This was a very tough case to prove, and the prosecution did a very poor job with a very tough case.
It means nothing, as there really was no solid evidence to say what happened.
Wrong, Sisy. The dumbest are you, the prosecutors and the pundits who tried to call this thing from the 20 yard line seats.
We know exactly what happened. Somebody put 3 pieces of duct tape over a baby's mouth and nose, suffocating her, and threw her in a swamp.
The jury was supposed to use the formidable evidence before them, as well as their own common sense and powers of reason, to determine who did it.
They failed miserably.
Right the OJ case was jury nullification due to racial issues. This case was not. The attacks on this jury are vile. They followed the law as given to them.
There was plenty of evidence and if you followed the trial closely you would know that. Read the transcripts and then tell me there was no evidence.
I agree. I believe what many people do not understand (or refuse to understand) is that in a legal case (as opposed to public opinion or 'common sense') there is a legal burden of proof that needs to be met. That is where people first go wrong - they confuse legal burden of proof with 'but everyone knows he/she did it.' Even if that is the case, and 'everyone knows,' the fact still remains that the legal burden of proof needs to be met. The second part where many people go wrong (and this is the part that explains why OJ Simpson went free) is that legal cases can roughly be divided into two (Civil and Criminal), and that when it comes to Criminal cases (like this one, or OJ's trial) the standard of legal proof is very different from a civil case. In a civil case (where the worst that can happen in most cases is a monetary fine) the legal burden of proof is 'preponderance of the evidence,' where the only thing needed is to prove a 51% likelihood that you did it. That is not hard to prove, and this is why OJ was VERY quickly found guilty in the civil case (that was held after that big flop of a criminal case). Now, in a criminal case (where someone can end up getting locked for years, or even executed), the legal burden of proof is much greater. You have to prove 'beyond a reasonable doubt' which is much much much harder than proving just a 51% likelihood of something.
That is where the problem comes in and what some people do not understand.
In a criminal case it is up to the prosecutor to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty. Now, in many cases the prosecution does that ...but then again in many cases the defense and/or accused do not mount a proper legal defence. This is why you will see some silly perp selling weed in some corner going to jail for years, and the rich kid of some celebrity (or a celebrity him/herself) is caught with enough heroin or cocaine to jump-start a '60s revival and they walk away with glorified community service. While there are indeed double standards, the level of legal defence does play a part. Look at someone like OJ Simpson ...it was an open and shut case. Blood was found, his story was morphing like nebulous stardust, his alibi was weak, it was a prosecution's wetdream. However the prosecution should have known that they were not up against some silly weed peddlar with 500 Dollars to his name, but a person who had the finances and the means to get one of the best legal defence teams money could buy. That prosecution has gone down in history as one of the best examples of snatching victory away from a nigh-concluded ending (seriously, M.Clark's team acted like amateur night, especially considering they were going against a defense dream team that was certain to explore every knook and cranny, and exploit any fracture point available). When the prosecution started bringing up witnesses that had their credibility (easily) destroyed (Mark Fuhrman, for example, is probably a good officer and man who totally got torn up during the trial - however, the prosecution should have known of the tape of him stating expletives, and also it did not help him that he was found guilty of perjury), there was proof that some of the evidence had been mishandled (in one instance the DNA evidence was being carried around in a coat pocket for a day), and other small situations that in 99% of trials would not have been an issue ...but against a defence team costing a couple million Dollars, that is all they needed. A slight crack with which to cast some reasonable doubt that the evidence was mishandled, the investigating team incompetent, and a chance that one of the detectives had a chip on his shoulder.
Did OJ commit the murders - I believe most sane people believe that. OJ Simpson himself does (I believe he has more or less confessed to the murder). During the Civil case it was over and done with very quickly.
