O.J. Simpson Thrown Out Of Steakhouse

[The Central Scrutinizer]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18562630/

“I didn’t want to serve him because of my convictions of what he’s done to those families,” Jeff Ruby said in a telephone interview Tuesday. “The way he continues to torture the lives of those families ... with his behavior, attitude and conduct.”

:clap: :clap: :clap:

[alfaniner]

Simpson, an NFL Hall of Famer and Heisman Trophy winner, was found innocent in 1995 of killing his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and Ron Goldman but was found liable in a civil trial that followed.

No.! He was found "Not Guilty". The terms are very different. (But still wrong.)

[ImaginalDisc]

I thought he swore not to rest until he found the real killer? What's he doing in a steakhouse? Did he finish combing every nightclub and golf course in Florida already?

[WildCat]

That took a lot of guts, considering the amount of knives laying around a steakhouse.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

No.! He was found "Not Guilty". The terms are very different. (But still wrong.)

Which is why I think the choice of verdicts should be "Proven" and "Not Proven" - after all that is what the jury is being asked to decide, not whether or not the accused is actually guilty.

[calebprime]

Everyone has to sympathize with the restaurant owner, but:

They should serve him unless he's wearing tight gloves and a ski-mask, or unless he's brought autographed copies of Of Course I Did It to hand out.

They don't have to make eye-contact with him or tell him the prices of the daily specials.

But piling on is piling on.

Oh, and if I were the owner, I'd warn the waitresses not to date him.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I thought he swore not to rest until he found the real killer? What's he doing in a steakhouse? Did he finish combing every nightclub and golf course in Florida already?

Well, he knows that the real killer(s) used sharp knives. What better place to look than a steak house?

[slingblade]

Everyone has to sympathize with the restaurant owner, but:

They should serve him unless he's wearing tight gloves and a ski-mask, or unless he's brought autographed copies of Of Course I Did It to hand out.

They don't have to make eye-contact with him or tell him the prices of the daily specials.

But piling on is piling on.

Oh, and if I were the owner, I'd warn the waitresses not to date him.

"We Reserve the Right to Refuse Service to Anyone" means pretty much that.
It doesn't end with "Provided We Have a Good Reason Most of You Can Get Behind." :cool:

[BPSCG]

Oh, look, he can afford to go to the Kentucky Derby! Isn't that nice!

I suppose that means he's paid the Browns and the Goldmans the money the court ordered him to pay them. What was that - something like $30 million?

Right?

[shemp]

Oh, look, he can afford to go to the Kentucky Derby! Isn't that nice!

I suppose that means he's paid the Browns and the Goldmans the money the court ordered him to pay them. What was that - something like $30 million?

Right?

1. I'm sure the guy has money stashed away somewhere that the courts haven't been able to find it.

2. He's a celebrity. Some people will pick up his check just to be around him.

3. Despite my certainty that he did it, he was found not guilty in a court of law. He should be treated that way. Of course, this doesn't mean you have to do business with him. I would have thrown him out too.

[billydkid]

Good for them. Me, I don't think I could tolerate being in the room with him. I don't know how anybody tolerates being in the presence of a living, breathing monster.

[BPSCG]

Good for them. Me, I don't think I could tolerate being in the room with him. I don't know how anybody tolerates being in the presence of a living, breathing monster.Rather than spend five minutes in the same room with him, I'd prefer to have an intimate dinner with $ylvia Browne, and an intellectual discussion with Paris Hilton.

At the same time.

Every night for a month.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Rather than spend five minutes in the same room with him, I'd prefer to have an intimate dinner with $ylvia Browne, and an intellectual discussion with Paris Hilton.

At the same time.

Every night for a month.

I'd prefer to bang Paris Hilton.

Every night for a month.

But that's just me.

[billydkid]

I'd prefer to bang Paris Hilton.

Every night for a month.

But that's just me.I don't know, Sylvia is pretty damn smokin'! Oh, that's just her breath...

[strathmeyer]

I mean, come on. OJ was found not guilty in one of his two trials. What more do you need?

[Phillybee]

It's hard to believe that the trial was 12 years ago. I remember it as the most racially divisive news event in the history of my life. I remember being in the break room at the company I worked for, and the cheering of many at the verdict, and the dead, stunned silence of everyone else, who sort of slinked away, back to their duties, and to ponder, muted and shocked at both the outcome of the trial and the odd behavior of people, cheering for a man they never met.

It's a chilling and strange memory, that's all I've got to say about it.

[shemp]

O.J.'s attorney is playing the race card. What a surprise!

O.J. attorney may sue Louisville restaurant (http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070509/NEWS01/70509013)

O.J. Simpson’s attorney, Jack Koff*, said he may sue Jeff Ruby, owner of Jeff Ruby's steakhouse in Louisville after Ruby refused to serve the former NFL star Friday night. See story here.

Galanter said that the incident was about race, and he intended to pursue the matter and possibly go after the restaurant’s liquor license.

Be scared. Be very very SCARED!:

“He screwed with the wrong guy, he really did,” Galanter told The Associated Press by telephone last night.

Yeah, and my big brother can beat up your big brother, nyah nyah!

* OK, I know that's not his real name, but that's what he is.

[hgc]

It's hard to believe that the trial was 12 years ago. I remember it as the most racially divisive news event in the history of my life. I remember being in the break room at the company I worked for, and the cheering of many at the verdict, and the dead, stunned silence of everyone else, who sort of slinked away, back to their duties, and to ponder, muted and shocked at both the outcome of the trial and the odd behavior of people, cheering for a man they never met.

It's a chilling and strange memory, that's all I've got to say about it.


What was so stunning about it is that it demonstrated how communities of interest can have such drastically different views of reality.

[LostAngeles]

Rather than spend five minutes in the same room with him, I'd prefer to have an intimate dinner with $ylvia Browne, and an intellectual discussion with Paris Hilton.

At the same time.

Every night for a month.

Well, they won't kill you...

I'd prefer to bang Paris Hilton.

Every night for a month.

But that's just me.

...because penicillin is pretty effective against a lot of things.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

O.J.'s attorney is playing the race card. What a surprise!

O.J. attorney may sue Louisville restaurant (http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070509/NEWS01/70509013)



Be scared. Be very very SCARED!:



Yeah, and my big brother can beat up your big brother, nyah nyah!

* OK, I know that's not his real name, but that's what he is.

I think Ruby has nothing to fear.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

What was so stunning about it is that it demonstrated how communities of interest can have such drastically different views of reality.

Except in that case, one "community" was out of touch with reality.

[BPSCG]

I think Ruby has nothing to fear.I, for one, would contribute to his legal defense fund.

[Quinn]

Hey, I used to work for that guy! (The restaurant owner, not O.J.) Good on him for doing what he thought was right and not caring what other people think.

[Aoidoi]

Well, they won't kill you...



...because penicillin is pretty effective against a lot of things.Actually, I believe penicillin isn't effective against what Paris has. (Herpes, if the gossip is correct and I remember correctly)

That aside, I gotta figure a restaurant is on solid ground refusing to serve someone famous because of something they did. I don't think "celebrity" falls under any of the protected classes that could sue.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Hey, I used to work for that guy! (The restaurant owner, not O.J.)

Details?

[Quinn]

Details?

Not many. I played piano in one of his restaurants for a little while back in college. I heard this place hired piano players, so I called it, asked for him, and left a message on his voice mail saying I was interested in playing there. Turned out that unbeknownst to me, he was considered a Very Powerful Man of the sort you don't just call up and ask for a job. But he mistook my ignorance for balls, which he apparently admired, so he told the regular pianist to hire me when he needed a sub. Never met the guy face to face.

[skeptifem]

lol his lawyer is going to sue, saying its racial. i cant see how that could possibly be won.

[Bob Klase]

3. Despite my certainty that he did it, he was found not guilty in a court of law. He should be treated that way.


With some regrets I have agree that he should be treated that way by the government and the law. How's he's treated by everyone else is up to everyone else as long as they stay within the law.

[UserGoogol]

I dunno, murderers gotta eat too. It unfair to me if people can be thrown out of restaurants for reasons unrelated to their conduct in the restaurant even if they are a murderer. I mean, it's not like there was really a serious chance that he was going to go off and start murdering people. The worst that could happen would be that people might be a bit uncomfortable, but on the other hand, people might react by saying "Hey, that's OJ Simpson! He was in The Naked Gun and then he killed his wife!" Two wrongs don't make a right. But at the same time, I admit that restricting a person's right to control their businesses to the point that they must allow murderers into their restaurants is a bit extreme; it shouldn't necessarily be legally mandated or anything like that. (Maybe it should be, but it's a really complicated issue.) Still though, I don't feel "Yay! Justice is finally had, OJ can't eat at an upscale steak restaurant!"

[Bob Klase]

Galanter said that the incident was about race, and he intended to pursue the matter and possibly go after the restaurant’s liquor license.


Well, if it's a jury trial then OJ probably figures he has a good chance of winning again. He knows firsthand how wrong a jury can be.

“He screwed with the wrong guy, he really did,” Galanter told The Associated Press by telephone last night.


He's got a point. You should really think twice before you screw with a guy that will slice up two people with a knife and never lose a wink of sleep over it.

[DoubtingStephen]

I guess the only good thing that came out of the OJ Simpson murder trial was the realization that a rich man can get away with murder in this great country regardless of his race, creed, or national origin.

Hats off to Mr Ruby!

[fuelair]

, and to ponder, muted and shocked at both the outcome of the trial and the odd behavior of people, cheering for a man they never met.

