David Von Pein's "evidence" deconstructed

[Bill Chapman]

The WC wasn’t an investigation—it was a prosecution.

Which, in turn, would morph into an electrocution... giving the small fry exactly what he deserved


billchapman

[Martin Weidmann]

Again, who - except you - is talking about a civil case? We are talking about a criminal case.

Ah, you're playing word games by pretending it wasn't obvious to you that I was talking about criminal cases, where the presumption of innocence does indeed always apply.

There was no criminal case for LHO (after he was murdered) it ended when LHO was declared dead at Parkland Hospital. We are discussing the investigation that followed. You asked whether the presumption of innocence still applied to LHO. My answer is that that presumption applies to criminal courts. You said: No, the presumption always applies. You didn’t qualify your question as pertaining only to criminal courts. Instead you simply said that the presumption always applies and began a silly tirade about if it didn’t that you would be able to accuse me of anything. Yes, you can. But then the burden in upon you to show evidence that your claim is true.

You are not making any sense. There was indeed no criminal case for LHO after he died and but there most certainly wasn't a civil case either. In a criminal case you are accused of committing a crime and you are pressumed to be innocent until proven guilty. In a civil case no criminal charges are or can be brought against anybody and claims and counter-claims are filed for consideration by a jury. There does not need to be a pressumption of innocence because nobody is being charged with a crime and there most certainly doesn't have to be a criminal investigation.

The only "investigations" that sometimes happen in civil cases is the work done by private investigators. Only in criminal cases there is an official investigation and that stops instantly when a suspect dies, because it would be pointless to continue an investigation that will never result in a criminal prosecution. Now, unless you are telling me that the FBI and WC conducted an investigation as some sort of private investigator, your argument goes absolutely nowhere.

Instead you simply said that the presumption always applies and began a silly tirade about if it didn’t that you would be able to accuse me of anything. Yes, you can. But then the burden in upon you to show evidence that your claim is true.

You do understand that you've just agreed with me that the presumption of innocence always applies, right? If I accuse you of rape or of stealing my car (which are of course crimes) then it is up to me to provide the evidence to back up my claim. Without that evidence you are considered to be innocent. If I accuse you of owing me money, you don't need to be presumed to be innocent, because I am not accusing you of committing a crime.

Says you...  Okay, mr wise guy, show me one case, other than the Kennedy case, where the police continued to spend money and resources on an investigation that would never result in a prosecution because of the suspect's death

Show me one where they didn’t.

You previously claimed that after a suspect dies, there would still be an investigation. This is what you said;

There is typically an investigation to determine what is believed to have happened. The prosecution would stop (if one had begun). But not the investigation. The public deserves answers as best as can be determined by that investigation. And that is what happened in this case.

So, I asked you to give me one example - other than the Kennedy case - where such an investigation after the suspect's death happened and it seems you can't name one. Instead you ask me to prove a negative? Really?

Your claim that investigations typically continue after a suspect's death is bogus.

Ask your fellow LNs, as they are frequently claiming that Oswald has gone down in history as the murderer of Kennedy and Tippit, as that is what is in the history books. Even the Texas Historical Commission states on the J.D. Tippit Commemorative Plaque that Tippit was murdered by Oswald. Go figure....

These politically correct days, we would most likely distinguish the difference between a convicted murderer and an accused murderer. However, there have been numerous convicted murderers who have been later proven innocent. Therefore, just because a conviction was obtained, it does not always mean that the truth has been uncovered and that justice has taken place.

Wow, now there's an open door you've just kicked in. And it is a completely pointless statement that you made. It has nothing to do with history books and even the Texas Historical Commission stating without any kind of reservation that Oswald killed Kennedy and Tippit. Oswald was never convicted and can (at best) only be referred to as the alleged killer. As heir to Oswald's estate, Marina could in theory sue the Texas Historical Commission and anybody else who claims that Oswald killed Kennedy and Tippit for defamation of character.

Yes. Simpson lost that civil case, but not because he was considered to be guilty of murder.

Because a mere 50.001% chance of guilt was all that was needed, they found him “responsible” for the two deaths.

No need for the quotation marks. In a civil court Simpson was found to be responsible for the two deaths. That's a major difference from being found guilty of murder in a criminal court. You can not infer from a verdict of a jury in civil court that somebody is guilty of a crime of which he has already been aquitted in a criminal court.

