Rams Super Bowl hero may face fraud charges

gap · -03-27-2006

Originally Posted by general counsel

OJ was NOT proven innocent. He was found not guilty which is a HUGE difference. All not guilty means is that the prosecution failed to meet its burden to prove that he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. That does not mean the same thing as innocent. Note that in the civil trial, without the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt, he was found liable, meaning that the jury believed that he did it.

ramming speed to all

general counsel

I know I am in the minority here, and I won't get into an arguement, but the civil case only showed the jury believed he had the money to award to a victim.

I may be remembering it wrong, but I remember some of the evidence that proved he was being framed was not allowed in the civil trial.

gap

***txramsfan*** · -03-27-2006

Hey, the lawyer said that there was a lapse in paperwork. Not an embezzlement. Why do we in society these days convict people prior to knowing all the facts? Whatever happened to innocent before proven guilty?

Shame on all of you who have already convicted Mike Jones. I'm glad your communistic attitude is still well and good after the cold war.

***ramsbruce*** · -03-27-2006

Originally Posted by txramsfan

Hey, the lawyer said that there was a lapse in paperwork. Not an embezzlement. Why do we in society these days convict people prior to knowing all the facts? Whatever happened to innocent before proven guilty?

Shame on all of you who have already convicted Mike Jones. I'm glad your communistic attitude is still well and good after the cold war.

No one in this thread has already convicted Mike Jones.

***txramsfan*** · -03-27-2006

Originally Posted by ramsbruce

No one in this thread has already convicted Mike Jones.

Maybe not, but explain the condesending tone....

Well, maybe it isn't as bad as I first read the thread but I just hate to see someone convicted prior to being proven guilty.

As for OJ, this is all I have to say. He was proven innocent by a jury of his peers. Whether he did or not is irrelevant, the system proved him innocent.

***ramsbruce*** · -03-27-2006

Originally Posted by txramsfan

Maybe not, but explain the condesending tone....

Well, maybe it isn't as bad as I first read the thread but I just hate to see someone convicted prior to being proven guilty.

See that's the problem with posts on the internet you can't always tell what tone is being implied if any at all. In this thread I don't see any condescending tone at all. No one should be convicted prior to being proven guilty I agree with you, and in this thread no one has done that.

It's not out of the realm of possibility that Jones is involved, and on the flipside he may have had nothing to do with it. The one thing that looks bad for Jones but does not even come close to convicting him is that he didn't show up for court. Again there could be so many explanations as to why he didn't show, and so many other factors that might not even involve Jones but he could be the scapegoat because it's his charity. In the end he is still innocent until proven guilty.