Murdoch pulls plug on OJ Book - Page 2

PersonaNonGrata · #11 11-21-2006, 09:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by x5GuyInLA

That's the thing.........in order to get convicted, it has to be beyond a shadow of a doubt. If there is any doubt that he isn't the killer and someone else is, however small, they can't convict him. He may have been 99.9% guilty, but those uncertainties may have cast that .1% that he didn't do it, which is why he walked. That's why he lost the civil case, because in that type of trial, it only has to be beyond a preponderance of a doubt, where he only needs to be 51% guilty or liable to get convicted.

Incorrect. The legal standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt". That is much different than "beyond a shadow of a doubt" or "beyond any doubt". There is no magic number of percentage where one can be found guilty. It's simply left to the jury to determine whether they have a doubt and whether it is a reasonable one. They do not need to erase all doubt. If you think about it, you can find doubt anywhere and you can doubt anything. If you wanted to, you could doubt your very existence but you don't because it's not reasonable given all of the facts.

I won't get into the jury instruction that defines "reasonable doubt" but suffice it to say, it's not as absolute as you stated.

I just wanted to clear that up because it's an important distinction.

Sponsored Links

x5GuyInLA · #12 11-22-2006, 12:30 AM

you're right, i don't know why i was thinking shadow of a doubt when it was reasonable doubt i was looking for. and meant to say preponderance of the evidence. I'm no lawyer and it was early, so forgive me.

Hans_ACS · #13 11-22-2006, 05:39 AM

I remember I was shocked by the 'glove incident'. It was indeed clear that these gloves did not fit, but anyway, you can kill someone with gloves that don't fit, right ? His defense laywers played this card over and over again ('the glove does not fit !!'). Absolutely ridiculous !

Wagner · #14 11-22-2006, 06:31 AM

Again, don't blame Johnny Cochran and crew if you believe OJ was guilty. Blame Marcia Clark, Lance Ito and Mark Fuhrman. Had they not created overwhelming doubt and shown many instances in which "tampering" could be seen, the verdict may have been different.

Back to the topic, I didn't get that book idea from the word go. Why would someone want to rehash such a bad part of their life (guilty or not) especially when you have two children from the woman who was killed?

IMO - whoever believes the "Ron G was dropping off her glasses" line needs to revisit their common sense....

Dr_Smith · #15 11-22-2006, 09:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hans_ACS

I remember I was shocked by the 'glove incident'. It was indeed clear that these gloves did not fit, but anyway, you can kill someone with gloves that don't fit, right ? His defense laywers played this card over and over again ('the glove does not fit !!'). Absolutely ridiculous !

the only reason the "gloves didn't fit" is OJ was 1) wearing surgical gloves when he tried the gloves on in court, and 2) the bastard was spreading his fingers rigid when "trying" to slip the gloves on. IMO the gloves would have fit just fine and it was a bad move by the prosecution to have him attempt to try them on.

E61Silver · #16 11-22-2006, 10:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr_Smith

the only reason the "gloves didn't fit" is OJ was 1) wearing surgical gloves when he tried the gloves on in court, and 2) the bastard was spreading his fingers rigid when "trying" to slip the gloves on. IMO the gloves would have fit just fine and it was a bad move by the prosecution to have him attempt to try them on.

You are right, why they asked him to do that, was just dumb!

Sponsored Links