You clearly weren't present during the trial or you would have been aware of the racial dimensions that it acquired and that Simpson's legal team played upon. Indeed, if the jury's decision in the criminal trial was not largely racially-based it is difficult to explain how a subsequent civil jury had no difficulty in finding him guilty and thus liable. Perhaps you are of the view that black people cannot understand the facts in a criminal trial - which would of course be a somewhat racist conclusion?
Aren't you from Australia or something? WTF do you know about being "present" during the Simpson trial?
Civil trials have a different burden of proof, different burden of persuasion, different evidentiary concerns, different Constitutional rights to deal with. It's too bad you are unaware of those differences, because your ignorance of them makes your post gibberish.
What do I know about the legal burden? Good question. I am qualifed in law. The burden in the civil trial was the balance of probabilities. That burden was satisfied. The question was the same as in the criminal trial - did he kill them - and came down to much the same evidence. He killed them. There - done and dusted.
Can you imagine if LetsRun existed during this trial? The thread would have probably garnered at least a few hundred posts every day throughout the trial. Probably would have had been 100,000 posts before the trial was over. If Twitter would have existed, the internet would have broken.
You clearly weren't present during the trial or you would have been aware of the racial dimensions that it acquired and that Simpson's legal team played upon. Indeed, if the jury's decision in the criminal trial was not largely racially-based it is difficult to explain how a subsequent civil jury had no difficulty in finding him guilty and thus liable. Perhaps you are of the view that black people cannot understand the facts in a criminal trial - which would of course be a somewhat racist conclusion?
Aren't you from Australia or something? WTF do you know about being "present" during the Simpson trial?
Civil trials have a different burden of proof, different burden of persuasion, different evidentiary concerns, different Constitutional rights to deal with. It's too bad you are unaware of those differences, because your ignorance of them makes your post gibberish.
BTW - the trial was televised "live" around the world. So anyone watching it was effectively present.
Can you imagine if LetsRun existed during this trial? The thread would have probably garnered at least a few hundred posts every day throughout the trial. Probably would have had been 100,000 posts before the trial was over. If Twitter would have existed, the internet would have broken.
People would gather in bars to watch the trial. It was social media before social media existed.
Had Nicole been attacked 1st, Goldman would have escaped
According to some forensic experts, not sure if they testified in the trial or not but Simpson simultaneously knocked out Niconle and Ron then began attacking them with a knife. Which is even harder to believe
Based upon your recommendation, I have looked up Derrick Levasseur and his "OJ investigation." I have educated myself on this. Ask me anything. Go ahead. Shoot. Shoot me some questions on Derrick Levasseur and his OJ investigation. Go ahead. I'll answer anything you got. I'll set you straight one way or the other.
Let's do this.
Mr. Lavasseur constructed a believable timeline about Jason that was basically accepted, even after the Goldman family accepted it wasn't Jason...
He successfully debunked Detective William Dear's arguments.
So with Mr. Lavasseur having been an officer before a reality show contestant and winner coupled with his exoneration of Jason, whom Dear was actively pursuing...
Explain with actual evidence of mens rea with regard to Jason alone...how you can implicate Jason on legal ground.
I'm not reputable...that's a given..but if you use that as your defense? That's passion...not law.
What's your legal argument regarding Jason Simpson?
Agreed. You and I and Mr. Lavasseur are on the same page with regard to Jason Simpson. If only these other fools would listen.
Aren't you from Australia or something? WTF do you know about being "present" during the Simpson trial?
Civil trials have a different burden of proof, different burden of persuasion, different evidentiary concerns, different Constitutional rights to deal with. It's too bad you are unaware of those differences, because your ignorance of them makes your post gibberish.
What do I know about the legal burden? Good question. I am qualifed in law. The burden in the civil trial was the balance of probabilities. That burden was satisfied. The question was the same as in the criminal trial - did he kill them - and came down to much the same evidence. He killed them. There - done and dusted.
I didn't ask what you knew of the legal burdens. I said you were unaware of them, and your response proved it. The burden in civil cases in California is preponderance of the evidence, not "balance of the probabilities." And your response avoided mentioning the legal burden in the Simpson criminal case, as if failing to refer to it would somehow make whatever point you think you are making regarding the civil verdict magically true. That's how children think.
There was significantly different evidence introduced in the Simpson civil trial compared to the criminal trial. Prominently and importantly, Simpson testified in the civil trial (and was compelled to via deposition discovery). No Mark Fuhrman. More evidence of domestic abuse. Many more differences between the two. Hand-picked, privileged white jurors from Rancho Cucamonga. It was a very different trial. Again, whatever point you think you are making regarding the Simpson civil trial verdict is not as strong as you think it is. You just don't know enough - you don't know what you are talking about.
