Jason Lamar Simpson - Where is the real Killer now?

[William Anthony]

Jurors say they would rule against Simpson in civil trial
10/18/96 - 07:39 PM ET - Click reload often for latest version
LOS ANGELES - The forewoman and another juror who voted to acquit O.J. Simpson of murder said they likely would decide against him if they were on a civil jury, where the burden of proof is lighter.

"Given that standard and based on the amount of evidence that was presented, ... then yes, you would have to say that yes, he is guilty," Armanda Cooley told Dateline NBC Tuesday.

"I'm standing by my verdict," Marsha Rubin-Jackson added. "But based on what I've heard since I've been out, I would have to vote guilty" in a civil case."


The forewoman and the other juror would have voted liable.

"Given that standard", which is not the standard in a criminal trial, and who did not serve on the jury in the civil trial, what she says is irrelevant and immaterial.

Ms. Jackson does not have the ability to vote guilty in a civil trial.

[weezer]

I'd say even if she felt differently, she's still going to "stand by her verdict". To do otherwise would make her appear even more foolish. IMO

I think we can all agree that the criminal jury made the statement they wanted to make and it had nothing to do with orenthal james simpson being guilty of murder. imo

[weezer]

The forewoman and the other juror would have voted liable.

"Given that standard", which is not the standard in a criminal trial, and who did not serve on the jury in the civil trial, what she says is irrelevant and immaterial.

Ms. Jackson does not have the ability to vote guilty in a civil trial.

her words, not mine :shrug: and let's not even start to talk about her ability LOL

[socaldiva]

*snip*
I would have to vote guilty" in a civil case."

Apparently Marsha Jackson doesn't understand the difference between guilty & liable either. :tongue:

[William Anthony]

You may very well know that the civil trial jury verdict means Simpson killed both victims but you won't admit it. "We" is every other poster on this discussion group who is informed about what the civil trial was all about and understands that's exactly what the civil trial verdict means.

bobaugust

I have state what the verdict means and stand fast on what I have said. There are others on this board, who do not agree that the civil verdict means what you claim it means. Ergo, I guess they are they, and they have provided some insights from the civil trial, although they are opposed to the views of we.

[weezer]

Apparently Marsha Jackson doesn't understand the difference between guilty & liable either. :tongue:

just one thing among many that she didn't understand :tongue:

[weezer]

I have state what the verdict means and stand fast on what I have said. There are others on this board, who do not agree that the civil verdict means what you claim it means. Ergo, I guess they are they, and they have provided some insights from the civil trial, although they are opposed to the views of we.

For some reason, this came to mind: I read on another poster's signature line: information isn't knowledge. :D

(I'd give credit to the poster but I don't remember where I read it -- whoever you are, it's a great line!)

[socaldiva]

just one thing among many that she didn't understand :tongue:

So true. Since there are some here that claim that the civil trial was basically no big deal, I wonder if they ask themselves why Simpson bothered to show up, let alone hire a pricey attorney to fight for him?

[William Anthony]

her words, not mine :shrug: and let's not even start to talk about her ability LOL

I apologize I thought you were offering your prior post in oppostition to what the civil verdict meant. I now see that you are in agreement. I applaud your ability to change your mind.

[weezer]

I apologize I thought you were offering your prior post in oppostition to what the civil verdict meant. I now see that you are in agreement. I applaud your ability to change your mind.

ahh william -- I quoted the juror to show that your nitpicking of the words 'guilty' or 'liable' are meaningless. Most reasonable people - and even the uneducated as in the juror quoted -- find the verdicts to be interchangeable. The only difference is the penalty. imo

[William Anthony]

For some reason, this came to mind: I read on another poster's signature line: information isn't knowledge. :D

(I'd give credit to the poster but I don't remember where I read it -- whoever you are, it's a great line!)

I cannot disagree with that statement in the signature line, since many have posted loads of information without having the knowledge of what their posts prove. It's similar to that horse adage, is it not?

[bobaugust]

I have state what the verdict means and stand fast on what I have said. There are others on this board, who do not agree that the civil verdict means what you claim it means. Ergo, I guess they are they, and they have provided some insights from the civil trial, although they are opposed to the views of we.

Others who do not agree that the civil trial verdict means Simpson killed both victims are as uninformed about what happened in the civil trial as you are.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

ahh william -- I quoted the juror to show that your nitpicking of the words 'guilty' or 'liable' are meaningless. Most reasonable people - and even the uneducated as in the juror quoted -- find the verdicts to be interchangeable. The only difference is the penalty. imo

The educated realize that the words are not interchangable, imho, due not only to penalty imposed, but also to the standard of proof and the parties involved, as well as the admissibilty of types of evidence. The information offered must be analyzed and ingested or rejected in order to attain knowledge.

[William Anthony]

Others who do not agree that the civil trial verdict means Simpson killed both victims are as uninformed about what happened in the civil trial as you are.

bobaugust

Because some do not view the evidence in the same way that you do, does not mean that they are uniformed, only that they disagree with your conclusion.

[weezer]

The educated realize that the words are not interchangable, imho, due not only to penalty imposed, but also to the standard of proof and the parties involved, as well as the admissibilty of types of evidence. The information offered must be analyzed and ingested or rejected in order to attain knowledge.

that semester of school has confused you -- imo -- the point is, the outcome is the same.

[weezer]

Because some do not view the evidence in the same way that you do, does not mean that they are uniformed, only that they disagree with your conclusion.

nah -- it means uninformed. imo

[William Anthony]

that semester of school has confused you -- imo -- the point is, the outcome is the same.

Would you like to enroll? If the outcome were the same, he would be in jail. The outcome is more consistent with not guilty.

[weezer]

Would you like to enroll? If the outcome were the same, he would be in jail. The outcome is more consistent with not guilty.

See what happens when you limit your scope of knowledge? You don't inform yourself of all of the evidence and thus you mistakenly believe that the verdict of orenthal's actions stopped at the criminal trial when actually the civil trial established beyond any doubt that he is the Butcher of Brentwood. imo

[socaldiva]

*snip*

the civil trial established beyond any doubt that he is the Butcher of Brentwood. imo

I agree. Which is why he is shunned :)

[bobaugust]

Because some do not view the evidence in the same way that you do, does not mean that they are uniformed, only that they disagree with your conclusion.

Like you if someone is offering and opinion about the civil trial verdict without being informed about the new evidence that was presented in the civil trial or Simpson's lying testimony then their opinions have as little credibility as yours do about what the civil trial verdict means.

bobaugust

[2L8 4A D8]

For some reason, this came to mind: I read on another poster's signature line: information isn't knowledge. :D

(I'd give credit to the poster but I don't remember where I read it -- whoever you are, it's a great line!)

FYI:

Poster's Signature Line: Information isn't Knowledge

Wukong
Location: Taiwan........Information is not knowledge.

[weezer]

FYI:

Poster's Signature Line: Information isn't Knowledge

Wukong
Location: Taiwan........Information is not knowledge.

thank you 2L8 -- it made an impact when I read it and then I suffered a bout of 'old timers' and I could't remember from where LOL

[William Anthony]

See what happens when you limit your scope of knowledge? You don't inform yourself of all of the evidence and thus you mistakenly believe that the verdict of orenthal's actions stopped at the criminal trial when actually the civil trial established beyond any doubt that he is the Butcher of Brentwood. imo

First, the civil trial could not establish anything other than his liability in the wrongful deaths. Second, you may want to or choose to believe otherwise, which is your right. However, the evidence in the civil trial could not establish him as a murderer/butcher of brentwood, only that he was liable for the wrongful deaths. This is what the Plaintiff (civil) not the prosecution (criminal/State) was required to prove, which is what the verdict (statement of truth) declared the evidence proved. The fact that so many want to state otherwise reinforces my opinion that the civil trial was nothing more than a political production.

[weezer]

First, the civil trial could not establish anything other than his liability in the wrongful deaths. Second, you may want to or choose to believe otherwise, which is your right. However, the evidence in the civil trial could not establish him as a murderer/butcher of brentwood, only that he was liable for the wrongful deaths. This is what the Plaintiff (civil) not the prosecution (criminal/State) was required to prove, which is what the verdict (statement of truth) declared the evidence proved. The fact that so many want to state otherwise reinforces my opinion that the civil trial was nothing more than a political production.

should I interpret your opinion to mean that you would not consider evidence discovered after a criminal verdict? do you also mean that you would not address a wrong through a civil court? or does all this talk only relate to the simpson case?

[William Anthony]

should I interpret your opinion to mean that you would not consider evidence discovered after a criminal verdict? do you also mean that you would not address a wrong through a civil court? or does all this talk only relate to the simpson case?

Unless the evidence was put through a trial proceedure, I would not consider it. I would address a wrong in a civil court and a crime in a criminal court. The comment about a political production was to the Simpson case, not that they did not have the right to bring the action, only that the conclusion was foregone.

