To speak to what Adam Y. said -- because we're talking about justice in famous murder cases here -- there most definitely was reasonable doubt in the OJ case. To put it simply, OJ's all-star Defense team trounced the Prosecution with some downright brilliant tactics and some really good points. Because of this, OJ deserved to be acquited. There, I said it.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The Unlearned Masses
OMG!!!!!11
|
I find it disturbing that many people don't realize this. Think of it this way: of course he killed his wife, but would you rather they just hang him without any substantial evidence? Gee, that sets a good precedent for the famous accused. I always thought due process was a little convoluted. Why not forgo all that "accused has rights" and "fair trial" mumbo jumbo? Perhaps Scott Peterson is a bit too famous now to be not guilty anyway, even though there's even less evidence pointing at Peterson than there was at OJ.
Please.