial, the jury's verdict is correct.
It would be double-jeopardy for him to be tried again, but his son wasn't...

[Galileo]

Thanx.

I loaded that and started watching it, but paused it. I'll watch it later.

I generally, strongly disagree with most things you say, but agree with you on this issue.

you will like this video.

[FromWayDowntown]

It would be double-jeopardy for him to be tried again, but his son wasn't...

I'm not really sure what difference that makes.

A civil trial doesn't create jeopardy, to the extent that you are suggesting that it might. So Simpson had no double-jeopardy defense in the context of that case.

Otherwise, again, Mr. Simpson had the choice -- assuming the speculation is true -- to avoid civil liability by implicating the "real" murderer or to protect his son and risk civil liability in the process. He apparently chose the latter and now endures the consequence of a substantial judgment against him. You're right that his son, if implicated in the murders, would have no jeopardy defense available to him and might be subject to prosecution if the implication were raised in the civil proceeding. But still, that's a reason to explain his choice, not a legal excuse from imposing civil liability upon him.

[Wild Cobra]

I'm not really sure what difference that makes.

A civil trial doesn't create jeopardy, to the extent that you are suggesting that it might. So Simpson had no double-jeopardy defense in the context of that case.

Otherwise, again, Mr. Simpson had the choice -- assuming the speculation is true -- to avoid civil liability by implicating the "real" murderer or to protect his son and risk civil liability in the process. He apparently chose the latter and now endures the consequence of a substantial judgment against him. You're right that his son, if implicated in the murders, would have no jeopardy defense available to him and might be subject to prosecution if the implication were raised in the civil proceeding. But still, that's a reason to explain his choice, not a legal excuse from imposing civil liability upon him.
I didn't mean the civil trial. I mean that OJ cannot turn around and say it was his son, because his son can still be tried. No statute of limitations on murder.

[FromWayDowntown]

I didn't mean the civil trial. I mean that OJ cannot turn around and say it was his son, because his son can still be tried. No statute of limitations on murder.

Oh, Simpson most certainly could turn around and say it was his son. There's nothing to stop him from doing that, other than whatever need he feels to protect his son. But the desire to protect one's child is not a legal defense in this instance. So, if he alleges that his son is actually the murderer -- as you note -- Jason could become subject to indictment for murder. But Juice can't say "I'm not going to implicate my son AND I shouldn't be subject to civil liability because I shouldn't have to make that choice." It's one or the other.

As I've said, if Galileo's speculation is correct, Mr. Simpson had a choice and he elected not to implicate his son. I'm not really sure what else there is to say about that.

[Wild Cobra]

As I've said, if Galileo's speculation is correct, Mr. Simpson had a choice and he elected not to implicate his son. I'm not really sure what else there is to say about that.
I'm 37 minutes into the video now. It restates facts I couldn't recall but knew that makes me believe there is no way that OJ could be the killer. I still have a hard time believing the son did it, however, it appears the son should have been the police's primary suspect.

[Wild Cobra]

Well, 48 minutes into the video. The only things I haven't heard of is about JJ. All the OJ disqualifying evidence, i already heard.

This guy makes a great case against JJ. Maybe it did happen that way.

As for blood evidence, what I learned by experts at a trial I was a jury member of, OJ definitely did not have enough blood splatter on him to be the killer. The trial I was part of was gang related, and extensively talked about blood spatter from knifing attacks.

[FromWayDowntown]

I'm 37 minutes into the video now. It restates facts I couldn't recall but knew that makes me believe there is no way that OJ could be the killer. I still have a hard time believing the son did it, however, it appears the son should have been the police's primary suspect.

So? OJ was found not guilty in the criminal trial.

[Wild Cobra]

Cool...

At 53+ minutes in, he talks about the missing 1.5 cc of blood, and I haven't heard it yet, but at some point I'm sure he will talk about the EDTA tainted blood found that was obviously planted, else it wouldn't have had the EDTA in it.

[Wild Cobra]

So? OJ was found not guilty in the criminal trial.
We already all agree on that, right?

The facts outlined in this video make facts known that the general public never knew. I knew all the facts stated so far, except the possible son's involvement. Now at 57 minutes.

[FromWayDowntown]

We already all agree on that, right?

The facts outlined in this video make facts known that the general public never knew. I knew all the facts stated so far, except the possible son's involvement. Now at 57 minutes.

Maybe those facts should have been presented at the civil trial. Too bad for OJ that they weren't.

[Wild Cobra]

Maybe those facts should have been presented at the civil trial. Too bad for OJ that they weren't.
I'm sure they were. I was really surprised he was found guilty, because it just doesn't add up.

[Wild Cobra]

OK, I'm convinced. JJ probably was the killer.

[FromWayDowntown]

I'm sure they were. I was really surprised he was found guilty, because it just doesn't add up.

He wasn't found guilty -- he was found not guilty.

He was also found liable, but his accusers only had to prove his role in causing the deaths by a preponderance of the evidence and since OJ refused (apparently) to give up the real murderer, meeting that standard was relatively easy.

[Wild Cobra]

He wasn't found guilty -- he was found not guilty.

