BS: O.J. Speaks Out!

Subject: BS: O.J. Speaks Out!
From: Peter T.
Date: 19 Nov 05 - 07:01 AM

O.J. Simpson, who murdered his wife and got away with it, is now complaining about "double jeopardy" -- being convicted in a civil trial after having escaped from a criminal conviction, referring to the Robert Blake travesty.   He makes no reference to the "single jeopardy" of being married to a murderer.

yours,

Peter
T.

Subject: RE: BS: O.J. Speaks Out!
From: Ebbie
Date: 19 Nov 05 - 02:13 PM

Our system of bringing a civil action against a person when they have been acquitted in a criminal court is mindboggling to me. I do understand that it is a way of getting around a 'Not Guilty' verdict but how can one say on the one hand 'He didn't do it' and on the other 'He did it' on the same evidence?

Keep in mind, Peter T, just for accuracy's sake, she was O.J.'s exwife, and we might mention the man he also killed - or didn't kill, depending on which court he's in. In Blake's case it was his wife.

Subject: RE: BS: O.J. Speaks Out!
From: SharonA
Date: 19 Nov 05 - 02:47 PM

Ebbie asks: "...how can one say on the one hand 'He didn't do it' and on the other 'He did it' on the same evidence?"

It's all in that lovely word "liable". Legally the person is "liable" for the      (s). Or, more colloquially, he's liable to have committed       (i.e. most likely to have done it).

By the way, from what I understand, O.J. has not paid a penny of his fine from the civil suit brought against him. Also, Blake is complaining that he's broke and won't be able to pay HIS fine. But if I were Blake, the last person I'd want standing up for my rights would be O.J.

Subject: RE: BS: O.J. Speaks Out!
From: Mark Cohen
Date: 19 Nov 05 - 02:48 PM

Ebbie, it's a question of standard of proof. In criminal proceedings, the standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt." In a civil court, the standard is "a preponderance of the evidence." At least, that's the way I understand it from reading John Lescroart novels and watching "Law and Order."

Aloha,
Mark

Subject: RE: BS: O.J. Speaks Out!
From: Don Firth
Date: 19 Nov 05 - 02:49 PM

It is assumed in our justice system that a person is innocent until proven guilty. O. J. Simpson was not proven guilty. So any assumption that he is guilty is just that--an assumption.

Do I believe Simpson is guilty? I don't know. He may be, but the prosecution failed to prove it, so I must assume, that he is not.

This is one of those cases where objective truth is unknown and it is necessary to go on the assumptions of our system of justice.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: O.J. Speaks Out!
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 19 Nov 05 - 02:52 PM

Both were acquited in criminal court. That should have been the end of it.

Subject: RE: BS: O.J. Speaks Out!
From: Peter T.
Date: 19 Nov 05 - 04:09 PM

Actually I think it is somewhat strange, and have problems with "double jeopardy" -- it does seem a bit bizarre, even in the context of the zoo of American blind justice -- nevertheless, it is hardly the case that OJ is innocent --he was guilty in a civil court, after all! -- but I was simply suggesting that he has no shame.   His wife is certainly his ex-wife, bereft of life she rests in peace, she has gone to join the choir eternal.....

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: O.J. Speaks Out!
From: wysiwyg
Date: 19 Nov 05 - 04:25 PM

"same evidence"

Well, no..... not always, and certainly not when you include that in a civil trial, the defendant testifies.... if he wants to contest the allegations. :~) HIS choice.

~S~

Subject: RE: BS: O.J. Speaks Out!
From: Amos
Date: 19 Nov 05 - 06:36 PM

In a criminal trial a jury must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt to bring in a "Guilty: " verdict, as was mentioned above. In a civil trial for a suit, as was brought against both OJ and Blake, the jury need only ascertain the preponderance of the evidence lies in favor of the plaintiff. Big difference.

And even though it seems quirky, I think there is a lot to be said for having much more rigorous standards for criminal charges than for civil complaints.


A

Subject: RE: BS: O.J. Speaks Out!
From: Bill D
Date: 19 Nov 05 - 07:12 PM

" He may be, but the prosecution failed to prove it,...."

not exactly--the jury failed to BELIEVE and/or ACCEPT the overwhelming evidence, with several of the jurors admitting afterward that they always intended to find O'J. not guilty, no matter what the prosecution presented.

as to O.J.'s money, I assume he has been spending it all on his 'quest' to 'find the real killer' that announced way back when.

Subject: RE: BS: O.J. Speaks Out!
From: Bobert
Date: 19 Nov 05 - 08:08 PM

It's all academic since a *judegment + 89 cents = 12 oz. coffee at the 7-11*... Hard to collect... Almost impossible if the othwer party has a good lawyer...

...and, "If it don't fit ya' gotta aquitt..."