(April 30, 2018 at 8:50 pm)Kit Wrote: I think what LFC means is this:
The jury did not find him guilty based on the evidence provided. That does not necessarily mean he is innocent. After all, those are merely the opinions of twelve fallible people. Factoring in how the evidence was presented by lawyers, how does it still not surprise people who watch public trials that those watching see the evidence much differently than those on the jury?
Our justice system is imperfect, no doubt about it. But even I highly doubt so many women are going to get together to bring down a man who was loved by all who watched him on television. It makes more sense that he is actually guilty of what they claim than to be a retarded conspiracy nut.
Case in point, from the article I linked to about the final OJ Simpson Jury, some salient points that could have influenced the jury:
(*) nine of the twelve jurors were black.
(*) five thought it was sometimes appropriate to use force on a family member,
(*) five reported that they or another family member had had a negative experience with the police,
(*) nine thought that Simpson was less likely to be a murderer because he was a professional athlete,
All of these factors were likely to influence the decisions of the Jury. Many liked OJ, some had views on the police that predisposed them to suspect that Fuhrman planted the evidence that led him to be charged, and some may have felt that OJ's rage was, on some level, justifiable.
Well, that and the whole glove fiasco, and nobody seems to be sure exactly how that happened (my guess is the same as Robert Kardashian, that he stopped taking his arthritis medication in the weeks prior to the demonstration and his hands may have swelled big enough that the gloves barely fit).
Comparing the Universal Oneness of All Life to Yo Mama since 2010.
I was born with the gift of laughter and a sense the world is mad.
I was born with the gift of laughter and a sense the world is mad.