It would be nearly impossible IMO to sue in civil court an estate of a dead man who was never tried or found guilty of murder in a criminal court. The responsibility for an alleged murder is not hereditary.

Any property in an estate has to go through the courts to be sure there are no claims against it before any possible heirs get their share. Attorneys for the estate would probably be able to defend against any claims. In other words, if OJ had died before the civil trial, the families of the murder victims could have still sued the estate. Provided that it was done before the courts made transfer to any legal heirs to his estate.

None of this has anything to do with Oswald or the Kennedy case. I'm not wasting my time discussing this topic any further.

[Charles Collins]

You are not making any sense. There was indeed no criminal case for LHO after he died and but there most certainly wasn't a civil case either. In a criminal case you are accused of committing a crime and you are pressumed to be innocent until proven guilty. In a civil case no charges are brought against anybody and claims and counter-claims are filed. There does not need to be a pressumption of innocence because nobody is being charged with a crime.

The only "investigations" that sometimes happen in civil court is the work done by private investigators. Only in criminal cases there is an official investigation and that stops instantly when a suspect dies, because it would be pointless to continue an investigation that will never result in a criminal prosecution.

Instead you simply said that the presumption always applies and began a silly tirade about if it didn’t that you would be able to accuse me of anything. Yes, you can. But then the burden in upon you to show evidence that your claim is true.

You do understand that you've just agreed with me that the presumption of innocence always applies, right? If I accuse you of rape or of stealing my car (which are of course crimes) then it is up to me to provide the evidence to back up my claim. Without that evidence you are considered to be innocent. If I accuse you of owing me money, you don't need to be presumed to be innocent, because I am not accusing you of committing a crime.
 

You previously claimed that after a suspect dies, there would still be an investigation. This is what you said;

There is typically an investigation to determine what is believed to have happened. The prosecution would stop (if one had begun). But not the investigation. The public deserves answers as best as can be determined by that investigation. And that is what happened in this case.

So, I asked you to give me one example - other than the Kennedy case - where such an investigation after the suspect's death happened and it seems you can't name one. Instead you ask me to prove a negative? Really?

Your claim that investigations typically continue after a suspect's death is bogus.

Wow, now there's an open door you've just kicked in. And it is a completely pointless statement that you made. It has nothing to do with history books and even the Texas Historical Commission stating without any kind of reservation that Oswald killed Kennedy and Tippit. Oswald was never convicted and can (at best) only be referred to as the alleged killer

No need for the quotation marks. In a civil court Simpson was found to be responsible for the two deaths. That's a major difference from being found guilty in a criminal court. You can not infer from a verdict of a jury in civil court that somebody is guilty of a crime of which he has already been aquitted in a criminal court.

None of this has anything to do with Oswald or the Kennedy case. I'm not wasting my time discussing this topic any further.

Here is your original question (which ties this discussion to the JFK assassination case):

Btw, if the WC, for lack of authority, did not prosecute or convict Oswald and he never had his day in court, do you think the presumption of innocence should still apply for Oswald?

Your above original question ties this discussion to the JFK assassination case.

And here is my response and the beginning of your silly tirade in which you specifically take the discussion outside the courtroom :

A presumption of innocence applies to an adversarial criminal trial with prosecution and defense cases being presented.

No, a presumption of innocence until proven guilty applies always. Even outside a court, when you accuse me of doing something wrong, you need to prove it either to law enforcement or just people around you. You can not go around accusing somebody of doing something wrong without proving it! If that wasn't the case, I could accuse you right now of robbing a bank, rape and whatever else comes to mind without consequence. Your reply would be - quite rightly so - that you didn't do any of it and that there is no evidence to support the claims. So, don't give me any of this theoretical crap!

In a civil case no charges are brought against anybody and claims and counter-claims are filed. There does not need to be a pressumption of innocence because nobody is being charged with a crime.

It might not be a crime, but the defendant is charged with wrongdoing that resulted in harming the plaintiff. And the plaintiff is seeking to recover the damages.


Only in criminal cases there is an official investigation and that stops instantly when a suspect dies, because it would be pointless to continue an investigation that will never result in a criminal prosecution.

No the investigation continues until the evidence is gathered and analyzed to try to determine what happened. One example would be https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Southwest_Airlines_Flight_1771. Another example is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_Lee_Smith. There was no one to prosecute in either one of these cases, yet the investigation continued in order to try to determine what happened. This is standard operating procedure for all cases, they don't just stop investigating without trying to determine what happened just because there is no one to prosecute as you so wrongly claim.


