Field Theory by Hadyn Green

he was the second highest on the all-time rushing list and was inducted into the Pro-Football Hall of Fame in 1985.

totally read that as indicted.

totally read that as indicted.

Heh.

I didn't mention it but there have actually been calls for OJ to be removed from the Hall of Fame, as players are inducted not just for playing ability but also for their "contribution to the game". Some, such as John Madden, feel OJ brought the game down and so should be ... um... unducted(?)

I'd go with __out__ducted.

But for me, I really don't think my over-riding memory of OJ will be his fall. It probably will be his acting, and through his acting, his place in sport (as in 'there's that actor who got to be an actor because he was a cool football player').

It's kinda odd - maybe I didn't follow the trial closely enough?

there's that actor who got to be an actor because he was a cool football player

I only remember him in the Loaded Gun movies though. But his acting CV is pretty lengthy.

In golf, an "OJ" is a total mishit that winds up on the fairway / green / in the hole after fortuitous ricochet off a tree / clubhouse / fellow golfer.

OJ. i.e. you 'got away with it'.

Some, such as John Madden, feel OJ brought the game down and so should be ... um... unducted(?)

Deducted, surely?

Yes. And while your post is just an overview of Simpson, I'm going to talk about what also spun off that.

This idea that sporting celebrities are ALWAYS in the public eye. It really gets to me when people [such as a particular workmate] state time and again that sport doesn't serve a purpose, that people get paid to play and that's it and they don't deserve all this money.

But when you think about it, these people are always working. Whether they are on the field for their team, at a sponsors meeting, at training, giving a speech to a group of schoolkids, even when they are out on the town.

I had an interesting chat with Bevin Fortuin outside a bar last year while we watched Piri Weepu running back and forth in front of traffic in Courtney Place.

He was saying that even when he is at a family event, he needs to be wary of his behaviour because even anecdotal evidence can be enough to get his name in the news, eventually costing him a contract [if bad enough].

This obsession was not around ten years ago, from what I can remember. Sure, people would see Matthew Ridge at the golf course and go to school with a photo of him all proud and stuff [or was that just me?] but they wouldn't be out and about trying to take photos of them punching guys [weird that this same obsession does not apply to politicians, or celebrities. Or not.], or telling them off for cutting in line [heck, once upon a time that was encouraged].

This has led to a shift in the thinking of sponsors and administration - where one an 18-year-old who would once be chucked in the team and allowed free reign now has to have media training and what have you.

But as I said, this means that sports stars are constantly working. In fact, I'd say Shane Smeltz probably works harder and more hours per week than I do. Sure, he gets more money, but it's deserved.

I'm not overly familiar with sentencing at all, and American sentencing in particular.... but 15 years seems rather high, no?

Despite the judge making a specific statement that it wasnt the case, you cant help but think there might be some extra time added to make up for what was missed the last trial, eh?

Simpson is the Greg Louganis of grace-falling.

I loved this sentence, absolutely loved it. And then the ruining-things bit of my brain went 'wait a minute, OJ Simpson is gay?'

I'm not overly familiar with sentencing at all, and American sentencing in particular.... but 15 years seems rather high, no?
Despite the judge making a specific statement that it wasnt the case, you cant help but think there might be some extra time added to make up for what was missed the last trial, eh?

American justice works under the double jeopardy system, so if they get you in the dock once they'll try and get you for everything they can.

The civil case seems crazy to me. How you can pursue a civil case for largely the same thing that a person has been found not guilty of, I don't know.

How the jury found that civil case proved. Weird.

I'm not overly familiar with sentencing at all, and American sentencing in particular.... but 15 years seems rather high, no?

I think Graeme should have the last word on this bit, but:

Simpson got a 15-year sentence for the armed kidnapping, which by Nevada law means he'll be eligible for parole in five. However, he also received two additional one-to-six-year sentences that would be served after his first term ends, whenever that is. This means that at the absolute minimum, he will be in jail for the next eight years (and probably more like 10 or 11.)

