logicalgirl
Peace Hawk
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2009
- Messages
- 16,024
- Reaction score
- 2
The similarity I see between this case and the OJ case is that the person who was on trial obviously did commit the crime. Even with all of the blunders on the part of the prosecution in OJ's trial, and the detective's denial of ever uttering the n-word, it was clear to most people that OJ Simpson personally slaughtered the two victims because he was outrageously controlling, possessive, vengeful and violent!
I agree that there are many dissimilarities as well, but interviews with the jurors following the OJ trial clearly showed that they were convinced he was guilty, but they acquitted him anyway.
I see nothing wrong with voicing the hope that jurors in this trial see that justice is properly served. If they don't trust any one piece of evidence, (such as computer searches), disregard it. It doesn't make or break the case.
Caylee was under her mothers care until she ended up in the swamp, duck-taped and dead. With all of the lying and partying that followed, I have no question that it was no accident and the child was never "missing". She was murdered and tossed like a piece of trash!
(All of this is my opinion only, no better or worse than anyone else's.)
Yes, agree with you, both trials had a guilty defendant.
BUT and it's a big but - in the OJ case, the prosecution messed up the case big time and did not give the jury enough actual evidence to vote the way they wanted to.
In THIS case, the SA had conducted an impeccable prosecution and gave the jury a brilliant a brilliant opening and close and all the evidence they need to convict. Black and white or let's use another one - up vs down.
No real comparison - actually. Except common thought in jurors.