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.
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.
From all accounts, this was an incredibly inept prosecution. Just error after error across the board. That being said, I would like to think that the public has had enough exposure to DNA evidence in the last 20 years that such evidence alone would be enough to bring in a conviction. I'd like to think it would take days as opposed to months. Then again, the general public often has an incredible ability to disappoint.
From all accounts, this was an incredibly inept prosecution. Just error after error across the board. That being said, I would like to think that the public has had enough exposure to DNA evidence in the last 20 years that such evidence alone would be enough to bring in a conviction. I'd like to think it would take days as opposed to months. Then again, the general public often has an incredible ability to disappoint.
Yeah, like I said, I still don't know which way it would go. It (the additional public info and perception of DNA evidence) could only help, on the other hand, there is a good possibility it still wouldn't help enough.
20 years later.. just as few people respect a trial by jury vs. trial by public opinion. How depressing.
You have got to be joking...
This is just one of those exception to the rule things. It's a perfectly rational and fair thought to think that the jury got it wrong here. Means nothing about the respect or lack there of, of the jury system, or that people are a mob that doesn't want to consider the facts and are just wanting to tear down a celebrity.
Location: Close enough to make a beer run during a TV timeout
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trumbull
20 years later.. just as few people respect a trial by jury vs. trial by public opinion. How depressing.
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.
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to ken0042 For This Useful Post:
I think the ones who screwed up were the LAPD, who were shown to be incompetent, liars, racist and crooked. It no longer became the OJ trial but the LAPD trial.
Yeah the LAPD messed up but as has been said there was enough evidence there to convict but OJ's team was the best money could buy and they convinced the jury that there was reasonable doubt. I wonder today how some those jury members feel knowing that OJ really isn't a good man and murdered those two people.
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.
That's precisely it, which is why OJ was not guilty, deservedly. I appreciate the non knee-jerk response.
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!'
20 years ago, Judge Ito ushered in a whole new era of product placement with his IBM ThinkPad:
Really, his decision to allow cameras in the courtroom has had a huge impact on the way high profile trials are covered in the media. Huge.
__________________ I am in love with Montana. For other states I have admiration, respect, recognition, even some affection, but with Montana it is love." - John Steinbeck
20 years later.. just as few people respect a trial by jury vs. trial by public opinion. How depressing.
I'm going to have to say I'm not sure what it is that I said that caused this response (assuming it's directed to me).
The prosecution WAS inept, the defense did it's job. In my opinion, there is easily more than enough physical and circumstantial evidence to support a conviction, and I (along with many others) think that a lack of understanding of DNA evidence hampered the prosecution. All are fair to say and don't indicate any lack of respect for our justice system.
The Following User Says Thank You to Antithesis For This Useful Post:
Location: Close enough to make a beer run during a TV timeout
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daradon
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.
You are correct- however I would say the prosecution maybe spent too much time on the science. The jury was bored to tears as they went on and on for hours. (Or was it even days?)
