We have a SERIOUS problem with dumbed down jurist not understanding the meaning of reasonable doubt. Here is what Marcia Clark said about this today:
“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.”
The O.J. trial had DNA and the dumb-ass jury still relied on what THEY definded as ressonable doubt....with that jury, ONLY a video of him killing Nicole could have convicted...they were guilty, as was the jury in the Anthony case, of leaning on ANY doubt...not resonable doubt.
“The O.J. trial had DNA and the dumb-ass jury still relied on what THEY definded as ressonable doubt....with that jury, ONLY a video of him killing Nicole could have convicted...they were guilty, as was the jury in the Anthony case, of leaning on ANY doubt...not resonable doubt.”
####
With the racist pigs on the Simpson jury, I doubt whether even THAT would have sufficed: “Too dark. Too grainy. Looks like George Bush holding the knife”.
Besides, Johnny Cochrane just made up another toddler level rhyme that tickles our Flipper-level intellect.
>>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