Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
GunnyL said:Actually, OJ was found innocent, IIRC. But I agree with you. Semantics. If one is not guilty of the crime, then it is not right to find them financially liable for the wrongful deaths of.
What the civil court is being used as is retribution by a public where the majority does not agree with the criminal verdict. That's just wrong, no matter how you slice it.
(BTW the "you" is not you, gunny. Its the people that go with along with the government till the government turns on them)In criminal court you must be absolutely sure but in civil only 51% sure he did it is good enoughWow, i agree with OJ. How can both he and Robert Blake be aquitted of murder but then be held liable financially for the deaths?
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/11/18/D8DV7TU00.html
O.J.: Court System Is 'Double Jeopardy'
Nov 18 8:24 PM US/Eastern
Email this story
By LINDA DEUTSCH
AP Special Correspondent
O.J. Simpson on Friday questioned the system that allowed both him and actor Robert Blake to be found liable for murder after being acquitted in criminal court, calling it "double jeopardy."
"I still don't get how anyone can be found not guilty of a murder and then be found responsible for it in any way shape or form," Simpson said in a phone interview from his Florida home. "... If you're found not guilty, how can you be found responsible? I'd love to hear how that's not double jeopardy."
Simpson said he had no opinion about Blake's guilt or innocence in the murder of his wife, Bonny Lee Bakley, because he did not follow either trial closely.
Simpson said Blake was subjected to an unfair system in which a civil jury can essentially reverse a criminal jury's finding by using a lesser standard of proof in which jurors need be convinced only by "a preponderance of the evidence," meaning at least 51 percent.
"If that was the standard in criminal trials, only 51 percent, then so many people would be convicted that we'd have to build more jails," Simpson said. "The standard is the difference."
Simpson was acquitted of the murders of his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her friend, Ronald Goldman, then was sued in civil court where a jury found him liable for their deaths and awarded damages of $33.5 million. In Blake's case, the jury awarded $30 million, a figure Simpson said was suspiciously similar.
"It was too coincidental," he said.
In both trials, he said, lawyers were aware that the acquitted defendants were out of money and would not be able to pay the damages. Blake has said he's broke and owes money to the Internal Revenue Service. Before the trial began, Blake tried to settle with the family for $250,000, which he said was the remainder of his once-large fortune. They rejected the offer.
Simpson, a former football star at the University of Southern California and in the NFL, moved to Florida where he lives on a pension that is untouchable to satisfy court judgments.
"Trust me," Simpson said. "I'm happy with my life. I'm not complaining."
Simpson said he hopes that someone eventually will go the U.S. Supreme Court to challenge the system that allows double trials.
"I'd love to see the Supreme Court rule on one of these cases," he said. He also noted that a defendant must have the money to post a bond to appeal the judgment, which is usually beyond their financial ability.
Asked if he had any advice for Blake, he said, "If Robert Blake has friends and family around him, he'll do fine. I would give him the same advice I gave Michael (Jackson). You've got your kid. Go and raise your kid."
He added, "To me, the thing that's most disturbing is to watch these lawyers grand standing. It's all for TV and for the book deals. I predict they will make a book deal. They did it in my case."
I absolutely agree with OJ here. Whether he did it or not, the prosecutor didnt prove that he did and therfore he was innocent. So how the hell are lawyers allowed to bring a civil trial against them for the same offense? ITs a fucked up way to punish someone who was not found guilty and an easy way for lawyers to make more money.
The system worked perfectly. It didn’t allow a guy to get away with murder.Mr. P said:They're working within the system insein. There's nothing wrong with that.
IN this instance the system is AFU. We need to fix it as quickly as MS fixes bugs.
He wasn’t found innocent. And today we know he did itpegwinn said:Actually I do get it. I simply reject it as being "right and proper" as opposed to legal. I have never heard of someone being found "innocent" in the context you describe. When I say never, I mean never in the I am over forty and read a lot of news on crime and never have I heard that. Doesn't mean it doesn't happen. But it's as rare as a bloody steak. Just one more reason to introduce legislation to allow poly/drugs/vsr as part of the investigation process. And to build a no-shit truth machine eventually for use in court.
Actually, OJ was found innocent, IIRC. But I agree with you. Semantics. If one is not guilty of the crime, then it is not right to find them financially liable for the wrongful deaths of.
What the civil court is being used as is retribution by a public where the majority does not agree with the criminal verdict. That's just wrong, no matter how you slice it.
They didn’t test Blake for gun powder residew because he was famous and shot a con artist gold diggerPale Rider said:And if I'm not mistaken, during OJ's crimminal trial, only certain evidence could be used by the state, whereas in the civil trial, damn near anything could be used for evidence. Makes a difference when trying to convince a jury.
Yeah, basically, Simpson and Blake weren't guilty enough to meet the reasonable doubt standard, especially without the dismissed evidence, but they were more guilty than innocent, which is good enough for civil court.
That's not double jeopardy.Wow, i agree with OJ. How can both he and Robert Blake be aquitted of murder but then be held liable financially for the deaths?
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/11/18/D8DV7TU00.html
O.J.: Court System Is 'Double Jeopardy'
Nov 18 8:24 PM US/Eastern
Email this story
By LINDA DEUTSCH
AP Special Correspondent
O.J. Simpson on Friday questioned the system that allowed both him and actor Robert Blake to be found liable for murder after being acquitted in criminal court, calling it "double jeopardy."
"I still don't get how anyone can be found not guilty of a murder and then be found responsible for it in any way shape or form," Simpson said in a phone interview from his Florida home. "... If you're found not guilty, how can you be found responsible? I'd love to hear how that's not double jeopardy."
Simpson said he had no opinion about Blake's guilt or innocence in the murder of his wife, Bonny Lee Bakley, because he did not follow either trial closely.
Simpson said Blake was subjected to an unfair system in which a civil jury can essentially reverse a criminal jury's finding by using a lesser standard of proof in which jurors need be convinced only by "a preponderance of the evidence," meaning at least 51 percent.
"If that was the standard in criminal trials, only 51 percent, then so many people would be convicted that we'd have to build more jails," Simpson said. "The standard is the difference."
Simpson was acquitted of the murders of his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her friend, Ronald Goldman, then was sued in civil court where a jury found him liable for their deaths and awarded damages of $33.5 million. In Blake's case, the jury awarded $30 million, a figure Simpson said was suspiciously similar.
"It was too coincidental," he said.
In both trials, he said, lawyers were aware that the acquitted defendants were out of money and would not be able to pay the damages. Blake has said he's broke and owes money to the Internal Revenue Service. Before the trial began, Blake tried to settle with the family for $250,000, which he said was the remainder of his once-large fortune. They rejected the offer.
Simpson, a former football star at the University of Southern California and in the NFL, moved to Florida where he lives on a pension that is untouchable to satisfy court judgments.
"Trust me," Simpson said. "I'm happy with my life. I'm not complaining."
Simpson said he hopes that someone eventually will go the U.S. Supreme Court to challenge the system that allows double trials.
"I'd love to see the Supreme Court rule on one of these cases," he said. He also noted that a defendant must have the money to post a bond to appeal the judgment, which is usually beyond their financial ability.
Asked if he had any advice for Blake, he said, "If Robert Blake has friends and family around him, he'll do fine. I would give him the same advice I gave Michael (Jackson). You've got your kid. Go and raise your kid."
He added, "To me, the thing that's most disturbing is to watch these lawyers grand standing. It's all for TV and for the book deals. I predict they will make a book deal. They did it in my case."
I absolutely agree with OJ here. Whether he did it or not, the prosecutor didnt prove that he did and therfore he was innocent. So how the hell are lawyers allowed to bring a civil trial against them for the same offense? ITs a fucked up way to punish someone who was not found guilty and an easy way for lawyers to make more money.
Every plaintiff who has a claim against you may sue you separately.That's not double jeopardy.Wow, i agree with OJ. How can both he and Robert Blake be aquitted of murder but then be held liable financially for the deaths?
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/11/18/D8DV7TU00.html
O.J.: Court System Is 'Double Jeopardy'
Nov 18 8:24 PM US/Eastern
Email this story
By LINDA DEUTSCH
AP Special Correspondent
O.J. Simpson on Friday questioned the system that allowed both him and actor Robert Blake to be found liable for murder after being acquitted in criminal court, calling it "double jeopardy."
"I still don't get how anyone can be found not guilty of a murder and then be found responsible for it in any way shape or form," Simpson said in a phone interview from his Florida home. "... If you're found not guilty, how can you be found responsible? I'd love to hear how that's not double jeopardy."
Simpson said he had no opinion about Blake's guilt or innocence in the murder of his wife, Bonny Lee Bakley, because he did not follow either trial closely.
Simpson said Blake was subjected to an unfair system in which a civil jury can essentially reverse a criminal jury's finding by using a lesser standard of proof in which jurors need be convinced only by "a preponderance of the evidence," meaning at least 51 percent.
"If that was the standard in criminal trials, only 51 percent, then so many people would be convicted that we'd have to build more jails," Simpson said. "The standard is the difference."
Simpson was acquitted of the murders of his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her friend, Ronald Goldman, then was sued in civil court where a jury found him liable for their deaths and awarded damages of $33.5 million. In Blake's case, the jury awarded $30 million, a figure Simpson said was suspiciously similar.
"It was too coincidental," he said.
In both trials, he said, lawyers were aware that the acquitted defendants were out of money and would not be able to pay the damages. Blake has said he's broke and owes money to the Internal Revenue Service. Before the trial began, Blake tried to settle with the family for $250,000, which he said was the remainder of his once-large fortune. They rejected the offer.
Simpson, a former football star at the University of Southern California and in the NFL, moved to Florida where he lives on a pension that is untouchable to satisfy court judgments.
