So where is the killer? Why isn't he behind bars?
On the golf course.
Why isn't he behind bars?
The prosecution was inept, a guilty man went free because of it.
If people can't live with the imperfection of the jury system they need to work to replace it with a perfect system.
Sometimes the guilty go free, sometimes the innocent are convicted.
So where is the killer? Why isn't he behind bars?
Had the prosecution offered a more likely scenario than the *OJ did it all by himself, but using two different knives* theory to which the jury found a reasonable doubt, that question might well have been answered, along with the question of who the otherkiller was.
It would not however have answered questions as to who murdered the other waiter from the Mezzaluna Restaurant where Ron Goldman was employed, who murdered Judge Ito's bailiff, or who shot the private detective investigating the DNA evidence to death. Nor several other deaths from the same time period that may well have been linked.
The jury smelled a rat, particularly after Judge Ito's wife Margaret York had testified. And when the prosecution and court appear to be running a railroad, that is indeed grounds for a juror to have reasonable doubt. -archy-/-
The jury decided it was more important to protect the public against what they perceived as an illegal (as opposed to unlawful) and out of control prosecution, than to protect the public against one killer.
That's the essence of jury nullification, that a jury is willing to let a murderer (or thief, rapist, drug user, or whatever) go free in order to restrain the government.
Whether you agree with that or not isn't the issue. You were misrepresenting what jury nullification is. That was my point, not whether I thought the Simpson jury did good or bad.