This is the problem. I THINK he did it. I also watched the trail, every day, like most Americans.
Seeing the inept prosecution there was no doubt he had to be found innocent but still, I'm sure he did it but no one can prove it.
Simpson’s blood being found at the crime seen was game, set, match and had I been on the jury, I would have voted guilty. Fuhrman’s N-bombs had nothing to do with finding the glove. Simpson’s blood was on both gloves,so they were his and the demonstration didn’t mean anything. Fung being sloppy in handling of blood evidence did not create a false positive.
Hinting that the LAPD framed Simpson was not reasonable doubt, and if it could be, it would be hard to convict any murderer.
You said you thought Simpson guilty, but you would have voted for acquittal? Really?
I didn't say I'd vote for acquittal. I said there was no doubt that he had to be found innocent. Remember, I watched the whole trial.
Back then, Court TV replayed it in the evening and the next day at work everyone talked about it.
The prosecution was inept. There WAS a reasonable doubt and one reason I've never been chosen for jury duty is that I make it clear that if I THINK the person committed the crime I would vote guilty.
Things like the gloves not fitting were enough to cast reasonable doubt.
Simpson’s blood being found at the crime seen was game, set, match and had I been on the jury, I would have voted guilty. Fuhrman’s N-bombs had nothing to do with finding the glove. Simpson’s blood was on both gloves,so they were his and the demonstration didn’t mean anything. Fung being sloppy in handling of blood evidence did not create a false positive.
Hinting that the LAPD framed Simpson was not reasonable doubt, and if it could be, it would be hard to convict any murderer.
You said you thought Simpson guilty, but you would have voted for acquittal? Really?
I didn't say I'd vote for acquittal. I said there was no doubt that he had to be found innocent. Remember, I watched the whole trial.
Back then, Court TV replayed it in the evening and the next day at work everyone talked about it.
The prosecution was inept. There WAS a reasonable doubt and one reason I've never been chosen for jury duty is that I make it clear that if I THINK the person committed the crime I would vote guilty.
Things like the gloves not fitting were enough to cast reasonable doubt.
He didn’t have to be found innocent and a juror can vote however they want. Did Ito tell them they had to acquit Simpson? The blood evidence, and other things, would have been enough me to vote for guilty and if I had been on that jury, I would have stuck to my guns.
Simpson’s blood being on the gloves, proved they were his, and them supposedly not fitting was meaningless. Framing Simpson was logistically impossible, there was no reasonable doubt and actually no doubt at all.
This is for all you super sleuths who have never been in a physical altercation.
If a man can kill two people, younger and stronger than him, he would have definite marks on him. His DNA under his victim's nails, bite marks, swollen body parts.
Why weren't there any marks on OJ? Plus, it is dust in the wind as OJ dies sometime back.
Let's keep beating a dead horse.
A civil trial that examined all the evidence concluded he did it.
This is for all you super sleuths who have never been in a physical altercation.
If a man can kill two people, younger and stronger than him, he would have definite marks on him. His DNA under his victim's nails, bite marks, swollen body parts.
Why weren't there any marks on OJ? Plus, it is dust in the wind as OJ dies sometime back.
Let's keep beating a dead horse.
A civil trial that examined all the evidence concluded he did it.
Civil trial also said Trump is a rapist. People just don’t take the results as seriously as they do a criminal one
"Maybe Lee Harvey Oswald was framed. I would need to see all of the facts first."
The facts have been around for 62 years but you haven't seen them all yet. Sometimes you are very amusing. But entirely unintentionally.
What you show you are absolutely unable to understand is that an intentional killing is murder whether or not a court says so, it is a determination of fact, but a conviction for murder is required by a court. Hence an assassin who kills someone (the facts allow no alternative - it may have been filmed or seen by numerable witnessess) and is then shot down has committed a murder; the facts can confirm that when there is no trial. A trial is chiefly a requirement to ensure the rights of an accused are upheld. A civil court is not upholding the rights of a person accused of a crime; it is examining the liability of a defendant based on the facts - the evidence. It will come to determinations of fact based on the balance of probabilities. The finding of liability for intentional killing shows that the defendant committed murder but the court isn't imposing a criminal conviction. So in establishing liability it doesn't use the term "murder"; it doesn't need to, even though that is what it has effectively concluded has happened. An intentional killing is murder - but OJ couldn't be retried because of double jeopardy; he had been acquitted by a criminal court. But this is beyond a badly programmed bot.
Regarding Oswald, I'm not sure we got the whole story.
Regarding OJ, the question is whether "wrongful death" and "battery" are "intentional killings".
Stabbing two people to death can only be intentional. Intentional killing is also inherent in the definition of "wrongful death". "Battery" further says he attacked them. Murder, as it is commonly understood, describes the act; the facts establish liability for that act in a civil trial. The purpose of a criminal trial is to prove the charge and whether the accused is guilty. It is a different process. But a murder can occur regardless of whether anyone is subsequently found guilty in a criminal court.
Since you haven't lived long enough to remember much of the 20th century you're not particularly informed about the Kennedy assassination. I remember it well. I also saw Oswald killed by Ruby in the news. These events were examined and debated for decades after. Nothing has established that it was anyone other than Oswald. Thus, he murdered JFK. That is what an assassination is - a murder. It didn't need a trial to confirm that is what happened.
This post was edited 2 minutes after it was posted.
This is for all you super sleuths who have never been in a physical altercation.
If a man can kill two people, younger and stronger than him, he would have definite marks on him. His DNA under his victim's nails, bite marks, swollen body parts.
