Quote:
Originally Posted by kstar
His glove? It didn't even fit! And the problem with the Simpson trial was that there was NOT "overwhelming evidence that pointed straight to him," most of the evidence that supported him as the killer was circumstancial at best.
I don't think the guy is totally innocent, but then again, I don't think the prosecutors should have gone to trial without good evidence.
|
Yeah . . . circumstantial evidence is perfectly valid in a court of law, as MysticCat noted - evidence can really only be direct or circumstantial, and it's hard to have direct - but you've just exhibited a fantastic example of the "Law & Order Effect," which is one reason why people like me have a job (it actually may be the main reason).
It's also one of the key strategies they used to get him off - "So the DNA match is one in 1.5 million? So there are all of TEN other people in the LA area that might match? OMG ACQUIT" . . . never mind that the actual figure was 99.99998% match, not "1 in 1.5mil will match." Pretty impressive swap, actually - God bless cognitive dissonance.
We've kind of bastardized the term "reasonable doubt" - thank God we've stopped using "beyond a shadow of a doubt" on any shows . . . ugh