You do understand that you've just agreed with me that the presumption of innocence always applies, right?

No, I didn't. It is a part of the criminal justice system for the protection of the rights of individuals. A presumption of innocence means that any defendant in a criminal trial is assumed to be innocent until they have been proven guilty. As such, a prosecutor is required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person committed the crime if that person is to be convicted. Outside a criminal court process, that requirement does not legally exist. That is one reason that OJ lost his civil case.


If I accuse you of owing me money, you don't need to be presumed to be innocent, because I am not accusing you of committing a crime. Yes, the presumption of innocence protects us against false or self incrimination. If no crime is alleged, then it doesn't apply. (You do understand that you've just agreed with my stance on this matter.) Now, if you want to have your case against me heard in court or collect any compensation, then you must present credible evidence, that outweighs evidence that I present in rebuttal, that I owe you money.


So, I asked you to give me one example - other than the Kennedy case - where such an investigation after the suspect's death happened and it seems you can't name one. Instead you ask me to prove a negative? Really?

Your claim that investigations typically continue after a suspect's death is bogus.


I listed two cases above where they did continue the investigation. You only asked for one. I didn't ask you to prove a negative. Again, show us a case where they didn't continue the investigation until the evidence was collected and analyzed and they had tried to determine what had happened.


No need for the quotation marks. In a civil court Simpson was found to be responsible for the two deaths. That's a major difference from being found guilty in a criminal court. You can not infer from a verdict of a jury in civil court that somebody is guilty of a crime of which he has already been aquitted in a criminal court

You cannot infer that he is legally guilty. However, if the jury did not believe that the evidence of guilt outweighed the evidence of not guilty, then, legally, they could not have found that OJ was responsible for the deaths.


None of this has anything to do with Oswald or the Kennedy case. I'm not wasting my time discussing this topic any further.


I have seen you make similar statements before, but I have never seen you do what you said.

[Martin Weidmann]

Here is your original question (which ties this discussion to the JFK assassination case):

The Warren Commission had no authority to either prosecute or convict anyone, dead or alive.

And still, they did exactly that when they concluded that Oswald was guilty. Go figure!

Btw, if the WC, for lack of authority, did not prosecute or convict Oswald and he never had his day in court, do you think the presumption of innocence should still apply for Oswald?

Your above original question ties this discussion to the JFK assassination case.

Indeed it does and you still haven't answered the question.

The WC used the resources of the FBI to investigate this case, and that by itself makes it a criminal investigation. So, my question is just as valid as your answer is elusive.

In a civil case no charges are brought against anybody and claims and counter-claims are filed. There does not need to be a pressumption of innocence because nobody is being charged with a crime.

It might not be a crime, but the defendant is charged with wrongdoing that resulted in harming the plaintiff. And the plaintiff is seeking to recover the damages.

Utter BS. As soon as a criminal allegation is made in a civil case, the judge will have no other remedy but to refer the matter to law enforcement and prosecutors. It then becomes a criminal case. "Wrongdoing" (whatever than means) is not a crime. When I renege on a contract, I am doing something wrong and I violate the terms of that contract but I do not violate a criminal law.

Only in criminal cases there is an official investigation and that stops instantly when a suspect dies, because it would be pointless to continue an investigation that will never result in a criminal prosecution.

No the investigation continues until the evidence is gathered and analyzed to try to determine what happened. One example would be https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Southwest_Airlines_Flight_1771. Another example is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_Lee_Smith. There was no one to prosecute in either one of these cases, yet the investigation continued in order to try to determine what happened. This is standard operating procedure for all cases, they don't just stop investigating without trying to determine what happened just because there is no one to prosecute as you so wrongly claim.

One example would be https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Southwest_Airlines_Flight_1771.

Wrong example. This investigation was conducted by investigators from the National Transportation Safety Board. They are by law obliged to investigate all plane crashes and they use the resources of the F.B.I. to do it. The purpose of their investigation was to determine what caused the crash. It was not a criminal investigation, even though, at the end, they concluded that a lone gunman caused the crash.

Another example is url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_Lee_Smith]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_Lee_Smith[/url].

I could be missing something here, but I see nothing about a criminal investigation after the suspect's death on this page.

You do understand that you've just agreed with me that the presumption of innocence always applies, right?

