Maggie's Farm

It all boils down to a simple legal phrase you've heard a thousand times:

Guilty beyond any reasonable doubt.

In other words, if doubt is introduced and not refuted, then the correct judgment is 'Not guilty'.

And there were actually quite a number of doubts that were introduced — and not refuted.  Combine them all and that's enough for any jury to have 'reasonable doubt'.  Result?  Not guilty.  Bitch all you want, but that's how the system works.  The underlying moral principle is that it's better to let a killer go free than imprison an innocent man.  You want to be that innocent man?  Keep bitching about that silly 'reasonable doubt' clause and maybe you will be.

To wit:

Physical Evidence

At one point, the jury was shown incontrovertible video evidence that a person collecting blood samples out on the sidewalk momentarily lost her balance and touched the ground with her surgical glove.  That put the element of doubt into all of the collected evidence.  If one sample can be contaminated, then they all can be.

The DNA

Remember, this is back in '94, when DNA sampling was just getting off the ground, and it took the silver-tongued Barry Scheck exactly one day to prove to everybody in the universe that the science was still in its infancy and rife with the possibility for error.

The policewoman touching the ground with her hand negated the physical evidence, and this took care of the lab's.

The Trust Factor

"Have you ever shown any sign of racial prejudice?" asked the defense attorney of Detective Mark Fuhrman.  "No, I have not." he replied under oath.

But, oops-a-daisy, wouldn't you just know it, but ol' Fuhrman and another detective were caught on video down in the 'hood talkin' jive with the locals, including using the word "nigger" which, in the 'hood, has no racial significance and refers to blacks and whites and everybody else caught in the trash basket of life known as the ghetto.

But it certainly had significance in Judge Ito's courtroom.

And, so much for the police 'trust factor' in the jury's eyes.  After all, this racist lied while under oath!  And if one policeman can lie while under oath, then they all can.

The Evidence

Uh, sorry, I missed that.  What evidence?  The only 'evidence' that weighs on a jury's mind in a case like this is the murder weapon, and the knife was never found.  OJ had dumped it at the airport and it was ancient history by the time they started looking.

And then...

The Moment Arrived

OJ never took the stand, so the jury only had one occasion to judge him; when he attempted to put on the gloves.  Not only did the defense team know that the gloves would have shrunken with all of the testing, but they gave OJ 'bloat pills' that morning so his fingers would swell up.  By the time he tried them on, they were a good two sizes too small.  He really had to struggle to pull them on.

"If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit!"

Thus spaketh lawyer Johnny Cochran.

And who could argue differently?

Motive

This is a pretty big deal as far as that "life and death" stuff goes.  There's supposed to be, you know, a reason someone commits such a heinous crime.  And no one could ever provide one to the jury.  "Acted out of blind rage" only goes so far.  Juries need evidence.

Ed's article on Hot Air was pretty good, but he did miss one little thing:

The motive.

and that doesn’t even begin to address the issue of Ron Goldman, who was there by chance.

Well, er, not quite.  What the jury wasn't told was that Nicole had lit the candles around her bathtub, which her friends were later quoted as saying she only did for 'special' (wink-wink) occasions.  The fact that Ron was zipping around in her car might also be an indication he was there for some other reason than "by chance."

In other words, ol' Ron was tooling around town basically saying to OJ, "I'm screwing your wife, buddy — and borrowing her car!"  OJ eventually snapped and wasted them both, lit bathtub candles and all.  The coroner said Ron had first been pierced by multiple small stab wounds as he lay tortured on the ground, which would be indicative of a raging jealous husband, as referred to, say, a mugger demanding your wallet or car keys.

But the jury never learned why the bathtub candles were lit.

No motive.

So my question for all of the readers out there who blame the jury for the verdict is this:

No motive, no murder weapon, no glove that fit, no crime scene evidence, no DNA evidence, no trust in the police's testimony...

Just what the hell did you expect??

As one of the D.A.'s said afterward, "We had enough evidence to convict ten men."  What made it a disgrace was the way the prosecutors never deflated any of the above.

Here are a few other gems the jury never heard:

— Amazingly, the killer went from the crime scene directly to OJ's house to spy on a houseguest and dropped one of his bloody gloves outside the guest's window.  It was a very expensive glove with a unique stitching pattern.

OJ was shown doing sports commentary a year before at some football game — wearing gloves with the exact same unique stitching.

— And then there were the size 10½ Bruno Magli shoes the killer wore.  The company had two outlets in the U.S., New York and L.A.  In its entire history, the L.A. store had sold exactly two pair of size 10½ Bruno Magli shoes.

One of them to OJ Simpson.

— A few months before the crime, OJ was rehearsing for some movie involving the SEALs and had learned how to effectively slit a person's throat from behind using a combat knife.

The same type of knife the coroner said was used on Nicole — from behind.

If you're wondering, there were a few talk show pundits brave enough to venture a 'not guilty' verdict the night before, risking being laughed off the set in the process.  As I recall, one was a judge and another a lawyer, which makes sense.  While most people were smitten with the overwhelming evidence, those who understood the high hurdle "beyond any reasonable doubt" presents saw it differently.

Like it or not, the jury made the correct decision.