It's a chilling and strange memory, that's all I've got to say about it.


What man? I thought you said originally they were cheering about a piece of filth assisted by moral slime (AKA Cochran et.al.) to beat justice.:mad:

[Bob Klase]

What man? I thought you said originally they were cheering about a piece of filth assisted by moral slime (AKA Cochran et.al.) to beat justice.:mad:

I'm not a big fan of defense lawyers like Cochran. But to be fair, I think the piece of filth got more assistance from an incompetent prosecution team than from Cochran.

The book, Triumph of Justice tells the story of the civil trial and in many ways shows where the criminal prosecutors failed.

[steverino]

What was so stunning about it is that it demonstrated how communities of interest can have such drastically different views of reality.

So do we know Obama's take on this? He must be of two minds, eh?;)

[Langis]

OJ Simpson was found NOT GUILTY by a court of law. NOT GUILTY is how he should be treated unless he proves otherwise.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

OJ Simpson was found NOT GUILTY by a court of law. NOT GUILTY is how he should be treated unless he proves otherwise.

Irrelevant. Anyone with an IQ higher than 10 knows he is a murderer. That is how he should be treated.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

OJ Simpson was found NOT GUILTY by a court of law. NOT GUILTY is how he should be treated unless he proves otherwise.

And here is a perfect demonstration of why we need Proven/Not Proven.

The jury are asked to determine whether it has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed the crime. Unfortunately the verdict they return does not reflect this - they are most definitely NOT stating that the defendant is Not Guilty (as in did not commit the offence) as that is not their role.

[pgwenthold]

OJ Simpson was found NOT GUILTY by a court of law. NOT GUILTY is how he should be treated unless he proves otherwise.



As far as I know, Simpson has been completely treated as NOT GUILTY, at least legally. And that is the all NOT GUILTY means.

It does not mean that private citizens cannot or should not consider him to be a total pile of shirt and a massive creep. Restaurant owners are allowed to refuse service to people they don't like, including people they think are creeps.

[Beerina]

It's hard to believe that the trial was 12 years ago. I remember it as the most racially divisive news event in the history of my life. I remember being in the break room at the company I worked for, and the cheering of many at the verdict, and the dead, stunned silence of everyone else, who sort of slinked away, back to their duties, and to ponder, muted and shocked at both the outcome of the trial and the odd behavior of people, cheering for a man they never met.

It's a chilling and strange memory, that's all I've got to say about it.

That was the major story for one solid year. Every day, it was "what happened at the OJ trial today?

When the verdict was read, pizza places announced that, for five minutes, nobody was calling them, which is an unheard of stretch of time for that to happen.

I recall an opinion column after all the outrage by technorati about the verdict -- it pointed out how all the outraged science and engineering-minded folk work to get out of jury duty because they're "too valuable" to the company, so if the jury ends up populated with nincompoops, you have nobody to blame but yourselves.

[brodski]

And here is a perfect demonstration of why we need Proven/Not Proven.

The jury are asked to determine whether it has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed the crime. Unfortunately the verdict they return does not reflect this - they are most definitely NOT stating that the defendant is Not Guilty (as in did not commit the offence) as that is not their role.

But the Scots abolished the proven/ not proven verdict (moving to Guilty/ not guilty/ not proven), when they were faced with a case where the defendant had committed the act he was accused of (killing a Lord) but was “not guilty” of murder (it was self defence).

IMHO, unless you are going to allow people to be tried for the same crime more than once, I think guilty/ not guilty is the only practical solution. Leaving someone with the stigma of a “not proven” verdict with no way to clear their name is, again IMHO, a travesty of justice.

[hgc]

Ah, not proven. In a funny little bit of political theater, Sen. Arlen Specter tried to vote "Not Proven" in Bill Clinton's impeachment trial. It was not accepted, and he went ahead and changed it to "Not Guilty," under protest.

[strathmeyer]

OJ Simpson was found NOT GUILTY by a court of law. NOT GUILTY is how he should be treated unless he proves otherwise.

IN ONE OF TWO TRIALS!

Langis, are you saying that you would want your daughter dating OJ Simpson? You think that would be a good idea? Maybe she could hang out with Micheal Jackson, too.

A murderer is a murderer is a murderer.

[steverino]

A murderer is a murderer is a murderer.

If O.J. kills again, then it will be his third.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

But the Scots abolished the proven/ not proven verdict (moving to Guilty/ not guilty/ not proven), when they were faced with a case where the defendant had committed the act he was accused of (killing a Lord) but was “not guilty” of murder (it was self defence).

True, however under the modern legal system they could quite correctly bring a verdict of not proven on a murder charge if the accused was acting in self defence.

IMHO, unless you are going to allow people to be tried for the same crime more than once, I think guilty/ not guilty is the only practical solution. Leaving someone with the stigma of a “not proven” verdict with no way to clear their name is, again IMHO, a travesty of justice.

If the only possible verdicts are Proven & Not Proven why should there be any more of a stigma than a Not Guilty verdict? The problems arise from having Not Proven as a third choice which is interpreted as the jury saying "we think you did it but we can't prove it". And as this thread shows, a Not Guilty verdict is no guarantee of no stigme.

[calebprime]

"We Reserve the Right to Refuse Service to Anyone" means pretty much that.
It doesn't end with "Provided We Have a Good Reason Most of You Can Get Behind." :cool:

(irrelevant personal aside not related to OJ)

(in my best Billy Bob Thornton imitation: )

Well, allright den. I like them 'taters.

(Would the restaurant be willing to serve the character you're named after?)

[skeptifem]

With some regrets I have agree that he should be treated that way by the government and the law. How's he's treated by everyone else is up to everyone else as long as they stay within the law.


he owes the families a lot of money from civil court and still hasnt attempted to pay up, and is going out for friggin steak. thats reason enough for me to refuse the guy service based on his actions.

[Kerberos]

he owes the families a lot of money from civil court and still hasnt attempted to pay up, and is going out for friggin steak. thats reason enough for me to refuse the guy service based on his actions.

Not that I want to defend OJ or anything, but it always struck me as odd that you could be found liable in a civil suit for a murder you had been aquited for. Is stuff like that normal?

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Not that I want to defend OJ or anything, but it always struck me as odd that you could be found liable in a civil suit for a murder you had been aquited for. Is stuff like that normal?

No reason why not - different level of proof required.

[BPSCG]

The men who murdered Virginia's [BPSCG note: Virginia City, Nevada] original twenty-six cemetery-occupants were never punished. Why? Because Alfred the Great, when he invented trial by jury and knew that he had admirably framed it to secure justice in his age of the world, was not aware that in the nineteenth century the condition of things would be so entirely changed that unless he rose from the grave and altered the jury plan to meet the emergency, it would prove the most ingenious and infallible agency for defeating justice that human wisdom could contrive. For how could he imagine that we simpletons would go on using his jury plan after circumstances had stripped it of its usefulness, any more than he could imagine that we would go on using his candle-clock after we had invented chronometers? In his day news could not travel fast, and hence he could easily find a jury of honest, intelligent men who had not heard of the case they were called to try --but in our day of telegraphs and newspapers his plan compels us to swear in juries composed of fools and rascals, because the system rigidly excludes honest men and men of brains.

I remember one of those sorrowful farces, in Virginia, which we call a jury trial. A noted desperado killed Mr. B., a good citizen, in the most wanton and cold-blooded way. Of course the papers were full of it, and all men capable of reading, read about it. And of course all men not deaf and dumb and idiotic, talked about it. A jury-list was made out, and Mr. B. L., a prominent banker and a valued citizen, was questioned precisely as he would have been questioned in any court in America:

"Have you heard of this homicide?"

"Yes."

"Have you held conversations upon the subject?"

"Yes."

"Have you formed or expressed opinions about it?"

"Yes."

"Have you read the newspaper accounts of it?"

"Yes."

"We do not want you."

A minister, intelligent, esteemed, and greatly respected; a merchant of high character and known probity; a mining superintendent of intelligence and unblemished reputation; a quartz mill owner of excellent standing, were all questioned in the same way, and all set aside. Each said the public talk and the newspaper reports had not so biased his mind but that sworn testimony would overthrow his previously formed opinions and enable him to render a verdict without prejudice and in accordance with the facts. But of course such men could not be trusted with the case. Ignoramuses alone could mete out unsullied justice.

When the peremptory challenges were all exhausted, a jury of twelve men was impaneled--a jury who swore they had neither heard, read, talked about nor expressed an opinion concerning a murder which the very cattle in the corrals, the Indians in the sage-brush and the stones in the streets were cognizant of! It was a jury composed of two desperadoes, two low beer-house politicians, three bar-keepers, two ranchmen who could not read, and three dull, stupid, human donkeys! It actually came out afterward, that one of these latter thought that incest and arson were the same thing.

The verdict rendered by this jury was, Not Guilty. What else could one expect?

From Roughing It, by Mark Twain

[BPSCG]

(irrelevant personal aside not related to OJ)

(in my best Billy Bob Thornton imitation: )

Well, allright den. I like them 'taters.

(Would the restaurant be willing to serve the character you're named after?)I would hope so, since the character is Jesus Christ, thinly disguised.

Or, let's put it this way. If Jesus Christ (i.e., the son of God, the savior, the supernatural guy - not the carpenter preacher guy) comes into your restaurant, you'd better serve him...

[brodski]

From Roughing It, by Mark Twain

The problem that Twain describes is an artefact of the first amendment, not of trial by Jury. In the UK (and elsewhere) media reporting of court cases is restricted in order to prevent the exclusion of the intelligent from the jury pool.

