Yeah, the lawyer did a great job creating "reasonable doubt." I think if we want a justice system that defaults toward innocence, we have to be willing to let a murderer out on the streets for every 100 innocents who also walk. I'd rather have that result than jailing 100 innocents so we can catch the one murderer.
I really don't think the doubt was reasonable. At least I'm 100% certain he was guilty and was ever since I watched the car chase. The cops fucking up the investigation has no impact on what I saw with my own eyes.
An innocent rich man doesn't fucking run away from the cops and have to be talked out of suicide to face trial. No fucking way.
You think so? I don't know... I mean, he did publish a book that detailed exactly how the crime happened and why but the title is called "If I Did It" not "I Did It" so we can't be sure...
Because the prosecution failed to make their case, mishandled the evidence, and were torn apart by a well funded defense.
Nothing justifies the deaths, and I would not try to. But being able to mount a defense against charges made on you by the government is a cornerstone of our justice system.
Thus I do feel comfortable saying that I think he was guilty and that the jury acted properly. The case was NOT well presented at all, even with all the evidence they had.
And you realize that when someone explains why X happened, that doesn't necessarily mean that they want X to happen?
I thought I was being excessively cautious when I threw in the statement that "OJ was the villain", I figured that went without saying but that I should put it in anyway just in case someone thought I was justifying his actions. But I guess I had to be even more explicit than that, there are folks who are really eager to have a fight here.
Are you intentionally missing the point that someone still has to prove you did it? Or do you just want random people to be convicted of murder since murder isn't allowed?