Replies

Except there was enough scientific evidence in the OJ case to convict normal 10 men.

I followed the OJ case on Court TV. I think there was ample evidence to convict OJ. But a lot of the scientific evidence was flawed - there was a question as to whether or not samples had been handled correctly according to police protocol, samples not being processed in a timely manner, etc. The case against OJ was strong, but the cops hurt themselves in the way they handled a lot of the case. In any event, a defense lawyer has the obligation to defend his client to the best of his ability. To do any less would be to commit malpractice.

I followed the OJ case on Court TV. I think there was ample evidence to convict OJ. But a lot of the scientific evidence was flawed - there was a question as to whether or not samples had been handled correctly according to police protocol, samples not being processed in a timely manner, etc. The case against OJ was strong, but the cops hurt themselves in the way they handled a lot of the case. In any event, a defense lawyer has the obligation to defend his client to the best of his ability. To do any less would be to commit malpractice.

All of what you say is true. Personally, I think OJ is guilty as sin. I will have to say, however, that when that glove didn't fit his hand it really did look bad for the DA. If they'd just skipped that part they'd have been better off.