Quote:
Originally Posted by G1911
Seriously, how did that seem like a good idea to the prosecution?
We all know he did it and some of the jurors have openly admitted they let him off for being black, but the prosecution did so bad that I don't see how a jury could actually vote to convict. If the detective who found the key blood evidence after it was missed several times is on the stand and is asked if he planted the key evidence and pleads the fifth, how can you convict? They created so much reasonable doubt that I'd probably have had to swallow the bile and say 'not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt'. His behavior after the case feels more incriminating than the actual heavily damaged evidence. The invented Charlie persona and 'hypothetical' interview and book really seals the deal.
|
As it was unfolding, I was thinking the perfect surprise would've been the revelation that OJ had donated blood just a week before the murders. If OJ had planned the murders, that would've been a brilliant pre-emptive thing to do.
Then the defense could've raised reasonable doubt regarding all blood evidence by saying someone at the blood bank had recognized OJ, and stolen some of his blood for a frame-up.