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.
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.
BS. In a civil court claims are filed. Nobody is being charged of anything.
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.).
You should read the page that you linked to;
After the crash site was located by a CBS News helicopter piloted by Zoey Tur, investigators from the National Transportation Safety Board were joined by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The FBI did not take over the investigation but instead worked jointly with the NTSB, as they always do!
And then you should really find out what the task of the National Transportation Safety Board actually is;
The NTSB originated in the Air Commerce Act of 1926, in which the U.S. Congress charged the U.S. Department of Commerce with investigating the causes of aircraft accidents. Later, that responsibility was given to the Civil Aeronautics Board's Bureau of Aviation Safety, when it was created in 1940.
In 1967, Congress consolidated all transportation agencies into a new U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) and established the NTSB as an independent agency placed within the DOT for administrative purposes. In creating the NTSB, Congress envisioned that a single organization with a clearly defined mission could more effectively promote a higher level of safety in the transportation system than the individual modal agencies working separately. Since 1967, the NTSB has investigated accidents in the aviation, highway, marine, pipeline, and railroad modes, as well as accidents related to the transportation of hazardous materials.
In 1974, Congress reestablished the NTSB as a completely separate entity, outside the DOT, reasoning that " ...No federal agency can properly perform such (investigatory) functions unless it is totally separate and independent from any other ... agency of the United States. "
https://www.ntsb.gov/about/history/Pages/default.aspxI 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".
So, it's merely conjecture on your part, based on a newspaper article. Got it!
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.
Being a contrarian who argues for the sake of argument is one thing, but this level of stupidity makes any further discussion a complete waste of time. You can twist and turn as much as you like, but Simpson was not tried for murder in the civil case. Period!
I've now lost all interest in your ramblings. Post a reply if you must (and most likely will) but don't expect me to respond, unless you come up with something far better than the BS you have been posting so far.
