Quote:
Originally Posted by ken0042
I watched most of the trial on CNN live as it happened, and I believe that while it was most likely that OJ did it; the prosecution did not meet the burden of proof required. And that is with me being able to also see the behind the scenes stuff that the jury couldn't see.
Regarding the DNA- I don't think anybody questioned the science. DNA was at the right age where it had been recognized for a few years. The defence did a great job of focusing on the "missing" blood that the lab could not account for; and then following it up with making Fuhrman seem like he had messed with the evidence.
|
I don't know if I entirely agree with that. I remember so much time being spent on exactly what DNA was, how they get it and what it means. What the odds of similar DNA were etc.
Not discounting the 'missing blood' angle, cause yeah, that probably weighed in too, there was a lot devoted to DNA being a suitable method of indentity and proof for the case. I don't think we see nearly as much of that nowadays. Your hear DNA evidence and you think, 'oh crap... busted!'