O.J. Simpson, former football star acquitted of murder, dies at 76

[Estro Felino]

Well, the criminal trial was won by the defense because they were able to convince the jury that the cops had framed O.J. by allegedly falsifying the DNA evidence. Jurors also considered that evidence relating to Simpson's history of domestic abuse was not relevant to the case. So, once the DNA evidence and the history of domestic violence were disregarded by the jury, there wasn't much left to convict him.

So, in one trial, some people decided the evidence was "false," while other people in another trial decided the exact same evidence was "true." If the DNA evidence was declared tainted and inadmissible in the civil trial, then the result would have been the same as in the criminal trial.

That's why we have three degrees of judgment.
There's the Court of Assizes, the Court of Assizes of Appeal, and the Supreme Court (called Court of Cassation).
Then the Court of Cassation can forward the case to another Court of Assizes of Appeal, so there can be even 5 degrees of judgment.

Because a popular jury can be biased and partial. That's why.

 

[Watchmen]

If you want to prove beyond a doubt. You need evidence. Once guilt or innocence is declared that should be the end of it as you cannot try a person twice for the same crime according to the law.

So you think civil cases should be proven beyond a reasonable doubt?

Do you think criminal and civil cases should be combined in one trial?

Do you understand the difference?

 

[Watchmen]

Well, the criminal trial was won by the defense because they were able to convince the jury that the cops had framed O.J. by allegedly falsifying the DNA evidence. Jurors also considered that evidence relating to Simpson's history of domestic abuse was not relevant to the case. So, once the DNA evidence and the history of domestic violence were disregarded by the jury, there wasn't much left to convict him.

So, in one trial, some people decided the evidence was "false," while other people in another trial decided the exact same evidence was "true." If the DNA evidence was declared tainted and inadmissible in the civil trial, then the result would have been the same as in the criminal trial.

I’m well aware of how it played out but the poster I’m conversing with doesn’t seem to get it.

 

[Twilight Hue]

So you think civil cases should be proven beyond a reasonable doubt?

Do you think criminal and civil cases should be combined in one trial?

Do you understand the difference?

It's idiotic and stupid. If it's a criminal trial with a criminal offense, a civil trial should only follow if the person is declared guilty and yes any trial should be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Do you understand what common sense is?

That's my take on the matter.

 

[Estro Felino]

It's idiotic and stupid. If it's a criminal trial with a criminal offense, a civil trial should only follow if the person is declared guilty and yes any trial should be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Do you understand what common sense is?

That's my take on the matter.

The law is equal for all?
Please...money opens every door.

Give me seven hours with OJ Simpson alone...and I would have made him confess, even before the seven hours have terminated.


But if you roll red carpets at a suspect and a fugitive who even tried to escape, well....there's no justice.

 

[Twilight Hue]

The law is equal for all?
Please...money opens every door.

Give me seven hours with OJ Simpson alone...and I would have made him confess, even before the seven hours have terminated.


But if you roll red carpets at a suspect and a fugitive who even tried to escape, well....there's no justice.

I think he was guilty but the criminal trial obviously found otherwise.

 

[SkepticThinker]

On is guilty and one is innocent. That's pretty screwed up.

Slight correction ...

One is guilty and one is not-guilty.

(Not-guilty doesn't necessarily mean "innocent.")

 

[libre]

Give me seven hours with OJ Simpson alone...and I would have made him confess, even before the seven hours have terminated.

Sounds like a great way to throw a show trial

 

[Estro Felino]

Sounds like a great way to throw a show trial

I empathize with the victims. 1:54
That's why I would had done anything to give them justice.
I do care.

 

[Estro Felino]

I think he was guilty but the criminal trial obviously found otherwise.

If it doesn't fit, you must acquit.

The fair of banalities. That's what that trial was.
Cicero would roll in his grave if he saw how low the ancient Roman Law has stooped.

 

[Stevicus]

That's why we have three degrees of judgment.
There's the Court of Assizes, the Court of Assizes of Appeal, and the Supreme Court (called Court of Cassation).
Then the Court of Cassation can forward the case to another Court of Assizes of Appeal, so there can be even 5 degrees of judgment.

Because a popular jury can be biased and partial. That's why.

In this case, the jury seemed to be biased, although there were criticisms leveled at the judge, prosecutor, police, defense attorneys (and Simpson himself), not just the jurors, even if they played a pivotal role. The media also shared some of the blame, since they put such a heavy light on the whole case.

