You are only partially correct.
No investigation to collect evidence is more precise.
Did OJ kill Nicole & Ron 16 years ago?
- Thread starter JEFF247
- Start date
No investigation to collect evidence is more precise.
Somewhat like the drug dealer you beschmirched earlier?
HAve fun with your advocacy....you and I both know better!!
Im done with this thread
toodle doo!
And to boot...cochrane and otheres..took a real run at the copper...apparently top nothc lawyers....If he did it..they would have dug it out....
HAve fun with your advocacy....you and I both know better!!
Im done with this thread
toodle doo!
And to boot...cochrane and otheres..took a real run at the copper...apparently top nothc lawyers....If he did it..they would have dug it out....
It means that the trout did not get there on it's own. Some farmers in the day used to dilute milk with water from a stream, hence the phrase. It wasn't necessary to be there when it was done to understand what happened. If you want everything laid out in life and proven to the nth degree you will be sorely dissapointed. Most adults realize they need to look at what is there and come to a logical conclusion.
Well at least you get that. A start I suppose. Really pappy, you question everything and never take the time to actually look things up on your own. You noticed I let your Mario thread go. Try harder.
In this civil suit filed by the Goldman and Brown families, Simpson could not invoke the Fifth Amendment and, unlike the criminal case, was forced to testify. Also, the standard of proof was a lot easier than in the criminal case. There, guilt must be proven "beyond a reasonable doubt." In a civil case, guilt had only to be proven according to the "preponderance of the evidence", rather than "beyond a reasonable doubt." In other words its purpose is to decide whether it is more likely than not that the defendant committed the crime.
On February 4th, 1997, the jury awarded $8.5 million in compensatory damages to Fred Goldman and his ex-wife Sharon Rufo for the loss of their son's love, companionship and moral support. A few days later, they brought in punitive damages of $25 million to be shared between Nicole's children and Fred Goldman.
It seemed at long last that judgment had finally been observed. The money of course, was never paid out. Simpson's lawyer, Robert Baker, told the jury that Simpson was broke, with a negative net worth of $856,157, down from a net positive worth of $10 million. He owed lawyer fees, back taxes of $685,248.00 to the IRS, and mortgage repayments, and in effect was without assets. It appears unlikely that anyone will ever get anything of any consequence.
http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/famous/simpson/dead_16.html
On February 4th, 1997, the jury awarded $8.5 million in compensatory damages to Fred Goldman and his ex-wife Sharon Rufo for the loss of their son's love, companionship and moral support. A few days later, they brought in punitive damages of $25 million to be shared between Nicole's children and Fred Goldman.
It seemed at long last that judgment had finally been observed. The money of course, was never paid out. Simpson's lawyer, Robert Baker, told the jury that Simpson was broke, with a negative net worth of $856,157, down from a net positive worth of $10 million. He owed lawyer fees, back taxes of $685,248.00 to the IRS, and mortgage repayments, and in effect was without assets. It appears unlikely that anyone will ever get anything of any consequence.
http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/famous/simpson/dead_16.html
Ask your self's this
Why hasn't the LAPD followed up on this?
They don't want to find the killer is my bet
Why hasn't the LAPD followed up on this?
They don't want to find the killer is my bet
In a civil tril the evidence has to be more likely than not
In a criminal case it has to be beyond a reasonable doubt
A jury found him not guilty
In which case I'm glad I don't practice in the Buffalo area, even though I actually like the Niagara Frontier.
The word is yourselves and they did find the killer. They screwed it up. God you can be thick.
So? I'm reminded of the Scot's Law Verdict Not Proven which wags say means "not guilty but don't do it again!"
In California v. O.J. Simpson Not Guilty was for all intents and purposes Not Proven.
About as close to a confession on live television as most of us (including members of the Bar) are ever likely to come.
He pretends not to believe in anything unless it is laid out to him ad nauseam. And then he will challenge that. It really is a gutless way to try and communicate with someone, especially when he offers nothing else than random speculation.
Tell ya the truth I still think OJ did not do it
As for his current problems he is were h belongs.
