Posted on 07/06/2011 12:09:07 PM PDT by The Magical Mischief Tour
On Tuesday, the jury acquitted Anthony, 25, of murdering her child in June 2008.
The reason, legal analysts and court watchers said, is that despite the seemingly endless hype surrounding the investigation and trial, the prosecution's case simply didn't hold up. There was no forensic evidence such as DNA or fingerprints directly linking Anthony to her daughter's death. In fact, the precise cause of the girl's death was unclear.
"The prosecution put out a lot of dots, but they couldn't connect them,"
(Excerpt) Read more at 13wmaz.com ...
>>The O.J. trial had DNA <<
but the fact that the defense showed that over 3cc’s of OJ’s blood sample was MISSING - and the DNA evidence was not collected in the first week after the crime -
there is a reasonable doubt”
That is NOT “reasonable doubt”. The evidence was overwhelming....
The problem is that lazy dumb downed jury memebers will use “doubt” as an excuse to not review evidence and make the hard decisions that must be made...they confuse doubt with “resonable” doubt...as Marcia Clark said yesterday:
“By confusing reasonable doubt with a reason to doubt. Some believe that thinking was in play in the Simpson case. After the verdict was read in the Simpson case, as the jury was leaving, one of them, I was later told, said: “We think he probably did it. We just didn’t think they proved it beyond a reasonable doubt.” In every case, a defense attorney will do his or her best to give the jury a reason to doubt. “Some other dude did it,” or “some other dude threatened him.” But those reasons don’t necessarily equate with a reasonable doubt. A reason does not equal reasonable. Sometimes, that distinction can get lost.”
partiotsoul....I think your post pointing to 3cc’s of missing blood sample is a perfect illustration of my point regarding the definition of resonable doubt.
The fact is that it WAS O.J.’s blood, and Nicole’s blood...the claim that there was 3cc’s missing doesn’t change the fact that the DNA evidence proved that it was their blood....three missing cc’s in no way constitutes “reasonable doubt”.
Sounds as if they had no case against the Mother at all.
three missing cc’s in no way constitutes “reasonable doubt”.
maybe not. But knowing that the investigators did not COLLECT the OJ DNA blood until a week after they “collected” lots of other evidence brings doubt within reason (to me).
How professional!!
Everyone else - judge; attorneys; court officials got to go home each night.
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.