Complete Criminal Trial on video??? [Archive] - Crime Library Message Boards

William Anthony

09-26-2006, 08:44 AM

Originally posted by MRINTENTIONAL99
Hello, I was wondering if anyone knows where i can get Complete video of the trial that was aired on tv? Thank You.
I thought i would be able to find it on ebat but have not been sucessful.

David

David, I did not boast, but I do have the complete trial on VCR tape. I do not know if any have been damaged by the recorder when I tried to replay them, possibly one or two. In any event, what is your thougt process on this. I am in college and may be moving soon. I have moved some stuff to the new location. I cannot say exactly when I will have time to locate them, although I believe most of them are in boxes in the attic.

martin II

09-26-2006, 12:59 PM

Originally posted by fbgweezer
Ahh, I just read her post on the other thread where she stated she didn't. I guess I thought maybe since she 'watched every minute' that she possibly taped it. My bad. :D

fbg
i also watched all of the trial daily and made some tapes that are
on the shelf with other tapes but i have not looked at them since the trial. when oj was found not guilty of the murders i had no reason to view them again.
martin ii

fbgweezer

09-26-2006, 01:55 PM

Originally posted by martin II

fbg
i also watched all of the trial daily and made some tapes that are
on the shelf with other tapes but i have not looked at them since the trial. when oj was found not guilty of the murders i had no reason to view them again.
martin ii I only watched what was re-shown at night since my work place did not have TV access. I did go online and read transcripts as soon as they were available which means they ran about 24 to 48 hours behind the happenings. That may be why it was easier for me to come to terms with Orenthal's guilt -- no dramatics, no personalities.

martin II

09-26-2006, 03:36 PM

Originally posted by fbgweezer
I only watched what was re-shown at night since my work place did not have TV access. I did go online and read transcripts as soon as they were available which means they ran about 24 to 48 hours behind the happenings. That may be why it was easier for me to come to terms with Orenthal's guilt -- no dramatics, no personalities.

FBG
If you had watched the trial on tv daily you would have been able to see most of what the jury saw when witnesses testified.

watching the expressions , manner and attitudes of witnesses is always much better then reading it on paper.

example. you missed the arrogance of mf furhman when he took the stand and his expressions when bailey caught him.everyone knew he was telling a lie.

you missed how confused kato looked and seemed when he testified.

you missed how frantic m clarke and c darden seemed as they realized they were loosing the case.

there was much more to learn from watching the trial on tv.

however since you believe that reading about the trial was better than viewing it, i understand that could be the root cause for your confusion about the case. i have often wondered how one could be so uninformed. now i know.imo
martin II

fbgweezer

09-26-2006, 04:15 PM

*Snipped*Originally posted by martin II
however since you believe that reading about the trial was better than viewing it, i understand that could be the root cause for your confusion about the case. i have often wondered how one could be so uninformed. now i know.imo So you think your interpretation of someone's expression or attitude is better than what was actually testified to?

Fuhrman is still comes across as arrogant and Kato still confused. So what?

The transcripts and books offered indepth information that a TV viewer could never have gotten. Because regardless of what someone looked like, acted like, or spoke like, the evidence they were giving was bland. No theatrics, no dramatics, no lies. The proof was that Orenthal left his blood, size 12 pigeon-toed footprints, hair and fiber at the murder scene. Nothing you saw anyone do on TV can change that.

martin II

09-26-2006, 07:07 PM

your post
So you think your interpretation of someone's expression or attitude is better than what was actually testified to?

i never said that at all.

watching the manner of the person testifying is always better than reading remarks on paper.

since you are having such a hard time with this i will give you another example

the juror sitting closest to the witness box observed m furhman pushing his feet with force against the front of the jury box during his testimnony. she looked at his expression and decided this guy is telling lies. and she was right.

obviously you missed this kind of action that happened every day in court.

additionally i am not surprised that you have major confusion on the case if you watched SELECTED media reruns of the case later in the day. like 7 pm news.

martin II

09-26-2006, 07:18 PM

fbg

is it that difficult to understand that all of the books written about the case were written by people looking to cash in on the case and that they were full of personal faulty opinions depending on who wrote the book. like mf, vanhatter and other talking heads.
all had some juicy points to make to insure the sale of the books.

so if you believe these books gave a better understanding than the live telecast then there is no hope for your understanding of the case.imo

martin II

tazzybaby

09-27-2006, 12:54 PM

Originally posted by MRINTENTIONAL99
Hello, I was wondering if anyone knows where i can get Complete video of the trial that was aired on tv? Thank You.
I thought i would be able to find it on ebat but have not been sucessful.

David

Hi David,

You can purchase the tapes via Court TV (some of them). And, you can also do a search and they have those available. There use to be a link on this thread with the site that sold every single tape.

:seeya:

Kate Sachel

10-31-2006, 02:23 PM

Originally posted by martin II

however since you believe that reading about the trial was better than viewing it, i understand that could be the root cause for your confusion about the case. i have often wondered how one could be so uninformed. now i know.imo
martin II

I believe that statement is somewhat insulting and quite misinformed. I did not have to live through or fight in World War II to be extremely knowledgeable and educated regarding it.

Based on your statement, it would appear that you are stating that anyone who did not watch the trial daily is not as informed or educated as an individual that did view the trial on a daily basis.

That's quite unfortunate.

Kate

martin II

10-31-2006, 03:25 PM

Originally posted by Kate Sachel

I believe that statement is somewhat insulting and quite misinformed. I did not have to live through or fight in World War II to be extremely knowledgeable and educated regarding it.

Based on your statement, it would appear that you are stating that anyone who did not watch the trial daily is not as informed or educated as an individual that did view the trial on a daily basis.

That's quite unfortunate.

Kate

kate

World War II and the oj case were two different events.

NO. Reading about the war in no way allows you to have a equal
education/ knowledge of what it was like. Even the films don't tell the story. As the soldiers often said. You would have to be there to understand.

In the oj case as is the case in many jury trials, the jury has the front seat to examine the demeanor, expressions and the general
way a witness testifies and is crossexamined.

Transcripts or books donot convey these important observations.imo

If you take my post as insulting, i guess you will just have to deal with your feelings. imo

martin II

Kate Sachel

10-31-2006, 03:53 PM

Originally posted by martin II

kate

World War II and the oj case were two different events.

NO. Reading about the war in no way allows you to have a equal
education/ knowledge of what it was like. Even the films don't tell the story. As the soldiers often said. You would have to be there to understand.

In the oj case as is the case in many jury trials, the jury has the front seat to examine the demeanor, expressions and the general
way a witness testifies and is crossexamined.

Transcripts or books donot convey these important observations.imo

If you take my post as insulting, i guess you will just have to deal with your feelings. imo

martin II

You were not physically in the courtroom everyday, or at all, were you?

Thus, you have served to reinforce my point. All you did, in essence, is watch a "film" of the trial on television everyday. I am sorry to inform you that that makes you no more knowledgeable about the case than someone who read the transcripts everyday.

As is the same in any life situation facts are facts and if they don't add up then they don't, and if they do add up then they do ... and no facial expression is going to change that.

Kate

martin II

10-31-2006, 04:27 PM

Originally posted by Kate Sachel

You were not physically in the courtroom everyday, or at all, were you?

Thus, you have served to reinforce my point. All you did, in essence, is watch a "film" of the trial on television everyday. I am sorry to inform you that that makes you no more knowledgeable about the case than someone who read the transcripts everyday.

As is the same in any life situation facts are facts and if they don't add up then they don't, and if they do add up then they do ... and no facial expression is going to change that.