[weezer]

*Snipped*. . . only that the conclusion was foregone.

at last we agree on something :D . Based on the evidence, it was a foregone conclusion. imo

[bobaugust]

First, the civil trial could not establish anything other than his liability in the wrongful deaths. Second, you may want to or choose to believe otherwise, which is your right. However, the evidence in the civil trial could not establish him as a murderer/butcher of brentwood, only that he was liable for the wrongful deaths. This is what the Plaintiff (civil) not the prosecution (criminal/State) was required to prove, which is what the verdict (statement of truth) declared the evidence proved. The fact that so many want to state otherwise reinforces my opinion that the civil trial was nothing more than a political production.

You say the evidence in the civil trial could not establish him as a murderer only that he was liable for the wrongful deaths. If the evidence in the civil trial did not establish him as a murderer then he wouldn't have been found liable. But the evidence did establish him as a murderer and that's why he was found liable for the wrongful deaths.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

*Snipped*

at last we agree on something :D . Based on the evidence, it was a foregone conclusion. imo

No, we have not yet reached an agreement, because I believe the verdict was a foregone conclusion before one iota of evidence was introduced and before the first juror was selected to participate in the political production.

[William Anthony]

You say the evidence in the civil trial could not establish him as a murderer only that he was liable for the wrongful deaths. If the evidence in the civil trial did not establish him as a murderer then he wouldn't have been found liable. But the evidence did establish him as a murderer and that's why he was found liable for the wrongful deaths.

bobaugust

Please paste the link to the jury form question that stated did you determine that Simpson murdered two people, Nicole and Ronald, based on the evidence presented.

[bobaugust]

Please paste the link to the jury form question that stated did you determine that Simpson murdered two people, Nicole and Ronald, based on the evidence presented.

I have posted the civil trial jury verdict many times. The words "found by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant Simpson willfully and wrongfully caused the death."

"preponderance of the evidence that defendant Simpson committed battery."
"clear and convincing evidence that defendant Simpson committed oppression."
"clear and convincing evidence that defendant Simpson committed malice"

In other words the evidence proved he murdered both victims.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

I have posted the civil trial jury verdict many times. The words "found by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant Simpson willfully and wrongfully caused the death."

"preponderance of the evidence that defendant Simpson committed battery."
"clear and convincing evidence that defendant Simpson committed oppression."
"clear and convincing evidence that defendant Simpson committed malice"

In other words the evidence proved he murdered both victims.

bobaugust

You have called my posts false. The word murder is not in your post. Ergo, the poster world is able to see who makes false posts. The jury determined the evidence supported battery, oppression, and malice not murder as you have claimed.

[weezer]

You have called my posts false. The word murder is not in your post. Ergo, the poster world is able to see who makes false posts. The jury determined the evidence supported battery, oppression, and malice not murder as you have claimed.

"found by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant Simpson willfully and wrongfully caused the death." -- I guess that when you're looking at two butchered bodies, the death would be by 'murder' -- don't you think?

[bobaugust]

You have called my posts false. The word murder is not in your post. Ergo, the poster world is able to see who makes false posts. The jury determined the evidence supported battery, oppression, and malice not murder as you have claimed.

I never claimed the verdict said the actual word "murder," I said that's what the jury believed and that's what the verdict meant.

Simpson committed battery, oppression, and malice on two people who were then found dead. The evidence was that Simpson willfully and wrongfully caused the death. That's murder.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

I never claimed the verdict said the actual word "murder," I said that's what the jury believed and that's what the verdict meant.

Simpson committed battery, oppression, and malice on two people who were then found dead. The evidence was that Simpson willfully and wrongfully caused the death. That's murder.

bobaugust


Here are your posts;

"You may very well know that the civil trial jury verdict means Simpson killed both victims but you won't admit it. "We" is every other poster on this discussion group who is informed about what the civil trial was all about and understands that's exactly what the civil trial verdict means.
bobaugust"

"You say the evidence in the civil trial could not establish him as a murderer only that he was liable for the wrongful deaths. If the evidence in the civil trial did not establish him as a murderer then he wouldn't have been found liable. But the evidence did establish him as a murderer and that's why he was found liable for the wrongful deaths.

bobaugust"

Ergo, you have spoken not only for you but for others that the evidence established in the jury trial established him as a murderer and that is what the verdict meant. That is when I asked you to provide the question showing that the jury determined that the evidence was that he committed murder. You cannot because that was not what that jury was called upon to determine.

[bobaugust]

Ergo, you have spoken not only for you but for others that the evidence established in the jury trial established him as a murderer and that is what the verdict meant. That is when I asked you to provide the question showing that the jury determined that the evidence was that he committed murder. You cannot because that was not what that jury was called upon to determine.

You agree the jury determined the evidence supported battery, oppression, and malice. And since the jury found Simpson willfully and wrongfully caused the deaths what do you call what Simpson was found to have done when he killed them if it wasn't murder?

bobaugust

[weezer]

You agree the jury determined the evidence supported battery, oppression, and malice. And since the jury found Simpson willfully and wrongfully caused the deaths what do you call what Simpson was found to have done when he killed them if it wasn't murder?

bobaugust

"In civil cases the "crime" is referred to as a tort. For most criminal offenses there is a corresponding tort for which a crime victim may bring a civil suit. Some examples include:

Assault - putting the victim in fear of being injured while the perpetrator has the present and immediate capacity to inflict that injury.

Battery - any intentional physical contact that offends the victim. Battery includes but is not limited to the crimes of sexual battery, rape, molestation, fondling, forcible sodomy, malicious wounding, and attempted murder.

Wrongful Death - a death caused by another person which occurs without justification or excuse, including murder, manslaughter and vehicular homicide.

Most often, a civil court's finding of liability means that the defendant must pay the victim, and/or the victim's family monetary damages. . . Furthermore, the civil justice system often provides victims and their families with a sense of justice that the criminal courts cannot. Rather than holding a defendant accountable for his or her "crime against the state," the civil justice system holds a defendant who is found liable directly accountable to the victim for the harms he or she has suffered."

[weezer]

"In civil cases the "crime" is referred to as a tort. For most criminal offenses there is a corresponding tort for which a crime victim may bring a civil suit. Some examples include:

Assault - putting the victim in fear of being injured while the perpetrator has the present and immediate capacity to inflict that injury.

Battery - any intentional physical contact that offends the victim. Battery includes but is not limited to the crimes of sexual battery, rape, molestation, fondling, forcible sodomy, malicious wounding, and attempted murder.

Wrongful Death - a death caused by another person which occurs without justification or excuse, including murder, manslaughter and vehicular homicide.

Most often, a civil court's finding of liability means that the defendant must pay the victim, and/or the victim's family monetary damages. . . Furthermore, the civil justice system often provides victims and their families with a sense of justice that the criminal courts cannot. Rather than holding a defendant accountable for his or her "crime against the state," the civil justice system holds a defendant who is found liable directly accountable to the victim for the harms he or she has suffered."

http://www.darkness2light.org/KnowAbout/articles_justice_for_victims.asp

[William Anthony]

You agree the jury determined the evidence supported battery, oppression, and malice. And since the jury found Simpson willfully and wrongfully caused the deaths what do you call what Simpson was found to have done when he killed them if it wasn't murder?

bobaugust

I have not agreed that the verdict says he killed them . What it says is that he is liable for the wrongful deaths.

[weezer]

I have not agreed that the verdict says he killed them . What it says is that he is liable for the wrongful deaths.

what exactly do you interpret 'liable for the wrongful deaths' to mean?

[William Anthony]

http://www.darkness2light.org/KnowAbout/articles_justice_for_victims.asp

I do not know why your entire post is not showing up. However, I will not disagree that the author of such an article believes what he/she says. However, when the evidence is insufficient to find guilt, there is the mechanism for wrongful death, which includes other manner of deaths, such as knowingly maintaining an unsafe condition which led to the death of another. The jury form found he was liable for battery, which means Intentional and wrongful physical contact with a person with or without his consent that some injury or offensive touching. Oppression means an act of subjecting to cruel and unjust hardship, an act of domination, malice means The intention of doing a wrongful act without just cause or excuse with an intent to inflict an injury or under circumstances that the law will imply an evil intent.

I cannot disagree with the decision to hold the civil trial after the criminal one. However, based on some of the rulings in the civil trial and the outrage at the verdict, I still believe that the civil trial was a political production made in opposition to the criminal verdict. Thus, we can see that there is nothing in the definitions used that can justify a finding that Simpson did anything other than by an act or failure to act had an evil intent to injure or offensively touch without cause and dominated the victims.

[weezer]

" liable
Legally responsible. For example, a person may be liable for a debt, liable for an accident due to careless behavior, liable for failing do something required by a contract or liable for the commission of a crime. Someone who is found liable for an act or ommission must usually pay damages. . ."

http://www.nolo.com/definition.cfm/Term/A9E08CA9-C850-47C4-B91FE65AA90FA08B/alpha/L/

[William Anthony]

what exactly do you interpret 'liable for the wrongful deaths' to mean?

