Replies

He should be considered innocent until proven guilty, but in this touchy-feely society we live in, he was convicted the minute someone pointed at "the creepy neighbor" and the media got wind of it. And those are the things that scare me to death.

Would you have found OJ not guilty because he acted like the glove didn't fit...when actually the glove was immersed in water and shrunk, and as bad as an actor as he is, he was able to act himself out of that...but I believe that jury was a bunch of ignorant people...plus this jury knew what they were going to do...they even had a party the night before the verdict...the trial was a sham....

As far as Westerfield, there's alot more evidence then meets the eye....anyone can rip apart any piece of evidence, especially since OJ...Cochran made a sham of forensics...yes there were mistakes, but they planted no evidence...MARK MY WORDS CAPPS..

You seem like a lovely person....I hope every juror would be as fair and open minded as you....

FreeGards From The Socialist Republic Of NY...

Karen AKA KLT

I love it when millions of people who watched an average of one percent of a trial, question the judgement of 12 people who watched it all, and make a unanimous decision. The jury system is bound to work better, than televised trials and 100 million ignorant voters.

Would you have found OJ not guilty because he acted like the glove didn't fit

no, as I stated before, I would have found him guilty by the facts of the case,and the large amounts of forensic evidence. not my feelings towards the defendent, or the witnesses.

As far as DW goes, if he is PROVEN guilty, then he should fry - but I don't see a lot of proof here, just a small amount of circumstantial evidence and a very small amount of what is said to be DNA evidence. one hair and 2 "spots" is not alot to convince me. I want to see motive, I want to see proof of how the crime was committed and supporting evidence.