Kate

kate

I did not watch a "film" of the trial, I as did many others, watched the trial LIVE ON TV. Looked directly at the witnesses as they testified.

you do know that the trial was televised LIVE everyday. did you watch it?

the purpose of the jury being in the court room is to hear and SEE the person giving the the actual testimnony. The demeaner of the witness is very important. At least the court system thinks so.

martin II

limakey

10-31-2006, 07:10 PM

Kate,

I believe that Martin has made an important point about watching the trial on TV. While Martin and I and some others, believe that it was not only Fuhrman's denials that sank his crediblity but it was his arrogrance. IMO, it was like he knew he was lying, the judge knew he was lying, the DA's knew he was lying, the defense knew he was lying, the jurors knew he was lying and he knew they knew he was lying but he just kept it up and then when he said that anyone who said anything different would be a liar, well, he had no one to blame to himself.

However, in the beginning of the trial, Marcia Clark really went to the wall for him. She said that he was an important witness that the defense was just trying ruin, etc.....The jurors remembered this, they remembered how she was with him on the stand, then in her closing arguments, she said that he never should have been a cop in the first place and that he was a racist, in fact, we, as a people, don't even want him or the likes of him on our planet. What was the jury suppose to think then?

Now, others have posted they only saw a cop who was too embarrased to cop it. It all depends on how you see it.

Another perfect example is Kato. I was very, very surprised that jurors in both trials thought he knew more then what he was saying and was holding back. They never said what they thought he was holding back but one juror thought he was on drugs--why? She felt his eyes were the evidence.

I think it is all on how you see it. I totally agree with you that by reading about cases you can educate yourself, but you have to remember is that every author has an opinon and it will be written toward that opinon. IMO.

socaldiva

10-31-2006, 07:16 PM

Originally posted by limakey
*snip*
I think it is all on how you see it. I totally agree with you that by reading about cases you can educate yourself, but you have to remember is that every author has an opinon and it will be written toward that opinon. IMO.

Transcripts are not "authored", nor do they contain opinion.

martin II

11-01-2006, 07:53 AM

limakey

Another example was when furhman was testifying.

The joror sitting closest to furhman on the stand said in her book that she noticed that when he was answering certain quesitons he was pushing his feet against the witness stand in a unusual manner. she said she looked at his face and decided that he was not telling the truth. imo
Reading the transcripts of his testimony one does not get this personal picture of his demenor.imo

One could only understand Kato and his confusaion about the knocks by seeing him testify. imo

Many have stated here that it was R.KS facial expressions that led them to believe he was surprised at the verdict.imo
martin ii

Kate Sachel

11-01-2006, 08:37 AM

Originally posted by limakey
Kate,
I think it is all on how you see it. I totally agree with you that by reading about cases you can educate yourself, but you have to remember is that every author has an opinon and it will be written toward that opinon. IMO.

I'm not talking about reading books about the case, as I posted I am talking about reading the transcripts.

I disagree with both yourself and martin. I own the complete trial on VCR tapes and I have watched it from beginning to end ... no facial expression I saw changed the facts of the case.

Kate

martin II

11-01-2006, 09:48 AM

Originally posted by Kate Sachel

I'm not talking about reading books about the case, as I posted I am talking about reading the transcripts.

I disagree with both yourself and martin. I own the complete trial on VCR tapes and I have watched it from beginning to end ... no facial expression I saw changed the facts of the case.

Kate

kate

I think the demeanor of some witnesses helped the jury to decide if they were telling the truth or not. all testimony was not truthful and there would not be any way to evaluate the witness unless one was looking at him/her.

At any rate the court system requires the jury to be present to hear and SEE witnesses. other wise the jury would not have to be present during testimnony. They could be called to the deliberation room and given transcripts to make a decision. imo

martin II

limakey

11-02-2006, 11:07 PM

Martin,

Do you know who I think was one of the most deceptive witness and I'm not taking about lying, but there just something about him and the way he testified really got me curious about him.

That was the bartender, Stewart Tanner, have you ever read his testimony?

martin II

11-02-2006, 11:18 PM

Originally posted by limakey
Martin,

Do you know who I think was one of the most deceptive witness and I'm not taking about lying, but there just something about him and the way he testified really got me curious about him.

That was the bartender, Stewart Tanner, have you ever read his testimony?

limakey

no i did not read his testimony, but i will
martin II

limakey

11-02-2006, 11:19 PM

Kate,

IMO, when you look or read the "facts" in this case, then you also have to concede to other "facts". Yes, blood on the back gate is a fact in the case, however, it is also a fact that it was not collected until weeks later. It is also a fact that how and when this "error" was discovered has been as clear as mud.

It is a fact that Nicole's and OJ's blood was found on the sock. However, it is also a fact that that a reporter, who took the stand in the trial to stand by her story, said that she was told the results of the tests---even before they were sent out for testing.
It is also a fact that the defense had a witness who testified on why he believed the blood on the sock was planted. The DA's could only offer up a meek possibility, that Nicole reached up and grab his ankle.

It is also a fact that there the same type of fibers found on Ron's shirt, glove and I can't remember what else. However, it is a fact that these fibers were never, ever compared to any type of sweat suit at all. In fact there was no testimony from any expert witness about this. Doug Deedrick only said he believed they came from the same material. He did not mention it was a material that sweat suits are made of.

It is a fact that Kato testified he believed what OJ Simpson was wearing that night. It is also a fact that he said he was wearing the same sweat suit when he left for the airport.

It it is a fact that OJ Simpson did have cuts on his hands that night. It is a fact he was bleeding, as he said in his interview. However, it is NOT a fact that OJ Simpson broke a glass and used it trace his cut so the cops would never know how he cut it.

IMO, he knew no one noticed his hands on the way to Chicago--so why not turn his hand into hamburger, there by eliminating any chance of those cuts being identified as knife cuts?

IMO, there are facts in this case and taken at face value, they look OK, but the problem is when the evidence ages finer then wine. IMO.

William Anthony

11-10-2006, 02:00 PM

Originally posted by Kate Sachel

You were not physically in the courtroom everyday, or at all, were you?

Thus, you have served to reinforce my point. All you did, in essence, is watch a "film" of the trial on television everyday. I am sorry to inform you that that makes you no more knowledgeable about the case than someone who read the transcripts everyday.

As is the same in any life situation facts are facts and if they don't add up then they don't, and if they do add up then they do ... and no facial expression is going to change that.

Kate

If I might, the whole process of having a witness testify in person rather than to read their testimony into a trial is to enable the jury to determine the credibilityof the witness and the evidence intoduced by that witness through direct and cross ecaminations. If the court system thought that it was equally as informative to have the testimony read without the witness being present, then there would be no need for live witnesses. The reading of transcripts cannot reflect the spirit in which the words were spoken. The whole concept of a person's right to confront the witness agains him is to have a jury or judge test the credibility of the witness so that they can reach an informed opinion as to who is more accurate or telling the truth.

martin II

11-10-2006, 02:14 PM

Originally posted by William Anthony

If I might, the whole process of having a witness testify in person rather than to read their testimony into a trial is to enable the jury to determine the credibilityof the witness and the evidence intoduced by that witness through direct and cross ecaminations. If the court system thought that it was equally as informative to have the testimony read without the witness being present, then there would be no need for live witnesses. The reading of transcripts cannot reflect the spirit in which the words were spoken. The whole concept of a person's right to confront the witness agains him is to have a jury or judge test the credibility of the witness so that they can reach an informed opinion as to who is more accurate or telling the truth. :beer:

martin II

bobaugust

11-10-2006, 05:01 PM

William Anthony

11-11-2006, 10:27 AM

Originally posted by bobaugust

The transcripts tell us the actual words that were said, not the words some posters here think was said.

