I agree. I was not working at the time and watched much of the trial...I kept yelling at Marcia Clark because she was not proving her case...and she droned on and on about DNA; but could not explain it for her jury- she spoke more like a boring college professor. I was not impressed with her as an attorney and at one time I observed quite a few trials. I was comparing her with real attorneys not Hollywood attorneys. Darden was worse than Clark and Ito was acting the part of a TV judge, as if he was auditioning.
Before the verdict I told my husband that if the parts I didn’t see were anything like what I did see and I was on the jury it would be easy to acquit if you follow the “state must prove its case” theory as opposed to the “I think he is guilty” form of reaching a verdict. Everyone I knew that watched little/none of the trial were shocked at the verdict, those that did watch the trial were not surprised.
In the Zimmerman case I hope the jury does not use the "vote guilty to avoid the post-trial lynch mob if I acquit" theory.
I either watched or read the transcript of the entire OJ trial. I’d frequently look at the LA Times coverage and wonder whether they were at some other trial. Quite a few parallels when it comes to the media’s version vs the actual evidence. If things go as I hope, I think you’ll see something similar here, the MSNBC viewers are going to be shocked, those who watch the trial won’t be.
Did you see Crump’s statement tonight? He’s already planting the seeds.