Who's OJ Gonna Use Now?

[judge09]

What irks me also is the wrongful death thing. (I don't see how you can say that and the murder have nothing to do with each other). If he had been convicted of murder, the family couldn't have sued for wrongful death. Since he was acquitted of murder (stating that he didn't commit the murder) they were able to sue for wrongful death (stating that he did commit the murder). That is what doesn't make any sense. A civil court, in effect, found him guilty of a murder that a criminal court found him innocent of.

Oh, another reason it irks me is that he was acquitted on my birthday.

Cant you look at it the other way. He was aquited for the murder first. In my mind that means that a jury found him not guilty so he is then not guilty. I dont see how they can find him guilty in a civil court after he was already found not guilty. I am sure there is a lawyer out there who can explain it.

 

[Sparky-Watts]

But I don't see how they couldn't have even tried him in civil court if he had been found guilty in a criminal court. Seems to me, if your innocent in the criminal court, you should never face the civil trial. If you're guilty in criminal court, then a civil trial should be allowed. It's all wacky. And I don't for a minute believe the cops planted any of that evidence. Why would they? What would they have to gain? Plain and simple, he did it and got away with it.

Same with Robert Blake. The statement I heard in that trial that really gets me is that the "gunpowder residue on his hands" was not as much as it should have been for firing a gun.....ummmm.....so? Gunpowder residue on his hands pretty much proved that he had fired a gun that night! There is no other way to get gunpowder residue on your hand in the patterns that they found it in!

 

[bchcky]

**deleted**

ever heard of wrongful death? doctors who malpractice? they're not necessarily criminals, but families suffer when they commit malpractice. criminal court and civil court are two totally different things. you can't compare a verdict from one to the verdict from another.

 

[mud4feet]

ever heard of wrongful death? doctors who malpractice? they're not necessarily criminals, but families suffer when they commit malpractice. criminal court and civil court are two totally different things. you can't compare a verdict from one to the verdict from another.

Never thought of it that way. That clears it up a bit for me. Thanx for pointing that out, bchcky.

 

[Sparky-Watts]

ever heard of wrongful death? doctors who malpractice? they're not necessarily criminals, but families suffer when they commit malpractice. criminal court and civil court are two totally different things. you can't compare a verdict from one to the verdict from another.

Yes, I know what "wrongful death" is. I also know that to be charged and convicted of wrongful death, you must have committed the injury which led to the death. That is my point. If OJ was convicted of wrongful death, then he had to have committed the injury that led to the deaths. Therefore, if he is guilty of that, then he should have been found guilty in the criminal case as well.