That's why you and other posters here who offer your opinions about the evidence in this case relying only on your memories are continually shown those opinions are based on false and misinformation.

bobaugust

If you read that William Anthony said that Bobaugust is a great guy, without knowing anything about any relationship beteween you and me, could you tell if I truly meant it or being facetious? We were only discussing whether or not transcripts were better than observation of the testimony, not memory and my comments were offered as a peace offering to Kate and Martin.

bobaugust

11-11-2006, 04:36 PM

Originally posted by William Anthony

If you read that William Anthony said that Bobaugust is a great guy, without knowing anything about any relationship beteween you and me, could you tell if I truly meant it or being facetious? We were only discussing whether or not transcripts were better than observation of the testimony, not memory and my comments were offered as a peace offering to Kate and Martin.

And my comments were made to make it clear how important the transcripts are when someone is offering opinions about the evidence in this case based only on their memory.

bobaugust

martin II

11-11-2006, 05:02 PM

Originally posted by bobaugust

And my comments were made to make it clear how important the transcripts are when someone is offering opinions about the evidence in this case based only on their memory.

bobaugust

Most of the posters here have the transcripts or can review them.

The people that saw the trial live on tv were able to determine
if they belives a witness by viewing that witnesses demeanor
on the stand in person as they listened to the direct and cross.

A person picking up the transcripts two years later does not get the beneift of this live witnesses expression, directness and manner of responding to the questions.imo
martin II

bobaugust

11-11-2006, 06:06 PM

Originally posted by martin II

Most of the posters here have the transcripts or can review them.

The people that saw the trial live on tv were able to determine
if they belives a witness by viewing that witnesses demeanor
on the stand in person as they listened to the direct and cross.

A person picking up the transcripts two years later does not get the beneift of this live witnesses expression, directness and manner of responding to the questions.imo
martin II

martin II, A witness may look like he's lying to someone observing him but it takes evidence to make the determination if the witness is actually lying.

bobaugust

fbgweezer

11-11-2006, 07:09 PM

*Snipped*Originally posted by William Anthony
The whole concept of a person's right to confront the witness agains him is to have a jury or judge test the credibility of the witness so that they can reach an informed opinion as to who is more accurate or telling the truth. and you believe that the truth can be determined by a person's appearance and/or demeanor? Hmmm.......you probably need to retake that class that dealt with witnesses in the courtroom. IMO

fbgweezer

11-11-2006, 07:15 PM

Originally posted by martin II

Most of the posters here have the transcripts or can review them.

The people that saw the trial live on tv were able to determine
if they belives a witness by viewing that witnesses demeanor
on the stand in person as they listened to the direct and cross.

A person picking up the transcripts two years later does not get the beneift of this live witnesses expression, directness and manner of responding to the questions.imo
martin II This is ridiculous -- do you honestly believe that anyone testifying in this trial wasn't under stress? Would you have been able to walk into that courtroom and testify without appearing to speak and act different than you normally would?

martin II

11-12-2006, 05:45 PM

Originally posted by fbgweezer
This is ridiculous -- do you honestly believe that anyone testifying in this trial wasn't under stress? Would you have been able to walk into that courtroom and testify without appearing to speak and act different than you normally would?

fbg

Most of the time good lawyers tell witnesses to JUST TELL THE TRUTH.imo
martinii

martin II

11-12-2006, 05:56 PM

Originally posted by fbgweezer
*Snipped* and you believe that the truth can be determined by a person's appearance and/or demeanor? Hmmm.......you probably need to retake that class that dealt with witnesses in the courtroom. IMO

fbg
wiser people than you determined long ago that the accused must be tried by a jury or a judge in a effort to reach the truth in the trial.

Otherwise, the jury could stay at home not viewing the trial like you did and just come to the deliberaitons where they would be given all the transcripts and asked to render a verdict.imo
martin II

martin II

11-12-2006, 06:01 PM

Originally posted by bobaugust

martin II, A witness may look like he's lying to someone observing him but it takes evidence to make the determination if the witness is actually lying.

bobaugust

bob
one witness said that she looked at furhman closely and based on his demeanor etc she knew THEN he was telling a lie. It turns out that she was right.imo
martin II

fbgweezer

11-12-2006, 06:20 PM

Originally posted by martin II

bob
one witness said that she looked at furhman closely and based on his demeanor etc she knew THEN he was telling a lie. It turns out that she was right.imo
martin II was this one of the jurors who said she was watching orenthal and that he was lying when he said the gloves didn't fit?

jotun

11-12-2006, 09:46 PM

Originally posted by martin II

bob
one witness said that she looked at furhman closely and based on his demeanor etc she knew THEN he was telling a lie. It turns out that she was right.imo
martin II

Martin,
MOST of the police were testilying.I was shocked back then.It wasn't WHAT [in transcripts] they said but the way [live] they said it.Remember the best, Vanatter?? He would purse his lips and turn bright RED.
jotun

fbgweezer

11-12-2006, 09:51 PM

Originally posted by jotun

Martin,
MOST of the police were testilying.I was shocked back then.It wasn't WHAT [in transcripts] they said but the way [live] they said it.Remember the best, Vanatter?? He would purse his lips and turn bright RED.
jotun And you interpret that to mean what?

jotun

11-12-2006, 11:19 PM

Originally posted by martin II

FBG
watching the expressions , manner and attitudes of witnesses is always much better then reading it on paper.

there was much more to learn from watching the trial on tv.

i have often wondered how one could be so uninformed. now i know.imo
martin II
Martin,
Let's SEE a movie tonight.fbg and others, would rather stay home and read a old SCRIPT.

I watched and taped all the trial.Read many transcripts, and all the depos.

SEEING is Believing.
Case in point:
During the prelim as Boztepe was relaying the events of discovering Nicole's body.The CAMERA WAS ON O.J. He listened & watched so intently. When Dr.Golden went thru the injuries.
The CAMERA WAS ON O.J. He quietly cried thru most of it about Nicole.O.J. winced when the Dr. told of the stab wound to Ron's abdomen. None of THAT is in any tanscript.
O.J.'s REACTIONS showed his INNOCENCE.
Beg, borrow, or buy those segements.And maybe see this case in another light.As Jarret of ctv said this may tell us how this will come out.
DID!!!
jotun

tazzybaby

11-13-2006, 09:01 AM

Originally posted by jotun

Martin,
Let's SEE a movie tonight.fbg and others, would rather stay home and read a old SCRIPT.

I watched and taped all the trial.Read many transcripts, and all the depos.

SEEING is Believing.
Case in point:
During the prelim as Boztepe was relaying the events of discovering Nicole's body.The CAMERA WAS ON O.J. He listened & watched so intently. When Dr.Golden went thru the injuries.
The CAMERA WAS ON O.J. He quietly cried thru most of it about Nicole.O.J. winced when the Dr. told of the stab wound to Ron's abdomen. None of THAT is in any tanscript.
O.J.'s REACTIONS showed his INNOCENCE.
Beg, borrow, or buy those segements.And maybe see this case in another light.As Jarret of ctv said this may tell us how this will come out.
DID!!!
jotun

Hi Jotun,

If that makes you believe that OJ is innocent then the civil trial should make you believe he was guilty.

:rolleyes:

William Anthony

11-13-2006, 09:44 AM

Originally posted by bobaugust

And my comments were made to make it clear how important the transcripts are when someone is offering opinions about the evidence in this case based only on their memory.

bobaugust

Reviewing the tapes can give you the manner in which the words were spoken and the demeanor of the witness. Rereading transcripts never will. In short the tapes can refresh a person's memory and a transcript cannot. Since you did not answer the other portion of my post, I will take it that you cannot from reading a transcript tell the spirit in which testimony was offered.