Responsible for deaths in a manner that the law has determined to be wrongful.

[weezer]

I do not know why your entire post is not showing up. However, I will not disagree that the author of such an article believes what he/she says. However, when the evidence is insufficient to find guilt, there is the mechanism for wrongful death, which includes other manner of deaths, such as knowingly maintaining an unsafe condition which led to the death of another. The jury form found he was liable for battery, which means Intentional and wrongful physical contact with a person with or without his consent that some injury or offensive touching. Oppression means an act of subjecting to cruel and unjust hardship, an act of domination, malice means The intention of doing a wrongful act without just cause or excuse with an intent to inflict an injury or under circumstances that the law will imply an evil intent.

I cannot disagree with the decision to hold the civil trial after the criminal one. However, based on some of the rulings in the civil trial and the outrage at the verdict, I still believe that the civil trial was a political production made in opposition to the criminal verdict. Thus, we can see that there is nothing in the definitions used that can justify a finding that Simpson did anything other than by an act or failure to act had an evil intent to injure or offensively touch without cause and dominated the victims.

that's right -- orenthal james simpson murdered Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman without their consent.

[weezer]

Responsible for deaths in a manner that the law has determined to be wrongful.

what exactly do you interpret 'responsible for deaths' to mean?

[William Anthony]

that's right -- orenthal james simpson murdered Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman without their consent.

I reiterate that he was proven not guilty of that charge and liable for their wrongful deaths.

[weezer]

Responsible for deaths in a manner that the law has determined to be wrongful.

I'm going to take this to mean that the law has determined death by murder to be wrongful.

[William Anthony]

I'm going to take this to mean that the law has determined death by murder to be wrongful.

You would be correct, criminally wrongful, not civilly.

[bobaugust]

I have not agreed that the verdict says he killed them . What it says is that he is liable for the wrongful deaths.

The fact is that the jury found Simpson committed battery, oppression, and malice when he willfully and wrongfully caused the deaths. In other words he killed them.

If you don't think he killed them, why were they found dead?

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

The fact is that the jury found Simpson committed battery, oppression, and malice when he willfully and wrongfully caused the deaths. In other words he killed them.

If you don't think he killed them, why were they found dead?

bobaugust

Because someone killed them. I have previously told you that, if the standard was a preponderance of the evidence, I would have no problem with a guilty verdict. However, because it was proof beyond a reasonable doubt, I have no problem with the not guilty verdict. I accept the civil verdict of liable for the wrongful deaths. It matters not what I believe.

[bobaugust]

Because someone killed them. I have previously told you that, if the standard was a preponderance of the evidence, I would have no problem with a guilty verdict. However, because it was proof beyond a reasonable doubt, I have no problem with the not guilty verdict. I accept the civil verdict of liable for the wrongful deaths. It matters not what I believe.

Someone else was not on trial and someone else was not the one who all the evidence pointed to, and someone else was not the one who continually lied under oath, Simpson was. The verdict means that the jury believed Orenthal James Simpson killed the victims, not someone else.

If it doesn't matter what you believe then why are you arguing here?

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

Someone else was not on trial and someone else was not the one who all the evidence pointed to, and someone else was not the one who continually lied under oath, Simpson was. The verdict means that the jury believed Orenthal James Simpson killed the victims, not someone else.

If it doesn't matter what you believe then why are you arguing here?

bobaugust

If you mean arguing in the legal sense, then I offer my argument against your claims to know what the civil jury believed, your statements to know the truth and the facts, your derrogatory about a jury that gave of their time and themselves, and I am entitled to believe what I choose, realizing that my belief cannot change one thing about either case and to argue in support of that position.

The more interesting question is why people are willing to accept one verdict and claim it proves something it does not but are unwilling to accept another? Why will they not accept the possibility that the civil jury got the verdict wrong, because Simpson did not have lawyers who had the acumen that he had in the criminal trial?

[bobaugust]

If you mean arguing in the legal sense, then I offer my argument against your claims to know what the civil jury believed, your statements to know the truth and the facts, your derrogatory about a jury that gave of their time and themselves, and I am entitled to believe what I choose, realizing that my belief cannot change one thing about either case and to argue in support of that position.

The more interesting question is why people are willing to accept one verdict and claim it proves something it does not but are unwilling to accept another? Why will they not accept the possibility that the civil jury got the verdict wrong, because Simpson did not have lawyers who had the acumen that he had in the criminal trial?

You have no credible argument regarding what the civil trial jurors heard and believed because you know very little about the civil trial. Simpson did have some of the same lawyers in the civil trial as he had in the criminal trial and his other criminal trial lawyers consulted. The problem is that no matter who Simpson's attorneys were none of them could testify for him. He did that on his own.

People who are informed about both trials are better able to understand the difference between what these two juries heard than people who are not informed about both trials. Just because the criminal trial jurors put time in doesn't mean they understood the evidence or the arguments.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

You have no credible argument regarding what the civil trial jurors heard and believed because you know very little about the civil trial. Simpson did have some of the same lawyers in the civil trial as he had in the criminal trial and his other criminal trial lawyers consulted. The problem is that no matter who Simpson's attorneys were none of them could testify for him. He did that on his own.

People who are informed about both trials are better able to understand the difference between what these two juries heard than people who are not informed about both trials. Just because the criminal trial jurors put time in doesn't mean they understood the evidence or the arguments.

bobaugust

I know enough to know what the verdict meant, which is why I paid little so little attention to the political production. The fact that the civil trial put time in does not mean that they heard all the evidence that should have been admitted, imho, or that, imho, they were receptive to all the evidence presented. However, with that said, I have no problem accepting their verdict. Why do you seemingly have a problem accepting the criminal verdict?

[weezer]

I know enough to know what the verdict meant, which is why I paid little so little attention to the political production. The fact that the civil trial put time in does not mean that they heard all the evidence that should have been admitted, imho, or that, imho, they were receptive to all the evidence presented. However, with that said, I have no problem accepting their verdict. Why do you seemingly have a problem accepting the criminal verdict?

maybe it is you who does not understand -- the criminal trial jury did not return a verdict, they made a statement. A statement that was based in hatred and distrust. Why wouldn't America be repulsed that the jury used the pain of two families to settle their score and a segment of our society celebrated? imo

[William Anthony]

maybe it is you who does not understand -- the criminal trial jury did not return a verdict, they made a statement. A statement that was based in hatred and distrust. Why wouldn't America be repulsed that the jury used the pain of two families to settle their score and a segment of our society celebrated? imo

Yes, you are correct that the criminal jury made a statement, which was that LE was not going to imprison Blacks on faulty evidence that could not be trusted. I do not know, if the verdict was based in hatred and distrust, but I do know that it was based in equality, in that the prosecution must be held to prove its case against Blacks just as they had been against Whites. I do not see it as settling a score. However, why should there have been a score to schedule when the preamble and the Constitution guaranteed equal rights and equal protection under the laws to all its citizens, irrespective of their race and gender.

[weezer]

Yes, you are correct that the criminal jury made a statement, which was that LE was not going to imprison Blacks on faulty evidence that could not be trusted. I do not know, if the verdict was based in hatred and distrust, but I do know that it was based in equality, in that the prosecution must be held to prove its case against Blacks just as they had been against Whites. I do not see it as settling a score. However, why should there have been a score to schedule when the preamble and the Constitution guaranteed equal rights and equal protection under the laws to all its citizens, irrespective of their race and gender.

I have no interest or desire to engage in a debate on race relations -- I feel strongly that the criminal jurors in the simpson case misused/abused the privilege of sitting as jurors. imo

[socaldiva]

maybe it is you who does not understand -- the criminal trial jury did not return a verdict, they made a statement. A statement that was based in hatred and distrust. Why wouldn't America be repulsed that the jury used the pain of two families to settle their score and a segment of our society celebrated? imo


:beer: :beer: :beer:

[William Anthony]

I have no interest or desire to engage in a debate on race relations -- I feel strongly that the criminal jurors in the simpson case misused/abused the privilege of sitting as jurors. imo

I see you just want to make statements about the jury making a statement of righting a wrong and not want to back it up.

[weezer]

I see you just want to make statements about the jury making a statement of righting a wrong and not want to back it up.

what was there to back up?

[William Anthony]

what was there to back up?

The portion about hatred and distrust. Do you feel they were justified in having such emotions that you think they had?

[weezer]

The portion about hatred and distrust. Do you feel they were justified in having such emotions that you think they had?

Was the verdict intended to send a message to the LAPD?

"Well, Johnnie Cochran's closing argument was, you have to teach a lesson to the police of Los Angeles. ."

I believe this jury abused the trust put in them to act as jurors in a murder trial --

[socaldiva]

Was the verdict intended to send a message to the LAPD?

"Well, Johnnie Cochran's closing argument was, you have to teach a lesson to the police of Los Angeles. ."

