“Beyond a reasonable doubt” doesn’t mean some level of certainty equivalent to having personally gone along with OJ on the murders and seen him do it. It just means that any doubts you have about it aren’t “reasonable.” Like believing that O.J. was “framed” and that his DNA was planted ... and there was some other “real murderer” out there wearing OJ’s Bruno Magli shoes and his Isotoner gloves.
Any “doubt” about O.J.’s guilt is a mere fantasy, a delusion lapped up by chumps and suckers of a certain race eager to believe a tired narrative of “racism,” a crutch on which they rely to excuse their own personal failures and frustrations. Every fair person with a brain who’s looked at the case knows with 99.999999999999% certainty, from the extant evidence, that OJ Simpson murdered those two people. PERIOD.
Because if you are, you can't exactly blame the jury for not having access to future knowledge.
They can only make a decision based on how the prosecution presents their case and how the defense responds.
As I've said: if you wanted O.J. to be found guilty, then maybe the LAPD should not have been so sloppy that the prosecution's evidence lacked something as critical as a proper chain of custody.
Like believing that O.J. was “framed” and that his DNA was planted
Although blood was "discovered" with EDTA in it.
OJ’s Bruno Magli shoes and his Isotoner gloves.
No Bruno Magli shoes were ever proved to have been at the crime scene. Silga Gomma soles, sold to 20 different shoe manufacturers, were shown to have been at the crime scene.
No gloves of the style entered into evidence were shown to have been owned or purchased by Nicole or O.J. The only receipt in evidence was for a different style of glove. And the prosecution demonstration of O.J. trying on the gloves only demonstrated that the gloves did not fit the hands of O.J. And the detective who "discovered" the gloves was convicted for felony perjury due to his false testimony.
It is too bad you do not have a brain.
However, a finding of guilt as to any crime may not be based on circumstantial evidence unless the proved circumstances are not only, one, consistent with the theory that the Defendant is guilty of the crime, but two, cannot be reconciled with any other rational conclusion. Further, each fact which is essential to complete a set of circumstances necessary to establish the Defendant's guilt must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. In other words, before an inference essential to establish guilt may be found to have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, each fact or circumstance upon which such inference necessarily rests must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Also, if the circumstantial evidence as to any particular count is susceptible of two reasonable interpretations, one of which points to the Defendant's guilt and the other to his innocence, you must adopt that interpretation which points to the Defendant's innocence and reject that interpretation which points to his guilt. If, on the other hand, one interpretation of such evidence appears to you to be reasonable and the other interpretation to be unreasonable, you must accept the reasonable interpretation and reject the unreasonable.[...]
Further, each fact which is essential to complete a set of circumstances necessary to establish the truth of a special circumstance must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. In other words, before an inference essential to establish a special circumstance may be found to have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, each fact or circumstance upon which such inference necessarily rests must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Also, if the circumstantial evidence is susceptible of two reasonable interpretations, one of which points to the truth of a special circumstance and the other to its untruth, you must adopt that interpretation which points to its untruth, and reject the interpretation which points to its truth.
- - - - -
MR. KELBERG: So, doctor, is it your use of the term "Possibility" to relate to doctors who talk in terms of "Consistent with" or "Inconsistent with" when questions are posed?DR. BADEN: What I said is that the witness, me in the blue chair, Dr. Lakshmanan in the blue chair here, can only answer the questions that the lawyers put to us, and I think we try to answer the questions the best we can. But if all we say is it's possible that it happened by a bushy-haired stranger who's righthanded from behind, yes, but it's also equally consistent with a bald-headed midget from the front who is left-handed. It's all -- it depends on what kind of information I want to give across as an expert, but I don't have control over your questions or Mr. Shapiro's questions.