William Anthony

11-13-2006, 09:49 AM

Originally posted by fbgweezer
*Snipped* and you believe that the truth can be determined by a person's appearance and/or demeanor? Hmmm.......you probably need to retake that class that dealt with witnesses in the courtroom. IMO

Wheter or not I believe that the truth can be determined by a person's demanor is irrelevant, it is what the legal system uses in addition to the testimony to judge the person's credibility. It is obvious from your post that you never took or if you did-did not pass the course, imho.

2L8 4A D8

11-13-2006, 12:18 PM

Originally posted by William Anthony

Wheter or not I believe that the truth can be determined by a person's demanor is irrelevant, it is what the legal system uses in addition to the testimony to judge the person's credibility. It is obvious from your post that you never took or if you did-did not pass the course, imho.

What proof do you have that you are going to school to become a lawyer other than just your word? Like we are to believe that? Yeah, right. GMAB!

Any of us on this Board can say we are just about anything. Doesn't make it true just because we say so!

JMO and MOO!!

William Anthony

11-13-2006, 12:37 PM

Originally posted by 2L8 4A D8

What proof do you have that you are going to school to become a lawyer other than just your word? Like we are to believe that? Yeah, right. GMAB!

Any of us on this Board can say we are just about anything. Doesn't make it true just because we say so!

JMO and MOO!!

I do not know of how to respond to that as I cannot think of any proof that I could give you, other than my word. I think if you will read my prior posts, you will have a better understanding of that of which you speak in this one.

William Anthony

11-13-2006, 12:38 PM

Originally posted by tazzybaby

Hi Jotun,

If that makes you believe that OJ is innocent then the civil trial should make you believe he was guilty.

:rolleyes:

No, just liable.

2L8 4A D8

11-13-2006, 12:47 PM

Originally posted by William Anthony

I do not know of how to respond to that as I cannot think of any proof that I could give you, other than my word. I think if you will read my prior posts, you will have a better understanding of that of which you speak in this one.
That's the problem ~ your word ~ "credible" comes to mind! I don't have to read any of your posts, past or present, to get a better understanding of you. You are quite obvious and have been since Day 1.

JMO and MOO!!

martin II

11-13-2006, 01:05 PM

Originally posted by William Anthony

I do not know of how to respond to that as I cannot think of any proof that I could give you, other than my word. I think if you will read my prior posts, you will have a better understanding of that of which you speak in this one.

william
That is enough for most posters not suffering from hatred and bias and a inability to be civil to others just because they may be stuck in a lesser profession or job.imo
martin II

William Anthony

11-13-2006, 01:47 PM

Originally posted by martin II

william
That is enough for most posters not suffering from hatred and bias and a inability to be civil to others just because they may be stuck in a lesser profession or job.imo
martin II

Martin,

Thank you. I can only say that the word of any person, who disagrees with the assertion that the civil trial proved Simpson to be the true killer, is enough for some to question the credibilty the disagreeing poster. They, who do not realize or understand the nature of a civil trial and post that it proved Simpson to be the killer, have a problem with credibility, imho.

tazzybaby

11-13-2006, 02:54 PM

Originally posted by William Anthony

No, just liable.

Hi William,

Okay, so, you are admitting that his demeanor and actions in the civil trial make him liable? So, in turn....he is the one who committed the crimes. Notice, I didn't say guilty. That's because I'm not talking legally. I'm talking realistically. That's what I wanted to know. Did he truly committ this crime? Yes.

tazzybaby

11-13-2006, 03:01 PM

Originally posted by William Anthony

Martin,

Thank you. I can only say that the word of any person, who disagrees with the assertion that the civil trial proved Simpson to be the true killer, is enough for some to question the credibilty the disagreeing poster. They, who do not realize or understand the nature of a civil trial and post that it proved Simpson to be the killer, have a problem with credibility, imho.

Hi William,

There was additional evidence and additional testimony in the civil trial. There was more to learn in the civil trial. So, when someone won't even learn about the civil trial and forms an opinion, to me they are the ones who have credibility issues. That person wouldn't have all the facts. And, he was found liable in the civil trial. That is the same as being responsible for. So, OJ is responsible for the deaths of Ron and Nicole. That's just another word for guilty.

Liable
To be responsible for; to be obligated in law.

http://www.answers.com/liable&r=67

William Anthony

11-13-2006, 03:28 PM

Originally posted by tazzybaby

Hi William,

Okay, so, you are admitting that his demeanor and actions in the civil trial make him liable? So, in turn....he is the one who committed the crimes. Notice, I didn't say guilty. That's because I'm not talking legally. I'm talking realistically. That's what I wanted to know. Did he truly committ this crime? Yes.

When I say liable, I am speaking legally. The legal language is that he was found not guilty of the charges/crimes.

William Anthony

11-13-2006, 03:33 PM

Originally posted by tazzybaby

Hi William,

There was additional evidence and additional testimony in the civil trial. There was more to learn in the civil trial. So, when someone won't even learn about the civil trial and forms an opinion, to me they are the ones who have credibility issues. That person wouldn't have all the facts. And, he was found liable in the civil trial. That is the same as being responsible for. So, OJ is responsible for the deaths of Ron and Nicole. That's just another word for guilty.

Liable
To be responsible for; to be obligated in law.

http://www.answers.com/liable&r=67

There is a distinction in the law as to liable and guilty. Being responsible for is not the same as being the killer. There is a theory in civil law called respondeat superior, in which the the employer can be found liable for the acts of his employee, even though the employer did not comit the act, if the employee was acting in the scope of his employment and caused or was the proximate cause of the act. To be more technical, Simpson was found liable for the wrongful deaths and not for the murders. Liable is not another word for guilty as they are two entirely different concepts.

socaldiva

11-13-2006, 03:34 PM

Originally posted by William Anthony

When I say liable, I am speaking legally. The legal language is that he was found not guilty of the charges/crimes.

He was found liable in the civil trial.

William Anthony

11-13-2006, 03:43 PM

Originally posted by socaldiva

He was found liable in the civil trial.

And your point is?

socaldiva

11-13-2006, 03:46 PM

Originally posted by William Anthony

And your point is?

That should be apparent.

martin II

11-13-2006, 04:12 PM

Originally posted by tazzybaby

Hi William,

Okay, so, you are admitting that his demeanor and actions in the civil trial make him liable? So, in turn....he is the one who committed the crimes. Notice, I didn't say guilty. That's because I'm not talking legally. I'm talking realistically. That's what I wanted to know. Did he truly committ this crime? Yes.

Tazzy hi

if you don't want to talk leagally and prefer tom talk realistically,
then we would be talking about opinions because your reality can be different from anothers.

How can you talk about a trial in a court and not talk legally?
martin II

tazzybaby

11-13-2006, 04:13 PM

tazzybaby

11-13-2006, 04:17 PM

Originally posted by martin II

Tazzy hi

if you don't want to talk leagally and prefer tom talk realistically,
then we would be talking about opinions because your reality can be different from anothers.

How can you talk about a trial in a court and not talk legally?
martin II

Because even though someone is found guilty or innocent does not mean that is reality. For example, all the people who have been exonerated by DNA testing. They were found guilty. So, by your reasoning then they are guilty....period (at least by the verdit, therefore by law). But, the DNA proved otherwise. So, even though they were found LEGALLY guilty they were indeed not guilty.

So, the REALITY is that they were not guilty.

tazzybaby

11-13-2006, 04:20 PM

Originally posted by martin II

Tazzy hi

and prefer tom talk realistically

What do you mean by that?

martin II

11-13-2006, 04:23 PM

Originally posted by tazzybaby

Because even though someone is found guilty or innocent does not mean that is reality. For example, all the people who have been exonerated by DNA testing. They were found guilty. So, by your reasoning then they are guilty....period (at least by the verdit, therefore by law). But, the DNA proved otherwise. So, even though they were found LEGALLY guilty they were indeed not guilty.

