While I'll agree that the prosecutors did poorly and OJ's team was great (course that nearly bankrupted him even before the civil trial, it wasn't cheap) it was also the first high profile case where DNA evidence was used and you can tell that the jurors didn't completely trust the science or accuracy behind it.
I wonder if, all other things being equal, we have the same result today. While I could still see the same result, I could also see it the other way.
Course if the voting/decision was also racially motivated as many have argued it was, nothing in the world is going to prevent that. I believe the arguments were not that they felt he was innocent or they were protecting their own, but that they were sticking it to a PD that was chock full of previous sins and did a sloppy job on this case as well.
Again, I don't know how accurate any of that is, or how close to the truth it is, I'm not a race relations experts, and culture in Canada is very different, but LA was a pretty tense place racially at that time so I could see a nugget of truth there.
Also...
|