Quote:
Originally Posted by deepimpact2
Really? I don't see why that would boggle your mind. Those well-educated and intelligent people who don't believe he did it perhaps looked at the facts and the evidence actually presented at trial instead of allowing emotions and media tidbits to form their opinion on the matter. I don't believe that the prosecution effectively proved their case. There were just some things that didn't add up, and it didn't help that Furhman was involved. I noticed that someone else said his son did it. I have heard that theory numerous times. Why he would have done it, I don't know. But I don't think that idea is really that farfetched.
|
I mean . . . there's literally no evidence to connect his son to the scene, which makes it far-fetched in the sense that it doesn't reach the "reasonable doubt" standard.
Just out of curiosity, which facts/evidence are problematic for you? What doesn't add up?
Quote:
|
As for the book, keep in mind that he went through a whole trial where the prosecution was trying to convince the jury how he killed them. His book was written subsequent to all of that so if he seems to have a great number of details, that could simply be because he is including info from the trial.
|
Wait, what?
The very fact that he's writing the book is the main problem - I'm sure he's familiar with the facts of his own trial, nobody is disputing that. However, what incentive does he have to write a book outlining how he would have murdered the two in a fashion that is consistent with the evidence presented at trial? He literally connected the dots that you're uncomfortable connecting above.
Hybrid Mode
