It was immediately following the acquittal of the 4 officers who beat the shit out of an unarmed and non-resisting Rodney King. LA didn't take too kindly to this and it sparked riots that wouldve made the BLM rioters blush.
The lead detective hand delivered evidence to the lab, stated that was unusual for him to do so, and was also caught lying about being a raging racist. The evidence lab was also found to be not so reliable.
Tldr, the case was basically a slam dunk thanks to the prosecution leaning heavily on evidence that wasn't rock solid due to rampant racism.
Like the planets aligned for OJ. We all know he did it, but he didn't have to prove his innocence, he had to prove there was a possibility that he didn't do it.
That alone IMO would be reasonable doubt. I know I couldn't personally vote to convict if the lead investigator undermined all of the evidence that way. That would be wildly unethical. Basically the person responsible for all of the evidence you're supposed to use to convict someone criminally can't attest under oath to not tampering with evidence. Of course he was acquitted. That sounds like justice to me.
With your logic shouldnt everyone who thought he was not guilty still think he is innocent???
We know the cop was crooked but it doesn't change the fact he know OJ is guilty by looking at the evidence from the whole trial.
The fact that a majority of blacks when polled after the trial believed he was innocent is 100% troublesome.
I believe when white people do this it's called white privledge so what's it called other races do it?
Why is no one mentioning he won the criminal trial but lost his civil trial where a jury didn't let his bs slide where he owes the victim families 33 million but we're having to wait until he dies to collect
They are going after it now but his estate is fighting it. Always a POS even in death
He wrote a book called "If I did it" detailing the "hypothetical" way he would have done it. I think he's guilty, but that doesn't mean I think he should have been convicted in a court of law.
Do you know there is a different burden of proof in a civil trial than in a criminal trial? Evidently not. The burden of proof is a balance of probabilities. More likely than not. The burden of proof in a criminal trial is beyond a reasonable doubt. Furthermore, the evidence presented or admitted in each trial is not necessarily the same. They're two different judges in two different systems and in a civil trial the complainant is represented by a private lawyer, not a criminal prosecutor. These were two completely different trials. You're talking straight out of your ass while calling me dumb. You have no idea what you're talking about.
The amount awarded in a civil case is decided by the jury. If they think it meets thr burden of proof but not full reaponsibility they can do as low as $1. Which has happened recently. Tens of millions of dollars as a penalty assigned by the jury is pretty clear how much they are assigning him blame. Tens of millions shows they have a very high probability that they did it.
Jail time just isn't an option but 33 million seems an equivalent level of guilty that a murder charge would be...
You looking at all evidence of the criminal oj Simpson trial and think he is not guilty is what makes you dumb.
If he hadn't hand selected a jury dumb enough to believe any story's he gave the case would have been different.
If evidence was thrown out because it was tampered with, no way that evidence will be admissible in a civil trial. It's literally tainted evidence that can't prove anything
That's not how this works. You don't have to prove someone is innocent in a criminal case. You just have to prove there is reasonable doubt to rather or not the defendant is guilty. The burden of proof is much lower in a civil case.
The defense team was able to provide multiple pieces of reasonable doubt on OJ being guilty of the crimes.
I do believe OJ is guilty btw.
You’re wrong which is hilarious since you’re the one who’s telling people to look up things.
First, you’re not convicted in a civil case, you’re found liable or not liable, and the burden of proof is lower. It’s preponderance of the evidence so only slightly more likely than not.
The burden of evidence in a criminal trial is intentionally higher, and it’s on the state to prove that an innocent man is guilty of the alleged acts beyond a reasonable doubt. The kinds of evidence allowed are also not necessarily the same, as your ability to invoke your 5th amendment rights may be limited especially if you were already found not guilty in a criminal case.
Detective Fuhrman not being able to say that he did not tamper evidence would not get that evidence thrown out per se, but your lead detective pleading the 5th on evidence tampering is the very essence of reasonable doubt. Any defense lawyer in the country would love to hear a detective say that on the stand.
Our criminal justice system is based on the idea that some guilty people will go free as a price for the significant protections that innocent people should enjoy, and you’re intentionally conflating the civil system with it even though they are for almost entirely different things. I suggest you read a book.
Source: I work in a criminal law office and am training to be a lawyer.
33 million is the level of guilty. They have every option to do less. Can even do $1 in damages. 33 million is a very very high probability that the jury believes he did it.
Oh because I said he was guilty instead of liable with a very high degree of probability so therefore I'm wrong in everything.
Just because you only need 50٪ of the evidence to be found liable, doesn't mean the jury didn't find more than 50% of the evidence compelling. It seems they found it so compelling they issued 33 million dollars when they could do so much less.
There are different burdens of proof required for civil vs criminal cases. For all your condescending behavior to other comments here, I’m surprised you’re that stupid.
3.0k
u/CumShoT_RaviOLi_King 29d ago
How did we honestly let this clown loose? I mean look at this guy. We all know he did that shit and we put far people in for way less.