| |
> <snip snip>
>
> > 2) Were you a juror for the O.J. travesty, uh sorry, trial?
>
> No.
>
> But since you asked... OJ got the right verdict, both times. IM(1)HO.
?? [1]
> The police bungled his case, and he was correctly acquitted. Better that
> a hundred guilty walk free than that 1 innocent be unjustly punished.
>
> The civil case correctly nailed him. Criminal acquittal is no defence in
> a civil trial, which only requires a preponderance of evidence, not
> freedom from reasonable doubt. There's no doubt in my mind that there
> was a preponderance of evidence there although there was a reasonable
> doubt.
>
> 1 - (not at all)
[1] didn't you mean to put the footnote *after* "H"? ;-)
-John
>
>
> --
> Larry Pieniazek http://my.voyager.net/lar
> FDIC Know your Customer is wounded, thanks to you, but not dead...
> See http://www.defendyourprivacy.com for details
> For me: No voyager e-mail please. All snail-mail to Ada, please.
> - Posting Binaries to RTL causes flamage... Don't do it, please.
> - Stick to the facts when posting about others, please.
> - This is a family newsgroup, thanks.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page
|
| (...) Agreed. But it takes "beyond a reasonable doubt" not "certain", We had very reasonable doubts based on what we were presented. But I'm pretty sure this particular perp was guilty, or that the DA was lying to us about the circumstances. There (...) (26 years ago, 17-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
298 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