[brodski]

If the only possible verdicts are Proven & Not Proven why should there be any more of a stigma than a Not Guilty verdict? The problems arise from having Not Proven as a third choice which is interpreted as the jury saying "we think you did it but we can't prove it". And as this thread shows, a Not Guilty verdict is no guarantee of no stigme.

“Not guilty” is a positive statement that, as far as the law is concerned, the accused did not commit the crime. Given that (normally) people can’t be tried for the same crime twice, not guilty is exactly how they should be treated by the law.

The phrase “not proven” OTOH makes no statement about the guilt or otherwise of the defendant, just that eth prosecution was unable to demonstrate the guilt of the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt.
Although as you say ultimately there will be little difference between how people are perceived by eth general public under either system.
However if the law is required to treat eth acquitted as “not guilty” then I think that is eth terminology we should keep.

[BPSCG]

I once thought "Not Proved Guilty" was a good idea; now I'm not so sure.

Even providing that you could still not be tried for the crime again, it would leave a stigma over the accused's head. NPG is a shorthand way of saying, "Yeah, there was pretty good evidence against him, and we pretty sure he did it, but the evidence didn't make that final hurdle over the 'beyond a reasonable doubt' barrier." That somehow doesn't sit right with me.

It also conflicts with the intent of the fifth amendment (you can't be compelled to testify against yourself). Under the current system, a defendant doesn't have to say a word; the entire burden of proof is on the prosecution.

That being the case, it would be extremely rare, I think, for a verdict of "Proved Innocent" to be rendered unless the accused got up on the stand and testified on his own behalf. That's a very dangerous move, because once his lawyer has gotten him on the stand, the prosecutor gets a whack at him. Under the current system, there's no reason for a defendant to get up there, unless his lawyer thinks things are going badly otherwise. But with a NPG system, a defendant might want to testify in an attempt to get a possible "Proved Innocent" verdict rather than an almost certain NPG one - and thereby torpedo himself when the prosecutor starts questioning him.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

I once thought "Not Proved Guilty" was a good idea; now I'm not so sure.

Even providing that you could still not be tried for the crime again, it would leave a stigma over the accused's head. NPG is a shorthand way of saying, "Yeah, there was pretty good evidence against him, and we pretty sure he did it, but the evidence didn't make that final hurdle over the 'beyond a reasonable doubt' barrier." That somehow doesn't sit right with me.

It also conflicts with the intent of the fifth amendment (you can't be compelled to testify against yourself). Under the current system, a defendant doesn't have to say a word; the entire burden of proof is on the prosecution.

That being the case, it would be extremely rare, I think, for a verdict of "Proved Innocent" to be rendered unless the accused got up on the stand and testified on his own behalf. That's a very dangerous move, because once his lawyer has gotten him on the stand, the prosecutor gets a whack at him. Under the current system, there's no reason for a defendant to get up there, unless his lawyer thinks things are going badly otherwise. But with a NPG system, a defendant might want to testify in an attempt to get a possible "Proved Innocent" verdict rather than an almost certain NPG one - and thereby torpedo himself when the prosecutor starts questioning him.

You are assuming a three verdict system, I am suggesting only two possible verdicts - Proven or Not Proven.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

The phrase “not proven” OTOH makes no statement about the guilt or otherwise of the defendant, just that eth prosecution was unable to demonstrate the guilt of the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt.

I see this as very much a strength of such a system as it focuses the jury on what they are meant to be doing - deciding if the prosecution has proven that the individual committed the crime.

With a G/NG system my concern is that the jury may return guilty verdicts where the case is not proven due to an unwillingness to declare an individual not guilty if they believe he committed the crime even if it is not proven deyond reasonable doubt.

[BPSCG]

You are assuming a three verdict system, I am suggesting only two possible verdicts - Proven or Not Proven.Sorry, I don't understand. How is that different from the current system? Guilty = proven (beyond a reasonable doubt). Not guilty = not proven (beyond a reasonable doubt).

[chulbert]

I'm of two minds about this.

On the one hand, he probably is a slimeball that got away with murder. On the other, I am awefully uncomfortable with the idea of a population imposing their own kinds of punishment on someone never found guilty of a crime.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Sorry, I don't understand. How is that different from the current system? Guilty = proven (beyond a reasonable doubt). Not guilty = not proven (beyond a reasonable doubt).

Because it directs the jury to do what they are actually meant to do, consider whether a case is proven or not.

In Scotland we have a three verdict system G/NG/NP and not proven has come to be interpreted as "we think he did it but the evidence isn't there to show he did it". Such cases will exist under a G/NG system as well and, as the Scottish experience demonstrates, jurors do not want to return a verdict of NG in such cases as they see this as a positive statement that the accused did not commit the crime. In systems that only have G/NG as options, my concern is that this unwillingness may result in findings of G in such cases.

Having a P/NP choice of verdict means juries do not declare ANY defendant as not guilty, they simply decide whether a case is proven or not (which is what they are meant to do) and the unwillingness to declare someone they believe committed a crime not guilty, potentially leading to a guilty verdict not supported by evidence, is not a factor.

In essence it may be easier for jurors to declare a defendant, who they believe committed a crime but where there is insufficient proof, not proven rather than not guilty.

[BPSCG]

I'm of two minds about this.

On the one hand, he probably is a slimeball that got away with murder. On the other, I am awefully uncomfortable with the idea of a population imposing their own kinds of punishment on someone never found guilty of a crime.You said, "On the one hand, he probably is a slimeball that got away with murder." Okay, so I guess that means you probably would not want to hang out with him; I know if I thought someone was probably a murderer, I wouldn't be inviting him over for dinner.

And that is your Constitutional right - literally - under the first amendment, which protects your right of association. You don't have to associate with anyone you don't want to. So it is not punishment to say you don't want Simpson in your place of business; it's simply exercise of your Constitutional right.

[pgwenthold]

I'm of two minds about this.

On the one hand, he probably is a slimeball that got away with murder. On the other, I am awefully uncomfortable with the idea of a population imposing their own kinds of punishment on someone never found guilty of a crime.

You are confusing government with individuals. "Not guilty" is a legal term. It means that he is not a convicted felon. "Slimeball" is a societal term, and can be applied to anyone who fits the bill.

Of course, this is not a big deal, and this type of "punishment" goes on all the time. Businesses can put signs up that say, "No shirt, no shoes, no service" despite the fact it isn't a crime to be barefoot. There are only a few restrictions on what businesses can discriminate against (race, for example).

Shoot, casinos in Vegas can throw you out for WINNING, much less doing anything illegal.

[chulbert]

Which is why I think the choice of verdicts should be "Proven" and "Not Proven" - after all that is what the jury is being asked to decide, not whether or not the accused is actually guilty. I see your point and it would be appropriate in a judicial system that was more agnostic toward the guilt or innocence of a defendant. However, in the United States a defendant is presumed innocent unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Within the context of that presumption, "presumed innocent and not proven otherwise", I think a verdict of "not guilty" is correct.

[Dan O.]

Evidence?!

[Francesca R]

I once thought "Not Proved Guilty" was a good idea; now I'm not so sure.

Even providing that you could still not be tried for the crime again, it would leave a stigma over the accused's head. NPG is a shorthand way of saying, "Yeah, there was pretty good evidence against him, and we pretty sure he did it, but the evidence didn't make that final hurdle over the 'beyond a reasonable doubt' barrier." That somehow doesn't sit right with me.I agree with this. "Not proven" as in "There probably are goods on the defendant; we just didn't have the goods to convict" does not restore liberty to the individual who has been tried by the state. If the state cannot prove guilt, the result should be acquittal and restoration of liberty as though the case had never been brought. "Not proven" verdicts would surely inhibit that to an unacceptable degree. "Not guilty" or "innocent" are better.

Because it directs the jury to do what they are actually meant to do, consider whether a case is proven or not.But the criminal justice system is meant to try people for their guilt, and if it fails, to put them back where they were with the minimum amount of damage to their liberty. Ideally with no damage, but that is extremely difficult. It is just more difficult IMO with the very ambiguous verdict of "not proven"

Having a P/NP choice of verdict means juries do not declare ANY defendant as not guiltyWhich would be terrible if the consequence was that the state did not declare any tried person as not guilty. Think about it—the state doesn't like you, so they have you arrested on trumped-up charges of a crime, there turns out not to be a shred of firm proof that you did it, but thanks to the trial you are forever tarnished with a "not proven" verdict from a criminal trial. In effect—to stop any guilty people getting clean away with crime, you remove the liberty of the innocent too. No thanks!

[Jaggy Bunnet]

[/FONT]In effect—to stop any guilty people getting clean away with crime, you remove the liberty of the innocent too. No thanks!

All the current verdict of not guilty means is not proven. Why does stating this explicitly remove anyones liberty?

[Francesca R]

If you want "not proven" to mean "not guilty" then what's the point of the change? To me it seems you want to introduce state ambiguity about innocence. Not guilty has no such ambiguity—a not guilty person is innocent of a crime.

[alfaniner]

... Not guilty has no such ambiguity—a not guilty person is innocent of a crime.

Legally, the jury found that he was "Not Guilty" of the stated crime. That does not mean he is "innocent", meaning "he didn't do it".

[Jaggy Bunnet]

If you want "not proven" to mean "not guilty" then what's the point of the change? To me it seems you want to introduce state ambiguity about innocence. Not guilty has no such ambiguity—a not guilty person is innocent of a crime.

Not guilty already means not proven.

