Text 1660, 39 rader
Skriven 2007-05-17 08:57:02 av Roy Witt (1:397/22)
   Kommentar till text 1604 av Joe Delahaye (64000.fidonews)
Ärende: Shootings
=================
15 May 07 16:43, Joe Delahaye wrote to Roy Witt:


 >> In the civil court, he wasn't found guilty of murder, but he was found
 >> to be the one who was responsible for the circumstances in which his
 >> ex-wife and her friend were murdered. The first court could have
 >> sentenced him to life or death in prison. The second court wasn't so
 >> kind, as he'll be hounded for money by the victim's family for the
 >> rest of his life.

 JD> Please explain to me, how, he can be found respoinsible for something
 JD> that he was found not guilty of.  It makes absolutely no sense to me.

It makes no logical sense to me either, but that's the system here. Murder
must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. A jury must follow the orders of
the judge in a trial, and he'll give the jury strict instructions to look
over the evidence and weigh it against the testimony of all witnesses.

Sometimes, as in OJ's case, the defendant has more sympathy from the jury
than the victims do. Thus, finding him innocent, rather than guilty in the
face of the evidence provided. The jury felt that he had been
discriminated against and evidence was planted by the policeman who
investigated the scene.

In a civil trial, a preponderance of the evidence is the only criteria
used to prove one side of the case against the other. i.e. OJ's testimony,
if any, was found not to stand up to the evidence presented from the
murder trial.

Both trials left me with a dislike for the father of Ron Goldman, the
other murder victim. He seemed like a leach who would go to no end to
hound OJ for the $33million awarded to the family's by the civil trial.
If that were me, I'd rather have an ending to the madness, forget OJ and
get on with my life.

                R\%/itt

--- Twit(t) Filter v2.1 (C) 2000
 * Origin: SATX Alamo Area Net * South * Texas, USA * (1:397/22)