What do I know about the legal burden? Good question. I am qualifed in law. The burden in the civil trial was the balance of probabilities. That burden was satisfied. The question was the same as in the criminal trial - did he kill them - and came down to much the same evidence. He killed them. There - done and dusted.
I didn't ask what you knew of the legal burdens. I said you were unaware of them, and your response proved it. The burden in civil cases in California is preponderance of the evidence, not "balance of the probabilities." And your response avoided mentioning the legal burden in the Simpson criminal case, as if failing to refer to it would somehow make whatever point you think you are making regarding the civil verdict magically true. That's how children think.
There was significantly different evidence introduced in the Simpson civil trial compared to the criminal trial. Prominently and importantly, Simpson testified in the civil trial (and was compelled to via deposition discovery). No Mark Fuhrman. More evidence of domestic abuse. Many more differences between the two. Hand-picked, privileged white jurors from Rancho Cucamonga. It was a very different trial. Again, whatever point you think you are making regarding the Simpson civil trial verdict is not as strong as you think it is. You just don't know enough - you don't know what you are talking about.
Dude....you're forever babbling about something which you have enough info to be dangerous. The trial focused on many aspects of the case which included, even though briefly, how the crime occurred and that it was plausible for one person to kill two people that quickly. You know why it's included in the trial? Because if they don't, the potential of a juror like the poster above claiming it couldn't have, might be the one vote who deadlocks a jury.
You may now commence with five more posts all pretty much babbling a bunch of nothing in contribution to the thread.
You probably weren't alive in the early nineties so you don't recall what the trial was about. It wasn't about whether Simpson was strong enough to kill two people with a knife but whether he did it - did the evidence establish beyond a reasonable doubt that it was him. That was what the famous "glove" incident in the courtroom highlighted. A civil jury unaffected by the racial question that pervaded the criminal case unanimously concluded he did.
So tell us once again how this frail little old man couldn't have committed the killings. Because there is nothing else to this unbelievably fatuous thread.
I'm probably older than you nitwit and recall completely what the trial was about. I've also never said anything regarding Simpson's supposed inability to commit the murders other than it was shown in court how it would occur.
As I mentioned, you jump into all sorts of threads and post babble. Sometimes it tangentially relates to the post you happen to reply to...with seeming randomness....and most times it doesn't.
What do I know about the legal burden? Good question. I am qualifed in law. The burden in the civil trial was the balance of probabilities. That burden was satisfied. The question was the same as in the criminal trial - did he kill them - and came down to much the same evidence. He killed them. There - done and dusted.
I didn't ask what you knew of the legal burdens. I said you were unaware of them, and your response proved it. The burden in civil cases in California is preponderance of the evidence, not "balance of the probabilities." And your response avoided mentioning the legal burden in the Simpson criminal case, as if failing to refer to it would somehow make whatever point you think you are making regarding the civil verdict magically true. That's how children think.
There was significantly different evidence introduced in the Simpson civil trial compared to the criminal trial. Prominently and importantly, Simpson testified in the civil trial (and was compelled to via deposition discovery). No Mark Fuhrman. More evidence of domestic abuse. Many more differences between the two. Hand-picked, privileged white jurors from Rancho Cucamonga. It was a very different trial. Again, whatever point you think you are making regarding the Simpson civil trial verdict is not as strong as you think it is. You just don't know enough - you don't know what you are talking about.
The preponderance of the evidence is the same as the balance of probabilities - it is different language to say the same thing, which is what is most likely on the facts. On that basis it was determined Simpson was the killer. The higher burden of proof in the criminal trial and the requirement of a unanimous verdict - plus the racial sympathies of the jury - gave Simpson an "out" in his criminal trial. As the civil trial subsequently showed - it was a verdict which went against the balance of probabilities - or the "preponderance of the evidence".
So that leaves you with the proposition of the thread that Simpson didn't have the necessary physical capacity to kill his victims. Strange, that neither trial made that his defence. Your pedantry overlooks that unfortunate fact.
You probably weren't alive in the early nineties so you don't recall what the trial was about. It wasn't about whether Simpson was strong enough to kill two people with a knife but whether he did it - did the evidence establish beyond a reasonable doubt that it was him. That was what the famous "glove" incident in the courtroom highlighted. A civil jury unaffected by the racial question that pervaded the criminal case unanimously concluded he did.
So tell us once again how this frail little old man couldn't have committed the killings. Because there is nothing else to this unbelievably fatuous thread.
I'm probably older than you nitwit and recall completely what the trial was about. I've also never said anything regarding Simpson's supposed inability to commit the murders other than it was shown in court how it would occur.