The point of the change is to avoid miscarriages of justice in those cases where jurors are unwilling to return a "not guilty" verdict as they think the accused did it. Experience in Scotland shows that there is such an unwillingness and the "safety valve" is the not proven verdict but this does carry a stigma in a three verdict system. My preference is to get rid of not guilty entirely and just have the jury give an accurate determination of the only finding they make, whether the case is proven beyond reasonable doubt or not.

If the only possible verdicts are proven and not proven, why should there be any stigma on a not proven verdict?

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Legally, the jury found that he was "Not Guilty" of the stated crime. That does not mean he is "innocent", meaning "he didn't do it".

Surely they found that he had not been proven guilty?

[pgwenthold]

Not guilty already means not proven.

The point of the change is to avoid miscarriages of justice in those cases where jurors are unwilling to return a "not guilty" verdict as they think the accused did it.

In terms of justice, how is "not proven" any different from "not guilty"? Neither verdict makes the defendent guilty, so therefore both verdicts are "not guilty" verdicts.

Why should the jury be distinguishing anything? Since when is a trial in the business of social stigmata?

[Dan O.]

At least in the US and most civilized nations, a person is and remains innocent until proven guilty. OJ was not proven guilty and therefor is innocent.

[Francesca R]

Not guilty already means not proven. [ . . . ] If the only possible verdicts are proven and not proven, why should there be any stigma on a not proven verdict?Then (again) why change it, if you are not trying to introduce any ambiguity (on the part of the state) about the person's innocence?

We all know that a not guilty person could have committed the crime she was tried for. The fundamental point however is that in the eyes of the state she did not commit the crime.

[Francesca R]

Since when is a trial in the business of social stigmata?Since the state has the power to hold you innocent or guilty depending on the outcome of the trial, and if you are guilty you will forfeit some of your liberty. A trial in inescapably about the business of social status.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Then (again) why change it, if you are not trying to introduce any ambiguity (on the part of the state) about the person's innocence?

The explanation is in the bit you snipped out when you quoted me previously.

[LawnOven]

At least in the US and most civilized nations, a person is and remains innocent until proven guilty. OJ was not proven guilty and therefor is innocent.


But he was found liable.

[Francesca R]

The explanation is in the bit you snipped out when you quoted me previously.
You think that juries would tend to go for guilty because they are not satisfied of innocence beyond reasonable doubt? Thus reversing the principle and acting contrary to law?

[Jaggy Bunnet]

In terms of justice, how is "not proven" any different from "not guilty"? Neither verdict makes the defendent guilty, so therefore both verdicts are "not guilty" verdicts.

Why should the jury be distinguishing anything? Since when is a trial in the business of social stigmata?

NP and NG shouldn't be any different.

However experience shows that in a three verdict system G/NG/NP there is an apparent reluctance to return a NG verdict where there is a believe in guilt but insufficient proof to convict. It therefore appears that in the minds of jurors there IS a difference between not proven and not guilty and that they think that not guilty means "he didn't do it" rather than "there is not sufficient proof that he did it".

What happens in those cases in a two verdict system? Maybe they hold their nose and return a NG verdict - if so no harm is done. However it is possible that they return a G verdict because they cannot bring themselves to say "he didn't do it" which is what they perceive a NG verdict to mean.

There is evidence that juries do not see NG as the same as NP, therefore it is possible that requiring a NG verdict could result in convictions which would not take place if the verdict was NP as that is perceived to be a different test.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

You think that juries would tend to go for guilty because they are not satisfied of innocence beyond reasonable doubt? Thus reversing the principle and acting contrary to law?

I think that it is possible that juries will convict under a G/NG system in cases where they may not under a P/NP system.

That does not necessarily mean anything as drastic as reversing the presumption of innocence and requiring this to be proved. They may believe it is more likely than not (i.e. civil standard of proof) that the accused is guilty but that it has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt (criminal standard). In such cases they may be more willing to acquit (correctly as the criminal standard is not met) if the verdict is not proven rather than not guilty (as they believe the accused IS guilty).

[Francesca R]

Even if the (illegal) jury behaviour you outline is happening, I still think that your suggestion would not change that behaviour unless you could make juries think that NP means less than NG (in respect of exoneration). But for that to happen it would need to mean less than NG at a statutory level too. The latter is what I am against.

[pgwenthold]

I think that it is possible that juries will convict under a G/NG system in cases where they may not under a P/NP system.

That does not necessarily mean anything as drastic as reversing the presumption of innocence and requiring this to be proved. They may believe it is more likely than not (i.e. civil standard of proof) that the accused is guilty but that it has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt (criminal standard). In such cases they may be more willing to acquit (correctly as the criminal standard is not met) if the verdict is not proven rather than not guilty (as they believe the accused IS guilty).

But you are affirming that they would otherwise act in contrary to the law, then.

If it has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, then they must acquit. If they vote guilty despite having reasonable doubt, then they are not doing what they are required to do.

[Dan O.]

But he was found liable.

If you want to argue the case you will need to put together all the evidence in a forum where each piece can be fully scrutinized from all sides. Anything else is just a presentation of a biased opinion.

[skeptifem]

Not that I want to defend OJ or anything, but it always struck me as odd that you could be found liable in a civil suit for a murder you had been aquited for. Is stuff like that normal?


in the us criminal court requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and civil court requires that proof shows it was more likely than not that the alleged events happened.

[skeptifem]

At least in the US and most civilized nations, a person is and remains innocent until proven guilty. OJ was not proven guilty and therefor is innocent.


god forbid someone use their head to form an opinion instead of assuming the justice system is perfect. :boggled:

[chulbert]

And that is your Constitutional right - literally - under the first amendment, which protects your right of association. You don't have to associate with anyone you don't want to. So it is not punishment to say you don't want Simpson in your place of business; it's simply exercise of your Constitutional right.

If that simple exercise of your Constutional right is predicated on a perceived guilt of another, in spite of their acquittal, how is that not a de facto punishment and a form of vigilantism? Can't it be both? I certainly don't think the restaurant owner did anything illegal and I'm not sure I would even characterise what he did as "wrong", but there are certainly some undertones at work that make me uncomfortable.

[BPSCG]

What happens in those cases in a two verdict system? Maybe they hold their nose and return a NG verdict - if so no harm is done. However it is possible that they return a G verdict because they cannot bring themselves to say "he didn't do it" which is what they perceive a NG verdict to mean.

There is evidence that juries do not see NG as the same as NP, therefore it is possible that requiring a NG verdict could result in convictions which would not take place if the verdict was NP as that is perceived to be a different test.That's why the judges give the juries explicit instructions. It's not a question of what "they perceive a NG verdict to mean." "Not guilty" means one thing, and one thing only - the prosecution did not prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

[calebprime]

I would hope so, since the character is Jesus Christ, thinly disguised.



:D I never thought of that. I'm going to go rent it and watch it again.

My more literal point--would Slingblade herself (I think she's female) be comfortable with a restaurant turning away someone because they were eccentric-looking or acting?

The law is one thing. I wouldn't change the laws as they stand.

Personal conduct is another thing. People shouldn't be so afraid of eccentric types.

(That being said--I can't tolerate much weirdness when I go out to eat, so I wouldn't want the Billy Bob Thornton character to sit next to me, either...)

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Evidence?!

Of what?

[chulbert]

You are confusing government with individuals. "Not guilty" is a legal term. It means that he is not a convicted felon. "Slimeball" is a societal term, and can be applied to anyone who fits the bill.

Of course, this is not a big deal, and this type of "punishment" goes on all the time. Businesses can put signs up that say, "No shirt, no shoes, no service" despite the fact it isn't a crime to be barefoot. There are only a few restrictions on what businesses can discriminate against (race, for example).

I'm not confusing the two per se, I'm saying that it makes me uncomfortable when the two behave in divergent ways.

The difference between your example and this situation is motive. If your motive for treating OJ Simpson differently than you would treat any other random human being is the fact you think he killed his wife, in spite of his acquittal, I'm not sure I'm comfortable with that.

[hgc]

Of what?


I wasn't gonna ask. I'm glad someone did.

[skeptifem]

I'm not confusing the two per se, I'm saying that it makes me uncomfortable when the two behave in divergent ways.

The difference between your example and this situation is motive. If your motive for treating OJ Simpson differently than you would treat any other random human being is the fact you think he killed his wife, in spite of his acquittal, I'm not sure I'm comfortable with that.


i am comfortable with having my own opinion based on the facts of a case I saw unfold. I witnessed a jury get swindled by a very highly paid lawyer. I saw the prosecution do a bad job of making their case. I saw more evidence presented against oj than there was to convict scott peterson.

And even ignoring all that, I think oj simpson is scum for refusing to pay the civil court damages he was ordered to. He gets a bunch of money and just spends it all before anyone tries to collect, and cries about it when profits from his disgusting book go to the families of the victims. screw him, even if he didnt do it.

[Francesca R]

god forbid someone use their head to form an opinion instead of assuming the justice system is perfect. :boggled:People are free to form their own opinions. But "god" forbid the state to form an opinion instead of assuming that the justice system binds it.

If the state can overturn the OJS verdict because "Well it was just wrong, yeah!" then you and I are not safe.

[Francesca R]

Legally, the jury found that he was "Not Guilty" of the stated crime. That does not mean he is "innocent", meaning "he didn't do it".Yes it does—in the eyes of the state. As far as the government is concerned they are free of suspicion.

[Lonewulf]

At what point is discrimination going too far?

