It was over thirty years ago, after the farce that was the racially-exploited criminal trial a civil court found him liable for their deaths on the balance of probabilities, and he's now dead. Case closed.
God forbid people want to talk about it.
No, they don't. They simply want to advance yet another speculative conspiracy theory against the known facts and the conclusions of a civil court. Obviously time to go back to the Kennedy assassination, or even Lincoln's. It wasn't Wilkes Booth after all.
That he has to banned for intentional killing. Then you will come in and correct all those incompetent losers again, and explain that he was railroaded. For years and years and years.
The main question then would be, "on what basis?" Would it be based on established facts or codified presumptions?
It was a long time ago, and I didn't follow the cases too closely, but I recall Simpson was held civilly liable.
A bit like Shelby was. On the balance of probabilities.
the glove didn't fit, law enforcement destroyed its credibility by framing him
crucially, noone saw him do it. Evidence all circumstantial
hard to believe even that long ago, rich people all didn't have cameras recording everything. then the jury could watch him do it, if it was him.
it was the right verdict. Criminal convictions are hard to win, and they should be
more generally, detectives get a confirmation bias when they find something matching a suspect. They find it because they start looking for it. I bet there were lots of other hairs on Goldman's t-shirt than some black dude's. You can get a hair on your t-shirt from riding a city bus or a train.
No, they don't. They simply want to advance yet another speculative conspiracy theory against the known facts and the conclusions of a civil court. Obviously time to go back to the Kennedy assassination, or even Lincoln's. It wasn't Wilkes Booth after all.
the glove didn't fit, law enforcement destroyed its credibility by framing him
crucially, noone saw him do it. Evidence all circumstantial
hard to believe even that long ago, rich people all didn't have cameras recording everything. then the jury could watch him do it, if it was him.
it was the right verdict. Criminal convictions are hard to win, and they should be
more generally, detectives get a confirmation bias when they find something matching a suspect. They find it because they start looking for it. I bet there were lots of other hairs on Goldman's t-shirt than some black dude's. You can get a hair on your t-shirt from riding a city bus or a train.
The main question then would be, "on what basis?" Would it be based on established facts or codified presumptions?
It was a long time ago, and I didn't follow the cases too closely, but I recall Simpson was held civilly liable.
A bit like Shelby was. On the balance of probabilities.
Not quite, as the roles are swapped. In a civil court of law, the burden is on the accusers to establish civil liability with a preponderance of evidence. In sports arbitration, it is the accused who is burdened with rebutting a set of unestablished presumptions on the balance of probability.
How did Kohberger’s DNA end up at the crime scene? Couldn’t his defense have pointed out that DNA goes everywhere and his probably flew in through the window?
how dense are you trying to be? PLANTED BY THE COPS.
Every word about DNA depends on the cops being unassailably trustworthy. Their case was in serious trouble as soon as the Fuhrman tape was played to the jury.
And sunk for good as soon as prosecutors were dumb enough to have OJ try on the gloves. They didn't fit, and they were left trying to prove they must have shrunk. That raised a reasonable doubt whether they were really his gloves, and by extension, a reasonable doubt about the reliability of anything the cops found at the crime scene.
This isn't some nitpicky thing. Cops aren't presumed trustworthy, that's why you have the right to be present if they search your home and belongings. They could plant something.
4
3
fido, the official lets run right wing circle jerk detector dog
The Simpson trial was actually the beginnings of Woke/BLM in America. Simpson OBVIOUSLY stabbed his ex-wife Nicole Brown, who he had beaten up many times before, and her friend Ron Goldman to death outside Brown's condo. But then his million dollar lawyers started pretending that a gang of racist white cops decided, in the middle of the night before they even knew who killed Brown and Goldman, to frame Simpson for a murder he didn't commit. Normal people looked at this bullsh!t bag of lies and shook their heads. Liberals, on the other hand, desperate for something racial to be outraged about, bought this bullsh!t hook, line and sinker and proclaimed Simpson innocent. A racial movement was born.
A bit like Shelby was. On the balance of probabilities.
Not quite, as the roles are swapped. In a civil court of law, the burden is on the accusers to establish civil liability with a preponderance of evidence. In sports arbitration, it is the accused who is burdened with rebutting a set of unestablished presumptions on the balance of probability.