So, the REALITY is that they were not guilty.

tazzy
hi

i thought the subject was the definition of liable. legal or your opinion of what it means.
martin II

William Anthony

11-13-2006, 04:24 PM

Originally posted by tazzybaby

Okay, then what actions did Simpson do that caused their deaths?

I was not part of the jury deliberations and do not know their conclusions.

martin II

11-13-2006, 04:35 PM

tazzy Hi

people that are found guilty in one case and proven not guilty as a result of DNA are released based on evidence in that case not stuff presented in another case with a much lower level of required proof. imo
martin II

martin II

11-13-2006, 04:42 PM

Originally posted by tazzybaby

What do you mean by that?

Tazzy hi

drop the m and make it to.

sorry
martin II

martin II

11-13-2006, 04:49 PM

Originally posted by tazzybaby

Okay, then what actions did Simpson do that caused their deaths?

tazzy hi
according to the lagal definition he could be found liable if a close friend or employee of his commited the murders while making a delivery to nicole as part of his job. right?
martin II

bobaugust

11-13-2006, 04:52 PM

Originally posted by William Anthony

Reviewing the tapes can give you the manner in which the words were spoken and the demeanor of the witness. Rereading transcripts never will. In short the tapes can refresh a person's memory and a transcript cannot. Since you did not answer the other portion of my post, I will take it that you cannot from reading a transcript tell the spirit in which testimony was offered.

Yes reviewing the tapes can give you the manner in which the words were spoken and the demeanor of the witness, Is that what you are saying you have done before you offered your opinions on this discussion group as to what a witness said?

If you had then you obviously spent more time concentrating on demeanor and never heard what they said since most of your opinions are based on false and misinformation. And just what do you think is more important, what a witness says under oath or how they look and act saying it?

bobaugust

martin II

11-13-2006, 05:18 PM

Originally posted by bobaugust

Yes reviewing the tapes can give you the manner in which the words were spoken and the demeanor of the witness, Is that what you are saying you have done before you offered your opinions on this discussion group as to what a witness said?

If you had then you obviously spent more time concentrating on demeanor and never heard what they said since most of your opinions are based on false and misinformation. And just what do you think is more important, what a witness says under oath or how they look and act saying it?

bobaugust

bob

what the witness says, the manner in which he delivers his testimony, whether he seems angry and or evasive all goes along with the spoken words of his testimony.

viewing the trial live is more informative than reading the printed testimony after the fact.
martin II

bobaugust

11-13-2006, 08:36 PM

Originally posted by martin II

bob

what the witness says, the manner in which he delivers his testimony, whether he seems angry and or evasive all goes along with the spoken words of his testimony.

viewing the trial live is more informative than reading the printed testimony after the fact.
martin II

It may be informative but it doesn't have anything to do with the facts that witness is testifying to. The witnesses were only the messengers, not the message.

bobaugust

socaldiva

11-13-2006, 08:45 PM

Originally posted by martin II
*snip*
viewing the trial live is more informative than reading the printed testimony after the fact.
martin II

I bet the vast majority of those that watched the trial, as I did, think he's guilty as sin.

packy

11-13-2006, 10:36 PM

Originally posted by socaldiva

I bet the vast majority of those that watched the trial, as I did, think he's guilty as sin.

I watched and am in the minority.

2L8 4A D8

11-14-2006, 12:34 AM

2L8 4A D8

11-14-2006, 01:02 AM

Originally posted by martin II

Tazzy hi

drop the m and make it to.

sorry
martin II
Yeah, right. You must think that we are idiots. You don't fool me. Freudian slip I'd say and now you are trying to weasel out of it. Your true attitude is showing through, as we can also see by your post to Bob.

JMO and MOO!!
Originally posted by martin II

THE GLOVES DIDN'T FIT

yassa boss

martin II

Old Post 11-13-2006 02:27 PM

martin II

11-14-2006, 03:11 AM

Originally posted by 2L8 4A D8

Yeah, right. You must think that we are idiots. You don't fool me. Freudian slip I'd say and now you are trying to weasel out of it. Your true attitude is showing through, as we can also see by your post to Bob.

JMO and MOO!!
[/B]

2l

exactly what is your purpose for posting here. It seems that you go from one ng poster to another posting you attack type comments as if you set the rules for posters comments.imo

Exactly what are you trying to accomplish.
martin II

martin II

11-14-2006, 03:14 AM

Originally posted by bobaugust

It may be informative but it doesn't have anything to do with the facts that witness is testifying to. The witnesses were only the messengers, not the message.

bobaugust

bob
some prosecution expert witnesses created their own OPINIONS about what happened frequently out of whole cloth , so for me that is the message.imo
martin ii

martin II

11-14-2006, 03:59 AM

here is another set of clothing kato thinks he saw oj wearing on 6/12/

PETROCELLI: What was O.J. Simpson wearing when you had that conversation with him in the afternoon of June 12?
KATO: I believe it was white shorts and a sport top and tennis shoes. That's what I recollect in my mind.

martin II

2L8 4A D8

11-14-2006, 04:38 AM

Originally posted by martin II

2l

exactly what is your purpose for posting here. It seems that you go from one ng poster to another posting you attack type comments as if you set the rules for posters comments.imo

Exactly what are you trying to accomplish.
martin II
I am no better or worse than any other poster. I have a right to post here as much as you do. I also have a right to my opinions and can post them to whomever I like ~ whether you (they) like my opinions or not. Who died and made you Moderator? Do you think that you set the rules for posters' comments around here? I don't think so!

You think that your purpose on this Board/Thread(s) is just to keep on and on and on ~ arguing and arguing and arguing ~ and asking the same questions over and over and over again?

You keep on posting things like "yassa boss," "tom talk" and asking baiting questions and you will continue to hear from me!

JMO and MOO!!

bobaugust

11-14-2006, 06:31 AM

Originally posted by martin II
here is another set of clothing kato thinks he saw oj wearing on 6/12/

PETROCELLI: What was O.J. Simpson wearing when you had that conversation with him in the afternoon of June 12?
KATO: I believe it was white shorts and a sport top and tennis shoes. That's what I recollect in my mind.

martin II

martin II, I posted that testimony a while ago when rayraytwo tried to argue that Kaelin couldn't tell the difference between the clothing Simpson wore to the recital and a dark colored sweat suit. Do you remember that dumb argument? So what's your point?

bobaugust

tazzybaby

11-14-2006, 08:14 AM

Originally posted by martin II

tazzy
hi

i thought the subject was the definition of liable. legal or your opinion of what it means.
martin II

Hi Martin,

Sure. I was explaining to you that even though there is a "legal" verdict...it doesn't make it so in reality. This subject has been discussed so many times. You know exactly what I mean. And, it is true.

We don't have to follow the "rules" because we aren't in a court of law. We all know what the two verdicts were.

tazzybaby

11-14-2006, 08:17 AM

Originally posted by William Anthony

I was not part of the jury deliberations and do not know their conclusions.

Hi William,

Have you ever wondered why? If he is liable then that means he "caused" their death. If he "caused" their death then he is "guilty".