I think we can all agree that discriminating solely on race is wrong, period, right? The question is, should businesses be *required* to follow anti-discrimination laws? To me, that's a tough issue: Should the government directly intervene to try to stop discrimination? I dunno. I'm leaning heavily towards "yes", and yet also leaning towards, "But they mess it up and make things worse sometimes..."

Now, the question is, should a person that was found NG of murder be treated as if he were a murderer, and a pure slimebag? I'm not sure. Do we draw a line here? On the one hand, we have the extreme of allowing a man found NG of murder, and other extreme, we have discrimination by race. The two are acts of discrimination, although one targets character, the other targets skin color. Someway between them, is a line; or is there no line at all, and discrimination is wrong, period, or discrimination is okay if you're a private owner...

I'm not sure. I think that there's a line, and I think that the resteraunt was within it's rights to refuse OJ access -- and I dislike how OJ and his lawyer are making a stint out of it being over race. Of course it's not *********** over race. But now they can play martyr, and maybe make some bucks out of it. Disgusting. But regardless of that...

I found it disgusting when a resteraunt (Denny's, actually) refused access to furries when a fur convention was taking place nearby. At the same time, there were many other resteraunts that the people in the convention could have gone to, and not been refused access. Maybe the ability to choose factors into this too? If there's three steak houses, and one refuses you, then the one that refuses loses business. If ALL resteraunts refuse "your kind", then it might be a different issue.

I just don't know. I'm of two minds about this.

[Dan O.]

Of what?

I'm asking for evidence from the likes of UserGoogol, DoubtingStephen, The Central Scrutinizer, strathmeyer and steverino for their remarks calling OJ a murderer after he has been found NOT GUILTY in a court of law.

[skeptifem]

People are free to form their own opinions. But "god" forbid the state to form an opinion instead of assuming that the justice system binds it.

If the state can overturn the OJS verdict because "Well it was just wrong, yeah!" then you and I are not safe.


who is talking about the state overturning it? he got kicked out of a resteraunt. :confused:

[Kerberos]

in the us criminal court requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and civil court requires that proof shows it was more likely than not that the alleged events happened.

I'm perfectly aware of that, but it seems highly suspect from my point of view, to convict a person under civil procedure for what is a criminal wrongdoing. I mean the logical consequence of this is much the same as a guilty/non guilty/not proven system. Except that in this case the non proven verdict carry a penalty, even if it's solely a monetary one.

If the prosecutor can't get a conviction on the bank robbery charge because the evidence is shaky (or the prosecutor is incompetent and the jury's on crack), the bank can get him in a civil suit. Which is why I asked how common this is? Was it just a case of using a legal loophole to get OJ because everyone thinks he did it, or is it in fact normal in the US for alleged criminals who are acquitted on criminal charges to get convicted in a civil suit?

[JamesDillon]

I haven't read the entire thread, so apologies if this has been mentioned, but I think it's very important to understand the purpose and scope of the presumption of innocence, and the effect of a criminal acquittal. As I'm sure has been mentioned already, criminal courts require that a defendant's guilt be proved beyond a reasonable doubt in order to sustain a conviction, which is a very high burden to meet, and--here's the main point-- is a much higher standard of proof than we generally apply in making decisions in our day-to-day lives. The law insists on this very high standard of proof in the criminal context because the consequences of a conviction-- deprivation of liberty, the possibility of a fine, forfeiture, and all of the collateral consequences of a criminal record-- are so serious that we want to be very sure that we're not imposing criminal penalties unless they are truly deserved. Of course, sometimes people are wrongly convicted anyway, but the criminal law sets the bar for conviction as high as it reasonably can so as to minimize that possibility.

However, there's simply no reason or justification to allow the outcome of a criminal proceeding to trump our own individual ability to assess evidence and reach our own conclusions notwithstanding that outcome. There's really never a circumstance in daily life in which anyone would insist on proof "beyond a reaonable doubt" before accepting a proposition, and particularly not proof beyond a reasonable doubt on the basis of evidence that would be admissible in a criminal trial; if there were, we'd have to reserve judgment on just about everything. So there's no good reason to allow the fact that O.J. was acquitted to preclude us from concluding, for purposes of our own interactions with him, that he did in fact commit the double murder with which he was charged. Obviously, the fact that he was acquitted is relevant to the analysis, but there's just no good reason why it should be dispositive of it (particularly in light of O.J.'s subsequent actions). Personally, I find it at least more likely than not that he did commit the crimes, and I applaud the steakhouse owner for standing on his principles, however ultimately inconsequential his efforts to impose some kind of punishment on O.J. may have been.

[Piggy]

Despite my certainty that he did it, he was found not guilty in a court of law.

Not in criminal court. However, he was found guilty in civil court of depriving his victims of life.

ETA: Oops... thought the thread ended at page one. Sorry for the redundancy.

[alfaniner]

Yes it does—in the eyes of the state. As far as the government is concerned they are free of suspicion.

Oh, I would highly doubt that...


Not sure how to ask for a "split", but this has been fascinating and informative.

[JamesDillon]

Yes it does—in the eyes of the state. As far as the government is concerned they are free of suspicion.

That's not really accurate. An acquitted individual can't be retried for the same offense because of the Double Jeopardy Clause, but "not guilty" does not mean "innocent," in the eyes of the state or anyone else. It simply means that the prosecution failed to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

[Francesca R]

That's not really accurate. An acquitted individual can't be retried for the same offense because of the Double Jeopardy Clause, but "not guilty" does not mean "innocent," in the eyes of the state or anyone else. It simply means that the prosecution failed to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.Incorrect. What part of "innocent until proven guilty" is not clear to you?

[Kerberos]

Incorrect. What part of "innocent until proven guilty" is not clear to you?

Which part of "judicial fiction" is not clear to you?

ETA: Since sarcasm isn't necessarily that productive I'll ask you to clarify. Are you simply saying that the government should not discriminate against a person who might have committed a crime, but has been acquitted or are you implying more than that? Also would you take a totally uncompromising stance on the non-discrimination or would you recognize that for example certain sensitive position could be denied a person, even if the evidence against him or her was inconclusive.

[Francesca R]

The outcome of the justice system binds the state. Not just when the state feels like it.

[Kerberos]

Damn simuninjas!

[Francesca R]

ETA: Since sarcasm isn't necessarily that productive I'll ask you to clarify."Not guilty" = "innocent" in the eyes of the state. I couldn't care less about a restaurateur's opinion.

Do you think that some times "not guilty" < "innocent" in the eyes of the state? If so, which times and why?

[Kerberos]

"Not guilty" = "innocent" in the eyes of the state. I couldn't care less about a restaurateur's opinion.

Do you think that some times "not guilty" < "innocent" in the eyes of the state? If so, which times and why?
As I said sensitive positions. I'd like the guy who was acquitted from espionage charges due to the evidence not quite being quite strong enough, not to have access to national secrets. Basically for any highly sensitive position, I think I'd prefer someone who was actually trustworthy (as far as we can determine) to someone Who you couldn't quite prove did it. Other than that I agree.

[Francesca R]

As I said sensitive positions. I'd like the guy who was acquitted from espionage charges due to the evidence not quite being quite strong enough, not to have access to national secrets. Basically for any highly sensitive position, I think I'd prefer someone who was actually trustworthy (as far as we can determine) to someone Who you couldn't quite prove did it. Other than that I agree.Yes, there are a lot of public-service jobs, paid and voluntary, where your past can count against you.

A more trivial example than yours is that a few years back, in order to mentor a high-school girl from the community close to where I work, I had to have a police check. I only ever met her in the school or at my office, yet if I had not consented I would not have been allowed to volunteer for this service (and I never saw the result except that I assume it must have been fine). It was not about finding out if I was a criminal, but about finding out if there was any reason—even taking my innocence as a given—why I should not be allowed to work with a child not my own.

I am not sure how I feel about this. Mostly I think it is an emotionally-inspired level of over-zealous risk-aversion on the part of the state (but encouraged by the public and particularly some print media when they sensationalise these risks). I was willing to present myself as (effectively) "guilty until proven innocent" (of being able to work with children in a law-abiding way) because I saw it as worthwhile. But I was also angered, and I think that the main effect of nanny-state-isms like this is simply to reduce the number of people who will bother putting themselves forward for this kind of thing (never mind more important jobs in care and education)

[/off-topic]

[BPSCG]

:D I never thought of that. I'm going to go rent it and watch it again.Spoilers that follow are only very general in nature, and only people who haven't seen the movie need to skip over.

Stranger shows up out of the blue, his origins shrouded in mystery.
Lives a simple life among the downtrodden and abused.
Fights and defeats evil for the benefit of the downtrodden and abused, sacrificing himself in the process.
Vanishes from the outside world, goes back where he came from.FWIW, Billy Bob Thornton acknowledges he had the story of Jesus in mind when he wrote the movie. Mrs. BPSCG thought I was nuts for seeing the Jesus imagery in the movie, until I googled it and found Thornton's acknowledgment.

She also still thinks I'm nuts for seeing Jesus imagery all over the place in The Shawshank Redemption.

[/derail]

[JamesDillon]

Incorrect. What part of "innocent until proven guilty" is not clear to you?