As I mentioned, you jump into all sorts of threads and post babble. Sometimes it tangentially relates to the post you happen to reply to...with seeming randomness....and most times it doesn't.
Carry on.
Since it is posited here that Simpson wasn't the murderer because he wouldn't have been able to overcome his victims it is conspicuous that you fail to address the key argument of the thread. That argument wasn't mounted in his defence in either trial, and he was found liable by the civil jury that weighed up the evidence. But - as you say - carry on.
I didn't ask what you knew of the legal burdens. I said you were unaware of them, and your response proved it. The burden in civil cases in California is preponderance of the evidence, not "balance of the probabilities." And your response avoided mentioning the legal burden in the Simpson criminal case, as if failing to refer to it would somehow make whatever point you think you are making regarding the civil verdict magically true. That's how children think.
There was significantly different evidence introduced in the Simpson civil trial compared to the criminal trial. Prominently and importantly, Simpson testified in the civil trial (and was compelled to via deposition discovery). No Mark Fuhrman. More evidence of domestic abuse. Many more differences between the two. Hand-picked, privileged white jurors from Rancho Cucamonga. It was a very different trial. Again, whatever point you think you are making regarding the Simpson civil trial verdict is not as strong as you think it is. You just don't know enough - you don't know what you are talking about.
The preponderance of the evidence is the same as the balance of probabilities - it is different language to say the same thing, which is what is most likely on the facts.
No. No, it is not. The standard is the standard, not some other standard. You got the basic standard wrong. Now you are disassembling like some irrational actor.
The higher burden of proof in the criminal trial and the requirement of a unanimous verdict - plus the racial sympathies of the jury - gave Simpson an "out" in his criminal trial.
He didn't get an out. Criminal trials in the US are not an "out" for anything.
And your racist ideas are noted for the record. Black people are just as capable of rendering an objective verdict based on the evidence as white people. Those jurors took an oath that required them to be impartial. They were required to base their decision on facts and law as presented to them in the courtroom. They were not to be influenced by mere sentiment, conjecture, sympathy, passion, prejudice, public opinion, or public feeling. For you to come in here now saying black people are incapable of following those instructions and their oath is reprehensible.
As the civil trial subsequently showed - it was a verdict which went against the balance of probabilities - or the "preponderance of the evidence".
No, it didn't. Different trial, significantly different evidence, different legal standards, different evidentiary standards. You can't infer anything between the two trials. If you knew anything about law, you'd know that.
So that leaves you with the proposition of the thread that Simpson didn't have the necessary physical capacity to kill his victims. Strange, that neither trial made that his defence. Your pedantry overlooks that unfortunate fact.
You start with falsehoods and end up with a strawman. Very weak. Very weak posting. Your pedantry and strawman is nothing but an attempt to cover up your weak posting. Strawboy. Strawface. Strawass.
I'm probably older than you nitwit and recall completely what the trial was about. I've also never said anything regarding Simpson's supposed inability to commit the murders other than it was shown in court how it would occur.
As I mentioned, you jump into all sorts of threads and post babble. Sometimes it tangentially relates to the post you happen to reply to...with seeming randomness....and most times it doesn't.
Carry on.
Since it is posited here that Simpson wasn't the murderer because he wouldn't have been able to overcome his victims it is conspicuous that you fail to address the key argument of the thread. That argument wasn't mounted in his defence in either trial, and he was found liable by the civil jury that weighed up the evidence. But - as you say - carry on.
That defense was used in the criminal trial and it received a lot of attention:
Welcome to Famous Trials, the Web’s largest and most visited collection of original essays, trial transcripts and exhibits, maps, images, and other materials relating to the greatest trials in world history. “Famous Trials” f...
Since it is posited here that Simpson wasn't the murderer because he wouldn't have been able to overcome his victims it is conspicuous that you fail to address the key argument of the thread. That argument wasn't mounted in his defence in either trial, and he was found liable by the civil jury that weighed up the evidence. But - as you say - carry on.
That defense was used in the criminal trial and it received a lot of attention:
Yeah, I remember that. Armstrong should do some research before posting more uninformed, legally inaccurate information.
That was the whole "he looks like Tarzan, but he's really Tarzan's grandfather" theme that the defense ran. Saying his arthritis and old football injuries rendered Simpson incapable of even walking fast, much less committing this double murder. The defense raised this multiple times. Armstrong's claim that Simpson's physical condition was not an issue raised by the defense is balls-out wrong (as usual).
I'm probably older than you nitwit and recall completely what the trial was about. I've also never said anything regarding Simpson's supposed inability to commit the murders other than it was shown in court how it would occur.