I think the minimum sentence for the kidnapping charge is eight years. But again I'll wait to hear from Graeme

The civil case seems crazy to me. How you can pursue a civil case for largely the same thing that a person has been found not guilty of, I don't know.

Not to mention the idea that you can be tried in a civil court for murder. Although I guess that if you can have a civil war maybe you can also have a civil murder.

The civil case was not "murder" but "wrongful death".

The reason it was possible for (sane) juries to come to conflicting conclusions based on essentially the same evidence was because the level of proof required in the criminal and civil cases is not the same..... The criminal level of proof is "beyond all reasonable doubt".... the civil case only requires "on the balance of probabilities" (or something like that).

This is all based simply on my recollection of media stories, not any legal training.

The civil case was not "murder" but "wrongful death".

Which amounts to the same thing, surely. I doubt that the parents OJ's wife, if asked how they lost their daughter, would respond that she "wrongfully died".

But if your relatives die in a car that failed from not just poor, but negligent design... you cant sue Ford or whoever for murder.... but they can be found responsible for "wrongful death".

So yes, it's somewhat nonsensical to be able to be tried for both... but if he did do it, surely it's better that he was found guilty of something than nothing at all?

Presumably, many criminals that are guilty could also be civilly liable... but most of them dont have the cash reserves or income capacity to make prosecution worthwhile?

Just as in the Veitch case... financial reparation (whether voluntary or court ordered) doesnt make it right, or void guilt, but surely it's less bad than nothing at all....

Simpson is the Greg Louganis of grace-falling.

I loved this sentence, absolutely loved it. And then the ruining-things bit of my brain went 'wait a minute, OJ Simpson is gay?'

Ha! When I wrote it I did briefly wonder if anyone would think that

But if your relatives die in a car that failed from not just poor, but negligent design... you cant sue Ford or whoever for murder.... but they can be found responsible for "wrongful death".

But that's negligence. I can see that being different from murder.

It's not like he was found liable in a civil court for being negligent and stabbing her with a knife.

He either murdered her, or he didn't. If he didn't mean to kill her, maybe it's manslaughter. 'Wrongful death'? Sounds like he was a surgeon operating on her and made a mistake.

In the end it may make 'legal sense', but it doesn't make common sense. There are some instances where that should be supported/allowed, I just can't see it in this case.

Not wishing to thread-jack but I couldn't help wondering what America would be like if all wrongful deaths cost $35.000.000 ?

The whole OJ thing is filed in the "this is so way weird, and any source of "facts" too tainted (at least according to the "other side"), that I can never be sure I will KNOW the answer, so that I dont even try too hard as it's waste of time attempting" folder of my brain...

which is the long way of saying
I agree, it doesnt make proper sense, but I dont let it bother me anymore.

But that's negligence. I can see that being different from murder.

I was too quick in my analogy.... what if the vehicle manufacturer wasnt just negligent in not discovering an obvious flaw.... but actually knew about it and suppressed it... (tobacco companies?)

It would be easy to morally equate that with murder, but "wrongful death" is probably all that would be found legally?

But again I agree.... it's not logical that you can be responsible for the wrongfull death of someone but not their murder, when there is absolutely no suggestion of a third party assasin or other mechanism where it wasnt you holding the weapon?

And the only logical conclusion is the different levels of proof...

Lets say there are plausible but unlikely circumstances where you might not be guilty...... "beyond all reasonable doubt" Maybe not, but "on the balance of probabilities" YES.

But that's negligence. I can see that being different from murder.

He neglected not to murder her. Classic case.

hey
I'm obviously a bit dense this morning but completely miss the Greg Louganis connection - sorry, can you explain?

I know Greg - competed against him in fact (not that I'm taking any offense, I hasten to add - mostly cos I don't get it).

I'm obviously a bit dense this morning but completely miss the Greg Louganis connection - sorry, can you explain?

I meant it to mean that OJ's descent from grace was like an long and complicated and fascinating dive rather than a clumsy fall. And to stretch the metaphor further at some point it would seem OJ hit his head rather hard.

He neglected not to murder her. Classic case.

I see future work for you in the American legal system sir.