• New here? Register here now for access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Plus, stay connected and follow BP on Instagram @buckeyeplanet and Facebook.

O.J. finally confessing - sort of

Jump to latest Follow Reply
plum diamonds buckeye planet
Sort by date Sort by votes
brutusbabe

brutusbabe

owner of great buckeyes
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]MSNBC[/FONT]

Updated: 2:43 a.m. ET Oct 19, 2006

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]O.J. Simpson is confessing. Hypothetically, that is. [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The former football great, who was acquitted in criminal court 11 years ago of killing his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her friend, Ron Goldman, reportedly has been paid a whopping $3.5 million to write about the double murder that shocked and riveted the nation in 1994, according to a detailed report in the new National Enquirer. [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]But Simpson is not actually confessing to the murder rather, he's writing a hypothetical book which the Enquirer reports is tentatively being called If I Did It.[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The early part of the book tells how Simpson fell in love with Nicole and how the marriage collapsed, reports the tab. He goes on, according to the article, to describe in gruesome detail the killing of his ex-wife and Goldman; he stipulates that the murder scenes are hypothetical. But, notes the tab, the descriptions are so detailed and so chillingly realistic that readers are left with little doubt as to what really happened.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Simpson can never be retried for the murders because of double jeopardy laws, according to the Enquirer, which also claims that Simpson aims to keep any book money instead of paying it out in a civil suit judgment against him by spending it all quickly. [/FONT]
 
Last edited:
brutusbabe;637687; said:
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]MSNBC[/FONT]

Updated: 2:43 a.m. ET Oct 19, 2006
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Simpson can never be retried for the murders because of double jeopardy laws[/FONT]
Click to expand...

If she was my daughter/sister, this would be of no consequence. I would have killed him myself. No way he'd walk away from that. No way.
 
Upvote 0
What's the fuss? He did the killings. If the Goldman's want money they should go kill somebody and write their own book.


Tell me again why the Muslim's have a problem with Western culture.
 
Upvote 0
Oh8ch;637995; said:
What's the fuss? He did the killings. If the Goldman's want money they should go kill somebody and write their own book.


Tell me again why the Muslim's have a problem with Western culture.
Click to expand...

I'd like to know how somebody who was found not guilty of a murder can be found liable in a civil court for the said murders.

Judge: Defense, you may call your first witness
Defense: We call Judge Ito.
Defense: Judge Ito, what was the verdict in OJ's murder trial
Ito: Not guilty
DEfense: We rest our case.

Great legal system. It might be you one day found "not guilty" and then "guilty"
 
Upvote 0
tibor75;638028; said:
I'd like to know how somebody who was found not guilty of a murder can be found liable in a civil court for the said murders.
Click to expand...

For better or worse civil & criminal courts have different standards for evidence. Evidence admissable in a civil trial may not be admissable in a criminal investigation.
 
Upvote 0
tibor75;638028; said:
I'd like to know how somebody who was found not guilty of a murder can be found liable in a civil court for the said murders.

Judge: Defense, you may call your first witness
Defense: We call Judge Ito.
Defense: Judge Ito, what was the verdict in OJ's murder trial
Ito: Not guilty
DEfense: We rest our case.

Great legal system. It might be you one day found "not guilty" and then "guilty"
Click to expand...

Liable is not the same as guilty. The biggest difference between the civil and criminal trials was the standard of proof. The prosecutors in the criminal trial had to prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

The plaintiff's standard in the civl trial was 'by a preponderance of the evidence' (or something along those lines). Basically, they had to prove that it was more likely than not (51%) that he did it.

I think it is more likely than not that ucla will lose to ND this weekend (the civil standard), but I'm not sure beyond a reasonable doubt (the criminal standard).

Rules of evidence and the number of jurors needed (does not have to be unanimous in civil trials) also plays a role. Plus, the plaintiffs were not linked to the taint of the LAPD in the way the prosecutors were. Finally, a juror will more readily say OJ has to give up money (especially to the victim's parents) than say he has to go to prison and/or be executed.
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top