From a pure facts point of view, the OJ Simpson acquittal was similar in a lot of ways. There was reasonable doubt. But the reasonable doubt was put into play by another bumbling prosecution that was exacerbated by the prosecution allowing OJ to try on the murder gloves and pretending that he couldn't get them on. It was a stupid stupid tactic by a desperate prosecution. They also did an amazing job of casting doubt on one of the investigting police officers by digging into his past and making him look like a racist who would have no trouble with evidence tampering. We had a lab that completely mishandled the evidence.
You had a judge that lost control of the trial right from the start. On top of that you ended up with a all black jury (I'm still baffled at that to this day).
So yeah, based on a legal term the acquittal was far. At the end of the day, you had motive, but the physical evidence and the investigation fumbles meant that there was no way that they could get a conviction.
It followed the common theme that we're seeing with a bumbled prosecution.
Personally I still stick to the theory that it wasn't OJ that did the killing, it was his son. But whatever.
Yes, the OJ acquittal was right.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
|