Eric Takabayashi wrote:
> necoandjeff wrote:
>
>> mtfester@netMAPSONscape.net wrote:
>>> Kevin Gowen <kgowenNOSPAM@myfastmail.com> wrote:
>>>> mtfester@netMAPSONscape.net wrote:
>>>>> Kevin Gowen <kgowenNOSPAM@myfastmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Of course he is legally blameless. That is different from saying,
>>>>>> "He did not perjure himself" OJ Simpson is legally blameless.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>> I bet OJ has a yummy cock.
>>>
>>>> Whoa!
>>>
>>> If you say so, and you did.
>>>
>>> However, the civil found him NOT to be blameless.
>>
>> The civil found him more likely than not to be to blame.
>
> Is likelihood enough reason to demand a man pay millions of dollars?
> No, he was "found" liable.

Yes, in fact it is. It is called preponderence of the evidence.

>> There is no absolute.
>
> Except whether he did it or not.

See my other post about your difficulty in distinguishing between
metaphysical and legal concepts.