>>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
>>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”.