Reply With Quote
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?
Race and ethnicity are in fact two different things, but both matter in such issues.
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?
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.
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.
It would be double-jeopardy for him to be tried again, but his son wasn't...
you will like this video.
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.
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.
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.
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.
So? OJ was found not guilty in the criminal trial.
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.
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.
I'm sure they were. I was really surprised he was found guilty, because it just doesn't add up.
OK, I'm convinced. JJ probably was the killer.
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 ing 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.
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!
Wild CobraOr 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?I'm sure they were. I was really surprised he was found guilty, because it just doesn't add up.
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.
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....
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions