Did anyone see the new book buy one of OJs old friends? Basically he said that they told OJ not to take any of his anti-inflamitory medicine so that the gloves wouldnt fit when he tried them on.

has OJ found the real killers yet? i'm sure they are hiding behind some bushes at a golf course in Florida..

__________________
"blacker than the blackest black... times infinity."- Nathan Explosion
The.. Best.. Thread..Ever...

He's known from the start, who the killer is.

The guilt or innocence of OJ notwithstanding (he was found innocent in criminal court), I am sceptical of any tell-all tome with such high publicity value.

I certaintly will never buy the book and frankly I hope it flops.

-V

A picky technicality, but he was found "not guilty" rather than "innocent"--the verdict is "not guilty" specifically because it means he wasn't proven guilty, not that he was proven innocent.

On the other hand, the lawsuit afterward resolved on the decision that he did it. He's not guilty but he did it is the courts' rulings.

__________________
-----
Todd (Bowie, MD, US, North America, Earth, Sol System, Vega region, Local Bubble, Orion arm, Milky Way Galaxy, Local Group, Virgo A Cluster, Virgo supercluster, the universe in which spock is clean shaven)

Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.

personal page: http://blog.astrosketches.info

Supposedly the amount of evidence that was not presented in court was quite a bit. During the civil suit when all the evidence was presented they found him guilty. I think it is beyond a reasonable doubt that OJ legally got away with a double murder.

Actually, it's to a preponderance of evidence. The standards are different in civil court.

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

My understanding of the event at the time was that having Mr. Simpson try on the gloves was a last second bit of improv at the close of the procecutor introducing them into evidence. Kind of hard to prepare one way or the other for something you don't know is coming.

I don't chose to believe OJ is guiltly of murder, but I understand that that is my preference. I don't like to believe that kind of thing about anybody. Just as people's believing he did do it is their preference. They weren't there. I wasn't there. We can't know. So what we choose to believe says nothing about Mr Simpson. But it does say something about us.

In terms of taking or not taking drugs in advance, maybe, but he did prepare in a way that's much quicker. He was clearly flexing his hand and thumb at a funky angle that would make anyone's own gloves not come on. (I was amazed that the jury seemed not to have seen something so obvious.) Anyone can deliberately do this with a pair of his/her own gloves if they have a snug/tight fit, either on the first try or with no more than a couple of minutes of practice. All he would have had to do to prepare that trick is pause outside the courtroom door on the way in that morning to make sure he got the performance down right.

How does your technicality rationalize with the presumption of innocence? For me, the logical extension of 'presumption of innocence', is...if one is not proven guilty then one was innocent all along.

Again, whether we agree with the verdict or not, the OP is really about the book, is it not?

legally being presumed innocent is far different than actually being innocent.
it just means that the prosecution has to prove that he did it beyond a reasonable doubt- and they didn't do much to prove to the jury that he did it more than the defense cast doubt on whether he did it.
i watched that trial every day when it was on, and the prosecution just seemed like they were in way over their heads and trying to play to the cameras, and the Defense had Johnny Cochran and his precursor to the Chewbacca defense..

__________________
"blacker than the blackest black... times infinity."- Nathan Explosion
The.. Best.. Thread..Ever...

I agree 100% and having watched the trial, as well, I don't necessarily agree with the outcome, but in the eyes of the law....

Not guilty

I still fail to understand how the Constitutional prohibition against being tried twice for the same crime would nevertheless allow for someone to be found not guilty in a criminal court yet allow them to be tried a second time, and found guilty, in a civil court...

Uh... Were they, or where they not found "not guilty" the first time around? And why doesn't that apparently no bearing on the second trial?

And why is there even a second trial, given the law of the land?

__________________
I am Mugs, of the Alien clan of Usa, Nordamerica, a Terran, of Sol.

Perception isn't reality. It's merely an abstraction thereof, and quite often not a very good one at that.

"Staying young requires the unceasing cultivation of the ability to unlearn old falsehoods." - Heinlein

"Freedom begins when you tell Ms. Grundy to go fly a kite." - Heinlein

If I recall, the second trial was for a different cause, not murder. I think he was being sued for violating Nicole's and Ronald's rights or some such legal babble. Different rules of evidence apply.

Double jeopardy, if I recall, applies to criminal prosecution. Further, the charges were different--in a wrongful death suit, it isn't necessary to prove that someone actually killed the person. Just that they in some way caused the death. Now, in this particular case, the plaintiff's assertion (not prosecution, as there were no criminal consequences) was that the defendant actually killed the people for whose deaths he was being sued. However, if the assertion was different, it could still have been wrongful death.

Standard caveat about not being a lawyer. I don't have the specialized knowledge that's so important in a case like this.

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

Yes. And the rule against double jeopardy holds against a particular 'sovereign'. In other words, if you win against the state, the feds still can take a shot at you. Many legal scholars find this a bit unsettling.

Civil litigation does not involve charges. The guilt of the defendant is not at issue, only his liability for whatever claims the plaintiff has made.

It's been my understanding that the constitutional wording "shall not be placed in jeopardy of life or limb" or something close to that, has been interpreted to mean "punishment for a crime" as opposed to the restitution for a loss in a civil case. On the other hand, I know at least in Maryland, once a lawsuit has gone to court--you have a short period of time to file an appeal or ask for a rejudgment (in which a second judge looks over the court proceedings--don't think you go back to the courtroom) (it was 30 days when I was defendant in a lawsuit for $10,000) but other than that--if you are denied appeal or rejudgment, that's it--you may not sue again on the same matter--not even for a different loss on the same matter. So, after 30 days, my lawyer sent me the best bill of all ($0.00) and said, essentially, it's over and the plaintiff can not try again. In fact, before the trial, I was told, if I wanted to countersue, say so now, or lose the opportunity forever. But I doubt I'd get money on the grounds that the plaintiff was trying to make free money and caused me inconvenience, so I didn't.

As for the answer to the Veeger question, Novaderrik said it all.

__________________
-----
Todd (Bowie, MD, US, North America, Earth, Sol System, Vega region, Local Bubble, Orion arm, Milky Way Galaxy, Local Group, Virgo A Cluster, Virgo supercluster, the universe in which spock is clean shaven)

Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.

personal page: http://blog.astrosketches.info

I think that basically the constitution (any constitution) is meant to regulate the relationship between individuals and the state, not between individuals and other individuals (regulated through contracts). So the US constitution, like many others, prevents the state from prosecuting a person twice for the same crime. But it has nothing to do with civil proceedings. So for example, if John Lennon's estate sued you for stealing a song, Paul McCartney could still sue you for stealing the same song (if they are co-copyright holders).

I didn't know the part about states and the federal government. But I also find it somewhat unsettling.

__________________
As above, so below

Not quite right, Jens. I'm a little fuzzy on my civil procedure (so i'll be vague), but US civil law strives to bring all interested parties to the table at the same time, to prevent such duplicate proceddings as you suggest (Lennon, then McCartney suing). Therefore, the plaintiff has a certain duties in the way of notifying potential co-plaintiffs (and defendants) and if they decline to join the suit, they will most likely have lost the right to sue later.

The US Constitution indeed focuses on restraining and empowering the state (used in the general sense), but it has bearing on interactions between individuals as well, not the least of which is setting up a federal court system for adjudication of certain disputes.

For criminal charges one is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. there is no such limitation in civil.