However, for a Criminal case where the prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused, who is considered innocent until proven guilty, is indeed guilty ...that prosecution better have its A-game on, especially when it is a high visibility case where the accused has hired a legal team costing the same as the annual budget of a small town! The defence will not be mucking about, and the prosecution better act like the accused is not someone caught by the local PD with a 25 Dollar bag of 'buddha' in some strip mall! They better act like they are against a lean & mean defense team that is thoroughly amoral, exceedingly efficient, and with a degree of efficacy that could balance the budget deficit in a month - because that is what they will actually be up against. However, in many high profile cases (mostly rich people, of whichever race and gender and age), the prosecution normally steps up with their 'weed peddlar' game, and consequently gets treated like incompetent tripe. Even in cases when the accused is not exactly wealthy (like this one), the defense team usually attracts some really good strategists whose 'pay' is the globs and loads of free publicity (advertising really) that the trial, and a win, would provide.
Now, after the trial the prosecution (as well as many members of the public) will come up with all sorts of reasons why the person was released. If the accused was black (i.e. 'amish' per FR's 'funny' talk) it is because he is black. If the accused was white (i.e. 'the man' per DU's equally 'funny' talk) then it is because they were white. If they are beautiful it is because the jury got pixie dust in their eyes. If they are popular it is substitution of pixie dust for star dust. If they are powerful it is because of undue influence and backroom deals. There will always be 'reasons' why the person walked, and it can be hilarious how this month's reason for perp A walking (e.g. he is black) can be diametrically different from next month's (e.g. he is white). The common denominator though is this: a) a jury that actually does its job, meaning in a criminal case ensuring that the legal burden of proof necessitating proving beyond a reasonable doubt is met (which negates what they 'feel' or what they 'read' in the local paper); b) a defense team that could get the Damned time out from Gehenna with their slick words and smooth tongues and ability to turn apparent weakness into absolute strength via legal jujutsu, and finally; c) a prosecution that walks into the case thinking that the evidence is so strong (and so obvious) that their mental gears are engaged at 'weed seller' mode rather than 'I am facing the defense team my mama warned me about' mode.
Result: the accused walks, and the papers are filled with excuses as to why it happened - maybe she winked at the jury. Maybe she had a voodoo ceremony done. Maybe the aurora borealis affected the brain chemistry of the jurors making them say not guilty rather than guilty. Maybe it was swamp gas!
Fact is: mix a jury that does its job as required with a prosecution that thinks it is going after a truck-stop prostitute with a legal team that can repeal the very laws of physics, and it does not matter whether the person is male or female, juvenile or adult, black or white (sorry, amish or the man), local or foreign, democrat or republican ....as long as they have the money to get a real defence team, or the case is public enough (without being something anathema like defending Timothy McVeigh) to attract great talent who want publicity, and I would put a lot of my money on the defence. Every single time ...apart from one situation.
The prosecution teams that go after WallStreet types tend to be very good. They have to be since they assume that chances are the Street types will employ good representation. Thus the success rates against high-level white-collar crime tend to be very different from the success rates against high-level 'celebrity' crime. The difference largely is in one case having really good prosecution, and the other having people moonlighting from cases to do with weed, pet inheritance and stolen scooters. I am not trying to insult prosecutors - I think they do a great job filtering the filth that pollutes a nation. However, in certain cases they really need to bring their A game, because chances are the defense team will be working for A+ with advanced credit. That is a fact, and I am sure many people get angry when people like OJ and this lady walk, but the fact is that the jury is supposed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, and if the prosecution does not do its work then killers with bloody gloves that get that evidence thrown out because the detectives mishandled the evidence end up walking away with a disgusting smile on their putrid faces. People can blame the jury all they want, but they need to blame the prosecution as well. A whole lot more.
Bottom line - in the legal system it is not about whether a person is guilty or not. It is also not about whether a crime was committed or not. It is about whether the prosecution can prove the person is guilty, and that the person is guilty of the crime committed. If the prosecution cannot prove that, then the guilty will walk. That is the difference between a court of law and public opinion. In public opinion it is simply about guilt or innocence. In a court of law it is about proving guilt and assuming innocence unless guilt is proven. In a criminal case, in a court of law, it is about proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and assuming innocence if that guilt cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Please see post #39.
Spot on no DNA no finger prints nothing,the prosecution did a sloppy job.
There's no "solid evidence" that God created the universe, and our religious leaders have had a hard time proving it to us., sooooooooo, do you believe God created the universe??