How definitive is it that OJ killed his wife?

Sorry, I should have realized that a bot doesn't follow normal human communication.

But your stupid misinterpretation of what I said is because you can't cope with the fact that a civil court that found OJ killed two people (but let's not call that a "crime") did so according to the same standard of the balance of probabilities that saw another court make a finding that Houlihan intentionally doped.

He stabbed them to death. So what is the term we would normally use for that?

Do you know anyone in legal circles that could help you with the right terms?

Racial wars

This is a litmus test you can use to determine one’s ability to reason: show them the evidence and see if they think OJ is guilty of the murders. If they’re not sure, then they’re morons.

For example, OJ’s DNA was found in blood droplets that were found beside bloody footprints at the scene and that same finger was cut on OJ’s hand.

You've never heard the term murder? Clearly, this bot hasn't been correctly programmed.

Murder is a crime. I've never heard a civil court say it. Have you?

Yes, it is a crime. You're finally catching on. It doesn't need a civil court to use the term to say that is what he did when it found him liable for their deaths. It is the same as a civil court telling a jury that when Trump was found to have committed a sexual assault they could understand that to mean he "raped" E Jean Carroll, in the usual sense that term is used. Rape is of course a crime. So he committed a crime according to its common definition; it doesn't require a conviction to conclude that, only that it meets the factual criteria. Thus someone who is found by a civil court to be liable for the deaths of those he intentionally killed therefore murdered them, to anyone who understands what that word means. That doesn't include you. I could say you have a significant intellectual impairment without actually saying you are stupid but it would mean the same thing.

DNA is not the slam dunk evidence you think it is, and DNA testing was still in its infancy 1994-1995.

Murder is only a crime because it deprives the government of tax revenue.

Murder is intentionally killing another or other human beings. The civil court found that he did that, that he intentionally killed his ex wife and lover by stabbing them to death - which made him liable for their deaths, and hence subject to a civil penalty. On that basis, he murdered them. It doesn't require a criminal conviction to establish that as fact. So what word would you use for what he did?

Surely you can introduce racism to that astonishingly moronic comment, as you do on every other thread.

It’s not as impressive as a video. but it’s just as conclusive. Has there ever been a false positive in a murder case? How about a guilty person that was freed by DNA evidence?

Sure has.

themarshallproject.org

Framed for Murder by His Own DNA

Katie Worth

We leave traces of our genetic material everywhere, even on things we’ve never touched. That got Lukis Anderson charged with a brutal crime he didn’t commit.

Open link

Another one:

bbc.com

DNA test jailed innocent man for murder

https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews

An innocent man spent eight months in jail after being accused of murder following a police DNA test - is the criminal justice system too reliant on science to solve crime?

Open link

Yes.

themarshallproject.org

Framed for Murder by His Own DNA

Katie Worth

We leave traces of our genetic material everywhere, even on things we’ve never touched. That got Lukis Anderson charged with a brutal crime he didn’t commit.

Open link

A jury of his peers found him responsible for her death.

law.justia.com

Rufo v. Simpson (2001)

Rufo v. Simpson (2001), California Court of Appeals

Open link

If the glove is pliable, you must find not liable.

Ahhh, we have a winner! See how useful this test is?