No, I didn't. It is a part of the criminal justice system for the protection of the rights of individuals. A presumption of innocence means that any defendant in a criminal trial is assumed to be innocent until they have been proven guilty. As such, a prosecutor is required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person committed the crime if that person is to be convicted. Outside a criminal court process, that requirement does not legally exist. That is one reason that OJ lost his civil case.

Oh yes you did. You are saying exactly what I have been telling you all along. You brought civil cases into this, when I was talking about Kennedy's and Tippit's murder, which is and always has been a criminal case. And in every criminal case the persumption of innocence applies, except of course, it would seem for Oswald.

If I accuse you of owing me money, you don't need to be presumed to be innocent, because I am not accusing you of committing a crime.

Yes, the presumption of innocence protects us against false or self incrimination. If no crime is alleged, then it doesn't apply. (You do understand that you've just agreed with my stance on this matter.) Now, if you want to have your case against me heard in court or collect any compensation, then you must present credible evidence, that outweighs evidence that I present in rebuttal, that I owe you money.

Again, exactly what I have been telling you all along. Don't you feel silly now, bringing civil cases into this conversation?

So, I asked you to give me one example - other than the Kennedy case - where such an investigation after the suspect's death happened and it seems you can't name one. Instead you ask me to prove a negative? Really?

Your claim that investigations typically continue after a suspect's death is bogus.

I listed two cases above where they did continue the investigation. You only asked for one. I didn't ask you to prove a negative. Again, show us a case where they didn't continue the investigation until the evidence was collected and analyzed and they had tried to determine what had happened.

Already debunked. See above.

I didn't ask you to prove a negative. Again, show us a case where they didn't continue the investigation until the evidence was collected and analyzed and they had tried to determine what had happened.

Hilarious. You deny asking me to prove a negative and then proceed to ask me to prove a negative.   

No need for the quotation marks. In a civil court Simpson was found to be responsible for the two deaths. That's a major difference from being found guilty in a criminal court. You can not infer from a verdict of a jury in civil court that somebody is guilty of a crime of which he has already been aquitted in a criminal court

You cannot infer that he is legally guilty. However, if the jury did not believe that the evidence of guilt outweighed the evidence of not guilty, then, legally, they could not have found that OJ was responsible for the deaths.

I am beginning to understand why you are a LN. In the civil case the burden of proof was much lower and Simpson wasn't tried for or even charged with murder. All the plaintiffs in the civil case needed to do was convince the jury that it was plausible that Simpson had something to do with the murders. Many factors come it to play in such a case, such as, for instance, likability, as we have seen recently in the Depp vs Heard case. By the time the civil case against Simpson played out he had no likability left.

Many people believed he was actually guilty but his clever lawyers had gotten him off. I don't agree with that. It was in fact the prosecution that failed to meet it's burden of proof. So, although I do think that Simpson did commit the two murders, the verdict of the jury in the criminal trial was IMO the correct one.

Having said that, the dynamics in a jury in a civil case are completely different from those in a criminal case. And at the end of the day, Simpson was not found guilty of a crime at the civil case.

Now, how can I best explain this so you will understand. Let's say I challenge a youngster to throw a brick to a window and he does it. He's the one committing the criminal act of willful destruction of property, because he decided to throw the brick. However, in civil court (provided there is sufficient evidence) I could be held responsible for the damage cause by the crime. Get it now?

The bottom line is that in a criminal case the prosecution failed to prove that Simpson was guilty. No ruling by a civil court changes that one bit.

None of this has anything to do with Oswald or the Kennedy case. I'm not wasting my time discussing this topic any further.

I have seen you make similar statements before, but I have never seen you do what you said.

...........

[Andrew Mason]

It's an absurd comparison and an even absurder question.

In Uvalde the killer was found dead at the scene and a multitude of people saw him shooting. He had the weapons that were used in the killing with him. There is no question whatsoever who the killer was in that case, but nevertheless in legal terms the case will officially remain unresolved in much the same way that a legal execution is still classified as a homicide.

In the Kennedy case, Oswald was not found at the scene, not a single credible witness saw him on the 6th floor of the TSBD when the shooting took place, he did not have the murder weapon with him and the case against him is, at best, highly circumstantial based on very questionable and mostly unauthicated evidence.

If you don't understand the clear difference between the two cases, then I don't know what to tell you.

I wasn't saying that they were the same. I was suggesting that your statement is not correct  ie:
"Of course there are no provisions in the law to have a trial for a dead man. In fact, when a suspect or accused dies the investigation or prosecution instantly dies with him. Everything stops that very moment and the case remains unresolved and you can not declare that the dead man is guilty of anything."

