3

Many people believe that OJ murdered his wife and Ron Goldman.

He was found not guilty in criminal court but later found liable for their deaths in civil court, based on newer evidence that wasn't admissible during the criminal trial, I believe.

What does this actually mean? Did he do it? Is it indisputable?

D.Hutchinson
  • 1
  • 1
  • 2
  • 14
  • 3
    This is a specific, notable claim, and normally it would be on topic, but this is a special case. Our readers aren't going to uncover more evidence than the [Wikipedia page already covers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O._J._Simpson_murder_case), and the only meaningful way to definitively answer this question is to point to the trial results, which you already know. Anything else is just a call for opinion, which we know from history is highly politically motivated in this case. – Oddthinking Feb 06 '18 at 06:22
  • 2
    [Warning: your characterisation of "newer evidence" in the civil trial is only a small part of the difference between the criminal and civil trials.] – Oddthinking Feb 06 '18 at 06:22
  • @Oddthinking, yeah, I've read a bit on Wiki and elsewhere - just wondering if someone can plainly state what the implications are, i.e. not using legal language such as "liable for the deaths of ... ". Can we interpret such a statement as "yes, OJ *definitely* did murder his wife and Ron Goldman, based on the evidence presented in the civil case." – D.Hutchinson Feb 06 '18 at 07:56
  • @Oddthinking also, I don't mean to stir the pot with any political motivations; I'm just fascinated by this trial. I can delete this question, if you want (I don't care for the 3 upvotes' rep) ... just let me know, thanks ... – D.Hutchinson Feb 06 '18 at 07:57
  • 2
    The political aspects of it would seem to make this a more desirable SE.Skeptics question. These political aspects tend to taint objective, factual analysis, and dispelling such taint would seem to be a primary mission of the site itself! So, this seems like a good question, for the most part. Though as @Oddthinking pointed out, it's kind of a special case in that this topic has been covered at such length elsewhere. The issue'd seem to be that, to improve upon other sources' work, we'd have to expand quite a bit, though the StackExchange format isn't a good fit for such involved analyses. – Nat Feb 06 '18 at 08:36
  • 1
    Since this particular question would otherwise be on-topic for SE.Skeptics if not for that special condition, it seems like we should have some notice of it somewhere. I dunno if this post'll get auto-deleted after a while for being on-hold with no answers, but if not, it could serve a good function, e.g. future askers would see this before asking their question and others could be closed as a duplicate of this one. Otherwise, a Meta post might work. – Nat Feb 06 '18 at 08:38
  • Hmmm... because I have treated this as a special case, it does seem like it deserves a meta question to document it as @Nat suggests. (Even if for no other reason than the community can tell me to rack off and reopen it.) I am trying to work out what the meta *question* might be. – Oddthinking Feb 06 '18 at 11:47
  • 1
    @D.Hutchinson: Interesting. Maybe a question of the form "Does the civil suit's conclusion imply that Simpson was found guilty?" would be on-topic, and able to be answered from a legal perspective. Finding notability for that might be tricky. Would it be better on Legal.SE? – Oddthinking Feb 06 '18 at 11:48
  • Could an answer be constructed around the legal distinctions between "beyond reasonable doubt" and "on the balance of probabilities" - or is that a UK-only distinction between guilty verdicts in criminal and civil cases? E.g he is guilty on the balance of probabilities but not beyond reasonable doubt as things stand. – RedGrittyBrick Feb 06 '18 at 15:41
  • @RedGrittyBrick Civil cases in the US generally require a "preponderance of the evidence". As far as I can tell, this is the same concept as "the balance of probabilities". – KSmarts Feb 06 '18 at 18:01
  • 1
    I *believe* that Simpson murdered Brown and that the police violated crime scene procedures and covered that up, effectively framing him for a crime he did commit. If I am right, then he is guilty and the not guilty verdict was entirely justified, because police action made proof impossible. – o.m. Feb 07 '18 at 17:57
  • @o.m. right, that is the most common belief of how Simpson was found not guilty and how the prosecution team unraveled. I guess I'm more trying to ask the question that Oddthinking suggested (see their last comment above); that is, does the civil case's conclusion directly imply that Simpson murdered Brown and Goldman, despite being found not guilty in the criminal case. (So, I'm asking for much more than just a strong belief.) For now, I won't edit the question, as I think it wouldn't be re-opened (the revised question would lack notability ... ) – D.Hutchinson Feb 08 '18 at 06:33
  • @Oddthinking, I actually think the question stands a better chance of being answered here than at Legal SE, where I think we'd end up going in circles ... – D.Hutchinson Feb 08 '18 at 06:37
  • @o.m.: I understand this is your personal belief. I am sure you understand many people believe differently (especially along class/race lines), and that personal opinions aren't welcome here. The trouble is how could we ever confirm or disprove your belief with evidence? The most definitive statements we have are the court findings. – Oddthinking Feb 08 '18 at 07:35
  • 1
    @Oddthinking, I realize that Sceptics is about facts, so this was a comment and not an answer. But what I propose underlines that "guilty" is both a moral and a legal category, and that "he is legally guilty" and "he did it" are different things. – o.m. Feb 08 '18 at 18:26

0 Answers0