Mike, when you think about it he got 2 different grand juries to indict on absolutely no credible evidence. The second GJ was after mountains of exculpatory evidence had been made public. Yeah, I know, I know, the ham sandwich thing. Just that the GJ apparently ask no questions. With the dumbing down of the education system in this country it is very possible that he could get 12 to convict on no evidence. That is what makes the judicial system so scary today. Your jurors may not be able to read, write or do basic math. But they can register to vote and sit on a jury. SCARY!!!
"With the dumbing down of the education system in this country it is very possible that he could get 12 to convict on no evidence."
Judge Ito wanted nobody who had read about the OJ case on the jury.
In this case, they'll probably disqualify anyone who has ever used the Internet (especially who has read a blog), or who has read about the case.
With that "intelligent" of a jury, you'll end up with 12 people who don't know whether DNA proves anything or not,
and whether it is possible to tamper with camera/ATM info or not; but they'll know that the AV appeared in court
and sobbing, pointed to somebody;
and so they'll either conclude that "something must have happened in that house", or compromise,
and give the defendants some kind of lesser conviction,
just in case.
Any reasonable jury of the PEERS of the defendants
would declare them not guilty in five seconds.
But they are not entitled to a jury of their PEERS;
they must have a jury of persons who are the exact
opposite of their peers, and in Durham, where the prejudice is running deep, in order to make sure that the safeguards of the jury system don't work.
That's US justice today...