Have you read the transcripts of the civil trial?

tazzybaby

11-14-2006, 08:21 AM

Originally posted by martin II
tazzy Hi

people that are found guilty in one case and proven not guilty as a result of DNA are released based on evidence in that case not stuff presented in another case with a much lower level of required proof. imo
martin II

Hi Martin,

That's not what the point was. The point was that even though there was a certain verdict ... it was a wrong verdict.

tazzybaby

11-14-2006, 08:28 AM

Originally posted by martin II

tazzy hi
according to the lagal definition he could be found liable if a close friend or employee of his commited the murders while making a delivery to nicole as part of his job. right?
martin II

Hi Martin,

No, that's not a good scenario to use. It is to do something whether on purpose or not to cause the death. His actions caused their deaths. Now, how do you suppose that happens in this case? How would OJ cause their deaths?

martin II

11-14-2006, 08:32 AM

Originally posted by tazzybaby

Hi Martin,

That's not what the point was. The point was that even though there was a certain verdict ... it was a wrong verdict.

tazzy hi
well now you are talking about a opinion, yours i think, right?
martin II

tazzybaby

11-14-2006, 08:35 AM

Originally posted by William Anthony

There is a distinction in the law as to liable and guilty. Being responsible for is not the same as being the killer. There is a theory in civil law called respondeat superior, in which the the employer can be found liable for the acts of his employee, even though the employer did not comit the act, if the employee was acting in the scope of his employment and caused or was the proximate cause of the act. To be more technical, Simpson was found liable for the wrongful deaths and not for the murders. Liable is not another word for guilty as they are two entirely different concepts.

Hi William,

Please tell me how that would apply here. What could Simpson have done (or someone close to him that would cause him to be legally held responsible) to be deemed liable for their deaths? There was no other party that was included in this. In order for your above scenario to be the case in this lawsuit then another party would have to be mentioned. That didn't happen in this case.

Yes, liable is in the same "family" as guilty. They didn't have the option of the word "guilty" in the civil trial. I do believe they would have used it had they been given that option.

tazzybaby

11-14-2006, 08:37 AM

Originally posted by martin II

tazzy hi
well now you are talking about a opinion, yours i think, right?
martin II

No, I'm talking about a PROVEN fact. IT WAS PROVEN THAT THE VERDICT WAS WRONG BECAUSE OF DNA. That's not my opinion. That is the courts opinion. They overturned their conviction. That means the verdict was wrong.

William Anthony

11-14-2006, 08:45 AM

Originally posted by bobaugust

Yes reviewing the tapes can give you the manner in which the words were spoken and the demeanor of the witness, Is that what you are saying you have done before you offered your opinions on this discussion group as to what a witness said?

If you had then you obviously spent more time concentrating on demeanor and never heard what they said since most of your opinions are based on false and misinformation. And just what do you think is more important, what a witness says under oath or how they look and act saying it?

bobaugust

I know anyone who disagrees with you has false information for only you know the truth and the facts, at least in your mind, as you have so abudantly claimed.

martin II

11-14-2006, 08:52 AM

Originally posted by tazzybaby

Hi Martin,

No, that's not a good scenario to use. It is to do something whether on purpose or not to cause the death. His actions caused their deaths. Now, how do you suppose that happens in this case? How would OJ cause their deaths?

tazzy hi
according to the definition of liable he could send someone to collect money for him and this ended in her death.

he could have let her use his car which he knew was malfunctioning and she had a accident.

he could indirectly be resonsible for her death without doing the killing.

martin II
martin ii

William Anthony

11-14-2006, 08:57 AM

Originally posted by tazzybaby

Hi William,

Please tell me how that would apply here. What could Simpson have done (or someone close to him that would cause him to be legally held responsible) to be deemed liable for their deaths? There was no other party that was included in this. In order for your above scenario to be the case in this lawsuit then another party would have to be mentioned. That didn't happen in this case.

Yes, liable is in the same "family" as guilty. They didn't have the option of the word "guilty" in the civil trial. I do believe they would have used it had they been given that option.

You are quite right that the civil jury did not have the option of saying guilly and, based on any biases they may have had, I am sure they would have been disheatened by that fact I am not calling them biased, just making a prossibility. My above scenario is to give to you an example of the difference in the use of the words. The jury did not have the option to render a verdict of guilty, because that is not the function of the trial or the jury. There are a thousand scenarios in which a person can be found liable through negligence, product liability, breach of contract or another tort. A person can be found liable through his actions or his failure to take actions. The variety of meanings as to what liable means is exactly why I stated I was not part of the deliberations.

martin II

11-14-2006, 09:01 AM

Originally posted by tazzybaby

No, I'm talking about a PROVEN fact. IT WAS PROVEN THAT THE VERDICT WAS WRONG BECAUSE OF DNA. That's not my opinion. That is the courts opinion. They overturned their conviction. That means the verdict was wrong.

tazzy hi
ok i will go for that.

another example could be that it comes out next year that the dna used in the civil trial was false . would the judge toss the liable conviction against oj.?

But i case you are now going to talk about the civil trial remember
These were different trials with different levels required for proof.
MARTIN II

tazzybaby

11-14-2006, 09:07 AM

Originally posted by martin II

tazzy hi
according to the definition of liable he could send someone to collect money for him and this ended in her death.

he could have let her use his car which he knew was malfunctioning and she had a accident.

he could indirectly be resonsible for her death without doing the killing.

martin II
martin ii

lol....I do indeed know the definition. But, you tell me how any of your above scenarios could apply to this case?

He never said he sent someone over to collect anything. He never let her use his car that he knew was malfunctioning. Give me an example how anything else could apply except that he directly caused her death.

tazzybaby

11-14-2006, 09:09 AM

tazzybaby

11-14-2006, 09:12 AM

Originally posted by martin II

tazzy hi
ok i will go for that.

another example could be that it comes out next year that the dna used in the civil trial was false . would the judge toss the liable conviction against oj.?

But i case you are now going to talk about the civil trial remember
These were different trials with different levels required for proof.
MARTIN II

Hi Martin,

I really don't understand why you are having such a hard time with this. You know as well as I do that the verdicts are not always right. Why is that so hard to admit to? That's what I am saying. Whatever example you use, it still proves that the verdict could be wrong.

We all know the different levels required for proof in a civil trial. That doesn't make him any less guilty.

martin II

11-14-2006, 09:38 AM

Originally posted by tazzybaby

Hi Martin,

I really don't understand why you are having such a hard time with this. You know as well as I do that the verdicts are not always right. Why is that so hard to admit to? That's what I am saying. Whatever example you use, it still proves that the verdict could be wrong.

We all know the different levels required for proof in a civil trial. That doesn't make him any less guilty.

tazzy hi

the higher the standard of proof required means that all the evidence must rise to a certain level and that thr prosecution must proce their case beyond a reasonable doubt.

since the civil trial is about money and not a persons freedom the
court accepts less proof to be found liable.

therefore the verdicts of each court are no the same and the meaning is not the same.

i am not having any problem with anything. You cannot bend the civil trial verdict to be anything other than what it is. liable.
martin II

tazzybaby

11-14-2006, 09:46 AM

Originally posted by martin II

tazzy hi

the higher the standard of proof required means that all the evidence must rise to a certain level and that thr prosecution must proce their case beyond a reasonable doubt.

since the civil trial is about money and not a persons freedom the
court accepts less proof to be found liable.

therefore the verdicts of each court are no the same and the meaning is not the same.

i am not having any problem with anything. You cannot bend the civil trial verdict to be anything other than what it is. liable.
martin II

Martin,

I have never said that the civil trial didn't require a less standard of proof. That really has nothing to do with a verdict being incorrect. You are the one who is bringing this into the conversation. What I am saying is that the verdict in the CRIMINAL trial is wrong. And, since we know that it is definately possible to have a wrong verdict then it shows that the verdict could be wrong.

Liable is liable. He is responsible for their deaths. You can't bend that to be any other way. Whatever "word" you want to use doesn't change the fact that he is responsible for their deaths.

