Yeah I’ve seen a fair amount of criticism for Jackson focusing on the conspiracy angle in closing arguments and I don’t understand that at all…
Jackson pretty much removed all doubt in my eyes. KR didn’t hit him, JO wasn’t even hit by a car. With that being the case and all medical testimony, car data, location/timeline information, accident reconstruction testimony, etc. supporting the fact that KR did not do this, how else do you approach things like the taillight evidence? There is no innocent or reasonable explanation.
Perhaps the glass being thrown which is a fine, yet ultimately not quite supported by evidence, theory but I wouldn’t rest my whole case on that. Physical evidence, at the crime scene, with the victims DNA on it (regardless of how little touch DNA would be relevant here) that matches the defendant’s car was always going to be a sticking point for someone on the jury. Jackson needed to give an explanation and he did an excellent tying it together and highlighting all the other troubling behavior. A coverup is no longer a crazy conspiracy theory but the one theory that actually fits with the evidence, MOO.