Quote:
|
Originally Posted by somerfrost
I don't "know" if he did it or not, I know what I think but I won't say it here because he was found "not guilty" so I have no right to say what I think (it should be obvious from that though). Thing is...the rule of law says "innocent until proven guilty"...there were many problems with the prosecution's case (certainly they were over matched...I mean F Lee Bailey, one of the foremost defense attorneys in this generation, was what...third or fourth chair?). A timeline that didn't match up, a glove that didn't fit but most of all...how do you say, "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" with Mark Furman handling key evidence??
|
that's easy for me, because it was clear that he was guilty, and because there was no problem with Furman. Great defense tactic to turn the case into one of race, but what a huge farce that this guilty man gets to walk free.
Might have been a different decision if the Paris Hilton judge had been one the OJ trial.