Why weren't there any marks on OJ? Plus, it is dust in the wind as OJ dies sometime back.
Let's keep beating a dead horse.
He out weighed Nicole by about 100 pounds so I don’t think she was stronger. He also had a big size advantage over Goldman and had him trapped in a corner. Simpson was wearing long sleeves and gloves so there wouldn’t have been any marks on him. People still talk about the assassination of JFK, the Simpson case is far more interesting and it’s not a dead horse.
Incapacitating one victim and taking care of the other can be done within seconds if the victims are surprised. This has been an argument (that one person couldn't have done it) which has made no sense to me since the first time I heard it many years ago. It's not like the victims were expecting an attack. He was likely on them before either had a chance to react.
Regarding Oswald, I'm not sure we got the whole story.
Regarding OJ, the question is whether "wrongful death" and "battery" are "intentional killings".
Stabbing two people to death can only be intentional. Intentional killing is also inherent in the definition of "wrongful death". "Battery" further says he attacked them. Murder, as it is commonly understood, describes the act; the facts establish liability for that act in a civil trial. The purpose of a criminal trial is to prove the charge and whether the accused is guilty. It is a different process. But a murder can occur regardless of whether anyone is subsequently found guilty in a criminal court.
Since you haven't lived long enough to remember much of the 20th century you're not particularly informed about the Kennedy assassination. I remember it well. I also saw Oswald killed by Ruby in the news. These events were examined and debated for decades after. Nothing has established that it was anyone other than Oswald. Thus, he murdered JFK. That is what an assassination is - a murder. It didn't need a trial to confirm that is what happened.
Regarding Oswald, I'm aware of the official reporting, as well as questions about a number of inconsistencies.
Regarding OJ, these look like things you say, and not what the courts said.
Stabbing two people to death can only be intentional. Intentional killing is also inherent in the definition of "wrongful death". "Battery" further says he attacked them. Murder, as it is commonly understood, describes the act; the facts establish liability for that act in a civil trial. The purpose of a criminal trial is to prove the charge and whether the accused is guilty. It is a different process. But a murder can occur regardless of whether anyone is subsequently found guilty in a criminal court.
Since you haven't lived long enough to remember much of the 20th century you're not particularly informed about the Kennedy assassination. I remember it well. I also saw Oswald killed by Ruby in the news. These events were examined and debated for decades after. Nothing has established that it was anyone other than Oswald. Thus, he murdered JFK. That is what an assassination is - a murder. It didn't need a trial to confirm that is what happened.
Regarding Oswald, I'm aware of the official reporting, as well as questions about a number of inconsistencies.
Regarding OJ, these look like things you say, and not what the courts said.
Your view of "inconsistencies" about Oswald have never altered the official finding that he killed JFK. So he murdered JFK.
The OJ civil trial based its findings on the evidence before it that OJ killed his ex wife and lover. Their deaths were not accident or the result of negligence; they were intentionally killed - stabbed - and so that is what he was found liable for. We can say then that he murdered them and the court's decision enables that conclusion. It doesn't require a criminal conviction to arrive at that.
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
Stabbing two people to death can only be intentional. Intentional killing is also inherent in the definition of "wrongful death". "Battery" further says he attacked them. Murder, as it is commonly understood, describes the act; the facts establish liability for that act in a civil trial. The purpose of a criminal trial is to prove the charge and whether the accused is guilty. It is a different process. But a murder can occur regardless of whether anyone is subsequently found guilty in a criminal court.
Since you haven't lived long enough to remember much of the 20th century you're not particularly informed about the Kennedy assassination. I remember it well. I also saw Oswald killed by Ruby in the news. These events were examined and debated for decades after. Nothing has established that it was anyone other than Oswald. Thus, he murdered JFK. That is what an assassination is - a murder. It didn't need a trial to confirm that is what happened.
Regarding Oswald, I'm aware of the official reporting, as well as questions about a number of inconsistencies.
Regarding OJ, these look like things you say, and not what the courts said.
Regarding Oswald, I’m not aware any inconsistencies and everything pointed at him.
There is no doubt in my mind that OJ murdered his wife and Goldman. There's just too much evidence that points to him. Just the shoes he wore alone are so rare it is unlikely to have two people wearing the same exact shoe at the crime scene.
Regarding Oswald, I'm aware of the official reporting, as well as questions about a number of inconsistencies.
Regarding OJ, these look like things you say, and not what the courts said.
Your view of "inconsistencies" about Oswald have never altered the official finding that he killed JFK. So he murdered JFK.
The OJ civil trial based its findings on the evidence before it that OJ killed his ex wife and lover. Their deaths were not accident or the result of negligence; they were intentionally killed - stabbed - and so that is what he was found liable for. We can say then that he murdered them and the court's decision enables that conclusion. It doesn't require a criminal conviction to arrive at that.
Regarding Oswald, I'd need to see all of the facts, and not just a summary finding.
Regarding OJ, "We can say" a lot of things. But the question here is what did the courts say?
Regarding Oswald, I'm aware of the official reporting, as well as questions about a number of inconsistencies.
Regarding OJ, these look like things you say, and not what the courts said.
Regarding Oswald, I’m not aware any inconsistencies and everything pointed at him.
I'm usually not one to promote conspiracy theories, but are you saying all of these questions and allegations of cover-ups have been answered or debunked beyond all reasonable doubts? As I told "headstrong", I would need to review all of the available facts, and not rely on some summary finding:
The assassination of John F. Kennedy, the 35th president of the United States, on November 22, 1963, has spawned numerous conspiracy theories. These theories allege the involvement of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), th...
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.