He was also found liable, but his accusers only had to prove his role in causing the deaths by a preponderance of the evidence and since OJ refused (apparently) to give up the real murderer, meeting that standard was relatively easy.
OK, I never followed the civil trial, I thought it a joke and thought he would win. Liable huh... That's a pretty fucking big award to just be found liable, or did they attack a percentage to that as being 100% liable?.

[FromWayDowntown]

OK, I never followed the civil trial, I thought it a joke and thought he would win. Liable huh... That's a pretty fucking big award to just be found liable, or did they attack a percentage to that as being 100% liable?.

He was the only Defendant. Like any defendant in a civil context who faces an award of damages, he faces that award because he was found liable for causing the injuries in question.

If it's any consolation to your worries about the extent of the award, Mr. Simpson was also found by clear and convincing evidence to have acted with malice and to have made himself liable for exemplary damages as well.

I suppose that he could have sought to mitigate the extent of the award by proving that someone else had committed the murders or was involved in committing the murders, but as we've readily established, he chose against doing that. Thus, the jury could only consider his responsibility and, in finding him liable, necessarily found him 100% responsible. Accordingly, the entire judgment is his.

[Wild Cobra]

He was the only Defendant. Like any defendant in a civil context who faces an award of damages, he faces that award because he was found liable for causing the injuries in question.

If it's any consolation to your worries about the extent of the award, Mr. Simpson was also found by clear and convincing evidence to have acted with malice and to have made himself liable for exemplary damages as well.

I suppose that he could have sought to mitigate the extent of the award by proving that someone else had committed the murders or was involved in committing the murders, but as we've readily established, he chose against doing that. Thus, the jury could only consider his responsibility and, in finding him liable, necessarily found him 100% responsible. Accordingly, the entire judgment is his.
I guess we can just be glad they cannot touch his pension.

[FromWayDowntown]

I guess we can just be glad they cannot touch his pension.

Indeed! Hooray for parties who prove their case not being able to recover the full amount awarded to them by a jury!!! That's justice!

[Fabbs]

Maybe those facts should have been presented at the civil trial. Too bad for OJ that they weren't.

Wild Cobra
I'm sure they were. I was really surprised he was found guilty, because it just doesn't add up.

Or maybe the things included in the civil trial but left out by the Keystone Cops/City prosecuting office should have been presented in the criminal trial?

Ie OJ donning a mask, 10K and trying to cross the border into Mexico?
Hmmmn?
Maybe having the trial held near Brentwood (Santa Monica Court) where the murders occured rather then moving it into heavily black downtown. The white female juror got kicked off for what?? Hmmmn?
Not saying the location was an end all, look how molestin Michael got off.

[Nbadan]

WC and I finally agree on something, OJ did not commit the murders of Nichole Simpson and Ronald Goldman.....the physical evidence just does not add up....

[Nbadan]

...I'm not totally convince Jason did it either....I sure would like to know who was Jason's alibi.....he had to have had an alibi...

[Galileo]

...I'm not totally convince Jason did it either....I sure would like to know who was Jason's alibi.....he had to have had an alibi...

He didn't have a real alibi, watch the movie.

[Nbadan]

So, Jason calls OJ before or after the murders? OJ was there and he failed to call the police...that makes him an accessory
...

[Galileo]

So, Jason calls OJ before or after the murders? OJ was there and he failed to call the police...that makes him an accessory
...

Failing to call the police is not real evidence of being an assessory.

Once OJ was a suspect, he is under no obligation to tell the police anything.

[FromWayDowntown]

Failing to call the police is not real evidence of being an assessory.

Once OJ was a suspect, he is under no obligation to tell the police anything.

Knowing that something is going to happen and not calling the police will make you an accessory in most jurisdictions.

Once OJ was under arrest, he certainly had the right to remain silent. And, as we've long since established, maybe the exercise of that right helped him to obtain a not guilty verdict in the criminal trial. But if he knew that someone else committed the murders and he wanted to avoid civil liability, he also had the right to point the finger at the real murderer (who you speculate to be someone other than Mr. Simpson) and have the civil jury conclude that he didn't do it. Instead of doing that, he chose instead to take his chances that the civil jury would just conclude that he didn't do it. He doesn't get a "well, I shouldn't even be here" defense if he doesn't show that someone else did it.

[Galileo]

Knowing that something is going to happen and not calling the police will make you an accessory in most jurisdictions.

That's dead wrong. OJ Simpson is not a lawyer. He is not expected to know legal minutia.


Once OJ was under arrest, he certainly had the right to remain silent. And, as we've long since established, maybe the exercise of that right helped him to obtain a not guilty verdict in the criminal trial. But if he knew that someone else committed the murders and he wanted to avoid civil liability, he also had the right to point the finger at the real murderer (who you speculate to be someone other than Mr. Simpson) and have the civil jury conclude that he didn't do it. Instead of doing that, he chose instead to take his chances that the civil jury would just conclude that he didn't do it. He doesn't get a "well, I shouldn't even be here" defense if he doesn't show that someone else did it.

That's no excuse for the legal system to convict the wrong guy. You basicically just knee-jerk defend the government.

[FromWayDowntown]

That's dead wrong. OJ Simpson is not a lawyer. He is not expected to know legal minutia.

As they say, ignorance of the law is never an excuse.


That's no excuse for the legal system to convict the wrong guy. You basicically just knee-jerk defend the government.

He wasn't convicted of murder. A private litigant sued him and won.