Posted on 02/18/2005 10:32:38 PM PST by ambrose
I don't think the girl lied; in most of these cases, the conviction was based on a bad eyewitness (usually the victim) Identification, and in most of them the witness seemed to have truly believed in their identification. The pressure of prosecutors contributes to these bad IDs, but the bad ID is not deliberate by the witness.
It's still 1,000 times better than eyewitness evidence, which people put far, far, far too much faith in.
In OJ's case, what happened was that the defense was able to instill UNreasonable doubt in the jury, confuse them as to the standard of judgment they were to apply, and leverage a heavily African-American jury to indulge a bias towards a celebrity from their own community.
I honestly believe that each of these three elements was critical, and each could have been addressed by the prosecution and judge had they been on their game. Furman's racism and the glove not fitting were doors the prosecution opened and just let the defense walk through. The prosectuion should have recognized the degree of unreasonable doubt and pressed for much better instructions on the difference between reasonable and unreasonable. Finally, trying the case downtown, instead of in Santa Monica, much closer to the crime scene, guaranteed a much more pro-defense jury pool. That was the prosecution and judge's call.
"I hope that he gets a really good lawyer."
Probably could have used a better one ten years ago.
Nope. Wouldn't have helped.
A innocent man (on a much repeated cable documentary) who had done hard time was asked what stands between ANYBODY and hard time for a crime they didn't commit, he said nothing, he just pointed his finger, pantomiming an accuser.
And that is it. If you don't believe this then nobody has ever pointed their finger at YOU. "Problem of evidence" you say? Not really. there is a traumatized victim WHO SAYS you did it. If you don't happen to have a solid alibi you are 9\10ths in jail. In fact make that 100% in jail. That is all it takes.
If you think "evidence" matters then you watch too much TV.
Again, if you say that that is unlikley that is because no one has singled YOU out.
Wouldn't DNA be more reliable in ruling out people than in matching them? Fewer regions of the DNA would have to be examined in order to say with some certainty that it is not a match.
I believe most genetic testing ignores the fact that for some people DNA from one part of their body does not match DNA from another part.
There is no doubt such people exist.
But NO ONE KNOWS how common such people are.
They ASSUME such people are rare, because they want their precious new science trick to further their agenda of undermining the justice system.
Whoa, stay there donkey.
Innocence ping?
Good God, we can not convict the innocent.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.