Expand Quote
Expand Quote
dude lost the civil suit. had to give up his heisman and everything.
The standard of evidence in a civil suit is next to nothing. Do you not watch Judge Judy?
i don't know shit about that. i thought the civil suit succeeded because they could use the DNA evidence that was inadmissable. but i was like 10 when it happened so who knows.
It means that the plaintiffs don't have to prove he did it beyond a reasonable doubt.
Like, on those court shows, when all the evidence they have is one witness, a price quote, and pictures of damage to something. That isn't beyond a reasonable doubt, either.
The DNA evidence wasn't admissable, because it could've not been his. It didn't match enough points or something like that. Theres a theory out there that his son did it, actually.
I'm not saying he didn't commit the murders, I'm saying that now they are going to treat him unfairly because of preconcieved notions that he did. Denying a person bail for an armed robbery, especially someone as famous as fucking OJ Simpson, is a clear example. And I'd like to see them find one juror that doesn't view him as "the guy that got away with murder."
Hell, even if he did commit an armed robbery, the people he 'robbed' stole the shit from him.