That only matters in rare 51:49 or 50:50 scenarios. Both Simpson's and Houlihan's guilt was much much more obvious, like 99.99 to 0.01 or higher.
It's not. It's obvious that Mark Fuhrman planted evidence and orchestrated one massive cover-up with inter-departmental agencies, and that of the 100+ people, at least, needed to pull this off, not one of them would've leaked information. Moreover, OJ wrote a book, "If I Did It," which described how he would've committed the murder if, in fact, he did do it, which, of course, means he didn't. Even though he was convicted in the civil case, which has a slightly lower bar for conviction, he was acquitted in the criminal case because everyone knows Americans are just a bunch of racists stuck in the 1850s who focus on the color of a person's skin rather than the content of a person's character.
Yep, that's how a black person got elected for President, twice! Ignorance is free and you've certainly taken whenever it's been handed out.
Which is precisely why the prosecutors never should have had him try to pull them on in front of a jury when they never did it behind closed doors. They handed the defense team a massive win.
The cops planted evidence and got caught.
The prosecutors bungled the case over and over.
The judge favored the defense in several key decisions.
The jury was handed plenty of reasonable doubt (as much as that sucks).
No, they don't. They simply want to advance yet another speculative conspiracy theory against the known facts and the conclusions of a civil court. Obviously time to go back to the Kennedy assassination, or even Lincoln's. It wasn't Wilkes Booth after all.
Then shut up and let them.
Freedom of speech allows for expressing views you and others don't like. Including those that point out their idiocy.
A bit like Shelby was. On the balance of probabilities.
Not quite, as the roles are swapped. In a civil court of law, the burden is on the accusers to establish civil liability with a preponderance of evidence. In sports arbitration, it is the accused who is burdened with rebutting a set of unestablished presumptions on the balance of probability.
The onus has reversed but the test of proof is the same, of what passes the balance of probabilities on the evidence presented. That test said OJ did it and Shelby doped.
Not quite, as the roles are swapped. In a civil court of law, the burden is on the accusers to establish civil liability with a preponderance of evidence. In sports arbitration, it is the accused who is burdened with rebutting a set of unestablished presumptions on the balance of probability.
The onus has reversed but the test of proof is the same, of what passes the balance of probabilities on the evidence presented. That test said OJ did it and Shelby doped.
Reversing the roles and burdens makes it rather completely unlike Shelby's case. Her accusers failed to make an evidence based case that was tested against the standard of balance of probability.
The legal thresholds applied determined that OJ was liable with a preponderance of the evidence, and that Shelby most probably did not establish a deviation from the standard, nor most probably identify the source.
Neither finding is sufficient to say "OJ did it and Shelby doped".
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
The onus has reversed but the test of proof is the same, of what passes the balance of probabilities on the evidence presented. That test said OJ did it and Shelby doped.
Reversing the roles and burdens makes it rather completely unlike Shelby's case. Her accusers failed to make an evidence based case that was tested against the standard of balance of probability.
The legal thresholds applied determined that OJ was liable with a preponderance of the evidence, and that Shelby most probably did not establish a deviation from the standard, nor most probably identify the source.
Neither finding is sufficient to say "OJ did it and Shelby doped".
It's all a bit too complicated for you. On the facts presented a court said OJ committed the crimes on the basis of the balance of probabilities and on the facts presented to another court it found Houlihan couldn't show legitimate cause for a banned substance in her body because her explanation failed the same test of the balance of probabilities. You confuse an onus of proof with a standard of proof - it was the same in both cases. But you are always confused by doping cases.
It's all a bit too complicated for you. On the facts presented a court said OJ committed the crimes on the basis of the balance of probabilities and on the facts presented to another court it found Houlihan couldn't show legitimate cause for a banned substance in her body because her explanation failed the same test of the balance of probabilities. You confuse an onus of proof with a standard of proof - it was the same in both cases. But you are always confused by doping cases.
A civil court found that OJ committed crimes? Are you sure you passed the bar, rather than stopped in and had a few too many before getting kicked out?
The difference is that OJ's accusers presented an affirmative case with evidence that passed the test.
Back in 1995 (?) when i was (at a bar) watching him run away from police in his car, with another dude, and threatening to kill himself, and then all the subsequent proofiness, I was pretty sure it was 100%.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.