“I think he said he heard something ... but still ... are we to believe now that OJ has all this so well planned and et-cetera but left a glove outside?”
That is why he was acquitted. The prosecution bungled the case so badly, the jury was left wondering what in the world had happened. Marcia Clark had no coherent theory for the crime. She portrayed him as calculating and had planned the crime extremely well, but had absolutely STUPID moves that made no sense with her theory of the crime.
I bought and read the Jury Forewoman’s book. The prosecution got 80-90% of the way there, but left a couple of glaring holes open due to their ineptness in presenting their case. That lost the case for them.
> The prosecution got 80-90% of the way there, but left a couple of glaring holes open due to their ineptness in presenting their case. That lost the case for them.<
The prosecution made some errors, but the so-called Dream Team didn’t come close to convincing me that the case hadn’t been proven. All I saw was second-rate sophistry. It was obvious as hell that Simpson did it.
I had plenty of spare time, and watched nearly every minute of that trial. The uncontested evidence alone was far more than would be needed to convict an ordinary defendant in a non-political trial. I would say there was at least five times more evidence than would have been needed to convict.
I started off sympathetic to OJ, but let me give you an idea of just how sure I was he was guilty by the time the trial ended. If I had 100% confidence in lie detectors (I don’t) — and in the ability of technicians to hook up wires correctly (I don’t) — I’d be willing to agree to have Simpson connected to a lie detector, and to have both of us connected to a switch that would send fatal charges of electricity into one of us. If he truthfully answered “No” to the question “Did you commit the murders?”, I’d get the current. If he answered falsely, he’d get the current. I’m not exaggerating when I say I’d agree to undergo that test.