Kate Sachel

11-14-2006, 10:13 AM

Originally posted by William Anthony

You are quite right that the civil jury did not have the option of saying guilly and, based on any biases they may have had, I am sure they would have been disheatened by that fact I am not calling them biased, just making a prossibility. My above scenario is to give to you an example of the difference in the use of the words. The jury did not have the option to render a verdict of guilty, because that is not the function of the trial or the jury. There are a thousand scenarios in which a person can be found liable through negligence, product liability, breach of contract or another tort. A person can be found liable through his actions or his failure to take actions. The variety of meanings as to what liable means is exactly why I stated I was not part of the deliberations.

However, the questions set forth to the jury in the civil trial regarding Nicole Brown Simpson were:

"Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant Simpson committed battery against Nicole Brown Simpson?"

"Do you find by clear and convincing evidence that defendant Simpson committed oppression in the conduct upon which you base your finding of liability for battery against Nicole Brown Simpson?"

"Do you find by clear and convincing evidence that defendant Simpson committed malice in the conduct upon which you base your finding of liability for battery against Nicole Brown Simpson?"

Because it was the battery upon Nicole Brown Simpson that caused her death, and the jury responded that it is their belief that it was OJ Simpson (not any other party) that committed the battery, we know that in essence the jury was finding OJ Simpson guilty of murdering her.

Kate

Kate Sachel

11-14-2006, 10:19 AM

Originally posted by martin II

tazzy hi

the higher the standard of proof required means that all the evidence must rise to a certain level and that thr prosecution must proce their case beyond a reasonable doubt.

since the civil trial is about money and not a persons freedom the
court accepts less proof to be found liable.

therefore the verdicts of each court are no the same and the meaning is not the same.

i am not having any problem with anything. You cannot bend the civil trial verdict to be anything other than what it is. liable.
martin II

What you have to pay attention to in this civil case are the questions that were presented to the juror in which they had to rule on. The meaning of "liable" in this case does indeed equal "guilty" based on the the finding that OJ Simpson "willfully and wrongfully caused the death of Nicole Brown Simpson" by "committing battery against Nicole Brown Simpson" on the night of June 12, 1994.

The question did not ask if the jury felt that OJ Simpson "willfully and wrongfully caused the death of Nicole Brown Simpson" by somehow not helping her with an alleged drug issue or by hiring another individual to kill her, or any other scenario that you might be tempted to paint.

The jury found his responsible for her death by committing battery upon her, which is what caused her death.

Kate

William Anthony

11-14-2006, 10:22 AM

Originally posted by tazzybaby

And, you are quite right that there are a thousand scenarios that would apply to create a "liable" verdict. But, there was only one scenario presented at the civil trial. So, please give me any example of how any other scenario could apply except that he was directly "liable" for their deaths.

Have you considered becoming a lawyer? This is a trick question that seeks the answer I have already given, which is I was not part of the jury's deliberations. What I am sure of is that the verdict does not mean that he is the murderer.

William Anthony

11-14-2006, 10:40 AM

Originally posted by Kate Sachel

However, the questions set forth to the jury in the civil trial regarding Nicole Brown Simpson were:

"Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant Simpson committed battery against Nicole Brown Simpson?"

"Do you find by clear and convincing evidence that defendant Simpson committed oppression in the conduct upon which you base your finding of liability for battery against Nicole Brown Simpson?"

"Do you find by clear and convincing evidence that defendant Simpson committed malice in the conduct upon which you base your finding of liability for battery against Nicole Brown Simpson?"

Because it was the battery upon Nicole Brown Simpson that caused her death, and the jury responded that it is their belief that it was OJ Simpson (not any other party) that committed the battery, we know that in essence the jury was finding OJ Simpson guilty of murdering her.

Kate

Kate,

I think that bobbie posted that the jury stated the battery caused the deaths. I do not see that in your post. However, given that there is a crime of battery and a tort of battery, we must consider the difference between the two. So here is what I found on line.

§ 1.02 Battery [7-10]

[A] Overview and Definition

Battery occurs when the defendant’s acts intentionally cause harmful or offensive contact with the victim’s person. [See Restatement §§ 13, 16, 18.] Accidental contact, by contrast, must be analyzed under negligence or strict liability.

[B] Intent Requirement

While battery requires intent, the prevailing tort definition does not require an intent to harm. It is only necessary that the defendant intend to cause either harmful or offensive contact. [See, e.g., Vosburg v. Putney, 50 N.W. 403 (Wis. 1891).] The transferred intent doctrine is applicable to battery. [See § 1.01 [B], supra.]

[C] Harmful or Offensive Contact

Battery encompasses either harmful or offensive contact. Even trivial offensive contact can constitute a battery.

[D] Causation

The defendant's voluntary action must be the direct or indirect legal cause of the harmful or offensive contact. However, defendant need not herself actually contact the victim.

Thus, without being a part of the jury deliberations, it is impossible for me to discern what part of the battery they found him liable. For instance, did they find that he directly intended to cause harm or that he indirectly intended to cause or caused harm? My problem is not with the jury's finding; it is with the posters stating that he is the killer by the civil trial

tazzybaby

11-14-2006, 10:47 AM

Originally posted by William Anthony

*snip*

What I am sure of is that the verdict does not mean that he is the murderer.

Hi William,

Just like the criminal verdict does not mean he is not the murderer.

I am not saying that either verdict proves anything. It's the evidence that proves he's guilty/liable/a killer. However you want to say it.

tazzybaby

11-14-2006, 10:49 AM

Originally posted by Kate Sachel

What you have to pay attention to in this civil case are the questions that were presented to the juror in which they had to rule on. The meaning of "liable" in this case does indeed equal "guilty" based on the the finding that OJ Simpson "willfully and wrongfully caused the death of Nicole Brown Simpson" by "committing battery against Nicole Brown Simpson" on the night of June 12, 1994.

The question did not ask if the jury felt that OJ Simpson "willfully and wrongfully caused the death of Nicole Brown Simpson" by somehow not helping her with an alleged drug issue or by hiring another individual to kill her, or any other scenario that you might be tempted to paint.

The jury found his responsible for her death by committing battery upon her, which is what caused her death.

Kate

Thanks Kate!

:seeya:

Kate Sachel

11-14-2006, 11:03 AM

Originally posted by William Anthony

Thus, without being a part of the jury deliberations, it is impossible for me to discern what part of the battery they found him liable. For instance, did they find that he directly intended to cause harm or that he indirectly intended to cause or caused harm? My problem is not with the jury's finding; it is with the posters stating that he is the killer by the civil trial

In not being part of the jury deliberations, we can only go with what the jurors stated afterward. For example, on "Larry King Live" juror Lisa Theriot said that the jury decided that OJ Simspon "did it" and juror Deena Lynn Mullen said that the jury "believes that OJ Simpson was there that night" and that "we didn't speculate his motive for the killings because it wasn't necessary".

For me, that answers the question of what part of the battery they found him liable.

I am with you, as my problem with the criminal trial is not the jury's findings, but is with the posters stating that the verdict has to mean that he is innocent.

The only thing that the verdict has to mean is that the State did not meet their requirment of proof in the eyes of twelve jurors.

Kate

William Anthony

11-14-2006, 11:20 AM

William Anthony

11-14-2006, 11:26 AM

Originally posted by Kate Sachel

In not being part of the jury deliberations, we can only go with what the jurors stated afterward. For example, on "Larry King Live" juror Lisa Theriot said that the jury decided that OJ Simspon "did it" and juror Deena Lynn Mullen said that the jury "believes that OJ Simpson was there that night" and that "we didn't speculate his motive for the killings because it wasn't necessary".

For me, that answers the question of what part of the battery they found him liable.