I never really bought in to the whole idea that the evidence was tainted or that they tried to frame O.J. Simpson for murder. But the jurors in this case saw it as a reasonable doubt, even if others couldn't see it.

But if it was tainted or false evidence, then how would moving it to a different court make it true? If it's false, then it's still false no matter which courtroom it's presented in.

 

[Watchmen]

It's idiotic and stupid. If it's a criminal trial with a criminal offense, a civil trial should only follow if the person is declared guilty and yes any trial should be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Do you understand what common sense is?

That's my take on the matter.

Ok. Well you’re dead wrong on how American jurisprudence works. Seems crazy to require beyond a shadow of a doubt for a civil situation.

 

[Watchmen]

The law is equal for all?
Please...money opens every door.

Give me seven hours with OJ Simpson alone...and I would have made him confess, even before the seven hours have terminated.


But if you roll red carpets at a suspect and a fugitive who even tried to escape, well....there's no justice.

Give me an f***** break.

 

[Estro Felino]

Give me an f***** break.

Bonjour finesse.
Academie Française?

 

[Twilight Hue]

Ok. Well you’re dead wrong on how American jurisprudence works. Seems crazy to require beyond a shadow of a doubt for a civil situation.

No. It's just plain stupid and idiotic.

 

[Stevicus]

I empathize with the victims. 1:54
That's why I would had done anything to give them justice.
I do care.

The one thing I always ask when looking at cases like this is: What if these were just ordinary people and not celebrities? Cases like this happen all the time, yet they get almost zero attention from the media.

If it doesn't fit, you must acquit.

The fair of banalities. That's what that trial was.
Cicero would roll in his grave if he saw how low the ancient Roman Law has stooped.

The real game changer in the case seemed to be when they convinced the jury that the DNA evidence was tainted. As there were no eyewitnesses to the murder, all the prosecution had was DNA evidence (which didn't even exist in Cicero's time).

I try to put cases like this into a larger perspective of just how much injustice there has been, where the guilty go free and the innocent are locked up (or murdered). For example, as you mention Cicero, I recall that the town of Cicero, Illinois (a suburb of Chicago) was once owned by Al Capone, a notorious figure from history who was never really punished for his crimes. A lot of people like that got away with it or received very lenient sentences. Nixon got away with it. Reagan got away with it. J. Edgar Hoover got away with it. Kissinger got away with it.

 

[Watchmen]

No. It's just plain stupid and idiotic.

So if you have a slip and fall in a grocery store, you think you should have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the store is at fault? Sounds like a lot of victims of civil crimes are going to go without remedy under your system.

 

[Estro Felino]

The one thing I always ask when looking at cases like this is: What if these were just ordinary people and not celebrities? Cases like this happen all the time, yet they get almost zero attention from the media.

Exactly...I mean...
if the perpetrator had been an ordinary man, they would have given him the chair...(even if capital punishment has been suspended in CA).

The real game changer in the case seemed to be when they convinced the jury that the DNA evidence was tainted. As there were no eyewitnesses to the murder, all the prosecution had was DNA evidence (which didn't even exist in Cicero's time).

Three things:
A) motive (incredible rage due to jealousy)
B) criminal record (domestic violence that pushed Nicole Browne to divorce him)
C) escape (in Italy attempted escape is equivalent to extra-judicial confession)-

These three things would have sufficed. But there was much more: DNA evidence and blood footprints in his backyard.

But the jurors were too enchanted by the defense's speeches about him, that he was an immaculate, holy, angelical saint, virgin and martyr. Amen. That's what convinced them.

I try to put cases like this into a larger perspective of just how much injustice there has been, where the guilty go free and the innocent are locked up (or murdered). For example, as you mention Cicero, I recall that the town of Cicero, Illinois (a suburb of Chicago) was once owned by Al Capone, a notorious figure from history who was never really punished for his crimes. A lot of people like that got away with it or received very lenient sentences. Nixon got away with it. Reagan got away with it. J. Edgar Hoover got away with it. Kissinger got away with it.

Have you seen how all these mobsters avoid the states where the capital punishment is in force?
Because they are afraid of death, they are afraid of Hell.

 

[Twilight Hue]

So if you have a slip and fall in a grocery store, you think you should have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the store is at fault? Sounds like a lot of victims of civil crimes are going to go without remedy under your system.

If it's a civil only situation I don't have a problem whatsoever with it.

 

[Watchmen]

If it's a civil only situation I don't have a problem whatsoever with it.

You dont have a problem with what?