I believe this jury abused the trust put in them to act as jurors in a murder trial --

I believe they abused their position as well. They were there to evaluate the Simpson case ONLY, Not drag their other unrelated emotions & anger & vote on their displeasure with other perceived wrongs outside the Simpson case.

[bobaugust]

I know enough to know what the verdict meant, which is why I paid little so little attention to the political production. The fact that the civil trial put time in does not mean that they heard all the evidence that should have been admitted, imho, or that, imho, they were receptive to all the evidence presented. However, with that said, I have no problem accepting their verdict. Why do you seemingly have a problem accepting the criminal verdict?

You say you don't have a problem accepting the civil trial verdict yet you refuse to admit that the verdict was reached because the jury believed Simpson killed both Ron and Nicole. Calling the civil trial a political production is only the excuse you use to keep yourself uninformed and in denial of the realty that in the civil trial Simpson was proved to be a liar and a killer. To a certainty.

bobaugust.

[tazzybaby]

The educated realize that the words are not interchangable, imho, due not only to penalty imposed, but also to the standard of proof and the parties involved, as well as the admissibilty of types of evidence. The information offered must be analyzed and ingested or rejected in order to attain knowledge.


Hi William,

Are you saying that the criminal juror wasn't educated?

[William Anthony]

Hi William,

Are you saying that the criminal juror wasn't educated?

No, I am not saying that, because I do not know the juror personally or her credtentials. She may have only been uneducated in the law. What I was speaking of is those, who speak so freely on what the verdicts means, and have not completely been educated on the difference between a civil and criminal trial. To speak as though your words are fact and not know they are not is of what I spoke. I am reminded of the adage that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

[William Anthony]

You say you don't have a problem accepting the civil trial verdict yet you refuse to admit that the verdict was reached because the jury believed Simpson killed both Ron and Nicole. Calling the civil trial a political production is only the excuse you use to keep yourself uninformed and in denial of the realty that in the civil trial Simpson was proved to be a liar and a killer. To a certainty.

bobaugust.

I accept the verdict for what it means and reject your declaration as to what it means and what the jurors believed. You may call it denial, but I choose to call the meaning of the verdict that he was proven liable for the wrongful deaths by a preponderance of the evidence, and not that he killed or murdered them, reality.

[William Anthony]

Was the verdict intended to send a message to the LAPD?

"Well, Johnnie Cochran's closing argument was, you have to teach a lesson to the police of Los Angeles. ."

I believe this jury abused the trust put in them to act as jurors in a murder trial --

I think that was a correct message by JC. The message was that defendant's can not be convicted on mistakes/lies, sloppiness/unprofessionalism and human errors/contamination and potentially cross contamination. I see it as the jury taking careful and dutiful responsibilty for the duty entrusted to them.

[William Anthony]

Was the verdict intended to send a message to the LAPD?

"Well, Johnnie Cochran's closing argument was, you have to teach a lesson to the police of Los Angeles. ."

I believe this jury abused the trust put in them to act as jurors in a murder trial --

I would appreciate an answer to the question as to whether or not you feel they were justified in having the hatred and distrust you think they had.

[weezer]

I would appreciate an answer to the question as to whether or not you feel they were justified in having the hatred and distrust you think they had.

sorry, thought I had answered you: No, they were not justified. There is no justification for railroading justice to appease a personal vendetta --

[William Anthony]

sorry, thought I had answered you: No, they were not justified. There is no justification for railroading justice to appease a personal vendetta --

How about railroading justice to appease a personal prejudice? However, I think you may have not consider how thoroughly the evidence was discredited.

[weezer]

How about railroading justice to appease a personal prejudice? However, I think you may have not consider how thoroughly the evidence was discredited.

the evidence was not discredited william -- you simply can't or won't get past your hatred to consider it fairly. imo

[William Anthony]

the evidence was not discredited william -- you simply can't or won't get past your hatred to consider it fairly. imo

I habor no hatred past or present for anyone. I considered the evidence and found it to be insufficient. Can you say the same for getting past your prejudices?

[weezer]

I habor no hatred past or present for anyone. I considered the evidence and found it to be insufficient. Can you say the same for getting past your prejudices?

your posts reek of hatred and bitterness. you stopped looking for the truth when you hung your hat on the criminal trial verdict -- probably not a good trait for an aspiring attorney. were you afraid to follow the evidence? imo

[William Anthony]

your posts reek of hatred and bitterness. you stopped looking for the truth when you hung your hat on the criminal trial verdict -- probably not a good trait for an aspiring attorney. were you afraid to follow the evidence? imo

I followed the criminal trial, because it was televised. That fact allowed me to see the judge, the lawyers and the witnesses in action. As an aspiring attorney, this was meat for my plate, although at that time I had not begun to pursue my passion. I do not intend to become a criminal lawyer and would have loved to have followed the civil trial if it were televised. However, since it was not, I can not speak authoratatively as to what the evidence meant in that trial, only what the verdict meant. My posts on reak of the disparity of history (fact), I cannot hate anyone for their personal feelings, nor can I be bitter about them. If I can be remembered for anything, I would that, if life allows me, people recognize that as a lawyer I stood up for cases and devoted my practice to bettering society. You did not answer my question as to your prejudices, why?

[bobaugust]

I accept the verdict for what it means and reject your declaration as to what it means and what the jurors believed. You may call it denial, but I choose to call the meaning of the verdict that he was proven liable for the wrongful deaths by a preponderance of the evidence, and not that he killed or murdered them, reality.

The civil trial jurors found Simpson liable for murder. Maybe you might understand this a little better from what some of the civil trial jurors said,
http://www.usatoday.com/news/index/nns223.htm

"Finding O.J. Simpson liable of the murders and acting with oppression and malice was one of the easiest decisions I have ever had to make,'' said juror Laura Fast-Khazaee, 27.

Simpson was acquitted of murder in 1985. But a civil trial juror, Maurice Bourdon, said today he didn't believe Simpson. He singled out the former football star's testimony that he couldn't remember cutting his hand. "It seemed like he would dance around every question that was asked to him. He never would give a real answer to anything. He was always, `I may have, well, I don't remember where I cut that and I don't remember this.' ''

Jurors said they took 12 hours to reach a verdict in the compensatory phase last week because they painstakingly went through the evidence. They didn't take their first vote until the very end - and found out then they were unanimous in their feeling that Simpson was a killer.

The jurors said the most compelling evidence was the blood and photos showing Simpson wearing the same type of Bruno Magli shoes that left bloody prints near the victims' bodies. They also said Simpson, who denied ever wearing the shoes, could not be believed.

The other black on the panel was the only one to vote against awarding punitive damages, though he joined the majority in holding Simpson responsible for the killings. The juror, a Jamaican-born man of black and Asian descent, has yet to comment publicly.

O.J.'s openly gay juror - O.J. Simpson civil trial; Orville Bigelow
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1589/is_n730/ai_20139154

"I don't feel good that I found someone liable for murder. But to find him innocent would have meant ignoring the evidence."

bobaugust

[weezer]

I followed the criminal trial, because it was televised. That fact allowed me to see the judge, the lawyers and the witnesses in action. As an aspiring attorney, this was meat for my plate, although at that time I had not begun to pursue my passion. I do not intend to become a criminal lawyer and would have loved to have followed the civil trial if it were televised. However, since it was not, I can not speak authoratatively as to what the evidence meant in that trial, only what the verdict meant. My posts on reak of the disparity of history (fact), I cannot hate anyone for their personal feelings, nor can I be bitter about them. If I can be remembered for anything, I would that, if life allows me, people recognize that as a lawyer I stood up for cases and devoted my practice to bettering society. You did not answer my question as to your prejudices, why?

like you william, I have no prejudices.

[William Anthony]

The civil trial jurors found Simpson liable for murder. Maybe you might understand this a little better from what some of the civil trial jurors said,
http://www.usatoday.com/news/index/nns223.htm

"Finding O.J. Simpson liable of the murders and acting with oppression and malice was one of the easiest decisions I have ever had to make,'' said juror Laura Fast-Khazaee, 27.

Simpson was acquitted of murder in 1985. But a civil trial juror, Maurice Bourdon, said today he didn't believe Simpson. He singled out the former football star's testimony that he couldn't remember cutting his hand. "It seemed like he would dance around every question that was asked to him. He never would give a real answer to anything. He was always, `I may have, well, I don't remember where I cut that and I don't remember this.' ''

Jurors said they took 12 hours to reach a verdict in the compensatory phase last week because they painstakingly went through the evidence. They didn't take their first vote until the very end - and found out then they were unanimous in their feeling that Simpson was a killer.

The jurors said the most compelling evidence was the blood and photos showing Simpson wearing the same type of Bruno Magli shoes that left bloody prints near the victims' bodies. They also said Simpson, who denied ever wearing the shoes, could not be believed.

The other black on the panel was the only one to vote against awarding punitive damages, though he joined the majority in holding Simpson responsible for the killings. The juror, a Jamaican-born man of black and Asian descent, has yet to comment publicly.

