O.J. Simpson

As OJ has been in the news lately, I felt this would be a good time to share my piss and moans about the situation. The two times I have seen him in the news the past times was because he was not allowed to use money from a book and some series and then some crap about his account about the killings.

Here is my thoughts: The legal system in America sucks! Why? He was found not guilty of the murders but yet has to pay every cent he gets because he was found guilty in civil court. This is retarded! I could understand him having to pay if he was found guilty of the murders but, he wasn't! Regardless of the what I think, the fact remains that he was found innocent by a jury of his peers. In no way do I think it is right that he has to pay the victims family for the rest of his life.

How the hell is a person supposed to get on with his life if every penny he makes has to go elsewhere? Not a quarter, not half, but all of it! Does this make sense to anyone else?

Let the man do a damn commercial for God's sake and keep the money! Sheesh!

lol! He was making more in one year than most people do in an average lifetime! I reallllly don't think money is that important to him, especially when he goes tries to make it off some retarded book "If I did it"..

Sure its a big deal! He has to hide that money

I suppose technically he shouldnt have to give away his cash but morally yes!

I think he should just be thankful his ass isn't being claimed by a woman named George in a prison cell

I think he should be counter suing so he can keep his damn money! How does being found innocent mean you have to pay? Makes no sense!

Simpson was found not guilty in a criminal court of the deaths; however, he was found guilty in the civil trial (i know, i know)
Read more on it on Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O.J._Simpson

I have to agree with NXS here. There is no logic at all in making someone pay for a crime that a criminal trial couldn't prove him guilty of. How can you be liable for wrongful death and battery when it couldn't be proved in his criminal trial? Yes, I have heard the crap that evidence can be admitted into civil court that ma otherwise not be admitted in criminal court. But what is that evidence? More Mark Furman manufactured evidence? Remember how he took the 5th when asked about that?

As for evidence, I still think that the evidence they got, the morning Ron and Nicole found, should never have made it into the trial in the first place. O.J. and Nicole had been divorced for some time before she was killed. Yet Mr. Furman told the court that they went to O.J.'s house because they were in fear for HIS life because his EX-WIFE had been murdered. Someone PLEASE explain that concept to me! They were divorced, so I can't fathom why they would think he was in danger.

So, they go to his house, he has already left for Chicago, and get no response at the gate. Furman decides that they need to make sure he is dead or injured on the property. Yet shortly after they enter the property his daughter tells them that he is in Chicago. So why did they continue to search the property? The search should have stopped at that time. They were informed as to his whereabouts. All they had to do is make a quick phone call to determine if he was alive. I'm sure the man had a cell phone as well.

IMO they had no further business searching the property after they were told that he was out of town. If you want my opinion, Mark Furman did it! How else would he have so easily had evidence to "plant" at O.J.'s house? Personally I doubt that O.J. did it. If he did, he had to have help. Well there is the possibility that Kato did it too. He was in love with Nicole. Maybe he just couldn't stand seeing her with other men anymore. Anyway, O.J. was a wife beater, but I doubt that he is a killer.

I do agree that it is crazy that someone can be sued for the same thing twice
But I also think it's crazy that someone can get away with murder because of their social status

I totally agree with Nxs on this. While I personnally think he was guilty.
The court system found him innocent of the criminal charges. As such
he should be free from all prosecution for that crime. As it stands he was
found responsible of a crime he was cleared on. And we wonder why the
Judical system is so screwed up. Luckily for me my brother-in-law is a
Federal Judge :-)

ok
criminal trial = beyond a resonable boubt.
civil trial = perponderance of evidence. this means one peice of evidence means the difference between guilty and not guilty.

the standard is vastly different.
and he wasn't found guilty of killing her he was found liable for wrongful death. that means something he did or did not do in some way caused the wrongful death of another. in this case the thing he did was murder that chick! :P HE WAS GUILTY AS SIN!

these are two different crimes in two different court systems. one case if filed on behalf of the ppl of cali. the other is no different than an ip infringement lawsuit filed by that chick's parents.