As I mentioned, you jump into all sorts of threads and post babble. Sometimes it tangentially relates to the post you happen to reply to...with seeming randomness....and most times it doesn't.
Carry on.
Since it is posited here that Simpson wasn't the murderer because he wouldn't have been able to overcome his victims it is conspicuous that you fail to address the key argument of the thread. That argument wasn't mounted in his defence in either trial, and he was found liable by the civil jury that weighed up the evidence. But - as you say - carry on.
Impressive that you've chosen to use me as a poster to debate with when we agree on whether Simpson could have committed the murders physically and I've said so during the thread. Now...why would that be? Probably because you have some innate need to respond to all posts whether you agree with them or not to lend your "expertise".
The prosecution did present the scenario in which Simpson could have committed the murders himself in the criminal trial to avoid having the defense raise it as a possible issue. You seem to be to much of a dullard to understand this. However you're a trained "legal expert" seemingly out of your league here and in other threads so I guess it is par for the course.
The preponderance of the evidence is the same as the balance of probabilities - it is different language to say the same thing, which is what is most likely on the facts.
No. No, it is not. The standard is the standard, not some other standard. You got the basic standard wrong. Now you are disassembling like some irrational actor.
The higher burden of proof in the criminal trial and the requirement of a unanimous verdict - plus the racial sympathies of the jury - gave Simpson an "out" in his criminal trial.
He didn't get an out. Criminal trials in the US are not an "out" for anything.
And your racist ideas are noted for the record. Black people are just as capable of rendering an objective verdict based on the evidence as white people. Those jurors took an oath that required them to be impartial. They were required to base their decision on facts and law as presented to them in the courtroom. They were not to be influenced by mere sentiment, conjecture, sympathy, passion, prejudice, public opinion, or public feeling. For you to come in here now saying black people are incapable of following those instructions and their oath is reprehensible.
As the civil trial subsequently showed - it was a verdict which went against the balance of probabilities - or the "preponderance of the evidence".
No, it didn't. Different trial, significantly different evidence, different legal standards, different evidentiary standards. You can't infer anything between the two trials. If you knew anything about law, you'd know that.
So that leaves you with the proposition of the thread that Simpson didn't have the necessary physical capacity to kill his victims. Strange, that neither trial made that his defence. Your pedantry overlooks that unfortunate fact.
You start with falsehoods and end up with a strawman. Very weak. Very weak posting. Your pedantry and strawman is nothing but an attempt to cover up your weak posting. Strawboy. Strawface. Strawass.
You are a pedantic but stupid dipstick. I never said a civil trial is the same as a criminal trial - which is why I referred specifically to the civil trial finding. The relevance of that finding was that it confirmed he was a murderer.
You do not understand that a "preponderance of evidence" is effectively the same as the balance of probabilities. If it were not so there would be no "preponderance", as such, of evidence in favour of a particular finding. The weight of the evidence has to be in favour of the verdict, which is what the balance of probabilities also requires. In "lay speak" it simply means it was proven that Simpson killed his victims.
Your observation about the impartiality of the criminal jury is hogwash. Their verdict shocked many, because the evidence overwhelming suggested Simpson's guilt. The case had clearly become a racial cause celebre in the US. The subsequent civil case showed that a more impartial reading of the evidence against Simpson easily led to a verdict against him.
That then leaves us with the rubbish that this thread is based on, that Simpson couldn't have overpowered his victims. Neither trial used that as a defense argument - because it is nonsense. If it was in any way credible it would have been used in his defense. It wasn't. In your pompous drivel, in which you fixate on irrelevancies, you fail to address this point, either because you can't see it or are unable to construct a credible argument to explain why Simpson's defense didn't try it.
Since it is posited here that Simpson wasn't the murderer because he wouldn't have been able to overcome his victims it is conspicuous that you fail to address the key argument of the thread. That argument wasn't mounted in his defence in either trial, and he was found liable by the civil jury that weighed up the evidence. But - as you say - carry on.
Impressive that you've chosen to use me as a poster to debate with when we agree on whether Simpson could have committed the murders physically and I've said so during the thread. Now...why would that be? Probably because you have some innate need to respond to all posts whether you agree with them or not to lend your "expertise".
The prosecution did present the scenario in which Simpson could have committed the murders himself in the criminal trial to avoid having the defense raise it as a possible issue. You seem to be to much of a dullard to understand this. However you're a trained "legal expert" seemingly out of your league here and in other threads so I guess it is par for the course.
Gee, I wonder why the prosecution presented the argument that Simpson could have committed the murders himself? Could it have had something to do with the fact he was charged with homicide? Fortunately, we have a trial that answered that question in the affirmative, notwithstanding the casuistical drivel posted on this thread claiming his innocence.