O.J.'s openly gay juror - O.J. Simpson civil trial; Orville Bigelow
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1589/is_n730/ai_20139154

"I don't feel good that I found someone liable for murder. But to find him innocent would have meant ignoring the evidence."

bobaugust

"Finding O.J. Simpson liable of the murders...". It appears that this juror may have been as uneducated as the juror in the criminal trial. They found him liable for battery.

They didn't take their first vote until the very end - and found out then they were unanimous in their feeling that Simpson was a killer. Um, very interesting. I think not even the criminal jury was unanimous on their first vote.

The jurors said the most compelling evidence was the blood and photos showing Simpson wearing the same type of Bruno Magli shoes that left bloody prints near the victims' bodies. They also said Simpson, who denied ever wearing the shoes, could not be believed. Was he denying wearing Bruno Maglis or similar shoes?

"I don't feel good that I found someone liable for murder. But to find him innocent would have meant ignoring the evidence."
I am now convinced that at least two of the jurors did not understand the duty that they were assigned but did understand their role in the political production.

[William Anthony]

like you william, I have no prejudices.

I only denied hatred and bitterness. I like dogs better than cats, for no apparent or good reason.

[bobaugust]

"Finding O.J. Simpson liable of the murders...". It appears that this juror may have been as uneducated as the juror in the criminal trial. They found him liable for battery.

They didn't take their first vote until the very end - and found out then they were unanimous in their feeling that Simpson was a killer. Um, very interesting. I think not even the criminal jury was unanimous on their first vote.

The jurors said the most compelling evidence was the blood and photos showing Simpson wearing the same type of Bruno Magli shoes that left bloody prints near the victims' bodies. They also said Simpson, who denied ever wearing the shoes, could not be believed. Was he denying wearing Bruno Maglis or similar shoes?

"I don't feel good that I found someone liable for murder. But to find him innocent would have meant ignoring the evidence."
I am now convinced that at least two of the jurors did not understand the duty that they were assigned but did understand their role in the political production.

All the civil trial jurors believed Simpson killed both victims. They did their duty, you're the one who can't understand the reality of why they came to their verdict.

Simpson was asked about the shoes he was shown to be wearing in the Scull photograph and the Flammer photographs several times during his testimony. Here's a portion of his testimony from one of those times that he denied he wasn't wearing the shoes all the authenticated photographs showed him wearing.

January 13, 1997 Simpson
Q. But you don't have any reason to believe that you didn't pose for this photograph with all these people, right?
A. No. I know I take a lot of pictures. I mean possibly -- I don't have any reason not to believe it, no.
Q. And you don't have any reason to believe that you weren't wearing all of the clothing in the photograph of you in that picture -- I mean the photograph bearing Exhibit Number 2295, right? You don't quarrel with any of the clothing that you're wearing there?
A. The pants a little bit, but I do own -- I can't tell if this is a blue or black sport coat. I certainly own that -- I mean I own those. The tie looked very familiar. Even though I can't find this particular tie in my home. And I can't tell, on these pictures about this shirt, but on that exhibit, I knew I liked the shirt (indicating to Elmo screen Exhibit No. 1917.)
Q. The only one you quarrel with is the shoes and maybe the pants or definitely the pants?
A. I don't know -- maybe the pants. I'm normally a pretty sharp dresser, and that is very -- not like me. They don't look like they fit.
Q. So your opinion, sir, is that all of these pictures are once again doctored; is that right?
A. I don't know.
MR. BAKER: Objection.
Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) Is that your opinion?
MR. BAKER: I objected. I'd like a ruling.
THE COURT: Overruled. Asking his opinion.
A. I don't know. I just know that the pants don't look right to me. I don't ever recall owning shoes like this.
Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) You saying you don't recall the shoes? Or are you saying, sir, you did not
wear those shoes in those photographs?
A. I would say no.
Q. What is it?
A. I would say no, I didn't wear those shoes.
Q. You did not wear those shoes, right?
A. No.
Q. Do you have any explanation for why all these photographs show you wearing those shoes?
A. No.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

All the civil trial jurors believed Simpson killed both victims. They did their duty, you're the one who can't understand the reality of why they came to their verdict.

Simpson was asked about the shoes he was shown to be wearing in the Scull photograph and the Flammer photographs several times during his testimony. Here's a portion of his testimony from one of those times that he denied he wasn't wearing the shoes all the authenticated photographs showed him wearing.

January 13, 1997 Simpson
Q. But you don't have any reason to believe that you didn't pose for this photograph with all these people, right?
A. No. I know I take a lot of pictures. I mean possibly -- I don't have any reason not to believe it, no.
Q. And you don't have any reason to believe that you weren't wearing all of the clothing in the photograph of you in that picture -- I mean the photograph bearing Exhibit Number 2295, right? You don't quarrel with any of the clothing that you're wearing there?
A. The pants a little bit, but I do own -- I can't tell if this is a blue or black sport coat. I certainly own that -- I mean I own those. The tie looked very familiar. Even though I can't find this particular tie in my home. And I can't tell, on these pictures about this shirt, but on that exhibit, I knew I liked the shirt (indicating to Elmo screen Exhibit No. 1917.)
Q. The only one you quarrel with is the shoes and maybe the pants or definitely the pants?
A. I don't know -- maybe the pants. I'm normally a pretty sharp dresser, and that is very -- not like me. They don't look like they fit.
Q. So your opinion, sir, is that all of these pictures are once again doctored; is that right?
A. I don't know.
MR. BAKER: Objection.
Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) Is that your opinion?
MR. BAKER: I objected. I'd like a ruling.
THE COURT: Overruled. Asking his opinion.
A. I don't know. I just know that the pants don't look right to me. I don't ever recall owning shoes like this.
Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) You saying you don't recall the shoes? Or are you saying, sir, you did not
wear those shoes in those photographs?
A. I would say no.
Q. What is it?
A. I would say no, I didn't wear those shoes.
Q. You did not wear those shoes, right?
A. No.
Q. Do you have any explanation for why all these photographs show you wearing those shoes?
A. No.

bobaugust

What has this post to do with what you posted the jurors said, and my post showing they did not understand the system and maybe their roles?

[bobaugust]

What has this post to do with what you posted the jurors said, and my post showing they did not understand the system and maybe their roles?

The testimony I posted has to do with two points. First it answers you're question, "Was he denying wearing Bruno Maglis or similar shoes?"

And second it has to do with what the jurors said. "The jurors said the most compelling evidence was the blood and photos showing Simpson wearing the same type of Bruno Magli shoes that left bloody prints near the victims' bodies. They also said Simpson, who denied ever wearing the shoes, could not be believed."

It wasn't the jury who didn't understand their instructions, it's you William.

January 28, 1997 Judge Fujisaki Instructions To The Jury
"As I have told you, this is a civil case. You may know that defendant Simpson was already tried in a criminal case for the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman and that defendant Simpson was acquitted in that criminal case. The acquittal in the criminal case has no effect on this case. Even though defendant Simpson was acquitted in the criminal case, you can still find him liable for killing Ronald Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson in this civil case."

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

The testimony I posted has to do with two points. First it answers you're question, "Was he denying wearing Bruno Maglis or similar shoes?"

And second it has to do with what the jurors said. "The jurors said the most compelling evidence was the blood and photos showing Simpson wearing the same type of Bruno Magli shoes that left bloody prints near the victims' bodies. They also said Simpson, who denied ever wearing the shoes, could not be believed."

It wasn't the jury who didn't understand their instructions, it's you William.

January 28, 1997 Judge Fujisaki Instructions To The Jury
"As I have told you, this is a civil case. You may know that defendant Simpson was already tried in a criminal case for the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman and that defendant Simpson was acquitted in that criminal case. The acquittal in the criminal case has no effect on this case. Even though defendant Simpson was acquitted in the criminal case, you can still find him liable for killing Ronald Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson in this civil case."

bobaugust

Here are where words are not as good as watching the trial. I am confused as to which shoes he was denying wearing. It would appear that he is denying wearing the shoes in the photos. Thus, he may have been guilty of lying about the shoes in the photo and still telling the truth about the BM's, which goes to the difference in the standard of proof. The jury is free to believe he lied about all his testimony, if they feel he lied about one thing, as was the jury in the criminal trial when it came to the witnesses.

I am a little concerned about the wording in the jury instruction. However, the jury did not understand the instructions as evidenced by these portions of your prior posts and your statement that they found him liable for murder.

The civil trial jurors found Simpson liable for murder, by Bobaugust

"Finding O.J. Simpson liable of the murders and acting with oppression and malice was one of the easiest decisions I have ever had to make,'' said juror Laura Fast-Khazaee, 27.


"I don't feel good that I found someone liable for murder. But to find him innocent would have meant ignoring the evidence."

It would appear that the jury in the political production was not as interested in finding him liable for the wrongful deaths as there were in finding him liable for murder, which they were incapable of doing.