I am with you, as my problem with the criminal trial is not the jury's findings, but is with the posters stating that the verdict has to mean that he is innocent.

The only thing that the verdict has to mean is that the State did not meet their requirment of proof in the eyes of twelve jurors.

Kate

I have not followed the civil trial and do not know what the jurrors said. If they said they decided he committed battery, then that is consistent with the verdict. I agree that the verdict only means that the prosecution did not prove its case and the civil verdict means that the plaintiffs proved that he was more likely than not liable for the wrongful deaths.

Kate Sachel

11-14-2006, 12:16 PM

Originally posted by William Anthony

I have not followed the civil trial and do not know what the jurrors said. If they said they decided he committed battery, then that is consistent with the verdict. I agree that the verdict only means that the prosecution did not prove its case and the civil verdict means that the plaintiffs proved that he was more likely than not liable for the wrongful deaths.

Agreed.

Kate

bobaugust

11-14-2006, 12:58 PM

Originally posted by William Anthony

I know anyone who disagrees with you has false information for only you know the truth and the facts, at least in your mind, as you have so abudantly claimed.

You have it backwards. If someone bases their opinions and arguments on false and misinformation then I disagree with them and point out their errors.

Knowledge is the road to the truth, not ignorance. Any reasonable thinking person who informs themselves about the evidence and information that's available about these murders understands the truth that Simpson and only Simpson killed both Ron and Nicole.

bobaugust

William Anthony

11-14-2006, 01:27 PM

Originally posted by bobaugust

You have it backwards. If someone bases their opinions and arguments on false and misinformation then I disagree with them and point out their errors.

Knowledge is the road to the truth, not ignorance. Any reasonable thinking person who informs themselves about the evidence and information that's available about these murders understands the truth that Simpson and only Simpson killed both Ron and Nicole.

bobaugust

The height of knowledge and wisdom, imho, begins with admitting that you do not know everything and acknowledgement that you can, and are, more often than not more wrong than you are right.

bobaugust

11-14-2006, 01:47 PM

Originally posted by William Anthony

The defendant's voluntary action must be the direct or indirect legal cause of the harmful or offensive contact. However, defendant need not herself actually contact the victim.

Thus, without being a part of the jury deliberations, it is impossible for me to discern what part of the battery they found him liable. For instance, did they find that he directly intended to cause harm or that he indirectly intended to cause or caused harm? My problem is not with the jury's finding; it is with the posters stating that he is the killer by the civil trial

You claim that without being part of the jury deliberations it's impossible for you to discern what part of battery they found him liable. Did you not read the questions and answers as to what the jury found that have been posted several times for you?

The fact is that you know nothing about what was presented in the civil trial or argued by the plaintiffs attorneys. That's the reason that it's impossible for you to offer an informed opinion about what the basis for the civil trial jury's findings were.

They found that Simpson willfully and wrongfully caused the deaths.

They found that Simpson committed battery against against both victims.
They found that Simpson committed oppression in the conduct upon which they base their finding for liability for battery against both victims.
They found that Simpson committed malice in the conduct upon which they base their finding for liability for battery against both victims.

Do these findings suggest to you that Simpson did not actually contact the victims?

bobaugust

martin II

11-14-2006, 01:58 PM

Originally posted by tazzybaby

Hi William,

Just like the criminal verdict does not mean he is not the murderer.

I am not saying that either verdict proves anything. It's the evidence that proves he's guilty/liable/a killer. However you want to say it.

Tazzy hi

There has to be some standard of proof based on the cjs requirments. Otherwise we are left with dissagreeing on what was truthful evidence or what was faulty evidence.

As you know the standard of proof for sending someone to jail is higher because that is a more serious results if one is found guilty.

The civil trial is about money and therefore the standsrd of proving the defendant did anything to cause the deaths is much less and requires less proof.therefore the verdict is called liable , meaning some kind of responsibility. It is my opinion that if liable was equal to guilty, then the cjs would have used guilty instead of liable.

One can try to change the meaning of the verdicts to satisfy what one thinks the words mean or should mean but this does not change what the words mean.imo

martin ii

William Anthony

11-14-2006, 02:22 PM

Originally posted by bobaugust

You claim that without being part of the jury deliberations it's impossible for you to discern what part of battery they found him liable. Did you not read the questions and answers as to what the jury found that have been posted several times for you?

The fact is that you know nothing about what was presented in the civil trial or argued by the plaintiffs attorneys. That's the reason that it's impossible for you to offer an informed opinion about what the basis for the civil trial jury's findings were.

They found that Simpson willfully and wrongfully caused the deaths.

They found that Simpson committed battery against against both victims.
They found that Simpson committed oppression in the conduct upon which they base their finding for liability for battery against both victims.
They found that Simpson committed malice in the conduct upon which they base their finding for liability for battery against both victims.

Do these findings suggest to you that Simpson did not actually contact the victims?

bobaugust

The legal definition of the tort of battery and not being part of the jury is what allows me to say that I cannot conclusively say what the jurors decided, only what their verdict means. Did they find that Simpson slit the throats of the victims or that he was present at the time of the murders or that he left them in a state where someone could have slit their throats? I am sure you KNOW THE TRUTH AND THE FACTS OF THEIR DECISION OR AT LEAST YOU WILL CLAIM TO KNOW.

bobaugust

11-14-2006, 02:57 PM

Originally posted by William Anthony

The legal definition of the tort of battery and not being part of the jury is what allows me to say that I cannot conclusively say what the jurors decided, only what their verdict means. Did they find that Simpson slit the throats of the victims or that he was present at the time of the murders or that he left them in a state where someone could have slit their throats? I am sure you KNOW THE TRUTH AND THE FACTS OF THEIR DECISION OR AT LEAST YOU WILL CLAIM TO KNOW.

The verdict can mean different things within it's legal definition. Your information about what evidence was presented and what arguments were made in the civil trial is very limited. You're not informed enough to offer a credible opinion about what the verdict meant to the civil trial jurors or about the truth of these murders.

If the civil trial jurors did not believe that Simpson committed these murders they would not have found him liable.

bobaugust

tazzybaby

11-14-2006, 03:02 PM

Originally posted by William Anthony

Contrary to what you may want to believe, the evidence does not prove anything other than the verdict.

Hi William,

Here's where we disagree. I believe the evidence does prove otherwise.

William Anthony

11-14-2006, 04:18 PM

Originally posted by tazzybaby

Hi William,

Here's where we disagree. I believe the evidence does prove otherwise.

We can disagree and you are certainly entitled to your beliefs and I appreciate it that you did not state them as fact or truth.

William Anthony

11-14-2006, 04:19 PM

Originally posted by bobaugust

The verdict can mean different things within it's legal definition. Your information about what evidence was presented and what arguments were made in the civil trial is very limited. You're not informed enough to offer a credible opinion about what the verdict meant to the civil trial jurors or about the truth of these murders.

If the civil trial jurors did not believe that Simpson committed these murders they would not have found him liable.

bobaugust

The verdict means they found him liable for the wrongful deaths not that he was liable for the murders.

bobaugust

11-14-2006, 04:53 PM

Originally posted by William Anthony

The verdict means they found him liable for the wrongful deaths not that he was liable for the murders.

That's right. Responsible because he killed them.

bobaugust

William Anthony

11-19-2006, 01:15 PM

Originally posted by bobaugust

The verdict can mean different things within it's legal definition. Your information about what evidence was presented and what arguments were made in the civil trial is very limited. You're not informed enough to offer a credible opinion about what the verdict meant to the civil trial jurors or about the truth of these murders.

If the civil trial jurors did not believe that Simpson committed these murders they would not have found him liable.

bobaugust

Now, you have become a mind reader and I am not suprised.