Having been a judicial officer for a while now, I should hope that a basic concept like the presumption of innocence would be quite clear to me by this point, and I feel confident in saying that it is. "Innocent until proven guilty" is simply a catchy phrase used to describe the burden of proof placed on the prosecution in a criminal trial-- that is to say, that a criminal defendant cannot be convicted unless the prosecution proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of each element of the crime charged. As I said before, the state is precluded, by the Double Jeopardy Clause, from prosecuting the same charges after an acquittal, but "not guilty" does not mean and has never meant "innocent." The "presumption" you're talking about is one that applies only at trial and is nothing more than an evidentiary standard. It's true, of course, that the state is generally precluded from taking any adverse action against a person who has not been convicted of a crime, though that isn't always the case. In the federal system, for example, when a defendant has been convicted of a crime, his sentence may be enhanced on the basis of "related conduct" for which he was not charged, or even for which he was acquitted, and the government need only establish that the defendant performed that conduct by a preponderance of the evidence, not beyond a reasonable doubt.

So the point is, the presumption of innocence doesn't mean nearly so much as you seem to think it does. It means, essentially, that the state cannot impose a criminal penalty on an individual without proving that individual's guilt at trial beyond a reasonable doubt (unless the defendant pleads guilty pursuant to a plea bargain, which is how it usually works these days). An acquittal does not mean that the defendant has been "proved innocent" for any legal purpose, and it certainly isn't binding on a private business owner.

[JamesDillon]

"Not guilty" = "innocent" in the eyes of the state. I couldn't care less about a restaurateur's opinion.

Do you think that some times "not guilty" < "innocent" in the eyes of the state? If so, which times and why?

Following up on a point I raised in my last post, yes, there certainly are times in which "not guilty" < "innocent" in the eyes of the state; one obvious instance is when acquitted conduct is used to enhance a defendant's sentence for having committed a separate crime.

For example, in United States v. Watts, 519 U.S. 148 (1997), the Supreme Court held that a federal defendant's sentence may be enhanced on the basis of criminal conduct for which he was acquitted, so long as his performance of that conduct is proved by a preponderance of the evidence (a much lower standard) at the sentencing hearing. Responding to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit's argument that a jury verdict of "not guilty" was equivalent to a finding of innocence, the Supreme Court noted that "[t]he Court of Appeals failed to appreciate the significance of the different standards of proof that govern at trial and sentencing. We have explained that 'acquittal on criminal charges does not prove that the defendant is innocent; it merely proves the existence of a reasonable doubt as to his guilt.'” 519 U.S. at 156 (quoting United States v. One Assortment of 89 Firearms, 465 U.S. 354, 361 (1984)). The Court then went on to quote favorably from Chief Judge Wallace's dissenting opinion in the underlying Ninth Circuit case, in which he wrote that "an acquittal is not a finding of any fact. An acquittal can only be an acknowledgment that the government failed to prove an essential element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Without specific jury findings, no one can logically or realistically draw any factual finding inferences....” Id. (quoting United States v. Putra, 78 F.3d 1386 (9th Cir. 1996) (Wallace, C.J., dissenting)).

I could go on, but research, as opposed to blithe assertions of fact and uninformed conclusions, takes time and effort, and if this isn't sufficient to persuade you of the ignorance of your earlier position, more citations would be futile.

Edit: A full discussion of this topic would need to address the effects of the Supreme Court's subsequent opinions in Apprendi and Booker, but I think it's unnecessary to do so here. It has been held, though not by the Supreme Court, that Booker did not overrule Watts. See United States v. Dorcely, 454 F.3d 366 (D.C.Cir.2006).

[Francesca R]

Following up on a point I raised in my last post, yes, there certainly are times in which "not guilty" < "innocent" in the eyes of the state; one obvious instance is when acquitted conduct is used to enhance a defendant's sentence for having committed a separate crime. [ . . . ]In your cited case, the defendant is no longer not guilty at the point that the previous information is used. It is not an example against the principle I assert.

Let's suppose that you can find one though that is. Are you merely saying "there has been a precedent where 'not guilty' < 'innocent'". Or are you actively arguing that this should in general be the case?

An acquittal does not mean that the defendant has been "proved innocent" for any legal purposeWhat liberty may the state withdraw from an acquitted person that it may not withdraw from someone who has never been tried?

[JamesDillon]

In your cited case, the defendant is no longer not guilty at the point that the previous information is used. It is not an example against the principle I assert.
Yes, it is an example of the principle that you assert. A defendant is found "not guilty," i.e., acquitted, of certain criminal conduct. By everything that you've been arguing up to this point, that means that the defendant is now legally "innocent" and can't be punished for the crime. The cases I've cited demonstrate quite clearly that he can be punished, in the sense that the crime for which he was acquitted can be used to enhance his sentence for another crime if it is proved by a preponderance of the evidence --not beyond a reasonable doubt-- that he committed the acquitted conduct. This shows that your argument that "not guilty" = "innocent" in the eyes of the law is absolutely wrong.

Edit: You do understand that a finding of "guilty" or "not guilty" applies to specific charged offenses, right? Your response makes it sound like you're under the impression that a defendant can be found simply "guilty" or "not guilty" in some kind of transcendent, all-encompassing manner. In my example below, the defendant is still "not guilty" of the cocaine offense, despite having been found guilty of the heroin offense. The court's records in the earlier cocaine trial would not be--could not be-- retroactively altered to reflect a guilty verdict on the ground that the subsequent court found, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the defendant had committed the offense. That would violate all kinds of constitutional rights.
Let's suppose that you can find one though that is. Are you merely saying "there has been a precedent where 'not guilty' < 'innocent'". Or are you actively arguing that this should in general be the case?
I'm not arguing anything about what should be the case. I'm telling you what is the case. But lest you take away the mistaken impression that this is just one discrete area of the law in which acquittals are treated differently, bear in mind the reason why sentencing enhancements on the basis of acquitted conduct are permissible: as the Supreme Court made quite clear in Watts (see the bolded language in my post above), the enhancement is constitutional because an acquittal is not a finding of innocence; it is simply a finding that guilt has not been established by the burden of proof borne by the prosecution in a criminal trial. It has no preclusive effect on subsequent proceedings in which the burden of proof is lower.

What liberty may the state withdraw from an acquitted person that it may not withdraw from someone who has never been tried?
I'm not sure what significance this has. But, let's hypothesize that an individual is tried and acquitted on a charge of smuggling cocaine into the United States. Acquitted, I assume you understand, means "found not guilty." Later, the same defendant is indicted for, let's say, smuggling heroin on a different occasion, and pleads guilty rather than going to trial. At sentencing for the heroin offense, the court may choose to enhance the defendant's sentence --i.e., impose a longer sentence than it otherwise would have-- if the government proves at the sentencing hearing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the defendant committed the cocaine offense. This is only possible because, as the cases I cited above state as clearly as they possibly could, a finding of "not guilty" in a criminal trial does not legally establish that the defendant did not commit the crime. It simply shows that a reasonable doubt exists as to the defendant's guilt.

Edit: Reading over this again, I'm even more confused as to what you're getting at. Why is the comparison between an acquitted defendant and a person who has never been tried at all relevant? In my example, yes, the court could enhance a sentence for someone who had never been charged with the cocaine offense to the same degree that it could enhance the sentence for someone acquitted of the same conduct. But that just goes to prove my point-- that an acquittal does not operate as a conclusive adjudication of innocence.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I'm asking for evidence from the likes of UserGoogol, DoubtingStephen, The Central Scrutinizer, strathmeyer and steverino for their remarks calling OJ a murderer after he has been found NOT GUILTY in a court of law.

Go through the trial transcripts and video.

[Dan O.]

Go through the trial transcripts and video.

12 Jurors went through the unedited trial and returned a verdict of NOT GUILTY. The burden of proof is upon you to show otherwise.

ETA: If you want to argue this case, we need to find a forum where each piece of evidence can be broken down and analyzed and not be limited to what was presented and/or challenged in the trials.

[JamesDillon]

12 Jurors went through the unedited trial and returned a verdict of NOT GUILTY. The burden of proof is upon you to show otherwise.

Not really, since, as has been stated many times by this point (by myself and others), it isn't necessary to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in the court of public opinion. For example, I think it's more likely than not that O.J. committed the murders, so I believe he's guilty. That belief is not inconsistent with the fact that the jury determined that his guilt was not established beyond a reasonable doubt. It's quite possible that all of the jurors believed it more likely than not that he committed the murders, too.

[Dan O.]

By what evidence do you conclude that OJ committed the murders? Pick your best smoking gun and let's dig up the facts and see where it leads.

[robinson]

By what evidence do you conclude that OJ committed the murders? Pick your best smoking gun and let's dig up the facts and see where it leads.

I already put forth my reasoning for OJ's guilt at the following link:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2200479#post2200479

We can bash it about here or there, it doesn't seem to matter.

[Dan O.]

It's a good point but it only excludes strangers and assumes also that you can place Kato outside at the time of the crime.

[Kerberos]

It's a good point but it only excludes strangers and assumes also that you can place Kato outside at the time of the crime.

Randfan also has a sumery of the evidence on page 2 of the thread.

[Francesca R]

Why is the comparison between an acquitted defendant and a person who has never been tried at all relevant?

This is the crux of the matter I am commenting on. A comparison between an acquitted person and one never tried should and does yield the result that they are treated the same in the eyes of the state and afforded the same liberty.

This arose because an implication emerged in this thread that someone tried and found not guilty was less innocent in the eyes of the state—and by further implication less deserving of liberties protected by the state—than someone who had not been tried (for the same offence or any offence) and who was thus clearly "fully" innocent. That situation would be profoundly illiberal if it was practised. (Of course it is practised in some places—under profoundly illiberal regimes)

I maintain, your examples where someone is subsequently a convicted criminal (not fully deserving of the state's guarantee of liberty afforded to innocent citizens) are irrelevant to this point.

If you're confused about this, I regret not being able to help any further.

I'm not arguing anything about what should be the caseWould you care to state your position?