[martin II]

Here are where words are not as good as watching the trial. I am confused as to which shoes he was denying wearing. It would appear that he is denying wearing the shoes in the photos. Thus, he may have been guilty of lying about the shoes in the photo and still telling the truth about the BM's, which goes to the difference in the standard of proof. The jury is free to believe he lied about all his testimony, if they feel he lied about one thing, as was the jury in the criminal trial when it came to the witnesses.

I am a little concerned about the wording in the jury instruction. However, the jury did not understand the instructions as evidenced by these portions of your prior posts and your statement that they found him liable for murder.

The civil trial jurors found Simpson liable for murder, by Bobaugust

"Finding O.J. Simpson liable of the murders and acting with oppression and malice was one of the easiest decisions I have ever had to make,'' said juror Laura Fast-Khazaee, 27.


"I don't feel good that I found someone liable for murder. But to find him innocent would have meant ignoring the evidence."

It would appear that the jury in the political production was not as interested in finding him liable for the wrongful deaths as there were in finding him liable for murder, which they were incapable of doing.

william
thats two that did not listen to the jury instructions or the vrerdict form they claim they signed. based on their comments. imo

these were suppose to be the intellegent ones.
martin II

[bobaugust]

Here are where words are not as good as watching the trial. I am confused as to which shoes he was denying wearing. It would appear that he is denying wearing the shoes in the photos. Thus, he may have been guilty of lying about the shoes in the photo and still telling the truth about the BM's, which goes to the difference in the standard of proof. The jury is free to believe he lied about all his testimony, if they feel he lied about one thing, as was the jury in the criminal trial when it came to the witnesses.

I am a little concerned about the wording in the jury instruction. However, the jury did not understand the instructions as evidenced by these portions of your prior posts and your statement that they found him liable for murder.

The civil trial jurors found Simpson liable for murder, by Bobaugust

"Finding O.J. Simpson liable of the murders and acting with oppression and malice was one of the easiest decisions I have ever had to make,'' said juror Laura Fast-Khazaee, 27.


"I don't feel good that I found someone liable for murder. But to find him innocent would have meant ignoring the evidence."

It would appear that the jury in the political production was not as interested in finding him liable for the wrongful deaths as there were in finding him liable for murder, which they were incapable of doing.

All of the photographs, both the Scull photograph and the thirty Flammer photographs showed Simpson wearing the same clothing and the same Bruno Magli Lorenzo style shoes. Simpson lied about all of them when he was confronted with each photograph saying he wasn't wearing the Bruno Magli shoes they showed him wearing. The jury knew he was repeatedly lying.

Based on the evidence and Simpson's lying testimony the civil trial jury believed Simpson killed both Ron and Nicole. In other words they believed he murdered them. That's why they found him liable and responsible for the deaths.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

All of the photographs, both the Scull photograph and the thirty Flammer photographs showed Simpson wearing the same clothing and the same Bruno Magli Lorenzo style shoes. Simpson lied about all of them when he was confronted with each photograph saying he wasn't wearing the Bruno Magli shoes they showed him wearing. The jury knew he was repeatedly lying.

Based on the evidence and Simpson's lying testimony the civil trial jury believed Simpson killed both Ron and Nicole. In other words they believed he murdered them. That's why they found him liable and responsible for the deaths.

bobaugust

Nothing in your post changes the fact that they said liable for murder not wrongful deaths or deaths, which shows that despite the evidence, they were driven by other motivations, imho.

[martin II]

Nothing in your post changes the fact that they said liable for murder not wrongful deaths or deaths, which shows that despite the evidence, they were driven by other motivations, imho.

i believe there were issues that contributed to the civil trial verdict.

Poisined jury pool
Local media pressure for a liable verdict.
national social pressure for a liable verdict
That the civil trial judge did not allow much of the defense argument at the beginning of the trial. So the jury only heard a part of the defense and mostloy all of the plaintiffs arguments. Instead of allowing the jury to hear all arguments, the judge acted as judge and jury. imo

martin II

[tazzybaby]

Here are where words are not as good as watching the trial. I am confused as to which shoes he was denying wearing. It would appear that he is denying wearing the shoes in the photos. Thus, he may have been guilty of lying about the shoes in the photo and still telling the truth about the BM's, which goes to the difference in the standard of proof. The jury is free to believe he lied about all his testimony, if they feel he lied about one thing, as was the jury in the criminal trial when it came to the witnesses.

I am a little concerned about the wording in the jury instruction. However, the jury did not understand the instructions as evidenced by these portions of your prior posts and your statement that they found him liable for murder.

The civil trial jurors found Simpson liable for murder, by Bobaugust

"Finding O.J. Simpson liable of the murders and acting with oppression and malice was one of the easiest decisions I have ever had to make,'' said juror Laura Fast-Khazaee, 27.


"I don't feel good that I found someone liable for murder. But to find him innocent would have meant ignoring the evidence."

It would appear that the jury in the political production was not as interested in finding him liable for the wrongful deaths as there were in finding him liable for murder, which they were incapable of doing.


You mention the civil jurors "finding him liable for murder" and they were not interested in finding him liable for the wrongful deaths. But, you seem to forget that one of the criminal trial jurors stated that she would find him "guilty" if she had been a part of the civil trial. You seem to use this as some hidden agenda of the civil jurors but just call the criminal juror uneducated (which by the way, many other posters have stated and the NG's really get upset about it). IMO your bias is showing here.

:confused:

[bobaugust]

Nothing in your post changes the fact that they said liable for murder not wrongful deaths or deaths, which shows that despite the evidence, they were driven by other motivations, imho.

The jurors addressed wrongful death answering yes to the first question on the verdict form. "Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant Simpson willfully and wrongfully caused the death of Ronald Goldman?"

The other questions they answered yes to were that Simpson was liable for the killings.

bobaugust

[socaldiva]

i believe there were issues that contributed to the civil trial verdict.

Poisined jury pool
Local media pressure for a liable verdict.
national social pressure for a liable verdict
That the civil trial judge did not allow much of the defense argument at the beginning of the trial. So the jury only heard a part of the defense and mostloy all of the plaintiffs arguments. Instead of allowing the jury to hear all arguments, the judge acted as judge and jury. imo

martin II

If media & social pressures are all it takes, the jury would have found Simpson guilty in the criminal trial.

As for your ideas about the judge in the civil case, if it were true Orenthal would have won the appeal. He didn't.

[William Anthony]

You mention the civil jurors "finding him liable for murder" and they were not interested in finding him liable for the wrongful deaths. But, you seem to forget that one of the criminal trial jurors stated that she would find him "guilty" if she had been a part of the civil trial. You seem to use this as some hidden agenda of the civil jurors but just call the criminal juror uneducated (which by the way, many other posters have stated and the NG's really get upset about it). IMO your bias is showing here.

:confused:

First, I did not call the criminal juror uneducated that was someone else's statement. I conceeded based on what she said that she may have been uneducated in the law, since she could not find him guilty, because that finding is impermissible in a civil suit, or perhaps, she was smarter than all of us since she did not say she would have found him guilty in a criminal trial where the evidentiary standard is beyond a reasonable doubt.

What I was saying is that the civil jurors did not understand that their duty was to render a verdict of liable or not liable for the wrongful deaths, or, if they did understand their duty they chose to find him liable for murder, which speaks of an agenda to me. I do not know how much flack the criminal juror received after the verdict and maybe the juror chose to participate in the agenda of the political production (just my opinon of the civil trial) and cleverly stated that she/he would have found him liable for murder in the civil trial. This is the problem with reading words-one may never know what they truly mean to convey.

[William Anthony]

The jurors addressed wrongful death answering yes to the first question on the verdict form. "Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant Simpson willfully and wrongfully caused the death of Ronald Goldman?"

The other questions they answered yes to were that Simpson was liable for the killings.

bobaugust

Nothing in this post changes the fact that they said LIABLE FOR MURDER.

[bobaugust]

Nothing in this post changes the fact that they said LIABLE FOR MURDER.

That's correct. Based on the evidence and Simpson's lying testimony they believed he killed both Ron and Nicole and and that's why they found him liable.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

That's correct. Based on the evidence and Simpson's lying testimony they believed he killed both Ron and Nicole and and that's why they found him liable.

bobaugust

Yes liable for the wrongful deaths and not murder. I think the posters on the board are aware of the difference and know who is correct by this point. I think that they had a slip of the tongue, as did the MF, which exposed theri true motivation.

[weezer]

Yes liable for the wrongful deaths and not murder. I think the posters on the board are aware of the difference and know who is correct by this point. I think that they had a slip of the tongue, as did the MF, which exposed theri true motivation.

Hypothetical: if a drunk driver plows into the car your child is riding in and (God forbid) your child is killed; you sue in a civil court; the jury find the driver liable. What did the jury find him guilty of?

[William Anthony]

Hypothetical: if a drunk driver plows into the car your child is riding in and (God forbid) your child is killed; you sue in a civil court; the jury find the driver liable. What did the jury find him guilty of?

