RE: Hackers branded as terrorists was: (no subject)

Doug,

Looooong time...!

My Mom sometimes uses a phrase when one of us walks in the door "Now THERE'S
another country heard from" (in your case, Florida...  ROFL)


Anyway, excellent points all...

I agree the civil case doesn't prove the point, and agree a criminal murder
case is harder to win.  However, I must respectfully disagree with the
statement: "At any rate, I don't believe the civil case outcome proves the
first jury made a profound mistake, given their respective jury instructions
and the evidence or testimony of each case."  Well... actually I agree with
the statement, but left unstated a few other points:

The fact that the verdict came back with, what... 4 hours? IMHO indicted the
jurists of total incompetency.

I believed the DNA evidence.

And if the glove didn't fit, who gives a...  (I think with a little
practice, I could struggle to get my feet into Shaq's basketball shoes.)


I didn't really intend to be proclaiming OJ's guilt here, but emphasizing
the point that money talks...  and sometimes money walks...  And IMHO, he's
done a sufficient job of that already, anyway.


(BTW, Doug, are you on the USA911 list, as it would save me from
cross-posting?)


James Jay Toran (Jt)

-----Original Message-----
From: midrange-nontech-admin@midrange.com
[mailto:midrange-nontech-admin@midrange.com]On Behalf Of Douglas Handy
Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2001 10:17 AM
To: midrange-nontech@midrange.com
Subject: Re: Hackers branded as terrorists was: (no subject)


JT,

>This necessarily means that justice, in our country and a lot more so in
>other countries, is not consistent.

A friend of mine told me on the first day of a law class, the professor
said:

  "You must remember we call them a court of law, not a court of justice.
Keep
that in mind and you should be able to do well in this course.  Disregard
that
distinction and you will surely fail."

I think that sums it up pretty well.  That and this defintion of a jury:

  "Twelve people who vote on who has the best lawyer."  <g>

>The first O. J. Simpson trial
>proved two things 'beyond a shadow of a doubt':  Justice has a lot more to
>do with money than we'd like to think, and 12 people can unanimously agree
>on (in light of the civil case) a very profound mistake."

The burden of proof in a civil case is *much* lower than in a criminal
murder
case.  The rules are different.  And the civil case had the advantage of
being
second, and learning from prosecutor's mistakes in the criminal case.

I don't have statistics to back this up, but I believe it is not that
unusual
for a civil case to be won even when a criminal case over the same incident
is
lost.  It certainly wasn't the first time, nor will it be the last.

At any rate, I don't believe the civil case outcome proves the first jury
made a
profound mistake, given their respective jury instructions and the evidence
or
testimony of each case.

I'm not proclaiming OJ's innocence here, just disputing the civil case
proves
the first jury was wrong.

It's a court of law, not a court of justice...

Doug