I take it that you would agree that your statement is not correct.

[Martin Weidmann]

I wasn't saying that they were the same. I was suggesting that your statement is not correct  ie:
"Of course there are no provisions in the law to have a trial for a dead man. In fact, when a suspect or accused dies the investigation or prosecution instantly dies with him. Everything stops that very moment and the case remains unresolved and you can not declare that the dead man is guilty of anything."

I take it that you would agree that your statement is not correct.

I wasn't saying that they were the same.

Really? Then why bring it up in the first place?

I take it that you would agree that your statement is not correct.

Not sure on which planet you live or what you have been smoking, but my statement was and still is absolutely correct.
I'm sorry that you seem to not understand what I said.

[Charles Collins]

Your above original question ties this discussion to the JFK assassination case.



Indeed it does and you still haven't answered the question.

The WC used the resources of the FBI to investigate this case, and that by itself makes it a criminal investigation. So, my question is just as valid as your answer is elusive.

Utter BS. As soon as a criminal allegation is made in a civil case, the judge will have no other remedy but to refer the matter to law enforcement and prosecutors. It then becomes a criminal case. "Wrongdoing" (whatever than means) is not a crime. When I renege on a contract, I am doing something wrong and I violate the terms of that contract but I do not violate a criminal law.

One example would be https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Southwest_Airlines_Flight_1771.

Wrong example. This investigation was conducted by investigators from the National Transportation Safety Board. They are by law obliged to investigate all plane crashes and they use the resources of the F.B.I. to do it. The purpose of their investigation was to determine what caused the crash. It was not a criminal investigation, even though, at the end, they concluded that a lone gunman caused the crash.

Another example is url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_Lee_Smith]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_Lee_Smith[/url].

I could be missing something here, but I see nothing about a criminal investigation after the suspect's death on this page.

Oh yes you did. You are saying exactly what I have been telling you all along. You brought civil cases into this, when I was talking about Kennedy's and Tippit's murder, which is and always has been a criminal case. And in every criminal case the persumption of innocence applies, except of course, it would seem for Oswald.

Again, exactly what I have been telling you all along. Don't you feel silly now, bringing civil cases into this conversation?

Already debunked. See above.

I didn't ask you to prove a negative. Again, show us a case where they didn't continue the investigation until the evidence was collected and analyzed and they had tried to determine what had happened.

Hilarious. You deny asking me to prove a negative and then proceed to ask me to prove a negative.   

I am beginning to understand why you are a LN. In the civil case the burden of proof was much lower and Simpson wasn't tried for or even charged with murder. All the plaintiffs in the civil case needed to do was convince the jury that it was plausible that Simpson had something to do with the murders. Many factors come it to play in such a case, such as, for instance, likability, as we have seen recently in the Depp vs Heard case. By the time the civil case against Simpson played out he had no likability left.

Many people believed he was actually guilty but his clever lawyers had gotten him off. I don't agree with that. It was in fact the prosecution that failed to meet it's burden of proof. So, although I do think that Simpson did commit the two murders, the verdict of the jury in the criminal trial was IMO the correct one.

Having said that, the dynamics in a jury in a civil case are completely different from those in a criminal case. And at the end of the day, Simpson was not found guilty of a crime at the civil case.

Now, how can I best explain this so you will understand. Let's say I challenge a youngster to throw a brick to a window and he does it. He's the one committing the criminal act of willful destruction of property, because he decided to throw the brick. However, in civil court (provided there is sufficient evidence) I could be held responsible for the damage cause by the crime. Get it now?

The bottom line is that in a criminal case the prosecution failed to prove that Simpson was guilty. No ruling by a civil court changes that one bit.

...........

Indeed it does and you still haven't answered the question.


I am discussing the law. You appear to be discussing a general philosophical way of thinking about justice. You need to clarify whether or not you are asking about the law. If you are discussing the law, then I have already answered your question.


The WC used the resources of the FBI to investigate this case, and that by itself makes it a criminal investigation. So, my question is just as valid as your answer is elusive.

The FBI investigated the criminal (and other aspects of this case). However, there were no criminal charges ever brought to trial (due to the murder of LHO). If you are asking about the law, then my original answer (A presumption of innocence applies to an adversarial criminal trial with prosecution and defense cases being presented.) still stands.