Liable for the wrongful death of my child, not liable for murdering my child. Somewhat knowing the law, I would also sue the bar owner, providing he was drinking at a bar, who, through his employees or him/herself failed to ask if he was driving and call for a taxi and or the police, if money was what I was after. I think I would more than likely let the State do its thing. I honestly cannot say what I would do, but I hope I answered your hypothetical. I hope God would place it upon my heart to forgive the person.

[weezer]

Liable for the wrongful death of my child, not liable for murdering my child. Somewhat knowing the law, I would also sue the bar owner, providing he was drinking at a bar, who, through his employees or him/herself failed to ask if he was driving and call for a taxi and or the police, if money was what I was after. I think I would more than likely let the State do its thing. I honestly cannot say what I would do, but I hope I answered your hypothetical. I hope God would place it upon my heart to forgive the person.

not done yet: what if the driver wasn't drunk but just wanted to harm your child?

[William Anthony]

not done yet: what if the driver wasn't drunk but just wanted to harm your child?

Oh, actus resus, the stuff of what criminal charges and trials are composed.

[bobaugust]

Yes liable for the wrongful deaths and not murder. I think the posters on the board are aware of the difference and know who is correct by this point. I think that they had a slip of the tongue, as did the MF, which exposed theri true motivation.

No, I think they spoke the truth. The reality is all the jurors believed Simpson killed, murdered both victims and that's why they found him responsible and liable for their deaths.

bobaugust

[weezer]

Oh, actus resus, the stuff of what criminal charges and trials are composed.

Didn't you mean "Mens Rea"?

[William Anthony]

No, I think they spoke the truth. The reality is all the jurors believed Simpson killed, murdered both victims and that's why they found him responsible and liable for their deaths.

bobaugust

I have no problem with you saying the jury found him liable for their wrongful deaths, which is what I stated-only when you said they found him liable for their murders,

[William Anthony]

Didn't you mean "Mens Rea"?

I see you have had some legal training. I meant actus reus, although I mispelled or mistyped it. You are correct, there must be both-the physical act of doing the thing and the intent to do the thing.

[bobaugust]

I have no problem with you saying the jury found him liable for their wrongful deaths, which is what I stated-only when you said they found him liable for their murders,

William, you have a lot of problems understanding the reality of the evidence in this case so I'm not surprised you can't understand the reality of what the jurors meant when they said they found Simpson liable for the murders. They believed Simpson killed, murdered both victims and their verdict that Simpson battered and oppressed them with malice and liable for their wrongful deaths is the same as saying he murdered them which is the same as saying they found him liable for their murders.

They weren't speaking as lawyers they were speaking as citizens the same as I and others do.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

William, you have a lot of problems understanding the reality of the evidence in this case so I'm not surprised you can't understand the reality of what the jurors meant when they said they found Simpson liable for the murders. They believed Simpson killed, murdered both victims and their verdict that Simpson battered and oppressed them with malice and liable for their wrongful deaths is the same as saying he murdered them which is the same as saying they found him liable for their murders.

They weren't speaking as lawyers they were speaking as citizens the same as I and others do.

bobaugust

I have no problem accepting reality. To the contrary, I recognize and accept the reality. Yes, private citizens have the right to freedom of speech with some limitations. The reality is that they were precluded as jurors from finding him liable or guilty of murder. The fact that they thought they did is what now troubles me about their verdict and adds additional fodder to my opinion that the civil trial was nothing more than a political production. You do not have to be a lawyer to understand your legal duties and, if you cannot do that duty, then you should so inform the court.

[bobaugust]

I have no problem accepting reality. To the contrary, I recognize and accept the reality. Yes, private citizens have the right to freedom of speech with some limitations. The reality is that they were precluded as jurors from finding him liable or guilty of murder. The fact that they thought they did is what now troubles me about their verdict and adds additional fodder to my opinion that the civil trial was nothing more than a political production. You do not have to be a lawyer to understand your legal duties and, if you cannot do that duty, then you should so inform the court.

The civil trial jurors did do their duty and they followed the judges instructions and answered the questions on the verdict form. What you can't seem to understand is the reality that based on the evidence and Simpson's lying testimony there was no doubt by any of the jurors that Simpson killed, murdered both Ron and Nicole.

That's why they found Simpson liable.

bobaugust

[socaldiva]

The civil trial jurors did do their duty and they followed the judges instructions and answered the questions on the verdict form. What you can't seem to understand is the reality that based on the evidence and Simpson's lying testimony there was no doubt by any of the jurors that Simpson killed, murdered both Ron and Nicole.

That's why they found Simpson liable.

bobaugust


Very basic. I think Nancy Grace would call this Trial 101 :D

[William Anthony]

The civil trial jurors did do their duty and they followed the judges instructions and answered the questions on the verdict form. What you can't seem to understand is the reality that based on the evidence and Simpson's lying testimony there was no doubt by any of the jurors that Simpson killed, murdered both Ron and Nicole.

That's why they found Simpson liable.

bobaugust

There was no question on the form asking whether they found him guilty, liable or innocent of murdering the victims.

[bobaugust]

There was no question on the form asking whether they found him guilty, liable or innocent of murdering the victims.

Based on the evidence presented and Simpson's lying testimony the civil trial jurors believed that Simpson killed, murdered both Ron and Nicole. That's what the civil trial was all about and that's what was proven. That's why they answered the questions "yes" on the verdict form finding Simpson liable and responsible for the deaths. That's why they awarded the plaintiffs the largest amount of money they could to punish the man who they believed killed both Ron and Nicole.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

civil trial jurors believed that Simpson killed, murdered both Ron and Nicole. That's what the civil trial was all about

bobaugust

That much of your post I agree with as this was the forgone conclusion, even though they were not allowed to consider that he murdered them. Thanks againg for reinforcing my opinion that the civil trial was a political production.

[bobaugust]

That much of your post I agree with as this was the forgone conclusion, even though they were not allowed to consider that he murdered them. Thanks againg for reinforcing my opinion that the civil trial was a political production.

So you agree that the civil trial jurors came to believe Simpson committed the murders based on the evidence they heard and Simpson's lying testimony since that was what the civil trial was all about. Thank you.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

So you agree that the civil trial jurors came to believe Simpson committed the murders based on the evidence they heard and Simpson's lying testimony since that was what the civil trial was all about. Thank you.

bobaugust

What I agreed with is that the civil jurors had made up their mind, before any evidence was produced that Simpson, as you posted they said, was liable for murder-a crime that they should not have considered when reaching their verdict. Thank you for agreeing that the civil trial was a political production.

[Suzee10]

the ONLY person with drugs in their system on the night of the murders was orenthal james simpson -- not Nicole, not Ron.


You are so right fbgweezer. Pretty much blows what simpson has said about Nicole being a druggie. If she did drugs as much as he said there would have been drugs in her system. She did not know she was going to be murdered.

[martin II]

You are so right fbgweezer. Pretty much blows what simpson has said about Nicole being a druggie. If she did drugs as much as he said there would have been drugs in her system. She did not know she was going to be murdered.

suzie

oj had traces of marijuana in his blood on 6/13 no drugs was found in Nicoles
on 6/13.
martin II

[martin II]

You are so right fbgweezer. Pretty much blows what simpson has said about Nicole being a druggie. If she did drugs as much as he said there would have been drugs in her system. She did not know she was going to be murdered.

suzie

not having drugs in ones system on a given day does not in it self mean that one is not a drug abuser.imo
martin II

[socaldiva]

suzie

not having drugs in ones system on a given day does not in it self mean that one is not a drug abuser.imo
martin II

Considering that Orenthal had traces & Ron & Nicole had NONE, I find that rather telling....

[bobaugust]

What I agreed with is that the civil jurors had made up their mind, before any evidence was produced that Simpson, as you posted they said, was liable for murder-a crime that they should not have considered when reaching their verdict. Thank you for agreeing that the civil trial was a political production.

Of course civil trial jury could have and should have considered the crime before reaching their verdict since that was what was argued in the trial and the reason they came to that verdict. No, I don't agree with your claim that the civil trial jurors had made up their mind before any evidence was produced. What evidence do you know of that causes you to make that claim? I also don't agree with you that the civil trial was a political production, it was in fact the real search for the truth and the truth was found.

bobaugust

[weezer]

suzie

oj had traces of marijuana in his blood on 6/13 no drugs was found in Nicoles
on 6/13.
martin II

judging from the video clip the other day, orenthal may still be doing drugs! imo

[martin II]

judging from the video clip the other day, orenthal may still be doing drugs! imo

your opinion.
martin II

[weezer]

your opinion.
martin II

true but it's as good as your opinion that he had been hitting the 'juice' ----- oh, wait -- maybe that wasn't you but someone else. At any rate, it's just as likely that he was on drugs as it is that he was drinking. I vote drugs since we know he likes those. imo

[martin II]

weezer

i don't know but i would guess there were a few others that were doing a little mood altering activity after that book hit the internet. sauce or whatever.imo;)

martin II

[weezer]

weezer

i don't know but i would guess there were a few others that were doing a little mood altering activity after that book hit the internet. sauce or whatever.imo;)

martin II

maybe but what we do know is that 'genius' was altering his mood..........

