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?

closed as unclear what you're asking by Oddthinking Feb 6 '18 at 6:17

Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 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, 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 6 '18 at 6:22
  • 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 6 '18 at 6:22
  • 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 6 '18 at 8:36
  • 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 6 '18 at 8:38
  • 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 6 '18 at 11:48

Browse other questions tagged .