Uggghhh can we please not argue "Is OJ guilty or not" AGAIN.. those were bad 90's memories

yeah, that was in the 8th grade for that trial, I didn't think anybody still had an opinion

Only kstar would make a dumb comment about OJ being kinda innocent. Good job kstar.

-Rudey

Well, the jury in the criminal trial couldn't find him guilty.

Of course that doesn't mean they thought he is innocent either.

You're right. Stupidity does not exist in a bubble.

-Rudey

It seems to me that he is inviting it.

This reminds me of how Ted Bundy gave a third person account of his serial killings just before his execution, without ever really saying he did it. It's a very sociopathic type thing to do.

Uh, they certainly didn't find him "kinda innocent" - I'm pretty sure that wasn't an option on the verdict sheet.

is "innocent" an option or just simply "guilty" or "not guilty"? because saying "there wasn't enough solid evidence to convict" is not the same as saying "this person didn't have anything to do with" whatever is in question

Exactly. The options are:

guilty -- meaning the jury finds that the state has proven beyond a reasonable doubt the guilt of the defendant, and

not guilty -- meaning the jury finds that the state has not proven beyond a reasonable doubt the guilt of the defendant.

Neither "innocent" nor "totally innocent" are on the verdict sheet.

But in the civil trial, they did find him to be "responsible", right?

Yes, though "liable" would be the word.

But the standard of proof in a civil trial is "preponderance of the evidence" -- basically meaning "more likely than not" or, if you imagine the scales of justice, that the evidence against him tipped the scales, even if only so slightly. Not nearly as heavy a burden as "beyond a reasonable doubt."

Well, apparently both the book and the TV special have been pulled.

I just saw that on TV Week online, but you beat me to it.

Sanity prevails sometimes -- even with Rupert.

The publisher (who was going to interview him) said she considers this book his confession.


Oh really? Ya think?

Obviously.

The point being that even if a jury finds (found) him "not guilty," it doesn't necessarily mean they believe he is "innocent." Just that guilt wasn't proven. Right?