[socaldiva]

weezer

i don't know but i would guess there were a few others that were doing a little mood altering activity after that book hit the internet. sauce or whatever.imo;)

martin II

Pure speculation on your part. For all you know Goldman might abstain from alcohol all together :rolleyes:

Once again you attempt to cover Orenthal's behavior by suggesting others do the same or worse & you've got absolutely ZERO to back it up :no:

[martin II]

maybe but what we do know is that 'genius' was altering his mood..........

you gotta stay loose weezer
not up tight as fred seems to be. imo
martin II

[martin II]

weezer

IN a way Fred should be pleased with the events.suposse the rights were valued at 33 mil and the judge had given Fred the rights. to retire the oj debt.
What would Fred do if the book would have been release after he got the rights as it has been now by these internet sites all over the world. ?
imo
martin II

[socaldiva]

you gotta stay loose weezer
not up tight as fred seems to be. imo
martin II

Why do you continually post about Fred Goldman? You seem fixated on him.
You don't know anything about Goldman other than what you see on television, when he is speaking about his Son's killer. I'd say that would make anyone "up tight".

[William Anthony]

Of course civil trial jury could have and should have considered the crime before reaching their verdict since that was what was argued in the trial and the reason they came to that verdict. No, I don't agree with your claim that the civil trial jurors had made up their mind before any evidence was produced. What evidence do you know of that causes you to make that claim? I also don't agree with you that the civil trial was a political production, it was in fact the real search for the truth and the truth was found.

bobaugust

As we now know, the civil jurors should not have considered or mentioned, imhotaac, the crime of murder and, imho, should not have been argued in the civil trial. The evidence that forms my opinion of why the civil jurors had made up their mind before any evidence was produced in the civil trial was the statements of the jurors, which you posted, made before the trial began, and reinforces my opinion that the civil trial was a political production. In any event, I think this discussion should be placed on the proper forum. The real truth has not been found, imho, and I am interested in reading Dear's book.

[bobaugust]

As we now know, the civil jurors should not have considered or mentioned, imhotaac, the crime of murder and, imho, should not have been argued in the civil trial. The evidence that forms my opinion of why the civil jurors had made up their mind before any evidence was produced in the civil trial was the statements of the jurors, which you posted, made before the trial began, and reinforces my opinion that the civil trial was a political production. In any event, I think this discussion should be placed on the proper forum. The real truth has not been found, imho, and I am interested in reading Dear's book.

I agree this discussion has nothing to do with this thread so why did you respond to a posting that was made 20 days earlier? I will be more than happy to point out to you on the correct thread how Simpson's attorneys knew exactly what those jurors said before they agreed to their selection to be on the jury.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

I agree this discussion has nothing to do with this thread so why did you respond to a posting that was made 20 days earlier? I will be more than happy to point out to you on the correct thread how Simpson's attorneys knew exactly what those jurors said before they agreed to their selection to be on the jury.

bobaugust

The real truth has not been found, imho, and I am interested in reading Dear's book.

[utl768]

i saw the documentary on this the other day and this may be the worst attempt ive seen yet at solving the oj case. william dear talks for a hr and a half but cant provide a shred of evidence to suggest jason was even there

[martin II]

i saw the documentary on this the other day and this may be the worst attempt ive seen yet at solving the oj case. william dear talks for a hr and a half but cant provide a shred of evidence to suggest jason was even there

He presented a lot in his book. You may want to read it.

[tv]

i saw the documentary on this the other day and this may be the worst attempt ive seen yet at solving the oj case. william dear talks for a hr and a half but cant provide a shred of evidence to suggest jason was even thereAgreed. :)

[William Anthony]

Agreed. :)

Well, the prosecution talked for nine months and could not provide evidence sufficient to prove that Simpson was there on the night of the murders. :)

[martin II]

The real truth has not been found, imho, and I am interested in reading Dear's book.

Dear spent a extended amout of research creating a clear picture on jasons mental state and motive. jason had the weapons required and was caught in a lie by his girlfriend as it realted to his alibi at about 10 10;30 pm on 6 12.

It is a detailed investigation. His complaint is that lapd was not interested in reviewing any of his work.
Some have rejected his claims out of hand without ever putting a hand on the book. :shrug:

[William Anthony]

Dear spent a extended amout of research creating a clear picture on jasons mental state and motive. jason had the weapons required and was caught in a lie by his girlfriend as it realted to his alibi at about 10 10;30 pm on 6 12.

It is a detailed investigation. His complaint is that lapd was not interested in reviewing any of his work.
Some have rejected his claims out of hand without ever putting a hand on the book. :shrug:

I was under the influence of pain medication last night but do recall a lawyer, although she said she doubted Simpson would win on appeal, mention the fact that the tapes lacked proper authentication in her opinion, with which I agree. That provides a very interesting scenario should an appellate court agree. Since the jury said they relied solely on the tapes and if their admission was improper, there might not be any evidence sufficient to support a conviction. I think, realistically speaking, that, if there is grounds, Simpson may remain in prison until such time as the Supreme Court of the United States might grant certiorari on that issue. I doubt that a Nevada court will overturn the conviction. I hope that doesn't break what you don't know's heart.

[tv]

Well, the prosecution talked for nine months and could not provide evidence sufficient to prove that Simpson was there on the night of the murders. :)

The prosecution provided MOUNTAINS of DNA evidence which the jury ignored. What DNA evidence was there that Jason was at the scene? I think anyone that believes Jason Simpson is possibly responsible for the murders should be ashamed to admit it.

[William Anthony]

The prosecution provided MOUNTAINS of DNA evidence which the jury ignored. What DNA evidence was there that Jason was at the scene? I think anyone that believes Jason Simpson is possibly responsible for the murders should be ashamed to admit it.

The prosecution did not provide any evidence that Simpson or anyone else was there on the day/night of the murders, imho. The only DNA evidence that might have been out of place was the unidentified Caucasian hairs.

[tv]

The prosecution did not provide any evidence that Simpson or anyone else was there on the day/night of the murders, imho. The only DNA evidence that might have been out of place was the unidentified Caucasian hairs.

BS. :punch:

[martin II]

The prosecution did not provide any evidence that Simpson or anyone else was there on the day/night of the murders, imho. The only DNA evidence that might have been out of place was the unidentified Caucasian hairs.

The da should have been called OVERKILL FOOLS.The media told them they were loosing media , jury and every else talking about molecules and splits that no one understood although some here pretend they understood.
The fools agreed that with all of these people talking for the prosecutuion about this new scienceit must be true.


This was presented by the OVERKILL FOOLS in place of no evidence that oj was at Bundy when someone killed ron and nicole.:cool:

[weezer]

The da should have been called OVERKILL FOOLS.The media told them they were loosing media , jury and every else talking about molecules and splits that no one understood although some here pretend they understood.
The fools agreed that with all of these people talking for the prosecutuion about this new scienceit must be true.


This was presented by the OVERKILL FOOLS in place of no evidence that oj was at Bundy when someone killed ron and nicole.:cool:

OT: martin, you posted once that you were a teacher -- what did you teach?

[tv]

OT: martin, you posted once that you were a teacher -- what did you teach?Let me guess! Typing or spelling? :)

[William Anthony]

BS. :punch:

I would not call the prosecution's evidence BS but that doesn't stop you from so doing. :)

[tv]

I would not call the prosecution's evidence BS but that doesn't stop you from so doing. :)
I know it's hard for you to control the twisting but please try. :)

[William Anthony]

I know it's hard for you to control the twisting but please try. :)

Oh, I thought that is what you meant. Certainly you are not saying my opinion is BS. :)

[tv]

Oh, I thought that is what you meant. Certainly you are not saying my opinion is BS. :) Oh, I see, it's only opinion not hard facts. I thought you were stating fact...there's that inexact language again. :)

[William Anthony]

Oh, I see, it's only opinion not hard facts. I thought you were stating fact...there's that inexact language again. :)

My first statement was fact. The second was opinion. :)

[tv]

My first statement was fact. The second was opinion. :)Your post says the first is opinion and the second is fact.

[William Anthony]

Your post says the first is opinion and the second is fact.


That inexact language thing. :)

[tv]

That inexact language thing. :)

Looked exact to me. :)

[William Anthony]

Looked exact to me. :)

That difference in cultural experience thing, again, smile.

[tv]

That difference in cultural experience thing, again, smile.We speak the same language. :)

[William Anthony]

We speak the same language. :)

Just see those words differently based on our different experiences. :)

[tv]

Just see those words differently based on our different experiences. :)Okay, then. :)

[martin II]

OT: martin, you posted once that you were a teacher -- what did you teach?

why do you ask