[Dan O.]

I don't want a summary of the evidence. I want to see each piece broken down and analyzed from all sides. It's obvious that evidence has been manipulated in this case. The analysis of the evidence must include the chain of custody.

[calebprime]

I don't want a summary of the evidence. I want to see each piece broken down and analyzed from all sides. It's obvious that evidence has been manipulated in this case. The analysis of the evidence must include the chain of custody.

(Can't find the popcorn smilie...):)

Can you point me to a post or make a new one which summarizes--not the details--but the main reasons why you think OJ is innocent?

I don't mean something like: Mark Furman was/is a racist, I mean
some compelling evidence that someone else did it, or that OJ couldn't have?

Also, remember that "innocent" has at least 2 meanings--first, the common usage, and second, the (criminal) legal judgment. Everyone agrees that he is "innocent" in the second sense...

[calebprime]

Slingblade is a great movie. And you're right about the Christian theme--or whatever you want to call it...

[Lonewulf]

(Can't find the popcorn smilie...):)

Can you point me to a post or make a new one which summarizes--not the details--but the main reasons why you think OJ is innocent?

I don't mean something like: Mark Furman was/is a racist, I mean
some compelling evidence that someone else did it, or that OJ couldn't have?

Also, remember that "innocent" has at least 2 meanings--first, the common usage, and second, the (criminal) legal judgment. Everyone agrees that he is "innocent" in the second sense...

Except in the civil lawsuit.

So he's guilty in one sense, and innocent in the other.

[calebprime]

yeah, that's why i stuck in the "(criminal)"

i'm with the civil jury on this one.

[Dan O.]

(Can't find the popcorn smilie...):)

Can you point me to a post or make a new one which summarizes--not the details--but the main reasons why you think OJ is innocent?

You're making an assumption that is not in evidence.

[calebprime]

:)
so, that would be a "no", i take it.

enjoy, dude.

[Dan O.]

You take it wrong. Do you always jump to conclusions without evidence?

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I don't want a summary of the evidence. I want to see each piece broken down and analyzed from all sides. It's obvious that evidence has been manipulated in this case. The analysis of the evidence must include the chain of custody.

Just out of curiosity, who killed JFK?

[JamesDillon]

This is the crux of the matter I am commenting on. A comparison between an acquitted person and one never tried should and does yield the result that they are treated the same in the eyes of the state and afforded the same liberty.
The last thing I'm interested in doing is explaining to you what your own position is. But it's abundantly clear that my earlier posts thoroughly rebut your statements such as "Yes it does—in the eyes of the state. As far as the government is concerned they are free of suspicion," and "'Not guilty' = 'innocent."

This arose because an implication emerged in this thread that someone tried and found not guilty was less innocent in the eyes of the state—and by further implication less deserving of liberties protected by the state—than someone who had not been tried (for the same offence or any offence) and who was thus clearly "fully" innocent. That situation would be profoundly illiberal if it was practised. (Of course it is practised in some places—under profoundly illiberal regimes)
There you go again, assuming that "guilt" and "not-guilt" are some kind of Platonic attributes that can be applied in a vacuum without reference to specific charges. A person convicted of crime A is no "less innocent" of crime B-- and no less entitled to the presumption of innocence-- than is a person who has been convicted of no crime. The same burden of proof applies to each, and the prosecution is generally precluded from even introducing the fact that the defendant has ever been convicted of any crime in the past, precisely for the purpose of avoiding any prejudice or negative inferences that the jury might draw on the basis of that fact.

Once again, and I can't imagine how this could be made more clear, an acquittal of criminal charges means nothing more than that the prosecution was unable to prove the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It is not a conclusive statement of innocence, and it does not shield the defendant from any sort of legal or social consequences that can accrue on the basis of a lesser burden of proof. This is really not a difficult concept, and it has been explained ad nauseam at this point.

I maintain, your examples where someone is subsequently a convicted criminal (not fully deserving of the state's guarantee of liberty afforded to innocent citizens) are irrelevant to this point.
Then once again, you are just wrong. Whether you like it or not, the fact of having been convicted of a criminal offense in the past does nothing whatsoever to lessen the due process rights of any individual faced with additional criminal charges.

If you're confused about this, I regret not being able to help any further.
I'm fairly certain I have a solid grasp of the issues.

Would you care to state your position?
Aside from a desire to correct your misstatements of the criminal law, I don't have a position.

[Dan O.]

Just out of curiosity, who killed JFK?

Everyone knows it was that guy in the book suppository building.

[LostAngeles]

Everyone knows it was that guy in the book suppository building.

Upon reading that I promptly asked myself if I would prefer acquiring information in suppository form. Alas, if only I had a prostrate, then studying would be so much easier...

[calebprime]

:clap:

I was looking for the laughing dog, but this one's gotta do.

Serious comment to Dan O, though, and it's not "book 'em".

I'm not the type to go into a conversation wearing full battle regalia.

I simply wanted to know what the broad outlines of your positive, simple case are.

This is not a court of law. It's a conversation, if you choose to have it.
Even less rigorous than a civil suit.

Plus, you willfully misunderstood my point.

It's a common characteristic of conspiracy theorists to get immediately bogged down in the details, as if things really turn on details. Sure, sometimes they do, but not 95% of the time, and not at first. At first, the basics.

You remind me of the people on juries now who think that life is like CSI:
As far as I know, forensics is a lot less precise and messier than that.:)

[Francesca R]

But it's abundantly clear that my earlier posts thoroughly rebut your statementsAppealing to one's own authority is not effective. Offering examples where you need to introduce fully different conditions do not "rebut" anything.
I'm fairly certain I have a solid grasp of the issues.You fail to understand what I am saying. You've said as much.

Aside from a desire to correct your misstatements of the criminal law, I don't have a position.I would respond in kind with calebprime's sentiment above. Perhaps if you dropped your assumption of self-appointed expertise and your desire to communicate this, and thought about the subject, you'd feel less need to engage in irrelevant argumentation.

[Dan O.]

:clap:

I was looking for the laughing dog, but this one's gotta do.

Serious comment to Dan O, though, and it's not "book 'em".

I'm not the type to go into a conversation wearing full battle regalia.

I simply wanted to know what the broad outlines of your positive, simple case are.

The questions in your posts assume that I believe OJ did not commit the crime. This is not true. I only believe that the evidence I have seen does not prove OJ's guilt.

The evidence in this case is going to be very tricky to sort out and it's not going to happen in a linear forum such as this. The type of forum I believe will be necessary to properly analyze the evidence would be more like a wiki. Can we find (or create) such a forum?

[calebprime]

Well, fair enough.

I honestly don't know. The wiki can be quite contentious.

Your curiosity and tenacity here seems greater than mine. I consider myself to be more of a bystander.

When I'm checking out a new topic, I want to know up front if it's something that is going to be fruitful to look at in more detail.

At first, the topic was whether OJ should be served. My position was that I thought he committed the crime, but that the restaurant ought to serve him.

Then I got interested in the movie Slingblade, because--although fictional--the Billy Bob Thornton character is certainly a murderer, and certainly faces some readjustment issues.

Since your passion for the subject seems stronger than the other people here, you could probably request some space to make your case, and people would respect it.

You might start your own thread. There are probably a lot of people here with the kind of detail-oriented approach that you would favor--but I'm more the kind of person who first asks "what's the big picture?"

caleb

[Dan O.]

Well, fair enough.

I honestly don't know. The wiki can be quite contentious.

From what I've seen of contentious debates in forums, there is a lot of yelling from both sides trying to prove that they are right. The same arguments get repeated over and over and in the end nothing changes, the thread gets lost and is forgotten until the issue comes up again and it starts all over again.

I see a wiki debate as timeless. Each argument can be broken down point by point and each point can be attacked and defended. There is no need to repeat the same arguments because they can simply be referenced. If interest in the topic goes cold for a while, the pages will still be there when the subject gets hot again.

Don't confuse a wikipedia entry with a wiki debate. There is contention in the wikipedia because you get sides on an issue wanting to present their view and suppress the opposing views. In a wiki debate there is room for all views to be presented and suppression of another view would be strictly discouraged.

[calebprime]

From what I've seen of contentious debates in forums, there is a lot of yelling from both sides trying to prove that they are right. The same arguments get repeated over and over and in the end nothing changes, the thread gets lost and is forgotten until the issue comes up again and it starts all over again.

I see a wiki debate as timeless. Each argument can be broken down point by point and each point can be attacked and defended. There is no need to repeat the same arguments because they can simply be referenced. If interest in the topic goes cold for a while, the pages will still be there when the subject gets hot again.

Don't confuse a wikipedia entry with a wiki debate. There is contention in the wikipedia because you get sides on an issue wanting to present their view and suppress the opposing views. In a wiki debate there is room for all views to be presented and suppression of another view would be strictly discouraged.

That's a good point. I was confusing the two.

I've learned one thing from you, about the Wiki.

If there's a good place for an overview of the OJ case, I'd look at it.
But with all the other stuff on my plate, I need to be spoon-fed, a little.

[RandFan]

I don't want a summary of the evidence. I want to see each piece broken down and analyzed from all sides. ?

To what end? The summary given is undisputed. I guess we could debate solipsism but what's the point? Absent significant evidence to overcome the mountain of evidence to the contrary there is little point in such an endeavor but knock yourself out.

[RandFan]

?

To what end? The summary given is undisputed. I guess we could debate solipsism but what's the point? Absent significant evidence to overcome the mountain of evidence to the contrary there is little point in such an endeavor but knock yourself out.That's not completely true. Some of the evidence is in dispute.

