OJ Simpson guilty?

[Warthog]

Watching a show on it....wondered where everyone stood.

I was in 4th grade at teh time so I didn't exactly follow the details and would probably have to read a book or two on the "facts" before I could form a completely, informative opinion...I voted undecided, although I lean towards the guilty.

Warthog

[daveleau]

If you gather the proof and throw all if it out of the window except for the DNA evidence, the case against him is utterly overwhelming.

There has never been such an open and shut case botched by a jury in the history of the American judicial system.

DNA evidence cannot be faked. It cannot be botched. It is as unique as fingerprints.

[LinuxNewbie]

there was so much evidence against him that not even half of it was presented, they thought it was a sure win until the defence started playing the racism card.

[brandon184]

I think we all know which option I chose.

[LinuxNewbie]

your general all around confused brandon i presume?

[Epidemic]

DNA is pretty good. But what you present the conspiracy thing you can easily create reasonable doubt.

Lets say that you prove one little pee on cop is a racist, and that he may have planted a piece of evidence your jury is then tainted.

Even if the cop could have planted the glove he could not have faked all the evidence. Therefore, the case still stands.

The jury got the impression that if the glove was a plant than all the evidence could have been tampered with.

The fact though is that the cop would have had to been an evil genius... The dna samples were found in dozens of locations freely spattered among the victims blood.


Guilty! But playing the race card and the bad cop card is enough to place doubt in simple minds.

[Theophylact]

Not voting. I do care. I think the prosecution booted this case away through undelievably bad police work and incompetent lawyering; if I had been on the jury, I might have voted to acquit. Which is not to say that I think he's not guilty; hard to explain his behavior, or to imagine another candidate. But I don't the "race card" is the explanation, given the prosecution's incredible bungling.

[Epidemic]

Bungled or not I still feel that there is simply no way for him to be innocent. Mistakes were made yes. Big ones!

But like I said to you before this is the problem with our system of law. You can create reasonable doubt in the minds of a simpleton way tooo easy. After all wont 1 in 1000 people believe this statement: "Isn't it possible that OJ had a twin brother taken at birth with out the family ever knowing it." "couldn't that person have come over and killed Miss brown and blead at the scene."

I mean after all it is possible therefore can you convict anyone.

Creating doubt is easy depending on the person hearing the evidence.

[Theophylact]

Epidemic, that's the difference between "reasonable doubt" and unreasonable doubt. If Judge Lance Ito hadn't been incompetent, too, his instructions to the jury would have made that clear.

[Chuckiechan]

The OJ trial was just another example of how far our national IQ has fallen. Even though that was along time ago, any intelligent person could only conclude that he was guilty as sin. Plus the victims were "rich, white and beautiful" and not wholly sympathetic to a violence ravaged minority community.

IMHO