Utter BS. As soon as a criminal allegation is made in a civil case, the judge will have no other remedy but to refer the matter to law enforcement and prosecutors.

I said nothing about any criminal allegation.


"Wrongdoing" (whatever than means) is not a crime.

I didn't say that it is.


When I renege on a contract, I am doing something wrong and I violate the terms of that contract but I do not violate a criminal law.


Agreed. However you are being charged in civil court with violating the terms of the contract. That is a "wrongdoing" but not a crime. I think that we both agree on this.


Wrong example. This investigation was conducted by investigators from the National Transportation Safety Board. They are by law obliged to investigate all plane crashes and they use the resources of the F.B.I. to do it. The purpose of their investigation was to determine what caused the crash. It was not a criminal investigation, even though, at the end, they concluded that a lone gunman caused the crash.


You are completely wrong (again). It is a prime example, and the FBI has jurisdiction whenever it appears that a crime may have taken place in an aviation incident. Once it became known that a crime had likely occurred, the FBI was called into the investigation, took control, and the NTSB worked under the direction of the FBI in this case, not the other way around as you falsely claim. In a aviation incident where no apparent crime was committed, the NTSB does conduct the investigation. The FBI didn't drop it's investigation when it became apparent that the gunman was dead. They continued their investigation to try to find out how it happened and why (motive, etc.).


I could be missing something here, but I see nothing about a criminal investigation after the suspect's death on this page.

How do you propose that the authorities know the details of what happened in that case? Read the newspaper article linked to that page. The police gave the newspaper some details and said that they are still trying to piece it all together. That is an investigation that did not stop the instant the MF died. If your claim that the criminal investigation stops immediately after the death of the accused, then the police would have said: This MF is dead, no need to investigate how all of this happened, called the morgue and closed their investigation. Then I suppose you think that the tooth fairy appeared and told everyone what happened. Yes, I believe you are missing "something".



Oh yes you did. You are saying exactly what I have been telling you all along.

Please clarify specifically what it is that you have been trying to tell me all along. Are you talking about how the law is applied to criminal cases (which is my interpretation of your original question) or are you talking about general philosophical ways of thinking about justice?



And in every criminal case the persumption of innocence applies, except of course, it would seem for Oswald

You are wrong again, it did apply for LHO (until the upcoming criminal trial(s) were made impossible by his death). An investigation is not the same as a trial.



Already debunked. See above.


It is pathetically sad that you think you have debunked anything. See above.


Hilarious. You deny asking me to prove a negative and then proceed to ask me to prove a negative.   

If your claim that all criminal investigations are immediately dropped when a suspect dies is correct, then you should be able to provide an example. There is no request for you to prove a negative. Just show us an example. I don't believe that you can.



I am beginning to understand why you are a LN. In the civil case the burden of proof was much lower and Simpson wasn't tried for or even charged with murder. All the plaintiffs in the civil case needed to do was convince the jury that it was plausible that Simpson had something to do with the murders. Many factors come it to play in such a case, such as, for instance, likability, as we have seen recently in the Depp vs Heard case. By the time the civil case against Simpson played out he had no likability left.

You are wrong again. They had to present evidence that outweighed the defense's evidence pertaining to whether or not OJ was responsible for the murders.


Having said that, the dynamics in a jury in a civil case are completely different from those in a criminal case. And at the end of the day, Simpson was not found guilty of a crime at the civil case.

Correct, he wasn't charged with a crime. However, he was found to be responsible for the murders.



Now, how can I best explain this so you will understand. Let's say I challenge a youngster to throw a brick to a window and he does it. He's the one committing the criminal act of willful destruction of property, because he decided to throw the brick. However, in civil court (provided there is sufficient evidence) I could be held responsible for the damage cause by the crime. Get it now?

If it went to criminal court (where crimes must go) then you could also be convicted of conspiring to commit the crime. However, the standard of proof would be much higher than in civil court. Also, in the criminal court you could not be required to testify (the 5th amendment), this is part of the protections afforded to us in the presumption of innocence concept. In a civil court you would not be charged with a crime and therefore the protections would not apply. Get it now?


The bottom line is that in a criminal case the prosecution failed to prove that Simpson was guilty. No ruling by a civil court changes that one bit.

I would revise that statement a little bit. The bottom line is that in a criminal case the prosecution failed to prove [to that jury] that Simpson was [legally] guilty. No ruling by a civil court changes that one bit.