I think the point Dan is that even taking into account the evidence where chain of custody might have been at issue it is not enough to overcome all of the other evidence. FWIW, the socks are fair game, the blood in Vanatter's possession is not. In other words, the possibility that police acted inappropriately in some instances just won't eliminate or resolve much of the evidence against OJ. For instance it's not reasonable to assert that the police faked the photos of OJ wearing Bruno Magli shoes and they didn't fake the shoe prints found at the crime scene that match OJ's size and his type of shoe. If you really need experts to tear apart evidence like this then you are simply abusing skepticism.

[Dan O.]

The sock is clear evidence that someone was tampering with evidence so you can't ignore the possibility of tampering.

And the shoe prints don't prove that OJ's feet were in those shoes. If OJ wore Bruno Magli shoes then Nicole would have know about Bruno Magli shoes and is something she could have bought for the next man in her life that was on his feet a lot.

[knot]

OJ is a cereal killer http://img265.imageshack.us/img265/6392/refreshmentyk0.gif (http://imageshack.us)

[RandFan]

The sock is clear evidence that someone was tampering with evidence so you can't ignore the possibility of tampering.I don't think it is clear evidence of tampering. I think it is good evidence that some of the evidence was possibly tampered with. However that fact alone doesn't obviate the other evidence. At all. It is unreasonable to assume that any significant amount of the other evidence was tampered with because the truth is that procedures were followed and no factual basis for tampering was ever provided by the defense for tampering. At the end of the day we are left with socks and only socks.

And the shoe prints don't prove that OJ's feet were in those shoes. That wasn't my point. I was trying to show that there is a lot of evidence that can't be easily dismissed. At some point it adds up and it becomes perverse to ignore it.

If OJ wore Bruno Magli shoes then Nicole would have know about Bruno Magli shoes and is something she could have bought for the next man in her life that was on his feet a lot. Then that would have been a great avenue for the defense to pursue in the civil case. They spent a lot of money attacking that evidence. One would have thought that if that were a reasonable line of investigation they would have brought it up.

[strathmeyer]

Wait, we still aren't sure if OJ is guilty, yet?

Because I thought this was settled.

[knot]

He's guilty, he just had to pay a fine.

[RandFan]

To be fair to those who are not sure whether OJ is guilty, we don't even know if the moon exists. Truth is a relative concept (see 9/11 and other CT).

[BPSCG]

To be fair to those who are not sure whether OJ is guilty, we don't even know if the moon exists. Oh, lord. That way lies madness. From the last page of Mark Twain's darkest, bitterest work,. The Mysterious Stranger:
"Nothing exists; all is a dream. God -- man -- the world -- the sun, the moon, the wilderness of stars -- a dream, all a dream; they have no existence. Nothing exists save empty space -- and you!"

"I!"

"And you are not you -- you have no body, no blood, no bones, you are but a thought. I myself have no existence; I am but a dream -- your dream, creature of your imagination. In a moment you will have realized this, then you will banish me from your visions and I shall dissolve into the nothingness out of which you made me....

"I am perishing already -- I am failing -- I am passing away. In a little while you will be alone in shoreless space, to wander its limitless solitudes without friend or comrade forever -- for you will remain a thought, the only existent thought, and by your nature inextinguishable, indestructible. But I, your poor servant, have revealed you to yourself and set you free. Dream other dreams, and better!

"Strange! that you should not have suspected years ago -- centuries, ages, eons, ago! -- for you have existed, companionless, through all the eternities. Strange, indeed, that you should not have suspected that your universe and its contents were only dreams, visions, fiction! Strange, because they are so frankly and hysterically insane -- like all dreams: a God who could make good children as easily as bad, yet preferred to make bad ones; who could have made every one of them happy, yet never made a single happy one; who made them prize their bitter life, yet stingily cut it short; who gave his angels eternal happiness unearned, yet required his other children to earn it; who gave his angels painless lives, yet cursed his other children with biting miseries and maladies of mind and body; who mouths justice and invented hell -- mouths mercy and invented hell -- mouths Golden Rules, and forgiveness multiplied by seventy times seven, and invented hell; who mouths morals to other people and has none himself; who frowns upon crimes, yet commits them all; who created man without invitation, then tries to shuffle the responsibility for man's acts upon man, instead of honorably placing it where it belongs, upon himself; and finally, with altogether divine obtuseness, invites this poor, abused slave to worship him!...

"You perceive, now, that these things are all impossible except in a dream. You perceive that they are pure and puerile insanities, the silly creations of an imagination that is not conscious of its freaks -- in a word, that they are a dream, and you the maker of it. The dream-marks are all present; you should have recognized them earlier.

"It is true, that which I have revealed to you; there is no God, no universe, no human race, no earthly life, no heaven, no hell. It is all a dream -- a grotesque and foolish dream. Nothing exists but you. And you are but a thought -- a vagrant thought, a useless thought, a homeless thought, wandering forlorn among the empty eternities!"

He vanished, and left me appalled; for I knew, and realized, that all he had said was true.

[Dan O.]

Then that would have been a great avenue for the defense to pursue in the civil case. They spent a lot of money attacking that evidence. One would have thought that if that were a reasonable line of investigation they would have brought it up.

It's speculation about a second suspect having the same shoes that the prosecution suspected that OJ had. This is in no way a reasonable line for the defense to take. Especially when they are claiming that OJ did not own those shoes in the first place.

[RandFan]

It's speculation about a second suspect having the same shoes that the prosecution suspected that OJ had. This is in no way a reasonable line for the defense to take. Especially when they are claiming that OJ did not own those shoes in the first place.But it's a reasonable line for you to take?

You are making my argument for me. Note the "then" of my post. I'm making an "If then" argument. If your rebuttal to the evidence is reasonable then the defense should have taken it.

The problem is that the defense was in a hole and there was no good defense for the shoe evidence. Period. They had to call a witness that wasn't even an expert in the field of photography to rebut the photo evidence. That was a pathetic display.

The shoe evidence alone isn't sufficent but it is signifcant along with all of the other evidence.

[Dan O.]

The shoe evidence alone isn't sufficent but it is signifcant along with all of the other evidence.

Where is "all the other evidence"? Has anybody collected this evidence and analyzed it piece by piece from a neutral position?

[calebprime]

Here's a slightly paraphrased recap of Bugliosi's suggested summation, from Outrage, pg. 218 to 219.

evidence against Simpson:

1) 5 drops of blood at murder scene & blood on rear gate match OJS.

2) killer's size-12 shoes match OJS shoe size

3) only 299 pairs of these Bruno Magli shoes were distributed in US in 1991/1992

4) We know that OJS was customer at Bloomindale's store where shoe was sold during that time

5) glove left at scene is same as glove Nicole bought at Bloom in 1990

6) Robert Heidstra sees white SUV leaving scene

7) Nicole rejects OJS on day of murders

8) OJS beat Nicole severely in past, to the point that:

9) she warned friends he would kill her

10) Simpson gets cut around time of murders and

11) gets cut on left hand, and it is left glove found on scene and

12) 4 out of 5 blood drops are to left of his shoe prints

13) dark blue cotton fibers matching OJS sweatsuit that night

14) 9 micro hairs matching OJS found in cap at scene next to Ron Goldman

15) another hair matching OJS found on R.G.

16) fiber matching Bronco carpet found on R.G shirt

17) Nicole and R.G. blood found in OJS Bronco

18) Nicole blood found on socks of OJS found in his bedroom

19) OJS blood found on one of the socks

20) the other glove found at OJS property

21) blood from all parties found on this glove

22) Kato Kaelin hears noise, at same time that

23) limo driver sees OJS enter his own property

24) temp in low 50's, but OJS seen sweating and

25) complains of heat to limo driver

26) 2 plastic bags missing from hotel where OJS goes after murder

27) OJS lacks alibi only for the one hour of the murders

and much, much more.

how much evidence do you need? according to Bugliosi, with an incompetent prosecution, and a frankly dumb, biased jury, you need basically an infinite amount of evidence, or a confession.

[Dan O.]

Like I said: Has anybody collected this evidence and analyzed it piece by piece from a neutral position?

[strathmeyer]

how much evidence do you need? according to Bugliosi, with an incompetent prosecution, and a frankly dumb, biased jury, you need basically an infinite amount of evidence, or a confession.

I think it's important to note that one of the jurors admitted they were going to vote guilty, but kept reminiscing on the possible one in six million odds of the DNA match and decided to vote not guilty.

[Kerberos]

Like I said:
"Has anybody collected this evidence and analyzed it piece by piece from a neutral position?"
And what exactly does that mean? A "neutral" possition? Does that mean that you have to agree with the conclusion they reach or do you have some kind of criteria for when a position is "neutral"?

[Dan O.]

And what exactly does that mean? A "neutral" possition? Does that mean that you have to agree with the conclusion they reach or do you have some kind of criteria for when a position is "neutral"?

Do you have some kind of difficulty seeing that the presentation of the above list was one sided? The only place I know of that analyzed the evidence with equal representation from both sides was in the original trial and they reached a different conclusion than most of the posters here.

As far as I know, that list of evidence presented here could be distortions or outright lies. For instance, 1) 5 drops of blood at murder scene & blood on rear gate match OJS. The blood found at the murder scene was presented in court as being a probable match. Only one sample was sufficient to give the astronomical odds of being a match only for OJ (do you know where that sample was collected?). The bloody fingerprint found on the back gate 2 weeks after the murder was found to contain the blood preservative used in the collection vials that was used to take a sample of OJ's blood.