Quote:
Originally Posted by sammyg2
No way, how could a man with such high moral standards stoop to violence?
Just one more example of the man trying to keep him down.
The prosecution didn't fail, the jury failed. Maybe it was racism, maybe bleeding hearts who didn't want to look like racists, maybe it was payback for Rodney king (another fine upstanding citizen).
The bottom line is that the evidence did not matter. They still would have aquitted him even if they saw him commit the murders in person. They deserve to be gator bait almost as much or OJ.
|
Mishandling of evidence. A bumbling of facts by the prosecution, a racist cop as prosecution's star witness, gross ineptitude on the part of the LAPD, poor cross examination. Even if the acquittal was racially based, prosecution failed to help against acquittal. Cochran out-argued Darden and Clark, Simpson put on a fantastic "act" of trying on the glove, the Bruno Magli shoes were a sham, and defense had Ito eating from their hands because of the case's high profile. What other judge would allow "invisible evidence" as a legitimate argument in a courtroom? And to my recollection, Darden and Clark didn't object to that argument. Plus you have the history between Simpson and Brown, his cut finger, and the fact Simpson presented himself as a flight risk (the slow-speed chase), and prosecution couldn't make something of it?
No, depending upon many things, the jury didn't help. But the prosecution didn't help convince the jury of what their ultimate decision should have been.
Darden and Clark should have attempted a mistrial.