"Trust me," Simpson said. "I'm happy with my life. I'm not complaining."
Simpson said he hopes that someone eventually will go the U.S. Supreme Court to challenge the system that allows double trials.
"I'd love to see the Supreme Court rule on one of these cases," he said. He also noted that a defendant must have the money to post a bond to appeal the judgment, which is usually beyond their financial ability.
Asked if he had any advice for Blake, he said, "If Robert Blake has friends and family around him, he'll do fine. I would give him the same advice I gave Michael (Jackson). You've got your kid. Go and raise your kid."
He added, "To me, the thing that's most disturbing is to watch these lawyers grand standing. It's all for TV and for the book deals. I predict they will make a book deal. They did it in my case."
I absolutely agree with OJ here. Whether he did it or not, the prosecutor didnt prove that he did and therfore he was innocent. So how the hell are lawyers allowed to bring a civil trial against them for the same offense? ITs a fucked up way to punish someone who was not found guilty and an easy way for lawyers to make more money.
Double jeopardy is when you are tried twice by the same plaintiff.
From the blood trail and the cut on his left hand, he being right handed, that was enough evidence to convict him by an impartial jury.He wasn’t found innocent. And today we know he did itpegwinn said:Actually I do get it. I simply reject it as being "right and proper" as opposed to legal. I have never heard of someone being found "innocent" in the context you describe. When I say never, I mean never in the I am over forty and read a lot of news on crime and never have I heard that. Doesn't mean it doesn't happen. But it's as rare as a bloody steak. Just one more reason to introduce legislation to allow poly/drugs/vsr as part of the investigation process. And to build a no-shit truth machine eventually for use in court.
Actually, OJ was found innocent, IIRC. But I agree with you. Semantics. If one is not guilty of the crime, then it is not right to find them financially liable for the wrongful deaths of.
What the civil court is being used as is retribution by a public where the majority does not agree with the criminal verdict. That's just wrong, no matter how you slice it.
Not guilty doesn’t mean your innocent sonWow, i agree with OJ. How can both he and Robert Blake be aquitted of murder but then be held liable financially for the deaths?
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/11/18/D8DV7TU00.html
O.J.: Court System Is 'Double Jeopardy'
Nov 18 8:24 PM US/Eastern
Email this story
By LINDA DEUTSCH
AP Special Correspondent
O.J. Simpson on Friday questioned the system that allowed both him and actor Robert Blake to be found liable for murder after being acquitted in criminal court, calling it "double jeopardy."
"I still don't get how anyone can be found not guilty of a murder and then be found responsible for it in any way shape or form," Simpson said in a phone interview from his Florida home. "... If you're found not guilty, how can you be found responsible? I'd love to hear how that's not double jeopardy."
Simpson said he had no opinion about Blake's guilt or innocence in the murder of his wife, Bonny Lee Bakley, because he did not follow either trial closely.
Simpson said Blake was subjected to an unfair system in which a civil jury can essentially reverse a criminal jury's finding by using a lesser standard of proof in which jurors need be convinced only by "a preponderance of the evidence," meaning at least 51 percent.
"If that was the standard in criminal trials, only 51 percent, then so many people would be convicted that we'd have to build more jails," Simpson said. "The standard is the difference."
Simpson was acquitted of the murders of his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her friend, Ronald Goldman, then was sued in civil court where a jury found him liable for their deaths and awarded damages of $33.5 million. In Blake's case, the jury awarded $30 million, a figure Simpson said was suspiciously similar.
"It was too coincidental," he said.
In both trials, he said, lawyers were aware that the acquitted defendants were out of money and would not be able to pay the damages. Blake has said he's broke and owes money to the Internal Revenue Service. Before the trial began, Blake tried to settle with the family for $250,000, which he said was the remainder of his once-large fortune. They rejected the offer.
Simpson, a former football star at the University of Southern California and in the NFL, moved to Florida where he lives on a pension that is untouchable to satisfy court judgments.
"Trust me," Simpson said. "I'm happy with my life. I'm not complaining."
Simpson said he hopes that someone eventually will go the U.S. Supreme Court to challenge the system that allows double trials.
"I'd love to see the Supreme Court rule on one of these cases," he said. He also noted that a defendant must have the money to post a bond to appeal the judgment, which is usually beyond their financial ability.
Asked if he had any advice for Blake, he said, "If Robert Blake has friends and family around him, he'll do fine. I would give him the same advice I gave Michael (Jackson). You've got your kid. Go and raise your kid."
He added, "To me, the thing that's most disturbing is to watch these lawyers grand standing. It's all for TV and for the book deals. I predict they will make a book deal. They did it in my case."
I absolutely agree with OJ here. Whether he did it or not, the prosecutor didnt prove that he did and therfore he was innocent. So how the hell are lawyers allowed to bring a civil trial against them for the same offense? ITs a fucked up way to punish someone who was not found guilty and an easy way for lawyers to make more money.
